Commodities & Energy Sector
Highlights OPEC 2.0 will meet in June to decide whether to continue its production cuts into 2H19. Once again, the leaders are sending conflicting signals – KSA is subtly indicating OPEC 2.0’s 1.2mm b/d of production cuts will need to be extended to year-end. Russia, not so much. Much will depend on whether the U.S. extends waivers on Iran oil-export sanctions when they expire May 2. Not surprisingly, Trump administration officials also are not providing much in the way of forward guidance to markets, other than to insist they want Iran’s exports at zero. Our modeling indicates OPEC 2.0 – the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – will need to raise production in 2H19, as markets tighten on the back of Venezuela’s collapse, continued unplanned outages (most recently in Libya) and still-strong demand. This aligns our view somewhat with that of Russia. That said, OPEC 2.0’s leaders – and member states – all benefit from higher prices, as we show below. Some, like Russia, more so than others – e.g., KSA, hard as that is to reconcile with their respective stances on production cuts. But none benefits if EM demand is crushed by high prices. It’s a delicate balancing act, given the aggregate GDP of EM commodity-importing countries exceeds that of commodity-exporting countries (Chart of the Week).1 Chart of the WeekEM Commodity Importers Dominate Aggregate EM Oil Demand We continue to expect Brent to trade at $75/bbl this year and $80/bbl next year, given our expectation for global supply and demand. KSA and Russia remain the fulcrum of the oil market, as we argued recently, and anticipating their decision-making process remains the critical task for understanding the new political economy of oil.2 Highlights Energy: Overweight. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded opposing forces in Libya cease fighting this week. The country recently lifted oil production over 1mm b/d, but renewed fighting threatens this output. Base Metals: Neutral. China’s National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC) earlier this week tee’d up markets to expect higher infrastructure and transportation spending, which lifted steel and iron ore markets. Markets continue to tighten on the back of the Vale high-grade iron-ore supply losses, which could lift prices above $100/MT in the short term. Precious Metals: Neutral. Central banks continued buying gold in February, the World Gold Council reported this week. Central-bank holdings rose a net 51 tonnes in February bringing total additions to 90 tonnes in the first two months of the year. Agriculture: Underweight. The USDA lifted its estimate of global ending stocks for corn by 5.5mm tons for the 2018/19 crop year. With total use estimates unchanged at 1.13 billion tons, this raises ending stocks-to-use estimates, which will continue to exert downward pressure on prices. Feature KSA and Russia share a common feature in that both are petro states, and thus heavily dependent on crude and product exports to fund their governments and economies. Both suffered a near-death experience during the 2014-16 oil-market-share war launched by OPEC, and both have seen their GDPs slowly recover, following the successful production-cutting agreements they jointly engineered to drain excess inventories and restore balance to the market beginning in 2017 and renewed this year (Chart 2). Russia’s GDP gets more than twice the lift from higher Brent prices than KSA’s does. At first blush, it would be logical to assume KSA’s and Russia’s GDPs are driven by the same economic forces of oil supply and demand. In broad terms, they are. Both benefit from higher oil prices, given they are predominantly petro-economies, although Russia tends to benefit more as prices rise (Chart 3). In the post-GFC era, we find that a 1% increase in Brent prices lifts Russia’s GDP ~ 0.07%, while KSA’s goes up ~ 0.03%. Another way of saying this is Russia’s GDP gets more than twice the lift from higher Brent prices than KSA’s does. Chart 2KSA, Russia GDPs Recover, Following OPEC 2.0 Production Cuts Chart 3Russia Benefits More From Higher Brent Prices Looking a bit deeper into KSA’s and Russia’s GDPs’ sensitivities to Brent prices, we modeled income growth for both using our Brent forecast (Table 1), the futures markets’ forward curve and compare both to the World Bank’s expectation (Chart 4, bottom panel). KSA tends to benefit more from higher EM oil demand, with its GDP rising almost 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Given our expectation for EM GDP growth (Chart of the Week), we expect KSA’s GDP to show relatively strong growth with GDP up ~ 5.4% this year and ~ 3.5% next year, propelled partly by higher oil prices (Chart 4, top panel). KSA tends to benefit more from higher EM oil demand, with its GDP rising almost 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. Russia’s GDP goes up ~ 0.25% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand. We expect Russia’s GDP to dip then recover in 4Q19, then rise 3.5% by the end of 3Q20 before tapering off toward the end of 2020. This is not surprising given the trajectory for Brent prices in our forecasts and in the futures curves, and the sensitivity of Russia’s GDP to oil prices.We found a similar impact of EM oil demand on Russia and KSA GDPs when controlling for EM FX rates instead of Brent prices (Chart 5).3 Chart 4Higher Oil Prices Will Lift KSA's And Russia's GDPs Chart 5While KSA Benefits More From Higher EM Demand U.S. Waivers Dictate OPEC 2.0’s Decision On Production KSA has indicated it sees a need to extend OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal into 2H19, when the coalition’s ministers meet in June. Of late, Khalid al-Falih, KSA’s oil minister, is indicating no further cuts in the Kingdom’s output are needed, however. Russia’s a bit of a cipher. President Vladimir Putin this week stated Russia will continue to cooperate with KSA vis-à-vis managing production, although his energy minister, Alexander Novak, has indicated he sees no reason for extending OPEC 2.0’s production deal. Both sides are waiting on fundamental data, and the decision of the U.S. on its waivers on Iranian oil-export sanctions. There’s also the ever-likely collapse of Venezuela to consider, and renewed violence in Libya, both of which argue against letting the waivers expire. The Trump administration has no incentive to risk inducing an oil shock on the global economy. The countries granted waivers on U.S. sanctions against Iranian crude oil imports appear to be exercising their option to lift additional barrels, based on data showing loadings out of Iran increased for the fourth consecutive month (Chart 6 and Table 2).4 Loadings out of Iran rose to 1.30mm b/d in March, from 1.24mm b/d in February. Table 2Iran Exports By Country 2018-2019 (‘000 b/d) Bottom Line: We continue to expect U.S. waivers on Iranian oil sanctions will be extended to year end in some form. The collapse of Venezuela and renewed violence in Libya show how tenuously balanced oil markets are at present. Going into a general election in the U.S. next year, the Trump administration has no incentive to risk inducing an oil shock on the global economy. When they meet in June, ministers from OPEC 2.0 member states will be ideally set up to respond to the Trump administration’s decision on waivers for Iranian oil imports, which expire May 2. We are closing our June 2019 $70 vs. $75/bbl call spread, as the position is close to expiry. Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In the post-GFC world, we find total EM oil demand rises ~ 0.4% for each 1% rise in EM commodity-importers’ GDP, while it only rises ~ 0.3% for each 1% rise in EM commodity exporters’ GDP, based on our modeling. According to World Banks’ constant 2010 USD series, EM commodity importers’ GDP represented 66% of total EM GDP in 2018, up from 56% in 2010. The EM income elasticity of oil demand has remained at roughly ~ 0.60 from 2000 to now, meaning a 1% increase in EM GDP – hence EM income – lifts oil demand by ~ 0.6%. This has been remarkably stable pre-GFC, post-GFC and from 2000 to now. 2 The new political economy of oil is a continuing theme in our research. For an extended discussion of this theme, please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” and “OPEC 2.0: Oil’ Price Fulcrum,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy on February 21 and March 21, 2019. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 When using EM FX rates instead of Brent prices as an explanatory variable, we find KSA’s GDP still increases a little more than 1% for every 1% increase in EM oil demand, but Russia’s rises closer to 0.6%. NB: All GDP measures use historical World Bank data, and BCA Research estimates using the Bank’s projections in constant 2010 USD. We proxy EM oil demand using non-OECD oil consumption. KSA’s production is crude oil only, while Russia’s production is crude and liquids. 4 For a discussion of the waivers’ optionality, please see our BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report “OPEC 2.0: Oil’ Price Fulcrum,” published on March 21, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2019 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades
Lumber is a hyper-sensitive variable that has historically moved in lockstep with the SPX, its momentum (bottom panel) and of course EPS. Lumber’s leading properties are tied to the housing market link and the recent plunge in lumber futures is disconcerting. The top panel of the chart shows that lumber peaked in mid-May and then the SPX followed suit in late-September. Similarly, lumber troughed in late-October again leading the SPX trough. Currently this economically sensitive indicator is not confirming the bullish SPX run as it peaked in early February. We reiterate our view held since early-March that at least some short-term equity market caution is warranted, especially given the negative EPS backdrop on the eve of earnings season.
The reversal in China’s credit cycle and in the Fed’s monetary policy stance will be supportive of steel and iron ore prices going forward. In fact, our Commodity & Energy Strategy team’s credit cycle proxy suggests global industrial activity will…
Highlights As long as Chinese policymakers remain committed to their anti-pollution campaign, we believe high-grade iron ore prices will remain supported by demand from newer steelmaking technologies. A continuation of the much-needed consolidation in steelmaking capacity in China – wherein larger, more efficient operators force their less competitive rivals from the market – will reinforce this trend (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekChina's Steel Sector Will Continue Consolidating Over time, the iron ore market will resemble other developed markets – e.g., crude oil – where higher- and lower-grades of the commodity are regularly traded against each other (Chart 2). As this develops, hedgers and investors will be able to fine tune exposures with greater precision, and prices from these markets will better reflect supply-demand fundamentals. The central and local governments also will have a valuable window on how policy is affecting fundamentals as they pursue their “blue skies” policies. We are initiating tactical spread, getting long spot high-grade 65% Fe vs. short spot 62% Fe at today’s Custeel Seaborne Iron Ore Price Index levels, consistent with our view.1 Chart 2Iron Ore Spread Markets Will Continue To Develop Highlights Energy: Overweight. The Trump administration is reviving the Monroe Doctrine with its demand Russia remove its troops and advisors from Venezuela immediately, based on comments by the U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton. In addition, a “senior administration official” said waivers for eight of Iran’s largest crude oil importers could be allowed to expire May 4, and that the administration is considering additional sanctions against Iran.2 Brian Hook, the special U.S. envoy for Iran, this week said three of eight countries granted waivers to U.S. sanctions agreed to take oil imports to zero.3 In a related development, OPEC crude oil output fell to a four-year low of 30.4mm b/d in March, according to a Reuters’s survey, as Venezuelan output falls and Saudi Arabia continues to over-deliver on its production cuts. Base Metals: Neutral. Codelco’s mined copper ore output fell to 1.8mm MT last year, down 1.6% vs. 2017 levels. This took refined output down almost 3% to 1.7mm MT, according to Metal Bulletin. The Chilean state-owned company cited reduced ore content in its mined production as a reason for the decline. MB’s copper treatment and refining charges index for the Asia Pacific region is at its lowest level since March 26, 2018, reflecting the lower concentrate supplies. We remain long spot copper on the back of low inventories, and an expected recovery in demand. Precious Metals: Neutral. Strength in equities has taken some of the luster off gold’s rally in the near term as investors move to increase stock exposures, but we continue to favor gold as a portfolio hedge and remain long. Agriculture: Underweight. USDA’s corn planting intentions report released last week came in much stronger than earlier estimates. Corn and soybeans traded lower following the release of the report, but recovered some this week on the back of positive news from Sino - U.S. trade talks. The USDA estimated farmers intended to plant 92mm acres of corn, and 85mm acres of soybeans this year. Ahead of the report, a Farm Bureau survey estimated corn and soybean acreage would average 91.3mm acres of corn and 86.2mm acres of beans. Trade Recommendations: Our 1Q19 trade recommendations were up an average of 41% at end-March (Quarterly Performance Table below). Including recommendations that were open at the beginning of 1Q19, the average was 31%. Feature China’s push to reduce pollution in its steelmaking sector will continue to support demand for Brazil’s high-grade ores – i.e., ores with iron (Fe) content higher than 65%. Transitory Brazilian iron ore supply losses notwithstanding, China’s push to reduce pollution in its steelmaking sector will continue to support demand for Brazil’s high-grade ores – i.e., ores with iron (Fe) content higher than 65%. This will allow the continued development of an active spread market, not unlike spread markets in commodities like oil, which will expand hedging and trading opportunities for producers, consumers and investors (Chart 2). Older, more polluting steelmaking technology in China will continue to be replaced by plants that favor Brazil’s high-grade ores, then Australia’s benchmark-type grades (62% Fe), then, as a last resort, the lower quality domestic ores. In a steelmaking market still suffering significant overcapacity, we expect policymakers will, at some point, discover the benefit of letting markets forces do the work of forcing older technology offline, as happened with the country’s domestically produced lower-quality iron ore, which has lower iron content and higher impurities than Brazilian and Aussie imports.4 We believe growth in China’s steel and steel products demand – hence iron ore demand – likely has peaked and is in the process of flattening or declining slightly, which will alter the composition of iron ore imports and tilt them in favor of high-grade Fe imports from Brazil over the next 3 - 5 years (Chart 3). This leveling off in steel demand growth will put a premium on more efficient technology to meet future demand, particularly with the pollution constraints that will, we believe, be an enduring feature of this market.5 Chart 3China's Steel Demand Growth Likely Has Peaked Impurities found in lower-grade iron ore raise steelmaking costs by increasing unwanted mineral build-ups in blast furnaces, increase pollution and lower mills’ efficiency. With inventories re-building following the winter steelmaking hiatus in China, imports will continue to grow market share at the expense of indigenous lower-quality ores (Chart 4). Imports from Australia, which mostly price to the 62% Fe benchmark, will continue to grow, but we strongly believe that in China’s post-anti-pollution-campaign market, Brazilian imports will see growth increasing (i.e., the 2nd derivative) at a higher rate (Chart 5). Chart 4Chinese Iron Ore Inventories Fall Relative To Steel Production Chart 5China's Brazil, Australia Import Growth Will Recover These imports are lower in cost, and higher in quality than the domestic iron ore. This is particularly important when it comes to keeping costs under control – impurities found in lower-grade iron ore raise steelmaking costs by increasing unwanted mineral build-ups in blast furnaces, increase pollution and lower mills’ efficiency. Extended Output Cuts Favor High-Grade Ores The biggest reason supporting our view high-grade iron ores will continue to grow market share at the expense of lower-quality domestic supply and benchmark 62% Fe material is the recent behavior of the central government and local governments vis-a-vis pollution. Both have shown they are not averse to extending operating restrictions on high-polluting industrial plants, even in provinces where steelmaking is a large employer. Last year, major steel producing regions– Hebei, Jiangsu, Shandong, Liaoning – increased production during the winter months, likely driven by higher margins at the steelmakers (Chart 6). This indicates compliance with anti-pollution regulations fell significantly (Chart 7). In turn, this led to higher pollution, according to the latest available data from China’s National Environmental Monitoring Centre, which shows concentrations of particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (i.e., PM2.5) rose again this year (Chart 8). Chart 6Higher Margins, Higher Output Consequently, Chinese authorities decided to tighten anti-pollution measures by extending production cuts beyond the heating season into 3Q and 4Q19.6 Furthermore, the top producing city, Tangshan, in the province of Hebei extended its most elevated level of smog alert on March 1 and deepened production cuts to 70% from 40%, with reported cases of complete operations being halted. Chart 8China's Pollution Is Increasing; Steelmaking Curbs Will Persist Last month, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials in Hebei announced plans to cut steel production by 14mm MT this year and next. Going forward, China’s environment ministry said winter restrictions will be extended for a third year during the 2019-2020 winter period. As we argued last year, winter curbs likely will become a permanent feature of China’s steelmaking landscape. Combined with China’s steel de-capacity reforms, iron ore and steel markets will continue to evolve to a less-polluting presence in the country.7 As a consequence, IO grade and form differentials are now crucial input in our analysis.8 We believe a wider than usual premium will remain until new high-grades and pellets supplies come on line in the next few years. Credit Stimulus Vs. Battle For Blue Skies The reversal in China’s credit cycle and in the Fed’s monetary policy stance will be supportive of steel and iron ore prices going forward. In fact, our credit cycle proxy suggests global industrial activity will increase in the next few months (Chart 9).9 Additionally, our geopolitical strategists’ base case suggests a resolution of the Sino-U.S. trade war likely will occur this year. This will support EM income growth, which will stimulate commodity demand generally at the margin. Chart 9Upturn in China's Credit Cycle Will Support Iron Ore Prices We believe China’s credit cycle bottomed in 1Q19 and that Chinese authorities will modestly increase stimulus in 2H19.10 As discussed previously, we do not expect this new round of stimulus to be as large as previous rounds; China’s economy is in better shape now than it was at the start of previous expansionary credit cycles, hence the magnitude of the stimulus needed to revive the economy is lower. Nonetheless, this stimulus will be sufficient to strengthen China’s and EM’s steel-intensive activities in the coming months. As long as China maintains its anti-pollution drive, high-grade iron ore will continue to grow market share. Historically, these sectors correlated positively with the 62% Fe content benchmark (Chart 10). However, the expected stimulus works against Beijing’s critically important battle for blue skies. A revival of China’s industrial activity would increase PM2.5 concentrations above targets. Chart 10China's Stimulus Will Stoke Iron Ore Demand These constraints, we believe, mean China’s policymakers will have to incentivize steelmakers to favor lower-polluting high-grade iron ore (Fe > 65%), in order to maximize steel output subject to their emissions target. This will widen the form and grade premiums ahead of next year’s winter period. Bottom Line: As long as China maintains its anti-pollution drive, high-grade iron ore will continue to grow market share, as steelmakers upgrade their technology and inefficient mills are shuttered. This will favor Brazilian exports going forward, and we expect the rate of growth in these imports to increase. In line with our view, we are opening a long 65% Fe spot vs. a short 62% Fe spot position at tonight’s close. This is a tactical position, but could easily become a strategic recommendation. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 This index is published by Beijing Custeel E-Commerce Co., Ltd. 2 We flagged this risk in our February 21, 2019, report entitled “The New Political Economy of Oil.” We noted the odds of a U.S. – Russia military confrontation are low, and that “the U.S. would revive the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and that Russia and China most likely would concede Venezuela is within the U.S.’s sphere of influence, as neither intends to project the force and maintain the supply lines … a confrontation would require.” That said, there is always the risk such a confrontation could go kinetic, or that either or both sides could lunch a cyberattack to disable its adversary. The Roosevelt Corollary refers to U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt’s extension of the Monroe Doctrine at the beginning of the 20th century, which has been used by the U.S. to justify the use of military power in the Western Hemisphere. Our February 21 report is available at ces.bcaresearch.com, as is a Special Report on Venezuela published November 22, 2018, entitled “Venezuela: What Cannot Go On Forever Will Stop,” which discusses Venezuela’s debts to China and Russia, et al. See also “Exclusive: Trump eyeing stepped-up Venezuela sanctions for foreign companies – Bolton” and “Oil hits 2019 high on OPEC cuts, concerns over demand ease,” published by reuters.com March 29 and April 2, 2019, respectively. 3 Please see “Three importers cut Iran oil shipments to zero - U.S. envoy” published April 2, 2019, by reuters.com. 4 According to Platts, “at least half of China’s previous 300 million mt plus iron ore mining capacity has left the market for good.” Please see “China’s quest for cleaner skies drives change in iron ore market,” published January 30, 2019, by S&P Global Platts. CRU estimates average iron content in China’s ores is 30%, which means they must undergo costly upgrading to be useful to steelmakers. 5 Australian miners are expected to bring on significant volumes of high-grade iron ore beginning in 2022 - 23, with Fe content as high as 70%, according to the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science’s March 2019 Resources and Energy Quarterly. 6 Please see “Tangshan mulls output curbs for 2nd, 3rd quarters of 2019” published January 22, 2019, by metal.com. 7 Please see China to extend winter anti-smog measures for another year published March 6, 2019, by reuters.com. 8 Grade premium: The chemistry of iron ore supply varies widely in terms of Fe content. Higher Fe content reduces production cost and pollution per unit of steel output. The higher the quality, the higher the volume of steel produced relative to energy consumed. The current global benchmark iron ore is 62% Fe, but China’s evolution to a less-polluting steelmaking sector will raise the importance of higher-grade markets. Form premium: A steelmaker’s blast furnace typically consumes iron ore in pellets, fines or lumps combined with coking coal. Fines are the most common form of iron ore, and account for ~ 75% of total seaborn IO market. This form cannot be directly fed in the blast furnace and requires an extra sintering step. Sintering is highly polluting and coal-intensive process that compresses fines into a more useable form. This process is usually conducted on-site at steel mills. On the other hand, lumps and pellets are direct feedstock and therefore completely avoid the highly polluting sintering step. Both types of premium are primarily affected by environmental policies in consuming countries, coke prices and steelmills’ profitability. 9 Modeling historical iron ore prices remains difficult because of the short sample available for spot iron prices – i.e., the benchmark 62% Fe. Before 2009, iron ore prices were determined using a producer pricing system. Once a year, prices were negotiated by miners and steelmakers and would be fixed for the remaining of the year. Given that iron ore supply was plentiful relative to demand, prices were fairly stable and this mechanism was used for over four decades. The rapid rise of emerging economies – mainly China – during the 2000s forced the pricing system to adjust toward a spot-market pricing system. The short spot-price time series available for analysis increases the distortion of policy-driven exogenous shocks like China’s de-capacity and winter restriction policies. This makes it difficult to identify the underlying relationships between its price and potential explanatory variables, and forces us to rely on theory and analogous experience in other markets like crude oil. 10 Please see BCA Commodity and Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Bottoming Of China’s Credit Cycle Bullish For Copper Over Near Term,” published March 14, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2019 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades
Highlights U.S. growth remains robust, despite some temporary softness in recent months. Ex U.S., growth continues to fall but, with China probably now ramping up monetary stimulus, should bottom in the second half. Central banks everywhere have turned more dovish, partly in an attempt to push up inflation expectations. The combination of resilient growth and easier monetary policy should be good for global equities. We remain overweight equities versus bonds. Bond yields have fallen sharply everywhere. However, with U.S. inflation still trending up, and central banks unlikely to turn any more dovish this year, yields are unlikely to fall much further in 2019. We recommend a slight underweight on duration. We remain overweight U.S. equities, but are on watch to upgrade the euro zone and Emerging Markets when we have stronger conviction about China’s stimulus. Given structural headwinds in both Europe and EM, this would probably be only a tactical upgrade. We have been tilting our equity sector recommendations in a more cyclical direction, last month raising Industrials and Energy to overweight. We also prefer credit over government bonds within the fixed-income category, though we warn that spreads will not fall much further given weak corporate fundamentals. Feature Recommended Allocation Overview Don’t Fight The Doves The performance of risk assets essentially comes down to a battle between growth and monetary policy/interest rates. Last September, despite the fact that global economic growth was clearly slowing, the Fed sounded hawkish; this triggered an 18% drop in global equities in Q4. But, since late last year, all major developed central banks have turned more dovish, culminating in March’s decision of the ECB to push back its guidance for its first rate hike, and the FOMC’s wiping out its two planned hikes for 2019. But, at the same time, U.S. economic growth is showing resilience, and we see the first “green shoots” of a cyclical pickup in growth outside the U.S. This is an environment in which risk assets should continue to perform well. Why did the Fed back off? The most likely explanation is that it wants to give itself more room to act come the next recession. Inflation expectations have become unanchored, with 10-year breakevens over the past decade steadily below a level that would be consistent with the Fed achieving its 2% core PCE inflation target in the long run. In the period since the Fed formally introduced this (supposedly “symmetrical”) target in 2012, it has exceeded it in only four months (Chart 1). Around recessions over the past 50 years, the Fed has on average cut rates by 655 basis points (Table 1). It sees little risk, therefore, in letting the economy “run a little hot” and allowing inflation to rise somewhat above 2%. This would reanchor expectations, and eventually get nominal short- and long-term rates higher before the next recession. Chart 1Market Doesn’t Believe The Fed’s Target Table 1Fed Won’t Be Able To Cut This Much Next Time Chart 2Financial Conditions Now Much Easier Chart 3Housing Market Bottoming Out Meanwhile, U.S. growth seems to be stabilizing at a decent level after signs of weakness late last year caused by tighter financial conditions, a slowdown elsewhere in the world, and the six-week government shutdown. An easing of financial conditions since the beginning of the year should help to keep U.S. GDP growth above trend at around 2.0-2.5% this year (Chart 2). Most notably, interest-rate sensitive areas of the economy that were under pressure last year, especially housing, are showing signs of bottoming (Chart 3). Consumption also should be robust, given strong wage growth, consumer confidence close to historic record high levels, and amid no signs of a deterioration in the labor market (Chart 4). Chart 4No Signs Of Weaker Labor Market Chart 5Some 'Green Shoots' For Global Growth A key question for us over the next few months will be when to shift allocations to more cyclical, higher-beta equity markets such as the euro area and Emerging Markets. These have underperformed year-to-date despite the strong risk-on market. China’s nascent reflationary stimulus will decide the timing and level of conviction of this shift. As we explain in detail on page 6, we think the jury is still out on whether China is injecting liquidity on anything like the same scale as it did in 2016. Even if it is, historically it has taken six to 12 months before the effect showed through via a rebound in global trade, commodity prices, and other China-related indicators. The first early signs of a bottoming are emerging: Chinese fixed-asset investment and the Caixin Manufacturing PMI beat expectations last month, the German ZEW Expectations indicator has started to recover, and the diffusion index of the Global Leading Economic Indicator (which often leads the LEI itself by a few months) has picked up (Chart 5). We are on watch to shift our allocation1 but, given the long-term structural headwinds against both Europe and EM, we need to be more convinced about the strength of Chinese stimulus before doing so. The seeds of recession are sown in expansions. Eventually, we see the newly dovish Fed falling behind the curve. The Fed Funds Rate is still below the range of estimates of the neutral rate – hard though this is to estimate in real time (Chart 6). If the economy remains as strong as we expect, sometime next year inflation could begin rising to uncomfortable levels (and asset bubbles start to be of concern), which would push the Fed back into hiking mode. Given that the market is pricing in Fed rate cuts, not hikes, and that the Fed can hardly sound any more dovish than it does now without moving to an outright easing path, it seems to us that long-term rates are very unlikely to fall from here (Chart 7). Chart 6Fed Still Below Neutral Chart 7Can The Fed Get Any More Dovish Than This? In this environment, therefore, we continue to expect global equities to outperform bonds over the next 12 months. However, a recession is possible in 2021 triggered by the Fed late next year needing to put its foot abruptly on the brake. What Our Clients Are Asking Chart 8Ex-U.S. Equities Driven By China Stimulus When Is The Time To Switch Allocations To Europe And EM? It is slightly surprising that the 12% rally in global equities this year has been led by the low-beta U.S., up 13%, rather than Europe (up 9%) or emerging markets (up 9% - and much less if the strong Chinese market is excluded). Is it time to switch to these underperforming, more cyclical markets? Our answer is, not yet. Global growth ex-U.S. continues to weaken. It is likely to bottom sometime in the second half, as a result of Chinese growth stabilizing. However, the jury is still out on whether the increase in Chinese credit creation in January was a one-off, or major policy reversal. Even if it is the latter, a revival in global growth (and cyclical markets) has typically lagged Chinese stimulus by 6-12 months (Chart 8, panel 1). There are also significant structural headwinds for both the euro zone and Emerging Markets which make us reluctant to overweight them unless there are clear cyclical reasons to do so. Both have lagged global equities fairly consistently since the Global Financial Crisis, with only brief outperformance during periods of economic acceleration, such as in 2016 and 2012 (panel 2). The euro zone remains challenged by its banking system. Loan growth has been stagnant for years, and banks remain undercapitalized relative to their U.S. peers, and highly fragmented (panels 3 and 4). Emerging markets are hampered by their high level of foreign-currency debt (which makes them highly sensitive to U.S. financial conditions), dependence on China, and lack of structural reform. We could see ourselves shifting our recommendation from the U.S. to the euro area and EM, and becoming outright bearish on the U.S. dollar (a counter-cyclical currency), over the coming months if we find confirmation of a bottoming of global cyclical growth and become more confident in the size of China’s stimulus. But given the structural headwinds, and the steady underperformance of these markets, we need stronger evidence first. Chart 9Oil, Positioning, And Housing Why Is The 10-Year Bond Yield So Depressed? Despite U.S. equities rallying back to within 4% of a record high, the U.S. Treasury bond yield has fallen further this year (Chart 9, panel 1). Moreover, the 3-month/10-year yield curve has briefly inverted. Besides the Fed’s recent more dovish turn, what has depressed bond yields? We would pin the cause on the following factors: Dampened inflation expectations: Over the past few years the 10-year yield has been closely correlated with the oil price via inflation expectations. A temporary supply shock in Q4 caused oil prices to decline sharply. But tighter supply this year should allow the oil price to recover further. This should cause a rise in inflation expectation (panel 2). Trade positioning: Late last year, speculative short positions in government bonds were at their highest levels since 2015. However, the Q4 equity selloff pushed investors to cover their positions; these are now close to neutral (panel 3). Home Sales: Housing data has been weak over the past few quarters, with both existing and new home sales declining. But there are now signs of recovery: mortgage applications have started to pick up, which should in turn push home sales higher (panel 4). This should also allow for a rise in bond yields. Our key take-away from March’s FOMC meeting, when the tone turned decidedly dovish, is that the Fed is focusing on re-anchoring inflation expectations, which should push nominal yields higher. We think the market is very pessimistic by pricing in 42 and 56 bps of rate cuts over the next 12 and 24 months respectively. It would take a significant further weakening of economic data to make the Fed’s stance turn even more dovish and for nominal yields to fall even further. How Will U.S. Corporate Bonds Perform In The Next Recession? Historically high levels of U.S. corporate debt, as well as declining credit quality in the investment-grade space, have started to worry investors (Chart 10). Specifically, investors are worried that, when the next default cycle comes, a large portion of investment-grade debt will be downgraded to junk, forcing fund managers who are constrained to hold certain credit qualities to sell. These worries seem to be justified. Investment-grade bonds of lower credit quality tend to experience large increases in migration to junk status during credit recessions (Chart 11). Given the current composition of the U.S. investment-grade corporate bond universe, a credit recession would imply a downgrade to junk status of 4.6% of the index if we assume similar behavior to previous recessions. Depending on the speed of the selloff, such a downgrade could also have grave consequence for liquidity. According to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), average daily turnover in the U.S. corporate bond market was 0.34% in 2018. Thus, it is not hard to envision a situation where forced selling could surpass normal levels of liquidity. However, it is hard to tell what would be the effect of such a fire-sale on credit spreads, given that they tend to widen in recessions regardless. While this asset class could perform poorly in the next recession, we don’t expect that its weakness will translate to the real economy. Leveraged institutions such as banks hold just 18% of corporate credit. Furthermore, despite being at all-time highs, U.S. nonfinancial corporate debt to GDP is still at a much healthier level than in other countries (Chart 12). Chart 10Declining Quality In Investment Grade Chart 12U.S. Corporate Debt Levels Are Healthy Relative To The Rest Of The World Chart 13A Value Rebound? Is It Time To Favor Value Over Growth Again? Since it peaked in May 2007, the ratio of global value to growth has attempted to rebound several times amid a sustained downtrend (Chart 13). Due to the cyclical nature and the neutral relative valuation of the value/growth indexes, we have preferred to use sector positioning (cyclicals vs. defensives) to implement a value/growth style tilt in our global portfolio since March 20162 (Chart 13, panel 1). Lately, we have received many requests on the topic of the value-versus-growth-ratio. After reaching a historical low in August 2018, the value/growth ratio slightly rebounded in Q4 2018 before reversing some of its gains so far this year. Additionally, the value/growth valuation gap as measured by both price-to-book and forward P/E has reached a historically low level (Chart 13, panel 4). As we have often noted, the sector composition of both the value and growth indexes changes over time.2 Chart 14 shows the current sector weights of S&P Pure Value and Pure Growth Indexes.3 It’s clear that now a bet on Pure Value versus Pure Growth is essentially a bet on Financials (which account for 35% of the Pure Value index) versus Tech and Healthcare (which together account for 38% of the Pure Growth index) - see also Chart 13, panel 2. Given the cyclical nature of the value/growth ratio and also the sector concentration, it’s not surprising that the value/growth play is also a play on euro area versus U.S. equities (Chart 13, panel 3). Currently, we are neutral on Financials and Tech, while overweight Healthcare in our global sector portfolio, and we are putting the euro area on an upgrade watch (see page 14). Therefore, maintaining a neutral stance between value and growth is in line with our sector and country views. However, a close watch for a possible upgrade of value is also warranted given the extreme valuation measures. Global Economy Overview: U.S. growth has slowed recently, though it remains more robust than in the more cyclical economies in Europe and emerging markets. Central banks almost everywhere have recently turned dovish. However, China’s increased monetary stimulus should help global growth bottom out in H2. This could lead the Fed and central banks in other healthy economies to return to a rate-hiking path. U.S.: The U.S. economy has been weak in recent months. The Citigroup Economic Surprise Index (Chart 15, panel 1) has collapsed, and the Fed NowCasts point to only 1.3-1.7% QoQ annualized GDP growth in Q1 (compared to 2.2% in Q4). But the slowdown is mostly due to the six-week government shutdown (which probably took 1% off growth), some seasonal adjustment oddities (which leave Q1 as the weakest quarter almost every year), and tighter financial conditions in H2 2018 which have now largely reversed. The manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISMs in February were still healthy at 54.2 and 59.7 respectively. Consumption (propelled by strong employment growth and accelerating wages) and capex remain strong (panel 3). BCA expects GDP growth in 2019 to be around 2.0-2.5%, still above trend. Euro Area: The European economy continues to slow, driven by weak exports to emerging markets, troubles in the banking sector, and political uncertainty. Q4 GDP growth was only 0.8% QoQ annualized, and the manufacturing PMI has fallen to 47.6 (with Germany as low as 44.7). But there are some early signs of an improvement. The ZEW Expectations index for Germany has bottomed (Chart 16, panel 1), fiscal policy should boost euro area growth this year by around 0.5 percentage points, and wage growth has begun to accelerate. The key remains Chinese stimulus, whose positive effects should help European exports recover sometime in H2. Chart 15U.S. Growth Slowing But Still Robust Chart 16Signs Of Bottoming In Global Ex-U.S.? Japan: Japan also remains highly dependent on a Chinese stimulus. Machine tool orders (the best indicator of capex demand from China) fell by 29% YoY in February. Despite stronger wage growth, now 1.2% YoY, inflation shows no signs of moving up towards the Bank of Japan’s target of 2%: ex energy and food CPI inflation is still only 0.4%. The biggest risk in 2019 is October’s planned consumption tax hike from 8% to 10%. Prime Minister Abe has said that he will cancel this only in the event of a shock on the scale of Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy. The government has put in place measures to soften the impact (most notably a 5% rebate on purchases at small retailers after October 1 paid for electronically), but consumption is still likely to fall significantly. Emerging Markets: China seems to have ramped up its monetary stimulus, with total social financing in January and February combined up 12% over the same months last year. Recent data have shown signs of a stabilization of growth: the manufacturing PMI rebounded to 49.9 in February from 48.3, and fixed-asset investment beat expectations at 6.1% YoY in January and February combined. Nonetheless, the size of liquidity injection is likely to be smaller than in previous episodes such as 2016, since Premier Li Keqiang and the PBOC have warned of the risk of excessive speculation. Elsewhere, some emerging economies (notably Brazil and Mexico) have showed signs of recovery after last year’s deterioration, whereas others (such as South Africa, Indonesia, and Poland) continue to suffer. Interest rates: Central banks worldwide have generally turned more dovish in recent months, with the Fed and ECB both moving to signal no rate hikes this year. This has pushed down long-term rates globally, with 10-year bond yields falling below 0% again in Germany and Japan. However, with global growth likely to bottom over the next few months, rates may not stay at current depressed levels. U.S. inflation, in particular, continues to trend up, and the Fed’s target PCE inflation measure is likely to exceed 2% over coming months. We see the Fed turning more hawkish by year-end, and long rates globally more likely to rise than fall from current levels. Global Equities Chart 17Watch Earnings Remain Cautiously Optimistic: We added risk in our January Portfolio Update4 by putting cash back to work in global equities, and then in the March Portfolio Update5 we reduced the underweight in EM equities and increased the tilt to cyclicals at the expense of defensives, to hedge against a continuing acceleration in Chinese credit growth. All these came after our risk reduction in July 2018.6 GAA’s portfolio approach has always been to take risks where they are most likely to be rewarded. BCA’s macro view is that global economic growth data is likely to be on the weak side in the coming months, but will pick up in the second half. This implies that equities are likely to rally again after a period of congestion within a trading range, supporting a cautiously optimistic portfolio allocation for the next 9-12 months. At the asset-class level, our positioning of overweight equities versus bonds while neutral on cash, reflects the “optimistic” side of our allocation. However, the rebound in global equities since the December sell-off has been driven completely by a valuation re-rating, while earnings growth has been revised down sharply. (Chart 17). As such, within global equities, our preference for low-beta countries (favoring DM versus EM, and favoring the U.S over the rest of DM) reflects the “cautious” aspect of our allocation. Our macro view hinges largely on what happens to China. There are signs that China may have abandoned its focus on deleveraging, yet it is too early to tell if it has switched back to a reflationary path. Therefore, our global equity sector overlay has a slight cyclical tilt by overweighting Industrials and Energy, which are among the main beneficiaries of Chinese reflationary policies or a positive resolution to U.S.-China trade negotiations. Chart 18Warming Up To The Euro Area Euro Area Equities: On Upgrade Watch We have favored U.S. equities relative to the euro area since July 2018.7 Since then, the U.S. has outperformed the euro area by 11% in USD terms and by 8% in local currency terms, with the difference being attributed to the weakness of the euro versus the U.S. dollar. Given BCA’s view on the global economy and the U.S. dollar, however, we are watching closely to switch our recommendation between the U.S. and euro area equities, for the following reasons: First, as shown in Chart 18, panel 1, the relative performance between the euro area and the U.S. is highly correlated with the EUR/USD exchange rate. BCA believes that the U.S. dollar is set for a period of weakness starting in the second half of the year,8 which bodes well for the outperformance of euro area equities. Second, relative earnings growth between the euro area and the U.S. is driven by the underlying strength of the economies, as represented by PMIs (panel 2). Both the relative earnings growth and relative PMI have stopped falling and have begun to bottom in favor of the euro area; Third, even though the euro area’s beta has been declining while that of the U.S. has increased, euro area beta is still higher than that in the U.S., making it more of a beneficiary of a global growth recovery; However, the relative valuation of euro area equities to their U.S. counterparts is now neutral not at the extreme level which historically has been a good entry-point into eurozone equities (panel 4). Chart 19Becoming Less Defensive Global Sector Allocation: Gradually Becoming Less Defensive GAA’s sector portfolio took profits on its pro-cyclical positioning and went defensive in July 20189 and remained so until the March Monthly update10 when we upgraded Energy and Industrials to overweight from neutral, while downgrading Consumer Staples two notches to underweight from overweight (Chart 19). The upgrade of Industrials was mainly a hedge against further acceleration in China’s credit growth. But why did we upgrade Energy to overweight yet maintained an underweight in Materials? Long-term GAA clients know that, in terms of global sector allocation, we have structurally favored the oil-related Energy sector to the metals-related Materials sector since October 2016, because oil supply/demand is more global in nature while the supply/demand of metals, especially industrial metals, is closely linked to China (see also the Commodity section of this Quarterly on page 18). From a cyclical perspective, the relative performance of the two sectors has historically closely correlated with the relative prices of oil and metals, as shown in panel 2. This is not surprising because changes in forward earnings for the two sectors are also closely linked to change in the corresponding commodity prices (panels 3 and 4). BCA’s Commodity and Energy Strategy service has an overweight rating on oil and a neutral stance on metals, implying that the growth in the oil price will outpace that of metal prices, which suggests that the Energy sector will outperform the Materials sector (panel 2). Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight On Duration. Global equities have recovered 16% since reaching the low of 2018 on December 24, yet the global bond yield has decreased by 21 bps over the same period. While the directional movement of bond yields is somewhat puzzling given such strong performance in equities (see page 7 for some explanations), it’s evident that the bond markets have been driven by the recent weakness in global growth (Chart 20, panel 3), and are pricing out any expectation of rate hikes over the coming year in major developed economies. Given the surprisingly dovish tone at the March FOMC meeting and BCA’s House View that global economic growth will rebound in the second half, bond yields are now highly exposed to any hawkish shift in central bank policies and any recovery in inflation expectations. As such, it’s still appropriate to maintain a slight underweight on duration over the next 9-12 months. Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds. Depressed inflation expectations have been one reason why global bond yields have decoupled from equities. However, the crude oil price, which closely correlates with inflation expectations, has stabilized. BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects Brent crude to end 2019 at US$75 per barrel (Chart 21). This implies a significant rise in inflation expectations in the second half of the year, supporting our preference for inflation-linked bonds over nominal bonds. However, TIPS are no longer cheap. For those who have not already moved to overweight TIPS, we suggest “buying TIPS on dips”. Inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) in Australia and Japan are also still very attractive versus their respective nominal bonds. Overweighting ILBs in those two markets also fits well with our macro themes. Chart 20Rates: Likely More Upside Risk Chart 21Favor Inflation Linkers Corporate Bonds Chart 22Tactical Upside Remains For Credit In February, we raised credit to overweight within a fixed-income portfolio while underweighting government bonds. So far, this has proven to be the right decision, as corporate bonds have generated excess returns of 90 basis points over duration-matched Treasuries. We based our positioning on the mounting evidence that global growth is turning up: credit impulses are starting to rebound in several major economies, monetary conditions have eased, and our diffusion index of global leading indicators has rebounded sharply, indicating that there remains tactical upside for global credit (Chart 22– panel 1 and 2). When will we close our tactical overweight? Our U.S. Bond Strategy Service has set a target for spreads of U.S. corporate bonds with different credit ratings. According to their targets, which denote the median spread typical of late-cycle environments, there is still some room for further spread compression in non-AAA credits (Chart 22 – panel 3 and 4). However, the upside is limited and, if spreads keep tightening, we will probably close our position by the end of Q2. On a cyclical horizon, the fundamentals of corporate health are still a headwind, with both the interest-coverage and liquidity ratio for U.S. investment-grade corporates standing near 10-year lows.11 Moreover, we expect these ratios to deteriorate further, as corporate profits will likely come under pressure due to increasing wage growth. Finally, we expect that the Fed will turn more hawkish by the end of 2019, turning monetary policy from a tailwind to a headwind. Thus, we recommend investors to remain overweight, but be ready to turn bearish in the back end of the year. Commodities Chart 23Prefer Oil, Watch Metals Energy (Overweight): Stable demand, declining Venezuelan production due to U.S. sanctions, instability and possible outages in Libya, Iraq, and Nigeria, alongside the GCC’s commitment to cut output through year-end, should support oil prices and allow further upside (Chart 23, panels 1 & 2). While U.S. crude production is on the rise, bottlenecks in its export capabilities should limit market oversupply. Crude supply shocks should outweigh any slowdown in demand, specifically from emerging markets. BCA’s energy strategists expect Brent to average $75 and $80 throughout 2019 and 2020 respectively, and for the gap between WTI and Brent to narrow significantly. Industrial Metals (Neutral): China, the world’s largest consumer, still plays a big role in the direction of industrial metals. Year-to-date, metals prices have been supported partly by a more stable dollar. For now, we maintain a neutral stance until we see confirmation that Chinese stimulus will trigger further upside to metal prices perhaps in the second half. However, a lack of sustained Chinese demand, alongside weaker global growth over the next few months, would weigh down on metal prices (panel 3). Precious Metals (Neutral): Gold has reversed its downslide and rallied by over 10% from its Q4 2018 low. With the market pricing out any Fed rate hikes this year, rising inflation expectations, a weaker USD by year-end, and lower real rates should help gold outperform other commodities in this late-cycle phase. We recommend an allocation to gold as an inflation hedge, as well as a hedge against geopolitical risks (panel 4). Currencies Chart 24The End Of The Dollar Bull Market U.S. Dollar: Our bullish stance on the dollar has proven to be correct, as the trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 5% in the past 12-months thanks to the slowdown in global growth. However, the two reasons for the growth slowdown – Fed tightening and Chinese deleveraging – have started to ease. On March 20 the Fed revised its forward guidance to no rate hikes in 2019 and only one rate hike in 2020. Meanwhile, Chinese total social financing relative to GDP has bottomed, indicating that Chinese authorities have opted for a pause in their deleveraging campaign (Chart 24, panel 1). These developments will likely boost global growth and hurt the countercyclical greenback. Therefore, we recommend investors to slowly shift to a cyclical underweight on the dollar. Euro: Most of the factors that dragged the euro down last year are fading: political risk in Italy has eased, fiscal policy is moving from a headwind to a tailwind, and the relative LEI between the EU and the US has started to pick up (panel 2). Moreover, we see little scope for euro area monetary policy to turn any more dovish versus the U.S., since forward rate expectations currently stand near 2014 lows (panel 3). Thus, we expect the euro to be one of the best performing currencies this year. Yen: Easy monetary policy by global central banks will boost asset prices and reduce volatility, creating a risk-on environment that is typically negative for the yen (panel 4). Moreover, the IMF still projects Japan to have a negative fiscal drag of 0.7% this year, which will force the BoJ to prolong its yield curve control regime. As a result, we expect the yen to be one of the worst performing currencies this year. Alternatives Intro: Investors’ allocation to alternatives is on the rise as we get closer to the end of the business cycle along with increasing realized volatility in traditional assets. In the alternatives assets space, we recommend thinking about allocations through three buckets: 1) return enhancers, means of outperforming traditional equity, fixed income, and mixed-asset strategies; 2) inflation hedges, means of preserving capital throughout periods of elevated inflation; and 3) volatility dampeners, means of reducing drawdowns and portfolio volatility during periods of market drawdowns. Return Enhancers: In our July and October 2018 Quarterly reports, we recommended investors trim back on PE allocations and reallocate towards hedge funds. Growing competition in the PE space has pushed up multiples. Given where the business cycle currently is, we favor macro hedge funds, as they tend to outperform in this sort of environment as well as in downturns and recessions (Chart 25, panel 1). Inflation Hedges: In our July 2018 Quarterly, we recommended investors pare back their real estate allocations, given the backdrop of a slowdown/sideways trend in the sector, and specifically within the retail segment. Given that the end of the current cycle is likely to be accompanied by elevated levels of inflation, we recommend clients to modestly allocate to commodity futures on the likelihood of a softer dollar and rising energy prices (panel 2). Volatility Dampeners: We continue to recommend both farmland and timberland since they have lower volatility than other traditional and alternative asset classes (panel 3). While timberland is more impacted by economic growth via the housing market, farmland has a near-zero correlation with economic growth. We do not favor structured products due to their unattractive valuations. Chart 25Prefer Hedge Funds Over Private Equity Risks To Our View Our economic outlook is quite sanguine. What would undermine this scenario? Many investors have become nervous about the inversion of the U.S. yield curve. And we have shown in the past that an inversion of the 3-month/10-year yield curve has been a reliable indicator of recessions 12-18 months ahead.12 Its inversion in March, then, is a concern. But note that the indicator works only using a three-month moving average (Chart 26); the curve often inverted for a brief period without signaling recession. We expect long-term rates to rise from here, steepening the curve. But a prolongation of the current inversion would clearly be a worrying signal. The direction of China continues to play a key role in defining the macro picture. Our current allocation is based on the view that China is doing some monetary and fiscal stimulus but that, at the current pace, it will be much smaller than in 2016 (Chart 27). The weak response of money supply growth suggests, as Premier Li Keqiang has complained, that the liquidity is mostly going into speculation (note that A-shares have risen by 20% this year) rather than into the real economy. The March Total Social Financing data, released in mid-April, will give a better read of the degree of the reflation. If it is bigger than we expect, this would suggest a quicker shift into euro area and Emerging Market equities than we currently advocate. The U.S. dollar remains a key driver of asset allocation. The dollar is a counter-cyclical currency and, with global growth slowing, has continued to appreciate moderately this year (Chart 28). We see a weakening of the dollar later this year, when global growth picks up. But if this were to happen more quickly or dramatically than we expect – not impossible given the currency’s over-valuation and crowded long-dollar positions – EM stocks and commodity prices, given their strong inverse correlation with the dollar, could bounce sharply. Chart 26Yield Curve Inversion Chart 27How Much Is China Reflating? Chart 28Dollar Is Counter-Cyclical Garry Evans, Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com Juan Manuel Correa Ossa, Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the Equities Section of this Quarterly on page 14 for more details. 2 Please see Global Asset Allocation “GAA Quarterly,” dated March 31, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see https://us.spindices.com/documents/methodologies/methodology-sp-us-style.pdf 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation “Monthly - January 2019,” dated January 2, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Asset Allocation “Monthly - March 2019,” dated March 1, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Global Asset Allocation “Quarterly - July 2018,” dated July 2, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Global Asset Allocation “Quarterly - July 2018,” dated July 2, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “What’s Next For The Dollar?” dated March 15, 2019 available at gis. bcaresearch.com 9 Please see Global Asset Allocation “Quarterly - July 2018,” dated July 2, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation “Monthly Portfolio Update,” dated March 1, 2019 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 11 Based on BCA’s Global Fixed Income Strategy’s bottom-up health monitor. 12 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Can Asset Allocators Rely On Yield Curves?” dated June 15, 2018 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation
Aside from U.S. financial conditions and supply-demand balances, U.S. trade policy has also been roiling ag markets since China slapped U.S. soybeans with 25% tariffs in mid-2018. In fact, since the escalation of the trade dispute, soybean prices have been…
ハイライト グローバル株式およびその他のリスク資産は、今後数週間はボラティリティ高止まりの横ばい推移となり、その後一連の出だし失敗を経て世界成長がようやく加速するにつれて年末までは徐々に上昇するだろう。 私たちは現在、フェドが以前想定していたよりも遅いペースで利上げを行うと見ているが、最終的にはインフレを抑えるために利上げを急がざるを得なくなるだろうと考えている。 フェドファンド金利はおそらく2021年に4％で頭打ちとなり、市場が現在織り込んでいるよりも四半期ごとに0.25ポイントの利上げが合計9回多く示唆される。 12か月の投資期間では、投資家はグローバル株式をオーバーウェイトし、国債をアンダーウェイトし、現金配分は中立を維持すべきである。 ドルは第2四半期にピークを迎え、その後年末までおよび2020年にかけて弱含みとなり、来年遅い時期に再び強含み始めるだろう。 投資家は今後数週間、新興国（EM）および欧州株を一時的に格上げする準備をすると同時に、景気循環型の株式セクターへのエクスポージャーを増やすべきである。 工業用金属と原油は年の経過とともに強含みとなるだろう。金は押し目で買うべきである。 投資家は2020年末にポートフォリオのリスク低減を開始し、2021年の景気後退に備えるべきである。
チャート 001
特集 また始まるのか？ 昨年6月によりディフェンシブになった後、私たちは12月のFOMC後の急落を受けて株式に対して強気に転じた。株式が反発を続けるにつれて、私たちは楽観を和らげた。3月初めに私たちは「年初から上昇してきた世界の株式は、投資家が慌てていわゆるグリーンシュートの出現を待つため、今後6～8週間で『デッドゾーン』に入る可能性が高い」と書いた。1 先週金曜日に発表された期待外れの欧州PMIデータは、グリーンシュート論に一部止めを刺した格好だ。ドイツの製造業PMIは6年ぶりの低水準に落ち込み、新規受注の構成要素はグレート・リセッション以来の弱い水準を示した。これを受けてドイツの10年国債利回りは2016年以来初めてマイナス圏に入り、米10年国債利回りも15か月ぶりの低水準まで下落し、3か月/10年のカーブが逆イールド化した。歴史的に見て、逆イールドは米国の景気後退を予測する信頼できる指標であった（チャート1）。 チャート1イールドカーブの逆転、景気後退、およびタームプレミアム
イールドカーブの逆転、景気後退、そしてタームプレミアム
イールドカーブの逆転、景気後退、そしてタームプレミアム
トランプ大統領がテレビ評論家のスティーブン・ムーアをフェドの理事に任命する決定を下したことも事態を好転させなかった。供給側（サプライサイド）の「経済学者」ラリー・クドローの推薦を受けたムーアは、2007年の住宅市場の懸念を軽視したこと、2010年にQEがハイパーインフレを引き起こすと的確に予測したことで知られ、トランプ減税が財政赤字を小さくするだろうと信じている点でも有名だ。 世界成長は年の後半に加速するだろう これらの憂慮すべき展開を踏まえ、景気とリスク資産に対して再び景気循環的に弱気に転じるべき時だろうか。私たちはそうは考えない。今後数週間は株式にとって厳しい局面があり得る――これは私たちのマクロクオンツ・モデルが現在示しているリスクだ――が、一連の出だし失敗を経て世界成長がようやく加速するにつれてセンチメントは改善するはずだ。実際、すでにいくつかの前向きな兆候が見えている：上昇している先行指標を持つ国の比率を追跡する当社のグローバル先行経済指標の拡散指数は上昇しており（チャート2）、グローバルLEIを先行している。サービス業のPMIも概ね改善しており、世界成長の弱さは主に貿易と製造業に集中していることを示唆している。さらに貿易面でも、バルチック・ドライ指数や世界のコンテナ船の活動を示す週次のHarpex海運指数といったいくつかの先行指標が安値から反発している。 我々はイールドカーブのシグナルを過小評価すべきだと考える。現在それはマイナスのタームプレミアムによって深刻に歪められているからだ。もし米10年のタームプレミアムが2004年の水準に戻っていれば、3か月/10年のスロープは200ベーシスポイント以上急勾配になり、この問題について誰も話題にしないだろう。実際、今日のタームプレミアムを考慮すれば、1995年にはほぼ確実にカーブは逆転していただろう。当時株式を手放した者は歴史上最も偉大なブルマーケットの一つを逃したことになる。 また、米10年利回りの一部低下はポジティブな展開を反映していることは言うまでもない：フェドがよりハト派に転じたのだ。10年/30年部分のイールドカーブを見れば、実際にはスティープ化している。これは市場がフェドの行動をリフレーション的であると見なしている兆候である。 逆イールドカーブが経済活動を鈍化させる明確な因果メカニズムはないが、イールドカーブの逆転が投資家を怯ませ、それによって金融環境のタイト化を招くという自己成就的予言になる可能性はある（チャート3）。このような「ドゥームループ」は概念的には可能だが、今年初めに我々が議論したように、現在の環境で発生する可能性は低い。2いずれにせよ、金融環境は年初以来緩和している。これは今後数か月の成長を押し上げるはずだ。 チャート2世界成長は##br##安定し始めている可能性がある
世界の成長は安定し始めている可能性がある
世界の成長は安定し始めている可能性がある
チャート3年初来の金融環境の緩和は世界成長にとって好材料
年初以来の金融環境の緩和は世界経済の成長にとって好材料だ
年初以来の金融環境の緩和は世界経済の成長にとって好材料だ
中国のクレジット成長は上昇へ 世界成長は中国経済の減速に足を引っ張られてきた。昨年のデレバレッジ化キャンペーンは投資支出の大幅な減速を招き、これは世界中の資本財メーカーやコモディティ生産者に悪影響を及ぼした（チャート4）。 歴史的に見て、クレジット成長が名目GDP成長に近づくとき、中国は金融部門への締め付けを緩めてきた（チャート5）。おそらく我々はそのポイントに達したようだ。季節調整で歪んだ弱い2月の数値にもかかわらず、クレジット成長はついに前年比で加速している。 チャート4中国：デレバレッジ化キャンペーンは投資支出に悪影響を与えた
中国：デレバレッジ化の取り組みは投資支出に悪影響を及ぼした
中国：デレバレッジ化の取り組みは投資支出に悪影響を及ぼした
チャート5歴史的に、中国はクレジット成長が名目GDP成長に接近するとデレバレッジを縮小してきた
歴史的に見ると、信用の伸びが名目GDP成長率に近づくと、中国はデレバレッジの取り組みを縮小してきた。
歴史的に見ると、信用の伸びが名目GDP成長率に近づくと、中国はデレバレッジの取り組みを縮小してきた。
我々は中国のクレジット成長が過去の再レバレッジ局面ほど大きく上昇するとは予想していない。だが、これは経済の状態がより良くなっているためであり、現状からの債務増加に内在的な制約があるためではない。 中国の高い貯蓄率は、ターム名目GDP成長率よりも金利を大きく下回る水準に保ってきた。これは債務持続可能性の主要な決定要因である（チャート6）。3中央政府が現在のように大部分の地方債務と企業債務に対して暗黙の保証を維持している限り、デフォルトリスクは最小限にとどまるだろう。いずれにせよ、総債務がGDP比240％に達していることを考えれば、クレジット成長が1パーセンテージポイント上昇するだけで、GDPの2.4％に相当する大きなクレジット刺激が生じることになる。 中国のクレジットインパルスは輸入を約6～9か月先行する（チャート7）。これは年の後半における世界貿易にとって良い兆候である。 チャート6中国の高い貯蓄率は金利をトレンドの名目GDP成長率を大きく下回る水準に保ってきた
中国の高い貯蓄率が金利をトレンドの名目GDP成長率を大幅に下回る水準に抑えている
中国の高い貯蓄率が金利をトレンドの名目GDP成長率を大幅に下回る水準に抑えている
チャート7中国のリフレーション的刺激は世界貿易に恩恵をもたらすだろう
グローバル・トレードは中国のリフレーション的な刺激から恩恵を受けるだろう
グローバル・トレードは中国のリフレーション的な刺激から恩恵を受けるだろう
貿易戦争の一服か？ 貿易戦争の緊張緩和は事態を改善するだろう。自称「名交渉人」であるドナルド・トランプは、来年の大統領選挙前に中国との合意をまとめる必要があり、同時にその合意が米国にとって有利な条件で成立したと有権者に納得させなければならない。 任期序盤に中国と合意に達することは、双方向の貿易赤字を減らせなかった場合にはリスクがあった――米国の財政政策が景気循環的であることを考えればそれは全くあり得る結果だ。しかし現時点では、トランプは中国と素晴らしい取引をまとめたと自慢でき、かつその成果が実現するのは再選後であると有権者に安心させることができる。したがって、トランプが合意の締結を目指す可能性は高まっている。 中国側は可能な限り大きな交渉力を確保したがっている。これは、自国経済が双方の利益にならない貿易協定を突っぱねても、その影響を十分に吸収できるほど強いと説得力を持って示せることを意味する。クレジットサイクルが中国成長の支配的な原動力であるため、これはデレバレッジ化キャンペーンを一時的に後回しにすることを必要とする。世界成長の加速と強い国内需要は欧州に恩恵をもたらす 中国の成長加速は今年後半に欧州の輸出セクターを助けるだろう。中国のCaixin購買担当者指数（PMI）の輸出コンポーネントは底値から上昇している。これはユーロ圏のPMIを約三か月先行している。一方で、ユーロ圏の国内需要はより緩和的な財政政策と低下する債券利回りの恩恵を受けるだろう。 イタリアにとっては債券利回りの低下が特に有益だ。昨年三月にポピュリスト政権が選出された後の利回り急騰と企業信頼感の喪失は景気後退に突入させた（チャート 8）。現在、10年物BTP利回りが高値から100ベーシスポイント以上低下しているため、イタリア経済は回復し始めるはずだ。 国内成長が加速しても欧州中央銀行は今年利上げを行わないだろうが、市場はおそらく2020年以降に数回の利上げを織り込むだろう。これによりコア欧州債券市場の利回り曲線がわずかに再スティープ化し、長らく苦しんでいる銀行の収益にはプラスに働くはずだ。 ブレグジットは依然として懸念材料だ。この継続する物語は滑稽な段階に達しており、1) 英国はEU離脱に投票したが、2) 議会はブリュッセルと満足のいく合意に達しない限りEUに留まることに投票し、しかも3) 提示されていた唯一の合意案を拒否した。多くの英国有権者がもはやブレグジットを望んでいないことを考えると（チャート 9）、我々は政府がいわゆる先送りを続け、二度目の国民投票が発表されるか「ソフト・ブレグジット」合意が策定されるまでその問題を先送りにするだろうと考えている。いずれの結果も市場には歓迎されるだろう。 チャート 8イタリアの債券利回りはもはや逆風ではない
イタリア国債利回りはもはや逆風ではない
イタリア国債利回りはもはや逆風ではない
チャート 9英国：やり直しとなれば残留側が勝つ可能性が高い
英国：やり直しが行われれば、残留派が勝つ可能性が高い
英国：やり直しが行われれば、残留派が勝つ可能性が高い
フェッドはどうするか？
チャート10
昨年の「クリスマス暴落」はフェッドの反応関数を明らかによりハト派の方向へと変えた。今後数か月でジェローム・パウエルが利上げを行うとは予想していないが、世界成長の再加速は12月にフェッドを再び引き締めに向かわせる可能性が高い。フェッドは2020年に四半期に一度の利上げを継続し、インフレ上昇に対応して2021年には引き締めペースを加速させるだろう。 総じて、我々はこのサイクルの終わりまでにフェデラルファンド金利が約4%に上昇すると見ている。これは市場が現在織り込んでいる水準よりも四半期ごとの25ベーシスポイントの利上げが九回多いことを意味する（チャート 10）。我々はフェデラルファンド先物のショートポジションで損切りになったが、顧客には2021年6月限フェデラルファンド先物または同等の手段をショートすることを推奨する。 米国経済：再び好調 基本的に米国経済は堅固な基盤にあり、より高い金利にも耐えられる。10年前とは異なり、住宅市場は良好な状態にある（チャート 11）。持ち家空室率は記録的な低水準近辺にある。フィコ・スコアを見る限り、住宅ローンの貸出の質は依然として高い。労働市場も堅調で、求人件数は二月に再び過去最高を記録した（チャート 12）。健全な住宅市場と労働市場の組み合わせは消費者にとって不可避的に良い。 チャート 11米国の住宅の基礎条件は堅調
米国の住宅ファンダメンタルズは堅調だ
米国の住宅ファンダメンタルズは堅調だ
チャート 12米国の労働市場は堅調である
米国の労働市場は堅調だ
米国の労働市場は堅調だ
チャート13
個人貯蓄率は現在7.6%にあり、家計の純資産対可処分所得比率から期待される水準よりもかなり高い（チャート 13）。貯蓄率の低下は消費支出が所得よりも速く増加することを可能にするだろう。後者は賃金上昇によって支えられているため、これは消費にとって強気材料となる。 設備投資意向は過去数か月で低下したが、歴史的基準から見ると依然として高い水準にある（チャート 14）。実質非住宅資本ストックは回復開始以来平均でわずか1.7%しか成長しておらず、リセッション前の期間の3%から低下している（チャート 15）。生産性成長の景気循環的な上振れ、上昇する労働コスト、低い余剰生産能力の水準は、企業が新しい工場や設備に投資する動機付けとなるはずだ。 チャート 14設備投資意向は軟化したが、依然として高水準にある
設備投資の意向は軟化したが、依然として高水準にある
設備投資の意向は軟化したが、依然として高水準にある
チャート 15米国の設備投資余地はまだある
米国への資本投資にはさらなる余地がある
米国への資本投資にはさらなる余地がある
企業債務：どれほどのリスクか？ チャート 16米国の企業債務は世界基準で極端ではない
米国の企業債務は世界基準では極端ではない
米国の企業債務は世界基準では極端ではない
近年、企業債務水準は大幅に増加し、契約条項の緩いローンの増加に見られるように引受基準は悪化した。それでも状況は深刻とは程遠い。 他国と比べると、米国の企業債務はかなり低い（チャート 16）。フランスの企業債務はGDP比で143%に達し、米国の2倍である。これはフランスの企業セクターがすべて順調であることを示すわけではないが、事実としてフランスは企業債務の危機に見舞われていない。これは米国が差し迫った危機に瀕していないことのシグナルにもなる。 現金を差し引くと、米国の企業債務のGDP比は1989年と同じ水準にあり、その年のフェデラルファンド金利はほぼ9%であった。法人ネット負債対EBITDの比率は比較的低いままである。利子負担能力比率は歴史平均を上回っている。加えて、過去数年で企業資産もかなり速く増加しており、企業の債務対資産比率は概ね安定している（チャート 17）。 企業部門の金融収支－－企業の収入と支出の差－－は依然としてGDPの1%でプラス圏にある。過去50年のすべての景気後退は企業部門の金融収支が赤字になったときに始まっている（チャート 18）。 チャート 17米国の企業債務：どのくらい高いか？
米国の企業債務：どこまで高くなる？
米国の企業債務：どこまで高くなる？
チャート 18企業部門の金融収支は依然として黒字
企業部門の金融収支は依然として黒字
企業部門の金融収支は依然として黒字
住宅ローンのようにレバレッジドな機関が多く保有する債務とは異なり、ほとんどの企業債務は年金基金、保険会社、ミューチュアル・ファンド、イーティーエフのような非レバレッジのプレイヤーによって保有されている。銀行貸出は非金融企業部門債務のわずか18%を占め、1980年の40%から低下している（チャート 19）。銀行が保有するレバレッジド・ローンのシェアは10年前の約25%から現在は10%未満に低下している。さらに、今日の銀行は過去よりもはるかに高品質の自己資本を多く保有している（チャート 20）。これにより企業債務は経済にとってシステミックに重要である度合いが低くなっている。 チャート 19銀行は企業セクターへのエクスポージャーを削減した
銀行は企業向けのエクスポージャーを縮小した
銀行は企業向けのエクスポージャーを縮小した
チャート 20米国の銀行は十分な自己資本を保有している
米国の銀行は健全な資本水準にある
米国の銀行は健全な資本水準にある
我々が12月にリスク資産に対してより強気になった理由の一つは、株式が急落し企業スプレッドが拡大したにもかかわらず金融ストレス指数に大きな追随がなかったためである。例えば、悪名高いテッド・スプレッドはほとんど動かなかった（チャート 21）。 チャート 21テッド・スプレッドは落ち着いており、深刻な金融ストレスの兆候は示していない
TEDスプレッドは良好に推移しており、金融ストレスの重大な兆候は見られない
TEDスプレッドは良好に推移しており、金融ストレスの重大な兆候は見られない
みんなラリーに同意している 米国経済に大きな不均衡がないことを踏まえると、投資家はなぜフェッドが実際にはさらに利上げできないと考えているのだろうか。フェデラルファンド金利の実質ベースはかろうじてゼロを上回っているにすぎないのに。答えは、投資家がラリー・サマーズの世俗的停滞（セキュラー・スタグネーション）論を受け入れているように見えることである。これは中立金利が過去に比べて今日ははるかに低いという仮説である。 我々はこの理論にいくぶんの同情を持っているが、これは生産性や人口動態といった長期的な金利決定要因に関する理論であることを忘れてはならない。この理論は景気循環的な金利のドライバー、すなわち余剰生産能力の量、財政政策のスタンス、信用の成長、賃金動向などについてはほとんど何も語っていない。 今十年初め、我々がまだ債券に非常に強気であったときには、経済は極めて低い金利を必要としているともっともらしく主張できた：産出ギャップは依然として大きく、デレバレッジのサイクルは始まったばかりであり、住宅と株価は下押しされ、賃金上昇は乏しく、大不況の間の短い景気刺激のバーストの後に財政政策は制約的になっていた。中立からはほど遠いか？ 上述のすべての要因は、過去数年の間に完全にまたは部分的に方向を転じている。財政政策を一例として挙げると、IMFは米国の構造的財政赤字が2014–15年にGDPの平均で3.3%だったと推計している。2019–20年にはIMFは赤字がGDPの平均で5.6%になると見込んでいる。 より緩和的な財政政策はどの程度まで米国の中立金利を押し上げたのだろうか。保守的に仮定して、追加の1ドルの財政刺激が総需要を1ドル押し上げるとしよう。この場合、財政政策は過去5年間で総需要に対してGDP比で2.3%を上乗せしたことになる。総需要が1パーセンテージポイント増加すると中立金利が1%上昇すると仮定すると（これはイエレン元FRB議長が支持したテイラールールの仕様と一致する）、財政政策だけで中立金利を2パーセントポイント以上押し上げたことになる。 上の議論は、長期的な構造要因が中立金利を下押ししているとしても、景気循環的な要因が中立金利をかなり押し上げた可能性があることを示唆している。FRBは今後1〜2年の経済にとって適切な水準を見据えて金利を設定するはずなので、金利が過度に低い状態が長く続くことになりかねない。これにより経済は過熱し、最終的にはインフレが急上昇するだろう。 インフレの脅威 良いニュースは、我々のお気に入りの指標のいずれも大規模な差し迫ったインフレ上昇を示していないことだ（チャート22）。関税が高まっているにもかかわらず、消費者向け輸入物価のインフレ率は鈍化している。コア中間財の生産者物価インフレ率は減速している。ISMや地域連銀の調査における支払価格項目は急落している。インフレ・サプライズ指数は反転して低下している。調査ベースおよび市場ベースのインフレ期待はともに昨夏より低いままである。これらの動きに沿って、BCAの独自のパイプライン・インフレ指標は2年半ぶりの低水準に下落している。 賃金上昇は加速しているが、生産性の伸びの方がさらに大きくなっている。その結果、単位労働コストのインフレ率は昨年中頃から低下している。単位労働コストはコアCPIの約12か月先行指標である（チャート23）。これは少なくとも来年下半期までは消費者物価のインフレ率が不快なほど高い水準に達する可能性は低いことを示唆している。 Chart 22米国における差し迫った大規模インフレ上昇の兆候は見られない
米国で差し迫った大規模なインフレーションの急騰の兆候は見られない...
米国で差し迫った大規模なインフレーションの急騰の兆候は見られない...
Chart 23単位労働コストの減速は当面インフレ圧力を和らげる
...そして、単位労働コストの減速は当面の間、インフレ圧力を和らげるだろう
...そして、単位労働コストの減速は当面の間、インフレ圧力を和らげるだろう
その時点では、インフレが上昇に転じるリスクが高い。これによりFRBは2021年初めに急激な利上げを開始せざるを得なくなり、ドルが上昇し株式やスプレッド・プロダクトが売られる可能性がある。結果として金融状況が引き締まり、2021年中～後半に米国と世界の景気が後退に陥る恐れが高い。 当面はグローバル株式に強気を維持し、来年後半に防御的姿勢へ転換 Chart 24アナリスト予想はかなり控えめである
アナリストの予想はかなり控えめだ
アナリストの予想はかなり控えめだ
上で述べた二段階のFRBによる引き締めサイクル――12月に始まり2020年にかけて徐々に利上げを行い、その後インフレ上昇に反応してより積極的な利上げに移行する――が今後数年間の投資見解を形作る。本刊行物の冒頭にある主要金融市場予測チャートは、主要資産クラスが向かう先の大まかなスケッチを示している。 株式や他のリスク資産は、FRBが年内にさらに利上げを示唆して市場の準備を始める時期の前後でボラティリティが高まるものの、最初の段階の利上げを織り込むことができるだろうと我々は考えている。昨年9月とは異なり、利益見通しはより保守的だ。ボトムアップの推計では、2019年に米国で1株当たり利益（EPS）が3.9%上昇し、世界のその他地域で5.4%上昇する見通しである（チャート24）。成長の加速、金融環境の緩和、継続的な自社株買いの組合せは、これらの数値に上振れ余地を示唆している。 さらに重要な点は、9月とは異なり、FRBは経済が良好に推移している場合にのみ利上げを開始するだろうということである。パウエルは米国経済が減速し始めたちょうどその時に「金利は中立からは遠い」と述べてしまい、誤りを犯した。もしその発言が米国の成長がまだ加速している時点で出ていたなら、投資家はおそらくそれを無視しただろう。 ジェローム・パウエルは同じ過ちを繰り返さないだろう。代わりに別の誤りを犯す可能性がある：経済を過熱させ、FRBが明らかに後手に回り、追いつくために慌てて利上げを行わざるを得ない状況にしてしまうことである。その結果生じるスタグフレーション的な環境――労働力不足により成長が鈍化しつつインフレが上向く状況――は株式や他のリスク資産にとって有毒となるだろう。 タイミングを正確にするのは難しいが、我々は投資家に対して今後12〜18か月は控えめにリスク志向を維持することを推奨する。ただし、FRBが利上げのペースを加速する前の来年後半には株式とスプレッド・プロダクトへのエクスポージャーを削減すべきだ。 国際株式を一時的に格上げする準備をする 米国株式市場は他の市場と比べて「ロー・ベータ」になりがちである。もし今年後半に世界成長が加速するなら、国際株式は米国株式をアウトパフォームするだろう。我々はEEMイーティーエフのプットを1月3日に売却して104%の利益を得ており、現在は新興国株式を純粋にロングすることを推奨している。世界成長の回復を示すさらなる確証が得られ次第、為替ヘッジなしの条件で新興国株式と欧州株式の両方をオーバーウェイトへ格上げすることを数週間以内に検討する予定だ。 日本株については判断が分かれるところだ。強い世界成長は日本の多国籍企業に恩恵をもたらすが、国内市場に重心を置く企業は政府が10月に消費税を引き上げるなら打撃を受ける可能性がある。当面は日本株の格上げは見送るつもりだ。 グローバルなセクターレベルでは、我々は今年初めにディフェンシブ寄りの配分を縮小した（昨夏により慎重になっていた後で）。投資家にはエネルギーとインダストリアル（工業）をオーバーウェイトすることを推奨する。金融とマテリアル（素材）にも好感を抱き始めている。前者は今年後半のイールドカーブのスティープ化やクレジット成長の加速から恩恵を受けるだろう。後者はより堅調な中国経済から利益を得るだろう。ヘルスケア、情報技術、コミュニケーション・サービスは中立配分を維持する。不動産と公益事業は債券利回りが上昇し始めるとどちらも傷を負う。生活必需品のような古典的なディフェンシブ・セクターもアンダーパフォームするだろう。 世界の債券利回りは上昇しそうだ 世界の債券利回りは、成長が上振れサプライズを起こすにつれて今後12〜18か月で上昇する可能性が高い。インフレが加速するにつれて利回りは2021年前半に向けてさらに上昇し続けるだろう。 過去のリスクオフ局面とは異なり、次の景気後退に向かう過程で米国債が大きなセーフヘイブンの役割を果たすとは限らない。上述の通り、今日債券利回りがこれほど低い理由の一つはターム・プレミアムが非常に低下していることだ。FRBの債券買入の累積効果がターム・プレミアムを押し下げている可能性は高いが、より大きな影響は投資家が米国債をさまざまなマクロリスクに対する保険として見なしていることに由来している。投資家は、経済が景気後退に陥ると株価は下落し、住宅市場は悪化し、賃金上昇は鈍化し、雇用見通しは悪化するが、少なくとも債券ポートフォリオの価値は上がるだろうと考えることに慣れているのだ。 この考え方の問題は、それが有効なのはFRBが成長の強まりに対して利上げを行う場合だけだという点だ。もしFRBがインフレが手に負えなくなっていることに反応して利上げを行うなら、米国債利回りは上昇する一方で株式は下落する可能性がある。これは実際、1960年代後半から2000年代初頭にかけては常態だった（チャート25）。 Chart 25米国債利回りが上昇する一方で株式が下落する可能性
米国債利回りは上昇する一方で、株価は下落する可能性がある
米国債利回りは上昇する一方で、株価は下落する可能性がある
もし米国債がセーフヘイブンの地位を失えば、ターム・プレミアムは上昇するだろう。利回り上昇が株式市場を弱め、投資家が株式と債券の両方から現金へと一斉に逃げることで、さらなる利回り上昇と株価下落を招くという悪循環が生じる可能性がある。 投資家は今後12か月間、米国債に対してはやや短めのデュレーション・スタンスを維持し、その後インフレが表面化し始める2020年中頃にはデュレーションを最大限アンダーウェイトにするべきだ。デュレーションをロングする（長めの債を保有する）判断が合理的になるのは、FRBが金利を制約的な水準まで引き上げ、経済が景気後退に入った場合だけである。それが起こるのは2021年下半期まで見込まれない。 地域別には、今後12か月間で米国債に対して欧州、カナダ、オーストラリア、ニュージーランド、特に日本の国債を好む。米国経済が最も過熱するリスクにさらされているからだ。通貨ヘッジありの観点では、10年物米国債利回りは世界の主要国の中で低い部類に入る（表1）。例えば日本の10年国債は通貨ヘッジありの条件で2.72%を提供し、ドイツ国債は2.94%を示している。 Table 1先進国の債券市場
2019年第2四半期 ストラテジー見通し：デッドゾーンからエンドゾーンへ
2019年第2四半期 ストラテジー見通し：デッドゾーンからエンドゾーンへ
米ドル：ソフト・パッチへ向かう 米ドルの見通しを測るのはやや厄介だ。米連邦準備制度理事会（Fed）は今後12か月間で段階的に利上げを行うにせよ、市場が織り込んでいる水準よりは高い利上げを行う見込みだ。他の大半の中央銀行がまだ様子見の姿勢を続けているため、短期金利差は米ドルに有利に動く可能性が高い。それでも、日本を除けば、世界的な成長が強まると投資家は2020年以降の他の先進国での追加利上げを織り込む可能性が高い。その結果、長期の利回り差は短期の利回り差ほど拡大しないかもしれない。 おそらくそれ以上に重要なのは、米ドルはカウンターサイクリカル、つまり世界成長の動きと逆方向に動く通貨であるという点だ（Chart 26）。この逆循環性は、米国経済が世界の他地域と比べて製造業よりもサービス業により重点を置いていることに起因する（Chart 27）。したがって、世界成長が加速すると、資本は米国から世界の他地域へ流れる傾向が強まり、外貨需要が増え、ドル需要は減少することになる。 Chart 26ドルは逆循環通貨である
ドルは景気循環に逆行する通貨である
ドルは景気循環に逆行する通貨である
Chart 27米国はグローバル成長に対する低ベータの投資対象である
米国はグローバル成長に対する低ベータの投資先
米国はグローバル成長に対する低ベータの投資先
もし世界成長が今年後半に持ち直すなら、ドルは第2四半期にピークを付け、その後2019年末から2020年にかけて弱含む可能性が高い。ドルの動きは、2017年の経過と似た経路をたどるかもしれない。2017年はFedが4回利上げした年だが、貿易加重換算の広義ドルはそれでも7％弱含んだ。 Chart 28円はリスクオフ通貨である
円はリスクオフ通貨だ
円はリスクオフ通貨だ
2017年と同様に、ユーロは今年後半に米ドルに対して上昇するだろうし、多くの新興国通貨やコモディティ通貨も同様に上昇するだろう。ただし、2017年に多くの通貨がドルに対して上昇したのに日本円がその動きに参加しなかったのと同じように、円は米ドルに対してあまり勢いよく上昇するのは難しいだろう。 円は“リスクオフ”通貨であり、したがって世界のリスク資産が上昇すると円は弱まる傾向がある（Chart 28）。さらに、もし今年後半に世界の国債利回りが日本国債（JGB）利回りに対して上昇するならば、円は打撃を受けるだろう。特に、財政政策の引き締まりを受けて日銀がイールドカーブ・コントロールの運用を長引かせざるを得ない場合はその傾向が強まる。123を下回る場面ではEUR/JPYをロングするつもりだ。 一旦弱含んだ後、米ドルは来年末に再び上昇する 米国経済が2020年に供給面の制約にますます直面するにつれ、成長は鈍化し、インフレは加速するだろう。Fedはインフレの上昇以上の速さで利上げを行って応じる。結果として実質金利が上昇し、ドルに上方圧力がかかるだろう。 このスタグフレーション的な環境では、株式は急落し、クレジットスプレッドは拡大する。米国の金融環境の引き締まりは世界中に波及し、世界成長はそれがなかった場合よりも一層減速するだろう。これがさらにドルを加速させる。米ドルがピークを付けるのは、Fedが2021年末に利下げを開始した時点のみである。 コモディティ：より強気に 今年後半のドルの弱含みと、中国の回復に牽引された世界成長の強化はコモディティにとって追い風となる。BCAのコモディティ・ストラテジストは、現行水準で銅のロングを推奨する。また、原油に対する強気のバイアスも維持している。ブレントは今年平均75ドル/バレル、2020年は80ドル/バレルになると見込んでいる。米国のシェール生産の増加は、深海の輸出施設整備の遅延によって相殺され、供給は比較的タイトに保たれるだろう。 過去のレポートでは、インフレヘッジとして金を購入することの有用性を論じてきた。ただし、我々はドル強気見解のためにそれを実行に移すのを控えてきた。今やドルが今後数か月でピークを付けると見ているため、1275ドル/オンスを下回る場面があれば金を買いたい。 Peter Berezin, チーフ・グローバル・ストラテジスト グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー peterb@bcaresearch.com 脚注 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “グレツキーのドクトリン,” dated March 1, 2019. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “FCIドゥーム・ループの可能性は低い,” dated January 4, 2019. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “本当に世界には政府債務が多すぎるのか？” dated February 22, 2019. ストラテジー & マーケット動向 マクロクォント・モデルと現在の主観的スコア
チャート29
タクティカル・トレード ストラテジー推奨 クローズド・トレード
Highlights Just when it looked like the agricultural complex was starting to perk up, it was slapped down again. After crawling its way back from a mid-2018 crash – retracing more than half of its decline – the CCI Grains and Oilseeds index plummeted in February, declining by nearly 9% (Chart Of The Week). The decline was broad-based, but was led by wheat, which was dragged down by muted demand and accounted for most of the index’s decline. Looking forward, we expect U.S. financial conditions and developments on the trade-war front to remain the main forces driving ag prices. Ample inventories will provide the cushion necessary to moderate the impact of potential supply-side shocks. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Venezuela suffered another power outage earlier this week, indicating the deterioration of its infrastructure is accelerating. While officials claim to have restored power, we expect more such outages going forward, which will severely reduce the country’s production and export capacity. Separately, Aramco announced it will buy 70% of Sabic, a Saudi state-owned petchem producer, for $69 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal. Base Metals: Neutral. China’s MMG Ltd was set to declare force majeure following protests at its Las Bambas mine in Peru earlier this week. The mine produces ~ 385k MT p.a., most of which goes to China. Precious Metals: Neutral. The inversion of the U.S. yield curve put a bid into the gold market this week, as investors sought a safe-haven refuge. Continued weakness in bond yields, and accommodative central banks responding to low inflation expectations globally will continue to support gold. Agriculture: Underweight. A more patient Fed will be supportive of ag prices in 2H19, as we discuss below. Feature Chart of the WeekWheat Had A Rough Start To 2019 A Patient Fed Will Support Ags In 2H19 While differences across ag markets will arise due to idiosyncratic supply shocks and targeted trade policies, a common determinant of ag price movements more generally is U.S. financial conditions. Since our last assessment of global ag markets, Fed policymakers have adopted a much more patient approach to monetary policy.1 In line with the pause in the Fed’s rates-normalization policy, financial conditions have eased considerably (Chart 2). We believe this will, ceteris paribus, bring relief to commodity markets in general, ags in particular, in the second half of this year. Chart 2Easier Financial Conditions Bode Well For Ags The bulk of this relief will be transmitted through the impact of a weaker dollar. Since the dollar is a countercyclical currency, its weakness implies an improvement in global growth. This more solid economic backdrop is associated with greater aggregate demand, particularly in EM economies, as well as demand for agricultural products. The lagged effects of financial tightening, weak Chinese credit growth and the trade war will persist in 2Q19. Furthermore, when the USD weakens against the currencies of ag exporting countries, farmers there are incentivized to hoard or cut exports – thus reducing supply – awaiting periods when a stronger greenback will raise their profits. At the same time, ags priced in USD become relatively more affordable for importing nations, incentivizing them to raise consumption. The net impact of this contraction in supply amid greater demand will pull up prices – illustrated by the relatively tight inverse relationship between ag prices and the dollar (Chart 3). Chart 3A Weaker USD Will Be A Tailwind In 2H19 Going into mid-2019, we expect global economic indicators to continue to be uninspiring. The lagged effects of financial tightening, weak Chinese credit growth and the trade war will persist in 2Q19. However, as these factors fade and give way to an improvement in global economic conditions and easier financial conditions, we expect the dollar to peak around mid-year. As such, a resurgence in global growth in the second half of the year will be reflected in an improvement in the value of the currencies of major ag exporters ex-U.S. (Chart 4). Ceteris paribus, this also benefits ag prices. Chart 4Weak Local Currencies Supporting Farm Profits, Incentivizing Production China’s Economy Remains Central Our outlook hinges on developments in the Chinese economy. Peter Berezin – our Chief Global Investment Strategist – expects Chinese authorities to not only stabilize credit growth, but also increase it, creating room for improvement in the world’s second largest economy.2 This combination of supportive global growth and a softer dollar bodes well for ag prices in 2H19. The Fed pause and associated easing in U.S. financial conditions will support global growth, causing the U.S. dollar to weaken – a bullish force for ag markets. Apart from the currency impact, easy financial conditions are supportive of global growth. A rise in income levels of emerging economies will support demand for goods and services generally, and agricultural commodities specifically.3 The market now expects 36 and 51 basis points of rate cuts over the coming 12 and 24 months, respectively. Similarly, following last week’s FOMC meeting, the median Fed dot indicates no rate hikes this year from the U.S. central bank, and only one in 2020. While our Global Investment Strategists would not be surprised to see a hike this year, the noticeably less hawkish tone in the Fed’s forward guidance and dot plots are positive for ag markets.4 Looking beyond that into late-2020 or early 2021, a potential pick-up in inflation will force the Fed to take a more hawkish stance, and once again support the U.S. dollar. This will weigh down on ag prices over the strategic time horizon. Bottom Line: The Fed pause and associated easing in U.S. financial conditions will support global growth, causing the U.S. dollar to weaken – a bullish force for ag markets. However, this is unlikely to occur before mid-year. In the meantime, a stronger dollar on the back of the lagged effects of growth dampening events in 2018, will remain a headwind. Ample Inventories Will Cushion Against Supply Shocks Putting aside the more or less uniform impact of U.S. financial conditions, individual supply-demand fundamentals will manifest as idiosyncratic risks and opportunities. The USDA has been revising its projections for ending stocks higher in its monthly World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) across the board since it released the first projections for the 2018/2019 crop year last May. However, we find that solely on the back of fundamentals, soybeans are more likely to resist upward pressure from easier U.S. financial conditions in 2H19 vs. wheat and corn. The USDA’s latest projections for the current crop year indicate that global bean markets are well supplied. Expectations of a global surplus this crop year – for the seventh consecutive year – will add to the growing cushion (Chart 5). Chart 5Beans Surplus Will Add To the Glut Since May, global ending bean stocks have been revised higher by a total of 20.47mm MT. The change in projections comes on the back of upward revisions to production and beginning stocks, compounded by downward revisions to consumption. The latter will likely contract further if the U.S. and China do not reach an agreement on the trade front (see below). Consequently, unless a weather disruption weakens supply, we expect soybean inventories to stand at record highs relative to consumption at the end of the current crop year. In the case of wheat, the impact on prices will likely be marginal. The global balance is expected to shift to a deficit in the current marketing year, following five years of surplus (Chart 6). While this is a positive for wheat prices, given that global inventory levels are relatively elevated – capable of supporting 37% of consumption – and the current deficit is relatively small, we do not expect the deficit to pressure prices in the near term. Chart 6Elevated Wheat Inventories Will Cushion Against Minor Deficit Despite continued downward revisions to the USDA’s wheat production projections, expectations of ending stocks have actually risen on the back of downward revisions to consumption. Similarly, corn fundamentals are also unlikely to sway prices much. The grain is expected to remain in deficit for the second consecutive year, which will pull inventories down off their 2016/17 peak to be capable of covering ~27% of global consumption (Chart 7). Despite this contraction in availability, global supplies remain relatively elevated, especially compared to the 2003 to 2012 period. Thus unless there is a significant supply shock, we don’t expect much support from fundamentals. Chart 7A Global Corn Deficit ... Unlike wheat demand, which has been downgraded, the USDA has revised corn consumption up relative to the first projections for the crop year released last May. Nevertheless, stronger expectations of consumption have been overwhelmed by upward revisions to production and beginning inventory levels. Given that world inventories already are bloated, we do not expect the likely deficit in wheat and corn supplies this crop year to pressure prices much to the upside. Since the mid-1990s, U.S. farmers had been planting more corn and wheat at the expense of soybean acreage (Chart 8). On a global level, while wheat remains more popular in terms of acreage, it is generally trending downwards, while corn and soybean plantings are trending up. However, over the longer term, U.S. farmers are expected to dedicate more land to corn relative to soybeans. Chart 8... Will Be Met By Rising U.S. Acreage Bottom Line: Given that world inventories already are bloated, we do not expect the likely deficit in wheat and corn supplies this crop year to pressure prices much to the upside. Similarly, a global glut in soybean supplies will only add to swelling inventories. The Trade War And Soybeans: It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over Aside from U.S. financial conditions and supply-demand balances, U.S. trade policy has also been roiling ag markets since China slapped U.S. soybeans with 25% tariffs in mid-2018. In fact, since the escalation of the trade dispute, soybean prices have been moving largely in response to developments on the trade front (Chart 9). As developments since the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires last December have been more favorable, soybean markets are on the path to recovery. Chart 9Markets Optimistic Of A Trade War Resolution So far, even though U.S. soybean exports to China picked up over the past two months, total U.S. exports still lag levels typical for this time of year (Chart 10). This comes despite U.S. efforts to raise shipments to other trading partners. Furthermore, U.S. exports will now be in direct competition with the Brazilian crop, which usually dominates trade flows at this time of year (Chart 11). While the U.S. tariff hike from 10% to 25% on $200bn of Chinese goods has been postponed, a resolution to the trade war has yet to occur. The path to a resolution is fraught with risks. While the U.S. tariff hike from 10% to 25% on $200bn of Chinese goods has been postponed, a resolution to the trade war has yet to occur. The path to a resolution is fraught with risks. The Trump-Xi meeting that was expected to occur in late-March was postponed; the next most likely date for a meeting is at the G20 summit in end-June. This leaves another 3 months of trade uncertainty. Nevertheless, our models indicate that soybeans are now priced at fair value, based on U.S. financial variables – absent a trade war (Chart 12). Furthermore, the premium priced into Brazilian beans above those traded on the CBOT has returned to its historical average (Chart 13). Thus, we do not expect a further reduction in the premium in the event Sino-U.S. trade negotiations are successful. Chart 13Premium For Brazilian Beans Has Normalized Rather, markets will be disappointed if the U.S. and China are unable to conclude a deal. This would put CBOT prices at risk and support the premium on those traded in Brazil. Given that our geopolitical strategists assign a non-negligible 30% probability that the trade war escalates further, we believe markets are overly optimistic that a deal will be concluded.5 If the trade war drags on and turns into a multi-year conflict, soybean markets will likely take a more meaningful hit. According to the USDA’s latest long-term projections released earlier this month, China’s soybean imports were projected to rise 32.1mm MT during the 2018-28 period – a massive downward revision from the 46mm MT expected for the 2017-2027 period contained in the previous long-run projections. Furthermore, outbreaks of African swine fever in China may put demand there at risk. Over 100 cases have so far been reported in China, with several cases already reported in Vietnam as well. This threatens to depress China’s need for soybean as animal feed, regardless of what happens on the trade front. Bottom Line: A positive outcome from the U.S.-China trade negotiations is not a given. Nevertheless, soybean markets are treating it as such. Our geopolitical strategists assign 30% odds that a final deal falls through. This non-negligible probability threatens to cause soybean prices to relapse anew, should Sino-U.S. trade negotiations break down. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy December 13, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled “What’s Next For The Dollar,” dated March 15, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Global Financial Conditions Will Drive Grain Prices In 2018,” dated November 30, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled “Questions From The Road,” dated March 22, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled “China-U.S. Trade: A Structural Deal?,” dated March 6, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades
Fears over a global slowdown in energy demand have been replaced by a focus on reduced crude inventories that point to a tight market (bottom panel), aided in large part by OPEC supply cuts and reduced Iranian and Venezuelan production. Nevertheless, the…