Market Returns
Highlights The reason to own stocks is not profit growth. The combination of unspectacular sales growth and down-trending profit margins means that global profit growth will be lacklustre, at best. The reason to own stocks is that the ultimate low in the T-bond yield is yet to come. This ultimate low in the T-bond yield will define the ultimate high in the global stock market’s valuation and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until that ultimate low in bond yields, long-term investors should own stocks… …and tilt towards long-duration growth sectors and growth-heavy stock markets such as the S&P500 that will benefit most from the final collapse in yields. The correction in DRAM, corn, and lumber prices suggests that the recent mania in inflation expectations is about to end. Fractal trade shortlist: copper and tin are fragile, go long T-bonds versus TIPS. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Profits Surged During The Credit Boom, But Have Gone Nowhere Since The main reason to own stocks is not what you think. The usual long-term argument to own stocks is based on profit growth – specifically, that an uptrend in profits drives up stock prices. Except that since 2008, this is not true (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). Profits have barely grown, yet the global stock market has doubled.1 Chart I-2Since The Credit Boom Ended, Global Profits Have Barely Grown As profits have barely grown since 2008, the main reason that the global stock market has doubled is that the valuation paid for those profits has surged. Looking ahead, we expect this to remain the main reason to own stocks. The Reason To Own Stocks Is Not Profit Growth Profits are the product of sales and the profit margin on those sales. During the credit boom of the nineties and noughties, the strong tailwind of credit creation supercharged sales growth. At the same time, the profit margin on those sales trended higher (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Since The Credit Boom Ended, Sales Growth Has Slowed And Profit Margins Have Trended Lower Hence, in the decade leading up to 2008, global stock market profits surged, outstripping both sales and world GDP. Then the credit boom ended, and profits languished, because: Absent the tailwind from the credit boom, sales growth moderated. The profit margin trended lower. In the post-pandemic years, we expect both trends to persist. The credit boom is not coming back. Furthermore, as the pandemic recession was not protracted, sales are not at a depressed level from which they can play a sharp catch-up, as they did after the 2008 recession and the 2015 emerging markets recession. The structural downtrend in the profit margin will continue. Meanwhile, the structural downtrend in the profit margin will continue. Governments are desperate to mitigate – or at least, contain – the ballooning deficits that have paid for their pandemic stimuluses. Raising corporate taxes from structurally depressed levels is an easy and politically expedient response, as we have already seen from both the Biden administration in the US, and the Johnson administration in the UK. Higher corporate taxes will weigh on structural profit margins (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Corporate Taxes Will Rise From Structurally Depressed Levels The combination of unspectacular sales growth and down-trending profit margins means that global profit growth will continue to be lacklustre, at best. The Reason To Own Stocks Is That The Ultimate High In Valuations Is Yet To Come To repeat, the main reason that the global stock market has doubled since 2008 is that its valuation has surged (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Main Driver Of The Stock Market Has Been Valuation Expansion In turn, the stock market’s valuation has surged because bond yields have plummeted. Empirically, the valuation of the global stock market is tightly connected with the simple average of the (inverted) yields on the safest sovereign bond, the US T-bond, and the riskier sovereign bond, the Italian BTP. The main reason that the global stock market has doubled since 2008 is that its valuation has surged. Through 2012-13, the decline in the Italian BTP yield, by signifying the fading of euro break-up risk, boosted stock valuations. In more recent years though, it has been the US T-bond yield that has been more influential in driving the global stock market’s valuation (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Stock Market's Valuation Expansion Is Due To Lower Bond Yields But the crucial point to grasp is that the relationship between the declining bond yield and stock market valuation becomes exponential. This is because as bond yields approach their lower bound, bond prices have less additional upside but considerably more downside. This extra riskiness of bonds means that investors demand a diminishing risk premium on equities versus bonds. So, as bond yields decline, the required return on equities – which equals the bond yield plus the risk premium – collapses. And as valuation is just the inverse of required return, valuations soar. Chart I-7 and Chart I-8 demonstrate this exponential relationship in practice. Note that the bond yield is on the logarithmic left scale while the stock market’s valuation is on the linear right scale. The logarithmic versus linear scale visually demonstrates that at a lower bond yield, a given change in the bond yield has a much greater impact on the stock market’s valuation. Chart I-7The Relationship Between Lower Bond Yields And Stock Market Valuation Expansion Is Exponential Chart I-8When Bond Yields Reach Their Ultimate Low, Stock Market Valuations Will Surge Specifically, if the 30-year yield in the US reached the recent low achieved in the UK, it would boost the stock market’s valuation by nearly 50 percent. We fully expect this to happen at some point in the coming years because of The Shock Theory Of Bond Yields which we introduced in last week’s report. In a nutshell, the shock theory of bond yields states that each successive deflationary shock takes the bond yield to a lower structural level, until it can go no lower. Although it is impossible to predict the timing and nature of individual shocks such as the pandemic, it is easy to predict the statistical distribution of shocks. On this basis, the likelihood of a net deflationary shock is 50 percent within the next three years, and 81 percent within the next five years. Whatever that deflationary shock is, and whenever it arrives, it will mark the ultimate low in the 30-year T-bond yield – at a level close to the recent low in the UK. This ultimate low in the T-bond yield will also define the ultimate high in the global stock market’s valuation and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until that ultimate low in bond yields, long-term investors should own stocks. And tilt towards long-duration growth sectors that will benefit most from the final collapse in yields. Growth sectors and growth-heavy stock markets such as the S&P500 will continue to outperform, as they have done consistently since 2008. The Inflation Bubble Is Bursting The last couple of months has seen a mania in inflation expectations. As industries reconfigured for the end of lockdowns, supply bottlenecks in some commodities led to understandable spikes in their prices. These commodity price increases then unleashed fears about inflation. As investors sought inflation hedges, it drove up commodity prices more broadly … which added to the inflation fears…which added further fuel to the mania in inflation expectations. And so, the indiscriminate rally in commodities continued. The inflation bubble is bursting. But now it seems that the indiscriminate rally is over. DRAM prices have rolled over, belying the thesis that there is widespread shortage in semiconductors (Chart I-9). More spectacularly in the past week, the corn price has tumbled by 12 percent while the lumber price has slumped by 25 percent (Chart I-10). Chart I-9DRAM Prices Have ##br##Rolled Over Chart I-10Lumber Prices Are Correcting, Will Other Commodities Follow? Given that the commodity rally was indiscriminate, there is a danger that any correction will spread into other commodities like the industrial metals, copper and tin – especially as their fractal structures are at a level of fragility that has identified previous turning points in 2008, 2011, 2015, 2017 and 2020 (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11Copper's Fractal Structure Is Fragile Chart I-12Tin's Fractal Structure Is Fragile In any case, the mania in inflation expectations is about to end. An excellent way to play this is to expect compression in the market implied inflation rate in T-bond yields versus TIPS yields (Chart I-13). Chart I-13The Mania In Inflation Expectations Is About To End Hence, this week’s recommended trade is to go long the 10-year T-bond versus the 10-year TIPS, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.6 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 To clarify, Chart 2 shows world stock market earnings per share, both 12-month forward and 12-month trailing. Whereas Charts 1 and 3 show sales and net profits (not per share). Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Non-US stocks have greatly underperformed US equities over the last decade, but a leadership change might be underway. As such, equity flows could be an important factor in dictating currency trends over a cyclical horizon. The narrative in favor of non-US stocks includes a recovery in profits, cheap valuations, and a secular theme that will favor capital spending in traditionally “heavy” industries. Non-US growth should also overtake the US beyond 2021, when most of the global population is vaccinated. Cyclical currencies have historically tracked the relative performance of their respective bourses. This implies a lower dollar. Higher bond yields also present a formidable headwind for the outperformance of US stocks, relative to other markets. An outperformance of non-US bourses will be particularly favorable for the AUD, NOK, SEK, and GBP. The yen will likely play catchup towards the middle of the cycle. Feature Currencies respond to broad inflows, including into bonds, equities or foreign direct investment. For most of 2020, the dominant currency flows were from fixed income investors. As most short rates are now anchored near zero, the story is morphing towards the potential winners from a recovery, especially in the equity market sphere. Non-US stocks tend to outperform the US when the dollar is falling. That said, the causality-effect link is not so clear-cut, as we penned in our Special Report last year.1 Admittedly, a lower dollar boosts the common-currency returns for US-based investors, leading to more capital deployment in offshore markets. Meanwhile, commodities tend to do well when the dollar declines, benefiting emerging market and commodity-producing countries. Financing costs for non-US corporations borrowing in dollars are also eased. Historically, profit growth has been the ultimate driver of stock prices and profitability is more contingent on productivity gains than translation effects. This suggests the starting point for gauging relative equity flows, and the potential impact on currencies, is to evaluate which countries/economies could be primed for outperformance. Relative Growth As A Starting Point One of the key drivers of relative earnings growth between two countries is relative economic performance. Chart I-1 shows that earnings-per-share in the G10 relative to the US tended to improve when growth was shifting in favor of the rest of the world. This, in turn, has been a key driver of relative equity performance. Chart I-1Relative Profits And Relative Growth What is remarkable is that this relationship has been pretty consistent across countries, including those that have huge exposures to the global economy such as Sweden, Norway, or even the United Kingdom. In general, relative economic performance has driven relative EPS growth (Chart I-2A & 2B). The reason is that these bourses still have a sizeable dependence on the domestic economy. Chart I-3 shows that for even the most export-driven economies, exposure to domestic sales is still at least 20%. Australia, a commodity country has almost 60% of sales from domestic sources. Our bias is that non-US growth will start to outperform towards the backend of this year. This will pressure the dollar lower (Chart I-4). This conviction rests on three critical pillars: Chart I-2AA Cross Country Look At Relative Profits Growth Chart I-2BA Cross Country Look At Relative Profits Growth Chart I-3Domestic Sales Matter A Lot For Global Equity Bourses Chart I-4The Dollar Trends With ##br##Relative Growth The rest of the world will catch up in vaccination campaigns relative to the US. This is almost a fait accompli. Canada is well behind in terms of vaccination progress compared to the US or the UK (Chart I-5). But in Quebec, where BCA is headquartered, Premier François Legault has suggested that everyone who wants a vaccine will be able to get their first dose by June 24. Relative employment growth in Canada is already picking up, and the central bank has already begun tapering asset purchases ahead of the Fed. The broader message is that the service sector has been held hostage by relatively closed economies outside the US. This will change as economies open up. Producer prices (PPI) are picking up globally and the US is leading the pack. This will also rotate in favor of other economies. Producer prices first took off in the US as the sectors that benefited from the pandemic were those related to technology and healthcare. Norway also gained from the rebound in oil prices. Other countries should begin to catch up, as demand for goods and services broadens beyond the pandemic-related scope (Chart I-6). From a longer-term perspective, PPI usually peaks and troughs in the US ahead of other economies. Again, as we exit a recession, consumption tends to broaden from defensive goods towards more discretionary spending. Given that other economies are bigger producers of these discretionary items, this should start to shift relative pricing power towards these countries (Chart I-7). Non-US growth has been held hostage to cascading crises since the US housing market bust. In 2010, we had the euro area debt crisis. In 2011, the Fukushima disaster knocked down Japanese growth. In 2015, tight monetary policy in China led to a global manufacturing recession. In short, rest-of-world growth has not been able to catch breath for a decade. Chart I-5Many Countries Will Replicate The US and UK Vaccination Success Chart I-6Global PPIs Are ##br##Picking Up Chart I-7US PPI Usually Leads Other Countries The silver lining is that the COVID-19 crisis has ushered in coordinated global monetary and fiscal stimulus. For the first time in a long while, non-US growth can start to outperform, according to IMF estimates (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The IMF Expects Non-US Growth To Outperform Flows tend to gravitate to capital markets with the highest expected returns, and this is certainly the case when US versus non-US stocks are concerned. If we accept the premise that relative growth matters for equity allocations, then it also makes sense that relative equity performance will coincide with currency performance, due to portfolio flows. Across the G10 economies, getting the equity call right has usually been synonymous with having the appropriate currency strategy (Chart I-9). This is especially the case since equity flows have been supportive of the dollar (Chart I-10). Chart I-9ACurrencies And Equities Move Together Chart I-9BCurrencies And Equities Move Together Chart I-10Equity Flows Have Been Supportive Of The Dollar A More Quantitative Approach While relative growth is important, it is not the sole factor in determining which countries or sectors will outperform. Most investors have at least two other powerful tools that have stood the test of time in making equity allocations. These include the valuation starting point, and the historical return on capital. Valuation is the easiest place to start. Over time, non-US bourses have tended to outperform the US when the relative valuation starting point was attractive. This has been especially true around recessions, when leadership changes tend to occur. Chart I-11A, 11B, 11C, and 11D show that countries such as Japan, Mexico, and Germany should sport more attractive returns over the next decade compared to the US. The list is not comprehensive, but our previous work suggests this valuation tool works across many countries and various geographies. Chart I-11AValuation Matters For Long-Term Returns Chart I-11BValuation Matters For Long-Term Returns Chart I-11CValuation Matters For Long-Term Returns Chart I-11DValuation Matters For Long-Term Returns Not surprisingly, the currencies that are the most undervalued in our models also have cheap equity markets. These include the Scandinavian currencies, commodity plays, the Japanese yen, and the pound. A rerating of these markets will be synonymous with a rerating in their currencies (Chart I-12). The rise in global bond yields will also prove to be a formidable headwind for US stocks. Technology constitutes 28% of the US equity market, the largest allocation within the G10. Together with defensive sectors such as health care and consumer staples, this ratio rises to 60%. As a result, the relative performance of the US equity market has been inversely correlated to bond yields (Chart I-13). Should bond yields continue to gravitate higher over the next few years, this will lead to a powerful rotation towards more cyclical bourses. The rise in yields will be particularly favorable for deep value sectors like banks (due to rising net interest margins) and commodities (due to inflation protection). Chart I-12The Dollar Remains ##br##Expensive Chart I-13US Outperformance Has Dovetailed With Lower Bond Yields Going forward, expected return on capital will be more difficult to gauge, but countries that have a history of providing superior shareholder returns are a good place to start. For example, we know that the winners of the last decade have had the largest returns on equity, as was the case for the winners during the prior decade. Given the mammoth task of performing this exercise on a cross-country basis, and across factors, we enlisted the help of our colleagues who run BCA’s Equity Analyzer platform. The EA platform provides a BCA score of 0 to 100 for all developed market stocks, according to their ranking on 30 carefully selected and curated factors. Crunching the numbers revealed a few interesting results: A long strategy based on selecting the top decile stocks according to their EA score outperformed both domestic and global indices (Chart I-14). The quality factor has been one of the better determinants of future stock market returns. The EA quality score is based on return on equity, asset growth, accruals, and margins. On this basis, the bourses with a higher concentration of quality stocks in their indices are found outside the US (Chart I-15). Using an overall blended score, which includes not only the quality factor, but also others such as value, size, and momentum, suggests investors will be rewarded by tilting away from the US. For example, 20%-30% of stocks in Scandinavian bourses make it into the top decile EA portfolio (Chart I-16). Even if one focuses solely on growth sectors such as technology and health care, non-US companies are still more attractive (Chart I-17). Chart I-14The BCA EA Platform Allows Investors To Pick Winners Chart I-15Quality Stocks Are Heavily Weighted Outside The US Chart I-16A Composite Score Ranks US Stocks Poorly Chart I-17Lots Of Attractive Growth Stocks Outside The US In a nutshell, non-US markets are attractive from a valuation standpoint and across a swathe of other metrics that have been useful in benchmarking future returns. An outperformance of non-US stocks will favor cyclical currencies, as portfolio flows gravitate to these markets. We are already selectively long a basket of Scandinavian currencies; we will be gradually accumulating other currencies such as the GBP, the CAD, and the JPY on weakness. Specifically, the yen is becoming interesting not only as portfolio insurance, but also as a play on the cyclical Japanese market. We will be covering these currencies in depth in upcoming reports. Housekeeping Three important central banks met this week. The general tone was dovish. The Bank of England kept policy roughly unchanged, but there were three important takeaways. First, the BoE suggested any pickup in UK inflation will be transitory. Second, the BoE will slow its bond purchases, as they approach the central bank’s target. And finally, growth estimates were revised upward. Our take is that the meeting was a non-event for cable in the near term and bullish longer term. The message from the Reserve Bank of Australia was bit more dovish. They kept open the possibility of additional measures on the July 6 meeting. Our bias is that the RBA is trying to fend off deflationary pressures from a strong currency. This only delays the bullish backdrop for the AUD. Next Tuesday’s budget will provide some information about additional support to the Aussie economy. The Norges bank remains on the path to hike interest rates later this year. This supports our bullish NOK thesis. We have been reluctant to establish fresh long positions as we enter a seasonally strong month for the dollar. However, our buy list is growing as we highlighted above. For now our open positions are highlighted on page 14. Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate," dated July 10, 2020. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The recent data out of the US were mildly positive. The ISM Manufacturing PMI came in at 60.7 in April, well below an estimate of 65. The ISM Manufacturing New Orders Index came in at 64.3 in April, slightly below an expectation of 66.6. The trade deficit for March was -74.4B USD, in line with expectations. Personal Spending for March was 4.2% month-on-month, as expected. The dollar DXY index rose by 0.8% this week. While the PMI data for April came in on the mild side, inflationary pressures continue to build up as reflected in the robust New Orders, Backlog of Orders as well as the Prices Paid indices. That said, the Fed’s current stance is that price surges will likely be transitory. This is near-term negative for the greenback since it implies policy will not be tightened anytime soon. Report Links: Arbitrating Between Dollar Bulls And Bears - March 19, 2021 The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Are Rising Bond Yields Bullish For The Dollar? - February 19, 2021 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The recent Euro data have been mildly positive. Unemployment rate for March was 8.1%, slightly better than the predicted 8.3%. GDP fell 1.8% year-on-year, compared to an expected 2% decrease. CPI came in at 1.6% for April year-on-year, in line with expectation. German Retail Sales for March came in at 7.7% month-on-month comfortably beating a 3% expectation. Overall euro area retail sales surged 12% year-on-year in March, comfortably outpacing consensus of a 9.4% rise. The euro was down 0.9% against USD this week. However, as the weekly vaccination increase in both the US and the UK are slowing down, it continues to rise in the euro area. Infections are stabilizing in Germany and the Netherlands, and are on a downtrend in France and Italy. This puts a floor under the euro. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 The recent data out of Japan have been strong. The unemployment rate for March came in at 2.6%. Industrial Production for March came in at 2.2% month-on-month, versus the estimate of -2%. Tokyo Core CPI came in at -0.2%, below market consensus. Vehicles sales surged by 22.2% year-on-year in April. The Japanese yen was flat against USD this week. A lagging vaccine campaign, rising COVID-19 case count, and the state of emergency continue to drag down sentiment towards Japan. However, the yen’s real effective exchange rate is trading at one standard deviation below fair value and our intermediate-term indicator is hinting at a rebound. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 On Japanese Inflation And The Yen - January 29, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 The recent data out of UK have been positive. The Nationwide HPI for April was 7.1% higher than a year ago, beating an expectation of 5%. The BoE kept interest rates at 0.1% and its asset purchase target at £895bn. The pound was flat against the USD this week. The Bank of England kept policy on hold this week, but there were three important takeaways. First, the BoE sees any near-term pickup in inflation as temporary. This should keep a near-term lid on rate hike expectations and the pound. Second, the BoE will slow its bond purchases, as they approach the central bank’s target. And finally, growth estimates were revised upward, especially for 2022. This is bullish cable longer term. On the political front, a potential surprise of another Scottish independence may put some downward pressure on the currency. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The recent data out of Australia have been strong. The AIG Manufacturing Index for April came in at 61.7, higher than the prior 59.9 reading. The AIG Construction Index for April came in at 59.1, below the 61.8 print in March. The trade balance for March came in at AUD 5.6bn, below an expectation of AUD 8bn. The RBA cash rate remained at 0.1%. The Australian dollar was flat this week against the USD. The RBA provided a dovish tone at its meeting this week, extending QE until February, and kept open the possibility of additional measures on the July 6 meeting. In the near term, upbeat economic data continue to provide support for the AUD. However, the tourism industry (6% of employment) is needed to get Australia back to full employment. Our bias is that the RBA will continue to fight against an appreciating currency, until the economy reaches escape velocity. Report Links: The Dollar Bull Case Will Soon Fade - March 5, 2021 Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency? - January 20, 2021 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The recent data out of New Zealand have been strong. Employment grew by 0.6% quarter-on-quarter in Q1. The Labor Cost Index for Q1 came in at 0.4% over prior quarter, and 1.6% year-on-year. The unemployment rate for Q1 declined to 4.7%, from 4.9%. Building consents increased 17.9% month-on-month in March. The New Zealand dollar was down 0.5% against USD this week. As we indicated in our report last week, the NZD is overpriced by several measures and the elevated equity market is of particular concern. The weakening GlobalDairyTrade Price Index could potentially be a harbinger of peaking agricultural prices in the coming months. This will lead the NZD to underperform other commodity currencies. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 The recent data out of Canada have been soft. The trade balance for March came in at -1.14bn CAD versus CAD 1.42bn the previous month. Building permits rose 5.7% month-on-month in March. The CAD was flat against USD this week. Despite concerns over elevated commodity prices and a vaccination campaign that is lagging other advanced economies, recent strong employment growth and the tapering of asset purchases by the BoC should continue to boost the currency, the top performing among G10 so far this year. In the near term, Canadian exports will benefit from US fiscal stimulus, which will also provide support for the loonie. Report Links: Relative Growth, The Euro, And The Loonie - April 16, 2021 Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle? - February 12, 2021 Currencies And The Value-Versus-Growth Debate - July 10, 2020 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 The recent Swiss data have been strong. The KOF Leading Indicator for April came in at 134, beating the 119.5 estimate. CPI for April came in at 0.3%. SECO Consumer Climate for Q2 came in at -18, higher than the -30 back in Q1. The Swiss franc was down 0.5% against the USD this week. The Swiss economy continues to surprise to the upside. With our intermediate-term indicator on a downward path, we remain optimistic on our long EUR/CHF position for now, despite potential upside risks to the franc given the Indian COVID-19 outbreak. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 The Dollar Conundrum And Protection - November 6, 2020 On The DXY Breakout, Euro, And Swiss Franc - February 21, 2020 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 The recent data out of Norway have been strong. The unemployment rate for April came in at 4%, from 4.2% the prior month. The house price index for April came in at 12.2% year-on-year, similar to the 12.5% reading of March. Interest rate were held at 0% by the Norges Bank. The NOK was down 1.8% against the USD this week. The krone is the winning currency since the pandemic hit, suggesting some consolidation was much due. With Norwegian inflation rising sharply above the central bank’s 2% target earlier this year, the Norges Bank reiterated during its meeting on Thursday that a rate hike later this year is well in sight. Against the backdrop of the impending European recovery this summer and Norway’s own commendable vaccination progress, we continue to be long the NOK against the USD and EUR. Report Links: Portfolio And Model Review - February 5, 2021 Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 A New Paradigm For Petrocurrencies - April 10, 2020 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The recent Swedish data have been strong. Industrial Production for March came in at 1.1% month-on-month. Year-on-year, IP is rising by 5.7%. Industrial New Orders for March came in at 10% year-on-year. GDP in Q1 was 1.1% higher than the prior quarter, beating the estimate of 0.5%. The Swedish krona was down 1.4% against the USD this week. BCA Research’s European Investment Strategy service indicated that there is significantly more upside to Swedish stocks against both Eurozone and US equities over the remainder of the cycle. Sweden is levered to the global industrial cycle with exports representing 45% of GDP. The recovery in both Europe and across the globe should continue to benefit the krona. The tapering of asset purchases by the Riksbank later this year will also provide support to the currency in the meantime. We continue to be long SEK/USD and SEK/EUR. Report Links: Revisiting Our High-Conviction Trades - September 11, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades
来週のストラテジー・レポートの代わりに、初回のカウンターポイント・ウェブキャスト『メガテーマ、差し迫るショック、そして注目トレード』を発表します。ご参加いただければ幸いです。 ハイライト 標準的な経済理論では、貨幣は完全に代替可能であると想定します。しかし実務では、人々は収入と貯蓄というメンタル・アカウントに異なる感情を結び付けるため、貨幣は代替可能ではありません。これは「メンタル・アカウンティング・バイアス」として知られています。 メンタル・アカウンティング・バイアスは、パンデミック期に蓄積された大量の貯蓄を消費に回すよりも、債務返済に使う可能性が高いことを意味します。 メンタル・アカウンティング・バイアスはまた、高利回りの株式に対して過剰な支払いをしていることを意味します。 長期投資家は銀行を避けるべきであり、「バリュー」も避けるべきです。 正しく計算すると、株式リスクプレミアムは現在ほとんど存在しません。 米国の長期債利回りは、上方に動くよりも下方に動く余地の方がはるかに大きいです。 フラクタルトレード候補：株式対債券、PKR、およびニュージーランド株式。 特集 今週のチャート 消費は賃金で説明される…
消費は賃金によって説明される...
消費は賃金によって説明される...
今週のチャート …給付金では説明されない
...景気刺激策による給付金ではない
...景気刺激策による給付金ではない
多くの経済学者は、経済が完全に再開されれば、パンデミック期に家計に蓄積された大量の貯蓄が家計支出の津波を引き起こすと予測しています。 しかし、この予測をするのに適切なのは経済学者ではありません。家計が蓄積した貯蓄を使うかどうかの答えは、心理学の領域に属します。 お金を使うかどうかはどの「メンタル・アカウント」に属しているかによる 私たちは 債券市場における大きな異常 で、収入から支出する傾向は高い一方で、富から支出する傾向は低いと指摘しました。つまり、未消化の収入が消費に回るかどうかは、世帯がそれを追加の収入とみなすか追加の富とみなすかによって決まるということです。 これにより次の疑問が生じます。どうしてお金を使うかどうかの判断が、それを収入と分類するか富と分類するかによって左右されるのでしょうか？答えは心理学、すなわち「メンタル・アカウンティング・バイアス」として知られる現象にあります。 ノーベル賞受賞の心理学者ダニエル・カーネマンは、私たちはお金をさまざまなアカウントに分類しており、それらは時に物理的であり、時に単に心の中だけのものであると指摘しています。そして、私たちがこれらのアカウントから支出する意欲には明確な階層が存在します。 私たちの「メンタル・アカウント」から支出する意欲には明確な階層があります。 階層の最上位には月々の賃金があり、次に当座（チェック）口座の資金が続きます。これらの「収入」アカウントからは支出しやすいのです。階層のさらに下には貯蓄口座や投資ポートフォリオがあります。これらの「貯蓄」または「富」のアカウントからは支出しにくいのです。 標準的な経済理論は貨幣が完全に代替可能だと仮定するため、当座口座の1ポンドは貯蓄口座の1ポンドと何の違いもないとします。しかし実務では、人々は収入と貯蓄のメンタル・アカウントに異なる感情を結び付けるため、貨幣は代替可能ではありません。 賃金や当座口座から貯蓄口座に資金を移すと、その資金を支出する意欲は崩れます。これが、消費が収入のメンタル・アカウントを支配する賃金に密接に追随する一方で、主に貯蓄のメンタル・アカウントに入る給付金とは意味のある関連がない理由を説明します（今週のチャートおよびチャートI-2）。 Chart I-2 給付金は消費傾向に有意な影響を与えなかった
景気刺激策による現金給付は消費動向に有意な影響を与えなかった
景気刺激策による現金給付は消費動向に有意な影響を与えなかった
貯蓄のメンタル・アカウントから支出することには消極的でも、貯蓄を使って債務を返済することには積極的です。実際、貯蓄と債務の間にあるこの感情的な結びつきを踏まえ、多くの貸し手は貯蓄口座を住宅ローン債務と相殺する住宅ローン商品の提供を行っています。 これらを総合すると、パンデミック期に蓄積された家計貯蓄の在庫は、消費動向を押し上げる可能性は低く、むしろ家計債務の削減に使われる可能性が高いということになります。そうなれば、最近の公的債務の一部は民間債務の返済に回るだけであり、1990年代の日本で起きたことと同様の展開となるでしょう（チャートI-3）。 Chart I-3 日本では公的債務が結局民間債務の返済に回った
日本では、公的債務が結局、民間債務の返済に充てられた
日本では、公的債務が結局、民間債務の返済に充てられた
これは銀行の資産成長にとって問題です。 「バリュー」は価値をもたらさない メンタル・アカウンティング・バイアスは、近年の金融市場で支配的な現象であるいわゆる「利回りの追求」も説明します。一見すると利回りの追求は理にかなっているように見えますが、利回りと値上がり（キャピタル・アプリシエーション）を区別すること自体が非合理的なのです。 収入と富の関係と同様に、投資の利回りから得られるお金と値上がりから得られるお金は（税制が同等であると仮定すれば）完全に代替可能です。しかし実際には、多くの投資家は利回りと値上がりを別々のメンタル・アカウントに割り当て、投資の利回りを支出用のお金、資本の増加を貯蓄用のお金と分類します。 したがって、たとえばリタイアした投資家のように、資産が支出用のメンタル・アカウントに資金を生み出すことを望む投資家は、利回りを生む投資に対して非合理的なバイアスを持ちます。一方、資産を貯蓄のメンタル・アカウントで増やしたい投資家は、値上がりを生む投資に偏ります。繰り返しますが、資金は本来代替可能であるため、これらのメンタル・アカウントは非合理的です。 通常の状況下では、これらの非合理的なバイアスは問題になりません。なぜなら、支出用と貯蓄用の両方のメンタル・アカウントに適した投資先が十分に存在していたからです。しかし近年では、かつて支出用アカウントに安全なインカムを供給していた現金や国債といった資産はもはやそうしていません。 したがって、その後の利回りを求める殺到の中で、インカム志向の投資家は危険なトンネルビジョンに陥っています。株式の将来のトータルリターンではなく利回りに固執することで、利回り追求型の投資家は高利回りの株式に対して過剰に支払いを行い、長期的な富を犠牲にしています。 株式の将来のトータルリターンではなく利回りに固執することで、投資家は高利回り株に過剰に支払っている。 一例を挙げます。グローバルな金融株のフォワード・利益利回りが8％であることは、ヘルスケアの5％やテクノロジーの3.5％よりもはるかに割安に見えるかもしれません。しかし本当に重要なのは、そのフォワード・利益利回りが将来のトータルリターンにどのように変換されるかです。この観点から見ると、金融株の見かけ上の割安さは幻影であることがわかります。 金融危機後のフォワード・利益利回りと将来リターンの関係を用いると、高利回りの金融株は、ごく最近まで低利回りのテクノロジーよりも低いリターンをもたらすように価格付けされていました。現在でも金融株は、低利回りのヘルスケアよりも低いリターンをもたらすように価格付けされています。ヘルスケアと同じ長期リターンを提供するためには、金融株のバリュエーションは20％下落する必要があります（チャート I-4 - チャート I-6）。 Chart I-4 金融株の8％予想利益利回り = 2％の見込みリターン
金融セクターの利益利回り8％＝見込みリターン2％
金融セクターの利益利回り8％＝見込みリターン2％
Chart I-5 ヘルスケアの5％予想利益利回り = 8％の見込みリターン
ヘルスケアのアーニングス・イールド5パーセント＝見込みリターン8パーセント
ヘルスケアのアーニングス・イールド5パーセント＝見込みリターン8パーセント
Chart I-6 テクノロジーは割高
テックは割高
テックは割高
したがって、メンタル・アカウンティング・バイアスは銀行にとって二重の打撃となります。銀行の資産成長に問題をもたらし、投資家が高利回り株に過剰に支払う原因にもなります。これが投資の究極の逆説を生み出します。『バリュー』の定義的特徴は、それ自体が価値を提供しないということです！ 長期投資家は銀行を避け、またバリューを避けるべきです。 米国債利回りは上方より下方に動く余地が大きい 前述の分析は、株式の適正な評価アプローチ、特に株式リスクプレミアム、すなわち高品質債券に対する株式の将来の超過リターンに関して重要な含意を持ちます。 よくある誤ったアプローチは、株式のフォワード利益利回りから10年債利回りを引くことです。米国のフォワード利益利回りを4.5％とすると、名目債利回り1.5％に対して株式リスクプレミアムは余裕のある3％、あるいは実質債利回り-1％に対しては非常に余裕のある5.5％であると示唆されます。 このアプローチの明白な誤りは、リンゴとオレンジを引き算している点です。10年債利回りは今後10年間にその債券から受け取るリターンです。しかし先に見たように、フォワード利益利回りは今後10年間に株式から受け取るリターンではありません。 リンゴ同士を比較するためには、まずフォワード利益利回りを将来的な10年のトータルリターンに変換する必要があります。現在の変換値は名目で2％のリターン（チャート I-7 - チャート I-8）、実質で0％のリターン（チャート I-9 - チャート I-10）となります。これらを名目・実質の債利回りと比較すると、株式リスクプレミアムはほとんど存在しないことがわかります。 Chart I-7 利益利回りを予想名目リターンに変換すると…
利益利回りを将来の名目リターンに変換する...
利益利回りを将来の名目リターンに変換する...
Chart I-8 …株式リスクプレミアムがほとんど存在しないことがわかる
...株式リスクプレミアムがほとんど存在しないことを見出す
...株式リスクプレミアムがほとんど存在しないことを見出す
Chart I-9 利益利回りを予想実質リターンに変換すると…
アーニングス・イールドを将来の実質リターンに換算する...
アーニングス・イールドを将来の実質リターンに換算する...
Chart I-10 …株式リスクプレミアムがほとんど存在しないことがわかる
...株式リスクプレミアムがほとんど存在しないことを示す
...株式リスクプレミアムがほとんど存在しないことを示す
ほとんど存在しない株式リスクプレミアムは、株式が高く評価されていることを意味し、またこの高い評価は債利回りが大きく上昇しないことに依存しています。さらに、評価が高いのは株式だけではありません。私たちが The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation で指摘したように、300兆ドルにのぼる世界の不動産の評価もまた、債利回りが大きく上昇しないことに大きく依存しています。 株式は高く評価されており、その高い評価は債利回りが大きく上昇しないことに依存している。 結論として、現在の水準から見ると、米国の長期債利回りは上昇するよりも下落する余地の方がはるかに大きいと考えます。 カウンタートレンド反転の候補 パンデミック安以来の株式対債券の力強いラリーは、2013年のブルランの終わりや2020年初めのベアランの終わりに見られたようなフラクタル的な脆弱性のポイントに達しています（チャート I-11）。したがって現在のラリーは一服する局面にあります。 Chart I-11 株式対債券のラリーは一服の局面にある
エクイティ対ボンドのラリーは小休止が見込まれる
エクイティ対ボンドのラリーは小休止が見込まれる
アジア太平洋地域では、最近のパキスタン・ルピーの強いパフォーマンスはカウンタートレンドの売りに脆弱であることに注意しています（チャート I-12）。 Chart I-12 PKRはアンダーウェイト
PKRをアンダーウェイト
PKRをアンダーウェイト
最後に、非常にディフェンシブなニュージーランド株式市場は過去1年で大きくアンダーパフォームしました。しかし、130日と65日の両方のフラクタル構造における脆弱性は、カウンタートレンドでアウトパフォームする準備が整っていることを示唆しています（チャート I-13）。 Chart I-13 ニュージーランドをオーバーウェイト
ニュージーランドをオーバーウェイト
ニュージーランドをオーバーウェイト
したがって、今週の推奨は世界に対してニュージーランドをオーバーウェイトとし、利食い目標と対称的なストップロスを4％に設定することです。 Dhaval Joshi チーフ・ストラテジスト dhaval@bcaresearch.com フラクタル・トレーディング・システム フラクタルトレード 6か月の推奨 構造的な推奨 クローズド・フラクタルトレード クローズド・トレード 資産パフォーマンス 株式市場パフォーマンス 注目指標 - 債券利回り Chart II-1 注目指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏
注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏
注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏
Chart II-2 注目指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏を除く欧州
注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏を除く欧州
注目すべき指標 - 債券利回り - ユーロ圏を除く欧州
Chart II-3 注目指標 - 債券利回り - アジア
注目指標 - 債券利回り - アジア
注目指標 - 債券利回り - アジア
Chart II-4 注目指標 - 債券利回り - その他の先進国
注目指標 - 債券利回り - その他先進国
注目指標 - 債券利回り - その他先進国
注目指標 - 金利見通し Chart II-5 注目指標 - 金利見通し
注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し
注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し
Chart II-6 注目指標 - 金利見通し
注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し
注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し
Chart II-7 注目指標 - 金利見通し
注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し
注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し
Chart II-8 注目指標 - 金利見通し
注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し
注目すべき指標 - 金利見通し
Highlights Fiscal stimulus is no longer a free lunch. US mortgage applications are down by 20 percent since the start of February. With rising bond yields now starting to choke private sector borrowing, bond yields are nearing an upper-limit, and even a reversal point. In which case, the tide out of defensives into cyclicals, and growth into value, will be a tide that reverses. New 6-month recommendation: underweight US banks (XLF) versus consumer staples (XLP). Fractal trade shortlist: US banks, bitcoin, ether, and GBP/JPY. Feature Chart of the WeekMortgage Applications Are Down 20 Percent Why would anybody not get excited about trillions of dollars of fiscal stimulus? The two word answer is: crowding out. If a dollar that is borrowed and spent by the government (or even forecast to be borrowed and spent by the government) pushes up the bond yield, it makes it more expensive for the private sector to borrow and spend. If, as a result, the private sector scales back its borrowing by a dollar, the dollar of government spending has crowded out a dollar of private sector spending. In this case, fiscal stimulus will have no impact on GDP. The fiscal multiplier will be zero. Under some circumstances though, fiscal stimulus does not crowd out the private sector and the fiscal multiplier is extremely high. 2020 was the perfect case in point. As the pandemic gripped the world, much of the private sector was on its knees. Or to be more precise, in lockdown at home, doing nothing, receiving no income, and unwilling and unable to borrow. In such a crisis, the government became the ‘borrower of last resort’. It could, and had to, borrow at will to replace the private sector’s lost income and thereby to stabilise the collapse in demand. With no competition from private sector borrowers for the glut of excess savings, bond yields stayed depressed. Meaning that fiscal stimulus was a free lunch: it had lots of benefit with little cost (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Fiscal Stimulus Was A Free Lunch In 2020, But Not In 2021 Fiscal Stimulus Is No Longer A Free Lunch Covid-19 is still with us, and could be with us forever. Yet the economy will adapt and even thrive with structural changes, such as decentralisation, hybrid office/home working, a shift to online shopping, and less international travel. In fact, all these structural changes were underway long before Covid-19. Meaning that the pandemic was the accelerant rather than the cause of what was happening to the economy anyway. As the private sector now gets back on its feet to restructure, spend, and invest accordingly, fiscal stimulus is no longer a free lunch. Fiscal stimulus is most effective when it is not pushing up the bond yield. To repeat, last year’s massive fiscal stimulus was highly effective because it had little impact on the bond yield, so there was no crowding out of private sector borrowing. The markets have fully priced the 2021 stimulus, but not the crowding out. However, the most recent stimulus package has pushed up the bond yield or, at least, is a major culprit for the recent spike in yields. Hence, there will be some crowding out of private sector borrowing. Worryingly, US mortgage applications, for both purchasing and refinancing, are down by 20 percent since the start of February (Chart of the Week and Chart I-3). Chart I-3Mortgage Applications For Refi Are Down 20 Percent The resulting choke on private sector borrowing and investment will at least partly negate any putative boost from this fiscal stimulus. The concern is that the markets have fully priced the stimulus, but not the crowding out. Time To Rotate Back In our February 18 report, The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational, we warned that high-flying tech stocks were at a point of vulnerability. Specifically, since 2009, the technology sector earnings yield had always maintained a minimum 2.5 percent premium over the 10-year T-bond yield, defining the envelope of a ‘rational bubble.’ In February, this envelope was breached, indicating that tech stock valuations were in a new and irrational phase (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Rational Bubble Turned Irrational The warning proved to be prescient. In the second half of February, tech stocks did sell off sharply and entered a technical correction.1 As a result, tech-dominated stock markets such as China and the Netherlands also suffered sharp declines. Proving once again that regional and country stock market performance is nothing more than an extension of sector performance (Chart I-5). Chart I-5As Tech Corrected, So Did Tech-Heavy Markets But the aggregate stock market has remained more resilient than we expected, and is only modestly down versus its mid-February peak. The reason is that while highly-valued growth stocks suffered the anticipated correction, value stocks continued to advance (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Time To Rotate Back We can explain this divergence in terms of the three components of stock market valuation: The bond yield. The additional return or ‘risk premium’ for owning stocks. The expected growth of earnings. Tech and other growth stocks are ‘long-duration’ assets meaning that their earnings are weighted into the distant future. Hence, for growth stocks the relevant valuation comparison is a long-duration bond yield, say the 10-year yield. Whereas for ‘shorter-duration’ value stocks the relevant valuation comparison is a shorter-duration bond yield, say the 2-year yield. Given that the 10-year yield has risen much more than the 2-year yield, the pain has been much more pronounced for growth stock valuations. Turning to the ‘risk premium’ for owning stocks, at ultra-low bond yields the risk premium just moves in tandem with the bond yield. Hence, as the 10-year yield has spiked, the combination of a rising yield plus a rising risk premium has doubled the pain for growth stock valuations. For a detailed explanation of this dynamic please see our February 18 report. Regarding the expected growth of earnings, the market believes that stimulus is much more beneficial for economically sensitive value stocks than for economically insensitive growth stocks. But now that we are at the point where rising bond yields are starting to choke private demand, the rise in bond yields is nearing a limit, and even a reversal point. In which case, the strong tide out of defensives into cyclicals will also be a tide that reverses. On this basis, and supported by the strong technical arguments in the next section, we are opening a new 6-month position: Underweight US banks versus US consumer staples, expressed as underweight XLF versus XLP. US Banks, Bitcoin, Ether, And The Pound This week we have identified susceptibilities to countertrend moves in three areas. The bullish groupthink in US banks is at an extreme. First, based on its fragile fractal structure, the (bullish) groupthink in US banks versus consumer staples is at an extreme approaching February 2016 (bearish), December 2016 (bullish), and March 2020 (bearish). All these previous extremes in fragility proved to be turning points in relative performance. If this proves true again, the next six months could see a reversal of US bank outperformance (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Groupthink In US Banks Is At An Extreme Second, we are extremely bullish on the structural prospects for cryptocurrencies, and are preparing a report detailing the compelling investment case. Look out for it. That said, the composite fractal structures of both bitcoin and ethereum indicate that they are technically very overbought (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Accordingly, we are hoping for pullbacks that provide better strategic entry points for bitcoin at $40,000, and for ethereum at $1300. Chart I-8Bitcoin Is Technically Overbought Chart I-9Ethereum Is Technically Overbought Third, the UK’s Covid-19 vaccination program was one of the fastest out of the blocks. As the vaccination rate quickly rose to over half the adult population (based on at least one vaccination dose), the pound was a major beneficiary. But now, the UK vaccination program is facing the hurdle of reduced supplies. Additionally, there is the danger that the third wave of infections in Continental Europe washes onto the shores of Britain. Hence, the recent strong rally in the pound is susceptible to a countertrend reversal (Chart 10). This week’s recommended trade is short GBP/JPY setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2.2 percent. Chart I-10The Pound Is Susceptible To A Reversal Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 A technical correction is defined as a 10 percent price decline. Fractal Trading System Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Euro Area Chart II-2Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Asia Chart II-4Other Developed Interest Rate Chart II-5Expectations Chart II-6Expectations Chart II-7Expectations Chart II-8Expectations
Highlights Stimulus checks will not be inflationary. Most households will regard them as additional wealth, and the propensity to spend additional wealth is very low. The bond market’s model for predicting inflation is the precise opposite of what happens in the real world. The bond market’s expectations for inflation are positively correlated with commodity prices, whereas actual prospective inflation is negatively correlated with commodity prices. When, as now, the crude oil price is above $50, long-term investors should overweight T-bonds versus Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). The real bond yield is much higher than the bond market is pricing, which means that equities and other risk-assets are more expensive than they appear. Fractal trades shortlist: stocks versus bonds, 30-year T-bond, NOK/PLN. Feature Chart of the WeekCrude Oil Above $50 Results In Prospective Deflation Major anomalies should not exist in the financial markets, and least of all in the government bond market which is supposed to be the most efficient market of all. But a major anomaly does exist. The anomaly is in the way that the bond market prices inflation. More about that in a moment, but let’s first discuss whether the current surge in inflation expectations is warranted. The Inflationary Impact Of Stimulus Checks Is Exaggerated Inflation expectations have risen. And they have risen especially in the US, for two reasons. First, compared with Europe, the US vaccination roll-out appears to be going relatively smoothly. Second, the US government has been more pro-active in stimulating the economy, especially in the form of issuing stimulus checks to households, as well as other so-called ‘personal current transfer payments.’ Given that this has boosted incomes while spending has been constrained, the US household sector has amassed a war chest of savings. The argument goes that as social restrictions and voluntary social distancing are eased, this war chest will get spent, unleashing a tsunami of pent-up demand which will drive up inflation. But is this argument correct? Even if social restrictions do fully ease – a big if – is it correct to assume that unspent income will get spent? A recent study by the Bank of England points out that whether unspent income gets spent depends on whether households regard it as additional income or additional wealth.1 Whether unspent income gets spent depends on whether households regard it as additional income or additional wealth. The propensity to consume out of additional income is relatively high, with estimates ranging up to 50 percent. But the propensity to consume out of additional wealth is tiny, with international estimates centred around just 5 percent. This begs the question: will households regard the stimulus checks as additional income or additional wealth? The answer depends on whether the household has a low income or a high income. Lower income households, that have borne the brunt of job losses and furloughs, have suffered big drops in their income relative to consumption. Hence, they will regard the stimulus checks as additional income. But to the extent that the additional income is just (partly) replacing lost income, it will not boost their consumption versus what it would have been absent the lost income. On the other hand, higher income households and retirees have largely maintained their incomes while their consumption has fallen. This is where the surge in savings is concentrated. But not being ‘income or liquidity constrained’, these higher income households are more likely to deposit the stimulus checks into their savings accounts (or the stock market), regarding it as additional wealth. Hence, any boost to consumption will be modest and short-lived. In fact, this was precisely what happened after previous issues of stimulus checks, such as in 2008 and 2009. Stimulus checks had no meaningful impact on consumption or inflation trends (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Stimulus Checks Had No Meaningful Impact On Consumption Or Inflation Trends A Major Anomaly In The Bond Market The recent surge in inflation expectations has moved in perfect lockstep with higher prices for commodities, especially crude oil. At first glance, this relationship seems intuitive. After all, we associate higher commodity prices with higher inflation. But on further thought, the tight positive correlation between inflation expectations and commodity price levels is counterintuitive. The first issue is basic maths. Inflation is a change in a price, so it should not move in lockstep with the level of any price. But there is a much bigger issue. Whether the commodity price is driving inflation expectations or whether inflation expectations are driving the commodity price, a higher price today will feed back into lower prospective inflation. In fact, a crude oil price above $50 has consistently predicted prospective deflation in the oil price, leading to CPI inflation underperforming its 2 percent target (Chart of the Week). The bond market’s model for predicting inflation is the precise opposite of what happens in the real world. The important takeaway is that the bond market’s model for predicting inflation is the precise opposite of what happens in the real world. The bond market’s expectations for inflation are positively correlated with commodity prices, but actual prospective inflation is negatively correlated with commodity prices (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Bond Market's Expectations For Inflation Are Positively Correlated With Commodity Prices... Chart I-4...But Actual Prospective Inflation Is Negatively Correlated With Commodity Prices This major anomaly in the bond market creates a great opportunity for long-term bond investors. When the (Brent) crude oil price is above $50, long-term investors should overweight T-bonds versus Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). And vice-versa when crude falls below $50. With Brent now at $68, the appropriate long-term stance is to overweight T-bonds versus TIPS (Chart I-5). Chart I-5When The (Brent) Oil Price Is Above , Long-Term Investors Should Overweight T-bonds Versus TIPS There are also implications for other investors. Given that the bond market is useless at predicting inflation, it is also useless at assessing real interest rates. Specifically, when crude is above $50, the ex-post (realised) real bond yield will be higher than the ex-ante (assumed) real bond yield (Chart I-6). The important takeaway right now is that in any comparison with the real bond yield, equities and other risk-assets are even more expensive than they appear. Chart I-6When The (Brent) Oil Price Is Above , The Realised Real Bond Yield Will Be Higher Than Assumed Embrace The Fractal Market Hypothesis The Fractal Market Hypothesis (FMH) is a breakthrough in the understanding of financial markets, replacing the defunct Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). The breakthrough insight from the Fractal Market Hypothesis is that the market is not always efficient. The market is efficient only when a wide spectrum of investment time horizons is setting the price, signified by the market having a rich fractal structure. The Fractal Market Hypothesis (FMH) is a breakthrough in the understanding of financial markets. The corollary is that when the fractal structure becomes extremely fragile, it tells us that the information and interpretation of long-term investors is missing from the recent price setting, and is likely to reappear. At which point, the most recent price trend, fuelled by short-term groupthink, will break down. As most investors are unaware of the Fractal Market Hypothesis, it gives a competitive advantage to the few investors that do embrace it. Through the past five years, our proprietary Fractal Trading System has identified countertrend trading opportunities with truly excellent results. After 207 trades, the ‘win ratio’ stands at 61 percent. Yet as we understand more about this breakthrough theory of finance, we believe we can do even better. Today, we are very pleased to upgrade the trading system with innovations to the calculations of fractal structure, the countertrend profit opportunity, and the optimal holding period, all detailed in Box I-1. Box 1: Fractal Trading System Principles Countertrend opportunities in an investment will be identified by a fragile composite fractal structure, based on 65-day, 130-day, and 260-day fractal dimensions approaching their lower bounds. The countertrend profit target will be based on a Fibonacci retracement. There will be a symmetrical stop-loss. The maximum holding period will be trade-specific and vary from 33 to 130 business days (broadly 6 weeks to 6 months). From today, we will also identify a larger number of fragile fractal structures and especially highlight those that are evident in mainstream investments. From this shortlist of candidates, we will choose the most compelling to add into our portfolio. In many cases, the alignment of a fundamental argument with a fragile fractal structure will reinforce the investment case. Among our most recent recommendations, underweight China versus New Zealand achieved its 9 percent target, short Korean won versus US dollar achieved its 2.5 percent target, and long Russian rouble versus South African rand expired at 1.5 percent profit. This week, we highlight that the composite fractal structures of stocks versus bonds and the 30-year T-bond are becoming extremely fragile (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). To be clear, this does not guarantee a countertrend move, but it does indicate an elevated susceptibility to a countertrend move. Hence, for the time being, we remain tactically neutral stocks versus bonds. Chart I-7The Fractal Structure Of Stocks Versus Bonds Is Becoming Fragile Chart I-8The Fractal Structure Of The 30-Year T-Bond Is Becoming Fragile In the foreign exchange markets, we note that the strong advance in the Norwegian krone, fuelled by the rally in crude oil, is vulnerable to a pullback (Chart I-9). Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short NOK/PLN, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop at 2.6 percent. Chart I-9Short NOK/PLN Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Bank of England, An update on the economic outlook by Gertjan Vlieghe, 22 February 2021 Fractal Trading System Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Euro Area Chart II-2Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Asia Chart II-4Other Developed Interest Rate Chart II-5Expectations Chart II-6Expectations Chart II-7Expectations Chart II-8Expectations
Highlights The Biden administration’s early actions suggest it will be hawkish on China as expected – and the giant Microsoft hack merely confirms the difficulty of reducing strategic tensions. US-China talks are set to resume and piecemeal engagement is possible. However, most of the areas of engagement touted in the media are overrated. Competition will prevail over cooperation. Cybersecurity stocks have corrected, creating an entry point for investors seeking exposure to a secular theme of Great Power conflict in the cyber realm and beyond. Global defense stocks are even more attractive than cyberstocks as a “back to work” trade in the geopolitical context. Continue to build up safe-haven hedges as geopolitical risk remains structurally elevated and underrated by financial markets. Feature The Biden administration passed its first major law, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, on March 10. This gargantuan infusion of fiscal stimulus accounts for about 2% of global GDP and 9% of US GDP, a tailwind for risky assets when taken with a receding pandemic and normalizing global economy. The US dollar has perked up so far this year on the back of this extraordinary pump-priming and the rapid rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, which have lifted relative growth expectations with the rest of the world. Hence the dollar is rising for fundamentally positive reasons that will benefit global growth rather than choke it off. Our Foreign Exchange Strategist Chester Ntonifor argues that the dollar has 2-3% of additional upside before relapsing under the weight of rising global growth, inflation expectations, commodity prices, and relative equity flows into international markets. We agree with the dollar bear market thesis. But there are two geopolitical risks that investors must monitor: Cyclically, China’s combined monetary and fiscal stimulus is peaking, growth will decelerate, and the central government runs a non-negligible risk of overtightening policy. However, China’s National People’s Congress so far confirms our view that Beijing will not overtighten. Structurally, the US-China cold war is continuing apace under President Biden, as expected. The two sides are engaging in normal diplomacy as appropriate to a new US administration but the Microsoft Exchange hack (see below) underscores the trend of confrontation over cooperation. Chart 1Long JPY / Short KRW As Geopolitical Risk Is Underrated The second point reinforces the first since persistent US pressure on China will discourage it from excessive deleveraging at home. In a world where China is struggling to cap excessive leverage, the US is pursuing “extreme competition” with China (Biden’s words), and yet the US rule of law is intact, global investors will not abandon the US dollar in a general panic and loss of confidence. They will, however, continue to diversify away from the dollar on a cyclical basis given that global growth will accelerate while US policy will remain extremely accommodative. Reinforcing the point, geopolitical frictions are rising even outside the US-China conflict. A temporary drop in risk occurred in the New Year as a result of the rollout of vaccines, the defeat of President Trump, and the resolution of Brexit. But going forward, geopolitical risk will reaccelerate, with various implications that we highlight in this report. While we would not call an early end to the dollar bounce, we will keep in place our tactical long JPY-USD and long CHF-USD hedges. These currencies offer a good hedge in the context of a dollar bear market and structurally high geopolitical risk. If the dollar weakens anew on good news for global growth then the yen and franc will benefit on a relative basis as they are cheap, whereas if geopolitical risk explodes they will benefit as safe havens. We also recommend going long the Japanese yen relative to the South Korean won given the disparity in valuations highlighted by our Emerging Markets team, and the fact that geopolitical tensions center on the US and China (Chart 1). “Our Most Serious Competitor, China” Why are we so sure that geopolitical risk will remain structurally elevated and deliver negative surprises to ebullient equity markets? Our Geopolitical Power Index shows that China’s rise and Russia’s resurgence are disruptive to the US-led global order (Chart 2). If anything this process has accelerated over the COVID-19 crisis. China and Russia have authoritarian control over their societies and are implementing mercantilist and autarkic economic policies. They are carving out spheres of influence in their regions and using asymmetric warfare against the US and its allies. They have also created a de facto alliance in their shared interest in undermining the unity of the West. The US is meanwhile attempting to build an alliance of democracies against them, heightening their insecurities about America’s power and unpredictability (Chart 3). Chart 2Great Power Struggle Continues Massive fiscal and monetary stimulus is positive for economic growth and corporate earnings but it reduces the barriers to geopolitical conflict. Nations can pursue foreign and trade policies in their self-interest with less concern about the blowback from rivals if they are fueled up with artificially stimulated domestic demand. Chart 3Biden: ‘Our Most Serious Competitor, China’ Total trade between the US and China, at 3.2% and 4.7% of GDP respectively in 2018, was not enough to prevent trade war from erupting. Today the cost of trade frictions is even lower. The US has passed 25.4% of GDP in fiscal stimulus so far since January 1, 2020. China’s total fiscal-and-credit impulse has risen by 8.4% of GDP over the same time period. The Biden administration is co-opting Trump’s hawkish foreign and trade policy toward China, judging by its initial statements and actions (Appendix Table 1). Specifically, Biden has issued an executive order on securing domestic supply chains that demonstrates his commitment to the Trumpian goal of diversifying away from China and on-shoring production, or at least offshoring to allied nations. The Democratic Party is also unveiling bipartisan legislation in Congress that attempts to reduce reliance on China.1 These executive decrees are partly spurred on by the global shortage of semiconductors. China, the US, and the US’s allies are all attempting to build alternative semiconductor supply chains that bypass Taiwan, a critical bottleneck in the production of the most advanced computer chips. The Taiwanese say they will coordinate with “like-minded economies” to alleviate shortages, by which they mean fellow democracies. But this exposes Taiwan to greater geopolitical risk insofar as it excludes mainland China from supplies, either due to rationing or American export controls. The surge in semiconductor sales and share prices of semi companies (especially materials and equipment makers) will continue as countries will need a constant supply of ever more advanced chips to feed into the new innovation and technology race, the renewable energy race, and the buildout of 5G networks and beyond (Chart 4). It takes huge investments of time and capital to build alternative fabrication plants and supply lines yet governments are only beginning to put their muscle into it via stimulus packages and industrial policy. Chart 4Semiconductor Supply Shortage Supply shocks have geopolitical consequences. The oil shocks of the 1970s and early 1990s motivated the US to escalate its interventions and involvement in the Middle East. They also motivated the US to invest in stockpiles of critical goods and alternative sources of production so as to reduce dependency (Chart 5). Although semiconductors are not fungible like commodities, and the US has tremendous advantages in semiconductor design and production, nevertheless the bottleneck in Taiwan will take years to alleviate. Hence the US will become more active in supply security at home and more active in alliance-building in Asia Pacific to deter China from taking Taiwan by force or denying regional access to the US and its allies. China faces the same bottleneck, which threatens its technological advance, economic productivity, and ultimately its political stability and international defense. Chart 5ASupply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Chart 5BSupply Shortages Motivate Strategic Investments Semiconductor and semi equipment stock prices have gone vertical as highlighted above but one way to envision the surge in global growth and capex for chip makers is to compare these stocks relative to the shares of Big Tech companies in the communication service sector, i.e. those involved in social networking and entertainment, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Netflix. On a relative basis the semi stocks can outperform these interactive media firms which face a combination of negative shocks from rising interest rates, regulation, economic normalization, and ideologically fueled competition (Chart 6). Chart 6Long Chips Versus Big Tech What about the potential for the US and China to enhance cooperation in areas of shared interest? Generally the opportunity for re-engagement is overrated. The Biden administration says there will be engagement where possible. The first high-level talks will occur in Alaska on March 18-19 between Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Central Foreign Affairs Commissioner Yang Jiechi, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping may hold a bilateral summit sometime soon and the old strategic and economic dialogue may resume, enabling cabinet-level officials to explore a range of areas for cooperation independently of high-stakes strategic negotiations. However, a close look at the policy areas targeted for engagement reveals important limitations: Health: There is little room for concrete cooperation on the COVID-19 pandemic given that the pandemic is already receding, the Chinese have not satisfied American demands for data transparency, Chinese officials have fanned theories that the virus originated in the US, and the US is taking measures to move pharmaceutical and health equipment supply chains out of China. Trade: Trade is an area of potential cooperation given that the two countries will continue trading while their economies rebound. The Phase One trade deal remains in place. However, China only made structural concessions on agriculture in this deal so any additional structural changes will have to be the subject of extensive negotiations. Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen says the US will use the “full array of tools” to ensure compliance and will punish China for abuses of the global trade system. Cybersecurity: On cybersecurity, China greeted the Biden administration by hacking the Microsoft Exchange email system, an even larger event than Russia’s SolarWinds hack last year. Both hacks highlight how cyberspace is a major arena of modern Great Power struggle, making it unlikely that there will be effective cooperation. The hack suggests Beijing remains more concerned about accessing technology while it can than reducing tensions. The Americans will make demands of China at the Alaska meetings. Environment: As for the environment, the US is a net oil exporter while China imports 73% of its oil, 42% of its natural gas and 7.8% of its coal consumption, with 40% and 10% of its oil and gas coming from the Middle East. The US wants to be at the cutting edge of renewable energy technology but it has nowhere near the impetus of China (or Europe), which are diversifying away from fossil fuels for the sake of national security. Moreover China will want its own companies, not American, to meet its renewable needs. This is true even if there is success in reducing barriers for green trade, since the whole point of diversifying from Middle Eastern oil supplies is strategic self-sufficiency. The Americans would have to accept less energy self-sufficiency and greater renewable dependence on China. Nuclear Proliferation: Cooperation can occur here as the Biden administration will seek to return to a deal with the Iranians restraining their nuclear ambitions while maintaining a diplomatic limiting North Korea’s nuclear weapons stockpile and ballistic missile development. China and Russia will accept the US rejoining the 2015 Iranian nuclear deal but they will require significant concessions if they are to join the US in forcing anything more substantial on the Iranians. China may enforce sanctions on North Korea but then it will expect concessions on trade and technology that the Biden administration will not want to give merely for the sake of North Korea. Bottom Line: The Biden administration’s China strategy is taking shape and it is hawkish as expected. It is not ultra-hawkish, however, as the key characteristic is that it is a defensive posture in the wake of the perceived failures of Trump’s strategy of “attack, attack, attack.” This means largely maintaining the leverage that Trump built for the US while shifting the focus to actions that the US can take to improve its domestic production, supply chain resilience, and coordination with allied producers. Punitive measures are an option, however, and if relations deteriorate over time, as expected, they will be increasingly relied on. Buy The Dip In Cybersecurity Stocks A linchpin of the above analysis is the Microsoft Exchange hack, which some have called the largest hack in US history, since it confirms the view that the Biden administration will not be able to de-escalate strategic tensions with China much. China has been particularly frantic to acquire technology through hacking and cyber-espionage over the past decade as it attempts to achieve a Great Leap Forward in productivity in light of slowing potential growth that threatens single-party rule over the long run. The breakdown in ties between Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping occurred not only because of Xi’s perceived violation of a personal pledge not to militarize the South China Sea but also because of the failure of a cybersecurity cooperation deal between the two. When the Trump administration arrived on the scene it sought to increase pressure on China and cybersecurity was immediately identified as an area where pushback was long overdue. Cyber conflict is highly likely to persist, not only with Russia but also with China. Cyber operations are a way for states to engage in Great Power struggle while still managing the level of tensions and avoiding a military conflict in the real world. The cyber realm is a realm of anarchy in which states are insecure about their capabilities and are constantly testing opponents’ defenses and their own offensive capabilities. They can also act to undermine each other with plausible deniability in the cyber realm, since multiple state and quasi-state actors and a vast criminal underworld make it difficult to identify culprits with confidence. Revisionist states like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran have an advantage in asymmetric warfare, including cyber, since it enables them to undermine the US and West without putting their weaker conventional forces in jeopardy. Cybersecurity stocks have corrected but the general up-trend is well established and fully justified (Chart 7). It is not clear, however, that investors should favor cybersecurity stocks over the general NASDAQ index (Chart 8). The trend has been sideways in recent years and is trying to form a bottom. Cybersecurity stocks are volatile, as can be seen compared to tech stocks as a whole, and in both cases the general trend is for rising volatility as the macro backdrop shifts in favor of higher interest rates and inflation expectations (Chart 9). Chart 7Cyber Security Stocks Corrected Chart 8Major Hacks Failed To Boost Cyber Vs NASDAQ Chart 9Volatility Of Cyber & Tech Stocks Rising Great Power struggle will not remain limited to the cyber realm. There is a fundamental problem of military insecurity plaguing the world’s major powers. Furthermore the global economic upturn and new energy and industrial innovation race will drive up commodity prices, which will in turn reactivate territorial and maritime disputes. Turf battles will re-escalate in the South and East China Seas, the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean basin, the Mediterranean, and even the Baltic Sea and Arctic. One way to play this shift is as a geopolitical “back to work” trade – long defense stocks relative to cybersecurity stocks (Chart 10). The global defense sector saw a run-up in demand, capital expenditures, and profits late in the last business cycle. That all came crashing down with the pandemic, which supercharged cybersecurity as a necessary corollary to the swarm of online activity as households hunkered down to avoid the virus and obey government social restrictions. Cybersecurity stocks have higher EV/EBITDA ratios and lower profit margins and return on equity compared to defense stocks or the broad market. Chart 10Long Defense / Short Cyber Security: 'Back To Work' For Geopolitics The trade does not mean cybersecurity stocks will fall in absolute terms – we maintain our bullish case for cybersecurity stocks – but merely that defense stocks will make relative gains as economic normalization continues in the context of Great Power struggle. Bottom Line: Structurally elevated geopolitical risks will continue to drive demand for cybersecurity in absolute terms. However, we would favor global defense stocks on a relative basis. The US Is Not As War-Weary As People Think America is consumed with domestic divisions and distractions. Since 2008 Washington has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to confront foreign rivals over small territorial conquests. This risk aversion has created power vacuums, inviting ambitious regional powers like China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey to act assertively in their immediate neighborhoods. However, the US is not embracing isolationism. Public opinion polling shows Americans are still committed to an active role in global affairs (Chart 11). The 2020 election confirms that verdict. Nor are Americans demanding big cuts in defense spending. Only 31% of Americans think defense spending is “too much” and only 12% think the national defense is stronger than it needs to be (Chart 12). Chart 11No Isolationism Here True, the Democratic Party is much more inclined to cut defense spending than the Republicans. About 43% of Democrats demand cuts, while 32% are complacent about the current level of spending (compared to 8% and 44% for Republicans). But it is primarily the progressive wing of the party that seeks outright cuts and the progressives are not the ones who took power. Chart 12Americans Against ‘Forever Wars’ But Not Truly Dovish Biden and his cabinet represent the Washington establishment, including the military-industrial complex. Even if Vice President Kamala Harris should become president she would, if anything, need to prove her hawkish credentials. Defense spending cuts might be projected nominally in Biden’s presidential budgets but they will not muster majorities in the two narrowly divided chambers of Congress. Biden has co-opted Trump’s (and Obama’s) message of strategic withdrawal and military drawdown. He is targeting a date of withdrawal from Afghanistan on May 1, notwithstanding the leverage that a military presence there could yield in its priority negotiations with Iran. Yet he is not jeopardizing the American troop presence in Germany and South Korea, much more geopolitically consequential spheres of action in a long competition with Russia and China. While it is true (and widely known) that Americans have turned against “forever wars,” this really means Middle Eastern quagmires like Iraq and Afghanistan and does not mean that the American public or political establishment have truly become anti-war “doves.” The US public recognizes the need to counter China and Russia and Congress will continue appropriating funds for defense as well as for industrial policy. The Biden administration will increase awareness about the risks of a lack of deterrence and alliance-building. This is especially apparent given the military buildup in China. The annual legislative session has revealed an important increase in military focus in Beijing in the context of the US rivalry. Previously, in the thirteenth five-year plan and the nineteenth National Party Congress, the People’s Liberation Army aimed to achieve “informatization and mechanization” reforms by 2020 and total modernization by 2035. However, at the fifth plenum of the central committee in October, the central government introduced a new military goal for the PLA’s 100th anniversary in 2027 – a “military centennial goal” to match with the 2021 centennial of the Communist Party and the 2049 centennial goal of the founding of the People’s Republic. While details about this new military centenary are lacking, the obvious implication is that the Communist Party and PLA are continuing to shift the focus to “fighting and winning wars,” particularly in the context of the need to deter the United States. The official defense budget is supposed to grow 6.8% in 2021, only slightly higher than the 6.6% goal in 2020, but observers have long known that China’s military budget could be as much as twice as high as official statistics indicate. The point is that defense spending is going up, as one would expect, in the context of persistent US-China tensions. Bottom Line: Just as US-China cooperation will be hindered by mutual efforts to reduce supply chain dependency and support domestic demand, so too it will be hindered by mutual efforts to increase defense readiness and capability in the event of military conflict. The beneficiary of continued high levels of US defense spending and Chinese spending increases – in the context of a more general global arms buildup – will be global arms makers. Investment Takeaways Geopolitical risk remains structurally elevated despite the temporary drop in tensions in late 2020 and early 2021. The China-backed Microsoft Exchange hack reinforces the Biden administration’s initial foreign policy comments and actions suggesting that US policy will remain hawkish on China. While Biden will adopt a more defensive rather than offensive strategy relative to Trump, there is no chance that he will return to the status quo ante. The Obama administration itself grew more hawkish on China in 2015-16 in the face of cyber threats and strategic tensions in the South China Sea. Cybersecurity stocks will continue to benefit from secular demand in an era of Great Power competition where nations use cyberattacks as a form of asymmetric warfare and a means of minimizing the risks of conflict. The recent correction in cybersecurity stocks creates a good entry point. We closed our earlier trade in January for a gain of 31% but have remained thematically bullish and recommend going long in absolute terms. We would favor defense over cybersecurity stocks as a geopolitical version of the “back to work” trade in which conventional economic activity revives, including geopolitical competition for territory, resources, and strategic security. Defense stocks are undervalued and relative share prices are unlikely to fall to 2010-era lows given the structural increase in geopolitical risk (Chart 13). Chart 13Global Defense Stocks Oversold Chart 14Global Defense Stocks Profitable, Less Indebted Defense stocks have seen profit margins hold up and are not too heavily burdened by debt relative to the broad market (Chart 14). Defense stocks have a higher return on equity than the average for non-financial corporations and cash flow will improve as a new capex cycle begins in which nations seek to improve their security and gain access to territory and resources (Chart 15). Chart 15Defense Stocks: High RoE, Capex Will Revive Chart 16Discount On Global Defense Stocks Valuation metrics show that global defense stocks are trading at a discount (Chart 16). Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Table 1 Appendix Table 1Biden Administration's First 100 Days: Key Statements And Actions On China Footnotes 1 See Federal Register, "America’s Supply Chains", Mar. 1, 2021, federalregister.gov and Richard Cowan and Alexandra Alper, "Top U.S. Senate Democrat directs lawmakers to craft bill to counter China", Feb. 23, 2021, reuters.com.
Dear Client From March 18 I will be writing under a new product title, the BCA Research Counterpoint. The aim of the Counterpoint is to generate a high volume of investment opportunities that are unconnected to the business cycle and run counter to the conventional wisdom. For those of you that have followed the European Investment Strategy through the past ten years, Counterpoint will seamlessly continue the same intellectual framework of investment ‘mega-themes’, fundamental analysis, fractal analysis, and sector primacy. The difference is that the investment opportunities will encompass all geographies. To whet your appetite, early Counterpoint reports will introduce new investment mega-themes including: the compelling structural case for cryptocurrencies; why shocks such as the pandemic are inherently predictable; and the structural transformation coming to the global labour market. There will also be an upgrade of the proprietary Fractal Trading System to generate more ideas per week and to boost the win ratio towards 70 percent. As for the European Investment Strategy, it will continue in the very capable hands of my colleague and friend, Mathieu Savary. Mathieu has previously written the Foreign Exchange Service, the flagship Bank Credit Analyst, and most recently the Daily Insights. Moreover, Mathieu is French. So if anyone knows how Europe works (and doesn’t work), it is Mathieu! I do hope you read both products. Best regards Dhaval Highlights If bond yields continue their march higher, the most dangerous earthquake will happen in the global real estate market. If higher bond yields caused even a 10 percent decline in the $300 trillion global real estate market it would unleash a deflationary impulse equal to one third of world GDP This would make any preceding inflationary impulse feel like a waltz in the park. For long-term investors who can ride out near term pain, there are three important conclusions: The ultimate low in bond yields is still ahead of us. The structural bull market in stocks will continue until bond yields reach their ultimate low. Equity investors should structurally tilt towards ‘growth’ sectors that will benefit from the ultimate low in bond yields. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Real Estate Market Dwarfs The Stock Market And The Global Economy In the last couple of weeks, higher bond yields have caused tremors in the stock market. But if bond yields continue their march higher and stay there, the most dangerous earthquake will not happen in the stock market, it will happen in the real estate market. The $90 trillion worth of the global stock market is large, but it is chicken feed compared with the $300 trillion worth of global real estate (Chart of the Week). The big worry is that the valuation of global real estate is critically dependent on bond yields staying low. If higher bond yields caused even a 10 percent decline in global real estate values, it would amount to a $30 trillion plunge in global wealth. Such a deflationary impulse, equal to one third of world GDP, would make any preceding inflationary impulse feel like a waltz in the park. Hence, to anybody worried that we are on the road to inflation, we pose a simple question. How would the world economy cope with the massive deflationary impact on $300 trillion of global real estate?1 The Real Risk Is Real Estate Over the past decade, global real estate rents have broadly tracked nominal GDP, as they should. But real estate prices have massively outperformed rents (Chart I-2). The reason is that the valuation paid for those rents has surged by 35 percent. This ‘multiple expansion’ of real estate which has added $80 trillion to global wealth – broadly equivalent to global GDP – is entirely due to lower bond yields. Chart I-2Real Estate Prices Have Massively Outperformed Rents And GDP Within the global real estate market, the residential segment constitutes 80 percent by value. Commercial real estate accounts for a little over 10 percent, and agricultural and forestry real estate makes up the remainder. It follows that the most important component of the real estate boom has been a housing boom. Given that most homes are owner-occupied, the boom in house prices has boosted the wealth of the ordinary global citizen by much more than the boom in stock prices. Moreover, the 2010s housing boom was unprecedented in its penetration and regional breadth, simultaneously encompassing cities, suburbs, and rural areas across North America, Europe, Asia and Australasia. Even Germany and Japan joined in, making it the most widely participated-in housing boom in economic history. What was behind this synchronised and broad-based housing boom? The answer is the universal decline in bond yields. As the global real estate firm Savills puts it: “Real estate has increased significantly in value, spurred on by the intervention of central banks and their suppression of bond yields” In fact, as the US and China now dominate the global real estate market, the downtrend in the global rental yield has closely tracked the downtrend in the US and China long bond yields. The big danger would be if this downtrend turned into an uptrend, undermining the valuation of $300 trillion of global real estate. To repeat, even a 10 percent synchronised decline in global real estate prices would wipe out $30 trillion of global wealth equal to one third of annual GDP, and it would impact almost everybody. The ‘multiple expansion’ of real estate has added $80 trillion to global wealth, broadly equivalent to global GDP. But where is the pain point? Our answer is that if inflation fears lifted the average US and China 30-year bond yield to 3.75 percent (from 3 percent now), it would constitute the change in trend that would unleash a massive countervailing deflationary impulse from falling house prices (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Higher Bond Yields Would Unleash A Massive Deflationary Impulse From Falling House Prices Waiting For Rationality To Return To Stocks In the stock market, the August to mid-February period was a brief aberration in which stocks rallied in tandem with rising bond yields. But looking at the bigger picture, the bull market in stocks, just as for real estate, is due to lower bond yields (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The August To Mid-February Rally In Stocks Was An Aberration Since 2008, global stock market profits have gone nowhere. Therefore, the only reason that the stock market surged is that the valuation paid for those unchanged profits surged. Just as for real estate, the stock market’s valuation surged because bond yields collapsed (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Bull Market In Stocks Is Entirely Due To Higher Valuations Taking account of this downtrend in bond yields, the post-2008 boom in valuations is rational. However, as we warned two weeks ago, the continued expansion of valuations while bond yields are backing up means that The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational. The point of vulnerability is in high-flying tech stocks. Since 2009, the technology sector earnings yield has always maintained a minimum 2.5 percent premium over the 10-year T-bond yield, defining the envelope of the rational bubble. But in recent weeks, this envelope has been breached, indicating that valuation is entering a new and irrational phase (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational For long-term investors the pressing questions are: how much higher can bond yields go, and for how long? Our answers are, much less than 1 percent, and not for long – because the deflationary impact on $300 trillion of real estate would eventually force bond yields into a very sharp reversal. The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation Many people believe that ‘real’ assets such as real estate and stocks perform well in an inflationary scare. But this is a misunderstanding. Granted, the income generated by real assets should keep pace with nominal GDP. But the valuation paid for that income collapses, taking the price of the asset down with it. From the state of price stability, in which most developed economies now find themselves, the creation of inflation is a non-linear phenomenon. Non-linear means that policymakers’ efforts result in either nothing (witness Japan or Switzerland), or in uncontrolled inflation (witness the US in the late 1960s). In fact, can you name any economy that has shifted from price stability to a controlled inflation? If you can, please tell me in an email! When an economy phase shifts from price stability to price instability, the valuations of real assets collapse. This is because the starting valuation needed to generate a given real return during uncontrolled inflation is much lower than during price stability. When an economy phase shifts from price stability to price instability, the valuations of real assets collapse. Chart I-7 should make this crystal clear. During the low-inflation 1990s and 2000s, a starting price to earnings multiple of 15 consistently generated a prospective 10-year real return of 10 percent. But during the uncontrolled inflation of the 1970s, the same starting multiple of 15 generated a real return of zero. To generate a real return of 10 percent, the starting multiple had to sink to 7. This explains why the prices of stocks and real estate collapsed in the 1970s and why they would collapse again in a new inflationary scare. Chart I-7In An Inflation Scare, Valuations Have To Collapse To Generate An Adequate Real Return As an aside, this also explains why so-called ‘financial repression’ – whereby the central bank holds down bond yields while the government generates inflation – will not work. While it is conceivable that a government could corner its government bond market and thereby repress it, it would be near-impossible to repress the much larger asset-classes of stocks and real estate. Once these large and privately priced markets sniffed out the government’s nefarious plan, the valuation of such assets would collapse to generate the previously required real return – the result being an almighty crash in stock and real estate prices. Given that the combined value of such markets dwarfs the $90 trillion global economy, the road to inflation would end at deflation. For long-term investors who can ride out near term pain, all of this leads to three important conclusions: The ultimate low in bond yields is still ahead of us. The structural bull market in stocks will continue until bond yields reach their ultimate low. Equity investors should structurally tilt towards ‘growth’ sectors that will benefit from the ultimate low in bond yields. Fractal Trading System* In a very successful week, short MSCI Korea versus MSCI AC World achieved its 10.6 percent profit target and short tin versus lead quickly achieved its 13 percent profit target. This takes the rolling 12-month win ratio to 60 percent. Given the transition to the new product title, there are no new trades this week. We look forward to introducing the upgraded Fractal Trading System and some new trades in the BCA Counterpoint on March 18. Chart I-8MSCI Korea Vs. MSCI All-Country World* For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Source: Savills Prime Index: World Cities, August 2020; and Savills: 8 things to know about global real estate value, July 2018. Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights The multiple paid for oil sector profits is collapsing because the market fears that the profits slump will not be short-lived. The fear is not just of a lasting hit to aviation and a slower recovery in road mobility, but an existential fear for fossil-fuelled road transportation in the post-pandemic world. Stay structurally underweight oil and gas. Within the cyclical and value segments of the equity market, overweight metals and miners versus oil and gas. Structurally underweight the stock markets of Norway and the UK which are oil and gas heavy. Structurally overweight the stock markets of Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark which have zero exposure to oil and gas or basic resources. Fractal trade: tin’s near-vertical rally is at high risk of correction. Feature Chart of the WeekOil Production Has Gone Nowhere The Brent crude oil price recently hit $65, not far below its pre-pandemic level of $69. Yet in the stock market, oil and gas equities remain the dogs, languishing 32 percent below their pre-pandemic price level. Relative to the market, the oil and gas sector has underperformed by 42 percent, and the underperformance has been almost a straight line down. Moreover, since last June when the crude oil price has risen by 50 percent, oil and gas equity prices have gone nowhere. This massive divergence of a surging crude oil price from slumping oil and gas equities raises the obvious question, what can explain this dichotomy? (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3) Chart I-2Oil And Gas Equities Have Slumped In Absolute Terms... Chart I-3...And In Relative ##br##Terms One apparent puzzle is that the oil sector’s profits have underperformed their established relationship with the crude oil price. In fact, there is no puzzle. The oil sector’s profits might appear to track the oil price, but the reality is that profits track the value of oil production, meaning the product of oil production and the oil price. Clearly though, if output is flat, then profits will appear to track the oil price. But as it took a massive cut in oil output to support the oil price, the value of oil production and therefore, the oil sector’s profits, have significantly underperformed the oil price. Put another way, if you need to cut output to boost the commodity price it might help the commodity price, but it doesn’t much help the equity sector’s profits! (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4Oil And Gas Profits Appear To Track The Oil Price Chart I-5In Reality, Oil And Gas Profits Track The Value Of Oil Output Will Fossil-Fuelled Road Transportation Be Driven To Extinction? We can now explain the 42 percent underperformance of oil equities, and perhaps more importantly, forecast what will happen next. When the pandemic took hold, and economic mobility ground to a halt, the oil sector’s 12-month forward profits slumped. Bear in mind that aviation accounts for 8 percent of oil consumption but, more crucially, road transportation accounts for half of all oil consumption. However, as the pandemic’s impact was expected to be short-lived, the multiple paid for those depressed 12-month forward profits rose. This partly compensated for the profit slump, but still left oil equity prices much lower. The multiple paid for oil sector profits is collapsing because the market fears that the profit slump will not be short-lived. When profits started to recover – albeit, as just discussed, by much less than the oil price rise – it should have boosted oil equity prices. The problem was that the multiple paid for those profits fell by much more than the recovery in profits, with the result that oil equities continued to underperform. Begging the question, why is the multiple paid for oil sector profits collapsing? (Chart I-6) Chart I-6Why Is The Multiple Paid For Oil Sector Profits Collapsing? The multiple paid for oil sector profits is collapsing because the market fears that the profit slump will not be short-lived. The fear is not just of a lasting hit to aviation and a slower recovery in road mobility. The fear has become existential. Governments’ plans for pandemic stimulus and recovery have put green energy at front and centre stage. Thereby the recovery has fast-tracked the ultimate nemesis of the oil industry – the extinction of fossil-fuelled road transportation. Are the fears for oil consumption justified? Yes. Aviation is not likely to reach its pre-pandemic level of oil consumption for many years, and long-haul aviation may never get there. But the much bigger threat is fossil-fuelled road transportation. From October 2021, London will extend its Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to an 8 mile radius from the city centre.1 The effect will be to banish from London all diesel-fuelled vehicles made before 2015 as well as some older petrol-fuelled vehicles. We expect other major cities to follow London’s example. In most cases, this initiative will happen regardless of the success (or not) of electric vehicles (EVs). Combined with other green initiatives around the world, policymakers’ unashamed aim is to drive fossil-fuelled road transportation to extinction. To repeat, road transportation accounts for half of all oil consumption. The upshot is that the structural downtrend in oil consumption will persist unless the shift away from fossil-fuelled road transportation hits a brick wall, or at least a bottleneck. We do not see such a brick wall or a bottleneck in the foreseeable future. We conclude that though the sector may offer occasional countertrend tactical buying opportunities, long-term equity investors should underweight oil and gas. Structurally Prefer Metals And Miners To Oil And Gas The preceding analysis of the oil sector can be extended to other commodity equities, like the metals and miners. To reiterate, it is the total value of commodity output – the product of commodity production and the commodity price – that drives the profits of commodity equities. On this basis, the long-term prospects for the metals and miners appear somewhat brighter than for oil and gas equities (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Commodity Sector Profits Track The Value Of Commodity Output Looking at the production of copper, it has increased by around 25 percent over the past decade, albeit this is just in line with world real GDP. By comparison, the production of oil has gone nowhere (Chart of the Week). It is the total value of commodity output that drives the profits of commodity equities. Turning to price, relative to the 2011 high the copper price is around 15 percent lower, whereas the oil price is 50 percent lower (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Copper Price Has Outperformed The Oil Price Hence, on the all-important value of output, copper has moved in a sideways channel over the past decade while oil has been in an unmistakeable structural downtrend, with lower highs and lower lows (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Value Of Output Is Trending Sideways For Copper, But Downwards For Oil This relative trend is likely to continue as the shift from fossil-fuelled road transportation to EVs will weigh on oil demand, while supporting copper (and other metal) demand. We do not recommend an outright overweight in metals and miners given that their profits are just moving in a sideways channel. However, within the cyclical and value segments of the equity market, a good structural position is to overweight metals and miners versus oil and gas. When Oil And Gas Underperforms, So Does Norway’s OBX And The UK’s FTSE 100 Regional and country equity market performances is driven by the dominant sectors within each stock market. In relative terms, it is also driven by the sectors that are missing. If the oil and gas sector is a structural underperformer, then oil and gas heavy stock markets such as Norway and the UK will be structural underperformers too. If the oil and gas sector is a structural underperformer, it inevitably means that oil and gas heavy stock markets such as Norway and the UK will be structural underperformers too (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). Chart I-10When Oil And Gas Underperforms, Norway's OBX Underperforms... Chart I-11...And The UK's FTSE 100 ##br##Underperforms The corollary is that stock markets which are under-exposed to the structurally underperforming sector will be at a relative advantage. This supports our structural overweighting to the stock markets of Germany, Switzerland, and Denmark, which all have zero exposure to oil and gas and basic resources. Fractal Trading System* Tin’s near-vertical rally is at high risk of correction based on fragility on all three fractal structures: 65-day, 130-day, and 260-day. A good trade is to short tin versus lead, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 13 percent. In other trades, the underweights to China and Korea surged, but short AUD/JPY and short copper/gold reached their stop-losses. The rolling 12-month win ratio stands at 57 percent. Chart I-12Tin Vs. Lead When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 ULEZ will be the zone inside London’s North Circular and South Circular Roads. Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights The post-2008 boom in stocks, corporate bonds, and real estate is a ‘rational bubble’, because the relationship between risk-asset valuations and falling bond yields is exponential. But the ‘rational bubble’ is turning into an ‘irrational bubble’. Stay tactically neutral to stocks for the next few weeks to see whether valuation can revert to rationality. This means keep existing investments in the market, but hold fire on new deployments of cash. If valuation reverts to rationality, then investors can safely deploy new cash into the market. But if valuation moves into irrationality, then it will require a completely different investment mindset, in which fractal analysis will become crucial in identifying the bursting of the bubble, just as it did in 2000. Fractal trade: the Chinese stock market is vulnerable to correction. Feature Chart of the WeekA 'Rational Bubble' And An 'Irrational Bubble' Regular readers will know that we have characterised the post-2008 boom in stocks, corporate bonds, and real estate as a ‘rational bubble’. Rational, because the nosebleed valuations are justified by a fundamental driver. And not just any fundamental driver, but the most fundamental driver of all – the bond yield. However, the ‘rational bubble’ is turning into an ‘irrational bubble’, akin to the dot com mania in which valuations became totally disconnected from fundamentals (Chart of the Week). What should investors do? The Relationship Between Bond Yields And Risk-Asset Valuation Is Exponential Everyone realises that a lower bond yield justifies a lower prospective return from competing investments, such as stocks, corporate bonds, and real estate. As valuation is just the inverse of prospective return, a lower bond yield justifies a higher valuation for all risk-assets. (Chart I-2). Chart I-2House Prices have Decoupled From Rents Again (And It Didn't End Happily Last Time) But few people realise that a lower bond yield justifies an exponentially higher valuation for risk-assets. To visualise this exponential relationship, look again at the Chart of the Week. The bond yield is plotted on a logarithmic (and inverted) left scale, while the stock market forward price-to-earnings is plotted on a linear right scale. The inverted log versus linear scales demonstrate that, in the ‘rational bubble’, the lower the bond yield, the greater the impact of a given decline in the bond yield on stock market valuation. Few people realise that a lower bond yield justifies an exponentially higher valuation for risk-assets. Chart I-3 and Chart I-4 also demonstrate the exponential relationship using the earnings yield as a proxy for the prospective return on stocks. A 1.5 percent decline in the bond yield had a smaller impact on the earnings yield when the bond yield started at 4 percent in 2014 than when the bond yield started at 3 percent in 2019. At the higher bond yield, the prospective return on stocks fell by 1 percent, but at the lower bond yield, the prospective return on stocks plunged by 2.5 percent. Chart I-3A 1.5 Percent Decline In The Bond Yield Had A Smaller Impact On The Earnings Yield When The Bond Yield Started At 4 Percent... Chart I-4…Than When The Bond Yield Started ##br##At 3 Percent To repeat, the lower the bond yield, the greater the impact of a given move in the bond yield on the prospective return from stocks. The intriguing question is, why? To answer this question, we must venture into a branch of behavioural psychology developed by Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, called Prospect Theory. Prospect Theory Explains The ‘Rational Bubble’ Prospect Theory’s key finding is that we consistently overvalue the prospect of a tail-event, both positive and negative. For example, if there is a one in a million chance of winning a million pounds, then the expected value of this prospect is one pound. Yet we will consistently pay more than one pound for this positive tail-event. This willingness to overpay for a positive tail-event is the foundation of the multi-billion pound gambling and lottery industry. Now consider an ‘inverse lottery’, in which there is a one in a million chance of losing a million pounds. In theory, we should take on the risky prospect for one pound. Yet in practice, we will consistently demand more than one pound to take on this negative tail-event. In other words, we will demand a substantial ‘risk premium’. Prospect Theory explains that we overvalue tail-events because we are bad at comprehending small probabilities. Hence, the prospect of winning a million pounds, while in practice a negligible possibility, generates excessive optimism which results in overpayment for the bet. Likewise, the possibility of losing a million pounds, while in practice a negligible possibility, generates excessive pessimism, for which we demand payment of a ‘risk premium’. In the financial markets, stock markets tend to ‘gap down’ much more than they ‘gap up’. Hence, the risk of owning stocks is like the discomfort of the inverse lottery. This explains why investors normally demand a risk premium – an excess prospective return – to own stocks versus bonds. However, the risk relationship between stocks and bonds changes when bond yields approach their lower bound. Now, as bond yields have less scope to move down versus up, bond prices can gap down much more than they can gap up. The upshot is that the risk of owning bonds becomes no different to the risk of owning stocks, and the risk premium to own stocks versus bonds disappears. At ultra-low bond yields, the bond yield and the equity risk premium move up and down in tandem. Given that the prospective return on stocks equals the bond yield plus the risk premium, we can now answer our intriguing question. At ultra-low bond yields, the prospective return on stocks moves by more than the move in the bond yield, because the bond yield and the risk premium are moving up and down in tandem. The result is an exponential relationship between the bond yield and risk-asset valuations. And this explains how the post-2008 collapse in bond yields to unprecedented lows has generated a ‘rational bubble’ in stocks, corporate bonds, and real estate (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Chart I-5A Rational Bubble In Risk-Assets... Chart I-6...Everywhere The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational The post-2008 boom in risk-asset valuations is rational given the exponential relationship with a collapsed bond yield. But the rational valuation is turning irrational. Over the past few months, the stock market’s forward price-to-earnings multiple has continued to increase despite a backup in the bond yield. Note that this multiple is calculated on the next 12 months of earnings, so it already incorporates a strong post-pandemic earnings rebound (Chart I-7). Chart I-7The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational Furthermore, since 2009, the bond yield (plus a fixed constant) has defined a reliable lower limit for the technology sector earnings yield, meaning a well-defined upper limit for the technology sector’s valuation. Since 2009, this valuation limit has effectively defined the limit of the rational bubble and hasn’t been breached. That is, until now. The recent breach of the post-2008 valuation limit means that the rational bubble is turning irrational (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Post-2008 Rational Valuation Limit Has Been Breached There are three ways that an irrational valuation can revert to rationality: Stock prices decline. Bond yields decline. Stock prices and bond yields drift sideways while (forward) earnings gradually rise to improve stock valuations. The Investment Decision The decision to be invested in the stock market is probably the most important decision for all investors, including those in Europe. Furthermore, the direction of the stock market is a global rather than a local phenomenon. Our current recommendation is to stay tactically neutral for the next few weeks to see whether risk-asset valuations can revert to rationality. This means keep existing investments in the market, but hold fire on new deployments of cash. Hold fire on new deployments of cash. If valuation reverts to rationality in any of the three ways listed above, then investors can safely deploy new cash into the market. But if valuation turns into irrationality, then it will require a completely different investment mindset. After all, you cannot analyse an irrational market using rational tools! In this case, technical analysis becomes much more important, and front and centre of these techniques is fractal analysis. Specifically, as investors with longer and longer time horizons join the irrational bubble, there will be well-defined moments of heightened fragility, at which correction risk increases. This is what burst the irrational bubble in 2000 (Chart I-9), and will burst any new irrational bubble. Stay tuned. Chart I-9The Dotcom Bubble Burst When All Investment Time Horizons Had Joined It Fractal Trading System* The recent strong rally and outperformance of the Chinese stock market is fragile on all three fractal structures: 65-day, 130-day, and 260-day. A good trade is to underweight China versus New Zealand (MSCI indexes), setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 9 percent. In other trades, the continued momentum of reflation plays has weighed on some recent positions as well as stopping out short MSCI World versus the 30-year T-bond. Nevertheless, the rolling 12-month win ratio stands at 54 percent. Chart I-10MSCI: China Vs. New Zealand When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations