BCA Indicators/Model
Highlights The centrist consensus is breaking down across the developed world; In its place is rising political plurality, with non-centrist and anti-establishment parties gathering support; This trend is not to be feared by the markets; Political systems that encourage political plurality - such as those of continental Europe - are more stable in the long run than those promoting political duopoly; Establishment parties in Europe can neuter single-issue parties by selectively adopting their agenda; Emergence of a third party in the U.S. would be positive for both the markets and the economy in the long run. Feature Chart 1European Border Enforcement Is Effective Germany's Social Democratic Party (SPD) signaled on November 23 a willingness to entertain another Grand Coalition with its rival the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). If coalition talks reproduce the centrist coalition that has ruled Germany since 2013, the risk of a new election will be averted. While European markets breathe a sigh of relief, there is much to be concerned about. First, the left-leaning, liberal Socialists will likely force Chancellor Angela Merkel to accept that family reunification for asylum claimants will remain an eligible migration route into the country. This means that the 1.3 million asylum seekers that have entered Germany since 2015 will be able to apply for family members to join them, swelling the numbers of migrants from Africa and the Middle East. This could raise tensions inside Germany and increase support for anti-establishment parties. This risk is overstated, as asylum seekers to Germany have collapsed since the EU stepped up enforcement of its borders after the 2015 crisis (Chart 1). Nonetheless, the perception that Merkel is soft on migrants will hound her for the remainder of what we believe will be her last term in power. Second, the SPD performed terribly in the September election, garnering only 20.5% of the popular vote, its worst performance since March 1933 (Chart 2).1 If the German Socialists enter another Grand Coalition, it will leave the anti-establishment, anti-immigrant, and anti-EU Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the ceremonial role of the leader of the opposition.2 Chart 2The Center-Left Has Collapsed In Germany This brings up the larger concern for investors: collapse of the centrist monopoly on political power in the West writ large. Germany is hardly the only country that is facing centrifugal forces that are eroding the hold on power by the center-left and center-right establishment parties. Across a number of critical economies, the center-left and center-right political behemoths are giving way to new entrants into the political system. This political plurality means that post-World War Two era centrist duopolies are breaking down as new parties, many of them anti-establishment and populist, enter the scene. Should investors fear this development? The consensus says yes. We disagree. Even in the United States, we doubt that a "third party" would be a negative development. Introducing The Political Concentration Index Chart 3 shows the developed economy measure of our BCA Political Concentration Index (PCI), which we constructed using the Herfindahl-Hirschman index normally used to measure the level of monopoly in a particular industry.3 Our modified index measures political - rather than economic - monopoly. We replace "firms" with "parties" and "industry" with "political system" (i.e., country). A country with a single ruling party would register a 1 on the index, while a country with 10, equal-sized parties in its parliament would register a 0.1. Chart 3Political Plurality Is On The Rise In The Developed World As Chart 3 illustrates, the developed economy concentration of political power has declined considerably. Power is concentrated in the hands of more and more political parties. Chart 4 shows the PCI of ten major western economies, illustrating that the culprits for the overall collapse of political monopoly are Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Our indicator would illustrate an even greater decline of political concentration if we excluded the U.S. and the U.K. Somewhat surprisingly, Italy is actually holding up well, with current levels of political concentration in line with the post-World War Two era and higher than the free-wheeling 1990s. Chart 4Political Concentration Is On The Decline Across The Developed World France also surprisingly illustrates rising political concentration, at least relative to the 1980-1990s. However, this result also reveals the weakness of our index. Our measure is ignorant of the rise and fall of major parties. As such, it has failed to take into account the massive political earthquake that has occurred in France, where President Emmanuel Macron's La République En Marche! (REM) has completely replaced the Socialist Party as the main center-left French party. This shift is not picked up by the index as the degree of concentration of political power in the French National Assembly remains unaltered. Overall, the data confirm the suspicions of many of our clients that the political consensus is breaking down across the western world. There are likely three culprits: The economic dimension is eroding in relevance: The post-World War Two organization of western political parties across the left-right economic spectrum echoed the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century cleavages between the conservative bourgeoisie and revolutionary proletariat. The Industrial Revolution created immense wealth across Europe and North America, but also immense inequalities. As the urban proletariat grew in size, it demanded political and economic rights. For example, the German SPD remained committed to a radical proletariat revolution almost right up until the First World War. While the question of economic redistribution remains relevant today, the left-right economic axis is not as cogent in a world where living standards have risen massively since the turn of the last century. Culture wars: With the vast majority of western voters no longer responding to basic, Malthusian needs, identity issues are rising in prominence and drawing votes away from the centrist parties arrayed along the left-right economic spectrum. Several single-issue parties have found a permanent foothold in the political system, from the German Greens (since 1980) to the U.K. Independence Party (since 1993). A number of young and old parties have found particular success focusing on immigration, most prominently the Dutch Party for Freedom (founded in 2006), the Swedish Democrats (founded in 1988), the AfD (founded in 2013), and the New Zealand First party (founded in 1993). Generational cleavages: Voters born after the Cold War are particularly drawn to new and anti-establishment parties. Spain's Podemos and Italy's Five Star Movement (M5S) have had particular success appealing to young voters. Similarly, parties with a strong anti-immigration and anti-globalization focus have found success recruiting older voters. There is no single unifying theory that explains the erosion of the left-right economic spectrum as the defining political cleavage in the West. For example, France's Front National - anti-establishment, Euroskeptic, and anti-immigration - is particularly successful in recruiting young French voters, whereas its populist peers generally have not. Each country has its own set of idiosyncratic variables that explain how the political system is evolving. These range from endogenous factors (political system, demographics, ethnic makeup) to exogenous factors (economic crisis, membership in the EU, geopolitical risk, etc.). Even in the case of the U.S. - which shows no decline in political concentration (Chart 4), as Republicans and Democrats so far maintain a grip on their duopoly - numerous cleavages are evolving. Primary elections, particularly in the Republican Party, are pitting anti-establishment candidates - often ideologically aligned with the small government "Tea Party" - against establishment centrists. While these anti-establishment policymakers are officially aligned with the GOP, they often operate as an independent bloc in the House of Representatives. Bottom Line: For a number of reasons, different in each political system, the left-right economic spectrum is no longer driving voter preferences. Hence it should no longer serve as a starting point of analysis. Politicians who realize this - such as President Donald Trump or President Emmanuel Macron, both of whom challenged left-right orthodoxies on economic policy - are rewarded with surprising upsets. Our Political Concentration Index suggests that a trend is underway. Should investors fear the trend? The short answer is no. Political Plurality Is Stabilizing Political plurality should not be feared. True, in the short term, political plurality will produce political volatility. Aside from the ongoing German coalition talks, investors may remember the recent Spanish and Greek elections. Both countries had to hold two elections before producing a relatively stable political equilibrium due to the breakdown in what were traditionally two-party systems.4 Our PCI obviously suggests that similar outcomes are likely and to be expected. Germany could still become a case in point and Italy looms ominously in Q1 2018. However, there are three reasons why risks of more political plurality are overstated. The first is obvious. Chart 5 is the same as our Chart 3, but we have grafted onto it average GDP growth and unemployment rates. There is no clear difference in economic performance between periods of rising and falling political concentration. Chart 5The Economy Does Not Drive Political Concentration The second is also obvious from Chart 5. There appears to be a pattern in the rise and fall of political concentration. In other words, investors should not necessarily extrapolate today's low concentration into the future. We suspect that the reason for the natural oscillation in our index is also the third reason that more political plurality is not a risk to the markets and the economy. A field of multiple parties allows establishment, centrist politicians to steal certain popular aspects of the electoral platform of the anti-establishment parties. Over time - what appears to be a roughly 7-year interval, or two electoral cycles on our chart - the establishment simply swallows the most competitive portions of the anti-establishment platform, repackages it in a way that is palatable for the median voter, and rebrands it as an establishment policy. The recent Austrian election is a perfect case study. Austria held a general election this year in October and the anti-establishment Freedom Party (FPÖ) came in third with 26% of the vote, a 5.5% increase from its 2013 outcome. It was not, however, the best performance for the FPÖ, as it had several strong performances in the late 1990s (Chart 6). Furthermore, investors often make the mistake of only comparing the performance of a party to the last election. In case of Austria, that means that analysts are ignoring four years' worth of polling data. In the particular case of the FPÖ, that means ignoring that the party's 26% performance was an absolute crushing collapse. As Chart 7 shows, the FPÖ went from leading in the polls for much of 2016, at one point reaching 35% support, to coming in third. Why? Chart 6Austrian Populists Have Been Here Before Chart 7The Establishment Stole FPO's Thunder As we illustrate in Chart 7, the Austrian establishment was not stupid. The center-right People’s Party (ÖVP) appointed 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz as its leader in May 2017. Kurz promptly shifted the ÖVP towards the FPÖ’s policy on immigration while retaining centrist views on literally everything else. From that point until the election, the centrist ÖVP crushed the FPÖ in the polls (the ultimate vote swing was nearly 15%). What the Austrian example shows is that a plural political system allows establishment, centrist parties to co-opt portions of the anti-establishment agenda without bringing them on board. In the long term, single-issue parties that focus on anti-globalization, immigration, the environment, or low-income families could see their support erode as the establishment parties adopt portions of their electoral manifesto, without setting-off major political earthquakes. Our forecast is that anti-immigration, populist parties in Europe have likely seen their peak in 2017. Other center-right parties will observe Kurz's success.5 There is simply no reason for them to stand in favor of open borders for asylum seekers in Europe going forward, particularly since newly arrived immigrants cannot vote. As such, it is far more likely that Kurz becomes a model for conservatives rather than, say, Angela Merkel. We concede that Merkel may be the last conservative holdover on immigration. She appears to be stuck defending her decision made in 2015 and is unable to pivot away from that episode. Our strong conviction view is that her successor as head of the CDU will have no such qualms and that the next conservative Chancellor of Germany will close all non-European immigration avenues to the country. Bottom Line: BCA's Political Concentration Index illustrates that political pluralism abates every seven years, or two electoral cycles. This is because single-issue and anti-establishment parties introduce new ideas and policies into the political marketplace, allowing the establishment players to co-opt some of those ideas and win elections without causing a dramatic - and market shattering - break with the past. Beware Of Political Duopolies Is there nothing that investors should fear in our data? No, they should fear persistent political monopolies and duopolies. Take the U.S. and the U.K. It is interesting that the two countries that have experienced the most populist political outcomes in the past two years - Brexit, Trump - are also consistently rated as having the highest political concentration (see Chart 4 on page 4). Why? We suspect that it is because the establishment parties in both political systems try to be catch-all, "big tent" conglomerates that capture a wide array of ideological views on several issues.6 By trying to capture diverse positions, including some fringe ones, they are in danger of becoming entrapped by them. One of the reasons for the "big tent" nature of Anglo-Saxon parties is the "first-past-the-post" electoral system of individual electoral districts. Unlike proportional representation systems favored on the European continent, first-past-the-post electoral systems radically reduce the incentives for small parties to launch independent campaigns.7 For example, UKIP captured 12.7% of the vote in the 2015 election, but it was awarded only one seat in the House of Commons. Such a record of failure is difficult to maintain for any political entity over a long period of time. Eventually, small parties are swallowed whole by their big tent counterparts. The problem with swallowing the whole party, instead of merely biting off an anti-establishment issue here and there, is that the big tent parties often swallow more than they can chew. In the case of the U.K.'s Conservative Party (which has almost wholly swallowed the anti-establishment UKIP), it has been forced to push forward with Brexit, which is dragging on the economy and making it difficult to govern. In the case of the Republican Party in the U.S., the Republicans absorbed the anti-establishment Tea Party, but the two wings of the party are at risk of descending into open warfare. The particular danger for U.S. parties is that their primary elections are normally poorly attended, particularly in midterm election years that lack the star-power of presidential candidates. This means that a candidate representing the far-left or far-right fringe can often win a candidacy with merely 4%-7% of the electorate in each district (the average turnout for primary elections in a midterm year).8 They then can easily proceed to be elected to the House of Representatives due to the fact that so few American electoral districts are truly competitive (Chart 8). As these anti-establishment voices gather force in Congress - 41 members of the GOP belong to the Tea Party-aligned Freedom Caucus for example - they can heighten already considerable polarization by preventing compromise (Chart 9). Chart 8No Competitive Districts Left In The U.S. Chart 9Polarization In The U.S. Is Historically High A heightened state of political polarization, which persists throughout the term in office, is far more market-relevant than heightened volatility around an election produced by more political plurality. For the most part, Europe's political systems have weathered a severe double-dip recession (triple-dip in Italy's case!), a massive loss of political confidence in European institutions, and a Biblical migration crisis with relatively few early elections (Table 1). In this turbulent period, many European governments have pushed through draconian austerity measures, far-reaching economic structural reforms, and agreed to fund or receive costly bailout programs. When anti-establishment parties came to power - as they legitimately did in Greece - they quickly migrated to the middle in order to govern, needing the votes of other parties. Table 1Europe: Less Volatile Relative To Context Empirically speaking, there is no evidence that low political concentration is therefore inferior to the perceived stability of high political concentration exhibited in the U.S. and the U.K. The American and British economies both have seen generally better economic performances since 2008, yet they are struggling with dramatic bouts of populism in 2016.9 In the U.K.'s case, Brexit will reduce potential GDP. In the U.S.'s case, Trump's tax cuts will be inflationary, could hasten the next recession, and will likely exacerbate income inequality. We do not have a view on whether a third party will emerge in the U.S. Political polarization is a powerful trend at present, and since by definition it promotes the existence of two opposing ideological camps, it reinforces the two-party system. Republicans want to maintain control of the conservative base and hence cannot afford to let the Tea Party split off, while Democrats want to control the liberal base and cannot afford to let the progressive wing split off. If either party fractures, the other benefits. Nevertheless, there is nothing unique about the U.S. electoral system that would prevent a breakdown of the American political duopoly: other first-past-the-post systems exhibit political plurality, most notably in Canada. If a third party does emerge, we would wager that it would increase, not decrease, political stability; and reduce, not increase, political polarization. For example, if Tea Party policymakers were to run as independent candidates, it would free up both Tea Partiers and centrist Republicans to pursue their preferred policies in Congress. Centrist Republicans could vote with the Tea Party on matters of common concern and vote with the Democrats on issues where the Tea Party is deemed to be on the fringe. The basic ability to pass a budget would not be hindered by the Tea Party's single-mindedness on government spending, yet voters demanding tighter budgets would not be denied representation. Alternatively, if a new single-issue party emerged, say one favoring tighter immigration policy, Republicans would be free to co-opt aspects of its view on immigration and neutralize the threat of losing votes. They would not be forced to absorb the entire party and pursue hardline policies that would cause gridlock with Democrats. Bottom Line: Empirical evidence since the 2008 Great Financial Crisis does not support the conventional wisdom that low political concentration (i.e., political plurality) is less favorable for investors than high political concentration. Both the U.S. and the U.K., which score the highest on our PCI, have produced highly volatile political outcomes. Investment Implications Investors should not worry about the emergence of new parties in Europe. Particularly harmless are single-issue parties, specifically those focusing on tighter immigration controls. Conservative parties across Europe have already adopted more stringent immigration policies while still sounding sane, a potent electoral mix relative to some of the populist anti-immigrant parties currently vying for the votes of concerned citizens on the continent. Meanwhile, we do not fear the emergence of a third, or fourth, party in the U.S. In fact, such a development could play a role in reducing historically high political polarization in the country. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Yes. That 1933 election. 2 There is no official "leader of the opposition" in Germany and as such the AfD leadership is merely ceremonial. The left-wing Die Linke was in the same position from 2013-2017 with little effect. In fact, Die Linke saw only an incremental increase in its support (0.6%) between the two elections. 3 Regular readers of Geopolitical Strategy will know that we are big fans of the Herfindahl-Hirschman index. We have applied it before to measure geopolitical hegemony. Originally, the index was designed to assist in competition law and antitrust cases as it is an indicator of the amount of competition between firms in a particular sector. The formula for the index is shown below, where si is the market share of firm i in the market, and the N is the number of firms; 4 Spain held an election in December 2015 and another in June 2016. The latter produced a minority government led by the center-right People's Party that is essentially supported by the Spanish Socialists Workers' Party (PSOE). Greece similarly held two elections, one in January 2015 and another in September of that year. 5 The German, establishment, Free Democratic Party (FDP) did so in the most recent election, copying ÖVP's focus on tight immigration policy. It has seen its support rise to 10.7%, a substantive increase from 2013. 6 We admit that the case for the U.K. as a political duopoly is harder to make given that there are third (and fourth) parties; although both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have cleavages on the economy, globalization, and European integration that few European peers have. This is largely due to both parties' attempt to capture a diverse coalition of views. 7 First-past-the-post refers to an electoral system where the country is divided into electoral districts. In each electoral district, the party that wins the most votes generally sends its candidate to the legislature. While there are some variations on this model, and some mixed systems, this electoral system tends to favor political duopolies. In political science, this tendency has often been referred to as Duverger's law (named after the French sociologist Maurice Duverger who first observed this phenomenon). 8 Please see Elaine C. Kamarck, "Increasing Turnout In Congressional Primaries," Center for Effective Public Management at Brookings, dated July 2014, available at brookings.edu. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Risk assets continue to rise despite a flattening yield curve. Individual investors are more sanguine than institutional investors as stocks make new highs. The S&P 500 is testing the top of a key channel. Will it break out or break down? Bond market sentiment, positioning and technicals today vs. 1994. Feature Risk-on returned to financial markets last week as the S&P 500 hit a new all-time high and oil prices reached a 2-year high. Credit spreads narrowed as well. This occurred despite growing investor angst regarding the flattening yield curve. At 58 basis points, the 2/10 yield curve is still in positive territory, but the recent flattening could be interpreted as heralding a Fed policy mistake. We, too, are concerned. The flattening curve is being driven by the Fed's determination to continue lifting short-term rates even in the face of subdued inflation readings. Our base case outlook sees inflation grinding higher in the coming months, leading to a temporarily steeper curve. Nonetheless, we will re-evaluate our asset allocation if the curve continues to flatten and core inflation remains stuck in a range. BCA expects U.S. stocks to outperform Treasuries in 2018. S&P 500 EPS growth and margins will hold up through mid-year, supported by an above-trend domestic economic expansion in 1H 2018, a dose of fiscal stimulus and accelerating economic activity outside the U.S. Still, many investors are concerned that sentiment and valuations are signaling that a pullback is nigh. Sanguine Sentiment Our technical and sentiment indicators are not flashing red as in previous bear markets, but neither are they giving an all-clear for U.S. equity investors. Sentiment levels are a bigger concern than technical indicators and investors should monitor both for signs of an equity sell-off. BCA's U.S. equity sentiment indicator is elevated, although not at an extreme (Chart 1). Remarkably, in contrast to previous market troughs, individual Investors (panel 2) are more sanguine than either financial advisors (panel 3) or traders (panel 4). Bullishness among traders is at a 10-year high. Typically, after a long bull run, institutions are more cautious about equities than the oft-maligned individual investor. Several other sentiment surveys illustrate the divergence in sentiment between institutions and individuals. As per the American Institute of Individual Investors, the percentage of small investors who are bearish (Chart 2, 35%, panel 2) is in the middle of a 30-year range while the percentage of bulls (29%, panel 3) is at the low end. Moreover, Chart 3 shows the gap in the expectation between households and professionals on future stock market returns (as tallied by the Yale School of Management's International Center for Finance) and on buying the dips (panel 4). That said, individuals and institutions are more aligned on the likelihood of a stock market crash in the next six months. None of the three sentiment indicators from the Yale survey are at an extreme. Chart 1Overall Sentiment Levels Elevated##BR##But Not At Extremes Chart 2Individuals Are Not##BR##Overly Bullish Active managers have reduced equity risk since the beginning of Q4 (Chart 4). At 61%, the average equity exposure of institutional investors surveyed by the NAAIM1 is at the lowest level since May 2016 and is nearly half the 102% exposure at the start of 2017. The March 2017 reading was the highest since 2007, just before the S&P 500 peak in October 2007. Chart 3Gap Between Individual##BR##And Institutional Investors Chart 4Active Managers Still##BR##Overweight Equities... Similarly to previous bear markets, BCA's equity speculation index moved into "high speculation" territory in early 2017 and remains so as the year ends and range bound on average at somewhat lower levels. Net speculative positions of S&P 500 stocks are in balance, however, and do not signal that market risk-taking is rampant (Chart 5). Moreover, the dispersion of equity volatility of new high and lows of the S&P500 is quite wide, ranging from over 20% to below 5%, over previous historical periods since 1994. Although volatility is not a leading indicator of future equity market returns, good or bad, the current low level of volatility, especially over the short-term, 6 months to 1-year, may be longer-lasting, having peaked from over 15% only since early 2016 and now closer to 5%. Longer-term volatility, for example, based on 2-, 3- and 4-years, still remains above 10%. It is not unusual for both short-term and long-term volatility to eventually converge, as seen in post-bear market phases, especially in the mid-2000s (Chart 6). Chart 5Speculation High, But Not At Extremes Chart 6Equity Vol Remains Low Warning Signs From Technicals? On balance, the technical indicators we monitor do not suggest that the market is stretched. Chart 7 shows that the S&P 500 is testing the top end of the 2009-2017 recovery trend channel. A failure to break out of the channel may result in some near-term consolidation for U.S. equities. However, a definitive break above 2616 would imply another upleg for stocks. The escalating advance/decline line is also in a bullish trend (Chart 7). The other technical indicators we monitor fall into two categories. Some are elevated, but not at extremes. Others are still in the middle of the range and are not a concern. The S&P 500 is 6% above its 200-day moving average, in the upper end of its post-2000 range, which is well below the recent highs set in 2009, 2011 and 2013. The S&P's distance from its 50-day MA is in a similar position (Chart 8, panels 1 and 2). BCA's composite technical measure is in the middle of the 2007-2017 range, and is not a concern (Chart 9, panel 5). Moreover, the percent of NYSE stocks above their 10- and 30-week highs are midway in their recent range. Furthermore, new highs minus new lows is at neutral lows (Chart 6, panel 2). Chart 7Breakout...Or Breakdown##BR##At Top Of Channel? Chart 8S&P Not Elevated Vs.##BR##Moving Averages Chart 9U.S. Stocks Not##BR##Overextended Bottom Line: Neither sentiment nor technical indicators are flashing red, although the fact that institutional managers are heavily overweight stocks is worrying. We continue to recommend stocks over bonds in the next 12 months, but acknowledge that risks to BCA's stance are climbing. Investors should be prudent with risk assets, paring back any maximum overweight positions and holding some safe-haven assets within diversified portfolios. BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service maintains a positive technical stance on the energy sector2 and notes that technicals in the consumer discretionary sector look washed out.3 BCA downgraded consumer discretionary from overweight to neutral on September 25, 2017 despite the attractive technical backdrop of the sector. Is It 1994 - Again? BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service puts fair value on the U.S. 10-year Treasury at 2.69%,4 and rates may climb as high as 3.0% in 2018 if inflation returns to the Fed's 2.0% target. Fundamentals (elevated inflation, above-trend U.S. growth, a more aggressive Fed) support our bond view. However, what does the technical picture in the bond market tell investors? Charts 10 and 11 show the sentiment and technical indicators for the bond market in 2017 and 1994. The duration positioning of portfolio managers in late 2017 matches the situation in 1994. At 100%, portfolio duration is the highest since March 21, 2017. This positioning implies that the market is vulnerable to a spike in rates, as it was in 1994 when the Fed's 75-basis point rate hike in February caught the market off guard. In October 1994, portfolio duration was 103%. While BCA views a Fed policy mistake as a risk to our bullish equity call in 2018, a 1994-style surprise from the Fed is unlikely. In 1994, the Fed's policy intentions were opaque, at best. Since then, the Fed has become increasingly transparent and frequently seeks a "buy-in" from the market before boosting rates. Chart 10Bond Market Positioning,##BR##Sentiment And Technicals In 1994.... Chart 11...And In##BR##2017 The 10-year Treasury yield is currently in an uptrend as it was in early 1994. Today, yields have climbed 80 bps off their post-Brexit lows in mid-2016. The 10-year yield troughed in October 1993 at 5.19%, and rose 60 bps before the Fed's shock rate hike in early 1994. However, in 1994 yields were only beginning to enter the second decade of what would become a 35-year fall in bond yields. BCA's view is that the 1.57% yield in June 2016 marked the end of that multi-year decline. The bond market in late 2017 is as oversold as the bond market was in early 1994, although it took different paths to get to the same juncture. According to BCA's Composite Bond Indicator, the bond market in late 1993 and early 1994 was working off a deeply overbought position. However, by early 1994, bonds were modestly oversold. BCA's bond measure was deeply oversold in late 2016 and early 2017, but shifted into overbought territory in the summer. Today, bonds are modestly oversold. Panel 4 of Charts 10 and 11 show that Fed rate hikes were not priced in at the end of 1993 and in early 1994; today, a few increases are priced in. Investors were net purchasers of bond funds in 1993 and 1994, which is the same as the current situation. In 1993, however, investors were shedding bond funds while individuals are now adding to their bond positions. Bottom Line: Several sentiment and technical indicators in the bond market echo the scenario in 1994. Nonetheless, 25 years of increased Fed transparency means it would be unlikely that the market will be surprised by the Fed's next rate increase. Still, with a new Fed Chair, a record number of vacancies on the Fed's Board and an unprecedented unwinding of its balance sheet, a policy misstep by the Fed would threaten BCA's position on the economy, equities and bonds in 2018. A bigger risk may be that the bond market is still priced for the low inflation environment to persist. Accordingly, if there is an upside surprise on inflation, bonds could be hit hard on a re-assessment of the Fed's rate path. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 National Association of Active Investment Managers. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Invincible", published November 6, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Resilient", published September 25, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary "Into The Fire", published November 7, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com.
GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of October 31st, 2017. There are no significant changes in country allocations, but minor changes are the reductions in the overweight of Germany, Sweden and Switzerland in favor of Spain and Italy, which were already overweight, and Australia which was underweight, as shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the overall model underperformed its benchmark by 73 bps in October, largely due to the underperformance (110 bps) of Level 2 model, resulting from the large underweight of Japan, which was the best performer in October. The underweight of Australia and Canada worked very well too, but not enough to offset the overweight in the euro zone countries. The strength of the USD against the euro also hurt the performance. Since going live in January 2016, the overall model has outperformed the benchmark by 247 bps, largely from the allocation among the 11 non-U.S. countries, which have outperformed their benchmark by 599 bps. Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model." http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of October 31st, 2017. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live The growth component in the model has turned cautious on the global recovery. The aggregate cyclical sector overweight has been reduced to 2.5% from 8% last month. However, cyclical sectors such as energy, materials and industrials have seen an increase in overweight driven by favorable liquidity and momentum backdrop. On the other hand, financials and technology have been downgraded to underweight. Finally, as a result of the bearish outlook from the growth component, the model has turned overweight on utilities. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com
Highlights It is often argued that the U.S. dollar is expensive, but models do not offer a unanimous picture. The U.S. current account, exports share, and cyclical inflation do not point to an obvious dollar overvaluation either. Without a clear valuation signal, the dollar will continue to trade off rate differentials. An increasing body of evidence points toward a rebound in U.S. inflation. As such, U.S. rates are likely to move up relative to the rest of the world, lifting the USD over the next 12 months. Feature We are sending you a shorter regular bulletin this week as we are also publishing a follow up to our joint Special Report titled, "Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors," released with the Global Asset Allocation team two weeks ago. In this follow-up, my colleague Xiaoli Tang expands on the same methodology, testing various FX-hedging strategies for international investors - but this time looking at portfolios based in the CHF, the SEK, and the NOK. In this week's regular bulletin, we take a closer look at the U.S. dollar's valuations. The consensus view is that the dollar is expensive. We explore how this claim stacks up against the facts. At this juncture, the U.S. economy is not exhibiting some of the key consequences typical of an economy burdened by an expensive currency. Valuation Models The main argument used by some investors to show that the U.S. dollar is expensive is the traditional purchasing power parity model. This indicator does indeed flag a large 17% overvaluation for the greenback (Chart I-1). However, this is only one metric based on producer price indices. We also like to look at measures that focus on the true determinant of competitiveness: the cost of labor. When we deflate the U.S. dollar's exchange rate using unit labor costs, the dollar is neither a screaming sell nor a screaming buy. It is in line with its long-term average (Chart I-2). The same IMF real effective exchange rate model based on unit labor costs also shows the euro as fairly valued. Thus, on this metric, valuations do not seem to provide a compelling argument to go long or short the dollar, which challenges the universally bearish take on the dollar's perceived overvaluation. Chart I-1An Argument For An###br## Expensive USD Chart I-2But Not All Valuation Approaches ##br##Are That Clearcut We can also double-check the result of this metric using our own long-term fair value model, which incorporates long-term relative productivity trends. This model tries to capture the so-called Balassa-Samuelson effect. This effect is an empirical observation that countries with superior long-term labor productivity trends tend to experience a secular upward bias on their real exchange rates. The perceived overvaluation of the U.S. dollar may in fact be an illusion, because when the Balassa-Samuelson effect is taken into account, the dollar currently trades in line with its fair value (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Another Global Approach With USD At Fair Value Bottom Line: Valuing currencies is always an exercise to be approached with plenty of circumspection. It is easy to look at simple PPP models and argue that the dollar looks very expensive. However, when one takes into account labor market costs and productivity trends, the dollar seems fairly valued. A Look At The Symptoms Chart I-4The U.S. Current Account##br## Shows Little Dollar Strain Models are only as good as their inputs. It is important to try to corroborate their insights with economic reality. An expensive currency should produce three major outcomes: the country's current account position should be deteriorating, its market share of global exports should be falling, and it should be experiencing deep deflationary pressures relative to the rest of the world. Let's begin with the current account. Despite a 17% increase in the U.S. dollar since 2014, the U.S. current account has remained stable (Chart I-4). It is undeniable that this reflects an improvement in the energy trade balance of the U.S., itself a byproduct of the shale revolution. Nonetheless, it also highlights that there is little balance-of-payments strains in the U.S. In fact, the move away from energy imports in itself should point to a higher level of equilibrium for the dollar. The export share of the U.S. also does not point to too much stress created by the dollar bull market. As Chart I-5 illustrates, in contrast to the early 1980s or late 1990s-early 2000s, U.S. exports has been faring well when compared to the rest of the world. This exercise needs to be conducted by comparing U.S. exports to the rest of the world excluding China. China has been grabbing global market share from everyone for 30 years. As an aside, the continued rise of China, as well as its still-large current account surplus of more than US$155 billion, supports the idea that the RMB is indeed cheap and remains attractive on a long-term basis - a message also flagged by our long-term fair value model for the CNY (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Growing U.S. Market Share Chart I-6The Yuan Is Clearly Cheap Finally, there is little evidence that the U.S. dollar is depressing U.S. inflation on a cyclical basis. Changes in financial conditions can temporarily redistribute inflationary pressures between the U.S. and the rest of the world, but an expensive dollar should depress U.S. inflation for an extended period of time on a global relative basis. An expensive U.S. dollar makes the U.S. uncompetitive, and should force some degree of internal adjustment on the U.S. economy. So far, the two-year moving average of U.S. core inflation relative to the OECD does not show the same kind of swoon as in the 1980s or late 1990s. In fact, even after this year's inflation slowdown in the U.S., American inflation remains in an uptrend relative to the rest of the OECD (Chart I-7). One source of worry remains the U.S. net international investment position (NIIP). The U.S.'s NIIP currently stands at -41% of GDP, and despite stabilizing for the past two years, has been in a pronounced downtrend over the past 35 years. Historically, countries like Switzerland or Japan with strong NIIPs have tended to experience long-term upward pressure on their exchange rates, while those with poor NIIPs such as South Africa tend to experience negative secular trends, even in real terms. For the time being, what keeps the negative impact of the NIIP on the USD at bay is that the U.S. continues to earn a positive net income - despite negative net assets abroad (Chart I-8). This reflects the willingness of investors to hold the U.S. dollar for its reserve currency status. For the time being, with a lack of alternative to challenge the U.S. dollar's reserve status, the NIIP should not represent a key hurdle for a few more years. Chart I-7The U.S. is Not Experiencing##br## An Internal Devaluation Chart I-8The Exorbitant ##br##Privilege Bottom Line: The U.S. economy is currently exhibiting few of the signals that would be associated with an expensive dollar: the current account remains well behaved, the country is not losing export market shares to its main competitors, and U.S. inflation remains well behaved relative to the rest of the OECD on a cyclical basis. A key risk remains the U.S.'s net international investment position, but so long as the USD can maintain its unchallenged role as the key reserve in the global financial system, the U.S. is likely to continue to run an income surplus vis-à-vis the rest of the world. So What? When it comes to the FX space, long-term valuations only become binding constraints when they are in the extreme. Right now, there is enough conflicting evidence to suggest that if the dollar is indeed expensive, it is not expensive enough to flash a bright sell signal. In this case, the U.S. dollar's dynamics are likely to be dominated by interest rate differentials. Interest rate curves outside of the U.S. seem currently fairly priced, but this is not the case in the U.S. Thus, with only two full hikes priced in over the next 24 months, one needs to see upside for U.S. interest rates if one is to be bullish on the greenback. Despite last month's very poor employment numbers, a consequence of hurricanes Harvey and Irma, the labor market remains strong enough to justify the Federal Reserve's desire to hike rates. The ISM surveys also remains very strong, with the headline numbers and new order components pointing toward robust growth. The only factor that could impede the Fed is inflation. On this front, we remain optimistic that inflation will not deteriorate much further and that, in fact, it is likely to pick up over the next six months, giving the Fed a green light to increase rates in line with its own forecast: First, in the past, we have highlighted that velocity of money - based on the money of zero maturity and nominal GDP - has been a very reliable leading indicator of inflation over the past 20 years, and is pointing toward a rebound in core inflation measures toward year-end.1 Moreover, the easing in U.S. financial conditions over the past 18 months also points toward upside risks to both U.S. growth and inflation. Second, the strength in the Prices-Paid component of both ISM surveys further increases our optimism. Moreover, the recent vigor of the Supplier Delivery subcomponent - a measure of bottlenecks in the system - also points to pipeline inflationary pressures. It is true that some of the recent spike is most likely skewed by the devastating impact of the hurricanes, but this improving trend began much earlier this year. Historically, a combined improvement in both the Prices-Paid and the Supplier Delivery components of the ISM survey tends to provide long leads on core inflation (Chart I-9). Third, the New York Fed has recently started publishing an underlying inflation trend estimate. This measure has also been rebounding sharply, hitting its highest level in 10 years, also pointing toward higher core inflation (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Pipeline Inflationary Pressures##br## Are Growing In The U.S. Chart I-10Underlying Inflationary ##br##Pressures Are Growing Fourth, the behavior of inflation itself is somewhat encouraging. While the recent core PCE year-over-year numbers have been disheartening, the three-month annualized rate of change has picked up robustly. Historically, this has also led to turning points in the year-on-year number (Chart I-11). Finally, there are signs of underlying vigor in wages. Last week's U.S. average hourly earnings number clicked in at 2.9%.It was likely overinflated by the effect of the hurricanes, which have temporarily dropped workers in low-paid industries out of the sample used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics to compute this data. However, the median average hourly earnings across the key sectors covered by the BLS has been in an uptrend since the beginning of the year (Chart I-12), pointing to some faint but real early signs of rising underlying wage growth. Moreover, while much ink has been spilled regarding whether or not the Philips curve is flat, there remain a well-defined tight relationship between the U.S. employment cost index (ECI) and the level of employment-to-population ratio in the U.S. (Chart I-13). Our view that employment growth will likely continue to tick in north of 120,000 jobs for the next 12 months, implies further improvement in the employment-to-population ratio, and thus a growing ECI. This will both support household income and consumption as well as our inflation view. Chart I-11Sequential Inflation Pointing ##br##To A Turning Point Chart I-12Cross-Sectional Median ##br##Of Wages Improving Chart I-13The Cross-Sectional Median##br## Of Wages Improving Bottom Line: With no clear message from long-term valuation, the key driver of the dollar is likely to remain interest rate differentials. At this point, U.S. interest rates need U.S. inflation to be able to rise by more than what is implied in the OIS curve and lift the dollar. Signs continue to accumulate that U.S. inflation is likely to turn the corner over the next six months, thanks to an easing in U.S. financial conditions and the pick-up in the velocity of money: the Prices-Paid and Supplier Deliveries components of the ISM have hooked up significantly, the NY Fed's underlying inflation measure is strong, the sequential growth rate in core inflation is improving, and there are growing signs that wage growth in the U.S. is picking up. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report titled "Fade North Korea, And Sell The Yen", dated August 11, 2017, or Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Conflicting Forces For The Dollar", dated September 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Closed Trades
Highlights Year One Performance: The GFIS recommended model bond portfolio returned 1.1% (hedged into USD) in its first year of existence, slightly underperforming the custom benchmark index by -2bps. Our bearish duration tilts were a drag on performance, while our overweights to U.S. corporate debt were a major contributor. Risk Management Lessons: The maximum overweight to low-beta, but low-yielding, Japanese Government Bonds was a drag on performance by reducing the portfolio yield. This highlights the classic bond management trade-off between controlling portfolio risks, like duration or tracking error, and maximizing sources of return, like interest income. Future Drivers Of Returns: Over the next 6-12 months, we expect the model portfolio returns to again benefit mostly from our below-benchmark duration stance (as global bond yields grind higher) and from our overweight stance on U.S. corporates (as the U.S. economy maintains a solid pace of growth). Feature In September of 2016, we introduced a new element to the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) service - our recommended model bond portfolio.1 This represented a bit of a departure from the usual macroeconomic analysis and forecasting of financial markets that has been the hallmark of BCA. Yet we felt that it was important to add an actual portfolio, with specific allocations and weightings, given the needs and constraints faced by our readers. With so many of our clients being traditional fixed income managers (or multi-asset managers) who measure investment performance versus benchmark indices, we felt that it was important to have a way to communicate our views within a framework akin to what they deal with each day. Even for clients who are not professional bond managers, the model portfolio can be useful as a way to express how much we prefer one bond market (or sector) versus others. It also gives us a forum to discuss portfolio management issues as an addition to the macro analysis. So far, the reception from clients to this new addition to the GFIS service has been a warm one, and we look forward to additional feedback in the months and years ahead. With the model portfolio just passing its first birthday, we are dedicating this Weekly Report to an overview of the final Year One performance numbers. We will evaluate our winning and losing recommendations, look back at the lessons learned as the model portfolio framework has evolved, and identify what we expect will be the biggest drivers of performance in Year Two based on our current views. Year One Model Portfolio Performance: Winners & Losers Chart 1GFIS Model Portfolio Performance The GFIS model portfolio produced a total return of 1.09% (hedged into U.S. dollars) over first full year since inception on September 20, 2016 (Chart 1). This essentially matched the performance of our custom benchmark index, with the model portfolio lagging by a mere -2bps.2 In terms of the breakdown between government bonds and credit (spread product), the former underperformed the benchmark by -18bps while the latter outperformed by +16bps. A more traditional period to evaluate investment performance is on a calendar year-to-date basis. We also show the 2017 year-to-date (YTD) numbers in Chart 1, measured from January 1st to October 3rd. Over that time period, the total returns are much higher - the model portfolio has returned 2.78%, lagging the index by -6bps. This higher absolute return is mostly due to the strong outperformance of corporate bond markets and the decline in government bond yields seen since March. Broadly speaking, that breakdown of returns lines up with what were our largest strategic market calls: to be underweight overall portfolio duration and overweight U.S. corporate bond exposure (bottom panel). This is obviously a welcome property to see in our returns, which we hope will always line up with our desired tilts! When looking at the detailed decomposition of the returns on the government bond side of the portfolio (Table 1), however, a few points stand out: Table 1A Detailed Breakdown Of The GFIS Model Portfolio The underperformance on the government bond side of the portfolio (Chart 2) came from underweight positions at the long-end (maturities beyond seven years) of yield curves in the U.S. (-4bps), U.K. (-5bps), Germany (-5bps) and, most notably, France (-18bps). Chart 2GFIS Model Portfolio Government Bond Performance Attribution By Country The underweight position in Italy, across the curve, generated another -7bps of underperformance, although this was paired against an overweight to Spanish government bonds that positively contributed to returns (+3bps). Overweights to bonds in the middle and shorter ends of yields curves (maturities less than seven years) positively contributed to returns in the U.S. (+6bps), Germany (+2bps) and France (+2bps). Our significant overweight to Japanese government bonds, intended as a way to reduce portfolio duration by increasing exposure to a market with a low beta to global bond yields, also helped boost performance (+8bps). The conclusion? By concentrating our recommended duration underweights on longer-maturity bonds, and raising the weightings on shorter-maturity government debt, we imparted a bearish curve steepening bias on top of the reduced duration exposure. It is no surprise that our recommended government bond allocations underperformed during the bull-flattening move in global yield curves seen earlier this year. By contrast, the returns on the credit (spread) product allocations within the GFIS model portfolio tell a more positive story (Chart 3): Chart 3GFIS Model Portfolio Spread Product Performance Attribution The outperformance came from our overweight allocations to U.S. Investment Grade (IG) corporate debt, focused on Financials (+14bps) and Industrials (+4bps), and U.S. High-Yield (HY), concentrated on Ba-rated (+13bps) and B-rated (+8bps) bonds. U.S. Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) were a laggard during the first year of the model bond portfolio (-12bps), which largely came from an ill-timed tactical move to overweight in the 4th quarter of 2016. More recently, our underweight stance on MBS has been only a modest drag on the total return of the portfolio since the peak in U.S. bond yields back in March. Our decisions to reduce exposure to Euro Area IG (-5bps) and HY (-2bps) corporate debt earlier in the year, and our more recent decision to downgrade Emerging Market (EM) sovereign (-1bp) and corporate debt (-4bps), were both small negative contributors to performance. Summing it all up, our spread product allocations performed well because of the overweight to U.S. IG and HY corporates. The underweights in Euro Area and EM credit were set up as relative value allocations versus U.S. equivalents, so the underperformance versus the benchmark should be viewed against the substantial outperformance from U.S. corporates. The MBS underperformance was small on a YTD basis, but we see an opportunity for that to soon turn around, as we discuss later. Bottom Line: The GFIS recommended model bond portfolio returned 1.1% (hedged into USD) in its first year of existence, slightly underperforming the custom benchmark index by -2bps. Our bearish duration tilts were a drag on performance, while our overweights to U.S. corporate debt were a major contributor. Lessons Learned On Risk Management As the first year of the GFIS model portfolio progressed, we added elements to the framework to help us manage the overall risk of the portfolio. Specifically, we began to include a tracking error calculation to show the relative volatility of the portfolio to its benchmark.3 When we first introduced that tracking error back in April, we were running far too little risk in the portfolio given the relatively modest position sizes (Chart 4). Rather than be an "index hugger", we decided to increase the sizes of all our relative tilts (Chart 5), and the tracking error rose accordingly from a mere 25bps to over 60bps. This is still below the 100bps limit that we decided to impose on the relative volatility of the model portfolio, but we were comfortable not running less-than-maximum risk given that valuations on many spread products were not extraordinarily cheap. The time to max out a risk budget is early in the credit cycle when spreads are wide, not when the cycle is far advanced and spreads are relatively tight. Yet one lesson that was learned in Year One was that too much focus on tracking error can result in lost opportunities to boost the performance of the portfolio. As part of our strategic call to maintain a below-benchmark overall duration stance, we upgraded Japan to maximum overweight in the model portfolio back on July 4th.4 With Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) having such a low beta to yield changes in the overall Developed Markets (Chart 6), adding more Japan exposure was a way to get more defensive on duration in a way that would also boost our desired tracking error (since we were adding more of an asset less correlated to the other government bonds in the portfolio). Chart 4Tracking Error Of##BR##The Model Portfolio Chart 5Allocations Between##BR##Government Bonds & Spread Product Chart 6Are JGBs The##BR##Optimal Duration Hedge? Yet by increasing the allocation to low-beta JGBs, we were also adding exposure to "no-yield" JGBs. The overall yield of the model portfolio suffered as a result, fully offsetting the bump to the portfolio yield from the increase in allocations to spread product in April (Charts 7 & 8). With the benefit of hindsight, increasing the allocation even more to something like U.S. HY corporate bonds would have a been a more prudent way to redirect government bond exposure to a low-beta market that would have boosted the overall portfolio yield (Chart 9). Chart 7Too Much Japan##BR##In The Portfolio ... Chart 8... Offsetting The Yield Pick-Up##BR##From Spread Product Chart 9There Is Not Enough Yield##BR##In The Model Portfolio Going forward, we will pay more attention to managing the portfolio yield more actively as another piece of our model bond portfolio framework that can help boost expected returns. Bottom Line: The maximum overweight to low-beta, but low-yielding, Japanese Government Bonds was a drag on performance by reducing the portfolio yield. This highlights the classic bond management trade-off between controlling portfolio risks, like duration or tracking error, and maximizing sources of return, like interest income. The Outlook For The Next Year Looking towards the next twelve months, the biggest expected drivers of returns in our model bond portfolio are expected to come from the following allocations: Below-benchmark overall duration exposure: We are sticking to our guns on the future direction of global bond yields, which have more room to rise over the next 6-12 months. The coordinated global economic upturn is showing little sign of slowing, with leading indicators still rising and pointing to upward pressure on real bond yields (Chart 10). At the same time, inflation expectations in the developed economies remain too low relative to current levels of inflation (bottom panel). Thus, we expect government bond yield curves to bear-steepen as central banks will respond slowly to the rise in inflation. This will benefit the steepening bias we have in the model portfolio from the underweights in longer maturity buckets in the U.S., Europe and the U.K. (Chart 11). Chart 10Future Drivers Of Performance:##BR##Below-Benchmark Duration Chart 11An Unexpected##BR##Bull Flattening This Year Overweight U.S. corporate bonds (both IG and HY): Looking over the indicators from our U.S. Corporate Bond Checklist, the backdrop is not yet pointing to a period of expected underperformance for U.S. corporates (Chart 12). While balance sheet fundamentals do appear stretched, as indicated by our Corporate Health Monitor (2nd panel), the overall stance of U.S. monetary conditions is neutral (3rd panel), while bank lending standards are not yet restrictive (4th panel). We expect the Fed to deliver another 25bp rate hike in December, and at least another 2-3 hikes in 2018, which will shift monetary conditions into more restrictive territory. A very rapid rise in the U.S. dollar would worsen this trend, but we expect only a moderate grind higher in the greenback as the Fed slowly delivers additional rate hikes and non-U.S. growth remains robust. While the solid global economic backdrop should benefit all growth-sensitive assets like corporate debt, we see more attractive relative valuations on U.S. corporates versus Euro Area or EM equivalents. The upcoming tapering of asset purchases by the European Central Bank (ECB) also represents a major risk to Euro Area corporate debt, as the ECB will be slowing the pace of its corporate bond buying. One other sector that can potentially boost the portfolio performance in Year Two versus Year One is U.S. MBS. Our colleagues at our sister service, U.S. Bond Strategy, now see MBS valuations as looking attractive to other U.S. spread product like IG corporates (Chart 13).5 The relative option-adjusted spreads (OAS) on MBS and U.S. IG are a good leading indicator of the relative performance of the two asset classes and current spread levels should lead to a better return profile for MBS over IG. Another factor benefitting MBS is the continued rising trend in U.S. bond yields (and mortgage rates) that we expect over the next 6-12 months, which will reduce mortgage prepayments that would weigh on MBS returns (bottom panel). Chart 12Future Drivers Of Performance:##BR##Overweight U.S. Corporates Chart 13Upgrade U.S. MBS##BR##To Neutral This week, we are upgrading our MBS allocation to neutral from underweight in our model portfolio. However, given that our allocations to U.S. corporates are already fairly significant, we are choosing to "fund" the MBS upgrade by lowering our weighting on U.S. Treasuries (see the model portfolio allocations on Page 14). Bottom Line: Over the next 6-12 months, we expect the model portfolio returns to again benefit mostly from our below-benchmark duration stance (as global bond yields grind higher) and from our overweight stance on U.S. corporates (as the U.S. economy maintains a solid pace of growth). We are also now more constructive on valuations on U.S. MBS, thus we are upgrading our allocation to neutral at the expense of U.S. Treasuries. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Model Special Report, "Introducing Our Recommended Global Fixed Income Portfolio", dated September 20th, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The GFIS model portfolio custom benchmark index can most simply be described as the Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very highly-rated spread product. We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Adding A Risk Management Framework To Our Model Bond Portfolio", dated June 20th 2017, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Central Banks Are Now Playing Catch-Up", dated July 4th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: Yet Another Debate", dated October 10th 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Appendix - Selected Sectors From The GFIS Model Portfolio Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of September 29th, 2017. The model sharply reduced its allocation to the U.K. to a bare minimum in response to the tightening in liquidity condition as the Bank of England warned of a rate hike in "coming months." The funds are reallocated to the Spain and Germany. Other smaller changes are the reductions in Italy and Australia in favor of Sweden and Switzerland, as shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed its benchmark by 44 bps in September. Both level 1 and level 2 models performed well, with level 2 outperforming its benchmark by 63 bps and level 1 outperforming its benchmark by 9 bps, as the underweight in Australia, U.S. and Japan versus the overweight in Italy, Germany and Netherland worked very well. Since going live in January 2016, the overall model has outperformed the benchmark by 341 bps, largely from the allocation among the 11 non-U.S. countries, which has outperformed its benchmark by 743 bps. Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model." http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of September 30, 2017. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live The model continues to be optimistic on global growth as seen by an increasing allocation to cyclical sectors. Additionally, the model has also reduced its underweight on consumer discretionary stocks, which is currently the only cyclical sector to have a below-benchmark allocation. Finally, the biggest shift was a downgrade in utilities from overweight to underweight. This was primarily driven by momentum. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com