生産性

特別レポート

Highlights Strong/weak productivity growth leads to secular bull/bear markets in both equities and the currency. We illustrate why and how robust productivity gains can engender a virtuous self-reinforcing cycle that can run for many years. Detecting productivity for macro strategists is akin to doctors diagnosing a patient – it entails more art than science. Inflation, the real trade balance, and company profit margins constitute a litmus test for assessing productivity growth. Feature By far, the most critical variable determining long-term economic growth is a country’s productivity. This report presents why productivity matters for investors and examines how to gauge productivity growth given it is practically impossible to measure accurately. We use the framework presented in this report to analyze long-term trends in individual EM economies. In a follow-up piece, we will present a practical application of this framework by ranking developing economies according to their productivity and long-term growth potential. This report does not discuss what is needed to boost productivity because the policy prescriptions are well known and are widely available in economic literature. That said, we have outlined some of these in Box 1. BOX 1 The Basic Formula For Long-Term Growth For any economy, the potential growth rate is what can be achieved and sustained in the very long run. It can be expressed as follows: Potential (real) growth rate = productivity growth + labor force growth Given that we can use demographic data to approximate the number of people entering and exiting the labor force for each year over the next 18 years, the labor force growth variable can be easily estimated. Hence, the key unknown in the above formula is productivity growth. In a developing economy, it is difficult to measure productivity accurately (Chart 1). That is why when analyzing the long-term outlook, we first assess whether the country has effectively implemented the structural reforms needed to achieve faster productivity growth – some of which are listed below. We combine these observations with symptoms associated with either strong or weak productivity growth in order to assess an economy’s potential growth trajectory. Chart 1Productivity Growth Estimates For EM/China Recommended policies to raise productivity growth typically include: building hard and soft infrastructure, improving education and training, investing in new technologies and equipment, promoting entrepreneurship and formation of new businesses, promoting competition, augmenting R&D spending, importing foreign “know how,” and fostering industry clusters that specialize in certain products or processes. Why Does Productivity Matter For Investors? Following are the investment implications of productivity growth: 1. Productivity is the sole driver of growing prosperity, which is reflected in rising per capita real incomes (Chart 2). Productivity = output per employee per hour  = (real GDP or output) / (number of employees x number of hours worked) Rising productivity creates more income that is shared between employees and shareholders. If productivity rises by 5% and hourly wages increase by 2.5% in a year, unit labor costs will drop by 2.5%. In such a case, the 5% increase in productivity is shared equally between shareholders and employees. A lack of productivity gains and resulting stagnant income for both employees and business owners might lead to rising socio-political tensions and ultimately to political instability. 2. Strong productivity gains allow an economy to grow faster without experiencing high inflation (Chart 3). The upshot is reduced cyclicality in economic activity, i.e., business cycles are characterized by longer expansions and shallow and less frequent downturns. Equity investors will thus likely pay higher equity multiples due to the reduced cyclicality of corporate profits. Chart 2Productivity Is Ultimately Reflected In Rising Real Income Per Capita Chart 3China: Strong Productivity Growth Has Kept A Lid On Inflation   The rationale is that robust productivity advances allow the economy to expand with low inflation with no need for monetary tightening. The relationship between productivity and inflation is discussed in detail below. A structurally low inflation environment allows policymakers to promptly deploy large monetary and fiscal stimulus when faced with economic downturns. In addition, low interest rates are also associated with higher equity valuations. On the contrary, a lack of productivity growth makes business cycles short-lived. Inflation will rise faster during a business cycle expansion in an economy with low productivity growth. In turn, interest rates will rise more rapidly in those economies, short-circuiting the expansion. Equity investors will be reluctant to pay high multiples for companies operating in such environments. 3. On a microeconomic level, high productivity gains are typically associated with higher profit margins and vice versa (Chart 4). Shareholders assign higher equity multiples to enterprises with higher profit margins and return on capital. Chart 4Faster Productivity Growth = Wider Corporate Profit Margins Besides, wider profit margins allow companies to tolerate higher real interest rates. High real interest rates attract foreign fixed-income capital supporting the nation’s exchange rate. Given that labor costs make up a large share of costs in many companies, unit labor costs are a critical determinant of corporate profitability. Meanwhile, selling prices, sales as well as input prices are often beyond management control. Therefore, raising productivity (output per hour of an employee) is one of the few ways to lift corporate profitability and, by extension, return on capital. Unit labor costs = (wage per person per hour) / productivity 4. Rapid productivity advances allow companies to become more competitive without currency depreciation (Chart 5and Chart 6). Exchange rates of countries that achieve faster productivity growth typically appreciate in the long run. Chart 5Switzerland: High Productivity Has Sustained Competitiveness/Export Volumes Despite Currency Appreciation Chart 6China and Vietnam: Rising Export Market Share Reflects Productivity Gains   Enterprises with higher productivity can drop their selling prices with limited impact on their profitability. By doing so, they can undercut their competitors and gain market share. Hence, solid productivity gains also entail a competitive currency, eliminating the need for central banks to hike interest rates in order to defend the exchange rate. 5. High indebtedness – in both public and private sectors – is easier to manage amid brisk productivity gains because the latter generate strong economic growth and relatively low nominal interest rates. Robust income gains among businesses and households, as well as for the government via taxation, enable indebted agents to service higher debt loads. Besides, nominal GDP growth above nominal interest rates arithmetically implies a drop in the public debt-to-GDP ratio. In brief, the economy could “grow into its debt” with robust productivity gains. In sum, strong/weak productivity growth leads to secular bull/bear markets in both equities and the currency. Rapid Productivity Gains Lead To A Virtuous Circle The following illustrates how robust productivity gains can engender a virtuous self-reinforcing cycle that can run for many years. Fast productivity gains allow for either fast wage or rapid corporate profit growth or a combination of the two. As income per capita rises, consumer spending grows and capital owners are willing to invest. New investments create new jobs and income and could also boost future productivity if substantial capital misallocation is dodged. The economy expands at a rapid rate, but inflation and, thereby, interest rates remain capped because the economy’s productive capacity grows in line with demand. Strong income and profit growth as well as stable borrowing costs lead to more credit demand from both households and businesses. Bank and non-bank credit expand but rapid household income gains and healthy enterprise profitability as well as growing government tax revenues support the private or public sectors’ debt servicing capacity. Robust economic growth, elevated real interest rates and high profitability attract foreign capital and foreign inflows lead to currency appreciation. Yet, such currency appreciation should not undermine the competitiveness of local producers – both exporters and those competing with imported goods. As discussed above, sizable productivity gains could reduce unit labor costs and allow domestic companies to drop their prices, sustaining their market shares in both export markets and domestically. Consequently, the trade balance does not deteriorate structurally despite a rapid expansion in domestic demand. Healthy balance of payments support the currency, i.e., the central bank does not need to hike interest rates or draw down reserves to defend the exchange rate. Finally, rapid corporate profit and household income growth as well as reasonably low nominal interest rates sustain high asset (equity and property) valuations for longer. Such a virtuous circle can persist until something breaks or major excesses – for example, capital misallocation, credit or property bubbles – emerge and then unravel. Meager Productivity Gains Lead To A Vicious Circle The following demonstrates how stagnant productivity can set in motion a vicious self-reinforcing circle. With no productivity gains, a business cycle recovery will likely lead to higher inflation sooner than later. The latter will short circuit the economic expansion as the central bank is forced to hike interest rates. If the central bank does not hike interest rates despite rising inflation, real (inflation-adjusted) interest rates will fall and could become negative. Low real rates are bearish for the currency. Either the central bank will be forced eventually to hike interest rates substantially or the exchange rate will continue depreciating. There are two reasons why low real interest rates are negative for the exchange rate: (1) low real borrowing costs will encourage more borrowing, spending, and investment. Such very strong domestic demand in the context of limited domestic productive capacity will lead to a ballooning trade deficit; and/or (2) low real interest rates will discourage foreign fixed-income capital inflows and weigh on the currency. With no productivity gains, any increase in wages will lead to rising unit labor costs and shrinking profit margins; corporate profitability and return on capital will plunge. The sole way to protect profitability amid rising unit labor costs is to raise selling prices. The latter could spur a wage-inflation spiral. Rising unit labor costs and resulting shrinking corporate profit margins leave domestic producers no room to reduce their selling prices to compete in export markets and with imports. The result is less exports, less import substitution and a deteriorating trade balance. In such a case, the only way to restore the competitiveness of domestic producers is to devalue the exchange rate. Declining or low returns on capital will discourage business investment, in general, and foreign direct investment (FDI) in particular with negative ramifications for future productivity. A worsening trade balance as well as diminishing foreign equity and FDI inflows also entail currency depreciation. This feeds into inflation and leads inevitably to monetary policy tightening. Such tightening prompts weaker growth, lower profitability and more foreign capital outflows. This vicious circle can persist until a major regime shift occurs: a dramatically devalued currency that stays very cheap or corporate restructuring and structural reforms that lead to higher productivity. Commodity Prices And Productivity A critical question to address regarding productivity in commodity producing countries is the issue of rising and falling commodity prices. Higher commodity prices lead to improved prosperity and vice versa. Does this mean that high commodity prices should be treated as productivity improvements? There is some ambiguity in regard to this but our preference is not to treat fluctuations in commodity prices as changes in the nation’s structural productivity. Let us consider the examples of Nigeria, which produces and exports oil, and Vietnam, which manufactures and ships smartphones in large quantities. Let us assume that smartphone exports are as important to Vietnam in generating income per capita as oil exports are to Nigeria. A doubling in oil prices amid flat oil export volumes would generate windfall oil revenues which would lift Nigeria’s income per capita. If smartphone prices remain constant but smartphone production and shipments (volumes) double, income per capita in Vietnam would rise as much as in Nigeria.1   The difference between these two scenarios in Nigeria and Vietnam is as follows: Nigeria would be made richer due to the price increases: it would be producing and exporting the same number of barrels of oil but a doubling in crude prices would augment income per capita in Nigeria. The problem is that Nigeria does not control oil prices. If oil prices decline, the nation’s income per capita would also drop substantially. Hence, there would have been no genuine (structural) productivity gains and Nigeria’s prosperity would be at the mercy of the global oil market. In the case of Vietnam, its productivity will have risen as it has succeeded in producing twice as many smartphones as it did last year. The country has built capacity, acquired technology and developed human skills to double smartphone production. This increased capacity, technology acquisition and skills cannot be taken away from Vietnam. This is a case of genuine productivity advancement. In fact, Vietnam could build on these skills and start producing other, more value-added goods. What if Nigeria doubled its oil output and export volume due to more investment and new technologies (as the US succeeded in doing with shale oil)? This scenario would qualify as genuine productivity gains. At any oil price scenario, Nigeria’s oil export revenues would double. The sole caveat is that the new oil production should have reasonably low breakevens, i.e., oil production should be viable even if oil prices decline. The same caveat is applicable to Vietnam. The difference between Nigeria (oil) and Vietnam (smartphones) is that commodities prices are much more volatile than manufactured goods prices. Bottom Line: In commodity producing countries, rising commodities prices have the same effect on income per capita as productivity gains. However, per capita income gains originating from higher commodities prices are reversable, i.e., not sustainable in the very long run. Consequently, higher commodity prices should not be treated as structural productivity gains. By contrast, productivity advancements – like Vietnam doubling its capacity to produce smartphones or Nigeria doubling its oil production volume – are non-reversable, i.e., they cannot be taken away. Hence, these constitute genuine productivity gains. Detecting Productivity Is Akin To Doctors Diagnosing A Patient Even in advanced countries, productivity is hard to measure accurately. Hence, any measure of productivity in developing economies should be used with a grain of salt.  How do we carry out long-term analysis of developing economies when the key variable – productivity growth – is hard to measure? How do we make projections about productivity growth going forward? We see structural macro analysis as analogous to the work of doctors. When diagnosing a patient, doctors cannot necessarily observe what is happening in the patient’s body. Doctors conduct various tests and then analyze those results in the context of the symptoms. Putting it all together, they make a diagnosis and prescribe the necessary treatment. Similar to the manner in which doctors rely on symptoms and medical tests to determine where there is sufficient evidence of a disease, macro strategists do not see what is really occurring in their “patient’s” body, i.e., economies. Data for macro strategists is akin to medical tests for doctors. In developing countries, the quantity of economic data available to macro strategists is limited and of poor quality. Therefore, observing symptoms of economies under consideration and interpreting them correctly is crucial to the job of macro strategists for emerging economies. As they can count less on hard data and instead rely more on symptoms, their analysis is more of an art than a science. Symptoms Associated With Productivity: How To Detect Productivity At a country level, robust productivity gains are ceteris paribus typically associated with: A structurally improving real trade balance (exports minus import volumes), which is not due to a cheapened currency or a relapse in domestic demand but is due to domestic producers achieving the following: Becoming more competitive and gaining market share in global trade Succeeding in import substitution (imported products are crowded out by locally produced ones) Low inflation during an extended period of business cycle expansion Corporate profit margins expanding simultaneously with higher wages amid low inflation. A lack of productivity gains are ceteris paribus normally attendant with: A structurally deteriorating real trade balance as: Domestic producers lose market share in global exports Domestic producers lose market share to importers in local markets Rising inflation amid a moderate recovery in domestic demand Lingering downward pressure on corporate profit margins i.e., a modest rise in wage growth leads to a drop in corporate profit margins. On the whole, inflation, the real trade balance, and company profit margins constitute a litmus test for assessing productivity growth. A widening real trade deficit is a form of hidden inflationary pressure and a sign of lackluster productivity growth. The rationale is as follows: In a closed economy, when expanding demand outpaces the productive capacity of that economy, i.e., productivity gains do not keep up with thriving domestic demand, inflation will rise considerably. In short, rising inflation will be a symptom of paltry productivity gains. In an open economy, when domestic demand outpaces the productive capacity of that economy, inflation might not rise as demand could be satisfied by imports of foreign goods and services. In such a scenario, even though the trade balance will deteriorate, the currency might stay firm for a while because of foreign capital inflows or rising export (commodities) prices. As a result, inflation will stay low for some time. Eventually, when tailwinds from foreign capital inflows or high export prices cease, the currency will nosedive. Importers will have to raise prices in local currency causing a spike in inflation. Why would foreign capital inflows halt? Lackluster productivity gains amidst solid wage increases would cause a corporate profit margin squeeze and profitability will plummet. As a result, both FDI and equity inflows will dry up and the currency will depreciate. The latter will push up inflation considerably. In a nutshell, in an open economy poor productivity growth might not necessarily lead to high inflation where domestic demand can be satisfied by imports. In these cases, we can say that a widening real trade deficit is a form of hidden inflation. The only exception is when the real trade balance deteriorates due to imports of capital goods and/or new technologies that will be used to build new productive capacity. In such a case, a ballooning trade deficit should not be viewed as a form of hidden inflation and poor productivity growth. If consumer goods dominate imports, this would signify low chances of sizable productivity gains in a given country. If capital goods dominate imports, there are higher odds of future productivity gains. If these imported equipment and technologies are properly utilized, they will make the nation productive and competitive in the coming years. Higher productivity stemming from imports of these capital goods/new technologies, i.e., enlarged capacity to produce goods and services at lower costs, will cap inflation as well as expand exports and result in significant import substitution. A Checklist For Detecting Productivity Diagram 1 presents macro signposts that can be used to diagnose whether an economy is experiencing strong or weak productivity growth (these do not include traditional metrices such as education, R&D spending, strong governance, soft- and hard-infrastructure, etc.): Diagram 1A Checklist For Detecting Productivity Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1  We assume here that all inputs for smartphones are produced domestically, in Vietnam. This is not a realistic assumption, but we use it only to illustrate a macro point about productivity.

特別レポート

Productivity growth is experiencing a cyclical rebound, but remains structurally weak. The end of the deepening of globalization, statistical hurdles, and the possibility that today’s technological advances may not be as revolutionary as past ones all hamper productivity. On the back of rising market power and concentration, companies are increasing markups instead of production. This is depressing productivity and lowering the neutral rate of interest. For now, investors can generate alpha by focusing on consolidating industries. Growing market power cannot last forever and will meet a political wall. Structurally, this will hurt asset prices.   “We don’t have a free market; don’t kid yourself. (…) Businesspeople are enemies of free markets, not friends (…) businesspeople are all in favor of freedom for everybody else (…) but when it comes to their own business, they want to go to Washington to protect their businesses.” Milton Friedman, January 1991. Despite the explosion of applications of growing computing power, U.S. productivity growth has been lacking this cycle. This incapacity to do more with less has weighed on trend growth and on the neutral rate of interest, and has been a powerful force behind the low level of yields at home and abroad. In this report, we look at the different factors and theories advanced to explain the structural decline in productivity. Among them, a steady increase in corporate market power not only goes a long way in explaining the lack of productivity in the U.S., but also the high level of profit margins along with the depressed level of investment and real neutral rates. A Simple Cyclical Explanation The decline in productivity growth is both a structural and cyclical story. Historically, productivity growth has followed economic activity. When demand is strong, businesses can generate more revenue and therefore produce more. The historical correlation between U.S. nonfarm business productivity and the ISM manufacturing index illustrates this relationship (Chart II-1). Chart II-1The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity Chart II-2Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Since 2008, as households worked off their previous over-indebtedness, the U.S. private sector has experienced its longest deleveraging period since the Great Depression. This frugality has depressed demand and contributed to lower growth this cycle. Since productivity is measured as output generated by unit of input, weak demand growth has depressed productivity statistics. On this dimension, the brief deleveraging experience of the early 1990s is instructive: productivity picked up only after 1993, once the private sector began to accumulate debt faster than the pace of GDP growth (Chart II-2). The recent pick-up in productivity reflects these debt dynamics. Since 2009, the U.S. non-financial private sector has stopped deleveraging, removing one anchor on demand, allowing productivity to blossom. Moreover, the pick-up in capex from 2017 to present is also helping productivity by raising the capital-to-workers ratio. While this is a positive development for the U.S. economy, the decline in productivity nonetheless seems structural, as the five-year moving average of labor productivity growth remains near its early 1980s nadir (Chart II-3). Something else is at play. The Usual Suspects Three major forces are often used to explain why observed productivity growth is currently in decline: A slowdown in global trade penetration, the fact that statisticians do not have a good grasp on productivity growth in a service-based economy, and innovation that simply isn’t what it used to be. Slowdown In Global Trade Penetration Two hundred years ago, David Ricardo argued that due to competitive advantages, countries should always engage in trade to increase their economic welfare. This insight has laid the foundation of the argument that exchanges between nations maximizes the utilization of resources domestically and around the world. The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development. Rarely was this argument more relevant than over the past 40 years. On the heels of the supply-side revolution of the early 1980s and the fall of the Berlin Wall, globalization took off. The share of the world's population participating in the global capitalist system rose from 30% in 1985 to nearly 100% today. Generating elevated productivity gains is simpler when a country’s capital stock is underdeveloped: each unit of investment grows the capital-to-labor ratio by a greater proportion. As a result, productivity – which reflects the capital-to-worker ratio – can grow quickly. As more poor countries have joined the global economy and benefitted from FDI and other capital inflows, their productivity has flourished. Consequently, even if productivity growth has been poor in advanced economies over the past 10 years, global productivity has remained high and has tracked the share of exports in global GDP (Chart II-4). Chart II-4The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth This globalization tailwind to global productivity growth is dissipating. First, following an investment boom where poor decisions were made, EM productivity growth has been declining. Second, with nearly 100% of the world’s labor supply already participating in the global economy, it is increasingly difficult to expand the share of global trade in global GDP and increase the benefit of cross-border specialization. Finally, the popular backlash in advanced economies against globalization could force global trade into reverse. As economic nationalism takes hold, cross-border investments could decline, moving the world economy further away from an optimal allocation of capital. These forces may explain why global productivity peaked earlier this decade. Productivity Is Mismeasured Recently deceased luminary Martin Feldstein argued that the structural decline in productivity is an illusion. As the argument goes, productivity is not weak; it is only underestimated. A parallel with the introduction of electricity in the late 19th century often comes to mind. Back then, U.S. statistical agencies found it difficult to disentangle price changes from quantity changes in the quickly growing revenues of electrical utilities. As a result, the Bureau Of Labor Statistics overestimated price changes in the early 20th century, which depressed the estimated output growth of utilities by a similar factor. Since productivity is measured as output per unit of labor, this also understated actual productivity growth – not just for utilities but for the economy as a whole. Ultimately, overall productivity growth was revised upward. Chart II-5Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth In today’s economy, this could be a larger problem, as 70% of output is generated in the service sector. Estimating productivity growth is much harder in the service sector than in the manufacturing sector, as there is no actual countable output to measure. Thus, distinguishing price increases from quantity or quality improvements is challenging. Adding to this difficulty, the service sector is one of the main beneficiaries of the increase in computational power currently disrupting industries around the world. The growing share of components of the consumer price index subject to hedonic adjustments highlight this challenge (Chart II-5). Estimating quality changes is hard and may bias the increase in prices in the economy. If prices are unreliably measured, so will output and productivity. Pushing The Production Frontier Is Increasingly Hard Chart II-6A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity Another school of thought simply accepts that productivity growth has declined in a structural fashion. It is far from clear that the current technological revolution is much more productivity-enhancing than the introduction of electricity 140 years ago, the development of the internal combustion engine in the late 19th century, the adoption of indoor plumbing, or the discovery of penicillin in 1928. It is easy to overestimate the economic impact of new technologies. At first, like their predecessors, the microprocessor and the internet created entirely new industries. But this is not the case anymore. For all its virtues, e-commerce is only a new method of selling goods and services. Cloud computing is mainly a way to outsource hardware spending. Social media’s main economic value has been to gather more information on consumers, allowing sellers to reach potential buyers in a more targeted way. Without creating entirely new industries, spending on new technologies often ends up cannibalizing spending on older technologies. For example, while Google captures 32.4% of global ad revenues, similar revenues for the print industry have fallen by 70% since their apex in 2000. If new technologies are not as accretive to production as the introduction of previous ones were, productivity growth remains constrained by the same old economic forces of capex, human capital growth and resource utilization. And as Chart II-6 shows, labor input, the utilization of capital and multifactor productivity have all weakened. Some key drivers help understand why productivity growth has downshifted structurally. Let’s look at human capital. It is much easier to grow human capital when very few people have a high-school diploma: just make a larger share of your population finish high school, or even better, complete a university degree. But once the share of university-educated citizens has risen, building human capital further becomes increasingly difficult. Chart II-7 illustrates this problem. Growth in educational achievement has been slowing since 1995 in both advanced and developing economies. This means that the growth of human capital is slowing. This is without even wading into whether or not the quality of education has remained constant. This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity. Human capital is also negatively impacted by demographic trends. Workers in their forties tend to be at the peak of their careers, with the highest accumulated job know-how. Problematically, these workers represent a shrinking share of the labor force, which is hurting productivity trends (Chart II-8). Chart II-8Demographics Are Hurting Productivity   The capital stock too is experiencing its own headwinds. While Moore’s Law seems more or less intact, the decline in the cost of storing information is clearly decelerating (Chart II-9). Today, quality adjusted IT prices are contracting at a pace of 2.3% per annum, compared to annual declines of 14% at the turn of the millennium. Thus, even if nominal spending in IT investment had remained constant, real investment growth would have sharply decelerated (Chart II-10). But since nominal spending has decelerated greatly from its late 1990s pace, real investment in IT has fallen substantially. The growth of the capital stock is therefore lagging its previous pace, which is hurting productivity growth. Chart II-10The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation Chart II-11A Dearth Of New Businesses   The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development (Chart II-11). New businesses are a large source of productivity gains. Ultimately, 20% of productivity gains have come from small businesses becoming large ones. Think Apple in 1977 versus Apple today. A large decline in the pace of new business formation suggests that fewer seeds have been planted over the past 20 years to generate those enormous productivity explosions than was the case in the previous 50 years.   The X Factor: Growing Market Concentration The three aforementioned explanations for the decline in productivity are all appealing, but they generally leave investors looking for more. Why are companies investing less, especially when profit margins are near record highs? Why is inflation low? Why has the pace of new business formation collapsed? These are all somewhat paradoxical. Chart II-12Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor This is where a growing body of works comes in. Our economy is moving away from the Adam Smith idea of perfect competition. Industry concentration has progressively risen, and few companies dominate their line of business and control both their selling prices and input costs. They behave as monopolies and monopsonies, all at once.1 This helps explain why selling prices have been able to rise relative to unit labor costs, raising margins in the process (Chart II-12). Let’s start by looking at the concept of market concentration. According to Grullon, Larkin and Michaely, sales of the median publicly traded firms, expressed in constant dollars, have nearly tripled since the mid-1990s, while real GDP has only increased 70% (Chart II-13).2 The escalation in market concentration is also vividly demonstrated in Chart II-14. The top panel shows that since 1997, most U.S. industries have experienced sharp increases in their Herfindahl-Hirshman Index (HHI),3 a measure of concentration. In fact, more than half of U.S. industries have experienced concentration increases of more than 40%, and as a corollary, more than 75% of industries have seen the number of firms decline by more than 40%. The last panel of the chart also highlights that this increase in concentration has been top-heavy, with a third of industries seeing the market share of their four biggest players rise by more than 40%. Rising market concentration is therefore a broad phenomenon – not one unique to the tech sector.     This rising market concentration has also happened on the employment front. In 1995, less than 24% of U.S. private sector employees worked for firms with 10,000 or more employees, versus nearly 28% today. This does not seem particularly dramatic. However, at the local level, the number of regions where employment is concentrated with one or two large employers has risen. Azar, Marinescu and Steinbaum developed Map II-1, which shows that 75% of non-metropolitan areas now have high or extreme levels of employment concentration.4 Chart II-15The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains This growing market power of companies on employment can have a large impact on wages. Chart II-15 shows that real wages have lagged productivity since the turn of the millennium. Meanwhile, Chart II-16 plots real wages on the y-axis versus the HHI of applications (top panel) and vacancies (bottom panel). This chart shows that for any given industry, if applicants in a geographical area do not have many options where to apply – i.e. a few dominant employers provide most of the jobs in the region – real wages lag the national average. The more concentrated vacancies as well as applications are with one employer, the greater the discount to national wages in that industry.5 This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity as well as the widening gap between metropolitan and non-metropolitan household incomes. Growing market power and concentration do not only compress labor costs, they also result in higher prices for consumers. This seems paradoxical in a world of low inflation. But inflation could have been even lower if market concentration had remained at pre-2000s levels. In 2009, Matthew Weinberg showed that over the previous 22 years, horizontal mergers within an industry resulted in higher prices.6 In a 2014 meta-study conducted by Weinberg along with Orley Ashenfelter and Daniel Hosken, the authors showed that across 49 studies ranging across 21 industries, 36 showed that horizontal mergers resulted in higher prices for consumers.7 While today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins. In a low-inflation environment, the only way for companies to garner pricing power is to decrease competition, and M&As are the quickest way to achieve this goal. After examining nearly 50 merger and antitrust studies spanning more than 3,000 merger cases, John Kwoka found that, following mergers that augmented an industry’s concentration, prices increased in 95% of cases, and on average by 4.5%.8 In no industry is this effect more vividly demonstrated than in the healthcare field, an industry that has undergone a massive wave of consolidation – from hospitals, to pharmacies to drug manufacturers. As Chart II-17 illustrates, between 1980 and 2016, healthcare costs have increased at a much faster pace in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. However, life expectancy increased much less than in other advanced economies. In this context of growing market concentration, it is easy to see why, as De Loecker and Eeckhout have argued, markups have been rising steadily since the 1980s (Chart II-18, top panel) and have tracked M&A activity (Chart II-18, bottom panel).9 In essence, mergers and acquisitions have been the main tool used by firms to increase their concentration. Another tool at their disposal has been the increase in patents. The top panel of Chart II-19 shows that the total number of patent applications in the U.S. has increased by 3.6-fold since the 1980s, but most interestingly, the share of patents coming from large, dominant players within each industry has risen by 10% over the same timeframe (Chart II-19, bottom panel). To use Warren Buffet’s terminology, M&A and patents have been how firms build large “moats” to limit competition and protect their businesses. Chart II-18Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Chart II-19How To Build A Moat?   Why is this rise in market concentration affecting productivity? First, from an empirical perspective, rising markups and concentration tend to lead to lower levels of capex. A recent IMF study shows that the more concentrated industries become, the higher the corporate savings rate goes (Chart II-20, top panel).10 These elevated savings reflect wider markups, but also firms with markups in the top decile of the distribution display significantly lower investment rates (Chart II-20, bottom panel). If more of the U.S. output is generated by larger, more concentrated firms, this leads to a lower pace of increase in the capital stock, which hurts productivity. Second, downward pressure on real wages is also linked to a drag on productivity. Monopolies and oligopolies are not incentivized to maximize output. In fact, for any market, a monopoly should lead to lower production than perfect competition would. Diagram II-I from De Loecker and Eeckhout shows that moving from perfect competition to a monopoly results in a steeper labor demand curve as the monopolist produces less. As a result, real wages move downward and the labor participation force declines. Does this sound familiar?   The rise of market power might mean that in some way Martin Feldstein was right about productivity being mismeasured – just not the way he anticipated. In a June 2017 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, Peter Berezin showed that labor-saving technologies like AI and robotics, which are increasingly being deployed today, could lead to lower wages (Chart II-21).11 For a given level of technology in the economy, productivity is positively linked to real wages but inversely linked to markups – especially if the technology is of the labor-saving kind. So, if markups rise on the back of firms’ growing market power, the ensuing labor savings will not be used to increase actual input. Rather, corporate savings will rise. Thus, while today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins.12 Unsurprisingly, return on assets and market concentration are positively correlated (Chart II-22).     Finally, market power and concentration weighing on capex, wages and productivity are fully consistent with higher returns of cash to shareholders and lower interest rates. The higher profits and lower capex liberate cash flows available to be redistributed to shareholders. Moreover, lower capex also depresses demand for savings in the economy, while weak wages depress middle-class incomes, which hurts aggregate demand. Additionally, higher corporate savings increases the wealth of the richest households, who have a high marginal propensity to save. This results in higher savings for the economy. With a greater supply of savings and lower demand for those savings, the neutral rate of interest has been depressed. Investment Implications First, in an environment of low inflation, investors should continue to favor businesses that can generate higher markups via pricing power. Equity investors should therefore continue to prefer industries where horizontal mergers are still increasing market concentration. Second, so long as the status quo continues, wages will have a natural cap, and so will the neutral rate of interest. This does not mean that wage growth cannot increase further on a cyclical basis, but it means that wages are unlikely to blossom as they did in the late 1960s, even within a very tight labor market. Without too-severe an inflation push from wages, the business cycle could remain intact even longer, keeping a window open for risk assets to rise further on a cyclical basis. Third, long-term investors need to keep a keen eye on the political sphere. A much more laissez-faire approach to regulation, a push toward self-regulation, and a much laxer enforcement of antitrust laws and merger rules were behind the rise in market power and concentration.13 The particularly sharp ascent of populism in Anglo-Saxon economies, where market power increased by the greatest extent, is not surprising. So far, populists have not blamed the corporate sector, but if the recent antitrust noise toward the Silicon Valley behemoths is any indication, the clock is ticking. On a structural basis, this could be very negative for asset prices. An end to this rise in market power would force profit margins to mean-revert toward their long-term trend, which is 4.7 percentage-points below current levels. This will require discounting much lower cash flows in the future. Additionally, by raising wages and capex, more competition would increase aggregate demand and lift real interest rates. Higher wages and aggregate demand could also structurally lift inflation. Thus, not only will investors need to discount lower cash flows, they will have to do so at higher discount rates. As a result, this cycle will likely witness both a generational peak in equity valuations as well as structural lows in bond yields. As we mentioned, these changes are political in nature. We will look forward to studying the political angle of this thesis to get a better handle on when these turning points will likely emerge. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1       A monopsony is a firm that controls the price of its input because it is the dominant, if not unique, buyer of said input. 2       G. Grullon, Y. Larkin and R. Michaely, “Are Us Industries Becoming More Concentrated?,” April 2017. 3       The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is calculated by taking the market share of each firm in the industry, squaring them, and summing the result. Consider a hypothetical industry with four total firm where firm1, firm2, firm3 and firm4 has 40%, 30%, 15% and 15% of market share, respectively. Then HHI is 402+302+152+152 = 2,950. 4       J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 5     J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 6     M. Weinberg, “The Price Effects Of Horizontal Mergers”, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Volume 4, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages 433–447. 7     O. Ashenfelter, D. Hosken, M. Weinberg, "Did Robert Bork Understate the Competitive Impact of Mergers? Evidence from Consummated Mergers," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages S67 - S100. 8    J. Kwoka, “Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies: A Retrospective Analysis of U.S. Policy,” MIT Press, 2015. 9     J. De Loecker, J. Eeckhout, G. Unger, "The Rise Of Market Power And The Macroeconomic Implications," Mimeo 2018. 10     “Chapter 2: The Rise of Corporate Market Power and Its Macroeconomic Effects,” World Economic Outlook, April 2019. 11     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?"dated May 31, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 12     Productivity can be written as: 13     J. Tepper, D. Hearn, “The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition,” Wiley, November 2018.

特別レポート

Dear Client, In addition to this Special Report written by my colleague Mark McClellan, we are sending you an abbreviated weekly report, which includes the Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to one school of thought, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation. If true, it could mean that central banks are almost powerless to reach their inflation targets. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. In theory, positive supply shocks should not have more than a temporary impact on inflation if the price level is indeed a monetary phenomenon in the long term. But a series of positive supply shocks could make it appear for quite a while that low inflation is structural in nature. We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence at the macro level. The admittedly inadequate measures of online prices available today do not suggest that e-commerce sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points. Moreover, it does not appear that the disinflationary impact of competition in the retail sector has intensified over the years. Today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. However, the fact that retail margins are near secular highs outside of department stores argues against this thesis. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High profit margins for the overall corporate sector and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. Feature Anecdotal evidence is all around us. The global economy is evolving and it seems that all of the major changes are deflationary. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. Central banks in the major advanced economies are having difficulty meeting their inflation targets, even in the U.S. where the labor market is tight by historical standards. Based on the depressed level of bond yields, it appears that the majority of investors believe that inflation headwinds will remain formidable for a long time. One school of thought is that low inflation reflects a lack of demand growth in the post-Great Financial Crisis (GFC) period. Another school points to the supply side of the economy. A recent report by Prudential Financial highlights "...obvious examples of ... new business models and new organizational structures, whereby higher-cost traditional methods of production, transportation, and distribution are displaced by more nontraditional cost-effective ways of conducting business." 1 A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to this school, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation (i.e., the Phillips Curve). Employees are less aggressive in their wage demands in a world where robots are threatening humans in a broadening array of industrial categories. Many feel lucky just to have a job. In a highly sensationalized article called "How The Internet Economy Killed Inflation," Forbes argued that "the internet has reduced many of the traditional barriers to entry that protect companies from competition and created a race to the bottom for prices in a number of categories." Forbes believes that new technologies are placing downward pressure on inflation by depressing wages, increasing productivity and encouraging competition. There are many factors that have the potential to weigh on prices, but analysts are mainly focusing on e-commerce, robotics, artificial intelligence, and the gig economy. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. The latter refers to the advent of new business models that cut out layers of middlemen between producers and consumers. Amazonification E-commerce has grown at a compound annual rate of more than 9% over the past 15 years, and now accounts for about 8½% of total U.S. retail sales (Chart 1). Amazon has been leading the charge, accounting for 43% of all online sales in 2016 (Chart 2). Amazon's business model not only cuts costs by eliminating middlemen and (until recently) avoiding expensive showrooms, but it also provides a platform for improved price discovery on an extremely broad array of goods. In 2013, Amazon carried 230 million items for sale in the United States, nearly 30 times the number sold by Walmart, one of the largest retailers in the world. Chart 1E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart 2Amazon Dominates With the use of a smartphone, consumers can check the price of an item on Amazon while shopping in a physical store. Studies show that it does not require a large price gap for shoppers to buy online rather than in-store. Amazon appears to be impacting other retailers' ability to pass though cost increases, leading to a rash of retail outlet closings. Sears alone announced the closure of 300 retail outlets this year. The devastation that Amazon inflicted on the book industry is well known. It is no wonder then, that Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods Market, a grocery chain, sent shivers down the spines of CEOs not only in the food industry, but in the broader retail industry as well. What would prevent Amazon from applying its model to furniture and appliances, electronics or drugstores? It seems that no retail space is safe. A Little Theory Before we turn to the evidence, let's review the macro theory related to positive supply shocks. The internet could be lowering prices by moving product markets toward the "perfect competition" model. The internet trims search costs, improves price transparency and reduces barriers to entry. The internet also allows for shorter supply chains, as layers of wholesalers and other intermediaries are removed and e-commerce companies allow more direct contact between consumers and producers. Fewer inventories and a smaller "brick and mortar" infrastructure take additional costs out of the system. Economic theory suggests that the result of this positive supply shock will be greater product market competition, increased productivity and reduced profitability. In the long run, workers should benefit from the productivity boost via real wage gains (even if nominal wage growth is lackluster). Workers may lower their reservation wage if they feel that increased competitive pressures or technology threaten their jobs. The internet is also likely to improve job matching between the unemployed and available vacancies, which should lead to a fall in the full-employment level of unemployment (NAIRU). Nonetheless, the internet should not have a permanent impact on inflation. The lower level of NAIRU and the direct effects of the internet on consumer prices discussed above allow inflation to fall below the central bank's target. The bank responds by lowering interest rates, stimulating demand and thereby driving unemployment down to the new lower level of NAIRU. Over time, inflation will drift back up toward target. In other words, a greater degree of the competition should boost the supply side of the economy and lower NAIRU, but it should not result in a permanently lower rate of inflation if inflation is indeed a monetary phenomenon and central banks strive to meet their targets. Still, one could imagine a series of supply shocks that are spread out over time, with each having a temporary negative impact on prices such that it appears for a while that inflation has been permanently depressed. This could be an accurate description of the current situation in the U.S. and some of the other major countries. We have sympathy for the view that the internet and new business models are increasing competition, cutting costs and thereby limiting price increases in some areas. But is there any hard evidence? Is the competitive effect that large, and is it any more intense than in the past? There are a number of reasons to be skeptical because most of the evidence does not support Forbes' claim that the internet has killed inflation. 1. E-commerce affects only a small part of the Consumer Price Index As mentioned above, online shopping for goods represents 8.5% of total retail sales in the U.S. E-commerce is concentrated in four kinds of businesses (Table 1): Furniture & Home Furnishings (7% of total retail sales), Electronics & Appliances (20%), Health & Personal Care (15%), and Clothing (10%). Since goods make up 40% of the CPI, then 3.2% (8% times 40%) is a ballpark estimate for the size of goods e-commerce in the CPI. Table 1E-Commerce Market Share Of Goods Sector Table 2 shows the relative size of e-commerce in the service sector. The analysis is complicated by the fact that the data on services includes B-to-B sales in addition to B-to-C.2 However, e-commerce represents almost 4% of total sales for the service categories tracked by the BLS. Services make up 60% of the CPI, but the size drops to 26% if we exclude shelter (which is probably not affected by online shopping). Thus, e-commerce in the service sector likely affects 1% (3.9% times 26%) of the CPI. Table 2E-Commerce Market Share Of Service Sector Adding goods and services, online shopping affects about 4.2% of the CPI index at most. The bottom line is that the relatively small size of e-commerce at the consumer level limits any estimate of the impact of online sales on the broad inflation rate. 2. Most of the deceleration in inflation since 2007 has been in areas unaffected by e-commerce Table 3 compares the average contribution to annual average CPI inflation during 2000-2007 with that of 2007-2016. Average annual inflation fell from 2.9% in the seven years before the Great Recession to 1.8% after, for a total decline of just over 1 percentage point. The deceleration is almost fully explained by Energy, Food and Owners' Equivalent Rent. The bottom part of Table 3 highlights that the sectors with the greatest exposure to e-commerce had a negligible impact on the inflation slowdown. Table 3Comparison Of Pre- And Post-Lehman Inflation Rates 3. The cost advantages for online sellers are overstated Bain & Company, a U.S. consultancy, argues that e-commerce will not grow in importance indefinitely and come to dominate consumer spending.3 E-commerce sales are already slowing. Market share is following a classic S-shaped curve that, Bain estimates, will top out at under 30% by 2030. First, not everyone wants to buy everything online. Products that are well known to consumers and purchased on a regular basis are well suited to online shopping. But for many other products, consumers need to see and feel the product in person before making a purchase. Second, the cost savings of online selling versus traditional brick and mortar stores is not as great as many believe. Bain claims that many e-commerce businesses struggle to make a profit. The information technology, distribution centers, shipping, and returns processing required by e-commerce companies can cost as much as running physical stores in some cases. E-tailers often cannot ship directly from manufacturers to consumers; they need large and expensive fulfillment centers and a very generous returns policy. Moreover, online and offline sales models are becoming blurred. Retailers with physical stores are growing their e-commerce operations, while previously pure e-commerce plays are adding stores or negotiating space in other retailers' stores. Even Amazon now has storefronts. The shift toward an "multichannel" selling model underscores that there are benefits to traditional brick-and-mortar stores that will ensure that they will not completely disappear. 4. E-commerce is not the first revolution in the retail sector The retail sector has changed significantly over the decades and it is not clear that the disinflationary effect of the latest revolution, e-commerce, is any more intense than in the past. Economists at Goldman Sachs point out that the growth of Amazon's market share in recent years still lags that of Walmart and other "big box" stores in the 1990s (Chart 3).4 This fact suggests that "Amazonification" may not be as disinflationary as the previous big-box revolution. 5. Weak productivity growth and high profit margins are inconsistent with a large supply-side benefit from e-commerce As discussed above, economic theory suggests that a positive supply shock that cuts costs and boosts competition should trim profit margins and lift productivity. The problem is that the margins and productivity have moved in the opposite direction that economic theory would suggest (Chart 4). Chart 3Comparison Of Pre- And Post-Lehman Inflation Rates Chart 4Incompatible With A Supply Shock By definition, productivity rises when firms can produce the same output with fewer or cheaper inputs. However, it is well documented that productivity growth has been in a downtrend since the 1990s, and has been dismally low since the Great Recession. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy 5 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, in many industries it appears that productivity is over-estimated. If e-commerce is big enough to "move the dial" on overall inflation, it should be big enough to see in the aggregate productivity figures. Chart 5Retail Margin Squeeze Only In Department Stores One would also expect to see a margin squeeze across industries if e-commerce is indeed generating a lot of deflationary competitive pressure. Despite dismally depressed productivity, however, corporate profit margins are at the high end of the historical range across most of the sectors of the S&P 500. This is the case even in the retailing sector outside of department stores (Chart 5). These facts argue against the idea that the internet has moved the economy further toward a disinflationary "perfect competition" model. 6. Online price setting is characterized by frictions comparable to traditional retail We would expect to observe a low price dispersion across online vendors since the internet has apparently lowered the cost of monitoring competitors' prices and the cost of searching for the lowest price. We would also expect to see fairly synchronized price adjustments; if one vendor adjusts its price due to changing market conditions, then the rest should quickly follow to avoid suffering a massive loss of market share. However, a recent study of price-setting practices in the U.S. and U.K. found that this is not the case.6 The dataset covered a broad spectrum of consumer goods and sellers over a two-year period, comparing online with offline prices. The researchers found that market pricing "frictions" are surprisingly elevated in the online world. Price dispersion is high in absolute terms and on par with offline pricing. Academics for years have puzzled over high price rigidities and dispersion in retail stores in the context of an apparently stiff competitive environment, and it appears that online pricing is not much better. The study did not cover a long enough period to see if frictions were even worse in the past. Nonetheless, the evidence available suggests that the lower cost of monitoring prices afforded by the internet has not led to significant price convergence across sellers online or offline. Another study compared online and offline prices for multichannel retailers, using the massive database provided by the Billion Prices Project at MIT.7 The database covers prices across 10 countries. The study found that retailers charged the same price online as in-store in 72% of cases. The average discount was 4% for those cases in which there was a markdown online. If the observations with identical prices are included, the average online/offline price difference was just 1%. 7. Some measures of online prices have grown at about the same pace as the CPI index The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does include online sales when constructing the Consumer Price Index. It even includes peer-to-peer sales by companies such as Airbnb and Uber. However, the BLS admits that its sample lags the popularity of such services by a few years. Moreover, while the BLS is trying to capture the rising proportion of sales done via e-commerce, "outlet bias" means that the CPI does not capture the price effect in cases where consumers are finding cheaper prices online. This is because the BLS weights the growth rate of online and offline prices, not the price levels. While there may be level differences, there is no reason to believe that the inflation rates for similar goods sold online and offline differ significantly. If the inflation rates are close, then the growing share of online sales will not affect overall inflation based on the BLS methodology. The BLS argues that any bias in the CPI due to outlet bias is mitigated to the extent that physical stores offer a higher level of service. Thus, price differences may not be that great after quality-adjustment. All this suggests that the actual consumer price inflation rate could be somewhat lower than the official rate. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean that inflation, properly measured, is being depressed by e-commerce to a meaningful extent. Indeed, Chart 6 highlights that the U.S. component of the Billion Prices Index rose at a faster pace than the overall CPI between 2009 and 2014. The Online Price Index fell in absolute and relative terms from 2014 to mid-2016, but rose sharply toward the end of 2016. Applying our guesstimate of the weight of e-commerce in the CPI (3.2% for goods), online price inflation added to overall annual CPI inflation by about 0.3 percentage points in 2016 (bottom panel of Chart 6). There is more deflation evident in the BLS' index of prices for Electronic Shopping and Mail Order Houses (Chart 7). Online prices fell relative to the overall CPI for most of the time since the early 1990s, with the relative price decline accelerating since the GFC. However, our estimate of the contribution to overall annual CPI inflation is only about -0.15 percentage points in June 2017, and has never been more than -0.3 percentage points. This could be an underestimate because it does not include the impact of services, although the service e-commerce share of the CPI is very small. Chart 6Online Price Index Chart 7Electronic Shopping Price Index Another way to approach this question is to focus on the parts of the CPI that are most exposed to e-commerce. It is impossible to separate the effect of e-commerce on inflation from other drivers of productivity. Nonetheless, if online shopping is having a significant deflationary impact on overall inflation, we should see large and persistent negative contributions from these parts of the CPI. We combined the components of the CPI that most closely matched the sectors that have high e-commerce exposure according to the BLS' annual Retail Survey (Chart 8). The sectors in our aggregate e-commerce price proxy include hotels/motels, taxicabs, books & magazines, clothing, computer hardware, drugs, health & beauty aids, electronics & appliances, alcoholic beverages, furniture & home furnishings, sporting goods, air transportation, travel arrangement and reservation services, educational services and other merchandise. The sectors are weighted based on their respective weights in the CPI. Our e-commerce price proxy has generally fallen relative to the overall CPI index since 2000. However, while the average contribution of these sectors to the overall annual CPI inflation rate has fallen in the post GFC period relative to the 2000-2007 period, the average difference is only 0.2 percentage points. The contribution has hovered around the zero mark for the past 2½ years. Surprisingly, price indexes have increased by more than the overall CPI since 2000 in some sectors where one would have expected to see significant relative price deflation, such as taxis, hotels, travel arrangement and even books. One could argue that significant measurement error must be a factor. How could the price of books have gone up faster than the CPI? Sectors displaying the most relative price declines are clothing, computers, electronics, furniture, sporting goods, air travel and other goods. We recalculated our e-commerce proxy using only these deflating sectors, but we boosted their weights such that the overall weight of the proxy in the CPI is kept the same as our full e-commerce proxy discussed above. In other words, this approach implicitly assumes that the excluded sectors (taxis, books, hotels and travel arrangement) actually deflated at the average pace of the sectors that remain in the index. Our adjusted e-commerce proxy suggests that online pricing reduced overall CPI inflation by about 0.1-to-0.2 percentage points in recent years (Chart 9). This contribution is below the long-term average of the series, but the drag was even greater several times in the past. Chart 8BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index Chart 9BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index Admittedly, data limitations mean that all of the above estimates of the impact of e-commerce are ballpark figures. Conclusions We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence. The available data are admittedly far from ideal for confirming or disproving the "Amazonification" thesis. Perhaps better measures of e-commerce pricing will emerge in the future. Nonetheless, the measures available today do not suggest that online sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points, and it does not appear that the disinflationary impact has intensified by much. One could argue that lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. Nonetheless, if this were the case, then we would expect to see significant margin compression in the retail sector. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High corporate profit margins and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Finally, today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. Rising online activity means that we need fewer shopping malls and big box outlets to support a given level of consumer spending. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. To the extent that central banks were slow to recognize that equilibrium rates had fallen to extremely low levels, then policy was behind the curve and this might have contributed to the current low inflation environment. Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Robert F. DeLucia, "Economic Perspective: A Nontraditional Analysis of Inflation," Prudential Capital Group (August 21, 2017). 2 Business to business, and business to consumer. 3 Aaron Cheris, Darrell Rigby and Suzanne Tager, "The Power Of Omnichannel Stores," Bain & Company Insights: Retail Holiday Newsletter 2016-2017 (December 19, 2016) 4 "US Daily: The Internet and Inflation: How Big is the Amazon Effect?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research (August 2, 2017). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame the Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Viacheslav Sheremirov, and Oleksandr Talavera, "Price Setting In Online Markets: Does IT Click?" Journal of the European Economic Association (July 2016). 7 Alberto Cavallo, "Are Online and Offline Prices Similar? Evidence from Large Multi-Channel Retailers," NBER Working Paper No. 22142 (March 2016).

特別レポート

Dear Client, I will be visiting clients in Asia over the next ten days, so we are sending you this week's report a bit ahead of schedule. In addition, at the end of this report, we are including the recommendations from our tactical asset allocation model. Going forward, we will be updating these recommendations on our website at the end of every month. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights Productivity growth has declined in most countries. This appears to be a structural problem that will remain with us for years to come. In theory, slower productivity growth should reduce the neutral rate of interest, benefiting bonds in the process. In reality, countries with chronically low productivity growth typically have higher interest rates than faster growing economies. The passage of time helps account for this seeming paradox: Slower productivity growth tends to depress interest rates at the outset, but leads to higher rates later on. The U.S. has reached an inflection point where weak productivity growth is starting to push up both the neutral real rate and inflation. Other countries will follow. The implication for investors is that government bond yields have begun a long-term secular uptrend. The market is not at all prepared for this. Feature Slow Productivity Growth: A Structural Problem Productivity growth has fallen sharply in most developed and emerging economies (Chart 1). As we argued in "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," there is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.1 Yes, the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. No one has offered a convincing explanation for why the well-known problems with productivity calculations suddenly worsened about 12 years ago. If mismeasurement is not responsible for the productivity slowdown, what is? Cyclical factors have undoubtedly played a role. In particular, lackluster investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock (Chart 2). This means that today's workers have not benefited from the improvement in the quality and quantity of capital to the same extent as previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. These include: Waning gains from the IT revolution. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. The rising share of value added coming from software relative to hardware has also contributed to the decline in productivity growth. Chart 3 shows that productivity gains in the latter category have been much smaller than in the former. Chart 2The Great Recession Hit##BR##Capital Stock Accumulation Chart 3The Shift Towards Software Has##BR##Dampened IT Productivity Gains Slower human capital accumulation. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart 4). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics and science, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart 5). Test scores tend to be much lower in countries with rapidly growing populations (Chart 6). Consequently, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Decreased creative destruction. The birth rate of new firms in the U.S. has fallen by half since the late 1970s and is now barely above the death rate (Chart 7). In addition, many firms in advanced economies are failing to replicate the best practices of industry leaders. The OECD reckons that this has been a key reason for the productivity slowdown.2 Chart 7Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Productivity Growth And Interest Rates Investors typically assume that long-term interest rates will converge to nominal GDP growth. All things equal, this implies that faster productivity growth should lead to higher interest rates. Most economic models share this assumption - they predict that an acceleration in productivity growth will raise the rate of return on capital and incentivize households to save less in anticipation of faster income gains.3 Both factors should cause interest rates to rise. The problem is that these theories do not accord with the data. Chart 8 shows that interest rates are far higher in regions such as Africa and Latin America, which have historically suffered from chronically weak productivity growth. In contrast, rates are lower in regions such as East Asia, which have experienced rapid productivity growth. One sees the same negative correlation between interest rates and productivity growth over time in developed economies. In the U.S., for example, interest rates rose rapidly during the 1970s, a decade when productivity growth fell sharply (Chart 9). Chart 9U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The 1970s##BR##While Productivity Swooned Two Reasons Why Slower Productivity Growth May Lead To Higher Interest Rates There are two main reasons why slower productivity growth may lead to higher nominal interest rates over time: Slower productivity growth may eventually lead to higher inflation; Slower productivity growth may deplete national savings, thereby raising the neutral real rate of interest. We discuss each reason in turn. Reason #1: Slower Productivity Growth May Fuel Inflation Chart 10The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude##BR##Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Most economists agree that chronically weak productivity growth tends to be associated with higher inflation. Even Janet Yellen acknowledged as much, noting in a 2005 speech that "the evidence suggests that the predominant medium-term effect of a slowdown in trend productivity growth would likely be higher inflation."4 In theory, the causation between productivity and inflation can run in either direction: Weak productivity gains can fuel inflation while high inflation can, in turn, undermine growth. With respect to the latter, economists have focused on three channels: First, higher inflation may make it difficult for firms to distinguish between relative and absolute price shocks, leading to suboptimal resource allocation. Second, higher inflation may stymie capital accumulation because investors typically pay capital gains taxes even when the increase in asset values is entirely due to inflation. Third, high inflation may cause households and firms to waste time and effort on economizing their cash holdings. There are also several ways in which slower productivity growth can lead to higher inflation. For example, sluggish productivity growth may increase the likelihood that a country will be forced to inflate its way out of any debt problems. In addition, central banks may fail to recognize structural declines in productivity growth in real time, leading them to keep interest rates too low in the errant belief that weak GDP growth is due to inadequate demand when, in fact, it is due to insufficient supply. There is strong evidence that this happened in the U.S. in the 1970s. Chart 10 shows that the Fed consistently overestimated the size of the output gap during that period. Reason #2: Slower Productivity Growth May Deplete National Savings, Leading To A Higher Neutral Real Rate Imagine that you have a career where your real income is projected to grow by 2% per year, but then something auspicious happens that leads you to revise your expected annual income growth to 20%. How do you react? If you are like most people, your initial inclination might be to celebrate by purchasing a new car or treating yourself to a lavish vacation. As such, your saving rate is likely to fall at the outset. However, as the income gains pile up, you might find yourself running out of stuff to buy, resulting in a higher saving rate. This is particularly likely to be true if you grew up poor and have not yet acquired a taste for conspicuous consumption. Now consider the opposite case: One where you realize that your income will slowly contract over time as your skills become increasingly obsolete. The logic above suggests that your immediate reaction will be to hunker down and spend less - in other words, your saving rate will rise. However, as time goes by and the roof needs to be changed and the kids sent off to college, you may find it hard to pay the bills - your saving rate will then fall. The same reasoning applies to economy-wide productivity growth. When productivity growth increases, household savings are likely to decline as consumers spend more in anticipation of higher incomes. Meanwhile, investment is likely to rise as firms move swiftly to expand capacity to meet rising demand for their products. The combination of falling savings and rising investment will cause real rates to increase. As time goes by, however, it may become increasingly difficult for the economy to generate enough incremental demand to keep up with rising productive capacity. At that point, real rates will begin falling. The historic evidence is consistent with the notion that higher productivity growth causes savings to fall at the outset, but rise later on. Chart 11 shows that East Asian economies all had rapid growth rates before they had high saving rates. China is a particularly telling example. Chinese productivity growth took off in the early 1990s. Inflation accelerated over the subsequent years, while the country flirted with current account deficits - both telltale signs of excess demand. It was not until a decade later that the saving rate took off, pushing the current account into a large surplus, even though investment was also rising at the time (Chart 12). Chart 11Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First,##BR##Followed By Higher Savings Chart 12China: Productivity Growth Accelerated,##BR##Then Savings Rate Took Off Today, Chinese deposit rates are near rock-bottom levels, and yet the household sector continues to save like crazy. This will change over time. The working-age population has peaked (Chart 13). As millions of Chinese workers retire and begin to dissave, aggregate household savings will fall. Meanwhile, Chinese youth today have no direct memory of the hardships that their parents endured. As happened in Korea and Japan, the flowering of a consumer culture will help bring down the saving rate. Meanwhile, sluggish income growth in the developed world will make it difficult for households to save much. Population aging will only exacerbate this effect. As my colleague Mark McClellan pointed out in last month's edition of the Bank Credit Analyst, elderly people in advanced economies consume more than any other age cohort once government spending for medical care on their behalf is taken into account (Chart 14).5 Our estimates suggest that population aging will reduce the household saving rate by five percentage points in the U.S. over the next 15 years (Chart 15). The saving rate could fall as much as ten points in Germany, leading to the evaporation of the country's mighty current account surplus. As saving rates around the world begin to fall, real interest rates will rise. Chart 13China's Very High Rate Of National Savings Will Face Pressure From Demographics Chart 15Aging Will Reduce##BR##Aggregate Savings The Two Reasons Reinforce Each Other The discussion above has focused on two reasons why chronically low productivity growth could lead to higher interest rates: 1) weak productivity growth could fuel inflation; and 2) weak productivity growth could deplete national savings, leading to higher real rates. There is an important synergy between these two reasons. Suppose, for example, that weak productivity growth does eventually raise the neutral real rate. Since central banks cannot measure the neutral rate directly and monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, it is possible that actual rates will end up below the neutral rate. This would cause the economy to overheat, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, if the first reason proves to be true, it is more likely that the second reason will prove to be true as well. The Technological Wildcard So far, we have discussed productivity growth in very generic terms - as basically anything that raises output-per-hour. In reality, the source of productivity gains can have a strong bearing on interest rates. Economists describe innovations that raise the demand for labor relative to capital goods as being "capital saving." Paul David and Gavin Wright have argued that the widespread adoption of electrically-powered processes in the early 20th century serves as "a textbook illustration of capital-saving technological growth."6 They note that "Electrification saved fixed capital by eliminating heavy shafts and belting, a change that also allowed factory buildings themselves to be more lightly constructed." In contrast, recent technological innovations have tended to be more of the "labor saving" than "capital saving" variety. Robotics and AI come to mind, but so do more mundane advances such as containerization. Marc Levinson has contended that the widespread adoption of "The Box" in the 1970s completely revolutionized international trade. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them onto waiting trucks or trains. Thus, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are gone.7 If technological progress is driven by labor-saving innovations, real wages will tend to grow more slowly than overall productivity (Chart 16). In fact, if technological change is sufficiently biased in favour of capital (i.e., if it is extremely "labor saving"), real wages may actually decline in absolute terms (Chart 17). Owners of capital tend to be wealthier than workers. Since richer people save more of their income than poorer people, the shift in income towards the former will depress aggregate demand (Chart 18). This will result in a lower neutral rate. Chart 16U.S.: Real Wages Have Been##BR##Lagging Productivity Gains Chart 18Savings Heavily Skewed##BR##Towards Top Earners It is difficult to know if the forces described above will dissipate over time. Productivity growth is largely a function of technological change. We like to think that we are living in an era of unprecedented technological upheavals, but if productivity growth has slowed, it is likely that the pace of technological innovation has also diminished. If so, the impact that technological change is having on such things as the distribution of income and global savings - and by extension on interest rates - could become more muted. To use an analogy, the music might remain the same, but the volume from the speakers could still drop. Capital In A Knowledge-Based Economy Labor-saving technological change has not been the only force pushing down interest rates. Modern economies are transitioning away from producing goods towards producing knowledge. Companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have thrived without having to undertake massive amounts of capital spending. This has left them with billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheets. The price of capital goods has also tumbled over the past three decades, allowing companies to cut their capex budgets (Chart 19). In addition, technological advances have facilitated the emergence of "winner-take-all" industries where scale and network effects allow just a few companies to rule the roost (Chart 20). Such market structures exacerbate inequality by shifting income into the hands of a few successful entrepreneurs and business executives. As noted above, this leads to higher aggregate savings. Market structures of this sort could also lead to less aggregate investment because low profitability tends to constrain capital spending by second- or third-tier firms, while the worry that expanding capacity will erode profit margins tends to constrain spending by winning companies. The combination of higher savings and decreased investment results in a lower neutral rate. As with labor-saving technological change, it is difficult to know how these forces will evolve over time. The growth of winner-take-all industries has benefited greatly from globalization. Globalization, however, may be running out of steam. Tariffs are already extremely low in most countries, while the gains from further breaking down the global supply chain are reaching diminishing returns (Chart 21). Perhaps more importantly, political pressures for greater income distribution, trade protectionism, and stronger anti-trust measures are likely to intensify. If that happens, it may be enough to reverse some of the downward pressure on the neutral rate. Chart 19Falling Capital Goods Prices Have Allowed Companies To Slash Capex Budgets Chart 21The Low-Hanging Fruits Of##BR##Globalization Have Been Picked Investment Conclusions Is slow productivity growth good or bad for bonds? The answer is both: Slow productivity growth is likely to depress interest rates at the outset, but is liable to lead to higher rates later on. Chart 22Output Gap Has Narrowed##BR##Thanks To Lower Potential Growth The U.S. has likely reached the inflection point where slow productivity is going from being a boon to a bane for bonds. Chart 22 shows that the U.S. output gap would be over 8% of GDP had potential GDP grown at the pace the IMF projected back in 2008. Instead, it is close to zero and will likely turn negative if growth remains over 2% over the next few quarters. Other countries are likely to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. To be clear, productivity is just one of several factors affecting interest rates - demographics, globalization, and political decisions being others. However, as we argued in our latest Strategy Outlook, these forces are also shifting in a more inflationary direction.8 As such, fixed-income investors with long-term horizons should pare back duration risk and increase allocations to inflation-linked securities. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo, and Peter N. Gal,"The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 5 (November 2016). 3 Consider the widely-used Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. All things equal, an increase in g will result in a higher equilibrium real interest rate. The same is true in the Ramsey model, which goes a step further and endogenizes the saving rate within a fully specified utility-maximization framework. In this model, consumption growth is pinned down by the so-called Euler equation. Assuming that utility can be described by a constant relative risk aversion utility function, the Euler equation states that consumption will grow at (r-d)/h where d is the rate at which households discount future consumption and h is a measure of the degree to which households want to smooth consumption over time. In a steady state, consumption increases at the same rate as GDP, n+g. Rearranging the terms yields: r=(n+g)h+d. Notice that both models provide a mechanism by which a higher g can decrease r. In the Solow model, this comes from thinking about the saving rate not as an exogenous variable, but as something that can be influenced by the growth rate of the economy. In particular, if s rises in response to a higher g, r could fall. Likewise, in the Ramsey model, a higher g could make households more willing to forgo consumption today in return for higher consumption tomorrow (equivalent to a decrease in the rate of time preference, d). This, too, would translate into a lower neutral rate. 4 Janet L. Yellen, "The U.S. Economic Outlook," Presentation to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, February 11, 2005. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," April 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Paul A. David, and Gavin Wright,"General Purpose Technologies And Surges In Productivity: Historical Reflections On the Future Of The ICT Revolution," January 2012. 7 Marc Levinson, "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger," Princeton University Press, 2006. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. APPENDIX: Tactical Global Asset Allocation Monthly Update To complement our analysis and intuition, we use a variety of time-tested models to assess the global investment outlook. Compared to last month, our tactical (3-month) model is recommending an upgrade to global equities at the expense of government bonds. Global equities have consolidated their gains, removing some of the overbought conditions that prevailed earlier in May. Bullish equity sentiment has also waned somewhat, while net speculative positioning in U.S. stocks has moved from being net long to net short. In contrast, speculative positioning in Treasurys has jumped into net long territory (Chart A1). Our models say that government bonds in most economies remain overbought. Regionally, we continue to favor higher-beta developed equity markets such as Europe and Japan. Canada, Australia, and most emerging markets have also received an upgrade, owing to a more favorable near-term outlook for commodity prices. Within the bond universe, U.S. Treasurys are most vulnerable to a selloff, given that the market is pricing in only two rate hikes over the next 12 months. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

特別レポート

This month's Special Report was written by Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist for BCA's Global Investment Strategy Service. The report is a companion piece to last month's Special Report, which argued that some of the structural factors that have depressed global interest rates are at an inflection point. These factors include demographic trends and the integration of China's massive labor supply into the global economy. Peter's report focuses on technology's impact on bond yields. He presents the non-consensus view that slow productivity growth likely depresses interest rates at the outset, but will lead to higher rates later on. Not only could sluggish productivity growth lead to higher inflation, it could also deplete national savings. Both factors would be bond bearish, reinforcing the other factors discussed in last month's Special Report. I trust that you will find the report as insightful and educational as I did. Mark McClellan Productivity growth has declined in most countries. This appears to be a structural problem that will remain with us for years to come. In theory, slower productivity growth should reduce the neutral rate of interest, benefiting bonds in the process. In reality, countries with chronically low productivity growth typically have higher interest rates than faster growing economies. The passage of time helps account for this seeming paradox: Slower productivity growth tends to depress interest rates at the outset, but leads to higher rates later on. The U.S. has reached an inflection point where weak productivity growth is starting to push up both the neutral real rate and inflation. Other countries will follow. The implication for investors is that government bond yields have begun a long-term secular uptrend. The market is not at all prepared for this. Slow Productivity Growth: A Structural Problem Productivity growth has fallen sharply in most developed and emerging economies (Chart II-1). As we argued in "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," there is little compelling evidence that measurement error explains the productivity slowdown.1 Yes, the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and air conditioning. No one has offered a convincing explanation for why the well-known problems with productivity calculations suddenly worsened about 12 years ago. If mismeasurement is not responsible for the productivity slowdown, what is? Cyclical factors have undoubtedly played a role. In particular, lackluster investment spending has curtailed the growth in the capital stock (Chart II-2). This means that today's workers have not benefited from the improvement in the quality and quantity of capital to the same extent as previous generations. However, the timing of the productivity slowdown - it began in 2004-05 in most countries, well before the financial crisis struck - suggests that structural factors have been key. These include: Waning gains from the IT revolution. Recent innovations have focused more on consumers than businesses. As nice as Facebook and Instagram are, they do little to boost business productivity - in fact, they probably detract from it, given how much time people waste on social media these days. The rising share of value added coming from software relative to hardware has also contributed to the decline in productivity growth. Chart II-3 shows that productivity gains in the latter category have been much smaller than in the former. Chart II-2The Great Recession Hit ##br##Capital Stock Accumulation Chart II-3The Shift Towards Software Has ##br##Dampened IT Productivity Gains Slower human capital accumulation. Globally, the fraction of adults with a secondary degree or higher is increasing at half the pace it did in the 1990s (Chart II-4). Educational achievement, as measured by standardized test scores in mathematics and science, is edging lower in the OECD, and is showing very limited gains in most emerging markets (Chart II-5). Test scores tend to be much lower in countries with rapidly growing populations (Chart II-6). Consequently, the average level of global mathematical proficiency is now declining for the first time in modern history. Decreased creative destruction. The birth rate of new firms in the U.S. has fallen by half since the late 1970s and is now barely above the death rate (Chart II-7). In addition, many firms in advanced economies are failing to replicate the best practices of industry leaders. The OECD reckons that this has been a key reason for the productivity slowdown.2 Chart II-7Secular Decline In U.S. Firm Births Productivity Growth And Interest Rates Investors typically assume that long-term interest rates will converge to nominal GDP growth. All things equal, this implies that faster productivity growth should lead to higher interest rates. Most economic models share this assumption - they predict that an acceleration in productivity growth will raise the rate of return on capital and incentivize households to save less in anticipation of faster income gains.3 Both factors should cause interest rates to rise. The problem is that these theories do not accord with the data. Chart II-8 shows that interest rates are far higher in regions such as Africa and Latin America, which have historically suffered from chronically weak productivity growth. In contrast, rates are lower in regions such as East Asia, which have experienced rapid productivity growth. One sees the same negative correlation between interest rates and productivity growth over time in developed economies. In the U.S., for example, interest rates rose rapidly during the 1970s, a decade when productivity growth fell sharply (Chart II-9). Chart II-9U.S. Interest Rates Soared In The ##br##1970s While Productivity Swooned Two Reasons Why Slower Productivity Growth May Lead To Higher Interest Rates There are two main reasons why slower productivity growth may lead to higher nominal interest rates over time: Slower productivity growth may eventually lead to higher inflation; Slower productivity growth may deplete national savings, thereby raising the neutral real rate of interest. We discuss each reason in turn. Reason #1: Slower Productivity Growth May Fuel Inflation Most economists agree that chronically weak productivity growth tends to be associated with higher inflation. Even Janet Yellen acknowledged as much, noting in a 2005 speech that "the evidence suggests that the predominant medium-term effect of a slowdown in trend productivity growth would likely be higher inflation."4 Chart II-10The Fed Continuously Overstated The ##br##Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s In theory, the causation between productivity and inflation can run in either direction: Weak productivity gains can fuel inflation while high inflation can, in turn, undermine growth. With respect to the latter, economists have focused on three channels: First, higher inflation may make it difficult for firms to distinguish between relative and absolute price shocks, leading to suboptimal resource allocation. Second, higher inflation may stymie capital accumulation because investors typically pay capital gains taxes even when the increase in asset values is entirely due to inflation. Third, high inflation may cause households and firms to waste time and effort on economizing their cash holdings. There are also several ways in which slower productivity growth can lead to higher inflation. For example, sluggish productivity growth may increase the likelihood that a country will be forced to inflate its way out of any debt problems. In addition, central banks may fail to recognize structural declines in productivity growth in real time, leading them to keep interest rates too low in the errant belief that weak GDP growth is due to inadequate demand when, in fact, it is due to insufficient supply. There is strong evidence that this happened in the U.S. in the 1970s. Chart II-10 shows that the Fed consistently overestimated the size of the output gap during that period. Reason #2: Slower Productivity Growth May Deplete National Savings, Leading To A Higher Neutral Real Rate Imagine that you have a career where your real income is projected to grow by 2% per year, but then something auspicious happens that leads you to revise your expected annual income growth to 20%. How do you react? If you are like most people, your initial inclination might be to celebrate by purchasing a new car or treating yourself to a lavish vacation. As such, your saving rate is likely to fall at the outset. However, as the income gains pile up, you might find yourself running out of stuff to buy, resulting in a higher saving rate. This is particularly likely to be true if you grew up poor and have not yet acquired a taste for conspicuous consumption. Now consider the opposite case: One where you realize that your income will slowly contract over time as your skills become increasingly obsolete. The logic above suggests that your immediate reaction will be to hunker down and spend less - in other words, your saving rate will rise. However, as time goes by and the roof needs to be changed and the kids sent off to college, you may find it hard to pay the bills - your saving rate will then fall. The same reasoning applies to economy-wide productivity growth. When productivity growth increases, household savings are likely to decline as consumers spend more in anticipation of higher incomes. Meanwhile, investment is likely to rise as firms move swiftly to expand capacity to meet rising demand for their products. The combination of falling savings and rising investment will cause real rates to increase. As time goes by, however, it may become increasingly difficult for the economy to generate enough incremental demand to keep up with rising productive capacity. At that point, real rates will begin falling. The historic evidence is consistent with the notion that higher productivity growth causes savings to fall at the outset, but rise later on. Chart II-11 shows that East Asian economies all had rapid growth rates before they had high saving rates. China is a particularly telling example. Chinese productivity growth took off in the early 1990s. Inflation accelerated over the subsequent years, while the country flirted with current account deficits - both telltale signs of excess demand. It was not until a decade later that the saving rate took off, pushing the current account into a large surplus, even though investment was also rising at the time (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Asian Tigers: Growth Took Off First, ##br##Followed By Higher Savings Chart II-12China: Productivity Growth Accelerated, ##br##Then Savings Rate Took Off Today, Chinese deposit rates are near rock-bottom levels, and yet the household sector continues to save like crazy. This will change over time. The working-age population has peaked (Chart II-13). As millions of Chinese workers retire and begin to dissave, aggregate household savings will fall. Meanwhile, Chinese youth today have no direct memory of the hardships that their parents endured. As happened in Korea and Japan, the flowering of a consumer culture will help bring down the saving rate. Meanwhile, sluggish income growth in the developed world will make it difficult for households to save much. Population aging will only exacerbate this effect. As my colleague Mark McClellan pointed out in last month's edition of the Bank Credit Analyst, elderly people in advanced economies consume more than any other age cohort once government spending for medical care on their behalf is taken into account (Chart II-14).5 Our estimates suggest that population aging will reduce the household saving rate by five percentage points in the U.S. over the next 15 years (Chart II-15). The saving rate could fall as much as ten points in Germany, leading to the evaporation of the country's mighty current account surplus. As saving rates around the world begin to fall, real interest rates will rise. Chart II-13China's Very High Rate Of National Savings ##br##Will Face Pressure From Demographics Chart II-15Aging Will Reduce ##br##Aggregate Savings The Two Reasons Reinforce Each Other The discussion above has focused on two reasons why chronically low productivity growth could lead to higher interest rates: 1) weak productivity growth could fuel inflation; and 2) weak productivity growth could deplete national savings, leading to higher real rates. There is an important synergy between these two reasons. Suppose, for example, that weak productivity growth does eventually raise the neutral real rate. Since central banks cannot measure the neutral rate directly and monetary policy affects the economy with a lag, it is possible that actual rates will end up below the neutral rate. This would cause the economy to overheat, resulting in higher inflation. Thus, if the first reason proves to be true, it is more likely that the second reason will prove to be true as well. The Technological Wildcard So far, we have discussed productivity growth in very generic terms - as basically anything that raises output-per-hour. In reality, the source of productivity gains can have a strong bearing on interest rates. Economists describe innovations that raise the demand for labor relative to capital goods as being "capital saving." Paul David and Gavin Wright have argued that the widespread adoption of electrically-powered processes in the early 20th century serves as "a textbook illustration of capital-saving technological growth."6 They note that "Electrification saved fixed capital by eliminating heavy shafts and belting, a change that also allowed factory buildings themselves to be more lightly constructed." In contrast, recent technological innovations have tended to be more of the "labor saving" than "capital saving" variety. Robotics and AI come to mind, but so do more mundane advances such as containerization. Marc Levinson has contended that the widespread adoption of "The Box" in the 1970s completely revolutionized international trade. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them onto waiting trucks or trains. Thus, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are gone.7 If technological progress is driven by labor-saving innovations, real wages will tend to grow more slowly than overall productivity (Chart II-16). In fact, if technological change is sufficiently biased in favour of capital (i.e., if it is extremely "labor saving"), real wages may actually decline in absolute terms (Chart II-17). Owners of capital tend to be wealthier than workers. Since richer people save more of their income than poorer people, the shift in income towards the former will depress aggregate demand (Chart II-18). This will result in a lower neutral rate. Chart II-16U.S.: Real Wages Have Been ##br##Lagging Productivity Gains Chart II-18Savings Heavily Skewed ##br##Towards Top Earners It is difficult to know if the forces described above will dissipate over time. Productivity growth is largely a function of technological change. We like to think that we are living in an era of unprecedented technological upheavals, but if productivity growth has slowed, it is likely that the pace of technological innovation has also diminished. If so, the impact that technological change is having on such things as the distribution of income and global savings - and by extension on interest rates - could become more muted. To use an analogy, the music might remain the same, but the volume from the speakers could still drop. Capital In A Knowledge-Based Economy Labor-saving technological change has not been the only force pushing down interest rates. Modern economies are transitioning away from producing goods towards producing knowledge. Companies such as Google, Apple, and Amazon have thrived without having to undertake massive amounts of capital spending. This has left them with billions of dollars in cash on their balance sheets. The price of capital goods has also tumbled over the past three decades, allowing companies to cut their capex budgets (Chart II-19). In addition, technological advances have facilitated the emergence of "winner-take-all" industries where scale and network effects allow just a few companies to rule the roost (Chart II-20). Such market structures exacerbate inequality by shifting income into the hands of a few successful entrepreneurs and business executives. As noted above, this leads to higher aggregate savings. Market structures of this sort could also lead to less aggregate investment because low profitability tends to constrain capital spending by second- or third-tier firms, while the worry that expanding capacity will erode profit margins tends to constrain spending by winning companies. The combination of higher savings and decreased investment results in a lower neutral rate. Chart II-19Falling Capital Goods Prices Have ##br##Allowed Companies To Slash Capex Budgets As with labor-saving technological change, it is difficult to know how these forces will evolve over time. The growth of winner-take-all industries has benefited greatly from globalization. Globalization, however, may be running out of steam. Tariffs are already extremely low in most countries, while the gains from further breaking down the global supply chain are reaching diminishing returns (Chart II-21). Perhaps more importantly, political pressures for greater income distribution, trade protectionism, and stronger anti-trust measures are likely to intensify. If that happens, it may be enough to reverse some of the downward pressure on the neutral rate. Chart II-21The Low-Hanging Fruits Of ##br##Globalization Have Been Picked Investment Conclusions Is slow productivity growth good or bad for bonds? The answer is both: Slow productivity growth is likely to depress interest rates at the outset, but is liable to lead to higher rates later on. The U.S. has likely reached the inflection point where slow productivity is going from being a boon to a bane for bonds. Chart II-22 shows that the U.S. output gap would be over 8% of GDP had potential GDP grown at the pace the IMF projected back in 2008. Instead, it is close to zero and will likely turn negative if growth remains over 2% over the next few quarters. Other countries are likely to follow in the footsteps of the U.S. Chart II-22Output Gap Has Narrowed Thanks ##br##To Lower Potential Growth To be clear, productivity is just one of several factors affecting interest rates - demographics, globalization, and political decisions being others. However, as we argued in our latest Strategy Outlook, these forces are also shifting in a more inflationary direction.8 As such, fixed-income investors with long-term horizons should pare back duration risk and increase allocations to inflation-linked securities. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Dan Andrews, Chiara Criscuolo, and Peter N. Gal,"The Best versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence across Firms and the Role of Public Policy," OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 5 (November 2016). 3 Consider the widely-used Solow growth model. The model says that the neutral real rate, r, is equal to (a/s) (n + g + d), where a is the capital share of income, s is the saving rate, n is labor force growth, g is total factor productivity growth, and d is the depreciation rate of capital. All things equal, an increase in g will result in a higher equilibrium real interest rate. The same is true in the Ramsey model, which goes a step further and endogenizes the saving rate within a fully specified utility-maximization framework. In this model, consumption growth is pinned down by the so-called Euler equation. Assuming that utility can be described by a constant relative risk aversion utility function, the Euler equation states that consumption will grow at (r-d)/h where d is the rate at which households discount future consumption and h is a measure of the degree to which households want to smooth consumption over time. In a steady state, consumption increases at the same rate as GDP, n+g. Rearranging the terms yields: r=(n+g)h+d. Notice that both models provide a mechanism by which a higher g can decrease r. In the Solow model, this comes from thinking about the saving rate not as an exogenous variable, but as something that can be influenced by the growth rate of the economy. In particular, if s rises in response to a higher g, r could fall. Likewise, in the Ramsey model, a higher g could make households more willing to forgo consumption today in return for higher consumption tomorrow (equivalent to a decrease in the rate of time preference, d). This, too, would translate into a lower neutral rate. 4 Janet L. Yellen, "The U.S. Economic Outlook," Presentation to the Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research, February 11, 2005. 5 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," April 28, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 6 Paul A. David, and Gavin Wright,"General Purpose Technologies And Surges In Productivity: Historical Reflections On the Future Of The ICT Revolution," January 2012. 7 Marc Levinson, "The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger," Princeton University Press, 2006. 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

特別レポート

There is little evidence suggesting that declining productivity growth in recent years has resulted from measurement error. Businesses have plucked many of the low-hanging fruits made possible by the IT revolution, while cyclical factors stemming from the Great Recession have also weighed on productivity. Low productivity growth tends to be deflationary in the short run, but inflationary longer-term. For now, this is good news for bonds, but is likely to become bad news by decade-end.