Economy

Highlights The short-term trade is to overweight the DAX or Euro Stoxx 50… …versus German bunds or the S&P 500. These trades have outperformed since late last year and can continue to do so for a while longer. But moving into the second half of the year, it will be time to take profits in these growth-sensitive trades. The long-term position is to own German real estate equities. The hedged position is long German real estate equities, short Swedish real estate equities. Feature Let’s begin with a trivia question. What do Germany, Finland, and Ireland have in common, that the other EU28 countries do not have? Chart of the WeekEuro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P500 And EM Vs. DM Have Followed Near Carbon Copy Profiles The answer: Germany, Finland, and Ireland are the only three European countries that have a trade surplus with China.1 Germany Catches A Cold When China Sneezes… Chart 2Slowdown In Germany And Finland, No Slowdown In France And Spain Germany and Finland are the European economies most exposed to China, with 17 percent and 14 percent respectively of their extra-EU28 exports heading to the dominant emerging economy (for Ireland it is only 7 percent). This equates to almost 3 percent of GDP for Germany and around 1.5 percent for Finland. Hence, when China sneezes – as it did last year – Germany and Finland are the European economies most likely to catch a cold. It is not a coincidence that Germany and Finland suffered near identical short-term slowdowns in 2018 with the pain focussed in the third quarter. By contrast, the European economies with much less exposure to China – say, France and Spain – suffered no discernible slowdown (Chart I-2). In fact, Spain seemed completely unaffected, growing at a steady and robust 2 percent clip throughout 2018! The corollary is that when China rebounds – as it has recently – Germany and Finland are the European countries most likely to benefit. Since early January, Germany’s DAX has outperformed the 10-year German bund by 15 percent. For the past three months, the DAX has also outperformed the S&P 500, albeit modestly. The trends can continue for a while, but be warned: these short-term cyclical moves are likely to reverse later in the year, perhaps viciously. More about this later. …But Germany’s Structural Growth Model Has Changed Germany’s gross exports of €1.6 trillion equate to almost half of its €3.4 trillion economy. Inevitably, this makes the German economy highly vulnerable to down-oscillations in global growth as, for example, when China sneezes. But here’s the paradox: while the level of German exports is very high, it has been flat-lining at this elevated level since 2012 (Chart I-3). Hence, Germany is no longer deriving any structural growth from its export sector. All of Germany’s post-2012 structural growth has come from domestic demand. Germany’s structural growth model has changed. Through 1999-2007, Germany’s net export contribution accounted for the vast majority of its structural growth; and in 2008, net exports accounted for two-thirds of Germany’s severe economic contraction. But remarkably, since 2012, net exports have made no contribution to Germany’s structural growth (Chart I-4). Meaning that all of Germany’s post-2012 structural growth has come from domestic demand. Chart 3The Level Of German Exports Is High But Flat-Lining Chart 4Since 2012, Net Exports Have Made No Contribution To Germany's Structural Growth One manifestation of this is the post-2012 recovery in Germany’s real estate market. When Germany was deriving most of its growth from external demand, the domestic real estate market withered. In recent years, when growth has come from domestic demand, Germany’s real estate market has started to flourish (Chart I-5). Chart 5German Real Estate Prices Still Need To Catch Up Chart 6German Real Estate Book Values Have Trebled With Germany’s average house price, in real terms, at the same level as it was in 1995, there is still considerable upside outside the major cities such as Berlin, Frankfurt, and Munich. Especially so, because one of the main enemies of the real estate market – substantially higher bond yields – will be absent for some time.2 The strong performance of German real estate equities – a near trebling since 2012 – is just tracking the strong performance of their book values (Chart I-6), which itself is a leveraged function of real estate prices. On the basis that the real estate sector is benefiting from a structural tailwind, the sector is a long-term hold, but for those who want to hedge their exposure, the recommendation is: long German real estate equities, short Swedish real estate equities. What Is Driving Euro Stoxx Outperformance? In response to this week’s title question, some people will ask: has Euro Stoxx 50 outperformance even started? The answer is a clear yes. Relative to both global equities and the S&P 500, the Euro Stoxx 50 has been in a well-established – though modest – uptrend since last September. Interestingly, emerging markets (EM) versus developed markets (DM) has followed a near carbon copy profile, albeit the outperformance was front-end loaded (Chart of the Week and Chart I-7). Euro Stoxx 50 has been gently outperforming. Can this continue? Recent history is not very encouraging. Since the Global Financial Crisis, no bout of Euro Stoxx 50 outperformance has lasted more than a year (Chart I-8). If this pattern continues to hold, it implies that the current bout of Euro Stoxx 50 outperformance will be exhausted within another four months. Chart 7Euro Stoxx 50 Has Been Gently Outperforming Chart 8Euro Stoxx 50 Vs. S&P500 ##br##Follows…   Chart 9…Euro Area Banks Vs. U.S. Tech Could it be different this time? We think not. Euro Stoxx 50 performance relative to the S&P 500 lines up almost perfectly with the relative performance of euro area banks versus U.S. tech (Chart I-9). Given that this defines the sector skew ‘fingerprint’ of the relative position, this defining relationship is fundamental. Meaning that for the Euro Stoxx 50 to outperform the S&P 500 on a sustained basis, euro area banks have to outperform U.S. tech. Likewise, EM versus DM lines up almost perfectly with the relative performance of global resources versus global healthcare (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). Again, this is not surprising as this just defines the sector skew fingerprint of EM versus DM. Admittedly, in this case the causality could sometimes run from the EM economy to the sector performance – given China’s role in driving resource demand – rather than from sector relative performance to EM versus DM. Nevertheless, for EM to outperform DM, resources have to outperform healthcare. EM versus DM lines up almost perfectly with the relative performance of global resources versus global healthcare. Since last autumn, Euro Stoxx 50 versus S&P 500 and EM versus DM have followed near carbon copy profiles because growth-sensitive financials and resources have outperformed less growth-sensitive technology and healthcare. Chart 10EM Vs. DM Follows… Chart 11…Basic Resources Vs. Healthcare From Sweet Spot To Weak Spot Nevertheless, there is a puzzle: why have growth-sensitive sectors, the DAX, Euro Stoxx 50, and EM outperformed since late last year when the high-profile hard economic data – such as GDP growth and CPI inflation – have been unambiguously weak? High-profile hard data are a record of what happened in the past. The simple answer is that these high-profile hard data are a record of what happened in the past, sometimes the distant past. Yet they matter because central banks’ increasingly ‘data dependent’ reaction functions have become slaves to this backward-looking data. Here’s the paradox: the ‘sweet spot’ for growth-sensitive sectors and markets is when the high-profile backward-looking data – GDP and inflation – are actually weak, while real-time measures of growth – such as short-term credit impulses – are strengthening. This creates a win-win for markets because the dovish pivot by data-dependent central banks lifts asset valuations and the acceleration in real-time growth lifts profit expectations. Sound familiar? It describes the situation since last autumn, and explains why the DAX, Euro Stoxx 50, and EM have outperformed. Now comes the unfortunate corollary: the ‘weak spot’ for growth-sensitive sectors and markets is when the high-profile backward-looking data are strong, while real-time measures of growth – such as short-term credit impulses – are weakening. This is a lose-lose for markets because the hawkish pivot by central banks weighs on asset valuations and the deceleration in real-time growth depresses profit expectations. Almost certainly, this will be the situation later in the year as the high-profile hard data starts to perk up – removing some of the central bank support for valuations – just as short-term credit impulses inevitably roll over – weighing on profit growth expectations. To sum up, growth-sensitive sectors, the DAX, and Euro Stoxx 50 have outperformed since late last year, especially versus bonds and cash – in line with our house view. These trends can continue for a while longer. But moving into the second half of the year, these growth-sensitive positions will transition from sweet spot to weak spot, and it will be time to take profits. As ever, we will tell you when. Stay tuned.   Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System* This week, we note that that the 65-day fractal dimension for technology versus healthcare is at an all-time low – implying that the recent strong outperformance is highly vulnerable to a technical reversal. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short technology versus healthcare with a profit target of 6.5 percent and a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, we are pleased to report that long aluminium versus tin achieved its 6.5 percent profit target at which it was closed. This leaves five open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * 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. Footnotes 1 Based on the EU28 net exports of goods to China in 2018 by Member State. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report ‘Monetarists, Keynesians, And Modern Monetary Theory’ April 11 2019 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields 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 We continue to recommend overweighting Mexican local fixed-income markets, the peso and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. A new trade: Sell Mexican CDS / buy Brazilian and South African CDS. Continue holding the long MXN / short ZAR position. We have a lower conviction view that Mexican equities will outperform the EM benchmark. Feature Since the election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador – or AMLO, as he is commonly known – as President, investors have been worrying about Mexico’s fiscal policy and public debt sustainability. Specifically, investors have expressed concern over the debt dynamics of state-owned petroleum company Pemex and its impact on the country’s public debt. While these concerns are not groundless, on balance we find the risk-reward profile of Mexico’s sovereign credit and local currency bonds superior relative to their respective EM peers. Fiscal Sustainability: A Comparative Analysis We discussed debt sustainability in Brazil and South Africa in two of our recent reports, and concluded that their public debt dynamics are unsustainable without drastic fiscal reforms. However, a closer look at debt sustainability in Mexico reveals a different picture. Chart 1Public Debt Burden Including SOE Debt Mexico’s public debt level including the debt of state-owned enterprises is lower than those in Brazil and South Africa (Chart 1). Notably, Mexico’s public debt-to-GDP ratio has been flat over the past three years. Importantly, as detailed below, the two primary conditions for public debt sustainability – the level of government borrowing costs and the primary fiscal balance - are far superior in Mexico relative to Brazil and South Africa. Government borrowing costs in local currency terms are only slightly above nominal GDP in Mexico. Brazil and South Africa score much worse on this measure (Chart 2). The primary fiscal balance in Mexico is much better than in Brazil and South Africa (Chart 3). In fact, Mexico is targeting a primary surplus of 1% for 2019. Chart 2Local Borrowing Costs Versus Nominal GDP Chart 3Primary Fiscal Balances Even with potential pension reforms, Brazil will continue to run primary deficits for the next few years. As we discussed in our recent report on Brazil, the government’s submitted draft on social security reforms will save only BRL190 billion over the next four years, or 0.7% of GDP per year. The current primary deficit is 1.5% of GDP. Unless nominal GDP growth and government revenue growth shoot up, the primary deficit will not be eliminated in the next four years. Unlike Brazil and South Africa, the growth of public sector debt in Mexico is not outpacing nominal GDP growth (Chart 4). Critically, the latter point is also true in Mexico if one includes state-owned enterprises’ debt. Brazil and South Africa sovereign spreads are currently only 40 and 85 basis points above those in Mexico, respectively. The spread will widen further in favor of Mexico, given the latter’s superior fundamentals (Chart 5). In terms of local currency bonds, real yields in Mexico are also on par with Brazil but are well above those in South Africa (Chart 6). Hence, Mexican local bonds offer relative value versus many of their EM peers. Chart 4Public Debt and GDP Growth Chart 5Sell Mexican CDS / Long South African and Brazilian CDS             Nominal local currency bond yields in Mexico are about 200 basis points above the EM GBI benchmark domestic bond yield index (Chart 7). This is great value. Clearly, Mexico’s fiscal worries are overblown relative to those in Brazil and South Africa. Besides, relative valuations of sovereign credit and local bonds adjusted for relative fundamentals warrant outperformance in Mexico versus the other two markets as well as against the respective EM benchmarks in the months ahead. Chart 6Real Bond Yields: Decent Value In Mexico Chart 7Nominal Bond Yields: Great Value In Mexico In addition, AMLO’s administration has proven to be committed to fiscal austerity. Last month, the Ministry of Finance reinforced this notion by announcing a reduction in public spending on social programs in order to balance the loss of fiscal revenue from decreasing oil revenues and lower GDP estimates. Mexico’s fiscal worries are overblown relative to those in Brazil and South Africa. Besides, relative valuations of sovereign credit and local bonds adjusted for relative fundamentals warrant outperformance in Mexico versus the other two markets as well as against the respective EM benchmarks in the months ahead. We view the primary fiscal target of 1% for 2019 as aggressive and potentially unattainable due to a shortfall in revenues. However, these actions prove that AMLO’s administration is not intending to run a large fiscal deficit to finance populist spending programs, as investors had feared. Adding Pemex To Public Finances Pemex’s financial position and the government budget’s reliance on oil revenues are an Achilles’ heel for Mexico’s public finances. Therefore, we have incorporated Pemex into the budget. The resulting fiscal deterioration is not calamitous. Specifically, international credit agencies estimate that Pemex needs an additional $13 billion to $20 billion in capital expenditures per year in order to maintain current operations and replenish reserves. This is in addition to its debt service obligations in the coming years, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Pemex Debt Servicing We have the following considerations on this issue: First, this year the government announced $5.7 billion of financing for Pemex in the form of direct investment, tax breaks, deductions for drilling and exploration costs and revenue recovered from oil theft. In addition, the government will also do a one-time transfer of $6.8 billion from its $15.4 billion budget stabilization fund in order to finance Pemex’s debt payments due by the end of this year. While Congress must first approve the use of these funds, odds are that the bill will pass as AMLO’s party holds a majority. That would bring total capital injection into Pemex to $12.5 billion for the year, almost enough to finance the company’s capital spending this year. Second, in order to revive operations at Pemex in the medium to long term, the government must maintain this level of investment on an annual basis. Essentially, AMLO’s administration will inevitably have to sacrifice part of the $29 billion in net oil transfers it receives every year to finance the oil company and prevent further downgrades to its credit rating. How large is this required Pemex financing as a share of the public budget? We performed a simulation including into the public budget all of Pemex’s payments and all its receipts from the government. While the overall fiscal position deteriorates, it is not unsustainable. The primary and overall deficits would widen to 1.9% and 4.4% of GDP, respectively, if the government eliminates all transfers to Pemex and if the company stops all payments to the government budget, including direct transfers and indirect oil taxes1 (Table 2, Scenario 1). Table 2Mexico: Pemex And Government Budget In such a scenario, Pemex would gain $ 29 billion each year to invest in exploration and production. Pemex is the largest fiscal challenge for Mexico. Yet, even including Pemex debt and required financing, the nation’s fiscal accounts are not worrisome. Chart 8Mexico's Budget Balance Adjusted For Financing To Pemex Third, provided Pemex’s capital spending needs could be met by half of this $29 billion, the government could provide the company just half of this amount (Table 2, Scenario 3). In this scenario, the oil company will have sufficient funds to invest. Meanwhile, the government’s primary and overall fiscal deficit will deteriorate only moderately to 0.7% and 3.2% of GDP, respectively (Chart 8 and Table 2). Finally, the importance of oil revenues – both directly from Pemex and via indirect taxation on the oil industry – have already declined as a share of total fiscal revenues – from 40% in 2012 to 18.3% currently (Chart 9). In short, Mexico’s budget is less reliant on oil revenues. If economic growth picks up, non-oil revenues will improve. Consequently, the government’s fiscal position will improve, giving it more maneuvering room to deal with Pemex. Bottom Line: Pemex is the largest fiscal challenge for Mexico. Yet, even including Pemex debt and required financing, the nation’s fiscal accounts are not worrisome. Cyclical Economic Conditions The Mexican economy is slowing and inflationary pressures are subsiding. Narrow money (M1) and retail sales growth are decelerating (Chart 10, top panel) Capital spending is contracting and non-oil exports will be in a soft spot over the next six months, according the U.S. manufacturing ISM new orders-to-inventory ratio (Chart 10, bottom panel). Core inflation is at 3.55% and is heading south. Chart 9Dependence On Oil Revenues Has Declined A Lot Chart 10Mexico: Cyclical Conditions   Barring major turmoil in EM currency markets that weighs on the peso, weakening growth and disinflation will lead the domestic fixed-income market to discount rate cuts. Mexico’s central bank is very hawkish and will be slow to ease policy. Yet, such a policy stance warrants a bullish view on domestic bonds. The basis is that the longer they delay rate cuts, the more they will need to cut in the future. Investment Strategy We have been recommending an overweight position in Mexico in EM local currency and sovereign credit portfolios, and are reiterating these strategies. Relative value investors should consider this trade: Sell Mexico CDS / buy Brazilian and South African CDS. The Mexican sovereign credit market has made a major bottom versus the EM benchmark and the path of least resistance is now up (Chart 11). EM local currency bond portfolios should continue overweighting Mexico while underweighting Brazil and South Africa (Chart 12). Chart 11Sovereign Excess Returns: A Relative Bull Market In Mexico Chart 12Total Return on Local Currency Bonds in Dollar Terms Similarly, among EM currencies, we favor the Mexican peso because it is cheap (Chart 13). Specifically, we continue to hold the long MXN / short ZAR position; investors who are not yet in this trade should consider entering it now. Chart 13The Mexican Peso Is Cheap Finally, in the EM equity universe, we are overweight Mexican stocks, but our conviction level is lower than in the case of fixed-income markets. The basis is that AMLO’s policies intend to weaken oligopolies and monopolies and undermine their pricing power. These policies are very positive for fixed-income markets and the exchange rate in the long run, as they entail lower inflation resulting from a more competitive environment. Yet, they could hurt profits of incumbent monopolies and oligopolies. This is why we recommend equity investors focus on Mexican small-caps. That said, from a macro perspective, resulting disinflation and lower local rates are also positive for equity multiples. Hence, the Mexican stock market will also likely outperform the EM benchmark in common currency terms.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Juan Egaña, Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1 Indirect oil taxation includes different taxes for the oil fund for stabilization and development, such as rights on drilling and exploration, import and export duties on oil and gas and financing for oil and gas research.

Special Report

Highlights We continue to recommend overweighting Mexican local fixed-income markets, the peso and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. A new trade: Sell Mexican CDS / buy Brazilian and South African CDS. Continue holding the long MXN / short ZAR position. We have a lower conviction view that Mexican equities will outperform the EM benchmark. Feature Since the election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador – or AMLO, as he is commonly known – as President, investors have been worrying about Mexico’s fiscal policy and public debt sustainability. Specifically, investors have expressed concern over the debt dynamics of state-owned petroleum company Pemex and its impact on the country’s public debt. While these concerns are not groundless, on balance we find the risk-reward profile of Mexico’s sovereign credit and local currency bonds superior relative to their respective EM peers. Fiscal Sustainability: A Comparative Analysis We discussed debt sustainability in Brazil and South Africa in two of our recent reports, and concluded that their public debt dynamics are unsustainable without drastic fiscal reforms. However, a closer look at debt sustainability in Mexico reveals a different picture. Chart 1Public Debt Burden Including SOE Debt Mexico’s public debt level including the debt of state-owned enterprises is lower than those in Brazil and South Africa (Chart 1). Notably, Mexico’s public debt-to-GDP ratio has been flat over the past three years. Importantly, as detailed below, the two primary conditions for public debt sustainability – the level of government borrowing costs and the primary fiscal balance - are far superior in Mexico relative to Brazil and South Africa.   Government borrowing costs in local currency terms are only slightly above nominal GDP in Mexico. Brazil and South Africa score much worse on this measure (Chart 2). The primary fiscal balance in Mexico is much better than in Brazil and South Africa (Chart 3). In fact, Mexico is targeting a primary surplus of 1% for 2019. Chart 2Local Borrowing Costs Versus Nominal GDP Chart 3Primary Fiscal Balances Even with potential pension reforms, Brazil will continue to run primary deficits for the next few years. As we discussed in our recent report on Brazil, the government’s submitted draft on social security reforms will save only BRL190 billion over the next four years, or 0.7% of GDP per year. The current primary deficit is 1.5% of GDP. Unless nominal GDP growth and government revenue growth shoot up, the primary deficit will not be eliminated in the next four years. Unlike Brazil and South Africa, the growth of public sector debt in Mexico is not outpacing nominal GDP growth (Chart 4). Critically, the latter point is also true in Mexico if one includes state-owned enterprises’ debt. Brazil and South Africa sovereign spreads are currently only 40 and 85 basis points above those in Mexico, respectively. The spread will widen further in favor of Mexico, given the latter’s superior fundamentals (Chart 5). In terms of local currency bonds, real yields in Mexico are also on par with Brazil but are well above those in South Africa (Chart 6). Hence, Mexican local bonds offer relative value versus many of their EM peers. Chart 4Public Debt and GDP Growth Chart 5Sell Mexican CDS / Long South African and Brazilian CDS             Nominal local currency bond yields in Mexico are about 200 basis points above the EM GBI benchmark domestic bond yield index (Chart 7). This is great value. Clearly, Mexico’s fiscal worries are overblown relative to those in Brazil and South Africa. Besides, relative valuations of sovereign credit and local bonds adjusted for relative fundamentals warrant outperformance in Mexico versus the other two markets as well as against the respective EM benchmarks in the months ahead. Chart 6Real Bond Yields: Decent Value In Mexico Chart 7Nominal Bond Yields: Great Value In Mexico In addition, AMLO’s administration has proven to be committed to fiscal austerity. Last month, the Ministry of Finance reinforced this notion by announcing a reduction in public spending on social programs in order to balance the loss of fiscal revenue from decreasing oil revenues and lower GDP estimates. Mexico’s fiscal worries are overblown relative to those in Brazil and South Africa. Besides, relative valuations of sovereign credit and local bonds adjusted for relative fundamentals warrant outperformance in Mexico versus the other two markets as well as against the respective EM benchmarks in the months ahead. We view the primary fiscal target of 1% for 2019 as aggressive and potentially unattainable due to a shortfall in revenues. However, these actions prove that AMLO’s administration is not intending to run a large fiscal deficit to finance populist spending programs, as investors had feared. Adding Pemex To Public Finances Pemex’s financial position and the government budget’s reliance on oil revenues are an Achilles’ heel for Mexico’s public finances. Therefore, we have incorporated Pemex into the budget. The resulting fiscal deterioration is not calamitous. Specifically, international credit agencies estimate that Pemex needs an additional $13 billion to $20 billion in capital expenditures per year in order to maintain current operations and replenish reserves. This is in addition to its debt service obligations in the coming years, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Pemex Debt Servicing We have the following considerations on this issue: First, this year the government announced $5.7 billion of financing for Pemex in the form of direct investment, tax breaks, deductions for drilling and exploration costs and revenue recovered from oil theft. In addition, the government will also do a one-time transfer of $6.8 billion from its $15.4 billion budget stabilization fund in order to finance Pemex’s debt payments due by the end of this year. While Congress must first approve the use of these funds, odds are that the bill will pass as AMLO’s party holds a majority. That would bring total capital injection into Pemex to $12.5 billion for the year, almost enough to finance the company’s capital spending this year. Second, in order to revive operations at Pemex in the medium to long term, the government must maintain this level of investment on an annual basis. Essentially, AMLO’s administration will inevitably have to sacrifice part of the $29 billion in net oil transfers it receives every year to finance the oil company and prevent further downgrades to its credit rating. How large is this required Pemex financing as a share of the public budget? We performed a simulation including into the public budget all of Pemex’s payments and all its receipts from the government. While the overall fiscal position deteriorates, it is not unsustainable. The primary and overall deficits would widen to 1.9% and 4.4% of GDP, respectively, if the government eliminates all transfers to Pemex and if the company stops all payments to the government budget, including direct transfers and indirect oil taxes1 (Table 2, Scenario 1). Table 2Mexico: Pemex And Government Budget In such a scenario, Pemex would gain $ 29 billion each year to invest in exploration and production. Pemex is the largest fiscal challenge for Mexico. Yet, even including Pemex debt and required financing, the nation’s fiscal accounts are not worrisome. Chart 8Mexico's Budget Balance Adjusted For Financing To Pemex Third, provided Pemex’s capital spending needs could be met by half of this $29 billion, the government could provide the company just half of this amount (Table 2, Scenario 3). In this scenario, the oil company will have sufficient funds to invest. Meanwhile, the government’s primary and overall fiscal deficit will deteriorate only moderately to 0.7% and 3.2% of GDP, respectively (Chart 8 and Table 2). Finally, the importance of oil revenues – both directly from Pemex and via indirect taxation on the oil industry – have already declined as a share of total fiscal revenues – from 40% in 2012 to 18.3% currently (Chart 9). In short, Mexico’s budget is less reliant on oil revenues. If economic growth picks up, non-oil revenues will improve. Consequently, the government’s fiscal position will improve, giving it more maneuvering room to deal with Pemex. Bottom Line: Pemex is the largest fiscal challenge for Mexico. Yet, even including Pemex debt and required financing, the nation’s fiscal accounts are not worrisome. Cyclical Economic Conditions The Mexican economy is slowing and inflationary pressures are subsiding. Narrow money (M1) and retail sales growth are decelerating (Chart 10, top panel) Capital spending is contracting and non-oil exports will be in a soft spot over the next six months, according the U.S. manufacturing ISM new orders-to-inventory ratio (Chart 10, bottom panel). Core inflation is at 3.55% and is heading south. Chart 9Dependence On Oil Revenues Has Declined A Lot Chart 10Mexico: Cyclical Conditions   Barring major turmoil in EM currency markets that weighs on the peso, weakening growth and disinflation will lead the domestic fixed-income market to discount rate cuts. Mexico’s central bank is very hawkish and will be slow to ease policy. Yet, such a policy stance warrants a bullish view on domestic bonds. The basis is that the longer they delay rate cuts, the more they will need to cut in the future. Investment Strategy We have been recommending an overweight position in Mexico in EM local currency and sovereign credit portfolios, and are reiterating these strategies. Relative value investors should consider this trade: Sell Mexico CDS / buy Brazilian and South African CDS. The Mexican sovereign credit market has made a major bottom versus the EM benchmark and the path of least resistance is now up (Chart 11). EM local currency bond portfolios should continue overweighting Mexico while underweighting Brazil and South Africa (Chart 12). Chart 11Sovereign Excess Returns: A Relative Bull Market In Mexico Chart 12Total Return on Local Currency Bonds in Dollar Terms Similarly, among EM currencies, we favor the Mexican peso because it is cheap (Chart 13). Specifically, we continue to hold the long MXN / short ZAR position; investors who are not yet in this trade should consider entering it now. Chart 13The Mexican Peso Is Cheap Finally, in the EM equity universe, we are overweight Mexican stocks, but our conviction level is lower than in the case of fixed-income markets. The basis is that AMLO’s policies intend to weaken oligopolies and monopolies and undermine their pricing power. These policies are very positive for fixed-income markets and the exchange rate in the long run, as they entail lower inflation resulting from a more competitive environment. Yet, they could hurt profits of incumbent monopolies and oligopolies. This is why we recommend equity investors focus on Mexican small-caps. That said, from a macro perspective, resulting disinflation and lower local rates are also positive for equity multiples. Hence, the Mexican stock market will also likely outperform the EM benchmark in common currency terms.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Juan Egaña, Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1 Indirect oil taxation includes different taxes for the oil fund for stabilization and development, such as rights on drilling and exploration, import and export duties on oil and gas and financing for oil and gas research.

Special Report

Highlights Corporate Debt In Theory: Conventional theory holds that high levels of corporate debt pose a risk to the economy because they make the corporate sector more vulnerable to exogenous economic shocks. Corporate Debt In Practice: The conventional theory is contradicted by empirical evidence that links rapid private debt growth to negative economic outcomes, but shows no relationship between high debt levels and slow economic growth. The empirical evidence also links measures of credit market sentiment – such as corporate bond spreads – to future economic outcomes. We present an alternative theory of the corporate credit cycle that better aligns with the observed empirical results. The Current Risk: At present, the corporate debt measures that have historically been linked to weaker economic growth paint a fairly benign picture. We see no immediate risk to the U.S. economy from elevated corporate debt. Feature In our interactions with clients we are often asked whether corporate debt poses a risk to the U.S. economy. It’s easy to see why, U.S. nonfinancial corporate debt as a percent of GDP is higher than at any time since 1936 (Chart 1). Chart 1U.S. Corporate Debt: Highest Since 1936! This Special Report investigates the issue by looking at what recent academic theory and empirical evidence have to say about the relationship between corporate debt and economic growth. We then apply that evidence to today’s corporate debt situation to assess the economy’s current level of risk. We should note that this report focuses on potential risks stemming from the amount of outstanding debt, how quickly it is growing and how it is valued in financial markets. In a follow-up report, we will consider whether the ownership structure of the corporate bond market imparts additional risks to the economy and financial system. The Risk From Corporate Debt In Theory Conventional economic theory tells us that we should be concerned about elevated private sector debt because high debt makes the economy more vulnerable in the face of future shocks. Case in point, here is how the Federal Reserve’s Financial Stability Report describes the mechanism through which private sector debt impacts the economy: Excessive borrowing by businesses and households leaves them more vulnerable to distress if their incomes decline or the assets they own fall in value. In the event of such shocks, businesses and households with high debt burdens may need to cut back spending sharply, affecting the overall level of economic activity.1 This theory raises a few issues that we will consider in the remainder of this report: The theory suggests that the absolute amount of private sector debt matters more than its rate of growth. The theory suggests that elevated debt leads to a more severe economic downturn, but doesn’t necessarily cause the downturn. In other words, high debt simply makes the economy more vulnerable to exogenous shocks. The theory suggests that household debt and corporate debt are equally important. The Empirical Record Level Versus Growth While conventional theory implies that the crucial variable to monitor is the level of private sector debt, recent empirical evidence challenges this view. For example, a 2017 Bank of England paper considered a sample of 130 recessions across 26 countries and found that the rate of private debt growth matters much more.2 Please note that in the remainder of this report we define “debt growth” as the 3-year change in the debt-to-GDP ratio. Specifically, the researchers found a statistically and economically significant link between the severity of the recession – defined as the drawdown in per capita GDP – and the 3-year change in private debt-to-GDP that immediately preceded the downturn. They found no similar relationship using the level of private debt-to-GDP. In fact, the researchers found that the level of private debt to GDP only helped explain the severity of the recession when it was interacted with the rate of private debt growth. To quote from the paper: It appears that the level of credit before a recession matters for the severity of the downturn only when it is accompanied by a credit boom. By contrast, periods of fast credit growth appear to be associated with more severe recessions whether or not the level of credit is elevated.3 These findings suggest that the conventional theory presented above – that high debt levels make the private sector more vulnerable to exogenous shocks – is not the principle mechanism at work. We need an alternative theory to explain why the rate of debt growth is the more important variable to monitor. We discuss a possible alternative theory in the section titled “Toward A Better Theory” below. But for now, let’s consider the current state of the U.S. economy in light of the Bank of England’s findings. Chart 2 shows that the level of U.S. private sector debt-to-GDP is elevated compared to history. In fact, using data beginning in 1955, it was only higher in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. However, the second panel of Chart 2 shows that private sector debt growth is only 2.5%, a far cry from what was seen prior to the last three recessions. Chart 2Recession Watch: Private Debt Growth And Inflation We don’t mean to imply that a recession cannot occur with low private debt growth, but the track record of post-WWII U.S. recessions shows that every single one was preceded either by elevated private debt growth – 8% or above – or high inflation. At present, the U.S. economy shows very little risk on either front. Household Debt Versus Corporate Debt So far we’ve looked at private sector debt in total, i.e. we have combined household debt and nonfinancial corporate debt. This arguably masks the true instability in the U.S. economy, which is concentrated in the corporate sector. Chart 3 shows that low overall private sector debt growth of 2.5% is split between relatively quick corporate debt growth of 4.2% and household debt that is contracting at a rate of 1.8%. If we ignore the household sector’s persistent deleveraging, we see that current corporate debt growth of 4.2% is not that far below the peaks of 6.9%, 7.9% and 8% seen prior to each of the last three recessions. Chart 3U.S. Private Debt Growth Is Driven By Corporate Sector This raises two interesting questions. First, are corporate debt and household debt equally de-stabilizing for the economy? And relatedly, when tracking the U.S. economy should we focus on overall private sector debt, or should we monitor household and corporate sector debt individually? The track record of post-WWII U.S. recessions shows that every single one was preceded either by elevated private debt growth or high inflation. On the first question, we can turn back to the Bank of England paper. That paper presented the results from several regressions where the researchers looked at household debt growth and corporate debt growth individually. The results showed that elevated household debt growth and elevated corporate debt growth were both associated with more severe recessions, and with roughly equal coefficients. In the words of the researchers: Rapid credit growth continues to be an important predictor of the severity of a recession whether we look at lending to non-financial companies or to households, suggesting that the role of lending to businesses should not be ignored. Interestingly, this result stands in contrast to some other recent empirical work. Most notably, a 2016 paper by Atif Mian, Amir Sufi and Emil Verner (MSV). That paper looked at a panel of 30 countries between 1960 and 2012 and found that while higher household debt growth is associated with lower subsequent GDP growth, no such correlation is found with corporate debt.4 MSV summarize their basic result as follows: There is a significant negative correlation between changes in private debt and future output growth. Moreover, this negative correlation is entirely driven by the growth in household debt. The magnitude of the negative correlation is large, with a one standard deviation increase in the change in household debt to GDP ratio (6.2 percentage points) associated with a 2.1 percentage point lower growth rate during the subsequent three years. The main difference between the MSV methodology and that used by the Bank of England is that the MSV paper looks at GDP growth unconditional on whether there is a recession. In contrast, the Bank of England paper looks only at recessionary periods. A look back at past U.S. recessions makes us reluctant to ignore corporate debt growth completely. Table 1 lists every post-WWII U.S. recession, showing the peak-to-trough drawdown in GDP as a measure of the recession’s severity along with prior peaks in private debt growth, household debt growth, corporate debt growth and inflation. Table 1A History Of Post-WWII U.S. Recessions Table 1 confirms what we already stated above, that every post-WWII U.S. recession has been preceded by either rapid private sector debt growth or high inflation. If we dig deeper and look at the breakdown between household debt growth and corporate debt growth we find that there have only been two recessions where peak corporate debt growth exceeded peak household debt growth. Current corporate debt growth of 4.2% is not that far below the peaks of 6.9%, 7.9% and 8% seen prior to each of the last three recessions. The first such recession occurred in 1973-75, but that recession was clearly driven by high inflation. Both household and corporate debt growth were quite low during that period. The second example is the 2001 recession. Private debt growth was elevated prior to the 2001 recession, and more heavily concentrated in the corporate sector. However, it’s important to note that the 2001 recession was also the mildest post-WWII U.S. recession. Main Takeaways We draw several conclusions from our review of the empirical research: First, we should pay attention to the rate of growth in private debt-to-GDP and downplay the level of private debt-to-GDP. The latter has very little predictive power on its own. Second, a U.S. recession is unlikely to occur in the absence of elevated private sector debt growth (above ~8%) or high inflation. At the moment, neither factor suggests that the U.S. economy is on the cusp of a downturn. Third, we should not ignore corporate debt growth. However, the MSV research suggests it might be less economically important than household debt growth. Further, the Bank of England paper shows that the severity of any future downturn is equally sensitive to both household and corporate debt, suggesting that it is reasonable to combine the two and use overall private sector debt growth as our key metric when assessing risks to the economy. Finally, the empirical research suggests that the theory of how corporate debt relates to the economy that was presented in the first section of this report is at best incomplete. That theory cannot explain why the rate of debt growth is associated with weaker economic activity, but the level of debt is not. Fortunately, some recent research proposes a few alternative theories that better align with the empirical results. These theories also suggest a few other measures of corporate credit risk that are important for investors to monitor. Looking Beyond Debt Growth So far we have focused on the difference between the level of corporate debt and the rate of corporate debt growth, but recent empirical research has also linked several other measures of ebullient credit market sentiment to future slow-downs in economic activity. Assessing Credit Market Sentiment For example, a 2016 paper by David Lopez-Salido, Jeremy Stein and Egon Zakrajsek (LSZ) shows, using U.S. data from 1929 to 2013, that “when corporate bond spreads are narrow relative to their historical norms and when the share of high-yield bond issuance in total corporate bond issuance is elevated, this forecasts a substantial slowing of growth in real GDP, business investment, and employment over the subsequent few years. Thus buoyant credit-market sentiment today is associated with a significant weakening of real economic outcomes over a medium-term horizon.”5 Before getting into the possible reason for this finding, let’s quickly look at how the U.S. economy stacks up with regard to credit market sentiment. First, the spread between Baa-rated corporate bonds and the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield – the spread measure used in the LSZ paper – is slightly above its historical average, and does not look stretched compared to history (Chart 4). Chart 4U.S. Credit Spreads Aren't Stretched Second, even a more conventional spread measure like the average option-adjusted spread from the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Corporate Bond index remains fairly wide (Chart 5). Chart 5Junk Share Of New Issuance Is Falling Third, the high-yield share of new corporate bond issuance was elevated early in the recovery, especially compared to last cycle, but has declined in recent years (Chart 5, panel 2). Relatedly, the par value of outstanding junk debt as a proportion of the total par value of corporate debt has been falling since 2015 (Chart 5, bottom panel). Does Elevated Credit Market Sentiment Cause Slower Economic Growth? Of course, the empirical finding that tight credit spreads predict slower economic growth could simply reflect the fact that credit spreads respond to swings in the economic data. If our goal is to forecast economic growth, then this would suggest that we don’t need to pay much attention to credit spreads, because they are simply reflecting swings in the economy rather than causing them. However, the empirical evidence increasingly suggests that there is a causal mechanism at play. To test this, the LSZ paper employs a two-step regression procedure. In the first step, researchers model the future change in credit spreads based on the lagged level of credit spreads and the junk share of new issuance. In the second step, they use the fitted value from the first regression to predict changes in economic activity. The fact that the fitted value is significantly related to changes in economic activity implies that there is some predictable mean reversion in credit market sentiment, unrelated to economic fundamentals, that actually exerts an influence on future economic growth. LSZ suggest the following causal mechanism: Heightened levels of sentiment in credit markets today portend bad news for future economic activity. This is because mean reversion implies that when sentiment is unusually positive today, it is likely to deteriorate in the future. Moreover, a sentiment-driven widening of credit spreads amounts to a reduction in the supply of credit, especially to lower credit-quality firms. It is this reduction in credit supply that exerts a negative influence on economic activity. It follows from this analysis that if we could show that corporate bond spreads are tight relative to their “economic fair value”, then the economy would be at even greater risk from a mean reversion in credit market sentiment. While it’s difficult to identify a true “fair value” for credit spreads, Simon Gilchrist and Egon Zakrajsek (GZ) have calculated an Excess Bond Premium that measures the excess spread available in a sample of corporate bonds after removing a bottom-up estimate of expected default losses.6 Expected default losses are estimated using the Merton model and each firm’s market value of equity and face value of debt.7 Using this new measure, GZ find that “over the past four decades, the predictive power of credit spreads for economic downturns is due entirely to the Excess Bond Premium”. This stunning result is the most compelling evidence yet that swings in credit market sentiment actually cause shifts in economic activity, rather than simply reflect them. Looking at the GZ Excess Bond Premium today, we see that while it had been negative for most of the current cycle, it recently ticked above zero and has yet to recover (Chart 6). For the time being, there is no evidence of excessively optimistic credit market sentiment. Chart 6U.S. Credit Spreads Are High Relative To Fundamentals Toward A Better Theory So far we’ve seen that rapid debt growth is a better predictor of future economic weakness than high debt levels. We’ve also seen evidence that optimistic credit market sentiment (tight credit spreads, especially relative to fundamentals, and an elevated junk share of new issuance) forecasts, and likely causes, future economic weakness. Clearly, we need a better theory for why corporate debt matters for the economy than the one provided by the Federal Reserve in the first section of this report. In our view, the theory that most closely aligns with the empirical data is Nicola Gennaioli and Andrei Shleifer’s theory of Diagnostic Expectations, as detailed in their 2018 book A Crisis Of Beliefs.8 In the book, the author’s demonstrate how investors systematically overreact to new economic information. A tendency that makes forecast errors highly predictable. For example, Chart 7 shows that forecasts for what the Baa/Treasury spread will be in one year’s time are tightly linked with today’s actual spread. This means that investors inevitably expect too much future spread widening when spreads are high, and too much future tightening when spreads are low. Chart 7Forecast Errors Are Predictable Gennaioli and Shleifer integrate this systematic behavioral bias into a model that, from our perspective, better aligns with the empirical data on the relationship between corporate debt and the real economy. According to Gennaioli and Shleifer: Good economic news […] makes right-tail outcomes representative. This leads investors to both overestimate average future conditions and to neglect the unrepresentative downside risk, causing overexpansion of both leverage and real investment. When good news stops coming, investors revise their expectations down, even without adverse shocks. These revisions cause credit spreads to revert, the lenders to perform poorly, and economic and financial conditions to deteriorate, leading to deleveraging and cuts in real investment. A severe crisis occurs if arriving news is sufficiently bad as to render left-tail outcomes representative and hence overstated. This theory would seem to explain all of the key empirical findings. Investors form their expectations based on an overreaction to recent news. During an economic recovery this causes credit spreads to tighten and debt to grow rapidly. Eventually, investors realize that expectations have become unrealistically optimistic, credit spreads mean-revert and debt growth plunges. Crucially, in this model a severe economic shock is not required for credit spreads to mean-revert, only a lack of further good news to confirm investor over-optimism. Based on this theory, if we are concerned about the impact of corporate debt on the real economy we should predominantly track measures of credit market sentiment and the rate of debt growth. The theory helps reveal why the level of corporate debt has little informational value. Concluding Thoughts Conventional theory tells us that high corporate debt levels could pose a risk to the economy because they make the corporate sector more vulnerable in the face of exogenous economic shocks. However, empirical evidence suggests that this theory is of little practical value. A better theory is one where investors and corporate managers overreact to positive economic news, leading to overvaluation in credit markets and rapid debt growth. Then, when sentiment is revealed to be overly optimistic, it leads to a mean-reversion in credit spreads and a tightening of credit supply that actually causes a period of weaker economic growth. Investors inevitably expect too much future spread widening when spreads are high, and too much future tightening when spreads are low. It follows from this theory that if we are concerned about the impact of corporate debt on the real economy we should predominantly track debt growth and measures of credit market sentiment such as credit spreads and the junk share of new issuance. The U.S. economy currently looks quite stable by these measures. Overall private sector debt growth is only 2.5%. Historically, it has been above 8% prior to recessions that weren’t caused by high inflation. The GZ Excess Bond Premium also shows that credit market sentiment is not currently stretched relative to fundamentals. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/financial-stability-report-201811.pdf 2      https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2017/down-in-the-slumps-t… 3      Please note that the Bank of England paper uses the term “credit” in place of “debt”. In this report we use both terms interchangeably. 4      https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&co… 5      https://www.nber.org/papers/w21879 6      https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2016/recession-risk-and-the-excess-bond-premium-20160408.html 7      Merton, Robert C., “On The Pricing Of Corporate Debt: The Risk Structure of Interest Rates”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 29, No. 2, May 1974. 8      Nicola Gennaioli and Andrei Shleifer, A Crisis Of Beliefs: Investor Psychology And Financial Fragility, Princeton University Press, 2018.