Economy

Special Report

Highlights China’s primary vulnerabilities over the past decade have been, and remain, credit/money excesses and a misallocation of capital. China’s advantage has not been its banking system or monetary policy’s "magic touch," but its ability to continuously raise productivity at a solid rate. Inflation has remained subdued due to robust productivity gains. Without the latter, policymakers would have little room to navigate and secure economic and financial stability. As long as solid productivity gains persist, the economy will absorb excesses over time and remain structurally sound. Feature China’s credit and fiscal stimulus has peaked and will roll over significantly in 2021. Hence, the question now is: what will be the extent of the economic slowdown? The magnitude of the growth slowdown depends not only on the pace and extent of credit and fiscal tightening but also on the structural health of the economy. In a structurally sound economy, the end of a credit and fiscal stimulus does not produce a sharp and extended slowdown. Conversely, in an economy saddled with structural malaises, modest policy tightening could produce a dramatic or prolonged business cycle downtrend. Two examples from China’s not-so-distant past are the credit tightening in 2004 and policy tightening in 2013-14. After the acute credit tightening in 2004 and the ensuing loan slowdown, China’s growth moderated briefly but remained robust and, in fact, reaccelerated in 2005 (Chart 1, top panel). However, following the 2013-14 policy tightening episode, China’s industrial sector experienced an extended downtrend (Chart 2, top panel). Chart 1China In Mid-2000s: Market Performance Amid Credit Tightening Chart 2China In Mid-2010s: Market Performance Amid Policy Tightening   Consistently, China-related plays in financial markets experienced only a brief and short-lived shakeout in 2004 and resumed their bull market within a short time span (Chart 1, bottom panel). But in 2013-15, China-plays experienced a deep and extended bear market (Chart 2, bottom panel). In this report, we assess the structural health of the mainland economy. “Soft-Budget” Constraints And Capital Misallocation China’s primary vulnerabilities over the past decade have been, and remain, credit excesses and a misallocation of capital. Loose credit and fiscal policies – “soft-budget” constraints – starting in 2009 fueled money creation on a grand scale, causing corporate and household debt to mushroom. This has massively inflated property prices and led to capital misallocation. Many of these excesses have by and large lingered. In particular: Broad money supply in China has surged 4.7-fold since January 2009 (Chart 3, top panel). This is significantly above the 2.3-fold increase in the US, and the 1.6-fold rise in the euro area and in Japan. Chart 3Broad Money Excesses: China Has Been An Outlier Not only has broad money supply skyrocketed in China by much more than in other economies, but it has also risen by much more relative to its own nominal GDP (Chart 3, middle panel). Since January 2009, as unorthodox monetary policies gained traction around the world, the broad money-to-GDP ratio has risen by 80 percentage points in China, 35-percentage points in the US, 25-percentage points in the euro area and 70-percentage points in Japan.     Chart 4China: No Deleveraging So Far Notably, China’s broad money-to-GDP ratio is the highest in the world, as illustrated in the middle panel of Chart 3. Finally, the absolute amount of broad money – all types of local currency deposits and cash in circulation converted into dollars to make numbers comparable – now stands at $40 trillion in China, $18 trillion in the US and the euro area each and $11 trillion in Japan (Chart 3, bottom panel). In brief, China’s money (RMB) supply is greater than the sum of money supply in the US and euro area. China’s domestic credit growth has been outpacing nominal GDP growth since 2008 (Chart 4, top panel). Consequently, its domestic credit-to-GDP ratio is making new highs (Chart 4, bottom panel). A continuously rising domestic debt-to-GDP ratio indicates that the nation has not really deleveraged in the past ten years. Concerning debt structure, local and central government debt stands at 61% of GDP, enterprise (including SOE) debt represents 162% of GDP and household debt is 61% of GDP. Notably, enterprise debt is the highest in the world, as illustrated in Chart 5.  This chart shows a decline in China’s corporate credit-to-GDP ratio from 2016 to 2018. The drop, however, is due to the Local Government Financing Vehicles (LGFV) debt swap. Authorities simply moved debt from LGFV balance sheets to local governments, which represents an accounting reshuffle and not genuine deleveraging. Meanwhile, households in China are as leveraged as those in the US (Chart 6) when debt-to-disposable income ratios are compared. The latter is how consumer debt is measured in all countries around the world. Chart 5Chinas Corporate Debt Is The Highest In the World Chart 6Chinese Households Are As Leveraged As US Ones Chart 7Debt Servicing Costs In China Are High Finally, the true indicator of debt stress is the debt-service ratio. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) estimates that the debt-service ratio for Chinese enterprises and households is above 20% of income. The same ratio for the US rolled over at 18% in 2007 during the credit crisis (Chart 7). There are several symptoms consistent with pervasive capital misallocation. First, return on assets (RoA) for non-financial onshore listed companies has dropped to an 20-year low (Chart 8, top panel). Companies have raised substantial capital to invest but the return on investment has been disappointing, resulting in a falling RoA. Second, a falling output-to-capital ratio – an inverse analog of a rising incremental capital-to-output ratio (ICOR) – also indicates capital misallocation and falling efficiency (Chart 9). Chart 8Falling Return On Assets And Slowing Productivity Growth Chart 9Output Per Unit Of Capex Is Falling   Falling return on capital is the natural outcome of too much investment. It is simply impossible to invest more than 40% of GDP every year over a 20-year period without capital misallocation. It has become difficult to find profitable projects, especially as China’s economy is no longer as underinvested as it was 20 years ago. Falling efficiency ultimately entails lower productivity and, eventually, declining potential real GDP growth. Has China Deleveraged? Following such an epic credit boom, one would typically expect creditors in general and banks in particular to undertake profound cleansing of their balance sheets, and for the amounts involved to be colossal. However, Chinese banks have not yet done this on a meaningful scale. We estimate that banks have disposed – written-off and sold - RMB 9.4 trillion in loans since 2012, which is equivalent to 6.6% of all loans originated since January 2009 (when the credit boom commenced). In addition, banks’ NPL provisions remain very low at 3.4% of their loan book. In a nutshell, banks have not yet sufficiently cleansed their balance sheets. Not surprisingly, their share prices have been among the worst performers in the Chinese equity universe and in the EM space more generally. Overall, the Chinese economy was very healthy and was on an extremely solid foundation until the credit boom (“soft-budget” constraints) began in 2009. Since then, the economic model has bred inefficiencies which could weigh on growth going forward. One widely circulated counterargument against the thesis of excessive credit/money growth in China has been that Chinese households save a lot. As the argument goes, this is what has prompted banks to lend out those deposits. This analysis is incorrect, and we have written extensively about this topic in a series of reports that are available upon request. The interaction between money creation, credit and savings is outside the scope of this report. We therefore limit the discussion to the key inferences from the series of reports we published: National savings, including household savings, do not create money supply or deposits. Also, banks do not lend out deposits. Money/deposits are created by commercial banks when they make loans to, or buy assets from, non-banks. This is true for any economy in the world. Chart 10Gradual Deleveraging But No Crisis In Japan In 1990s We agree that Chinese households do have a high savings rate. However, their savings do not impact whether banks originate loans and create deposits, i.e., expand money supply. To expand their balance sheets, banks require liquidity/excess reserves, not deposits. In short, the enormous money supply in China has been an outcome of reckless behavior on the part of banks and borrowers rather than originating out of household or national savings. As such, at the current levels, Chinese money and credit represent major excesses and, thereby, pose risks to financial stability and long-term development. A pertinent question is as follows: Is there an economy that did not experience a credit crisis following a credit bubble? Japan is one example. Yet, Japan suffered from deleveraging. The top panel of Chart 10 demonstrates that bank loan growth peaked at 12% in 1990 and gradually slowed thereafter, ultimately contracting. The bottom panel of Chart 10 shows that Japan’s companies and households underwent gradual deleveraging beginning in the mid-1990s. Such a long lasting but gradual adjustment contrasts with the acute and sharp crisis that occurred in the US in 2007-08. To sum up, credit excesses do not need to culminate in a credit crisis; Japan being the primary example. However, it is unusual for the non-public debt-to-GDP ratio to continuously rise from already elevated levels. In brief, China has seen its money and credit excesses rise continually and the problem has yet to be addressed. Other Structural Headwinds Chart 11China Is Much More Industrialized Than Commonly Believed The Chinese economy is facing other structural headwinds: First, the oft-quoted 60% urbanization rate understates the extent of China’s industrialization. China is much more industrialized than generally perceived: the country’s industrialization rate is currently 85% – i.e., 85% of jobs in China are already in non-agricultural sectors (Chart 11). This entails a slower rate of industrialization and urbanization going forward. Second, the labor force is shrinking. This is a major drag on the nation’s potential real GDP growth rate – which is equal to the sum of productivity growth and labor force growth. In turn, productivity growth is estimated to have slowed down to about 6% with total factor productivity growth slipping to 2% (Chart 8, bottom panel, above). Chart 12Re-Balancing Is About Slowing Capex Not Accelerating Consumer Spending As we discussed in our recent Special Report A Primer On Productivity, productivity is the most important variable for any country’s long-term development and 6% is still a very high number. The challenge for China in the coming years is to prevent its productivity growth rate from dropping below 4.5-5%. Third, there is a misconception about what rebalancing really means for this economy. Consumer spending in China has in fact been booming over the past 20 years – it has been growing at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.3% in real terms from 1998 until 2020 (pandemic) (Chart 12, top panel). Hence, the imbalance in China has not been sluggish consumer spending, which has actually been booming for the past 20 years. Rather, capital expenditure has been too strong for too long (Chart 12, bottom panel). Healthy rebalancing entails a slowdown in investment spending – not an acceleration in household demand. Hence, the market relevant question is: can the growth rate of household expenditure accelerate above 10% CAGR in real terms as capital spending decelerates? Our hunch is that this is unlikely. The basis is that investment outlays account for more than 40% of GDP and create many jobs and income, which in turn feeds into consumer spending. A meaningful downshift in capital expenditures will produce lower household income growth, resulting in a moderation in consumer spending growth. Bottom Line: Maturing industrialization, a shrinking labor force and an imperative to slow capital spending all constitute formidable headwinds to China’s secular growth outlook. China’s Advantage: What Makes It Distinct  Chart 13China Does Not Have An Inflation Problem Although all of the above structural drawbacks have persisted for the past ten years, the Chinese economy (1) has not experienced a credit crisis; and (2) has not seen an inflation outbreak despite burgeoning money supply. The question is: why? Concerning the credit excesses and the property bubble, China has avoided a credit crisis because its banking system has shown extreme forbearance towards debtors, i.e., banks have not forced corporate restructuring when companies were unable to service their debt. Besides, authorities – being fully aware of the risk of financial instability – have been lenient towards banks and debtors, tolerating continued credit overflow and rising credit excesses. The domestic credit growth rate has never dropped below nominal GDP growth (Chart 4 above). Rather, it has remained above 10% – despite several episodes of policy tightening and deleveraging campaigns. Authorities in any country with effective control over banks could do this. However, many economies with such a rampant money/credit boom would exhibit very high inflation. Yet, inflation in China has been absent (Chart 13). Critically, China’s advantage over other nations has not been its banking system or its monetary policy’s "magic touch" but its ability to continuously grow productivity at a solid rate. Inflation has remained subdued due to robust productivity gains. Without the latter, policymakers would have little room to navigate and secure economic and financial stability. The lack of inflation in China amid the credit and money boom is critical to understanding the unique structure and character of its economy. We have the following considerations: First, rampant money growth is typically associated with higher inflation because of the presumption that new money creation stimulates the demand for, but not the supply of goods and services. This is presently the case in the US where monetarization of public debt and fiscal transfers to households are boosting demand but not the potential productive capacity. However, in China’s case, credit flow to enterprises has always dwarfed credit to consumers. This means that the lion’s share of credit origination/money creation has been going directly into capital spending. Investment expenditures have led to rapid expansion of production capacity in the majority of industries. As a result, output has exceeded demand, resulting in an oversupply of goods and services and ultimately, in falling prices. Chart 14A and 14B illustrate that production capacity in many sectors in China has exploded over the past 20 years. In many industries, production capacity and output have expanded more than 10-fold since 2000. The outcome has been chronic deflation in many goods (Chart 15). Chart 14AProduction Capacity Has Been Surging In Many Industries Chart 14BProduction Capacity Has Been Surging In Many Industries   In short, too much credit/money channeled into expanding production capacity could lead to deflation. Second, when banks make new loans/create new money, inflation occurs in goods/commodities that money is used to purchase. Those goods/commodities experienced periods of high price inflation during money/credit growth acceleration. For example, China’s credit/money growth impulse explains swings in commodities prices (Chart 16). Hence, the link between credit/money and certain goods/commodities prices has held up. Chart 15Goods Deflation Is Pervasive In China Chart 16Money Impulse Is Sending A Warning For Industrial Metals   Finally, the application of digital technologies in service sectors has kept a lid on service price inflation. Hence, China has benefited from productivity-enabled disinflation despite the ongoing money/credit boom. That said, there are also areas where there has been rampant inflation. These include land, housing and high-end services. On the whole, deflation in goods prices due to oversupply has overwhelmed the pockets of high inflation in services. Crucially, unit labor costs in both the industrial economy (secondary industry) and service sectors have been contained as strong wage growth has been offset by robust productivity gains (Chart 17). The following factors have enabled high productivity growth in China: Chinese people are genuinely entrepreneurial, hardworking and disciplined. Educational attainment has been rising and innovation has proliferated. China has closed the gap in all patents with the US (Chart 18, top panel). It has actually surpassed the US in the number of semiconductor patents (Chart 18, bottom panel). Chart 17Rising Wages But Stable Unit Labor Costs Chart 18China Has Become A Global Innovation Hub Chart 19China Is Pursuing Automation On A Large Scale Our report from June 24, 2020 has elucidated the nation’s innovation drive. Rising spending on research and development will ensure China’s continued ascent as a major global innovation hub. Consistent with rising productivity, China’s share in global trade continues to rise. China is aggressively implementing automation in many of its industries, replacing labor with robotics. Specifically, the number employees in the industrial sector has been falling while production of industrial robots - and presumably, demand for them - has surged (Chart 19). The outcome will be continued rapid productivity gains which will allow companies to keep a lid on costs and secure reasonable profit margins without resorting to price hikes. What could cause productivity growth to slow? The main risk is complacency associated with easy credit and recurring fiscal stimulus, i.e., “soft-budget constraints”. If zombie companies continue to enjoy easy access to financing and are not forced to restructure and become more efficient, the pace of productivity gains will decelerate with negative consequences for potential GDP growth and inflation. In such a case, the credit system’s forbearance towards enterprises that misallocate capital will continue channeling money to projects with low efficiency. The latter will increase the supply of goods and services that are not demanded. This will produce pockets of short-term deflation but will lay the foundation for higher inflation down the road.1  Bottom Line: China’s unique advantage has been its ability to avoid inflation despite the money/credit boom. Using a large share of credit to expand production capacity – rather than consumption – has been the key to maintaining low inflation. The latter has allowed policymakers to avoid material tightening policy and has kept the currency competitive.  In brief, the nation has been able to maintain reasonably high productivity gains, albeit slower relative to pre-2010. As long as productivity grows at a solid rate, the economy will over time absorb excesses with moderate pain/setbacks and will do well structurally. Investment Considerations Appreciating the long-term negative ramifications of “soft-budget” constraints, Chinese policymakers have embarked on another tightening campaign since last summer. This policy stance will continue, and the economy is now facing triple tightening: Monetary and fiscal tightening: The total social financing and our broad money (M3) impulses have already rolled over (Chart 16 above). Fiscal policy will also tighten relative to the unprecedented stimulus of last year. Regulatory tightening on banks and non-bank financial institutions: Authorities are planning to reinforce asset management regulation by the end of this year. This will limit how much these financial institutions can expand their balance sheets reinforcing a credit slowdown. Property market tightening: Restrictions on both property purchases and property developers’ leverage will lead to a notable slump in real estate construction. Chart 20Overweight A Shares Versus Chinese Investable Stocks As China’s credit-sensitive sectors – construction and infrastructure spending – slow down this year, the risk-reward for industrial commodities and other China-plays worldwide is poor. Regarding Chinese stocks, Chinese A-shares will begin outperforming Chinese Investable stocks (Chart 20). We recommend the following strategy: long A shares / short China investable stocks. The primary reason is that the A-share index is heavy in value stocks while the MSCI China investable index has a large weight in expensive new economy stocks. The global investment backdrop has shifted in favor of global value versus global growth stocks due to strong US growth and rising US bond yields. Also, there has been more rampant speculation in global stocks that affect Chinese investable stocks more than onshore equities. Notably, the Composite A-share large and A-share small cap indexes have not performed well since July while investable stocks had been surging until recently. As to the exchange rate, the RMB is overbought and will likely experience a setback as the US dollar rebounds. However, the yuan’s long-term outlook versus the US dollar depends on the relative productivity growth. As long as the productivity growth differential between China and the US does not narrow, the RMB will appreciate versus the dollar on a structural basis. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Deflation can turn into inflation when the economy produces goods/services that are not demanded (type A goods) and not producing the ones that are in demand (type B goods). As a result, prices of type A goods will deflate often overwhelming inflation type B goods keeping overall inflation very low. Consequently, production of type-A goods will halt because plunging prices will discourage output. As a result, deflation will abate in the economy. If the economy still cannot produce type-B goods – the ones in demand, inflation will become prevalent.

Dear Client From March 18 I will be writing under a new product title, the BCA Research Counterpoint. The aim of the Counterpoint is to generate a high volume of investment opportunities that are unconnected to the business cycle and run counter to the conventional wisdom. For those of you that have followed the European Investment Strategy through the past ten years, Counterpoint will seamlessly continue the same intellectual framework of investment ‘mega-themes’, fundamental analysis, fractal analysis, and sector primacy. The difference is that the investment opportunities will encompass all geographies. To whet your appetite, early Counterpoint reports will introduce new investment mega-themes including: the compelling structural case for cryptocurrencies; why shocks such as the pandemic are inherently predictable; and the structural transformation coming to the global labour market. There will also be an upgrade of the proprietary Fractal Trading System to generate more ideas per week and to boost the win ratio towards 70 percent. As for the European Investment Strategy, it will continue in the very capable hands of my colleague and friend, Mathieu Savary. Mathieu has previously written the Foreign Exchange Service, the flagship Bank Credit Analyst, and most recently the Daily Insights. Moreover, Mathieu is French. So if anyone knows how Europe works (and doesn’t work), it is Mathieu! I do hope you read both products. Best regards Dhaval Highlights If bond yields continue their march higher, the most dangerous earthquake will happen in the global real estate market. If higher bond yields caused even a 10 percent decline in the $300 trillion global real estate market it would unleash a deflationary impulse equal to one third of world GDP This would make any preceding inflationary impulse feel like a waltz in the park. For long-term investors who can ride out near term pain, there are three important conclusions: The ultimate low in bond yields is still ahead of us. The structural bull market in stocks will continue until bond yields reach their ultimate low. Equity investors should structurally tilt towards ‘growth’ sectors that will benefit from the ultimate low in bond yields. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Real Estate Market Dwarfs The Stock Market And The Global Economy In the last couple of weeks, higher bond yields have caused tremors in the stock market. But if bond yields continue their march higher and stay there, the most dangerous earthquake will not happen in the stock market, it will happen in the real estate market. The $90 trillion worth of the global stock market is large, but it is chicken feed compared with the $300 trillion worth of global real estate (Chart of the Week). The big worry is that the valuation of global real estate is critically dependent on bond yields staying low. If higher bond yields caused even a 10 percent decline in global real estate values, it would amount to a $30 trillion plunge in global wealth. Such a deflationary impulse, equal to one third of world GDP, would make any preceding inflationary impulse feel like a waltz in the park. Hence, to anybody worried that we are on the road to inflation, we pose a simple question. How would the world economy cope with the massive deflationary impact on $300 trillion of global real estate?1   The Real Risk Is Real Estate Over the past decade, global real estate rents have broadly tracked nominal GDP, as they should. But real estate prices have massively outperformed rents (Chart I-2). The reason is that the valuation paid for those rents has surged by 35 percent. This ‘multiple expansion’ of real estate which has added $80 trillion to global wealth – broadly equivalent to global GDP – is entirely due to lower bond yields. Chart I-2Real Estate Prices Have Massively Outperformed Rents And GDP Within the global real estate market, the residential segment constitutes 80 percent by value. Commercial real estate accounts for a little over 10 percent, and agricultural and forestry real estate makes up the remainder. It follows that the most important component of the real estate boom has been a housing boom. Given that most homes are owner-occupied, the boom in house prices has boosted the wealth of the ordinary global citizen by much more than the boom in stock prices. Moreover, the 2010s housing boom was unprecedented in its penetration and regional breadth, simultaneously encompassing cities, suburbs, and rural areas across North America, Europe, Asia and Australasia. Even Germany and Japan joined in, making it the most widely participated-in housing boom in economic history. What was behind this synchronised and broad-based housing boom? The answer is the universal decline in bond yields. As the global real estate firm Savills puts it: “Real estate has increased significantly in value, spurred on by the intervention of central banks and their suppression of bond yields” In fact, as the US and China now dominate the global real estate market, the downtrend in the global rental yield has closely tracked the downtrend in the US and China long bond yields. The big danger would be if this downtrend turned into an uptrend, undermining the valuation of $300 trillion of global real estate. To repeat, even a 10 percent synchronised decline in global real estate prices would wipe out $30 trillion of global wealth equal to one third of annual GDP, and it would impact almost everybody. The ‘multiple expansion’ of real estate has added $80 trillion to global wealth, broadly equivalent to global GDP. But where is the pain point? Our answer is that if inflation fears lifted the average US and China 30-year bond yield to 3.75 percent (from 3 percent now), it would constitute the change in trend that would unleash a massive countervailing deflationary impulse from falling house prices (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Higher Bond Yields Would Unleash A Massive Deflationary Impulse From Falling House Prices Waiting For Rationality To Return To Stocks In the stock market, the August to mid-February period was a brief aberration in which stocks rallied in tandem with rising bond yields. But looking at the bigger picture, the bull market in stocks, just as for real estate, is due to lower bond yields (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The August To Mid-February Rally In Stocks Was An Aberration Since 2008, global stock market profits have gone nowhere. Therefore, the only reason that the stock market surged is that the valuation paid for those unchanged profits surged. Just as for real estate, the stock market’s valuation surged because bond yields collapsed (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Bull Market In Stocks Is Entirely Due To Higher Valuations Taking account of this downtrend in bond yields, the post-2008 boom in valuations is rational. However, as we warned two weeks ago, the continued expansion of valuations while bond yields are backing up means that The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational. The point of vulnerability is in high-flying tech stocks. Since 2009, the technology sector earnings yield has always maintained a minimum 2.5 percent premium over the 10-year T-bond yield, defining the envelope of the rational bubble. But in recent weeks, this envelope has been breached, indicating that valuation is entering a new and irrational phase (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational For long-term investors the pressing questions are: how much higher can bond yields go, and for how long? Our answers are, much less than 1 percent, and not for long – because the deflationary impact on $300 trillion of real estate would eventually force bond yields into a very sharp reversal. The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation Many people believe that ‘real’ assets such as real estate and stocks perform well in an inflationary scare. But this is a misunderstanding. Granted, the income generated by real assets should keep pace with nominal GDP. But the valuation paid for that income collapses, taking the price of the asset down with it. From the state of price stability, in which most developed economies now find themselves, the creation of inflation is a non-linear phenomenon. Non-linear means that policymakers’ efforts result in either nothing (witness Japan or Switzerland), or in uncontrolled inflation (witness the US in the late 1960s). In fact, can you name any economy that has shifted from price stability to a controlled inflation? If you can, please tell me in an email! When an economy phase shifts from price stability to price instability, the valuations of real assets collapse. This is because the starting valuation needed to generate a given real return during uncontrolled inflation is much lower than during price stability. When an economy phase shifts from price stability to price instability, the valuations of real assets collapse. Chart I-7 should make this crystal clear. During the low-inflation 1990s and 2000s, a starting price to earnings multiple of 15 consistently generated a prospective 10-year real return of 10 percent. But during the uncontrolled inflation of the 1970s, the same starting multiple of 15 generated a real return of zero. To generate a real return of 10 percent, the starting multiple had to sink to 7. This explains why the prices of stocks and real estate collapsed in the 1970s and why they would collapse again in a new inflationary scare. Chart I-7In An Inflation Scare, Valuations Have To Collapse To Generate An Adequate Real Return As an aside, this also explains why so-called ‘financial repression’ – whereby the central bank holds down bond yields while the government generates inflation – will not work. While it is conceivable that a government could corner its government bond market and thereby repress it, it would be near-impossible to repress the much larger asset-classes of stocks and real estate. Once these large and privately priced markets sniffed out the government’s nefarious plan, the valuation of such assets would collapse to generate the previously required real return – the result being an almighty crash in stock and real estate prices. Given that the combined value of such markets dwarfs the $90 trillion global economy, the road to inflation would end at deflation. For long-term investors who can ride out near term pain, all of this leads to three important conclusions: The ultimate low in bond yields is still ahead of us. The structural bull market in stocks will continue until bond yields reach their ultimate low. Equity investors should structurally tilt towards ‘growth’ sectors that will benefit from the ultimate low in bond yields. Fractal Trading System* In a very successful week, short MSCI Korea versus MSCI AC World achieved its 10.6 percent profit target and short tin versus lead quickly achieved its 13 percent profit target. This takes the rolling 12-month win ratio to 60 percent. Given the transition to the new product title, there are no new trades this week. We look forward to introducing the upgraded Fractal Trading System and some new trades in the BCA Counterpoint on March 18. Chart I-8MSCI Korea Vs. MSCI All-Country World* For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Source: Savills Prime Index: World Cities, August 2020; and Savills: 8 things to know about global real estate value, July 2018. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights The Senate will pass the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan largely as it stands. Markets will now turn to Biden’s second major reconciliation bill for FY2022 – the one with tax hikes. Democrats will go forward with tax hikes on corporations and the wealthy. But they will spend more than they tax for fear of squandering their term in power. Tax hikes threaten sectors like tech that already face headwinds from rising bond yields. The health sector is also at risk. Stick with cyclicals and value plays.  Feature Markets have seesawed as volatility spikes in the face of rapidly rising bond yields. Value stocks such as financials stand to benefit relative to growth stocks as the market comes to grips with the first hint of normal inflation expectations since 2019 (Chart 1). Underlying the trend is a sea change in US fiscal policy. Chart 1Value Stocks To Reignite On Rising Bond Yields The House of Representatives passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan so it will now go to the Senate for revision, back to the House for approval, and then to President Biden’s desk by around March 14. Investors will now turn to Biden’s second major legislative act prior to the 2022 midterm election cycle: the fiscal year 2022 budget reconciliation process. Before we outline the time frame and tax hikes that that process will entail, we should take a moment to review the current bill. Senate Will Pass American Rescue Plan Largely As Is The House version of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan contains $1,400 household rebates, direct checks via the Internal Revenue Service, for people who make less than $75,000 per year (double those numbers for married couples). Unemployment benefits are supposed to rise from $300 to $400 per week for 73 weeks instead of 50 weeks, with an expiration on August 29 instead of March 14. Those with children or other dependents will receive additional payments. The bill also includes $75 billion for fighting COVID-19, $350 billion for state and local governments, $170 billion for schools and universities, $225 billion for small business, $38 billion for the airline industry and various other tax benefits for families and workers.1 Those who have been let go from their jobs can more easily retain their previous health insurance. Chart 2 provides a visual comparison of the American Rescue Plan with the $900 billion in fiscal relief passed at the end of 2020 prior to House passage and Senate revision. Already the Senate version excludes a hike to the minimum wage, from $7.25 to $15 per hour, as the Senate parliamentarian ruled that does not qualify under the “Byrd rule” because it does not directly impact spending or taxation.2 Vice President Kamala Harris, who is also president of the Senate, could reverse this decision but otherwise the minimum wage will have to be considered in a separate bill later. Chart 2American Rescue Plan The Senate could pare back other aspects of the bill – such as state and local aid, given that local government revenues are in much better shape than expected. Chart 2 highlights that the state and local aid component is much larger this time around. Still, the purpose of Senate negotiations is to secure the votes of moderate Democrats, as winning over 10 Republicans is no longer feasible, and moderate senators are not going to sink the first legislative proposal of a president of their own party. The Senate is virtually guaranteed to pass the bill, likely by March 14 when current unemployment benefits expire. The bill’s economic impact will be to speed the vaccination process and provide another infusion of cash into households and various public institutions. Families are just starting to receive the last round of benefits passed in December and they had not exhausted the 14% year-on-year increase in real income that they saw as a result of last year’s CARES Act when the Coronavirus Response and Relief Act sent incomes soaring yet again (Chart 3). Economic growth will be supercharged as economic activity normalizes, consumer confidence recovers, and the service sector revives. Chart 3Washington Lavishes Households With Dole Biden’s Second Bill Will Pass This Fall The second budget reconciliation procedure, for fiscal year 2022, will begin in mid-April. The formal deadline to adopt a budget resolution is April 15 but the average delay would put the resolution in June.3 The maximum delay would see the resolution passed in October but that is unlikely in today’s context (Diagram 1). After the resolution passes, the House and Senate must reconcile their budgets, pass the same bill, and send it to the president for his signature.  Diagram 1Timeline Of Biden Administration’s Second Budget Reconciliation, FY2022 The average time between Congress adopting a budget resolution and the president signing a reconciliation bill into law is 150 days, putting completion on September 15, 2021. This period could easily extend to November. In the worst-case, judging by history, Democrats could fail to conclude the process until October 2022 – but that is highly unlikely. A delay till December of this year would be a fumble, but a more realistic fumble, say if moderate Democrats must be won over due to controversial provisions. The second reconciliation bill is supposed to consist of investments over a ten-year period rather than emergency relief for the lingering pandemic and economic recovery. Biden’s proposed $2-$3 trillion green infrastructure program is the highlight but we also expect Democrats to prioritize their health care plan, which is estimated to cost $1.7-$1.9 trillion. Hence $4 trillion is a reasonable expectation for new spending but in this case the headline spending figure will be at least partially defrayed by tax hikes, unlike the first reconciliation bill (Charts 4A & 4B). If Biden raises taxes by half as much as he intends, the full price tag would be $2 trillion. Chart 4ABiden Will Spend, Then Tax Chart 4BBiden Will Spend, Then Tax The precise contours of this bill will remain unknown until Biden presents an outline in April and the House of Representatives drafts a resolution. We test six different scenarios involving different assumptions about Biden’s tax-and-spend proposals, highlighted in Table 1. Generally, we assume that Democrats will much more readily compromise tax hikes rather than spending, given that they want to err on the side of firing up the economic recovery. They are just as capable as Republicans were in 2017 of manipulating the numbers when it comes to the reconciliation requirement that the budget deficit not increase beyond a ten-year time period. Table 1Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill The results are broken down in terms of revenue, expenditure, and net interest costs in Chart 5. The baseline is Biden’s campaign proposal. Scenario 1 assumes that Biden gets all of the spending he wants but is forced to compromise on tax hikes. Scenario 2 is more realistic as it assumes that Biden gets half of what he wants on both spending and taxes. Scenarios 3-6 examine what would happen if Biden were forced to strike out either his green infrastructure plan or his health and social security plan, depending on different revenue assumptions. In Scenarios 5 and 6 we grant Biden only half of his proposed taxes on corporations and wealthy folks, leaving other tax proposals to the side – otherwise the result would be a net tightening of fiscal conditions, which is neither intended nor politically possible. Chart 5Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill The impact on the budget deficit in each scenario is shown in Chart 6. The greatest economic stimulus would occur under Scenario 1, which would soon become a problem for investors as it would hasten inflation and rising interest rates. Chart 6Deficit Scenarios For Biden’s Second Reconciliation Bill Scenario 2 is the most realistic policy scenario while being the least inflationary. By contrast, Scenario 4 is realistic but hardly less inflationary than the baseline case. In each of these scenarios it is important to bear in mind that the new government programs would be administered over a ten-year period and therefore the increase to the budget deficit would be more gradual than is the case of the American Rescue Plan, which clearly aims to be disbursed in the first few years. In the case of the Obama administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009) the peak in spending occurred in 2013, four years after the bill was passed (analogous to 2025 today) (Chart 7). Infrastructure and green energy projects are also expected to increase productivity and hence potential growth. Chart 7Infrastructure Spending Could Peak Four Years After Bill’s Passage, As In 2009-13 The Byrd rule will become even more important with Biden’s second reconciliation bill because the bill will contain a mishmash of Biden’s campaign proposals. Democrats will try to pass as much of their agenda via fast track as possible so as to meet promises ahead of the 2022 midterm election. An advantage of health care spending is that it is unlikely to be struck down by the Senate parliamentarian given that the Obama administration relied on reconciliation to pass a critical second installment to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Biden’s health care plan is more popular than climate change policy, with both the general public and moderate Democrats, and it is guaranteed to pass reconciliation. Infrastructure spending faces greater challenges under reconciliation but they are not insurmountable. Infrastructure is normally handled via the traditional budget process or the Highway Trust Fund and some measures are likely to run afoul of the Byrd rule. Still, workarounds can be found.4  Hence the infrastructure plan is likely to be compromised but not prohibited due to technicalities. Even if infrastructure fails to make it into reconciliation, Biden can use the deadline to top up the exhausted Highway Trust Fund or to reauthorize the Surface Transportation Act as alternative pathways. It is not impossible to get Republican cooperation on infrastructure though the green agenda will meet resistance. The reconciliation process is nominally forbidden from increasing the budget deficit beyond ten years. Short-term spending is exempt, as is the case with the American Rescue Plan and its crisis-response measures, but the purpose of the second reconciliation bill is to invest in long-term, productivity-enhancing programs. A new government health insurance option and/or a green infrastructure buildout will take many years to implement and could increase deficits beyond the ten-year window. But Democrats, like Republicans, will be able to use accounting chicanery and gimmicks to make the budget outlook serve their purposes in passing the legislation. As long as they keep moderate members of the party on their side.   Yes, Taxes Will Go Up … But That May Not Be All Bad For Markets Why should Democrats raise taxes at all? Why not focus on stimulus without taking on the political risk of higher taxes? After all, Republicans passed tax cuts via reconciliation without offsetting them by spending cuts. Was it not the higher taxes in Obamacare that greatly fueled resistance from Republicans and their victory in the House of Representatives in 2010? First, on the level of intentions, the Democrats clearly seek to increase taxes on corporations, high-income earners, and capital gains: Both Biden and Harris said they would raise taxes on the campaign trail and in the presidential debates despite the risk to their election prospects. Biden committed only to prevent tax hikes on those making less than $400,000 per year. Harris’s weakest moment in her debate with Mike Pence was her insistence that she would raise taxes but she stuck to her guns. Both factions of the Democratic Party want to raise taxes. Traditional Democrats view tax hikes as a way of paying for a larger government role in addressing social and economic imbalances. Populists view tax hikes as a way of redistributing from the ultra-rich. While budget deficits are not a general concern, combating inequality is a theme shared across the party. Second, on the level of capability, Democrats can get at least some of the tax increases that they want: The US is not overtaxed on the whole. True, Biden’s full tax agenda would push the US back up to the top of the OECD countries in terms of the corporate tax if an “integrated” view of both firm-level taxes and taxes on dividends and capital gains (Chart 8). But this point suggests that Biden will moderate his tax plan rather than abandon it altogether. Popular opinion did not favor Trump for cutting corporate taxes. Chart 8Biden’s Corporate Tax Proposal Would Make US An Outlier Again The macroeconomic impact of raising taxes is manageable in the context of the extraordinary fiscal stimulus that the US is passing. There is no clear relationship between tax rates and economic growth but it is natural for the Democrats to fear that they could squander their term in power by excessive fiscal tightening. Yet the negative economic impact of raising the corporate rate is only 0.8% of GDP over the long run, and half of that if the corporate rate is raised only halfway to what Biden intends (25% instead of 28%) (Table 2), according to the conservative-leaning Tax Policy Foundation. Table 2Economic Impact Of Corporate Tax Not Dramatic President Biden has the political capital early in his term to revise the Trump tax cuts according to Democratic prerogatives. His popularity will not hold up for long (Chart 9). And he only just has enough legislative power. While household sentiment is weak and economic conditions are moderate, both are set to improve as the pandemic fades and fiscal stimulus takes effect (Table 3). While tax hikes will embolden Republican opposition and the Democrats will have lost their chance to affect the tax code if Republicans win in 2022. At the moment, Republicans are divided and unpopular, so Democrats have a window of opportunity (Chart 10). Chart 9Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis? Chart 10Independents Up, Republicans Down Table 3Political Capital Index While Democrats could chuck all the Senate rules out the window in order to pass their spending plans without any offsets, this would anger moderates who tend to uphold Senate rules and norms. The party cannot afford to lose a single vote from their caucus in the Senate. Yet moderate Democrats are not against tax increases in principle. What they would oppose is either excessive tax hikes or a fiscal spending bonanza without any revenue offsets at all.5  It is entirely feasible to back-load tax increases so that they take effect in the latter half of the ten-year budget window, especially after the 2024 election. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is advising precisely this course of action and has herself argued that corporate tax hikes will go through.6 There may be some risk that Democrats go full left-wing populist and abandon any semblance of fiscal responsibility so as to supercharge the economy. So far they have agreed to maintain the Senate filibuster and scrap the minimum wage hike but this acceptance of Senate norms may not last as pressure builds. The second reconciliation bill is the last chance to fast-track major initiatives before the midterm. Vice President Harris could overrule the Senate parliamentarian across the board. This scenario is unlikely. The White House and Congress will find a balance that raises some revenue but errs on the fiscally accommodative side, as our scenarios above highlight. Investment Takeaways The market’s concern is that the Democrats will “overdo” the fiscal response and we fully share this concern. The American Rescue Plan alone will plug the output gap by almost three times more than the amount required. The coming tax hikes will not offset the wave of new spending that is coming down the pike. Democrats will partially reverse Trump’s tax cuts in the context of additional pump-priming that constitutes a net increase to the budget deficit. The net effect is inflationary.   If Congress were to pass another $2 trillion bill without any substantial revenue offsets then the market would face an even bigger inflationary jolt and an even earlier return to rate hikes by the Fed. But this scenario is unlikely. So the inflationary risk is clear but investors need not panic in the short run.  Our infrastructure trade is back on track as the reflation trade rumbles onward (Chart 11). The Democrats will get at least one more major bill passed and it will likely include at least half of Biden’s agenda, including around $2 trillion on green infrastructure. We will discuss the renewable energy portion at length in a forthcoming report. The health care sector faces headwinds from both Biden’s health policies and corporate tax hikes. The sectors that stand to benefit the most from a higher corporate tax rate are those that benefited least from Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act – namely energy, industrials, materials, and financials, in that order (Chart 12A). These are also the cyclical plays that we favor in today’s accommodative policy environment. Chart 11Infrastructure Trade Back On Track   Chart 12ACyclicals Outperforming Health Care Chart 12BCyclicals To Outperform Tech? The same cyclical sectors are also trying to make headway against the tech sector, which stands to suffer from higher interest rates as well as higher taxes, including a minimum tax on book earnings, if that part of Biden’s agenda makes it through the negotiations this fall (Chart 12B).   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Appendix Table A1APolitical Capital: White House And Congress Table A1BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment Table A1CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets Table A2Political Risk Matrix Table A3Biden’s Cabinet Position Appointments Footnotes 1     See Jeff Drew, “House passes $1.9 trillion stimulus bill with a variety of small business relief,” and Alistair M. Nevius, “Tax provisions in the American Rescue Plan Act,” February 27, 2021, Journal of Accountancy, journalofaccountancy.com.     2     See “The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s ‘Byrd Rule,’” Congressional Research Service, December 1, 2020, fas.org.            3    The current delay centers on whether the Senate will confirm Biden’s appointee for director of the Office of Management and Budget, Neera Tanden, who lost support from key moderate Democrat Joe Manchin. If she does not receive a compensatory Republican vote then Biden will have to appoint someone else and the Senate will have to confirm. Thus the budget resolution could easily be delayed into May or June.       4    For the difficulties, see Peter Cohn, “Democrats plan a spending blowout, but hurdles remain,” Roll Call, January 11, 2021, rollcall.com. For workarounds, see Zach Moller and Gabe Horwitz, “Reconciliation: How It Works and How to Use It to Help American Workers Recover,” Third Way, February 1, 2021, thirdway.org. 5    See Alexander Bolton, “Democrats hesitant to raise taxes amid pandemic,” The Hill, February 25, 2021, thehill.com. 6    See Saleha Mohsin and Christopher Condon, “Yellen Favors Higher Company Tax, Signals Capital Gains Worth a Look”, Bloomberg, February 22, 2021, Bloomberg.com