Real Estate
Highlights The banks got the current earnings season off to a good start, … : Lending growth may be running in place, and net interest margins are under pressure, but positive operating leverage helped the banks beat expectations, and they are returning gobs of cash to their shareholders. … are quite constructive about the economy, … : The big banks’ CFOs and CEOs were uniformly bullish about the U.S. economy based on their perceptions of household and corporate health. … expect stellar credit performance to continue for the foreseeable future, … : Net charge-off and non-performing loan ratios are near all-time lows and the banks don’t see them rising any time soon. … and appear to be willing to extend loans in all categories except commercial real estate: Every bank sees unattractive competition in commercial real estate lending and plans to continue shrinking its CRE loan book. Nothing To See Here Two-fifths of the companies in the S&P 500 have now reported their quarterly earnings, and after this week the share will be two-thirds. At the aggregate level, it appears as if investors’ worst fears will not be realized, just as they weren’t in the first two quarters of the year. 2018’s greater than 20% year-on-year growth, powered by the sharp cut in the top corporate income tax rate, has rolled off, but earnings have yet to contract. They were projected to fall by a little over 3% at the beginning of this reporting season, but repeated practice has allowed corporate managements to hone their underpromise-and-overdeliver skills to a fine point, and we won’t be surprised if they avert an outright contraction. Chart 1Profit Margins Are Being Squeezed, ... Chart 2... But Neither Growing Compensation, ... Earnings growth has been stagnant this year (Chart 1, bottom panel), though revenues have grown a little faster than nominal GDP (Chart 1, top panel), with which they should converge over time. Profit margins have finally come under pressure, though it’s not exactly clear why. Employee compensation is businesses’ biggest expense by far, and while it has risen from its lows, its growth decelerated last quarter (Chart 2). Dollar strength is a headwind for U.S.-based multinationals, but the dollar only really moved last quarter, after ending the first half where it started the year (Chart 3). Dollar gains weigh on revenues just as surely as they do on profits, though we would not be at all surprised if the share of non-dollar expenses is a good bit smaller than the widely quoted 33-40% estimate of S&P 500 constituents’ foreign sales. Chart 3... Nor A Stronger Dollar Is A Clear-Cut Culprit Rate cuts have sparked a wave of mortgage refinancings, shifting wealth from mortgage investors to homeowners, who are more likely to spend it. Easier monetary conditions should help grease the skids for future earnings growth, both in the U.S. and abroad, and we expect the Fed will cut the fed funds rate by another 25 basis points when it meets this week. We have sympathy for the argument that since interest rates were not a meaningful constraint on growth, cutting them is not likely to provide much of a catalyst. Falling rates have provoked a wave of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4), however, so even if they don’t drive a big lending increase, they are already on their way to putting more money in the pockets of homeowners. Lower rates also reduce the risk of default by lowering debt-service costs for adjustable-rate borrowers, and by encouraging investors who need income to venture further out the risk curve, providing ample capital for borrowers seeking to extend their maturing obligations. Chart 4Putting More Money In Homeowners' Pockets Follow The Money Chart 5Bank Stocks Are Probing Resistance For two years, beginning in 2014, we reviewed the biggest banks’ earnings calls every quarter. The goal was to observe the give and take between bank management and sell-side analysts to gain some insight into the lending market and where it might be headed. We specifically sought information about banks’ willingness to lend, consumers’ and businesses’ appetite for credit, borrower performance, and the banks’ bottom-up perspective on the economy. We were also trying to glean insight into mortgage lending and what it might imply for residential investment. Studying the banks is a natural pursuit for a firm that was founded upon the insight that following money flows through the banking system would provide us with a window into the future direction of the economy and financial markets, and we return to it today. Our analysis is not meant to evaluate the banks’ own investment potential, though we note that they are testing resistance once again (Chart 5), and our Global Investment Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy services both recommend overweighting them. This round of calls found bank management teams eager to ramp up their distributions to shareholders and optimistic about their ability to deploy technology to drive further efficiency gains. Big Banks Beige Book As a group, the banks were constructive on the economy. Despite widespread recession concerns, they do not see evidence of a looming slowdown from their interactions with consumers and businesses. Overall loan growth has remained around 5% over the last year and a half (Chart 6), while corporate and industrial (C&I) loan growth has ground to zero over the last thirteen weeks (Chart 7). The CEOs and CFOs do not see the C&I slump as the beginning of a worrisome trend, though, and global corporate bond issuance hit an all-time high in September, led by sizable issues from mega-cap U.S. companies. Businesses seeking credit are having no trouble getting it, though all the banks expressed an intention to continue cutting back their exposure to commercial real estate (CRE) loans. Chart 6Bank Lending Is Supporting Activity Without Risking Overheating Chart 7Lending Momentum Has Slowed, But It's Okay Another commercial real estate issue emerged across the calls: several of the biggest banks are consolidating their branch footprints. Prompted by questioning from one analyst, they touted branch closures as a way to enhance efficiency. We do not know if a reduction in bank demand for branch space would have an observable effect on demand for retail space across the country, but it certainly would in Manhattan. It seems possible that branch closures could pressure some retail lessors’ profitability, and thereby act as a drag on CRE whole-loan and CMBS performance at the margin. The Economy [C]onsumer spend and … confidence continue to be strong. I think business activity continues to be strong. I think it’s moderated somewhat because of … trade policy, but generally, I think the economy is solid. (Dolan, USB CFO) I think it’s fair to say that perhaps marginal investment is being impacted by trade fatigue in terms of the uncertainty, but … [there’s] still growth. … [T]he consumer is incredibly strong, … spending is strong, sentiment is strong, … credit is good. [I]t is true that [the recent ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing surveys] were disappointing[,] so [there are] cautionary signs, but credit remains very good and there is still very healthy business activity. (Piepszak, JPM CFO) In general, our commercial customers continue to see moderate demand and no widespread issues related to trade uncertainty and interest rate changes. … [W]hile our customers are cautious, the most common concern they identify is their ability to hire enough qualified workers. (Shrewsberry, WFC CFO) Consumer payments up 6% year-to-date … [and 6% year-over-year 3Q growth in both our small business segment and total commercial loans] are tangible examples that the U.S. economy is still in solid shape, despite the worries and concerns about trade wars, capital investment slowdowns or other global macro conditions. (Moynihan, BAC CEO) Borrower Performance [W]e’ve had growth in the United States for the better part of 10 years [a]nd … credit is extraordinarily good. … [C]onsumer credit, commercial credit, wholesale is extraordinarily good, it can only get worse if you have a [turn in the] cycle. [Our guidance relates to expected performance across a full cycle.] We’re at the over-earning part of the cycle [beating the through-the-cycle expectation] in credit today, and [at] one point we’ll be at the under-earning part [pulling the full result down to our expectation]. (Dimon, JPM CEO) Our net charge-off rate remains near historic lows at 27 basis points (Chart 8). (Shrewsberry, WFC) Chart 8C&I Charge-Off Rates Are Near Their Historic Lows Credit quality remains stable, and we are not seeing any early indicators in our portfolio that cause us concern. (Cecere, USB CEO) Banks see no broad credit warning signs, but they're perfectly happy to let non-bank lenders take some commercial real estate share at this point of the cycle. We closely monitor our commercial portfolio for signs of weakness and credit quality indicators remain strong. (Shrewsberry, WFC) Lender Willingness [W]e are mindful that at some point, the industry will experience a credit downturn, and we remain disciplined in terms of origination quality and our long-term strategy of remaining within our defined credit box regardless of the competitive environment. (Cecere, USB) [Commercial] real estate banking [declined] as we remain selective, given where we are in the cycle. (Piepszak, JPM) [Commercial real estate lending] is one market where there’s late cycle behavior, there’s lots of non-bank competitors, … more than bank competitors. And so we really have to pick our spots in order to maintain our risk/reward, credit and pricing in loan terms quality. … I wouldn’t look for it to grow meaningfully until the cycle turns and our best customers have really interesting opportunities to put their own capital to work. (Shrewsberry, WFC) [Our declining commercial real estate lending is] really a function of [competition] that we’re not comfortable with. (Cecere, USB) Banks’ Real Estate Demand [C]ustomer behaviors are changing. The amount of transaction activity that’s happening in the branches is significantly less[.] In fact, … roughly 70, 80% of it goes through the digital channel today. So that gives us the opportunity to really reconfigure the branch network, both in terms of size and numbers[.] I think those trends are going to continue … , and … we may accelerate or increase some of [our right-sizing] activity[.] (Dolan, USB) Teller and ATM transactions declined 6% from a year ago, reflecting continued customer migration to digital channels. We’ve consolidated 130 branches in the first nine months of this year, including 52 branches in the third quarter. (Shrewsberry, WFC) [D]o we continue to work on real estate configurations that were down 50 million square feet from the start of 2010[?] [C]an we push [the occupancy rate] up, can we densify the space[?] (Moynihan, BAC) Investment Implications While rereading the April 2014 U.S. Investment Strategy that reviewed the big banks’ 1Q14 earnings calls, we were struck by how similar the picture is today. Back then, we described the central challenge for investors as choosing between mushy fundamentals and generous monetary policy that might be expected to inspire a valuation overshoot. As we do now, we anticipated that activity would soon pick up, providing markets with a fundamental boost, but we also had the sense that “policy settings are such that no much more than the status quo may be required to keep the party going.” We reiterated our equity overweight and our preference for spread product over Treasuries. Between inflection points, investing is an exercise in trend following, and there's no reason to believe that the monetary policy trend is about to change without clear advance notice. Although we are congenitally optimistic about our species and our country, we are not perma-bulls. We simply recognize that, between inflection points, investing is an exercise in trend following, no matter how uncomfortable it may make an investor to leave the portfolio dials alone for a while. As long as the monetary policy backdrop remains extremely accommodative across all of the major developed economies, and central banks are set to add even more accommodation before they start removing it, the bullish trend will remain in place. The prospective real returns of cash and highly-rated sovereign bonds are likely to remain negative for a while against that backdrop, encouraging investors to direct their marginal investment dollar to risk assets as long as a fundamental reversal is not imminent. We think a fundamental inflection is at least two years away, and therefore continue to believe that it is too early to de-risk investment portfolios. We reiterate our recommendation that investors remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios, and at least equal weight spread product within their fixed-income allocations. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com
ハイライト
通貨市場は短期的な期待と長期的な要因の点で二分されている。スウェーデンクローナ、ノルウェークローネ、英ポンドは長期的には堅調に買いだが、短期的には非常にボラタイルなままでいる可能性がある。
我々はドルの単純な押し目買いよりもクロス通貨に引き続き注目している。SEK/NZD、GBP/JPY、NOK/SEKはロングを維持。利益保護のためGBP/JPYのロスカットを引き締める。
世界的な成長が改善すればEUR/SEKは天井を打つはずだ。
先週のレポートで推奨した通り、金/銀比率を90で売る。1
特集
Chart I-1
2018年以降の一方通行
2018年以降の一方通行
2018年以降の一方通行
我々が注目するG10通貨の中で、最も不可解なのはおそらくスウェーデンクローナだ。リクスバンクは今年利上げを行った数少ない中央銀行の一つだが、クローナは依然としてG10で最も弱い通貨である。確かにスウェーデンの製造業のパフォーマンスはみじめで、特に9月はそうだったが、これはスウェーデンだけの話ではない。製造業の深刻な景気後退を経験しているユーロ圏の方が、よりハト派な欧州中央銀行（ECB）にもかかわらず通貨のパフォーマンスは良好だった。
クローナのアンダーパフォーマンスは、世界的な製造業の景気後退が長引くことを示しているのか、それともスウェーデン固有の内生的な問題を示しているのかという疑問を投げかける。言い換えれば、USD/SEK（さらにはUSD/NOK）の上昇を牽引してきたのはドル高なのか、それともより国内的な要因なのか（Chart I-1）？ もし後者であれば、反転が近づいている場合に注目すべき重要な指標は何か？
ソフトデータ対ハードデータの議論
スウェーデンにとって大きな問いは、製造業がただボラタイルに底打ちしているだけなのか、それともこれからさらに大きく収縮するのか、という点だ。鉱工業生産は現在前年比で4％成長しているが、ソフトデータのシグナルは二桁の縮小を示唆している（Chart I-2、上段）。したがって、投資家の認識と現実の間に大きな乖離があるか、あるいは我々がはるかに深刻な製造業の落ち込みの瀬戸際にいるかのどちらかだ。為替は幅広い経済データの織り込みが極めて流動的であり、スウェーデンの場合は世界成長の見通しを織り込む傾向にある。しかし、EUR/SEKが10.8、USD/SEKが9.7（後者は2008年の高値を大きく上回る）であることを踏まえれば、深刻な不況以外の結果であればクローナは強くなると見て差し支えない。
スウェーデン製造業の底を示す比較的一貫した指標の一つは新規受注対在庫比率だ（Chart I-2、下段）。9月の低下は不安を誘う。しかし、製造業PMIとは異なりこの比率は新たな安値を付けていない点は注目に値し、我々が長期的な落ち込みではなくボラタイルな底打ちプロセスにあるかもしれないという暫定的な証拠である。我々がこのような発散を最後に見たのは2011/2012年の欧州債務危機の最中であり、その際にはスウェーデンのハードデータが最終的に経済全体の正しいシグナルを送った。
製造業の悪化は、まだ国内消費一般や労働市場には影響を与えていない。
製造業の悪化は、まだ国内消費一般や労働市場には影響を与えていない。PMI指数の輸入項目は輸出のそれを大きく上回っている。一方で、PMIの雇用項目は今年の中頃から安定化し始めており、雇用成長は約1％前後で底打ちするはずだ（Chart I-3）。スウェーデンの輸出は多くの先進国よりも製造業の上位サプライチェーンに位置しており、自動車は重要な役割を果たす。しかしこれまでのところ、スウェーデン経済は自動車の減速を比較的うまく耐え抜いており、生産は依然として年率約7％で推移している。
Chart I-2
ソフトデータがはるかに悪い
ソフトデータははるかに悪化している
ソフトデータははるかに悪化している
Chart I-3
国内需要は堅調に持ちこたえている
国内需要は堅調に推移している
国内需要は堅調に推移している
スウェーデンの失業率の上昇は問題だが、我々はこれが労働市場のダイナミクスに重大な変化をもたらしたとは考えていない。スウェーデンは多くの他の欧州諸国よりも亡命希望者や難民に対して開放的である歴史が長い。数年前のシリア危機は例外的な急増を引き起こし、亡命希望者数は15万人を超え、総人口のほぼ1.5％にまで達した（Chart I-4）。歴史的に移民はスウェーデンに大きな労働力の恩恵をもたらし、成長は米国やユーロ圏を上回ってきた。ただし、新たな移民が労働力に統合される過程で摩擦的失業も生じている。
Chart I-4
統合される必要のある新たな労働力プール
統合しなければならない新たな労働力のプール
統合しなければならない新たな労働力のプール
外国生まれの労働者は現在総人口の約20％を占め、その大部分が新しい言語を学び新たなスキルを習得する必要がある（Chart I-5A）。この成長のメリットは今後何年にもわたって享受されるだろう。統合は政治的に敏感な問題であり、2016年中頃に採択された高度に制限的な亡命・再統合法は移民ブームの後退を意味する可能性が高い。2018年9月の選挙で反移民派のスウェーデン民主党が台頭したのはその典型例だ。しかし、民主主義国の有権者が右寄りに向かう動きは世界的な現象であり、相対的に見ればスウェーデンにとってそれほどネガティブではない。つまり、ほとんどの先進国と比較して、スウェーデンの人口見通しは依然として比較的良好だ（Chart I-5B）。
Chart I-5A
巨大な労働力の恩恵
巨額の労働配当
巨額の労働配当
Chart I-5B
明らかな人口の崖は見えない
明らかな人口の崖は見られない
明らかな人口の崖は見られない
移民の流入はインフレに対して混合的な影響を与える。賃金が低い就業比率の上昇により賃金を押し下げる圧力がある一方で、労働者数の増加に応じて住宅と消費には上押し圧力が掛かる。これは政府が社会サービスに支出を増やす財政刺激にもつながる。一方で、外国生まれの人々の失業率は約15％に達している。これはフィリップス曲線が最初の数年間は平坦で、その後急勾配になることを意味する。しかし新たな労働力が最終的に経済に吸収されれば、賃金圧力を生み出し始めるはずだ。
リクスバンクはこれらのダイナミクスを明確に理解しており、だからこそ過去数年はスウェーデン経済が比較的持ちこたえている局面でもハト派の姿勢を取ってきた。金利は2015年にマイナス領域に引き下げられ、2016年から2017年の世界的な回復期を通じて-0.5％に据え置かれた（ECBの政策金利より低い）。また量的緩和はECBの資産購入プログラムの再開発表よりも早く2020年まで延長された。これらは弱い通貨を通じて含め、スウェーデンの金融状況を大いに緩和した。今後、クローナの下値抵抗が薄く上昇しやすいと考える主要な理由がいくつかある：
弱いクローナは通常12か月のラグをもって製造業を助けてきた。
弱いクローナは通常12か月のラグをもって製造業を助けてきた。マイナスの乖離は深刻な不況の前にしか起こらない傾向がある。現在がまさにそのような状況でない限り、比較的安価になったスウェーデン製品（ボルボ対BMWを想起せよ）への需要が強まれば、クローナは強含みになるはずだ（Chart I-6）。
確かにRiskbankは量的緩和を実施してきたが、バランスシートの拡大ペースはここ数四半期で鈍化している。USD/SEKはリクスバンクとフェドの相対的なバランスシート動向を追う傾向があるが、クローナに有利な大きな差が開きつつある（Chart I-7）。一方で、フェドがバランスシートを再拡大しようとしていることも、USDに対してSEKを強める方向に働くはずだ。
Chart I-6
スウェーデンクローナと製造業
スウェーデン・クローナと製造業
スウェーデン・クローナと製造業
Chart I-7
USD/SEKと相対的バランスシート
USD/SEKと相対的バランスシート
USD/SEKと相対的バランスシート
スウェーデンの住宅市場はリクスバンクにとって悩みの種になりつつある。2015年にマイナス金利が導入された際、住宅価格は前年比で15％という急上昇を見せた（Chart I-8）。最近では移民抑制がある程度の冷却をもたらしたが、スウェーデンの家計のレバレッジは依然として非常に高い。1990年代の住宅危機の記憶が鮮明なため、現行の政策スタンスにリクスバンクは強い違和感を抱いている。
キャリーコストは米ドルをショートするよりNZDをショートする方が低い。
我々のバイアスは、ステファン・イングベス総裁ができるだけ速やかに政策を正常化したがっている一方で、彼が扱っているのは貿易がGDPの約45％を占める小規模開放経済であり、外部条件に翻弄されやすいという点だ。SEKはG10の中で最も割安な通貨であり、世界成長の底打ちを示すいかなる弱い証拠に対しても急反発する可能性がある。さらに、世界的な成長が上向けば資源利用がひっ迫し、スウェーデンの基調的なインフレ圧力が高まるはずだ（Chart I-9）。
Chart I-8
スウェーデンの住宅価格##br## バブル気味
スウェーデンの住宅価格はバブル状態にある
スウェーデンの住宅価格はバブル状態にある
Chart I-9
スウェーデンの資源利用とインフレ
スウェーデンにおける資源の活用とインフレ
スウェーデンにおける資源の活用とインフレ
SEKの取引ストラテジーに関しては、USD/SEKとNZD/SEKは高い相関を示す傾向にある。SEKはキウイよりも世界成長に対するベータが高い（スウェーデンはGDPの45％を輸出、ニュージーランドは27％）。相対的に見ると、スウェーデン経済は米国よりも底打ちしているように見え、SEK/NZDはUSD/SEKの下落をプレーする魅力的な手段だ。一方、キャリーコストは米ドルをショートするよりもNZDをショートする方が低い（Chart I-10）。EUR/SEKについては、当面現水準で推移したのち下落に向かう可能性があるが、最終的には世界成長が再加速するとピークを打つだろう。
Chart I-10
SEK/NZDはロングを維持
SEK/NZDのロングを維持
SEK/NZDのロングを維持
結論：我々は相対価値プレーとしてSEK/NZDを引き続きロングしているが、真の上昇余地はSEK/USDクロスにある。ソフトデータの失望に市場が注目していることがSEK安の主因である一方、ハードデータは比較的耐性を示しているというのが我々の見方だ。調査が示すほど世界成長環境が危うくないことが明確になれば、クローナは急反発する可能性がある。
事務連絡
我々のGBP/JPYロングは今週5%の含み益となった。利益を守るためストップを138に引き締める。EUR/NOKショートは2%の損失でロスカットされた。現時点では様子見である。EUR/NOKは現在2008年のリセッション時の水準を上回っており、それは長期化した景気後退のみで正当化されうるが、リスク管理の観点からは当面忍耐が必要だ。続報を待たれたい。
チェスター・ントニフォア, 外国為替ストラテジスト chestern@bcaresearch.com
脚注
1 詳細はForeign Exchange ストラテジー 週次レポート、題名「マネー回転率、EUR/USD、そして銀」（2019年10月11日付）を参照。fes.bcaresearch.comで入手可能
通貨
米ドル
Chart II-1
USDテクニカル 1
USD テクニカル 1
USD テクニカル 1
Chart II-2
USDテクニカル 2
米ドルテクニカル 2
米ドルテクニカル 2
米国の最近のデータは軟調である：
9月の小売売上高は前月比-0.3％。鉱工業生産は前月比-0.4％。
9月の輸出物価・輸入物価はともに前年比-1.6％下落。
ミシガン消費者信頼感指数は10月に96まで上昇、前月の93.2から上昇。
NYエンパイア・ステート製造業指数は10月に4に上昇、9月の2から。
9月の建築許可と住宅着工はそれぞれ前月比-2.7％、-9.4％と減少したが、住宅回復は維持されている。
10月11日終了週の新規失業保険申請件数は214Kに増加。
DXY指数は今週0.7％下落した。最新のベージュブックは米経済が緩やか〜中程度のペースで拡大しているとまとめた。製造業の減速は依然として最大のリスクであり、貿易摩擦は企業心理と設備投資意向に重しをかけ続けている。最近の貿易協議における“合意”は、夏を通じて続いてきた高い不確実性からの転換点を示す可能性がある。
レポートリンク：
マネー回転率、EUR/USD、そして銀 - 2019年10月11日
暴動ポイントにおける資本保全 - 2019年9月6日
通貨の風景は変わったか？ - 2019年8月16日
ユーロ
Chart II-3
EURテクニカル 1
EUR テクニカル分析 1
EUR テクニカル分析 1
Chart II-4
EURテクニカル 2
EURのテクニカル分析 2
EURのテクニカル分析 2
ユーロ圏の最近のデータは低調のままである：
9月の総合インフレ率は前年比0.8％に低下し、約3年ぶりの低水準となった。ただしコアインフレは前年比1％に上昇した。
ユーロ圏の鉱工業生産は8月に前年比-2.8％と引き続き縮小した。
ユーロ圏のZEW景況感は10月にさらに低下し-23.5となったが、これは予想の-33を大きく上回る。ドイツのZEW期待指数も10月に-22.8に低下した。期待は現状に比べて改善している点は注目に値する。
ユーロ圏の貿易収支は8月に203億ユーロに改善、7月の下方改定された175億ユーロから上昇した。ただしこれは主に輸入の縮小によるものだ。
EUR/USDは今週0.9％上昇し、広範なドル安が一因となった。ユーロ圏の貿易動向は依然憂慮すべきで、8月の輸出は前年比-2.2％、輸入は前年比-4.1％と大きく落ち込んだ。注目すべきは、年初来で対米のEUの貿易黒字が1年前の910億ユーロから1030億ユーロに拡大する一方、中国との貿易赤字は1160億ユーロから1270億ユーロにさらに拡大している点だ。
レポートリンク：
マネー回転率、EUR/USD、そして銀 - 2019年10月11日
いくつかのトレードアイデア - 2019年9月27日
中央銀行の対決 - 2019年6月21日
日本円
Chart II-5
JPYテクニカル 1
JPYのテクニカル分析 1
JPYのテクニカル分析 1
Chart II-6
JPYテクニカル 2
JPY テクニカル指標 2
JPY テクニカル指標 2
日本の最近のデータは引き続き失望的である：
8月の鉱工業生産は前年比-4.7％。
8月の稼働率は前月比-2.9％低下。
日本円は今週対米ドルで0.8％下落した。黒田総裁は経済状況がさらに悪化し続ければ躊躇なく行動すると改めて強調した。一方で、フェドやECBが資産買入を通じてバランスシートを拡大する方向にある中で、日銀がイールドカーブコントロールを超えてどれだけ追加で打ち手を講じられるかは不透明である。我々は日銀が攻撃的に動くには「リーマン級の瞬間」が必要だと考えており、円をロングで保有している。
レポートリンク：
いくつかのトレードアイデア - 2019年9月27日
通貨の風景は変わったか？ - 2019年8月16日
薄い夏場の取引に向けたポートフォリオ調整 - 2019年7月5日
英ポンド
Chart II-7
GBPテクニカル 1
GBP テクニカル指標 1
GBP テクニカル指標 1
Chart II-8
GBPテクニカル 2
GBP テクニカル分析 2
GBP テクニカル分析 2
英国の最近のデータは概ねネガティブである：
ILO失業率は8月にわずかに上昇して3.9％に。平均賃金の四半期成長率は3.8％に鈍化したが、予想の3.7％を上回った。
小売物価指数は9月に前年比2.4％と、前月の2.6％から減速。
総合インフレ率は9月に前年比1.7％で横ばい、コアインフレは1.5％から1.7％に上昇。
小売売上高は9月に前年比3.1％増、前月の2.6％から上昇。
GBP/USDは欧州理事会のブレグジットに関する楽観が高まったことで今週3.3％急騰した。バリュエーションの観点からは、ポンドはそのフェアバリューに対して大きく割安で取引されている。ブレグジットに関するポジティブなニュースが続けば、ポンドはさらに上昇し得る。我々はGBP/JPYをロングしており含み益は5％超。ストップを138に引き上げる。
レポートリンク：
いくつかのトレードアイデア - 2019年9月27日
英国：循環的減速か構造的停滞か？ - 2019年9月20日
中央銀行の対決 - 2019年6月21日
豪ドル
Chart II-9
AUDテクニカル 1
AUD テクニカル 1
AUD テクニカル 1
Chart II-10
AUDテクニカル 2
AUD テクニカル分析 2
AUD テクニカル分析 2
豪州の最近のデータは穏やかである：
NAB企業景況感はさらに-2に低下したが、Q3の活動状況は1に改善した。
労働市場では9月の失業率が5.2％に低下。14.7Kの雇用が創出され、うち26.2Kがフルタイム、11.4Kがパートタイムの減少だった。
AUD/USDは今週0.4％上昇した。今週初めにRBA議事録が公表されたが、低金利の効果について鋭い論争が示されている。一方では低金利は完全雇用とインフレ目標達成のため理論的に正当化される。だが他方で、一部のRBAメンバーは低金利が既に高騰している住宅価格をさらに煽ることを懸念している。したがってRBA議事録後、追加利下げの確率は低下した。
レポートリンク：
豪ドルに関するコントラリアンの見解 - 2019年5月24日
限界効用逓減に注意 - 2019年4月19日
まだ安全圏を脱していない - 2019年4月5日
NZドル
Chart II-11
NZDテクニカル 1
NZD テクニカル分析 1
NZD テクニカル分析 1
Chart II-12
NZDテクニカル 2
NZドルのテクニカル分析 2
NZドルのテクニカル分析 2
ニュージーランドの最近のデータはネガティブである：
観光客到着数は8月に前年比1.8％増と、前月の2％からわずかに低下。
第3四半期の総合インフレ率は前年比1.5％に鈍化。
NZD/USDは今週ほぼ横ばいで推移した。世界成長に密接に結びつくニュージーランドドルは米中貿易の見出しの浮き沈みに伴って変動している。両国は先週部分合意に達したが、詳細はまだあいまいだ。キウイはハイベータ通貨である一方、クロスではアンダーパフォームするはずだ。我々は引き続きオーストラリアドルとスウェーデンクローナを通じてキウイの弱さをプレーしている。
レポートリンク：
USD/CNYと市場の動揺 - 2019年8月9日
米ドルは次にどこへ向かうか？ - 2019年6月7日
まだ安全圏を脱していない - 2019年4月5日
カナダドル
Chart II-13
CADテクニカル 1
CADのテクニカル分析 1
CADのテクニカル分析 1
Chart II-14
CADテクニカル 2
CADのテクニカル 2
CADのテクニカル 2
カナダの最近のデータは比較的強い：
9月の失業率はさらに低下し5.5％に。さらに平均時給は前年比4.3％の伸びを続け、前月の3.8％から加速した。最後に9月の雇用者数は53.7Kの増加で、予想の10Kを大きく上回った。
9月の総合インフレ率とコアインフレ率はともに前年比1.9％で横ばいだった。
カナダドルは先週公表された好調な雇用データを受けて対米ドルで1％の上昇となった。今月の総選挙はカナダのエネルギーセクターと環境政策の将来にとって重要となり得る。
レポートリンク：
暴動ポイントにおける資本保全 - 2019年9月6日
薄い夏場の取引に向けたポートフォリオ調整 - 2019年7月5日
金、原油、暗号通貨について - 2019年6月28日
スイスフラン
Chart II-15
CHFテクニカル 1
CHF テクニカル分析 1
CHF テクニカル分析 1
Chart II-16
CHFテクニカル 2
CHF テクニカル 2
CHF テクニカル 2
スイスの最近のデータは良好である：
貿易黒字（貴金属除く）は9月に急拡大し28.8億CHFとなった。特に化学・製薬製品の販売増によりスイスの輸出は月次で8.2％増の203億CHFとなった。輸入は月次で1.4％減の174億CHFだった。
生産者物価と輸入物価は9月に前年比-2％のまま推移した。
USD/CHFは今週1％下落した。スイスフランは防御的通貨としての性格と、SNBによる操作ツールとしての性格の綱引きにさらされ続けるだろう。我々の推定ではEUR/CHF1.06が究極のストレスポイントである。グローバルポートフォリオは構造的にアウトパフォームするという単純な理由からスイスフランを保険として保有すべきだ。
レポートリンク：
SNBに関する注記 - 2019年10月4日
スイスフランへの対処法 - 2019年5月17日
限界効用逓減に注意 - 2019年4月19日
ノルウェークローネ
Chart II-17
NOKテクニカル 1
NOKのテクニカル指標 1
NOKのテクニカル指標 1
Chart II-18
NOKテクニカル 2
NOK テクニカル 2
NOK テクニカル 2
ノルウェーの最近のデータは低迷している：
貿易収支は9月に12億NOKの赤字に転じた。これは前年比で240億NOKの減少である。
ノルウェークローネは今週対米ドルでほぼ1％下落した。エネルギー価格はここ数週間低迷している。さらにノルウェーの貿易収支は2017年11月以来初めて赤字に転じた。輸出はエネルギー製品の販売減により前年比-19.5％と急落し、一方で輸入は前年比+12.9％と増加した。メッセージは明確だ――ノルウェーは国内的には比較的堅調だが、石油輸出への依存が成長見通しにボラティリティをもたらしている。BCAは2019年の原油価格見通しを引き下げており、これがノルウェークローネの魅力をそいでいる。続報にご期待ください。
レポートリンク：
いくつかのトレードアイデア - 2019年9月27日
薄い夏場の取引に向けたポートフォリオ調整 - 2019年7月5日
金、原油、暗号通貨について - 2019年6月28日
スウェーデンクローナ
Chart II-19
SEKテクニカル 1
SEK テクニカル 1
SEK テクニカル 1
Chart II-20
SEKテクニカル 2
SEK テクニカル 2
SEK テクニカル 2
スウェーデンの最近のデータは中立的である：
9月の失業率は7.1％で横ばいだった。
USD/SEKは今週1.1％下落した。今年に入って最もパフォーマンスが悪いG10通貨として、スウェーデンクローナは現在そのフェアバリューに対して大きく割安に取引されている。今週の本文前半でスウェーデン経済とクローナに関する詳細分析を提示しているので参照されたい。
レポートリンク：
米ドルは次にどこへ向かうか？ - 2019年6月7日
G10全体の国際収支 - 2019年2月15日
通貨の単純な魅力度ランキング - 2019年2月8日
トレード＆予測
予測サマリー
コアポートフォリオ
タクティカルトレード
指値注文
決済済み取引
ハイライト
中国の経済活動は減速のペースが緩やかになっているが、まだ底打ちしていない。
9月のPMIは上振れサプライズとなり、先月に活動が改善したことを示唆している。ただし、PMIは（今年の初めにそうであったように）誤ったシグナルを出すことがある。
したがって、投資家は中国経済が底打ちしたと結論付ける前に、「ハードデータ」の改善のより明確な兆候を待つべきである。
投資家は中国株に対して景気循環的にオーバーウェイトの姿勢を維持すべきである。「ハードデータ」の明確な改善が確認されればタクティカルな姿勢（アンダーウェイトからの上方修正）を行う可能性があるが、現時点ではごく短期ではリスクが潜在的利益を上回る。
特集
表1 と 表2 は、過去１か月間における中国の経済及び金融市場の主要な動向を示している。成長面では、中国の経済活動は減速のペースが緩やかになっているように見えるが、まだ底打ちしていない。中国の9月の製造業PMIは上振れサプライズとなり、当社のチャイナ・アクティビティ・インデックスの次回更新が大幅に改善する確率が高まったことは正当に評価されるべきである。ただし、カイシン製造業PMIの類似の反発が年初に短期間で反転し、実際の活動に意味のある影響をもたらさなかったことを投資家は思い出すべきである。結論として、投資家は中国の景気循環が上向きに転じ始めたと結論付ける前に、「ハードデータ」のより明確な改善の兆候を待つべきである。
表1
中国マクロデータ概要
中国マクロ・マーケットレビュー
中国マクロ・マーケットレビュー
表2
中国金融市場パフォーマンス概要
中国マクロおよびマーケットレビュー
中国マクロおよびマーケットレビュー
投資ストラテジーの観点から、我々は引き続き循環的にオーバーウェイトの姿勢を維持することを推奨する。循環的な見方を支えるシナリオは二つ考えられる：一つは中国の既存のリフレーション努力が早期に成功して経済活動を安定化させる場合、もう一つは政策当局がさらに刺激を強化せざるを得ない場合である。いずれのケースでも、12か月後には中国の相対パフォーマンス（世界株式に対して）が高くなる確率は高いと見ている。
タクティカルには、貿易戦争のさらなる激化の可能性が依然として高いこと、そして中国の活動がまだ決定的に底を打っていないことから慎重な姿勢を維持している。マネーとクレジット成長の大幅な再加速、実質的な中国経済活動の改善の証拠（すなわち「ハードデータ」の改善）、あるいは米中間で関税の大部分または全部を撤廃する合意が成立すれば、我々のタクティカルな姿勢を引き上げる触媒となる可能性が高い。現時点では、短期的にはリスクが潜在的利益を上回ると考えている。
図1
中国の経済活動は緩やかなペースで引き続き減少している
中国の経済活動は引き続き減少しているが、減少のペースは鈍化している
中国の経済活動は引き続き減少しているが、減少のペースは鈍化している
表1および表2に関連して、以下に中国のマクロおよび金融市場データの動向に関する詳細な観察点をいくつか示す：
ブルームバーグ李克強指数は8月にわずかに上昇したが、明確な下落トレンドの中にとどまっている。図1は、李克強指数の要素を取り入れたより広い同時指標である当社のBCAチャイナ・アクティビティ・インデックスが弱含みであり、8月に引き続き低下したことを示している。要するに、中国の経済活動は減速のペースが緩やかになっているが、まだ決定的に底打ちしていない。
李克強指数の先行指標は、特に金融条件とマネーサプライ（M3を中心とした要素）によって牽引され、8月にわずかに上昇した。しかし、与信（クレジット）構成要素は前月比で低下し、全体の指数に重しとなった。指標の月次変動を切り離して見ると、図2は金融緩和の度合いとクレジット及びマネー供給の成長との間に依然として大きなギャップが存在することを浮き彫りにしている。投資家は後者（クレジットとマネー供給）の決定的な持ち直しに特に注視すべきであり、これは中国のリフレーション努力が内需を押し上げることに成功した明確なサインとなるだろう。
図2
金融条件とマネー＆クレジットの間のギャップは依然として大きい
金融環境とマネー＆クレジットの間のギャップは依然として大きい
金融環境とマネー＆クレジットの間のギャップは依然として大きい
中国の住宅データは8月も概して減速したが、販売床面積（販売面積）は縮小が止まった点が例外であった。住宅価格の上昇率は鈍化しており、当社のディフュージョン指数は今後さらに緩やかな上昇ペースを示唆している。ここ数か月の建設の急激な減速の後、販売量のわずかな再加速は着工床面積と販売床面積の間に以前あった巨大なギャップを実質的に解消した。我々は以前のレポートで、このギャップは最終的に着工の鈍化によって縮小する可能性が高いと主張してきた。というのは、強い建設活動は最終的に強い販売によって裏付けられる必要があるためである。販売の増加は中国の住宅市場のファンダメンタルズが非常に初期段階で安定化しつつある可能性を示唆しているが、これを確証するためには高い一桁台への持続的な上昇が必要である。
中国の9月の製造業PMIは上振れサプライズとなり、特に民間セクターに重きを置くカイシンPMIが顕著であった。各PMIの構成要素は相反するストーリーを伝えている；カイシンPMIは総新規受注が輸出新規受注を上回ったと報告しており（国内需要の強さを示唆）、一方で公式PMIは輸出新規受注の改善が輸入および全体の新規受注コンポーネントに比べてはるかに強い改善を示している。PMIの改善が9月の当社のチャイナ・アクティビティ・インデックスの実質的な上昇を示唆している可能性はあるが、投資家はこれが持続的な経済活動の底打ちを保証するものではないことを認識すべきである。例えば、年初にカイシン製造業PMIの類似の反発は急速に反転し、実際の活動には意味のある影響を与えなかった（図3）。結論として、投資家は中国の景気循環が上向きに転じ始めたと結論付ける前に、「ハードデータ」のより明確な改善の兆候を待つべきである。
図3
PMIの改善は経済改善の保証にはならない
PMIが改善しても、経済が改善するとは限らない
PMIが改善しても、経済が改善するとは限らない
米ドル建てでは、中国の株式市場（投資可能株および内需向けの国内株）は過去1か月で絶対値では横ばいとなったが、グローバル株式に対しては1〜2％のアンダーパフォームとなった。過去1週間では、投資可能株はトランプ政権が中国企業を米国の証券取引所から上場廃止することを検討しているという報道の影響を特に受けた。政権当局者はその報道を否定しているが、仮に上場廃止が実行されたとしても、米国から香港への上場移転は6〜12か月の時間軸におけるこれら企業の収益見通しを変える可能性は非常に低い。上場廃止イベントに対する短期的な売りは十分にあり得るが、政権が米国による中国証券の保有を完全に禁止する方向に動いて成功しない限り、我々の循環的な姿勢に影響を与える可能性は低いだろう。
過去1か月で、投資可能市場および国内市場の両方で中国の金融、テクノロジー、通信サービス企業がアウトパフォームしており、投資可能市場ではエネルギー、素材、資本財もアウトパフォームしている。投資可能なエネルギー株のアウトパフォームは、中旬に発生したアラムコの石油処理施設への攻撃に明確に関連しているが、その後ブレント原油価格は攻撃前の水準へ戻っている。我々は過去1年にわたり中国のエネルギー株に対して絶対的なロングポジションを維持してきたが、結果は期待外れであった（2018年10月3日の建玉以降でポジションは28%下落している）。それでも、我々は景気循環の期間ではバリューの観点から中国のエネルギー株を引き続き好むことを推奨する：このセクターはグローバルのエネルギー株や世界の石油生産と比べて割安である（図4）。さらに、BCAのコモディティ＆エネルギー戦略サービスは、来年ブレント原油価格が平均で1バレル74ドルで推移すると予測しており（現在の価格より1バレルあたり12ドル高い）、今後6〜12か月でバリューが触媒となる可能性を示唆している。
図4
中国のエネルギー株はめったにこれほど割安になっていなかった
中国のエネルギー株はめったにここまで安くならなかった
中国のエネルギー株はめったにここまで安くならなかった
図5
安定した不動産パフォーマンスは住宅市場の安定を予測しているか？
不動産の安定したパフォーマンスは住宅市場の安定を予測しているか？
不動産の安定したパフォーマンスは住宅市場の安定を予測しているか？
今夏に始まった投資可能な不動産セクターのアンダーパフォームは、上で指摘した住宅価格上昇率と住宅建設の減速を予期した形で起きたように見える。これは注目に値するもので、9月初め以降不動産の相対パフォーマンスは安定しているように見える（図5）。示唆されるところは、不動産株は中国の住宅市場の安定化を織り込もうとしている可能性があり、これが中国の内需が近く持続的に底打ちする確率を高めるだろうということである。現時点では、不動産株の下落が止まったと自信をもって予想するには時期尚早であるが、相対パフォーマンストレンドは今後数週間注視に値する。
中国のインターバンク金利と国債利回りは、変動の大きい7日物インターバンクレポ金利（上昇）を除いて、過去1か月で概ね横ばいで推移している。中国の国債利回りの年初来の相対的な安定は、米国の10年物国債利回りの急落（図6）と鮮明な対照をなしており、これは（部分的には）中国当局がこれ以上大幅に緩和することに消極的であることを反映している。
過去1か月でオンショアの中国コーポレート債市場に大きな変化は見られず、全体としてオンショア社債スプレッドは横ばい傾向を続けている。低格付けのスプレッドは6月上旬以降やや拡大しているが、格付けAAおよびAA-の債券は引き続きオンショア社債市場の集計値をアウトパフォームしている（図7）。投資家はヘッジされた通貨建てでオンショア社債を保有し続けるべきである。
図6
利回りの乖離は中国当局の慎重さを反映している
債券利回りの乖離は中国の政策立案者の消極的な姿勢を反映している
債券利回りの乖離は中国の政策立案者の消極的な姿勢を反映している
図7
ヘッジ通貨建てでオンショア社債を保有する
中国オンショア・コーポレートボンドをヘッジ建てで保有する
中国オンショア・コーポレートボンドをヘッジ建てで保有する
人民元は過去1か月で対米ドルで約0.1%上昇し、対ユーロでは約1.1%上昇した。後者は主にユーロの弱さを反映しており、人民元の大幅な強さを示すわけではないが、中国の通貨が貿易協議に関連する動きによって動かされていることは明らかである。来週末に開始される予定の協議が再び激化につながる場合、USD-CNHはさらに大幅に上昇すると投資家は予想すべきである。逆に、米中間で関税の大部分または全部を撤廃する合意が成立すれば、人民元は大幅に上昇するだろう。
Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, バイスプレジデント スペシャルレポート jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima 中国ストラテジスト jings@bcaresearch.com
景気循環に関する投資姿勢
株式セクターの推奨
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.
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 Markets expressed disappointment over last week’s FOMC meeting, … : Equities sold off, Treasury yields slid, and the curve flattened. … but we didn’t think there was all that much to get excited about, … : Data dependence remains the Fed’s mantra, and it was never likely that the FOMC would signal that policy through September has been pre-programmed. … though the specter of escalating trade tensions was a bummer: We have followed our repeated exogenous-shock caveat with an acknowledgement of the gravity of trade barriers. Our geopolitical strategists don’t expect a resolution any time soon, though, and White House tweets are here to stay. Marginally easier monetary policy is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the economy: A reduction in the fed funds rate from 2.5% to 2% isn’t likely to turbo-charge housing or corporate investment, but we do expect that the major central banks’ easing bias will support risk assets. Feature The FOMC delivered the result we expected at the conclusion of its meeting last week: a 25-basis-point cut and a dovish adjustment to its balance sheet runoff plans. Markets acted as if they’d been blindsided. Apparently it really isn’t what you say, it’s how you say it. Or maybe, as our colleague Martin Barnes has long contended, press conferences and all the other assorted communications strategies do more harm than good. We have nearly reached the point of Fed fatigue ourselves, but there’s no ignoring the elephant in the room. The Fed is squarely in the center of every investor’s mind and may well remain there for the rest of what was shaping up as a slow-news month before the latest tariff move. American and Chinese negotiators have called it quits until September; lawmakers have left the building in London and Brussels; the ECB’s Governing Council will be idle until mid-September; and the winnowing of the Democratic field is so far off that even Bill de Blasio remains a presidential candidate. We devote this week’s report to an examination of increased accommodation’s implications for financial markets and the U.S. economy. What did the FOMC do on Wednesday? Chart 1An Adjustment, Not A New Direction The FOMC cut the fed funds rate by 25 basis points, to a range of 2-2.25%, and terminated its modest balance sheet reduction effort two months ahead of time. It studiously kept its options open with regard to future policy rate adjustments, with Chair Powell describing the cut as a “mid-cycle adjustment,” rather than a transition to full-on policy easing. The mid-cycle reference kiboshed hopes that the cut was meant to bring the curtain down on the tightening cycle that began at the end of 2015 (Chart 1). The hawkish surprise concerning the future direction of the fed funds rate overwhelmed the modestly dovish news that the Fed is immediately ending small-scale quantitative tightening. How did markets take the developments? Not so well, especially over the two hours of Wednesday afternoon trading following the decision. The S&P 500 sold off by close to 2% during the press conference, the dollar surged against the euro, and the yield curve flattened as long-dated Treasuries surged while the 2-year note sold off sharply. Equities recovered their losses in Thursday morning’s trading, though bonds and the dollar held much of their gains, before the latest salvo in the U.S.-China dispute sent investors in all markets scurrying for cover. Overall, financial markets were disappointed that they didn’t get a clearer signal that additional accommodation is on the way. Did markets overreact? In retrospect, it looks like they’d gotten their hopes up too high. The Fed wants to avoid surprises by keeping markets apprised of future developments, but it’s hard to envision it deliberately boxing itself in. It wants to preserve the flexibility to act as it sees fit, so data dependence remains the order of the day, just as it has for the last several years. We continue to take the Fed at its word that policy is not on a pre-set course. Markets seemed to be looking for a little more solicitousness from the Fed. Central bankers will presumably always attempt to guard their discretion, but the monetary policy path is far from clear, given elevated economic uncertainty. Between the stop-and-start trade hostilities with China and the Whack-a-Mole emergence of tariff threats against long-standing allies and trade partners, global manufacturing is reeling and corporate managers have every reason to hold back on capex. The differences of opinion within BCA reflect the lack of an obvious economic direction. Dissention within the Fed – Boston’s Rosengren and Kansas City’s George voted against last week’s cut, while Minneapolis’ Kashkari surely wanted it to be larger – shows that the way forward is not so clear-cut. So is it a good thing or a bad thing that the Fed cut rates? We view easier policy as a market positive over the one-year timeframe that drives most investors. There will come a point of diminishing returns, when risk assets no longer respond to incremental accommodation, but we don’t think we’re there yet. Equity multiples have room to expand before they become silly and the ECB is apparently preparing a new round of asset purchases. Given that it’s exhausted the supply of Eurozone sovereigns, it will have to proceed to evicting incumbent holders from their positions somewhat further out the risk curve, prodding them to venture out still further to redeploy the proceeds, putting downward pressure on spreads globally. How will a lower fed funds rate impact the economy? How much time do you have? The textbook answer is that a lower fed funds rate directly reduces the cost of financing big-ticket consumer purchases and corporate initiatives while indirectly nudging households and corporate managers to make them by boosting their confidence. Unconventional measures like asset purchases (QE) push investors further out the risk curve, lifting the prices of risky assets, lowering lending spreads and increasing asset holders’ wealth. They also promote a broader sense of well-being (the CNBC screen is framed in green, print headlines are cheerful, and jobs are increasingly easier to find), fueling confidence that helps reinforce the direct effects of easier policy. As Chair Powell put it in January, “Our policy works through changing financial conditions[,] … it’s … the essence of what we do.” The logic behind the textbook answer is undeniably sound, and it’s displayed in the simple six-channel model in Figure 1. People respond to incentives, and when the cost of consumption and investment falls, they are likely to save less and consume and invest more (Interest Rates/Substitution Effect). Increasing numbers of observers are becoming restless, however, as events on the ground don’t seem to jibe with the theory. Ten years of a negative real fed funds rate has failed to generate much oomph, and markets sputtered on cue once it tiptoed into positive territory (Chart 2), coinciding with the current global economic softness. Chart 2Real Rates Are Still Low Relative To History Martin Barnes, our resident grumpy economist, scoffs at how little extraordinary accommodation has been able to achieve. (Don’t get him started on the communication strategies.) Even after adjusting for how a half-century of Scotland and Montreal weather has colored his perspective, he has a point. “Do you really want to buy equities and riskier bonds in an economy that needs this much help just to grow at 2%?” he might ask. For the time being, yes, we still do. Although the channels promoting economic activity are not functioning as reliably as they have in the past, the channels boosting asset prices – Portfolio Balance, Confidence/Risk Taking, and Interest Rates/Substitution – are still A-Okay (Figure 1). The initial reaction to the FOMC meeting suggests that it will be very hard for the Fed to surprise dovishly in a relative sense, blocking the Currency channel for the time being. The Credit channel is still hindered by post-crisis regulations from Basel to Capitol Hill, at least in terms of the official banking system. Trade tensions have roiled net exports via retaliatory tariffs and suppressed global aggregate demand.1 Shouldn’t housing be at the forefront of any pickup in activity? Chart 3Lower Rates Haven't Helped Much Yet Housing is the classic proxy for tracing the effects of easier policy on the domestic economy, since nearly all of its end consumers finance their purchases, and its domestic concentration insulates it from trade effects. It has failed to respond much to the monetary policy shifts that have brought 30-year fixed mortgage rates down nearly 100 basis points year to date (Chart 3). Fed skeptics suggest that the muted response is evidence of the declining efficacy of easy policy, though we have been inclined to read the data as an indication that homebuilders aren’t building enough starter and move-up homes to bring homeownership within reach of first-time homebuyers and median-income households. Housing should exhibit a high sensitivity to changes in monetary policy, but an abundance of other debt burdens and a lack of affordable supply may be holding it back. One should have expected that the housing pickup would be muted, and slower to take hold in this expansion, given the severity of the recession and its mortgage-lending roots. Adjusted for inflation, private residential investment, which has declined slightly for four straight quarters, is just over two-thirds of its 2005 peak (Chart 4, middle panel). In the past, residential investment has been more sensitive to the level of the fed funds rate than its direction. Since 1961, the Fed has hiked rates in as many quarters as it has cut them, and the difference in annualized growth has been relatively modest: 2.8% when the Fed has been cutting rates, and 1.6% when it’s been raising them. Chart 4Residential Investment Responds To The Monetary Policy Backdrop... Per our equilibrium fed funds rate framework, we deem monetary policy to be accommodative when the fed funds rate is below our estimate of equilibrium, and restrictive when the funds rate exceeds it (Chart 4, top panel). Despite the fact that the Fed has hiked as often as it has cut since 1961, we estimate that policy has been easy for two-thirds of the time, and the difference in residential investment growth in the two policy states has been dramatic: 6.8% when policy is easy and -6.6% when policy is tight (Chart 4, bottom panel). With the Fed keeping policy easy for longer, housing will have the wind at its back, though it isn’t much more than a breeze at the moment. The same goes for construction employment, which has grown more rapidly under accommodative monetary policy (2.1% versus 0.7% when policy is tight), but has merely treaded water over the last 11 years of easy policy (Chart 5). Chart 5... And So Does Construction Employment The bottom line is that the jury is still out on housing activity. Low mortgage rates will help renters buy homes (and fill them with furniture and appliances), and put more cash in the pockets of homeowners who refinance their existing loans, but the market remains soft. Though it can’t be captured by the aggregate data, it does seem possible that median-income households may be burdened by too much student loan, automobile and/or credit card debt to save the required down payment.2 Disparities between households may well be holding the economy back, but they have a silver lining if they encourage the Fed to pursue accommodative policies for longer than it otherwise would. Will rate cuts give the economy a tangible lift? We don’t know for sure, but no one else does, either. We are convinced that easier monetary conditions will help the economy at the margin. Ten years into the expansion, though, it is not clear if the economy has pent-up demand that easier conditions will help release. Externally, worsening trade tensions could exacerbate the global manufacturing slowdown, further squeezing global aggregate demand, and exporting recession pressures to the U.S. Our mandate is not to forecast the economy in itself, though. We and our clients are investors, not government officials or public-policy professors, and we focus on the economy only to the extent that it impacts financial markets. In the near term, incremental accommodation should boost risk asset prices, provided that trade tensions don’t ratchet up enough to undermine investor, consumer and business confidence. Animal spirits matter, and if they shift decisively from greed and toward fear, they can become a self-fulfilling prophecy that sweeps monetary policy efforts before them. Ex-a significantly negative exogenous event, we remain constructive on the U.S. economy, and continue to look for a global revival outside of the U.S. Investment Implications The incremental information received this week – an FOMC meeting that mostly went off as we expected, a modest escalation in U.S. pressure on China in line with our geopolitical strategists’ warnings that a final deal is not at hand, mixed global manufacturing PMIs, a surge in U.S. consumer confidence, a straight-down-the-middle employment situation report, and an upward inflection in S&P 500 earnings growth that has 2Q EPS now tracking to a 2.7% year-over-year gain – did not change our perspective. We see U.S. economic growth decelerating from its 2018 pace, but remaining above trend, and an absence of imbalances that would make the economy more vulnerable. We have made our peace with recurring flare-ups of hostilities between the U.S. and China, and trade tensions will only change our investment outlook if they worsen materially. The Fed is not magic, but it is doing the best it can to keep the expansion going for the purpose of spreading its gains as broadly as possible, and the easing bias among major central banks is gathering force. On balance, the new information received last week didn’t do anything to change our overall take. We remain constructive, and think investment portfolios should as well. We recognize that the climate is uncertain, and that we should accordingly dial back our conviction. Part of the reason the agency mortgage REITs appeal to us at this juncture is that they offer the opportunity to reduce equity beta and enhance a balanced portfolio’s capacity to absorb shocks. We watched the flattening in the yield curve with dismay, but we continue to expect that incremental monetary accommodation will promote a steeper curve. Easier monetary conditions promote growth, boosting the real component of interest rates, and can stoke inflation pressures when an economy is operating at or above capacity, as the U.S. has been for over a year. We remain vigilant, but our base-case constructive take is unchanged. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 As we were preparing to go to press on Thursday, the U.S. announced the imposition of new tariff levies on the subset of Chinese imports that hadn’t yet been subjected to tariffs. The move supported our geopolitical strategists’ view that the trade war is unlikely to be settled soon. 2 Andriotis, AnnaMaria; Brown, Ken; and Shifflett, Shane, “Families Go Deep in Debt to Stay in the Middle Class,” Wall Street Journal, August 1, 2019.
Reflationary policy is a good backdrop for agency mREIT performance because it’s likely to promote a steeper curve. A steeper curve is manna from heaven for maturity transformation strategies, and it would boost mREIT income while reducing the potential for…
An equally-weighted basket of agency mREITs has outperformed both the S&P 500 and the Bloomberg Barclays High Yield Corporate Bond Index by two-and-a-half percentage points (“ppt”) on an annualized total return basis over its 21-plus-year history. They do not…
Highlights Corporate Spreads: The Fed’s dovish pivot prolongs the period of time before the yield curve inverts, thus extending the window for corporate bond outperformance. Investors should remain overweight corporate bonds, with a preference for securities rated Baa and below, where spreads remain wide relative to our fair value estimates. Yield Curve: Investors should barbell their U.S. bond portfolios, favoring long-maturity (> 10 years) and short-maturity (< 2 years) securities while avoiding the 5-year and 7-year notes. This positioning will boost average portfolio yield and will benefit from any future hawkish re-assessment of Fed policy. MBS: Lower mortgage rates have led to a jump in mortgage refinancings and wider MBS spreads. However, MBS spreads remain quite low compared to history. Maintain a neutral allocation to MBS in U.S. bond portfolios. Feature Last December, we laid out our key fixed income themes for 2019 in a Special Report.1 In that report we also introduced a framework for splitting the economic cycle into three phases based on the slope of the yield curve. Specifically, we use the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope to divide each cycle into the following three phases:2 Phase 1 runs from the end of the last recession until the 3/10 slope flattens to below 50 bps. Phase 2 encompasses the period when the 3/10 slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps. Phase 3 begins after the 3/10 slope inverts and ends at the start of the next recession. Clearly, as is illustrated in Chart 1, we are smack dab in the middle of a Phase 2 environment. This has implications for how we should think about positioning a U.S. bond portfolio. Chart 1Firmly In Phase 2 What Makes The Middle Phase Awkward? Table 1 shows annualized excess returns for Treasuries and corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) in each phase of every cycle stretching back to the mid-1970s. Treasury excess returns are calculated relative to cash, as a proxy for the returns from taking duration risk. Corporate excess returns are relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Table 1Bond Performance In Different Yield Curve Regimes A look at Table 1 reveals why we call Phase 2 the “awkward” middle phase of the cycle. The excess returns earned from taking both duration and corporate spread risk tend to be underwhelming. On duration, we observe that in three of the four complete cycles in our sample, Treasury excess returns are lowest in Phase 2. This lines up well with intuition. The flatter yield curve means that Treasuries offer a lower term premium in Phase 2 than in Phase 1. Meanwhile, Phase 3 periods tend to coincide with rapid Fed rate cuts, and thus large capital gains. Phase 2 periods, in contrast, often contain Fed tightening cycles. On corporate credit, we observe that excess returns tend to be lower in Phase 2 than in Phase 1, but are usually still positive. Returns tend not to turn consistently negative until after the 3/10 slope inverts and we enter Phase 3. Overall, if we know nothing other than that we are in Phase 2 of the cycle, our results suggest that we should take less duration risk in our portfolio than in Phases 1 or 3. Overall, if we know nothing other than that we are in Phase 2 of the cycle, our results suggest that we should take less duration risk in our portfolio than in Phases 1 or 3. The results also suggest that we should prefer corporate credit over Treasuries, though to a lesser extent than in Phase 1. What Makes The Middle Phase Long? In last December’s Special Report, we argued that the U.S. economy would remain in a Phase 2 environment for a long time, at least until late 2019. Our reasoning was that, in the absence of inflationary pressures, the Fed would be reluctant to tighten policy enough to invert the 3/10 curve. The Fed’s recent dovish pivot, and the resultant steepening of the curve (see Chart 1), only prolongs the current Phase 2 environment. We now think it will be well into 2020, and possibly later, before the 3/10 slope inverts and the economy enters Phase 3. One obvious investment implication of an extended Phase 2 environment is that we should remain overweight corporate bonds relative to duration-matched Treasuries. However, we also need to consider valuation before drawing too firm of a conclusion. Charts 2A and 2B show spreads for each corporate credit tier, encompassing both investment grade and high-yield, along with our spread targets. The spread targets are the median levels observed in prior Phase 2 environments, adjusted for changes in the average duration of the bond indexes over time.3 The charts reveal that Aaa-rated bonds already look expensive, while Aa and A-rated bonds are close to fairly valued. Baa-rated bonds are 13 bps cheap relative to our target, while the high-yield credit tiers offer significantly more value. Chart 2AInvestment Grade Spread Targets Chart 2BHigh-Yield Spread Targets As discussed in last week’s report, the Fed’s dovish pivot will cause corporate spreads to tighten in the near-term, but it will take longer before Treasury yields respond by moving higher.4 For Treasury yields to move higher, investors must first become convinced that the Fed’s reflationary efforts are translating into stronger global economic growth. Ultimately, we expect this will occur in the second half of this year and Treasury yields will be higher 12 months from now, as the Fed will fail to deliver the 92 bps of rate cuts that are currently priced. The flat yield curve means that the yield give-up is small, and we expect global growth to improve in the second half of the year. Bottom Line: The Fed’s dovish pivot prolongs the period of time before the yield curve inverts, thus extending the window for corporate bond outperformance. Investors should remain overweight corporate bonds, with a preference for securities rated Baa and below, where spreads remain wide relative to our fair value estimates. Investors should also keep portfolio duration low. The flat yield curve means that the yield give-up is small, and we expect global growth to improve in the second half of the year. Barbell Your Portfolio Chart 3Barbell Your Portfolio For those unwilling or unable to deviate portfolio duration significantly from benchmark, there is another way to bet on the Fed delivering fewer cuts than are currently priced into the market. Investors can run a barbelled portfolio, favoring short-maturity (< 2 years) and long-maturity (> 10 years) securities, while avoiding the belly (5-year/7-year) of the curve. This sort of positioning has a few advantages. First, since the financial crisis, the yield curve has tended to steepen out to the 5-year/7-year point and flatten beyond that point whenever our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter rises (Chart 3). Conversely, whenever the market prices in more cuts/fewer hikes and our discounter falls, the yield curve has flattened out to the 5-year/7-year maturity point and steepened beyond that point. This correlation has been very consistent during the past few years, and continued to hold during the most recent decline in rate expectations. Notice that the 5-year yield has fallen by more than either the 2-year or 10-year yields since our Discounter's early-November peak (Table 2). Table 2The Belly Of The Curve Is Most Sensitive To Rate Expectations The upshot is that, if rate expectations rise during the next 12 months, as we expect, the 5-year and 7-year notes will endure the most damage. The second reason why a barbelled portfolio makes sense is that valuation is very attractive. Chart 4 shows that the 5-year yield is below the yield on a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. It also shows that this 2/5/10 butterfly spread is very low relative to our model’s fair value.5 Chart 42/10 Barbell Is Attractive Versus 5-Year Bullet We run similar fair value models for every possible bullet/barbell combination along the yield curve, and barbells appear universally cheap (see Appendix). Bottom Line: Investors should barbell their U.S. bond portfolios, favoring long-maturity (> 10 years) and short-maturity (< 2 years) securities while avoiding the 5-year and 7-year notes. This positioning will boost average portfolio yield and will benefit from any future hawkish re-assessment of Fed policy. MBS & Housing: The Implications Of Lower Mortgage Rates Alongside bond yields, mortgage rates have fallen sharply during the past few months, a trend that has important implications for both MBS spreads and future housing data. We consider the outlook for both. MBS Spreads Lower mortgage rates encourage homeowners to refinance their loans, and any increase in refinancing activity puts upward pressure on MBS spreads. Not surprisingly, as mortgage rates have declined we have seen a jump in the MBA Refinance Index and a widening of nominal MBS spreads (Chart 5). Chart 5MBS Spreads Still Historically Tight While spreads have widened somewhat, they remain low compared to history (Chart 5, top panel). As such, we do not see a compelling buying opportunity in MBS. This is especially true relative to corporate credit where spreads are more attractive. Chart 6Limited Upside For Refis With the mortgage rate now below 4%, our rough calculation suggests that approximately 44% of the Bloomberg Barclays Conventional 30-year MBS index is refinanceable. A regression of the MBA Refi Index versus the refinanceable share suggests a fair value of 2014 for the Refi Index, slightly above its actual level of 1950 (Chart 6). We also calculate that a further drop in the mortgage rate to below 3.5%, where it troughed in mid-2016, would increase the refinanceable share to 77%. Our regression translates this 77% share to a level of 3309 on the Refi Index. It should be noted that when the refinanceable share rose to 77% in 2016, the MBA Refi Index peaked at 2870. This means that our simple regression analysis probably overstates the surge in refis that would occur if mortgage rates fell another 50 bps. In addition, we think it’s unlikely that mortgage rates will actually fall back to 3.5%, as they did in 2016, and as such, we are hesitant to position for further MBS spread widening. The improvement in housing actitivty is not uniform across all indicators. We recommend maintaining a neutral allocation to MBS for now. If mortgage rates drop and spreads widen further in the near-term, then a buying opportunity may present itself. Housing Activity Chart 7Housing Activity: A Mixed Picture The drop in mortgage rates will also have a significant impact on housing activity data. This is important because, as we have demonstrated in prior reports, housing activity data – particularly single-family housing starts and new homes sales – are reliable indicators of U.S. recessions and interest rates.6 By all measures, housing activity weakened significantly as mortgage rates surged in 2018. But it has improved somewhat now that mortgage rates have declined. However, the improvement is not uniform across all indicators (Chart 7): New home sales jumped sharply early this year, then fell back more recently. The current trend is neutral, with the latest monthly print very close to the 12-month moving average (Chart 7, top panel). Housing starts and permits are both trending below their respective 12-month moving averages, though by less than in 2018 (Chart 7, panel 2 & 3). Existing home sales have popped, and are now exerting upward pressure on the 12-month average (Chart 7, panel 4). Likewise for mortgage purchase applications (Chart 7, panel 5). Homebuilders also report that lower mortgage rates have led to a jump in sales activity (Chart 7, bottom panel). With mortgage rates still low, the tentative rebound in housing activity data should continue in the coming months. Looking further out, we see significantly more upside in single-family housing starts and new home sales as builders shift construction toward lower-priced properties. The Bifurcated Housing Market Beyond the large swings in mortgage rates, another trend has significantly influenced housing activity in recent years. For the past few years, homebuilders have focused their attention on higher priced homes, and that segment of the market now looks oversupplied. Data from the American Enterprise Institute Housing Center show that the recent deceleration in home prices has been driven by falling prices for the most expensive homes. Homes in the lowest price tier have seen prices accelerate (Chart 8).7 The divergence is also evident in the supply data. New home inventories are roughly consistent with average historical levels, while existing home inventories are incredibly low (Chart 9). In fact, new home inventories now represent 6.4 months of demand while existing home inventories represent 4.3 months of demand (Chart 9, panel 3). Such a wide divergence is historically rare. Chart 8An Oversupply Of High ##br##Priced Homes... Chart 9...And An Undersupply Of Low Priced Homes The divergence between an oversupply of new homes and an undersupply of existing homes is a result of new construction having focused on higher priced homes in recent years. The median price for a new home used to be only slightly above the median price for an existing home, but the difference shot up to above 75k during the past few years (Chart 9, bottom panel). More recently, the price differential between new and existing homes has started to fall, as builders are starting to recognize that the greater growth opportunity lies at the low-end of the market where demand is strong relative to supply. As this supply-side adjustment plays out, it will provide an additional boost to new homes sales and housing starts going forward. Appendix The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 3 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 3Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of June 27, 2019) Table 4 scales the raw residuals in Table 3 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of June 27 2019) Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 We use the 3/10 Treasury slope in place of the more commonly referenced 2/10 slope because it is a close proxy that provides an additional 14 years of historical data. 3 For more details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Got Your Back”, dated June 25, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 For more details on our yield curve models please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners”, dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Low-tier homes are those in the bottom 40% of the price distribution in each metro area. High-tier homes are those that are both in the top 20% of the price distribution and exceed the GSE loan limit by more than 25%. For further details: http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/HPA_market_conditions_report_June_2019.pdf Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification