財政
Highlights The November jobs report keeps the Fed on track. Despite rising government debt levels, crowding out is not a significant threat. Capex as a share of GDP rises the year before a tax cut and falls in the year after. Holiday spending on track, boosted by tax bill. Feature Last week, investors assessed the ramifications of the OPEC meeting and the Senate's passage of the tax plan. The dollar was noticeably higher, and oil moved lower during the week, but other financial markets ended little changed. Chart 1 shows that the Trump trades are making a comeback, providing ample opportunity for investors who may have missed the trade the first time around. In this week's report, we examine the impact of the tax bill on the debt, deficit, and capital spending and more importantly on corporate balance sheets and financial markets. BCA's view is that the risk that rising government debt levels will crowd out private borrowing is low and that the tax cut will provide a tiny boost to an already robust capital spending environment. We also examine what signal the equity markets are sending about household spending in the holiday season. Chart 1Markets Responding To GOP Tax Plan Living In Paradise The November employment report, released last Friday, paints a Goldilocks-type macro environment for U.S. assets. Strong economic growth, muted inflation, and a go-slow Fed should prolong the bull market in U.S. equities. The economy added 228K in net new jobs, and the unemployment rate held steady at 4.1% in November. With the average work week rising by 0.1 hours, aggregate hours worked rose by a solid 0.5% m/m. Even if hours worked hold flat in December, the average for Q4 will be up 2.6% at an annualized rate from Q3. The November payroll data are easily consistent with about 3.5% GDP growth in Q4. BCA expects above-potential real GDP growth to persist well into 2018. Despite the strong growth and tight labor market, wage pressures remain contained. Average hourly earnings rose just 0.2% m/m in November, which followed a downwardly revised 0.1% m/m decline last month. Annual wage inflation is running at 2.5% (Chart 2). Last week's report will not dissuade the Fed from raising rates again next week. As long as GDP growth remains above trend and the labor market is tightening, the Fed will remain somewhat confident that wages will accelerate and inflation will gradually return to the target level. However, there is no reason yet for the Fed to turn more aggressive for fear of falling behind the curve. Chart 2November Jobs Report Keeps Fed On Track It's Getting Mighty Crowded The recently passed U.S. Senate tax reform bill has to be reconciled with the House bill, but it appears that the Republicans may meet their Christmas deadline after all. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has consistently expected a tax package to pass by the end of Q1 2018 at the latest.1 Although some technical differences between the two versions remain, the two bills are close enough that compromise should not be difficult. The Republicans are under pressure to deliver a "win" ahead of the 2018 mid-term elections. Most of the tax adjustments will occur early next year, except for a reduction in the corporate tax rate that may be delayed until 2019. The Senate version, if passed, would decrease individual taxes by about $680 billion over 10 years, trim small business taxes by just under $400 billion, and reduce corporate taxes by roughly the same amount (including the offsetting tax on currently untaxed foreign profits). The direct effect of all the tax cuts will probably boost real GDP growth in 2018 by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points. However, much depends on the ability of the tax changes and immediate capital expensing to lift animal spirits in the business sector and bring forward investment spending. The total impact - at this stage - is difficult to estimate. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), by the end of 2027 the legislation will add $1 trillion to the debt, including the effects of dynamic scoring. Without the boost from faster economic activity due to the tax changes, the deficit is expected to be $1.4 trillion higher than the CBO's baseline projection for 2027. While nominal economic growth would increase under the plan, the debt-to-GDP ratio would climb to 95% of GDP by 2027, up from 91% under current law (Chart 3). Chart 3Federal Debt As A Share Of GDP Set To Rise Sharply In Coming Decades So far, the Treasury market has shown little reaction to the passage of the Senate bill. Fixed-income investors do not appear to be overly concerned about the implications of the size of the public debt and do not believe that the tax changes alter the Fed's calculations. BCA is also not concerned about the size of public debt in the near term but thinks the tax changes will alter the Fed's forecasts. Nonetheless, more government red ink is likely to raise equilibrium bond yields in the long term. The Fed estimates that the equilibrium 10-year bond yield would rise on a structural basis by 3-4 basis points for each percentage point increase in the Federal government's debt-to-GDP ratio, and by 25 basis points for every percentage point increase in the deficit-to-GDP ratio.2 The implication is that if the GOP plan becomes law, then the 10-year yield will be 12-16 bps higher than under current legislation. Nonetheless, there is only a modest risk that mounting U.S. government debt will crowd out private borrowing and choke off investment on a 12-month horizon. Crowding out occurs when soaring government debt sparks competition between the public and private sectors for available savings. Increased demand for private credit, a narrowing output gap, and elevated interest payments as a percentage of GDP, are all preconditions for crowding out. While the output gap has closed, demand for private credit is mixed, at best, and federal interest payments will remain in check. Private credit demand has rebounded from the recession, but it is still tepid. At 2% of corporate sales, nonfinancial corporate borrowing is at the lower end of its post-crisis range and has downshifted since 2015 (Chart 4). Before the 2007-2009 financial crisis, there was a tight relationship between corporate demand for funds and Treasury yields. Since 2009, the link has weakened; credit demand snapped back, but Treasury yields stayed low. Soft C&I loan demand also indicates less of a risk for crowding out (panel 3). Interest payments on the Federal debt are expected to climb, but remain well below all-time highs set in the early 1990s (Chart 5). The CBO's baseline projects that interest payments on the debt as a share of nominal GDP will more than double from 1.4% in 2017 to 2.9% in 2027. These payments will triple in absolute terms from $300 billion in 2017 to more than $800 billion in 2027. The GOP tax plan will boost the 2027 projection, but the CBO has not yet released a new estimate. In a study prepared prior to the passage of the tax bill, the OECD forecast that the federal government's interest payments would climb to 2.9% by 2019. Chart 4Private Credit Demand Has Rebounded,##BR##But Remains Tepid Chart 5Gradual Rise in Net Interest Payments##BR##Not A Crowding Out Threat Moreover, the Tax Policy Center, a center-left think tank, also concluded that interest costs will move up under the new tax law.3 On balance, interest payments on federal debt obligations as a share of the economy are expected to escalate in the next 10 years to 2.5-3%. This reading is in line with the average in the past 20 years, but is still below the 4-4.5% average reached in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the 3.5-4% range observed from 1970-2000. If nothing else changes, higher federal interest payments would absorb funds that could instead be used for areas that add to the productive capacity of the economy, such as education, training and technical innovation. That said, the impact on long-term growth from "crowding out" may only represent a partial offset to the supply-side benefits of the fiscal package to the extent that the business sector lifts capex spending as a result of a lower corporate tax rate and immediate expensing (see below). Bottom Line: Tax cuts are bond bearish but support our overweight stance on equities on the surface. The effective corporate tax rate could decline by about two percentage points, which would boost after-tax cash flows by roughly 2½%. While this is not trivial, much of the good news already appears to be discounted in the S&P 500. Moreover, to the extent that faster growth in 2018 may bring forward hikes in the Fed funds rate, the equity market will have to contend with rising bond yields next year. Investors are also wondering about the tax plan's potential impact on capital spending and corporate balance sheets. Tiny Steps As discussed above, the fiscal package has the potential to generate significant supply side benefits, to the extent that the business sector turns on the capex taps. The JCT estimates that the tax bill will boost U.S. capital stock by 1.1% in 2027, an increase of about 0.1% a year. However, it is uncertain if corporations will permanently boost capex due to increased allowances for capital spending or if the tax shift will merely bring forward future spending. BCA's view is closer to the latter. We expect higher budget and trade deficits in the coming decade as a result of the Senate plan. These deficits will limit the ability of domestic saving to fund needed capital spending projects. Foreign saving will fill the gap. U.S. domestic saving is below the low end its 1960-2008 range (Chart 6). Chart 7 shows that since 1960, there have been four distinct periods of expanding net saving by foreigners. Nominal 10-year Treasury yields rose in three of the four intervals. However, real yields declined in the 1960s, rose in the mid-1970s and early 1980s as foreign saving increased, and then fell in the 1990s and 2000s. Moreover, a rise in the share of foreign saving led to higher capex in the mid-1960s and 1980s, but lower business expenditures in the 1990s (Chart 8). Chart 6Foreigners Will Finance Capex As##BR##Domestic Saving Declines Chart 7Interest Rates As##BR##Foreign Saving Rises Setting aside who will finance the spending, history suggests that business capital spending tends to climb faster in the 12 months prior to a period of rising fiscal thrust than it does in the 12 months following (Chart 9 and Tables 1 and 2). Note that our analysis shows that recessions occurred in five of the seven episodes of pro-cyclical fiscal policy. Chart 8Capex And Rising Foreign Saving Chart 9Capex During Periods Of Fiscal Stimulus In addition, as fiscal thrust escalates, stocks in the industrial and technology sectors underperform the broad market. Small caps generally beat large caps. Since 2000, the fed funds rate fell during periods of fiscal stimulus. Prior to that, the Fed both eased and tightened policy during these episodes (not shown). Table 1Business Spending 12 Months Before Pro-Cyclical Fiscal Policy Table 2Capex In The Year After Stimulative Fiscal Policy Is Enacted BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) has a tendency to improve during phases of increased fiscal thrust; Chart 10 shows that the CHM improved in five of the seven periods. Free cash flow and return on capital are the best performers during these intervals. In contrast, corporate leverage is apt to shoot up as fiscal policy takes hold. Chart 10Stimulative Fiscal Policy And The Corporate Health Monitor Our fiscal thrust measure includes both personal and corporate tax cuts, and along with increases in government spending. We use fiscal thrust as a proxy because there are a very limited number (just 3 since 1970) of corporate tax cuts to analyze. The paragraphs below covers the impact of corporate tax cuts on capital spending, capital spending-related financial metrics and corporate balance sheets. Capital spending is inclined to rise faster in the 12 months before a corporate tax cut than in the year afterward. The caveat is that there have been only 3 corporate tax cuts in the past 50 years. Charts 11 and 12 and Tables 3 and 4 examine the impact of previous corporate tax reductions on nonresidential fixed investment (and its components) as a share of GDP and on several capex-related metrics in the financial market. Chart 11Corporate Tax Cuts And Capital Spending Chart 12Corporate Tax Cuts And Financial Markets Moreover, industrial stocks underperform the broad market after a tax cut, while tech stocks outperform (Chart 12 again). Small-cap performance is mixed. Both the Fed funds rate and the 10-year Treasury yield rise after corporate tax decreases take effect. Table 3Capex The Year Before A Corporate Tax Cut Table 4Capex In The Year After A Corporate Tax Cut Corporate health weakens in the year before a business tax cut is enacted, but then it improves modestly in the ensuing year. Chart 13 and Tables 5 and 6 examine the significance of previous corporate tax cuts on BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) and several of its components. The interest coverage ratio deteriorates, on average, both before and after a corporate tax reduction, but leverage increases substantially in the 12 months following a corporate tax cut. Free cash flow deteriorates in the year prior to a drop in the business tax rate, but is little changed in the subsequent year. Chart 12Corporate Tax Cuts And Financial Markets Chart 13Corporate Tax Cuts And The Corporate Health Monitor Bottom Line: Business capital spending was already on the upswing and the output gap was already closed before the tax cut was passed. Accelerated depreciation allowance may pull capex ahead, but not materially change its trajectory over the long term. Corporate tax cuts and fiscal stimulus, in general, boost capex and corporate health, and support BCA's view that credit will outperform Treasuries in 2018. Table 5BCA's Corporate Health Monitor A Year Before A Corporate Tax Cut... Table 6...And In The 12 Months After Boxing Day The critical holiday spending season is in full bloom. Holiday retail sales make up the bulk of total consumer spending, representing about 20% to 30% of total annual retail sales (and about 40% of total personal consumption expenditures). Moreover, according to the National Retail Federation (NRF), although 54% of consumers surveyed expect to spend the same amount in this year's holiday season as in 2016, 24% are prepared to spend more. The NRF forecasts that holiday sales will increase between 3.6% and 4.0%, exceeding last year's 3.6% rate and the 5-year average forecast of 3.5%. Holiday retail sales have faded in nominal and real terms from an average of 4.9% in the 1993-1999 period to 3.7% pre-2008 (2000-2007) and to an average of 3.3% post-2008 GFC (2009-2016). However, the baseline trend, based on average annual growth rates, remains stable at 3%, with upside potential of as much as 6% during robust economic growth phases(mid 2000s) and downside risk to as low as -4% in recessions (2008) (Chart 14). Chart 14Holiday Sales: Strong Tailwinds Intact Holiday sales this season may just get an unexpected boost from stout consumer finances. The implication is that U.S. economic growth should remain above potential well into 2018. Solid consumer balance sheets remain a tailwind even at this late stage of the business cycle. Household balance sheets have been repaired in an optimal way and household net worth continues to soar to new highs. The implication is that households are much less likely to forego holiday spending this season than in periods where household net worth is under downward pressure. Furthermore, stock market returns for the U.S. consumer discretionary sector, measured between the mid-September to mid-December period, are well correlated with holiday spending trends (Chart 15). The 8.6% rise in the consumer discretionary sector since mid-September heralds another healthy holiday spending season. However, global consumer discretionary retailers are a better predictor of holiday sales than domestic consumer discretionary retailers. Prices here are up 6.6% since mid-September. Chart 15Trends Of Holiday Sales And Equity Returns Furthermore, expectations of tax reform legislation becoming law by the end of the year will incentivize low income households to spend more this holiday season. This cohort is apt to pay for holiday purchases with cash. The NRF has likened the benefit of the tax plan to a "free Christmas".4 The NRF suggests that the cumulative savings from the tax package for an average household will offset the $967.13 projected to be spent this year by the average household in the holiday season. Moreover, a 2016 Fed study finds that the financing for holiday spending varies by income. Low income households have a tendency to source holiday spending from savings/income rather than borrowing, and if access to credit is not readily available, they simply will not spend on holiday shopping.5 To ensure that a majority of U.S. households contribute towards a robust holiday spending season, strong employment growth alongside stable wage growth (and higher real income expectations) and sturdy consumer confidence is required. With an already tight labor market and the underemployment rate (U-6) close to pre-recession lows, solid consumer fundamentals remain intact. Bottom Line: A robust holiday shopping season is likely in 2017, supported by stout consumer balance sheets, the new tax bill, and rising wages and incomes. The 8.6% run up in consumer discretionary stocks also suggests that a happy holiday for retailers is in prospect. BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service has a neutral rating on the Consumer Discretionary sector, but recommends an overweight the advertising, home improvement retail and leisure products industry groups. Additionally, BCA maintains an overweight to the holiday-sensitive Air Freight and logistics industry within the Industrial sector.6 Strong personal spending will support above potential GDP growth in Q4 and into 2018, eliminate the output gap, push the unemployment rate further below NAIRU and push up inflation and ultimately bond yields. Stay short duration. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Jizel Georges, Senior Analyst jizelg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything," October 25, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 "New Evidence on the Interest Rate Effects of Budget Deficits and Debt", Thomas Laubach, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 2003. https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2003/200312/200312pap.pdf 3 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/148841/2001606-macroeconomic-analysis-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-as-passed-by-the-house-of-representatives_1.pdf 4 https://nrf.com/media/press-releases/retailers-say-senate-passage-of-tax-reform-could-give-shoppers-free-christmas 5 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2016/holiday-spending-and-financing-decisions-in-2015-survey-of-household-economics-and-decisionmaking-20161201.html 6 https://uses.bcaresearch.com/trades/recommendations
Dear Client, I recorded a webcast with my colleague Caroline Miller earlier this week. Caroline and I discussed the recent tax legislation in the U.S. and other key investment topics. I hope you will find the time to listen in. I am also happy to announce that going forward, in addition to sending you my regular reports, I will be sharing my thoughts on the economy and markets through Twitter. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Some profit taking is likely over the next few weeks as U.S. equities discount a more realistic assessment of how lower tax rates will affect corporate cash flows. The cyclical picture for the U.S. and the global economy remains bright, implying that any correction will be short-lived. History suggests that the 7th and 8th innings of business-cycle expansions are often the most profitable for equity investors. With another recession still at least a year away, it is too early to get bearish on stocks and other risk assets. Feature Tax Cuts Arrive Early We had expected the Republicans in Congress to deliver on their pledge to cut taxes, but thought that the legislative process would drag on for longer than it did. In the end, the Senate was able to pass a hastily negotiated bill, giving Donald Trump his first major political victory. The question is where things go from here. The Senate and House bills still need to be reconciled. We do not anticipate much drama in that regard, given the broad similarities between the two versions. The bigger issue is how the legislation will affect the economy and markets. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated in mid-November that the original Senate version of the bill would raise the level of real GDP by an average of 0.8% over the ten-year budget window.1 It is reasonable to assume that the final bill will boost GDP by a similar amount. The impact on growth is likely to be somewhat front-loaded, given that several provisions will either expire or be phased out after five years. We expect real GDP growth to be 0.2%-to-0.3% higher in 2018 and 2019 as a result of the legislation. This is not a particularly large effect, which explains why the bond market reaction has been fairly muted. The impact on corporate profits will be more pronounced, but even here, one should keep things in perspective. The final bill is likely to reduce corporate taxes by about $350 billion over the next ten years. The JCT's baseline assumes corporate tax receipts of $3.9 trillion over the next decade. Thus, the bill will probably reduce the effective corporate tax rate by a bit less than two percentage points, taking it down from 19% to 17%. This, in turn, implies an increase in after-tax corporate cash flows of about 2.5% (i.e., 83 divided by 81). The market ran up a lot more than that over the past few months. Thus, we would not be surprised to see some profit-taking over the coming weeks. Cyclical Picture Still Bright If such a stock market correction occurs, it would represent a buying opportunity. Historically, recessions and bear markets have gone hand in hand (Chart 1). Right now, none of our recession indicators are warning of an imminent downturn (Chart 2). Chart 1Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Chart 2ANo Imminent Risk Of A U.S. Recession Chart 2BNo Imminent Risk Of A U.S. Recession This reassuring conclusion is consistent with the signal from our forthcoming MacroQuant Model, which we will be discussing in greater detail in the months ahead. This ground-breaking model examines dozens of variables, including a number of BCA's proprietary indicators, in order to consistently and accurately project returns across the key asset classes, geographies, and time horizons. Currently, the model is flagging a somewhat elevated risk of a temporary pullback, but continues to give a highly bullish reading on the cyclical (6-to-12 month) outlook (Chart 3). Chart 3BCA's MacroQuant Model Still Likes Equities The model's auspicious assessment largely stems from the strength of recent economic data in the U.S. and around the world. Global growth estimates continue to grind higher (Chart 4). In the U.S., the new orders component of the ISM manufacturing index rose to 64 in November, while the inventory component sank to 47. We have found that the gap between the two is a powerful predictor of stock market returns (Chart 5). The current gap is in the 87th percentile of its historic range. By the same token, core durable goods orders, initial unemployment claims, capex intentions, consumer and business confidence, global PMIs, and most other leading indicators paint a fairly upbeat picture. Chart 4Global Growth Projections Are Trending Higher Chart 5ISM As A Predictor Of Market Returns The euro area and Japan also continue to grow at a robust pace (Chart 6). Somewhat worryingly, China has seen growth tick down a notch in recent months (Chart 7). However, the evidence so far suggests that growth has merely slowed from an above-trend pace back towards potential. Nominal GDP rose by 11.2% year-over-year in Q3 2017, up from 6.4% in Q4 2015. Producer price inflation has gone from as low as negative 5.9% in September 2015 to 6.9% at present. Core CPI inflation has also accelerated, rising to 2.3% in October (Chart 8). In this light, recent efforts by the authorities to expedite structural reforms are coming at an opportune time. Chart 6Positive Growth Momentum ##br##In The Euro Area And Japan Chart 7Growth Has Ticked Down##br## In China... Chart 8... But Merely From##br## An Above-Trend Pace Too Early To Bail Out Of Stocks Table 1Stocks And Recessions: Case-By-Case All good things must come to an end. As we discussed in our latest Strategy Outlook, the global economy is likely to fall into recession in late 2019.2 Markets will sniff out a recession before it happens, but in general, the lag time between when markets peak and when recessions begin does not tend to be very long. Table 1 shows that the lag has averaged seven months during the post-war era, with the past three recessions featuring an average gap of only four months. In fact, history suggests that the 7th and 8th innings of business-cycle expansions are often the most profitable for investors. The S&P 500 has delivered an average annualized real total return of 14.2% since 1950 in the 13-to-24 months prior to past U.S. recessions (Table 2). This exceeds the average return of 10.1% during business-cycle expansions. The S&P has returned 8% at an annualized pace in the 7-to-12 months prior to past recessions. While this is below the average return during past expansions, it is still well above the average return on bonds and cash during the corresponding periods. Moreover, the performance of stocks in the 7-to-12 month period preceding recessions has improved sharply over the past few business cycles. The S&P 500 generated an annualized real total return of 22.2%, 20%, and 13.6% in the 7-to-12 months prior to the beginning of the 1990-91, 2001, and 2007-09 recessions, respectively. Table 2How Have Stocks Performed Prior To Recessions? Stocks only begin to underperform in a meaningful way in the six months before the recession and continue to underperform in the initial phase of the downturn. Thus, even if one had known with complete certainty that a recession was coming, getting out of stocks more than six months in advance of the downturn would have been a mistake. Bottom line: With another recession still at least a year away, it is too early to get bearish on equities and other risk assets. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Macroeconomic Analysis Of The "Tax Cut And Jobs Act" As Ordered Reported By The Senate Committee On Finance On November 16, 2017," The Joint Committee On Taxation, U.S. Congress (November 30, 2017). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Outlook, "A Timeline For The Next Five Years," dated December 1, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights The recent price action in the credit markets is disconcerting; it challenges BCA's bullish view and raises the odds of an equity market correction in the near term. Credit spreads would need to widen significantly more to signal that a recession is imminent. What asset classes would benefit if the curve steepens and oil prices rise? Risk assets tend to do better the year before a tax cut than they do the year after. Feature BCA's view is that global growth is on solid footing. EPS growth in the U.S. is in the process of peaking, but will be relatively robust through the end of 2018. If our view is correct, U.S. stocks will outperform bonds in the next 12 months. Nonetheless, last week investors took profits in oil, the dollar, high-yield bonds and U.S. equities as the 2/10 Treasury curve flattened to just 65 bps, the lowest reading in 10 years (Chart 1). The risk aversion occurred amid concern about global growth, waning prospects for the GOP tax cut, and higher odds of a Fed policy mistake. Moreover, financial conditions tightened last week. Chart 1BCA Expects The Curve To Steepen In The Next 12 Months Even so, the recent price action in the credit markets is disconcerting; it challenges BCA's bullish view and raises the odds of an equity market correction in the near term. Junk bonds have sold off in recent weeks, along with EM credit and currencies. In general, credit trends lead the stock market. Moreover, a recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch Survey found that a record share of fund managers are overweight risk assets. Any delay in passage of the tax plan could be the trigger for a correction. BCA's U.S. Equity strategists' views on financial and energy sectors run counter to the recent market action.1 Our position is that financials will benefit from a steeper yield curve and that a drawdown in inventories and robust global oil demand will allow oil prices to rise and energy shares to outperform the S&P 500. Later in this report, we will examine how other risk assets perform as the yield curve steepens and oil prices climb. We also investigate the efficacy of using the high-yield bond market to time equity market pullbacks and recessions. In addition, with investors concerned about the GOP tax bill, we evaluate the performance of U.S. financial market assets, commodities and earnings before and after stimulative fiscal policy is enacted. Slack Is Disappearing The health of the U.S. economy in Q4 is not a concern. Data released last week was solid on October's retail sales, small business optimism and industrial production. Moreover, the November readings on the Empire State and Philadelphia Fed's manufacturing indices support BCA's view that the output gap is narrowing. However, some of the bright readings on the economy in October may reflect a snap back from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. The November 17 readings on Q4 real GDP from both the Atlanta Fed's GDP Now (+3.4%) and the New York Fed's Nowcast (+3.8%) show the economy is running hot. Inflation-adjusted GDP growth of 3.0% or more in Q4 indicates year-over-year GDP growth is well above the Fed's view of both potential GDP growth (1.8%) and its estimate for 2017 (2.4%). Above-potential economic expansion will ultimately lead to higher inflation, given the ever tightening labor market. Despite tightening in the past week, financial conditions have eased in the past year. The implication is that GDP growth in the U.S. is set to accelerate in the coming quarters (Chart 2). The October CPI data provide the Fed with enough reason to bump up rates again next month. The annual core inflation rate ticked up to 1.8% from 1.7%. However, it is still below the roughly 2.4% pace that would be consistent with the core PCE deflator reaching the Fed's 2% target. While inflation is still below-target, there were two encouraging signs in the report. First, BCA's CPI diffusion index nudged back above the zero line. Secondly, core services (ex-shelter and medical care) are showing signs of accelerating. This sub-component of core CPI is the most correlated with wages (Chart 3, panel 4). Fed officials will get one additional reading each on CPI (December 13), the PCE deflator (November 30), and wage inflation (December 8), before the end of the December 12-13 FOMC meeting. Chart 2Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost U.S. Growth Chart 3October CPI Provides Cover For The Fed Bond Market Message The recent widening of credit spreads is not a signal that a recession is imminent. Chart 4 shows that peaks in key credit market metrics are lagging indicators of recession. While the recent spread widening is worrisome on its own, spreads would need to widen significantly more to signal that a recession is imminent. BAA quality spreads, the prepayment and liquidity risk spread (AAA corporate bond yield less 10-year Treasury) and the default risk spread (BAA minus AAA quality spread) are at or close to multi-decade lows.2 BCA does not believe that the spike in all these metrics in late 2015 was a signal that the economy was in or just exiting recession. Rather, the spread widening was related to the collapse in oil prices between mid-2014 and early 2016. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service forecasts oil prices to rise as high as $70 per barrel in 2018.3 Chart 4Spreads Would Need To Widen Significantly More To Signal A Recession That said, these spreads tend to trough just prior to the onset of a recession. In longer expansions in the '60s, '80s, and '90s, bottoms in spreads occurred in mid-cycle. Credit spreads bottomed at the onset of recessions in the early 1960s, late 1960s, mid-1970s and early 1980s. The BAA quality spread and the prepayment and liquidity risk spreads bottomed six months before the onset of the 2007-2009 recession. However, the default risk spread formed a bottom in late 2004, three years before the end of a cycle (Chart 4). Spreads on lower-rated high-yield debt provide slightly earlier signals than those listed above. In the mid-1990s, spreads on BB- and CCC-rated U.S. corporate debt troughed in late 1998 as Russia defaulted, oil prices collapsed and LTCM failed. The signal came more than two years before the onset of the 2001 recession. In the mid-2000s, these spreads formed a bottom in late 2004/early 2005, three years before the 2007-2009 recession. The CCC- and BB-rated OAS spreads in this cycle initially bottomed in mid-2014 as oil price peaked. BB-rated spreads are below their mid-2014 trough, but spreads on CCC-rated debt are not (Chart 5). Chart 5HY Credit Still Outperforming Treasuries Investors question if the widening of spreads is a signal for other markets, especially the equity market. BCA finds that signals from the credit markets for equity markets are short-lived. Table 1 shows that the 13-week change in high-yield OAS is coincident to changes in S&P 500 prices. Often, stocks have already changed direction before any significant sell-off in the high-yield market. Rising spreads of more than 100 basis points tend to last for an average of 16 weeks and are accompanied by a 6% drop in the S&P 500. The only episode when a peak in spreads was not associated with a drop in equity prices occurred in 2001, as the S&P 500 rebounded in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Table 1Stock Market Warning? Rising default rates are a necessary pre-condition for a prolonged interval of escalating spreads. Chart 6 shows the peaks in high-yield OAS spreads, along with the S&P, the VIX and Moody's trailing and forward default rates. In seven of the eight periods, spread widening occurred alongside a rising default rate. The only exception was in 2002 when spreads widened despite a fall in the default rate as accounting scandals rocked corporate America. Today, the default rate is low and falling. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy team expects the default rate to move modestly lower in the next 12 months.4 Chart 6Spread Widening, Recessions, S&P 500 And Vol Bottom Line: The recent widening in credit spreads is one of the factors driving our cautious tactical stance on the U.S. equity market. Despite our near-term concern, BCA favors investment-grade credit and high-yield bonds over Treasuries in the next 12 months. Rising Oil And A Steeper Yield Curve BCA expects that oil prices will move 25% higher to $70/bbl in the next 12 months and that the yield curve will steepen. Above potential economic growth, tightening labor markets and rising inflation expectations will push up the long end of the Treasury curve, while the Fed lags the inflation upturn, leading initially to a steeper curve. What other asset classes would benefit if BCA's call is accurate? Chart 7 and Chart 8 show periods when oil prices rise and the yield curve steepens along with the performance of several key financial markets. Since 1970, there were five periods when oil prices moved higher and seven when the curve steepened. There are several years when both occurred at the same time, and many of these intervals also overlapped with recessions. Chart 7Lessons From Periods Of Rising Oil Prices Chart 8Lessons From Periods Of A Steepening Yield Curve The stock-to-bond ratio climbs when oil prices are rising, including the most recent episode. The S&P 500 outperformed the 10-year Treasury between 2009 and 2014 alongside oil prices, in the second half of the 1998-2008 run up in prices, and in the mid-1980s. However, during the rally in oil in the mid-to-late 1970s, stocks and bonds performed similarly. Both investment-grade and high-yield bonds outpace Treasuries as oil prices escalate. Investment-grade corporates outperformed in each of the five periods. Junk bonds struggled in the late 1980s as oil prices rose and then cruised in the 1990s, but trailed Treasuries in the first half of the 1998-2008 oil boom, finally catching up late in the cycle. The peak in both investment-grade and high-yield's performance versus Treasuries came in June 2007, providing a 12-month advance warning that oil prices had peaked for the cycle. Credit outpaced Treasuries in both oil rallies since the end of the 2007-2009 recession. Small cap performance during oil price rallies is mixed. Small caps beat large caps in the late 1970s, but underperformed in the mid-1980s. Small caps trounced large caps in the first half of the 1998-2008 energy price rally; large caps ran up and then back down again as the tech bubble swelled and then burst. Small caps only kept pace with large as energy prices soared between 2005 and 2008. Small caps eked out modest gains versus large between 2009 and 2014, and since 2016. Today, the energy sector's weight in the small cap sector is 3%, but it has ranged from 2% (2015) to 13% (2008) since 2001. Gold performs well as energy prices increase, aided in part by a weaker dollar. Gold climbed and the dollar fell during all five periods of expanding oil prices. There were several phases (mid-to-late 1980s, early 2000s and earlier this year) when the dollar mounted along with oil prices. Gold moved sideways at times as oil rose, but ultimately gold trended higher. BCA's stock-to-bond ratio generally moves lower as the curve steepens. Nonetheless, there are a few distinct but brief stages (late 1970s, mid 2000s, and 2009-10) when stocks beat bonds. There is not much difference between the performance of either investment-grade or high-yield credit in each of the six periods of curve steepening, but several shifts in a few of these cycles that overlapped with recessions are notable. Credit underperformed Treasuries in the early 1990s, early 2000s and mid-2000s as the economy entered recession, but then outperformed as the recession ended and the curve continued to steepen. Small cap performance as the curve steepens is mixed. As with credit, small caps underperform large on the way into recession as the curve steepens, but outperform after the recession ends. Recessions were not a significant factor in the performance pattern for gold and the dollar during curve steepening. Gold climbed in four of the seven periods of curve steepening, but changed little in the late 1980s/early 1990s episode. Gold declined sharply along with inflation and inflationary expectations in the early 1980s. The dollar moved significantly higher in just one of the seven periods (early 1980s) and was mixed-to-lower in the others. Bottom Line: BCA's bullish stance on the energy and financials sectors in the next 12 months is driven by our view that oil prices will continue to rally and that the Treasury yield curve will steepen as U.S. economic growth accelerates and inflation moved back to the Fed's 2% target. Stocks typically beat bonds as oil prices rally, but stocks generally underperform as the curve steepens. Gold advances under either scenario, while the dollar moves lower when the curve steepens and oil prices rise. The performance of credit and small caps in these episodes is sensitive to the business cycle. Hooray For Tax Cuts? BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team expects the GOP to pass a tax cut bill by the end of Q1 2018.5 Furthermore, the bill should provide a small but positive boost for the U.S. economy, and be neutral for EPS in the 10-year lifetime of the cuts. Chart 9 and Table 2 show that there have been seven periods since 1970 when the OECD's measure of "fiscal thrust"6 climbed. On average, stocks underperform bonds, although both are higher on average. Investment-grade corporate debt beats Treasuries, but high-yield underperforms as fiscal stimulus swells. Small caps (relative to large), gold, oil and the dollar, all are winners. Chart 9Equities, Bonds, Commodities And The Dollar Vs. Fiscal Stimulus Treasuries are the most consistent performers when fiscal policy boosts the economy, advancing in each of the seven episodes. Small caps beat large and the S&P 500 rises in five of the seven periods. The process to propose, debate, and enact significant fiscal stimulus can be a long one, and in many cases, investors deduce that a fiscal boost is on the way well before it is passed into law. Accordingly, risk assets tend to outperform a year before a tax plan is passed. On average, stocks beat bonds, small caps do better than large caps, and both gold and oil accelerate a year before fiscal thrust starts to intensify. Corporate and high-yield bonds keep pace with Treasuries during these episodes. The S&P 500 jumps nearly 10% a year prior to an increase in fiscal thrust, while the total return on Treasuries rises by 5% and the dollar is flat (Table 3). Table 2 and 3Impact Of Fiscal Policy On Markets, The Dollar And Earnings The most consistent performers as fiscal thrust is priced in are small caps over large, oil prices, the S&P 500 and the 10-year Treasury. Each of these asset classes strengthens in five of the seven periods mentioned above. Chart 10 shows the Trump trades in the past year. The performance matches the historical experience a year before the economy receives a boost from tax and spending legislation. The tax proposal before Congress provides fiscal stimulus via tax cuts, but does not provide any economic lift from an increase in government spending. Therefore, it may be more useful to review asset class performance after personal income tax rates are lowered. The GOP plan also proposes corporate tax cuts, but the historical evidence is scant; corporate tax rates have been lowered only three times in the past 45 years. There is no clear pattern of performance for U.S. financial assets and commodities in the wake of a reduction in the top marginal personal tax rate. Chart 11 shows the performance of the primary U.S. dollar asset classes and financial markets since 1970. Stocks outperformed bonds in the year after the top marginal tax rate fell in only one of the four periods (mid-1980s). The track record for corporate bonds is also mixed at best. Investment-grade either matches or beats the performance of Treasuries in each of the four periods. High-yield outperformed in the mid-1980s, but subsequently underperformed in the wake of the early 2000s tax cut. Gold was the most consistent winner, climbing in three of the four intervals. The dollar was higher in two of the three periods since moving off the gold standard in the early 1970s. There is no consistent pattern for small caps after a decrease in personal tax rates. Chart 10Market Remains Skeptical That Tax Package Will Pass Chart 11Tax Cuts Vs. Equities, Bonds, Commodities And Earnings Bottom Line: BCA's stance is that by the end of Q1 2018 the GOP will pass a tax cut that will provide a small lift to the economy. History shows that investing in risk assets in the year before fiscal thrust passes would provide the best returns. That said, the GOP plan only has tax cuts, and the performance of risk assets is mixed in the year following reduced personal tax rates, at best. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Later Cycle Dynamics", dated October 23, 2017. Available at uses.bcarearch.com. 2 "One component of the Baa-Treasury spread is the prepayment premium (Aaa-Treasury) to investors for the risk that if interest rates fall in the future, borrowers might retire old debt with new debt at lower rates. Another component of the Baa-Treasury spread is a liquidity premium (Aaa-Treasury) that compensates investors for the fact that private instruments are less desirable to hold relative to U.S. Treasuries when financial markets are turbulent and investors are very risk averse. The Baa-Treasury spread also contains a default risk premium (Baa-Aaa) to compensate lenders for the risk that borrowers may not repay, reflecting the amount of default risk posed and the price of risk."; Source: "What Credit Market Indicators Tells US", John V. Duca, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, October 1999 3 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Still Some Upside In The Nickel Market," November 2, 2017. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Into The Fire," November 7, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism," November 8, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 The change in general government cyclically-adjusted balance as percent of potential GDP, Source: OECD.
Highlights The cyclical bull market in stocks will last until the end of next year. That said, global equities have become increasingly vulnerable to a correction, so fast-money investors should consider putting on a tactical hedge spanning the next few weeks. The passage of tax legislation in the U.S. will face many hurdles, and this is likely to ruffle markets in the near term. We ultimately expect Congress to pass a bill early next year. While lower corporate tax rates will be a boon for Wall Street, the gains to Main Street will be a lot more muted. A higher after-tax rate of return on equity will encourage capital inflows into the U.S. This will bid up the value of the dollar, depressing exports in the process. Over the long haul, a larger budget deficit will soak up private-sector savings that could otherwise have been used to finance investment spending. This will lead to less capital accumulation, and eventually a lower standard of living. Feature Rising Odds Of A Stock Market Correction We remain cyclically bullish on global equities based on the expectation that global growth will stay strong over the next 12 months, which should support corporate earnings. Nevertheless, the recent price action in credit markets is disconcerting. Yesterday's relief rally notwithstanding, junk bonds have been selling off in recent weeks, as have EM credit and currencies (Chart 1). We have found that credit trends generally lead the stock market. This raises the risk of an equity correction. The fact that the bull/bear ratio has reached a 30-year high in the weekly Investors Intelligence Sentiment survey (Chart 2), and that the most recent BofA Merrill Lynch Survey shows that a record share of fund managers are overweight risk assets, only add to our worries. Chart 1Junk Bond Selloff Raises ##br##Risks Of An Equity Correction Chart 2Equity Bullish Sentiment:##br## Getting Stretched Doubts about the ability of Republicans in Congress to push through tax cuts further muddle the picture. We continue to expect a tax bill to be signed into law early next year, but the intention of President Trump and Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to include a provision in the bill to rescind the individual mandate to purchase health insurance could greatly complicate this task. Moreover, as we discuss in greater detail below, the economic benefits of the tax legislation are likely to be muted, even if equity prices do rise on the back of lower corporate tax rates. This will make selling the merits of the tax plan to the American people all the more difficult. With all this in mind, we are putting on a short S&P 500 trade recommendation. We are targeting a gain of 5% and putting in a stop-loss of 2%. We will close this trade before the end of the year, so this should be seen as a purely tactical decision appropriate for fast-money investors only. Fiscal Policy Was Tightened Too Early ... Global bond yields plummeted during the Great Recession, but then quickly recovered. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield hit 3.95% in June 2009, while the German bund yield reached 3.72% that same month. Today, output gaps are much smaller globally than they were seven years ago, yet bond yields are substantially lower (Chart 3). Chart 3ASmaller Output Gaps... Chart 3B...But Lower Bond Yields Many theories have been offered to account for this seemingly paradoxical turn of events. Was it QE? Maybe the Phillips curve broke down? Perhaps investors have steadily revised down their estimate of the neutral rate of interest? One can make compelling arguments in support of all these explanations. However, there is one reason that has received relatively little attention: fiscal policy. Chart 4 shows that fiscal policy was tightened by an average of 4.1% of GDP in the G20 economies between 2010 and 2015. This happened despite the fact that unemployment was still quite high. One could make a half-plausible case that fiscal austerity was necessary in southern Europe, where one country after another was being attacked by the bond vigilantes (although even there, the failure of the ECB to act as a lender of last resort to European sovereigns greatly exacerbated the problem). It is harder to justify the shift towards austerity in countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. which were able to issue debt in their own currencies; or to explain why Germany felt the need to tighten fiscal policy when its structural primary balance was already in surplus. In Japan's case, the 2.9% of GDP in fiscal tightening that occurred between 2013 and the 2015 was a key reason why Abenomics failed to push the country out of deflation. Faced with the reality of what was happening on the fiscal front, central banks had no choice but to step in. They did so by slashing interest rates, in some cases pushing them into negative territory. They also engaged in massive asset purchases. The tsunami of easy money helped to keep economies afloat. But in many countries, slower government debt growth was replaced by faster private-sector debt growth (Chart 5). Debt continued to rise. It just did so in a different form. Chart 4Fiscal Belt-Tightening##br## In 2010-2015 Chart 5Private Debt Growth Picked Up##br## Amid Slowing Government Debt Growth ... And Is Now Being Eased Too Late The good news is that governments are abandoning their obsession with fiscal austerity. The bad news is that they are doing it at a time when fiscal easing is no longer warranted. Standard economic theory suggests that governments should run budget deficits when unemployment is high, and surpluses when it is low. In the U.S., the unemployment rate stands at 4.1%, 0.6 percentage points below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. And yet, President Trump and the Republicans in Congress are pushing for massive tax cuts which, according to the CBO, would add $1.7 trillion to federal debt over the next ten years, while pushing up the debt-to-GDP ratio by an extra six percentage points to 97% (Chart 6). Limited Supply-Side Benefits Proponents of the legislation argue that lower tax rates will spur growth by so much that they will pay for themselves. This is highly unlikely. Chart 7 shows that major tax cuts in the past have always led to a rising debt-to-GDP ratio, whereas tax hikes have led to a deceleration, or even outright decline, in the debt ratio. Even the much lauded 1981 Reagan tax cuts had to be partially rolled back in 1982 after the budget deficit widened sharply. Chart 6More Red Ink Chart 7Do Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves? The growth-enhancing effects of lower tax rates are likely to be smaller at present than they were in the early 1980s. The Reagan tax cuts were introduced when the economy was in the doldrums and government debt levels were much lower than they are today. Cross-border ownership of foreign assets has also increased tremendously since the Reagan era. Foreigners now own more than $10 trillion of U.S. equities, or close to 35% of the total, up from 10% in the early 1980s (Chart 8). This implies that a corporate tax cut would not only represent a massive windfall for foreigners - a bizarre outcome for a self-professed nationalist president - but would mean that a smaller share of capital gains taxes will make their way into the coffers of the U.S. Treasury. Personal income tax cuts are also likely to generate much less bang for the buck. Most empirical studies suggest that lower personal tax rates increase labor supply largely by boosting female labor participation.1 The prime-age female labor participation rate in the U.S. today is 11 points higher than it was in 1980, which limits the scope for further gains. Moreover, when Ronald Reagan cut taxes in 1981, the top personal tax rate stood at 70% (Chart 9). At such a high rate, a one percentage-point cut in the top rate increases take-home pay by 3.3% (1/30). Today, the top rate stands at 39.6%, so a one-point cut would raise after-tax income by only 1.6% (1/60.4). Thus, the incentive effect from cutting the top marginal tax rate is only half of what it was back then. And, of course, the lower the tax rate, the less incremental revenue the government gets from every additional dollar of income. A reasonable estimate is that the revenue offset from tax cuts today would be only one-quarter of whatever modest amount it was in the early 1980s. Chart 8Growing Share Of U.S. Equities##br## Is Held By Foreigners Chart 9Lower Bang For The Buck From##br## Cutting Individual Tax Rates Tax Cuts Versus Tax Reform This is not to say that tax reform is undesirable. Statutory corporate tax rates in the U.S. are quite high, but effective rates are very low, given the myriad deductions and tax-sheltering strategies (Chart 10). The combination of base-broadening and lower statutory rates would make the economy more efficient. In this respect, the set of reforms unveiled by Paul Ryan earlier this year actually had a lot going for it. Unfortunately, the half-measures in both the House and Senate bills run the risk of making the current system even worse. For example, the proposed transition from the current system where U.S. companies are taxed on their worldwide profits to one where they are taxed only on the profits they earn in the U.S. is likely to increase the incentive to use accounting gimmicks to shift more taxable income to low-tax jurisdictions abroad.2 The new "pass through" tax rate of 25% would also provide passive business owners, who are currently subject to the top marginal tax rate, with a massive tax break. Chart 10Statutory Vs. Effective Corporate Tax Rates: Please Mind The Gap In theory, full business investment expensing is a good idea, but the economic impact is likely to be modest. Companies pay less tax upfront when they can write off the value of capital expenditures immediately, but incur higher taxes in the future due to the absence of any further depreciation expenses. When interest rates are low, as they are today, the present value gain from shifting tax liabilities around in this way is bound to be small. This, along with the fact that companies can already write off a large share of capital purchases under current law in the first few years after they are made, will limit the benefits of the proposal. The full expensing of capital purchases also expires after five years under the Republican plan. This could cause companies to pull forward capital spending simply to game the tax code. Such a policy could be justified if the economy were depressed, but that is not the case today. The Tax Foundation, a free-market think tank that a number of left-leaning economists have accused of overstating the benefits of tax cuts, estimates that temporary expensing would raise the level of real GDP by only 0.18% after a decade, compared to 1.6% in the case of permanent expensing.3 From Populism To Pluto-Populism Chart 11This Is Not Populism Martin Wolf has aptly referred to Donald Trump as a "pluto-populist" - someone who talks like a champion of the poor and middle class to his adoring supporters, but actually pushes for policies that mainly benefit the wealthiest Americans.4 Many of the proposals in the Republican tax bills - including the abolition of the Alternative Minimum Tax, the phase-out of the estate tax, and the aforementioned reduction in the business pass-through tax - would further skew the distribution of income towards the rich (Chart 11). Indeed, the benefits for the wealthy grow over time under the proposed plans, even as those for the middle class dissipate, eventually reaching the point where the average middle-class household ends up paying more taxes under the House plan than they do now (Chart 12).5 And no, one cannot say that this outcome is simply the inevitable consequence of the fact that the rich pay most of the taxes. Once regressive taxes such as the payroll tax and state and local taxes are included in the tally, the rich pay about the same share of their income in taxes as the middle class (Chart 13). To make matters worse, the Republican tax bill would trigger $25 billion in Medicare cuts and $111 billion in cuts to other government programs under current PAYGO rules. More pain for middle-class voters. Donald Trump was quick to throw Ed Gillespie under the bus after he failed to win the governor's race in Virginia, tweeting that Gillespie "did not embrace me or what I stand for." But the truth is Trump has not embraced Trumpism either. We were widely scorned in the early days of the primary season for saying that Trump would secure the Republican nomination, and mocked again in 2016 for predicting that he would win the presidential election. At this point, however, the odds are high that the Republicans will lose the House next November and Trump will fail to get re-elected in 2020. Chart 12Middle-Class Tax Cuts Will Morph Into Tax Hikes Chart 13U.S. Taxation Not Very Progressive Investment Conclusions U.S. equities are overbought and ripe for a correction. As is almost always the case, lower stock prices in the U.S. will negatively impact global bourses. Fortunately, the selloff is likely to be short-lived, with strong global growth and rising earnings powering stocks into 2018. The passage of tax legislation in the U.S. will face many hurdles, and this is likely to ruffle markets in the near term. Nevertheless, we expect Congress to pass a bill early next year. While lower corporate tax rates will be a boon for Wall Street, the gains to Main Street will be a lot more muted. A higher after-tax rate of return on equity will encourage capital inflows into the U.S. This will bid up the value of the dollar, depressing exports in the process. Over the long haul, a wider budget deficit will soak up private-sector savings that could otherwise have been used to finance investment spending. This will lead to less capital accumulation, and eventually a lower standard of living. Chart 14Inflation Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks Higher government debt levels will also increase the temptation to inflate away debt. As we discussed a few weeks ago, rising political polarization is affecting every facet of society, with the NFL just being the latest example.6 It is hard to believe that the Fed will remain above the fray. History suggests that the loss of central bank independence is often associated with higher inflation (Chart 14). Such may be America's fate as well. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Robert K. Triest, "The Effect Of Income Taxation On Labor Supply In The United States," The Journal of Human Resources, Special Issue on Taxation and Labor Supply in Industrial Countries, 25:3 (Summer 1990); and Costas Meghir and David Phillips, "Labour Supply And Taxes," IZA Discussion Paper No. 3405 (March 2008). 2 Both the House and Senate versions of the tax bill have a number of provisions to limit the ability of corporations to shift profits abroad, but at present, it is unclear how effective these measures will be. 3 Please see "Economic and Budgetary Impact of Temporary Expensing," Tax Foundation, dated October 4, 2017. 4 Martin Wolf, "Donald Trump Embodies How Great Republics Meet Their End," Financial Times, March 1, 2016. 5 This mainly occurs because the "Family Flexibility Credit" expires after 2022. The expanded Child Tax Credit is also not indexed to inflation under the House plan, implying that its value to tax filers will go down over time. In addition, the repeal of the individual mandate would cause fewer lower-income earners to buy health insurance, leading them to forego the tax subsidies that they would otherwise receive. 6 Please see , "Three Demographic Megatrends," dated October 27, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Question 1: Why is U.S. inflation still so low? Question 2: How important is the upcoming change in Fed leadership? Question 3: What are the implications of the U.S. tax cuts? Question 4: What is the outlook for the ECB next year, and how will this impact the U.S. dollar versus the euro? Question 5: Are markets underestimating the potential impact from slower growth of central bank balance sheets? Question 6: How much longer can this powerful rally in Emerging Markets continue? Question 7: What are other investors worried about? Feature I have just returned from an extended two-week trip visiting clients in the Asia-Pacific region. The meetings were all very well attended, with even many non-dedicated fixed income investors turning up to ask tough questions about global bond markets. My impression was that given the powerful returns earned in virtually all risk assets this year (equities, credit, Emerging Markets), our clients are growing more concerned about the potential risks from tighter global monetary policy and rising interest rates than they have been for some time. Oddly enough, this is despite not fearing either a serious rise in inflation or a major growth slowdown next year. If such a thing as "nervous complacency" can exist, it seemed widely evident in most of my meetings. This week, I am taking a more personal tone than in a typical Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report to summarize the key client questions from ten days of meetings, spread across six cities in five countries on two continents. Why is U.S. inflation still so low? Chart 1Tightest Global Labor Market##BR##Since The Mid-2000s Almost all of the meetings began with a discussion of the current situation in the U.S., particularly the lack of inflation. The current BCA view that U.S. inflation will accelerate in 2018 was met with some skepticism, particularly when framed in the context of the uncertain unemployment/inflation trade-off. In one meeting, outright laughter actually broke out when the term "Phillips Curve" was mentioned! Clearly, the burden of proof is on the inflation data itself. On that note, I presented several of the best BCA charts from recent months that show how the backdrop is ripe for a turnaround in global inflation. Clients were impressed when shown that nearly ¾ of the countries in the OECD had unemployment rates below the full-employment NAIRU, a level not seen since the period of strong coordinated global growth and rising inflation in the mid-2000s (Chart 1). Yet when I then presented a chart showing the actual inflation/unemployment data in the U.S. over the past 20 years, with a clear "kinked" Phillips Curve and the latest data point well on the steeper portion of that curve (Chart 2), the majority of clients were less convinced. The most cited reason was that the U.S. inflation data simply did not accelerate in 2017 when it was supposed to given the steady fall in unemployment over the preceding few years. Perhaps most surprising was that, rather than believe that the NAIRU rate may simply be lower now than in past business cycles, so many people that I met were willing to discard the entire Phillips Curve concept as a useful framework to forecast inflation. When presented with charts showing non-Phillips Curve reasons to expect higher inflation, however, there was far less skepticism. Perhaps the most compelling chart showed the typical 18-month lag between U.S. economic growth and the "momentum" of U.S. inflation (Chart 3). Upon seeing this, clients were more convinced that inflation would pick up next year in response to the current U.S. growth upturn. Chart 2U.S. Economy Has Moved Into##BR##The "Steep" Part Of The Phillips Curve Chart 3Inflation Typically Follows Economic Growth With A Long Lag I was also able to break down some of the skepticism on the U.S. inflation outlook even more after discussing the bullish oil forecast from our colleagues at Commodity & Energy Strategy. Admittedly, their view that the benchmark Brent oil price will average $65/bbl in 2018 sounds far less dramatic given that the current spot price has risen to nearly that level in the aftermath of the recent political turmoil in Saudi Arabia. Yet clients did appreciate that our bullish oil call was driven more by a view of improving global oil demand and continued production discipline by oil producers (especially for the so-called "OPEC 2.0" nations of Russia and Saudi Arabia). When shown our chart describing how oil prices persistently in the mid-$60s next would put some upward pressure on the inflation expectations component of global bond yields (Chart 4), there was virtually no disagreement from any clients that I met. There was a bit more pushback on the view that, if the BCA forecast of higher U.S. inflation and rising oil prices in 2018 comes to fruition, there is room for a substantial rise in U.S. Treasury yields from current levels. When presented a chart showing that market-based inflation expectations (both using TIPS breakevens and CPI swaps) could rise by 50-60bps just to get back to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target (Chart 5), most clients politely nodded and basically said "show me the actual inflation first." Although there was widespread agreement with our view that it would take that kind of move in inflation expectations to prompt the Fed to fully deliver on the 100bps of rate hikes it is currently projecting to occur over the next year. Chart 4A Boost To Inflation Expectations##BR##From Higher Oil In 2018 Chart 5The Normalization Of U.S. Inflation##BR##Expectations Will Continue How important is the upcoming change in Fed leadership? The vast majority of clients that I met asked about the BCA view on the nomination of Jerome Powell as the new Fed Chair, replacing Janet Yellen. My impression was that there was not a lot of concern over the potential for serious alterations to the future path of U.S. monetary policy under new leadership. Yet it was still potentially a big enough change to ask questions about it. Most clients agreed with the BCA view that a Fed Chair Powell will not act much differently than Yellen. His voting history has aligned with hers and, by his own admission, he is a very data dependent central banker given that he is not a formally-trained economist. Only by knowing the ins and outs of the data has he been able to debate successfully with the Ph.D economists on the FOMC. Powell will likely be a data-driven Fed Chair that would not look to hike rates without higher inflation (and vice versa). Chart 6A Communications Problem##BR##For Jerome Powell? One point that I raised in all the meetings was that the Fed's communication strategy on future rate increases is the more worrisome issue for financial markets at the moment. The U.S. money market curve is still priced for only 50bps of rate increases over the next year, while the Fed "dots" are signaling 100bps of hikes. We think the Fed will deliver on its projections, which is one of the reasons we are recommending a below-benchmark duration stance in the U.S. (the upside in inflation expectations is the other reason). More importantly, the Fed's so-called "terminal rate" projection is at 2.75%, while our proxy for the market pricing of that rate - the 5-year U.S. Overnight Index Swap rate, 5-years forward - is hovering just above 2% (Chart 6). The persistent disagreement between the market and the Fed over the appropriate level of the terminal rate will become a problem later in 2018 if the Fed does indeed raise the funds rate to over 2% and continues to signal that more rate hikes will come to get the funds rate up to "neutral" (the terminal rate). If the Fed is not able to change the market's mind about the appropriate neutral level of the funds rate, then a move to the Fed's estimated terminal rate of 2.75% would push U.S. monetary policy into what will would be perceived a restrictive stance. This would have implications for the shape of the U.S. Treasury curve (a lot flatter) and for future growth expectations (a lot slower) heading into 2019. My impression from my meetings was that this possibility - that the Fed could engineer what would look to the markets like a policy mistake simply by sticking to its forecasts - was not at the forefront of clients' thinking at the moment. Yet there was no disagreement with the logic of how that could play out. The new Fed leadership under Jerome Powell may have its hands full clearly explaining their policy decisions in 2018, which could create some turbulence in global financial markets later in the year. What are the implications of the U.S. tax cuts? The details of the tax plans from the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate were a very hot topic in all of my client meetings. Considering all the ideas being proposed, from cuts in corporate tax rates to changes in the tax treatment of debt interest costs to removing the disincentive to repatriate profits earned abroad, it is no surprise that both equity and fixed income clients had a lot of questions on future U.S. tax policy. It is difficult right now to judge the net impact of the tax changes, as not all of the proposals in the two Congressional tax plans will likely be implemented. There will be plenty of horse trading between the Republicans and Democrats (and between the Republicans themselves) before the final tax deal is done. Yet there was a lot of concern among clients in my meetings over the likelihood that the tax cuts will be implemented at all. After seeing President Trump lose the battle on health care reform earlier this year, many clients were worried that a repeat could happen for the Trump tax cut agenda. This would have negative implications for U.S. equity markets, the U.S. dollar and future Fed policy moves. I explained the views from our colleagues at Geopolitical Strategy, who strongly believe that a tax cut will eventually pass (likely in early 2018) given the need for Congressional Republicans to have something positive to present to voters heading into the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. The tax cuts will have a moderate stimulative effect on the U.S. economy that the markets were not yet fully discounting. I also presented the chart from Global Fixed Income Strategy showing that wider U.S. budget deficits usually coincide with a steeper U.S. Treasury curve, almost always because the U.S. economy is slowing down, prompting looser fiscal policy and also Fed rate cuts (Chart 7). This time is different, however, since the Trump tax cuts will be stimulating an economy currently at full employment (middle panel). This has the potential to trigger more inflation through faster economic growth and even tighter labor markets which could prompt the Fed to move more aggressively on interest rate increases next year and eventually flatten the UST curve (bottom panel). Chart 7A Full-Employment Fiscal Stimulus Will Bear-Steepen The UST Curve The idea of a "steeper, then flatter" Treasury yield curve in response to U.S. fiscal policy stimulus generated a lot of discussion in my meetings. Some even noted that the recent flattening of the curve was a sign that the markets were discounting a lower probability of a tax deal being reached in D.C. I described the flat curve as a consequence of inflation expectations remaining too low, as the Treasury curve was much flatter than implied by the low level of the real fed funds rate, which is one of the most reliable relationships in the bond markets (higher real rates = a flatter curve, and vice versa). My conclusion from these meetings (and from the current market pricing) is that clients are a bit skeptical that a tax deal will be reached. This suggests there is room for bond yields to rise, and the Treasury curve to bear-steepen, if our political strategists are right and the tax cuts will happen. What is the outlook for the ECB next year, and how will this impact the U.S. dollar versus the euro? While most of the questions in my meetings focused on the U.S. outlook, several clients asked about the next move from the European Central Bank (ECB). This was both from a fixed income perspective and, perhaps even more importantly, with an eye on the future direction of the euro versus the U.S. dollar. I made the straightforward argument that with Euro Area economic growth showing strong momentum that is unlikely to slow much in 2018, and with headline Euro Area inflation likely to surprise to the upside based on our bullish oil call (Chart 8), the ECB would likely be forced to signal a tapering of its asset purchase program to zero by the end of next year. The oil view was especially important, as the ECB is expecting a slowing of headline Euro Area inflation to 1% in early 2018 based on the base effects from comparisons to the rise in oil prices seen in early 2017. If our house view on oil prices plays out, then there is potential for inflation to catch the ECB by surprise in 2018. The key will be how core inflation plays out as oil prices rise further. Core Euro Area inflation has dipped lower in recent months, even as wage growth has accelerated (bottom panel). Given tightening Euro Area labor markets, and robust domestic demand, the recent dip in core inflation is likely to bottom out sometime in the first few months of 2018. But until that happens, there is more potential for higher U.S. bond yields through faster increases in inflation expectations and Fed rate hikes (Chart 9). This will support a higher U.S. dollar versus the euro through wider interest rate differentials (bottom panel). Chart 8ECB Will Fully Taper##BR##By The End Of 2018 Chart 9UST-Bund Spread Will Widen Next Year,##BR##Supporting The USD Clients were generally in agreement with that view on relative interest rates, but the views on the direction of EUR/USD were far more mixed. My impression is that if the Fed delivers the rate hikes that we expect in 2018, EUR/USD has room to move lower as investors were not prepared for this. Are markets underestimating the potential impact from slower growth of central bank balance sheets? I received many questions on the potential impact of central banks either shrinking balance sheets (the Fed) or slowing their expansion (the ECB and Bank of Japan). The chart showing how the growth in central bank money printing since 2015 (when the ECB began buying bonds) has correlated strongly with the bull markets in virtually all global risk assets garnered a lot of attention (Chart 10). This was especially true when I showed the chart that converted the level of the major central bank balance sheets to a growth rate and plotted that versus the returns on global equities and credit markets (Chart 11). The implication - expect lower returns on global equity markets, and MUCH lower returns from corporate bond markets next year. Chart 10CB Liquidity Has Supported Risk Assets... Chart 11...But That Tailwind Will Fade Next Year On this point, there was almost no disagreement from clients. There is widespread awareness that this era of puny interest rates, spurred on by central banks buying up huge quantities of government bonds and other financial assets, was forcing investors to take on far more risk in their portfolios to achieve acceptable returns. The key is when this will all turn around. Clients were generally in agreement with my view that the final leg of this liquidity-driven global bull market in risk assets will best be played through equity markets over corporate credit. These stable, earnings-driven rallies seen in global equity markets have not yet reached a "blowoff" phase that would suggest a larger correction is imminent. Perhaps it will take a final asset allocation decision to move more money out of bonds into equities to trigger that final run-up in equity prices before tighter monetary policies and slower growth expectations begin to damage returns later in 2018 into 2019. How much longer can this powerful rally in Emerging Markets continue? This is a topic that generated a healthy amount of debate in my meetings, particularly given the bearish views on Emerging Market (EM) assets from my colleagues at Emerging Markets Strategy. Here again, clients were generally looking at EM as a way to achieve acceptable returns in their portfolios while also participating in the global economic upturn through growth-sensitive assets. The previous chart showing the impact of diminished central bank liquidity on EM credit markets got some clients a bit nervous about the outlook for EM markets. What also spooked them were the charts from our EM strategists showing accelerating Chinese inflation (Chart 12) and slowing Chinese money growth. There is obviously a connection between the two, as China's policymakers are being forced to tighten monetary policy, and clamp down on excess credit creation, in response to accelerating inflation and very high debt levels. The chart showing how our "China M3 Impulse" had turned negative this year and was pointing to slower growth in industrial metals prices and China capital goods imports (Chart 13) was particularly unnerving for even the most bullish of EM clients. Chart 12This Is Why China Is Tightening Monetary Policy Chart 13Prepare For Slower Chinese Growth In 2018 My impression is that the clients I met were fully loaded up on EM assets but were comfortable holding those positions based on expectations of solid Chinese economic growth and continued inflows into EM assets from yield-starved global investors. If BCA's view that Chinese growth will slow next year comes to fruition, combined with rising U.S. interest rates and a stronger U.S. dollar as the Fed tightens more than currently discounted by the markets, then there is potential for outflows from EM markets to accelerate, to the detriment of EM returns. What are other investors worried about? This is a question that comes up a lot at BCA meetings, as clients are always curious as to what we are hearing from other investors. Perhaps this can be chalked up to a version of "confirmation bias", where investors like to hear that their own views are shared by others in the markets. In my meetings over the past two weeks, however, I got the sense that clients are heavily exposed to risk assets, which have performed beyond their expectations, and are growing more worried about how things can go wrong. Like an end to the current low volatility regime, for example. Given the BCA views on the likelihood of global inflation increasing next year, triggering a more hawkish response from policymakers, I noted that I did not believe that clients were prepared for that outcome. This suggests that the beginning of the end of the current low volatility regime, which is seen across all asset classes (Chart 14), will occur through a pickup in bond volatility. This will take place from a rise in inflation expectations first, and a rise in policy rate expectations later. My advice to clients was that if realized bond volatility picks up, this is the signal to reduce exposure to credit and equity markets. We anticipate making such a recommendation sometime during 2018. Chart 14The Low Market Volatility Backdrop Will End When Bond Volatility Rises Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights The bill is bullish for growth and therefore for the equity markets and the U.S. dollar; The bill consists mostly of tax cuts, not reforms, that favor corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers; The bill is bullish for growth in the short term, but also inflationary and hence a risk to growth in the medium term; A non-populist White House is a relief to the markets, particularly on trade policy, but may mean a more hawkish foreign policy. Feature Chart 1Trump: A Boon For##BR##Main Street And Wall Street Since the November 2016 election, and particularly since President Donald Trump's inauguration, financial markets have celebrated. This is ironic given that on the campaign trail, Trump often adopted populist rhetoric indistinguishable from that of Bernie Sanders, the bête noire of the business community. Trump's cabinet, however, quickly took on a pro-business outlook following the inauguration. Despite appointing several notable trade hawks, the administration sported half a dozen former Goldman Sachs employees. Business confidence soared, especially among small businesses, while regulatory worries hanging over CEO's melted away (Chart 1). Both Wall Street and Main Street took one look at President Trump's cabinet at the end of January and decided that there was not an iota of genuine populism in the White House. This view was reinforced by three early decisions by the Trump administration: China: President Trump reneged on his promise to designate China a currency manipulator formally on day one of his administration.1 Instead, he hosted President Xi Jinping at the Mar-A-Lago Summit in April and agreed to engage in trade talks over the rest of the year. (He again declined to accuse China of currency manipulation in October.) Budget: President Trump's "skinny budget" proposal in May oozed with Republican Party orthodoxy, bolstering spending on defense and border security, while calling for drastic cuts to domestic programs. The implication was that future tax cuts would ultimately be "paid for" via draconian fiscal austerity in the distant future. "Breitbart clique" ousted: Steve Bannon, the White House Chief Strategist and self-described economic nationalist, was fired in mid-August, with several prominent allies ousted in the wake of his departure. Bannon's departure left Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, chief economic advisor Gary Cohn, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross firmly in charge of economic policy. Enter Tax Cuts The coup-de-grâce of Republican orthodoxy is the just-proposed tax cut plan. The proposal by the House Ways and Means Committee is heavily stacked in favor of corporations and the top-income brackets. As Table 1 clearly illustrates, the household component of the plan is nearly balanced - and therefore deserving of the moniker "reform" - whereas the corporate side of the ledger is closer to a pure and simple cut. Table 12017-2018 Republican Tax Cut Proposal - House Ways And Means Committee (Oct. 2017) Some of the more prominent measures proposed by the House and Ways Committee are: Household Income The highest tax rate remains 39.6%, but would now only kick in at $1 million in taxable income;2 The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be repealed, which hurts the upper middle class and wealthy by limiting tax benefits from a variety of deductions; The estate tax will be fully eliminated by 2024; The standard deduction will be doubled from $12,700 to $24,000, one of the few direct benefits to lower-income families; The plan would repeal the state and local income and sales tax deductions, while capping the state and local property tax deduction to $10,000; Almost all itemized deductions will be eliminated - such as medical expenses, property losses, casualty losses, etc.; The mortgage interest rate deduction for future home purchases will be capped, with only homes up to $500,000 covered. Corporate Income The corporate tax rate will be cut from 35% to 20%; Companies will be able to deduct the full amount of business investments in the year that they are made, although the provision would expire at the end of 2022; The tax rate on income from pass-through businesses would fall to 25%, considerably below the top household income tax rate; Several deductions would be eliminated, including the deduction of interest on debt; The "worldwide" tax system would be overhauled and foreign earnings repatriated: U.S. multinational corporations would pay a 12% tax rate on past profits that they repatriate, while future overseas earnings would be taxed at the new 20% corporate rate. We would caution clients from parsing too carefully through the proposal, lest they waste their time. The Senate is likely to pass a completely different set of proposals. The GOP plan is to get to a "conference committee" as fast as possible, where a new draft legislation can be hammered out from the two disparate proposals. We suspect that this entire process will miss the self-imposed target of "before Christmas," and probably last until the end of the first quarter.3 Nonetheless, we can discern the priorities of the House Republicans by gauging the winners and losers of their proposal. Our immediate take is that the tax cuts greatly benefit upper-income filers (households making over $423,000), moderately hurt upper-middle-class / lower-upper-class filers (those making between $260,000 and $423,000), and are largely neutral for the rest of households. First, the highest income groups are the clear beneficiaries: households making between roughly $450,000 and $1,000,000 will see their income tax rates fall by nearly 5%, by far the largest decrease planned. And, obviously, it is upper-income households that benefit from repealing the estate tax. Meanwhile, the upper middle class takes on the brunt of the burden of "reform": households making between $260,000 and $423,000 will see far fewer benefits under the proposed legislation. First, they are the only income bracket that will see a tax increase, from 33% to 35%. Second, they will not necessarily have the wherewithal to reclassify their income as pass-through business income. Third, many of the itemized deductions that will be eliminated will make a real difference in their filings. Fourth, they were the most likely to purchase homes between $500,000 and $1,000,000, which will no longer be eligible for interest-rate deduction. Fifth, the repeal of the estate tax will make less of a difference for this income group. Sixth, if they are domiciled in high-tax rate states and municipalities, these households will now be limited to how much they can deduct from federal taxes.4 Overall, the proposed tax cut plan fits general Republican orthodoxy.5 It tries to stimulate growth by favoring corporations and the wealthy. For economic growth, the plan is bullish in the short term. Particularly bullish is the ability of corporations to fully deduct the amount of business investment for the next five years. This provision could significantly increase investment in the short term, especially given the implicit threat that the opportunity will expire in 2022.6 Will the plan fail? It could, if enough Republican voters turn against it. The latest polling from Pew research - albeit from April of this year - shows that Americans no longer think that they pay too much in taxes (Chart 2). On the other hand, Republican and Republican-leaning voters do have a problem with the complexity of the tax code (Chart 3), and the proposed plan simplifies taxes for some middle-income households by doubling the standard deduction and repealing the AMT. The White House has already begun stressing this feature given that it polls well with voters. Chart 2American Voters Think Taxes Are Fair... Chart 3...But Republican Voters Think They Are Too Complex Polling suggests that President Trump remains relatively popular with Republican voters despite his dismal polling with the general public (Chart 4). He is polling only slightly below the average of previous Republican presidents at this point in his term in office. As long as Trump remains more popular with Republican voters than his Republican peers in Congress, we think that he will be able to force the tax plan through both the Senate and the House. In fact, we could even see some Democrats in the Senate supporting these tax cuts. Table 2 lists the 2018 Senate races to watch, particularly the vulnerable Democrats campaigning in red states that President Trump carried in 2016. Senators Nelson (D - Florida), Donnelly (D - Indiana), McCaskill (D - Missouri), Tester (D - Montana), Heitkamp (D - North Dakota), Brown (D - Ohio), and Baldwin (D - Wisconsin) are especially vulnerable. That makes seven potential votes for the Trump tax cut, potentially enough "slack" for the Republicans in the Senate to lose one or two votes on the tax bill. Chart 4Trump Remains Popular With GOP Voters Table 22018 Senate Races To Watch Is it even worthwhile to contemplate a scenario in which Republicans pass the tax cuts with Democrat support in the Senate? The short answer is yes. The 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the first of two Bush-era tax cuts, passed with 58 votes in favor, including 12 Democrats. Of the 12 that voted with Republicans, only three were from blue states, while the other nine were from red states that President Bush had carried in 2000. The 2003 tax-cut bill, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, also passed with Democratic support with only 51 votes in favor. Senators Bayh (D - Indiana), Miller (D - Georgia), and Nelson (D - Nebraska) all crossed the aisle. Bayh was facing reelection in 2004, as was Nelson in 2006, in their respective red states. Bottom Line: The proposed tax cuts will benefit corporations and the upper-income Americans. The Senate may make some symbolic changes to the proposal to make it more palatable to the median American - given that senators have to capture the median voter in their state to win reelection. For example, the estate tax repeal may be scrapped and rules on deducting state and local taxes may be modified. Regardless of how the horse-trading goes, we believe that the U.S. economy will receive a modest stimulus in the form of a roughly $1.5 trillion tax cut (over ten years). Given that the U.S. economy is at full employment and firing on all cylinders, the proposed tax cuts should be marginally bullish for growth and inflation (Chart 5). Chart 5Regardless Of Tax Cuts, U.S. Economy Is Ripped What Do The Tax Cuts Tell Us About President Trump? We are big believers in the theory of "revealed preferences." While this concept was formally applied by economist Paul Samuelson to consumer behavior, we like to apply it to policymakers. The idea is to ignore the rhetoric and focus on what patterns of behavior reveal about genuine preferences. Politicians talk a lot, particularly during an election campaign. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump was a clear populist candidate. He only revealed his tax reform plan in late September 2015 and then rarely mentioned it on the campaign trail. While his tax cut proposal languished on the campaign website, Trump focused on rallying voters around a combination of populist promises. These were, in no particular order, to build the border wall (and make Mexico pay for it), to rebuild American infrastructure, to repeal Obamacare, to destroy the Islamic State terrorist movement while disengaging the U.S. from global affairs, and to punish the unfair practices of trade partners like China and Mexico. Fast forward 12 months and we are now half-way to the 2018 mid-term election, with the Republicans controlling all three branches of government, and yet the only electoral promise that President Trump is even close to achieving is the just-announced tax cut.7 The revealed preference of the Trump administration, at least at this point, is Republican orthodoxy. Trump is a pro-growth, pro-business, anti-tax, anti-spending, red-blooded Republican. He has eschewed trade conflict with China, ignored infrastructure proposals, largely toed-the-line of foreign policy orthodoxy, and left hedge fund managers - a punching bag on the campaign trail - alone.8 To put it bluntly, Trump's behavior thus far suggests that he is a pluto-populist. A pluto-populist is someone who rules on the behalf of a plutocracy - an oligarchy controlled by the wealthiest citizens - but whose main tactic is to rally the plebeians (the common people) through populist policies. The House's draft tax plan provides sweeping gains for the wealthiest. It also preserves or expands some benefits for the poorest groups, so as to make it politically achievable. The upper middle class - the professional class - stands to suffer the most under the new tax scheme. If this analysis is correct, what does it reveal about President Trump's strategy going forward? Anti-globalization rhetoric is just talk: The fourth round of NAFTA renegotiations ended with a bang: the U.S. delivered four new demands, two of which both Ottawa and Mexico City have identified as non-starters.9 However, in the pluto-populist scenario, even if NAFTA is ultimately abrogated, the Trump administration will ensure that the critical components are preserved in bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico. While those agreements are negotiated, the Trump Administration will not raise tariffs to the maximum, "bounded," level as allowed by the WTO. Meanwhile, trade relations with China may still sour in 2018, but they will not produce a trade war. Social unrest could increase: As we argued in a recent Special Report, the American structural context is ripe for more social unrest due to "elite overproduction."10 Trump's policies are likely to feed this condition. Meanwhile, his rhetoric and symbolic gestures will fuel the flames of division in order to play to his base, and force Democrats to argue about how to respond. This would be the populist part of pluto-populism. Hawkish foreign policy: With most of his domestic policies stymied, President Trump will pivot to the foreign theatre. We would particularly watch the growing tensions in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which could soon involve Lebanon.11 President Trump has also decertified the Iran nuclear deal, setting the stage for Congress to decide whether it will impose new sanctions and thus abrogate the deal. Plus, there is always North Korea. Bottom Line: Essentially, President Trump's strategy will be to pass pro-business, pro-market economic policies while distracting his largely anti-business, anti-market voters through ancillary issues. Investment Implications On the one hand, this analysis implies a very bullish policy mix as the Trump administration will not do anything domestically that hurts the ongoing bull market. On the other hand, some of those "ancillary" issues could flare up and impact the market, particularly if they involve a ratcheting up of tensions with Iran and North Korea. Chart 6No Debate: There Is No##BR##Trickle-Down From Tax Cuts The one risk that we remain concerned about is protectionism. We expected Trump to be more disruptive this year, and the above analysis suggests that protectionism, too, is merely hot air. However, Trump has only been in office for ten months. The absence of trade tensions with China may be a function of ongoing negotiations with North Korea: the U.S. needs China's cooperation in order to force North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un to the table. Ironically, then, a resolution of North Korean tensions could increase America's maneuvering vis-à-vis China, allowing Trump to become a lot more protectionist in 2018.12 Moreover, investors may be overemphasizing headline trade negotiations such as NAFTA or the China talks. The Trump administration may pursue protectionist aims through selective tariffs, such as countervailing and anti-dumping duties, in selective fashion. In other words, investors should pay attention to individual tariff decisions rather than overall negotiations.13 As for his electoral base, as long as President Trump can continue to ensure that they are focused on social disputes at home and hawkish rhetoric abroad, they may not notice the lack of movement on domestic promises. In particular, we have a high-conviction view that the just-proposed tax cuts will do nothing to curb income inequality in the U.S., and will likely deepen it, as previous such GOP-efforts did (Chart 6). Will this hurt President Trump in his 2020 reelection bid? We doubt it. But it does portend still greater socio-economic tensions and political populism in the long run. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The promise was made in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that then-candidate Trump penned on November 9, 2015. Please see Donald J. Trump, "Ending China's Currency Manipulation," dated November 9, 2015, available at wsj.com. 2 The top marginal tax rate of 39.6% is currently applied to single individuals making more than $418,401, a head of household making more than $444,501, and married couples, filing jointly, making more than $470,701. Technically, according to the current draft bill, the top tax rate in the House plan is supposedly about 45.6% between $1-$1.2 million, after which it falls back to 39.6%. A quirk in the proposal holds that once a filer hits $1 million of income, the IRS starts clawing back the $12,000 that the filer saved from having a 12% tax rate on his first $90,000 of income instead of a 25% tax rate. That clawback comes in the form of 6% surtax on income above $1 million. The $12,000 is completely reclaimed once the filer hits $1.2 million. By extension, everyone who makes over $1.2 million has had to pay that extra $12,000 in taxes. 3 For more on how the reconciliation process works, and how it will affect the timeline, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 From a political perspective, the GOP may have simply made a bet that high-tax-rate, blue-state households making $260,000-to-$430,000 do not vote Republican. 5 The congressional budget resolution that sets out the reconciliation instructions for these tax cuts also includes draconian spending cuts, which would presumably help balance the books. Although none of those cuts will pass Congress, they reveal the traditional preference of the Republican party: cut taxes, pay for the cuts by means of a smaller government delivering fewer services. 6 And perhaps this investment boost will come just in time to help re-elect Trump in 2020! 7 Although he deserves some credit for bringing to conclusion the pre-existing fight against the Islamic State. 8 In fact, the House tax bill leaves the "carried interest" tax break in the code. 9 For more on NAFTA, please see our upcoming Special Report with BCA's Global Investment Strategy, to be published on November 10. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Lebanese Sunni Prime Minister Saad Harriri recently resigned while visiting Saudi Arabia, claiming that he feared for his life due to Iranian influence in Lebanon; Saudi Arabia itself is engaged in deep political struggle. 12 Indeed, in our original forecast of Trump's trade policy, we surmised that 2017 would largely be a year of negotiations, while 2018 would see the real fireworks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 An important such decision looms by January 12, 2018, which is the deadline by which President Trump must decide whether to impose "safeguard" tariffs on imports of solar panels and washing machines.
Highlights Jerome Powell takes the helm of the Federal Reserve at a time when both sides of the Fed's dual mandate are in conflict. The lagging nature of inflation explains why it has failed to rise even though the unemployment rate has fallen below NAIRU. U.S. growth should surprise on the upside over the coming quarters, with or without the passage of tax legislation. This should enable the Fed to raise rates four times by end-2018, which should give the dollar a boost. Higher oil prices will prop up the Canadian dollar. Brexit uncertainty will continue to weigh on the U.K. economy, but the pound has already priced in much of the bad news. Feature Chart 1The Dual Mandate Headache Jay Powell: You're Hired! Jerome Powell takes the helm of the Federal Reserve at a pivotal time. Under Janet Yellen's leadership, the Fed began running down its balance sheet. For all intents and purposes, that part of the normalization process has been put on autopilot. In contrast, the question of how much higher interest rates need to go remains up in the air. In normal times, the Fed would be guided by its dual mandate, which calls for maximum sustainable employment and low inflation. The Fed's predicament is that the two sides of this mandate are currently in conflict: While the unemployment rate has fallen more than the FOMC anticipated at the start of the year and is below the Fed's estimate of full employment, inflation has dipped further below the Fed's 2% target (Chart 1). Why Has Inflation Been So Low? There are four competing explanations for why inflation remains stubbornly low. The first is that the headline unemployment rate understates the true amount of labor market slack. There was considerable merit to this argument a few years ago, but it seems less plausible today. While some auxiliary measures of slack, such as involuntary part-time employment and the share of the working-age population that is out of the labor force but wants a job, are still elevated relative to pre-recession levels, others such as the job openings rate and household perceptions of job availability have reached levels consistent with an overheated economy (Table 1). Taken together, the U.S. labor market appears to be close to full employment. Table 1Comparing Current Labor Market Slack With Past Cycles The second explanation for why higher inflation has failed to materialize accepts the centrality of the unemployment rate as an accurate summary measure of labor market slack, but posits that NAIRU - the so-called Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment - is lower than widely believed. NAIRU cannot be observed directly, so in principal this argument could be true. That said, it is worth noting that official estimates of NAIRU are already well below their long-term average (Chart 2). While certain factors such as the aging of the workforce have reduced NAIRU - older people tend to change jobs less frequently, which reduces frictional unemployment - other factors have likely raised it. These include automation, globalization, and the opioid crisis, all of which have probably led to higher structural unemployment. The third explanation for why inflation has failed to rise in the face of falling unemployment is that the Phillips curve has broken down. Whether they realize it or not, people who make this argument are implicitly assuming that NAIRU no longer matters - that central banks can drive the unemployment rate down as far as they wish and not worry about runaway inflation. If true, this would seemingly revoke the law of supply and demand because it would imply that an economy can stay perpetually overheated without wages or prices ever having to rise. Alas, no such free lunch exists. Chart 3 shows that the relationship between wage growth and unemployment remains intact. The so-called "wage-Phillips curve" tends to steepen sharply once unemployment falls below 5%. The recent acceleration in average hourly wages, median weekly earnings, and the Employment Cost Index all suggest that we have reached the steep part of the Phillips curve (Chart 4). Chart 2NAIRU Estimates Are Historically Low Chart 3U.S. Economy Has Moved Into ##br##The 'Steep' Part Of The Phillips Curve Chart 4U.S. Wage Growth Is Accelerating Higher wage growth will push up real household disposable income, leading to more consumer spending. With the output gap now effectively closed, firms will find themselves running into more supply-side constraints, forcing them to raise prices. Just as in the past, "this time is different" explanations for why inflation will stay depressed, such as the overhyped "Amazon effect," will be proven wrong.1 This leads us to the fourth - and in our view, most cogent - explanation for why inflation has been low, which is that the Phillips curve has simply been dormant. History suggests that inflation is a highly lagging indicator (Chart 5). A variety of technical factors - ranging from a steep drop in cell phone data charges to a dip in prescription drug prices - have depressed inflation this year. As these wear off, inflation will slowly pick up. The recent increase in the ISM prices-paid component, along with producer price indices around the world, suggest that both domestic and external inflationary pressures are intensifying. Consistent with this, the NY Fed's "underlying inflation gauge" has reached an 11-year high of 2.8% (Chart 6). Chart 5Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Chart 6Fed Sees Underlying Inflation Gathering Steam The Cost Of Waiting Admittedly, there is a lot of uncertainty about the degree to which inflation will accelerate over the next few years. With that in mind, many commentators have argued for a go-slow approach. "Wait to see the whites of inflation's eyes" as Larry Summers has colorfully stated. This perspective is not unreasonable, but we think most FOMC members will ultimately reject it. This is mainly because inflation is a highly lagging indicator. By the time it is obvious that inflation is getting out of hand, it is often too late to react. The unemployment rate is already half a percentage point below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. If the labor market continues to firm up, the Fed will eventually have no choice but to tighten monetary policy by enough to bring the unemployment rate back up to NAIRU. This means that rates may have to rise above their neutral level for a considerable period of time. Such an outcome could lead to a significant re-rating of risk asset prices. It would also damage the economy. The U.S. has never avoided a recession in the post-war period whenever the three-month average level of the unemployment rate has risen by more than 0.3 percentage points (Chart 7). Chart 7What Goes Down Must Come Up? Already Behind The Curve The Fed has arguably already fallen behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. As our models predicted, the easing in U.S. financial conditions earlier this year is helping to turbocharge growth (Chart 8). Real GDP rose by 3.0% in the third quarter. Growth would have been even higher had residential investment not fallen by 6% in the wake of the hurricanes. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model is pointing to growth of 4.5% in Q4. Chart 8U.S.: Easier Financial Conditions Are Boosting Growth Core capital goods orders are increasing at a solid pace. The Conference Board's index of consumer confidence rose to a 17-year high in October. Initial jobless claims have fallen to a four-decade low. Citi's economic surprise index has spiked into positive territory and Goldman's is nearing record highs (Chart 9). Given the recent acceleration in growth, the unemployment rate is likely to fall to 3.5% by the end of next year - well below the Fed's current end-2018 projection of 4.1%. If Congress delivers on its pledge to reduce corporate and personal income taxes, this would represent a further modest upward surprise to near-term growth prospects. Fiscal policy remains a wildcard. The "Tax Cut and Jobs Act" released by the House of Representatives yesterday seeks to reduce taxes by about $1.5 trillion over the next ten years, with two-thirds of that amount consisting of lower business taxes (Table 2). Negotiations with the Senate are likely to result in a scaling back of the magnitude of the cuts and a shifting of more of the benefits towards middle-class earners. Among other things, this probably means the proposed phase-out of the estate tax will be scrapped. Most empirical estimates suggest that the growth benefits from the legislation will be modest. Nevertheless, if taxes are cut early next year, as we think is likely, this will put a greater impetus for the Fed to raise rates. Chart 9U.S. Economy Surprising On The Upside Table 2U.S.: How Much Will The Tax Plan Cost? Aging Bull Stocks are likely to weather the impact of Fed hikes as long as rates are rising in an environment of stronger GDP growth. Chart 10 shows that equities tend to do well when the ISM manufacturing index is elevated. This leads us to think the cyclical bull market in stocks will continue for the next 12 months. Chart 10Stocks Fare Well When The ISM Is Strong Once inflation begins to rise in earnest in 2019, equities will buckle. Given that the United States accounts for over half of global stock market capitalization, a selloff in the U.S. will be quickly transmitted to the rest of the world. Short-term oriented investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to turn more defensive late next year. Long-term investors should consider paring back exposure already. U.S. Dollar: Stronger For Now, Weaker in 2019 Once the U.S. falls into a recession in late 2019 and the Fed starts cutting rates, the dollar will crumble. But until then, the odds are that the greenback strengthens. Our model suggests that the dollar is undervalued against the euro based on today's level of spreads (Chart 11). Hence, even if spreads remain unchanged, we would expect the dollar to strengthen somewhat. Keep in mind that 10-year German bunds yield nearly two percentage points less than U.S. Treasurys. The euro would have to strengthen to 1.42 against the dollar over the next ten years just to compensate for the lower interest rates that bunds offer. Granted, if spreads between Treasurys and bunds were to narrow significantly, the euro would appreciate. Such an outcome is probable in 2019, by which time investors will begin fretting about a looming U.S. recession and pricing in Fed rate cuts. However, it is not likely to occur over the next 12 months, given the prospect that U.S. growth will accelerate over this period. Chart 12 shows the market's expectation of where one-month OIS rates will be in the U.S. and euro area over the next ten years. The one-month transatlantic rate spread currently stands at 151 basis points and is expected to peak in February 2019 at 210 basis points. It then declines gradually, falling to 164 basis points in five years and 107 basis points in ten years. Chart 11Dollar Is Undervalued Based On Current Spreads Chart 12Rates Will Diverge More In 2018 Than Is Priced In Relative to current market expectations, the interest rate spread one-year out is likely to widen further over the coming months. The market is currently pricing in 54 basis points of Fed rate hikes between now and end-2018, well below the "dot" forecast of 100 basis points. For his part, Mario Draghi made it clear last week that the ECB's bond buying program will continue until September 2018, and that the central bank will not raise rates until "well past the horizon of our asset purchases." Chart 13The Euro Has Overshot Interest Rate Spreads There is less scope for spreads to widen if one looks at expected interest rates more than one year into the future. However, we don't see much room for spread compression in the near term, so long as U.S. growth continues to surprise on the upside. Long-term inflation expectations are about 55 basis points lower in the euro area than they are in the U.S. As such, the expected spread in real short-term rates ten years out stands at about 50 basis points (Chart 13). This is not much different from Laubach and Williams' estimate of the gap in the real neutral rate between the U.S. and the euro area. Moreover, as we noted two weeks ago, the actual gap in expected interest rates should be larger than what is implied by neutral rate estimates since unemployment is likely to be above NAIRU more often in the euro area than in the United States.2 On balance, we remain comfortable with our year-end target for EUR/USD of 1.15 and see further upside for the dollar against the euro in 2018. Bank Of Japan: Nowhere Near The Exit Door The yen should also continue to trade down against the greenback. Governor Kuroda dismissed speculation that the BoJ is considering dialing back monetary accommodation during his press conference following this week's Monetary Policy Meeting. The BoJ lowered its inflation outlook for both FY2017 and FY2018, but maintained its projection of reaching its 2% inflation target in FY2019. In perhaps a sign of the times, newly selected board member Goushi Kataoka cast a dissenting vote, arguing that monetary policy should be even more accommodative. Kataoka suggested that the BoJ consider extending its yield curve targeting regime to government bonds with maturities of up to 15 years. Currently, the government seeks to cap yields for maturities of up to ten years. As bond yields elsewhere in the world drift higher, JGBs will become increasingly unattractive. This will weigh on the yen. CAD: Fade The Recent Weakness The Canadian dollar has been on the back foot lately. Last week Governor Poloz mentioned that "a lot of things have to come together" for the Bank of Canada to raise rates in December. This week brought news that the economy shrank by 0.1% in August due to a decline in manufacturing output. The market has gone from fully pricing in a hike in December to only assigning a one-in-five chance that rates will rise. Worries that the Trump administration will pull out of NAFTA have also weighed on rate expectations. Still, one should keep things in perspective. Real GDP is up 3.5% year-over-year - well in excess of the BoC's estimate of trend growth - while the output gap has been fully closed. Canadian GDP growth has historically been closely correlated with U.S. growth, so it would be very surprising if Canada's economy were to flounder just as America's is gaining steam (Chart 14). Chart 14Canada Remains Linked To The U.S. Canadian And U.S. Growth Are Correlated Chart 15The Pound Is Cheap And while the risk of a NAFTA pullout is real, most of Trump's wrath has been focused on Mexico. If NAFTA were to fall apart, Canada would still be covered by preexisting Canada-U.S. trade agreements. We will discuss this and other trade-related issues in a Special Report to be published next week. Perhaps most critically for the loonie, crude prices remain in an uptrend. BCA's energy strategists now see Brent averaging $65.2/bbl and WTI averaging $62.9/bbl in 2018, which is $6.2/bbl and $8.9/bbl, respectively, above current market expectations. Stick with it. Bank Of England Delivers A Dovish Hike In a split 7-to-2 decision, the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee voted to raise rates by 25 basis points for the first time in ten years yesterday. In a nod to the concerns that some board members had about raising rates, the MPC noted that "any future increases in the Bank Rate would be expected to be at a gradual pace and to a limited extent." The Committee also removed language suggesting that future rate hikes would have to be in excess of what the market has been pricing in. The MPC's reluctance to sound hawkish is understandable. While the unemployment rate has fallen to a four-decade low, growth has lagged behind the rest of Europe. Consumer confidence has weakened and the CBI retailers survey suggests that British households are tightening their purse strings. House prices in London have fallen 7% since the U.K. government started the formal process of Brexit seven months ago. Inflation is running at 3%, but this mainly reflects the lagged effects from the depreciation in the currency. Still, with the market pricing in only two additional hikes through to mid-2020, it is doubtful that rate expectations will fall much from current levels. There is also a reasonably high probability that Brexit will not occur. At some point over the next few years, the U.K. government will call a new referendum to affirm whatever deal it reaches with the EU. Given that the contours of the deal will be less favorable than what many pro-Brexit voters had been promised, it is likely that a majority of the populace will decide that life inside the EU is better after all. As such, the odds are good that the pound - which is very cheap based on our valuation measures - will strengthen over the long haul (Chart 15). Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated September 1, 2017 and Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?" dated September 22, 2017. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China, The Fed, And The Transatlantic Interest Rate Spread," dated October 20, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Global "Low-flation" Vs. Oil Reflation: Investors who believe that inflation is dead will be surprised by the breakout of global oil prices in 2018 toward the mid-$60 level anticipated by our commodity strategists. This will help drag both realized and expected inflation higher across the developed world. Fed Tightening Vs. Trump Easing: The trade-off between a full-employment Trump fiscal stimulus and a slowly tightening Federal Reserve next year will first result in higher inflation expectations and a bear-steepening Treasury curve, and eventually lead to more aggressive rate hikes and a bear-flattening curve later in 2018 Strong Growth Vs. Modest Inflation In Europe: The ECB will signal a reduction in the pace of its asset purchases this week, in response to the continued strength of the Euro Area economy. Current moderate rates of inflation will not derail a "taper", but will be enough to push off any ECB interest rate hike until late 2019. Feature The bull market in global risk assets continued last week, with the S&P 500 hitting yet another all-time record and other major bourses in both Developed Markets and Emerging Markets hitting multi-year highs. This is a sensible reflection of the strength and persistence of the current coordinated global economic upturn, which is boosting corporate profit growth worldwide. At the same time, the health of the current expansion has dampened risk-aversion among investors. This is helping to keep market volatility at depressed levels with only modest changes expected for both inflation and monetary policy. Yet there are storms brewing on the horizon that have the potential to shake up this low-volatility, risk-seeking backdrop. Specifically, a potentially less stable outlook for global inflation, amidst uncertainty over the direction of fiscal policy in the U.S. and monetary policy at the Fed and European Central Bank (ECB), could pose a threat to the current Goldilocks environment for risk assets (Chart of the Week). In this Weekly Report, we discuss some macroeconomic "trade-offs" that investors will have to grapple with over the next 6-12 months, and how to position bond portfolios accordingly. Chart of the WeekMarkets Not Worried About The Fed Or ECB Trade-Off #1: "Low-flation" Vs. Rising Oil Prices Chart 2Global Inflation Pressures Are Slowly Building Realized inflation data across the major developed economies is showing no imminent threat of breaching, or even just reaching, central bank targets. This is occurring despite a robust, coordinated global economic expansion that is generating some of the fastest growth rates seen since the Great Recession. With nearly ¾ of the countries in the OECD now with unemployment rates below the estimates of the full employment NAIRU, subdued inflation readings remain a puzzle for both investors and policymakers (Chart 2). The term "low-flation" has been used to describe this backdrop of inflation rates remaining low seemingly regardless of what is happening with growth. Bond investors have reacted to this by keeping market-based inflation expectations at levels below central bank inflation targets, suggesting a potential problem with the credibility of policymakers. Yet a fresh challenge to the low-flation thesis will soon come from the global oil markets. Last week, our colleagues at BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy upgraded their oil price targets for the fourth quarter of 2017 and all of 2018.1 Their estimates for global oil demand were revised upward based on the improving economic momentum, as evidenced by the IMF recently boosting its own forecasts for world GDP growth to 3.6% for all of 2017 and 3.7% for 2018. Combined with continued discipline on output from the so-called "OPEC 2.0" coalition of Russia & Saudi Arabia - currently responsible for 22% of the world's oil production - the global oil market is expected to see demand exceeding supply until late 2018 (Chart 3). The positive demand/supply balance should lead the Brent oil price benchmark to average just over $65/bbl in 2018 (Table 1), which would be a 13% increase from current levels. This is a move that global bond markets are likely to notice, given the strong correlation that still exists between market-based inflation expectations and oil prices in the developed economies. Chart 3A Positive Fundamental Backdrop For Oil Table 1Upgrading The BCA Oil Price Forecasts In Charts 4 & 5, we show the market-based pricing on inflation expectations at the 10-year maturity for the U.S. (using TIPS breakevens), the U.K., Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia (using CPI swaps). For each country, we also show the Brent oil price denominated in local currency terms. We add one additional data point to the charts, shown as an asterisk, incorporating the 2018 average Brent oil price expectation converted at current exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar. As can be seen, the higher oil price that our commodity strategists are expecting should act to put upward pressure on the inflation expectations component of government bond yields in the major developed markets. Chart 4Upward Pressure On Inflation Expectations ... Chart 5... From Higher Oil Prices In 2018 Of course, the unchanged currency assumption made in Charts 4 & 5 is unrealistic. Yet given the significant increase in oil prices that we are expecting next year (+13%), it is also unrealistic to expect enough currency appreciation in any country to fully offset the inflationary impact from oil. In fact, given the BCA view that the U.S. dollar should enjoy one last cyclical boost next year as the Fed delivers more rate hikes than the market is currently discounting, inflation expectations may actually rise by more than we are showing in our charts in non-U.S. countries (given that oil is priced in U.S. dollars). In Table 2, we show the forecast for the local-currency Brent oil price for 2018 and the date that oil prices were last at that level in each country (all in 2015 after the cyclical peak in oil prices that began in 2014). We also present the data on 10-year government bond yields, the 2-year/10-year slope of yield curves, market-based inflation expectations, and realized headline and core inflation rates for the major developed economies. We show the current levels for all those variables, plus the levels that prevailed the last time oil was at the levels we are forecasting. The major differences that stand out are: Table 2Bond Markets Now Vs. The Last Time Oil Prices Were In The Mid-$60s Yield levels are not dramatically different than where they were in 2015 in the U.S., Canada and Australia, but are lower now in the U.K., Euro Area and Japan thanks to central bank asset purchase programs. Yield curves are much flatter now in the U.S., U.K., Canada and Japan, but are steeper in the Euro Area and Australia. Market-based inflation expectations now are very close to the levels that prevailed in 2015, except in Japan where they are much lower. Headline inflation rates are much higher now everywhere except Australia, while core inflation rates are a lot higher in the U.K., a touch higher in the U.S. and Euro Area, and lower everywhere else. The conclusion from Table 2 is that there is potential for bond yields to rise as oil prices head higher in the U.S., U.K. and Euro Area given that inflation expectations are at the same levels as 2015 but realized inflation rates are higher. This would suggest that owning inflation protection in these countries is a sensible way to play the "low-flation vs. oil reflation" trade-off - trades that we already have in place in our Tactical Trade Overlay by being long Euro Area CPI swaps and owning U.S. TIPS versus nominal U.S. Treasuries and (see table on page 16). We are reluctant to add U.K. inflation protection to this list, however, and may even look to go the other way given the likelihood that the currency-fueled surge in U.K. inflation is in the process of peaking out. In sum, bond markets will be unable to ignore a combination of strong global growth (still called for by rising global leading economic indicators), tightening labor markets and rising oil prices in 2018. As investors come to grips with oil trading with a 60-handle for the first time since 2015, inflation expectations should widen out in all developed market countries that are at, or beyond, full employment. This should put upward pressure on nominal bond yields as well, and potentially trigger bear-steepening of yield curves if central banks do not respond to higher oil-driven inflation with a faster tightening of monetary policy. Bottom Line: Investors who believe that inflation is dead will be surprised by the breakout of global oil prices in 2018 toward the mid-$60 level anticipated by our commodity strategists. This will help drag both realized and expected inflation higher across the developed world. Trade-Off #2: Fed Tightening Vs. Trump Easing Last Friday, the U.S. Senate passed President Trump's budget plan by the slimmest of margins (51 to 49), allowing for an increase in federal deficits of up to $1.5 trillion over the next decade. Trump immediately put pressure on the U.S. House of Representatives to also pass the Senate plan, and the initial comments from House Republican leadership was that they would also endorse the Senate budget proposal which included significant tax cuts for corporations and some households. This is unsurprising given that the Republicans need a major, economy-boosting legislative victory to present to voters in next year's U.S. Midterm elections. The U.S. Treasury market responded to this news on Friday in a fashion that we believe to be sensible - the curve bear-steepened, with the 2-year/30-year spread widening 4bps on the day. We have written about the interaction between budget deficits, Fed policy and the slope of the Treasury curve in past Weekly Reports this year, most recently at the beginning of this month.2 Chart 6 is taken from that most recent report, and we feel that it is important to go through our logic once again after last week's events. Chart 6UST Curve: Bear-Steepener First, Bear-Flattener Later The Treasury curve typically steepens during periods when the U.S. federal budget deficit is widening (top panel). The Treasury curve is typically negatively correlated to the real fed funds rate, steepening when the real rate is falling and vice versa. Budget deficits usually are widening during periods of soft economic growth, when tax receipts are slowing and counter-cyclical fiscal spending is increasing. This is also typically correlated to periods when spare capacity in the U.S. economy is opening up and inflation pressures are diminishing (middle panel), hence giving the Fed cover to lower interest rates and putting steepening pressure on the Treasury curve. The current backdrop is atypical, as a fiscal stimulus is being proposed at a time when the economy is already at full employment with little sign of slowing. At the same time, the Fed is in a tightening cycle - albeit a slow one because of relatively subdued inflation - which usually does not occur during periods of widening budget deficits. This represents another difficult "trade-off" for investors to process. A so-called "full employment" fiscal stimulus should be inflationary at the margin, by definition, if it boosts economic growth to an above-potential pace. That would steepen the Treasury curve as longer-term inflation expectations rise, until the Fed steps in with rate hikes to offset the impact of the fiscal stimulus. If the Fed felt that the greater fiscal deficit was becoming a problem for medium-term inflation stability, then there could be a faster pace of rate hikes that would boost the real funds rate and put flattening pressure on the Treasury curve. A more straightforward way to describe that would be a scenario where the Trump tax cuts end up boosting U.S. real GDP growth to something close to 3% next year, which results in the U.S. unemployment rate falling to a "3-handle". This would likely put upward pressure on U.S. realized inflation and steepen the Treasury curve as the market prices in higher inflation - IF the Fed is slow to respond to that inflation pickup. When inflation rises by enough to threaten the Fed's 2% inflation target, perhaps even rising above that level, then the Fed would step in with more rate hikes. The result: a higher real fed funds rate and a flatter Treasury curve. That scenario is how we envision the next year playing out. Various FOMC members have already noted that they cannot account for any fiscal stimulus in their economic projections until they see the details. Furthermore, many members of the FOMC are expressing concern that the downdraft in inflation was enough of a surprise to raise questions about the Fed's understanding of the underlying inflation process. This suggests that the Fed will want to see inflation, both realized and expected, rise first before increasing the pace of rate hikes beyond current projections. Net-net, we see the Trump fiscal stimulus steepening the Treasury curve in 2018 before the Fed flattens it with tighter monetary policy. One caveat for the latter is the upcoming decision on the next Fed Chair. President Trump, ever the reality game show host, noted last week that the finalists for this season's episode for "The Apprentice: FOMC" are now down to Jerome Powell, John Taylor and current Chair Janet Yellen. Both Powell and, of course, Yellen would represent a continuation of the current cautious FOMC framework, while Taylor would likely be more hawkish given his public comments on Fed policy decisions (and the output of his own Taylor Rule!). If Taylor were to be appointed by Trump as the new Fed Chair, the Treasury curve may not steepen much on the back of fiscal easing if the markets begin to discount a more aggressive Fed. Bottom Line: The trade-off between a full-employment Trump fiscal stimulus and a slowly tightening Federal Reserve next year will first result in higher inflation expectations and a bear-steepening Treasury curve, and eventually lead to more aggressive rate hikes and a bear-flattening curve later in 2018. Trade-Off #3: Strong European Growth Vs. Mild Inflation The ECB meets later this week, and is expected to make a decision on the size and scope of its asset purchase program for next year and beyond. The latest Bloomberg survey of economists is calling for a cut in the monthly pace of asset purchases from €60bn/month to €30bn/month, but with an extension of the program until September 2018.3 The same survey calls for the ECB to deliver a hike in the deposit rate in Q1/2019, with a hike in the benchmark interest rate in Q2/2019. We agree with the former, although we think there will be no rate hikes of any kind until the 4th quarter of 2019, at the earliest. Chart 7Why Would The ECB NOT Taper? The trade-off between robust European growth and still modest rates of core inflation are the reason we expect the ECB to be very late to begin hiking policy rates after the asset purchase program is completed. It is clear from a variety of data, from almost all countries in the Euro Area, that the economy is expanding at a robust, above-potential pace (Chart 7). Headline inflation has increased steadily off the 2015 lows and now sits at 1.5%, still below the ECB's target of "just below 2%". The ECB has played down this pickup in inflation, given that is has largely been driven by the rise in oil prices since the 2015 lows. There is certainly a strong correlation between the annual change of oil prices (denominated in euros) and Euro Area headline inflation (middle panel), and the ECB expects fading oil price momentum to result in Euro Area headline inflation drifting back to 1% in early 2018. Yet the oil price increase that our commodity strategists are calling for next year would boost the year-over-year growth rate to a pace around 40%, which has in the past been consistent with 2% headline inflation outcomes. A rising euro would help mitigate the impact from oil, but as mentioned earlier, we see more potential for some modest depreciation of the euro versus the U.S. dollar after the run-up seen in 2017. Despite the pickup in headline inflation already underway, core inflation in Europe remains benign at 1.1%. Our measure of the "breadth" of the rise in core inflation across 75 individual subsectors - the Euro Area core inflation diffusion index - sits right around the "50 line" suggesting that just as many components of Euro Area core inflation are rising as are falling. Yet with broad Euro Area unemployment approaching 8%, and with some measures of wage inflation starting to awake as a result, the odds are increasing that continued strong growth will result in additional upward momentum in core inflation. The ECB is already forecasting a return of core inflation to 1.9% in 2019, which is why some reduction in the pace of asset purchases will be announced this week. The entire asset purchase program was only put in place in 2015 to fight a deflation threat after oil prices collapsed in 2014, and that has now passed with inflation steadily grinding higher. So the "trade-off" for investors in Europe, between strong growth and moderate inflation, will be resolved by the ECB shifting to a less-accommodative monetary policy stance. In terms of the impact on Euro Area bond yields, however, the change in the pace of bond buying matters even more than the size of the asset purchases. In Chart 8, we show the ECB's monetary base and three scenarios for how it will evolve through asset purchases until the end of 2018: Base Case: The ECB slows the pace of bond buying to €30bn/month starting in January 2018 until September 2018, then cuts that down to €15bn/month for the remainder of 2018 and stops the program completely at year-end. Dovish Scenario: The pace of bond buying is maintained at €60bn/month until the end of 2018, with no commitment to end the program then. Hawkish Scenario: The ECB tapers its purchases by €10bn/month for the first six months of next year, then ends the program in July 2018. In the bottom two panels of Chart 8, we show the year-over-year growth rate of the ECB's balance sheet, with those three scenarios, and compare them to the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield and our estimate of the German term premium. In all three scenarios, even the dovish one where the ECB keeps on buying at the current pace, the growth rate of the monetary base will decelerate in 2018. As can be seen in the chart, that growth rate has been highly correlated to yields and the term premium during the life of the ECB's asset purchase program. The conclusion here is that central bank asset purchase programs need to increase in size versus previous years to maintain the same impact on bond yields over time. Put another way, asset purchases represent a signaling mechanism ("forward guidance") from a central bank to the markets about future changes in interest rates when they are already at the zero bound. Increasing the size of the purchases sends a more powerful message than simply keeping the pace of buying unchanged. This is especially true if the underlying economy is growing and inflation is rising, which would typically cause investors to price in a higher expected path of interest rates into the government bond yield curve. So, unless the ECB takes the highly unlikely step of increasing the size of its asset purchases for next year, then there are no outcomes from this week's ECB meeting that should be expected to be sustainably bullish for longer-dated European government bonds. At the same time, there will be no signals given on future changes in short-term interest rates, as the ECB has maintained for some time that rates will not be touched until "some time" after the asset purchase program has ended (Q4/2019, in our view). Hence, Euro Area yield curves are likely to eventually see some bear-steepening pressure on the back of this week's ECB meeting. The story is similar for Peripheral European government bonds and Euro Area investment grade corporate credit. In Chart 9, we show the same growth rates of the ECB monetary base with our scenario projections versus the 10-year Italy-Germany spread, 10-year Spain-Germany spread, 10-year Portugal-Germany spread and the Barclays Bloomberg Euro Area Investment Grade corporate spread. While the correlations are not as clear as that for German yields, a slower pace of ECB asset purchases would be consistent with some spread widening in Peripheral European and in corporate credit. Chart 8ECB Bond Buying:##BR##Watch The Pace, Not The Level Chart 9European Credit Spreads##BR##Set To Widen Post-ECB? Bottom Line: The ECB will signal a reduction in the pace of its asset purchases this week, in response to the continued strength of the Euro Area economy. Current moderate rates of inflation will not derail a "taper", but will be enough to push off any ECB interest rate hike until late 2019. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten", dated October 19th 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Case For Steeper Yield Curves", dated October 3rd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-22/draghi-seen-going-for-ecb-bond-buying-limit-in-qe-s-last-hurrah The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns