Economy

Highlights In the past week, it is becoming evident that the Chinese leadership is willing to abandon its financial de-risking agenda in exchange for a rapid economic recovery. Monetary conditions are already more accommodative than during the last easing cycle in 2015/2016. The recently announced policy initiatives on infrastructure, housing, and automobile sectors also resemble policy supports that led to a V-shaped economic recovery in 2016. As manufacturers in regions other than Hubei are returning to work and their production capacity continues to rise, the outbreak-induced economic shock may be smaller than investors currently fear. Hence, the odds are rising that the upcoming “insurance stimulus” may end up overshooting the short-term economic shock. As such, we maintain a constructive view on Chinese stocks over the next 6-12 months. Feature A surge in the number of COVID-19 infections outside of China (including South Korea, Japan, Iran, and Italy) risks delaying a global economic recovery, and has cast doubt on the outlook for the global economy beyond Q1 (Chart 1). Chart 1Pandemic Threats Expanding Globally Despite the sharp uptick in global investor concern, our constructive view on Chinese stocks remains unchanged for the next 6-12 months. Our view on Chinese risk assets is based on a simple arithmetic framework that we described last year when the trade war tensions between the US and China were escalating. In short, when gauging the net impact of an economic shock, investors should determine which of the following two scenarios is most likely: Scenario 1 (Bearish): Stimulus – Shock ≤ 0 Scenario 2 (Bullish): Stimulus – Shock > 0 While this framework is quite simplistic, the point is to underscore that economic shocks are almost always met with a policy response, and the goal is to determine whether this response is sufficient enough to offset the impact of the shock. If the Chinese leadership underestimates the severity of the shock and undershoots on the stimulus, this would be bearish for Chinese stocks (Scenario 1). In the current situation, however, even if the near-term economic outlook is deeply negative, investors should maintain a bullish cyclical (i.e. 6-12 month) outlook for China-related assets as long as the impact of China’s reflationary efforts more than offsets the negative shock to aggregate demand (Scenario 2). Major Stimulus Around The Corner? It is becoming evident that the Chinese policymakers, when dealing with an unprecedented public health crisis, are returning to aggressive fiscal and monetary easing. In fact, the odds are rising that the magnitude of the upcoming stimulus may resemble that of 2015/2016, and has an increasing possibility to overshoot in the next 6-12 months. In the past week, there has been a clear shift of policy focus from “financial de-risking” to “mitigating the economic damage from shocks at all costs”, as indicated by high-profile policy announcements. In an unprecedented large-scale teleconference on February 23,1 President Xi stated that China will not lower its economic growth target for this year, and that fiscal policy will be “more proactive” while monetary policy was upgraded from “prudent” to “flexible and moderate". Chart 2PBoC Looks Set For Massive Stimulus Xi also pledged to “introduce new policy measures in a timely manner”. China’s central bank, the PBoC, issued a statement signaling further cuts ahead in the bank reserve requirement ratio rate and interest rate.2 The PBoC has already aggressively eased monetary conditions in the past two weeks, and both the central bank policy and average lending rates are now lower than they were during the last massive easing cycle in 2015/2016 (Chart 2).  Other policy initiatives also suggest the Chinese authorities are stepping up coordinated efforts to boost the economy, beyond short-term and targeted financial support. The stimulative measures now span from infrastructure to housing and automobile sectors, the exact “three prongs” that supported a V-shaped economic recovery in 2016.3 This is in sharp contrast with last year, when Chinese policymakers largely resisted resorting to large-scale stimulus, despite immense pressure from the US-China trade war and tariff impositions.4 The ongoing COVID-19 epidemic seems to have forced China to return to its old economic playbook, as the Xi administration is clearly unwilling to tolerate economic hardships driven by an endogenous crisis. The ongoing epidemic seems to have forced China to return to its old economic playbook, as the Xi administration is clearly unwilling to tolerate economic hardships driven by an endogenous crisis. As we predicted in November last year,5 China was to frontload additional fiscal stimulus in Q1 this year to secure an economic recovery, which started to bud in Q4 last year. The increase in January’s credit numbers confirms our projection: local government bond issuance picked up significantly from last year while the contraction in shadow bank lending continued to ease, signaling a less restrictive policy bias on both the monetary and fiscal fronts (Chart 3).  Chart 3Stronger Fiscal Support Likely To Soon Follow The exact economic and monetary expansion growth targets will be officially set at the National People’s Congress meeting, which has been postponed from its usual schedule on March 5. Compared with the 6.1% real GDP growth achieved in 2019, we now think a growth target of 5.6% would be conservative for this year. According to an estimate by BCA’s Global Investment Strategy,6 China’s real GDP growth in Q1 could slow to 3.5% on a year-over-year basis. To achieve 5.6% growth, China would need at least 6.3% average real growth (year-over-year) for the next three quarters, 0.3 percentage points higher than in the second half of 2019. The growth in credit expansion, infrastructure spending and government expenditures will need to significantly outpace last year in the next 6-12 months. Bottom Line: The government appears to be willing to abandon its financial de-risking agenda to secure economic recovery. There is an increasing possibility that the stimulus may overshoot the economic shock this year. China’s Economic Engine Warms Up There are increasing signs that the scale of the upcoming stimulus may match that of the 2015/2016 cycle. The likely magnitude of the shock, on the other hand, might be smaller than investors fear as the evidence is mounting that production is returning to normality in China. Despite a lack of employees and raw materials, industrial activity in regions outside of Hubei is resuming. Chart 4…Small Companies Are Not Far Behind A survey of China’s 500 top manufacturers by China Enterprise Confederation7 indicated that most of the 342 respondents had resumed production as of February 20. They also reported that more than half of their employees had returned to work and the average capacity utilization rate had reached nearly 60% (Table 1). Furthermore, the China Association of Small and Medium Enterprises8 survey of 6,422 small businesses showed that as of February 14, more than half of the companies have resumed operations (Chart 4). By February 21, the daily coal consumption in China’s six largest power plants has reached 62% of the consumption from the same period last year (adjusted for Lunar Year calendar), 14 percentage points higher than February 10 - the first day officially scheduled for people to return to work.9 Table 1Large Manufacturers Have Reached More Than Half Of Their Production Capacity… The resurgence in the number of new infections has not slowed those regions down from reopening businesses, particularly along the manufacturing belt in China’s coastal regions (Chart 5). China’s leadership has repeatedly urged local governments to relax aggressive containment measures to allow production to resume. Unless the number of new cases in China picks up again, we expect business operations in regions outside of Hubei to continue re-opening in the coming weeks. Chart 580% Of China’s Coastal Regions Are Back To Work Most manufacturers in regions other than Hubei are returning to work and are running at about half of last year’s production capacity. Bottom Line: The aggressive containment measures seem to be effective inside China. Most manufacturers in regions other than Hubei are returning to work and are running at about half of last year’s production capacity. We expect the rate to improve. This will mitigate the impact of the virus outbreak on the Chinese economy.  “Scenario 2” Implies An Upturn In The Corporate Earnings Cycle The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on China’s economy may be smaller than investors currently fear. The country is also in a better economic condition than in 2015/2016. If the Chinese leadership believes an “insurance stimulus” is warranted and allows credit growth in 2020 to reach near 28% of GDP, as in 2015-2016, then the stimulus will more than offset the outbreak-induced economic shock from Q1 and lead to a meaningful rise in this year’s corporate earnings (Chart 6): China’s households and corporates are actually more willing to spend now than in 2015-2016. We agree that China’s households and companies are both highly leveraged, and re-leveraging may further diminish their debt-servicing ability and willingness to invest or spend. Debt as a share of Chinese household disposable income has climbed by 33 percentage points compared with five years ago (Chart 7). The increase in debt load makes Chinese households particularly vulnerable to income reductions. But this supports our view that policymakers will make every reflationary effort to avoid massive layoffs. Additionally, the willingness to spend among Chinese households is not less than during the down cycle in 2015-2016 (Chart 7 bottom panel). Chart 6A 2015/2016-Style Stimulus Will Likely Triumph Over Short-Term Economic Shocks Chart 7Chinese Households Are More Indebted, But Are Also More Willing To Spend Than In 2015/2016 The debt-to-GDP ratio and debt-servicing cost-to-income ratio in China’s non-financial private sector have trended sideways in the past five years (Chart 8). The corporate cash flow situation is only slightly worse than in 2015 (Chart 9). The virus outbreak and drastic containment measures will temporarily weaken the corporates’ cash positions, but this negative situation can be partially offset by tax, fee and interest relief measures.10 Chart 8Chinese Corporates Are In Fact Not More Indebted Than In 2015/2016... Chart 9...And Their Cash Flow Situation Is Only Slightly Worse   Furthermore, China’s non-financial corporates’ marginal propensity to spend is actually higher than in 2015-2016 (Chart 10). This may be due to the more accommodative monetary backdrop than in 2015-2016. If Chinese authorities are to significantly step up their reflationary efforts, the easy monetary policy stance may be here to stay throughout 2020. Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, the mild deflation in China’s PPI growth was already turning slightly positive on the heels of an improving economy. The historical relationship between China’s producer prices and industrial profits suggests that profit growth for both China’s onshore and offshore markets is highly linked to fluctuations in producer prices (Chart 11). An ultra-easy monetary policy, a weak RMB, and a more forceful boost to domestic demand will provide strong reflationary support to producer prices and industrial profits. Chart 10Chinese Corporates' Willingness To Spend Also Higher Than In 2015/2016 Chart 11A 2015/2016-Style Reflation Will Likely Lead To A Strong Rebound In Corporate Profits   Bottom Line: Despite a short-term economic shock, China’s economy is at a better starting point than in 2015-2016. If monetary and fiscal easing in 2020 reaches the same magnitude as five years ago, then the economy and corporate profits will likely begin to respond to the stimulus. Investment Conclusions The clear sign of policy shift to shoring up the economy suggests that, our Scenario 2 is the most likely outcome. The fiscal and monetary easing initiatives seem to resemble those of 2015/2016. The short-term outbreak-induced economic shock, on the other hand, looks to be smaller than the market anticipates. Manufacturers in China continue to resume production in regions outside of Hubei, a trend we believe will go on unless there is a significant threat that the virus will break out again in these Chinese regions. This supports our constructive view on China-related assets over a 6-12 month time horizon. The fiscal and monetary easing initiatives seem to resemble those of 2015/2016, and will likely overshoot the short-term economic shock. There is a risk to our constructive view, though, that the more forceful policy response from the Chinese leadership may imply a greater than anticipated short-term economic shock from the outbreak. This would challenge our bullish stance on Chinese stocks in the next three months. Substantially weaker economic data in Q1 would likely trigger a selloff in Chinese risk assets, both onshore and offshore. However, a severe short-term economic shock, followed by a burst of stimulus, would create strong investment opportunities. If the scale of Chinese policymakers’ reflationary measures ramps up significantly in the coming months, they will likely overshoot the short-term economic shock. Another reflationary cycle would certainly have a positive impact on global investors’ sentiment and Chinese financial assets. Stay tuned.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    http://english.www.gov.cn/news/topnews/202002/23/content_WS5e5286cdc6d0… 2   http://www.pbc.gov.cn/goutongjiaoliu/113456/113469/3975864/index.html 3   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?," dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports "Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 1): A Reluctant PBoC," dated July 10, 2019, "Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?," dated July 24, 2019, "Don’t Bottom-Fish Chinese Assets (Yet)," dated August 14, 2019 and "Mild Deflation Means Timid Easing," dated October 9, 2019. available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5   Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Questions From The Road: Timing The Turn," dated November 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 6   Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus," dated February 21, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 7   http://www.cec-ceda.org.cn/view_sy.php?id=42633 8   http://www.ce.cn/xwzx/gnsz/gdxw/202002/18/t20200218_34298844.shtml 9   http://www.21jingji.com/2020/2-21/wOMDEzNzhfMTUzNjAwOA.html 10  China has announced targeted measures to defer or lower taxes and administrative fees. It will also provide interest rate subsidies to affected businesses. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights Demand for construction machinery in China will contract by 10-15% over the next 12-18 months. Diminishing replacement demand, deteriorating property construction activity and only a moderate acceleration in infrastructure investment will weigh on construction machinery sales in China. We recommend avoiding or underweighting global construction machinery stocks. Feature China is the largest manufacturer and consumer of construction machinery in the world. The country accounts for about 30% of global construction machinery demand in unit terms. Construction machinery includes heavy-duty vehicles performing earthwork operations or other hefty construction tasks. In this report, our coverage of construction machinery refers to the seven most-used construction machines in the world – excavators, loaders, cranes, road rollers, bulldozers, ball-graders and spreaders. Between 2016 and 2019, machinery sales surged by  close to 170%. However, unlike during the 2009-2011 boom, sales were not  widespread across all types of machinery. Sales of these machines are often used by investors and strategists as a microcosm to detect the potency of an economy’s business cycle. An increase in machine sales is usually interpreted as a sign of an acceleration in real estate construction and/or infrastructure spending. Chart I-1Excavators In China: Robust Sales Vs. Diminishing Working Hours Are machinery sales a good measure of construction activity in both the real estate and infrastructure development? Not really. In this report we make the point that sales of construction machinery do not always reflect construction activity in the mainland. Specifically, Chart I-1 demonstrates that sales of excavators in China have differed from Komatsu’s Komtrax index for China. The latter is the average hours of operation per excavator. What explains this gap between resilient excavator sales and diminishing hours of excavator usage? This divergence has been due to the fact that robust excavator sales numbers have been supported by replacement demand as well as a changing product mix (a rising share of smaller and cheaper excavators bought by small entrepreneurs). China’s machinery imports have also been crowded out by a growing roster of domestically made models (import substitution). Boom-Bust Machinery Cycles Chart I-2Chinese Construction Machinery Demand Is Likely To Shrink Chinese sales1 of construction machinery (thereafter, machinery) skyrocketed between 2009 and 2011, when China drastically boosted its infrastructure spending and property construction surged. The 2009-2011 boom was followed by a bust: Between 2012 and 2015, total machinery sales dropped by nearly 70%, (Chart I-2). That bust was succeeded by another boom: between 2016 and 2019, machinery sales surged by close to 170%. However, unlike during the 2009-2011 boom, sales were not widespread across all types of machinery: only excavator and crane sales boomed (Chart I-3). The other five categories – loaders, road rollers, bulldozers, ball-graders and spreaders – experienced a relatively muted sales recovery; their 2019 unit sales were well below their respective 2011 highs (Chart I-4). Chart I-3The 2016-2019 Boom: Only Sales Excavators And Cranes Hit A New High...Going forward, we expect sales of construction machinery in China to experience a 10-15% downturn over the next 12-18 months (Chart I-2 on page 2). The basis for such a contraction is diminishing replacement demand, deteriorating property construction and only a moderate acceleration in infrastructure investment growth. Chart I-4...While Many Others Had A Relatively Muted Sales Recovery   Understanding Construction Machinery Demand China’s property construction and infrastructure development have been the main drivers behind construction machinery demand. Chart I-5 shows construction machinery sales in China are highly correlated with building floor space started. Meanwhile, Chart I-6 reveals that infrastructure investment distinctively led construction machinery sales between 2007 and 2013, but that relationship has broken down since 2014. Chart I-5Main Drivers For Construction Machinery Demand In China: Property Construction... Chart I-6...And Infrastructure Spending   Crucially, in the past three years, property and infrastructure development alone have not been enough to explain the surge in construction machinery sales. In particular, between 2018 and 2019, growth of both building floor areas started and infrastructure investment were weak, yet construction machinery sales still surged by an astonishing 50%. Crucially, in the past three years, property and infrastructure development alone have not been enough to explain the surge in construction machinery sales. Specific developments in the excavator market were behind this surge. Excavators are the largest component of China’s construction machinery market, with a 52% market share (Chart I-7). The decoupling of excavator sales from property construction and infrastructure investment has been due to non-macro forces such as: Replacement demand: Given the average lifespan of an excavator is about eight years, the excavators bought in 2009-2011 were likely replaced during 2017-2019. Meanwhile, strengthening environmental regulations on emissions of heavy construction machinery also accelerated the pace of replacement. According to the China Construction Machinery Association, replacement demand accounted for about 60% of all excavator sales last year. Price drop: The significant reduction in excavator prices, ranging from 15%-30% since the middle of 2018, spurred more purchases. Prices of excavators imported into China have also dropped about 30% in the past 18 months (Chart I-8). The fundamental reason behind excavator producers cutting prices was weak demand amid lingering excess capacity. Chart I-7The Breakdown Of China’s Construction Machinery Sales Chart I-8A Sizeable Drop In Prices Of Imported Excavators   Cranes are the only other construction machinery whose sales reached an all-time high last year. Similar to excavators, replacement demand has been the main factor behind sales. Excluding excavators and cranes, machinery sales have been lackluster, as illustrated in Chart I-4 on page 3. Bottom Line: Property construction and infrastructure development alone do not explain the strong growth in construction machinery sales between 2017 and 2019. Considerable replacement demand prompted by a sizable reduction in excavator prices also facilitated sales in China. A Downbeat Cyclical Demand Outlook Chart I-9Chinese Property Construction Is Very Weak We remain downbeat on Chinese construction machinery demand going forward. Chinese sales of construction machinery will likely contract 10-15% over the next 12-18 months (Chart I-2 on page 2). First, the Chinese property market remains vulnerable to the downside in 2020. A comprehensive measure of Chinese property construction activity – the “building construction” dataset2 – shows that “building construction” floor area started, under construction and completed are all either stagnant or in contraction (Chart I-9). Real estate is still facing considerable headwinds. The COVID-19 outbreak will reduce household income growth and hence weigh on home purchases in the months to come. In the meantime, structural impediments such as poor housing affordability, slowing rural-to-urban migration, demographic changes and the promotion of the housing rental market will also curtail housing demand. Further, the drop in sales will shrink developers’ cash flow, curbing their already feeble financial position to undertake new construction or complete already started projects. Second, the growth rate of China’s infrastructure investment will likely rebound only moderately from its current nominal 3% pace (Chart I-6 on page 4). Even though the central government is likely to implement more fiscal stimulus due to the current coronavirus outbreak, the infrastructure investment growth rate will still be well below the double digits it registered for most of the past decade. Local government special bond quotas are currently a moving target. No doubt, if economic conditions continue to deteriorate, the central government will continue to increase quotas. However, there are several critical points about the importance of special bond issuance that are worth emphasizing: Special bonds accounted for 14% of total infrastructure investment in 2019. Special bond issuance amounted to 7% of combined local government and government-managed funds expenditures last year. Aggregate infrastructure spending was equal to 30% of fixed asset investment excluding the value of land, and 18% of nominal GDP in 2019. It is roughly equal to property construction. Therefore, modest acceleration in infrastructure spending will likely be offset by shrinking property construction. On the whole, barring irrigation-style fiscal and credit stimulus – which has been repeatedly rejected by Beijing – infrastructure spending is unlikely to surge to the extent it did in 2009-‘10, 2013 and 2016-‘17. It is critical to realize that infrastructure spending during those episodes was funded not by Beijing-approved debt but via bank and shadow-banking credit that was beyond Beijing's control. Chart I-10Excavator Sales Are Likely To Fall Third, two specific factors below may result in a considerable reduction in excavator sales. Replacement demand will crater starting in 2020. Excavator sales in 2012 were 35% below their 2011 peak. Given the average eight-year replacement cycle, demand for excavators in 2020 and 2021 will be significantly below 2019 levels (Chart I-10). The price war in the excavator sector will continue, but it will fail to lift overall excavator demand. There are signposts that there is an oversupply of excavators in operation. Last year, excavator drivers (individual entrepreneurs) accounted for a large share of purchases, with the bulk of them opting for small-sized machines – the latter contributed about 70% of the total excavator sales growth. The surge in small service providers amid stagnant construction activity has intensified competition and hence depressed income among these individual owners. This will discourage new demand in the coming one to two years. A risk to this view is that replacement demand could be supported to some extent by increasingly stringent environmental rules. This year, the government will accelerate the scrapping process of off-road heavy vehicles below National III emission standards. Bottom Line: Chinese sales of construction machinery will likely experience a 10-15% downturn over the next 12-18 months, with the largest category – excavator sales – falling by 20% or more. Rising Competitiveness Of Chinese Machinery Producers China’s machinery producers have significantly enhanced their competitiveness. This has led to import substitution. For instance, sales of domestic-brand excavators accounted for 65% of total Chinese excavator sales, a considerable rise from 43% in 2014 and only 26% in 2009. Chinese sales of construction machinery will likely  experience a 10-15% downturn over  the next 12-18 months,  with the largest category  – excavator  sales – falling by  20% or  more. The increasing competitiveness of domestic producers has resulted in not only shrinking imports but also rising exports of construction machinery. As a result, Chinese construction machinery net exports have been on the rise (Chart I-11). In fact, excavators, loaders, cranes, and spreaders have all shown increasing net exports in both volume and value terms (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Chinese Construction Machinery: Flat Exports, Less Imports Chart I-12Increasing Net Exports Of Chinese Construction Machinery   We expect this trend to continue in the coming years. The ongoing Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) will facilitate construction machinery exports to BRI recipient countries. For example, on January 12, Chinese construction machinery manufacturer Zoomlion delivered its first batch of an order of 100 excavators to Ghana as part of a BRI agreement. Total BRI investment with Chinese financing will fall moderately in 2020, as the Chinese government will be applying greater scrutiny and tighter oversight over lending for BRI projects. However, we believe this moderate decline in BRI investment will not affect the country’s construction machinery exports by much. Chinese construction machinery companies are highly focused on technology improvements and 5G applications for their products. This will continue to increase the competitiveness of Chinese construction machinery producers. For example, last May, the 5G-based unmanned mining truck made its debut in China’s Bayan Obo mining region. Autonomous vehicles are more efficient and cheaper to maintain. The Bayan Obo mining area plans to purchase more unmanned mining trucks and transform existing traditional vehicles, with plans to make over 65% of its future fleet of mining cars autonomous. Technology improvements and 5G application will further enhance Chinese construction machinery producers’ productivity, making their products more competitive in the global marketplace. Bottom Line: China’s construction machinery net exports will continue to rise, implying a rising market share for mainland producers. This is a bad sign for foreign producers. Investment Implications Global construction machinery stock prices correlate closely with China’s domestic machinery sales (Chart I-13). This confirms the importance of the mainland, which accounts for 30% of global construction machinery demand. There are 30 stocks in the MSCI global construction machinery stock index, including Caterpillar, Komatsu, Paccar, Cummins and Volvo B.  China’s construction machinery  net exports  will continue to rise, implying a rising market share for  mainland producers. This is a bad sign for  foreign producers. Global machinery producers will likely suffer from both shrinking demand in China and a loss of market share to mainland producers. In fact, both Caterpillar and Komatsu excavator sales are already in contraction, even though mainland excavator sales did not contract in 2019 (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Global Construction Machinery Stocks: Closely Correlate With Chinese Demand Chart I-14Caterpillar And Komatsu Sales: Shrinking   However, a caveat is in order: both Caterpillar and Komatsu have manufacturing factories in China, ranking the third and seventh place in terms of domestic excavator sales, respectively. Hence, domestic producers also include some multinationals that have established operations on the mainland. A point on equity valuations is also in order: Chart I-15 demonstrates the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio for Caterpillar. This stock is not yet cheap. As its sales contract, the stock price will fall further. Chart I-15Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio For Caterpillar: Not Cheap Chart I-16Global Machinery Stocks Are At Risk Overall, trailing EPS of both global construction machinery companies and mainland producers listed on the A-share market are beginning to contract (Chart I-16). This entails that their share prices are at risk.   On the whole, we recommend avoiding or underweighting global machinery stocks. Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1 Please note that all the Chinese construction machinery sales data used in this report are compiled by China Construction Machinery Association. Based on the Association’s definition, its sales data Include exports and domestic sales of domestically produced machineries, but exclude imports. However, exports are small so this sales data can be used as a proxy of domestic demand. 2 This measure includes not only “commodity buildings” but also buildings built by non-real estate developers.

Highlights Duration: The coronavirus is still weighing on yields and could push them down further in the near-term. However, the history of past viral outbreaks suggests that yields will move sharply higher once the daily number of new cases falls to zero. Fed: We would speculate that, this year, the Fed is very likely to change its framework so that it can seek a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target. This may involve moving to an “average inflation targeting” regime implemented via operational inflation ranges. Labor Market: It is very likely that employment growth peaked for the cycle in 2015, but falling employment growth is only consistent with the end of the economic recovery when it breaks below monthly labor force growth, causing the unemployment rate to rise. Feature Chart 1Fresh Lows! The ultimate economic fallout from the coronavirus remains uncertain, but bond investors are starting to fear the worst. As we go to press, the 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields have both made new cyclical troughs at 1.36% and 1.83%, respectively (Chart 1). The 3-month / 10-year Treasury slope is once again inverted and the 2/10 slope is down to 11 bps, from 34 bps at the start of the year (Chart 1, bottom panel). This behavior tells us that the market is pricing-in a significant economic slowdown stemming from the coronavirus, one that will force the Fed to ease policy this year. Indeed, the overnight index swap curve is priced for more than 50 bps of rate cuts during the next 12 months, and fed funds futures are discounting 58% chance of a 25 basis point rate cut in either March or April. In direct opposition to the market’s moves, the past week saw several FOMC members push back against the idea of a rate cut. Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said in an interview:1 There are many different scenarios about what’s going to happen between now and say June or July. My baseline expectations are that the economy is not going to see rising risks and it’s going to stay stable, so we won’t have to do anything. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard was even more forceful, saying:2 There’s a high probability that the coronavirus will blow over as other viruses have, be a temporary shock and everything will come back. But there’s a low probability that this could get much worse. Markets have to price that in, and that drags down the center of gravity a little bit. But if this all goes away, I expect that pricing will come back out of the market and we’ll be back to the on-hold scenario. Finally, Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida challenged the notion that expectations for a 2020 rate cut are widespread. Similar to Bullard, he claimed that market prices reflect hedging against potential downside risks. He went on to cite survey measures that show investors looking for a flat funds rate in their base case scenarios.3 There’s a wide gap between survey and market rate expectations. Clarida’s point about the discrepancy between market and survey rate expectations is well taken. Chart 2 shows that the median forecast from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants calls for an unchanged fed funds rate through 2022. However, it’s important to note that this survey was taken prior to the January FOMC meeting, when the coronavirus was only just starting to hit the news. Chart 2A Wide Gap Between Market And Survey Expectations Do They Protest Too Much? We can sympathize with the FOMC’s desire to push back against market expectations that it feels are off target, but we also think the strategy could prove self-defeating. If the market starts to believe that the Fed will not ease policy quickly enough, the yield curve will flatten even more and risk assets (equities and credit spreads) will sell off. Both of those developments would increase the pressure on the Fed to ease policy. Chart 3The History Of Viral Outbreaks In fact, if the present market turmoil continues, the Fed is very likely to deliver a rate cut sometime this year in an effort to support confidence and limit the potential economic damage from the coronavirus. Unfortunately, at this point we have no idea whether the coronavirus will spread further during the next couple of months, or whether it will be contained. In the former scenario, financial conditions will continue to tighten and the Fed will ease policy. In the latter scenario, financial conditions will not tighten aggressively and the Fed will stay on hold. In either case, given the uncertainty of the situation, we recommend stepping aside on our prior recommendation to short the August 2020 fed funds futures contract. No matter how long it takes to contain the coronavirus, we would expect growth to rebound quickly once the situation is resolved. This has been the pattern of past viral outbreaks: a steady decline in bond yields that sharply reverses course when the daily number of new cases reaches zero (Chart 3). Even accounting for its sharp drop during the past few days, the 10-year Treasury yield is still tracking the pattern of past viral outbreaks, and a jump in yields seems likely once the virus is contained. For this reason, we are inclined to maintain below-benchmark duration on a 12-month horizon. The US Election Is The Biggest Risk To Our Cyclical View The main risk to our 6-12 month below-benchmark portfolio duration stance is the possibility that as soon as the market is done worrying about the coronavirus it jumps right to worrying about the outcome of the US election. This could keep Treasury yields low throughout all of 2020. We argued last week that Treasury yields could come under downward pressure if Bernie Sanders looks set to win the election, while a victory for Donald Trump or one of the other Democratic candidates would be neutral for yields.4 As it stands now, Sanders has taken a more decisive lead in the Democratic leadership race after winning in Nevada. But President Trump’s approval rating has also been tacking higher. We will continue to monitor this risk closely in the coming weeks, and may alter our cyclical duration view depending on how polls evolve in March. The Fed may be forced to cut rates this year if financial conditions continue to tighten. Bottom Line: The coronavirus is still weighing on yields and could push them down further in the near-term. However, the history of past viral outbreaks suggests that yields will move sharply higher once the daily number of new cases falls to zero. Likewise, credit spreads have near-term upside until the virus is contained, but will tighten anew once the threat has passed. As discussed last week, the fundamental credit cycle backdrop remains supportive.5 The Fed may be forced to cut rates this year if financial conditions continue to tighten. Dual Mandate Update As discussed above, Fed participants generally view the current level of interest rates as appropriate and have been reluctant to hint at any upcoming policy changes. It’s not that difficult to see why. If we recall that the Fed’s dual mandate – as set by Congress – is to pursue maximum employment and price stability, then it’s pretty clear that current policy is delivering on both fronts. Chart 4 shows that the sum of the unemployment rate and 12-month consumer price inflation – the so-called Misery Index – is about as low as it has been since the 1960s. Further, the outlook for 2020 is that employment growth will remain firm and inflation tepid. Chart 4The Fed Has The Economy In A Good Spot Labor Market Chart 5Employment Growth Greater Than Labor Force Growth It is very likely that employment growth peaked for the cycle back in 2015, but falling employment growth is only consistent with the end of the economic recovery when it breaks below monthly labor force growth, causing the unemployment rate to rise. During the past 12 months, monthly employment gains have averaged +171k compared to a +122k average increase in the labor force (Chart 5). In other words, employment growth is slowly trending down but it remains at a comfortable level. Beyond decelerating employment, rising labor force participation is the other important trend in the US labor market. While it’s tempting to think that stronger labor force growth might only raise the bar for what employment growth is necessary to keep the recovery on track, this is not the case. In practice, gross labor flow data show that, since 2017, 73% of people that entered the labor force transitioned directly to being employed. Only 27% of those entering the labor force transitioned to unemployed status. Simply, rising labor force growth tends to push employment growth higher as well. It does not make it more likely that the unemployment rate will rise. Rising labor force participation has not gone unnoticed. The minutes from January’s FOMC meeting revealed that: Many participants pointed to the strong performance of labor force participation despite the downward pressures associated with an aging population, and several raised the possibility that there was some room for labor force participation to rise further. The prime age participation rate is already back to pre-crisis levels and the female 24-54 part rate is making new highs (Chart 6). Nonetheless, US prime age participation remains low compared to other developed countries – like its closest neighbor Canada – making further gains possible. Chart 6Do Part Rates Have More ##br##Upside? Chart 7Don't Be Alarmed By The Drop In Job Openings Finally, many have pointed to the recent drop in Job Openings as a reason to be concerned about the state of the US labor market (Chart 7). We view these concerns as unfounded. First, the drop in openings does not appear to be related to flagging labor demand. The Job Hires rate is steady and involuntary layoffs are low. Against a backdrop of steady demand, fewer openings could simply mean that there is a little more slack in the labor market than was previously thought. Inflation On inflation, we see little chance of a meaningful surge this year. The Prices Paid and Supplier Delivery components of the ISM Manufacturing index, two indicators that tend to lead changes in core inflation, are downtrodden (Chart 8). Meanwhile, base effects could cause 12-month core CPI to jump in the next month or two, but are more likely to drag it down on a 6-month horizon (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 8Inflation Will Remain Tame In 2020 At the component level, shelter is the largest component of core CPI but it is unlikely to accelerate in the coming months. The National Multifamily Housing Council’s Survey of Apartment Market Conditions just ticked below 50 (Chart 9). Shelter inflation is more likely to rise when the index is firmly above 50 in “tightening” territory. Further, the recent jump in core goods inflation is set to wane in the coming months. Core goods inflation tracks non-oil import prices with a lag of about 18 months, and import prices have been on a declining trend (Chart 9, bottom panel). Chart 9Shelter And Core Goods Inflation Bottom Line: The Fed is performing well on its dual mandate. Employment growth is firm, inflationary pressures are tepid and continued accommodative monetary policy might be able to pull more people into the labor force. Absent any desire to preemptively ease to counteract the effects of the coronavirus, the Fed’s on hold policy stance is appropriate. Tracking The Fed’s Balance Sheet We strongly disagree with the suggestion that the increase in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet meaningfully impacted Treasury yields or risky assets this year.6 But the Fed’s balance sheet policy remains a point of interest nonetheless, and last week we received more information about what the Fed intends to do with its balance sheet this year. Specifically, the Fed has decided that $1.5 trillion will serve as a firm floor for bank reserves. That is, the Fed will not allow the supply of reserves to fall below that level, and will typically maintain a significant buffer above $1.5 trillion. To accomplish this, the Fed would prefer to transition away from daily repo transactions. It would rather rely on its Treasury and T-bill purchases to keep reserves at desired levels. $1.5 trillion will be the firm floor on bank reserves.   With that in mind, the Fed now plans to scale daily repo operations back to zero by the end of April. The Fed’s $60 billion per month T-bill purchases will continue through the second quarter. After that, the pace of asset purchases will be lowered, with the goal of simply keeping reserve supply stable. It has not yet been decided whether Treasury purchases after June will be concentrated in T-bills or spread out across the maturity spectrum. Chart 10 and Table 1 show our updated projections for what the Fed’s balance sheet will look like at the end of June. Our projections show a reserve level of $1.7 trillion at the end of June, significantly above the $1.5 trillion floor. This provides a healthy buffer in case a spike in the Treasury’s General Account leads to a temporary drop in reserve supply. Chart 10The Fed's Balance Sheet Securities And Reserves Table 1Fed's Balance Sheet Projections The Biggest Changes The Fed Could Make This Year (And More Details About The Ongoing Strategic Review) Chart 11Monitoring Financial Conditions The minutes from the January FOMC meeting, released last week, revealed a few important details about the Fed’s ongoing strategic review. The strategic review is a process that the Fed expects to complete by mid-year, where it will consider potential changes to its monetary policy strategy, tools and communication practices. At the last FOMC meeting, the committee took up the issues of how to incorporate financial stability into the Fed’s monetary policy strategy and of whether it should consider targeting an inflation range instead of a specific point. Financial Stability The traditional consensus in central banking was that interest rates should not be used to manage financial stability risks. Rather, monetary policy should remain focused on the dual mandate of full employment and inflation. In January’s discussion, FOMC participants generally agreed that macroprudential and regulatory policies remain the preferred methods for dealing with financial stability risks. But participants also recognized that this might not suffice: Many participants remarked that the Committee should not rule out the possibility of adjusting the stance of monetary policy to mitigate financial stability risks, particularly when those risks have important implications for the economic outlook and when macroprudential tools had been or were likely to be ineffective at mitigating those risks. At January’s FOMC meeting, the Fed staff also presented the idea of a “financial stability escape clause” that would “provide leeway for the central bank to deviate from its usual monetary policy strategy if financial vulnerabilities become significant.” For our part, we have consistently argued that, if inflation expectations remain stubbornly low, the Fed may eventually lift rates this cycle in response to signs of excess in financial markets.7 So far, we don’t see asset valuations as stretched enough to prompt Fed tightening (Chart 11), but the longer that interest rates stay low, the more likely it is that financial market valuations will reach bubbly levels. Inflation Ranges The FOMC discussed two types of inflation ranges at the January FOMC meeting. They discussed ranges that are symmetrical around the Fed’s 2% target, and “operational ranges” that could be moved around depending on the Fed’s policy goals. In theory, the advantage of a symmetric inflation range around the Fed’s 2% target is that it could help communicate the inherent uncertainty in measuring inflation, and the difficulty in forecasting it with precision. However, participants worried that introducing a symmetric inflation range at a time when inflation has been running below the Fed’s 2% target would signal that the Fed is comfortable with below-target inflation. In contrast, the idea of an operational range has some appeal, especially if the Fed decides to shift from a pure forward-looking 2% inflation target to a target that seeks to achieve average 2% inflation over time. How would this work? In an environment where inflation had been running below 2% for several years, the Fed would set its operational range to be 2%-2.5% for a time (Chart 12). Once it judged that enough of an overshoot of 2% had taken place to make up for past downside misses, it would shift back to a symmetric operational range of say 1.75%-2.25%. Or perhaps, if it judged that inflation needed to undershoot 2% for a time, it would set its operational range as 1.5%-2%. Crucially, the operational range would be moved around at the discretion of the Committee with the goal of achieving 2% inflation on average over time. Chart 12The Fed Could Adopt An Operational Target Inflation Range of 2-2.5 This Year The Most That Could Be Announced This Year Based on the info we’ve received so far from the FOMC minutes and the speeches of several Fed Governors, two in particular from Governor Lael Brainard.8 We now have a decent sense of the most dramatic changes that could be announced this year. In all likelihood, the announced changes will be somewhat less dramatic than those listed below, as consensus amongst committee members on all the details will be difficult to achieve. The Fed will change from a forward-looking 2% inflation target to one that seeks to achieve average inflation of 2% over time. It will implement its new inflation targeting framework by using operational inflation ranges that will be moved around at the discretion of the Committee. The Fed will allow for the possibility of changing interest rates in response to financial stability risks, if it is thought that those risks threaten the dual mandate of full employment and 2% inflation. It will announce a new tool for implementing monetary policy at the zero-lower bound where it puts a hard cap on bond yields out to some specific maturity. The cap won’t be lifted until some specified economic goals are met. We would speculate that, this year, the Fed is very likely to change its framework so that it can seek a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target. This may involve moving to an “average inflation targeting” regime implemented via operational inflation ranges, or it could be a more watered down version of the same idea. Similarly, we would also expect that any announced changes to the Fed’s policy strategy will include more explicit language related to financial stability risks. As for the idea of adopting bond yield caps at the zero-lower bound, a policy that is similar to the Bank of Japan’s current Yield Curve Control policy. This may not be announced this year, especially since the Fed probably believes that it has more time to mull over this sort of proposal.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Transcript: Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic Speaks with CNBC’s Steve Liesman on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Today,” CNBC, dated February 21, 2020. 2 Please see “CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Excerpts: St. Louis Fed President James Bullard Speaks with CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Today,” CNBC, dated February 21, 2020. 3 Please see “CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Transcript: Federal Reserve Vice Chair Richard Clarida Speaks with CNBC’s Steve Liesman,” CNBC, dated February 20, 2020. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Credit Cycle Is Far From Over,” dated February 18, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Credit Cycle Is Far From Over,” dated February 18, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Our rationale is explained in US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Fed In 2020,” dated December 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Fed In 2020,” dated December 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Governor Lael Brainard, “Federal Reserve Review of Monetary Policy Strategy, Tools, and Communications: Some Preliminary Views,” dated November 26, 2019, and “Monetary Policy Strategies and Tools When Inflation and Interest Rates Are Low,” dated February 21, 2020,  Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification