Economy

Executive Summary Biden Taps China-Bashing Consensus House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan reflects one of our emerging views in 2022: the Biden administration’s willingness to take foreign policy risks ahead of the midterm elections. Biden’s foreign policy will continue to be reactive and focused on domestic politics through the midterms. Hence global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will remain elevated at least until November 8.  Biden is seeing progress on his legislative agenda. Congress is passing a bill to compete with China while the Democrats are increasingly likely to pass a second reconciliation bill, both as predicted. These developments support our view that President Biden’s approval rating will stabilize and election races will tighten, keeping domestic US policy uncertainty elevated through November. These trends pose a risk to our view that Republicans will take the Senate, but the prevailing macroeconomic and geopolitical environment is still negative for the ruling Democratic Party. We expect legislative gridlock and frozen US fiscal policy in 2023-24. Close Recommendation (Tactical) Initiation Date  Return Long Refinitiv Renewables Vs. S&P 500 Mar 30, 2022 25.4% Long Biotech Vs. Pharmaceuticals Jul 8,  2022 -3.3% Bottom Line: While US and global uncertainty remain high, we will stay long US dollar, long large caps over small caps, and long US Treasuries versus TIPS. But these are tactical trades and are watching closely to see if macroeconomic and geopolitical factors improve later this year. Feature President Biden’s average monthly job approval rating hit its lowest point, 38.5%, in July 2022. However, Biden’s anti-inflation campaign and midterm election tactics are starting to bear fruit: gasoline prices have fallen from a peak of $5 per gallon to $4.2 today, the Democratic Congress is securing some last-minute legislative wins, and women voters are mobilizing to preserve abortion access.  These developments mean that the Democratic Party’s electoral prospects will improve marginally between now and the midterm election, causing Senate and congressional races to tighten – as we have expected. US policy uncertainty will increase. Investors will see a rising risk that Democrats will keep control of the Senate – and conceivably even the House – and hence retain unified control of the executive and legislative branches. This “Blue Sweep” risk will challenge the market consensus, which overwhelmingly (and still correctly) expects congressional gridlock in 2023-24. A continued blue sweep would mean larger tax hikes and social spending, while gridlock would neutralize fiscal policy for the next two years. Investors should fade this inflationary blue sweep risk and continue to plan for disinflationary gridlock. First, our quantitative election models still predict that Democrats will lose control of both House and Senate (Appendix). Second, Biden’s midterm tactics face very significant limitations, particularly emanating from geopolitics – the snake in this report’s title. Pelosi’s Trip To Taiwan Raises Near-Term Market Risks One of Biden’s election tactics is our third key view for 2022: reactive foreign policy. Initially we viewed this reactiveness as “risk-averse” but in May we began to argue that Biden could take risky bets given his collapsing approval ratings. Either way, Biden is using foreign policy as a means of improving his party’s domestic political fortunes. In particular, he is willing to take big risks with China, Russia, Iran, and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. The template is the 1962 congressional election, when President John F. Kennedy largely defied the midterm election curse by taking a tough stance against Russia in the Cuban Missile Crisis (Chart 1). If Biden achieves a foreign policy victory, then Democrats will benefit. If he instigates a crisis, voters will rally around his administration out of patriotism. Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taipei is the prominent example of this key view. The trip required full support from the US executive branch and military and was not only the swan song of a single politician. It was one element of the Biden administration’s decision to maintain the Trump administration’s hawkish China policy. Thus while Congress passes the $52 billion Chips and Science Act to enhance US competitiveness in technology and semiconductor manufacturing, Biden is also contemplating tightening export controls on computer chip equipment that China needs to upgrade its industry.1 Biden is reacting to a bipartisan and popular consensus holding that the US needs to take concrete measures to challenge China and protect American industry (Chart 2). This is different from the old norm of rhetorical China-bashing during midterms. Chart 1Biden Provokes Foreign Rivals Chart 2Biden Taps China-Bashing Consensus Reactive US foreign policy will continue through November and possibly beyond – including but not limited to China. The US chose to sell long-range weapons to Ukraine and provide intelligence targeting Russian forces, prompting Russia to declare that the US is now “directly” involved in the Ukraine conflict. The US decision to eradicate Al Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri also reflects this foreign policy trend. Reactive foreign policy will increase the near-term risk of new negative geopolitical surprises for markets. Note that the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis analogy is inverted when it comes to the Taiwan Strait. China is willing to take much greater risks than the US in its sphere of influence. The same goes for Russia in Ukraine. If US policy backfires then it may assist the Democrats in the election – but not if Biden suffers a humiliation or if the US economy suffers as a result. Chart 3US Import Prices Will Stay High From Greater China US import prices will continue to rise from Greater China (Chart 3), undermining Biden’s anti-inflation agenda. Supply kinks in the semiconductor industry will become relevant again whenever demand rebounds  (Chart 4). Global energy prices will also remain high as a result of the EU’s oil embargo and Russia’s continued tightening of European natural gas supplies. Chart 4New Semiconductor Kinks Will Appear When Demand Recovers OPEC has decided only to increase oil production by 100,000 barrels per day, despite Biden’s visit to Saudi Arabia cap in hand. We argued that the Saudis would give a token but would largely focus on weakening global demand rather than pumping substantially more oil to help Biden and the Democrats in the election. The Saudis know that Biden is still attempting to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran that would free up Iranian exports. So the Saudis are not giving much relief, and if Biden fails on Iran, oil supply disruptions will increase. Bottom Line: Price pressures will intensify as a result of the US-China and US-Russia standoffs – and probably also the US-Iran standoff. Hawkish foreign policy is not conducive to reducing inflationary ills. Global policy uncertainty and geopolitical risk will remain high throughout the midterm election season, causing continued volatility for US equities. Abortion Boosts Democratic Election Odds Earlier this year we highlighted that the Supreme Court’s overturning of the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision would lead to a significant mobilization of women voters in favor of the Democratic Party ahead of the midterm election. The first major electoral test since the court’s ruling, a popular referendum in the state of Kansas, produced a surprising result on August 2 that confirms and strengthens this thesis. Kansas is a deeply religious and conservative state where President Trump defeated President Biden by a 15% margin in 2020. The referendum was held during the primary election season, when electoral turnout skews heavily toward conservatives and the elderly. Yet Kansans voted by an 18% margin (59% versus 41%) not to amend the constitution, i.e. not to empower the legislature to tighten regulations on abortion. Voter turnout is not yet reported but likely far higher than in recent non-presidential primary elections. Kansans voted in the direction of  nationwide opinion polling on whether abortion should be accessible in cases where the mother’s health is endangered. They did not vote in accordance with more expansive defenses of abortion, which are less popular (Chart 5). If the red state of Kansas votes this way then other states will see an even more substantial effect, at least when abortion is on the ballot. Chart 5Abortion Will Mitigate Democrats’ Losses The question is how much of this Roe v. Wade effect will carry over to the general congressional elections. The referendum focused exclusively on abortion. Voters did not vote on party lines. Voters never like it when governments try to take away rights or privileges that have previously been granted. But in November the election will center on other topics, including inflation and the economy. And midterm elections almost always penalize the incumbent party. Our quantitative election models imply that Democrats will lose 22 seats in the House and two seats in the Senate, yielding Congress to the Republicans next year (Appendix). Still, women’s turnout presents a risk to our models. Women’s support for the Democratic Party has not improved markedly since the Supreme Court ruling, as we have shown in recent reports (Chart 6). But the polling could pick up again. Women’s turnout could be a significant tailwind in a year of headwinds for the Democrats. Bottom Line: Democrats’ electoral prospects have improved, as we anticipated earlier this year (Chart 7). This trend will continue as a result of the mobilization of women. Republicans are still highly likely to take Congress but our conviction on the Senate is much lower than it is on the House. Chart 6Biden’s And Democrats’ Approval Among Women Chart 7Democrats’ Odds Will Improve On Margin Reconciliation Bill: Still 65% Chance Of Passing Ultimately Democrats’ electoral performance will depend on inflation, the economy, and cyclical dynamics. If inflation falls over the course of the next three months, then Democrats will have a much better chance of stemming midterm losses. That is why President Biden rebranded his slimmed down “Build Back Better” reconciliation bill as the “Inflation Reduction Act.” We maintain our 65% odds that the bill will pass, as we have done all year. There is still at least a 35% chance that Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona could defect from the Democrats, given that she opposed any new tax hikes and the reconciliation bill will impose a 15% minimum tax on corporations. A single absence or defection would topple the budget reconciliation process, which enables Democrats to pass the bill on a simple majority vote. We have always argued that Sinema would ultimately fall in line rather than betraying her party at the last minute before the election. This is even more likely given that moderate-in-chief, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, negotiated and now champions the bill. But some other surprise could still erase the Democrats’ single-seat majority, so we stick with 65% odds. Most notably the bill will succeed because it actually reduces the budget deficit – by an estimated $300 billion over a decade (Table 1). Deficit reduction was the original purpose of lowering the number of votes required to pass a bill under the budget reconciliation process. Now Democrats are using savings generated from new government caps on pharmaceuticals (a popular measure) to fund health and climate subsidies. Given deficit reduction, it is conceivable that a moderate Republican could even vote for the bill. Table 1Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act (Budget Reconciliation) Bottom Line: Democrats are more likely than ever to pass their fiscal 2022 reconciliation bill by the September 30 deadline. The bill will cap some drug prices and reduce the deficit marginally, so it can be packaged as an anti-inflation bill, giving Democrats a legislative win ahead of the midterm. However, its anti-inflationary impact will ultimately be negligible as $300 billion in savings hardly effects the long-term rising trajectory of US budget deficits relative to output. The bill will add to voters’ discretionary income and spur the renewable energy industry. And if it helps the Democrats retain power, then it enables further spending and tax hikes down the road, which would prove inflationary. The reconciliation bill, annual appropriations, and the China competition bill were the remaining bills that we argued would narrowly pass before the US Congress became gridlocked again. So far this view is on track.   Investment Takeaways Companies that paid a high effective corporate tax rate before President Trump’s tax cuts have benefited relative to those that paid a low effective rate. They stood to suffer most if Trump’s tax cuts were repealed. But Democrats were forced to discard their attempt to raise the overall corporate tax rate last year. Instead the minimum corporate rate will rise to 15%, hitting those that paid the lowest effective rate, such as Big Tech companies, relative to high-tax rate sectors such as energy (Chart 8, top panel). Tactically energy may still underperform tech but cyclically energy could outperform and the reconciliation bill would feed into that trend. Similarly, companies that faced high foreign tax risk, because they made good income abroad but paid low foreign tax rates, stand to suffer most from the imposition of a minimum corporate tax rate (Chart 8, bottom panel). Again, Big Tech stands to suffer, although it has already priced a lot of bad news and may not perform poorly in the near term. Chart 8Market Responds To Minimum Corporate Tax Chart 9Market Responds To New Climate Subsidies Renewable energy stocks have rallied sharply on the news of the Democrats’ reconciliation bill getting back on track (Chart 9). We are booking a 25.4% gain on this tactical trade and will move to the sidelines for now, although renewable energy remains a secular investment theme. Health stocks, particularly pharmaceuticals, have taken a hit from the new legislation as we expected. However, biotech has not outperformed pharmaceuticals as we expected, so we will close this tactical trade for a loss of 3.3%. The reconciliation bill will cap drug prices for only the most popular generic drugs and does not pose as much of a threat to biotech companies (Chart 10). Biotech should perform well tactically as long bond yields decline – they are also historically undervalued, as noted by Dhaval Joshi of our Counterpoint strategy service. So we will stick to long Biotech versus the broad market. US semiconductors remain in a long bull market and will be in heavy demand once global and US economic activity stabilize. They are also likely to outperform competitors in Greater China that face a high and persistent geopolitical risk premium (Chart 11).  Chart 10Market Responds To Drug Price Caps Chart 11Market Responds To China Competition Bill Tactically we prefer bonds to stocks, US equities to global equities, defensive sectors to cyclicals, large caps to small caps, and growth stocks to value stocks (Chart 12). The US is entering a technical recession, Europe is entering recession, China’s economy is weak, and geopolitical tensions are at extreme highs over Ukraine, Taiwan, and Iran. The US is facing an increasingly uncertain midterm election. These trends prevent us from adding risk in our portfolio in the short term. However, much bad news is priced and we are on the lookout for positive economic surprises and successful diplomatic initiatives to change the investment outlook for 2023. If the US and China recommit to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, if Russia moves toward ceasefire talks in Ukraine, if the US and Iran rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal, then we will take a much more optimistic attitude. Some political and geopolitical risks could begin to recede in the fourth quarter – although that remains to be seen. And even then, geopolitical risk is rising on a secular basis. Chart 12Tactically Recession And Geopolitics Will Weigh On Risk Assets Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com       Footnotes 1     Alexandra Alper and Karen Freifeld, “U.S. considers crackdown on memory chip makers in China,” Reuters, August 1, 2022, reuters.com.   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3US Political Capital Index Chart A1Presidential Election Model Chart A2Senate Election Model  Table A4House Election Model Table A5APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A5BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A5CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets

Special Report

Executive Summary Non-Commodity Enterprises: No Profit Expansion For 12 Years The past decade has seen a deterioration in the financial performance metrics of industrial Chinese companies. Declining efficiency of investments, rising labor compensation and slowing productivity growth will constitute formidable headwinds to the long-term profitability of China’s industrial sector. Potential deleveraging by local governments, companies and households will cap revenue growth for enterprises and, hence, weigh on their profitability. High commodity prices in the past 18 months have improved profitability and financial metrics for commodity producers. These strengths will reverse as commodity prices sink in the coming months. Corporate earnings are set to disappoint in 2H. Bottom Line: We maintain a neutral stance on Chinese onshore stocks and an underweight stance on investable stocks in a global equity portfolio. In absolute terms, risks to Chinese shares prices are to the downside. ​​​​Among Chinese industrial companies, underweight commodity producers and overweight food & beverage, autos and utilities.   The data for this report for industrial enterprises, which are sourced from China’s National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), encompass state-owned and holding enterprises (SOEs) and other forms of ownership, including private ones. It covers both listed and non-listed companies. The sectors included are construction materials, steel, non-ferrous metals, energy, coal, machinery, auto, tech hardware, food & beverage and utilities. An analysis based on this dataset shows that China’s corporate profitability and efficiency ratios have experienced a prolonged structural downturn since the early 2010s (Chart 1 and 2). Chart 1Chinese Industrial Companies: Structural Deterioration in Productivity... Chart 2… And Operational Efficiency Chart 3Cyclical Improvements Within Structural Downtrend In the past 10 years, these measures improved only modestly during recovery periods and stumbled during downturns (Chart 3). The structural deterioration in corporate profitability from 2011 onward has followed structural improvements from the late 1990s to 2010. Beyond cyclical upswings, China's corporate profitability will likely continue to face structural headwinds. Declining efficiency of investments, rising labor compensation and slowing productivity growth will constitute formidable headwinds to the long run profitability of China’s industrial sector. Furthermore, potential deleveraging by local governments, companies and households will curtail revenue growth for enterprises and, hence, weigh on profitability. Investigating The Financial Performance Of Industrial Enterprises Our analysis of corporates’ financial ratios shows the following: Corporate leverage: The total liabilities (debt)-to-sales ratio rose sharply from 2011 until 2021. However, the leverage ratio has declined in the past 18 months. A close examination suggests that the descent in the debt-to-sales ratio has been due to surging revenues of resource producing companies propelled by rising commodity prices. Chart 4 illustrates that the debt-to-sales ratio has dropped substantially for commodity producers, but much less so for other industrial companies. In the case of non-commodity industrial enterprises, the leverage ratio has not declined much because nominal sales have been lackluster. As resource prices continue to drop, revenues of commodity companies will be devastated, and their debt-to-sales ratios will spike. The thesis that corporate leverage has not yet dropped in China is corroborated by data on all companies. The country’s corporate leverage remains the highest worldwide (Chart 5). Chart 4The Decline In Debt-To-Sales Ratio For Commodity Producers Was Largely Due to Surging Commodity Prices Chart 5China's Corporate Leverage Remains The Highest In the World Chart 6Corporates' Debt servicing Ability Has Been propelled by falling interest rates Debt servicing: Even though debt levels of industrial companies remain elevated, their interest coverage ratios – operating profits-to-interest expense – have improved since late 2020. For all industries, interest expenses have dropped substantially because of falling interest rates (Chart 6). On the margin, this has also helped industrials’ profit margins.   Efficiency: Asset turnover (sales/assets), inventory turnover (sales/inventory) and receivables turnover (sales/receivables), have all have sunk in the past 10 years, as shown in Chart 2. Lower turnover indicates falling efficiency. Coal, steel and non-ferrous metals have been the only sectors experiencing an improvement in inventory turnover due to China’s capacity reduction campaign. Meanwhile, there has been no improvement in inventory turnover for non-commodity enterprises.   Profit margins: Net profit margins for industrial corporates have recently risen slightly. However, the entire improvement in industrial profit margins is attributable to commodity producers. With the exception of commodity producing sectors, there has not been any upturn in operating profit margins and/or net profit margins (Chart 7). Rising corporate income taxes from 2011 to 2020 were one of the reasons worsening profitability (Chart 8). Chart 7Improvement In Industrial Profit Margins Is Attributable To Commodity Producers Chart 8Rising Corporate Income Taxes Have Contributed The Divergency Between GPM And Net Profit Margin Profitability: The return on assets (RoA) and the return on equity (RoE) for industrial corporates have dwindled during the past decade (Chart 1 above). The spike in commodity prices in the past two years has helped profitability of commodity producers, but this is about to reverse. A DuPont analysis1 illustrates that the downturn in corporate profitability was driven by poor operating efficiency and a lack of improvement in net profit margins. Chart 9 shows that the profitability of non-commodity producers has worsened dramatically during the past 10 years. After more than a decade-long structural downturn, the RoA and RoE for commodity producers have recently strengthened along with asset turnovers and net profit margins (Chart 10). However, the commodity bonanza is over for now and profitability measures of resource companies are set to worsen significantly.2 Chart 9A DuPont Analysis: Non-Commodity Enterprises Chart 10A DuPont Analysis: Commodity Enterprises Bottom Line: The past decade has seen a deterioration in the financial performance metrics of industrial companies. The profitability of corporates has undergone a structural decline along with a prolonged slump in operating efficiency.  High commodity prices in the past 18 months have ameliorated profitability and efficiency parameters for commodity producers. Nevertheless, these improvements will vanish as commodity prices fall materially in the coming months. Structural Headwinds To Corporate Profitability The following factors will weigh on China’s corporate profitability in the long term: 1. Demographics and rising labor costs: A shrinking workforce since mid-2010s has led to higher wages that have weighed on the corporate sector’s profitability (Chart 11). This dynamic is also confirmed by rising labor compensation as a share of non-financial corporates’ value added, as illustrated in Chart 12. Chart 11China: Shrinking Labor Force Chart 12Labor Compensation As A Share Of Corporate Revenues In China, blue-collar labor shortages and upward pressures on wages will likely intensify in the coming decade. A rapid decline in the population’s natural growth rate with the third lowest fertility rate in the world (below Japan) foreshadows a decline in China’s working age population which started in 2015.  2. Common prosperity policies: The share of labor compensation in GDP has risen since 2011 at the expense of the share of corporate profits (Chart 13). China’s common prosperity policies will only reinforce this trend. These policies will encourage enterprises to assume more social duties, distributing a larger share of profits to society at the expense of shareholders. Chart 13Labor's Share Will Continue Rising In China's National Income Chart 14Output Per Unit Of Capex Is Falling 3. Declining efficiency of investments: A deteriorating output-to-capital ratio  indicates capital misallocation or falling efficiency (Chart 14). When a nation attempts to invest substantially for a long time, capital will likely be misallocated and the return on new investment will be low. This will drag down the overall return on capital. Falling efficiency ultimately entails lower productivity. 4. Slowing productivity growth: China’s productivity growth has downshifted, and total factor productivity growth slipped again recently. Notably, total factor productivity – a measure of productivity calculated by dividing economy-wide total production by the weighted average of inputs – has contributed less and less to China’s real GDP growth in the past decade. It is unrealistic to expect that China will reverse the downward trend in productivity growth in the next few years. 5. Deleveraging by companies and households: China’s corporate sector continues to face deleveraging pressures. Although some industrial enterprises underwent deleveraging in recent years, the country’s overall corporate debt is still very elevated. Remarkably, Chinese corporate debt as a share of nominal GDP is the highest in the world, as shown in Chart 5. China’s households are reducing debt. Depressed household income growth and deflating home prices have curbed borrowing. Deleveraging by households heralds weaker consumption, which is negative for corporates revenues. Bottom Line: Rising labor compensation and declining efficiency of investments constitute formidable headwinds to the profitability of China’s industrial sector. Moreover, the secular outlook of corporates’ profitability is also vulnerable to lower productivity growth and weaker top-line growth due deleveraging among companies and households. The Cyclical Outlook In our report two weeks ago, we discussed how China’s business cycle recovery in the second half of this year will be more U rather than V shaped. Both sluggish domestic demand and contracting external demand for Chinese exports will curb the rebound of the industrial sector in 2H. Industrial earnings are set to disappoint.  Chart 15Non-Commodity Enterprises: No Profit Expansion For 12 Years Manufacturing producers have not been able to fully pass on higher input prices to consumers given weak demand. This weakness together with elevated commodity prices has led to a substantial profit divergence between upstream and mid- and downstream industries since late 2020 (Chart 15).  However, upstream commodity producers face the headwind of commodity price deflation. At the margin, weakening resource prices will benefit mid- and downstream industries that use commodities. However, their revenue growth will remain fragile due to subdued domestic and external demand and a lack of pricing power. The tight correlation between industrial profits and raw material prices reinforces the importance of commodity prices as a driver of China’s industrial profit cycles Therefore, if commodity prices drop meaningfully in the second half of this year, then overall industrial profits in China will suffer markedly. Chart 16The share of loss-making industrial enterprise ventures has Rocketed Furthermore, overcapacity and operational inefficiencies persist despite supply-side reforms and a capacity reduction campaign implemented by China’s authorities. Chart 16 demonstrates that the share of loss-making industrial enterprise ventures has soared to 24%, implying capital misallocation.  With a further rising share of enterprises making losses as commodity prices plunge, the ability of companies to service debt will deteriorate and hence banks will experience climbing non-performing loans. Bottom Line: China’s recovery in the second half of this year will be more U than V shaped. Corporate earnings are set to disappoint in 2H. Investment Strategy The gloomy outlook for corporate profitability does not bode well for the performance of Chinese stocks. Chinese A-shares are struggling to bottom on the back of shaky economic fundamentals, while investable stocks are cheap for a reason. We maintain a neutral stance on Chinese onshore stocks and an underweight stance on investable stocks in a global equity portfolio. Lower profitability and return on equity have ramifications for the valuations of China’s industrial companies. Remarkably, China’s industrial profits have been flat in the past 12 years (Chart 15 above). That is a reason why many Chinese stocks have been de-rated. Among A-share industrial companies, sectors with higher profitability are coal, non-ferrous metals, auto, construction materials and food & beverage. However, coal, non-ferrous metals and construction materials are pro-cyclical sectors, and their profit growth is positively correlated with economic growth, which is facing downward pressure at least through the end of this year. In addition, resources and commodity plays are vulnerable in the next 6 to 12 months. We recommend to underweight these sectors.  Within the Chinese equity universe, we recommend overweighting autos, food & beverage, and utilities sectors. Food & beverage and utilities are interest rate-sensitive sectors, which will continue to benefit from lower onshore bond yields. In addition, utilities sector’s profit margin and earnings will improve as coal prices decline. The auto sector will gain an advantage from China’s stimulus for auto purchases, especially for new energy vehicles.   Qingyun Xu, CFA Associate Editor qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 The DuPont analysis breaks down return on equity in three distinct elements: net profit margin, operational efficiency, and leverage. This analysis enables to identify how various drivers impact return on equity. 2Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Global Copper Market: No Bottom Yet," dated July 27, 2022, and Emerging Markets Strategy Report "A Cocktail Of Falling Oil Prices And Surging US Wages," dated July 21, 2022, available at bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations

Executive Summary Government bond yields worldwide are falling due to fears of a global recession that will lead to monetary easing in 2023. This pricing is too optimistic with inflation likely to remain well above central bank targets next year. Even though US real GDP contracted modestly in the first half of 2022, the broader flow of US economic data is more consistent with an economy that is slowing substantially but not yet in recession. The Fed welcomes sharply slower growth to deal with high inflation, but will not unwind the 2022 rate hikes as quickly as markets expect given sticky core/wage inflation. The Fed rate cuts now discounted for 2023 will likely not be delivered. No Major Recessionary Signal From Global Yield Curves … Yet Bottom Line: Falling global bond yields have helped stabilize risk assets – a path that will eventually lead to a rebound in yields if easier financial conditions help avoid a deep recession. Stay neutral overall duration exposure in global bond portfolios. The Great Recession Debate Begins Global bond yields have seen substantial declines over the past few weeks, as the market narrative has quickly changed from surging inflation and rate hikes to imminent recession and eventual rate cuts (Chart 1). The truth is somewhere in the middle, with global inflation in the process of peaking and global growth slowing rapidly but not yet in full-blown recession. Related Report  Global Fixed Income StrategyMixed Messages & Range-Bound Bond Yields Bond markets are expecting central banks, most importantly the Fed, to quickly abandon the fight against high inflation for a new battle to tackle decelerating economic growth. The problem for investors is that weaker growth is needed – and, indeed, welcomed by policymakers - to create economic slack to help bring down elevated inflation. There is little evidence of such a disinflationary slack being created, with unemployment rates still near cyclical lows in the US, Europe and most of the developed world. The link between longer-term bond yields and shorter-term interest rate expectations remains strong in an environment of very flat government yield curves. For example, in the US, the 10-year Treasury yield has fallen from a peak of 3.47% in mid-June to 2.67% at the end of July. Over the same period, the 1-month interest rate, two-years ahead priced into the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve fell from a peak of 3.1% to 2.1% (Chart 2). Chart 1A Downward Adjustment Of Interest Rate Expectations​​​​​​ Chart 2A Lower Trajectory For Rates Priced In As Growth Slows​​​​​​ An even more dramatic decline in yields has been seen in Europe. The 10-year German Bund yield has fallen from a mid-June peak of 1.75% to 0.83% at the end of July, while the 1-month/2-year forward European OIS rate fell from 2.5% to 1.1%. The 2-year German yield, most sensitive to ECB rate hike expectations, also fell dramatically from 1.15% to 0.24%. There have also been substantial declines in bond yields and rate expectations in the UK, Canada and Australia over the past six weeks. As central banks continue to raise policy rates towards levels perceived to be at least neutral, if not mildly restrictive, there should a stronger correlation between future rate hike expectations and longer-term bond yields. Put another way, yield curves tend to flatten and eventually invert as policymakers move rates to levels that should slow growth and, eventually, reduce inflation. Currently, the “global” 2-year/10-year government bond yield curve, using Bloomberg Global Treasury index data, is slightly inverted at -13bps (Chart 3). More deeper curve inversions typically precede major contractions in global growth and equity prices. Chart 3No Major Recessionary Signal From Global Yield Curves . . . Yet At the moment, global equities have performed in line with deeper curve inversions and contracting growth, with the MSCI World equity index down -7% on a year-over-year basis (bottom panel). Yet actual global growth is not yet in contraction. Global industrial production, while slowing, is still growing at a +3% year-over-year rate. The global manufacturing PMI remains above 50, indicative of a still-expanding manufacturing sector. Euro area, which is widely believed to already be in recession, saw real GDP growth (non-annualized) of +0.5% and +0.7%, respectively, in Q1 and Q2 of this year. Meanwhile, US real GDP shrank modestly over the first half of 2022, down only -0.6% (non-annualized) over Q1 and Q2, but with no corroborating evidence of recession from the labor market with the headline unemployment rate falling from 4.0% to 3.6% over that same period. Further adding to the confusing mix of signals between yield curves and growth is that the curve inversion at the global level is not yet evident across all countries. For example, the 2-year/10-year curve is inverted in the US and Canada, countries where central banks have been more aggressive on hiking rates in 2022 (Chart 4A) Yet in both countries, there have only been moderate declines in leading economic indicators and composite PMIs (combining manufacturing and services). In contrast, the 2-year/10-year curve in Germany and the UK – where the ECB and Bank of England have delivered fewer rates than the Fed and Bank of Canada – remains positively sloped but with similar moderate declines in leading economic indicators and composite PMIs to those seen in the US and Canada (Chart 4B). Chart 4AA Policy-Driven Slowdown In North America​​​​​​ Chart 4BAn Energy-Driven Slowdown In Europe​​​​​​ Chart 5Central Banks Cannot Pivot Dovishly Against This Backdrop The deceleration of growth seen so far in this countries is nowhere near enough for central banks to begin contemplating a pivot away from hawkish rate hikes in 2022 to dovish rate cuts in 2023/24, as markets are now discounting. Inflation rates remain far too elevated, and labor markets remain far too tight, for policymakers to switch from the brake pedal to the gas pedal (Chart 5). This exposes global bond yields to a rebound from recent lows as central banks disappoint the market’s growing belief that policymakers’ focus will turn to growth from inflation. The language from recent central bank policy decisions, from the ECB’s 50bp hike on July 21 to the Fed’s 75bp hike last week to yesterday’s 50bp hike by the Reserve Bank of Australia, has been consistent, calling for a continued need to tighten policy. All three central banks essentially abandoned forward guidance, but described future rate moves as being “data dependent”, particularly inflation data. There is likely to be some relief from elevated inflation rates over the next few months. There have already been substantial declines in the growth of commodity prices, with the CRB Raw Industrials index now contracting in year-over-year terms (Chart 6). Global shipping costs and supplier delivery times have also declined, as evidence of some easing of supply chain disruptions that is helping bring down goods inflation. Yet given the starting point of such high headline inflation rates – at or above 9% in the US, UK and euro area – it is unlikely that there will be enough disinflation from the commodity/goods space to quickly bring inflation down by enough for central banks to breathe easier. This is especially true given that stickier domestically generated inflation stemming from wages and services will remain well above central bank targets over at least the next year, or at least until there is a substantial increase in slack-producing unemployment (i.e. a recession). What does all this mean for our view on the direction of global bond yields? We still see the current environment as more consistent with broad trading ranges for yields, rather than the start of a new major downtrend or uptrend. Europe was the one exception to this view, given how markets were pricing in a rise in ECB policy rates that was too aggressive, but even that has now corrected after the dramatic collapse in core European yields from the mid-June peak. Our Global Duration Indicator has been calling for a loss of cyclical upward momentum of bond yields in the latter half of 2022, which is now starting to play out (Chart 7). That indicator is focused on growth indicators like our global leading economic indicator and the ZEW expectations index for the US and Europe, all of which have been declining for the past several months. Chart 6Global Inflation Is Peaking​​​​​ Chart 7Stay Neutral On Global Duration Exposure​​​​​​ However, there is a potential note of economic optimism from another key component of the Global Duration Indicator - the diffusion index of our global leading economic indicator, which measures the number of countries with rising leading indicators versus those with falling ones. That diffusion index has hooked up as the leading economic indicators of some important countries that are typically leveraged to global growth – China, Japan, Brazil, Korea and Malaysia – have started to move higher. If this trend continues in the months ahead, our Duration Indicator may signal a reacceleration of global bond yield momentum in the first half of 2023 as the global growth outlook improves. Bottom Line: Bond markets are overreacting to slowing global growth momentum by pricing in a quick reversal of 2022 rate hikes in 2023 across the developed world. Do not chase bond yields lower. The Fed Will Respond To Inflation Before Recession The Q2/2022 US GDP report showed an annualized decline of -0.9%, following on the annualized -1.6% fall in Q1 real GDP (Chart 8). This fulfills the so-called “technical definition” of a recession widely cited by the financial media. However, the official arbiters of recession dating – the National Bureau of Economic Research, or NBER – use a broader list of data to identify recessions that focus on income growth, employment and industrial production. None of those indicators contracted in the first half of the year, when the GDP-defined recession allegedly took place. We are sympathetic to the view that the US has not yet entered recession. However, recession odds are increasing, with many reliable cyclical data series slowing to a pace that has preceded past recessions. In Chart 9, we show a “cycle-on-cycle” comparison of the latest readings on some highly cyclical US economic data with readings from past recessions dating back to the late 1970s. In the chart, the data series are lined up such that the vertical line represents the NBER-designated start date of each recession, starting with the 1979/80 recession up to the 2008 recession. We show both the average path for each series across all of those recessions (the dotted line) and the range of outcomes from each recession (the shaded zone). Given the unique nature of the 2020 COVID recession, which was limited to just one quarter of collapsing activity due to pandemic lockdowns rather than typical business cycle forces, we did not include that episode in this chart. Chart 8No US Growth In H1/2022 The selected variables in this cycle-on-cycle analysis are: The year-over-year growth of the Conference Board leading economic indicator The ISM manufacturing index The University Of Michigan consumer expectations index The year-over-year growth of housing starts The year-over-year growth rate of non-financial (top-down) corporate profits. Chart 9The US Is Definitely Flirting With Recession​​​​​ All five series selected have slowed over past several months, consistent with the run-up to previous recessions. However, in terms of timing, not all of the indicators shown are at levels that would be consistent with the US already being in a recession, as the real GDP contractions in Q1 and Q2 would suggest. Typically, the ISM index falls below 50 at the start of the recession, while the growth in the leading indicator turns negative about six months before the start of the recession. The current readings on both are still modestly above levels seen at the start of those past recessions. Corporate profit growth typically contracts for a full year ahead of recessions, and the latest complete reading available from Q1 was still showing positive, albeit slowing, growth. Chart 10The Fed Is OK With This Outcome, Given High Inflation Some of the indicators shown are looking recessionary. The current contraction in the growth of housing starts is in line with the timing from the average of past recessions. The same can be said for falling consumer expectations, although the latest decline is particularly severe compared to past recessions. From the point of view of investors, the semantics over the “official” declaration of a recession are irrelevant. There has already been a major pullback in US equity markets and widening of US corporate credit spreads as investors have priced in substantially slower growth – and the Fed tightening that is helping engineer that economic outcome. The pullback in risk assets has tightened US financial conditions, exacerbating the hit to business and consumer confidence from high inflation and declining real incomes (Chart 10). Equity and credit markets did stage healthy recoveries in the month of June as markets began to price out Fed rate hikes in response to the US potentially entering recession. However, Fed rate hikes have already flattened the US Treasury curve, which has raised the odds of a US recession NEXT year. According to the New York Fed’s recession probability model, the current spread between the 10-year US Treasury yield and the 3-month US Treasury bill rate of 23bps translates to a 26% probability of a US recession occurring one year from now (Chart 11). That model uses data going back to the 1960s, which includes the Volcker-era Fed tightenings in the 1970s that resulted in dramatic increases in real US interest rates and steep inversions of the US Treasury curve. Using the post-1980 range of recession probabilities, ranging from 0-50%, the latest 26% probability is more like a 50/50 bet on a 2023 US recession. Chart 11A US Recession Is More Likely In 2023, Says The UST Curve The Fed will need to continue delivering rate hikes until there is evidence that core inflation has peaked and will begin the path of falling back to the Fed’s 2% target. That is certainly not a story for 2022, or even for 2023, given the rapid acceleration of US wage growth (Chart 12). If the Fed were to begin pivoting away from rate hikes now, with the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker and the Employment Cost Index accelerating at a 5-7% pace, the result would be an unwanted increase in inflation expectations. Chart 12The Fed Must Stay Hawkish With Labor Costs Still Accelerating The Fed is fighting hard to regain the inflation-fighting credibility lost in 2022 when “Team Transitory” ruled the FOMC and policy did not respond to rapidly rising inflation. The Fed’s aggressive rate hikes in 2022 have helped restore some of that credibility with bond markets, judging by the pullback in longer-term CPI-based TIPS breakevens seen in recent months, which are now back in line with the 2.3-2.5% range we have deemed consistent with the Fed’s 2% PCE inflation target (Chart 13). The evidence from survey-based measures of inflation expectations is a bit mixed, but still consistent with improved Fed credibility. The New York Fed’s Consumer Survey shows 1-year-ahead inflation expectations still elevated at 6.8%, but the 3-year-ahead expectation has drifted back below 4% (bottom panel). The University of Michigan 5-10 year consumer inflation expectation is even lower, falling to 2.8% in July from 3.1% in June. The Fed will not risk those hard-earned declines in longer-term inflation expectations by turning dovish too quickly – especially as it is not year clear if the US is even in a recession. Investors betting on a dovish pivot by the Fed before year end, leading to substantial rate cuts in 2023, are likely to be disappointed. In our view, this is setting up a potential opportunity to reduce US duration exposure to position for a rebound in Treasury yields. However, a meaningful increase in yields will be difficult to achieve, as yields are still adjusting to downside data surprises and duration positioning among investors is still below benchmark, according to the JPMorgan client duration survey (Chart 14). We suggest staying neutral on US duration exposure, for now, until the technical backdrop becomes more conducive to higher yields. Chart 13Mixed Messages On US Inflation Expectations​​​​​ Chart 14Stay Neutral On US Duration - For Now​​​​​ Bottom Line: US recession odds have increased, but the economy is not yet in recession. The Fed welcomes sharply slower growth to deal with high inflation, but will not unwind the 2022 rate hikes as quickly as markets expect given sticky core/wage inflation. The Fed rate cuts now discounted for 2023 will likely not be delivered. Treasury yields are more likely to stay rangebound over the next 3-6 months than move lower.   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*