Labor Market
ハイライト
政治的不確実性の重しがあるにもかかわらず、英国経済は比較的堅調に推移している。
しかし、英国が実際にE.U.を離脱する以前から、ブレグジットは高まった不確実性、企業設備投資の深刻な弱さ、低迷する生産性を通じて英国経済に持続的な影響を残している。
その結果、トレンド成長が低下し、構造的に弱い為替レートと相対的に高い国内インフレを抱える経済となっている。
ブレグジットは10月31日を超えて先送りされるだろう。合意なき離脱（ノー・ディール）は、ボリス・ジョンソンの手を強化する早期選挙が起きない限り、過度に強調されたリスクである。それは起こりそうにない。
英ポンドと英国債（ギルト）に対する投資見通しは二極的である：「円滑な」ブレグジットはポンドにとって強気、ギルトにとって弱気であり、一方で合意なき離脱はポンドとギルト利回りの双方をさらに低下させるだろう。
特集
2016年に英国が欧州連合（E.U.）からの離脱を決めて以来、経済と金融資産の見通しは、離脱が秩序ある形で行われるか否かという二者択一の帰着に結びついている。これは甚大な不確実性の源であり、イングランド銀行（BoE）を中央銀行がこれまで直面した中で最も扱いにくい立場の一つに置いている。
今週のレポートでは、いくつかのハイレベルな疑問に答えようとする。まず、世界的な製造業の景気後退を考慮すると、英経済の減速は平凡なものだったのか。それとも、政治的不確実性の高まりを受けて不当に長引いているのか。後者であるなら、もし「合意なき離脱」が避けられた場合、反発の見込みはどうか。最後に、遅延した投資のためにすでに取り返しのつかないダメージが経済に生じており、E.U.との関係結果にかかわらず長期的な影響を残しているのか、である。
雇用ブーム
英国は現在、第二次世界大戦以来の最良の雇用回復を経験している。過去10年間で420万人の新規雇用が創出され、就業人口比率はほぼ50年ぶりの高水準に達している。注目すべきは、この回復は労働市場の状況が非常に堅調な米国の回復よりもさらに印象的に見える点だ。例えば米国の就業率は60.9％で、わずかに英国を下回るが、危機前のピークから依然としてほぼ4ポイント低い（チャート 1）。ユーロ圏と比べると、英国の労働市場のアウトパフォーマンスは非常に明白である。
この回復にもかかわらず、賃金の上昇はボーア戦争以来で最も鈍い。
雇用の質も優れており、フルタイム雇用の創出はパートタイムを上回り、女性の就業率も急増している。雇用の恩恵は地域や産業に広く行き渡っている。確かに製造業はやや変動が見られるが、イースト・ミッドランド地域を除き、失業率は英国全体で引き続き低下している（チャート 2）。
チャート 1
雇用ブーム
雇用ブーム
雇用ブーム
チャート 2
回復は広範囲に及ぶ
回復は幅広く進んでいる
回復は幅広く進んでいる
この回復にもかかわらず、賃金の上昇はボーア戦争以来で最も鈍い。7月の演説で、イングランド銀行（BoE）のチーフエコノミスト、アンディ・ホールデンは、賃金の失われた10年が主要な英国地域全体にわたる均等な災害であったと正しく指摘した。1950年代から大不況（グレート・リセッション）までの間、英国の実質賃金は年率約2%で成長していた。グレート・リセッション以降、実質賃金は年率-0.4%で停滞している（チャート 3）。1
チャート 3
賃金は最近まで停滞
賃金は最近まで停滞していた
賃金は最近まで停滞していた
これにはいくつかの理由がある。第一に、個人事業主、ゼロアワー契約、派遣労働の伸びが強いことだ。したがって、危機後の期間にフルタイムの割合は上昇しているものの、危機前の高水準には程遠いままである。これは労働市場の流動性を高め、事業遂行コストを下げている。個人事業主やゼロアワー契約労働者の報酬は正規雇用者よりも大幅に低い。明るい点は、この現象が英国特有ではなく、特に欧州で労働市場の硬直性が構造改革によって解きほぐされている中で世界的に起きていることである。
今後の鍵となる問いは、賃金の新たな上昇が持続するかどうかである。循環的な時間軸では、雇用の好調なトレンドが続くなら、英国はかなり強い賃金圧力を経験し始める可能性があると我々は考えている。これには四つの基本的な理由がある:
求人は求職者数を上回り続けている。指標によるが、求人は応募者より20%〜40%多い（チャート 4）。この行き詰まりは、（就業率が世俗的高水準にあるため）より高い就業率やより低い失業率で容易に解消されるものではない。
BoEは英国のNAIRUを4.4%と推定しており、現在の失業率は構造的水準を下回っている。企業調査は依然として、熟練労働の不足が企業が直面する主要な問題の一つであることを示唆している。
英国のフィリップス曲線はここ数年フラット化してきたが、最近賃金成長は上向きに転じ始めている。他国と同様に、英国のフィリップス曲線は折れ線状で、失業ギャップが縮小するにつれて賃金成長の凸性が増す。
職から職への移動率、いわゆるジョブ・トゥ・ジョブ・フローの循環速度が上昇している。これは歴史的に賃金成長にとってプラスである（チャート 5）。これは2012年以降加速している退職率（クイッツ率）にも反映されている。
チャート 4
賃金圧力は高まるはず
賃金上昇圧力は強まる見込みだ
賃金上昇圧力は強まる見込みだ
チャート 5
英国の雇用循環速度は上昇
英国の雇用増加ペースが加速
英国の雇用増加ペースが加速
現時点では、タイトな労働市場から賃金上昇への伝達メカニズムは政治的不確実性によって阻害されており、これは長期的な雇用計画に短期的な影を落とし続けるだろう。例えば、英国が金融センターであるという議論にもかかわらず、銀行・保険業の雇用の減少は根強く続いている（チャート 6）。英国は特に外国為替市場で多くの金融業務を引き付け続けているが、ブレグジット国民投票が行われた2016年には取引量に明確な打撃があった（チャート 7）。一方で製造業は、景況感を再燃させて外国直接投資を呼び戻すまでに時間を要するだろう。
チャート 6
製造業と金融業の雇用における離脱
製造業および金融業の雇用における離職
製造業および金融業の雇用における離職
チャート 7
英国は重要な金融センターである
英国：循環的な減速か、それとも構造的な停滞か？
英国：循環的な減速か、それとも構造的な停滞か？
とはいえ、英国経済は主としてサービスによって牽引されているため、賃金には依然として上方向の圧力がかかることになる。サービス部門の賃金成長は堅調であり、製造業の不況が深刻化して他の部門に波及しない限り、賃金の下への抵抗力は限られており、上向きの方が自然な道筋である。
結論：政治的不確実性の重しがあるにもかかわらず、英国経済は比較的堅調に推移している。
支出の好循環
英国の所得パイは拡大し得るが、自信の欠如が支出を抑制している。チャート 8は英消費者信頼感が米国およびユーロ圏のトレンドから負の乖離を示していることを示す。ブレグジット不確実性の雲が晴れれば、支出が再加速することを示唆するいくつかの相殺要因が働いている。
タイトな労働市場から賃金上昇への伝達メカニズムは政治的不確実性によって阻害されており、これは短期的な影を落とし続ける。
英国の小売売上の大きなドライバーは観光客の到着であり、安いポンドは引き続き来訪者の流入を呼び込む可能性が高い（チャート 9）。
チャート 8
回復にとって鍵となるのは信頼感##br##である
いかなる回復においても、信頼が鍵となる
いかなる回復においても、信頼が鍵となる
チャート 9
安いポンドは外国人買い物客を促す##br##だろう
安いポンドは外国人の買い物を促す
安いポンドは外国人の買い物を促す
英国は多くの世界的な主要ブランドを擁しており、安い通貨から恩恵を受けるだろう。
家計のデレバレッジ（債務削減）プロセスはかなり進んでおり、借入や住宅ローン申請の回復は英住宅価格の下落を緩和している。これは英国の住宅ローン借入コストが利回りとともに急落している事実によって支えられている（チャート 10）。ただし、借入の増加は英国の家計債務対GDPが他の多くの先進経済より高いという事実によって相殺されるだろう。
チャート 10
低金利は住宅を支援するはず
低金利は住宅市場を後押しするはずだ
低金利は住宅市場を後押しするはずだ
チャート 11
コストプッシュ型インフレ
コスト・プッシュ・インフレーション
コスト・プッシュ・インフレーション
インフレ期待は通貨安の影響もあって急上昇している。注目すべきは、ポンドは購買力平価（PPP）ベースのファンダメンタルよりもはるかに大きく下落したことだ。これは輸入インフレを引き起こすだろう（チャート 11）。
結論: 英国経済にとって大きなリスクはスタグフレーションに陥ることだ。BoEの調査は、合意なき離脱の場合の生産に対する損失をGDPの約3%と見積もっているが、これは経済調整の大部分が為替レートを通じて発生する可能性があるため推定値である。合意なき離脱の経済的影響の推定レンジ（表 1）は、おそらく偶然ではないが、20世紀の英国の景気後退のレンジと類似している（チャート 12）。これによりBoEは特に不快な「待機観察」モードに置かれている。例えば、ハードな離脱がポンド下落とインフレ期待の上昇を引き起こした場合、BoEの金融政策委員会がインフレ目標を満たすために利下げを行うのかは明らかでない。
表 1
合意なき離脱の影響に関する幅広い推定##br##
英国：景気の循環的減速か、それとも構造的低迷か？
英国：景気の循環的減速か、それとも構造的低迷か？
チャート 12
過去の英国の景気後退は合意なき影響の指針を提供する##br##
英国：循環的な減速か、それとも構造的な停滞か？
英国：循環的な減速か、それとも構造的な停滞か？
ブレグジット不確実性は既に英国の成長に持続的なダメージを与えている
過去3年間にわたる英国経済成長の主な足かせは、企業信頼感の崩壊とそれに伴う設備投資の縮小であった（チャート 13）。
2016年のブレグジット投票以降、企業の設備投資は過去の類似の英国景気循環の時点に比べて実質的に弱くなっており、BoEによれば累積で26%に達する（チャート 14）。2019年に見られた軟化の一部は、世界経済の成長鈍化や米中貿易戦争に関連する不確実性にも起因するが、英国の資本支出は他の先進経済と比べてはるかに弱い（チャート 15）。
2016年のブレグジット投票以降、企業投資は過去の類似時点に比べて累積で26%弱い。
これは、ブレグジットの「不確実性」だけで英国経済に既に与えられた長期的なダメージを評価する際に重要なポイントである。このダメージを評価する最良の方法は設備投資の視点を通じてであり、その成長は生産性変化と潜在成長に強く相関している（チャート 16）。
チャート 13
悲観的な英国企業は投資を止めた
悲観的な英国企業は投資を停止した
悲観的な英国企業は投資を停止した
チャート 14
歴史と比べた英国の設備投資の大幅なアンダーパフォーマンス ...
英国：景気循環的な減速か、それとも構造的な低迷か？
英国：景気循環的な減速か、それとも構造的な低迷か？
チャート 15
...および##br##世界の同業他社と比べて
...そして世界の同業他社と比較して
...そして世界の同業他社と比較して
チャート 16
ブレグジット不確実性による英国経済への持続的打撃
ブレグジットの不確実性が英国経済に与える持続的な打撃
ブレグジットの不確実性が英国経済に与える持続的な打撃
先月BoEが公表した重要な研究論文（BoE金融政策委員会の現職メンバーであるベン・ブロードベントとシルヴァナ・テネイロ共著）は、ブレグジット不確実性、設備投資、英国の生産性の連関を論じている。2 著者らは、ブレグジット国民投票の結果の経済効果は、英国の貿易可能部門の生産性成長が持続的に低下すると予想されるという反応として分類できると結論づけた。その枠組みでは、「生産性の低下が予想される」という“ニュース”（すなわちブレグジット投票結果）が公表された後、次のような連鎖が発生することになる：
チャート 17
資源のミスアロケーション
資源の誤配分
資源の誤配分
非貿易財の相対価格が貿易財に対して即時かつ恒久的に下落する、すなわち実質為替レートの低下。
相対価格が高いため資源が貿易財部門にシフトし、産出が増加し輸出が上昇する。
しかしブレグジット投票で予告されたように、貿易財部門の生産性成長が低下し、資源は生産性の高い非貿易財部門へ再びシフトする。
金融市場が英国の生産性が相対的に緩やかに推移すると織り込むため、英国の金利は世界に対して低下する。
企業の設備投資の成長は鈍化するが、全体の雇用成長は
耐性を保つ。
これはまさに2016年のブレグジット投票以降の英国経済の進展の仕方である：
BoEのポンドの通商加重インデックスは名目および実質の両面で下落している。
英実質GDPに占める輸出比率は27%から30%に上昇し、実質GDPに占める投資比率は10%から9%に低下した（チャート 17、上段）。
非貿易であるサービスの年次雇用成長は2.1%から2018年末にゼロまで低下したが、その後回復し始めている。貿易財である製造業の雇用成長は、ブレグジット投票の1年以内に0.5%から2.7%へ増加したが、2018年には0%へ再び鈍化し、こちらも上昇し始めている（チャート 17、第3パネル）。
生産性成長は1.9%からゼロへ低下しており、低失業率の時期に安定した労働需要により賃金成長は加速している（チャート 17、下段）。
産業別に見ると、実現した生産性成長の最悪の伸びは金属製品や金融サービスのような貿易可能産業で発生しており、最高の生産性成長は専門サービスや小売のような非貿易産業で見られる（チャート 18）。3
チャート 18
業種別最新の英国生産性成長率
英国：循環的な減速か、それとも構造的な低迷か？
英国：循環的な減速か、それとも構造的な低迷か？
総括すると、BoEの研究論文の分析枠組みによれば、ブレグジット国民投票の結果は、ポンドの暴落によって示されたシグナルとして、英国資源の配分が生産性の高い非貿易産業から生産性の低い貿易産業へ誤って移転されることを本質的に生み出したと解釈できる。もしこれが正しければ、我々は次の現象も観察するはずである：
チャート 19
ブレグジット不確実性のインフレ的結果
ブレグジットの不確実性によるインフレへの影響
ブレグジットの不確実性によるインフレへの影響
サービスや賃金のようなより国内志向の指標でのはるかに高いインフレ率。
賃金の加速と生産性の停滞のギャップの結果としての単位労働費用のより速い上昇。
構造的に高いインフレ期待。
他の先進国に比べて英国で低い実質金利。
為替レートの長期的な弱さ。
これらはすべて英国で現実化している（チャート 19）：
サービスCPIのインフレ率は現在2.2%で、全体のCPIインフレの1.7%を上回っている。
単位労働費用の成長は、ブレグジット国民投票前のマイナスから、2016年末以降は2%〜3%の範囲に加速している。
実質10年ギルト利回り（10年のCPIスワップ率でデフレート）は現在-3.1%であり、これに対して米国の10年実質利回りは0%である。
通商加重の英ポンドはブレグジット国民投票後の安値近辺に留まっている。
ブレグジット不確実性が構造的により弱く、よりインフレ的な英国経済をもたらしたことは明らかであり、合意なき離脱が回避されたとしても迅速に逆転する結果ではない可能性がある。これはBoEの将来の金融政策決定とポンドおよび英ギルトへの投資見通しに重要な意味を持つ。
結論: 英国が実際にE.U.を離脱する前であっても、ブレグジットは高まった不確実性、企業設備投資支出の深刻な弱さ、そして低迷する生産性を通じて英国経済に持続的な痕跡を残している。結果として、トレンド成長が低く、構造的に弱い為替レートと相対的に高い国内インフレを抱える経済となっている。
政治的不確実性が支配的
チャート 20
国民は合意なき離脱に反対
英国：循環的な減速か、それとも構造的な低迷か？
英国：循環的な減速か、それとも構造的な低迷か？
このレポートで扱ったような循環的・構造的な英国経済の状況を考慮しても、短期の見通しは依然としてブレグジットの結果に完全に依存している。
ブレグジットの現状は、議会停止に対する政府に対する最高裁の訴訟や、首相ボリス・ジョンソンが議会の命令に従って離脱期限の延長を求めることを拒否したことにより、かつてないほど不確実になっている。疑いの余地がないのは、議会が無秩序な合意なき離脱に反対しているという点だ。最良の世論調査は国民も合意なき離脱に反対していることを示している（チャート 20）。
議員たちは9月にボリス・ジョンソンの交渉戦略を明確に拒否した — 彼らは合意なき離脱を禁止し、早期総選挙の実施にも2回にわたり反対票を投じた（チャート 21）。ジョンソンは連立による議会の過半数を失い、それでも議会が再開するまでは新たな選挙に踏み切れず、動きが取れない状況に置かれている。
結果にかかわらず起こりそうなのは、財政支出の大幅な増加である、
英国は17世紀のスチュアート王朝ではない — 議会は憲法上の最高の政治機関であり、その決定は永続的に無視されたり従わなかったりすることはできない。議会が再開すれば、おそらく10月14日頃、離脱期限を延長する手立てを講じることが可能だ。E.U.は離脱を遅らせるか取りやめることが自らの利益になるため、延長を認める可能性が高い。結果として総選挙が行われるだろう。
チャート 21
ボリス・ジョンソンの交渉戦略は失敗した
英国：循環的な減速か、それとも構造的な停滞か？
英国：循環的な減速か、それとも構造的な停滞か？
チャート 22
ハング・パーラメントが最もあり得る結果
ハング・パーラメントが最も可能性の高い結果だ
ハング・パーラメントが最も可能性の高い結果だ
選挙の世論調査は保守党の躍進、自由民主党が労働党を上回る状況、そしてブレグジット党が優勢を保つことを示している（チャート 22）。これらの世論を議席に翻訳するのは簡単ではない。小選挙区制（先頭打者勝利方式）では、小規模政党がもっとも人気のある党から重要な票を奪うことで、2位や3位だった党が議席を取る可能性があるからだ。
重要なのは、ブレグジット党は単一課題政党であり、ジョンソンの下の保守党は現在同じ課題を独占しているということだ。この状況が続けば、自由民主党は労働党の票を分裂させる脅威を保守党の票を分裂させるブレグジット党より大きく与える可能性がある。その結果、保守党が過半数を獲得することは依然として可能性として残るが、325議席以上が必要であり、問題児議員の追放やスコットランドでのリーダーシップ喪失により議席は288に減少しているため、可能性は低い。ハング・パーラメントがよりあり得る結果である。
ハング・パーラメントは優柔不断と不確実性を長引かせるだろう — しかしまた合意なき離脱に対しては結束して反対する可能性も高い。野党連合政権であれば合意なき離脱を阻止するだろう。単一党の保守党過半数であっても必ずしも悲惨な結果ではない。なぜならそれはジョンソンのE.U.に対する交渉力を高め、E.U.が離脱協定を通すための譲歩をする可能性を高め、結果として合意に基づく秩序ある離脱をもたらす可能性があるからだ（具体的には、バックストップの北アイルランドに関する制限、あるいは同様のサンセット条項や離脱メカニズム）。そのような合意はジョンソンにとって利益が大きく、彼が政権に復帰した瞬間から不況を引き起こすことを避けたいだろう。これらの結果はいずれも、離脱合意か、あるいは議会が新たな国民投票を模索する新章へと向かうことを示唆している。
チャート 23
財政支出の増加を予想せよ
財政支出の増加が見込まれる
財政支出の増加が見込まれる
市場にとって最悪の結果は、アイルランド問題で合意できず離脱協定を通せない弱い保守党の連立過半数であり、これはテリーザ・メイ時代と同様に麻痺につながる可能性がある。その場合、首相はあらゆる手段で離脱を実行しようとするため、再び合意なき離脱が現実的なリスクとなる。我々は主観的に合意なき離脱のリスクを約30%と見積もっているが、これは9月に議会がその結果に対して強い反対多数を示したことにより現在は低下しており、変化をもたらすのは総選挙だけである。
ブレグジットの結末が分からないまま英国の将来の政治情勢を予測することは無益である。結果にかかわらず起こりそうなのは財政支出の大幅な増加であり、これはグレート・リセッション後の「緊縮財政」からの反転を意味する。この傾向は既にジョンソンが今秋の保守党党大会で寛大な社会支出パッケージを提示しようとしていることから明らかである — もしそれが新たな選挙で支持されれば、保守党の財政政策の転換を意味する（チャート 23）。
より多くの財政支出は、無秩序な離脱の悪影響に対抗するため、あるいはE.U.離脱が英国の問題の万能薬ではないことが明らかになった場合に中産階級を宥めるため、あるいは政権交代時に野党が掲げる議題を実行するために必要となるだろう。
合意なき離脱が発生した場合、英国は混乱した経済的余波に直面するだけでなく、北アイルランドへの悪影響やスコットランド独立運動の再燃の可能性により三王国間の憲法的争いが再燃するだろうし、スコットランド独立の動きも再び活発化する可能性がある。
結論: 英国は独裁国ではなく、首相は議会の意思に従うことを拒むことはできない。議会は合意なき離脱を遅延させることを明確に投票しており、今後もそうするだろう。無秩序な離脱は、最終的に選挙で保守党が政権に返り咲く可能性があるため依然リスクとして残る。しかしその場合、E.U.は議会が離脱法案を可決できるよう譲歩を提供する可能性が高い。合意なき離脱の確率は30%を超えない。構造的な結論としては、結果にかかわらず財政支出は増加するだろう。
投資に関する結論
1992年のポンド暴落をめぐるエピソードは今日にとって重要な教訓を含んでいる。4 重要なのは、ポンドの調整の多くは急速に起きたが、今日と異なる点は欧州為替相場メカニズム（ERM）からの離脱は予期せぬ出来事だったのに対し、ブレグジットは予見されていたことである。外国為替市場は非常に流動的であり、期待に素早く反応する。ピークから谷まで、ケーブルは既に約30%下落しており、下落の大部分は既に起きていることを示唆している。
チャート 24
ギルトに対するブレグジットの二極的帰結
ギルツにとってのブレグジットの二者択一的結果
ギルツにとってのブレグジットの二者択一的結果
英通貨は変動相場制であり、固定相場制の時期に比べて「隠れた罪」は少ない。それでもポンドの公正価値は構造的に弱まっている。我々のバイアスは、ハードなブレグジットであればポンドは容易に1.10〜1.15ゾーンまで下落し得るというものだ。この動きの一部はアンダーシュート（行き過ぎ）となるだろう。ソフトなブレグジット（または離脱が起きない場合）には、ポンドは実質実効為替レートの歴史的範囲の中点に収束し、15%〜20%高となるか、概ね1.50付近に落ち着くだろう。リスク・リワードの観点から見ると魅力的に映る。
英ギルトの利回りの方向性もブレグジットの帰結に依存しており、英OISカーブ（オーバーナイト・インデックス・スワップ）には政策金利の変化が織り込まれていない（チャート 24）。
「円滑な」ブレグジットはBoEが高まった英国のインフレ期待と戦うことに再び焦点を戻すことを可能にするだろう。それは将来のBoE利上げを市場が織り込むことで、ギルト利回りの上昇とイールドカーブのフラット化、そして長期のインフレ期待の低下をもたらす可能性が高い。ポンド上昇もインフレ期待を抑えるだろう。このシナリオではギルトや英国のインフレ連動債は良いパフォーマンスを示さないだろう。
一方、合意なき離脱は、企業と消費者の信頼感への打撃を相殺するためにBoEが利下げを行うことを促すだろう。これはポンド安にもかかわらずインフレ期待が高止まりするかさらに上昇する場合でも起こり得る。そうなればギルト利回りは低下し、ギルトカーブはスティープ化するだろう。この結果に備える最善のポジションは、ギルトのオーバーウェイトとインフレ連動債のロングである。
前述した財政緩和のシナリオもギルトカーブの形状に影響し、ギルトカーブはより大きな財政赤字と将来の高インフレを織り込むことでややベア寄りのスティープ化を示すだろう、他条件が同じならば。
Robert Robis, CFA チーフ・フィクスト・インカム・ストラテジスト rrobis@bcaresearch.com
Chester Ntonifor, 外国為替ストラテジスト chestern@bcaresearch.com
Matt Gertken, 地政学ストラテジスト mattg@bcaresearch.com
Ray Park, CFA, リサーチ・アナリスト ray@bcaresearch.com
脚注
1 Andrew G Haldane, “Climbing the Jobs Ladder,” イングランド銀行（Bank of England）, 2019年7月23日
2 Bank of England External MPC Unit Discussion Paper No. 51, “The Brexit vote, productivity growth and macroeconomic adjustments in the United Kingdom”, 2019年8月
3 ロンドンが主要な世界的金融センターとしての役割を果たしているため、英国の金融サービス産業はその産出のかなりの割合が非英国ユーザー向けに「トレード」されるという点で「貿易可能」部門である。
4 Mathias Zurlinden, “The Vulnerability of Pegged Exchange Rates: The British Pound in the ERM,” Economic Research, Vol. 75, No. 5 (September/October 1993).
トレード＆予測
予測サマリー
コア・ポートフォリオ
タクティカル・トレード
リミット注文
クローズ済みトレード
If expanding payrolls and increasing compensation can keep consumption growing at 2%, the probability of a U.S. recession, of an equity bear market and a new default cycle, is fairly slim. The second quarter monthly employment situation reports have…
Following up from last week’s ISM-related analysis, we turn our attention to the labor market that is beginning to reveal some minor cracks. While the ISM debate has centered around the steep divergences between services and manufacturing on the headline number and the new orders subcomponents, the labor components have gone nearly unnoticed. Worrisomely on the employment front, the surveys are in agreement (bottom panel), warning that the labor market will have trouble standing on its own two feet. Tack on the latest NFIB survey, and the news gets grimmer. The top panel shows that an equally-weighted index of small business job openings and hiring plans is quickly losing momentum. Given that roughly 2/3 of job creation originates in small and medium businesses, non-farm payroll growth will likely continue to lose steam in the coming months, which is a bearish sign for the broad equity market (second & third panels). Bottom Line: Remain cautious on the prospects of the overall equity market. Please see the most recent Weekly Report for more details.
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Small cracks are forming in the labor market according to the ISM manufacturing, ISM services and NFIB surveys, and if the Fed goes ahead and cuts interest rates in half in the coming year as the bond market currently forecasts, then a recession would be a foregone conclusion. Stay cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market. The budding recovery in the 10-year UST yield, a rising Citi Economic Surprise Index (CESI) into positive territory, improving profit prospects and alluring valuations suggest that the recent financials sector outperformance has more legs. Healthy credit growth, still pristine credit quality and early signs of a recovery in the price of credit all signal that an overweight stance is warranted in the S&P banks index. Recent Changes Last Wednesday we removed the S&P software index from the high-conviction overweight list for a 10% gain. Last Wednesday we removed the large cap size bias from the high-conviction list for a 9% gain. Table 1 Feature The SPX built on recent gains last week, but failed to surpass the July highs. Beneath the surface, some big sector shifts are taking place, but it is still early to declare a definitive change in trend. Dormant value stocks have awaken and are riding a high at the expense of growth and momentum names, on the back of a selloff in the bond market (Chart 1). Similarly, small cap stocks have a pulse, and started to outshine large caps. Even in a red SPX day, small cap indexes managed to close in the black (Chart 1). As a reminder with regard to our portfolio, last Wednesday we obeyed our S&P software stop and removed it from the high-conviction call list for a 10% gain, and simultaneously booked gains in the tactical large cap bias and removed it from the high-conviction call list (Chart 1). In both cases our shorter-term confidence was taken down a notch, and we intend to obey our cyclical trailing stops in both positions in order to protect gains for our portfolio (for additional details please refer to the Daily Sector Insights available here and here). Following up from last week’s ISM-related analysis, we turn our attention to the labor market that is beginning to reveal some minor cracks. While the ISM debate has centered around the steep divergences between services and manufacturing on the headline number and the new orders subcomponents, the labor components have gone nearly unnoticed. Chart 1Healthy Rotation Worrisomely on the employment front, the surveys are in agreement (second panel, Chart 2), warning that the labor market will have trouble standing on its own two feet. This is a bearish backdrop for the broad equity market (third panel, Chart 2). Tack on the latest NFIB survey, and the news gets grimmer. Chart 3 shows that an equally-weighted index of small business job openings and hiring plans is quickly losing momentum. Given that roughly 2/3 of job creation originates in small and medium businesses, non-farm payroll growth will likely continue to lose steam in the coming months (Chart 3). Chart 2Labor Market… Chart 3…Yellow Flags This week, we update an early cyclical sector and one of its key subcomponents. Finally, the still sinking stock-to-bond ratio corroborates the ISM and NFIB surveys’ messages. Crudely put, the longer that bonds outperform stocks, the higher the chances that employment will suffer a severe setback (Chart 4). Chart 4Last Man Standing Granted, the labor market is a lagging indicator and typically one of the last, if not the last, shoes to drop on the eve of recession. With regard to recession, a simple thought experiment is in order. If we assume the bond market’s forecast for another 100bps of fed funds rate (FFR) cuts in the coming year as accurate, then the FFR will fall to 1.25%. This Fed policy easing will represent a 44% fall in the FFR on a year-over-year basis. Since the late 1960s recession there have not been any mid-cycle slowdowns that the Fed has engineered by clipping the FFR in half (Chart 5). Put differently, when the Fed is compelled to cut interest rates so deeply in every iteration we examined a recession followed suit. Chart 5When The Fed Funds Rate Gets Halved, Recession Is The Reason In sum, small cracks are forming in the labor market according to the ISM manufacturing, ISM services and NFIB surveys and if the Fed goes ahead and cuts interest rates in half in the coming year, as the bond market currently forecasts, then a recession would be a foregone conclusion. Stay cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market. This week, we update an early cyclical sector and one of its key subcomponents. Stick With Financials… The 45bps rise in the 10-year U.S. Treasury (UST) yield over the past two weeks has breathed life back into the S&P financials sector, and for the time being we are sticking with an overweight recommendation. While it remains to be seen how sustainable the rise in yields will be, BCA's long-held view remains that the 10-year UST yield will sell off on a cyclical 9-12 time month horizon. If this is the case then financials stocks will lead the nascent sector rotation that commenced in late-August and outperform the SPX in the coming months (top panel, Chart 6). Foreign flows had put a solid bid under U.S. bonds and artificially suppressed yields and this is at the margin reversing. In addition, the market was hoping for a 50bps rate cut from the Fed in the September meeting further weighing on the UST yield, but now the odds of that happening are nil. Finally, the Citi Economic Surprise Index (CESI) has also come out of hibernation and spiked in positive territory, evidence that economic data estimates had hit rock bottom. This slingshot recovery in the CESI is tonic for financials stocks (bottom panel, Chart 6). On the earnings front, our profit growth model has kissed off the zero line. While financials sector EPS cannot grow indefinitely at a 30%/annum clip, the turn in our three-factor macro model is a positive development (second panel, Chart 7). Chart 6Moving In Lockstep With Rates Chart 7Unwarranted Extreme Bearishness Importantly, it stands in marked contrast to the sell side community. Analysts have been feverishly cutting EPS estimates for the sector, and now net earnings revisions have sunk to a level last hit during the great recession (middle panel, Chart 7). Similarly, relative 12-month and five-year forward profit growth forecasts are overly pessimistic. The upshot is that this lowered profit bar will be easy to surpass. With regard to shareholder friendly activities, while the overall share buyback frenzy has taken a breather, financials sector equity retirement is alive and kicking and on track to register the largest annual buyback since the short history of the data (second panel, Chart 8). If there is any sector with pent up buyback demand it is the financials sector that has been a net equity issuer until very recently still wrestling with equity dilution in the aftermath of the GFC. Adding it all up, the budding recovery in the 10-year UST yield, a rising CESI into positive territory, improving profit prospects and alluring valuations suggest that the recent financials sector outperformance has more legs. Dividend growth has been steady and in expansionary territory and the dividend payout ratio is far from waving any yellow flags. Moreover, financials yield 2.07% or 25bps higher than the 10-year UST yield and 17bps higher than the SPX, which is attractive for yield seeking investors (Chart 8). Moving on to relative valuations beyond the enticing relative dividend yield, relative price-to-book, relative forward P/E and our bombed out composite relative valuation indicator that collapsed to all-time lows suggest that financials are a screaming buy. Technicals remain oversold and also suggest that an overweight stance is warranted (Chart 9). Chart 8Pent-Up Demand For Shareholder Friendly Activities Chart 9Undervalued And Unloved Adding it all up, the budding recovery in the 10-year UST yield, a rising CESI into positive territory, improving profit prospects and alluring valuations suggest that the recent financials sector outperformance has more legs. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P financials sector, that is compellingly valued, under-owned, and with promising profit prospects. … And Banks For A While Longer Banks stocks troughed in mid-August, sniffing out a sell-off in the bond market, and we continue to recommend an above benchmark allocation in the S&P banks index. This is a global phenomenon as even the ultimate global value group, Eurozone bank equities, bottomed out on August 15 alongside their U.S. peers. While the broad financials index is levered to interest rate movements, banks – that comprise roughly 42% of the S&P financials sector – are hyper-sensitive to changes in the risk-free asset. Thus, the recent jack up in interest rates represents a profit-augmenting opportunity for this early cyclical subgroup (Chart 10) Beyond the rising price of credit, credit growth is another key industry profit driver. Our bank loan models have crested, but are still expanding at a healthy clip (second and bottom panels, Chart 11). As long as they manage to remain above the zero line, they will prove a boon to bank earnings. Specifically on the consumer front, sky high consumer confidence coupled with rising wage inflation signal that consumer credit growth prospects remain upbeat (Chart 11). Chart 10Rising Rates=Buy Banks Importantly, the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey painted a bright picture on both the demand and supply of credit. In more detail, bankers reported that a rising number of credit categories reversed course and demand for loans slingshot higher, likely as a delayed consequence of the dramatic fall in interest rates since last November (bottom panel, Chart 12). Chart 11Loan Growth… Chart 12…Prospects Are Firming Encouragingly, bank officers also reported that they were willing extenders of credit. Our in-house calculated overall gauge of loan tightening standards fell compared with last quarter, signaling that at the margin it is easier to get a loan (middle panel, Chart 12). Netting it all out, early signs of a recovery in the price of credit, healthy credit growth and still pristine credit quality signal that an overweight stance is warranted in the S&P banks index. Finally, credit quality, the third key bank profit driver, is also emitting a positive signal. While a few loan categories have deteriorated recently in absolute terms, as percentage of loans outstanding, credit quality remains pristine (Chart 13). The upshot is that this credit quality backdrop combined with a jump in bank return-on-equity to low double digits, should serve as catalysts to unlock excellent value (third & bottom panel, Chart 13). Nevertheless, there are two risks worth close monitoring. First, parts of the yield curve inverted last December and more recently the 10/2 yield curve slope inverted warning that the path of least resistance is lower for bank net interest margins (NIMs, middle panel, Chart 14). Chart 13Pristine Credit Quality Is A Catalyst To Unlock Excellent Value Chart 14Two Risks To monitor Second, the ISM manufacturing survey fell below the boom/bust line in August for the first time since the late-2015/early-2016 manufacturing recession (bottom panel, Chart 14). Given that C&I loans are the largest loan category on the asset side of bank balance sheets, the current manufacturing recession may hurt bank profitability in two distinct ways. Not only C&I credit quality will worsen as the risk of defaults rises, but also C&I loan growth may take the back seat and weigh on bank profit growth prospects. Netting it all out, early signs of a recovery in the price of credit, healthy credit growth and still pristine credit quality signal that an overweight stance is warranted in the S&P banks index. Bottom Line: Continue to overweight the S&P banks index, but keep it on the downgrade watch list, acknowledging the yield curve-related potential decline in NIMs and manufacturing recession-related C&I loan growth risks. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX – WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT, SIVB, FRC. Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)
Highlights The ECB loaded a bazooka, and core Eurozone yields rose: The ECB surprised dovishly last Thursday, and European bond yields duly fell … for an hour. Then they began to back up as fast as they fell, and when Friday’s trading ended, only Greek and Italian yields were lower than where they started. The market action supports our contention that things are not so bad, assuming the worst-case trade scenarios do not materialize: Underpinned by a robust labor market, the U.S. should have little trouble growing at a trend pace over the next twelve months. Meanwhile, the global economy may be in the process of turning. Reversals within the U.S. equity market have gotten a lot of attention so far this month, but it’s too early to claim that a broad factor inflection is underway: If global growth prospects have bottomed, defensive sectors’ outperformance is due to reverse, which will cause havoc for momentum strategies. It is premature to call for a value revival, however. Feature Maybe long Treasury yields aren’t going to zero after all. After bottoming just below 1.43% the day after Labor Day, the 10-year Treasury yield surged 45 basis points across eight sessions as of Friday’s lunchtime peak (Chart 1). The move has been enough to retrace better than three-fifths of its steep slide from mid-July to the beginning of September, but relative to the extended plunge from 3.24% that began last November, the bounce barely registers. Chart 1Up, Up And Away Chart 2Pulled Lower By Expected Rate Cuts... The takeaway is that it’s important to keep the moves in context. Just as the collapse in Treasury yields didn’t indicate that the U.S. economy was headed for an imminent recession, their modest, if rapid, recovery doesn’t indicate that all the dark clouds are gone from the horizon. From a purely domestic perspective, the 180-basis-point (“bps”) peak-to-trough decline in the 10-year Treasury yield unfolded nearly step-for-step with an equivalent decline in the expected fed funds rate twelve months out (Chart 2). Since a 1.25% target fed funds rate this time next year is incompatible with our view of the economy, we expect rates will move higher. The ECB committed itself to accommodation for longer than markets had expected; … Chart 3...And Other Sovereign Yields Chart 4Better Times Ahead? The Treasury market doesn’t exist in a vacuum, however. Yield moves in similarly-rated sovereign bonds have an effect on Treasuries, and declines in European sovereign yields have exerted a gravitational pull all year long (Chart 3). The backup in yields that followed the ECB’s dovish surprise on Thursday suggests that Eurozone sovereign bond markets may have bought the rumor and sold the news. If global growth is in the process of bottoming, as global leading indicators suggest, falling yields would run counter to the fundamental backdrop (Chart 4). You May Fire When Ready, Draghi To judge by the spate of columns urging helicopter-style accommodation measures, the expectations bar for the European Central Bank’s long-awaited September meeting had been set pretty high. The cut in the ECB’s deposit facility rate to -0.5% from -0.4%, with provisions to mitigate the pressure negative rates exert on banks, was in line with the market consensus, as was a resumption of quantitative easing. Investors did not foresee that the ECB would embark on open-ended bond purchases, however, a plan quickly labeled “QE Infinity.” The ECB also dumped its no-hikes-before-mid-2020 guidance – now it won’t move until the inflation outlook “robustly” moves toward its 2% target – and lengthened the maturities on TLTRO loans while lowering their rates.1 The surprise indicated that the ECB is taking the slowdown seriously, at home (most evident in Germany, which is flirting with recession after a quarter-over-quarter GDP contraction) and abroad. It is premature to declare the action a flop, as headline writers were quick to do, citing the evanescent decline in core bond yields and the euro, because QE impacts are subject to several factors. Sovereign yields can rise on QE announcements if markets judge the impact of relaxed inflation vigilance will outweigh the impact of the entry of a new, price-insensitive buyer to the marketplace. As long as real yields fall, the central bank will have achieved its goal. … if it develops that the incremental accommodation wasn’t necessary, equities and spread product should reap the benefits. U.S. investors are mostly concerned with the impact on global markets and the global economy. Even if nominal sovereign yields have bottomed and competitive devaluation has neutered the currency channel, incremental easing should boost risk assets’ prospects, via pushing incumbent sovereign holders into spread product (the portfolio balance effect), promoting business and consumer confidence, incentivizing bank lending, and nudging other central banks (like Denmark’s, which immediately cut its policy rate in response) to ease monetary conditions themselves (Figure 1). On those counts, we view the ECB’s surprise as modestly improving the prospects for risk assets. TINA is alive and well. Figure 1Monetary Policy And The Economy The Employment Situation We have repeatedly cited the robustness of the labor market as a reason for not giving up on the U.S. economy, or equities and spread product. If expanding payrolls and increasing compensation can keep consumption growing at just a 2% clip, the probability of a U.S. recession, and of an equity bear market and a new default cycle, is fairly slim. If the labor market isn’t as strong as we’ve judged, more defensive portfolio positioning may be in order. Since the beginning of the second quarter, the monthly employment situation reports have revealed a slowing in hiring activity, halting the quickening that stretched from last year through the end of the first quarter (Chart 5). The slowing trend is less concerning than it might appear to be on its face. The current expansion, 122 months old and counting, is the longest on record, and now that it has already drawn considerable numbers of people back into the labor force and back to work, it has become increasingly difficult to find and attract new workers. Even the current monthly pace of job gains, 156,000 over the last three months, still puts downward pressure on the unemployment rate, as it takes less than 110,000 new jobs to maintain the status quo. With net job gains outpacing new entrants into the labor force, wages should rise. Average hourly earnings rose 3.2% in August on a year-over-year basis, though the 0.4% month-over-month gain suggests they may be about to challenge the top end of the tight 3.1-3.2% range that’s prevailed all year. Investors’ and economists’ patience with the Phillips Curve is increasingly wearing thin, as they wait for the decline in the unemployment rate to show up in wage gains, but we consider the underlying supply-demand relationship to be immutable. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio hit an 11-year high in August, and is solidly back in the middle of the range that has prevailed over the 30 years that female participation gains have stabilized (Chart 6). Chart 5Slower Payroll Gains... Chart 6...Will Still Tighten The Labor Market Chart 7The Unkinked Phillips Curve The prime-age employment-to-population ratio is an important measure for the Phillips Curve because it exhibits a consistent linear relationship with wage gains. The fit between the non-employment-to-population ratio (1 minus the employment-to-population ratio) and the employment cost index (Chart 7, top panel) is a little tighter than the fit with average hourly earnings (Chart 7, bottom panel), but both regression equations project an annual increase in wages of 3.3% at the current 20% (1-80%) level, and a 7-bps gain for every 20-bps decline in the prime-age non-employment-to-population ratio. Given that our payrolls model projects a pickup in the pace of hiring (Chart 8, top panel), and the quits rate just moved off of its extended plateau (Chart 9), upward pressure on wages will continue to build. Chart 8Demand For Workers Is Still Solid Chart 9Movin' On Up Bottom Line: Payroll gains are slowing, but they remain robust enough to push the key prime-age employment-to-population ratio higher, and exert upward pressure on wages. Factor Rotation Chart 10Momentum Hits The Wall,... Reversals within the U.S. equity market have been drawing increasing amounts of attention, as momentum stocks have hit a wall while long-suffering value stocks have begun to peel themselves off the canvas (Chart 10). We can easily see a scenario in which the momentum factor has a very difficult time, if relative performance shifts from defensive sectors to cyclical sectors as investors begin to perceive that they have been overly pessimistic about the domestic and global business cycle, and cease to hide in bond proxies like Utilities and REITs. Given the defensives’ run of outperformance over the last year, momentum indexes disproportionately favor them over cyclicals. The S&P 500, MidCap 400 and SmallCap 600 Momentum Indexes all show a pronounced defensives bias, with Health Care, Utilities and Real Estate all commanding double their baseline weight in at least one index (Table 1), making S&P’s momentum indexes vulnerable to a defensives-to-cyclicals rotation. Table 1The Dullest Stocks Have Been The Hottest Over the last three years, we have thought a lot about the value factor, asking how it should be defined, which financial statement metrics indicate its presence, and the business and monetary policy cycle backdrops that are most conducive to its outperformance. Low-priced stocks have been in a punishing extended slump versus high-priced stocks since early 2007 (Chart 11), and we think they have yet to bottom. The recent value stock rally has been a function of higher 10-year Treasury yields, and banks’ (which account for an outsized share of popular value benchmarks) recent tendency to trade in lockstep with them. We do not think a two-week backup in yields is the stuff that a genuine value factor inflection point is made of. Chart 11...But The Value Factor Has Yet To Turn A detailed explanation of our rationale is beyond the scope of this report,2 but the following points summarize our take: The value factor has gotten killed since the crisis, but we doubt that it’s dead. Value has historically treaded water during bull markets, and shined in bear markets. The fed funds rate cycle is the best predictor of value’s relative performance. Value has historically crushed the overall market when monetary policy is restrictive. The most popular style indexes have barely any factor merit. The S&P 500’s Growth and Value indexes are little more than Tech and Financials proxies. Value will shine again, but not until monetary policy is restrictive. If the Fed doesn’t hike the fed funds rate above the equilibrium fed funds rate until 2021, value investors will have to gut out another year-plus of underperformance. Bottom Line: The momentum factor could suffer in the near term if cyclicals reassert primacy over formerly hot defensives. The value factor’s fortunes will not turn for at least another year. Investment Implications We understand the discomfort of investors who feel like ZIRP, NIRP and QE have obliterated normal investing relationships. Disorienting as it has been to see nominal Treasury returns shrivel, the rising tide of negative-yielding bonds is like a surreal detail from a David Lynch movie. The investment world has indeed turned upside-down when investors buy bonds for capital gains to offset the interest they have to pay for the privilege of lending. Austrian School advocates are surely not the only dearly departed investing veterans rolling in their graves. It’s not the environment we wanted, but it’s the environment we got, so we’re going to buck up and do our best to squeeze excess returns out of it. We have to invest in the markets we have, however, not the markets we want. It does neither ourselves nor our clients any good to throw up our hands, bitterly lament our fate and wish ill upon the exponents of the activist, ultra-accommodative approach to central banking that is now in fashion. Some old relationships still apply, and the combination of a quietly improving global economic backdrop with incremental monetary accommodation everywhere one turns is good for risk assets. We continue to recommend that investors resist the urge to get defensive before the excess-return window closes for this cycle. We are not advocating that investors let their guard down, and assume that central banks will be able to keep the plates spinning indefinitely. They will not – monetary interventions are a poor substitute for organic growth in productivity or the size of the working-age population, and so are inefficiently directed fiscal spending programs – but we bet they can through the next quarterly or annual period over which an institutional manager is going to be evaluated. The upshot is that investors should remain especially vigilant for signs of trouble, and be prepared to act more tactically than normal to adjust their portfolios, but shouldn’t de-risk them yet, lest they miss the last of the fat-year returns they’ll need to tide themselves over during the coming lean years. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTROs) are ECB loans to banks intended to encourage lending to households and non-financial corporations. 2 Interested readers should see the May 16, 2018 Global ETF Strategy/Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, “Smart-Beta ETF Selection Update – Is Value Still Worth It?,” the October 2018 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, “Is It Time To Buy Value Stocks?,” and the October 2, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, “When Will Value Work Again?,” available at etf.bcaresearch.com, www.bcaresearch.com and usis.bcaresearch.com, respectively.
The August nonfarm payrolls were soft. Job creation fell from 159 thousand to 130 thousand, well below expectations of 160 thousand. The revisions for the past two months came in at -20 thousand. This disappointment materialized despite a boost to…
Highlights Our cyclical view is unchanged, … : Despite the evident risks from escalating trade tensions, soft global economic data, and widespread recession concerns, we expect the expansion and the bull markets in spread product and equities will remain intact. … as fiscal largesse has provided the U.S. economy with ample cushion: Per the IMF’s estimates, the fiscal stimulus package centered on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 amounted to about 70 basis points (“bps”) of fiscal thrust in 2018 and another 40 bps in 2019. But how is Congress’ unprecedented experiment shaping up beyond 2019?: The first-order impact of the tax cuts on government revenues is straightforward. The ultimate net effect turns on how lower taxes alter the course of corporate investment and work force participation. The CBO’s latest projections have the federal deficit widening by an additional $1 trillion over the next decade: Supply-side benefits from the 2017 Act have underwhelmed so far, and the fate of the federal budget depends on lawmakers’ restraint. We are long-run bearish on Treasuries and the dollar. Feature The fundamental backdrop remains mixed in the United States and the rest of the world. Global trade has slowed, and the world is experiencing a sharp manufacturing slowdown. The consensus of BCA researchers expects that manufacturing will soon find a footing, and the global economy will revive, helped along by easier monetary policy. A fiscal pick-me-up is long overdue, and would be especially welcome, but we are not holding our breath, especially when Japan finally seems prepared to impose its repeatedly-postponed VAT increase. Opinion within BCA is notably split, and the glass-half-full and glass-half-empty camps remain far apart. The mixed tone of the macro data offers something for bulls and bears, and contributed to the sharp single-day moves that characterized August’s equity action. Although the S&P 500 moved at least 1% in half of its sessions, however, it was down less than 2% for the month through Thursday. After slipping from its 3,000 perch amidst a 5% decline across August’s first three sessions on renewed trade hostilities, it traded in a narrow range between 2,825 and 2,945 the rest of the way (Chart 1). Chart 1Big Daily Swings, But A Tight Monthly Range The Fed is caught in a loop of responding to inorganic shocks. It tightened policy in 2018 while nervously looking over its shoulder at a sizable injection of procyclical fiscal stimulus that wound up exerting less overheating pressure than it had feared. Now it finds itself uncomfortably drawn into the vortex of the trade war, cutting rates to keep the expansion from being snuffed out prematurely by self-inflicted wounds. Various Fed officials seem to be chafing under the burden of serving as a bulwark against the drag from the tariff fights. As Chair Powell admonished in his Jackson Hole address, “[M]onetary policy … cannot provide a settled rulebook for international trade.” Like it or not, the Fed is stuck cleaning up other policymakers’ messes. Jackson Hole would normally have brought down the curtain on any meaningful market news until after Labor Day. But Bill Dudley, the head of the New York Fed from 2009 to 2018, had other ideas. He argued in a Bloomberg opinion column that the Fed should refuse to abet foolhardy trade policy with rate cuts that offset its ill effects. He went on to posit that it is within the Fed’s remit to set policy with an eye toward influencing the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Dudley’s grenade enlivened a slow news day and had the effect of unifying the economics community in condemnation of his polemic. The Fed swiftly distanced itself from the comments, reiterating that its “decisions are guided solely by its congressional mandate,” and that “political considerations play absolutely no role.” It is hard to know what Dr. Dudley intended to accomplish, but he ensured that we will be at BCA’s 40th Annual Investment Conference bright and early on Friday, September 27th when he kicks off its second day. Initial Estimates Soon after the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed, the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) assessed how its provisions would affect the U.S. economy. Although calculating the components involves myriad complex estimates, the budget equation is quite simple: Budget Surplus/(Deficit) = Revenues – Outlays. Cutting taxes clearly reduces revenues, and the reductions in individual tax rates, partially offset by limits on deductions, were estimated to cost the federal government roughly $300 billion over the next decade. The 10-year tab for lower corporate rates, and immediate expensing of business investments through 2022, was estimated to run about $1 trillion. Relief from some spending constraints brought the total estimated cost to $1.7 trillion. A trillion here, and a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money. Though the Act was sure to worsen the deficit, it contained provisions meant to encourage investment and labor supply. Corporate tax cuts and the full immediate expensing of investments in software and eligible equipment were expected to permanently increase the nation’s capital stock, thereby boosting the trend pace of productivity growth. A reduced individual income tax burden was expected to encourage more people to enter the workforce and incumbents to work longer hours. Ultimately, the CBO projected that the Act would boost the level of real potential GDP by 0.7%, on average, through 2029. Six Quarters On It follows that people might work more if they are able to keep more of what they earn, but the data since individual income tax rates were reduced at the beginning of 2018 are inconclusive. The labor force participation rate has been treading water for several years (Chart 2, solid line), as it battles against the drag from baby boomer aging (Chart 2, dashed line). Prime-age labor force participation has risen very slowly off of its 2015 bottom, and has spent 2019 unwinding its gains from late last year (Chart 3). Average weekly hours worked remain locked in the narrow range that has prevailed since 2012 (Chart 4). Though it is difficult to isolate the drivers of participation gains, the part rate’s erratic 2018-9 course suggests that the Act has not yet had a discernible work force impact. Chart 2The Baby Boomers Have Become A Demographic Headwind Chart 3Labor Supply ##br##Gains ... Chart 4... Have Yet To Materialize Residential investment, which lost some tax subsidies via the Act’s limits on mortgage interest and state and local tax deductions, has declined in every quarter since it was passed, and we back it out of fixed investment to assess the Act’s impact on corporate investment. As with labor supply, the record so far is mixed. Fixed investment (ex-residential investment) built on its 4Q17 acceleration over the first three quarters of 2018 only to slide in the three subsequent quarters (Chart 5). Publicly traded corporations have proven more eager to share their cash windfall with shareholders than they have been to invest it. Chart 5Investment Stimulus? What Investment Stimulus? Looking Ahead – Activity Effects We accept that lower individual income tax rates make work more attractive. People respond to incentives, and more after-tax pay, all else equal, should encourage some discouraged workers to rejoin the labor market and push some of the currently employed to want to work more. The changes are modest, though, with take-home pay increasing $324, or 2%, for someone earning $20,000, and $1,299, or 3%, for someone earning $50,000 (Table 1). We see the Act as having no more than a modest marginal effect on labor supply, though it should help boost consumption until households begin to factor in seemingly inevitable future tax hikes. Table 1Take-Home Pay Is Up, But Not By Much If the 2017 Act really is going to boost the potential trend rate of growth, it will have to do so by pushing the rate of productivity growth higher.1 Workers are able to produce more in a given block of time when they’re endowed with more and better tools, and new tools require investment. If fixed investment doesn’t accelerate, there’s no reason to expect that productivity will (Chart 6). The capex outlook from the NFIB survey and the various Fed regional manufacturing surveys is iffy, and BCA has previously noted how an aging population and a shift to more capital-light businesses may restrain investment. Chart 6Investment Drives Productivity It will not be an easy matter to boost productivity by boosting capex, though some of businesses’ after-tax cash will likely find its way to investment. To help the process along, Congress incorporated a familiar provision: accelerated depreciation. Accelerated depreciation’s empirical record as an investment catalyst is hardly clear (Box), and we don’t find its theoretical basis terribly compelling. We think the Act’s trend growth impacts are more likely to disappoint the CBO’s expectations than exceed them. Investment confronts demographic headwinds, too. Pushing trend growth higher will not be easy. Box - An Anodyne Prescription A celebrated provision of the Act allows for the immediate expensing of qualified investments until 2022. Accelerated depreciation programs, which allow for more rapid expensing of investments in property, equipment and other depreciable assets in an attempt to stimulate investment, are a stock measure in lawmakers’ stimulus toolkit, but their effectiveness is hardly assured. For one thing, they’re not new, and businesses may have built up an immunity to them, as they have been a continuous feature of the tax code since 1981. The immediate expensing allowed under the 2017 Act is a form of bonus depreciation, which was initially introduced in the wake of the September 11th attacks. It has remained in place for all but one subsequent year, and though investment peaked during the other stretch that provided for immediate write-offs (September 2010 - December 2011), we are skeptical that it will materially increase the size of the capital stock going forward. Accelerated depreciation schemes encourage investment via the time value of money. They do not increase the depreciation benefit provided by a particular investment, they simply speed up its recognition. Savvy businesses may adjust the timing of their investments to take advantage of temporary bonus periods, but they will not necessarily invest more.2 With rock-bottom interest rates squeezing the time value of money, it’s possible that bonus depreciation’s impact may be especially muted this time. Looking Ahead – The Budget Deficit The CBO’s updated projections through 2029, released two weeks ago, call for the budget shortfall to widen by $800 billion more than previously estimated in January. Despite a downward revision of over $1 trillion in projected interest expense, additional spending has weakened the deficit outlook. It appears that elected officials simply can’t help themselves. In a climate in which neither Congress nor voters evince any desire to rein in the deficit, it seems foolishly naïve to assume that future sessions of Congress will abide by built-in expenditure limits like sunset provisions and spending caps. Although the CBO projects that federal revenues will rise across its 10-year forecasting horizon, they will not do so fast enough to keep up with outlays swollen by interest payments on the growing pile of Treasuries (Chart 7). The CBO sees debt as a share of GDP rising to 95% by 2029, within reach of the all-time high recorded after World War II (Chart 8). Financial markets don’t care now, and we don’t think they will any time in the near future, but the CBO’s baseline projections, which assume future Congresses abide by their stated commitments, probably represent an optimistic scenario. We are more inclined to expect the alternative scenarios, in which sunset provisions are ignored, and pre-set spending caps are set aside, to come to pass. Chart 7A Widening Budget Gap ... Chart 8... Leads To An Increased Debt Burden Investment Implications Chart 9The Dollar's Long-Run Direction Is Down Treasury yields are currently within sight of their July 2016 Brexit-inspired lows, and may well revisit them. Negative yields are a common feature well out the maturity curve in core Europe and Japan. A sustained move higher is not in the cards in the near term, and though we do expect yields to rise as the global economy gains some traction later this year, we do not foresee a disruptive move higher even over the next couple of years. The very long-term outlook for Treasuries is lousy, however, and the dollar also faces secular pressures (Chart 9). The U.S. is not likely to turn into Japan, but the next decade’s returns will likely pale beside those earned since 1982. We are congenitally optimistic about humanity, and Americans seem to have a particular knack for pulling rabbits out of hats. We do not see the U.S. turning into Argentina, Greece or even Japan. The debt burden will weigh on potential growth down the road, however, as debt service will limit Congress’ ability to deploy countercyclical adjustments and longer-term investments, and debt issuance will eventually crimp private entities’ access to capital. All of these factors will limit potential economic growth and contribute to softening returns on equity and credit. We continue to foresee tepid returns over the next ten years relative to the returns investors have grown accustomed to over the last four decades, and we would much rather borrow at current rates for the next 20 or 30 years than lend at them. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Economic growth is the sum of growth in productivity and growth in the size of the labor force. Since the Act does not bear on immigration or birthrates, productivity represents its best shot at moving the growth needle. 2 Congressional Research Service Report RL31852, The Section 179 and Section 168(k) Expensing Allowances: Current Law and Economic Effects, by Gary Guenther, May 1, 2018.