Technology
Highlights Financial markets have slipped into a 'risk off' phase. The upbeat second quarter earnings season in the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone was overwhelmed by a number of negative events. Equity bear markets are usually associated with recessions. On that score, we do not see any warning signs of an economic downturn. However, geopolitical risks are rising at a time when valuation measures suggest that risk assets are vulnerable. We do not see the debt ceiling or the failure of movement on U.S. tax reform as posing large risks for financial markets. However, trade protectionism and, especially, North Korea are major wildcards. We don't believe the tensions in the Korean peninsula will end the cyclical bull market in global equities. Nonetheless, investors should expect to be tested numerous times over the next year to 18 months. BCA Strategists debated trimming equity exposure to neutral. However, the majority felt that, while there will be near-term volatility, the main equity indexes are likely to be higher on a 6-12 month horizon. Riding out the volatility is a better approach than trying to time the short-term ups and downs. That said, it appears prudent to be well shy of max overweight positions and to hold some safe haven assets within diversified portfolios. On a positive note, we have upgraded our EPS growth forecasts, except in the Eurozone where currency strength will be a significant drag in the near term. The Fed faced a similar low inflation/tight labor market environment in 1999. Policymakers acted pre-emptively and began to tighten before inflation turned up. This time, the FOMC will want to see at least a small increase in inflation just to be sure. Wages may be a lagging indicator for inflation in this cycle. Watch a handful of other indicators we identify that led inflection points in inflation in previous long economic expansions. This year's euro strength is unlikely to delay the next installment of ECB tapering, which we expect in early in 2018. Investors seem to be taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude toward the U.S. inflation outlook, which has led to very lopsided rate expectations. Keep duration short. Feature Chart I-1Trump Popularity Headwind For Tax Reform A 'risk off' flavor swept over financial markets in August. The upbeat second quarter earnings season in the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone was overwhelmed by a number of negative events, from President Trump's Charlottesville controversy to the never-ending staff changes in the White House to North Korean tensions to the Texas flood and the terror attack in Spain. Trump's popularity rating is steadily declining, even now among Republican voters (Chart I-1). This has raised concerns that none of his business-friendly policies, tax cuts or initiatives to boost growth will be successfully enacted. It is even possible that the debt ceiling will be used as a bargaining chip among the various Republican factions. The political risks are multiplying at a time when the equity and corporate bond markets are pricey. Valuation measures do not help with timing, but they do inform on the potential downside risk if things head south. At the moment, we do not see any single risk as justifying a full retreat into safe havens and a cut in risk asset allocation to neutral or below. Nonetheless, there is certainly a case to be cautious and hold some traditional safe haven assets. Timing The Next Equity Bear Market It is rare to have an equity bear market without a recession in the U.S. There have been plenty of market setbacks that did not quite meet the 20% bear-market threshold, but were nonetheless painful even in the absence of recession (Black Monday, LTCM crisis, U.S. debt ceiling showdown and euro crises). Unfortunately, these corrections are very difficult to predict. At least with recessions, investors have a fighting chance in timing the exit from risk exposure. The slope of the yield curve and the Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) are classic recession indicators, and for good reason (Chart I-2). Over the past 50 years they have both successfully called all seven recessions with just one false positive. We can eliminate the false positive signals by combining the two indicators and follow a rule that both must be in the red to herald a recession.1 Chart I-2The Traditional Recession Indicators Have Worked Well It will be almost impossible for the yield curve to invert until the fed funds rate is significantly higher than it is today. Thus, it may be the case that a negative reading on the LEI, together with a flattening (but not yet inverted) yield curve, will be a powerful signal that a recession is on the way. Neither of these two indicators are warning of a recession. Global PMIs are hovering at a level that is consistent with robust growth. The erosion in the Global ZEW and the drop in the diffusion index of the Global LEI are worrying signs, but at the moment are consistent with a growth slowdown at worst (Chart I-3). Financial conditions remain growth-friendly and subdued inflation is allowing central banks to proceed cautiously when tightening (in the case of the Fed and Bank of Canada) or tapering (ECB). As highlighted in last month's Overview, the global economy has entered a synchronized upturn that should persist for the next year. The U.S. will be the first major economy to enter the next recession, but that should not occur until 2019 or 2020, barring any shocks in the near term. That said, risk asset prices have been bid up sharply and are therefore vulnerable to a correction. Below, we discuss five key risks to the equity bull market. (1) Is All Lost For U.S. Tax Cuts? Our recent client meetings highlight that investors are skeptical that any fiscal stimulus or tax cuts will see the light of day in the U.S. Tax cuts and infrastructure spending appear to have been priced out of the equity market, according to the index ratios shown in Chart I-4. We still expect a modest package to eventually be passed, although time is running out for this year. Tax reform is a major component of Trump's and congressional Republicans' agenda. If it fails, Republicans will have to go to their home districts empty-handed to campaign for the November 2018 midterm elections. Chart I-3Some Worrying Signs On Growth Chart I-4Fiscal Stimulus Largely Priced Out One implication of Tropical Storm Harvey is that it might force Democrats and Republicans to cooperate on an infrastructure bill for rebuilding. Even a modest spending boost or tax reduction would be equity-market positive given that so little is currently discounted. The dollar should also receive a lift, especially given that the Fed might respond to any fiscally-driven growth impulse with higher interest rates. (2) Who Will Lead The Fed? There is a significant chance that either Yellen will refuse to stay on when her term expires next February or that Trump will appoint someone else anyway. In this case, we would expect the President to do everything he can to ensure that the Fed retains its dovish bias. This means that he is likely to favor a non-economist and a loyal adviser, like Gary Cohn, over any of the more traditional, and hawkish, Republican candidates. Cohn could not arrive at the Fed and change the course of monetary policy on day one. The FOMC votes on rate changes, but in reality decisions are formed by consensus (with one or two dissents). The only way Cohn could implement an abrupt change in policy is if the Administration stacks the Fed Governors with appointees that are prepared to "toe the line" (the Administration does not appoint Regional Fed Presidents). Stacking the Governorships would take time. Nonetheless, it is not clear why President Trump would take a heavy hand in monetary policy when the current FOMC has been very cautious in tightening policy. The bottom line is that we would not see Cohn's appointment to the Fed Chair as signaling a major shift in monetary policy one way or the other. (3) The Debt Ceiling A more immediate threat is the debt ceiling. Recent fights over Obamacare and tax reform have pit fiscally conservative Republicans against the moderates, and it is possible that the debt ceiling is used as a bargaining chip in this battle. While government shutdowns have occurred in the past, the debt ceiling has never been breached. At the end of the day, the debt ceiling will always be raised because no government could stand the popular pressure that would result from social security checks not being mailed out to seniors or a halt to other entitlement programs. Even the Freedom Caucus, the most fiscally conservative grouping in the House, is considerably divided on the issue. This augurs well for a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling as the Republican majority in the House is 22 and the Freedom Caucus has 31 members. Democrats will not stand in the way of passage in the Senate. The worst-case scenario for the market would be a two-week shutdown in the first half of October, just before the debt ceiling is hit. We would not expect a shutdown to have any lasting impact on the economy, although it could provide an excuse for the equity market to correct. That said, the risk of even a shutdown has been diminished by events in Houston. It would be very difficult and damaging politically to shut down the government during a humanitarian emergency. (4) Trade And Protectionism The removal of White House Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon signals a shift in power toward the Goldman clique within the Trump Administration. National Economic Council President Gary Cohn, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross are now firmly in charge of economic policy. The mainstream media has interpreted this shift within the Administration as reducing the risk of trade friction. We do not see it that way. President Trump still sounds hawkish on trade, particularly with respect to China. Our geopolitical experts point out that there are few constraints on the President to imposing trade sanctions on China or other countries. He could use such action to boost his popularity among his base heading into next year's midterm elections. On NAFTA, the Administration took a hard line as negotiations kicked off in August. This could be no more than a negotiating tactic. Our base case is that it will be some time before investors find out if negotiations are going off the rails. That said, the situation is volatile for both NAFTA and China, and we can't rule out a trade-related risk-off phase in financial markets over the next year. (5) North Korea North Korea's missile launch over Japan highlights that the tense situation is a long way from a resolution. The U.S. is unlikely to use military force to resolve the standoff. There are long-standing constraints to war, including the likelihood of a high death toll in Seoul. Moreover, China is unlikely to remain neutral in any conflict. However, the U.S. will attempt to establish a credible threat in order to contain Kim Jong-un. From an investor's perspective, it will be difficult to gauge whether the brinkmanship and military displays are simply posturing or evidence of real preparations for war.2 We don't believe the tensions in the Korean peninsula will end the cyclical bull market in global equities. Nonetheless, investors should expect to be tested numerous times over the next year to 18 months. Adding it all up, there is no shortage of things to keep investors awake at night. We would be de-risking our recommended portfolio were it not for the favorable earnings backdrop in the major advanced economies. Profit Outlook Update Chart I-5EPS Growth Outlook Second quarter earnings season came in even stronger than our upbeat models suggested in the U.S., Eurozone and Japan. This led to upward revisions to our EPS growth forecast, except in the Eurozone where currency strength will be a significant drag in the near term. The U.S. equity market enjoyed another quarter of margin expansion in Q2 2017 and the good news was broadly based. Earnings per share were higher versus Q2 2016 in all 11 sectors. Results were particularly strong in energy, technology and financials. Looking ahead, an update of our top-down model suggests the EPS growth will peak just under 20% late this year on a 4-quarter moving average basis, before falling to mid-single digits by the end of 2018 (Chart I-5). The peak is predicted to be a little higher than we previously forecast largely due to the feed-through of this year's pullback in the dollar. In Japan, a solid 70% of reporting firms beat estimates. Chart I-6 shows that Japan led all other major stock markets in positive earnings surprises in the second quarter. Manufacturing sectors, such as iron & steel, chemicals and machinery & electronics, were particularly impressive in the quarter, reflecting yen weakness and robust overseas demand. Japanese earnings are highly geared to the rebound in global industrial production. Moreover, Japan's nominal GDP growth accelerated in the second quarter and the latest PPI report suggested that corporate pricing power has improved. Twelve-month forward EPS estimates have risen to fresh all times highs, and have outperformed the U.S. in local currencies so far this year. Corporate governance reform - a key element of Abenomics - can take some credit for the good news on earnings. The share of companies with at least two independent directors rose from 18% in 2013 to 78% in 2016. The number of companies with performance-linked pay increased from 640 to 941, while the number that publish disclosure policies jumped from 679 to 1055. Analysts have been slow to factor in these positive developments. We expect trailing EPS growth to peak at about 25% in the first half of 2018 on a 4-quarter moving total basis, before edging lower by the end of the year. This is one reason why we like the Japanese market over the U.S. in local currency terms. Second quarter results in the Eurozone were solid, although not as impressive as in the U.S. and Japan. The 6% rise in the trade-weighted euro this year has resulted in a drop in the earnings revisions ratio into negative territory. Our previous forecast pointed to a continued rise in the 4-quarter moving average growth rate into the first half of 2018. However, we now expect the growth rate to dip by year end, before picking up somewhat next year. If the euro is flat from today's level, our model suggests that the drag on EPS growth will hover at 3-4 percentage points through the first half of next year as the negative impact feeds through (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Chart I-6Japan Led In Q2 Earning Surprises Chart I-7Currency Effects On Eurozone EPS Our top-down EPS model highlights that Eurozone earnings are quite sensitive to swings in the currency. In Chart I-7, we present alternative scenarios based on the euro weakening to EUR/USD 1.10 and strengthening to EUR/USD 1.30. For demonstration purposes we make the extreme assumption that the trade-weighted value of the euro rises and falls by the same amount in percentage terms. Profit growth decelerates by the end of 2017 in all three scenarios because of the lagged effect of currency swings. The projections begin to diverge only in 2018. EPS growth surges to around 20% by the end of next year in the euro-bear case, as the tailwind from the weakening currency combines with continuing robust economic growth. Conversely, trailing earnings growth hovers in the 5-8% range in the euro bull scenario, which is substantially less than we expect in the U.S. and Japan over the next year. EPS growth remains in positive territory because the assumed strength in European and global growth dominates the drag from the euro. The strong euro scenario would be negative for Eurozone equity relative performance versus global stocks in local currencies, although Europe might outperform on a common currency basis. The bottom line is that 12-month forward earnings estimates should remain in an uptrend in the three major economies. This means that, absent a negative political shock, the equity bull phase should resume in the coming months. Monetary policy is unlikely to spoil the party for risk assets, although the bond market is a source of risk because investors seem unprepared for even a modest rise in inflation. FOMC Has Seen This Before The Minutes from the July FOMC meeting highlighted that the key debate still centers on the relationship between labor market tightness and inflation, the timing of the next Fed rate hike and how policy should adjust to changing financial conditions. Chart I-8The FOMC Has Been Here Before The majority of policymakers are willing for now to believe that this year's soft inflation readings are driven largely by temporary 'one-off' factors. The hawks worry that a further undershoot of unemployment below estimates of full employment could suddenly generate a surge of inflation. They also point to the risk that low bond yields are promoting excess risk taking in financial markets. Moreover, the recent easing in financial conditions is stimulative and should be counterbalanced by additional Fed tightening. The hawks are thus anxious to resume tightening, despite current inflation readings. Others are worried that inflation softness could reflect structural factors, such as restraints on pricing power from global developments and from innovations to business models spurred by advances in technology. In this month's Special Report beginning on page 18, we have a close look at the impact of "Amazonification" in holding down overall inflation. We do not find the evidence regarding e-commerce compelling, but the jury is still out on the impact of other technologies. If robots and new business strategies are indeed weighing on inflation, it would mean that the Phillips curve is very flat or that the full employment level of unemployment is lower than the Fed estimates (or both). Either way, the doves would like to see the whites-of-the-eyes of inflation before resuming rate hikes. The last time the Fed was perplexed by a low level of inflation despite a tight labor market was in the late 1990s (Chart I-8). The FOMC cut rates following the LTCM financial crisis in late 1998, and then held the fed funds rate unchanged at 4¾% until June 1999. Core inflation was roughly flat during the on-hold period at 1% to 1½%, even as the unemployment rate steadily declined and various measures pointed to growing labor shortages. The FOMC 's internal debate in the first half of 1999 sounded very familiar. The minutes from meetings at that time noted that some policymakers pointed to the widespread inability of firms to raise prices because of strong competitive pressures in domestic and global markets. Some argued that significant cost saving efforts and new technologies also contributed to the low inflation environment for both consumer prices and wages. One difference from today is that productivity growth was solid at that time. The FOMC decided to hike rates in June 1999 by a quarter point, despite the absence of any clear indication that inflation had turned up. Policymakers described the tightening as "a small preemptive move... (that) would provide a degree of insurance against worsening inflation later". The Fed went on to lift the fed funds rate to 6½% by May 2000. Interestingly, the unemployment rate in June 1999 was 4.3%, exactly the same as the current rate. There are undoubtedly important differences in today's macro backdrop. The Fed is also more fearful of making a policy mistake in the aftermath of the Great Recession and financial crisis. Nonetheless, the point is that the Fed has faced a similar low inflation/tight labor market environment before, but in the end patience ran out and policymakers acted pre-emptively. Inflation Warning Signs During Long-Expansions We have noted in previous research that inflation pressures are slower to emerge in 'slow burn' recoveries, such as the 1980s and 1990s. In Chart I-9, we compare the core PCE inflation rate in the current cycle with the average of the previous two long expansion episodes (the inflection point for inflation in the previous cycles are aligned with June 2017 for comparison purposes). The other panels in the chart highlight that, in the 1980s and 1990s, wage growth was a lagging indicator. Economic commentators often assume that inflation is driven exclusively by "cost push" effects, such that the direction of causation runs from wage pressure to price pressure. However, causation runs in the other direction as well. Households see rising prices and then demand better wages to compensate for the added cost of living. This is not to say that we should totally disregard wage information. But it does mean that we must keep an eye on a wider set of data. Indicators that provided some leading information in the previous two long cycles are shown in Chart I-10. To this list we would also add the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressure index, which is not shown in Chart I-10 because it does not have enough history. At the moment, the headline PPI, ISM Prices Paid and BCA's pipeline inflation pressure index are all warning that inflation pressures are gradually building. However, this message is not confirmed by the St. Louis Fed's index and corporate selling prices. We are also watching the velocity of money, which has been a reasonably good leading indicator for U.S. inflation since 2000 (Chart I-11). Chart I-9In The 80s & 90s Wage Growth ##br##Gave No Early Warning On Inflation Chart I-10Leading Indicators Of Inflation ##br##In "Slow Burn" Recoveries Chart I-11Money Velocity And Inflation Our Fed view remains unchanged from last month; the FOMC will announce its balance sheet diet plan in September and the next rate hike will take place in December. Nonetheless, this forecast hangs on the assumption that core inflation edges higher in the coming months. Some indicators are pointing in that direction and recent dollar weakness will help. Wake Me When Inflation Picks Up Investors seem to be taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" attitude toward the U.S. inflation outlook. They also believe that persistent economic headwinds mean that monetary policy will need to stay highly accommodative for a very long time. Only one Fed rate hike is discounted between now and the end of 2018, and implied forward real short-term rates are negative until 2022. While we do not foresee surging inflation, the risks for market expectations appear quite lopsided. We expect one rate hike by year end, followed by at least another 50 basis points of tightening in 2018. The U.S. 10-year yield is also about almost 50 basis points below our short-term fair value estimate (Chart I-12). Moreover, over the medium- and long-term, reduced central bank bond purchases will impart gentle upward pressure on equilibrium bond yields. Twenty-eighteen will be the first time in four years in which the net supply of government bonds available to private investors will rise, taking the U.S., U.K., Eurozone and Japanese markets as a group. This year's euro strength is unlikely to delay the next installment of ECB tapering, which we expect in early in 2018. The currency appreciation will keep a lid on inflation in the near term. However, we see the euro's ascent as reflective of the booming economy, rather than a major headwind that will derail the growth story. Overall financial conditions have tightened this year, but only back to levels that persisted through 2016 (Chart I-13). Chart I-12U.S. 10-year Yield Is Below Fair Value Chart I-13Financial Conditions It will take clear signs that the economy is being negatively affected by currency strength for the ECB to back away from tapering. Indeed, the central bank has little choice because the bond buying program is approaching important technical limits. European corporate and peripheral bond spreads are likely to widen versus bunds as a result. The implication is that global yields have significant upside potential relative to forward rates, especially in the U.S. market. Duration should be kept short. JGBs are the only safe place to hide if global yields shift up because the Bank of Japan is a long way from abandoning its 10-year yield peg. Treasury yields should lead the way higher, which will finally place a bottom under the beleaguered dollar. Nonetheless, we are tactically at neutral on the greenback. Conclusions Chart I-14Gold Loves Geopolitical Crises In light of rising geopolitical risk, the BCA Strategists recently debated trimming equity exposure to neutral. Some argued that the risk/reward balance has deteriorated; the upside is limited by poor valuation, while there is significant downside potential if the North Korean situation deteriorates alarmingly. However, the majority felt that, while there will be near-term volatility, the main equity indexes are likely to be higher on a 6-12 month horizon. Riding out the volatility is a better approach than trying to time the short-term ups and downs. That said, it appears prudent to be well shy of max overweight positions and to hold some safe haven assets within diversified portfolios. BCA research has demonstrated that U.S. Treasurys, Swiss bonds and JGBs have been the best performers in times of crisis (Chart I-14).3 The same is true for the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen, such that the currency exposure should not be hedged in these cases. The dollar is more nuanced. It tends to perform well during financial crises, but not in geopolitical crises or recessions. Gold has tended to perform well in geopolitical events and recessions, although not in financial crises. We continue to prefer Japanese to U.S. stocks in local currency terms, given that EPS growth will likely peak in the U.S. first. Japanese stocks are also better valued. Europe is a tough call because this year's currency strength will weigh on earnings in the next quarter or two. However, the negative impact on earnings will reverse if the euro retraces as we expect. EM stocks have seen the strongest positive earnings revisions this year. We continue to worry about some of the structural headwinds facing emerging markets (high debt levels, poor governance, etc.). However, the cyclical picture remains more upbeat. Chinese H-shares remain our favorite EM market, trading at just 7.5 times 2017 earnings estimates. Our dollar and duration positions have been disappointing so far this year. Much hinges on U.S. inflation. Investors appear to have adopted the idea that structural headwinds to inflation will forever dominate the cyclical pressures. This means that the bond market is totally unprepared for any upside surprises on the inflation landscape. Admittedly, a rise in bond yields may not be imminent, but the risks appear to us to be predominantly to the upside. Lastly, crude oil inventories are shrinking as our commodity strategists predicted. They remain bullish, with a price target of USD60/bbl. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst August 31, 2017 Next Report: September 28, 2017 1 Please see BCA Global ETF Strategy, "A Guide To Spotting And Weathering Bear Markets," dated August 16, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com II. Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve? A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to one school of thought, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation. If true, it could mean that central banks are almost powerless to reach their inflation targets. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. In theory, positive supply shocks should not have more than a temporary impact on inflation if the price level is indeed a monetary phenomenon in the long term. But a series of positive supply shocks could make it appear for quite a while that low inflation is structural in nature. We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence at the macro level. The admittedly inadequate measures of online prices available today do not suggest that e-commerce sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points. Moreover, it does not appear that the disinflationary impact of competition in the retail sector has intensified over the years. Today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. However, the fact that retail margins are near secular highs outside of department stores argues against this thesis. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High profit margins for the overall corporate sector and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. Anecdotal evidence is all around us. The global economy is evolving and it seems that all of the major changes are deflationary. Amazon, Airbnb, Uber, robotics, contract workers, artificial intelligence, horizontal drilling and driverless cars are just a few examples of companies and technologies that are cutting costs and depressing prices and wages. Central banks in the major advanced economies are having difficulty meeting their inflation targets, even in the U.S. where the labor market is tight by historical standards. Based on the depressed level of bond yields, it appears that the majority of investors believe that inflation headwinds will remain formidable for a long time. One school of thought is that low inflation reflects a lack of demand growth in the post-Great Financial Crisis (GFC) period. Another school points to the supply side of the economy. A recent report by Prudential Financial highlights "...obvious examples of ... new business models and new organizational structures, whereby higher-cost traditional methods of production, transportation, and distribution are displaced by more nontraditional cost-effective ways of conducting business."1 A "culture of profound cost reduction" has gripped the business sector since the GFC according to this school, permanently changing the relationship between labor market slack and wages or inflation (i.e., the Phillips Curve). Employees are less aggressive in their wage demands in a world where robots are threatening humans in a broadening array of industrial categories. Many feel lucky just to have a job. In a highly sensationalized article called "How The Internet Economy Killed Inflation," Forbes argued that "the internet has reduced many of the traditional barriers to entry that protect companies from competition and created a race to the bottom for prices in a number of categories." Forbes believes that new technologies are placing downward pressure on inflation by depressing wages, increasing productivity and encouraging competition. There are many factors that have the potential to weigh on prices, but analysts are mainly focusing on e-commerce, robotics, artificial intelligence, and the gig economy. In the first of our series on inflation, we will focus on the rise of e-commerce and the related "Amazonification" of the economy. The latter refers to the advent of new business models that cut out layers of middlemen between producers and consumers. Amazonification E-commerce has grown at a compound annual rate of more than 9% over the past 15 years, and now accounts for about 8½% of total U.S. retail sales (Chart II-1). Amazon has been leading the charge, accounting for 43% of all online sales in 2016 (Chart II-2). Amazon's business model not only cuts costs by eliminating middlemen and (until recently) avoiding expensive showrooms, but it also provides a platform for improved price discovery on an extremely broad array of goods. In 2013, Amazon carried 230 million items for sale in the United States, nearly 30 times the number sold by Walmart, one of the largest retailers in the world. Chart II-1E-Commerce: Steady Increase In Market Share Chart II-2Amazon Dominates With the use of a smartphone, consumers can check the price of an item on Amazon while shopping in a physical store. Studies show that it does not require a large price gap for shoppers to buy online rather than in-store. Amazon appears to be impacting other retailers' ability to pass though cost increases, leading to a rash of retail outlet closings. Sears alone announced the closure of 300 retail outlets this year. The devastation that Amazon inflicted on the book industry is well known. It is no wonder then, that Amazon's purchase of Whole Foods Market, a grocery chain, sent shivers down the spines of CEOs not only in the food industry, but in the broader retail industry as well. What would prevent Amazon from applying its model to furniture and appliances, electronics or drugstores? It seems that no retail space is safe. A Little Theory Before we turn to the evidence, let's review the macro theory related to positive supply shocks. The internet could be lowering prices by moving product markets toward the "perfect competition" model. The internet trims search costs, improves price transparency and reduces barriers to entry. The internet also allows for shorter supply chains, as layers of wholesalers and other intermediaries are removed and e-commerce companies allow more direct contact between consumers and producers. Fewer inventories and a smaller "brick and mortar" infrastructure take additional costs out of the system. Economic theory suggests that the result of this positive supply shock will be greater product market competition, increased productivity and reduced profitability. In the long run, workers should benefit from the productivity boost via real wage gains (even if nominal wage growth is lackluster). Workers may lower their reservation wage if they feel that increased competitive pressures or technology threaten their jobs. The internet is also likely to improve job matching between the unemployed and available vacancies, which should lead to a fall in the full-employment level of unemployment (NAIRU). Nonetheless, the internet should not have a permanent impact on inflation. The lower level of NAIRU and the direct effects of the internet on consumer prices discussed above allow inflation to fall below the central bank's target. The bank responds by lowering interest rates, stimulating demand and thereby driving unemployment down to the new lower level of NAIRU. Over time, inflation will drift back up toward target. In other words, a greater degree of the competition should boost the supply side of the economy and lower NAIRU, but it should not result in a permanently lower rate of inflation if inflation is indeed a monetary phenomenon and central banks strive to meet their targets. Still, one could imagine a series of supply shocks that are spread out over time, with each having a temporary negative impact on prices such that it appears for a while that inflation has been permanently depressed. This could be an accurate description of the current situation in the U.S. and some of the other major countries. We have sympathy for the view that the internet and new business models are increasing competition, cutting costs and thereby limiting price increases in some areas. But is there any hard evidence? Is the competitive effect that large, and is it any more intense than in the past? There are a number of reasons to be skeptical because most of the evidence does not support Forbes' claim that the internet has killed inflation. (1) E-commerce affects only a small part of the Consumer Price Index As mentioned above, online shopping for goods represents 8.5% of total retail sales in the U.S. E-commerce is concentrated in four kinds of businesses (Table II-1): Furniture & Home Furnishings (7% of total retail sales), Electronics & Appliances (20%), Health & Personal Care (15%), and Clothing (10%). Since goods make up 40% of the CPI, then 3.2% (8% times 40%) is a ballpark estimate for the size of goods e-commerce in the CPI. Table II-1E-Commerce Market Share Of Goods Sector (2015) Table II-2 shows the relative size of e-commerce in the service sector. The analysis is complicated by the fact that the data on services includes B-to-B sales in addition to B-to-C.2 However, e-commerce represents almost 4% of total sales for the service categories tracked by the BLS. Services make up 60% of the CPI, but the size drops to 26% if we exclude shelter (which is probably not affected by online shopping). Thus, e-commerce in the service sector likely affects 1% (3.9% times 26%) of the CPI. Table II-2E-Commerce Market Share Of Service Sector (2015) Adding goods and services, online shopping affects about 4.2% of the CPI index at most. The bottom line is that the relatively small size of e-commerce at the consumer level limits any estimate of the impact of online sales on the broad inflation rate. (2) Most of the deceleration in inflation since 2007 has been in areas unaffected by e-commerce Table II-3 compares the average contribution to annual average CPI inflation during 2000-2007 with that of 2007-2016. Average annual inflation fell from 2.9% in the seven years before the Great Recession to 1.8% after, for a total decline of just over 1 percentage point. The deceleration is almost fully explained by Energy, Food and Owners' Equivalent Rent. The bottom part of Table II-3 highlights that the sectors with the greatest exposure to e-commerce had a negligible impact on the inflation slowdown. Table II-3Comparison Of Pre- and Post-Lehman Inflation Rates (3) The cost advantages for online sellers are overstated Bain & Company, a U.S. consultancy, argues that e-commerce will not grow in importance indefinitely and come to dominate consumer spending.3 E-commerce sales are already slowing. Market share is following a classic S-shaped curve that, Bain estimates, will top out at under 30% by 2030. First, not everyone wants to buy everything online. Products that are well known to consumers and purchased on a regular basis are well suited to online shopping. But for many other products, consumers need to see and feel the product in person before making a purchase. Second, the cost savings of online selling versus traditional brick and mortar stores is not as great as many believe. Bain claims that many e-commerce businesses struggle to make a profit. The information technology, distribution centers, shipping, and returns processing required by e-commerce companies can cost as much as running physical stores in some cases. E-tailers often cannot ship directly from manufacturers to consumers; they need large and expensive fulfillment centers and a very generous returns policy. Moreover, online and offline sales models are becoming blurred. Retailers with physical stores are growing their e-commerce operations, while previously pure e-commerce plays are adding stores or negotiating space in other retailers' stores. Even Amazon now has storefronts. The shift toward an "multichannel" selling model underscores that there are benefits to traditional brick-and-mortar stores that will ensure that they will not completely disappear. (4) E-commerce is not the first revolution in the retail sector The retail sector has changed significantly over the decades and it is not clear that the disinflationary effect of the latest revolution, e-commerce, is any more intense than in the past. Economists at Goldman Sachs point out that the growth of Amazon's market share in recent years still lags that of Walmart and other "big box" stores in the 1990s (Chart II-3).4 This fact suggests that "Amazonification" may not be as disinflationary as the previous big-box revolution. (5) Weak productivity growth and high profit margins are inconsistent with a large supply-side benefit from e-commerce As discussed above, economic theory suggests that a positive supply shock that cuts costs and boosts competition should trim profit margins and lift productivity. The problem is that the margins and productivity have moved in the opposite direction that economic theory would suggest (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Amazon Vs. Walmart: ##br##Who's More Deflationary? Chart II-4Incompatible With A Supply Shock By definition, productivity rises when firms can produce the same output with fewer or cheaper inputs. However, it is well documented that productivity growth has been in a downtrend since the 1990s, and has been dismally low since the Great Recession. A Special Report from BCA's Global Investment Strategy5 service makes a convincing case that mismeasurement is not behind the low productivity figures. In fact, in many industries it appears that productivity is over-estimated. If e-commerce is big enough to "move the dial" on overall inflation, it should be big enough to see in the aggregate productivity figures. Chart II-5Retail Margin Squeeze ##br##Only In Department Stores One would also expect to see a margin squeeze across industries if e-commerce is indeed generating a lot of deflationary competitive pressure. Despite dismally depressed productivity, however, corporate profit margins are at the high end of the historical range across most of the sectors of the S&P 500. This is the case even in the retailing sector outside of department stores (Chart II-5). These facts argue against the idea that the internet has moved the economy further toward a disinflationary "perfect competition" model. (6) Online price setting is characterized by frictions comparable to traditional retail We would expect to observe a low price dispersion across online vendors since the internet has apparently lowered the cost of monitoring competitors' prices and the cost of searching for the lowest price. We would also expect to see fairly synchronized price adjustments; if one vendor adjusts its price due to changing market conditions, then the rest should quickly follow to avoid suffering a massive loss of market share. However, a recent study of price-setting practices in the U.S. and U.K. found that this is not the case.6 The dataset covered a broad spectrum of consumer goods and sellers over a two-year period, comparing online with offline prices. The researchers found that market pricing "frictions" are surprisingly elevated in the online world. Price dispersion is high in absolute terms and on par with offline pricing. Academics for years have puzzled over high price rigidities and dispersion in retail stores in the context of an apparently stiff competitive environment, and it appears that online pricing is not much better. The study did not cover a long enough period to see if frictions were even worse in the past. Nonetheless, the evidence available suggests that the lower cost of monitoring prices afforded by the internet has not led to significant price convergence across sellers online or offline. Another study compared online and offline prices for multichannel retailers, using the massive database provided by the Billion Prices Project at MIT.7 The database covers prices across 10 countries. The study found that retailers charged the same price online as in-store in 72% of cases. The average discount was 4% for those cases in which there was a markdown online. If the observations with identical prices are included, the average online/offline price difference was just 1%. (7) Some measures of online prices have grown at about the same pace as the CPI index The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does include online sales when constructing the Consumer Price Index. It even includes peer-to-peer sales by companies such as Airbnb and Uber. However, the BLS admits that its sample lags the popularity of such services by a few years. Moreover, while the BLS is trying to capture the rising proportion of sales done via e-commerce, "outlet bias" means that the CPI does not capture the price effect in cases where consumers are finding cheaper prices online. This is because the BLS weights the growth rate of online and offline prices, not the price levels. While there may be level differences, there is no reason to believe that the inflation rates for similar goods sold online and offline differ significantly. If the inflation rates are close, then the growing share of online sales will not affect overall inflation based on the BLS methodology. The BLS argues that any bias in the CPI due to outlet bias is mitigated to the extent that physical stores offer a higher level of service. Thus, price differences may not be that great after quality-adjustment. All this suggests that the actual consumer price inflation rate could be somewhat lower than the official rate. Nonetheless, it does not necessarily mean that inflation, properly measured, is being depressed by e-commerce to a meaningful extent. Indeed, Chart II-6 highlights that the U.S. component of the Billion Prices Index rose at a faster pace than the overall CPI between 2009 and 2014. The Online Price Index fell in absolute and relative terms from 2014 to mid-2016, but rose sharply toward the end of 2016. Applying our guesstimate of the weight of e-commerce in the CPI (3.2% for goods), online price inflation added to overall annual CPI inflation by about 0.3 percentage points in 2016 (bottom panel of Chart II-6). There is more deflation evident in the BLS' index of prices for Electronic Shopping and Mail Order Houses (Chart II-7). Online prices fell relative to the overall CPI for most of the time since the early 1990s, with the relative price decline accelerating since the GFC. However, our estimate of the contribution to overall annual CPI inflation is only about -0.15 percentage points in June 2017, and has never been more than -0.3 percentage points. This could be an underestimate because it does not include the impact of services, although the service e-commerce share of the CPI is very small. Chart II-6Online Price Index Chart II-7Electronic Shopping Price Index Another way to approach this question is to focus on the parts of the CPI that are most exposed to e-commerce. It is impossible to separate the effect of e-commerce on inflation from other drivers of productivity. Nonetheless, if online shopping is having a significant deflationary impact on overall inflation, we should see large and persistent negative contributions from these parts of the CPI. We combined the components of the CPI that most closely matched the sectors that have high e-commerce exposure according to the BLS' annual Retail Survey (Chart II-8). The sectors in our aggregate e-commerce price proxy include hotels/motels, taxicabs, books & magazines, clothing, computer hardware, drugs, health & beauty aids, electronics & appliances, alcoholic beverages, furniture & home furnishings, sporting goods, air transportation, travel arrangement and reservation services, educational services and other merchandise. The sectors are weighted based on their respective weights in the CPI. Our e-commerce price proxy has generally fallen relative to the overall CPI index since 2000. However, while the average contribution of these sectors to the overall annual CPI inflation rate has fallen in the post GFC period relative to the 2000-2007 period, the average difference is only 0.2 percentage points. The contribution has hovered around the zero mark for the past 2½ years. Surprisingly, price indexes have increased by more than the overall CPI since 2000 in some sectors where one would have expected to see significant relative price deflation, such as taxis, hotels, travel arrangement and even books. One could argue that significant measurement error must be a factor. How could the price of books have gone up faster than the CPI? Sectors displaying the most relative price declines are clothing, computers, electronics, furniture, sporting goods, air travel and other goods. We recalculated our e-commerce proxy using only these deflating sectors, but we boosted their weights such that the overall weight of the proxy in the CPI is kept the same as our full e-commerce proxy discussed above. In other words, this approach implicitly assumes that the excluded sectors (taxis, books, hotels and travel arrangement) actually deflated at the average pace of the sectors that remain in the index. Our adjusted e-commerce proxy suggests that online pricing reduced overall CPI inflation by about 0.1-to-0.2 percentage points in recent years (Chart II-9). This contribution is below the long-term average of the series, but the drag was even greater several times in the past. Chart II-8BCA E-Commerce Proxy Price Index Chart II-9BCA E-Commerce Adjusted Proxy Price Index Admittedly, data limitations mean that all of the above estimates of the impact of e-commerce are ballpark figures. Conclusions We are keeping an open mind and reserving judgement on the disinflationary impact of robotics, artificial intelligence and the gig economy until we do more research. But in terms of the impact of e-commerce, it is difficult to find supportive evidence. The available data are admittedly far from ideal for confirming or disproving the "Amazonification" thesis. Perhaps better measures of e-commerce pricing will emerge in the future. Nonetheless, the measures available today do not suggest that online sales are depressing the overall inflation rate by more than 0.1 or 0.2 percentage points, and it does not appear that the disinflationary impact has intensified by much. One could argue that lower online prices are forcing traditional retailers to match the e-commerce vendors, allowing for a larger disinflationary effect than we estimate. Nonetheless, if this were the case, then we would expect to see significant margin compression in the retail sector. The sectors potentially affected by e-commerce make up a small part of the CPI index. The deceleration of inflation since the GFC has been in areas unaffected by online sales. High corporate profit margins and depressed productivity growth also argue against the idea that e-commerce represents a large positive macro supply shock. Finally, today's creative destruction in retail may be no more deflationary than the shift to 'big box' stores in the 1990s. Perhaps the main way that e-commerce is affecting the macro economy and financial markets is not through inflation, but via the reduction in the economy's capital spending requirement. Rising online activity means that we need fewer shopping malls and big box outlets to support a given level of consumer spending. This would reduce the equilibrium level of interest rates, since the Fed has to stimulate other parts of the economy to offset the loss of demand in capital spending in the retail sector. To the extent that central banks were slow to recognize that equilibrium rates had fallen to extremely low levels, then policy was behind the curve and this might have contributed to the current low inflation environment. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Robert F. DeLucia, "Economic Perspective: A Nontraditional Analysis Of Inflation," Prudential Capital Group (August 21, 2017). 2 Business to business, and business to consumer. 3 Aaron Cheris, Darrell Rigby and Suzanne Tager, "The Power Of Omnichannel Stores," Bain & Company Insights: Retail Holiday Newsletter 2016-2017 (December 19, 2016). 4 "US Daily: The Internet And Inflation: How Big Is The Amazon Effect?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research (August 2, 2017). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Viacheslav Sheremirov, and Oleksandr Talavera, "Price Setting In Online Markets: Does IT Click?" Journal of the European Economic Association (July 2016). 7 Alberto Cavallo, "Are Online And Offline Prices Similar? Evidence From Large Multi-Channel Retailers," NBER Working Paper No. 22142 (March 2016). III. Indicators And Reference Charts Stocks struggled in August on the back of intensifying geopolitical risks, such that equity returns slipped versus bonds in the month. The earnings backdrop remains constructive for global stocks. In the U.S., 12-month forward EPS estimates continue to climb, in line with upbeat net revisions and earnings surprises. Nonetheless, the risk/reward balance has deteriorated due to escalating risks inside and outside of the U.S. Allocation to risk assets should still exceed benchmark, but should be shy of maximum settings. It is prudent to hold some of the traditional safe haven assets, including gold. Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remained at 100% in August, sending a bullish message for equities. We introduced the RPI in the July report. Quite simply, it combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks for the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The U.S. WTP topped out in June and the same occurred in August for the Japan and the Eurozone indexes. While the indicators are still bullish, they highlight that flows into the equity markets in the major countries are beginning to moderate. These indicators would have to clearly turn lower to provide a bearish signal for stocks. The VIX increased last month, but remains depressed by historical standards. This implies that the equity market is vulnerable to bad news. However, investor sentiment is close to neutral and our speculation index has pulled back from previously elevated levels. These suggest that investors are not overly long at the moment. Our monetary indicator is only slightly negative, but the equity technical indicator is close to breaking below the 9-month moving average (a negative technical sign). Bond valuation continues to hover near fair value, according to our long-standing model that is based on a simple regression of the nominal 10-year yield on short-term real interest rates and a moving average of inflation. Another model, presented in the Overview section, estimates fair value based on dollar sentiment, a measure of policy uncertainty and the global PMI. This model suggests that the 10-year yield is almost 50 basis points on the expensive side. We think that Fed rate expectations are far too benign, suggesting that bond yields will rise. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China
Cisco Systems, the communications equipment index heavyweight, reported tough quarterly results that highlighted the issues continuing to strain the industry. Revenues have continued to fall as telecom carriers, the key customer group, remain engaged in a deflationary price war (second panel) which has been exacerbated by U.S. federal government spending uncertainty; management guided to more of the same next quarter. Encouragingly, margins have improved despite sliding sales, evidence of solid cost control. This should (eventually) result in outsized profits when revenues turn the corner. On that front, telecom services providers have made significant progress in slowing the rate of decline in sales (third panel). Still, inventories & production have been diverging in an unhealthy direction (bottom panel) which could herald a liquidation phase, rendering the progress on margins unsustainable. We think the risks to profitability, combined with ongoing top line shrinkage, will keep investors away. Stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5COMM - CSCO, HRS, MSI, JNPR, FFIV.
Highlights Key Portfolio Updates Synchronized global economic growth is driving real yields higher and boosting equities (Chart 1). Meantime, core inflation remains muted which will ensure that Fed policy stays sufficiently accommodative (Chart 2). Outside of the U.S., monetary tightening cycles are kicking into high gear, and this will sustain downward pressure on the greenback for now (Chart 3). Easy financial conditions are a boon for S&P 500 profit margins, and a slow moving Fed suggests that investors will extrapolate this goldilocks equity scenario for a while longer (Chart 4). Almost all of the S&P 500's advance year-to-date has been earnings driven (Chart 5). Buoyant EPS breadth bodes well for additional gains, a message in line with our SPX profit model. In terms of how far the broad market can advance from current levels before the next recession hits, we posit three ways to SPX 3,000 (Table 1). The ongoing sector rotation is a healthy development, and is not a precursor to a more viscous and widespread correction (Chart 6). Historically, receding sector correlations represent fertile ground for the overall equity market (Chart 7). Our macro models are signaling that investors should position for a sustained rebound in economic growth. Our interest rate-sensitive models are coming out on top, deep cyclicals are attempting to trough, while defensives took a turn for the worse (Chart 8). Deep cyclical sectors are the most overvalued followed by early cyclicals, while defensives remain in undervalued territory. Interest rate sensitives have recently become overbought, while both deep cyclicals and defensives are in the oversold zone (Charts 9 & 10). The most attractive combination of macro, valuation and technical readings are in the financials and consumer discretionary sectors. The least attractive combinations are in materials, technology and utilities sectors. Prospects for a durable synchronized global economic growth, a coordinated tightening G10 central bank backdrop and cheapened U.S. currency warrant an early cyclical portfolio tilt, with the defensive/deep cyclical stance shifting to a more neutral setting. Chart 1Synchronized Global Growth Chart 2Muted Core Inflation Chart 3G10 Central Banks Map Chart 4Easy Financial Conditions Boost Margins Chart 5Buoyant Breadth Bodes Well Table 1SPX Dividend Discount Model SPX EPS & Multiple Sensitivity ERP Analysis Chart 6Healthy Rotation Chart 7Falling Correlations Boost The S&P 500 Chart 8Interest Rate Sensitives Come Out On Top Chart 9Underowned... Chart 10...And Undervalued Defensives Chart 11Earnings Growth Set To Accelerate Chart 12Consumers Are Feeling Flush Chart 13Improving Fundamentals Signal A Trough Chart 14Staples Remain The Household's Choice Chart 15Weaker Rents And Higher Vacancies Bode Ill Chart 16Profits Look Set To Downshift Chart 17Cyclical Recovery Driving Backlogs Lower Chart 18Margin Recovery Appears Priced In Chart 19Pricing Collapse Driving Earnings Decline Chart 20Productivity Declines Will##br## Keep A Cap On Valuations Chart 21Valuations At Risk##br## When Inflation Returns Feature S&P Financials (Overweight) Our financials cyclical macro indicator (CMI) has climbed to new cyclical highs, supported by broad-based improvement among its components. Firming employment data, historically a precursor to credit growth and capital formation, has been a primary contributor to the lift in the CMI. Importantly, a tight labor market has not yet driven sector costs higher, which bodes well for near term profits (Chart 11 on page 8). A budding revival in loan demand is corroborated by our bank loan growth model, which points to the largest upswing in credit growth of the past 30 years. Soaring consumer and business confidence, rising corporate profits and a potential capital spending revival underpin our loans and leases model (Chart 11 on page 8). Expanding housing prices, increased housing turnover and rebounding mortgage purchase applications support household capital formation (Chart 11 on page 8). A recent lift in share prices partially reflects this much-improved cyclical outlook. Still, the message from our valuation indicator (VI) is that there is significant running room. Our technical indicator (TI) has retreated from overbought levels, but remains solidly in the buy zone, setting the stage for the next leg up in the budding relative bull market. We expect sentiment to steadily improve, buoyed by deregulation moving closer to reality as a partial Dodd-Frank replacement passed the House. Chart 22 S&P Consumer Discretionary (Overweight) Our CMI has snapped back after a tough year, driven by improving real wage growth. Higher home prices, a tighter labor market and increasing disposable income have consumers feeling flush, which should boost discretionary outlays. Importantly, consumer deleveraging is far advanced with the debt service ratio hovering near decade lows (Chart 12 on page 9). Further, our Consumer Drag Indicator remains near its modern high, suggesting EPS gains will prove resilient (Chart 12 on page 9). Although somewhat expensive from a historical perspective, our VI remains close to the neutral zone, underscoring that profits will be the primary sector price driver. Our TI has fully recovered from oversold levels, and is flirting with the buy zone, underscoring additional recovery potential. We continue to recommend an overweight position, favoring the media-oriented sub-indices. Chart 23 S&P Energy (Overweight) Our CMI has recently ticked up from its all-time lows, and is now diverging positively from the share price ratio. Ongoing gains in domestic production, partially offset by a still-high sector wage bill, underlie the recent CMI uptick. The steepest drilling upcycle in recent memory is showing some signs of fatigue. Baker Hughes reported the first weekly decline in 24 weeks in the oil rig count for the week ending June 30th. At least a modest deceleration in shale oil production is likely. Encouragingly, U.S. crude oil inventories are contracting, which could presage a renormalization of domestic inventories, market share gains for domestic production and at least a modest rally in energy shares (Chart 13 on page 9). Our S&P energy sector relative EPS model echoes this cautiously optimistic industry backdrop, indicating a burgeoning recovery in sector earnings (Chart 13 on page 9). The TI has returned to deeply oversold levels, suggesting that an oversold bounce could soon occur at a time when valuations are gravitating back to earth. Chart 24 S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) The consumer staples CMI has turned lower recently, held back by healthy economic data, particularly among confidence indicators. That should drive a preference for spending over saving after a long period of thrift, although a relative switch from staples into discretionary consumption has not yet taken firm hold. The savings rate has also stayed resilient, despite consumer euphoria (Chart 14 on page 10). The good news is that tamed commodity prices and a soft U.S. dollar should provide bullish offsets for this global-exposed (Chart 14 on page 10) and commodity-input dependent sector. A modestly weaker outlook for staples is more than reflected in our VI, which is still parked in undervalued territory. Technical conditions are completely washed out, signaling widespread bearishness, which is positive from a contrary perspective. Chart 25 S&P Real Estate (Neutral) Ongoing improvements in commercial & residential real estate prices continues to push our real estate CMI higher. However, the outlook for REITs has darkened; rents have crested while the vacancy rate found its nadir in 2016, suggesting further rent weakness on the horizon (Chart 15 on page 10). Further, bankers appear less willing to extend commercial real estate credit; declines in credit availability will directly impact REIT valuations. Our VI is consistent with our Treasury bond indicator, indicating that both are at fair value. Our TI is starting to firm from extremely oversold levels, a positive indication for both 12- and 24-month relative performance. Chart 26 S&P Health Care (Neutral) Our CMI has rolled over, driven by a steep decline in pharma pricing power (Chart 16 on page 11). In fact, the breadth of sector pricing power softness has spread, just as the majority of the industries we cover is enjoying a selling price revival. The divergence between the CMI and recent sector relative performance suggests that the latter has been mostly politically motivated, and may lack staying power. Worrisomely, the sector wage bill has spiked; in combination with a weaker top line, the earnings resilience of the sector could be at risk. Relative valuations remain appealing, but technical conditions are shaky, as our TI has bounced from oversold levels but is still in negative territory. Taken altogether, we would lean against the recent advance in relative performance. Chart 27 S&P Industrials (Neutral) The CMI has recovered smartly in the past couple of quarters, lifted mostly by a weaker U.S. dollar. The sector has moved laterally since the U.S. election. The improved export outlook is a positive, but a lack of response in hard economic data to the surge in confidence is a sizable offset. An inventory imbalance has largely unwound over the past six months, as durable goods orders are easily outpacing inventories, coinciding with a return of some pricing power to the sector (Chart 17 on page 11). Still, years of capacity growth in excess of production and the resulting low utilization rates mean that pricing gains may stay muted unless demand picks up substantially. Our valuation gauge is near the neutral zone, but there is a wide discrepancy beneath the surface, with construction & engineering trading cheaply and railroads and machinery commanding premium valuation multiples. Our TI has returned close to overbought levels, potentially setting the stage for another move higher. Chart 28 S&P Utilities (Neutral) Our CMI for the utilities sector remains in a long-term downtrend, albeit one with periodic countertrend moves. Most of the weakness in the CMI relates to external factors, such as robust leading indicators of global economic growth (Chart 18 on page 12). Encouragingly, the sector's wage bill has slowed from punitively high levels, and combined with improving pricing power should allow for some margin recovery (Chart 18 on page 12). Utilities have outperformed other defensive sectors, likely due to the expectation that the new U.S. administration's long-awaited tax reform will have outsized benefits to this domestic-focused industry. As a result, valuations have been creeping up, though not sufficiently enough to warrant an underweight position. Our TI has reversed its steep fall over the past year, but is unlikely to bounce through neutral levels in the absence of a negative economic shock. Ergo, our preferred strategy is to remain at benchmark, but look for tradable rally opportunities. Chart 29 S&P Telecom Services (Underweight) Our CMI for telecom services has moved laterally, as much-reduced wage inflation is fully offset by the sector's plummeting share of the consumer's wallet and extremely deflationary conditions (Chart 19 on page 12). Our sales model paints a much darker picture, pointing to double-digit topline declines for at least the next few quarters, owing to the plunge in pricing power deep into negative territory (Chart 19 on page 12). The sector remains chronically cheap, and has all the hallmarks of a value trap, as relative forward earnings remain in a relentless secular downtrend. It would take a recession to trigger a valuation re-rating. Our Technical Indicator has nosedived but, like the VI, cycles deep in the sell zone have not proven reliable indicators that a relative bounce is in the offing. Chart 30 S&P Materials (Underweight) Recent Fed rate hikes have driven down the CMI close to all-time lows. The sector has historically performed very poorly in tightening cycles owing to U.S. dollar appreciation and the ensuing strains on the emerging world. Weak signals from China have also helped take the steam out of what looked like a recovery in the CMI last year. Commodity-currencies have rallied, but not by enough to offset a relapse in pricing power and weak sector productivity (Chart 20 on page 13). The heavyweight chemicals group (comprising more than 73% of the index) continues to suffer; earnings growth relies heavily on global reflation, an elusive ingredient in the era of a globally synchronized tightening cycle. Sagging productivity warns that profitability will remain under pressure. Valuations have now spent some time in overvalued territory; without a recovery in earnings growth, a derating is a high probability outcome. Our TI has dipped into the sell zone, indicating a loss of momentum and downside relative performance risks. It would be highly unusual for the sector to stay resilient in the face of a negative TI reading. Chart 31 S&P Technology (Underweight) The technology CMI is in full retreat, driven by ongoing relative pricing power declines and new order weakness. However, the sector had been resilient, until recently, as a mini-mania in a handful of stocks and the previously red-hot semiconductor group have provided resilient support. That reflected persistently low inflation and a belief that interest rates would still low forever. After all, tech stocks thrive in a disinflationary/deflationary environment and suffer during inflationary periods (Chart 21 on page 13). Nevertheless, a recovering economy from the first quarter's lull and tight labor market suggest that an aggressive de-rating in sky-high valuations in previous juggernauts is a serious threat, especially if recent disinflation proves transitory. Our relative EPS model signals a profit slide this year. In the context of analyst estimates of double-digit earnings growth, sector downside risk is elevated. Our VI is not overdone, but that partly reflects the massive overshoot during the bubble years. Our TI is extremely overbought, suggesting that profit-taking is likely to persist. Chart 32 Size Indicator (Overweight Small Vs. Large Caps) Our size CMI has retraced some of its 2016 climb, but remains firmly above the boom/bust line. Keep in mind that this CMI is not designed as a directional trend predictor, but rather as a buy/sell oscillator. Small company business optimism is near modern highs, as pricing and consumption vigor push domestic revenues higher. A smaller government footprint, i.e. fewer regulatory hurdles, and tax relief will disproportionately benefit SMEs. The prospect of trade barriers clearly favors the domestically focused small cap universe and underlie part of the post-election euphoria. Top line growth will need to persist if small businesses are to offset a higher wage bill, as labor looks more difficult to import and the economy pushes against full employment. Valuations have improved and the share price ratio has fully unwound previously overbought conditions. We expect the recent rally to gain steam.\ Chart 33 Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & Global Alpha Sector Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com
Highlights EM growth is set to falter due to budding weakness in Asia's trade, a decline in commodities prices, and the frailty of EM banking systems. U.S./DM bond yields are heading higher for now and China's money/credit growth is set to decelerate. Together, these will trigger a selloff in EM risk assets. The EM equity outperformance versus DM has been extremely narrow and, hence, it is unsustainable. The EM tech sector is unlikely to support the equity rally much further because these stocks are overbought, and the Asian semiconductor cycle is entering a soft patch. Take profits on the yield curve flattening trade in Mexico. Stay long MXN on crosses versus BRL and ZAR and continue overweighting Mexican bonds. Feature Higher bond yields within the advanced economies and policy tightening in China remain the key threats to EM risk assets in the near term (the next three months). In the medium-term (the next three to 12 months or so), the principle risk is weaker growth in EM/China, and hence contracting corporate profits in EM. While this rally has lasted longer and has gone further than we had anticipated, we find the risk-reward for EM risk assets extremely unattractive. In fact, the huge amount of money that has flown into EM equity and debt markets in the past year amid poor fundamentals suggests to us that the next move will not be a simple correction but rather a major bear market. EM Recovery To Falter Although on the surface global growth appears to be on solid footing, there are early signs of a slowdown in Asian exports. Both Taiwanese exports of electronic parts and the country's overall exports to China have rolled over - the latter two lead global export volumes by a few months, as shown in Chart I-1. The reason why Taiwanese exports of electronic parts lead global trade cycles is because these parts are used in the assembly of final products, and producers order and receive these parts before final products are made and shipped. Similarly, a lot of Taiwanese exports to China serve as inputs into final products assembled in China and shipped worldwide. This is why Taiwan's overall shipments to China lead global trade cycles. On top of this, Korea's overall manufacturing and semiconductor shipments-to-inventory ratios have relapsed. Historically, these ratios have correlated with the KOSPI (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Signs Of Slowdown ##br##In Asian Trade Chart I-2Korea's Manufacturing ##br##Growth Has Peaked Outside the manufacturing-based Asian economies, most other EMs are basically commodities plays, except for India and Turkey. The latter two countries are not only relatively small, but Indian stocks are also expensive and overbought while Turkey is sufferings from its own malaise. In short, if the Asian tech cycle rolls over, China slows down and commodities prices relapse, EM growth will falter. That is why the focus of our analysis has been and remains on China's growth, commodities prices and the Asian trade cycle. Meanwhile, many banking systems in the developing world remain frail following the credit excesses of the preceding years. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service remains bearish on commodities, and believes the breakdown in the correlation between commodities prices and EM risk assets since the beginning of this year is temporary and unsustainable. As for the increased importance of the technology sector in the EM equity benchmark, we offer further analysis on page 10. Our negative view on EM growth is not contingent on a relapse in U.S. and euro area growth. In fact, our current baseline scenario is that DM growth will remain solid, and government bond yields in these markets will rise further. Although growth in both the U.S. and euro area is robust, their importance for EM has become small. For example, exports to the U.S. and EU altogether account for 35% of total exports in China, 22% in Korea and 20% in Taiwan. All in all, if commodities prices continue to downshift and Asian trade slows, as we expect, EM growth will decelerate. Bottom Line: EM growth is set to falter notably, despite solid demand growth in DM. Liquidity Backdrop To Deteriorate Investors and market commentators often use the term "liquidity" loosely, and denote numerous things by it. We use the term 'liquidity' to signify the level and/or direction of interest rates as well as the level and/or direction of money/credit growth. Below we review some different perspectives of liquidity: EM narrow money (M1) growth points to both lower share prices and a relapse in EPS growth in the months ahead (Chart I-3). Chart I-3EM: Narrow Money (M1) Points To EPS Downturn And Lower Stock Prices This is an equity market cap-weighted aggregate of narrow money growth. M1 growth in China - the largest market cap in the EM equity benchmark - has been essential in driving aggregate EM M1 cycles in recent years. More importantly, China has been tightening liquidity, yet the majority of investors remain complacent about its impact on growth. In this regard, investors should remind themselves that monetary policy works with time lags, and the considerable rise in China's interbank rates and corporate bond yields will produce a growth slowdown in the real economy later this year. Chart I-4 demonstrates that China's broad money growth (M2) - which has in effect dropped to an all-time low - leads bank and non-bank credit origination. This suggests the odds of a slowdown in bank and non-bank credit flows are considerable. There has been no stable correlation between the size of DM central banks' balance sheets and EM stock prices, bond yields and currencies since 2011. Therefore, the Fed's move to reduce its balance sheet by itself should not matter for EM risk assets from a fundamental perspective. Nevertheless, EM risk assets have been negatively correlated with U.S. TIPS yields (Chart I-5), and the potential further rise in U.S./DM real and nominal yields will hurt EM sentiment, with flows to EM drying up. Chart I-4China: M2 Heralds ##br##Slowdown In Credit Growth Chart I-5EM Currencies To Depreciate ##br##As U.S. Real Yields Drift Higher Importantly, traders' bets on U.S. yield curve flattening have risen, as evidenced by large short positions in 2-year U.S. notes and considerable long positions in 10- and 30-year bonds. The unwinding of these positions will drive bond yields higher. Chart I-6Precious Metals Signal ##br##Higher Real Yields Ahead Notably, precious metal prices have failed to break out amid a weak U.S. dollar and have lately relapsed (Chart I-6). Precious metals prices could be sensing a further rise in U.S. real yields and/or an upleg in the U.S. dollar. Both the rise in U.S. yields and a stronger dollar will be negative for EM. Bottom Line: We maintain that U.S./DM bond yields are heading higher in the months ahead and China's money/credit growth is set to decelerate. Altogether these will trigger a selloff in EM risk assets. Underwhelming EM Technicals It is a well-known fact that flows into EM debt funds have been enormous, making EM fixed-income markets vulnerable to a reversal of these flows at the hands of tightening liquidity and EM growth disappointments, as argued above. This section focuses on a number of bearish technical signals for EM share prices. In particular: The EM equity implied volatility curve - 12-month VOL minus 1-month VOL - is at a record steep level, based on available history (Chart I-7). Periods of VOL curve flattening have historically coincided with a selloff in EM share prices, as evidenced by Chart I-7. Given that the VOL curve is record steep, the odds of flattening are substantial. Consistently, the probability of an EM selloff is considerable. Chart I-7A Sign Of Top In EM Share Prices? In absolute terms, EM equity implied 1-month VOL is at an all-time low and reflects enormous complacency about EM. EM equity breadth has also been poor. The MSCI EM equally weighted stock index (where each stock commands an equal weight) has considerably underperformed the EM market cap-weighted index since May 2016 (Chart I-8). This suggests the EM rally has been very narrowly driven. The same measure for DM stocks has done relatively better (Chart I-8). Remarkably, EM has underperformed DM based on equal-weighted equity indexes since July 2016 (Chart I-9). This confirms that EM outperformance against DM since early this year has been largely driven by a few stocks, namely the five companies accounting for the bulk of the EM tech index. Furthermore, EM ex-tech stocks have also failed to establish a bull market, in that the index remains below its prior low (Chart I-10). Chart I-8EM Equity Breadth ##br##Has Been Poor Chart I-9EM Versus DM: Relative ##br##Equity Performance Chart I-10EM Ex-Technology Stocks: ##br##Rebound But No Bull Market Finally, the magnitude of the EM rally this year is somewhat misleading. Only three out of 11 sectors - technology, real estate and consumer discretionary (mainly, autos) - have outperformed the EM benchmark this year. Table I-1 illustrates that these three sectors have been responsible for about 50% of the EM rally year-to-date while their market cap is only 36% of total. Table I-1EM Rally In 2017: Return Decomposition Bottom Line: The EM equity outperformance versus DM has been extremely narrow: it has been due to five tech companies that are currently very overbought (see Chart I-8 on page 7). Valuations EM equity valuations are not cheap, as most of the rally since the early 2016 bottom has been driven by a multiple expansion rather than a rise in corporate earnings (Chart I-11). We are not suggesting EM stocks are expensive, but they do not offer good value either. In fact, good companies/countries/sectors are expensive, while those, that appear "cheap", command low multiples for a reason. As for currencies, they are not cheap either. The real effective exchange rate of EM ex-China is rather elevated after the rally of the past year or so (Chart I-12). Finally, not only are EM sovereign and corporate spreads close to record lows, but also local government bond yield spreads over U.S. Treasurys are at multi-year lows (Chart I-13). Chart I-11Decomposing EM Equity ##br##Return Into P/E And EPS Chart I-12EM Ex-China Currencies ##br##Are Not Cheap And Vulnerable Chart I-13EM Local Bond Yields Spreads ##br##Over U.S. Treasurys Is Low Bottom Line: Adjusted for fundamentals, EM equity, currency and credit market valuations are rather expensive. The odds are that the reality will underwhelm expectations, and that EM risk assets will sell off. A Word On EM Tech: Is This Time Different? During our recent trip to Europe, many clients argued that the increased weight of technology in the EM equity benchmark will cause EM share prices to decouple from the traditional variables they have historically been correlated with, like commodities prices, commodities stocks and others. In brief, the argument is that EM has entered a new paradigm, and past correlations will not work. The last time we at BCA heard similar arguments was back in early 2000 at the peak of the global tech bubble. At the time, the argument was that this time was truly different - that tech stocks could drive the market higher regardless of the old indicators and the performance of other sectors. Chart I-14 portrays that in 2000 the EM equity index, for several months, decoupled from global mining and energy stocks when tech and telecom stocks went ballistic. Chart I-14EM And Commodities Stocks: Can The Recent Decoupling Persist? Back in 2000, the bubble was in tech and telecom stocks. These two sectors together comprised 33% of the EM benchmark as of January 2000 (Chart I-15). This compares with a 27% weighting of technology stocks alone in the EM benchmark now. The combined weight of energy and materials is currently 14% versus 19% in January 2000, as can been seen in Chart I-15. Chart I-15EM Equities Sector Composition Now And In Late 1990s To be sure, we are not suggesting that tech stocks are in a bubble as they were in 2000, and that a bust in share prices is imminent. However, several observations are noteworthy: Chart I-16EM Equities Sector ##br##Composition Now And In Late 1990s Just because EM tech stocks have skyrocketed in the past six months does not mean they will continue to do so. In fact, EM tech is already extremely overbought and likely over-owned (Chart I-16). As global bond yields rise, high-multiples stocks, especially social media/internet companies, could selloff. We, like all macro strategists, can add little value on how to value internet/social media companies and assess their business models. However, we can shed some light on the business cycle in the semiconductor sector that influences performance of heavyweight companies like TSMC and Samsung. As Chart I-1 and I-2 on pages 1 and 3 demonstrate, there are signs that the semi/electronics cycle in Asia has peaked. We do not mean that this sector is headed toward recession. But this is a very cyclical sector, and some slowdown is to be expected following the growth outburst of the past 18 months. This will be enough to cause a correction in semi stocks from extremely overbought levels. The tight correlation between EM share prices and energy and mining stocks has persisted for the past 20 years (Chart I-14 on page 10), and we believe it will re-establish as technology stocks' shine diminishes. Finally, we have been recommending an overweight position in Taiwanese, Korean, and Chinese stocks primarily because of their large tech exposure. For now we maintain this strategy. Bottom Line: While the technology sector could make a difference for EM economies and equity markets in the long run, it is unlikely to support the current rally and outperformance much further. Indeed, tech stocks are heavily overbought, and the Asian semiconductor cycle is entering a soft patch. In brief, the overall EM equity benchmark is at a major risk of relapse and underperformance versus the DM bourses. Stay underweight. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Mexico: Take Profits On Yield Curve Flattener And Stay Long MXN On Crosses Mexico's 10/1-year swap curve has inverted for the first time in history and we are taking a 160 basis points profit on our yield curve flattening trade recommended on June 8, 2016 (Chart II-1). Will the central bank begin cutting interest rates soon? Is it time to get bullish on stocks? We do not think so: Inflation is well above the central bank's target and is broad based (Chart II-2). Notably, wage growth is elevated (Chart II-3). Chart II-1Mexico's Yield Cruve Has Inverted: Take Profits Chart II-2Mexico: Inflation Is Above The Target Chart II-3Mexico: Wage Inflation Is High Provided productivity growth is meager in Mexico, unit labor costs - which are calculated as wage per hour divided by productivity (output per hour) - are rising. This will depress companies' profit margins and make them eager to hike selling prices. This will in turn prevent inflation from falling and, consequently, hamper Banxico's ability to cut rates for now. Meanwhile, the impact of higher interest rates will continue filtering through the economy. High interest rates entail further slowdown in money and credit growth and, hence, in domestic demand. Both consumer spending and capital expenditure by companies are set to weaken a lot (Chart II-4). This will weigh on corporate profits and share prices. Fiscal policy is not going to support growth either because policymakers will opt to consolidate the recent improvement in the fiscal deficit. This is especially true given the latest selloff in oil prices. Notably, oil accounts for about 20% of government revenues. Even though non-oil exports and manufacturing output are accelerating (Chart II-5), non-oil exports - that make about 30% of GDP - are not large enough to offset the deceleration in domestic demand from monetary tightening. Chart II-4Mexico: Domestic Demand To Buckle Chart II-5Mexico: Exports Are Robust Investment Conclusions The outlook for Mexican stocks in absolute terms is poor as domestic demand will slump, further hampering corporate profits. Meanwhile, inflation is still elevated to justify rate cuts by the central bank. Within an EM equity portfolio, we recommend neutral allocation to this bourse mainly due to our expectations of the peso outperforming other EM currencies. The Mexican peso is still cheap (Chart II-6). Therefore, we continue to recommend long positions in MXN versus ZAR and BRL. If EM currencies depreciate and oil prices drop further as we expect, it will be hard for the peso to appreciate versus the U.S. dollar. However, the peso will outperform many other EM currencies. Mexican local currency bonds and sovereign credit offer good value relative to their EM counterparts. (Chart II-7). Fixed income investors should continue to overweight Mexican local currency and sovereign credit within their respective EM benchmarks. Chart II-6Mexico: Peso Is Cheap Chart II-7Continue Overweighting Mexican Bonds Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Out of the gate, our financials versus tech sector pair trade has caught fire, returning 6.2% in the last 2 weeks. This reflects the tightening of the historically wide relative market capitalization differential (second and third panels), as we expected. Despite the solid return since we put the trade on, we think we are in the early stages of an earnings-driven rotational correction, with greater gains ahead. Pricing power in financials has continued to strengthen at the expense of deflating tech selling prices (bottom panel) which should start closing the profit gap. We expect early validation of this thesis to begin this week with the opening of earnings season for financials on Friday. Net, investors should gain exposure to S&P financials using S&P tech as a source of funds.
Over the past month, we have reduced the extent of our consumer staples overweight, downgrading soft drinks to underweight and hypermarkets to neutral. In contrast, in May we boosted the S&P financials index to overweight on the back of improving earnings fundamentals. As a result, swapping out consumer staples for financials in our existing pair trade versus the tech sector makes sense. This relative share price ratio is at a critical juncture and has dropped to its long term support level (top panel). The valuation case is equally compelling: financials are deeply undervalued and unloved compared with the tech sector (bottom panel), such that even a modest shift in sentiment would drive a large relative price swing. Adding it up, we recommend swapping consumer staples with financials in our pair trade versus the tech sector. Bottom Line: Switch consumer staples out and sub financials in the pair trade versus tech stocks. For additional details, please see Monday's Weekly Report.