Equities
Highlights Global growth is still slowing. Having rallied since the start of the year, global stocks will likely enter a “dead zone” over the next six-to-eight weeks as investors nervously await the proverbial green shoots to sprout. We think they will appear in the second quarter, setting the scene for a reacceleration in global growth in the second half of the year, and an accompanying rally in global risk assets. Investors should overweight stocks and spread product while underweighting safe government bonds over a 12-month horizon. The U.S. dollar will strengthen a bit over the next few months, but should start to weaken in the summer as the global economy catches fire. Stronger global growth and a weaker dollar in the back half of the year will benefit EM assets and European stocks. Feature I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been. — Wayne Gretzky How To Be A Good Macro Strategist To paraphrase Gretzky, a mediocre macro strategist draws conclusions based solely on incoming data. A good macro strategist, in contrast, tries to figure out where the data is heading. How can one predict how the economic data will evolve? Examining forward-looking indicators is helpful, but it is not enough. One also has to understand why the data is evolving the way it is. If one knows this, one can then assess whether the forces either hurting or helping growth will diminish, intensify, or remain the same. What Accounts For the Growth Slowdown? There is little mystery as to why global growth slowed in 2018. Chinese credit growth fell steadily over the course of the year, which generated a negative credit impulse. Unlike in the past, China is now the most important driver of global credit flows (Chart 1). Chart 1Global Credit Flows Are Increasingly Driven By China Meanwhile, the global economy was rocked by rising oil prices. Brent rose from $55/bbl on October 5, 2017 to $85/bbl on October 4, 2018. Government bond yields also increased, with the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield rising from 2.05% on September 7, 2017 to 3.23% on October 5, 2018 (Chart 2). Chart 2Rising Oil Prices And Bond Yields Contributed To Slower Global Growth Last Year A mediocre macro strategist draws conclusions based solely on incoming data. A good macro strategist, in contrast, tries to figure out where the data is heading. In an ironic twist, Jay Powell’s ill-timed comment that rates were “a long way” from neutral marked the peak in bond yields. Unfortunately, the subsequent decline in yields was accompanied by a vicious stock market correction and a widening in credit spreads. This led to an overall tightening in financial conditions, which further hurt growth (Chart 3). Chart 3Financial Conditions Tightened In 2018, Especially After Powell's Hawkish Comments The critical point is that all of these negative forces are behind us: Financial conditions have eased significantly over the past two months; oil prices have rebounded, but are still well below their 2018 highs; and as we explain later on, Chinese growth is likely to bottom by the middle of this year. This means that global growth should start to improve over the coming months. The United States: Better News Ahead The latest U.S. economic data has been weak, with this morning’s disappointing ISM manufacturing print being the latest example. The New York Fed’s GDP Nowcast is pointing to annualized growth of 0.9% in the first quarter. While there is no doubt that underlying growth has decelerated, data distortions have probably also contributed to the perceived slowdown. For instance, the dismal December retail sales report reduced the base for consumer spending going into 2019, thus shaving about 0.4 percentage points off Q1 growth. The drop in real personal consumption expenditures (PCE) cut the New York Fed’s Q1 growth estimate by a further 0.15 percentage points. We suspect that much of the weakness in December retail sales and PCE was linked to the government shutdown. The closure caused some of the surveys used to compile these reports to be postponed until January, which is historically the weakest month for retail sales. The Johnson Redbook Index – which covers 80% of the retail sales surveyed by the Department of Commerce – as well as the sales figures from Amazon and Walmart all point to strong spending during the holiday season (Chart 4). Chart 4The December U.S. Retail Sales Report Was Probably A Fluke Fundamentally, U.S. consumers are in good shape (Chart 5). As a share of disposable income, household debt is over 30 percentage points lower than it was in 2007. The savings rate stands at an elevated level, which gives households the wherewithal to increase spending. Job openings hit another record high, while wage growth continues to trend upwards. Fundamentally, U.S. consumers are in good shape. Chart 5U.S. Consumer Fundamentals Are Solid The housing market should improve. Rising mortgage rates weighed on housing last year. However, rates have been declining for several months now, which augurs well for home sales and construction over the next six months (Chart 6). Chart 6Mortgage Rates Will Not Be A Headwind For U.S. Housing Activity Over The Next 6 Months While capex intention surveys have come off their highs, they still point to reasonably solid expansion plans (Chart 7). Rising labor costs and high levels of capacity utilization will induce firms to invest in more capital equipment, which should support business spending. Chart 7U.S. Capex Plans Have Come Off Their Highs, But Remain Solid Government expenditures should also recover. By most estimates, the shutdown shaved one percentage point from Q1 growth. This is likely to be completely reversed in the second quarter. The End Of The Chinese Deleveraging Campaign? The popular narrative about weaker Chinese growth has focused on the trade war. While trade uncertainty undoubtedly hurt growth last year – and has continued to weigh on growth so far this year – most of the weakness in the Chinese economy can be traced to the deleveraging campaign which started in 2017, long before the surge in trade flow angst. Fixed investment spending in China is generally financed through credit markets. Chart 8 shows that the contribution of investment spending to GDP growth has declined in tandem with decelerating credit growth. Most of the weakness in the Chinese economy can be traced to the deleveraging campaign which started in 2017, long before the surge in trade flow angst. Chart 8China: Deleveraging Means Less Investment-Led Growth Chinese credit growth has typically reaccelerated whenever it has dipped towards trend nominal GDP growth. We may have already reached this point (Chart 9). New credit formation came in well above expectations in January. Given possible distortions caused by the timing of the Chinese lunar new year, investors should wait until the February data is released in mid-March before drawing any firm conclusions. Nevertheless, it is starting to look increasingly likely that credit growth has bottomed. The 6-month credit impulse has already surged (Chart 10). The 12-month impulse should also begin moving up provided that month-over-month credit growth simply maintains its recent trend (Chart 11). Chart 9Historically, China Has Scaled Back On Deleveraging When Credit Growth Has Fallen Close To Nominal GDP Growth Chart 10A Rebound In The Chinese 6-Month Credit Impulse Chart 11The 12-Month Impulse Is Set To Turn Up On the trade front, President Trump’s decision to delay the implementation of tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports is a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, gauging whether the trade war will continue to de-escalate is extraordinarily difficult. There is no major constituency within the Republican Party campaigning for protectionism. It ultimately boils down to what one man – Trump – wants. Our best guess is that President Trump will try to score a few political points by “declaring victory” – deservedly or not – in his battle with China in order to pivot to more pressing domestic issues such as immigration. However, there can be no assurance of this, which is why China’s leaders are likely to prioritize growth over deleveraging, at least for the time being. They know full well that the only way they can credibly threaten to walk away from the negotiating table is if their economy is humming along. Europe: From Headwinds To Tailwinds? Slower global growth, higher oil prices, and a spike in Italian bonds yields all contributed to the poor performance of the European economy last year. Economic activity was further hampered by a decline in German automobile production following the introduction of more stringent emission standards. The good news is that these headwinds are set to reverse course. Italian bond yields are well off their highs, as are oil prices (Chart 12). German automobile production is recovering (Chart 13). In addition, the European Commission expects the euro area fiscal thrust to reach 0.40% of GDP this year, up from 0.05% of GDP last year (Chart 14). This should add about half a percentage point to growth. Finally, if our expectation that Chinese growth will bottom out by mid-year proves correct, European exports should benefit. If neither the political establishment nor the general public favor Brexit, it will not happen. Chart 12Headwind No More (I): Italian Bond Yields Chart 13Headwind No More (II): German Auto Sector Chart 14The Euro Area Will Benefit From A Modest Amount Of Fiscal Easing This Year Brexit still remains a risk, but a receding one. We have consistently argued that the political establishment on both sides of the British channel will not accept anything resembling a hard Brexit. As was the case with the EU treaty referendums involving Denmark and Ireland in the 1990s, the European political elites will insist on a “No fair! Let’s play again! Best two-out-of-three?” do-overs until they get the result they want. Theresa May’s efforts to cobble together a parliamentary majority that precludes a hard Brexit, along with the Labor Party’s increasing willingness to pursue a second vote, is consistent with our thesis. Fortunately for the “remain” side, public opinion is shifting in favor of staying in the EU (Chart 15). Focusing on the minutiae of various timetables, rules, and regulations is largely a waste of time. If neither the political establishment nor the general public favor Brexit, it will not happen. We are short EUR/GBP, a trade recommendation that has gained 5.2% since we initiated it. We continue to see upside for the pound. Chart 15The ''Remain'' Side Would Likely Win Another Referendum Investment Conclusions Global growth is still slowing. Having rallied since the start of the year, global stocks will likely enter a “dead zone” for the next six-to-eight weeks as investors nervously await the proverbial green shoots to sprout. We think they will appear in the second quarter, setting the scene for a reacceleration in global growth in the second half of the year, and an accompanying rally in global risk assets. The dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it moves in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 16). The greenback will strengthen a bit over the next few months, but should start to weaken in the summer as the global economy catches fire. Chart 16The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency We sold our put on the EEM ETF for a gain of 104% on Jan 3rd, and are now outright long EM equities. We do not have a strong view on EM versus DM equities at the moment, but expect to shift EM to overweight once we see more confirmatory evidence that Chinese growth is stabilizing. Having rallied since the start of the year, global stocks will likely enter a “dead zone” for the next six-to-eight weeks as investors nervously await the proverbial green shoots to sprout. In conjunction with our expected upgrade on EM assets, we will move European equities to overweight. Stronger global growth will benefit European multinational exporters, while brisker domestic growth should allow the market to price in a few more ECB rate hikes starting in 2020. The latter will lead to a somewhat steeper yield curve which, along with rising demand for credit, should boost financial sector earnings (Chart 17). This will give European bank stocks a welcome boost. Chart 17Stronger Euro Area Credit Growth Will Boost Bank Earnings Japanese equities will also benefit from faster global growth, but domestic demand will suffer from the government’s ill-advised plan to raise the sales tax in October. As such, we do not anticipate upgrading Japanese stocks. We also expect the yen to come under some pressure as the BoJ is forced to maintain its ultra-accommodative monetary policy stance, while bond yields elsewhere move modestly higher. Peter Berezin Chief Global Investment Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Strategy & Market Trends* MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Despite putting Chinese investible stocks on an upgrade watch there are three factors that continue to argue against the shift. The first factor is investors have bid up Chinese stocks assuming not only that a trade deal with the U.S will occur, but that this…
The Fed’s pause allows the economy to regather momentum, thus, hiring and wage growth should be well supported. The accompanying decline in the unemployment rate will drive the Fed to revive its tightening campaign. The irony is that the longer the Fed grants…
Highlights A no-deal Brexit which did not cause pain pour encourager les autres would be the much graver existential threat for the EU. A U.K. parliamentary vote to extend Article 50 by a few months would not be a game changer in itself, because it just delays the day of judgement. The real denouement will only happen when a workable route to a benign Brexit option commands a majority in the U.K. parliament. This is the point at which U.K. exposed risk-assets would outperform sustainably. Investors should then buy: the pound, the FTSE250, FTSE Small Cap, and U.K. homebuilders. Feature Chart of the WeekU.K. Homebuilders Is The Best Equity Sector To Play Brexit The Article 50 process that governs Brexit is fast approaching its two-year time limit, and the question naturally arises as to what will happen when the clock strikes midnight on March 29.1 To answer this question, it is worth stepping back to ask something even more fundamental: what was the purpose of the two-year time limit in the first place? The EU Must Protect The Integrity Of The Union The two-year time limit in Article 50 was designed to disadvantage the exiting country relative to the EU, and this disadvantage has now become abundantly clear. After the two years have run down, a no-deal or ‘cliff edge’ exit would be bad for the EU27, but it would be far worse for the U.K. This balance of power has put the EU27 very much in the driving seat of the Brexit process, and there is no reason to presume that the EU27 will do anything other than prioritise and protect its own interests. For the EU27, the priority right now is to protect the unity and integrity of the Union in the face of a growing existential threat from populists and nationalists. Unfortunately, much of this has been overlooked in the Brexiteer rhetoric, with arguments like "they need to sell us their BMWs and Prosecco". Clearly, frictionless and barrier-less trade is in the economic interests of both parties, but the economic reality is that less than a tenth of EU27 exports go to the U.K. while something approaching half of U.K. exports go to the EU27 (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Less Than A Tenth Of EU27 Exports Go To The U.K. ... Chart I-3...While Almost Half Of U.K. Exports Go To the EU27 Brexit is essentially a huge economic gamble in the name of an overarching political aim to ‘take back control’ (Chart I-4). Remember that the case for Brexit largely hinged on the desire to regain political sovereignty: specifically, controlling migration and ending the supremacy of the European Court of Justice. That’s fine, we have no qualms about that. But if the case for Brexit was largely political, it’s a bit rich to presume that the EU27 will not also prioritise its own overarching political aims – even if these political aims come at the cost of a short-term setback to the European economy. Chart I-4U.K. House Prices Have Stagnated Since The Brexit Negotiations Started Brexit Is The Litmus Test For Optimality Of The EU A catastrophic no-deal Brexit would undoubtedly hurt the EU27, and be particularly painful for the member states most exposed to U.K. trade, notably Ireland and the Netherlands. But here’s the paradox: a no-deal Brexit which did not cause pain pour encourager les autres would be the much graver existential threat for the EU. If membership of the EU and its institutions is supposedly an optimal economic and political structure for European states, then Brexit is the litmus test for the sub-optimality of exiting, and especially the heavy cost of exiting abruptly. If, after the two-year notice of Article 50, the U.K. abruptly left the EU with negligible disruption and then quickly thrived outside the EU, it would galvanize the European nationalists and populists to emulate a newly confident and resurgent U.K.’s quick and painless divorce. As this could be the death knell of the European project, the paradox is highlighted in our mischievous title: why a catastrophic no-deal might be good… for the EU. Brexit can take three ultimate shapes: The U.K. revokes its intention to withdraw the EU and remains a full member of the Union. A long transition to a new and negotiated trading relationship between the U.K. and the EU27. A sharp cliff-edge in which the U.K. abruptly becomes a third country to the EU27. The U.K. population now clearly favours option 1 – remain – over the two alternatives (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, the U.K. parliament has expressed its opposition, albeit not yet legally binding opposition, to option 3 – the no-deal Brexit. As for the EU27, the best outcome is for the U.K. to revoke its intention to withdraw and thrive within the club; the next best outcome is a long transition to Brexit, during which and after which the U.K. economy underperforms its European peers to illustrate the sub-optimality of exiting. But if Brexit is a cliff-edge, it has to be demonstrably painful. Hence, the EU27 will want to put off the day it has to confront this paradox if there is any chance of avoiding it. Article 50 does allow for this delay. The specific wording of paragraph 3 states: The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. But a close reading suggests that if there is still a real possibility of finalising a withdrawal agreement, or if withdrawal is an outcome that the State no longer desires, then this would not represent ‘failing’. Meaning that the period of negotiation of a withdrawal agreement could be extended beyond March 29, or indeed Article 50 could be entirely revoked. A Short Delay Is Not A Game Changer, But A Second Referendum Would Be Looking at the desired outcomes of the U.K. population, the U.K. parliament, and the EU27, Brexit should rationally end up as benign options 1 or 2. The trouble is that rational outcomes can be thwarted if there is no mechanism to implement them. Although the U.K. parliament has expressed its desire to avoid a no-deal, it has not yet coalesced a majority around how exactly to avoid the cliff-edge outcome. A parliamentary vote to extend Article 50 by a few months would not be a game changer in itself because it just delays the day of judgement, though a longer extension would be more significant. But if the extension facilitated a second referendum or a general election, then that would be a game changer – as there would be the potential for the U.K. population to overturn the decision to leave. It follows that the real denouement will only happen when a workable route to either of the benign Brexit options 1 or 2 above commands a majority in the U.K. parliament. From the perspective of investors, what this way forward turns out to be – permanent customs union, Common Market 2.0, second referendum, or general election – does not really matter. What matters is that a parliamentary majority exists for a positive course of action that eliminates no-deal rather than just delays it. This would be the point at which the BoE is finally liberated from its emergency policy (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7), pushing up U.K. gilt yields relative to other government bond yields (Chart I-8), and allowing a sustained rally in the pound (Chart I-9). Chart I-6Brexit Has Subdued The BoE... Chart I-7...Despite A Tight U.K. Labour Market Chart I-8Were It Not For Brexit, U.K. Interest Rates Would Be 1 Percent Higher... Chart I-9…And The Pound Would Be At $1.50 In this event, U.K. exposed risk-assets would also outperform. Note that the FTSE100 is not one of these investments. Whenever the pound strengthens, the weaker translation of the FTSE100 companies’ dollar-denominated earnings tends to weigh down this large-cap index (Chart I-10). Instead, investors should focus on: the FTSE250 (Chart I-11) and the FTSE Small Cap, but the best play is the U.K. homebuilders (Chart of the Week). Chart I-10When The Pound Rallies, The FTSE100 Underperforms... Chart I-11...So Prefer The FTSE250 Fractal Trading System* We are pleased to report that long Italy’s MIB versus Eurostoxx600 reached the end of its 3-month holding period very comfortably in profit which is now crystallised. This week, we note that the sharp underperformance of aluminium versus tin is at the limit of tight liquidity which has previously signalled a trend-reversal. Hence, the recommended trade is long aluminium versus tin. Set a profit target of 6.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. 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-12 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 Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnote 1 Midnight British Summer Time Fractal Trading System 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 Trade talks have been the primary driver of the rally in Chinese stocks and China-related assets over the past five months. While trade is important to China’s economy, Chinese domestic demand is the primary driver of China-related asset fundamentals, meaning that the recent equity rally has occurred on the back of a largely false narrative. The January surge in credit has brought the first concrete sign that Chinese domestic demand will eventually bottom, but the current pace of money & credit growth suggests that investable earnings are facing a “catch up” period of potentially material weakness. The need for a stabilization in the outlook for earnings argues against an immediate shift to overweight, but we agree that investors should put Chinese investable stocks on upgrade watch for the coming few months. Feature Chart 1 reviews the recent performance of the Chinese investable equity market, and highlights two important facts: Chinese equity performance bottomed in both absolute and relative terms at the end of October, and The relative performance trend versus global stocks has now retraced roughly 40% of the decline that occurred in 2018 Chart 1A Sizeable Retracement, Based On A (Largely) False Narrative For investors looking for an appropriate allocation to Chinese stocks and China-related assets more generally over the coming 6-12 months, it is important to understand what has driven this post-October outperformance. In our view, it is only the January surge in credit growth that has brought the first concrete sign that Chinese domestic demand will eventually bottom, meaning that China plays have been rallying for the past five months on a largely false narrative. This significantly complicates the cyclical investment outlook, even under the assumption of an imminent trade deal with the U.S. As we will detail below, several factors argue against an immediate shift to overweight, but we agree that investors should put Chinese investable stocks on upgrade watch. We will be watching closely over the next few months for confirmation that above-average credit growth will be sustained, and that the outlook for Chinese earnings is stabilizing. Dissecting The Rally: Mostly Driven By Trade Optimism, Not Easing During the week of October 29th, the equity market was buoyed somewhat by a statement emerging from the late-October politburo meeting. The statement cited the need for the government to take “more timely steps” to counter increasing downward pressure on the economy, which catalyzed a 6% bounce in investable stocks (3% for the domestic market) by Thursday, November 1st. However, to most investors, news of a much more significant event came on Friday, November 2nd: President Trump was looking to make a deal with China at the late-November G20 meeting in Argentina, and had asked key officials to begin drafting potential terms.1 The investable market rallied over 3% on the day in response to the news, and continued to rise until Monday December 3rd, the day after the 3-month trade talk agreement was struck. Chart 1 shows that while investible stocks nearly hit a new 2018 low in December, this was due to a significant sell off in global stocks: relative performance was flat during this period, and resumed its uptrend once global stocks began to rise. Chart 2 provides confirmation that trade talks have been the primary driver behind the rally in China-related assets as well. The chart shows the BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator alongside a diffusion index of its 17 components, with the vertical line denoting the point where the prospect of a deal became public. The Fed’s shift to a more dovish posture following its December rate hike has certainly helped propel the global rally in risky assets, but Chart 2 makes it clear that a shift in the outlook for trade between the U.S. and China has been the more important factor driving the prices of China-related assets over the past few months. Chart 2Trump's Desire For A Deal Was The Turning Point For The Market In terms of its relative importance for the Chinese economy, the focus of investors on trade is mostly wrongheaded. Trade is important to China’s economy, but the domestic demand trend is a far more important driver for the fundamental performance of China-related assets. We have highlighted over the past year that investor attention has been focused on the wrong factor, underscoring the rally in Chinese stock prices over the past few months has been driven by a largely false narrative. From Trade, To Credit Chart 3 compares our leading indicator for the Chinese economy with a measure of coincident economic activity, and highlights that the sharp slowdown in growth that has occurred over the past few months represents a reversion to a level that would be more consistent with that of our leading indicator (which has been pointing to weaker economic activity for the better part of the past 18 months). In fact, Chart 3 implies that actual growth is still stronger than what monetary conditions, money, and credit growth would imply, meaning that a further slowdown should be expected over the coming several months. Chart 3Economic Activity Is Recoupling With Our Leading Indicator However, judging by January’s credit release, this further slowdown in growth may occur against the backdrop of a durable uptrend in our leading indicator. Our calculation of adjusted total social financing grew by nearly 5 trillion RMB in January, a very substantial rise that has seldom occurred over the past few years (Chart 4). Legitimate questions about the seasonal effects of the Lunar New Year remain, but Chart 5 shows that the January data was large enough to cause a visible tick higher in the YoY growth rate, caused a sharp rise in our ratio of new credit to GDP, and occurred alongside an easing in the contraction of shadow credit as a percent of total credit. These are clear signs that reluctant policymakers are responding to the need to stabilize a weak economy. Chart 4A Very Strong Surge In January Credit...Chart 5...Has Led To A Visible Uptick In Annual Growth The magnitude of the January surge suggests that there is now a legitimate basis to forecast an eventual bottom in Chinese domestic demand. Our December 5 Weekly Report outlined our key views for 2019,2 and in it we noted that “our base case view is that growth will modestly firm in the second half of 2019, which would provide a somewhat stronger demand backdrop for commodities and emerging economies that sell goods to China”. The odds of a firming in growth have certainly gone up as a result of January’s data, although it remains unclear how strong the upturn in credit growth will ultimately be over the course of 2019. This, along with the desynchronizing effect of trade front-running and a truce-driven rally in Chinese stocks, significantly muddles the 6-12 month investment strategy outlook. From Credit, To Investment Strategy We noted in our December key views report that a tactical overweight stance towards Chinese stocks was probably warranted over the coming three months, in recognition of the fact that investors could bid up the market in the lead-up to a possible trade deal with the U.S. We argued that the conditions for a cyclical overweight stance (6-12 months) were not yet present but could emerge sometime this year, particularly if money & credit growth begin to pick up. Is the January surge in adjusted total social financing a sign that investors should increase their allocation to Chinese equities today? We agree that investors should put Chinese investable stocks on upgrade watch for the next few months, but three factors continue to argue against an immediate shift: Investors appear to have bid up Chinese stocks assuming not only that the trade deal with the U.S. will occur, but that it will result in a durable resolution to the dispute (including, presumably, the rolling back of all tariffs that have been imposed). Even under the assumption that a deal does occur, it may be less comprehensive than investors are assuming and could still cause some lasting negative implications for global trade. While the odds of a credit overshoot have legitimately risen,3 January’s credit number is only one data point and the month-over-month change in credit is always abnormally strong in the first month of the year. At a minimum, investors should wait until the February credit data is released in mid-March to judge whether a higher pace of credit growth will be sustained over the course of the year. The recent quarrel between Premier Li Keqiang and the PBOC over whether the January credit spike represented “flood irrigation-style” stimulus suggests that policymakers are still somewhat reluctant to significantly boost credit,4 underscoring the need to monitor whether the recent pace of growth will be sustained. As first highlighted in Chart 3 above, the inflection point in credit growth implies that economic activity will improve at some point in the months ahead, but the current pace of money & credit growth suggests that both activity and, crucially, the level of earnings are facing a “catch up” period of potentially material weakness before they durably bottom. Chart 6 illustrates this potential weakness by comparing the current circumstance of our leading economic indicator, our measure of coincident economic activity, and the level of forward earnings to the 2015/2016 episode. The chart shows that by comparison to today, the 2015/2016 episode had clearer sequencing: our leading indicator fell, coincident activity followed, and stock prices bottomed only once forward earnings had contracted materially. Chart 6In 2015/2016, Our Leading Indicator Led Activity, Earnings, And Relative Stock Performance This time around, our leading indicator peaked in Q1 2017, but activity remained stronger than our indicator would have suggested even though it peaked relatively soon afterwards. Incoming data over the past three months suggest that economic activity is now catching up to the downside, and forward earnings remain elevated. Chart 7 shows that Chinese net earnings revisions remain firmly in negative territory, at levels that have been historically been associated with contracting forward earnings growth. Chart 7Earnings Weakness Looks Set To Continue Panel 4 of Chart 6 is emblematic of the fact that the recent rally in Chinese relative performance, driven largely by a false narrative, has significantly complicated the cyclical investment outlook. If the January improvement in credit had instead come in late October when Chinese relative performance was near its low, it would have been much easier for us to recommend that investors move to an overweight stance in response to a legitimate fundamental improvement and to take the risk of being somewhat too early. Now, a razor sharp focus on the earnings outlook is necessary, and we are unlikely to recommend an increased allocation to Chinese stocks unless that outlook stabilizes. Table 1 presents one of the tools that we will be using to judge the outlook for earnings, based on a model that we presented in two recent reports.5 The table shows a series of earnings recession probabilities that are based on a variety of credit and exchange rate scenarios and conditional on a material improvement in Chinese exporter sentiment. Light colored cells represent an earnings recession probability of less than 1/3rd, and the circled cell shows roughly where we would be today if the new export order component of the NBS manufacturing PMI were to rise sharply back to its June 2018 level. Table 1Credit Needs To Rise Further And RMB Appreciation Needs To Slow For The Earnings Outlook To Stabilize The table makes two key points. First, even given January’s surge, new credit will have to improve relative to GDP over the coming months in order to stabilize the earnings outlook. Second, the more that China’s currency appreciates in response to a trade deal with the U.S., the higher the hurdle rate for credit. Chart 8 shows that CNY-USD is already deviating quite significantly from the level implied by interest rate differentials, suggesting that significant further currency appreciation may not be in the cards. But the bottom line for investors is that a rising currency has the potential to negate some of the reflationary effects of stronger credit, and is a risk that must be monitored alongside the effort to gauge the sustainable rate of credit growth. Chart 8While Policymakers Or Rate Differentials Drive CNY-USD Over The Coming Year? Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “Trump Said To Ask Cabinet To Draft Possible Trade Deal With Xi”, dated November 2, 2018, available at Bloomberg News 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “2019 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year”, dated December 5, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report “China: Stimulating Amid The Trade Talks”, dated February 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see “Chinese Premier In Rare Spat With Central Bank”, Financial Times. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report “Six Questions About Chinese Stocks”, dated January 16, 2019, and Weekly Report “A Gap In The Bridge”, dated January 30, 2019 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Overweight General Electric took the S&P industrial conglomerates index higher yesterday on news it had agreed to sell its BioPharma business to Danaher, the former home of GE’s relatively new CEO. The deal, which will raise more than $21 billion for the firm, was celebrated by investors who delivered one of the best share price moves for the company in a decade. Importantly, GE promised to use the proceeds of the transaction to pay down the debt load that has weighed on the stock since the GFC. Further, the deal will see Danaher assuming the pension obligations of the group, another source of shareholder angst. We share investor sentiment with respect to deleveraging; more is better for this highly indebted sector and yesterday’s news is another step in the right direction (third panel). Tack on the catalyst that relief in the trade war with China adds (please see our previous Insight Report) and the recent rally in the still reasonably valued S&P industrial conglomerates index (bottom panel) looks very sustainable; stay overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5INDCX - GE, MMM, HON, ROP.
Overweight Year-to-date, industrials stocks are the best performing GICS1 sector, outperforming the SPX by a massive 650bps. While such a breakneck pace is unsustainable and a short term breather is likely, from a cyclical perspective more gains are in store in this still underowned sector. In Monday’s Weekly Report, we highlighted the top five reasons it still pays to be overweight this deep cyclical sector. With Sunday’s news that the Trump administration is planning to delay the slate of additional Chinese tariffs that were scheduled to begin on March 1 and optimistic tweets on the progress of negotiations, one reason in particular seems most relevant: an easy credit, fiscal & monetary policy trifecta in China. Beyond the positive resolution in the U.S./China trade dispute, China has opened up its central bank liquidity tap to complement ongoing easy monetary policy. Tack on the recent monster loan origination and reaccelerating infrastructure spending and factors are falling into place for a pick up in end demand, which is a boon for U.S. capitals goods producers. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P industrials sector and see Monday’s Weekly Report for more details and the other four reasons we still like industrials.
There are high odds that the chip cycle will soon take a turn for the better. Global chip sales have been decelerating for 17 months and are now on the cusp of contracting. Over the past two decades, steep contractions have been associated with recessions.…