新興市場
Highlights We have been cautious on asset allocation on a tactical (3-month) horizon for two months. The backdrop has deteriorated enough that we believe that caution is now warranted beyond a tactical horizon. Trim exposure to global stocks to benchmark and place the proceeds in cash on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. Government bonds remain at underweight. Our growth and earnings indicators are not flashing any warning signs. Indeed, while economic growth is peaking at the global level, it remains impressive in the U.S. Nonetheless, given the advanced stage of the economic cycle and the fact that a lot of good news is discounted in risk assets, we believe that it is better to be early and leave some money on the table than to be late. There are several risks that loom large enough to justify caution. First, the clash between monetary policy and the markets that we have been expecting is drawing closer. The FOMC may soon be forced to more aggressively tighten the monetary screws. The ECB signaled that it will push ahead with tapering. Perhaps even more important are escalating trade tensions, which could turn into a full-scale trade war with possible military implications. China has eased monetary policy slightly, but the broad thrust of past policy tightening will continue to weigh on growth. The RMB may be used to partially shield the economy from rising tariffs. Global bonds remain vulnerable. In the U.S., rate expectations in 2019 and beyond are still well below the path implied by a "gradual" tightening pace. In the Eurozone, there is also room for the discounted path of interest rates beyond the next year to move higher. Lighten up on both U.S. IG and HY corporate bonds, placing the proceeds at the short-end of the Treasury and Municipal bond curves. Duration should be kept short. We would consider upgrading if there is a meaningful correction in risk assets. More likely, however, we will shift to an outright bearish stance later this year or in early 2019 in anticipation of a global recession in 2020. Diverging growth momentum, along with the ongoing trade row, will continue to place upward pressure on the dollar. Shift to an overweight position in U.S. equities versus the other major markets on an unhedged basis. The risk of an oil price spike to the upside is rising. Feature The time to reduce risk-asset exposure on a cyclical horizon has arrived. Escalating risks and our assessment that equities and corporate bonds offered a poor risk/reward balance caused us to trim our tactical (3-month) allocation to risk assets to neutral two months ago. We left the 6-12 month cyclical view at overweight, because we expected to shed our near-term caution once the global slowdown ran its course, geopolitical risk calmed down a little, and EM assets stabilized. Nonetheless, the backdrop for global financial markets has deteriorated enough that we believe that caution is now warranted beyond a tactical horizon. It is not that there have been drastic changes in any particular area. Indeed, while profit growth is peaking at the global level, 12-month forward earnings continue to rise smartly in the major markets (Chart I-1). In the U.S., our corporate pricing power indicator is still climbing, forward earnings estimates have "gone vertical", and the net earnings revisions ratio is elevated (Chart I-2). The negative impact of this year's dollar strength on corporate profits will be trounced by robust sales activity. The U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders and growth appears likely to remain well above-trend in the second half of the year. Chart I-1Forward EPS Estimates Still Rising Chart I-2Some Mixed Signals For Stocks This economic and profit backdrop might make the timing of our downgrade seem odd at first glance. Nevertheless, valuations and the advanced stage of the economic and profit cycle mean that it is prudent to focus on capital preservation and be quicker to take profits than would be the case early in the cycle. BCA has recommended above-benchmark allocations to equities and corporate bonds for most of the time since mid-2009. There are several risks that loom large enough to justify taking some money off the table. One of our main themes for the year, set out in the 2018 BCA Outlook, is that markets are on a collision course with policy. This is particularly the case in the U.S. Real interest rates and monetary conditions still appear to be supportive by historical norms, but this cycle has been anything but normal and the level of real interest rates that constitute "neutral" today is highly uncertain. The fact that broad money growth has slowed in absolute terms and relative to nominal GDP is a worrying sign (Chart I-3). Dollar-based global liquidity is waning based on our proxy measure, which is particularly ominous for EM assets (bottom panel). Chart I-3Liquidity Conditions Are Deteriorating Moreover, our Equity Scorecard remained at 'two' in June, which is below a level that is consistent with positive excess returns in the equity market (please see the Overview section of the May 2018 Bank Credit Analyst). Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay indicator reveals that investment flows are no longer favoring stocks over bonds in the U.S. (Chart I-2). Perhaps even more importantly for the near term are the escalating trade tensions, which could turn into a full trade war with possible military implications (see below). These and other risks suggest to us that the period of "prudent caution" may extend well into the 6-12 month cyclical horizon. For those investors not already at neutral on equities and corporate bonds, we recommend trimming exposure and placing the proceeds in cash rather than bonds. Fixed-income remains at underweight. There are risks on both sides for government bonds, but we believe that it is more likely that yields rise than fall. Trade Woes: Not Yet At Peak Pessimism The Trump Administration upped the ante in June by announcing plans to impose tariffs on another $200 billion of Chinese exports to the U.S., as well as to restrict Chinese investment in the U.S. We would expect China to retaliate if this is implemented but, at that point, China's proportionate response would cover more goods than the entire range of U.S. imports. Retaliation will therefore have to occur elsewhere. Tariffs are bad enough, but our geopolitical team flags the risk that trade tensions spill over into the South China Sea and other areas of strategic disagreement. The South China Sea or Taiwan could produce market-moving "black swan" geopolitical events this year or next.1 The Trump Administration has also launched an investigation into the auto industry, and has threatened to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Congress will likely push hard to save the agreement because it is important for so many U.S. companies, especially those with supply chains that criss-cross the borders with Canada and Mexico. Still, Trump has the option of triggering the six-month withdrawal period as a negotiating tactic to increase the pressure on the two trading partners. This would really rattle equity markets. Many believe that Trump will back away from his aggressive negotiating tactics if the U.S. stock market begins to feel pain. We would not bet on that. The President's popularity is high, and has not been overly correlated with the stock market. Moreover, blue collar workers, Trump's main support base, do not own many stocks. The implication is that the President will be willing to take risks with the equity market in order to score points with his base heading into the mid-term elections. The bottom line is that we do not believe that investors have seen "peak pessimism" on the trade front. A trade war would result in a lot of stranded capital, forcing investors to mark down the value of the companies in their portfolios. Can Trump Reduce The Trade Gap? One of the Administration's stated goals is to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. It is certainly fair to ask China to pay for the intellectual property it takes from other countries. Broadly speaking, rectifying unfair trade practices is always a good idea. However, erecting a higher tariff wall alone is unlikely to either shrink the trade gap or boost U.S. economic growth, especially given that other countries are retaliating in kind. During the 2016 election campaign, then-candidate Trump proposed a 35% and 45% across-the-board tariff on Mexican and Chinese imports, respectively. We estimated at the time that, with full retaliation, this policy would reduce U.S. real GDP by 1.2% over two years, not including any knock-on effects to global business confidence.2 Cancelling NAFTA would be much worse. The bottom line is that nobody wins a trade war. Moreover, the trade deficit is more likely to swell than deflate in the coming years, irrespective of U.S. trade policy action. The flip side of the U.S. external deficit is an excess of domestic investment over domestic savings. The latter is set to shrivel given the pending federal budget deficit blowout and the fact that the household savings rate continues to decline and is close to all-time lows. This, together with an expected acceleration in business capital spending, pretty much guarantees that the U.S. external deficit will swell in the next few years. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 18, discusses the consequences of the deteriorating long-term fiscal outlook and the associated "twin deficits" problem. We conclude that a market riot point will be required to change current trends. But even if disaster is avoided for a few more years, the dollar will ultimately be a casualty. In the near term, however, trade friction and the decoupling of U.S. from global growth should continue to support the dollar. We highlighted the divergence in growth momentum in last month's Overview. Fiscal policy is pumping up the U.S. economy, while trade woes are souring confidence abroad. Coincident and leading economic indicators confirm that the divergence will continue for at least the near term (Chart I-4). Policy Puts We do not believe that the current 'soft patch' in the Eurozone and Japanese economies will turn into anything worse over the next year. We are much more concerned with the Chinese economy. May data on industrial production, retail sales, and fixed asset investment all disappointed. Property prices in tier 1 cities are down year-over-year. Our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index, a widely followed measure of economic activity, is in a clear downtrend (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Growth Divergence To Continue Chart I-5China's Growth Slowdown The authorities will likely provide fresh stimulus if the trade war intensifies. Indeed, recent statements from the Ministry of Finance suggest that planned fiscal spending for the year will be accelerated/brought forward, and the PBOC has already made a targeted cut to the reserve requirement ratio and reduced the relending rate for small company loans. Chart I-6U.S. Small Business Is Ecstatic However, the bar for a fresh round of material policy stimulus is higher today than it was in the past; elevated debt levels, excess capacity in some parts of the industrial sector, and worries about pollution all limit the extent to which the authorities can respond with monetary or fiscal stimulus. The most effective way for China to retaliate to rising U.S. tariffs is to weaken the RMB, but this too could be quite disruptive for financial markets and, thus, provides another reason for global investors to scale back on risk. Similarly, the bar is also rising in terms of the Fed's willingness to come to the rescue. Policymakers have signaled that they will not mind an overshoot of the inflation target. Nonetheless, the facts that core PCE inflation is closing in on 2% and that unemployment rate is well below the Fed's estimate of full employment, mean that the FOMC will be slower to jump to stock market's defense were there to be a market swoon. Small business owners are particularly bullish at the moment because of Trump's regulatory, fiscal and tax policies. The NFIB survey revealed that confidence soared to the second highest level in the survey's 45-year history (Chart I-6). Expansion plans are also the most robust in survey history. With the output gap effectively closed, increasing pressure on resource utilization should translate into faster wage gains and higher inflation. This was also quite apparent in the latest NFIB survey. Reports of higher compensation hit an all-time high as firms struggle to find qualified workers, and a growing proportion of small businesses plan to increase selling prices. Despite the signs of a very tight labor market, the FOMC's inconsistent macro projection remained in place in June. Policymakers expect continued above-trend growth for 2018-2020, but they forecast a flat jobless rate and core inflation at 3.5% and 2.1%, respectively. If the Fed is right on growth, then the overshoot of inflation will surely be larger than officials are currently expecting. Risk assets will come under downward pressure when the Fed is forced to shift into a higher gear and actively target slower economic growth. We expect the Fed to hike more aggressively next year than is discounted, and lift the consensus 'dot' for the neutral Fed funds rate from the current 2¾-3% range. Bonds remain vulnerable to this shift because rate expectations in 2019 and beyond are still well below the path implied by a "gradual" quarter-point-per-meeting tightening pace (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Market Expectations For Fed Funds Are Below A ''Gradual'' Pace At a minimum, rising inflation pressures have narrowed the Fed's room to maneuver, which means that the "Fed Put" is less of a market support. Italy Backs Away From The Brink Last month we flagged Italy as a reason to avoid risk in financial markets, but we are less concerned today. We believe that Italy will eventually cause more volatility in global financial markets, but for the short-term it appears that this risk has faded. The reason is that the M5S-Lega coalition has already punted on three of its most populist promises: wholesale change to retirement reforms, a flat tax of 15%, and universal basic income. The back-of-the-envelope cost of these three proposals is €100bn, which would easily blow out Italy's budget deficit to 7% of GDP. There was also no mention of issuing government IOUs that would create a sort of "parallel currency" in the country. If this is wrong and there is another blowout in Italian government spreads, investors should fade any resulting contagion to the peripheral countries. Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain - the hardest-hit economies in 2010 - have undertaken significant fiscal adjustment and, unlike Italy, have closed a lot of the competitiveness gap relative to Germany. Spread widening in these countries related to troubles in Italy should be considered a buying opportunity.3 ECB: Tapering To Continue The ECB looked through the recent Italian political turmoil and struck a confident tone in the June press conference. President Draghi described the first quarter cooling of the euro area economy as a soft patch driven mainly by external demand. We agree with the ECB President; in last month's Overview we highlighted several factors that had provided extra lift to the Eurozone economy last year. These tailwinds are now fading, but we believe that growth is simply returning to a more sustainable, but still above-trend, pace. That said, rising trade tensions are a wildcard to the economic outlook, especially because of Europe's elevated trade sensitivity. Draghi provided greater clarity on the outlook for asset purchases and interest rates. The pace of monthly purchases will slow from the current €30bn to €15bn in the final three months of year and then come to a complete end (Chart I-8). On interest rates, the ECB expects rates to remain at current levels "at least through the summer of 2019". This means that September 2019 could be the earliest timing for the ECB to deliver the first rate hike. Chart I-8ECB Balance Sheet Will Soon Stop Growing We agree with this assessment on the timing of the first rate increase. It will likely take that long for inflation to move into the 1½-2% range, and for long-term inflation expectations to surpass 2%. These thresholds are consistent with the ECB's previous rate hike cycles. Still, there is room for the discounted path of interest rates beyond the next year to move higher as Eurozone economic slack is absorbed. The number of months to the first rate hike discounted in the market has also moved too far out (24 months). Thus, we expect that bunds will contribute to upward pressure on global yields. Bond investors should be underweight the Eurozone within global fixed income portfolios. In contrast, we recommend overweight positions in U.K. gilts because market expectations for the Bank of England (BoE) are too hawkish. Investors should fade the central bank's assertion that policymakers now have a lower interest rate threshold for beginning to shrink the balance sheet. The knee-jerk rally in the pound and gilt selloff in June will not last. First, the OECD's leading economic indicator remains in a downtrend, warning that the U.K. economy faces downside risks (Chart I-9). Second, Brexit uncertainty will only increase into the March 2019 deadline. Prime Minister May managed to win a key parliamentary vote on the Withdrawal Bill in late June, but the Tories will face more tests ahead, including a vote on the Trade and Customs Bill. The fault lines between the hard and soft Brexiteers within the Tory party could bring an early end to May's government. Either May could be replaced with a hard Brexit prime minister, such as Brexit Secretary David Davis, or the U.K. could face a new general election. The latter implies the prospect of a Labour-led government. Admittedly, this will ensure a soft Brexit, but Jeremy Corbyn would almost surely herald far-left economic policies that will dampen business sentiment. As a result, we believe that the BoE is sidelined for the remainder of the year, which will keep a lid on gilt yields and sterling. Corporate Bonds: Poor Value And Rising Leverage Our newfound caution for equities on a 6-12 month investment horizon carries over to the corporate bond space. Corporate balance sheets have been deteriorating since 2015 Q1 based on our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM). The first quarter's improvement in the CHM simply reflected the tax cuts and thus does not represent a change in trend (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Fade BoE Hawkish Talk Chart I-10Q1 Improvement In Corporate ##br##Health To Reverse The improvement was concentrated in the components of the Monitor that use after-tax cash flows, and as such they were influenced by the sharp decline in the corporate tax rate. Profit margins, for example, increased from 25.8% to 26.4% on an after-tax basis in Q1 (Chart I-10, panel 2), but would have fallen to 25.5% if the effective corporate tax rate had remained the same as in 2017 Q4. As the effective corporate tax rate levels-off around its new lower level (bottom panel), last quarter's improvement in the Corporate Health Monitor will start to unwind. More importantly, the corporate sector has been leveraging aggressively, as we highlighted in our special reports that analysed company-level data from the U.S. and the Eurozone.4 We highlighted that investors and rating agencies are not too concerned about leverage at the moment, but that will change when growth slows. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to plunge to new historic lows (Charts I-11A and I-11B). Chart I-11ACorporate Leverage Will Come ##br##Back To Haunt Bondholders Chart I-11BCorporate Leverage Will Come ##br##Back To Haunt Bondholders Both U.S. investment grade (IG) and high-yield (HY) corporates are expensive, but not at an extreme, based on the 12-month breakeven spread.5 However, both IG and HY are actually extremely overvalued once we adjust for gross leverage (Chart I-12). Chart I-12U.S. Leverage - Adjusted ##br##Corporate Bond Valuation We have highlighted several other indicators to watch to time the exit from corporate bonds. These include long-term inflation expectations (when the 10-year TIPS inflation breakeven reaches the 2.3-2.5% range), bank lending standards for C&I loans, the slope of the yield curve, and real short-term interest rates or monetary conditions. While monetary conditions have tightened, the overall message from these indicators as a group is that it is still somewhat early to expect rising corporate defaults and sustained spread widening. That said, we have also emphasized that it is very late in the credit cycle and return expectations are quite low. Excess returns historically have been modest when the U.S. 3-month/10-year yield curve slope has been in the 0-50 basis point range. Similar to our logic behind trimming our equity exposure, the expected excess return from corporate bonds no longer justifies the risk. We recommend lightening up on both U.S. IG and HY corporate bonds, moving to benchmark and placing the proceeds at the short-end of the Treasury and Municipal bond curves. Duration should be kept short. Also downgrade EM hard currency sovereign and corporate debt to maximum underweight. We are already underweight on Eurozone corporates within European fixed-income portfolios due to the pending end to the ECB QE program. Conclusions The political situation in Italy and tensions vis-à-vis North Korea appear to be less of a potential landmine for investors, at least for the next year. Nonetheless, the risks have not diminished overall - they have simply rotated into other areas such as international trade. It is also worrying that the FOMC will have to become more aggressive in toning down the labor market. What makes the asset allocation decision especially difficult is that the economic and earnings backdrop in the U.S. is currently constructive for risk assets. Nonetheless, recessions and bear markets are always difficult to spot in real time. Given the advanced stage of the economic cycle and the fact that a lot of good news is discounted in risk assets, we believe that it is better to be early and leave some money on the table than to be late and go over the cliff. This does not mean that we will recommend a neutral allocation to risk assets for the remainder of the economic expansion. We would consider upgrading if there is a meaningful correction in equity and corporate bond prices at a time when our growth indicators remain positive. More likely, however, we will shift to an outright bearish stance on risk assets later this year or in early 2019 in anticipation of global recession in 2020. The divergence in growth momentum between the U.S. and the rest of the major economies, along with the ongoing trade row, will continue to place upward pressure on the dollar. We envision the following pecking order from weakest to strongest currency versus the greenback: dollar bloc and EM commodity currencies, non-commodity sensitive EM currencies, the euro and yen. The Canadian dollar is an exception; we are bullish versus the U.S. dollar beyond a short-term horizon due to expected Bank of Canada rate hikes. Tightening financial conditions are likely to culminate in a crisis in one or more EM countries; as a share of GDP, exports and international reserves, U.S. dollar debt is at levels not seen in over 15 years. Slowing Chinese growth and trade tensions just add to the risk in this space. The recent upturn in base metal prices will likely reverse if we are correct on the Chinese growth outlook. Oil is a different story, despite our bullish dollar view. OPEC 2.0 - the oil-producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia - agreed in June to raise oil output by 1 million bpd. The coalition aims to increase production to compensate for an over-compliance of previous deals to trim output, as well as production losses due to lack of investment and maintenance (Chart I-13). The bulk of the losses reflect the free-fall in Venezuela's output. Our oil experts believe that OPEC 2.0 does not have much spare capacity to lift output. Meanwhile, the trend decline in production by non-OPEC 2.0 states is being magnified by unplanned outages in places like Nigeria, Libya and Canada. While U.S. shale producers can be expected to grow their output, infrastructure constraints - chiefly insufficient pipeline capacity to take all of the crude that can be produced in the Permian Basin to market - will continue to limit growth in the short-term. In the face of robust demand, the risk to oil prices thus remains to the upside. A stronger dollar will somewhat undermine the profits of U.S. multinationals. U.S. equities also appear a little expensive versus Europe and Japan based on our composite valuation indicators (Chart I-14). Nonetheless, the sector composition of the U.S. stock market is more defensive than it is elsewhere and relative economic growth will favor the U.S. market. On balance, we no longer believe that euro area and Japanese equities will outperform the U.S. in local currency terms. Overweight the U.S. market on an unhedged basis. Chart I-13Oil Production Outlook Chart I-14Composite Equity Valuation Indicators Consistent with our shift in broad asset allocation this month, we have adjusted our global equity sector allocation to be more defensive. Materials and Industrials were downgraded to underweight, while Healthcare and Telecoms were upgraded (Consumer Staples was already overweight). Financials was downgraded to benchmark because the flattening term structure is expected to pressure net interest margins. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 28, 2018 Next Report: July 26, 2018 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?," March 28, 2017 and "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Overview, dated December 2016, Box I-1. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap?," June 13, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, March 2018 and June 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 The breakeven spread is the amount of spread widening that would have to occur over 12 months for corporates to underperform Treasurys. We focus on the breakeven spread to adjust for changes in the average duration of the index over time. II. U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus when the economy is already at full employment. The budget deficit is on track to surpass 6% of GDP in a few years. It would likely peak above 8% in the case of a recession. The alarming long-term U.S. fiscal outlook is well known, but it has just become far worse. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. The federal government will be spilling far more red ink over the next decade than during any economic expansion phase since the 1940s. The debt/GDP ratio could surpass the previous peak set during WWII within 12 years. Shockingly large budget deficits in the past have sparked some attempt in Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. Factors that explain the political shift include disappointing income growth, income inequality, and rising political clout for Millennials, Hispanics and the elderly. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change over the next decade, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions necessary. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, there are costs: in the long-term, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. Profligacy: (Noun) Unconstrained by convention or morality. Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted before in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus at a time when the economy is already at full employment. Investors are celebrating the growth-positive aspects of the new fiscal tailwind at the moment, but it may wind up generating a party that is followed by a hangover as the Fed is forced to lean hard against the resulting inflationary pressures. Moreover, even in the absence of a recession, the federal government will likely be spilling far more red ink than during any economic expansion since the 1940s (Chart II-1). What are the long-term implications of this macro experiment? Will the U.S. continue to easily fund large and sustained budget deficits? Chart II-1U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period Historically, shockingly large budget deficits sparked some attempt by Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, we argue in this Special Report that there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. On The Bright Side The Trump tax cuts, the immediate expensing of capital spending and a lighter regulatory touch have stirred animal spirits in the U.S. The Administration's trade policies are a source of concern, but CEO confidence is generally high. The NFIB survey highlights that small business owners are almost euphoric regarding the outlook. The IMF estimates that the tax cuts and less restrictive spending caps will provide a direct fiscal thrust of 0.8% in 2018 and 0.9% in 2019 (Chart II-2). The overall impact on the economy over the next 12-18 months could be larger to the extent that business leaders follow through on their newfound bullishness and ramp up capital spending. Chart II-2Lots Of Fiscal Stimulus In 2018 And 2019 Fiscal policy is a clear positive for stocks and other risk assets in the near term, as long as inflation is slow to respond. In addition to the near-term boost, there will be longer-term benefits from the 2017 tax act. Various provisions of the act affect the long-run productive potential of the U.S. economy, by promoting increases in investment and labor supply. Corporate tax cuts and the full expensing of business capital outlays should permanently increase the nation's capital stock relative to what it otherwise would be, leading to a slightly faster trend pace of productivity growth. Similarly, lower income taxes are projected to encourage more people to enter the workforce or to work longer hours. The CBO estimates that the tax act will boost the level of potential real GDP by 0.9% by the middle of the next decade. This may not sound like much, but it translates into almost a million extra jobs. The supply-side benefits of the 2017 tax act are therefore meaningful. Unfortunately, given the lack of offsetting spending cuts, it comes at the cost of a dramatically worse medium- and long-term outlook for government debt. The CBO estimates that the recent changes in fiscal policy will cumulatively add $1.7 trillion to the federal government's debt pile, relative to the previous baseline (Chart II-3). The annual deficit is projected to surpass $1 trillion in 2020, and peak as a share of GDP at 5.4% in 2022. Federal government debt held by the private sector will rise from 76% this year to 96% in 2028 in this scenario. Chart II-3Comparing To The Reagan Era The budget situation begins to look better after 2020 in the CBO's baseline forecast because a raft of "temporary provisions" are assumed to sunset as per current law, including some of the personal tax cuts and deductions included in the 2017 tax package. As is usually the case, the vast majority of these provisions are likely to be extended. The CBO performed an alternative scenario in which it extends the temporary provisions and grows the spending caps at the rate of inflation after 2020. In this more realistic scenario, the deficit reaches 7% of GDP by 2028 and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio hits 105% (Chart II-3). Moreover, there will undoubtedly be a recession sometime in the next five years. Even a mild downturn, on par with the early 1990s, could inflate the budget deficit to 8% or more of GDP. The Demographic Time Bomb Chart II-4The Withering Support Ratio The pressure that the aging population will place on federal coffers over the medium term is well known, but it is worth reviewing in light of Washington's new attitude toward deficit financing. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. In 1970, there were 5.4 people between the ages of 20 and 64 for every person 65 or older. That ratio has since dropped to 4 and will be down to 2.6 within the next 20 years (Chart II-4). Spending on entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Security and government pensions) is on an unsustainable trajectory (Charts II-5 and II-6). In fiscal 2017, these programs absorbed 76% of federal revenues and the CBO estimates that this will rise to almost 100% by 2028, absent any change in law. If we also include net interest costs, total mandatory spending1 is projected to exceed total federal government revenues as early as next year, meaning that deficit financing will be required for all discretionary spending. Chart II-5Entitlements Will Explode ##br##Mandatory Spending Chart II-6All Discretionary Spending ##br##To Be Deficit Financed? The CBO last published a multi-decade outlook in 2017 (Chart II-7). The Federal debt/GDP ratio was projected to reach 150% by 2047. If we adjust this for the new (higher) starting point in 2028 provided by the CBO's alternative scenario, the debt/GDP ratio would top 164% in 2047. Chart II-7An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation To put this into perspective, the demands of WWII swelled the federal debt/GDP ratio to 106% in 1946, the highest on record going back to the early 1700s (Chart II-8). The debt ratio could rocket past that level before 2030, even in the absence of a recession. Chart II-8U.S. Debt In Historical Context These extremely long-term projections are only meant to be suggestive. A lot of things can happen in the coming years that could make the trajectory better or even worse. But the point is that current levels of taxation are insufficient to fund entitlements in their current form in the long run. Chart II-9 shows that outlays as a share of GDP have persistently exceeded revenues since the mid-1970s, except for a brief period during the Clinton Administration. The gap is set to widen over the coming decade. Something will have to give. Chart II-9U.S. Outlays And Revenues Forget Starving The Beast "Starve the Beast" refers to the idea that the size of government can be restrained through a low-tax regime that spurs growth and pressures Congress to cut spending and control the budget deficit. It has been the mantra of Republicans since the Reagan era. The 1981 Reagan tax cuts included an across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates, taking the top rate down from 70% to 50%. Corporate taxes were slashed by $150 billion over a 5-year period and tax rates were indexed for inflation, among other changes. It was not surprising that the budget deficit subsequently ballooned. Outrage grew among fiscal conservatives, but Congress spent the next few years passing laws to reverse the loss of revenues, rather than aggressively attacking the spending side. Today, Congressional fiscal hawks are in retreat and the Republican Party under President Donald Trump is not as fiscally conservative as it once was. This trend reflects the pull toward the center of the economic policy spectrum in response to a shift to the left among voters. BCA's political strategists have highlighted that this is the "median voter theory" (MVT) in action.2 The MVT posits that parties and politicians will approximate the policy choices of the median voter in order to win an election or stay in power. Every U.S. presidential election involves candidates making a mad dash to the most popularly appealing positions. President Trump exhibited this process when he ran in the Republican primary on a platform of increased infrastructure spending and zero cuts to "entitlement" spending. The Great Financial Crisis, disappointingly slow growth, stagnating middle class incomes and the widening income distribution have resulted in a leftward shift among voters on economic issues. Adding to the shift is the rising political clout of the Millennial generation, which generally favors more government involvement in the economy and will become the major voting block as it ages in the 2020s. There also are important changes underway in the ethnic composition of the electorate. The rising proportion of Hispanic voters will on balance favor the Democrats, according to voting trends (Chart II-10). A previous Special Report by Peter Berezin, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, predicted that Texas will become a swing state in as little as a decade and a solid Democrat state by 2030.3 Chart II-10The Proportion Of Minority Voters Set To Grow President Trump's shift to the left on economic policy helped him to out-flank Clinton in the election, particularly in the Rust Belt, where his protectionist and anti-austerity message resonated. Even his anti-immigration appeal is mostly based on economic reasoning - i.e. jobs, rather than cultural factors. Trump has admitted that he is not all that concerned about taking the country deeper into hock. The Republican rank-and-file has generally gone along with Trump's agenda because he has delivered traditional Republican tax cuts and continues to rate highly among his supporters (his approval is around 90% among Republicans). Fiscal hawks within the GOP have been forced to the sidelines while Trump and moderate Republicans have passed bipartisan spending increases with Democratic assistance. Where's The Outrage? Chart II-11Entitlements Are Popular* The implication is that, unlike the Reagan years, we do not expect there will be a strong political force capable of leading a fight against budget deficits. After a decade of disappointing income growth, voters are in no mood for tax hikes. On the spending side, health care and pensions are still politically untouchable. A recent study by the Pew Research Center confirms that only a very small percentage of Americans of either political stripe would agree with cuts to spending on education, Medicare, Social Security, defense, infrastructure, veterans or anti-terrorism efforts (Chart II-11). It is therefore no surprise that a populist such as Trump has promised to defend entitlement programs. Moreover, the graying of America will make it increasingly difficult for politicians to tame the entitlement beast. An aging population might generally favor the GOP, but it will also solidify opposition towards cutting Medicare and Social Security. As for defense, U.S. military spending was 3.3% of GDP and almost 15% of total spending in 2017 (Chart II-12). Congress recently lifted the spending cap for defense expenditures, but it is still projected to fall as a share of total government spending and GDP in the coming years. It is conceivable that Congress could eventually trim the defense budget even faster, but spending is already low by historical standards and it is hard to see any future Congress gutting the military at a time when the global challenge from China and Russia is rising. Indeed, given the geopolitical atmosphere of great power competition, defense spending is more likely to rise. Chart II-12What's Left To Cut? So, what is left to cut? If entitlements and defense are off the table, that leaves non-defense discretionary spending as the sacrificial lamb. This category includes spending by the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Justice, State and Veteran Affairs. Such spending has already declined sharply during the past several decades (Chart II-12). Non-defense discretionary spending amounted to $610 billion in 2017, which is only 15.3% of total federal spending. To put this into perspective, cutting every last cent of non-defense discretionary spending by 2022 would still leave a budget deficit of about 2½% of GDP. And it would be political suicide. The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice and Veterans Affairs account for more than half of non-defense discretionary spending. But these programs are very popular among voters. And, at only 1.3% of total spending, eliminating all foreign aid won't make much difference. Either President Trump or Vice-President Mike Pence will be the GOP presidential candidate in 2020. Pence could be more fiscally conservative than Trump, but Congress is unlikely to remain GOP-controlled through 2024. Similarly, it is difficult to see the Democrats making more than a token effort to rein in the deficit if the party is in charge after 2020. Perhaps they will raise taxes on the rich and push the corporate rate back up a bit, but voters will probably not favor a full reversal of the Trump tax cuts. Democrats will not tackle entitlements either. In other words, we can forget about "starving the beast" as a viable option no matter which party is in power. There will be little appetite for fiscal austerity in the U.S. through to the mid-2020s at a minimum. International Comparison This all places the U.S. out of sync with other major industrialized countries, where structural budget deficits have been tamed in most cases and are expected to remain so according to the IMF's latest projections (Chart II-13). The U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit is projected to be almost 7% of GDP in 2019, by far the highest among other industrialized countries except for Norway. Spain and Italy are expected to have relatively small structural deficits of 2½% and 0.8%, respectively, next year. Greece is running a small structural surplus! Including all levels of government, the IMF estimates that the U.S. general government gross debt/GDP ratio is projected to be well above that of the U.K., France, Germany, Spain and Portugal in 2023 (Chart II-14). It is expected to be on par with Italy at that time, although the newly-installed populist government there is likely to negotiate a loosening of the fiscal rules with Brussels, leading to higher debt levels than the IMF currently expects. The implication is that the U.S. government appears destined to become one of the most indebted in the developed world. Chart II-13U.S. Budget Deficit Stands Out Chart II-14International Debt Comparison The Fiscal Tipping Point Investors are not yet worried about the path of U.S. fiscal policy; the yield curve is quite flat, CDS spreads on U.S. Treasurys have not moved and the dollar is still overvalued by most traditional measures. The challenge is timing when a fiscally-induced crisis might occur. A warning bell does not ring when government debt or deficits reach certain levels. Fiscal trends generally do not suddenly spiral out of control - it is a gradual and insidious process reflected in multi-year deficits and slowly accumulating debt burdens. Eventually, a tipping point is reached where the only solution is drastic policy shifts or in extreme cases, default. Along the way, there are a number of signs that fiscal trends are entering dangerous territory. The relevance of the various signs will be different for each country, reflecting, among other things, the depth and structure of the financial system, the soundness of the economy, the dependence on foreign capital, and the asset preferences of domestic investors. Some key signs of building fiscal stress are given in Box II-1. None of the factors in Box II-1 appear to be a threat at the moment for the U.S. Moreover, comparisons with other countries that have hit the debt wall in the past are not that helpful because the U.S. is a special case. It has a huge economy and has political and military clout. The dollar is the world's main reserve currency and the country is able to borrow in its own currency. This suggests that the U.S. will be able to "get away with" its borrowing habit for longer than other countries have in the past. At the same time, financial markets are fickle and, even with hindsight, it not always clear why investors switch from acceptance to bearishness about a particular state of affairs. BOX II-1 Traditional Signs Of An Approaching Debt Crisis Government deficits absorb a rising share of net private savings, leaving little for new investment. Interest payments account for an increasingly large share of government revenues, squeezing out discretionary spending and requiring tough budget action merely to stop the deficit from rising. The government exhausts its ability to raise tax burdens. Traditional sources of debt finance dry up, requiring alternative funding strategies. Fears of inflation and/or default lead to a rising risk premium on interest rates and/ or a falling exchange rate. Political shifts occur as governments get blamed for eroding living standards, high taxes, and continued pressure to cut spending. The Costs Of Fiscal Profligacy Even if the U.S. is not near a fiscal tipping point, this does not mean that massive debt accumulation is costless: Interest Costs: Spending 3% of GDP on servicing the federal government's debt load over the next decade is not a disaster. Nonetheless, it does reduce the tax dollars available to fund entitlements or investing in infrastructure. Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Lawmakers would have less flexibility to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected events, such as natural disasters or recessions. As noted above, a recession in 2020 could generate a federal deficit of more than 8% of GDP. In that case, Congress may feel constrained in supporting the economy with even temporary fiscal stimulus. National Savings: Because government borrowing reduces national savings, then either capital spending must assume a smaller share of the economy or the U.S. must borrow more from abroad. Most likely it will be some combination of both. Crowding Out: If global savings are not in plentiful supply, then the additional U.S. debt issuance will place upward pressure on domestic interest rates and thereby "crowd out" business capital spending. This would reduce the nation's capital stock, leading to lower growth in productivity and living standards than would otherwise be the case. The CBO estimates that the positive impact on the capital stock from the changes to the corporate tax structure will overwhelm the negative impact from higher interest rates over the next decade. Nonetheless, the crowding out effect may dominate over a longer-time horizon. Academic studies suggest that every percentage point rise in the government's debt-to-GDP ratio adds 2-3 basis points to the equilibrium level of bond yields. If this is correct, then a rise in the U.S. ratio of 25 percentage points over the next decade in the CBO's baseline would lift equilibrium long-term bond yields by a meaningful 50-75 basis points. Much depends, however, on global savings backdrop at the time. External Trade Gap: If global savings are plentiful, then it may not take much of a rise in U.S. interest rates to attract the necessary foreign inflows to fund both the higher U.S. federal deficit and the private sector's borrowing requirements. Of course, this implies a larger current account deficit and a faster accumulation of foreign IO Us. Twin Deficits The U.S. has run a current account deficit for most of the past 40 years, which has cumulated into a rising stock of foreign-owned debt. The Net International Investment Position (NIIP) is the difference between the stock of foreign assets held by U.S. residents and the stock of U.S. assets held by foreign investors. The NIIP has fallen increasingly into the red over the past few decades, reaching 40% of GDP today (Chart II-15). The current account deficit was 2.4% at the end of 2017, matching the post-Lehman average. Nonetheless, this deficit is set to worsen as increased domestic demand related to the fiscal stimulus is partly satisfied via higher imports. Chart II-15Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position We estimate that a two percentage point rise in the budget deficit relative to the baseline could add a percentage point or more to the current account deficit, taking it up close to 4% of GDP. Upward pressure on the external deficit will also be accentuated in the next few years to the extent that the U.S. business sector ramps up capital spending. The implication is that the NIIP will fall deeper into negative territory at an even faster pace. A 2% current account deficit would be roughly consistent with stabilization in the NIIP/GDP ratio. But a 4% deficit would cause the NIIP to deteriorate to almost 80% of GDP by 2040 (Chart II-15). The sustainability of the U.S. twin deficits has been an area of intense debate among academics and market practitioners for many years. The U.S. has been able to get away with the twin deficits for so long in part because of the dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. The critical role of the dollar in international transactions underpins global demand for the currency. This has allowed the U.S. to issue most of its debt obligations in U.S. dollars, forcing the currency risk onto foreign investors. The worry is that foreign investors will at some point begin to question the desirability of an oversized exposure to U.S. assets within their global portfolios. We argued in our April 2018 Special Report 4 that the U.S. situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar and Treasury bond prices are about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns about the unsustainability of the current account deficit. Even though the NIIP/GDP ratio will continue to deteriorate in the coming years, it does not appear that the U.S. is close to the point where foreign investors would begin to seriously question America's ability or willingness to service its debt. That said, the "twin deficits" and the downward trend in U.S. productivity relative to the rest of the world will ensure that the underlying long-term trend in the dollar will remain down (Chart II-16).5 Chart II-16Structural Drivers Of The U.S. Dollar Conclusions The long-term U.S. fiscal outlook was dire even before the Great Recession and the associated shift to the political left in America. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change before the mid-2020s, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions. Given demographic trends, it appears more likely that taxes will rise than entitlements cut. We do not foresee a crisis occurring in the next few years. Nonetheless, arguing that the U.S. fiscal situation is sustainable for the foreseeable future does not mean that it is desirable. There will be costs associated with current fiscal trends, even on a relatively short 5-10 year horizon. Interest costs will mushroom, potentially crowding out government spending in other areas. U.S. government debt has already been downgraded by S&P to AA+ in 2013, and the other two main rating agencies are likely to follow suit during the next recession as the deficit balloons to 8% or more. Investors may begin to demand a risk premium in order to entice them to continually raise their exposure to U.S. government bonds in their portfolios. Taxes will eventually have to rise to service the government debt, and some capital spending will be crowded out, both of which will undermine the economy's growth potential. Finally, the dollar will also be weaker than it otherwise would be in the long-term, representing an erosion in America's standard of living because everything imported is more expensive. Could Japan offer a roadmap for the U.S.? The Bank of Japan has effectively monetized 43% of the JGB market and has control over yields, at least out to the 10-year maturity. Moreover, Japan has enjoyed a "free lunch" so far because monetization has not resulted in inflation. The reason that Japan has enjoyed a free lunch is that it has suffered from a chronic lack of demand and excess savings in the private sector. The government has persistently run a deficit and fiscally stimulated the economy in order to offset insufficient demand in the private sector. The Bank of Japan purchased bonds and drove short-term interest rates down to zero. These policies have made very slow progress in eradicating lingering deflationary economic forces. However, if animal spirits in the business sector perk up, then inflation could make a comeback unless the policy stimulus is dialed down in a timely manner. In other words, the BoJ-financed fiscal "free lunch" should disappear at some point. The U.S. is in a very different situation. There is no lack of aggregate demand or excessive savings in the private sector. The economy is at full employment, and thus persistent budget deficits should turn into inflation much more quickly than was the case in Japan. In other words, the U.S. is unlikely to enjoy much of a "free lunch", whether the Fed monetizes the debt or not. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Mandatory spending refers to entitlements; that is, government expenditure programs that are required by current law. These include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, government pensions and other smaller programs. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing The Median Voter Theory," June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "America's Fiscal Fortune: Leave Your Wallet On The Way Out," June 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed?," April, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 In the near term, fiscal stimulus and increased business capital spending will likely boost the dollar. But this effect on the dollar will reverse in the long-term. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The divergence between the U.S. corporate earnings data and our equity-related indicators continued in June. Forward earnings estimates continue to climb at an impressive pace. The U.S. net revisions ratio pulled back a little, but remains well above the zero line. Moreover, positive earnings surprises continue to trounce negative surprises. That said, the earnings upgrades are partly due to the Trump tax cuts, which are still being reflected in analysts' estimates. Second, some of our indicators are warning that there are clouds on the horizon. Our Monetary Indicator has fallen to levels that are low by historical standards, which is a negative sign for risk assets. This partly reflects the slowdown in growth in the monetary aggregates (see the Overview section). Our Equity Technical Indicator is threatening to dip below the zero line, which would be a clear 'sell' signal. Our Equity Valuation Indicator is flirting with our threshold of overvaluation, at +1 standard deviations. This is not bearish on its own, but valuation does provide information on the downside risks when the correction finally occurs. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. has rolled over, although this hasn't yet occurred for Japan and the Eurozone. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. This indicator suggests that flows into the U.S. stock market are waning. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on a 'sell' signal in June. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. The U.S. 10-year Treasury is slightly on the inexpensive side and our Composite Technical Indicator suggests that the bond has still not worked off oversold conditions. This suggests that the consolidation period has further to run, although we still expect yields to move higher over the remainder of the year. The dollar is expensive on a PPP basis, but is not yet overbought. The long-term outlook for the dollar is down, but it has more upside in the next 6-12 months. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst
Please note that we are also publishing a Special Report on Mexico. Highlights The selloff in EM financial markets has been induced by slowing global trade amid lingering poor EM fundamentals. The Federal Reserve's resolve to tighten is aggravating the situation but is not the main cause of the EM turmoil. Consequently, the necessary conditions for a reversal in ongoing EM turbulence are not the Fed turning dovish but rather a bottom in the global trade cycle and China's growth. The latter two are not on the horizon, and we therefore believe there is much more downside in EM risk assets and currencies. Feature In our trip to Asia last week, the majority of investors we met attributed the current emerging market (EM) selloff to Federal Reserve tightening and trade wars. While we are not suggesting that the Fed tightening or trade war rhetoric have not impacted EM risk assets, we do contend that these reasons are inadequate to explain the selloff. In our opinion, the EM selloff has as much been driven by a slowdown in global trade as by expectations of higher U.S. interest rates and other factors. Diagnosing the underlying bases of a market move correctly is instrumental in gauging its sustainability and an eventual reversal. If one believes that the EM selloff has been due to the Fed, it would require the Fed turning dovish for the selloff to halt and reverse. If, however, the EM carnage has been driven by slowing global trade, the necessary condition for a reversal would be a bottom in the global trade cycle. In such a case, a dovish turn by the Fed or a drop in U.S. bond yields in and of themselves are unlikely to be sufficient. While EM risk assets could rebound for a couple of weeks on lower interest rate expectations in the U.S., any rebound will prove to be short-lived, and EM will resume their downtrend. Assessing the dynamics of both financial markets and the business cycle has led us to conclude that the EM selloff has been not only due to Fed tightening and the U.S.-China trade confrontation, but even more so due to a slowdown in global trade. The latter has transpired even though U.S. economic growth remains very robust. Chart I-1 illustrates that EM currencies and sovereign spreads correlate well with global trade growth. Since the beginning of this year, global trade and EM manufacturing have been decelerating, despite ongoing strength in U.S. demand. This, in our opinion, has been the main reason for the selloff in EM risk assets. In fact, EM manufacturing PMI and EM non-financials' corporate profit growth have rolled over since early this year, explaining widening in EM credit spreads (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Cracks Have Opened As Global Trade##br## Has Begun Slowing Down Chart I-2Slowdown In EM Corporate Profits ##br##Explains Widening Of EM Credit Spreads In turn, Chart I-3 demonstrates that the correlation between EM corporate spreads and share prices on one hand and U.S. bond yields on the other is rather loose. Notably, U.S. bond yields are at the same level they were in early April when the EM-centred selloff began. Meanwhile, EM equity and credit markets have diverged from their U.S. peers since early April (Chart I-4). Chart I-3EM Risk Assets And U.S. Bond Yields: ##br##Loose Correlation Chart I-4The Recent Divergence##br## Between EM And U.S. In this context, an important question is as follows: Why are EM economies and financial markets more vulnerable to rising U.S. borrowing costs than the U.S. itself? In reality, the American economy, stock market and corporate credit should be more exposed to Fed tightening than EM economies and financial markets. Yet the U.S. economy, stocks and corporate credit market have so far weathered rising borrowing costs quite well. Most interest rate-sensitive segments such as mortgages for home purchases and the junk corporate credit market have remained resilient. Historically, the correlation between EM risk assets and the Fed funds rate has been mixed - albeit more positive than negative (Chart I-5). On this chart, we shaded the periods when EM stocks rallied despite rising Fed funds rate. Chart I-5EM Stocks And Fed Tightening Cycles The episodes when EMs crashed amid rising U.S. interest rates were the 1982 Latin America debt crisis and the 1994 Mexican Tequila crisis. Yet, it is vital to emphasize that these crises occurred because of poor EM fundamentals - elevated foreign currency debt levels, negative terms-of-trade shocks, large current account deficits and pegged exchange rates. Chart I-6The 1997/98 EM Crises Pushed U.S. Bond Yields Lower Dire EM fundamentals also prevailed before the Asian/EM crises of 1997-'98. These late 1990 EM crises occurred without much in the way of Fed tightening or rising U.S. bond yields (Chart I-6). In contrast, EM stocks, credit markets and currencies did well during a period of rising Fed funds rate in 1988-89, 1999-2000, and 2017 as illustrated in Chart I-5. Altogether, we conclude that rising U.S. interest rates in and of themselves are not a sufficient condition for EM to sell off. Only in combination with poor EM fundamentals and a weakening global business cycle are rising U.S. borrowing costs negative for EM financial markets. EM fundamentals have been and remain indigent since early this decade. The 2016-'17 rally in EM was due to improving global growth. Yet the global business cycle has rolled over since early this year. This, in combination with lingering weak fundamentals throughout EM and the Fed's tightening, has produced the current EM selloff. All in all, the ongoing selloff in EM risk assets has been mainly due to the slowdown in global trade/business cycle. When global trade expands, weak parts of the chain do well. Conversely, when global trade growth dwindles, these same weak links are the first to break. As we have argued repeatedly, EM fundamentals have remained destitute in spite of 2016-17 rally. Indeed as soon as global trade began decelerating, the weakest parts of the global chain cracked. Specifically, China's import volumes for many raw materials and commodities have decelerated significantly (Chart I-7A and Chart I-7B). Imports of consumer goods, machinery, and transport equipment remain strong (Chart 7A, bottom panel). We believe it is a matter of time before the ongoing slowdown in credit and capital spending brings about weaker imports of industrial goods and machinery. Chart I-7AChina: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down Chart I-7BChina: Imports Volumes Have Been Slowing Down Even though consumer spending in China remains robust, it has had a limited impact on the global economy in general and the rest of EM in particular. Most consumer goods and services that Chinese households buy are produced and sold domestically by mainland companies. In short, China's impact on EM and the rest of the world are primarily via its imports of commodities/raw materials and industrial goods, which are very vulnerable. On-shore listed Chinese stocks are also signaling that a pronounced growth deceleration is underway. Even though the MSCI China investable equity indexes remain elevated, their onshore peers have plunged. Chart I-8A and 8B demonstrate that China's onshore listed stock prices - large cap, small cap and many sectors - have plunged to or below their early 2016 lows. Chart I-8AChinese Share Prices: Onshore And Offshore Markets Chart I-8BChinese Share Prices: Onshore And Offshore Markets Chart I-9New Cyclical Lows For EM Relative Performance This downbeat message from Chinese onshore equity prices along with the recent sharp depreciation of the RMB corroborate that the mainland growth slowdown is gaining speed, which in turn argues for a bearish outlook for EM financial markets. Bottom Line: Our diagnosis is that the selloff in EM financial markets has been induced by slowing global trade and China's growth deceleration amid lingering poor EM fundamentals. The Fed's resolve in tightening is aggravating the situation, but it is not the main cause behind the EM turmoil. Consequently, the necessary conditions for a reversal of the ongoing EM turbulence are not the Fed turning dovish but a bottom in the global trade cycle and Chinese growth. The latter two are not on the horizon, and we therefore posit there is much more downside in EM risk assets and currencies. EM relative equity performance versus DM has broken to new cycle lows for the small-cap and equal-weighted indexes (Chart I-9, top and middle panels). The market cap-weighted overall index will likely be heading to new lows for this cycle too (Chart I-9, bottom panel). Investors should stay short/underweight EM risk assets. Our recommended country allocation is presented below. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
NOTE: There will be a few minor scheduling changes to BCA's China Investment Strategy service in July. We will publishing next week's report and the report scheduled on July 25 one day late, on Thursday, July 5 and 26, respectively. There will also be no report on Wednesday, July 18 due to our regular summer break. Highlights In response to the sharp spike in the risk of a full-blown U.S./China trade war, many market participants have concluded that significant fiscal and/or monetary policy stimulus is forthcoming. But for now, a depreciation in the RMB is the only clear and significant policy response to the imposition of U.S. import tariffs that we can currently observe, and we would still classify it as just a remedial measure. While a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters, it also increases the risk that the U.S. will follow through with the worst of their threats. Despite two conceivable upside scenarios for the equity market, we recommend a neutral stance towards Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio and currently view the risks as largely to the downside. We are closing our long China / short Taiwan trade for a considerable profit, and recommend that investors go long low-beta sectors within the MSCI China index. Feature Chart 1A Decisive Technical Breakdown In ##br##Ex-Tech Stocks Vs Global In a Special Alert last week, we recommended that investors downgrade Chinese ex-tech stocks versus their global peers to neutral from overweight,1 after having placed them on downgrade watch at the end of March.2 Our recommendation was made in response to the ongoing slowdown in China's industrial sector, a significant escalation in the imposition of import tariffs between the U.S. and China, and an unfavorable shift in the risk/reward balance of global risky asset prices.3 It was also timely, as Chinese ex-tech stock prices have now decisively broken below their 200-day moving average (Chart 1). Following our shift in stance, the question facing BCA's China team, as well as global investors, is straightforward: Now what? Stimulus Watch The answer to this question among many market participants is that fiscal and/or monetary policy stimulus is forthcoming. We have no doubt that China will announce some remedial or compensatory measures in response to protectionist action from the U.S. Indeed, recent statements from the Ministry of Finance (MOF) suggest that planned fiscal spending for the year will be accelerated/brought forward, and the PBOC has already made a targeted cut to the reserve requirement ratio and reduced the relending rate for small company loans. However, we have argued that the bar for a fresh round of material stimulus is higher today than it was in the past, and we continue to hold this view. Elevated debt levels, excess capacity in some parts of the industrial sector, and worries about pollution all limit the extent to which the authorities can respond with the usual barrage of infrastructure spending and increased bank lending. The economy likely needs to feel more pain before policymakers come to its aid with enough magnitude to potentially spark another upswing in economic activity. Below we outline a few perspectives on the potential for stimulus, and how investors can gauge whether policymakers are deploying enough stimulus to materially impact China's economic outlook: Fiscal Stimulus The MOF's statement reflects the first fiscal policy action that China would likely take to combat any economic weakness, which is to speed up spending that has already been approved but was planned to occur later in the year. But from the perspective of whether a policy action is likely to materially boost economic activity, frontloading pre-approved spending would qualify, at best, as a remedial measure. In our view, tracking China's budgetary government finance data represents the best method for investors to determine whether policymakers are truly stimulating via the fiscal channel. While it is true that China's shadow budget deficit is much larger than the official data show (Chart 2), there is a crucial aspect of China's recent mini-cycle that is not well understood by many investors: almost all of the expansion of China's fiscal stance from 2014-16 was from on-budget rather than off-budget spending. Given that China has been trying to limit off-budget spending as part of its structural reform program, our sense is that this time won't be different if China decides that significant fiscal stimulus is required. This is good news for investors, given that on-budget spending is easier to observe in real-time, and Chart 3 presents two simple measures that we are using to monitor China's fiscal stance, alongside their year-over-year changes: on-budget expenditure and the on-budget balance, both as a % of GDP. Based on these measures there are no signs yet that the fiscal stance is easing (in fact, the opposite has occurred over the past year), but we will watching Chart 3 closely over the coming months for any indication of a change. Chart 2China's Shadow Budget Deficit Is Large... Chart 3...But If China Stimulates It Will Likely Be On-Budget Monetary Stimulus In our judgement, the recent cut to the reserve requirement ratio is not likely to be effective at stimulating the domestic economy. Investors should note that the initial reaction of many market participants to the April 17 reserve requirement ratio cut of 1% was that it represented a shift in the PBOC's policy stance towards easing, which ultimately proved to be a false narrative. Chart 4 shows China's 3-month interbank repo rate (China's de-facto policy rate which leads average lending rates), and highlights the timing of two specific events: March 28, when news broke that the PBOC would extend the deadline for the implementation of new regulatory standards for asset management products, and April 17, when the PBOC announced its targeted reserve requirement ratio cut. The chart makes it clear that the decline in the repo rate was in response to the deadline extension rather than the repo rate cut. This is entirely consistent with the findings of our February 22 Special Report,4 particularly the fact that 75% of the monetary tightening that has occurred since late-2016 has been regulatory in nature. We have previously argued that the dip in the repo rate in response to the deadline extension would probably be temporary,5 and Chart 4 shows that the rate has indeed increased over that past two months. In short, there is no evidence that the April 17 reserve ratio cut had any measurable effect on the stance of monetary policy in China. Given this, there are two key points for investors. The first is that small cuts to the reserve requirement ratio should be viewed, at best, as remedial measures that may help blunt the impact of shock to the export sector, but they are unlikely to alter the downward trajectory of the "old economy" (the portion of China's economy that is most relevant to global investors). The second is that if cuts to the reserve requirement ratio or any other monetary policy action stimulates the provision of credit via easier lending standards (rather than by reducing the cost of borrowing), their effect should result in a pickup in broad measures of credit growth rather than a reduction in interest rates. Chart 5 highlights that, for now, no such pickup has occurred; adjusted total social financing, which excludes equity issuance but includes municipal bonds, remains in a downtrend. This series, along with its impulse equivalent, are both included in the BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator which is at the core of our efforts to monitor the cyclical condition of China's business cycle. Chart 4No Evidence That April RRR Cut Eased Interest Rates Chart 5No Evidence That April RRR Cut Eased Lending Standards The Exchange Rate BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team has recently argued that China is likely to retaliate to a potential tariff imposition by weakening CNY/USD. This would have the effect of improving the competitiveness of exports priced in RMB, or would bolster the revenue of exporters selling goods priced in U.S. dollars (by way of receiving more RMB after converting the dollars received). Evidence has emerged over the past week to suggest that the PBOC is indeed allowing China's currency to depreciate against the U.S. dollar. Chart 6 shows the actual CNY/USD exchange rate alongside the value that would be predicted based on its relationship with the dollar over the year prior to its early-April peak. The chart suggests that the decline in CNY/USD appears to have, until very recently, reflected the strength in the U.S. dollar. However, the chart shows that CNY/USD has fallen over the past few days by magnitude in excess of what would be expected given movements in the U.S. dollar, implying that the very recent weakness is likely policy-driven. Chart 6The PBOC Is Letting CNY/USD Depreciate We agree that depreciating the currency versus the U.S. dollar will improve the financial condition of domestic exporters, but we would also caution investors against looking at a deep depreciation in CNY/USD in an encouraging light. We have noted in previous reports that such a development would be a clear sign of an outright, full-scale trade war between the U.S. and China, and in this context currency deprecation should still be classified as just a remedial measure (i.e. it is unlikely to lead to a renewed upswing in Chinese economic activity). Bottom Line: A depreciation in the RMB is the only clear and significant policy response to the imposition of U.S. import tariffs that we can currently observe, and we would still classify it as just a remedial measure. While a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters, it may also invite even further protectionist action from the U.S. Investment Recommendations Our recommendation to cut Chinese ex-tech stocks to neutral means that investors should be looking both for upside and downside risks when judging when to make their next allocation shift. For now, our discussion above underscores that we view the risks largely to the downside. The scenario that would cause us to further downgrade Chinese stocks to underweight within a global equity portfolio is not difficult to imagine: the worst outcome in the U.S. / China trade dispute materializes, the global economy slows meaningfully, and the inertia from the ongoing structural reform program causes Chinese policymakers to limit their stimulus to compensatory, remedial measures until a painful slowdown emerges in the domestic economy. We are not yet past the "point of no return" on the way to this outcome, but the events of the past two weeks have clearly moved us further along the path. Conversely, there are two scenarios that we can envision that could cause us to upgrade Chinese stocks back to overweight: Chart 7Keep Monitoring Floor Space Sold A protectionist exchange occurs between China and the U.S. but fails to devolve to the most damaging outcome. China's remedial measures are successful at easing the pain from tariffs on domestic producers, and the economic outlook stabilizes. In this scenario the most acute risk would be removed, but the gradual underlying downtrend in China's "old economy" would be intact. In this case we would be more comfortable upgrading Chinese stocks if there was an additional reflationary tailwind, such as a boost from fiscal spending or some reversal of the monetary tightening that has occurred since late-2016. But a significant, exogenous acceleration in economic activity from some other sector of China's economy would also fit the bill, and we have argued in past reports that housing appears to be the best candidate. Chart 7 highlights that residential sales volume may now be in a gradual uptrend, which could translate into stronger construction in the months ahead. The second scenario that would cause us to upgrade Chinese stocks is straightforward: Chinese policymakers determine that the risks to growth from an export shock are unacceptably large given the existing slowdown in the industrial sector, and decide to temporarily reverse course on the structural reform path by opting for "big bang" fiscal and/or monetary stimulus. A significant and highly investment-relevant mini-cycle upswing occurred in China the last time that the authorities strongly prioritized growth, and we will watching closely for real indications of a shift in attitude in this direction. For now our judgement is that policymakers have a higher pain threshold than in the past, suggesting that this is outcome is not yet probable. Related to our decision to downgrade Chinese ex-tech stocks to neutral within a global equity portfolio, we have three updates to our trade book: We are closing our long MSCI China / short MSCI Taiwan position and upgrading our Taiwanese cyclical stance to neutral: Despite being massively overweight technology stocks, Chart 8 highlights that Taiwan is a comparatively low-beta equity market versus China. Our trade has generated a 21% return since we initiated it in February 2017, and we believe it is time to book profits. Given Taiwan's small size it is actually possible that its economy and/or equity market will suffer disproportionately if the worst U.S. / China trade outcome materializes, which could cause us to revisit the trade. But for now our judgement is that a neutral position is warranted. We are sticking with our long China onshore corporate bond trade: We would certainly expect credit spreads on Chinese corporate bonds to flare in response to a deteriorating economic outlook, but we highlighted in our June 13 Weekly Report how high the bar is for investors to lose money on these bonds.6 In short, China's corporate bond market already offers a margin of safety given its high yield and a comparatively short duration, and we do not see recent developments on the trade front as a sufficiently compelling reason to exit the trade. We are initiating a new trade - within the MSCI China index, long low-beta sectors / short benchmark: Chart 9 presents the relative US$ stock price return of a portfolio of low-beta level 1 GICS sectors within the MSCI China index, relative to the index itself. Our methodology in calculating the portfolio is the same as that employed in the A-share factor analysis that we presented in our June 13 report; namely it is a value-weighted portfolio of sectors with below-median rolling 1-year market beta.7 The chart shows that the portfolio has outperformed over time, but sold off quite substantially last year as the high-flying tech sector boosted the performance of the overall index. The relative performance trend for low-beta has recently strengthened and crossed above its 200-day moving average, which we regard as a supportive technical signal to initiate the trade. Chart 8Taiwan's Equity Market Is Low Beta Vs China's Chart 9Go Long Low-Beta Sectors Vs The Broad Market Bottom Line: Despite two potential upside scenarios, we recommend a neutral stance towards Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio and currently view the risks as largely to the downside. We are closing our long China / short Taiwan for a considerable profit, and recommend that investors go long low-beta sectors within the MSCI China index. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Alert "Downgrade Chinese Stocks To Neutral", dated June 20, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight," dated March 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Pease see Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral", dated June 19, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy", dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China: A Low-Conviction Overweight", dated May 2, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "A Shaky Ladder", dated June 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 The current sector weights of the portfolio are: 26% telecom services, 24% industrials, 19% health care, 16% utilities, and 14% consumer staples. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
NOTE: We will not be publishing a report next week. The next Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report will be published on Tuesday, July 10th. Highlights Global Corporates: The clash between monetary policy and the markets that we have been expecting to unfold in 2018 is upon us. Downgrade global spread product exposure to neutral (3 of 5) from overweight, and raise government bond exposure to neutral. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration, however, as global bond yields have not yet peaked for this cycle. Country Allocation: Move to neutral on U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporates, while staying underweight (2 of 5) on euro area corporates. Downgrade emerging market hard currency sovereign and corporate debt to maximum underweight (1 of 5) - the combination of a rising dollar, Fed tightening and slower Chinese growth will remain a huge problem for emerging market assets. Feature Chart Of The Week3 Big Reasons To Downgrade Spread Product Last week, BCA as a firm moved to a less positive stance on global equities and credit, downgrading both to neutral from overweight on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon.1 Dating back to our 2018 Outlook published at the end of last December, we had anticipated that we would be shifting to a less aggressive asset allocation sometime around mid-year.2 The expected trigger would be a move by central banks to a more restrictive policy stance that would start to impact future growth expectations. That time has come, and we are now recommending moving to a less bullish stance on global credit. Many of the tailwinds that supported the stellar performance of risk assets in 2017 - most importantly, coordinated global growth, accommodative monetary policies and a weakening U.S. dollar - have transformed into headwinds over the course of 2018 and are unlikely to reverse before risk assets suffer a setback (Chart of the week). At a minimum, there is now enough uncertainty, at a time when many asset classes are richly priced, to make the risk/reward balance for being long growth-sensitive assets like equities and corporate debt less attractive. This week, we are downgrading our recommended stance on global spread product to neutral (3 out of 5) from overweight, while upgrading our recommended allocation for government bonds to neutral from underweight. This represents an unwind of a long-standing recommendation that dates back to January 31st, 2017 when we strategically downgraded U.S. Treasury exposure and upgraded U.S. corporate debt.3 We are closing that recommendation at a relative total return gain of 2.3% for U.S. investment grade and 6.7% for U.S. high-yield over Treasuries (Chart 2). Chart 2Closing A Successful Overweight Stance ##br##On U.S. Corporates We still believe that global bond yields will remain under upward pressure from both higher inflation and a less favorable supply/demand balance for fixed income (more issuance, less central bank buying). The fact that bond yields will NOT be able to fall much to reinvigorate softening global growth - because of rising inflation at a time of diminished economic slack - is a critical reason why we are turning more cautious on global credit. Thus, we are maintaining our recommended below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance, even as we upgrade our government bond allocation to neutral. We recommend placing the proceeds of a reduction of global corporate debt exposure into shorter-maturity government bonds, which we are doing in our model bond portfolio (see page 15). At the country level, we are downgrading U.S. corporate bonds, both investment grade and high-yield, to neutral from overweight. We still are of the view that U.S. corporates are better positioned to outperform non-U.S. credit, however, even in a more challenging environment for credit returns. Thus we are keeping our recommended underweight allocations to euro area corporate debt (2 out of 5 for both investment grade and high-yield). We see a much nastier backdrop brewing for emerging markets (EM), however - a stronger dollar, higher U.S. interest rates, slowing Chinese growth, diminished global capital flows - so we are downgrading both EM hard currency sovereign and corporate debt to maximum underweight (1 out of 5). In terms of other spread product categories, we are maintaining our neutral allocation to U.S. mortgage-backed securities, while downgrading U.K. and Canadian corporate debt to underweight. For those that can invest in U.S. muni debt, we are upgrading that sector to overweight (4 out of 5). The Reasons To Cut Corporate Credit Exposure Now Global credit has not performed well in the first half of 2018, with only U.S. high-yield corporates providing a positive return year-to-date among the major markets: U.S. investment grade: -3.6% total return, -1.7% excess return over duration-matched Treasuries U.S. high-yield: +0.7% total return, +1.5% excess return Euro area investment grade: -0.3% total return, -1.1% excess return Euro area high-yield: -0.5% total return, -1.0% excess return EM USD-denominated sovereign debt: -5.5% total return, -3.6% excess return EM USD-denominated corporate debt: -2.9% total return, -1.7% excess return Chart 3The Start Of Something Big? While there have been plenty of geopolitical tensions for markets to fret over this year (U.S. trade policy, North Korea), the biggest reason for the underperformance of credit is due to the most typical of reasons - tightening global monetary policy. One way to measure the stance of monetary policy is to look at the slope of government bond yield curves. According to the Bloomberg Barclays government bond index data, the "global yield curve" - the spread between the Global Treasury index yield for the 7-10 year and 1-3 year maturity buckets - is now a mere 6bps (Chart 3). That is the flattest the global curve has been since the first quarter of 2007. That is a potentially ominous sign given that the Global Financial Crisis began brewing around the same time. The global yield curve became deeply inverted in the late 1990s, as well, which preceeded the 1998 EM crisis and, later, the global telecom bust. Fundamentally, we see four main reasons to downgrade global credit now: 1. Global growth is slowing and becoming less synchronized The first half of 2018 has seen a deceleration of global economic activity from the robust pace of 2017. This has been a broad-based cooling of activity so far, with cyclical indicators like manufacturing PMIs still well above the 50 level that suggests expanding growth in all major economies. Yet there are signs that the pullback in growth may persist throughout 2018 and into 2019. The OECD's global leading economic indicator (LEI) is rolling over and our LEI diffusion index - a leading indicator of the LEI - suggests additional weakness should be expected. This is significant for credit markets, as returns on corporate bonds are highly correlated to the swings in the global LEI (Chart 4). This is true even in the U.S., which is bucking the slowing global growth trend and where confidence is booming and domestic leading indicators are accelerating (Chart 5). Chart 4Corporate Bonds Follow The Global LEI Chart 5Upside Risks For U.S. Growth That easing of non-U.S. growth is likely rooted in the slowdown underway in China. Policymakers there have been tightening monetary conditions and acting to reign in excessive debt growth. This has resulted in a slowing of overall economic growth after the stimulus-fueled boom in 2016 that helped kick-start global growth last year through robust Chinese imports and consumption of industrial commodities. Given the sheer size of Chinese demand, the global economy will look very different when Chinese imports are growing at a 30% pace rather than the current pace below 10%. Our most reliable forward-looking indicators for Chinese growth, like our Li Keqiang leading indicator, are calling for additional cooling of Chinese economic activity in the latter half of 2018 (Chart 6). This reinforces the signal given by our global LEI diffusion index, with both indicating that additional struggles in the performance of global credit markets should be expected (based off the relationship shown in Chart 4). One additional point: the ongoing trade tensions between the Trump administration and all of the major U.S. trading partners represents an additional potential downside risk to global growth. The story is still quite fluid, as it always is with this president, but the uncertainty created by the trade frictions is definitely a negative for risk assets, at a minimum. 2. Global inflation pressures are rising, most notably in the U.S. Even with the latest dip in non-U.S. growth, the global economy is still operating with the least amount of spare capacity since the mid-2000s boom. The U.S. unemployment rate is down to 3.8%, the lowest level in eighteen years. 75% of OECD countries now have unemployment rates below the OECD's estimate of the full-employment NAIRU, with capacity utilization rates also rising. The pricing backdrop is as healthy as it has been since 2011, according to the measure of world export prices from the Netherlands-based Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis which is now growing at a 10% annual rate (Chart 7). Chart 6Downside Risks For Chinese Growth Chart 7A More Inflationary Global Backdrop, Especially In The U.S. The previous two times export prices grew that rapidly in 2008 and 2011 - two very challenging years for financial markets - global CPI inflation rates expanded rapidly, especially in the U.S. Headline CPI inflation ended up reaching peaks of 6% and 4%, respectively, during those prior two episodes. Non-U.S. inflation rates also accelerated, but not to the same degree as in the U.S. A similar dynamic is playing out in 2018, with U.S. inflation rates accelerating (both headline and core), at a faster pace than in the other major developed economies. With the U.S. labor market growing tighter each month, and with U.S. growth likely to continue expanding at an above-potential pace for the next few quarters, it is unlikely that the current upturn in U.S. inflation will slow on its own. This will ensure that the Fed will continue on its planned monetary tightening path that will soon take U.S. monetary conditions into restrictive territory - eventually weighing on U.S. growth expectations and raising concerns over future downgrade and default risks, and returns, in U.S. corporate bond markets. 3. Growth and monetary policy divergences will continue to boost the value of the U.S. dollar The divergences between growth, inflation and monetary policy in the U.S. and the rest of the world are now helping raise the value of the U.S. dollar, which had declined nearly 10% on peak-to-trough basis in 2017. The dollar has been rising in 2018, which has been weighing on EM currencies and financial markets as is typically the case during periods of dollar strength. EM economies have been rapidly accumulating dollar-denominated debt in recent years, leaving EM borrowers as highly exposed to the swings in the dollar and interest rates as they have been since the late 1990s. The current backdrop is setting itself up for a repeat of the 2015/16 period when pro-U.S. growth divergences caused the dollar to soar and triggered major selloffs in EM financial assets that spilled over into U.S. and developed market equities and credit (Chart 8). Right now, the moves have been far more modest than seen in the 2015/16 period. Since the start of 2018, the U.S. trade-weighted dollar is up 4% and EM equities are down -6% (in U.S. dollar terms), while U.S. investment grade credit spreads have risen 37bps from the February lows. This is far less than the moves seen in 2015/16, where the dollar rose 16%, EM equities sold off -34% and U.S. credit spreads widened nearly 100bps. Those moves were enough to cause the Fed to delay its rate hike plans after the initial post-QE rate hike in December 2015, triggering a significant decline in U.S. bond yields (bottom panel) and the dollar that eventually stabilized global financial markets. With the U.S. economy in a much healthier position today than two years ago, and with U.S. core inflation running close to the Fed's 2% target, it will take much larger market moves than have been seen of late before the Fed would consider taking a pause on its current 25bps-per-quarter pace of rate hikes. The mechanism for that to happen will be a stronger dollar and any associated impact on U.S. financial markets. However, it must be a very large move (as it was in 2015/16) to have enough of a negative impact on the U.S. economy, U.S. corporate profits or U.S. inflation for financial markets, and the Fed, to take notice. In Chart 9, we show the U.S. trade-weighted dollar with three different scenarios for the change in the currency to the end of 2018: flat, up 5% and up 10%. We show the dollar in level terms in the top panel, while showing the year-over-year growth rate of the dollar (on an inverted scale) in the bottom three panels. In those last three panels, we also show the potential areas where a strong dollar would impact the U.S. economy the most: net exports, corporate profit growth from earnings earned outside the U.S. (using top-down profit data) and headline inflation. Chart 82015/16 Revisited? Not Yet Chart 9A Much Stronger USD Is Needed To Impact U.S. Growth & Inflation The charts show that a 10% rise in the dollar by year-end would likely take enough of a bite out of U.S. growth and inflation for U.S. equity and credit markets to sell off and for the Fed to take a pause on its rate hike plans. A more modest 5% rise in the dollar will have a more muted impact, especially with stronger underlying U.S. growth and inflation pressures than was the case in 2015/16. That latter scenario of a more moderate rise in the dollar would be our most likely scenario - one that would prove to be challenging for U.S. credit market performance. The dollar increase would be enough to keep EM financial markets on the defensive, but would not be large enough to get Fed rate hikes out of the way and allow for a big decline in Treasury yields that would help support risk assets. A slowly rising dollar is another reason to reduce credit exposure in fixed income portfolios. 4. Central bank liquidity provision through asset purchases is slowing rapidly One of our major themes for 2018 has been that the removal of the extraordinary liquidity expansion by central banks would weigh on asset returns. This would occur through the Fed allowing maturing bonds accumulated during its QE program to begin running off its balance sheet, and through a slower pace of bond buying in the case of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ). Already, the increase in developed market bond yields, and the lowering of returns in global equities and credit, have largely followed the path laid out by our indicator of central bank liquidity provision - the annual growth in the balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, BoJ and Bank of England (Chart 10). Our central bank liquidity indicator suggests that there is still more upside for global government bond yields as central banks become less directly active in bond markets. At the same time, the diminished liquidity growth means there is less investor money to be forced out of risk-free government bonds into risky assets like corporate credit, which should help erode credit market returns on the margin. This will occur through reduced inflows into credit that are just chasing yield, and a return to more fundamental drivers of credit market valuation like growth, inflation, leverage and downgrade/default risks - all of which are now on the rise in the U.S. Bottom Line: The clash between monetary policy and the markets that we have been expecting to unfold in 2018 is upon us. Tightening monetary policies, rising bond yields, slowing global growth, widening growth divergences, increasing U.S. inflation pressures, a strengthening U.S. dollar, emerging market instability, diminished central bank liquidity, reduced global capital flows, global trade tensions - all are now creating a backdrop that is more challenging for risk assets. Downgrade global spread product exposure to neutral (3 of 5) from overweight, and raise government bond exposure to neutral. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration, however, as global bond yields have not yet peaked for this cycle. Asset Allocation Decisions To Be Made So in terms of our fixed income asset allocation recommendations, but in our strategic tables on page 16 and our model bond portfolio on page 15, we are making the following changes: Downgrade U.S. Investment Grade & High-Yield Corporates To Neutral (3 out of 5) The bulk of our primary indicators for U.S. credit are at levels that are consistent with a neutral allocation (Chart 11). Our top-down Corporate Health Monitor is right at the line dividing the deteriorating health and improving health regimes (although this is only because of a cyclical improvement in some of the underlying indicators). U.S. monetary policy is close to neutral, as measured by the real fed funds rate versus the Fed's r-star estimate. The U.S. Treasury curve is very flat, although it is not yet inverted as typically precedes the end of a credit cycle. Finally, bank lending standards are only modestly in "net easing" territory according to the Fed's senior loan officer survey. Chart 10Fading Impact Of Global QE On Bond Markets Chart 11Downgrade U.S. IG & HY Corporates To Neutral With all these indicators hovering around neutral levels, a neutral allocation to U.S. corporates seems justified. Additionally, we recommend cutting across all credit tiers for both investment grade and high-yield, rather than focusing on cutting a specific tier more than another. Our preferred valuation metric - the 12-month breakeven spread relative to its history - is near the bottom quartile for all credit tiers (Charts 12 & 13) without one looking particularly more expensive than the others. Chart 12Not Much Of A Spread Cushion In U.S. Investment Grade ... Chart 13... Or U.S. High-Yield Keep Euro Area Investment Grade & High-Yield At Underweight (2 out of 5) We have maintained this strategic view based on the convergence between our top-down Corporate Health Monitors for both the U.S. and euro area. Right now, the cyclical improvement in U.S. financial metrics has come at the same time as a cyclical deterioration of euro area metrics from very healthy levels (Chart 14). The spread between the two Monitors has proven to be a good directional indicator for the relative performance between U.S. and euro area credit. That spread continues to point to additional expected outperformance by U.S. corporates, even in an overall more challenging environment for global credit markets. Throw in increased Italian political turmoil, softer euro area growth and the upcoming ECB tapering of its asset purchases - which will include corporate debt that the ECB has been buying steadily for the past three years - and the case for underweighting euro area corporates, especially versus U.S. equivalents, is a strong one. Downgrade EM Hard Currency Sovereign & Corporate Debt To Maximum Underweight (1 out of 5) We have been favoring U.S. investment grade credit over EM credit the past several months. The growth divergence between the U.S. and EM has been widening, while EM market valuations had gotten very rich. Now, EM spread widening is starting to correct that mis-valuation, although is still early in the process. The spread differential between U.S and EM credit is a good leading indicator of the relative returns between the two asset classes (Chart 15), thus last year's EM outperformance is leading to this year's underperformance. Chart 14Stay Underweight Euro Area Corporates Chart 15Move To Maximum Underweight EM Credit We wish to maintain the same "two notch" gap between our recommended level of U.S. and EM credit exposure, so by downgrading U.S. corporates to neutral (3 of 5), we must downgrade EM corporates to maximum underweight (1 of 5). All of the above changes will be reflected in our model bond portfolio on page 15. One final point - we should lay out the case for out next move from here. If the Fed tightening cycle goes as we envision it will, with U.S. growth staying strong and inflation expectations rising back to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target, then we expect the next move will be to downgrade U.S. corporates to underweight. However, if there is enough of a market setback to cause the Fed to delay its rate hike cycle, as was the case in 2016, then we may consider moving back to overweight U.S. corporates on a tactical basis. We suspect, however, that the moves today are the beginning of the end game for the current credit cycle - the negatives for corporates are now outweighing the positives, and that gap is likely to get wider in the coming months. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral", dated June 19th 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2018 Key Views: BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets", dated December 5th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Growth Upturn Has Legs: Reduce Duration, Upgrade Credit Exposure", dated January 31st 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
While copper prices remain comfortably within the $2.90 to $3.30/lb range they've occupied this year, the rising threat of a Sino - U.S. trade war spilling into the global trading system, along with slowing credit and monetary stimulus in China, will continue to roil copper markets. Refined copper prices - like most commodities - are highly sensitive to the level of world copper demand and EM imports, particularly out of Asia, which are closely tied to income. EM income growth is expected to remain strong; however, a global trade war, or a significant slowing in trade that reduces investment in EM markets and stymies income growth will be bearish for copper prices. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Going into tomorrow's OPEC 2.0 meeting in Vienna, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia apparently were divided on how much crude oil production needed to be restored to the market. Increases of as little as 300k to 600k b/d and as much as 1.5mm b/d are flying around the market in the lead-up to the meeting.1 Meanwhile, China threatened to impose tariffs on oil imports from the U.S. if President Trump goes ahead with additional tariffs. The increased Sino - American acrimony on trade issues raises the likelihood China will significantly increase oil imports from Iran, in our estimation, which will exacerbate tensions even further. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper treatment and refining charges (TC/RCs) soared at the end of last week following the closure of India's largest smelter. The Metal Bulletin TC/RC index went to an average of $85/MT at the end of last week, up from $82.25/MT. The pricing service also reported China's primary copper-smelting capacity is lower in June due to environmental constraints. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices dropped below $1,300/oz following the FOMC meeting last week, as Fed officials - e.g., Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan - nodded toward a fourth rate hike this year, even though his base case remained at three. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grains and beans are down as much as 10% in the past week, on the back of additional tariffs announced by the Trump administration - 10% on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. The new tariffs were a retaliatory move by the administration, and represent an escalation of tit-for-tat measures by both sides. Feature Chart of the WeekMajor Drivers of Copper Prices Still Supportive Rising EM incomes and expanding world trade volumes, particularly EM imports, have supported base metals prices for the past two years. This was partly aided by expansionary fiscal and monetary policy in China, the world's largest base-metals market, in 2016, which reversed overly restrictive monetary and fiscal policy in the two years prior. For the most part, these supportive underpinnings are still in place for EM commodity growth over the next two years (Chart of the Week). However, their stability increasingly is being threatened by rising Sino - American trade tensions, and the limited room for credit and fiscal expansion in China.2 Global Copper Demand And Trade In its most recent update of global growth, the World Bank is expecting the rate of growth globally to level off this year and next. However, the Bank expects income growth in EM and developing economies - the growth engines of commodity demand - to go from 4.3% last year to 4.5% this year, and 4.7% next year. EM growth will be dominated by South Asia (Chart 2).3 EM GDP growth is of particular importance to commodity markets, since this constitutes the bulk of commodity demand growth generally, particularly in base metals and oil. For the largest EM economies, the income elasticity of demand for copper is 0.70, meaning a 1% increase in income leads to a 0.70% increase in copper consumption. The Bank notes, "The seven largest emerging markets (EM7) accounted for almost all the increase in global consumption of metals, and two-thirds of the increase in energy consumption" over the past 20 years.4 In what the Bank refers to as Low Income Countries (LICs) - a grouping of smaller economies loaded with commodity producers - GDP is expected to grow 6% p.a. on average over the 2018 - 2020 period. Chart 2World Bank Expects Solid EM Growth EM GDP growth fuels copper demand. Since 2000, a 1% increase in global copper consumption ex-China translates into an almost 2% increase in high-grade refined copper prices, based on results of our modeling. When we replace ex-China demand with China, we see a 1% increase in China's consumption translates into a 0.75% increase in high-grade copper prices over the 2000 - 2018 interval. China's growth is expected to slow going forward, in the wake of a managed slowdown, and due to the fact that, as its economy evolves, more of its growth will come from services and consumer demand, which are less commodity intensive. GDP growth also fuels trade, and vice versa. The Bank estimates the income elasticity of trade averaged 1.5% from 2000 - 07, and 1.2% from 2010 - 17, meaning a 1% increase in income has led to a roughly 1.4% growth in trade over this period. In our modeling, we've found a 1% increase in EM trade volumes translates into a 1.3% increase in high-grade copper prices, an elasticity in line with post-GFC trade growth. The other key variable in our modeling is the broad trade-weighted USD, which remains a highly important variable for copper prices. In both our global copper-demand and EM import volume models for copper prices, the level of the USD is an important explanatory variable - a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWIB translates into ~ 3% decrease (increase) in copper prices since 2000 in our estimates.5 Tight Credit Conditions In China Can Weigh On Copper ... We've been expecting China's managed slowdown in 2H18 to be offset by strong global demand, which, all else equal, would keep copper demand fairly stable.6 While we still do not expect a hard landing in China, the slowdown we've been expecting is showing up in weaker industrial production prints, disappointing retail sales in May, and most significantly, regulatory and liquidity tightening weighing on money and credit. Chinese demand makes up ~ 50% of global metal consumption, these markets would be especially vulnerable in the case of a significant slowdown. The fear of a more serious slump is founded on tighter financial conditions restricting capital spending, and GDP growth. Granger causality tests to determine the direction of causation between Chinese monetary variables and copper prices point to causality running from de-trended levels of all four measures of money and credit to copper prices (Table 1).7 Table 1Chinese Credit And Copper Prices: Evidence Of Causality Furthermore, y/y changes in copper prices are more highly correlated with monetary variables expressed in terms of de-trended levels, than with those same variables expressed as y/y growth rates, or impulses (Chart 3). Across the four credit and money measures, this expression yields an average correlation coefficient of 0.56, compared with 0.38 and 0.37 when expressed as y/y growth rates and impulses as a percent of GDP, respectively. Our modeling also indicates that it generally takes two to three quarters for the full effect of a change in China's credit conditions to be transmitted to copper markets. When we restrict the sample size to the period from 2010 to now we get similar results to our longer intervals (Chart 4). However monetary variables are more highly correlated with copper prices in the shorter sample. Chart 3Chinese Credit Leads Copper Prices By 3 Quarters... Chart 4...A Slightly Longer Lead Time Since 2010 Correlations in the period since 2010 average 0.61, 0.57, and 0.45 for the de-trended levels, y/y growth rates, and impulses, respectively. This can be put down to the fact that China's role as a demand market for copper has been steadily growing over this period. Given that between 2000 and 2017, China's share of global copper demand swelled from 12% to 50%, it is only natural that the impact of its domestic economy on global copper prices also increased (Chart 5). Furthermore, the time lag between Chinese monetary variables and copper markets in the more recent sample increased slightly, with money and credit variables leading prices by 9-10 months, compared to 6-8 months in the full sample. Chart 5China's Growing Role In Copper Markets Bottom Line: De-trended Chinese money and credit variables statistically cause, and are correlated with, y/y changes in copper prices. While these relationships have generally strengthened with China's growing role in the demand side of global copper markets, rolling correlations highlight that there are also extended periods of weak correlations, suggesting fundamental factors can overwhelm the impact of China's credit environment on global copper markets, as has been the case for the past two years. ...But Other Factors Can Take Over In estimating the effect of China's money and credit conditions on copper markets, we find that the relationship can be dominated by supply - demand fundamentals, and overall global macro conditions. More specifically, we find that in periods where DM equity markets outperform EM equity markets, the coefficients in our models with y/y copper prices as the dependent variable are on average 13% lower than the full sample period (Chart 6). Similarly, in periods where EM outperforms DM, the models' credit coefficients are on average 15% higher than the full sample period.8 Our modeling indicates the pre-2005 period as well as the post-2015 intervals as periods during which strong copper demand from growing DM economies weakened the long-term relationship between Chinese money and credit variables and copper prices. Given our expectation that DM demand will remain supportive, this will, to some extent, offset the negative implications of the deteriorating credit environment in China on copper demand and prices. Similarly, in periods characterized by backwardated copper markets, the magnitude of the impact of Chinese money and credit variables on copper prices is on average 35% lower than the full sample (Chart 7). On the other hand, when the copper market is in contango, the magnitude of the impact of Chinese financial variables is on average 13% higher than the full sample period. This highlights the importance of physical fundamentals, and the fact that in cases where they deviate from the direction of the Chinese credit environment - such as during a supply shock - the physical fundamentals weaken historical correlation relationships. Chart 6Credit-Copper Relationship Weakens When DM Outperforms EM ... Chart 7... And When Markets Are Backwardated To rank the top explanatory financial variables in terms of their effect on the evolution of copper prices, we estimated regression models with monetary variables, along with the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar, and world excluding China copper demand as independent variables (Table 2). Table 2USD Usually Dominates Copper's Evolution The results, which can be interpreted as the y/y percentage point (pp) change in copper prices from a one y/y pp increase in each of the three explanatory variables, indicate that Chinese credit has a similar effect as a one y/y pp increase in world excluding China copper demand, a not-unexpected result, given the rest of the world accounts for 50% of demand. On the other hand, the USD has an outsized effect on the copper market. In our modeling, we've found that, in general, a one pp increase (decrease) in the broad trade-weighted USD translates into a one pp change in copper prices, using y/y models.9 Will Copper Vs. USD Correlations Return To Equilibrium? Our House view calls for a stronger USD going forward. Despite our expectation that DM demand will remain supportive, absent supply-side shocks, a stronger USD along with deteriorating credit conditions in China will weigh on copper prices.10 Ongoing trade disputes will only further bear down on the copper market. Stronger EM GDP growth and the associated increase in copper consumption and trade volumes will offset the strong-USD effects, but a trade war would undermine this support. A caveat to this conclusion is that while credit growth has been generally restrained, the Chinese government - fearful that its policy measures to date are spiraling out of control - may partially reverse its efforts and attempt some easing.11 Bottom Line: The impact of Chinese credit conditions on copper prices is weakened in periods where DM stock prices outperform EM, and when the copper forward curve is backwardated. In terms of the relative magnitude of the effect of China's credit conditions, we find that it has a similar sized effect as the rest of the world's copper demand on the red metal's price, while the USD has a relatively larger effect. This implies that a stronger USD, coupled with tighter financial conditions in China, will compete with expanding EM GDPs and trade growth going forward. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we've coined for the oil producer coalition lead by KSA and Russia. In November 2016, the coalition agreed to remove 1.8mm b/d of production. We estimate actual production cuts amount to 1.2mm b/d, while as much a 1.5mm b/d of production has been lost to depletion and a lack of maintenance drilling (e.g., infill and other forms of enhanced oil recovery). 2 Our colleague Peter Berezin, writing in this week's Global Investment Strategy, noting slowing industrial production, retail sales and fixed-asset investment, observes, China's "policy response has been fairly muted." Further, unlike 2015, when China stimulated its economy and lifted EM generally, this go-round, there is less room to maneuver owing to high debt levels and overcapacity. Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global risk Assets To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "The Role of Major Emerging Markets in Global Commodity Demand" in the Bank's Global Economic Prospects, June 2018, beginning on p. 61. 4 The Bank's EM7 are Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Russian Federation, and Turkey. They account for ~ 25% of global GDP, and some 60% of global metals consumption. The income elasticities of aluminum and zinc demand for this group are 0.80 and 0.30, respectively. Please see Table SF1.1 on p. 70 of the Bank's June report. 5 The R2 statistic measuring the goodness of fit between actual copper prices and the modeled prices is 94% for the copper-consumption model, and 96% for the EM trade model over the 2000 - 2018 interval. The USD TWIB was used as an explanatory variable in both models. 6 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "China's Managed Slowdown Will Dampen Base Metals Demand," dated March 29, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Given that in levels, the money and credit variables display a deterministic upward trend, we removed the trend from the data in order to isolate the fluctuations around this trend. This de-trended series is what is significant to copper demand, and thus the evolution of copper prices. 8 We use a threshold OLS model to estimate the y/y model coefficients. The average change in the value of the coefficient is based on the coefficients in the models' outputs of the four money and credit measures. 9 The R2 statistics measuring the goodness of fit between actual y/y changes and those estimated in our models were ~63% in all four models. 10 We discussed this at length last week in BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Correlations Vs. USD Weaken," dated June 14, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 11 Some preliminary signs of potential easing include (1) the PBOC's most recent monetary policy decision in which it did not follow the US Fed's interest rate decision by hiking rates, as it generally does, and (2) a reduction in the reserve requirement ratio. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Insert table images here Trades Closed in