固定収入

Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation - An Update

Highlights The era of divergent monetary policies between the ECB and the Fed is over. Re-convergence has a lot further to go. As the ECB ends its ultra-accommodation, it will also liberate Sweden's Riksbank. Go long Swedish krone/dollar as an alternative or addition to long euro/dollar. Bond investors should underweight Swedish government bonds versus a European or global benchmark, currency hedged. Equity investors should remain overweight European banks and retailers versus U.S. banks and retailers, currency unhedged. The risk of persistent inflation will rise only after the next severe global downturn. Feature "Is the 2% inflation target still a very realistic aim?" - Ewald Nowotny, ECB Governing Council member As the ECB Governing Council gathers for its latest monetary policy meeting, some voices within its ranks are starting to question the ECB's first commandment: the 2% inflation target. Respected and influential ECB Governing Council member, Ewald Nowotny, has asked whether there should "be an easing of the 2% inflation goal in the sense of setting a range instead of a clear-cut target." Across the Baltic Sea, Sweden's Riksbank is one step ahead. Recently, it suggested (re)introducing a variation band of 1% either side of the 2% inflation target1 to acknowledge that persistent 2% inflation is very difficult, or impossible, to achieve (Chart of the Week). More concerning, the single-minded pursuit of 2% inflation creates risks and instabilities. The Riksbank's inflation target has forced it into an absurd position: with inflation undershooting for over five years, the policy interest rate is now at -0.5% when Swedish GDP growth was recently running at a world-beating 4.5% clip (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Mission Impossible:##br## 2% Inflation Chart I-2Absurd: Interest Rate At -0.5% ##br##When Growth Is At 4.5% Hence, Riksbank Governor, Stefan Ingves, recently proposed that "central banks should also have the explicit responsibility for financial stability." The former governor of the Bank of Japan, Masaaki Shirkawa agrees. "My worry with setting a precise number (of 2%) is that it can crowd out other very important considerations, such as financial stability." What's So Special About 2% Inflation Anyway? Given the almost religious significance of the 2% inflation target for central banks, you would think that there is a well-established theoretical and empirical basis both for inflation targeting and for the 2% number. But you would be wrong. As we explained two years ago in our special report Mission Impossible: 2% Inflation,2 inflation targeting only became established in the 1990s, and the magic 2% number was pulled out of the air. Chart I-3The Riksbank Has Undershot ##br##Its 2% Inflation Target For 5 Years At the Federal Reserve's July 1996 policy meeting, Chairman Alan Greenspan argued that if the aim of inflation targeting was a truly stable price level, it entailed an inflation target of 0-1% (because measured inflation slightly overstates true inflation.) But one of the persons present was not so sure. The dissenter was a Fed governor called Janet L. Yellen. She countered that if inflation ended up at 0-1%, the zero-bound of interest rates would prevent "real interest rates becoming negative on the rare occasions when required to counter a recession." Yellen's pragmatism won the day, and Greenspan summarized "we have now all agreed on 2%" Meanwhile in Europe, the ECB's original inflation target of below 2% was close to Greenspan's proposal of 0-1%. But in 2003 the ECB changed its inflation target to its current "below but close to 2%". The reason, according to Mario Draghi: "The founding fathers of the ECB thought about the adjustment within the euro area, the rebalancing of the different members. To rebalance these disequilibria, since the countries do not have the exchange rate, they have to readjust their prices. This readjustment is much harder if you have zero inflation than if you have 2%." Hence, the Fed, ECB and other central banks are targeting inflation at a low but arbitrary number, 2%, to always allow some leeway for negative real rates; and in the case of the ECB, to allow easier convergence among disparate euro area economies. But as the Riksbank and other central banks have now acknowledged, trying to hit and hold inflation at a point target of 2% is both futile and dangerous (Chart I-3). Why 2% Inflation Is A Mission Impossible The crux of the issue is that inflation is a notoriously non-linear phenomenon. A defining feature of a non-linear phenomenon is that you cannot just turn it up or down like the volume dial on your music system. Non-linear phenomena experience sudden and violent phase-shifts from stability to instability, making it very difficult to hit and hold a point target like 2%. To experience this difficulty for yourself, try pulling a brick across a table using an elastic band. Initially, the brick doesn't move because of the friction with the table. But at a tipping point the brick does move, and the friction simultaneously decreases, self-reinforcing the brick's acceleration. Meanwhile, your pull on the elastic continues to increase as you react with a time-lag. The result is that this non-linear system suddenly phase-shifts from stability - the brick doesn't move - to violent instability - the brick hits you in the face! Try as hard as you might, it is near-impossible to pull the brick across the table at a constant speed of, say, 2mph. A very similar dynamic applies to inflation. The system suddenly phase-shifts from stability - near-zero inflation - to violent instability. It is near-impossible to keep inflation at an arbitrary constant of, say, 2%. To understand why, consider the standard identity of monetary economics: MV = PT M is the broad money supply, V is its velocity of circulation, P is the price level and T is the volume of transactions. PT is effectively nominal GDP. Theoretically and empirically, both M and V are notoriously non-linear phenomena (Chart I-4, Chart I-5, Chart I-6, Chart I-7) - because they are subject to the same conditions as the brick pulled by an elastic band: inertia, then self-reinforcement with delayed controlling feedback. Chart I-4The Velocity Of Money... Chart I-5...Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon Chart I-6The Money Multiplier... Chart I-7...Is A Non-Linear Phenomenon As policymakers try to take inflation away from its natural state of near-zero, nothing happens at first. But at a tipping point, the self-reinforcement of inflation expectations becomes explosive. Whereupon, the money supply, M, gaps up because it becomes rational for banks to lend as much as possible. And its velocity, V, also gaps up because it becomes rational to spend the money - both newly created and pre-existing balances - as quickly as possible. Hence, the product MV experiences an even sharper non-linearity. Well-intentioned policymakers would think they could apply a controlling feedback to MV. But how? Economic and monetary data are noisy, imprecise and take time to collect and parse. As we have shown, inappropriate and/or delayed feedback just adds to the system's instability. Seen in this light, inflation-targeting in the 1990s worked because central banks were just helping economies move from an unnatural state - uncontrolled inflation - towards a natural state - price stability (Table I-1 and Chart I-8). But now that economies have reached a natural near-zero inflation rate, point targeting an unnatural inflation rate is both futile and dangerous. Table I-1For 700 Years U.K. Inflation ##br##Averaged Near-Zero Chart I-8Excluding Wars, Persistent Inflation Was ##br##Very Unusual... Until The Late 20th Century The Investment Implications The ECB's Nowotny argues that "the 2% inflation target should include a certain flexibility." The Riksbank's Ingves agrees, and adds that extreme and unprecedented loose monetary policy endangers financial stability. Central banks tend not to volte-face as it damages their credibility. But to us, it is clear that the ECB and Riksbank are switching their focus from sub-2% inflation to their economies' robust growth. And to the risk that ultra-accommodative policy poses to financial stability and market distortion. Hence, the era of divergent monetary policies between the ECB and the Fed is over. Re-convergence has a lot further to go. As the ECB ends its ultra-accommodation, it will also liberate the Riksbank whose policy has inevitably mirrored Frankfurt - for fear of a sharp appreciation of the Swedish krone versus the euro. Our currency mantra this year has been "euro first, pound second, dollar third." The strategy has performed extremely well, and into this mix we can add the Swedish krone. Go long Swedish krone/dollar as an alternative or addition to long euro/dollar (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Long SEK/USD Is An Alternative ##br##To Long EUR/USD Chart I-10Underweight Swedish Bonds Is An Alternative To Underweight German Bunds The bond market corollary is to underweight Swedish government bonds - just like German bunds - versus a European or global benchmark, currency hedged (Chart I-10). The equity market implication is to remain overweight European banks and retailers versus U.S. banks and retailers, currency unhedged. Finally, given that inflation could ultimately phase-shift to violent instability, when should we worry about it? Not yet. To expand the broad money supply, someone has to borrow money. So if policymakers really want to create rampant inflation, the government has to borrow and spend money at will,3 with the central bank creating it. In other words, the central bank loses its independence and fiscal policy becomes irresponsibly loose. The risk of this remains low until the next severe downturn - when policymakers may be forced into desperate measures for a desperate situation. Until then, own some bonds. Our preference is Spanish Bonos and U.S. T-bonds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 The Swedish FSA has said that the Riksbank should delay the change until a parliament review of Riksbank policy rules is completed in about 2 years. 2 Published on August 20, 2015 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3 For example, by giving all public sector workers a 50% pay rise! Fractal Trading Model* The sell-off in Spanish media (Mediaset Espana Comunicacion) is technically overdone. This week's trade is to go long Mediaset Espana Comunicacion versus the market with a 5% profit-target and symmetric stop-loss. In other trades, long FTSE100/short IBEX35 hit its 4% profit-target, while short EUR/USD hit its 2% stop-loss For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

9 年 9 年間 ago

Europe

What Has Gone Wrong, And Time For A Change?

Highlights To change our EM strategy, we would need to change our view on China and accept that China's credit bubble - especially in combination with the ongoing policy tightening - does not constitute a material risk to mainland growth in the foreseeable future. We are simply not ready to make this call. It is a matter of time until mainland's growth relapses and China-related plays (including commodities and EM) enter a bear market. Even though the headline growth numbers out of China have so far remained solid, their second derivatives - change in growth rate - have turned negative. Asian export growth has already rolled over, and a slowdown will become pronounced in the months ahead. This will likely halt and reverse the EM rally. Having taken into consideration various factors, we believe it would be wrong to change our strategy at the moment. Feature The U.S. dollar has tumbled and EM risk asset prices have spiked following last week's testimony by Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen to Congress. This week we review what has gone wrong with respect to our view, as well as weigh the pros and cons of altering strategy at this point. Our bearish view on EM has been contingent on two pillars: Our downbeat view on EM over the past year has rested on higher U.S. bond yields pushing up the U.S. dollar. This view played out in the second half of last year but has been wrong since early this year. We have continuously argued that EM risk assets are vulnerable due to China's growth relapse amid ongoing liquidity tightening and the lingering credit bubble. Even though the headline growth numbers out of China have so far remained solid, their second derivatives - change in growth rate - have turned negative (more details are provided in the section below). We maintain that our theme of slower mainland growth still has high odds of playing out later this year. We expect meaningfully weak data (on a first-, not second-derivative basis) out of China before year end. If equity markets are forward-looking, they should start pricing in such a scenario now. What has surprised us is the fact that EM investors have utterly and altogether ignored political woes in a number of EM countries, lower commodities prices and lingering structural and cyclical problems in many developing economies, as well as China's tightening amid the credit excesses. Instead, EM investors have singularly focused on downward surprises in U.S. inflation - even ignoring strong employment data in America. Remarkably, EM share prices historically plunged when U.S. inflation and inflation expectations dropped (Chart I-1). Hence, the year-to-date negative correlation between EM stocks and U.S. inflation is out of sync with the historical relationship. We review some other inconsistencies and contradictions below. Chart I-1U.S. Inflation And EM Stocks Were Historically Positively Correlated, But Not This Year Inconsistencies In Prevalent Narrative The purpose of this section is not to justify our investment strategy, which has been wrong-footed, but to elaborate on financial markets' nuances that have been much less clear-cut than popular financial market narratives imply. The reality is much more complicated than the following prevalent among investors narrative: low U.S. inflation entails little tightening by the Fed, resulting in a weak U.S. dollar and an EM rally. There are some contradictions in this story: If U.S. household consumption growth in nominal terms is as weak as portrayed by the latest retail sales and inflation readings (Chart I-2), how can U.S. corporate earnings continue to grow at a double-digit rate, as most investors currently expect? The only way this can happen is if productivity growth is really strong and profit margins continue to expand. Productivity is a black box that no one can measure accurately in real time. If underlying productivity growth is indeed robust, the bull market will persist and bears will be humiliated. The snag is that productivity assessment is a judgement call, and only time will reveal true productivity dynamics. Not having more insight, we have so far assumed that the official statistics on productivity in the U.S. and EM are generally right. If U.S. productivity data are close to reality, unit labor costs - calculated as wages divided by productivity - are rising faster than underlying inflation (Chart I-3, top panel). This entails that U.S. corporate profit margins should be contracting. The middle and bottom panels of Chart I-3 portray our macro proxy for U.S. corporate profit margins based on core PCE inflation and unit labor costs. Chart I-2The U.S.: Very Low Nominal Growth Chart I-3A Macro Proxy For U.S. Corporate Profit Margins Entails Shrinking Margins Overall, if low inflation and weak U.S. nominal retail sales data are a true representation of current U.S. economic conditions, the corporate profit outlook cannot be benign, and American stock prices should be lower - not higher. If lower inflation and nominal growth of recent months in the U.S. were an aberration, U.S. interest rate expectations will have to be revised higher and the U.S. dollar will rally. We are even more puzzled by the nature of the drop in U.S. bond yields, and EM financial markets' reaction to it. Typically, EM risk assets negatively correlate with real (TIPS) yields (Chart I-4), and positively correlate with the inflation component of U.S. bond yields (Chart I-1 on page 1). The decline in U.S. bond yields since the beginning of the year has been almost entirely driven by the inflation component, with U.S. real yields actually not dropping at all. Yet, EM risk assets have rallied sharply. This goes against the predominant correlation of the past several years and is very puzzling. In short, the historical correlations between EM stocks and currencies on one hand and U.S. real yields and inflation expectations on the other, have in the past six months reversed for no reason. If the weaker U.S. dollar and lower U.S. bond yields/rate expectations represent an unwinding of the "Trump trade", why has the S&P 500 - which has surged amid "Trump trade" - not yet corrected? Broadly speaking, if U.S. bond yields drop further and the greenback continues deprecating, it would signal a major relapse in U.S. growth and U.S. share prices will dive. On the contrary, if U.S. growth is solid, the dollar selloff is overdone and the greenback is close to a major bottom. In addition, EM risk assets have decoupled from commodities prices, as we have detailed many times since early this year. Also, as a side note, the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar decoupled from precious metals prices this whole year up until last week. These are non-trivial divergences that are by and large puzzling. Finally, EM net earnings-per-share revisions have rolled over, yet share prices have continued to move higher (Chart I-5). Such decoupling has simply never happened before. Chart I-4Another Breakdown In Correlations: ##br##EM Currencies And U.S. TIPS Yields Chart I-5EM EPS Net Revisions ##br##Have Failed To Turn Positive Besides, EM EPS net revisions have not turned positive throughout this 18-month rally. In short, analysts in aggregate have not upgraded their EPS estimates for EM companies at all. Bottom Line: There are a number of contradictions and inconsistencies that cannot be explained by the prevailing financial market narrative. What About Global Growth? One way to square the above inconsistencies is to argue that the drop in the U.S. dollar and the EM rally have little to do with U.S. dynamics and much to do with strength in the rest of the world, especially outside the U.S. This is coherent reasoning. We review global growth dynamics in this section and elaborate on China in the following one. Without disputing the fact that there has been a notable recovery in global growth and trade in the past year, we would like to emphasize that on a rate-of-change (second derivative) basis, global trade, and particularly Asian export growth, has already rolled over, and a slowdown will become pronounced in the months ahead. Consistently, the U.S. dollar should rise or EM risk assets should reverse their gains in the near future, if and as global trade/EM growth falters: The pace of export growth in key Asian manufacturing hubs such as Korea, Taiwan and Singapore has already rolled over (Chart I-6). Both Taiwanese exports of electronic parts and the country's overall exports to China have rolled over - the latter two lead global export volumes and Chinese exports, respectively, by a few months, as shown in Chart I-7. Chart I-6Asian Export Growth Has Rolled Over Chart I-7Global Export Growth Has Peaked The reason why Taiwanese exports of electronic parts lead global trade cycles is because these parts are used in the assembly of final products, and producers order and receive these parts before final products are made and shipped. Similarly, a lot of Taiwanese exports to China serve as inputs into final products assembled in China and are shipped worldwide. This is why Taiwanese shipments to China lead mainland aggregate exports. Provided U.S. consumer spending has recently weakened, as depicted by core retail sales, U.S. imports are bound to slump sooner than later (Chart I-8). Consequently, Asian and European shipments to America are likely to roll over soon. Imports are more volatile than domestic demand, reflecting inventory re-stocking and de-stocking cycles. The decoupling between the not-so-strong U.S. final demand and robust imports suggests an inventory re-stocking cycle in the U.S. has recently been taking place. As such, this will be followed by a period of destocking, i.e., weaker imports, weighing on the rest of the world's shipments to the U.S.. A genuine area of global growth acceleration has been continental Europe. Undoubtedly, growth is extremely robust in these economies, and there is no reason for European economies to plunge into recession. That said, U.S. growth dynamics following the 2008 crisis have generally been "two steps forward, one step back." This has typically held true for post-crisis economic recoveries in all major economies. There is no reason why Europe's economic recovery will be any different. As such, having experienced "two steps forward" in the past year, European growth is more than likely to take a "one step back" - i.e., slow down a bit. In brief, if growth dynamics in Europe were to resemble that of the U.S. post-crisis era, mean reversion in European growth is overdue. Finally, global auto sales growth has rolled over decisively (Chart I-9, top panel). The deceleration is very broad-based including the U.S., Europe (Chart I-9, bottom panel) and China (please refer to Chart I-12 on page 10). Chart I-8Weak U.S. Retail Sales Entail ##br##U.S. Import Deceleration Chart I-9Global Vehicle Sales ##br##Growth Heading South Bottom Line: If the global growth recovery has been behind the U.S. dollar selloff and the EM rally, the forthcoming reversal in global trade will at minimum halt and reverse the EM rally. China is critical to our theme of slowdown in global trade. China's Growth: Looking Beyond Headlines China's headline growth numbers for GDP and industrial production have been on the strong side, but forward-looking variables such as money growth and various liquidity measures entail a major deceleration by the end of this year: Narrow and broad money growth - which have historically led the business cycle in China - have relapsed (Chart I-10). Although credit growth has not yet decelerated, money often leads or coincides with credit growth, suggesting a credit slowdown is forthcoming. Furthermore, commercial banks' excess reserves at the central bank are key to their lending capacity. The top panel of Chart I-11 demonstrates that China's money multiplier - the ratio of broad money-to-excess reserves, or banks' assets-to-excess reserves - have surged, implying that banks are over-extended. Chart I-10China: Money Leads Business Cycle Chart I-11China: Bank Loan Growth To Slow In addition, banks' shrinking excess reserves point to a rollover in bank loan growth in the months ahead (Chart I-11, bottom panel). The pace of growth in China's many economic indicators has already rolled over - i.e., their second derivative has turned negative. These include total and ex-oil imports, electricity output and auto production (Chart I-12). Finally, the central bank will continue to tighten liquidity. The recent softness in interest rates may have been temporary, as June is a month in which liquidity demand spikes, and the People's Bank of China probably did not want a replay of the June 2013 SHIBOR crisis. Notably, both core consumer prices and consumer services inflation measures in China are grinding higher (Chart I-13). This, along with "a mandate of preventing bubble formations," will all but ensure that the PBoC tightens further. Chart I-12China: The Pace Of Growth Has Already Rolled Over Chart I-13China: Inflation Is Rising Tighter liquidity/higher interest rates along with regulatory tightening on banks and shadow banking will cause credit growth to slow down considerably, weighing on the real economy. Bottom Line: In China, liquidity is tightening and interest rates are rising amid a credit bubble. Meanwhile, investors remain complacent, and the overwhelming majority of the global investment community believes that China will be able to deflate its financial bubbles and deleverage its corporate sector without a meaningful impact on the real economy. The reality is there has been no historical precedent of this occurring in any country. Strategy Considerations: The Dollar And China Hold The Key The greenback holds the key to EM strategy - not only because it mechanically drives the performance of EM financial markets, but also because it reflects many global financial and economic trends. Having taken into consideration various factors, we believe it would be wrong to change our strategy at a time when: There has already been capitulation by U.S. dollar bulls, the greenback is technically oversold and the Fed will soon commence reduction of its balance sheet. All of this makes us reluctant to change our view on the U.S. dollar and EM at the moment. Notably, the U.S. dollar is at a critical technical level against numerous currencies (Chart I-14A and I-14B). Chart I-14AThe U.S. Dollar Is At A Critical Technical Level (II) Chart I-14BThe U.S. Dollar Is At A Critical Technical Level (I) In short, it is too late to abandon a positive view on the dollar. We have been and remain much more certain about the U.S. dollar strength versus EM, commodities, and Asian currencies than against the euro. Meanwhile, EM financial markets are overbought, and implied volatility across most global financial markets in general and EM in particular is at record-low levels (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Implied Volatilities Are Depressed ##br##Across Most Asset Markets The Fed will shrink its balance sheet, and high-power U.S. dollar liquidity will diminish. Besides, the PBoC will continue to tighten liquidity and guide interest rates higher amid lingering credit excesses. These developments are at the margin bullish for the greenback, and invariably bearish for EM/China-related plays. China's industrial cycle has peaked and Asian exports have rolled over, as we have illustrated above. China's narrow money (M1) growth is slowing, and broad money (M2) growth is at an all-time low. Money leads business cycles in China. Our biggest concerns have been and remain continued strong flows to EM and how well risk assets have been trading. Past flows are no guarantee of future flows. However, both DM and EM risk assets have been trading really well. It is hard to know and forecast when this will change. That said, we maintain that the next 20% move in EM share prices and commensurate moves in other EM risk assets will be down - not up. Weighing the pros and cons, we are reluctant to alter our view and recommended strategy at the moment. To change our EM strategy, we would need to change our view on China and accept that China's credit bubble - especially in combination with the ongoing policy tightening - does not constitute a material risk to mainland growth in the foreseeable future. We are simply not ready to make this call. It is a matter of time until mainland growth relapses and China-related plays (including commodities and EM) enter a new bear market. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

9 年 9 年間 ago

Emerging Markets

Every Which Way But Loose

Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed is still on track to start winding down its balance sheet in September, and will lift rates again in December if inflation starts to move higher. If the Fed continues to lift rates in the face of low inflation, then the real fed funds could soon overtake its estimated neutral level. TIPS: We attribute this year's decline in breakevens to the combination of disappointing realized inflation and the fact that they had appeared too wide on our TIPS Financial Model. Inflation: Core inflation disappointed once again in June. The pass-through from a depreciating dollar and accelerating wages should cause this weakness to reverse in the months ahead. Feature Chart 1Bond Bear Takes A Pause Globally, a shift toward less accommodative monetary policy remains the dominant market theme. However, the U.S. bond selloff did pause last week following some disappointing macro data and comments from Fed policymakers that were interpreted as dovish. The market is now discounting 30 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, down slightly from the recent peak of 36 bps (Chart 1). The dovish comments came from Governor Lael Brainard in a July 11 speech1 and were echoed one day later by Fed Chair Janet Yellen in her semi-annual testimony to Congress.2 Both comments related to the stance of monetary policy in relation to its neutral (or equilibrium) level. In my view, the neutral level of the federal funds rate is likely to remain close to zero in real terms over the medium term. If that is the case, we would not have much more additional work to do on moving to a neutral stance. - Fed Governor Lael Brainard Because the neutral rate is currently quite low by historical standards, the federal funds rate would not have to rise all that much further to get to a neutral policy stance. - Fed Chair Janet Yellen Contextualizing "Neutral" Contrary to how many have interpreted the above remarks, neither Chair Yellen nor Governor Brainard meant to suggest that the rate hike cycle is close to finished. In fact, Yellen went on to say in her testimony that: ...we also anticipate that the factors that are currently holding down the neutral rate will diminish somewhat over time, additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years... This is the first important piece of context needed to understand how the Fed views the neutral rate. The Fed views the neutral rate as variable, and sees it increasing over time. This becomes clear when we look at the Fed's Summary of Economic Projections and note that the median forecast calls for a nominal fed funds rate of 2.9% at the end of 2019 and 3% in the longer run. Incorporating a 2% inflation target, we can infer that the Fed anticipates a real neutral rate of 1% in the longer run. Second, the Fed is likely tracking the real neutral fed funds rate using an estimate created by Laubach and Williams (LW).3 Chart 2 shows this estimate of the neutral rate alongside the real federal funds rate - deflated using 12-month trailing core PCE. We observe that the real fed funds rate has risen sharply during the past seven months, in part because the Fed lifted rates three times but also because inflation weakened. Chart 2Real Fed Funds Rate Getting Closer To Neutral We calculate that if the Fed lifts rates once more this year and core inflation stays flat, then the real fed funds rate would end 2017 at 0.02%, only 42 bps below neutral. However, it's more likely that the Fed will need to see inflation rebound before it delivers another rate hike. In a scenario where core inflation rises to 1.9% and the Fed lifts rates once more, then the real fed funds rate would actually decline between now and the end of the year. In sum, the LW neutral rate is a useful tool for assessing the path of Fed policy. If the real fed funds rate gets too close to neutral, then the Fed will probably need to see inflation rise before it delivers another hike. This would appear to be the situation we are in at the moment. We continue to expect that the Fed will start to unwind its balance sheet in September, but will need to see some signs that core inflation is increasing before lifting rates again. Our forecast still calls for higher core inflation during the next few months and another Fed rate hike in December (see section titled "Inflation: Chalk Up Another Bad Month" below). A related issue is why the Fed thinks the neutral rate will rise during the next few years. In arguments that date back to Ben Bernanke's tenure,4 the Fed maintains that headwinds related to household deleveraging and balance sheet repair have depressed the neutral rate since the Great Recession and financial crisis. There is some evidence to support this stance. The LW neutral rate correlates quite strongly with the growth rate of household debt (Chart 3). Although the neutral rate hasn't kept pace so far this cycle, household debt is growing off an unusually low base (Chart 3, bottom panel) and that may mean it takes longer for the neutral rate to rise. There is one final important application for the neutral fed funds rate, and it relates to the timing of the corporate credit cycle (Chart 4). Typically, excess returns to corporate bonds do not start to decline until the following three criteria are met: Chart 3Household Leverage And The Neutral Rate Chart 4Neutral Rate Important For Credit Cycle Deteriorating corporate balance sheet health (Chart 4, panel 2) Restrictive monetary policy i.e. the fed funds rate above its neutral level (Chart 4, panel 3) Tightening bank lending standards (Chart 4, bottom panel) Notice that in the prior two cycles the real fed funds rate actually rose above the LW neutral level before our Corporate Health Monitor started to signal deteriorating corporate health. In contrast, corporate balance sheets have already aggressively added leverage this cycle and accommodative policy is the sole support for spreads. In this environment, we view inflation and the stance of Fed policy as the most important factors determining the medium term outlook for corporate bond returns.5 Policy Wildcard: A New Fed Chair In 2018 One potential wrinkle in our outlook for monetary policy is that Janet Yellen's term as Fed Chair will end in February 2018. If history is any guide, we should expect to learn the identity of the new Fed Chair sometime this fall. While we would not completely rule out the possibility that Janet Yellen is re-appointed, recently, the chatter is that Gary Cohn, the Chairman of President Trump's National Economic Committee, is the frontrunner for the position (see Box). Box 1: Fed Chairs Since 1970 Gary Cohn does not have any experience as a central banker, but that does not preclude him from holding the position. Since the late 1970s, Presidents have tended to select the Fed Chair based on their trust relationship with a candidate (Table 1). Table 1Characteristics Of Fed Chairs Since 1970 Arthur Burns (Chair from 1970 - 1978) was head of President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) and was a special counselor to President Nixon. William Miller (1978 - 1979) worked for the presidential campaigns of Hubert Humphrey and Jimmy Carter. Alan Greenspan (1987 - 2006) served as the Chair of Ronald Reagan's Social Security Commission in the early 1980s, was the Chair of President Ford's CEA and advised President Nixon's campaign in 1968. Ben Bernanke (2006-2014) was George W. Bush's chief economist in 2005 and 2006 before Bush chose him to lead the Fed. Janet Yellen (2014 - present) was Chair of Bill Clinton's CEA in the late 1990s, when she worked with many of Obama's economic team. Paul Volcker (1979 - 1987) was the lone exception to this rule, he worked for Nixon, but not Carter, before becoming Fed Chair. Volcker, Bernanke and Yellen, all held posts in the Federal Reserve System before their appointments as Chair. However, Miller was an outside director for the Boston Fed, and Burns and Greenspan had no prior experience at the monetary authority. Party identification is one area where Gary Cohn would stand out. Since at least 1970, the party affiliation of a new Fed Chair has matched that of the President. However, Presidents have crossed party lines to reappoint sitting Fed Chairmen to additional terms. Volcker, Greenspan and Bernanke were all reappointed to lead the Fed by Presidents from opposing political parties. Chart 5Yellen Vs. Summers Drove Markets In 2013 To see how the timing of the Fed Chair appointment can matter for markets in the short-term, we need only look back to the autumn of 2013 when two candidates - Larry Summers and Janet Yellen - were in the running for the position. Rightly or wrongly, Summers was viewed as the more hawkish candidate and once he withdrew from the race on September 15, the market's expected pace of rate hikes plunged and long-dated TIPS breakevens surged on the expectation of a more dovish Fed (Chart 5). Bottom Line: The Fed is still on track to start winding down its balance sheet in September, and will lift rates again in December if inflation starts to move higher. If the Fed continues to lift rates in the face of low inflation, then the real fed funds could soon overtake its estimated neutral level. What's Driving The TIPS Breakeven Rate? We maintain an overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal Treasury securities on the view that long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates will eventually settle into a range between 2.4% and 2.5%, once core inflation gets back to the Fed's 2% target. At the time of publication the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was 1.76%. In that sense, we view the medium to longer-run driver of TIPS breakevens as the path of inflation itself. However, we also acknowledge that breakevens are highly correlated with other financial asset prices, which can explain many of the near-term moves (Chart 6). In fact, our TIPS Financial Model - a model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate based on the oil price, the dollar and the stock-to-bond total return ratio - was flagging that breakevens were far too wide earlier this year (Chart 6, panel 1). Through this lens, the year-to-date decline in breakevens can be attributed simply to overvaluation being wrung out of the market. Digging a little deeper into the model, we find that breakevens have maintained their strong positive correlation with energy prices this year (Chart 6, panel 2), while non-energy commodity prices exhibit a weaker positive correlation (Chart 6, panel 3). Interestingly, the negative correlation between breakevens and the trade-weighted dollar has broken down during the past year (Chart 6, bottom panel). If dollar weakness persists, we would eventually expect it to translate into higher realized inflation - via higher import prices - and also wider breakevens. Other pipeline inflation measures, which tend to correlate with breakevens, are sending mixed signals. Core PPI inflation for intermediate goods remains elevated (Chart 7, panel 2), while the supplier deliveries component of the ISM manufacturing survey is trending higher (Chart 7, panel 3). The prices paid component of the ISM manufacturing survey has followed breakevens lower (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 6TIPS Breakevens: Financial Drivers Chart 7TIPS Breakevens: Pipeline Inflation Drivers Bottom Line: We attribute this year's decline in breakevens to the combination of weak realized inflation data (Chart 7, panel 1) and the fact that they had appeared too wide on our Financial Model. Going forward, we expect TIPS breakevens to increase as the realized inflation data bounce back. Inflation: Chalk Up Another Bad Month Core CPI increased just 0.12% month-over-month in June, marking the fourth consecutive downside surprise. The year-over-year growth rate also moderated from 1.74% to 1.71%, and the weakness was once again broad based across the four major components (Chart 8). The cost of shelter continues to decelerate from a high level, and our model - based largely on the rental vacancy rate - forecasts further moderation in the months ahead (Chart 8, panel 1). Core goods prices continue to deflate, though dollar weakness should filter through to higher core goods prices in the coming months (Chart 8, panel 2). In last week's report we showed that non-oil import prices have already moved higher in response to the weaker exchange rate.6 The big drag on inflation in recent months has been the failure of core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) to respond to rising wage pressures. The third panel of Chart 8 shows that core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) correlates strongly with the employment cost index. Further, the employment cost index itself has been accelerating since 2010 alongside improvement in the prime-age employment-to-population ratio (Chart 9). Chart 8Core CPI Components Chart 9Wages Will Grow As Labor Market Heals We expect wages will continue to accelerate as the labor market remains on a steadily improving path. Eventually this will bleed into core services inflation, as it has in the past. In the near term, the employment cost index for the second quarter will be a crucial input for the direction of both inflation and monetary policy. It will be released on July 28. Bottom Line: Core inflation disappointed once again in June. The pass-through from a depreciating dollar and accelerating wages should cause this weakness to reverse in the months ahead. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20170711a.htm 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/yellen20170712a.htm 3 Laubach, Thomas, and John C. Williams. 2003. "Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest," Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), November, 1063-1070. 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20121120a.htm 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Low Inflation And Rising Debt", dated June 13, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Summer Snapback", dated July 11, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

9 年 9 年間 ago

Global Interest Rate Strategy For The Remainder Of 2017

Highlights DM Rates Strategy: Many central banks are responding to the strong global economic backdrop by signaling not only a shift in the bias of monetary policy, but actual changes in interest rates or asset purchases. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall portfolio stance, but with more diverse views on country allocation: underweight the U.S., Euro Area, & Canada; maximum overweight on Japan; and neutral on the U.K. and Australia. Expect steeper yield curves in the U.S., Euro Area and U.K., and continued flattening in Canada. U.S. Corporate Bond Liquidity: There are few signs of diminished liquidity in U.S. corporate bond markets, despite the sharply reduced inventories of primary dealers. ETFs and institutional investors have picked up the slack from the dealers, as has electronic trading directly between market participants. Feature Chart of the Week2013 Revisited Developed Market (DM) policymakers continue to push towards a less accommodative monetary stance. Last week, the Bank of Canada (BoC) became the second central bank to hike rates this year, following the Fed's earlier tightenings. The European Central Bank (ECB) continues to signal a move to reduce the pace of its asset purchases, likely to be announced at the September policy meeting. A very public debate has opened up among the members of the Bank of England (BoE) policy committee against the stagflationary backdrop of high inflation and cooling growth. This current backdrop is reminiscent of the 2013 synchronized global economic upturn that also put pressure on policymakers to become less accommodative according to our Central Bank Monitors (Chart of the Week). That year was terrible for government bonds, but spread product held in well given the solid growth backdrop. A big difference now is that there is greater evidence of diminished economic slack (lower unemployment rates, higher capacity utilization) than in 2013, so the underlying inflation pressures should be greater. Realized inflation rates remain subdued in most countries (excluding the U.K.), but central bankers are attributing that to temporary factors that should soon fade. That forecast may prove to be wrong, which risks a potential policy mistake if interest rates move up too much or too fast. For now, however, central banks are in charge and bond investors should position accordingly by limiting duration exposure and overweighting growth-sensitive assets like corporate bonds versus sovereign debt. A Country-By-Country Summary Of Our Interest Rate Views With central banks now in the process of adjusting policy settings to varying degrees, financial markets are starting to show a greater level of diversification than in previous years. This can be seen in the moves in bond yields, equity markets and currencies since the speech by ECB President Mario Draghi on June 27 that ignited the latest bond sell-off (Chart 2). The largest yield moves have occurred in the Euro Area, U.K., Canada and Australia, which have also coincided with currency strength and equity market underperformance in those countries. As the markets now try to sort out the growing divergences between monetary policies, this has opened up opportunities for diversification of duration exposures, country allocation and yield curve strategies. This week, we present a brief summary of our individual country recommendations for the remainder of the year. United States: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, steeper yield curve, long inflation protection The Fed remains on track for a move to begin reducing its balance sheet at the September FOMC meeting, with another rate hike expected in December. The inflation data of late has started to raise concern among some FOMC members about how many more interest rate increases will be necessary for this tightening cycle. We expect U.S. growth to show solid improvement over the latter half of 2017, and for this current downdraft in realized inflation to soon bottom out led by tightening labor markets and the lagged impact of this year's decline in the U.S. dollar. Treasury yields will continue to grind higher in the months ahead, led more by rising inflation expectations that will bear-steepen the yield curve. (Chart 3) Chart 2Market Moves Since Draghi's Portugal Speech Chart 3U.S. Rates Strategy Summary Germany: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, steeper yield curve, long inflation protection France: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, steeper yield curve, long inflation protection Italy: underweight duration, underweight country allocation (versus Spain), steeper yield curve The ECB is clearly signaling that a taper of its asset purchase program will begin in 2018. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mario Draghi will speak at the upcoming Fed Jackson Hole conference in late August.1 Similar to his speech at the ECB Forum in late June, this will likely be another opportunity for Draghi to prepare financial markets and other central bankers for the ECB's policy shift. We expect an announcement of a "Fed-like" tapering of bond purchases that will begin in January and end sometime in the fourth quarter of 2018. A rate hike is still some time away, most likely in the first half of 2019 at the earliest. The ECB will want to see more signs of lower unemployment and sustainable higher core Euro Area inflation before contemplating higher short-term interest rates - especially given the likely positive impact on the euro from such a move that would risk an unwanted tightening of financial conditions. There is far more risk in longer-dated bond yields to reprice via higher term premia and/or inflation expectations, thus we are recommending a bearish stance not only on European duration and country allocation, but also a bias toward steeper yield curves (Chart 4 & Chart 5). Tapering will also put upward pressure on Peripheral European yields and spreads, particularly in Italy, as risk premiums normalize away from the tight levels seen during the ECB asset purchase program. We do not anticipate a rout in Italian debt given the current improvements in the domestic economy and the positive moves seen in consolidating and recapitalizing the troubled Italian banking sector. However, we do see continued underperformance of Italian debt versus Spanish sovereigns, thus we are maintaining an overweight stance on Spain versus Italy in our model bond portfolio (Chart 6). Chart 4Germany Rates Strategy Summary Chart 5France Rates Strategy Summary Chart 6Italy & Spain Strategy Summary U.K.: underweight duration, neutral country allocation, neutral yield curve We have been maintaining a neutral allocation to U.K. Gilts, but with an underweight duration exposure and a curve steepening bias (Chart 7). The growing rift among the members of the BoE Monetary Policy Committee does suggest that there could be more two-way risk in U.K. interest rates than at any time seen since last year's Brexit vote. The BoE responded to that political surprise with rate cuts and a new round of asset purchases, even though the U.K. economy was operating at full employment at the time and inflation pressures were rising. Now, the chickens have come home to roost for the BoE, with inflation remaining stubbornly high despite signs of slowing growth (Chart 8). With real wage growth slowing substantially and household saving rates at very low levels, the risk of a consumer spending slowdown - that the BoE was flagging earlier in the year - is increasing. Chart 7U.K. Rates Strategy Summary Chart 8Stagflation In The U.K. Given the ongoing uncertainties from the upcoming Brexit negotiations that will likely continue to weight on business confidence and investment spending, and with consumption likely to continue losing steam, we see little case for the BoE to seriously consider a rate hike before year-end. We are only recommending a neutral stance on Gilts, though, as realized inflation continues to run well above the BoE's target, supported by the stubbornly soft British pound. We continue to recommend a steepening bias on the Gilt curve until there is more decisive evidence that U.K. inflation is rolling over. Japan: overweight duration, maximum overweight country allocation, neutral yield curve and neutral inflation protection We continue to recommend a maximum overweight on Japanese government bonds (JGBs). JGBs are a low-beta market with the BoJ still targeting a 0% level on the benchmark 10-year yield, even as other global bond markets sell off. The BoJ has been particularly aggressive in capping any rise in JGB yields of late, offering to buy 10-year bonds in unlimited size and also increasing its purchases at shorter maturities (Chart 9). With Japanese inflation still struggling to stay in positive territory, even with the economy estimated to be operating at full employment, the BoJ will do the only thing it can do to put a floor under inflation - keep JGB yields at low levels to trigger a new wave of yen weakness and, hopefully, some imported inflation pressures via the currency. Against this backdrop, JGBs will continue to outperform other DM bond markets during this move towards strong growth and less accommodative monetary policies outside of Japan. Stay overweight Japan against global hedged bond benchmarks. Canada: underweight duration, underweight country allocation, flatter yield curve, long inflation protection We moved our Canadian country allocation to underweight last week in advance of the BoC's expected rate hike, but we had been recommending bearish Canadian trades (curve flatteners and spread wideners versus U.S. Treasuries) in our Tactical Overlay Trade Portfolio for much of the year so far.2 The BoC's 180-degree policy shift over the past month has taken many investors by surprise, but the very strong upturn in the Canadian economy is forcing the BoC into action. With the BoC now projecting the Canadian output gap to be closed this year, expect another one, even two, rate hikes by the end of 2017. This will put additional upward pressure on Canadian bond yields and bear-flatten the Canadian government bond yield curve (Chart 10). Australia: neutral duration, neutral country allocation, neutral curve Australia has been one of the trickier markets on which to have a strong opinion, given the combination of a tight labor market, low inflation, mixed readings on domestic demand and heavy exposure to China's economy. This has led us to be neutral across the board on Australian bonds (Chart 11). We will be covering the outlook for Australia in a Special Report to be published next week, in which we will re-examine our current Australia recommendations. Chart 9Japan Rates Strategy Summary Chart 10Canada Rates Strategy Summary Chart 11Australia Rates Strategy Summary Bottom Line: Many central banks are responding to the strong global economic backdrop by signaling not only a shift in the bias of monetary policy, but actual changes in interest rates or asset purchases. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark overall portfolio stance, but with more diverse views on country allocation: underweight the U.S., Euro Area, & Canada; maximum overweight on Japan; and neutral on the U.K. and Australia. Expect steeper yield curves in the U.S., Euro Area and U.K., and continued flattening in Canada. An Update On The State Of U.S. Corporate Bond Market Liquidity In the Fed's latest Monetary Policy Report, presented by Janet Yellen to the U.S. Congress last week, an entire section was devoted to the state of U.S. corporate bond market liquidity.3 The Fed's conclusion was that, according to many commonly used metrics like average bid/ask spreads, corporate debt has not become more difficult to trade in recent years. This goes against the intuition of many bond investors who have perceived a deterioration of liquidity in corporate credit markets since the 2008 Financial Crisis. The Fed likely felt compelled to dedicate three pages of its Monetary Policy Report to a topic as mundane as bond market functionality as a defense of its current regulatory framework for U.S. banks. The Fed has taken a lot of flak from major U.S. financial institutions, conservative free-market politicians and, since last November, the Trump White House over the "heavy-handed" rules shackling the banks. Chart 12U.S. Dealers Don't Matter Regulations such as the Volcker Rule and the Supplementary Leverage Ratio have almost certainly reduced the odds of another financial crisis caused by undercapitalized banks speculating in risky assets. Yet the critics continue to point out that banks which are more worried about meeting regulatory targets are less able to make loans or, in the case of investment banks, make markets in risky assets like corporate debt. This is important for bond investors given the sharply reduced footprint of investment banks in corporate debt markets. The Fed's data on primary dealer positioning in corporates shows a massive decline from the pre-crisis peak in 2007 of $280bn to only $20bn this year (Chart 12). Over the same period, the size of the U.S. corporate bond market has more than tripled to $6.5 trillion (using the market capitalization of the Barclays Investment Grade and High-Yield indices as a proxy). On the surface, that indicates that dealers held 10% of "the market" at the peak. Now, dealer inventories barely represent only 0.3% of corporate debt outstanding. While that is low, it is not much lower than the share of corporates held by dealers in the early 2000s. When looking at the full span of the available data, the huge dealer footprint in the U.S. corporate bond market in the years prior to the Financial Crisis was the exception and not the norm. Like most other market participants in those years, the investment banks were seduced by the extended period of low macro and market volatility and ended up taking too much risk on their balance sheets. Now, dealers are much more cautious when trading with clients, acting more as an "agent" that matches buyers and sellers for individual trades and less as a "principal" that holds the bonds themselves. The smaller presence of dealers could create a liquidity problem for corporate debt, especially if dealers in their usual role as market-makers cannot be there to absorb the selling pressure from investors during market sell-offs. Yet corporate bond markets have functioned well since the dark days of the Lehman crisis. According to data from SIFMA, average daily trading volumes in the U.S. corporate bond market rose from a low in 2008 of $14bn to $30bn in 2016 (Chart 13). Corporate bond issuance has surged as well, but corporate bond turnover - total annualized trading volumes relative to total bonds outstanding - has improved by nearly 35% since the 2008 low. In addition, the reduced dealer presence has not resulted in any unusual widening of typical relationships like the basis between Credit Default Swaps and corporate bond spreads (bottom panel). The Fed noted this in its Monetary Policy Report as a sign that market liquidity was not impaired since there were not many "unrealized arbitrage opportunities". It is evident that other market participants have picked up the slack from the dealers in U.S. corporate bond trading. Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) are the obvious candidate, led by the popular iShares HYG and the SPDR JNK funds that have a combined $30bn in assets under management. According to the Fed's database on the Financial Accounts of the United States (formerly known as the Flow of Funds), the share of corporate bonds held by all retail funds, including ETFs, soared from 6.5% in 2008 to nearly 19% in Q1 of this year (Chart 14). This nearly offset the decline in the share of corporates held directly by households, as individual investors shifted their preferences toward the ease of trading corporate debt ETFs over individual bonds. Chart 13U.S. Corporate Bond Market Turnover Has Improved Chart 14Shifting Ownership Patterns For U.S. Corporates Importantly, institutional investors like insurance companies and pension funds have seen their influence in corporate bond markets increase, as they now hold a combined 35% of corporate debt, up from 26% in 2008 (bottom two panels). These groups will likely control an even greater share of the corporate bond market in the years to come with the growing usage of so-called "all-to-all" electronic trading platforms like MarketAxess or Bloomberg that allow users to trade directly with each other. All-to-all has already established a major market footprint, as activity on MarketAxess now represents 16% of all trading volume in U.S. Investment Grade corporates and 34% for High-Yield, according to The Economist.4 This is a hugely important development. If more professional bond investors can now transact directly with one another, this helps to alleviate any reduction in market liquidity caused by a smaller dealer presence in the market. Even with so much evidence pointing to no serious liquidity problems in U.S. corporate debt, some worrisome issues remain. Chart 15Market Performance Leads Fund Inflows,##BR##Not Vice Versa Average trade sizes in corporates are smaller now compared to pre-crisis levels - perhaps as much as 20% smaller according to estimates by the New York Fed.5 This is likely the result of the reduced risk-taking by the dealers and the growing share of direct electronic trading. This creates an effect where it may feel like liquidity is impaired since it now takes longer to execute a large bond trade, even though transaction costs for individual trades have not been increasing, on average. Corporate bond ETFs are easier to trade than the underlying bonds held in the ETFs themselves. This has worried many investors who fear that a corporate bond market downturn could turn into a much larger rout if rapid ETF redemptions cause "fire sales" of the bonds held in the ETFs to quickly raise cash. Admittedly, the unique ETF structure - where the shares of the ETF are traded and not the underlying bonds, similar to a closed-end mutual fund - has not yet been tested in a true credit bear market. However, there have been several episodes of "risk-off" bond sell-offs over the past few years, most notably for High-Yield ETFs during the 2014/15 oil bear market, which did not result in any disorderly disruption of corporate bond markets. If anything, the historical experience of U.S. corporate bond mutual funds shows that net flows into funds tend to follow, and not lead, the performance of markets (Chart 15). This may exaggerate bond market moves at turning points but, in general, outflows are a symptom, not a cause, of corporate bond downturns. Net-net, we agree with the assessment of the Fed that corporate bond market liquidity shows little sign of impairment and does not represent a threat to market stability. Bottom Line: There are few signs of diminished liquidity in U.S. corporate bond markets, despite the sharply reduced inventories of primary dealers. ETFs and institutional investors have picked up the slack from the dealers, as has electronic trading directly between market participants. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.wsj.com/articles/draghi-may-address-future-of-ecb-stimulus-at-jackson-hole-1499944342 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Dangerous Duration", dated July 11 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/20170707_mprfullreport.pdf 4 https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21721208-greater-automation-promises-more-liquidity-investors-digitisation-shakes-up 5 http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2015/10/has-us-corporate-bond-market-liquidity-deteriorated.html Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

9 年 9 年間 ago

Global Monetary Policy Recalibration

Highlights BCA's Central Bank Monitors support the case for less stimulus. Yellen's "dovish" testimony does not change our Fed call. The BCA Beige Book Monitor and related indicators support our view on the economy and Fed. Maximum central bank policy divergence has not been reached. Too early to predict Trump's replacement for Yellen. Now that economic surprise index has bottomed, risk assets can outperform as the metric mean reverts. Some wage measures are accelerating as the economy approaches full employment. Feature Chart 1Sell-Off In Global Bond Markets##BR##Triggered By Central Bank Talk Global bond investors were shocked in June when central bankers announced at the ECB's Forum on Central Banking what appeared to be a global recalibration of monetary policy. Until that time, investors had been lulled into a false sense of security that growth headwinds would prevent the Fed from hiking by more than once a year and keep the other major central banks on hold "indefinitely." The heads of the Bank of England (BoE), the Bank of Canada (BoC) and the Riksbank all took a less dovish tone, as they signaled less need for ultra-stimulative policies because the threat of deflation had diminished. Together with some better-than-expected U.S. economic data, this shift in tone led to a sharp sell-off in global bond markets (Chart 1). The BoC followed up last week by kicking off a prolonged tightening cycle. The central bank now expects the Canadian economy to reach full employment and hit the BoC's inflation targets by mid-2018, which is much earlier than expected. The global bond mini-rout actually began before the ECB Forum, when the ECB President gave a very upbeat description of the underlying strength of the Euro Area economy. BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service highlights that the Euro Area is about two percentage points closer to full employment than the U.S. was just before the infamous 2013 Taper Tantrum.1 European core inflation is admittedly below target today, but so was the U.S. rate leading up to the 2013 Tantrum. Draghi's comments confirm that the ECB will announce this fall that a further tapering of its asset purchase program will take place in early 2018. The message that "emergency" levels of monetary accommodation are no longer needed is confirmed by our Central Bank Monitors (CB), which measure pressure on central bankers to raise or lower interest rates (Chart 2). The Monitors became less useful when rates hit the zero bound and quantitative easing became popular, but the measures are relevant again. All of our CB Monitors are in "tighter policy required" territory except for Japan (although even that one appears on the verge of breaking above the critical zero line). The Monitors have been rising due more to their growth than their inflation components. Bond investors may be startled by the ECB's posture because inflation remains well below target in all the major economies except the U.K. What is most worrying is the recent deceleration in U.S. inflation, where the economy is very close to or at full employment. Almost all of the major central banks point to temporary factors that will soon fade, which would allow inflation to escalate toward the target. Our Aggregate Inflation Indicators have all signaled a modest building of underlying inflation pressure over the past year (although they have softened recently in the U.S. and Eurozone; Chart 3). In terms of the components of these indicators, rising core producer price inflation has been partly offset by slower gains in unit labor costs in some economies. Chart 2All In The "Tighter Policy Required" Zone Chart 3BCA Aggregate Inflation Indicators These and other indicators support our view that core consumer price inflation will grind higher in the coming months in most of the advanced economies, including the U.S. Admittedly, all models and indicators have been poor predictors of inflation in this recovery. Nonetheless, historical relationships might begin to re-establish now that capacity utilization is rising and labor market slack has moderated significantly. Did Yellen Turn Dovish? June's FOMC minutes indicated that the consensus among Fed policymakers is willing to "look through" low inflation and maintain the current timetable on rate hikes. Yellen's Congressional testimony last week did not deviate from that view, although investors interpreted her remarks as dovish. The financial press focused on her statement that "...the policy rate is not far from neutral." However, this was followed up by the statement that "...because we also anticipate that the factors that are currently holding down the neutral rate will diminish somewhat over time, additional gradual rate hikes are likely to be appropriate over the next few years to sustain the economic expansion and return inflation to our 2 percent goal." The Fed asserts there are two neutral interest rates: short-term and long-term. Yellen argued that the actual policy rate is close to the short-term level, which is depressed by economic headwinds. However, Yellen and others have made the case that the short-term neutral rate is trending up as headwinds diminish, and will converge with the long-term neutral rate over time. The Fed Chair is at risk of confusing investors by discussing the concept of two neutral rates, although this may have been to head off demands by some Congressional lawmakers that the Fed should follow a mechanical policy rule when setting policy (such as the Taylor Rule). Nonetheless, the important point is that Yellen is not saying that the actual policy rate is close to the peak for the cycle. Yellen's testimony has not altered our Fed call for this year: balance sheet runoff beginning in the fall, followed by a rate hike in December. The latter hinges importantly on at least a modest rise in core PCE inflation in the coming months. We expect more rate hikes in 2018/19 than are discounted in the bond market. That said, the soft June CPI data challenges our view that inflation will move higher in the second half. The bottom line is that the backdrop has turned decidedly bond-bearish now that central bankers in the advanced economies are in the process of scaling back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Global bond yields have already taken a step up in recent weeks, but they will have to rise further to catch up with the solid pace of global growth and diminishing economic slack. Duration should be kept short. The Beige Book: Another Inflation Anomaly The Beige Book released on July 12 supports the Fed's base case outlook for the economy and inflation. It also keeps the Fed on track to begin to trim its balance sheet in September and boost rates by another 25 basis points in December. Our quantitative approach2 to the qualitative data in the Beige Book points to an acceleration in GDP and inflation, less business unease from a rising U.S. dollar, and ongoing improvement in real estate, both commercial and residential (Chart 4). Chart 4Beige Book Monitors Support Fed's Outlook##BR##On Economy And Inflation At 62%, the BCA Beige Book Monitor remained near its cycle highs in July, providing more confirmation that the economy rebounded in Q2 after a desultory Q1. The July 12 Beige Book covered the period from late May through June 30. Based on the Beige Book, the dollar should not be much of an issue in Q2 earnings season. The greenback seems to have faded as a concern for small businesses and bankers, which is in sharp contrast to 2015 and early 2016 when mentions of a strong dollar in the Beige Book surged. The Q2 earnings reporting season will provide corporate managements with another forum to express their views of currency impact on their operations. Business uncertainty over government policy (fiscal, regulatory and health) remained elevated in the most recent Beige Book (not shown). The implication is that the business community is mindful of the lack of progress by Washington policymakers on Trump's agenda. Our analysis of the Beige Book also shows that real estate was still stout as Q2 ended. This implies that both residential and commercial real estate, the former a source of strength in Q1, will add to growth again in Q2. Moreover, the latest reading on the BCA Real Estate Monitor further widened the gap between the BCA Beige Book Real Estate Monitor and the relative performance of REITS to the S&P 500. Nonetheless, BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service recently downgraded REITS to neutral,3 citing our expectation of higher Treasury yields, modest rent growth, some cracks in CRE credit quality, and tightening standards for bank lending in the CRE marketplace. Echoing the market's disagreement with the Fed on inflation, the big disconnect in the Beige Book showed up in the number of inflation words. Inflation words hit a new peak in July, in sharp contrast with the recent soft readings on CPI and PCE. In the past, increased references to inflation have led measured inflation by a few months, suggesting that the CPI and core PCE may soon turn up. Bottom Line: The Beige Book backs the Fed's assertion that the economy will expand around 2% this year and inflation will move higher in the coming months, supporting a gradual removal of policy accommodation. Uncertainty in Washington is distressing, but worries over the dollar seem to be fading. Max Policy Divergence Has Not Been Reached What about the dollar? Tighter Fed policy is dollar-bullish on its own, but some of the major central banks are also starting to remove the monetary punchbowl as well. Recent dollar action suggests that investors have decided that the peak Fed/ECB policy divergence is now behind us. We do not agree. The ECB may be tapering, but raising interest rates is a long way off because there is still a lot of economic slack in the Eurozone. In contrast, the Fed is increasingly concerned that allowing the unemployment rate to fall further below its estimate of full-employment risks too large an overshoot of the 2% target. We still believe that market pricing for the fed funds rate is too benign. As Fed rate hike expectations ratchet up in the coming months, interest rate differentials versus Europe will widen in favor of the dollar. It is the same story for the dollar/yen rate. The major exception is the Canadian dollar, which we expect to appreciate versus the greenback. Does Gary Cohn Have What It Takes? A key wildcard in the financial outlook is the Fed Chair's replacement. Yellen's term as Chair will end in February 2018 and the markets have not yet shown any concerns about her potential replacement. The current frontrunner is Gary Cohn, the Chairman of President Trump's National Economic Committee; his appointment would conform to some historical precedents but violate others. Our March 6 Weekly Report4 provides a list of potential Fed appointees and also provides some background on the potential for the Fed to become more politicized under Trump. Since the late 1970s, Presidents have selected the Fed Chair based on their trust relationship with a candidate. Arthur Burns (Chair from 1970-1978) was the head of President Eisenhower's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) and was a special counselor to President Nixon. William Miller (1978-1979) worked for the presidential campaigns of Hubert Humphrey and Jimmy Carter. Alan Greenspan (1987-2006) served as the Chair of President Reagan's Social Security Commission in the early 1980s, was the Chair of President Ford's CEA and advised President Nixon's campaign in 1968. Ben Bernanke (2006-2014) was George W. Bush's chief economist in 2005 and 2006 before Bush chose him to lead the Fed. Janet Yellen (2014-present) was Chair of Bill Clinton's CEA in the late 1990s, when she worked with many of Obama's economic team members. Paul Volcker (1979-1987) was the lone exception to this rule; he worked for Nixon, but not Carter, before becoming Fed Chair (Table 1). Table 1Characteristics Of Fed Chairs Since 1970 Cohn does not have any experience as a central banker, but that does not preclude him from holding the position. Volcker, Bernanke and Yellen, all held posts in the Federal Reserve System before their appointments as Chair. However, Miller was an outside director for the Boston Fed, and Burns and Greenspan had no prior experience at the monetary authority. Party identification is one area where Gary Cohn would stand out. Since at least 1970, the party affiliation of a new Fed Chair has matched that of the President. However, Presidents have crossed party lines to reappoint sitting Fed Chairmen to additional terms. Volker, Greenspan and Bernanke were reappointed to lead the Fed by Presidents from opposing political parties. The timing of Trump's announcement on Yellen's replacement may be critical. In the summer of 2013, names were already being floated by the Obama White House (and mainly rejected) by markets, before he finally settled on Yellen. The official announcement came in early October 2013. In August 2009, President Obama reappointed Bernanke for a second four-year term. Bernanke was initially nominated to be Fed Chair by George W. Bush in October of 2005. If the appointment comes in October and the nominee is perceived to be hawkish, the risk is that markets may begin to price in the regime change sometime in the next few months. Our U.S. Bond Strategy service argued in a recent report5 that rate hike expectations may already be ramping up, while the data on the economy and inflation begin to beat expectations again. Bottom Line: It is too early for the markets to be concerned about the next Fed Chair and their policies. The names mentioned in the summer may not be the ones offered the job in the fall. Surprise Index Finally Bottomed Out The June employment report marked a turning point for the Citigroup surprise index, following an extended period of disappointment that depressed the dollar and bond yields. The June reports on CPI and retail sales were disappointing, but June industrial production exceeded expectations. What does this mean for relative asset returns? After 86 days, expectations moved low enough to allow economic reality to begin to run ahead. It took as few as 8 business days (in 2009) and as many as 164 (2015) for the surprise index to return to the zero line, an average of 52 days (Chart 5). Chart 5Risk Assets Tend To Outperform As Economic Surprise Index Rebounds Mean-reversions in the surprise index following troughs have generally been good for risk assets in this recovery (Table 2). We have identified 11 periods since late 2009 when the surprise index bottomed out and then moved up toward zero. In 8 of those episodes, the total return on stocks was higher than 10-year Treasuries. Equities beat Treasuries by an average of 286 bps across all 11 periods, with a median outperformance of 400 basis points. Table 2U.S. Financial Market Performance As Economic Surprise Index Rises The total return on investment-grade corporate debt outperformed Treasuries in 6 of 11 episodes. In those six instances, investment grade credit outperformed on average by 132 bps. Nonetheless over all 11 episodes, the excess return was 0%. In contrast, high-yield bonds beat Treasuries in 7 of the 11 periods, with a median outperformance of 188 basis points. Similarly, small caps beat large caps 72% of the time as the economic surprise index moved back toward the zero line. The median outperformance of small over large in all 11 periods was 124 basis points. The performance of commodities was mixed as economic surprises climbed. Gold rose in 6 of the 11 times, but fell in 5. Oil prices posted increases in only 5 of the 11, but the median return for oil after economic surprise bottomed was -2.7%. Bottom Line: Economic expectations that ramped up post-election have now declined and allowed the economic surprise index to trough. The implication for investors is that risk assets tend to outperform as the economic surprise index moves back to zero. This supports our tactical views of stocks over bonds, small over large caps, and credit over Treasury. What's Up With Wages? The June jobs report released in early July6 only added to the market's fears that the Phillips Curve is dead because wage growth softened even as the labor market tightened. Unfortunately, no Fed officials including Yellen have addressed the topic in depth recently. The market does not believe the Fed when it says that the tighter labor market is pushing up wages. We see it another way. Chart 6 shows that wage inflation has accelerated since mid-to-late 2012, but some measures of wages have made more progress than others. Chart 7 and Chart 8 reinforce that, setting aside the rollover in average hourly earnings (AHE), wage inflation is accelerating, albeit modestly. Chart 6Plenty Of Signs That##BR##Wages Are Accelerating Chart 7Compositional Effects Do Not##BR##Explain Recent Rollover Chart 8Acceleration In Hours Worked Should##BR##Lead To Faster Wage Growth The Employment Cost Index (ECI) excluding bonuses (Chart 6, panel 1) is our favorite measure of labor compensation. It has accelerated steadily since 2010. It adjusts for compositional changes in the labor market (unlike the average hourly earnings measure) and is the broadest and most comprehensive wage metric. Its drawbacks are that it is released with a long lag. For example, the Q2 ECI data will not be released until the end of July. The AHE data is already available for June and Q2. On the other hand, unit labor costs (ULC) (panel 2) have stagnated for the past five years. Data starts in 1947, so it has the most history of any of the wage measures. However, it is even more delayed than the ECI: it is released five weeks after the end of the quarter. Moreover, these data are subject to revisions and tend to be more volatile than other wages measures, which makes it difficult to identify a change in trend. Productivity, which is used to construct ULC, is also very difficult to estimate. A recent BIS report7 notes that there is evidence that the relationship between ULC and labor market slack has diminished over time, but that ULC is a better measure of inflationary pressures than AHE. Median usual weekly earnings (panel 3) have also accelerated. This is not a pure wage measure; it combines hourly pay and hours worked and, therefore, is a good proxy for incomes. Income growth has picked up the pace, providing a solid underpinning for consumer spending. Panel 4 shows compensation per hour worked. It, too, has stalled and is subject to the same strengths and weakness as ULC because it is part of the quarterly Productivity and Costs report. This metric has run near 2% with no trend. Finally, average hourly earnings (panel 5) have sped up since 2012, but rolled over in late 2016. This wage gauge gets most of the market's attention although it is only one of many measures that the Fed watches. AHE is a timely data set, released alongside monthly payroll numbers. It includes average earnings of private non-farm production and non-supervisory positions. The major disadvantage of this measure is that hourly wage earners represent only about 58% of workers and do not account for trends in salaried jobs. Earnings do not include bonus pay or employee benefits. The data are available beginning only in 2006. In Chart 7, we created an "equally-weighted" AHE measure to adjust for shifts in the composition of the labor market, but we found that the recent deceleration is not linked to compositional effects. Since wage growth bottomed out in late 2012, the compositional shifts slightly lowered wage inflation on average, but the growth rates today are roughly the same. The Atlanta Fed wage tracker (not shown) is in a distinct uptrend. The Tracker has the advantage that it is not biased by compositional shifts. Chart 8 shows our update to a study by the Kansas City Fed8 that found only a few industries (mostly in the goods-producing sector of the economy) have accounted for most of the rise in wages, notably manufacturing, construction and wholesale trade. Financial services, retail, professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality - all service sector industries - were the laggards. The report shows that although earnings growth has fallen behind in service-oriented industries since 2015, hours worked have seen faster growth than in the goods-producing sector. We concur with the author that labor demand was strong in the past few years in areas that have not experienced much wage growth. As the labor market continues to tighten, wages in these industries may accelerate, but patience will be required. Bottom Line: The various measures of wage inflation provide a mixed picture. Taken as a group, however, we believe that wage growth has indeed accelerated as the labor market has tightened. The acceleration has admittedly been modest, but it is only recently that unemployment reached a full employment level. The real test for the Phillips curve will be in the coming quarters as the economy moves further into "excess labor demand" territory. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks Are Now Playing Catch-Up", dated July 4, 2017. Available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Great Debate Continues", dated April 17, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "SPX 3000?, dated July 10, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Trump And The Fed", dated March 6, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Summer Snapback", dated July 11, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Sizing up the Second Half", dated July 10, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Monetary policy: inching towards normalization", Bank for International Settlements (BIS), 25 June 2017. 8 Wage Leaders and Laggards: Decomposing The Growth In Average Hourly Earnings", Willem Van Zandweghe, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, February 15, 2017.

9 年 9 年間 ago

Canada: A (Probably) Happy Moment In An Otherwise Sad Story

特別レポート

Dear Client, I am visiting clients this week, and as such there will be no Weekly Report. Instead, we are sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Jonathan LaBerge. Jonathan argues that while the recent acceleration of the Canadian economy is genuine, the rise in Canadian household debt-to-income over the past 16 years has been so large that a credit-driven downturn in spending is now virtually unavoidable over the long run. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights The recent economic improvement in Canada is genuine. In isolation, this supports the Bank of Canada's decision to gradually raise interest rates. However, over the long run, the historical experience suggests that the substantial leverage of Canadian households will ultimately cause a serious credit-driven downturn. Several myths about Canada's housing market have obscured the true extent of its credit market imbalances, heightening the risk that policymakers will ultimately overplay their hand when tightening monetary conditions. There are multiple potential triggers that could eventually spark a credit-driven downturn in Canada, but none of them seem likely to have a major impact on the economy over the coming 6-12 months. Favor a pro-cyclical stance over the coming year, but look to shift to a bearish structural view at some point beyond the immediate investment horizon. Feature Several developments over the past few months have altered the outlook for the Canadian economy. However, these events have not had a consistent impact on the narrative for Canadian assets. Whereas a sharp rebound in real GDP growth and a hawkish pivot from the Bank of Canada have been signs of a strengthening economy, the crisis surrounding Home Capital Group (a Canadian non-bank mortgage lender) was an ominous sign for many investors concerned about the deeply imbalanced Canadian housing market.1 In this report we argue that the cyclical improvement in the Canadian economy is legitimate, and that the Bank of Canada is likely to move forward with gradual policy tightening following Wednesday's move. However, the rise in Canadian household debt-to-income over the past 16 years has been so large that a credit-driven downturn in spending is now virtually unavoidable over the long run, rather than a risk. We highlight how, in many ways, the imbalances in the Canadian housing market are even worse than the market narrative would suggest. We also provide a checklist of factors to monitor in order to judge when Canada's day of reckoning will arrive. For now, it does not appear to be imminent. From an investment standpoint, our conclusions imply that investors should pursue a "two-staged" approach when allocating to Canadian assets. Over the coming 6-12 months, a cyclical improvement in the economy means that Canadian risky asset prices and government bond yields are likely to rise, and we believe that this stage is worth playing. But over the secular horizon, the reverse is likely to unfold, meaning that a rally in Canadian assets over the coming year will create excellent "selling conditions" for investors looking to position for a bearish structural view. Economic Momentum Is Spurring Tighter Monetary Policy... The Bank of Canada is now back on a path towards tighter monetary policy, and a close examination of the Canadian economy, as well as our outlook for global oil inventories, supports the BoC's view: Real consumer spending picked up significantly in Q1, rising from 2.7% to 3.1% on a year-over-year basis. Chart 1 highlights that the rise in real spending has been supported by a rebound in employment growth and consumer confidence (the latter is at a 9-year high). On the employment side, Chart 1 also shows that the acceleration in job growth is not limited to provinces that are strongly associated with oil sands production. In fact, the chart shows that employment in Canada excluding Alberta and Saskatchewan has been in an uptrend since mid-2014, when fiscal and monetary policy began to respond to the shock from a collapse in the price of oil. All Canadian employment cylinders are now firing, given the job recovery in oil sands provinces. Real Canadian gross fixed capital formation turned positive in Q1 after a significant decline into negative territory, and a simple model based on business confidence, oil prices, and the Canadian dollar (stripped of its correlation with oil) suggests that it will continue to accelerate modestly over the coming year (Chart 2). Chart 1Genuine Signs Of A Stronger Economy Chart 2Further Gains In Investment Likely Chart 3 shows a model for oil prices, based on global industrial production, oil production, OECD oil inventories, and oil consumption in the major countries and China. If OPEC is successful in reducing inventories to their 5-year moving average, as BCA's commodity strategists expect, the model implies that oil prices will rise materially. This is likely to provide a tailwind for the Canadian economy, at least in nominal terms. While the pace of tightening is likely to be gradual because of the weakness in Canadian core inflation, Chart 4 suggests that the decline in inflation over the past few months may simply represent the correction towards more fundamentally-justified levels. The chart shows a model of core inflation based on lagged real core consumer spending and the Canadian dollar (as a proxy for imported inflation/deflation), and highlights that actual inflation has overshot the model value over the past three years. But the chart also shows that the fundamentally-justified level of core inflation remains in an uptrend, suggesting that recent weakness is likely temporary and is thus not an impediment to higher policy rates over the coming year. Chart 3Falling Inventories Will Be Bullish For Oil Chart 4The Dip In Core Inflation Is Temporary Bottom Line: The recent economic improvement in Canada is genuine and, in isolation, supports the Bank of Canada's decision to gradually raise interest rates. ...But It Will All Likely End In Tears Chart 5Higher Household Leverage Than In The U.S. Pre-Crisis While we agree that the Bank of Canada is on a path to gradually raise interest rates over the coming year and that the economy is currently in good shape, the odds are good that tighter policy (and/or other factors) will eventually inflict considerable damage to the Canadian economy via the housing market and its impact on highly leveraged consumers. In this regard, the pickup in Canadian economic growth likely represents a happy moment in an otherwise sad story. Chart 5 compares Canada's mortgage debt-to-disposable income, total household debt-to-GDP, and the total household debt service ratio to that of the U.S. The chart neatly illustrates the fundamental basis for a bearish secular outlook for the Canadian economy, which is that household debt levels have risen enormously since 2000, to a level that is worse today than in the U.S. in 2007. "So what?" ask some investors. Household debt levels vary significantly across countries, meaning that an elevated level of household debt-to-income does not necessarily spell economic doom. Chart 6 counters this point by showing the relationship between the historical change in household debt-to-GDP (y-axis) versus the starting point for the ratio (x-axis) during episodes of significant household leveraging. The change in debt-to-GDP is shown as a 10-year average of the year-over-year change in the ratio, in order to compare Canada's recent debt binge with other long-term booms in credit. In terms of very significant increases in household credit-to-GDP from an already above-average level, Chart 6 shows that Canada's experience (an average yearly increase of 3.3%) has been among the most severe cases. The chart also shows that while there are a few exceptions, other observations in the neighborhood of Canada's have had a strong tendency to be associated with harsh economic consequences once the credit binge has come to an end. In particular, while the chart shows that the countries at the center of the euro area sovereign debt crisis saw a more rapid rise in household debt-to-GDP than observed in Canada, this occurred from a lower base. When measuring the total change in household debt-to-GDP, Canada has experienced almost the same magnitude rise from 2000 to today as what occurred in Spain and Portugal during the last economic cycle. In terms of a comparison with the U.S., Chart 7 presents a long-term perspective on the inverse relationship between household credit growth and real per capita consumption in the U.S. The chart highlights that 10-year upcycles in household debt-to-GDP correlate well, with a lag, to 10-year downcycles in real per capita spending. Periods where the relationship is less tight have tended to be associated with less severe increases in household debt-to-GDP, suggesting that investors can be more confident that debt growth will eventually negatively impact consumer spending the stronger the credit binge has been. Chart 6The Historical Experience Of Household Leveraging Does Not Paint A Pretty Picture For Canada Chart 7Upcycles In Household Leveraging Correspond To Downcycles In Real Spending As a final point, Chart 7 underscores a sobering fact: The U.S. has only seen two instances of a 3% or greater average annual rise in household debt-to-GDP over the course of a decade: the first was in the 1920s, and the second was from 1998 to 2007. Clearly, in both cases the rise in debt ended very poorly for the U.S. economy. This, along with the prevalence of serious debt crises following credit binges similar in magnitude to Canada's experience, makes it clear that a credit-driven downturn in spending is a highly probable event for the Canadian economy over the long run, rather than a risk. Bottom Line: The available historical evidence suggests that the substantial leveraging of Canadian households that has already occurred will ultimately cause a serious credit-driven downturn. Debunking Some Housing Market Myths: It's Worse Than You Think Chart 816 Years Of Too-Easy Money The risk that the Bank of Canada will eventually "over-tighten" is magnified by the fact that there is still an ongoing debate within Canada about whether any housing market imbalances even exist. Many market participants still employ several arguments about the Canadian housing market that, at first blush, appear to mitigate the risk of serious long-term consequences of Canada's debt boom. But these arguments are flawed, and an in-depth review of these fallacies highlights the economic risk of higher interest rates. Myth #1 - Sustainable Demand And Affordability The first myth about Canada's housing market is that the rise in house prices and household debt is sustainable because of how long the boom has lasted without consequence. However, besides the ominous historical experience highlighted in Charts 6 and 7 above, Chart 8 makes it clear that the substantial build-up in Canadian household debt since 2000 has occurred primarily due to too-easy monetary policy, rather than legitimate housing market fundamentals. The chart presents Canadian household debt-to-GDP versus the Bank of Canada's target for the overnight rate. The dotted line in panel 2 is a Canadian version of the well-known Taylor rule of monetary policy, with panel 3 showing the difference between the actual policy rate and that prescribed by the rule. The chart shows that the rise in household debt-to-GDP began precisely when the policy rate fell below the Taylor rule, and that this gap has persisted for the past 16 years. We acknowledge that the Bank of Canada felt it was necessary to keep interest rates relatively low during the last economic cycle because of the persistent strength in the Canadian dollar (which acts to restrain exports). But whatever drag on growth that occurred from a strong currency was not large enough to prevent low interest rates from sparking an enormous rise in household leverage. Myth #2 - No Foreign Money Effect The second myth about the Canadian housing market is that there is no substantial effect on house prices from foreign money and that, by extension, foreign transaction taxes should be discouraged. To us, the issue is not the specific residency status of a particular buyer, but rather whether the housing market is being supported by an inflow of foreign capital. While data limitations make it difficult to prove with certainty that Canada has been struck with a tidal wave of capital from China (with Hong Kong acting as the conduit), Charts 9 and 10 show that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. The story that emerges from the charts is that the peak in Chinese real GDP growth in 2010 marked the beginning of significant capital outflow from the country, which appears to have moved through Hong Kong, and was perhaps accelerated by Xi Jinping's crackdown on cronyism that began in 2013. Panel 2 of Chart 9 shows that the average absolute value of Hong Kong's "net errors and omissions" line from the balance of payments spiked after mid-2010,2 as did Canada's "other investment liabilities" with a lag. Chart 10 shows that this period also saw a sharp rise in visitor arrivals to Canada from China and Hong Kong, a rise in the share of Canadian bank loans to nonresidents, and a meteoric rise in house prices in Vancouver and Toronto. Chart 11 presents data from Global Financial Integrity, a Washington-based think tank that tracks illicit financial flows globally. While the data is only available with a lag, the chart shows that GFI's estimate of illicit financial outflows from China has risen significantly following the global financial crisis, which is consistent with the narrative presented in Charts 9 and 10. Chart 9Very Strong Circumstantial Evidence... Chart 10...Of Foreign Capital Inflows Chart 11Clear Evidence Of Chinese Capital Flight Myth #3 - Tight Supply The third myth concerning Canadian housing is the argument that housing supply is tight, which justifies the exponential move in house prices. First, it should be noted that while residential investment as a share of GDP was indeed low in the late-1990s, it rose back to its long-term average within the first three years of the housing boom, and has recently risen to a 27-year high (Chart 12). A similar trend can be observed in housing starts and the number of unsold housing inventories. As such, it seems difficult to make the case that the extraordinary rise in house prices and household debt that we have observed over the past 16 years is ultimately due to scarce housing supply. Chart 13 makes this point more saliently, by presenting a scatterplot of the median house price-to-income ratio versus the population density of several major global markets. Ultimately, in any true market economy, genuine housing supply constraints must be related to high density or else there would be ample room to build additional housing units. Two points are noteworthy: Chart 12There Is No Supply Problem Chart 13'There's Nowhere To Build!': Yeah, Right! The median house price-to-income ratio for Toronto and Vancouver deviate enormously from the level that would be implied by their density given the relationship across global housing markets. Based purely on this analysis of relative density, Toronto and Vancouver house prices are 80% and 140% overvalued, respectively. Around the globe, the housing markets that appear to be the most overvalued relative to population density appear to be the geographically closest to China (Vancouver, Australia, Hong Kong, and the West Coast of the U.S.), which echoes our conclusions about foreign capital inflow above. Myth #4 - A Healthier Canadian Household Debt Distribution The fourth myth concerning Canadian housing is the idea that the household debt binge that we have observed has been a "healthier" rise than what occurred in the U.S. during the last economic cycle. The argument is that the rise in debt in the U.S. from 2001 - 2007 predominantly occurred among "subprime" borrowers, and that this is not occurring in Canada. Comparing Canada to the U.S. last cycle is difficult due to the lack of data on the distribution of Canadian household debt-to-income ratios by income percentile. However, some inferences can be drawn from the OECD's wealth distribution database, and they suggest that Canadian household debt is, in fact, quite concentrated. Chart 14 presents the relationship between the number of households with debt and the median debt-to-income ratio of indebted households, from 2010 to 2012 (depending on the observation). The chart shows that while only about half of Canadian households are indebted (in line with the average of the countries shown and below that of the U.S.), among those with debt the median debt-to-income ratio is substantially higher than most other countries. This is also reflected in Chart 15, which shows that Canada has a high rank of significantly indebted households as a share of all indebted households,3 more so that the U.S. Investors should note that Canada's rank today is likely to be higher than that shown in Chart 15, given that several other highly indebted countries (such as the Netherlands and Portugal) have actually experienced household deleveraging since 2010. Chart 14High Concentration... Chart 15...Of Household Indebtedness Myth #5 - The "CMHC Backstop" The fifth and final myth concerning Canadian housing is the fact that the economy is not significantly exposed to a housing market downturn because of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's mortgage insurance coverage protects Canadian banks. It is true that the CMHC can act as a backstop for the economy by helping to mitigate mortgage default losses. But Chart 16 highlights that there have been some substantial changes over the past few years in the CMHC's footprint in the mortgage market that casts significant doubt on whether it would be able to materially blunt the losses that are likely to occur from systemic mortgage defaults. First, the chart shows that while half of mortgages in Canada had CMHC insurance coverage in 2010, this has fallen by 14 percentage points in just six years (to 36%). This means that almost 2/3rds of Canadian mortgages are not CMHC-insured. Second, while the CMHC has been aggressive in building equity over the past several years (perhaps in anticipation of a significant housing bust!), this equity buffer is still small relative to its total loans (9%) and is fractional as a share of total Canadian residential mortgage credit (1.5%). As such, while we agree that the CMHC is an effective backstop against idiosyncratic risk in the mortgage market, it is simply too small to act as a credible buffer against large-scale losses. Bottom Line: Several myths about Canada's housing market have obscured the true extent of its credit market imbalances, heightening the risk that policymakers will ultimately overplay their hand when tightening monetary conditions. When Will The Party Come To An End? From our perspective, the most likely catalysts for a credit-driven downturn in spending are a reversal of the factors that drove the rise in household debt in the first place. Chart 17 presents a three-phase view of the rise in household debt-to-income since 2000, and summarizes the major drivers of rising leverage in each phase given our analysis above: persistently easy monetary policy (phase I), fiscal and monetary easing (phase II), and foreign capital inflow (phase III). Given this, higher interest rates, fiscal drag, and/or a shock to foreign capital would appear to be the most likely triggers for a credit-driven downturn: Chart 16A Substantially Lower CMHC Footprint Chart 17The Major Drivers Of Rising Household Leverage Higher Interest Rates: Tighter monetary policy is an obvious (and most likely) trigger for a major reversal in the Canadian housing market. It is not yet clear how aggressively the Bank of Canada will raise interest rates over the coming 6-12 months, but Chart 18 highlights that the household debt service ratio will quickly rise to a new high even if the Bank of Canada hikes rates by 150 bps over a two-year period, owing to the relatively short maturity of Canadian mortgage contract terms. Still, the chart shows that this does not occur until mid-2019 at the earliest. Fiscal Drag: IMF forecasts for Canada's cyclically-adjusted primary balance suggest that government spending and investment will remain a positive contributor to growth into next year (Chart 19). But beginning in 2019, fiscal policy is forecast to become a persistent drag on growth, and it is even possible that the sharp deceleration in fiscal thrust set to occur next year could act as the proximate cause of serious problems in the Canadian housing market. Chart 18Not An Imminent Threat, But Watch Out Chart 19Fiscal Drag Set To Begin In 2019 Chart 20Macroprudential Measures Didn't Kill The Vancouver Housing Market A Domestically-Driven Shock To Foreign Capital Inflow: Some investors have pointed with concern to dramatic declines in the sales-to-listings ratios in Vancouver and Toronto following foreign taxation announcements in these markets. We agree that the impact of new or existing macroprudential measures may eventually cause a severe fallout in the housing market, but for now the experience of Vancouver suggests that such an event is not imminent. Chart 20 presents the 3- and 12-month rate of change in Vancouver house prices, with the vertical line denoting the announcement of the foreign transaction tax. While it is clear that the tax sharply slowed the rate of appreciation in Vancouver house prices, it did not cause an outright decline (the 3-month rate of change only briefly turned negative before returning to positive territory). Cyclically, we would become more concerned were we to observe a combination of additional restrictions on foreign capital inflow, higher minimum down payment thresholds for houses priced at or below median levels, and a significantly lower allowable gross/total debt service ratio. An Externally-Driven Shock To Foreign Capital Inflow: We noted earlier in the report that there is strong circumstantial evidence showing that Canada's property market is benefiting from large capital inflows from China, with Hong Kong acting as the conduit. Given this, the Canadian housing market could be subject to a shock from exogenous changes in the flow of this capital, perhaps triggered by cyclical changes in China's economy or, more likely, actions by Chinese policymakers to materially slow the pace of capital flight. While it is very difficult on a high frequency basis to track whether the impact of foreign capital on Canada's housing market is growing or weakening, the indicators shown in Charts 9 and 10 on page 9 form the basis of our monitoring effort. The list above has focused on potential triggers that are specific to the factors that led to the build-up in Canadian household debt. Clearly there are additional macro factors that could trigger the onset of a major debt payback period in Canada, and chief among these would be the next U.S. or global recession. For example, we recently noted how continued tightening from the Fed could set the stage for a U.S. recession in 2019, which could easily trigger either a prolonged period of stagnant Canadian growth or an active deleveraging event.4 Bottom Line: There are multiple potential triggers that could eventually spark a credit-driven downturn in Canada, but none of them seem likely to have a major impact on the economy over the coming 6-12 months. Investment Implications Canadian household leverage has risen enormously over the past 16 years, and a detailed analysis of Canada's housing market shows that an eventual credit-driven downturn in spending is a highly probable event for the Canadian economy over the long run (rather than a risk). However, among the most probable triggers for a serious housing market shock, only higher interest rates are set to occur over the coming year. Given that monetary tightening will be gradual in its pace, it does not seem probable that a major downturn in spending is imminent. From an investment standpoint, these conclusions imply the following stance towards Canadian dollar assets over the coming 6-12 months: Overweight the Canadian dollar: The cyclical improvement in the Canadian economy, along with our bullish view on oil prices, suggests that the Canadian dollar is set to appreciate over the coming year. We acknowledge that our constructive view on oil prices is contrarian and that, for now, we are ahead of the market. Continued weakness in oil prices remains the chief risk to a bullish stance on the CAD. But our detailed analysis of the global oil market strongly implies that the current level of oil inventories is too high and is set to draw materially over the coming months, which will be undoubtedly positive for oil prices barring the development of a major global demand shock. Maintain Canadian equities on upgrade watch: Canadian equities have materially underperformed their global peers over the past six years, due to fairly significant de-rating from overvalued levels as well as a downtrend in relative 12-month forward earnings (mostly vs the U.S.; Chart 21). Relative performance in common-currency terms has also been hurt by a declining Canadian dollar. Looking out over the next year, there are at least some tentative signs to be optimistic about Canadian stocks. First, Chart 22 highlights that Canadian stocks are now moderately cheap relative to their global peers based on a composite valuation indicator. Second, our expectation of an uptrend in oil prices would likely bolster relative forward earnings, and could act as a re-rating catalyst for the broad market. Chart 21Multiples And Earnings Have Worked Against Canadian Stocks Chart 22No Longer Expensive Underweight Canadian bonds within a hedged global fixed-income portfolio: Canadian government bonds have recently underperformed their global peers, and this trend is likely to continue in response to tighter monetary policy. Over the longer term, the likelihood of a major credit-driven downturn in spending means that the secular investment implications for Canada are precisely the opposite of that described above. This means that investors should pursue a "two-staged" approach to investing in Canadian assets. The fact that the Canadian economy is currently accelerating and a significant reversal in the Canadian housing market does not seem to be imminent means that there is an opportunity for Canadian assets to potentially outperform (or underperform in the case of government bonds) over the coming 6-12 months. Such a period of cyclical improvement would likely (temporarily) dampen investor concerns about a major housing market correction, creating much better "selling conditions" for Canadian risky assets than from current levels. We acknowledge that the "two-stage" nature of this strategy is nuanced, and we have provided a checklist of potential triggers for the housing market in this report so that investors can gauge the likelihood that a material payback period is about to begin. We will continue to monitor both the cyclical improvement in the Canadian economy and the magnitude of imbalances in the household sector, and will provide investors with regular updates as they develop. Stay tuned! Bottom Line: Investors should pursue a "two-staged" approach when allocating to Canadian assets. Favor a pro-cyclical stance over the coming 6-12 months, but look to shift to a bearish structural view at some point beyond the immediate investment horizon. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Appendix A A Quick Recap Of Home Capital: Not A Systemic Issue In April, the share price of Home Capital Group (a Canadian non-bank mortgage lender) collapsed by 75% in response to a major liquidity crisis for the firm. The crisis ultimately stemmed from a set of mortgage loans with falsified income documentation, which to many outside observers was strongly reminiscent of the aberrant practices of U.S. subprime lending institutions during the last cycle that eventually spawned the global financial crisis. However, as highlighted below, Home Capital Group's problems were largely idiosyncratic (i.e., not systemic) in nature: Home Capital's business model involves lending to Canadians who lack a stable credit history, but who are generally otherwise creditworthy (commonly referred to as "near-prime" borrowers). Since these borrowers subsequently build a credit history by staying current on their mortgage loans with Home Capital, they often switch to a big-five bank after the term of the loan is complete. As such, Home Capital faces substantial client retention challenges, which is an idiosyncratic income statement problem rather than a balance sheet problem with systemic implications. To combat the tendency of its loan book to shrink, in 2014 Home Capital increased the size of its sales force by partnering with a set of established mortgage brokers. Some of the loans that had been originated by these brokers had falsified income documentation, which led to an internal investigation. Following the investigation, the company failed to disclose the results to investors during a period where the company's operating performance was impacted by the fraud. This eventually led to enforcement action from the Ontario Securities Commission. The disclosure of enforcement, along with several other events (such as the termination of its CEO in late-March) severely eroded investor confidence in the firm and essentially caused a bank run. From a macro perspective, there are two important takeaways from this series of events. First, it is important to note that Home Capital experienced a liquidity rather than a solvency crisis. While the former can, of course, lead to the latter, the run on Home Capital did not occur because of deteriorating loan performance, unlike what occurred in the U.S. with the subprime market. Indeed, Home Capital's first quarter results show that net impaired loans as a percent of gross loans have continued to trend lower over the past several quarters (Chart A1). Second, the fact that Home Capital's mortgage book tends to shrink underscores the underlying creditworthiness of at least some of its borrowers, because these households would probably not be able to shift their mortgages to the big-five banks if loan qualification was an issue. As a final point, Chart A2 presents some perspective about the apparent prevalence of mortgage fraud in Canada by showing the number of U.S. mortgage loan fraud suspicious activity reports (SARs) in the lead-up to the subprime financial crisis. The chart not only shows the sharp rise in the number of SARs from 2002-2003 to 2007-2008, but it also shows that the volume of reports numbered in the tens of thousands. By contrast, Canadian news stories reporting on a rise in the number of mortgage fraud complaints in Canada quote a trivially small number of cases. For example, a recent article from the Vancouver Sun stated that British Colombia's Financial Institutions Commission statistics "show complaints roughly doubled from 109 in 2013 to about 200 in 2016, and about a third of complaints allege loan application fraud."5 Chart A1No Deterioration In Loan Performance Chart A2No Evidence That This Is Happening In Canada While it is technically correct to state that this is a doubling in the rate of fraud cases, it is from what appears to be an extremely small base. Adjusting by a factor of 10 to account for the difference in population, Canada would need to see 3,000-to-6,000 cases of mortgage fraud per year in order to be comparable to what occurred in the U.S. in the latter half of the housing market bubble. There is simply no evidence that mortgage fraud on this scale of magnitude is occurring. 1 See Appendix A on page 19 for a review of the Home Capital debacle and why concerns of systemic mortgage fraud are quite likely overblown. 2 If Hong Kong has been a conduit for capital flight from China, the flow of capital would only temporarily show up in Hong Kong's balance of payments. For example, one quarter of significant capital inflow might be followed by a quarter of significant capital outflow as the money enters from China and exits towards the rest of the world. As such, we use the absolute value of Hong Kong's net errors and omissions line to see whether the magnitude of the flow has increased. 3 Defined as having a debt-to-income ratio in excess of 3. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," dated June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Sam Cooper, "Regulator Tracks The Rise In Mortgage Fraud Complaints In B.C. As House Prices Jump," Vancouver Sun, June 19, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

9 年 9 年間 ago

Global

Dangerous Duration

Highlights Coordinated Hawkishness: Central bankers are in the process of taking back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Bond yields still have more upside to catch up to the solid pace of global growth and diminishing economic slack. Maintain a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration. ECB Taper Tantrum: The recent European bond sell-off is following a similar pattern to both the 2013 Fed Taper Tantrum and the 2015 Bund Tantrum, suggesting a potential target of 1% on the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield by year-end. Stay underweight Euro Area government bonds. Canada: With the Canadian economy looking very strong, and with the Bank of Canada signaling a desire to begin normalizing monetary policy, the current underperformance of Canadian government bonds will continue. We are maintaining our tactical bearish positions on Canadian bonds, and are also adding a new strategic underweight position (2 out of 5) in our model bond portfolio. Feature A Regime Shift, Not A Regime Change Interest rate risk has returned with a vengeance in global fixed income markets over the past couple of weeks. A string of relatively hawkish policymaker comments has triggered a quick and sharp bond sell-off, as investors reprice the odds of what is looking now like a coordinated recalibration of global monetary policies. Longer-dated bonds have gotten pummeled as yield curves have bear-steepened in most countries, with 30-year government bond prices falling between -5% and -7% in a matter of days (Chart of the Week). With global growth looking very strong at the moment, policymakers are being forced to respond by looking to unwind some of the easing that took place after the crash in oil prices in 2014/15. With that deflation scare now firmly in the rearview mirror, central bankers are having to signal a move away from the emergency stimulus from 2015. The rapid yield responses seen so far suggest that the communication of that subtle policy shift - becoming "less dovish" rather than "more hawkish" - must be handled delicately, or else financial markets may riot and possibly short-circuit the current economic upturn. This yield surge has done very little to dampen investor enthusiasm for risk assets, so far. Equity prices and corporate credit spreads, both in the developed world and emerging markets (EM), have only moved modestly despite the large move in government bond yields (Chart 2). This suggests that the latter was most mispriced compared to the current solid pace of global economic growth. Chart of the WeekA Painful Repricing Chart 2Risk Assets Remain Unfazed With the benefit of hindsight, it now appears that the decline in global bond yields in the spring was an outsized response to a few below-consensus data prints on U.S. economic growth and inflation. Importantly, the numbers in the U.S. are starting to improve again, as indicated by the strong jump in the ISM indices and employment (+220k) in June. Many of our most reliable leading indicators and models are all pointing to further acceleration in U.S. growth in the next few quarters (Chart 3). The U.S. inflation data continues to disappoint, both in terms of price indices and wage growth. Growth in Average Hourly Earnings has drifted lower since the most recent peak, while core PCE inflation is only 1.4%. The latest commentary from the Fed, including the minutes from the June FOMC meeting released last week, suggests that this downdraft in inflation should prove to be temporary and stronger growth should lead to faster inflation. We would agree with that assessment. The U.S. unemployment rate at 4.4% remains below most measures of full employment, while other reliable indicators of labor market tightness, such as the spread between the "jobs plentiful" and "jobs hard to get" components of the U.S. consumer confidence report, are also pointing to an eventual reacceleration of wages (Chart 4, top panel). Meanwhile, the Cleveland Fed Median CPI is hovering around 2.5%, well above the current 5-year/5-year forward cost of inflation compensation embedded in U.S. TIPS prices of 1.83% (middle panel). Furthermore, the Phillips Curve based core PCE inflation model developed by our colleagues at U.S. Bond Strategy is signaling a rebound of core PCE inflation back above 1.9% by year-end, in a scenario of no change in the unemployment rate or U.S. dollar from current levels (bottom panel). Chart 3U.S. Growth Will Rebound Chart 4U.S. Inflation Will Rise Our base case scenario for the Fed is that additional tightening will come in 2017. First through an announcement on starting the process of reducing the Fed's balance sheet, through "tapering" the reinvestment of proceeds from maturing bonds held by the Fed, at the September FOMC meeting. After that, the next rate hike will not be until December. This will allow the Fed to see more inflation prints to confirm its own expectation that inflation will soon rebound before delivering more policy tightening. Of course, if the next couple of inflation releases surprise to the upside, then perhaps a rate hike is possible at the September meeting alongside the announcement on the Fed's balance sheet (which is basically a done deal, at this point). For now, we see the Fed staying cautious, especially given the increasing number of FOMC members who are becoming concerned with the lack of U.S. inflation, according to the June minutes. As for the other major developed economy central banks, this "old-school" cyclical upturn is boosting both capacity utilization and pipeline inflation (Chart 5). Combined with the other measures that have been showing diminished economic slack, like unemployment rates and output gaps, this will give policymakers confidence in their own medium-term growth and inflation forecasts. This will also embolden central bankers to remove some policy accommodation. Our own Central Bank Monitors are indicating a need for tighter monetary policy in every major developed economy except Japan. That is confirmed by Taylor Rule estimates for interest rates. In Chart 6, we present simple Taylor Rule projections for the policy rate in the U.S., Euro Area, U.K., Japan, Canada and Australia. The formula takes potential GDP growth (OECD estimates) and then adds current realized inflation, ½ of the deviation of inflation from the central bank target and ½ of the output gap.1 We also show projections for the Taylor Rule over the next two years, using individual central bank forecasts for inflation and IMF projections for potential growth and the output gap. We then compare those Taylor Rule forecasts with the rate expectations priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves. Chart 5An "Old-School" Cyclical Upturn Chart 6Rates Too Low, According To The Taylor Rule The first point to note is that policy rates are below the Taylor Rule "equilibrium" level everywhere except Japan, where the 0% interest rate looks appropriate given the lack of actual inflation. Secondly, the Taylor Rule rates are projected to rise in the U.S., Euro Area, Japan and Canada, while remaining around current levels in the U.K. and Australia. Thirdly, the projected rates using Taylor Rule estimates are well above the current path of rates discounted in OIS curves. We do not expect central banks to deliver anywhere near the amount of tightening suggested by these simple Taylor Rules over the next couple of years. Policymakers will likely tolerate some degree of higher realized inflation to ensure that inflation expectations can return to, and sustainably stay at, central bank target levels. This means keeping interest rates below equilibrium levels for as long as possible. However, if central banks believe their own current inflation forecasts (which we have used in our Taylor Rule estimates), then policy rates do have room to move higher without becoming restrictive (i.e. above the Taylor Rule estimates). The markets clearly disagree with these Taylor Rule projections, with much lower OIS rates expected in the next few years. The markets may turn out to be correct. At the moment, however, the gap between the Taylor Rule rate forecasts and market pricing is too large, which suggests there is additional scope for bond yields to rise. Even if central banks ignore their own forecasts of higher inflation and keep rates on hold, this will put upward pressure on bond yields via higher inflation expectations. In other words, the path of least resistance for bond yields is up - at least until there is a major financial market event, like a big pullback in equity prices or widening of corporate bond spreads. Yet until there is evidence that global growth is rolling over and decelerating, a "risk-off" event like that is unlikely. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration exposure, and overweight allocations of corporate debt to government bonds, in the next 3-6 months. Watch the path of leading economic indicators before looking to reverse those positions. Bottom Line: Central bankers are in the process of taking back the easier monetary policy that followed the deflationary 2014/15 oil shock. Bond yields still have more upside to catch up to the solid pace of global growth and diminishing economic slack. If It Walks Like A Tantrum And Talks Like A Tantrum ... The spike in Euro Area bond yields since June 26th has raised concerns that another bond "tantrum" is unfolding, similar to U.S. Treasury sell-off in 2013 and the German Bund sell-off in 2015. In both cases, bond yields jumped rapidly as investors repriced the outlook for central bank policy. The recent comments from the European Central Bank (ECB) are signaling that a change in its asset purchase program, which is set to end on December 31st, is highly likely and were the trigger for the backup in European yields. We have already shown in previous reports how the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield has been following the same directional path as the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield in the months leading up to the 2013 Taper Tantrum.2 We benchmarked the two markets for the peak in our Months-to-Hike indicator for the timing of the first rate hike priced into OIS curves. In Chart 7, we show the same comparison for the various slopes of yield curves for U.S. Treasuries and German government bonds. Again, the German curve is following the Fed Taper Tantrum experience, which implies more bear-steepening pressure on yields over the rest of 2017. In Chart 8, we show a similar "cycle-on-cycle" comparison of German bonds today compared to the spring of 2015 during the Bund Tantrum episode. That sell-off took place over a much shorter time horizon than the U.S. Taper Tantrum, with the entire sell-off condensed to just over a month. The current backup in German yields looks to be following a similar pattern to the Bund Tantrum, suggesting that this move could take the benchmark 10-year yield back to 1% before it is done. Chart 7Taper Tantrum 2.0?... Chart 8...or Bund Tantrum 2.0? There are major differences between today and the 2015 episode - European economic growth is much faster, the output gap is narrower, and realized inflation is higher than it was two years ago (bottom two panels). The 2015 Tantrum was triggered by two events: a rise in European inflation back above 0% that led to a (misguided) belief among investors that the ECB, which had just started its asset purchase program, would quickly look to exit that program; a massive unwind of long positions in core European bond markets, made worse as speculators who were betting on a reversal of the initial jump in Bund yields got stopped out as yields continued to climb. Roll the tape to 2017, and the growth and inflation backdrop is much different. Now, the ECB is indeed talking openly about exiting/tapering its asset purchase program, supported by a solid European growth backdrop. There is likely less speculative positioning in European markets given the painful experience of the Bund Tantrum. However, with the ECB now owning significant shares of European bonds after two years of steady buying, the potential for a jump in yields driven by less-liquid markets may still be there. Net-net, the current Bund sell-off has additional upside when compared to the previous Tantrums, suggesting the Bund yield could rise to 1% before this move is done. Watch the performance of European equities and the euro for signs that the pain trade in Bunds could stall before 1%. If equities break lower or the Euro breaks higher (or both), the ECB commentary about the timing of a taper could take a more dovish turn. This is not our base case, though. Bottom Line: The recent European bond sell-off is following a similar pattern to both the 2013 Fed Taper Tantrum and the 2015 Bund Tantrum, suggesting a potential target of 1% on the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield by year-end. Stay underweight European government bonds. Move To An Underweight Stance On Canada This week, the Bank of Canada (BoC) meets to determine the next move for Canadian monetary policy. For the first time since 2010, that move will likely be a rate hike. The Canadian economy is booming, and the strength is starting to bump up against capacity constraints. The strong performance of real GDP growth in Q1 (+3%) looks to be followed up by a similar growth rate in Q2. The BoC's latest 2017 Business Outlook Survey made for great summer reading, as expectations for sales, capital spending and employment all remained quite strong (Chart 9). Firms were reporting that an increasing share of capital spending intentions were for the purposes of increasing capacity to accommodate stronger demand, a sign that Canadian businesses are becoming more optimistic that the economic upturn is sustainable. Hiring intentions hit the highest level ever recorded in the Survey, with firms also reporting an increase in employment to meet up with stronger demand. Current Canadian inflation rates remain subdued, but a pickup in output prices is expected over the next 12 months according to the Business Outlook Survey (bottom panel). A net positive number of respondents reported capacity constraints and labor shortages for the first time in the three years that those questions have been asked as part of the Survey. The BoC's growth forecasts are clearly too low and will likely be revised upward at this week's policy meeting, when a new Monetary Policy Report will be presented. This will likely be the reason for a rate hike to either be delivered this week, or strongly hinted at for the next policy meeting. Given the recent comments from BoC Governor Stephen Poloz and other BoC officials discussing the improving health of the economy and the need to "take back" the 50bps of rate cuts in 2015 as oil prices were collapsing, a rate hike is the more likely outcome this week. Already, the markets have moved to price in a more hawkish BoC, with a full 75bps of hikes expected over the next 12 months. This has helped out bearish Canadian rates trades in our Tactical Overlay Portfolio (see Page 15 and Chart 10), which were positions that benefitted from a stronger Canadian economy and more hawkish BoC. With Canadian policy rates still well below equilibrium (see our Taylor Rule estimates shown earlier), and with leading economic indicators still pointing towards accelerating Canadian economic growth in the coming quarters, the case for the BoC to leave rates at these current depressed levels is not a strong one. Chart 9A Robust Canadian##BR##Growth Upturn Chart 10Sticking With Our Winning##BR##Tactical Canadian Trades We see the recent underperformance of Canadian government bonds as the start of a more prolonged trend, thus we are opening up a new strategic position in our model bond portfolio: cutting our Canada country allocation to underweight (2 out of 5). As Canada is only a small part of our benchmark index (only 1%), we are increasing our U.S. exposure as an offset to our lower Canadian weighting. This will not change our below-benchmark allocation to U.S. Treasuries, while making our new position a more explicit bet on additional widening of the Canada-U.S. bond spread. Chart 11Canada Rates Strategy Summary:##BR##Move To Underweight If the economy improves enough to continue absorbing economic slack and put upward pressure on inflation, both realized and expected, then the potential for higher Canadian yields and a flatter Canadian curve - as the BoC becomes even more hawkish - will also increase (Chart 11). One huge caveat to this trade is the state of the Canadian housing market. Even a small move in policy interest rates could have a huge impact on the demand for Canadian housing and the health of Canadian household finances. A recent private-sector survey showed that 70% of Canadian homeowners could not manage even a 10% rise in their interest payments.3 Given the extreme valuations in the Canadian housing market, and some of the recent macro-prudential measures taken to deter speculation in the booming Vancouver and Toronto markets, there is potential for a larger housing downturn after a few BoC rate hikes. This will not prevent the BoC from normalizing rates, but if the housing market responds poorly and there is a spillover into concerns about the state of Canadian banks, then any backup in Canadian bond yields will be short-lived. This is a risk and not our base case over the next year, however. Bottom Line: With the Canadian economy looking very strong, and with the Bank of Canada signaling a desire to begin normalizing monetary policy, the current underperformance of Canadian government bonds will continue. We are maintaining our tactical bearish positions on Canadian bonds, and are also adding a new strategic underweight position (2 out of 5) in our model bond portfolio. Tactical Trade Update We have been recommending a position in our Tactical Overlay Table since March to position for additional Fed rate hikes, shorting the January 2018 fed funds futures contract. That contract is now priced for the fed funds rate to increase 15bps between now and the end of the year. Given that even an optimistic economic scenario would likely only result in one more 25bp increase in the funds rate by year-end, there is no longer much potential for further gains in this trade. We are closing the position this week, taking a tiny profit of +1bp. Chart 12Roll Our Short Fed Funds##BR##Futures Trade To July 2018 Looking further out, we now see an attractive new opportunity to short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract. That contract is currently priced for only 32bps of rate hikes between now and next June (Chart 12), and would therefore turn a profit in the event of two or more rate hikes during that timeframe. We are opening the new trade today, shorting the July 2018 contract. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 We show the inflation gap as the difference between realized inflation and the inflation target, using the actual inflation rate that the central bank is targeting. This could be headline inflation, as in the U.S. and Euro Area, or core inflation, as in Japan. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks Are Now Playing Catch-Up", dated July 4 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/the-debt-truth-unexpected-expenses-could-spell-big-trouble-for-millennial-homeowners-623825354.html Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

9 年 9 年間 ago

Summer Snapback

Highlights Duration: Investor optimism about U.S. growth and inflation will return in the coming months. Remain at below-benchmark duration and enter a short position in the July fed funds futures contract. Close short positions in the January contract for a small gain. Credit Spreads: Spreads are at risk of widening as Fed rate hike expectations ramp up in the second half of the year, though we would be inclined to view a Fed-driven back-up in spreads as a buying opportunity. Bank Bonds: Banks continue to shore up their balance sheets and are likely to see rising profits in the coming months. Bank bonds also offer a spread advantage compared to other similarly risky sectors. Feature Chart 1Synchronized Global Selloff The bond selloff is now two weeks old. What began as a reaction to perceived hawkish policy shifts from central banks outside of the U.S. - the European Central Bank in particular - is now morphing into a selloff built on optimism about U.S. growth. Needless to say, we think the recent bearish price action has further to run. Global participation makes it more likely that the weakness in U.S. Treasuries will persist because it prevents the dollar from strengthening as yields move higher (Chart 1). In recent years, most U.S. bond selloffs have been met with an appreciating exchange rate. The stronger dollar then caused investors to lower their U.S. growth expectations, and capped the upside in yields. We view the dollar's current stability as a bearish signal for U.S. bonds. But it has not just been non-U.S. factors driving the uptrend in yields. Last week's positive ISM and employment figures are ushering in renewed optimism about U.S. growth. We also think that U.S. growth is poised to bounce back in the second half of the year, and the Fed is inclined to agree. The Fed's median projection calls for one more 25 basis point rate hike before the end of the year, and we also expect the committee to announce the run-off of the balance sheet in September. With the market still only priced for 15 bps of hikes between now and year-end, there remains scope for further upside surprises. Of course, this forecast for balance sheet run-off in September and another rate hike in December hinges on a second-half snapback in growth, continued strength in labor markets and a rebound in core inflation. Growth Is On The Way Although GDP growth averaged just 1.75% during past two quarters, all signs suggest that the next two quarters will be much stronger. As was mentioned above, both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISM surveys delivered strong readings in June. The manufacturing ISM came in at 57.8 and the non-manufacturing survey came in at 57.4, both signal stronger GDP growth in the coming months (Chart 2). The crucial new orders-to-inventories figure calculated from the manufacturing survey is also displaying remarkable strength (Chart 2, bottom panel). We can also infer the current trend in growth from the employment and productivity data. In fact, aggregate hours worked - a combination of total employment and average weekly hours - plus labor productivity growth is more or less equivalent to GDP (Chart 3). After last week's payrolls report, aggregate hours worked are now growing at 1.99% year-over-year. If we combine that growth rate with quarterly productivity growth of 0.7%, the average since 2012, we get a tracking estimate of just below 2.7% for GDP growth. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model also currently expects that second quarter growth will be 2.7%. Chart 2PMIs Point To Stronger Growth... Chart 3...As Does The Labor Market Labor Markets: Watching The Participation Rate Last week's jobs report showed that the economy added 222k jobs in June, and that the prior two months were also revised higher. This pushed the 3-month moving average up to +180k jobs per month, right in line with the +187k jobs per month averaged in 2016. However, despite robust payroll gains, the unemployment rate actually ticked higher in June. This is because many previously sidelined workers re-entered the labor force, pushing the labor force participation rate up to 62.8%. Going forward, for the Fed to have confidence that wage growth and inflation will continue to rise, the unemployment rate will have to remain under downward pressure (Chart 4). As long as the labor force participation rate remains flat (or declines) this should be relatively easy to achieve. We calculate that the economy needs to add just above 117k jobs per month for the unemployment rate to continue falling. However, if we assume a higher labor force participation rate of 63.2%, we would need to add 195k jobs per month, a much higher hurdle.1 We detailed the main drivers of the labor force participation rate in a recent report,2 and while we do not see much potential for a significant increase in the participation rate, its trend is critical for the monetary policy outlook and should be monitored closely going forward. Inflation: Is The Fed Too Sanguine? The most important question for policymakers is whether inflation will rebound in the second half of the year. While the Fed will probably start winding down its balance sheet in September no matter what, another rate hike in December is likely contingent on core inflation showing some signs of strength in the next few months. We have previously written3 that if the Fed were to proceed with a December rate hike in the face of low and falling inflation, the market would start to price in a "policy mistake" scenario. The yield curve would flatten, credit spreads would widen, TIPS breakevens would narrow and long-dated Treasury yields could even decline. However, we do expect that core inflation will trend higher in the coming months, mostly driven by strength in the core services (excluding shelter and medical care) component. That component is historically the most sensitive to tight labor markets and rising wage growth (Chart 5). Chart 4Falling Unemployment Rate = ##br##Rising Inflation Chart 5A Boost From Import##br## Prices Is Coming Although it is unlikely to be a long-run driver of inflation, the core goods component also has some upside in the coming months in response to recent dollar weakness and rising non-oil import prices (Chart 5, bottom 2 panels). Investment Strategy Chart 6Too Few Hikes In The Price We think U.S. growth and inflation are poised to snap back during the second half of the year, probably by enough for the Fed to deliver another hike before year-end. We therefore continue to recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. We have also been advising clients to hold short positions in the January 2018 fed funds futures contract since March 21.4 That contract is now priced for the fed funds rate to increase 15 bps between now and the end of the year. Given that even an optimistic economic scenario would likely only result in a 25 bps increase in the funds rate, there is not much potential for further gains in this trade. We close this position, booking a small profit of +1 bp. Looking further out, we now see an attractive opportunity to short the July 2018 fed funds futures contract. That contract is currently priced for 32 bps of rate hikes between now and next June (Chart 6), and would therefore turn a profit in the event of two or more rate hikes during that timeframe. Bottom Line: Investor optimism about U.S. growth and inflation will return in the coming months. Remain at below-benchmark duration and enter a short position in the July fed funds futures contract. Close short positions in the January contract for a small gain. Credit Spreads: When Good News Is Bad News Chart 7High Risk Of A Near-Term Selloff Renewed optimism on U.S. growth and inflation could ironically pose a problem for credit spreads, at least in the very short term. As we have often discussed in the context of our Fed Policy Loop,5 hawkish shifts in Fed policy tend to result in wider credit spreads and tighter financial conditions more broadly. Fortunately, these periods are usually short lived. Once financial conditions tighten, the Fed backs away from its hawkish stance, allowing financial conditions to ease once again. An extreme example of this dynamic is the 2014/15 selloff in credit markets. Of course, the plunge in oil prices and related stress in the energy sector was the chief catalyst, but what is often overlooked is that Fed rate hike expectations were also quite elevated during that period (Chart 7). It is the combination of stress in the energy sector and unsupportive Fed policy that resulted in the prolonged rise in spreads. A more benign example is the price action from this past March. Junk spreads widened from 344 bps on March 2 to 406 bps on March 22, as rate hike expectations ramped up heading into the March FOMC meeting. Ultimately, this period of spread widening represented a buying opportunity in credit markets. It is a March 2017 style selloff that we see as quite likely in the coming months as growth recovers by just enough to give the Fed cover for another rate increase. Bottom Line: Credit spreads are at risk of widening as Fed rate hike expectations ramp up in the second half of the year. But with inflation and inflation expectations still well below target, the Fed will ultimately be forced to remain supportive. We would therefore view any period of Fed-driven weakness in credit markets as a buying opportunity. Bank Bonds: Still A Strong Buy The Federal Reserve released the results of its annual bank stress tests last month and for once it did not object to the capital plans of any of the 34 participating bank holding companies, a recognition of the fact that banks have dramatically boosted their capital ratios since the first round of stress tests in 2009 (Chart 8). For the most part bank profit growth has also outpaced debt growth during this period, with the exception of last year when profit growth turned negative and debt growth surged (Chart 8, panel 2). A large portion of last year's increase in debt growth was likely a response to the new Total Loss Absorbing Capital (TLAC) regulations which require banks to issue a specified minimum amount of securities that can be easily written off in case of bankruptcy. This includes capital and long-term unsecured debt. Regardless, bank debt growth has already fallen back close to zero and we see upside for bank profits in the next 6-12 months. Meanwhile, non-financial corporate profits have had a much more difficult time outpacing debt growth in recent years (Chart 8, bottom panel). Bank Profits On The Rise A number of forward looking loan growth indicators suggest that credit and capital formation are on an upward trajectory (Chart 9). Our U.S. Equity Strategy service's proprietary Capex Indicator,6 consumer and business confidence, manufacturing new orders and our own C&I loan growth model all point to accelerating loan growth in the coming months. Net interest margins also have scope to widen. A recent blog post from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York7 showed that net interest margins are sensitive to both the level of interest rates and the slope of the yield curve (Chart 10). Lower rates and a flatter curve have both compressed margins in recent years. In addition, net interest margins tend to narrow when banks take less risk on the asset side of their balance sheets, we proxy this by showing banks' risk-weighted assets as a percent of total assets (Chart 10, bottom panel). Chart 8Bank Health Still Improving Chart 9Loan Growth Will Accelerate Chart 10A Higher, Steeper Curve Will Help NIMs Going forward, higher rates and a steeper yield curve8 will apply widening pressure to net interest margins. Similarly, risk-weighted assets have already risen considerably as a fraction of total assets and will increase further as the Fed starts to drain reserves from the banking system. Bank Bonds Are Still Cheap The truly remarkable thing is that even though banks have been raising capital while the non-financial sector has been taking on leverage, bank spreads still look attractive compared to most non-financial sectors after adjusting for credit rating and duration (Chart 11). This is true for both senior and subordinated bank debt. As can be seen in Chart 11, senior bank debt has a low duration-times-spread (DTS) compared to the overall index. This means that it acts as a "low-beta" sector, underperforming the investment grade benchmark during rallies and outperforming during selloffs. Conversely, subordinate bank bonds are a high-DTS sector. They tend to outperform during rallies and underperform during selloffs (Chart 12). Chart 11Corporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* LegendCorporate Sector Abbreviations Chart 12Add "Beta" With Subordinate Bank Debt While we strongly recommend grabbing the extra spread available in both senior and subordinate bank debt relative to other similarly risky alternatives, subordinate bank bonds look particularly attractive in the current environment. This is because they both add some pro-cyclical risk ("beta") to a corporate bond portfolio and offer a spread advantage compared to other similarly risky bonds. Bottom Line: Banks continue to shore up their balance sheets and are also likely to see rising profits in the coming months. Meanwhile, bank bonds still offer a spread advantage compared to other similarly risky sectors. Remain overweight both senior and subordinate bank debt. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 These calculations assume population growth of 0.08% per month, or 1% per year. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Scenarios For Treasury Yields In 2017", dated June 20, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Scenarios For Treasury Yields In 2017", dated June 20, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Unfazed", dated June 12, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 7 http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2017/06/low-interest-rates-and-bank-profits.html 8 For further details on the case for a bear-steepening yield curve please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Yield Curve On A Cyclical Horizon", dated March 21, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

9 年 9 年間 ago