Monetary
There will be no U.S. Bond Strategy report next week. Our regular publication schedule will resume on September 10th, with our Portfolio Allocation Summary for September. Highlights Fed: Absent inflationary pressures or excessive financial asset valuations, the Fed must maintain an accommodative policy stance. This means cutting rates if the market demands it. Expect another 25 basis point rate cut in September. Duration: Stronger economic data will eventually lead long-dated bond yields higher, un-inverting the yield curve and allowing the Fed to stop its mini easing cycle. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, but stand ready to reduce duration at the first signs of stronger global economic data. Yield Curve & Recessions: An inverted yield curve signals that the market views monetary policy as restrictive. Restrictive policy should be viewed as a necessary pre-condition for recession, but not one that helps much with timing the next downturn. Feature Chart 1Markets Want More Easing And The Fed Should Accommodate Bond investors had their hands full last week, as comments from Fed officials produced an unusually wide range of views. The hawks were most vocal early in the week as Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren, Kansas City Fed President Esther George and Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker all made the case for leaving rates at current levels, even as the market continues to price-in another 25 basis point rate cut in September, followed by an additional 50 basis points of cuts between October and February (Chart 1). Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, however, did not try to shift market expectations one way or the other during his Jackson Hole speech on Friday. This suggests that he is probably comfortable with current bond market pricing. In our opinion, we will see another 25 basis point rate cut in September and the Fed is justified in doing so. The Fed Can’t Fight The Markets, And It Shouldn’t Chart 2Keep Financial Conditions Supportive In the current environment, monetary policy exerts its greatest influence on the economy via its impact on broad financial conditions. Easier financial conditions lead to stronger growth and higher inflation in the future (Chart 2), and the Fed must ensure that financial conditions remain accommodative during the current global slowdown. This means that the Fed’s most important job is to ensure that investors perceive Fed policy as supportive for equities and corporate credit. In other words, unless Chairman Powell wants to slow the economy, he must bow down to the markets and deliver enough monetary easing to keep broad financial conditions accommodative. The minutes from the July FOMC meeting, released last week, suggest that the Fed understands this dynamic and will act as appropriate. In their discussion of financial market developments, participants observed that financial conditions remained supportive of economic growth, with borrowing rates low and stock prices near all-time highs. Participants observed that current financial conditions appeared to be premised importantly on expectations that the Federal Reserve would ease policy to help offset the drag on economic growth stemming from the weaker global outlook and uncertainties associated with international trade as well as to provide some insurance to address various downside risks. Chart 3No Sign Of Rising Inflation Expectations... Simply, if the market expects another rate cut in September, the Fed would be wise to deliver. Otherwise, broad financial conditions could tighten sharply, making it more difficult for economic growth to recover. It is not always the case that the Fed should act to ensure that financial conditions remain accommodative. If inflation expectations were breaking out to the upside, or financial asset valuations were stretched, then the case could be made for the Fed to fight back against the market’s easing expectations.1 However, neither of those conditions are in place today. The cost of inflation compensation priced into long-maturity TIPS has collapsed, and it is well below the 2.3% - 2.5% range that would be consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations near the Fed’s target (Chart 3). Survey measures of long-dated inflation expectations have been more stable, but are not threatening to move significantly higher (Chart 3, bottom panel). Equally, financial asset valuations are nowhere near “bubbly” (Chart 4). The risk premium priced into corporate bonds after accounting for expected default losses is above levels seen early last year, while the S&P 500’s 12-month forward Price/Earnings ratio is below its early-2018 peak. If inflation expectations were breaking out to the upside, or financial asset valuations were stretched, then the case could be made for the Fed to fight back against the market’s easing expectations. Further, the 2-year/10-year Treasury slope recently inverted and the broad trade-weighted dollar continues to appreciate (Chart 5). Both of these factors suggest that the market views Fed policy as insufficiently accommodative. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard bluntly summed up the situation in an interview last week, saying that it is “our job to get the yield curve to be un-inverted”. Chart 4...Or Excessive Financial ##br##Asset Valuation Chart 5The Case For More Accommodative Monetary Policy We agree with this sentiment. Absent inflationary pressures or excessive financial asset valuations, the Fed must maintain an accommodative policy stance. This means cutting rates if the market demands it, in an effort to un-invert the yield curve. The Economy Must Lead Chart 6Still Waiting For A Rebound In Global Growth But the Fed can’t un-invert the yield curve all on its own. The Fed can pull down the short-end of the curve, but it needs to economy to cooperate if it wants to boost long-end yields. In fact, if the global economic data improve, then the market will no longer require Fed rate cuts to keep financial conditions accommodative. If the economic data improve a lot, then the market might even be able to live with rate hikes and still maintain supportive broad financial conditions. We haven’t yet seen much evidence of improvement in the global economic data, but we remain confident that a rebound will take hold before the end of the year.2 Flash PMI data for August were released last week and showed a drop in the U.S. figure to below the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 6). The Flash data showed small gains in the Eurozone and Japan, though both of those PMIs also remain below 50. In contrast with the weaker PMI data, Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) are showing some signs of strength. Although both the U.S. and Global (excluding U.S.) LEIs remain at below-average levels relative to their trailing 12-month trends (Chart 7), the Global (ex. U.S.) index bottomed several months ago and the U.S. index ticked higher last month. Troughs in the LEIs tend to precede troughs in both the Global PMIs and bond yields. Chart 7Leading Economic Indicators Suggest The Rebound Might Be Soon Bottom Line: The Fed must keep financial conditions accommodative, and this means satisfying the bond market’s expectations for further rate cuts. Eventually, stronger economic data will lead long-dated bond yields higher, un-inverting the yield curve and allowing the Fed to stop its mini easing cycle. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, but stand ready to reduce duration at the first signs of stronger global economic data. The Inverted Yield Curve And Recession Risk We have received a lot of client questions on the topic of using the yield curve to forecast recessions. In this week’s report we explain our views about how the inverted yield curve should be interpreted. In short, we think an inverted yield curve should be viewed as a necessary pre-condition for recession, but not one that helps much with timing the next downturn. The Flash PMI data showed small gains in the Eurozone and Japan, though both of those PMIs also remain below 50. We start by recognizing that many variables have strong track records at forecasting recession, and those variables can be grouped into two broad categories: Financial market indicators (including the yield curve, stock market, oil price, etc…) Economic indicators (including initial jobless claims, unemployment rate, housing starts, etc…) In general, financial market indicators give more advance warning of recession but they are also prone to sending false signals. Economic indicators, on the other hand, are less prone to false signals, but often provide little (if any) advance notice. With this in mind, we turn to Chart 8. The top panel of which shows the New York Fed’s popular Recession Probability Indicator, an indicator derived purely from the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope. We also calculate the same model using the 2-year/10-year slope, but the results are not materially different. Chart 8Recession Probability Indicators The top panel of Chart 8 shows the strengths and weaknesses of using financial market data to forecast a recession. The New York Fed’s model started to rise about 3 years prior to the last recession and 5 years prior to the 2001 recession. The model also fluctuated up and down several times in the late 1990s, suggesting that recession risk was lower in 1998 than in 1996 even though the recession was actually 2 years closer. In general, the model clearly illustrates that the yield curve flattens as the economic recovery ages, but also that the yield curve can provide a recession signal far in advance of the actual recession. The model’s signal can also reverse if the yield curve re-steepens. The bottom panel of Chart 8 shows the New York Fed’s yield curve-based Recession Probability Indicator alongside our own recession indicator, one that is based on several different variables (including the yield curve). Our model is designed to give less lead time than a pure yield curve model, but also fewer false signals. Once again, the late-1990s are instructive. The yield curve-only model was sending a recession signal of varying magnitudes for 5 years before our multi-factor model shot higher in 2001. What can we conclude from looking at these different recession models? Essentially, we should view an inverted yield curve as a signal that the market views monetary policy as restrictive. Restrictive monetary policy is a necessary pre-condition for recession, but it does not help us much with timing. Policy could remain restrictive for several years before the recession takes hold, or policy could move from restrictive to accommodative and the yield curve’s recession signal could vanish. Incorporating The Term Premium, Is This Time Different? Some publications at BCA have made the case that the yield curve’s recession signal is distorted in this cycle because of the deeply negative term premium. While this could be true in theory, in practice, we think it would be unwise to dismiss what the yield curve is telling us about the current stance of monetary policy. Chart 9Uncertainty Around The Term Premium Bond yields consist of two components, short rate expectations and a term premium. The yield curve’s power as a recession indicator comes from the rate expectations component. Assuming a constant term premium, an inverted yield curve means that the bond market expects the overnight rate to fall in the future. This is more likely to happen in a recession. However, if the term premium were deeply negative at the long-end of the yield curve, then an inverted yield curve might simply reflect the negative term premium and not an expectation that the fed funds rate will decline. In theory, this could be the case if, for example, the equity hedging value of Treasury bonds is perceived to be much higher now than in the past. In that case, investors might be willing to pay to take duration risk in order to gain the perceived diversification benefits. That is a plausible story. The problem is that we cannot verify it in the data because bond term premia cannot be accurately estimated. For example, one popular term premium estimate, the New York Fed’s Adrian, Crump and Moench (ACM) estimate, placed the 10-year zero coupon term premium at -84 bps on July 22. On that same date, the spot 10-year Treasury yield was 2.06%. This implies that the market’s 10-year average fed funds rate expectation was (206 bps – (-84 bps)) = 2.9%. In other words, the ACM estimate tells us that on July 22 the market expected the fed funds rate to average 2.9% over the next 10 years. This seems highly implausible, given that the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants, taken that same day, shows that the median market participant expected the fed funds rate to average 2% over the next 10 years (Chart 9). According to that median survey response, the 10-year term premium was +6 bps on July 22, not -84 bps! The point is not that survey measures of term premia are preferable to more sophisticated models of the ACM variety. We simply wish to point out that term premia estimates are highly uncertain, and the actual term premium on any given day is impossible to pin down. Once we recognize this fact, then we should at least be skeptical of claims that a negative term premium is distorting the recession signal from the yield curve. Given the uncertainty surrounding term premium estimates, we are inclined to simply take the yield curve’s signal at face value. Bottom Line: The proper interpretation of an inverted yield curve is that it is a signal that the market views monetary policy as restrictive. Restrictive monetary policy is a necessary pre-condition for recession, but it does not help us much with timing. It is conceivable that a deeply negative term premium is currently distorting the yield curve’s signal about the stance of monetary policy. But given the uncertainty surrounding term premium estimates, we are inclined to simply take the yield curve’s signal at face value. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We have made the case that inflation expectations and financial conditions are the two most important factors to monitor when tracking Fed policy. For further details please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 We elaborated on the reasons to expect a rebound in global growth in the U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Where’s The Positive Carry In Bond Markets?” dated August 20, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Sovereign bond yields have cratered over the last few months, … : Over the last three months, 10-year yields in the U.S., France, Germany, Switzerland and Australia have fallen by 71, 64, 53, 54, and 67 basis points, respectively. … and the Treasury curve has experienced a significant bull flattening, … : Month-to-date total returns for the Barclays Bloomberg Long, Intermediate and 1-3-Year Treasury Indexes are 9.2%, 1.6% and 1.1%, respectively. … indicating that the bond market thinks more rate cuts are in store: The textbook interpretation of an inverted curve is that monetary policy is too tight and needs to be loosened, but technical factors have amplified the flattening pressure. Is the bond market reacting to weakening growth prospects, or uber-dovish central banks?: The answer has implications well beyond the fixed-income universe. It could mean the difference between an economic slowdown and a market melt-up. Feature BCA researchers convened last week for our monthly View Meeting, much of which was given over to the global decline in sovereign bond yields. Does their plunge owe more to weakening growth prospects or central banks’ synchronized dovish pivot? There have surely been elements of both; after all, central banks wouldn’t be so dovish if they weren’t concerned about the growth outlook. It is clear to our fixed-income strategists that the yield move has overshot the data, however, and they mainly attribute the overshoot to monetary policy. No central bank wants a stronger currency while confronting a demand deficiency aggravated by trade tensions and a global manufacturing slowdown. The New York Times Business section put the prevailing policy winds into living color in a nearly full-page, four-column graphic spotlighting the 32 central banks that have cut their policy rate so far this year.1 The pell-mell rush to cut rates is emblematic of a global scramble for competitiveness. No central bank wants its economy to be caught without a buffer while other economies are busily reinforcing theirs. The Message From The Bond Market Trade tensions are a legitimate threat to global economic growth already challenged by a downswing in the global manufacturing cycle. A recession is a possibility, but it is hardly a foregone conclusion. We agree with our fixed-income colleagues that the yield selloff has overrun the economic fundamentals. Last week’s preliminary European manufacturing PMIs suggested that manufacturing may finally be stabilizing, and there is still no evidence that the manufacturing downturn has infected the services sector (Chart 1). A recession is hardly a foregone conclusion. 10-year Treasury yields have been falling sharply since their 3.25% peak in early November, and the current leg down is the third in a series of sharp declines (Chart 2, top panel). Global sovereign yields have followed the same pattern (Chart 2, bottom panel), but the latest plunge is as much a reflection of ubiquitous easing biases as it is of new concerns about economic weakness. That may sound like a minor point, of interest only to macro specialists, but it has import for all investors. If the yield decline isn’t signaling new softness, then easier financial conditions will be free to act as a tailwind for risk assets. Chart 1Services Are Holding Up ... Chart 2A Brief Inversion ... But Yields Are Freefalling Neither investment-grade (Chart 3, top panel) nor high-yield corporate bond spreads evince any particular concern about the economy (Chart 3, bottom panel). Although they’ve ticked up, they remain near the bottom of their post-crisis range, and are nowhere near the levels they reached in 2011-12, during the federal budget showdown/U.S. downgrade and the flare-up of the Eurozone crisis, or in 2015-16, during the last manufacturing recession. With banks still easing lending standards for corporate and industrial borrowers (Chart 4), spreads won’t undergo a systematic widening. Borrowers do not default as long as there is a lender willing to roll over their maturing obligations, so tighter credit standards are a precondition for spread-widening cycles. Chart 3No Sign Of Stress Among Corporate Borrowers ... Chart 4... And Banks Aren't Applying Any Pressure The Message From The Housing Market Chart 5Lower Rates Have Yet To Impact Housing ... We have been disappointed by residential investment’s muted response to the significant year-to-date decline in mortgage rates (Chart 5, bottom panel). The trajectory of starts and permits (Chart 5, top panel) hasn’t changed, new and existing home sales haven’t perked up (Chart 5, second panel), and mortgage purchase applications (Chart 5, third panel) appear not to have heard the news that rates are much lower. We thought that the swift fall in mortgage rates would promote more residential investment than it has to date. There is a difference, however, between disappointing growth and a full-on contraction. With affordability remaining high relative to history (Chart 6), and apartment rents exceeding monthly mortgage payments in several locales (Chart 7), housing demand should remain well supported. There are no excesses in the housing market in terms of inventory or oncoming supply that would make housing a source of economic or financial instability. Inventory relative to the number of households is bumping around its all-time lows (Chart 8), and cumulative household formations have easily outstripped housing starts since the crisis broke (Chart 9). Structural factors like a lack of supply geared to first-time and first-move-up buyers, and the ravenous appetite of pools of capital purchasing single-family homes for rent, are squeezing out some would-be buyers, but housing is not about to induce a recession. There are plenty of things for investors to be concerned about, but the housing market isn’t one of them. Chart 6... Though They Have Placed Homeownership In Easier Reach Chart 8... Inventories Are At Record Lows, ... The View From Broad And Wall We concede that stocks are not behaving as if all is well. Big daily swings are not a feature of healthy markets, and eight of this month’s sixteen sessions have registered moves of at least 1%. The second quarter’s 3% year-over-year earnings growth is three percentage points better than the consensus expected when earnings season kicked off, however, and despite the single-day moves, the S&P 500 has spent all but the first day of the month in a well-defined range between 2,825 and 2,945 (Chart 10). The market may be jumpy from one day to the next, but investors have not been concerned enough to engage in sustained selling. The equity market’s verdict on housing is more optimistic than ours. Inspired by earnings reports, the S&P 1500 Homebuilders Index have broken out to a new 52-week high (Chart 11). Retailers were the stars of last week’s earnings releases, with Lowe’s, Nordstrom and Target posting double-digit percentage gains after reporting numbers that failed to live up to investors’ worst fears. Equities are validating the view that the U.S. consumer is alive and kicking. Chart 11Homebuilder Stocks Have Broken Out The GDP Outlook Chart 12Capex Intentions: Elevated But Slipping If consumers are well positioned, the U.S. economy should be, too. Consumption accounts for two-thirds of the U.S. economy, with investment and government spending equally dividing the other third. Federal expenditures amount to about 40% of government spending, and between this year’s fiscal thrust and next year’s hotly contested presidential election, D.C. can be counted upon to do its part for the economy. At the state and local level, healthy household income should support state sales and income tax receipts, while still-rising home prices will provide the property taxes to keep municipal coffers full. That leaves fixed asset investment as the economy’s Achilles heel. We are confident, as noted above, that residential investment will not decline enough to pose a problem for the economy, but corporate investment is in the crosshairs of the uncertainty surrounding the multiple trade squabbles. The NFIB survey and the regional Fed surveys indicate that capital expenditure plans are rolling over, even if they remain at a fairly high level (Chart 12). Our base case remains that investment will not fall enough to offset robust consumption and trend-level government spending, but a marked worsening in trade tensions could erode business confidence enough to drag the economy below stall speed. Busted Thesis In our mutual-fund days, we followed one rule without exception. If our thesis for owning a stock was disproved, we got rid of the stock without a backward glance. We no longer manage money, but our clients do, and we try to set a good example, especially in the inevitable instances when things go wrong. We are closing out our agency mREIT recommendation on the ground that we got the rates call underpinning it very wrong. Things went wrong with our agency mortgage REIT recommendation right from the get-go. In retrospect, we should have waited until the FOMC meeting dust settled before putting on a curve-dependent position. We are closing it out now, though, because we recommended the group in anticipation of a steeper yield curve. Given that we think it will take some time for investors to become convinced that a recession is not imminent, and given that mechanical factors may push yields even lower, we do not expect sustained curve steepening for several months. Although we only held it for four weeks, the recommendation left a mark. Through Thursday’s close, our defined subset of agency mREITs lost 11%, while the S&P 500 is down 3.1% and the Barclays High Yield Index is flat. We’re taking our medicine and moving on, but we will take another look at the group when the curve eventually does begin to steepen. Investment Implications Even if recession fears are overblown, as we and a majority of our colleagues believe, it will likely take some time for investors to overcome their concerns. That leads us to believe that equities may be unable to make new highs in the near term, and that Treasury yields have more downside risk than upside risk in the next few months, as rising convexity2 compels investors following asset-liability management strategies to seek out long-maturity bonds. The yield point may sound complex and esoteric, but our Global Fixed Income Strategy team increasingly believes it’s a key to understanding the negative-yield phenomenon and is researching the issue for an upcoming Special Report. Monetary accommodation is not a silver bullet. If the economy has already flipped from expansion to contraction, modest rate cuts parceled out at a deliberate pace will be insufficient to turn things around, and equities and spread product will suffer. If the expansion remains intact, however, rate cuts will help shore up the economy at the margin and quite possibly fuel a new phase of the bull markets in risk assets. Our money is on the latter, and we expect that this bull cycle has one more burst in it that will allow it to sprint to the finish line like the majority of its predecessors. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Smialek, Jeanna and Russell, Karl, “Rates Are Falling Again. That May Be Dangerous.” New York Times, August 17, 2019, p. B1. 2 Duration measures a bond’s sensitivity to changes in interest rates. Convexity measures duration’s sensitivity to changes in interest rates, which increases as rates fall. Investors like life insurers and pension funds, who match the duration of their investment portfolios with the duration of their liabilities, are forced to increase the duration of their bond holdings at an increasing rate as interest rates fall.
In this Monday’s Special Report we dissected S&P sectors’ relative performance following Powell’s recent interest rate cut characterization as a “mid-cycle adjustment.” Our view remains that a recession likely looms in the coming 18 months, but should we be proven wrong, this Special Report can serve as a road map of what to expect next. The key findings are summarized below: The rate-sensitive sectors – S&P utilities, telecoms, consumer discretionary and financials – underperform early before they outperform once the Fed has started to ease with the exception of the S&P utilities, which initially delivers low but positive returns and continue to underperform up to two years after the beginning of the “mid-cycle adjustments.” Similarly, we find that most of the deep cyclicals underperform in the run-up to the first rate cut and usually outperform subsequently. The S&P energy is an exception as it outperformed heading into the cutting cycle and then underperformed 6 and 12 months following the first rate cut. Please see this Monday’s Special Report for more details.
Highlights Duration: Global manufacturing growth will rebound near the end of this year. Much like in 2016, this will result in higher global bond yields on a 12-month horizon. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for now, but be prepared to shift to below-benchmark when our global growth indicators show signs of improvement. Country Allocation: Countries with yield curves furthest away from the effective lower bound also have the most cyclical bond markets. At present, this means that U.S. and Canadian bond markets will perform best if global growth continues to weaken. They will also perform worst in the event of an economic turnaround. Japanese bonds will perform best in a bond bear market, with German debt a close second. Relative Value In Global Government Debt: Changes in the level and shape of global yield curves have altered the relative value opportunities in the global government bond space. We find that the most positive carry (including both yield income and rolldown) in global government bond markets is earned in 30-year German, Japanese and Australian bonds, and in 10-year U.K. and Japanese bonds. Feature Reflexivity Chart 1A Brief Inversion The decline in global bond yields has been unrelenting, and it took on a life of its own last week when the U.S. 2-year/10-year slope briefly inverted (Chart 1). After the inversion, the 30-year U.S. Treasury yield broke below 2% and the 10-year yield broke below 1.50%. The average yield on the 7-10 year Global Treasury Index closed at 0.49% last Thursday, just above its all-time low of 0.48% (Chart 1, bottom panel). There’s an interesting self-fulfilling prophesy that can take hold when the yield curve inverts. Investors interpret the inversion as a signal of weaker economic growth ahead. They then bid up long-dated bond prices causing the curve to invert even more. This sort of circular reasoning can cause bond yields to disconnect from the trends in global economic data, often severely. While recession fears have benefited government bonds, risky assets – equities and corporate bonds – have experienced relatively minor pain. The S&P 500’s recent sell-off pales in comparison to the one seen late last year (Chart 2). Meanwhile, corporate bond spreads remain well below early-2019 peaks. Risky assets have clearly benefited from the drop in bond yields, as markets price-in a future where central banks ease monetary policy in response to weaker economic growth, and where that easing is sufficient to keep equities and credit well supported. Chart 2Low Yields Support Risk Assets I Chart 3Low Yields Support Risk Assets II Further evidence of this dynamic is presented in Chart 3. The chart shows the sensitivity of daily changes in the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield to changes in the S&P 500 for each year since 2010. The sample is split into days when the S&P 500 rose and when it fell. For example, in 2010 the sensitivity on “up days” was 2.6, meaning that on days when the S&P 500 rose, the 10-year yield rose 2.6 basis points for every 1% increase in the S&P 500. Similarly, the sensitivity in 2010 on “down days” was 3.2. This means that the 10-year yield fell 3.2 bps for every 1% drop in the equity index. The main takeaway from Chart 3 is how dramatically the sensitivities have shifted in 2019. The yield sensitivity on “up days” has fallen sharply – down to 0.8. This means that yields barely rise on days when equities move up. Meanwhile, the sensitivity on “down days” has shot higher, to just under 4. This means that yields fall a lot on days when equities sell off. The perception of easier monetary policy has been the main support for risk assets this year. The logical interpretation of these trends is that the perception of easier monetary policy has been the main support for risk assets this year. Global Growth Needed At present, we are stuck in an environment where aggressively easy monetary policy and low bond yields are the sole supports for risky assets. In turn, falling bond yields are stoking concerns about the economy, leading to even easier monetary policy. Only one thing can bust us out of this pattern, and that’s a resurgence of global manufacturing growth. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that this is taking place (Chart 4). The Global Manufacturing PMI is now down to 49.3, below the 2016 trough of 49.9 (Chart 4, top panel). U.S. Industrial Production growth remains weak, but is showing signs of stabilization above the 2016 trough (Chart 4, panel 2). European Industrial Production, on the other hand, continues to contract (Chart 4, panel 3). The downtrend in our favorite real-time indicator of global manufacturing – the CRB Raw Industrials index – remains unbroken (Chart 4, bottom panel). However, even though evidence of a turnaround in global manufacturing is scant, we expect a rebound near the end of this year, for the following reasons: Global financial conditions have eased this year, the result of aggressive central bank stimulus. Financial conditions are easier now than they were in 2018, and much easier than they were prior to the 2015/16 global growth slowdown (Chart 5, top panel). China has started to ease credit conditions in response to U.S. tariffs and the slowdown in growth. So far, stimulus has been tepid relative to 2015/16 levels, but it should ramp up in the coming months.1 Many large important segments of the global economy remain unaffected by the global manufacturing slowdown. The U.S. consumer continues to spend: Core retail sales are growing at a robust 5% year-over-year rate, and consumer sentiment remains elevated (Chart 5, panels 2 & 3). Even in the Eurozone, the service sector has not experienced the same pain as manufacturing (Chart 5, bottom panel). Fiscal policy will remain a tailwind for economic growth this year and next. Last week, there were even rumors of increased fiscal thrust from Germany if the growth slowdown persists.2 Strong inflation readings only increased market worries that the Fed might not be as accommodative as necessary. On the whole, we expect that the above 4 factors will lead to a rebound in global manufacturing growth near the end of this year. Much like in 2016, this will result in higher global bond yields on a 12-month horizon, but the global growth indicators shown in Chart 4 will need to rebound first. Chart 4Global Growth Indicators Chart 5Catalysts For Economic Recovery Inflation Puts Pressure On Powell Chart 6Strong Inflation Could Complicate The Fed's Message Strong U.S. inflation prints during the past two months add an interesting wrinkle to the macro landscape. Core U.S. inflation grew at an annualized rate of 3.55% in July, following an annualized rate of 3.59% in June (Chart 6). However, these strong inflation readings only increased market worries that the Fed might not be as accommodative as necessary. This exacerbated the flattening of the yield curve and sent long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates lower. Our sense is that the Fed is chiefly concerned with re-anchoring inflation expectations (Chart 6, bottom panel). This probably means that another rate cut is coming in September, and that Chairman Powell will do his best to sound accommodative in his Jackson Hole address on Friday. However, recent strong inflation data could prompt Powell to sound more hawkish than the market would like, causing yield curves to flatten and risky assets to fall. Bottom Line: Global manufacturing growth will rebound near the end of this year. Much like in 2016, this will result in higher global bond yields on a 12-month horizon. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for now, but be prepared to shift to below-benchmark when our global growth indicators show signs of improvement. Country Allocation & The Zero Lower Bound Perhaps the most straightforward way to think about country allocation within a portfolio of developed market government bonds is to classify the different markets as either “high beta” or “low beta”. Chart 7 shows the trailing 3-year sensitivity of major countries’ 7-10 year bond yields relative to the global 7-10 year yield.3 The U.S. and Canada have the highest betas, followed by the U.K. and Australia. Germany has a beta close to one, and Japan’s beta is the lowest. Chart 7Global Yield Beta In other words, if global growth falters and global bond yields decline, U.S. and Canadian bond markets should perform best, followed by the U.K. and Australia. German bonds should perform in line with the global index, and Japanese bonds should underperform the global benchmark. What makes this approach to portfolio allocation even better is that the calculation of trailing betas is not really necessary. A very similar ordering of countries – from “high beta” to “low beta” – is achieved by simply ranking the markets from highest yielding to lowest yielding. High yielding countries, like the U.S. and Canada, have the most room to ease monetary policy in response to a negative growth shock. This means that yields in those countries will respond most to global growth fluctuations. On the other hand, the entire Japanese yield curve is already pinned near the effective lower bound. Even in the event of a negative growth shock, there is little scope for easier Japanese monetary policy, and JGB yields will be relatively unaffected. Chart 8High Beta Countries Are Most Sensitive To Economic Growth It’s interesting to note in Chart 7 that while German yields are actually below JGB yields, bunds remain somewhat less defensive than the Japanese market. This is because the German term structure has only recently moved to the effective lower bound, and investors likely still retain some hope that an improvement in global growth could lead to European policy tightening at some point in the future. This belief is largely absent in Japan, where the term structure has been pinned at the lower bound for many years. Chart 8 provides some further evidence of the split between “high beta” and “low beta” bond markets. It shows that the bond markets with the highest yields are also the most sensitive to trends in global growth, as proxied by the Global Manufacturing PMI. U.S. bond yields are highly correlated with the Global PMI, while Japanese bond yields are hardly correlated at all. It follows that if the slowdown in global growth continues and all nations’ yield curves converge to Japanese levels, then the overall economic sensitivity of global bond yields will decline. Bottom Line: Countries with yield curves furthest away from the effective lower bound also have the most cyclical bond markets. At present, this means that U.S. and Canadian bond markets will perform best if global growth continues to weaken. They will also perform worst in the event of an economic turnaround. Japanese bonds will perform best in a bond bear market, with German debt a close second. Looking For Positive Carry Yield curves have undergone dramatic shifts in recent months, in terms of both level and shape. Not only have curves for the major government bond markets shifted down since the beginning of the year, they also now exhibit varying degrees of a ‘U’ shape (Charts 9A-9F). With that in mind, in this week’s report we look for the best “positive carry” opportunities in global government bond markets. Yield curves for the major government bond markets have shifted down since the beginning of the year, they also now exhibit varying degrees of a ‘U’ shape. We use the term carry to mean the expected return from a given bond assuming an unchanged yield curve. This is essentially the combination of yield income (i.e. coupon return) and the price impact of rolling down (or up) the yield curve. For the purposes of this report, we assume a 12-month investment horizon and incorporate the impact of currency hedging into each security’s yield income. Rolldown ‘U’ shaped yield curves mean that bonds near the base of the ‘U’ currently suffer from negative rolldown, while the rolldown for long maturities is often highly positive. Table 1 shows that rolldown is currently negative for all 2-year bonds, but especially for U.S. and Canadian debt. The U.S. and Canada have the highest policy rates within developed markets, so it’s not surprising that the front-end of their yield curves are also the most steeply inverted. In other words, their yield curves are pricing-in that they have more room to cut rates than other countries. Table 112-Month Rolldown* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds In general, rolldown is relatively modest for most 5-year and 7-year maturities. The exceptions being German 5-year debt and Aussie 7-year debt, which benefit from 31 bps and 45 bps of positive rolldown, respectively. As mentioned above, rolldown is currently very positive for long maturity debt. In fact, a 10-year U.K. bond offers a whopping 85 bps of rolldown on a 12-month horizon. Yield Income & Overall Carry As mentioned above, rolldown is only one part of a bond’s carry. The other is the yield an investor earns over the course of the investment horizon – the yield income. Because we assume that investors hedge the currency impact of their bond positions, this yield income also depends on the native currency of the investor. Therefore, we show yield income and overall carry below from the perspective of investors in each of the major currency blocs (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD, AUD). USD Investors Being the global high yielder, USD investors benefit the most from currency hedging. That is, USD investors earn a lot of additional income on their currency hedges, making non-U.S. bonds look more attractive. Unsurprisingly, carry is most positive at the long-end of yield curves (Tables 2 & 3). Table 2In USD: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 3In USD: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds EUR Investors The polar opposite of USD investors, EUR-based investors give up a lot of return through currency hedging. This makes the potential for positive carry much less. In any case, the best positive carry opportunities still lie in German, Japanese and Australian 30-year bonds. U.K. and Japanese 10-year bonds are also attractive (Tables 4 & 5). Table 4In EUR: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 5In EUR: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds JPY Investors Yen-based investors currently have more opportunities to earn positive carry than those based in euros. But these opportunities remain confined to long-maturity debt. Once again, the standouts are Japanese, German and Australian 30-year bonds, and also U.K. and Japanese 10-year debt (Tables 6 & 7). Table 6In JPY: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 7In JPY: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds GBP Investors Currency hedges work more in favor of GBP than EUR or JPY. As a result, GBP-based investors see more opportunities to earn positive carry (Tables 8 & 9). Table 8In GBP: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 9In GBP: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds CAD Investors As with USD-based investors, CAD-based investors also benefit from currency hedging. All securities continue to offer positive carry when hedged into CAD (Tables 10 & 11). Table 10In CAD: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 11In CAD: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds AUD Investors AUD-based investors also see positive carry across the entire global bond space, after factoring-in the impact of currency hedging (Tables 12 & 13). Table 12In AUD: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bond Table 13In AUD: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Bottom Line: Changes in the level and shape of global yield curves have altered the relative value opportunities in the global government bond space. We find that the most positive carry (including both yield income and rolldown) in global government bond markets is earned in 30-year German, Japanese and Australian bonds, and in 10-year U.K. and Japanese bonds. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Trump Interruption”, dated August 13, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-16/germany-ready-to-raise-debt-if-recession-hits-spiegel-reports 3 We calculate betas using average yields from the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Master index. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Economic data suggest the current business cycle in China has not yet reached a bottom. Stimulus measures have not been forceful enough to fully offset a slowing domestic economy and weakening global demand. With possibly more U.S. tariffs to come, intensifying political unrest in Hong Kong and a currency set to depreciate further, the potential downside risks outweigh any potential upside over the near term. Investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long. We are still early in a credit expansionary cycle, and we expect further economic weakness to pave the way for more policy support in China. However, we recommend investors who are not yet invested in Chinese assets to remain on the sidelines until clearer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. Feature Chart 1A Breakdown In Chinese Stocks Financial market volatility surged in the first half of the month following U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent tweet, vowing to impose a 10% tariff on the remaining $300 billion of U.S. imports of Chinese goods by September 1st. By the end of last week, prices of China investable stocks relative to global equities had nearly wiped out all their 2019 year-to-date gains. (Chart 1) The extent of the decline has left some investors wondering whether the time has come to bottom-fish Chinese assets. In our view, the answer is no. In this week’s report we detail five reasons why the near-term outlook for China-related assets remains negative. We remain bullish on Chinese stocks over the cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) horizon and recommend investors who are already positioned in favor of China-related assets stay long. However, we also recommend investors who are not yet invested to remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. As we go to press, the U.S. Trade Representative Office announced that the Trump administration would delay imposing the 10% tariff on a series of consumer goods imported from China — including laptops and cell phones — until December.1 Stocks in the U.S. surged on the news. Today’s rally in the equity market highlights our view, that short-term market performance can be dominated and distorted by news on the trade front. However, market rallies based on headline news will not sustain without the support of economic fundamentals. Reason #1: Chinese Economic Growth Has Not Yet Bottomed In a previous China Investment Strategy report,2 we presented some simple arithmetic to help investors formulate their outlook on the Chinese economy. We argued that in a full-tariff scenario, investors should focus on the likely outcome of one of the two following possibilities: Scenario 1 (Bullish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock > 0 Scenario 2 (Bearish): Effects of Stimulus – Impact of Tariff Shock ≤ 0 In scenario 1, the impact of China’s reflationary efforts more than offsets the negative shock to aggregate demand from the sharp decline in exports to the U.S. Scenario 2 denotes an outcome where China’s reflationary response is not larger than the magnitude of the shock. For now, we remain in scenario 2 due to Chinese policymakers’ continual reluctance to allow the economy to re-leverage. The magnitude of the credit impulse so far has been “half measured” relative to previous cycles.3 More than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom. As a result, more than seven months into the current credit expansionary cycle, Chinese economic data have not yet exhibited a clear bottom, with the main pillars supporting China’s “old economy” still in the doldrums (Chart 2 and Chart 3). Chart 2No Clear Bottom, Yet Chart 3Key Economic Drivers Struggling To Trend Higher In addition to a weakening domestic economy, China’s external sector has been weighed down by U.S. import tariffs as well as slowing global demand. (Chart 4). The possibility of adding a 10% tariff by year end on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese goods exports to the U.S. may trigger another tariff “front-running” episode in the 3rd quarter. However, Chart 5 and Chart 6 highlight that any front-running would be against the backdrop of sluggish global demand. Therefore, not only the upside in Chinese export growth will be very limited in the subsequent months following the front-running, but export growth is also likely to fall deeper into contraction. Chart 4Domestic Demand More Concerning Than Exports Chart 5Pickup In Global Demand Not Yet Visible Chart 6Bottoming In Global Manufacturing Also Delayed Reason # 2: A-Shares Are Not Yet Signaling A Sizeable Policy Response In previous China Investment Strategy reports, we have written at length about how Chinese policymakers are reluctant to undo their financial deleveraging efforts and push for more stimulus. After incorporating July credit data, our credit impulse, at a very subdued 26% of nominal GDP, was in fact a pullback from June’s credit growth number (Chart 7). This confirms our view that the current stimulus is clearly falling short compared to the 2015-2016 credit expansionary cycle. It underscores Chinese policymakers’ commitment to keep their foot off the stimulus pedal. What’s more, the recent performance of China’s domestic financial markets has been consistent with a half-measured credit response, and is not yet signaling a meaningful change in China’s policy stance. The A-share market since last summer has been trading off of the likely policy response to the trade war. Chart 8Market Not Signaling Significant Policy Shift Chart 8 (top panel) shows that the A-share market has closely tracked China’s domestic credit growth over the past year. Given this, we believe that the A-share market is reacting more to the likely policy response to the trade war, in contrast to the investable market which rises and falls in near-lockstep with trade-related news (middle panel). The fact that A-share stocks have been trending sideways underscores that China’s domestic equity market continues to expect “half measured” stimulus. This week’s sharp decline in China’s 10-year government bond yield is in part related to escalating political unrest in Hong Kong (bottom panel), and in our view does not yet signal any major change in the PBOC’s stance. Finally, our corporate earnings recession probability model provides another perspective on the equity market implications of the current path of stimulus. If the current size of stimulus holds through the end of 2019, our model suggests that the probability of an outright contraction in corporate earnings lasting through year end remains quite elevated, at close to 50% (first X in Chart 9). The July Politburo statement signaled a greater willingness to stimulate the economy; as a result, we are penciling in a slightly more optimistic scenario on forthcoming credit growth through the remainder of the year, by adding 300 billion yuan of debt-to-bond swaps4 and 800 billion yuan of extra infrastructure spending5 to our baseline estimate for the rest of 2019. However, this would only add a credit impulse equivalent of 1 percentage point of nominal GDP and would only marginally reduce the probability of an earnings recession to 40% (second X in Chart 9). A 40% chance of an earnings recession is well above “normal” levels that would be consistent with a durable uptrend in stock prices, and in previous cycles, Chinese stock prices picked up only after business cycles and corporate earnings had bottomed (Chart 10). In sum, the current pace of credit growth, signals from the domestic equity market, and our earnings recession model all suggest that it is too early to bottom fish Chinese stocks. Chart 9A "Measured" Pickup in Stimulus Will Not Be A Game Changer Chart 10Too Early To Bottom Fish Reason #3: The Trade War Is Far From Over Our Geopolitical Strategy team maintains that the U.S. and China have only a 40% chance of concluding a trade agreement by November 2020, and that any trade truce is likely to be shallow.6 We agree with this assessment, which has clear negative near-term implications for Chinese investable stocks, even if temporary rallies such as what took place yesterday periodically occur. Since the onset of the trade war, Chinese investable stocks appear to have traded nearly entirely in reaction to trade-related events. Hence, until global investors are given proof that much stronger stimulus can and will offset the impact of the trade war on corporate earnings, Chinese stocks are likely to continue to underperform their global peers. Reason #4: The Hong Kong Crisis Is A Near-Term Risk Another near-term catalyst for financial market turbulence in China is the worsening situation in Hong Kong. For now, we hold the view that a full-blown crisis (i.e. China intervening with military force) can be avoided, but we are not ruling out the possibility of a severe escalation or its potential impact on market sentiment towards Chinese assets. On the surface, China investable stocks (the MSCI China Index, the predominantly investable index that now includes some mainland A-shares) are not directly linked to businesses in Hong Kong: Out of the top 10 constituents of the MSCI China Index, which account for roughly 50% of the index’s market capitalization, seven are headquartered in mainland China and do not appear to have significant revenue exposure to Hong Kong. By contrast, at least 30% of Hang Seng Index-listed companies have business operations in Hong Kong. The remaining three companies in the top 10 MSCI China Index are Tencent (the largest component of the index, with a weight of approximately 15%), Ping An Insurance (4% weight), and China Mobile (3% weight) – all of which registered large losses in the past week. Both Tencent and Ping An Insurance are headquartered in Shenzhen, a southeastern China metropolis that links Hong Kong to mainland China. China Mobile appears to have the most revenue exposure to Hong Kong of any top constituent through its CMHK subsidiary, which is the largest telecommunications provider in Hong Kong. It is true that there has been little evidence so far that Chinese investable stocks have been more impacted by the escalation in political unrest in Hong Kong than by the escalation in the trade war. Indeed, the fact that the two escalations were overlapping this past week makes it difficult to isolate their effects. But if unrest in Hong Kong spirals out of control, it could result in mainland China intervening. According to an analysis done by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team,6 the deployment of mainland troops would likely lead to casualties and could trigger sanctions from western countries. The 1989 Tiananmen Square incident shows that such an event could lead to a non-negligible hit to domestic demand and foreign exports under sanctions. Should this to occur, the near-term idiosyncratic risk to Chinese stocks in both onshore and offshore markets will be significant. Reason #5: Further RMB Depreciation May Weigh On Stock Prices Whether due to manipulation or market forces, last week’s depreciation in the Chinese currency (RMB) was economically justified and long overdue. Chart 11RMB Depreciation Long Overdue Chart 11 shows the close relationship between the U.S.-China one-year swap rate differential and the USD/CNY exchange rate. The true source of the correlation shown in the chart remains somewhat of a mystery, given that Chinese capital controls, particularly following the 2015 devaluation episode, prevent the arbitrage activities that link rate differentials and exchange rates in economies with fully open capital accounts. However, Chart 11 clearly shows that China’s currency would have already weakened by now if it was fully market-driven, and we do not believe that the People’s Bank of China will be inclined to tighten monetary policy in order to reverse the recent devaluation. Hence, the path of least resistance for the CNY is further depreciation. If the threatened 10% tariff on all remaining U.S. imports from China is imposed this year, our back-of-the-envelope calculation based on Chart 12 suggests that a market-driven “equilibrium” USD/CNY exchange rate should be at around 7.6. We have high conviction, based on previous RMB devaluation episodes, that China’s central bank will not allow its currency to depreciate in a manner that invites speculation of meaningful further weakness – meaning we are not likely to see a straight-lined or rapid depreciation down to the 7.6 mark. Chart 12Market Driven 'Equilibrium' Provides Some Guidance On The Exchange Rate A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the Chinese economy. At the same time, aggressive market intervention via the PBoC burning through its foreign exchange reserves is also unlikely: A “managed” currency depreciation is in and of itself stimulative for the economy. It improves Chinese export goods’ price competitiveness and helps mitigate some of the pain caused by increased tariffs. Therefore it is in the PBoC’s every interest to allow such depreciation. However, no matter how “orderly” RMB depreciation may be, the fact that the PBoC has signaled it is no longer defending a “line in the sand” exchange-rate mark is likely to trigger another round of “race to the bottom” currency devaluation from other regional, export-dependent economies.7 A weaker RMB and emerging market currencies will also contribute to USD strength. A strong dollar has been negatively correlated with global risky assets, implying that for a time, a weaker RMB will be a risk-off event for risky assets and thus presumably for Chinese and EM equity relative performance. Investment Implications Our analysis above highlights that the near-term outlook for Chinese stocks is fraught with risk, and it is for this reason that we recommended an underweight tactical position in Chinese stocks for the remainder of the year in our July 24 Weekly Report.8 However, by next summer (the tail-end of our cyclical investment horizon), it is our judgement that one of two things will have likely occurred: The trade war with the U.S. will have abated or been called off, and investors will have determined that a “half-strength” credit cycle is likely enough to stabilize Chinese domestic demand and the earnings outlook. In this scenario, Chinese stocks are likely to rise US$ terms over the coming year, relative to global stocks. The trade war with the U.S. will have continued, and Chinese policymakers will have acted on the need to stimulate aggressively further in order to stabilize domestic demand. In combination with an ultimately stimulative (although near-term negative) decline in the RMB, the relative performance of Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark will likely be higher in hedged currency terms. Because of the near-term risks to the outlook, we agree that investors who are not yet invested should remain on the sidelines until surer signs of materially stronger stimulus emerge. But investors who are already positioned in favor of Chinese equities should stay long, and should bet on the latter scenario: rising relative Chinese equity performance in local currency terms, alongside a falling CNY-USD / appreciating USD-CNY exchange rate. Jing Sima China Strategist JingS@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 “US to delay some tariffs on Chinese goods”, Financial Times, August 13, 2019. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Simple Arithmetic”, dated May 15, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 1): A Reluctant PBoC”, dated July 10, 2019, and “Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 The remaining of 14 trillion debt-to-bond swap program rounds up to 315 billion yuan. 5 The relaxed financing requirement for infrastructure projects can add 800 billion yuan. 6 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rattling Of Sabers”, dated August 9, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch. 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “The RMB: Depreciation Time?”, dated May 23, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?”, dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights A lot has changed in a week and a half, … : The FOMC meeting that we thought would mark the end of global market-moving news until September turned out to be a prelude for the real fireworks. … as U.S.-China trade tensions escalated, … : The imposition of tariffs on the only remaining subset of Chinese imports that had escaped duties so far inspired China to let the yuan fall below a key technical level. … and other countries braced for the fallout: China’s devaluation opened up a new front in the conflict, turning a bilateral tariff spat into a threat to other countries’ well-being and competitiveness. Asia-Pacific central banks swiftly followed with larger-than-expected rate cuts. Below-benchmark-duration positioning is no longer appropriate in the near term, and we recommend moving to benchmark duration: Interest rates will be hard-pressed to rise with global central banks squarely in easing mode. Although we still believe that inflation and the fed funds rate will surprise to the upside, it’s going to take a while. Feature Dear Client, There will be no U.S. Investment Strategy next week as we take our final summer break. U.S. Investment Strategy will return on Monday, August 26th. Best regards, Doug Peta So much for the idea that the July 30-31 FOMC meeting would be the last market-moving event before Labor Day. By lunchtime on August 1st, the S&P 500 was back to its July 30th close above 3,010; the 10-year Treasury yield had settled around 1.96%, ten basis points (“bps”) lower than its pre-meeting level; and gold had fallen by ten bucks, to $1,420, as markets digested the news that the Fed was less concerned about the economy than they were. Then the trade war reared its ugly head in the form of new tariffs on Chinese imports to the U.S., and the S&P slid to 2,822, the 10-year Treasury yield tumbled to 1.59%, and gold surged to $1,510. The new round would ensnare the subset of goods that had previously been spared from import duties, and Beijing promised to retaliate. It’s hard for rates to rise when every central bank has an easing bias as it nervously eyes the U.S.-China tilt. Chart 1Beijing Plays The Currency Card The retaliation arrived Sunday night in the U.S., when Chinese officials allowed the renminbi to trade above 7 to the dollar for the first time since 2008 (Chart 1). The move provoked a global equity selloff, and the S&P 500 lost 3% in its worst session of the year. With the currency floodgates opened, the trade war morphed from a bilateral tariff spat into a global battle for competitiveness, and central banks in India, Thailand and New Zealand responded with larger-than-expected rate cuts. India is a comparatively closed economy battling a domestic downturn, but it is clear that countries with any reliance on exports are loath to be saddled with a strong currency that will hamstring their global competitiveness. It turns out that the Fed isn’t the only central bank that sees the appeal of taking out some insurance. That is an unfriendly backdrop for below-benchmark-duration positioning, and we are joining our fixed-income colleagues in raising our duration recommendation from underweight to neutral over the tactical timeframe (0-3 months). While we still believe that the fed funds rate and long yields will surprise to the upside, they cannot do so while bond investors are adamant that the Fed is going to have to adopt an easing bias over the near term. Our rates checklist, discussed in the rest of this report, supports the decision. The shift in the rates backdrop undermines our newly established agency mortgage REIT recommendation, and we are watching it closely. The Rates Checklist: The Fed Table 1Rates View Checklist Turning to our rates view checklist (Table 1), the first item is derived from our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s golden rule of bond investing.1 The golden rule asks one simple question to anchor views on Treasuries: Over the next 12 months, will the Fed move the fed funds rate by more or less than the bond market is currently discounting? Since 1990, when the Fed has surprised dovishly (the fed funds rate has turned out to be lower than the money market implied twelve months earlier), Treasuries have almost always generated positive excess returns over cash. Periods of negative excess returns have occurred nearly exclusively when the Fed has delivered a hawkish surprise. We still think inflation will become a problem, but it certainly isn’t one yet. Since we rolled out the checklist last year, we have consistently expected a hawkish surprise. Though we continue to believe that an extended cycle of rate cuts is not in the cards, markets disagree, and we concede that the Fed now has a near-term easing bias, despite Chair Powell’s demurrals at the post-meeting press conference. We are leaving the box unchecked because we believe that nearly four more 25-bps cuts over the next twelve months, equating to a target fed funds rate of 1.25-1.50% (Chart 2), are unlikely. The spread between our expectations and the market’s expectations is still wide enough to merit a below-benchmark-duration view over the next twelve months, even if benchmark duration makes more sense for the rest of the year. Chart 2Four More Rate Cuts Are A Stretch The yield curve’s inversion has become more pronounced in the wake of the re-escalation of the trade war (Chart 3), and we duly check the second box. As a reminder, we track the 3-month/10-year segment of the yield curve to define inversion because it is less susceptible to estimate error, and has been a timelier indicator of recessions, than the more frequently cited 2-year/10-year segment. We have argued before that the unprecedentedly large negative 10-year term premium makes the curve more prone to invert and makes it a less sensitive economic barometer, but part of the rationale of creating a checklist is to limit one’s discretion in interpreting events. Chart 3More Rate Cuts, Please The Rates Checklist: Inflation Inflation has gone AWOL around the globe. Although the U.S. no longer faces the negative output gaps that remain in other major economies, its main measures of consumer prices (Chart 4) do nothing to counteract the widespread view that the Fed has a free pass to devote its energies to shoring up growth. Inflation break-evens were making progress toward the 2.3-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target when we launched the checklist last year, but the plunge in oil prices stopped them in their tracks (Chart 5). Rather than encouraging the Fed to hike, soft inflation expectations helped drive the Fed’s dovish pivot. Chart 4Realized Inflation Is Below Target, ... Chart 5... And So Are Inflation Expectations Our view that the seeds of inflation pressures have been sown has not changed. After slowing on a real final domestic demand basis in the first quarter from the one-two punch of the government shutdown and the fourth quarter’s sharp tightening of financial conditions, the U.S. economy has resumed operating above capacity. Though we check the “sluggish-inflation” boxes, and acknowledge that inflation is not going to inspire a more restrictive turn in Fed policy any time soon, we do think it will become an issue down the road. The Rates Checklist: The Labor Market The labor market remains robust. The headline unemployment rate remains at a level last seen in 1969, and is well below the CBO’s estimate of NAIRU. NAIRU is the minimum structural unemployment rate, and wage gains quicken when the unemployment rate falls below it (Chart 6). The broader definition of unemployment, encompassing discouraged workers and involuntary part-time workers, fell to its lowest level since 2000 in July (Chart 7), and the job openings and job quits rates (Chart 8) indicate that demand for workers remains high. Chart 6Wage Gains Will Accelerate, ... Chart 7... As Slack Has Been Absorbed, ... Chart 8... And Demand Is Robust 3.2% year-over-year growth in average hourly earnings may not be thrilling, but wages do remain in an uptrend. The laws of supply and demand (Chart 9), and the Fed’s best efforts, suggest that the uptrend will continue. We do not check any of the labor market boxes, and expect that we will not over the rest of the year. The Rates Checklist: Instability At Home And Abroad Chart 10No Overheating Yet There continue to be no signs of cyclical overheating in the U.S. economy, as the most cyclical segments of the economy are nowhere near the red end of the tachometer (Chart 10). Financial imbalances have moved to the back burner, but they are part of the Fed’s post-crisis mandate, and we are leaving the imbalances box unticked to reflect that the “low spreads and loosening credit terms” Governor Brainard decried last September2 may stay the Fed from embarking on a full-on easing cycle. We are checking the international duress box, at least for the time being, given the potential for a self-reinforcing rate-cutting cycle that could hold down the entire term structure of rates around the world. Bottom Line: The inverted yield curve, a lack of consumer price inflation, and the cloud cast by the trade war all suggest that bond markets will require some convincing before they allow rates to rise much higher. We conclude that a neutral duration stance is appropriate in the near term. Keeping Score We have been staunch supporters of below-benchmark duration positioning since the end of last July,3 given that we thought the 10-year Treasury yield was too low relative to our assessment of the strength of the U.S. economy and the potential for inflation to begin to rise. It appears that our stronger-than-consensus economic view was correct, but we were myopic in failing to grasp how punk growth in the rest of the world would keep long-maturity Treasury yields from making a sustained move higher. We were way early on inflation’s ETA, and slow to grasp how sensitive the Fed would be to faltering global growth and escalating trade tensions in its absence. In short, both our model of the Fed’s reaction function and the inputs to our model turned out to be faulty. The duration call stings, but our asset allocation recommendations have worked out. The fix we are making is to wait until inflation is a clear and present danger before assuming that the Fed will respond to it. Although we got the duration call wrong, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds have outperformed Treasuries in the aggregate since we upgraded them to overweight versus Treasuries at the end of January (Chart 11). BCA as a house niftily sidestepped the fourth-quarter selloff in equities by downgrading them to equal weight, and raising cash to overweight, late last June. We upgraded equities to overweight versus cash and fixed income in our first publication of the year, and the S&P 500 has handily outperformed Treasuries since that date, despite the nasty selloff following the July FOMC meeting and the new round of tariffs (Chart 12). Chart 11Spread Product Has Modestly Outperformed Treasuries, ... Chart 12... But Equities Have Crushed Them Agency Mortgage REIT Implications We recommended agency mortgage REITs a day before the FOMC meeting, suggesting that investors allocate capital away from equities and high yield as a way to reduce equity beta and boost portfolio income away from the herd chasing lower and lower high-yield bond yields. Through Thursday’s close, the Bloomberg Mortgage REIT Index has gained about 35 bps on a total return basis, while the Barclays High Yield Index is off 70 bps and the S&P 500 is down 2.7%. Unfortunately, the agency mREITs we sought out for their yield curve exposure have lagged badly as the yield curve has relentlessly flattened. For now, only the one agency mREIT with a dedicated adjustable-rate mortgage portfolio faces immediate earnings pressure. The rest are subject to refinancing volumes, which are likely to be higher than we expected when we projected that the 10-year Treasury yield wouldn’t fall much below 2%. The specter of increased prepayments makes the agency mREITs a less attractive investment than we thought they would be two weeks ago. On the other hand, their exclusively domestic exposure, and low credit risk, increases their value as a haven from global turmoil. Net-net, we are sticking with them, though they are now on a far shorter leash than they were when we made the recommendation. We will not stick with a position to save face, or to avoid looking irresolute. Flexibility and a willingness to admit mistakes are essential characteristics of successful investors. When the facts change, we change our mind, without the faintest hint of embarrassment. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the July 24, 2018 U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing,” available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Brainard, Lael (2018). “What Do We Mean by Neutral And What Role Does It Play in Monetary Policy,” speech delivered at the Detroit Economic Club, Detroit, Mich., September 12, 2018. 3 Please see the July 30, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rates Outlook,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights U.S.-China: The escalation of the trade war has renewed investor fears that uncertainty could create an even deeper drag on global growth, requiring a more aggressive easing of global monetary policy. Fed: The Fed had an opportunity last week to regain control of monetary policy from the markets, but opted for only a cautious rate cut that came off as too hawkish. The FOMC will be forced to play defense in the next 3-6 months, likely by cutting rates more than originally envisioned given the market turbulence stemming from the trade war escalation. Fixed Income Asset Allocation: Raise overall global portfolio duration to neutral on a tactical (0-3 months) basis, at least until equity markets stabilize. Maintain strategic (6-12 months) overweights to global corporate bonds, however, as global leading economic indicators are bottoming. Feature A Painful Repricing Chart of the WeekNot A Pretty Picture A long-overdue correction in risk assets, or the start of something more sinister? That is the question investors must now consider. Another Twitter blast from @realDonaldTrump has triggered chaos in global financial markets, with the imposition of fresh U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports. This shattered the market calm since the June G20 meeting, when an announced truce on the U.S.-China trade dispute led to optimism that a real deal could be reached. China retaliated to the new tariffs by allowing the USD/CNY exchange rate to depreciate beyond the perceived line in the sand at 7.0. The trade news came at a bad time for financial markets, a few days after the release of soft global manufacturing PMI data for July that highlighted how global growth remains highly vulnerable to trade war developments (Chart of the Week). The Fed did not help matters by delivering an interest rate cut last week but somehow coming across as hawkish (or, at least, not dovish enough). The market response to the renewed trade tensions and yuan weakness has been classic “macro risk-off” – sharply lower government bond yields, alongside big declines in global equity markets and commodity prices (Chart 2) and increases in the value of typical safe-havens like gold and the Japanese yen (Chart 3). Chart 2Growth-Sensitive Assets Not Doing Well Chart 3Safe Havens In Demand The nature of the fall in global bond yields has been consistent with what has been seen so far in 2019 – fairly coordinated moves in terms of size, with much smaller changes seen in cross-country yield spreads. This suggests that the unobservable “global” bond yield is falling in response to deteriorating global growth expectations, rather than country-specific factors driving local bond yields. Global trade uncertainty – and what that implies for future weakness in corporate profits, investment and employment – is indeed an “external shock” for every nation. We admit that our current duration recommendations have not been aligned to benefit from these moves. Our forecasting philosophy for government bond yields is based on what our colleagues at our sister service, BCA U.S. Bond Strategy, have dubbed “The Golden Rule of Bond Investing”.1 In that framework, the primary driver of government bond market returns (excess returns over cash, to be precise) is the outcome of central bank policy moves versus what is discounted in interest rate markets. In the U.S., we have been steadfast in our expectation that the Fed would disappoint market pricing that was calling for as much as 90bps of rate cuts over the next 12 months. Global trade uncertainty – and what that implies for future weakness in corporate profits, investment and employment – is indeed an “external shock” for every nation. Chart 4Rate Cuts Required - And Discounted - Everywhere Now, with the President giving markets the unpleasant news that a trade deal with China is not imminent, and new tariffs about to be imposed, the pressure is on the Fed to provide an offset through easier monetary policy. Some are even interpreting the timing of Trump’s latest Tariff Tweet in a Machiavellian fashion, as if he wanted to create more uncertainty to get to Fed to cut rates (and, by association, help deliver Trump’s goal of weakening the U.S. dollar). On the surface, Trump ratcheting up the trade tensions sounds like a risky economic game to play leading up to the 2020 Presidential election. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy, however, note that many of the leading Democratic presidential nominee contenders have themselves been pushing for a more hawkish stance on China. Trump may now feel politically emboldened to become even harder on China himself, to avoid being outflanked by the Democrats – even if it means the U.S. stock market suffers a nasty selloff as a result. Although, again, if the Fed cuts rates as a result, Trump will likely view that as a victory given his constant haranguing of Fed Chair Jay Powell over the past year. With Powell tipping his hand last week that trade uncertainty was something that could trigger additional Fed interest rate cuts, and with Trump now highly incentivized to create that uncertainty, the case for betting against the rate cuts discounted in U.S. interest rate markets has weakened – even though it is still debatable whether the U.S. economy has softened enough to justify a full-blown easing cycle. With Powell tipping his hand last week that trade uncertainty was something that could trigger additional Fed interest rate cuts, and with Trump now highly incentivized to create that uncertainty, the case for betting against the rate cuts discounted in U.S. interest rate markets has weakened Our Central Bank Monitors are now signaling a need for some easing of monetary policy in all the major developed economies, including the U.S. (Chart 4). Even though our 12-month Discounters also show that a lot of easing is already priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves in those same countries, the amount of cuts discounted is consistent with the dovish message from our Central Bank Monitors. Given the renewed trade tensions, alongside no signs of much improvement in overall global growth momentum, we are less certain at the moment that the amount of cuts discounted by markets will not be delivered. Thus, under our Golden Rule framework, a below-benchmark overall global duration stance is not warranted at this time. Therefore, this week, we are increasing our overall duration stance to neutral from below-benchmark, on a tactical basis. In our model bond portfolio on Page 10, we are implementing this view by “neutralizing” the duration exposures within each country. This is done by keeping the same total country weightings versus the benchmark index, but allocating across all maturities in line with the index weightings within each country. This adds about one-half of year of duration to the model portfolio to bring it up the same level as the benchmark index, but without altering the overall allocations to countries or spread product sectors. What To Do Beyond The Short-Term? Chart 5A Lot Of Bad News Discounted In Bond Yields Despite the near-term concerns and volatility stemming from the increased trade tensions, we do not advocate moving to a more defensive portfolio allocation (above-benchmark duration, underweight corporate bonds) to position for a deeper global growth slowdown, for the following reasons: A lot of bad news is already discounted in global bond yields. The rally in government bond markets this year has pushed bond yields down to stretched levels using typical valuation metrics (Chart 5) like the 5-year OIS rate, 5-years forward; the term premium on 10-year yields, and market-implied inflation expectations from CPI swaps or inflation-linked bonds. Additional sustainable declines will be harder to achieve from current levels. The U.S. economy is still holding up relatively well, especially compared to other major economies. Although the U.S. manufacturing sector data has slowed, U.S. Treasury yields already are in line with the diminished readings of the ISM Manufacturing index, which is still above the 50 level signifying expanding activity (Chart 6). The non-manufacturing (services) side of the economy has not seen the same degree of slowing, while consumer confidence and retail sales have both picked up of late. Also, the mean-reverting U.S. data surprise index – which is correlated to the momentum of bond yields – is very stretched to the downside, suggesting less downside potential for Treasury yields from weak U.S. data (Chart 7). Chart 6UST Yields Consistent With Slower Manufacturing In addition, the easing of U.S. financial conditions from the 2019 rally in U.S. equity and credit markets before the past few days does suggest a rebound in U.S. growth is likely beyond the next few months. It will take much bigger market declines than seen so far, something beyond a mere “garden-variety” correction in U.S. equities, to tighten financial conditions enough to offset the prior loosening. Chart 7Treasuries Are Vulnerable To Better Data Early leading indicators are flashing a future bottoming of global growth. Several of the more reliable leading economic signals, like our global LEI diffusion index and the China credit impulse, are both flashing the potential for a rebound in global growth to begin around the end of the year (Chart 8). If Chinese policymakers choose to offset the negative domestic economic impact of the new Trump tariffs with even more stimulus measures, as seems likely, then the odds of an eventual growth rebound would improve – especially if there is also a healthy dose of monetary easing from the Fed, ECB (both rate cuts and renewed asset purchases) and other major central banks. Early leading indicators are flashing a future bottoming of global growth. Summing it all up, we see the best way to protect against the risks of an even deeper near-term selloff in risk assets is to increase duration by buying liquid government bonds, rather than reduce credit exposure by selling less liquid corporate bonds. It would take signs that the improvement in leading economic indicators is reversing to justify downgrading global corporate bond exposure. We think it more likely that we’ll be reducing our recommended duration exposure back to below-benchmark sometime in the next few months. We will be watching news on global trade, China stimulus and U.S. non-manufacturing growth before making the next change to our duration call. We see the best way to protect against the risks of an even deeper near-term selloff in risk assets is to increase duration by buying liquid government bonds, rather than reduce credit exposure by selling less liquid corporate bonds. With regards to country allocation within developed market government bonds, we are choosing to stick with our current recommendations: overweight core Europe, the U.K., Japan, Australia and Spain; underweight the U.S. and Italy; and neutral Canada (Chart 9). Those allocations have served us reasonably throughout 2019, with the bulk of the overweights outperforming the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index in hedged USD terms, and the U.S. actually only just matching the global hedged benchmark (thanks to the yield pickup for non-U.S. debt from hedging currency exposure back to higher-yielding U.S. dollars). Chart 8A Light At The End Of The Tunnel? Chart 9We're Sticking With Our Country Allocations Only in the case of Italy, were we have maintained an underweight stance given our concerns about weak Italian growth and the implications for debt sustainability, have we seen a significant underperformance of our recommendation. At current yield/spread levels, however, we remain reluctant to simply chase higher-yielding Italian bond yields in the absence of any sign of improving Italian growth that would justify lower Italian risk premia. Bottom Line: The escalation of the trade war has renewed investor fears that trade could create an even deeper drag on global growth, requiring a more aggressive easing of global monetary policy. Raise overall global portfolio duration to neutral on a tactical (0-3 months) basis, at least until equity markets stabilize. Maintain strategic (6-12 months) overweights to global corporate bonds, however, as global leading economic indicators are bottoming. Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns