Inflation/Deflation
Dear Client, I will be discussing the economic and financial implications of the pandemic with my colleague Caroline Miller this Friday, March 27 at 8:00 AM EDT (12:00 PM GMT, 1:00 PM CET, 8:00 PM HKT). I hope you will be able to join us for this webcast. Next week, we will send you a special report prepared by BCA’s Chief Economist Martin Barnes. Martin will provide his perspective on the current crisis, focusing on some of the longer-run implications. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The world is in the midst of a deep recession. Growth should recover in the third quarter as the measures taken to compensate for the initial slow response to the crisis are relaxed and existing measures are better calibrated to reduce economic distress. Continued monetary support and unprecedented fiscal stimulus should help drive the recovery once businesses reopen and workers return to their jobs. Investors should maintain a modest overweight to global equities. US stocks will lag their foreign peers over the next 12 months. The US dollar has peaked. A weaker dollar should help lift commodity prices and the more cyclical sectors of the stock market. High-yield credit spreads will narrow over the next 12 months, but we prefer investment-grade credit on a risk-reward basis. Investors are understating the potential long-term inflationary consequences of all the stimulus that has been unleashed on the global economy. Buy TIPS and gold. I. Macroeconomic Outlook The global economy is now in recession. The recession has occurred because policymakers saw it as the lesser of two evils. They judged, with good reason, that a temporary shutdown of most non-essential economic activities was a price worth paying to contain the virus. Outside of China, the level of real GDP is likely to be down 1%-to-3% in Q1 of 2020 relative to Q4 of 2019, and down another 5%-to-10% in Q2 relative to Q1. On a sequential annualized basis, this implies that GDP growth could register a negative print of 40% in some countries in the second quarter, a stunning number that has few parallels in history. Growth in China should stage a modest rebound in the second quarter, reflecting the success the country has had in containing the virus. Nevertheless, the level of Chinese economic activity will remain well below its pre-crisis trend, with exports increasingly weighed down by the collapse in overseas spending. A One-Two Punch The “sudden stop” nature of the downturn stems from the fact that the global economy was simultaneously hit by both a massive demand and supply shock. When households are confined to their homes, they cannot spend as much as they normally would. This is particularly the case in an environment of heightened risk aversion, which usually leads to increased precautionary savings. At times like these, businesses also slash spending in a desperate effort to preserve cash. All this reduces aggregate demand. On the supply side, production has been impaired because of workers’ inability to get to their jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than 30% of US employees can work from home (Chart 1). Since modern economies rely on an intricate division of labor, disturbances in one part of the economy quickly ripple through to other parts. The global supply chain ceases to function normally. Chart 1US: Who Can Work From Home And Who Cannot? Think of this as a Great Depression-style demand shock combined with a category five hurricane supply shock. The fact that both of these shocks have been concentrated in the service sector, which represents at least two-thirds of GDP in most economies, has made the situation even worse (Chart 2). During most recessions, the service sector is the ballast that helps stabilize the economy in the face of sharp declines in the more cyclical sectors such as manufacturing and housing. This time is different. Chart 2The Service Sector Accounts For A Big Chunk Of GDP And Has Been Very Hard Hit The Shape Of The Recovery: L, U, or V? Provided that the number of new infections around the world stabilizes during the next two months, growth should begin to recover in the third quarter. What will the recovery look like? From the perspective of sequential quarterly growth rates, a V-shaped recovery is inevitable simply because a string of quarters of negative 20%-to-40% growth would quickly leave the world with no GDP at all. However, thinking in terms of growth rates is not the best approach. It is better to think of the level of real GDP. Chart 3 shows three scenarios: 1) An L-shaped profile for real GDP where the level of output falls and then remains permanently depressed relative to its long-term trend; 2) A sluggish U-shaped recovery where output slowly rebounds starting in the second half of the year; and 3) A rapid V-shaped recovery where output quickly moves back to its pre-crisis trend. Chart 3Profile Of The Recovery: L, U, or V? We had previously thought that the recovery from the pandemic would be V-shaped. Compared to the sluggish recovery following the Great Recession, that is likely still true. However, at this point, we would prefer to characterize the probable recovery as being more U-shaped in nature. This is mainly because the measures necessary to contain the virus may end up having to remain in place, in one form or another, for the next few years. Why Not L? Given the likelihood that containment measures will continue to weigh on economic activity, how can an L-shaped “recovery” be avoided? While such a dire outcome cannot be ruled out, there are three reasons to think “U” is more likely than “L”. Reason #1: We Will Learn From Experience It is almost certain that we will figure out how to fine-tune containment measures to reduce the economic burden without increasing the number of lives lost. There are still many questions that remain unanswered. For example: Are restaurants where family members sit together really more dangerous than bars or conferences where strangers are milling about talking to one another? How dangerous is air travel? Modern airplanes have hospital-grade filtration systems that recirculate all the air in the cabin every three minutes. Might this explain why there has only been a handful of flight attendants that have tested positive for the virus? How contagious are children, who often may not present any symptoms at all? Which drugs might slow the spread of the disease or perhaps even cure it? To what extent would widespread mask-wearing help? Yes, a mask may not prevent you from catching the virus, but if there is major social stigma associated with being unmasked in public, then people who have the virus and may not know it will be less of a threat to others. One study estimates that the virus could be completely eradicated if 80% of people always wore masks.1 With time, we will learn the answers to these questions. We will also be able to stockpile masks, ventilators, respirators, and test kits – all of which are currently in short supply – to better combat the virus. Reason #2: We Are NowOvercompensating For Lost Time Second, most countries are currently at the stage where they are trying not just to bring down the basic reproduction number for the virus to 1, but to drive it down to well below 1. There is merit in doing so. If you can reduce the reproduction number to say, 0.5, meaning that 100 people with the virus will pass it on to only 50 other people, then the number of new infections will fall rapidly over time. This is what China was finally able to achieve. A recent study documented that China succeeded in bringing down the reproduction number in Wuhan from 3.86 to 0.32 once all the containment measures had been implemented (Chart 4).2 Chart 4Severe Containment Measures Have Changed The Course Of The Wuhan Outbreak The critical point is that once you reduce the number of new infections to a sufficiently low level, you can then relax the containment measures by just enough so that the reproduction number rises back to 1. At that point, the number of new infections at any given point in time will be constant. One can see this point by imagining a bicycle coasting down a mountain road. Ideally, the rider should apply uniform pressure on the brakes at the outset of the descent to prevent the bicycle from accelerating too quickly. However, if the rider is too slow to apply the brakes and ends up going too fast, he or she will then need to overcompensate by pressing hard on the brakes to slow the bike down before easing off the brakes a bit. Most of the world is currently in the same predicament as the cyclist who failed to squeeze the brakes early on. We are overcompensating to get the infection rate down. However, once the infection rate has fallen by enough, we can ease off the most economically onerous measures, allowing GDP to slowly recover. Reason #3: Containment Measure Will Be Eased As More People Acquire Immunity Much of the popular discussion of the epidemiology of COVID-19 has failed to distinguish between the basic reproduction number, R0, and the effective reproduction number, Re. The former measures the average number of people a carrier of the virus will infect in an entirely susceptible population, whereas the latter measures the average number of people who will be infected after some fraction of the population acquires immunity either by surviving the disease or getting vaccinated. Mathematically, Re = R0*(1-P), where P is the proportion of the population which has acquired immunity. For example, suppose P=0.5, meaning that half the population has acquired immunity. In this case, the average number of people a carrier will infect will be only half as high as when no one has immunity. As we discuss below, there is considerable uncertainty about how fast P will increase over time, including whether it could spike upwards if a vaccine becomes widely available. Still, any increase in P will make it more difficult for the virus to propagate. Over time, this will permit policymakers to raise R0 at an accelerating rate towards the level it would naturally be in the absence of any containment measures (Chart 5). Such a strategy would allow economic activity to increase without raising Re; that is to say, without triggering an explosion in the number of new cases. Chart 5Populations Acquiring Immunity Is Key The Virus Endgame How long will it take to dismantle all the containment measures completely? This partly depends on what medical breakthroughs occur and what measures are needed to “flatten the curve” of new infections (Chart 6). Right now, most countries are trying to drive down the number of new infections to very low levels in the hopes that either a vaccine will be invented or new treatment options will become available. Chart 6Flattening The Curve We are not medical experts and will not offer an opinion on how likely a breakthrough may be. What we would say is that combating the virus has become a modern-day Manhattan project. If the project succeeds, a V-shaped recovery could still ensue. What if the virus evades the best efforts of scientists to eradicate it? In that case, the only way for life to return to some semblance of normalcy is for the population to acquire herd immunity. How many people would need to be infected? In the context of the foregoing discussion, this is equivalent to asking how high P needs to rise for Re to fall below 1. The equation above tells us this must correspond to the value of P for which R0 (1-P) <1. Solving for P yields P > 1-1/R0. In the absence of social distancing and other containment measures, most estimates of R0 for COVID-19 place it between 1.5 and 4. This implies that between one-third (1-1/1.5) to three-quarters (1-1/4) of the population would need to be infected for herd immunity to set in. Even if one allows for the likelihood that significantly more resources will be marshalled to allow hospitals to service a greater number of patients, we estimate that it would take 2-to-3 years to reach that point.3 To be clear, the virus’ ability to spread will decline even before herd immunity is achieved. An increase in the share of the population who survived and became naturally inoculated against the virus would allow policymakers to relax containment measures, perhaps to such an extent that eventually only the simplest of actions such as increased hand-washing and widespread mask-wearing would be enough to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. This underscores our baseline expectation of a U-shaped economic recovery. Second-Round Effects Suppose the global economy starts to recover in the third quarter of this year as the measures taken to compensate for the initial slow response to the crisis are relaxed, existing measures are better calibrated to reduce economic distress, and more younger and healthier people acquire natural immunity to the virus, thus reducing the vulnerability of the old and frail. Does that mean we are out of the woods? Not necessarily! We still have to worry about the second-round economic effects. Even if the virus is contained, there is a risk that the economy will be so scarred by the initial drop in output that it will fail to recover. A vicious circle could emerge where falling spending leads to higher unemployment, leading to even less spending. In the current environment, the tendency for unemployment to rise may be initially mitigated by the decision of a few large companies with ample financial resources to pay their workers even if they are confined to their homes. This would result in a decline in labor productivity rather than higher unemployment. That said, given the severity of the shock and the fact that many of the hardest-hit firms are in the labor-intensive service sector, a sharp rise in joblessness is still inevitable, particularly in countries with flexible labor markets such as the US. Chart 7Worries Over Job Security Abound Today’s spike in US initial unemployment claims is testament to that point (Chart 7). In fact, the true increase in the unemployment rate will probably be greater than what is implied by the claims data because many state websites did not have the bandwidth to handle the slew of applications. In addition, under existing rules, the self-employed and those working in the “gig economy” do not qualify for unemployment benefits (this has been rectified in the bill now making its way to the White House). The Role Of Policy Could we really end up in a world where the virus is contained, and people are ready and able to work, only to find that there are no jobs available? While such a sorry outcome cannot be dismissed, we would bet against it. This outcome would only arise if there is insufficient demand throughout the economy when it reopens. Unlike in 2008/09 when there was a lot of moralizing about how this or that group deserved to be punished for their reckless behavior, no one in their right mind today would argue that the workers losing their jobs and the companies facing bankruptcy somehow had it coming. What can policymakers realistically do? On the monetary side, policy rates are already close to zero in most developed economies. A number of emerging markets still have scope to cut rates, but even there, many find themselves not far from the zero bound (Chart 8). Chart 8DM Rates At The Zero Bound, With EM Rates Approaching Chart 9A Mad Scramble For Cash That said, cutting interest rates right now is not the only, and probably not the most important, way for central banks to stimulate their economies. The global economy is facing a cash shortage. Companies are tapping credit lines at a time when banks would normally be looking to increase their own cash reserves. The mad scramble for cash has caused libor, repo, and commercial paper spreads to surge (Chart 9). And not just any cash. As the world’s reserve currency, the dollar is increasingly in short supply (Chart 10). This explains why cross-currency basis spreads have soared and why the DXY index has jumped to the highest level in 17 years. Chart 10Dollars Are In Short Supply Flood The Zone Chart 11US Mortgage Spreads Have Spiked The good news is that there is no limit to how many dollars the Federal Reserve can create. The Fed has already expanded the supply of bank reserves by initiating the purchase of $500 billion in treasuries and another $200 billion in agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) since relaunching its QE program on March 15th. Further MBS purchases will be especially useful given that mortgage rates have not come down as quickly as Treasury yields (Chart 11). The Fed has also dusted off the alphabet soup of programs created during the financial crisis to improve proper market functioning, and has even added a few more to the list, including a program to support investment-grade corporate bonds and another to support small businesses. In order to ease overseas funding pressures, the Fed has opened up swap lines with a number of central banks. We expect these lines to be expanded to more countries if the situation necessitates it. The Coming Mar-A-Lago Accord? We also think that there is at least a 50-50 chance that we could see coordinated currency interventions designed to drive down the value of the US dollar. Federal Reserve, Treasury, and IMF guidelines all permit currency intervention to counter “disorderly market conditions.” While a weaker dollar would erode the export competitiveness of some countries, this would be more than offset by the palliative effects of additional dollar liquidity stemming from US purchases of foreign securities, as well as the relief that overseas dollar borrowers would receive from dollar depreciation. Thus, on balance, a weaker dollar would result in an easing of global financial conditions. Liquidity Versus Solvency Risk Some might complain that the actions of the Fed and other central banks go well beyond their mandates. They might argue that it is one thing to provide liquidity to the financial system; it is quite another to socialize credit risk. We think these arguments are largely red herrings. For one thing, concern about credit risk can be addressed by having governments backstop central banks for any losses they incur. Moreover, there is no clear distinction between liquidity and solvency risk during a financial crisis. The former can very easily morph into the latter. For example, consider the case of Italy. Would you buy more Italian bonds if the yield rises? That depends on two competing considerations. On the one hand, a higher yield makes the bond cheaper. On the other hand, a higher yield may make it more difficult for the government to service its debt obligations, which raises the risk of default. If the second consideration outweighs the first, your inclination may be to sell the bond. To the extent that your selling causes yields to rise further, that could lead to another wave of selling. As Chart 12 illustrates, this means that there may be multiple equilibria in fixed-income markets. It is absolutely the job of central banks to try to steer the economy towards the good ”low yield” equilibrium rather than the bad “default” equilibrium. Chart 12Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort In this light, ECB president Christine Lagarde’s statement on March 12th that “we are not here to close spreads” – coming on the heels of a spike in Italian bond yields and a 13% drop in euro area stocks the prior day – was one of the most negligent things a central banker has ever said. To her credit, she has since walked back her comments. The ECB has also launched the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP), a EUR 750bn asset-purchase program, which gives the central bank considerable flexibility over the timing, composition, and geographic makeup of purchases. Further actions, including upsizing the PEPP, creating a “conditionality-lite” version of the ESM program, and perhaps even issuing Eurobonds, are possible. All this should help Italy. Accordingly, BCA’s global fixed-income team upgraded Italian government bonds to overweight this week. Using Fiscal Policy To Align Financial Time With Economic Time While central banks will play an important role in mitigating the crisis, most of the economic burden will fall on fiscal policy. How much fiscal support is necessary and what should it consist of? To get a sense of what is optimal, it is useful to distinguish between the concept of financial time and economic time. Financial time and economic time usually beat at the same pace. Most of the time, people have financial obligations – rent, mortgage payments, spending on necessities – that they match with the income earned from work. Likewise, companies have expenses that they match with the revenue that they derive from various economic activities. No one worries when economic time and financial time deviate in predictable ways. For example, GDP collapses around 5pm on Monday only to recover at 9am on Tuesday. The fact that many western Europeans take most of August off for vacation is also not a problem, since everyone expects this. The problem occurs when economic time and financial time deviate in unpredictable ways. That is the case at present. Today, economic time has ground to a halt as businesses shutter their doors and workers confine themselves to their homes. Yet, financial time continues to march on. This implies that in the near term, the correct course of action is for governments to transfer money to households and firms to allow them to service their financial obligations. One simple way of achieving this is through wage subsidies, where the government pays companies most of the wage bill of their employees who, through no fault of their own, are unable to work. Note that this strategy does not boost GDP. By definition, an idle worker is one who does not contribute to economic output. What this strategy does do is alleviate needless hardship, while creating pent-up demand for when businesses start to open their doors again. Once the virus is contained, traditional fiscal stimulus that boosts aggregate demand will be appropriate. How much money are we talking about? In the case of the US, suppose that annualized growth is -5% in Q1, -25% in Q2, and +10% in Q3 and Q4, respectively. That would leave the level of real GDP down 4% on the year compared to 2019. Assuming trend GDP growth of 2%, that implies an annual shortfall of income (consisting of wages and lost profits) that the government would have to cover amounting to 6% of GDP. The $2 trillion stimulus bill amounts to 10% of GDP, although not all of that will be spent during the next 12 months and about a quarter of the amount is in the form of loans and loan guarantees. Still, on size, we would give it an “A”. On composition, we would give it a “B”, as it lacks sufficient funding for state and local governments to cover the likely decline in the tax revenues that they will experience. This could result in layoffs of first responders, teachers, etc. Given that the US was running a fiscal deficit going into the crisis, all this additional stimulus could easily push the budget deficit to over 15% of GDP. While this is a huge number, keep in mind that in a world where interest rates are below the trend growth rate of the economy, a government can permanently increase its budget deficit by any amount it wants while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over the long haul.4 Today, we are not even talking about a permanent increase in the deficit, but a temporary increase that could last a few years at most. If we end up in a depression, don’t blame the virus; blame politicians. Fortunately, given that the political incentives are aligned towards fiscal easing rather than austerity, our guess is that a depression will be averted. Appendix A summarizes the monetary and fiscal measures that have already been taken in the major economies. II. Investment Strategy As anyone who has ever watched a horror movie knows, the scariest part of the film is the one before the monster is revealed to the audience. No matter how good the makeup or set design, our imaginations can always conjure up something much more frightening than Hollywood can invent. Right now, we are fighting an invisible enemy that is ravaging the world. Victory is in sight. The number of new infections has peaked in China and South Korea. I mentioned during last week’s webcast that we should watch Italy very carefully. If the number of new infections peaks there, that would send an encouraging signal to financial markets that other western democracies will be able to get the virus under control. While it is too early to be certain, this may be happening: Both the number of new cases and deaths in Italy have stabilized over the past five days (Chart 13). Chart 13A Peak In The Number Of New COVID-19 Cases In Italy Would Send An Encouraging Signal Of course, there is still the risk that the number of new infections will rise again if containment measures are relaxed prematurely. However, as we spelled out in this report, there are good reasons to think that these measures will not need to be as severe as the ones currently in place. As such, it is likely that global growth will begin to rebound in the third quarter of this year. Equities: A Modest Overweight Is Warranted We turned more cautious on the near-term outlook for global equities earlier this year, but upgraded our recommendation on the morning of February 28th after the MSCI All-Country World Index fell by 12% over the prior week. While stocks did rally by 7% during the following three trading days, they subsequently plunged to multi-year lows. In retrospect, we should have paid more attention to our own warnings in our earlier report titled “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus.” 5 For now, we would recommend a modest overweight to stocks on both a 3-month and 12-month horizon. Monetary and fiscal easing and the prospect of a peak in the number of new cases in Italy could continue to support stocks in the near term, while a rebound in growth starting this summer should pave the way for a recovery in corporate earnings over a 12-month horizon. Chart 14US Equity Valuations Are Not Yet At Bombed-Out Levels Of course, when it comes to financial markets, one should always be prepared to adjust one’s conviction level if prices either rise or fall significantly. We mentioned two weeks ago that we would move to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 fell below 2250. While the index did briefly fall below this level, it has since bounced back to about 2630. At its current level, the S&P 500 is trading at 15.3-times forward earnings (Chart 14). While this is not particularly expensive, it is still well above the trough of 10.5-times forward earnings reached in 2011 during the height of the euro crisis. And keep in mind that current earnings estimates are based on the stale assumption that S&P 500 companies will earn $172 over the next four quarters, down only 3% from the peak earnings estimate of $177 reached in February. With this in mind, we are introducing a lower and upper bound for global equity prices at which we will adjust our view. To keep things simple, we will focus on the S&P 500, which accounts for over half of global stock market capitalization. If the S&P 500 falls below (and stays below) 2250, we would recommend a high-conviction overweight to global stocks. If the index rises above 2750, we would recommend a neutral equity allocation. Anything between 2250 and 2750 would justify the current stance of modest overweight. Going forward, we will adjust this range as events warrant it. Our full slate of views can be found in the table at the end of this report. Sector And Regional Equity Allocation: Favor Cyclicals and Non-US Over A 12-Month Horizon Not surprisingly, defensive equity sectors outperformed cyclicals both in the US and abroad during this month’s selloff. Financials also underperformed on heightened worries about rising defaults and the adverse effect on net interest margins from flatter yield curves (Chart 15). Chart 15Cyclicals And Financials Underperformed On The Way Down Chart 16Non-US Stocks Are Cheaper Even After Adjusting For Differences In Sector Weights Cyclicals and financials have outperformed the broader market over the past few days as risk sentiment has improved. They are likely to continue outperforming over a 12-month horizon as global growth eventually recovers and yield curves steepen modestly. To the extent that cyclicals and financials are overrepresented in stock market indices outside the US, this will give non-US equities the edge. Stocks outside the US also benefit from more favorable valuations. Even after adjusting for differences in sector weights, non-US stocks are quite a bit cheaper than their US peers as judged by price-to-earnings, price-to-book, and other valuation measures (Chart 16). The US Dollar Has Probably Peaked Another factor that should help cyclical stocks later this year is the direction of the US dollar. The greenback has been buffeted by two major forces this year (Chart 17). Chart 17The Dollar Has Been Facing Crosscurrents Chart 18USD Is A Countercyclical Currency Between February 19 and March 9, the dollar weakened as US bond yields fell more than yields abroad. This eliminated some of the yield advantage that had been supporting the dollar last year. Starting around the second week of March, however, global financial stresses escalated. Money began to flow into the safe-haven Treasury market. Global growth prospects also deteriorated sharply. As a countercyclical currency, this helped the dollar (Chart 18). Looking out, interest rate differentials are unlikely to return anywhere close to where they were at the start of this year, given that the Fed will probably keep rates near zero at least until the middle of 2021. Meanwhile, aggressive central bank liquidity injections should reduce financial stress, while a rebound in global growth will allow capital to start flowing back towards riskier foreign markets. This should result in a weaker dollar. Once Growth Bottoms, So Will Commodities Chart 19Low Prices Force US Shale Cutbacks The combination of a weaker dollar, a rebound in global growth starting this summer, and increased infrastructure stimulus spending in China should help lift resource prices. This will also buoy currencies such as the AUD, CAD, and NOK in the developed market space, and RUB, CLP, ZAR, and IDR, in the EM space. Oil prices have tumbled on the back of the sudden stop in global economic activity and the breakdown of the agreement between OPEC and Russia to restrain crude production. BCA’s commodity strategists expect the Saudis and Russians to come to an agreement to reduce output, as neither side has an incentive to pursue a prolonged price war. They see Brent prices averaging $36/barrel in 2020 and $55/barrel in 2021. However, prices are not likely to go much higher than $60/barrel because that would take them well above the current breakeven cost for shale producers, eliciting a strong supply response (Chart 19). Spread Product: Favor IG Over HY A rebound in oil prices from today’s ultra-depressed levels should help the bonds of energy companies, which are overrepresented in high-yield indices. This, together with stronger global growth and improving risk sentiment, should allow HY spreads to narrow over a 12-month horizon. Chart 20High-Yield Credit Is Pricing In Only A Moderate Recession Nevertheless, we think investment grade currently offers a better risk-reward profile. While HY spreads have jumped to more than 1000 basis points in the US, they are still nowhere close to 2008 peak levels of almost 2000 basis points. Like the equity market, high-yield credit is pricing in only a modest recession, with a default rate on par with the 2001 downturn (Chart 20). Moreover, central banks around the world are racing to protect high-quality borrowers from default. The Fed’s announcement that it will effectively backstop the investment-grade corporate bond market could be a game changer in this regard. Unfortunately for HY credit, the moral hazard consequences of bailing out companies that investors knew were risky when they first bought the bonds are too great for policymakers to bear. Government Bonds: Deflation Today, Inflation Tomorrow? As noted at the outset of this report, the current economic downturn involves both an adverse supply and demand shock. Outside of a few categories of consumer staples and medical products, we expect demand to fall more than supply, resulting in downward pressure on prices. This deflationary impulse will be exacerbated by rising unemployment. Looking beyond the next 12-to-18 months, the outlook for inflation is less clear. On the one hand, it is possible that the psychological trauma from the pandemic will produce a permanent, or at least semi-permanent, increase in precautionary savings. If budget deficits are reined in too quickly, many countries could find themselves facing a shortage of aggregate demand. This would be deflationary. On the other hand, one can easily envision a scenario where monetary policy remains highly accommodative and many of the fiscal measures put in place to support households are maintained long after the virus is eradicated. This could be particularly true in the US, where our geopolitical team now expects Joe Biden to win the presidential election. In such an environment, unemployment could fall back to its lows, eventually leading to an overheated economy. Our hunch is that the more inflationary scenario will unfold over the next 2-to-3 years. Interestingly, that is not the market’s opinion. For example, the 5-year US TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently only 0.69% and the 10-year rate is 1.07%. This means that a buy-and-hold investor will make money owning TIPS versus nominals if inflation averages more than 0.69% per year for the next five years, or 1.07% per year for the next decade. That is a bet we would be willing to take. Finally, a word on gold. Just as during the Global Financial Crisis, gold failed to be an attractive hedge against financial risk during the recent stock market selloff – bullion dropped by 15% from $1704/oz to $1451/oz, before rebounding back to $1640/oz over the past few days as risk sentiment improved. Nevertheless, gold remains a good hedge against long-term inflation risk. And with the US dollar likely to weaken over the next 12 months, gold prices should move up even if near-term inflationary pressures remain contained. As such, we are upgrading our outlook on the yellow metal. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Appendix A Appendix A Table 1Central Banks Still Had Some Options When Crisis Hit Appendix A Table 2Massive Stimulus In Response To Pandemic Footnotes 1 Jing Yan, Suvajyoti Guha, Prasanna Hariharan, and Matthew Myers, “Modeling the Effectiveness of Respiratory Protective Devices in Reducing Influenza Outbreak,” U.S. National Library of Medicine, (39:3), March 2019. 2 Chaolong Wang, Li Liu, Xingjie Hao, Huan Guo, Qi Wang, Jiao Huang, Na He, Hongjie Yu, Xihong Lin, Sheng Wei, and Tangchun Wu, “Evolving Epidemiology and Impact of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions on the Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China,”medrxiv.org, March 6, 2020. 3 This calculation assumes that 5% of infected people need ICU care and each spends an average of 2 weeks in the ICU. It also assumes that hospitals are able to expand their capacity by 30 additional ICU beds per 100,000 people per year to treat COVID-19. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019, available at gis.bcarearch.com. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus,” dated February 21, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights The global economy is in the midst of a painful recession. Monetary and fiscal authorities are responding forcefully to the crisis, but the lengths of the lockouts and quarantines remain a major source of downside risk to the economy. Investors should favor stocks over bonds during the next year. The short-term outlook remains fraught with danger, so avoid aggressive bets. Central banks can tackle the global liquidity crunch, thus spreads will narrow and the dollar will weaken. The long-term impact of COVID-19 will be inflationary. Feature “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1932 A violent global recession is underway. Last month, we wrote that a deep economic slump would be unavoidable if COVID-19 cases could not be controlled within two to three weeks.1 Since then, the number of new, recorded COVID-19 cases has mounted every day and fear prevails. Consumers are not spending; firms will face a cash crunch and/or bankruptcy, and employment will be slashed. The next few quarters could result in some of the worst GDP prints since the Great Depression. Risk assets have moved to discount this dire scenario. The global stock-to-bond ratio has collapsed by 47% since its peak on January 17th and stands at the 1st decile of it post-1980 distribution. 10-year US bond yields temporarily fell below 0.4%. The dollar has rallied against every currency and even gold traded below $1500 an ounce. Brent crude trades below $30/bbl. In this context, investors must assess if risk asset prices have declined enough to compensate for the economic hazards created by the COVID-19 pandemic. If the massive amount of monetary and fiscal stimulus announced can turn around the economy in the second half of the year, then stocks and risk assets are attractive. Otherwise, they are still not cheap enough and cash remains king. We think it is a good time to begin to parsimoniously deploy capital into risk assets. A Global Recession And An Extraordinary Response The global economy has suffered its worst shock since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), but policymakers are deploying every tool available. In our base case, GDP will contract more quickly for two quarters than it did during the GFC, and then will recover smartly. It is hard to pinpoint exactly how quickly global GDP will contract in the next six months, but key indicators point to a grim outcome. Chart I-1Global Growth Is Plunging China’s economy was at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic and its trajectory provides a glimpse into what the rest of the world should anticipate. In February, Chinese retail sales contracted by 20.5% annually and industrial production plunged by 13.5%. The German ZEW survey for March paints an equally bleak picture. The growth expectations component for the Eurozone and Germany fell to its lowest level since the GFC. The same indicator, but computed as an average of US, European and Asian subcomponents is also collapsing at an alarming pace (Chart I-1). The European flash PMI for March also points to a deep slowdown, with the services PMI plunging to 28.4, an all-time low. The performance of EM carry trades flashes a somber warning for our Global Industrial Production Nowcast (Chart I-2). Carry trade returns are imploding because global liquidity is incapable of meeting the demand for precautionary money by economic agents. This lack of liquidity is inflicting enormous damage on worldwide growth. Live trackers for US and global economic activity are also melting down. Traffic in some of the US’s largest cities is a fraction of last year's (Chart I-3). Globally, restaurant bookings have dried up and fewer airlines are flying compared to 2008. Initial jobless claims in the US have surged to 3.28 million, rapidly and decisively overtaking the weaknesses seen during the GFC. Chart I-2The Liquidation Of Carry Trade Is A Bad Omen Chart I-3Live Trackers Are In Free Fall Despite the dismal situation, some positive developments are emerging. It has been demonstrated that quarantines contain the spread of the virus. On March 18th, Wuhan recorded no new COVID-19 cases. Moreover, 10 days after its January 24th quarantine began, new cases started to fall off quickly (Chart I-4) in the city. If the recent softening in new cases in Italy’s Lombardy region continues, it will illustrate that democratic regimes can also reduce the pace of infection. Chart I-4Quarantines Do Work Most importantly, policymakers around the world have shown their willingness to do “whatever it takes.” Governments are easing fiscal policy with abandon. Germany’s state bank KfW is setting aside EUR550 billion to support the economy. France will spend EUR45 billion and has earmarked EUR300 billion in small business loan guarantees. Spain announced EUR200 billion to protect domestic activity. The White House just passed a stimulus package of $2 trillion, and Canada follows suit with a CAD82 billion relief bill. (Table I-1). As A. Walter and J. Chwieroth showed, the growing financial wealth of the middle class is forcing governments to always provide large bailouts after financial crises and recessions. Otherwise, their political parties suffer extreme repudiation from power.2 Table I-1Massive Stimulus In Response To Pandemic Central bankers have also become extreme reflators. Nearly every central bank in advanced economies has cut interest rates to zero or into negative territory. Most importantly, central banks have become lenders of last resort. The US Federal Reserve has announced it will engage in unlimited asset purchases; it has reopened various facilities to provide liquidity to the market and is using the US Department of the Treasury to lend directly to the private sector. Among its many measures, the European Central Bank is scrapping artificial limits on its bond purchases that were its capital keys and has offered a EUR750 billion bond purchase program. The ECB is also looking to open its OMT program. Other central banks are injecting cash directly into their domestic markets (Table I-2). The list and size of actions will expand until the markets are satiated with enough liquidity. Table I-2The Central Banks Still Had Some Options When Crisis Hit The impact of these policy measures is threefold. First, the actions are designed to alleviate the global economy’s cash crunch. Secondly, they aim to support growth directly. The private sector needs direct backing to survive the lack of cash inflows that will develop in the coming weeks. If fiscal and monetary authorities can plug that hole, then spending will not have to collapse as deeply nor for as long as would otherwise be the case. Finally, it is imperative that policymakers boost confidence and ease financial conditions to allow “animal spirits” to stabilize. If risk-taking continues to tailspin, then spending will never recover and the demand for cash will only grow, creating the worst liquidity trap since the Great Depression. Policymakers around the world have shown their willingness to do “whatever it takes.” The economy will continue to weaken in the second half of 2020 if quarantines remain in place beyond the summer. Not being epidemiologists, we are not equipped to make this call with any degree of certainty. Much depends on the evolution of the disease and the political decisions taken. We do not yet know if the population will be willing to endure the economic pain of a depression, or if political pressures will rise to force isolation on those over age 60 and those suffering dangerous comorbidities who are at higher risk, and allow everyone else to return to work and school.3 Investment Implications Part 1: Bonds and Stocks Chart I-5The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Has Capitulated While the short-term outlook remains murky for asset markets, investors with a 12-month or longer investment horizon should begin to move capital into equities at the expense of bonds. Beyond the relative technical and valuation backdrops (Chart I-5), the outlook for fiscal and monetary policy favors this allocation decision. US Treasury yields have dropped from 1.9% at the turn of the year to as low as 0.31% on March 9th. According to the bond market, inflation will average less than 1% during the coming 10 years. The OIS curve is pricing in a fed funds rate of only 68 basis points in five years. In response to this extreme pricing, Treasury bonds are exceptionally expensive (Chart I-6). Moreover, using BCA Research’s Golden Rule of Treasury Investing, there is little scope for yields to fall any lower. The Golden Rule states that the return of Treasury bonds is directly linked to the Fed's rate surprises. If over the next year the Fed cuts interest rates more than is currently priced into the OIS curve, then bond yields will fall in the next 12 months (Chart I-7). Given that the fed funds rate is already at its lower limit, the Fed will not be able to deliver such a dovish surprise and yields will have limited downside. Chart I-6Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Chart I-7The Fed Cannot Pull Another Dovish Surprise Out Of Its Hat The bond market is also vulnerable from a technical perspective. Our Composite Technical Indicator is as overbought today as it was in December 2008 (Chart I-8). Thus, bond prices are vulnerable to good news. Economic activity will be weak for many months, but the recent policy announcements will boost global fiscal deficits by more than $3 trillion in the next 12 to 18 months. Such a large supply of paper is bearish for bonds, especially when they are very expensive. Moreover, global central banks are engaging in large-scale quantitative easing (QE). Globally, monetary authorities have already announced the equivalent of at least $1.9 trillion in asset purchases. The GFC experience showed that QE programs put upward pressure on Treasury yields (Chart I-9). This time will not be different given the combination of QE, supply disruptions caused by quarantines and large fiscal stimulus. Chart I-8A Dire Combination For Bonds Chart I-9QE Pushes Yields Up Equities offer the opposite risk/reward ratio to bonds. Technical indicators are consistent with maximum pessimism toward equities and imply that most of the selloff is behind us, at least for the time being. The Complacency-Anxiety Indicator developed by BCA Research’s US Equity Strategy service points to widespread pessimism among investors,4 an intuition confirmed by our Sentiment indicator (Chart I-10). Moreover, our Equity Capitulation Index is as depressed as in March 2009. Investors with a 12-month or longer investment horizon should begin to move capital into equities at the expense of bonds. Despite the magnitude of the shock hitting the global economy, equities will rally if they become cheap enough and monetary conditions are accommodative enough. The BCA Valuation indicator has collapsed to “undervalued” territory and our Monetary Indicator has never been more supportive of equities (both variables are shown on page 2 of Section III). The gap between these two indicators is at its lowest level since Q1 2009 or 1982, two points that marked the end of bear markets (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Equities Have Capitulated Chart I-11Supportive Combined Valuation And Monetary Backdrop For Equities Equity multiples also offer some insight into the risk/reward ratio for stocks. The S&P 500 has collapsed by 34% since its February 19th peak and trades at 13 times forward earnings. True, analysts will revise their forecasts, but the market also only trades at 14 times trailing earnings, which cannot be downgraded. Most importantly, investors are extremely gloomy about expected growth when multiples and risk-free rates are so subdued. Risk assets cannot stabilize durably as long as the demand for dollar liquidity is not satiated. Table I-3Evaluating Where The Floor Lies We can use a simple discounted cash flow model to extract the expected growth rate of long-term earnings embedded in the S&P 500. To do so, we assume that the ERP is 300 basis points, close to the long-term outperformance of stocks versus bonds. At current multiples and 10-year yields, investors are pricing in a long-term growth rate of -2% annually for earnings (Table I-3). In comparison, investors were more pessimistic in 1974, 2008 and 2011 when they anticipated long-term earnings contractions of -2.5% annually. If we assume that the long-term growth of expected earnings will fall to that depth, then we can estimate trailing P/E multiples will be under different risk-free rates. If yields fall to zero, then the P/E would be 17.7 or a price level of 2,692; however, if they rise to 1.5%, then the P/E would decline to 13.9 or a price level of 2,115 (Table I-3). Chart I-12Expected Earnings Growth And Interest Rates Are Co-Integrated This method suggests that 2200 is the S&P 500’s likely floor. Risk-free rates and the expected growth rate of long-term earnings are correlated series because the anticipated evolution of economic activity drives both real interest rates and earnings (Chart I-12). Thus, it is unlikely that yields will climb if expected earnings growth falls. Instead, if the expected growth rate of long-term earnings drops to -2.5%, then yields should stand between 1% and 0.5%, implying equilibrium trailing P/Es of 15 to 16.3 times, or prices levels of 2,278 to 2,468. P/E will only fall much further if the dollar scramble lasts longer. As investors seek cash and liquidate all assets, the process can push anticipated growth rates lower while pulling bond yields higher (see next section). Investment Implications Part 2: The Uncontrolled Liquidity Crunch Is Still An Immediate Risk Risk assets cannot stabilize durably as long as the demand for dollar liquidity is not satiated. The large programs announced around the world seem to be calming this liquidity crunch. However, the situation is fluid and the crunch can come back at a moment's notice. Despite the magnitude of the shock hitting the global economy, equities will rally if they become cheap enough and monetary conditions are accommodative enough. Credit spreads blew up as investors priced in the inevitable increase in defaults that accompanies recessions (Chart I-13). Junk spreads moved to as high as 1100 basis points, their highest level since 2009. If we assume that next year, US EBITDA contracts by its average post-war magnitude (a timid assumption), then the interest coverage ratio will deteriorate to readings not seen since the S&L crisis, which will force default rates higher (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Defaults Will Rise Chart I-14Corporate Fundamentals Will Deteriorate The anticipated contraction in cash flows creates another more pernicious and dangerous consequence: an insatiable demand for dollar liquidity by the private sector. Companies are worried they may not generate the necessary cash flows to service their debt. This is especially worrisome for foreign borrowers who have loans in US dollars. The BIS estimates that foreign currency debt denominated in USDs stands at $12 trillion. Meanwhile, these foreign borrowers are hoarding dollars. The risk aversion of US-based companies is accentuating the dollar crunch. US companies have pulled on their credit lines en masse. US commercial banks must provide this cash to their clients. However, US banks must still meet liquidity requirements imposed by the Basel III rules. As a result, the banks are also hoarding as much cash as possible in the form of excess reserves and curtailed their capital market lending, especially in the repo market. Repos are the lifeblood of capital markets and without repos, market liquidity (the ability to sell and buy securities) quickly deteriorates. This chain of events has caused a sharp widening in Treasury bid-ask spreads, LIBOR-OIS spreads and commercial paper-T-Bill spreads, and has fueled weaknesses in mortgage and municipal bond markets (Chart I-15). The evaporation of the repo market accentuates the foreign liquidity crunch. Without functioning repo markets, dollar funding in offshore markets becomes more onerous, as highlighted by the widening in global cross-currency basis swap spreads (Chart I-16). Borrowers are buying dollars at any cost. This has led to the surge in the dollar from March 9th, which forced the collapse of risky currencies such as the NOK, the BRL or the MXN, but also of safe-haven currencies such as the JPY and the CHF. Chart I-15Symptoms Of A Liquidity Crunch Chart I-16Offshore Funding Pressures Point To A Dollar Shortage The strength in the dollar is problematic. As a symptom of the liquidity crunch, it accompanies forced selling of assets by investors seeking to acquire cash. Moreover, the USD is a funding currency, hence a strong dollar also tightens the global cost of capital for all foreign borrowers who have tapped into US capital markets. For US firms, it also accentuates deflationary pressures and the resulting lower price of goods sold increases the risk of bankruptcies. Thus, a strong dollar would feed the weakness in asset prices and further widen credit spreads. Moreover, because the liquidity crunch hurts growth and can concurrently push yields higher, it could pull P/Es below 15 and drive equity prices far below our 2,200 floor. On the positive side, central banks worldwide are keenly aware of the danger created by the liquidity crunch. The Fed has started and restarted a long list of liquidity facilities (Table I-2). Its unlimited QE program also addresses the dollar shortage directly by expanding the supply of money. Crucially, the Fed has re-opened dollar swap lines with other central banks, including emerging markets such as Korea, Singapore, Mexico and Brazil. Even the ECB and the Bank of England are relaxing liquidity ratios for their banks, which at the margin will alleviate the supply of liquidity in their domestic economies. The Fed will likely follow its European counterparts, which could play a large role in alleviating the global dollar shortage. Investors seeking to assess if the supply of liquidity is large enough should pay close attention to gold prices. The global, large-scale fiscal stimulus programs will also address the dollar liquidity crisis. When investors judge there is sufficient fiscal stimulus to put a floor under global economic activity, the markets will take a more sanguine view of the risk of default. If large enough, government spending will support corporate cash flows and, therefore, limit corporate bankruptcies. Consequently, demand for liquidity will also decline and mass asset liquidations will ebb. Chart I-17Gold Is The Ultimate Liquidity Gauge Investors seeking to assess if the supply of liquidity is large enough should look for some key market signals. We pay close attention to gold prices; after March 9th they fell despite the global spike in risk aversion due to gold's extreme sensitivity to global liquidity conditions. Both today and in the fall of 2008, gold prices fell when illiquidity grew. Our gold fair-value model shows that the precious metal is extremely sensitive to inflation expectations and real bond yields (Chart I-17). As illiquidity grows and the dollar appreciates, inflation breakevens collapse and real yields spike. Thus, the recent gold rebound suggests that the Fed and other major central banks have expanded the supply of liquidity sufficiently to meet demand, the price of money will fall (real interest rates) and inflation expectations will rebound. Monitor whether gold can remain well bid. Investment Implications Part 3: FX And Commodity Markets Chart I-18China's Stimulus Will Once Again Be Paramount China’s stimulus will be a key driver of the FX market in the post-liquidity-crunch world. Historically, because Chinese reflation has lifted the global manufacturing cycle, it possesses a large influence on the dollar’s trend (Chart I-18). We believe that China’s stimulus will be comparable to the one implemented in 2008 and will boost global growth. Moreover, the interest rate advantage of the US has declined and global macro volatility will not remain at current extremes for an extended time. These three factors (Chinese stimulus, lower interest rate differentials and declining volatility) will weigh on the USD in the coming 18 months (Chart I-18, bottom panel). EM currencies and the AUD will benefit most from the dollar depreciation later this year. In the short term, these currencies remain exposed to any flare up in the liquidity crunch and can cheapen further. But, as Chart I-19 highlights, investing in those currencies will likely generate long-term excess returns because they have cheapened significantly. Commodities, too, are becoming attractive at current valuations. Industrial metals such as copper will benefit greatly from China’s stimulus. A rising Chinese credit and fiscal impulse lifts the price of base metals because it pushes up Chinese infrastructure spending as well as residential and capex investment (Chart I-20). Moreover, a lower dollar and accommodative global monetary policy will further boost the appeal of industrial metals. Chart I-19EM FX Is Cheap Chart I-20China Will Drive Metal Prices Higher China’s stimulus will be a key driver of the FX market in the post-liquidity-crunch world. The oil outlook is particularly unclear as both demand and supply factors are in flux. At $27/bbl, Brent is cheap enough to compensate investors for the decline in demand that will emerge between now and the end of the second quarter. However, the market-share war between Saudi Arabia and Russia layers on the problem of supply risk. Saudi Aramco is set to increase production to 12.3 million barrels by April and Saudi’s GCC allies have announced they are increasing output as well. According to BCA Research’s Commodity and Energy Strategy service, the oil market is already oversupplied by 1.6 million barrels per day, a number that will expand if the KSA and its allies fulfill their production pledges. If this situation persists, oil will lag behind industrial metals when global risk aversion recedes. Nonetheless, our commodity strategists believe that the collapse in oil prices is more painful for Russia than for KSA. We believe there will be a compromise between OPEC and Russia in the coming weeks that will push supply lower.5 Additionally, the Texas Railroad Commission is preparing to impose limitations on Texas oil production, which has not been done since the 1970s. Such a decision would magnify any rebound in oil prices. Thinking Long-Term: The Return Of Stagflation? The COVID-19 outbreak will likely be viewed as an epoch-defining moment. The policy response to the outbreak will be far reaching and the disease will change the way firms manage supply chains for decades to come. There will be a substantial pullback in globalization. COVID-19 has generated an inflationary shock in the medium term. Chart I-21War Spending Is Always Inflationary COVID-19 has generated an inflationary shock in the medium term. Governments have suddenly abandoned their preferences for fiscal rectitude. The US deficit will reach a peacetime record of 15% of GDP. These are war-like spending measures. In history, gold standard or not, wars were the main reason for inflationary outbreaks as they involved massive budgetary expansions (Chart I-21). The large monetary easing accompanying the current fiscal expansion will only add to this inflationary impulse. Many of the proposals discussed by governments involve funneling cash directly to households, while central banks buy bonds issued by the same government. This is very close to helicopter money. These policies will increase the velocity of money, which is structurally inflationary (Chart I-22). Naysayers may point to the lack of inflation created by QE programs in the direct aftermath of the GFC. However, at that time, households and commercial banks were much sicker. Today, capital ratios in the US and the Eurozone are 60% and 33% higher than in 2007, respectively (Chart I-23). Thus, banks are much more likely to add to money creation instead of retracting from it as they did in the last cycle. Chart I-22If Velocity Rises, So Will Inflation Chart I-23Banks Are Much Healthier Than In 2008 Chart I-24Financial Assets Have No Inflation Cushion Markets are not ready for higher inflation. The 5-year/5-year forward CPI swaps in the US and the euro area stand at only 1.6% and 0.7%, respectively. Household long-term inflation expectations are also at all-time lows (Chart I-24). Therefore, an increase in inflation will have a deep impact on asset prices. The first implication is that gold prices have probably begun a new structural bull market. Inflation will surprise on the upside and keep real interest rates lower. Both these factors are highly bullish for the yellow metal. Additionally, easy fiscal policy and money printing will devalue currencies versus hard assets, which will benefit all precious metals, including gold. EM central banks have recently been diversifying aggressively in gold, which will add another impetuous to its rally. The second implication is that the stock-to-bond ratio has structural upside. Equities are not a perfect inflation hedge, but their profits can rise when selling prices accelerate. However, bonds display rock bottom real yields, inflation protection and term premia. Moreover, their low-running yields are below the dividend yields of equities, which has also boosted bond duration to record levels. Therefore, bonds offer even less protection against higher inflation. Hence, the stock-to-bond ratio will probably follow the historical experience of the 20th century structural bull market and inflect higher (Chart I-25). However, this outperformance will not stem from the superior performance of stocks in real terms; rather, it will emerge from a very poor performance by bonds. Chart I-25The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Will Follow The 20th Century Road Map Thirdly, the structural relative bear market in EM equities will likely end soon. EM equities will enjoy strong real asset prices and EM assets have much more appealing valuations than DM stocks. This is an imbedded inflation protection. The world is witnessing a fiscal and monetary push that will result in lower productivity growth and profit margins, along with feared inflation. The next decade could increasingly look like the stagflationary 1970s. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 26, 2020 Next Report: April 30, 2020 II. Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013, and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the real neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even once economic recovery takes hold unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). This report revisits the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrates why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. We also outline an inferential approach that investors can use to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. The core conclusion for investors is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, investors should avoid dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about yields as they may rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once a post-COVID-19 expansion takes hold. Over the past several weeks financial markets have moved rapidly to price in a global recession stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak. As financial market participants began to turn to policy makers for support, eyes focused first on the Federal Reserve, and then fiscal authorities. Earlier this week, the ECB joined the party and announced aggressive further measures of its own. When responding to the Fed’s return to the lower bound and its other recent monetary policy decisions, many market participants have expressed the view that the Fed is largely impotent to deal with a global pandemic. There are three elements to this view. The first is that interest rate cuts are ill equipped to stimulate domestic demand if quarantine measures or other forms of “social distancing” are in effect. The second element is that the Fed has only been capable of delivering a fraction of the reduction in interest rates compared to what has occurred in response to previous contractions. The third aspect of this view is that because the neutral rate of interest is so much lower now than it was in the past, Fed rate cuts will not be as stimulative as they were before. Chart II-1Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate While we at least partly agree with the first and second elements of this view, we feel strongly that the third is flawed. Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013,6 and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. This time series, which is regularly updated by the New York Fed,7 suggests that the real fed funds rate reached neutral territory in the first quarter of 2019 (Chart II-1). With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even beyond the near term unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). In this Special Report we revisit the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrate why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. Our analysis does not reveal a precise alternative estimate of the neutral rate, although we do provide some inferential perspective on how investors may be able to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. However, the core insight emanating from our report, particularly for US fixed income investors, is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, this underscores that they have the potential to rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once economic activity recovers. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise may be larger than many investors currently expect. Demystifying The LW R-star Estimate The LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest has gained credibility for three reasons. First, as noted above, the evolution of the series fits with the secular stagnation narrative re-popularized by Larry Summers. Second, the series is essentially sponsored by the Federal Reserve even if it is not officially part of the Fed’s forecasting framework, as its two creators are long-time Fed employees (Thomas Laubach is a director of the Fed’s Board of Governors, and John Williams is the current President of the New York Fed). But, in our view, there is a third important reason that global investors have accepted the LW R-star estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the methodology used to generate the estimate is extremely technically complex, and thus is difficult for most investors to penetrate. Much of the technical complexity of the LW estimate is centered around the use of a statistical procedure called a Kalman filter (“KF”). Simply described, the KF is an algorithm that tries to estimate an unobservable variable based on 1) an idea of how the unobservable variable might relate to an observable variable (the “measurement equation”), and 2) an idea of how the unobservable variable might change through time (the “transition equation”). Through a repeated process of simulating the unobserved variable based on a set of assumptions, the KF is able to compare predicted results to actual results on an observation-by-observation basis, and use that information to generate ever more reliable future estimates of the unobserved variable (Chart II-2). Chart II-2A Very Simplified Overview Of The Kalman Filter Algorithm We acknowledge that a full technical treatment of the Kalman Filter as it relates to the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest is beyond the scope of this report, and we provide a more technical overview in Box II-1. But what emerges from a detailed analysis of the model is that the Kalman Filter jointly estimates R-star, potential GDP growth, potential GDP, and the variable “z”, the determinants of R-star that are not explained by potential GDP growth. As we will highlight in the next section, this joint estimation of these four variables is a crucial aspect of the model, because a valid estimate of R-star necessitates a valid estimate of the remaining variables. BOX II-1 A Technical Overview Of The Laubach & Williams R-star Model Chart Box II-1 shows that there are three sets of formulas involved in the LW estimation: the “law of motion” for the neutral rate of interest, two measurement equations, and three transition equations. The law of motion for the neutral rate is fairly simple: R-star is a function of trend real GDP growth, as well as “other factors” represented by the variable “z”. Laubach & Williams note that z “captures factors such as households’ rate of time preference”. The measurement equations are also fairly straightforward. First, the (unobservable) output gap is a function of lagged values of itself as well as the lagged real Fed funds rate gap (relative to the unobservable neutral rate). Second, inflation is a function of lagged values of itself, past values of the output gap, relative core import prices, and lagged relative imported oil prices (the latter two variables are included to capture potential supply shocks to inflation). Note that this second measurement equation is required for the model to work, as it relates the unobservable output gap to observable inflation. As presented in Chart II-2, the three transition equations are present to simulate how the unobservable variables might move through time. Potential growth and potential output are a random walk, and “z” from the law of motion follows either a random walk or an autoregressive process. Chart Box II-1The Laubach & Williams R-star Model Debunking The LW R-star Estimate Before criticizing the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest, it is important for us to note that we have the utmost respect for the Federal Reserve and its research methods. We fully acknowledge that the LW R-star estimation is rooted in solid economic theory, and we have identified no technical errors in the setup of the LW model. Nevertheless, valid analytical efforts sometimes lead to problematic real-world results, and there are two key reasons to believe that the Kalman filter in the LW model is almost certainly misspecifying R-star, at least in terms of its estimate over the past two decades. The first reason relates to the sensitivity of the model to the interval of estimation (the period over which R-star is estimated). Chart II-3 presents the range of quarterly estimates of R-star since 2005, along with the difference between the high and low end of the range in the second panel. The chart shows that while previous estimates of R-star have generally been stable for values ranging between the early-1980s and 2006/2007, pre-1980 estimates have varied quite substantially and we have seen material revisions to the estimates over the past decade. Q1 2018 serves as an excellent example: in that quarter R-star was estimated to be 0.14%; today, the Q1 2018 R-star estimate sits at 0.92%. Chart II-3Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates However, Table II-1 and Chart II-4 highlight the real instability of the Kalman filter estimation by demonstrating the effect of varying the starting point of the model (please see Box II-2 for a brief description of how our estimation of R-star using the LW approach differs slightly from the original procedure). Laubach & Williams originally estimated R-star beginning in Q1 1961; Table II-1 shows what happens to today’s estimate of R-star simply by incrementally varying the starting point of the model from Q1 1958 to Q4 1979. Table II-1Alternative Current LW Estimates Of R-star By Model Starting Point Chart II-4Alternative Starting Points Produce Wildly Different Estimates Of R-star Today BOX II-2 The Laubach & Williams R-star Model With Simplified Inflation Expectations To proxy inflation expectations in their model, Laubach & Williams use a “forecast of the four-quarter-ahead percentage change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy (“core PCE prices”) generated from a univariate AR(3) of inflation estimated over the prior 40 quarters”. The authors note that a simplified measure of expectations, a 4-quarter moving average of quarterly annualized core inflation, does not materially alter their results. For the sake of parsimony we use this simplified measure in our analysis. We find that the effect shifts the current estimate of R-star only slightly (+10 basis points), and that the historical differences between our version of the 1961 estimation and the official series are indeed minor. The table highlights that the model fails to even generate a result in a majority of the cases (only 39 out of 88 of the model runs were error-free). In addition, Chart II-4 shows that of the successful estimates of R-star using the LW procedure and alternate starting dates of the model, the estimate of R-star today varies from -2% (in one case) to +2%. Excluding the one extremely negative outlier results in an effective estimate range of 0% to 2%, but the key point for investors is that this range is massive and underscores that the original model’s estimate of R-star today is heavily and unduly influenced by the interval of estimation. Investors should also note that of all of the alternative estimates of R-star today shown in Chart II-4, the estimate using the original interval is very much on the low end of the distribution. The second (and most important) reason to believe that the LW estimate is misspecifying R-star is that the output gap estimate generated by the model is almost certainly invalid, at least over the past two decades. Chart II-5presents the LW output gap estimate alongside an average of the CBO, OECD, and IMF estimates of the gap; panel 1 shows the official current LW output gap estimate, whereas panel 2 shows the range of output gap estimates that are generated using the different estimation intervals highlighted in Table II-1 and Chart II-4. Chart II-5The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades Given that the Kalman filter in the LW model jointly determines R-star and the output gap (by way of estimating potential output via estimating potential GDP growth) and that these estimates are dependent on each other, Chart II-5 highlights that in order to believe the LW R-star estimate investors must believe three things: That the US economy was chronically below potential in the late-1990s when the unemployment rate was below 5%, real GDP growth averaged nearly 5%, and the equity market was booming, That output exceeded potential in 2004/2005 by a magnitude not seen since the late-1970s / early-1980s despite an average unemployment rate, That the 2008/2009 US recession was not particularly noteworthy in terms of its deviation from potential output, and that the economy had returned to potential output by 2010/2011 when the unemployment rate was in the range of 8-9%. Chart II-6The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 While we do not believe any of these three statements, the third is especially unlikely. Chart II-6 highlights that the economic expansion from 2009 – 2020 was the weakest on record in the post-war era in terms of average annual real per capita GDP growth. To us, this is a clear symptom of a chronic deficiency in aggregate demand, and that it is essentially unreasonable to argue that the economy was operating at full employment prior to 2014/2015. This means that the Kalman filter is generating incorrect and unreliable estimates of the output gap, which means in turn that the filter’s estimation of R-star is almost assuredly wrong. How Can Investors Tell What The Neutral Rate Is? An Inferential Approach Table II-2 presents the sensitivity of the original Q1 1961 LW estimate of R-star to a series of counterfactual scenarios for inflation, real GDP growth, nominal interest rates, and import and oil prices since mid-2009. While these scenarios do not in any way improve the validity of the LW R-star estimate, they do help clarify the theoretical basis of the model and they help reveal how investors may infer whether the neutral rate of interest is higher or lower than prevailing market rates, and whether it is rising or falling. Table II-2Sensitivity Of Current LW R-star Estimate To Counterfactual Scenarios (2009 - Present) Chart II-7Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Table II-2 highlights that today’s estimate of R-star using the original LW approach is mostly sensitive to our counterfactual scenarios for growth and interest rates, but not inflation or oil prices. Shifting down import price growth also has a meaningful effect on R-star, but since core import price growth has been particularly weak over the past several years (Chart II-7), it seems unreasonable to suggest that they have been abnormally high and thus “explain” a low R-star estimate today. Table II-2 essentially highlights that the entire question of the neutral rate of interest over the past decade, and the core contradiction that led to the re-emergence of the secular stagnation thesis, can effectively be boiled down to the following simple question: “Why hasn’t US economic growth been stronger this cycle, given that interest rates have been so low?” Based on the (hopefully uncontroversial) view that interest rates influence economic activity and that economic activity influences inflation, we propose the following checklist for investors to ask themselves in order to not only determine the answer to this important question, but to help identify whether R-star in any given country is likely higher or lower than existing policy rates at any given point in time. Are interest rates above or below the prevailing level of economic growth? Are interest rates rising or falling, and how intensely? Are there identifiable non-monetary shocks (positive or negative) that appear to be influencing economic activity? Is private sector credit growth keeping pace with economic growth? Are debt service burdens in the economy high or low? The first question reflects the most basic view of R-star, which is that the real neutral rate of interest should be equal to, or at least closely related to, the potential growth rate of the economy, ceteris paribus. Questions 2 through 5 attempt to determine whether ceteris paribus holds. In terms of how the answers to these questions relate to identifying the neutral rate, consider two economies, “Economy A” and “Economy B” (Chart II-8). Economy A has broadly stable or slightly rising interest rates that are well below prevailing rates of economic growth (questions 1 & 2), no obvious beneficial shocks to domestic demand from fiscal policy or other factors (question 3), and strong private sector credit growth that is perhaps above or strongly above the current pace of GDP growth (question 4). Chart II-8'Economy A', Versus 'Economy B' Inferentially, it would seem that interest rates in this hypothetical economy are below R-star today. Question 5 is in our list because the more that active private sector leveraging occurs (thus pushing up debt burdens), the more that we would expect R-star in the future to fall. This is because debt payments as a share of income cannot rise forever, and we would expect that the capacity of economy A’s central bank to raise interest rates in the future are negatively related to economy A’s private sector debt service burden today. Now, imagine another economy (“Economy B”) with interest rates well below average rates of economic growth, an interest rate trend that is flat-to-down, no identifiable non-monetary policy shocks that are restricting aggregate demand, persistently sluggish credit growth, and high private sector debt service burdens in the past. If economy B is growing (even sluggishly) and not in the middle of a recession, it would seem that prevailing interest rates are below R-star, but not significantly so. In this scenario it would seem reasonable to conclude that R-star in economy B has fallen non-trivially below its potential growth rate, and that interest rate increases are likely to move monetary policy into restrictive territory earlier than otherwise would be the case. Is The United States “Economy B”? From the perspective of some investors, our description of economy B above perfectly captures the experience of the US over the past decade: an extremely low Fed funds rate, sluggish to weak growth and inflation, all the result of a huge build-up in leverage and debt service burdens during the last economic cycle. We do not doubt that R-star fell in the US for some period of time during the global financial crisis and in the early phase of the economic recovery. But we doubt that it is as low today as the secular stagnation narrative would imply, in large part because it ignores several important aspects concerning questions 2 through 5 noted above. Chart II-9Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies: Over the past 12 years, there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnect between growth and interest rates: 1) a prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014, 2) the euro area sovereign debt crisis, 3) fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and euro area from 2010 – 2012/2014 (Chart II-9), 4) the US dollar / oil price shock of 2014, and 5) the recent trade war between the US and China. Several of these shocks have been policy-driven, and in the case of austerity the negative consequences of that policy has led to a lasting change in thinking among fiscal authorities (outside of Japan) that is unlikely to reverse in the near-future. Chart II-10Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Private sector credit growth: Chart II-10 highlights the extent of household deleveraging noted above by showing the growth in total household liabilities over the past decade alongside income growth. Panel 2 shows the leveraging trend of firms, as represented by the nonfinancial corporate sector debt-to-GDP ratio. Chart II-10 underscores two points: the first is that while US household sector credit contracted for several years following the global financial crisis, it is now growing again and has largely closed the gap with income growth. The second point is that the nonfinancial corporate sector has clearly leveraged itself over the course of the expansion, arguing that interest rates have not in any way been restrictive for businesses. While it is true that firms have largely leveraged themselves to buy back stock instead of significantly increasing capital expenditures, in our view this reflects the fact that US consumer demand was impaired for several years due to deleveraging. We doubt that firms would have altered their capital structures to this degree if they did not view interest rates as extremely low. Debt service burdens: Chart II-11 highlights that US household debt service burdens were at very elevated levels prior to the financial crisis, suggesting that the neutral rate did fall for some time following the recession. But today, the debt burden facing households is the lowest it has been in the past 40 years due to both rate reductions and deleveraging, arguing against the view that household debt levels will structurally weigh on interest rates in the years to come. Chart II-12 shows that the picture is different for nonfinancial corporations, as the substantial leveraging noted above has indeed raised debt service burdens for firms. However, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio remains 400 basis points below early-2000 levels when excess corporate sector liabilities had a clear impact on the economy, suggesting that the Fed’s capacity to raise interest rates still exists following the onset of economic recovery if corporate sector credit growth does not rise sharply relative to GDP over the coming 6-12 months. Chart II-11The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low Chart II-12Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise The intensity of recent interest rate changes: Finally, many investors have pointed to sluggish housing activity over the past three years as evidence of a low neutral rate. However, Chart II-13 highlights that the rise in the 30-year US mortgage rate from late-2016 to late-2018 was one of the largest two-year changes in US history, and Chart II-14 shows that the growth in household mortgage credit did not fall below its trend during this period until Q4 2018, when the US stock market fell 20% from its high in response to the economic consequences of the US/China trade war. Chart II-14 also shows that mortgage credit growth responded sharply to a recent reduction in interest rates. All in all, Charts II-13 & II-14 cast doubt on the notion that the level of mortgage rates over the past three years reached restrictive territory. Chart II-13Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Chart II-14A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market Investment Conclusions In the face of a global pandemic and an attendant global recession this year, the idea of eventual Fed rate hikes and the notion that the US economy will be able to tolerate them likely seems preposterous to many investors. We agree that over the coming 6-12 months US Treasury yields are unlikely to rise; even at current levels of the 10-year Treasury yield, we are reluctant to call a trough. Chart II-15US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade However, Chart II-15highlights that over a long-term time horizon, the bond market is now essentially priced for a repeat of the ten-year path of the Fed funds rate following the global financial crisis. While some investors will view this as a reasonable expectation in the face of what they see as a persistent and unexplainable gap between growth and interest rates over the past decade, we think this gap is explainable and we highly doubt that a pandemic with minimal mortality risk to the working age population and the young will cause the US economy to be afflicted with active consumer deleveraging lasting 4 to 6-years, substantial and wide-ranging fiscal austerity, persistently rising trade tariffs, and sharply lower oil prices. So while we agree that the US economy will be substantially cyclically affected by COVID-19, US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise following the upcoming recession may be larger than many investors currently believe. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we continued to strike a cautious tactical tone. Valuations were not depressed enough to compensate investors for the lack of clarity around the path of COVID-19. In other words, there was not enough of a risk premium imbedded in asset prices if COVID-19 cases were to spread around the world. Now that COVID-19 has spread around the planet, asset valuations have adjusted massively. The BCA Valuation Indicator for the S&P 500 is now in undervalued territory, thanks to both lower prices and interest rates. Meanwhile, the BCA Monetary Indicator has never been more accommodative than it is today. Together, these two indicators suggest that twelve months from now, equities will stand at higher levels than they do today. Tactically, equities have most probably found their floor. Both our Composite Sentiment Indicator and the VIX are consistent with a capitulation. Anecdotal evidences also point to a capitulation by retail investors. Additionally, Our RPI indicator is finally starting to try to turn up. Nonetheless, equities will likely re-test their Monday March 23rd floor as the length of US and global quarantines that are so damaging to growth (but for now, necessary) remain uncertain. The cleanest way to express a positive 12-month outlook on equities is to bet on a rise in the stock-to-bond ratio. 10-year Treasurys are as expensive as they were in late 2008 and early 1986, two periods followed by rapid rises in yields. Moreover, our Composite Technical Indicators is 2.5 sigma overbought. The yield curve is steepening anew, which confirms the intuition that yields will experience significant upside over the coming 12 months. On a longer-term basis, inflation expectations are too low to compensate investors for the inflation risk created by a larger monetary and fiscal expansion than the one witnessed in 2008. That being said, EM sovereigns are getting attractive for long-term investors. Following the surge in the dollar that accompanied the liquidity crunch that surrounded the COVID-19 panic, the dollar is now trading at its most expensive level since 1985. The large liquidity injections by the Fed should cap the dollar for now, but the greenback will need more clarity on the end of global quarantines before it can fall decisively. Nonetheless, it will depreciate significantly once the global economy rebounds due to the powerful reflationary impulse building up around the world. Finally, commodity prices are retesting their 2008 lows. They are not as oversold as they were then, but this is good sign as the advance/decline line of our Continuous Commodity Index continues to trend higher. Thus, if as we expect, the dollar’s surge is ending, commodities are likely to be in the process of finding a floor right now. Once investors become more optimistic about the outlook for global growth, commodities will likely rebound sharply, maybe even more so than stocks. Therefore, it is a good time to begin accumulating metals, energy and equities as well as FX linked to natural resources prices. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "March 2020," dated February 27, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Chwieroth, Jeffrey M., Walter, Andrew, The Wealth Effect: How the Great Expectations of the Middle Class Have Changed the Politics of Banking Crises, 2019. 3 A relaxation of social-distancing measures would likely mean that large-scale gatherings are still prohibited, and life would not return to normal for a long time. 4 Please see US Equity Strategy "The Darkest Hour Is Just Before The Dawn," dated March 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy "KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War," dated March 19, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 6 "IMF Fourteenth Annual Research Conference in Honor of Stanley Fischer," Washington DC, November 8, 2013. 7 "Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest," Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
US Core CPI inflation increased from 2.3% to 2.4% in February. This raises the question of whether or not the Fed will be able to maintain its newfound dovish posture for as long as the economy needs. If it cannot, the recession caused by the COVID-19…
Highlights Duration: The coronavirus is still weighing on yields and could push them down further in the near-term. However, the history of past viral outbreaks suggests that yields will move sharply higher once the daily number of new cases falls to zero. Fed: We would speculate that, this year, the Fed is very likely to change its framework so that it can seek a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target. This may involve moving to an “average inflation targeting” regime implemented via operational inflation ranges. Labor Market: It is very likely that employment growth peaked for the cycle in 2015, but falling employment growth is only consistent with the end of the economic recovery when it breaks below monthly labor force growth, causing the unemployment rate to rise. Feature Chart 1Fresh Lows! The ultimate economic fallout from the coronavirus remains uncertain, but bond investors are starting to fear the worst. As we go to press, the 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields have both made new cyclical troughs at 1.36% and 1.83%, respectively (Chart 1). The 3-month / 10-year Treasury slope is once again inverted and the 2/10 slope is down to 11 bps, from 34 bps at the start of the year (Chart 1, bottom panel). This behavior tells us that the market is pricing-in a significant economic slowdown stemming from the coronavirus, one that will force the Fed to ease policy this year. Indeed, the overnight index swap curve is priced for more than 50 bps of rate cuts during the next 12 months, and fed funds futures are discounting 58% chance of a 25 basis point rate cut in either March or April. In direct opposition to the market’s moves, the past week saw several FOMC members push back against the idea of a rate cut. Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said in an interview:1 There are many different scenarios about what’s going to happen between now and say June or July. My baseline expectations are that the economy is not going to see rising risks and it’s going to stay stable, so we won’t have to do anything. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard was even more forceful, saying:2 There’s a high probability that the coronavirus will blow over as other viruses have, be a temporary shock and everything will come back. But there’s a low probability that this could get much worse. Markets have to price that in, and that drags down the center of gravity a little bit. But if this all goes away, I expect that pricing will come back out of the market and we’ll be back to the on-hold scenario. Finally, Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida challenged the notion that expectations for a 2020 rate cut are widespread. Similar to Bullard, he claimed that market prices reflect hedging against potential downside risks. He went on to cite survey measures that show investors looking for a flat funds rate in their base case scenarios.3 There’s a wide gap between survey and market rate expectations. Clarida’s point about the discrepancy between market and survey rate expectations is well taken. Chart 2 shows that the median forecast from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants calls for an unchanged fed funds rate through 2022. However, it’s important to note that this survey was taken prior to the January FOMC meeting, when the coronavirus was only just starting to hit the news. Chart 2A Wide Gap Between Market And Survey Expectations Do They Protest Too Much? We can sympathize with the FOMC’s desire to push back against market expectations that it feels are off target, but we also think the strategy could prove self-defeating. If the market starts to believe that the Fed will not ease policy quickly enough, the yield curve will flatten even more and risk assets (equities and credit spreads) will sell off. Both of those developments would increase the pressure on the Fed to ease policy. Chart 3The History Of Viral Outbreaks In fact, if the present market turmoil continues, the Fed is very likely to deliver a rate cut sometime this year in an effort to support confidence and limit the potential economic damage from the coronavirus. Unfortunately, at this point we have no idea whether the coronavirus will spread further during the next couple of months, or whether it will be contained. In the former scenario, financial conditions will continue to tighten and the Fed will ease policy. In the latter scenario, financial conditions will not tighten aggressively and the Fed will stay on hold. In either case, given the uncertainty of the situation, we recommend stepping aside on our prior recommendation to short the August 2020 fed funds futures contract. No matter how long it takes to contain the coronavirus, we would expect growth to rebound quickly once the situation is resolved. This has been the pattern of past viral outbreaks: a steady decline in bond yields that sharply reverses course when the daily number of new cases reaches zero (Chart 3). Even accounting for its sharp drop during the past few days, the 10-year Treasury yield is still tracking the pattern of past viral outbreaks, and a jump in yields seems likely once the virus is contained. For this reason, we are inclined to maintain below-benchmark duration on a 12-month horizon. The US Election Is The Biggest Risk To Our Cyclical View The main risk to our 6-12 month below-benchmark portfolio duration stance is the possibility that as soon as the market is done worrying about the coronavirus it jumps right to worrying about the outcome of the US election. This could keep Treasury yields low throughout all of 2020. We argued last week that Treasury yields could come under downward pressure if Bernie Sanders looks set to win the election, while a victory for Donald Trump or one of the other Democratic candidates would be neutral for yields.4 As it stands now, Sanders has taken a more decisive lead in the Democratic leadership race after winning in Nevada. But President Trump’s approval rating has also been tacking higher. We will continue to monitor this risk closely in the coming weeks, and may alter our cyclical duration view depending on how polls evolve in March. The Fed may be forced to cut rates this year if financial conditions continue to tighten. Bottom Line: The coronavirus is still weighing on yields and could push them down further in the near-term. However, the history of past viral outbreaks suggests that yields will move sharply higher once the daily number of new cases falls to zero. Likewise, credit spreads have near-term upside until the virus is contained, but will tighten anew once the threat has passed. As discussed last week, the fundamental credit cycle backdrop remains supportive.5 The Fed may be forced to cut rates this year if financial conditions continue to tighten. Dual Mandate Update As discussed above, Fed participants generally view the current level of interest rates as appropriate and have been reluctant to hint at any upcoming policy changes. It’s not that difficult to see why. If we recall that the Fed’s dual mandate – as set by Congress – is to pursue maximum employment and price stability, then it’s pretty clear that current policy is delivering on both fronts. Chart 4 shows that the sum of the unemployment rate and 12-month consumer price inflation – the so-called Misery Index – is about as low as it has been since the 1960s. Further, the outlook for 2020 is that employment growth will remain firm and inflation tepid. Chart 4The Fed Has The Economy In A Good Spot Labor Market Chart 5Employment Growth Greater Than Labor Force Growth It is very likely that employment growth peaked for the cycle back in 2015, but falling employment growth is only consistent with the end of the economic recovery when it breaks below monthly labor force growth, causing the unemployment rate to rise. During the past 12 months, monthly employment gains have averaged +171k compared to a +122k average increase in the labor force (Chart 5). In other words, employment growth is slowly trending down but it remains at a comfortable level. Beyond decelerating employment, rising labor force participation is the other important trend in the US labor market. While it’s tempting to think that stronger labor force growth might only raise the bar for what employment growth is necessary to keep the recovery on track, this is not the case. In practice, gross labor flow data show that, since 2017, 73% of people that entered the labor force transitioned directly to being employed. Only 27% of those entering the labor force transitioned to unemployed status. Simply, rising labor force growth tends to push employment growth higher as well. It does not make it more likely that the unemployment rate will rise. Rising labor force participation has not gone unnoticed. The minutes from January’s FOMC meeting revealed that: Many participants pointed to the strong performance of labor force participation despite the downward pressures associated with an aging population, and several raised the possibility that there was some room for labor force participation to rise further. The prime age participation rate is already back to pre-crisis levels and the female 24-54 part rate is making new highs (Chart 6). Nonetheless, US prime age participation remains low compared to other developed countries – like its closest neighbor Canada – making further gains possible. Chart 6Do Part Rates Have More ##br##Upside? Chart 7Don't Be Alarmed By The Drop In Job Openings Finally, many have pointed to the recent drop in Job Openings as a reason to be concerned about the state of the US labor market (Chart 7). We view these concerns as unfounded. First, the drop in openings does not appear to be related to flagging labor demand. The Job Hires rate is steady and involuntary layoffs are low. Against a backdrop of steady demand, fewer openings could simply mean that there is a little more slack in the labor market than was previously thought. Inflation On inflation, we see little chance of a meaningful surge this year. The Prices Paid and Supplier Delivery components of the ISM Manufacturing index, two indicators that tend to lead changes in core inflation, are downtrodden (Chart 8). Meanwhile, base effects could cause 12-month core CPI to jump in the next month or two, but are more likely to drag it down on a 6-month horizon (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 8Inflation Will Remain Tame In 2020 At the component level, shelter is the largest component of core CPI but it is unlikely to accelerate in the coming months. The National Multifamily Housing Council’s Survey of Apartment Market Conditions just ticked below 50 (Chart 9). Shelter inflation is more likely to rise when the index is firmly above 50 in “tightening” territory. Further, the recent jump in core goods inflation is set to wane in the coming months. Core goods inflation tracks non-oil import prices with a lag of about 18 months, and import prices have been on a declining trend (Chart 9, bottom panel). Chart 9Shelter And Core Goods Inflation Bottom Line: The Fed is performing well on its dual mandate. Employment growth is firm, inflationary pressures are tepid and continued accommodative monetary policy might be able to pull more people into the labor force. Absent any desire to preemptively ease to counteract the effects of the coronavirus, the Fed’s on hold policy stance is appropriate. Tracking The Fed’s Balance Sheet We strongly disagree with the suggestion that the increase in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet meaningfully impacted Treasury yields or risky assets this year.6 But the Fed’s balance sheet policy remains a point of interest nonetheless, and last week we received more information about what the Fed intends to do with its balance sheet this year. Specifically, the Fed has decided that $1.5 trillion will serve as a firm floor for bank reserves. That is, the Fed will not allow the supply of reserves to fall below that level, and will typically maintain a significant buffer above $1.5 trillion. To accomplish this, the Fed would prefer to transition away from daily repo transactions. It would rather rely on its Treasury and T-bill purchases to keep reserves at desired levels. $1.5 trillion will be the firm floor on bank reserves. With that in mind, the Fed now plans to scale daily repo operations back to zero by the end of April. The Fed’s $60 billion per month T-bill purchases will continue through the second quarter. After that, the pace of asset purchases will be lowered, with the goal of simply keeping reserve supply stable. It has not yet been decided whether Treasury purchases after June will be concentrated in T-bills or spread out across the maturity spectrum. Chart 10 and Table 1 show our updated projections for what the Fed’s balance sheet will look like at the end of June. Our projections show a reserve level of $1.7 trillion at the end of June, significantly above the $1.5 trillion floor. This provides a healthy buffer in case a spike in the Treasury’s General Account leads to a temporary drop in reserve supply. Chart 10The Fed's Balance Sheet Securities And Reserves Table 1Fed's Balance Sheet Projections The Biggest Changes The Fed Could Make This Year (And More Details About The Ongoing Strategic Review) Chart 11Monitoring Financial Conditions The minutes from the January FOMC meeting, released last week, revealed a few important details about the Fed’s ongoing strategic review. The strategic review is a process that the Fed expects to complete by mid-year, where it will consider potential changes to its monetary policy strategy, tools and communication practices. At the last FOMC meeting, the committee took up the issues of how to incorporate financial stability into the Fed’s monetary policy strategy and of whether it should consider targeting an inflation range instead of a specific point. Financial Stability The traditional consensus in central banking was that interest rates should not be used to manage financial stability risks. Rather, monetary policy should remain focused on the dual mandate of full employment and inflation. In January’s discussion, FOMC participants generally agreed that macroprudential and regulatory policies remain the preferred methods for dealing with financial stability risks. But participants also recognized that this might not suffice: Many participants remarked that the Committee should not rule out the possibility of adjusting the stance of monetary policy to mitigate financial stability risks, particularly when those risks have important implications for the economic outlook and when macroprudential tools had been or were likely to be ineffective at mitigating those risks. At January’s FOMC meeting, the Fed staff also presented the idea of a “financial stability escape clause” that would “provide leeway for the central bank to deviate from its usual monetary policy strategy if financial vulnerabilities become significant.” For our part, we have consistently argued that, if inflation expectations remain stubbornly low, the Fed may eventually lift rates this cycle in response to signs of excess in financial markets.7 So far, we don’t see asset valuations as stretched enough to prompt Fed tightening (Chart 11), but the longer that interest rates stay low, the more likely it is that financial market valuations will reach bubbly levels. Inflation Ranges The FOMC discussed two types of inflation ranges at the January FOMC meeting. They discussed ranges that are symmetrical around the Fed’s 2% target, and “operational ranges” that could be moved around depending on the Fed’s policy goals. In theory, the advantage of a symmetric inflation range around the Fed’s 2% target is that it could help communicate the inherent uncertainty in measuring inflation, and the difficulty in forecasting it with precision. However, participants worried that introducing a symmetric inflation range at a time when inflation has been running below the Fed’s 2% target would signal that the Fed is comfortable with below-target inflation. In contrast, the idea of an operational range has some appeal, especially if the Fed decides to shift from a pure forward-looking 2% inflation target to a target that seeks to achieve average 2% inflation over time. How would this work? In an environment where inflation had been running below 2% for several years, the Fed would set its operational range to be 2%-2.5% for a time (Chart 12). Once it judged that enough of an overshoot of 2% had taken place to make up for past downside misses, it would shift back to a symmetric operational range of say 1.75%-2.25%. Or perhaps, if it judged that inflation needed to undershoot 2% for a time, it would set its operational range as 1.5%-2%. Crucially, the operational range would be moved around at the discretion of the Committee with the goal of achieving 2% inflation on average over time. Chart 12The Fed Could Adopt An Operational Target Inflation Range of 2-2.5 This Year The Most That Could Be Announced This Year Based on the info we’ve received so far from the FOMC minutes and the speeches of several Fed Governors, two in particular from Governor Lael Brainard.8 We now have a decent sense of the most dramatic changes that could be announced this year. In all likelihood, the announced changes will be somewhat less dramatic than those listed below, as consensus amongst committee members on all the details will be difficult to achieve. The Fed will change from a forward-looking 2% inflation target to one that seeks to achieve average inflation of 2% over time. It will implement its new inflation targeting framework by using operational inflation ranges that will be moved around at the discretion of the Committee. The Fed will allow for the possibility of changing interest rates in response to financial stability risks, if it is thought that those risks threaten the dual mandate of full employment and 2% inflation. It will announce a new tool for implementing monetary policy at the zero-lower bound where it puts a hard cap on bond yields out to some specific maturity. The cap won’t be lifted until some specified economic goals are met. We would speculate that, this year, the Fed is very likely to change its framework so that it can seek a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target. This may involve moving to an “average inflation targeting” regime implemented via operational inflation ranges, or it could be a more watered down version of the same idea. Similarly, we would also expect that any announced changes to the Fed’s policy strategy will include more explicit language related to financial stability risks. As for the idea of adopting bond yield caps at the zero-lower bound, a policy that is similar to the Bank of Japan’s current Yield Curve Control policy. This may not be announced this year, especially since the Fed probably believes that it has more time to mull over this sort of proposal. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Transcript: Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic Speaks with CNBC’s Steve Liesman on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Today,” CNBC, dated February 21, 2020. 2 Please see “CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Excerpts: St. Louis Fed President James Bullard Speaks with CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Today,” CNBC, dated February 21, 2020. 3 Please see “CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Transcript: Federal Reserve Vice Chair Richard Clarida Speaks with CNBC’s Steve Liesman,” CNBC, dated February 20, 2020. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Credit Cycle Is Far From Over,” dated February 18, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Credit Cycle Is Far From Over,” dated February 18, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Our rationale is explained in US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Fed In 2020,” dated December 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Fed In 2020,” dated December 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Governor Lael Brainard, “Federal Reserve Review of Monetary Policy Strategy, Tools, and Communications: Some Preliminary Views,” dated November 26, 2019, and “Monetary Policy Strategies and Tools When Inflation and Interest Rates Are Low,” dated February 21, 2020, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Duration: The coronavirus outbreak will cause our preferred global growth indicators to move lower during the next couple of months. Bond yields will also stay low until the daily number of new cases approaches zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. Monetary Policy: A preemptive rate cut designed to offset the economic impact of the coronavirus is unlikely. In fact, investors should short August 2020 fed funds futures and maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on the view that the Fed will keep the policy rate stable in 2020. TIPS: Our improved Adaptive Expectations Model suggests that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will rise by 19 bps during the next 12 months, bringing it up to 1.84%. Investors should remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in US bond portfolios. Recovery Delayed A little more than two months into the year and, despite elevated market volatility, a couple trends have become apparent. First, it is now clear that global economic growth bottomed near the end of last year. Second, any lift that bond yields might have received from that rebound has been more than offset by the spike in uncertainty surrounding the 2019 novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. Case in point, the US Economic Surprise Index recently jumped deep into positive territory, but the 10-year Treasury yield remains muted, below its level from three months ago (Chart 1). Chart 1Bond Yields Have De-Coupled From The Economic Data It’s not just the Surprise index that is signaling a growth upturn. Our three preferred global growth indicators – the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index – have all decisively bottomed (Chart 2). Chart 2Global Growth Indicators Hooking Up The Global PMI moved up to 50.4 in January, from a July low of 49.3. As of January, 45% of countries now have PMIs above 50 compared to 34% in August (Chart 2, top panel). The US ISM Manufacturing PMI shot higher in January, from 47.8 to 50.9. It is moving closer to the Services PMI, which remains very healthy at 55.5 (Chart 2, panel 2). The CRB Raw Industrials index is also now well off its 2019 low (Chart 2, bottom panel). The overall message from our three favorite indicators is that economic growth remains sluggish, but is clearly on an improving trend. A trend we would have expected to continue until the 2019-nCoV outbreak hit. Our Global Investment Strategy team estimates that the virus could trim 1.6% from global growth in the first quarter, cutting the IMF’s Q1 global GDP growth projection of 3.3% in half.1 The hit to growth will unwind once the virus’ spread is contained, but it is difficult to know how long that will take. In the meantime, we anticipate some weaker readings from our preferred global growth indicators during the next couple of months. The coronavirus could trim 1.6% from global GDP growth in the first quarter. However, it’s important to note that bond yields have already de-coupled from trends in the global growth data and are now taking their cues from news about 2019-nCoV. We noted in last week’s report that this also happened during the 2003 SARS crisis.2 Bond yields fell initially but then recovered sharply once the number of daily new SARS cases hit zero. If we map this experience to the present day, we see that the number of confirmed 2019-nCoV cases continues to rise, but the daily number of new cases has rolled over (Chart 3). Further, our China Investment Strategy team points out that it might be more market-relevant to focus on cases outside of Hubei province where the virus started, and which has now been quarantined.3 Already, we see that the daily number of new cases outside Hubei province is approaching zero (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3Tracking The Coronavirus Bottom Line: The coronavirus outbreak will cause our preferred global growth indicators to move lower during the next couple of months. Bond yields will also stay low until the daily number of new cases approaches zero, at which point a bond sell-off is likely. Will The Fed Respond? Chart 4Go Short August 2020 Fed Funds Futures Markets have already moved to price-in a Federal Reserve reaction to the 2019-nCoV outbreak. Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter is down to -43 bps, meaning that the overnight index swap curve is priced for 43 bps of rate cuts during the next year (Chart 4). Last Monday our Discounter hit -51 bps, meaning that the market was looking for slightly more than 2 rate cuts during the next year. Turning to the fed funds futures market, we also see that investors are pricing-in significant odds of a rate cut between now and the end of the summer (Chart 4, bottom 2 panels). Odds of a March rate cut are low, but the futures market is priced for a 30% chance of a rate cut between now and the end of the April FOMC meeting. Investors also see 52% chance of a rate cut between now and the end of the June FOMC meeting and 72% chance of a cut between now and the end of the July meeting. But will the Fed actually respond to the nCoV outbreak by easing policy? Other central banks have taken different approaches to that question during the past week. The Reserve Bank of Australia left its policy rate unchanged on Tuesday, noting that “it is too early to determine how long-lasting the impact [from the coronavirus] will be.” In contrast, the Bank of Thailand did cut rates last week while citing the nCoV outbreak as one of several reasons for the move. The market is priced for 72% chance of a rate cut between now and August. But perhaps the most interesting example is last week’s rate cut in the Philippines. There, the central bank cited “a firm outlook for the domestic economy”, but ultimately concluded that the “manageable inflation environment allowed room for a preemptive reduction in the policy rate.” Chart 5A High Bar For Rate Cuts If the Fed were to justify a rate cut in the coming months, it would have to use a similar logic as the Philippines. Something along the lines of: The domestic US economy is solid, but inflation is low enough that an additional rate cut carries little risk. A proactive rate cut could also help lean against any potential headwinds from the coronavirus. Our sense is that the Fed will not be eager to make that argument, and that things will have to get a lot worse before a rate cut is considered. The Fed was well aware that the US/China trade war could have negative economic effects in 2019, but it didn’t cut rates until after the S&P 500 dropped by 20% and the yield curve became deeply inverted (Chart 5). We would monitor those same two indicators to assess the odds of a rate cut this year. So far, neither suggests that a cut is forthcoming. Investors should consider shorting the August 2020 fed funds futures contract. If the economic fall-out from 2019-nCoV only lasts for a few months, then the Fed will stand pat through July and the August contract will earn an un-levered 18 bps between now and the end of August. Our Golden Rule of Bond Investing also dictates that below-benchmark portfolio duration positioning will profit if the Fed delivers less than the 43 bps of rate cuts that are currently priced for the next 12 months. Towards A Better Breakeven Model At BCA we track long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates very closely. Not only because TIPS are an interesting investment vehicle in their own right, but also because elevated long-maturity TIPS breakevens (above 2.3%) will be an important trigger for us to recommend a more defensive US bond portfolio – favoring Treasuries over spread product.4 For those reasons, it’s extremely important for us to have a framework for forecasting long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates. A little more than one year ago, we unveiled a framework for thinking about TIPS breakevens based on the concept of adaptive expectations.5 We also applied that framework to a fair value model for the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. We still think that the adaptive expectations framework is the best way to think about breakevens, but this week we present an improved application of that framework, i.e. a new model for forecasting the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. Adaptive Expectations The theory of adaptive expectations essentially says that today’s long-run inflation expectations are formed based on peoples’ recent experiences with inflation. For example, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 1.67%, well below the 2.3%-2.5% range that we view as consistent with the Fed’s target. We posit that today’s inflation expectations are depressed because realized inflation has been so low during the past decade (CPI inflation has averaged only 1.75% during the past 10 years). This experience makes it very difficult for investors to believe that inflation might be high (say, above 2%) during the next decade. Building A Better Model To apply the adaptive expectations theory to a specific model, we need to make a decision about which specific inflation measures to use. For this week’s report, we tested annualized rates of change of headline CPI ranging from 1 year to 10 years. We also looked at survey measures of long-run inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters and the University of Michigan. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 50 bps below 1-year headline CPI inflation. To test the different measures, we looked at the difference between the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate and each inflation measure. We then looked at how successfully each difference predicted changes in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate during the subsequent 12 months. We identified the following three measures as the best performers (Charts 6A & 6B): Chart 6A10-Year TIPS Breakeven Versus Fair Value Chart 6BDeviation From Fair Value The 1-year rate of change in headline CPI The 6-year rate of change in headline CPI Median 10-year inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters Table 1 shows the results of our test on 1-year headline CPI inflation. It shows that, historically, when the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has been more than 25 bps above the 1-year rate of change in headline CPI it has tended to fall during the next 12 months. At present, the 10-year breakeven is about 50 bps below the 1-year rate of change in headline CPI. Table 1Deviation Of 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate From 1-Year Rate Of Change In Headline CPI Table 2 shows the results of our test on 6-year headline CPI inflation. Here, we see that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate becomes much more likely to fall when it exceeds 6-year CPI inflation by more than 10 bps. The current deviation is +14 bps. Table 2Deviation Of 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate From 6-Year Annualized Rate Of Change In Headline CPI Finally, Table 3 shows the results of our test on median 10-year inflation expectations from the Survey of Professional Forecasters. In this case, the 10-year breakeven rate has rarely exceeded the survey measure historically. But we find evidence that the breakeven is much more likely to rise when it is more than 50 bps below the survey measure. Currently, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 56 bps below the survey measure. Table 3Deviation Of 10-Year TIPS Breakeven Inflation Rate From SPF* 10-Year Median Inflation Forecast Making A Prediction Chart 7Our New Adaptive Expectations Model The final step is to combine our three chosen factors into a model that will predict the future 12-month change in the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate. This model is presented in Chart 7, and it tells us that, based on the current deviation of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate from our three different inflation measures, the 10-year breakeven should rise by 19 bps during the next 12 months. This would bring the rate up to 1.84% (Chart 7, bottom panel). We will continue to experiment with different inflation measures in the coming weeks (i.e. core and trimmed mean measures) in an effort to improve our model further. Bottom Line: Our improved Adaptive Expectations Model suggests that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will rise by 19 bps during the next 12 months, bringing it up to 1.84%. Investors should remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries in US bond portfolios. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “From China To Iowa”, dated February 7, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Contagion”, dated February 4, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Recovery, Temporarily Interrupted”, dated February 5, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on why TIPS breakeven inflation rates are an important trigger for our spread product allocation please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification