Economy

Highlights Lower-income Chinese households are overly indebted, while higher-income groups hold too much cash.  Apart from real estate and cash, ordinary Chinese people have few choices in allocating their assets. Household consumption has not been stimulated to the same degree as during previous cycles. The recently announced “dual circulation” strategy may not be an imminent solution to China’s chronic high debt, high savings issue. However, an acceleration in policy actions of late may be steps in the right direction in encouraging Chinese households to spend more domestically and to invest in domestic companies. Feature The post-COVID 19 recovery in China’s household consumption has lagged behind other economic segments, such as production and exports. Notably, the pace of consumer spending growth started decelerating almost two years before the pandemic struck the country (Chart 1). Chart 1Chinese Consumers Scaled Back Spending Before COVID-19 Chart 2Chinese Households Save Cash, Lots Of It Furthermore, Chinese households have added a total of 8.3 trillion yuan to their bank deposits so far this year, or about 8% of China’s 2019 national output (Chart 2). Outsized cash savings helped to cushion consumers from the pandemic’s economic impact and will support a consumption rebound as China’s economic and service sector activities continue to normalize. However, an acceleration in cash savings and decline in households' propensity to spend would not bode well for a structurally balanced economic growth model. Chinese policymakers recently announced a new “dual circulation” strategy, and fast-tracked several policy actions to facilitate easier access for households to consume luxury goods and participate in the domestic capital markets. The policies will likely have a small, near-term economic impact. But in the long run they can set up a trend which will benefit domestic consumption growth and better utilize the substantial cash holdings among Chinese domiciles. Too Much Saving Or Too Much Debt? While Chinese households have excessive cash savings, they also carry too much debt. Families hold a total of 55 trillion yuan of debt, or 94% of their aggregate disposable income. The debt-to-income ratio is fast approaching that in the US (Chart 3). At the same time, their debt-to-cash ratio, on an aggregate basis, is extremely low relative to other countries (Chart 4). Chart 3Chinese Households Are Almost As Leveraged As The US Ones Chart 4But They Also Hold Way More Cash Than The US Ones Chinese people are net savers, and only about 30% of Chinese families are in debt, which is less than half of the number in the US (Chart 5 and Table 1). This means approximately two-thirds of households have a positive net worth. On the other hand, Chinese consumers who borrow are deeply indebted. China’s median debt-to-income ratio is around 180%, according to recent surveys, with the lowest income group carrying debt loads that are a whopping 12 times their income (Table 2). Chart 5Two Thirds Of Chinese Households May Be Debt Free Table 1Chinese Household Credit Participation Rate Table 2Chinese Household Debt-To-Income Ratio, By Income Groups Bottom Line: Lower-income groups are heavily indebted, while higher-income families have too much cash on hand.  Too Few Investment Choices Chinese households hold a majority of their assets in real estate investments and cash. The former has seen prices skyrocket, crowding out the discretionary spending capability of lower-income families.1 On the other hand, cash and cash equivalents such as CDs, currently earn a meager 2%. The obsession with holding properties has been reinforced by the astonishing pace of money creation in the past 10 years (Chart 6). Despite sky-high prices, real estate has been the main counter-inflation measure in China. According to the 2019 China Household Finance Survey, nearly 60% of Chinese household debt is in home loans, which is about twice the number compared with the US. Furthermore, the share of second-home loans (as a share of all residential housing loans) escalated from less than 30% in 2011 to 65.9% in 2018, greatly exceeding the share of first home loans. Post-pandemic demand for housing has remained strong and household debt is still expanding faster than nominal disposable income growth (Chart 7). Even though lower-income groups have significantly scaled back on mortgages, given that such a large portion of household assets is tied up in real estate means that any deflation in property prices will have a devastating impact on consumer net worth (Table 2 on Page 4). Consequently, discretionary spending by even middle- and high-income households will be curtailed. Chart 6Helicopter Money In China Chart 7Household Credit Still Expands Faster Than Income Growth In addition to the long-standing issue of a lack of social safety net, Chinese families’ high cash holdings are due to a lack of investment alternatives. Even though the country has the world’s second largest equity market by value, only 11% of Chinese residents participate in the stock market, a dismal number compared with a 50% equity market participation rate in the US.2 The low participation rate is not surprising: over a 10-year time span, returns on cash have more or less matched returns on A-share stocks (Chart 8). The extreme volatility in Chinese equities has curbed citizens’ enthusiasm to participate in the market. Chart 8Risk-Reward Profile Of Chinese Stocks Hasn't Been Great Over The Past Decade Bottom Line: Chinese household profile is characterized by the heavy concentration of cash among higher-income households and the elevated indebtedness of low-income ones stemming from sky-high real estate prices. Is The New “Dual Circulation” Strategy A Solution? Consumer spending in China has been growing rapidly in the past 20 years, at a rate roughly in line with the increase in disposable incomes. Income and consumption growth peaked in 2007 but since then has been dwindling along with falling productivity (Chart 9). Cyclically, the consumption recovery will bring its growth rate back to the pre-COVID 19 level. Demand for real assets and consumer durable goods has been strong after the pandemic (Chart 10). Even the demand for luxury goods has made a comeback.3   Chart 9Chinese Consumption, Income, And Productivity Growth Chart 10Chinese Consumption Is Recovering However, for consumption to sustain an expansion rate similar to the past decade, China’s productivity growth must accelerate and, in turn, boost per capita income growth. Conversely, the country would need to maintain a high rate of credit expansion to generate enough economic growth and inflation to spur strong nominal income growth (Chart 11). Credit expansion can boost nominal growth but it is productivity growth that generates per capita income growth.  Chart 11Household Credit Impulse Has Been Muted Since 2018 The recently announced “dual circulation” strategy and an acceleration in policy actions by the Chinese leadership may suggest a different path than in previous cycles. Policymakers seem to focus on changing and upgrading the composition of China’s existing consumption base rather than boosting consumption growth through monetary stimulus in the household sector. Moreover, they are looking to change the configuration of family savings and investments. Our colleagues at BCA Research's Emerging Markets Strategy have stated that improvements in the turnover of consumers’ bank deposits and cash, if successful, may allow China to slow its overall credit and money growth but still sustain a steady nominal GDP growth rate.4 Details of the new “dual circulation” strategy are sparse, but we think the following developments in the past couple of months are relevant to investors: Bringing home overseas consumption and reducing the service trade deficit: China fast-tracked policies that target duty-free shopping venues, a strategy designed to lure Chinese consumers back to the domestic market. Beijing made unprecedented moves to invigorate Hainan province’s duty-free shopping and issue new licenses to allow companies to operate duty-free shops both online and offline. In the past five years, Chinese residents have spent an average of 250 billion USD annually shopping overseas. Purchases of duty-free products overseas account for a small share of China’s 12.5 trillion yuan retail industry. Nonetheless, repatriating some overseas consumption would allow China to not only narrow its service trade deficit, but also to create more service businesses and jobs internally (Chart 12).  The move signifies that Chinese policymakers are committed to change domestic consumer spending behavior while upgrading the retail industry. However, we remain cautious on retail stocks in the next 6 to 12 months. Retail growth has not yet rebounded to its pre-pandemic level, and the valuations in retail-sector stocks are overly stretched (Chart 13). Chart 12China Has Been Running A Huge Service Trade Deficit Chart 13Retail Sector Valuations Are Elevated   Increasing households’ equity holdings in domestic companies: Direct financing in the form of equities and corporate bonds only accounts for about 15% of total social financing, compared with 65% in bank lending. Chinese corporations rely mostly on bank loans and retained earnings, whereas US companies are heavily dependent on equity financing. The “dual circulation” strategy encourages more direct financing for SMEs, science and technology companies. It also explicitly calls for a greater household participation in the financial markets, which would guide more savings into domestic capital markets. In the past few months, the government has accelerated financial market reforms aimed at providing easier access for corporations and individuals to domestic equity markets. In the first half of this year, 119 companies went public in Shanghai and Shenzhen; these companies raised about 140 billion yuan, which was more than double the amount from a year ago. New individual investor accounts on the Shanghai exchange rose by 30% (year to date) from a year ago. Notably, both the IPO and household participation rates resemble the onset of the boom-bust cycle in 2015. However, this time Chinese regulators have been much more vigilant and restrictive about over-leveraging, acting early and removing some steam from retail investor rush (Chart 14). Chart 14Chinese Authorities Have Less Tolerance For Equity Market Leverage Chart 15Chinese Stocks Still Have Upside Potentials It remains to be seen whether the authorities will be able to boost and sustain consumer confidence in the domestic equity market. The efforts by the Chinese government will either succeed by securing a gradual and healthy secular bull market, or they will fail by triggering another boom-bust cycle in the domestic market. Either way, investors should stay overweight Chinese stocks on at least a 6-month horizon (Chart 15).   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1Households in the bottom 40 percentile in China have no discretionary spending capacity. “Can China Avoid the Middle Income Trap?” Damien Ma, Foreign Policy, March 2016 2投保基金公司《2019年度全国股票市场投资者状况调查报告》and Pew Research Center. 3China ‘Revenge Spending’ Offsets Plunge in Luxury Goods Revenue 4Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "China’s Rebalancing: Will Consumers Rise To The Challenge?" dated August 29, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

This report contains an error in the section related to consumer spending and fiscal policy. That error somewhat changes the conclusions from the report, and it particularly impacts Chart 3, Table 2 and Table 3. The attached note explains the mistake and includes corrected versions of Chart 3, Table 2 and Table 3. Highlights Duration: A re-rating of Tech stock valuations is likely not a near-term catalyst for significantly lower bond yields. Congress’ continued failure to pass a follow-up to the CARES act is a greater near-term risk for bond bears. We continue to recommend an “at benchmark” portfolio duration stance alongside duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. Fiscal Policy: Without additional household income support from Congress, at least on the order of $500 - $800 billion, consumer spending will massively disappoint expectations during the next 6-12 months. Inflation: Inflation will continue its rapid ascent between now and the end of the year, but it is likely to level-off in 2021. We recommend staying long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries for the time being, but we will be looking to take profits on that position later this year. Feature Bond Implications Of A Tech Stock Sell-Off Risk-off sentiment reigned in equity and credit markets during the past two weeks. The S&P 500 fell 7% between September 2nd and 8th and the average junk spread widened from 471 bps to 499 bps. This represents the largest sell-off since June when the equity market saw a similar 7% decline and the junk spread widened from 536 bps to 620 bps (Chart 1). Chart 1Two Equity Sell-Offs, Two Different Bond Market Reactions A comparison between the September and June episodes is particularly interesting for bond investors because Treasuries behaved very differently in each case. In June, bonds benefited from a flight to quality out of equities and the 10-year Treasury yield fell 22 bps. But this month, Treasuries actually delivered negative returns and the 10-year Treasury yield rose 3 bps (Chart 1, bottom panel). Table 1Selected Asset Class Performance During Last Two Equity Sell-Offs Why would Treasuries perform so well in June but fail in their role as a diversifier of equity risk in September? The answer lies in the underlying drivers of the stock market’s decline, which are easily identified when we look at the performance of different equity sectors. Table 1 shows the performance of different equity sectors in both the June and September sell-offs. In June, it was the cyclical equity sectors – Industrials, Energy and Materials – that led the decline. These sectors tend to be the most sensitive to global economic growth. This month’s equity drawdown was led by Tech stocks, while cyclical and defensive sectors saw much smaller drops. Table 1 also shows that a broad measure of commodity prices – the CRB Raw Industrials index – rose by 0.79% during the September equity sell-off, significantly outpacing gains in the gold price. In June, the CRB index still rose but it lagged gold by a wide margin. The underlying drivers of the stock market’s decline explain why Treasuries performed well in June and underperformed in September. We bring up the performance of different equity sectors, commodity prices and gold because bond yields correlate most strongly with: The performance of cyclical equities over defensive equities (Chart 2, top panel). The ratio of CRB Raw Industrials over gold (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2High-Frequency Bond Indicators These correlations explain why bond yields fell a lot in June but not in September. June’s equity sell-off was more like a traditional risk-off event that saw investors questioning the sustainability of the global economic recovery. The cyclical equity sectors that are most exposed to the global economic cycle experienced the worst losses and demand for safe-haven gold far outpaced the demand for growth-sensitive industrial commodities. In contrast, this month’s sell-off was driven by a re-rating of Tech stock valuations, not so much expectations for a negative economic shock. Technology now makes up such a large portion of the equity index’s market cap that this sort of move can cause the entire stock market to fall, but the pass-through to bonds will be much smaller for any equity sell-off that isn’t prompted by a negative economic shock and led by cyclical equity sectors. Implications For Bond Investors Even after this month’s drop, there remains a legitimate concern about extreme Tech stock valuations. The fact that many of the larger Tech names, like Microsoft and Apple, have benefited from the pandemic only makes it more likely that their stock prices will suffer as the world slowly returns to normal. From a bond investor’s perspective, we doubt that even a large drop in Tech stock prices would lead to significantly lower bond yields, especially if that drop occurs in the context of an economy that continues to recover. Bond yields will only turn down if the market starts to question the sustainability of the economic recovery, an event that would be negative for cyclical equity sectors but much less so for the big Tech names. With that in mind, our base case outlook calls for continued economic recovery during the next 6-12 months, but we do see a significant risk that the failure to pass a follow-up to the CARES act will lead to just such a deflationary shock during the next couple of months. We therefore recommend keeping portfolio duration close to benchmark, while positioning for continued economic recovery via less risky duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. The Outlook For Consumer Spending And The Necessity Of Fiscal Stimulus After plunging during the lock-down months of March and April, consumer spending has rebounded strongly during the past few months. But can this strong rebound continue? Our view is that it cannot. That is, unless Congress delivers more income support to households. Even a large drop in Tech stock prices is unlikely to lead to significantly lower bond yields, especially if that drop occurs in the context of an economy that continues to recover. In this section we consider several different economic scenarios and estimate the amount of further income support that is necessary to sustain an adequate level of consumer spending. First off, to make forecasts for consumer spending we need to consider two main parameters: household income and the personal savings rate (Chart 3). More income leads to more spending in most cases. The only exception would be if cautious households decide to increase the amount they save relative to the amount they spend. Chart 3Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate We’ve actually seen that exception play out somewhat during the past five months. The CARES act provided households with an income windfall, but the savings rate also shot higher. This suggests that households had enough income to spend even more during the past few months but have been much more cautious than usual. We cannot overstate the role the CARES act has played in supporting household incomes since March. Disposable income has grown 7.4% during the past five months compared to the five months prior to COVID, and the CARES act’s provisions pressured income 10.3% higher during that period (Chart 4). The CARES act’s one-time $1200 stimulus checks and expanded $600 weekly unemployment benefits were the two most important provisions in this regard. Together, they pushed disposable income higher by 7.5%. Chart 4Disposable Personal Income Growth And Its Drivers This presents an obvious problem. The income support from the CARES act is now expired and Congress has yet to pass a follow-up stimulus bill. How vital is it that we get a new bill? And how large does it need to be? To answer these questions, we first need to set a target for adequate consumer spending growth. The second panel of Chart 3 shows 12-month over 12-month consumer spending growth. That is, it looks at total consumer spending during the last 12 months and shows how much it has increased (or decreased) compared to the previous 12 months. Notice that the worst 12-month period during the 2008 Great Financial Crisis (GFC) saw 12-month over 12-month consumer spending growth of -3%. During the economic recovery that followed, consumer spending growth fluctuated between +2% and +6%. Exercise 1: The March 2020 To February 2021 Period Chart 5Three Scenarios For Income And Savings In our first exercise, we consider the 12-month period starting at the very beginning of the COVID recession in March 2020 and ending in February 2021. As a bare minimum, we target consumer spending growth of -3% for this 12-month period on the presumption that 12-month spending growth equal to the worst 12 months seen during the GFC is the bare minimum that markets might tolerate. We also consider somewhat rosier scenarios of 0% and 2% spending growth. In addition to consumer spending targets, we also make assumptions for household income and the savings rate. We consider income coming from all sources including automatic government stabilizers, but without assuming any additional fiscal support from the government. We consider three scenarios (Chart 5): A pessimistic scenario where both income and the savings rate hold steady at current levels. An optimistic scenario where both income and the savings rate return to pre-COVID levels by February 2021. A “split the difference” scenario where both income and the savings rate get halfway back to pre-COVID levels by next February. Table 2 shows how much additional income support from the government is needed between now and February to achieve each of our consumer spending growth targets in each of our three scenarios. For example, in the optimistic scenario the government will need to provide $434 billion of additional income support between now and February for consumer spending to hit our minimum -3% threshold. In the more realistic “split the difference” scenario, households will require another $777 billion of stimulus. Table 2 also shows that stimulus on a monthly basis and compares the monthly rate of stimulus to the rate provided by the CARES act. For example, an additional $777 billion of income doled out between August and February works out to $111 billion per month, 61% of the amount of monthly stimulus provided by the CARES act between April and July. Table 2Without More Stimulus COVID's Impact On Consumer Spending Will Be Worse Than The GFC Two main conclusions jump out from this analysis. The first is that more income support from Congress is absolutely required. Otherwise, consumer spending will come in worse during the March 2020 to February 2021 period than it did during the worst 12 months of the GFC. Second, unless we assume a truly dire economic scenario, the follow-up stimulus does not need to be as large as the CARES act. In our most realistic “split the difference” scenario, that $777 billion of required stimulus is only 61% of what the CARES act doled out on a monthly basis. In that same scenario, a follow-up bill that delivered the same monthly stimulus as the CARES act would lead to positive 12-month consumer spending growth. Exercise 2: The August 2020 To July 2021 Period Chart 6One More Scenario One potential problem with our last exercise is that our target was for total consumer spending between March 2020 and February 2021. This period includes five months for which we already have data and the exercise is therefore partially backward-looking. A more relevant analysis might target consumer spending on a purely forward-looking basis from August 2020 to July 2021. We therefore perform our calculations again for the August 2020 to July 2021 period. This time, we consider only one economic scenario where income and the savings rate both return to pre-COVID levels by July 2021 (Chart 6). This scenario works out to be slightly more optimistic than the “split the difference” scenario we considered earlier. Also, since our target 12-month spending growth period no longer contains the downtrodden months of March and April, we require a more ambitious target than -3% growth. A return to the post-GFC range of 2% to 6% represents a target that is likely more representative of market expectations. Table 3 shows the results of this second analysis. Once again, we see that some additional government stimulus is necessary to meet our spending targets. Even to achieve 0% spending growth over the next 12 months will require another $249 billion from the government, and that outcome would almost certainly disappoint markets. We calculate that an additional $534 billion is required to achieve 2% spending growth during the August 2020 to July 2021 timeframe. This result is consistent with the $777 billion we calculated in Table 2, though it has come down a bit because we have made slightly more optimistic economic assumptions. Table 3At Least Half A Trillion More Government Income Support Is Needed Bottom Line: Our analysis suggests that further stimulus is needed to sustain the recovery in consumer spending. A new stimulus package doesn’t need to be as large as the CARES act on a monthly basis, but it should provide at least $500 - $800 billion of additional income support to households. With Congress still dithering on this issue, financial markets appear overly complacent in the near-term. While the economic constraints suggest that a deal should be reached soon, policymakers may need to see a spate of negative economic data and/or poor market performance before being spurred into action. In acknowledgement of this significant near-term risk to the economic outlook, bond investors should refrain from getting too bearish, and keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being. Inflation’s Snapback Phase Chart 7Inflation Coming In Hot The core Consumer Price Index rose 0.4% in August, the third large monthly increase in a row (Chart 7). We see inflation continuing to come in hot between now and the end of the year, before tapering off in 2021. As of now, we would describe inflation as being in a snapback phase. That is, back in March and April, when lock-down measures were widespread across the country, the sectors that were most affected by the shutdowns experienced massive price declines. However, notice that core inflation fell by much more than median or trimmed mean inflation during this period (Chart 7, panels 2 & 3). The median sector’s price didn’t fall that much, but the overall inflation number moved down because of deeply negative prints in a few sectors. Now that the economy is re-opening, many of the sectors that were most beaten down in March and April are coming back to life. As a result, those massive price declines are turning into massive price increases. Once again, the median and trimmed mean inflation figures have been much more stable. This “snapback” dynamic is illustrated very clearly in Chart 8 which shows the distribution of monthly price changes for 41 different sectors in April and in August. Notice that while the middle of the distribution hasn’t changed that much, April’s massive left tail has morphed into August’s massive right tail. Chart 8Distribution Of CPI Expenditure Categories The continued wide divergence between core inflation and the median and trimmed mean measures suggests that this snapback phase has further to run. In other words, we will likely continue to see strong inflation prints for a few more months as the sectors that were most downbeat in March and April continue their rebounds. However, once core catches back up to the median and trimmed mean inflation measures, this snapback phase will come to an end and inflation’s uptrend will probably level-off. The continued wide divergence between core inflation and the median and trimmed mean measures suggests that this inflation’s snapback phase has further to run.  We recommend that bond investors continue to favor TIPS over nominal Treasuries during this snapback phase, but we will be looking for an opportunity to go underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries later this year, once core inflation moves closer to the median and trimmed mean measures and the snapback phase ends. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success.   Table 4Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification