Economic Growth
In Section I, we note that the Fed’s new interest rate projections show that US monetary policy is set to rise soon into restrictive territory even relative to what we consider to be the neutral rate of interest, and to a level that has been consistent with the onset of recession since the 1960s. Imminent supply-side and pandemic-related disinflation is crucial for the US to avoid a recession over the coming year. Stay neutral stocks versus bonds for now, but the next shift in our recommended asset allocation stance is more likely to be a downgrade to underweight rather than an upgrade to overweight. In Section II, a guest piece from our European Investment Strategy service discusses the outlook for European assets.
Executive Summary Upward Repricing Of Bond Yields Continues In this report, we discuss our move last week to shift to a below-benchmark overall global duration stance in more detail. Our strongest conviction view on developed market government bonds is underweighting US Treasuries. The outcome of last week’s FOMC meeting, where the Fed committed to a rapid shift to restrictive US monetary policy, supports that position. Our strongest conviction overweight is on Japan, with the Bank of Japan both willing and able to maintain its cap on longer-term JGB yields. We are also overweight countries where it will be difficult for central banks to lift rates as much as markets expect – core Europe, Australia and Canada. The explosion in UK bond yields, and collapse of the British pound, seen after last week’s UK “mini-budget” shows that investors have not lost the power to punish fiscal and monetary policies that are non-credible - like a massive debt-financed tax cut at a time of high inflation. As a result, the Bank of England will now be forced to raise rates much more than we had been expecting, and Gilts will remain extremely volatile in the near-term. Bottom Line: Maintain a below-benchmark overall duration stance in global bond portfolios. Stay underweight US Treasuries. Upgrade exposure to government bonds in Japan and Canada to overweight, but tactically downgrade UK Gilts to underweight until a more market-friendly policy mix leads to greater stability of the British pound. Feature We shifted our recommended stance on overall global portfolio duration to below-benchmark in a Special Alert published last week. In this report, we go into the rationale for that move in more detail, and present specific details of that shift in terms of allocations by country across the various yield curves. Related Report Global Fixed Income StrategyReduce Global Portfolio Duration To Below-Benchmark The global inflation and monetary policy backdrops remain toxic for bond markets. Last week saw interest rate increases from multiple developed economy central banks, including the Fed and Bank of England (BoE). The magnitudes of the rate hikes unnerved bond investors, with even the likes of perennial low yielders like the Swiss National Bank and Riksbank lifting rates by 75bps and 100bps, respectively. The Fed followed up its own 75bp hike by digging in its heels on the need for additional policy tightening after the 300bps of hikes already delivered this year (Chart 1). Fed Chair Jerome Powell strongly hinted that a policy-induced US recession is likely the only way to return overshooting US inflation back to the Fed’s 2% target. This triggered a breakout of the benchmark US 10-year Treasury yield above 3.5%. But the real fireworks in global bond markets occurred after the UK government announced its “mini-budget” last Friday that included massive tax cuts to be funded by debt issuance, triggering a sharp decline in the British Pound and spike in UK Gilt yields – a move that spilled over into other bond markets, pushing government bond yields to cyclical highs in the US and euro area. Chart 1Central Banks Keep Trying To “Out-Hawk” Each Other Chart 2Yields Are Now Driven By Rate Hike Expectations, Not Inflation We had been anticipating another move upward in global bond yields for this cycle, and we shifted to a below-benchmark overall global duration stance in advance of the Fed and BoE meetings last week. We see this next move higher in yields as being driven not by rising inflation expectations but by an upward repricing of interest rate expectations, leading to additional increases in real bond yields (Chart 2). Trying to pick a top in bond yields has now become a game of forecasting the level to which policy rates must rise in the current global monetary tightening cycle. On that front, there is still scope for rate expectations, and bond yields, to move higher in most developed market countries, justifying our downgrade of our recommended overall duration exposure to below-benchmark. Shifting rate expectations also lead to the changes in country bond allocations we announced last week. Rate Expectations And Country Bond Allocations Our proxy for medium-term nominal terminal rate expectations in developed market countries, the 5-year/5-year forward overnight index swap (OIS) rate, has been tracking 10-year bond yields very closely in the US and UK and, to a lesser extent, Europe (Chart 3). In those regions, the OIS curves are pricing in an increasing medium-term level of policy rates, leading to markets repricing government bond yields higher. In the US, the OIS curve is pricing in a 2023 peak for the fed funds rate of 4.67%, but with only a modest path of rate cuts in 2024 and 2025, leading to a 5-year/5-year OIS projection of 3.36% as of Monday’s market close. After the Gilt market rout, the UK OIS curve is now pricing in a 2023 peak Bank Rate over 6%, with our medium-term nominal rate proxy settling at 3.69%. In the euro area, the OIS curve is discounting a 2023 peak in the ECB policy rate of 3.22%, with a 5-year/5-year forward OIS rate of 2.7%. For all three of those regions, the market is now pricing in the highest peak in rates for the current tightening cycle. That is not the case in Canada or Australia, where rate expectations and longer-term bond yields are still below cyclical peaks (Chart 4). Japan remains the outlier, with the Bank of Japan’s yield curve control keeping 10-year JGB yields capped at 0.25%, even with the Japan OIS curve pricing in a medium-term terminal rate of 0.75%. Chart 3Rising Yields Reflect Higher Terminal Rate Expectations Chart 4Our High-Conviction Government Bond Overweights After looking at all the repricing of interest rate expectations and bond yields, we can determine our preferred government bond allocations within our strategic model bond portfolio framework. The US Remains Our Favorite Government Bond Underweight The new set of interest rate forecasts (“the dots”) presented at last week’s Fed meeting showed that the median FOMC member was forecasting the fed funds rate to rise to 4.4% by the end of 2022 and 4.6% by the end of 2023, before falling to 3.9% and 2.9% and the end of 2024 and 2025, respectively. Those are all significant increases from the June dots, where the expectations called for the funds rate to hit 3.4% by end-2022 and 3.8% by end-2023. The median Fed forecasts are now broadly in line with the pricing in the US OIS curve for 2022-2024, although the market expects higher rates than the FOMC in 2025 (Chart 5). Chart 5USTs Still Vulnerable To Additional Fed Hawkish Surprises There has been a lot of back and forth between the Fed and the markets this year, but the market has generally lagged the Fed interest rate projections for 2023 and 2024 before last week. Market pricing is now in line with the Fed dots, as investors have adjusted to the increasingly hawkish message from Fed officials that are focused solely on slowing growth, and tightening financial conditions, in an effort to bring US inflation down. We see the US Treasury curve as still vulnerable to additional hawkish messaging from the Fed, and a potentially higher-than-anticipated peak in the funds rate versus the FOMC dots. The US consumer is facing a lot of headwinds from higher interest rates and rising food and gasoline prices. However, the latter has fallen 26% from the June 13/2022 peak and is acting as a “tax cut” that also helps reduce US inflation expectations (Chart 6). Consumer confidence measures like the University of Michigan expectations survey have already shown improvement alongside the fall in gas prices, which has boosted real income expectations according to the New York Fed’s Consumer Survey (bottom panel). Even a subtle improvement in consumer confidence due to some easing of inflation expectations can help support a somewhat faster pace of consumer spending at a time of robust labor demand and accelerating wage growth. The Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker is now growing at a year-over-year pace of 5.7%, while the ratio of US job openings to unemployed workers remains near a record high (Chart 7). Fed Chair Powell has noted that the Fed must see significant weakening of the US jobs market for the Fed to consider pausing on its current rate hike path. So far, there is little evidence pointing to a loosening of US labor market conditions that would ease domestically-generated inflation pressures. Chart 6Lower Gas Prices Can Provide A Lift To US Consumer Spending Chart 7A Tight US Labor Market Will Keep The Fed Hawkish Chart 8Stay Underweight US Treasuries We expect overall US inflation to decelerate next year on the back of additional slowing of goods inflation, but will likely settle in the 3-4% range in 2023 given stubbornly sticky services inflation and wage growth. The Fed should follow through on its current interest rate projections, with a good chance that rates will need to be pushed up even higher in response to resilient labor market conditions in the first half of 2023. The risk/reward still favors higher US Treasury yields over at least the next 3-6 months, particularly with an improving flow of US data surprises and with bond investor duration positioning now much closer to neutral according to the JPMorgan client survey (Chart 8). Bottom Line: The US remains our highest conviction strategic government bond underweight in the developed markets. Recommended Allocations In Other Countries The path for monetary policy rates outside the US shows a similar profile as in the US, with a “front loading” of rate hikes to mid-2023 followed by modest rate cuts over the subsequent two years (Chart 9). The OIS-implied path for the level of rates is nearly identical in the US, Australia and Canada. On the other hand, markets are discounting much lower of levels of policy rates in Europe and Japan compared to the US, and a considerably higher path for rates in the UK (more on that in the next section). Chart 9Markets Priced For Global 'Front-Loaded' Rate Hikes We would lean against the US-like pricing of interest rates in Australia and Canada. Based on work we published in a recent Special Report along with our colleagues at BCA Research European Investment Strategy, the neutral real interest rate (“r-star”) is estimated to be deeply negative in Australia and Canada after adjusting for the high level of non-financial debt in those countries (Table 1). That financial fragility makes it much less likely that the Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of Australia can raise rates as much as the Fed. Table 1Some Big Swings In Our R* Estimates When Including Debt US-like interest rates would almost certainly trigger a major downturn in house prices and household wealth given the inflated housing values in those two countries – the growth of which is already slowing rapidly in response to rate hikes delivered in 2022. We are maintaining our overweight recommendation on Australian government bonds, while we upgraded Canada to overweight from neutral after last week’s duration downgrade. Chart 10Move To Overweight Japan We are also staying overweight on German and French government bonds, as the ECB is unlikely to deliver the full extent of rate increases discounted in the European OIS curve. Our estimated debt-adjusted r-star is also quite negative in the euro area, suggesting that financial fragility issues (due to high government debt in Italy and high corporate debt in France) will likely limit the ECB’s ability to continue with recent chunky rate increases for much longer. In Japan, we continue to view JGBs as an “anti-duration” instrument, given the Bank of Japan’s persistence in maintaining negative interest rates and yield curve control. That makes JGBs a good overweight when global bond yields are rising and a good underweight when global bond yields are falling (Chart 10). Given our decision to reduce our recommended duration exposure to below-benchmark, the logical follow through decision is to upgrade JGBs to overweight. The only remaining country to consider is our view on UK Gilts, which has now become more complicated. Anarchy In The UK The selloff in the UK Gilt market has been stunning in its ferocity. Dating back to last Thursday’s 50bp rate hike by the BoE, the 10-year UK Gilt yield has jumped 120bps and now sits at 4.52%. The increase in yields was identical at the front-end of the Gilt curve, with the 2-year yield jumping 120bps to 4.68%. The surge in longer-term Gilt yields stands out to the rise in bond yields seen outside the UK, as it also incorporates an increase in our estimate of the UK term premium – a move that was not matched in other countries (Chart 11). The rise in Gilt yields was also much more concentrated in real yields compared to inflation expectations (Chart 12), as markets aggressively repriced the path for UK policy rates after the UK government’s announced debt-financed fiscal package, including £45bn of tax cuts. Chart 11Upward Repricing Of Bond Yields Continues Chart 12The Gilt Market Becomes Unhinged The UK’s National Institute for Economic And Social Research (NIESR) estimates that the combined impact of the tax cuts and additional spending measures would increase the UK government deficit by a whopping £150bn, or 5% of GDP. The NIESR also estimated that the fiscal measures, including the previously-announced plan for the UK government to cap energy price increases, would result in positive UK GDP growth in the 4th quarter and also lift annual real GDP growth to 2% over 2023-24. The UK government now faces a major credibility issue with markets on its announced fiscal plans. The sheer size of the package, coming at a time when the US economy was already operating at full employment with high inflation, invites a greater than expected monetary policy tightening response from the BoE. The UK OIS curve now forecasts a peak in rates of 6.3% in October 2023, up from the current 2.25%. That would be a massive move in rates in just one year from a central bank that has been relatively gun shy in lifting rates since the 2008 financial crisis, even during the current inflation overshoot. New UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, and her new Chancellor of the Exchequer Kwasi Kwarteng, have both noted they would prefer a mix of looser fiscal policy (aimed at boosting the supply side of the economy to lift potential growth) with tighter monetary policy that would prevent asset bubbles and inflation overshoots. While there is certainly merit in any plan designed to boost medium-term growth by lifting anemic UK productivity through supply-side reforms, the timing of the announcement could not have been worse. Just one day earlier, the BoE announced a plan to go forward with the sale of Gilts from its balance sheet accumulated during quantitative easing. The Truss government needs to find buyers for all the Gilts that must be issued to pay for the tax cuts and stimulus, but the BoE will not be one of them. In the end, however, the BoE’s expected path for interest rates matters more than the increase in Gilt supply in determining the level of Gilt yields and the slope of the Gilt curve. The NIESR estimates that the UK public debt/GDP ratio will rise to 92% by 2024-25, versus its pre-budget forecast of 88%. While that is a meaningful increase, the correlation between the debt/GDP ratio and the slope of the Gilt curve has been negative for the past few years (Chart 13, top panel). The stronger relationship is between the slope of the curve and the level of the BoE base rate (bottom panel), which is pointing to an inversion of the 2-year/30-year curve if the BoE follows market pricing and lifts rates to 6%. Our view dating back to the early summer was that a low neutral interest rate would prevent the BoE from lifting rates as much as markets were discounting without causing a deep recession, lower inflation and, eventually, a quick reversal of rate hikes. The huge UK fiscal stimulus package changes that calculus, as the nominal neutral rate that will be needed to bring UK inflation back to target is likely now much higher. We have always believed that when a thesis underlying an investment recommendation is challenged by new information, it is best to adjust the recommendation to reflect the new facts. Thus, this week, we are tactically downgrading UK Gilts to underweight in our model bond portfolio framework. We still see a significant medium-term opportunity to go overweight Gilts, as UK policy rates pushing into the 4-6% range are not sustainable. However, the BoE will likely have no choice to begin lifting rates at a much more aggressive pace to restore UK policy credibility, especially with the British pound under immense selling pressure (Chart 14). Despite rumors of an inter-meeting rate hike by the BoE this week to try and support the pound, that is likely too risky a step for the BoE to take as it would invite a battle with investors and currency speculators. Such a battle would be difficult to win without a more credible and market-friendly medium-term fiscal policy from the Truss government. Chart 13The BoE Matters More Than Debt Levels For Gilts Chart 14Tactically Move To Underweight UK Gilts Bottom Line: We will review our UK Gilt stance once there are more clear signals of stability in the pound, but for now, we will step aside and limit our recommended exposure to Gilts – even after the huge selloff seen to date, which likely has more to go. Summarizing All The Changes In Our Model Bond Portfolio All the changes to our recommended duration exposure and country allocations after the past week, including the new weightings in our model bond portfolio, are shown in the tables on pages 14-16. To summarize: We moved the overall recommended global duration exposure to below-benchmark, and shifted the model bond portfolio duration to 0.9 years below that of the custom benchmark index. We increased the size of the US Treasury underweight, and moved Canada and Japan to overweight. We moved the UK to underweight, on top of the reduction in UK duration exposure that was part of last week’s move to reduce overall portfolio duration. We are also cutting exposure to UK investment grade corporates to underweight, as part of an overall move to reduce UK risk in the portfolio. We slightly increased the overweight in Germany. In next week’s report, we will present the quarterly performance review of our model bond portfolio and, more importantly, we will present out scenario-based return expectations after all the changes made this week. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)
Executive Summary The US inflation surprise increases the odds of both congressional gridlock and recession, which increases uncertainty over US leadership past 2024 and reduces the US’s ability to lower tensions with China and Iran. Despite the mainstream media narrative, the Xi-Putin summit reinforces our view that China cannot reject Russia’s strategic partnership. The potential for conflict in Taiwan forces China to accept Russia’s overture. For the same reason the US and China cannot re-engage their economies sustainably, even if Biden and Xi somehow manage to reduce tensions after the midterm elections and twentieth national party congress. Russia could reduce oil exports as well as natural gas, intensifying the global energy shock. Ukraine’s counter-offensive and Europe’s energy diversification increase the risk of Russian military and economic failure. The Middle East will destabilize anew and create a new source of global energy supply disruptions. US-Iran talks are faltering as expected. Russian Oil Embargo Could Deliver Global Shock Asset Initiation Date Return LONG GLOBAL DEFENSIVES / CYCLICALS EQUITIES 2022-01-20 19.1% Bottom Line: Stay long US stocks, defensive sectors, and large caps. Avoid China, Taiwan, eastern Europe, and the Middle East. Feature Several notable geopolitical developments occurred over the past week while we met with clients at the annual BCA Research Investment Conference in New York. In this report we analyze these developments using our geopolitical method, which emphasizes constraints over preferences, capabilities over intentions, reality over narrative. We also draw freely from the many valuable insights gleaned from our guest speakers at the conference. China Cannot Reject Russia: The Xi-Putin Summit In Uzbekistan Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are meeting in Uzbekistan as we go to press and Putin has acknowledged China’s “questions and concern” about the war in Ukraine.1 They last met on February 4 when Xi gave Putin his blessing for the Ukraine invasion, promising to buy more Russian natural gas and to pursue a “no limits” strategic partnership (meaning one that includes extensive military cooperation). The meeting’s importance is clear from both leaders’ efforts to make it happen. Putin is leaving Russia despite rising domestic criticism over his handling of the Ukraine war and European energy war. Ukraine is making surprising gains in the battlefield, particularly around Kharkiv, threatening Russia’s ability to complete the conquest of Donetsk and the Donbas region. Meanwhile Xi is leaving China for the first time since the Covid-19 outbreak, despite the fact that he is only one month away from the most important political event of his life: the October 16 twentieth national party congress, where he hopes to clinch another five, ten, or fifteen years in power, expand his faction’s grip over the political system, and take over Mao Zedong’s unique title as chairman of the Communist Party. We do not yet know the full outcome of the Uzbek summit but we do not see it as a turning point in which China turns on Russia. Instead the summit reinforces our key point to investors all year: China cannot reject Russia. Russia broke energy ties with Europe and is fighting a proxy war with NATO. The Putin regime has lashed Russia to China’s side for the foreseeable future. China may not have wanted to move so quickly toward an exclusive relationship but it is not in a position to reject Russia’s diplomatic overture and leave Putin out to dry. The reason is that China is constrained by the US-led world order and like Russia is attempting to change that order and carve a sphere of influence to improve its national security. Beijing’s immediate goal is to consolidate power across the critical buffer territories susceptible to foreign interests. It has already consolidated Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and to some extent the South China Sea, the critical approach to Taiwan. Taiwan is the outstanding buffer space that needs to be subjugated. Xi Jinping has taken it upon himself to unify China and Taiwan within his extended rule. But Taiwanese public opinion has decisively shifted in favor of either an indefinite status quo or independence. Hence China and Taiwan are on a collision course. Regardless of one’s view on the likelihood of war, it is a high enough chance that China, Taiwan, the US, and others will be preparing for it in the coming years. Chart 1US Arms Sales To Taiwan The US is attempting to increase its ability to deter China from attacking Taiwan. It believes it failed to deter Russia from invading Ukraine – and Taiwan is far more important to US economy and security than Ukraine. The US is already entering discussions with Taiwan and other allies about a package of severe economic sanctions in the event that China attacks – sanctions comparable to those imposed on Russia. The US Congress is also moving forward with the Taiwan Policy Act of 2022, which will solidify US support for the island as well as increase arms sales (Chart 1).2 Aside from China's military preparation – which needs to be carefully reviewed in light of Russia’s troubles in Ukraine and the much greater difficulty of invading Taiwan – China must prepare to deal with the following three factors in the event of war: 1. Energy: China is overly exposed to sea lines of communication that can be disrupted by the United States Navy. Beijing will have to partner with Russia to import Russian and Central Asian resources and attempt to forge an overland path to the Middle East (Chart 2). Unlike Russia, China cannot supply its own energy during a war and its warfighting capacity will suffer if shortages occur or prices spike. 2. Computer Chips: China has committed at least $200 billion on a crash course to build its own semiconductors since 2013 due to the need to modernize its military and economy and compete with the US on the global stage. But China is still dependent on imports, especially for the most advanced chips, and its dependency is rising not falling despite domestic investments (Chart 3). The US is imposing export controls on advanced microchips and starting to enforce these controls on third parties. The US and its allies have cut off Russia’s access to computer chips, leading to Russian shortages that are impeding their war effort. Chart 2China’s Commodity Import Vulnerability Chart 3China's Imports Of Semiconductors 3. US Dollar Reserves: China is still heavily exposed to US dollar assets but its access will be cut off in the event of war, just as the US has frozen Russian, Iranian, Venezuelan, and Cuban assets over the years. China is already diversifying away from the dollar but will have to move more quickly given that Russia had dramatically reduced its exposure and still suffered severely when its access to dollar reserves was frozen this year (Chart 4). Where will China reallocate its reserves? To developing and importing natural resources from Russia, Central Asia, and other overland routes. Chart 4China's US Dollar Exposure Russia may be the junior partner in a new Russo-Chinese alliance but it will not be a vassal. Russia has resources, military power, and regional control in Central Asia that China needs. Of course, China will maintain a certain diplomatic distance from Russia because it needs to maintain economic relations with Europe and other democracies as it breaks up with the United States. Europe is far more important to Chinese exports than Russia. China will play both sides and its companies will develop parallel supply chains. China will also make gestures to countries that feel threatened by Russia, including the Central Asian members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). But the crucial point is that China cannot reject Russia. If the Putin regime fails, China will be diplomatically isolated, it will lose an ally in any Taiwan war, and the US will have a much greater advantage in attempting to contain China in the coming years and decades. Russo-Chinese Alliance And The US Dollar Many investors speculate that China’s diversification away from the US dollar will mark a severe downturn for the currency. This is of course possible, given that Russia and China will form a substantial anti-dollar bloc. Certainly there can be a cyclical downturn in the greenback, especially after the looming recession troughs. But it is harder to see a structural collapse of the dollar as the leading global reserve currency. The past 14 years have shown how global investors react to US dysfunction, Russian aggression, and Chinese slowdown: they buy the dollar! The implication is that a US wage-price spiral, a Russian détente with Europe, and a Chinese economic recovery would be negative for the dollar – but those stars have not yet aligned. Related Report Geopolitical StrategyThe Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The reason China needs to diversify is because it fears US sanctions when it invades Taiwan. Hence reducing its holdings of US treasuries and the dollar signals that it expects war in future. But will other countries rush into the yuan and yuan-denominated bonds if Xi is following in Putin’s footsteps and launching a war of choice, with damaging consequences for the economy? A war over Taiwan would be a global catastrophe and would send other countries plunging into the safe-haven assets, including US assets. Nevertheless China will diversify and other countries will probably increase their yuan trade over time, just as Russia has done. This will be a cyclical headwind for the dollar at some point. But it will not knock the US off the premier position. That would require a historic downgrade in the US’s economic and strategic capability, as was the case with the United Kingdom after the world wars. China will continue to stimulate the economy after the party congress. A successful Chinese and global economic rebound next year – and a decision to pursue “jaw jaw” with the US and Taiwan rather than “war war” – would be negative for the dollar. Hence we may downgrade our bullish dollar view to neutral on a cyclical basis before long … but not yet and not on a structural basis. Bottom Line: Favor the US dollar and the euro over the Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar. Underweight Chinese and Taiwanese assets on a structural basis. Ukraine’s Counter-Offensive And A Russian Oil Embargo Ukraine launched a counter-offensive against Russia in September and achieved significant early victories. Russians fell back away from Kharkiv, putting Izyum in Ukrainian hands and jeopardizing Russia’s ability to achieve its war aim of conquering the remaining half of Donetsk province and thus controlling the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. Russian positions also crumbled west of the Dnieper river, which was always an important limit on Russian capabilities (Map 1). Map 1Status Of Russia-Ukraine War: The Ukrainian Counter-Offensive (September 15, 2022) Some commentators, such as Francis Fukuyama in the Washington Post, have taken the Ukrainian counter-offensive as a sign that the Ukrainians will reconquer lost territory and Russia will suffer an outright defeat in this war.3 If Russia cannot conquer the Donbas, its control of the “land bridge” to Crimea will be unsustainable, and it may have to admit defeat. But we are very skeptical. It will be extremely difficult for Ukrainians to drive the Russians out of all of their entrenched positions. US military officials applauded Ukraine’s counter-offensive but sounded a cautious note. The chief problem is that neither President Putin nor the Russian military can afford such a defeat. They will have to double down on the Donbas and land bridge. The war will be prolonged. Ultimately we expect stalemate, which will be a prelude to ceasefire negotiations. But first the fighting will intensify and the repercussions for global economy and markets will get worse. Russia’s war effort is also flagging because Europe is making headway in finding alternatives for Russian natural gas. Russia has cut off flows through the Nord Stream pipeline to Germany, the Yamal pipeline to Poland, and partially to the Ukraine pipeline system, leaving only Turkstream operating normally. Yet EU gas storage is in the middle of its normal range and trending higher (Chart 5). Chart 5Europe Handling Natural Gas Crisis Well … So Far Of course, Europe’s energy supply is still not secure. Cold weather could require more heating than expected. Russia has an incentive to tighten the gas flow further. Flows from Algeria or Azerbaijan could be sabotaged or disrupted (Chart 6). Chart 6Europe’s NatGas Supply Still Not Secure Chart 7Europe Tipping Into Recession Anyway Russia’s intention is to inflict a recession on Europe so that it begins to rethink its willingness to maintain a long-term proxy war. Recession will force European households to pay the full cost of the energy breakup with Russia all at once. Popular support for war will moderate and politicians will adopt more pragmatic diplomacy. After all they do not have an interest in prolonging the war to the point that it spirals out of control. Clearly the economic pain is being felt, as manufacturing expectations and consumer confidence weaken (Chart 7). Europe’s resolve will not collapse overnight. But the energy crisis can get worse from here. The deeper the recession, the more likely European capitals will try to convince Ukraine to negotiate a ceasefire. However, given Ukraine’s successes in the field and Europe’s successes in diversification, it is entirely possible that Russia faces further humiliating setbacks. While this outcome may be good for liberal democracies, it is not good for global financial markets, at least not in the short run. If Russia is backed into a corner on both the military and economic fronts, then Putin’s personal security and regime security will be threatened. Russia could attempt to turn the tables or lash out even more aggressively. Already Moscow has declared a new “red line” if the US provides longer-range missiles to Ukraine. A US-Russia showdown, complete with nuclear threats, is not out of the realm of possibility. Russia could also start halting oil exports, as it has threatened to do, to inflict a major oil shock on the European economy. Investors will need to be prepared for that outcome. Bottom Line: Petro-states have geopolitical leverage as long as global commodity supplies remain tight. Investors should be prepared for the European embargo of Russian oil to provoke a Russian reaction. A larger than expected oil shock is possible given the risk of defeat that Russia faces (Chart 8). Chart 8Russian Oil Embargo Could Deliver Global Shock US-Iran Talks Falter Again This trend of petro-state geopolitical leverage was one of our three key views for 2022 and it also extends to the US-Iran nuclear negotiations, which are faltering as expected. Tit-for-tat military action between Iran and its enemies in the Persian Gulf will pick up immediately – i.e. a new source of oil disruption will emerge. If global demand is collapsing then this trend may only create additional volatility for oil markets at first, but it further constrains the supply side for the foreseeable future. It is not yet certain that the talks are dead but a deal before the US midterm looks unlikely. Biden could continue working on a deal in 2023-24. The Democratic Party is likely to lose at least the House of Representatives, leaving him unable to pass legislation and more likely to pursue foreign policy objectives. The Biden administration wants the Iran deal to tamp down inflation and avoid a third foreign policy crisis at a time when it is already juggling Russia and China. The overriding constraints in this situation are that Iran needs a nuclear weapon for regime survival, while Israel will attack Iran as a last resort before it obtains a nuclear weapon. Yes, the US is reluctant to initiate another war in the Middle East. But public war-weariness is probably overrated today (unlike in 2008 or even 2016) and the US has drawn a hard red line against nuclear weaponization. Iran will retaliate to any US-Israeli aggression ferociously. But conflict and oil disruptions will emerge even before the US or Israel decide to launch air strikes, as Iran will face sabotage and cyber-attacks and will need to deter the US and Israel by signaling that it can trigger a region-wide war. Chart 9If US-Iran Talks Fail, Iraq Will Destabilize Further Recent social unrest in Iraq, where the nationalist coalition of Muqtada al-Sadr is pushing back against Iranian influence, is only an inkling of what can occur if the US-Iran talks are truly dead, Iran pushes forward with its nuclear program, and Israel and the US begin openly entertaining military options. The potential oil disruption from Iraq presents a much larger supply constraint than the failure to remove sanctions on Iran (Chart 9). A new wave of Middle Eastern instability would push up oil prices and strengthen Russia’s hand, distracting the US and imposing further pain on Europe. It would not strengthen China’s hand, but the risk itself would reinforce China’s Eurasian strategy, as Beijing would need to prepare for oil cutoffs in the Persian Gulf. Iran’s attempts to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization should be seen in this context. Ultimately the only factor that could still possibly convince Iran not to make a dash for the bomb – the military might of the US and its allies – is the same factor that forces China and Russia to strengthen their strategic bond. The emerging Russo-Chinese behemoth, in turn, acts as a hard constraint on any substantial reengagement of the US and Chinese economies. The US cannot afford to feed another decade of Chinese economic growth and modernization if China is allied with Russia and Central Asia. Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Xi and Biden administrations will try to prevent a total collapse of US-China relations in 2023. If China is not yet ready to invade Taiwan then there is a brief space for diplomacy to try to work. But there is no room for long-lasting reengagement – because the US cannot simply cede Taiwan to China, and hence China cannot reject Russia, and Russia no longer has any options. Bottom Line: Expect further oil volatility and price shocks. Sell Middle Eastern equities. Favor North American, Latin American, and Australian energy producers. Investment Takeaways Recession Risks Rising: The inflation surprise in the US in August necessitates more aggressive Fed rate hikes in the near term, which increases the odds of rising unemployment and recession. US Policy Uncertainty Rising: A recession will greatly increase the odds of US political instability over the 2022-24 cycle and reduce the incentive for foreign powers like Iran or China to make concessions or agreements with the US. European Policy Uncertainty Rising: We already expected a European recession. Russia’s setbacks make it more likely that it will adopt more aggressive military tactics and economic warfare. Chinese Policy Uncertainty Rising: China will continue stimulating next year but its economy will suffer from energy shocks and its stimulus is less effective than in the past. It will likely increase economic and military pressure on Taiwan, while the US will increase punitive measures against China. It is not clear that it will launch a full scale invasion of Taiwan – that is not our base case – but it is possible so investors need to be prepared. Long US and Defensives: Stay long US stocks over global stocks, defensive sectors over cyclicals, and large caps over small caps. Buy safe-havens like the oversold Japanese yen. Long Arms Manufacturers: Buy defense stocks and cyber-security firms. Short China and Taiwan: Favor the USD and EUR over the CNY. Favor US semiconductor stocks over Taiwanese equities. Favor Korean over Taiwanese equities. Favor Indian tech over Chinese tech. Favor Singaporean over Hong Kong stocks. Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Tessa Wong and Simon Fraser, “Putin-Xi talks: Russian leader reveals China's 'concern' over Ukraine,” BBC, September 15, 2022, bbc.com. 2 US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “The Taiwan Policy Act of 2022,” foreign.senate.gov. 3 Greg Sargent, “Is Putin facing defeat? The ‘End of History’ author remains confident,” Washington Post, September 12, 2022, washingtonpost.com. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix
Executive Summary Assessing the future scenarios discounted in asset prices is always a challenge, but investors need a consensus baseline so they can formulate their own investment strategy decisions. The conversations we had at BCA’s annual investment conference last week reinforced our view that investors are overly pessimistic about corporate earnings prospects. Fears about runaway compensation growth are unfounded. The money markets, on the other hand, appear to be overly blasé about the fed funds rate. We think terminal rate expectations will have to be revised higher and that investors will have to wait longer for rate cuts than the OIS curve currently projects. Margins Have Peaked, But They're Still High Bottom Line: We remain more optimistic than the consensus over the immediate term and continue to recommend a risk-friendly tilt in multi-asset portfolios over the next six months. We are more cautious about the twelve-month outlook and recommend neutral positioning over that timeframe. Feature BCA held its first in-person conference in three years last week at The Plaza Hotel in New York. The agenda offered attendees a smorgasbord of thought-provoking discussions with recognized experts inside and outside of BCA. We enjoyed the programmed content as well as the impromptu interactions with speakers, attendees, our colleagues and the financial media. Again and again, our unplanned conversations homed in on questions about the expectations embedded in stock prices and bond yields. The future scenarios that securities prices are discounting cannot be directly observed and therefore can never be known definitively in real time. If investors do not continuously approximate them, however, they will be unable to evaluate the likelihood that actual outcomes will be better or worse than expected. Our view that markets and the economy can surprise on the upside has been built on the idea that expectations are overly gloomy. That is still our view on balance, as we think the S&P 500 is pricing in a worse near-term earnings outlook than is likely to occur, though we expect the Fed to surprise markets hawkishly before this rate hiking cycle ends. The combination of positive earnings surprises over the next few quarters and a negative monetary policy surprise coming sometime by the second half of next year leaves us optimistic about risk assets over the next six months but wary of them over the next twelve months and beyond. Earnings The analyst consensus currently estimates that S&P 500 earnings per share over the next four quarters will exceed the second quarter’s annualized run rate by just 0.3% and the trailing four quarters by 5.5% (Table 1). Modest as those expectations may be, we do not sense that investors are counting on them. Financial media reports and our discussions with clients and colleagues suggest that investors are braced for peak-to-trough earnings declines in the double digits, consistent with past recessions (Chart 1). Those bandying about estimates of a 10-20% decline are not necessarily calling for them to occur in the next four quarters, but we think it is clear that the forward S&P 500 whisper number is below the official I/B/E/S consensus. Table 1The Official Bar Is Low, The Whisper Bar Is Lower Chart 1Recessions Are Hard On Earnings For nominal earnings growth to miss such meager expectations while inflation is high, profit margins will have to contract sharply, but we would also expect declining revenues to play a major role, as in the 2001 and 2007-2009 recessions (Chart 2). That expectation follows from our view that nominal GDP growth is a solid proxy for S&P 500 sales growth (Chart 3), with nominal GDP explaining 41% of the variation in S&P 500 sales since 1997 (64% correlation). Nominal GDP grew at close to a 10% clip in the first half, and if inflation is around 6% in the second half, we would expect 8% growth over the next two quarters and about 6% growth in the first half of next year.1 Chart 2Sales Fall In Downturns, Too Chart 3As Goes GDP, So Go Corporate Revenues Despite the revenue buffer provided by 7% nominal GDP growth, we expect S&P 500 profit margins will extend their decline from the 2Q21 peak (Chart 4). Investors nearly unanimously expect that margins are imperiled, but we are more sanguine about the pace of the decline than the consensus and suspect the difference comes down to the pace of wage growth. Compensation is the largest expense category by a wide margin and has the capacity to move the aggregate margin needle on its own. Just as the US growth outlook may rest on consumption, compensation may be the key to margins’ future path. Chart 4A Slower-Than-Expected Decline Much has been made of the shortage of available workers and its impact on wages, which are rising at the fastest pace in decades (Chart 5). In real terms, however, wage growth has been deeply negative ever since frontline workers stopped receiving hazard pay early in the pandemic (Chart 6). Real wages should find a footing as inflation cools and may eventually break into positive territory, but rampant talk of a wage-price spiral suggests that the consensus is factoring in much more. We think the prospects of a wage-price spiral like the one in the late seventies are being dramatically overestimated. Chart 5The Nominal Gains Have Been Great ... Chart 6... But They're Way Behind Consumer Prices We will not revisit the rationale for our wage-price spiral view in detail, but it is founded on the notion that workers’ current advantage, even if it were to persist for the rest of the Biden administration’s term, will not be sufficient to offset four decades of employers’ structural gains. Labor surely has the upper hand from a cyclical perspective – demand for workers exceeds supply – but we do not think it can convert its near-term advantage into durable gains. Private sector union membership has dwindled from over 30% at its mid-sixties peak to less than 7% today, leaving workers badly outgunned when trying to assemble a sellers’ cartel to counter the formidable buyers’ cartel enabled by 40 years of lax anti-trust enforcement. Even the “most pro-labor president leading the most pro-labor administration you’ve ever seen” isn’t likely to be able to counter several decades of weakened state-level labor protections.2 History says that employers will take as hard a line with their employees as is socially acceptable and what is deemed kosher has moved so far in their favor since President Reagan crushed the air traffic controllers’ union early in his first term that the seventies template does not apply. Monetary Policy If the earnings mood is unduly glum, however, it would seem to be offset by what strikes us as unfounded expectations that the Fed will stand down from its inflation fight before too long. Perhaps BCA strategists are a bit too credulous, but we are inclined to take the Fed at its word that, as former Vice Chair Richard Clarida put it at the conference, “failure [to subdue inflation] is not an option.” While we side with the consensus in our expectation that inflation will soon recede to 4% of its own accord as COVID bottlenecks are cleared, we judge that monetary and fiscal policymakers overstimulated aggregate demand in their efforts to shelter the economy from the pandemic. As a result, we expect that the Fed will have to administer much harsher monetary medicine to achieve its inflation mandate than markets are currently discounting. We have two objections to the money market’s fed funds rate expectations as derived from the overnight index swap curve (Chart 7). We think the fed funds rate will peak well north of 4% in this hiking cycle and there is almost no chance that the Fed will cut rates at any point in 2023. While markets have gotten more realistic about the monetary policy path than they were after the FOMC’s July meeting, we think they are still clinging to a vain hope. All financial assets will have to be repriced once it is snuffed out, and that repricing represents a significant risk to our constructive six-month view if it occurs before underweight asset managers are forced back into risk assets to protect their funds’ relative performance. Chart 7Magical Thinking The wide range of views about the neutral, or equilibrium, rate that demarcates the line where the fed funds rate flips from accommodative to restrictive explains the terminal rate uncertainty. The neutral rate cannot be directly observed and everyone from investors to central bankers is left to infer its location from the variables that they can see. We think the neutral rate is north of 4%, possibly as high as 4.5-5%, especially given our view that inflation will likely linger at 4%. New York Fed president John Williams suggested in a Wall Street Journal interview two weeks ago that it may be in the mid-3s. “We need to get the interest rate, relative to where inflation is expected to be over the next year, into a positive space and probably even higher.” The article said Williams expects inflation to range between 2.5 and 3% next year, suggesting that the real funds rate is on course to turn positive this fall. Melting one-year inflation expectations as implied by TIPS break-evens suggest that it’s been rising in sizable chunks week after week since the FOMC’s July meeting (Chart 8). We would take the over on Thursday’s 1.71% close if only it were available on New York’s newly legalized online sports books but someone who does expect sub-2% inflation next year might logically conclude that the Fed will be cutting rates soon. Chart 8Garbage In, Garbage Out Investment Implications Our conversations at the conference and its margins left us essentially where we began. We think investors are underestimating the economy’s ability to grow at a rate that will support continued corporate earnings growth over the next four quarters, albeit at a decelerating rate. On the other hand, we think markets face a reckoning when they are forced to price in a longer and more extensive rate hiking campaign than they currently expect. We square the circle from an investment strategy perspective by conditioning our views on investor timeframes. Because we think the earnings whisper numbers will be meaningfully revised higher before monetary policy expectations are reset more hawkishly, we remain tactically bullish. If rate expectations were to reset sooner than we currently expect (sometime early next year), our tactical call would be at significant risk and we would likely become as cautious over the six-month timeframe as we are over the twelve-month timeframe. As it stands now, we continue to recommend overweighting equities in balanced portfolios over the next six months while pursuing neutral risk asset positioning over timeframes of twelve months or more. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Our nominal growth expectations assume the US economy maintains real growth at close to its 2% trend level, as consumption is supported by households’ considerable excess savings, but we do not repeat our case here. 2 The weather is fine, and the Saturday football unmatched, but it is flimsy labor protections that drew Boeing’s Dreamliner assembly work and a slew of foreign automakers to the Southeastern Conference’s legacy Deep South footprint and the other states competing for good factory jobs have taken notice.
Listen to a short summary of this report. Executive Summary Housing Activity Should Start To Stabilize By The End Of The Year Home prices in the US are set to decline, almost certainly in real terms and probably in nominal terms as well. Unlike in past episodes, the impact on construction from a drop in home prices should be limited, given that the US has not seen pervasive overbuilding. The drag on US consumption should also be somewhat muted. In contrast to what happened during the mid-2000s, outstanding balances on home equity lines of credit declined during the pandemic housing boom. US banks are on a strong footing today. This should limit the collateral damage from falling home prices on the financial system. Outside the US, the housing outlook is more challenging. This is especially the case in smaller developed economies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Sweden. It is also the case in China, where the property market may be on the verge of a Japanese-style multi-decade slide. Bottom Line: Softening housing markets around the world will weigh on growth. However, against the backdrop of high inflation, that may not be an unambiguously bad thing. We expect global equities to rise into year end, and then retreat in 2023. The Canary in the Coalmine On the eve of the Global Financial Crisis, Ed Leamer delivered a paper at Jackson Hole with the prescient title “Housing IS the Business Cycle.” Leamer convincingly argued that monetary policy primarily operates through the housing market, and that a decline in residential investment is by far the best warning sign of a recession. Table 1 provides supporting evidence for Leamer’s conclusion. It shows that residential investment is not a particularly important driver of GDP growth during non-recessionary quarters but is the only main expenditure component that regularly turns down in the lead-up to recessions. Table 1A Decline In Residential Investment Typically Precedes Recessions US real residential investment was essentially flat in Q1 but then contracted at an annualized pace of 16% in Q2, shaving 0.83 percentage points off Q2 GDP growth in the process. The Atlanta Fed GDPNow model forecasts that real residential investment will shrink by 22% in Q3, largely reflecting the steep drop in housing starts and home sales observed over the past few months. Chart 1Housing Activity Should Start To Stabilize By The End Of The Year The recent decline in construction activity is a worrying indicator. Nevertheless, there are several reasons to think that the downturn in housing may not herald an imminent recession. First, the lag between when housing begins to weaken and when the economy falls into recession can be quite long. For example, residential investment hit a high of 6.7% of GDP in Q4 of 2005. However, the Great Recession did not start until Q4 of 2007, when residential investment had already receded to 4.2% of GDP. The S&P 500 peaked during the same quarter. Second, recent weakness in housing activity largely reflects the lagged effects of the spike in mortgage rates earlier this year. To the extent that mortgage rates have been broadly flat since April, history suggests that housing activity should start to stabilize by the end of this year (Chart 1). Third, unlike in the mid-2000s, there is no glut of homes in the US today: Residential investment reached 4.8% of GDP last year, about where it was during the late 1990s, prior to the start of the housing bubble (Chart 2). The construction of new homes has failed to keep up with household formation for the past 15 years (Chart 3). As a result, the homeowner vacancy rate stands at 0.8%, the lowest on record (Chart 4). Chart 2Residential Investment Is Well Below Levels Seen During The Housing Bubble Chart 3Home Construction Has Fallen Short Of Household Formation For The Past 15 Years Chart 4The Homeowner Vacancy Rate Is At Record Lows While new home inventories have risen, this mainly reflects an increase in the number of homes under construction. The inventory of finished homes is still 40% below pre-pandemic levels (Chart 5). The inventory of existing homes available for sale is also quite low, which suggests that a rising supply of new homes could be depleted more quickly than in the past. Chart 5While The Number Of Homes Under Construction Increased, The Inventory Of Newly Built And Existing Homes Remains Low Why Was Housing Supply Slow to Rise? In real terms, the Case-Shiller index is now 5% above its 2006 peak (Chart 6). Why didn’t housing construction respond more strongly to rising home prices during the pandemic? Part of the answer is that the memory of the housing bust curtailed the homebuilders’ willingness to expand operations. Supply shortages also limited the ability of homebuilders to construct new homes in a timely fashion. Chart 7 shows that the producer price index for construction materials increased by nearly 50% between January 2020 and July 2022, outstripping the rise in the overall PPI index. Chart 6Real House Prices Are Above Their 2006 Peak Chart 7Producer Prices For Construction Materials Shot Up During The Pandemic Chart 8Constraints On Home Building Caused The Housing Market To Clear Mainly Through Higher Prices Rather Than Increased Construction The lack of building materials and qualified construction workers caused the supply curve for housing to become increasingly steep (or, in the parlance of economics, inelastic). To make matters worse, pandemic-related lockdowns probably caused the supply curve to shift inwards, prompting homebuilders to curb output for any given level of home prices. As Chart 8 illustrates, this meant that the increase in housing demand during the pandemic was largely absorbed through higher home prices rather than through increased output. A Bittersweet Outcome Chart 9Unlike During The Great Recession, Prices For New And Existing Homes Should Fall In Tandem This Time Around The discussion above presents a good news/bad news story about the state of the US housing market. On the one hand, with seasonally-adjusted housing starts now below where they were in January 2020, construction activity is unlikely to fall significantly from current levels. On the other hand, as the supply curve for housing shifts back out, and the demand curve shifts back in towards pre-pandemic levels, home prices are bound to weaken. We expect US home prices to decline, almost certainly in real terms and probably in nominal terms as well. Unlike during the Great Recession, when a wave of foreclosures caused the prices of existing homes to fall more than new homes, the decline in prices across both categories is likely to be similar this time around (Chart 9). The Impact of Falling Home Prices To what extent will lower home prices imperil the US economy? Beyond the adverse impact of lower prices on construction activity, falling home prices can depress aggregate demand through a negative wealth effect as well as by putting strain on the banking system. The good news is that both these channels are less operative today than they were prior to the GFC. Perhaps because home prices rose so rapidly over the past two years, homeowners did not get the chance to spend their windfall. The personal savings rate soared during the pandemic and has only recently fallen below its pre-pandemic average (Chart 10). Households are still sitting on about $2.2 trillion in excess savings, most of which is parked in highly liquid bank accounts. Outstanding balances on home equity lines of credit actually fell during the pandemic, sinking to a 21-year low of 1.3% of GDP in Q2 2022 (Chart 11). All this suggests that the coming decline in home prices will not suppress consumption as much as it did in the past. Chart 10Household Savings Surged During The Pandemic Chart 11Despite Higher Home Prices, Households Are Not Using Their Homes As ATMs The drop in home prices during the GFC generated a vicious circle where falling home prices led to more foreclosures and fire sales, leading to even lower home prices. Such a feedback loop is unlikely to emerge today. As judged by FICO scores, lenders have been quite prudent since the crisis (Chart 12). The aggregate loan-to-value ratio for US household real estate holdings stands near a low of 30%, down from 45% in the leadup to the GFC (Chart 13). Banks are also much better capitalized than they were in the past (Chart 14). Chart 12FICO Scores For Residential Mortgages Have Improved Considerably Since The Pre-GFC Housing Bubble Chart 13This Is Not 2007 Chart 14US Banks Are Better Capitalized Than Before The GFC The final thing to note is that home prices tend to fall fairly slowly. It took six years for prices to bottom following the housing bubble, and this was in the context of a severe recession. Thus, the negative wealth effect from falling home prices will probably not become pronounced until 2024 or later. A Grimmer Picture Abroad The housing outlook is more challenging in a number of economies outside of the US. While home prices have increased significantly in the US, they have risen much more in smaller developed economies such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Sweden (Chart 15). My colleague, Jonathan LaBerge, has also argued that overbuilding appears to be more of a problem outside the US (Chart 16). Chart 15Rising Rates Will Weigh On Developed Economies With Pricey Housing Markets Chart 16Canada And Several Other DM Countries Have Overbuilt Homes Since The Global Financial Crisis Chart 17Slightly More Than Half Of Canadians Opted For Variable Rate Mortgages Over The Past 12 Months The structure of some overseas mortgage markets heightens housing risks. In Canada, for example, more than half of homebuyers chose a variable-rate mortgage over the last 12 months (Chart 17). At present, about one-third of the total stock of mortgages are variable rate compared to less than 20% prior to the pandemic. Moreover, unlike in the US where 30-year mortgages are the norm, fixed-rate mortgages in Canada typically reset every five years. Thus, as the Bank of Canada hikes rates, mortgage payments will rise quite quickly. China: Following Japan’s Path? In the EM space, China stands out as having the most vulnerable housing market. The five major cities with the lowest rental yields in the world are all in China (Chart 18). Home sales, starts, and completions have all tumbled in recent months (Chart 19). The bonds of Chinese property developers are trading at highly distressed levels (Chart 20). Chart 18Chinese Real Estate Shows Vulnerabilities… Chart 19...Activity And Prices Have Been Falling... Chart 20...And the Bonds of Property Developers Are Trading At Distressed Levels In many respects, the Chinese housing market resembles the Japanese market in the early 1990s. Just as was the case in Japan 30 years ago, Chinese household growth has turned negative (Chart 21). The collapse in the birth rate since the start of the pandemic will only exacerbate this problem. The number of births is poised to fall below 10 million this year, down more than 30% from 2019 (Chart 22). Chart 21China Faces A Structural Decline In The Demand For Housing Chart 22China's Baby Bust A few years ago, when inflation was subdued and talk of secular stagnation was all the rage, a downturn in the Chinese property sector would have been a major cause for concern. Things are different today. Global inflation is running high, and to the extent that investors are worried about a recession, it is because they think central banks will need to raise rates aggressively to curb inflation. A weaker Chinese property market would help restrain commodity prices, easing inflationary pressures in the process. As long as the Chinese banking system does not implode – which is highly unlikely given that the major banks are all state-owned – global investors might actually welcome a modest decline in Chinese property investment. Investment Conclusions The downturn in the US housing market suggests that we are in the late stages of the business-cycle expansion. However, given the long lags between when housing begins to weaken and when a recession ensues, it is probable that the US will only enter a recession in 2024. To the extent the stock market typically peaks six months before the outset of a recession, equities may still have further to run, at least in the near term. As we discussed last week, we recommend a neutral allocation on global stocks over a 12-month horizon but would overweight equities over a shorter-term 6-month horizon. In relative terms, the US housing market is more resilient than most other housing markets. We initiated a trade going long Canadian government bonds relative to US bonds on June 30, when the 10-year yield in Canada was 21 basis points above the comparable US yield. Today, the yield on both bonds is almost the same. We expect Canadian bonds to continue to outperform, given the more severe constraints the Bank of Canada faces in raising rates. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Follow me on LinkedIn & Twitter Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores