Equities
While bank stocks are quick to react positively to any indication that the regulatory burden may eventually be diminished, beneath the surface, there are mounting signs of profit headwinds. The latest Fed Senior Bank Loan Officer Survey revealed that banks are tightening lending standards on most loan categories. Worrisomely, demand for commercial, consumer, mortgage and C&I loans is also waning. In fact, C&I loan growth is now contracting on a 3-month rate of change basis. A cooling in bank balance sheet expansion may expose a heavier cost structure than desired in the coming quarters, given that bank employment has been on the upswing. Absent any renewed steepening in the yield curve, the surprise could be that bank stocks underperform in the coming months after overshooting since the election. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT.
Gold mining shares look increasingly attractive, at least as a portfolio hedge. We took profits on our overweight position in the middle of last summer, just prior to the share price crunch, because tactical sentiment and positioning had gotten too stretched. Overzealousness no longer exists, and a revival in market volatility and intensification in policy uncertainty have created an attractive re-entry point in gold shares. The last playable rally began when the yield curve started to flatten, signaling doubts about the longevity of the business cycle. More recently, the yield curve stopped steepening when the Fed raised interest rates last month and may be signaling the start of another move up in gold shares. Importantly, sentiment toward the yellow metal is no longer overheated, as evidenced by both surveys and investor behavior. Flows into gold ETFs have been trending lower, reversing last summer's buying frenzy. Speculative positions have also been unwound. Against a positive structural backdrop for gold, we recommend reestablishing overweight positions in gold mining stocks as a portfolio hedge. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for more details.
The S&P containers & packaging group offers a more attractively valued alternative to play a transportation recovery than either rails or air freight. Global export volumes have begun to rebound, consistent with the increase in U.S. port traffic and intermodal (consumer) goods shipments. Any increase in global trade would bolster sentiment toward this high volume industry. Companies in this index are also highly exposed to the food and beverage business since the bulk of consumable non-durable goods products require packaging materials. As such, its fortunes rise and fall with swings in food prices. The current contraction in the food CPI has spawned a boom in food consumption, as measured by the surge in real (volumes) personal outlays on food & beverage products. This phenomenon is also true on a global basis, as food exports are booming, a remarkable development given U.S. dollar appreciation. If food and beverage consumption stays robust, then the relative valuation expansion in packaging stocks will persist. In sum, packaging stocks offer attractive exposure within an otherwise unattractive S&P materials sector. Please see yesterday's Weekly Report for more details on our upgrade to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CONP - IP, WRK, BLL, SEE, AVY.
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Food price deflation bodes well for increased volumes, and by extension, packaging stocks. Upgrade to overweight. Prospects for intensifying market and economic volatility argue for reestablishing a portfolio hedge in gold shares. The tech sector underperforms when there is upward pressure on inflation, and the next twelve months is unlikely to prove an exception. Stay clear. Recent Changes S&P Containers & Packaging - Upgrade to overweight from neutral. Gold Mining Shares - Upgrade to overweight from neutral. Table 1 Feature Equity markets finally took a breather last week, as investors digested spotty earnings and began to discount the possible economic downside of U.S. isolationism. While profits should dictate the trend in stocks over the long haul, equity valuations have soared since the election, it is critical to consider the durability of this trend and other influences at this juncture. The recent string of positive economic surprises raises the risk that monetary conditions will tighten further, especially amidst rising inflation pressures and a tight labor market. As such, the broad market remains in a dangerous overshoot phase, predicated on hopes for a sustained non-inflationary global economic mini-boom. The risk is that these hopes are dashed by nationalistic policy blunders (i.e. protectionism and trade barriers) or a more muted and drawn out improvement in global economic growth than double-digit earnings growth forecasts would imply. There appears to be full buy-in to a durable bullish economic/profit outcome. We have constructed a 'Complacency-Anxiety' Indicator (CAI), using a number of variables that gauge investor positioning, sentiment and risk on/off biases (Chart 1). The CAI is at its highest level ever, signaling extreme confidence/conviction in the outlook for equities. While timing market peaks is difficult, because momentum can persist for longer than seems rational, the level of investor complacency is disturbingly high given that policy uncertainty is such a large economic threat. Global economic growth has never accelerated when global economic policy uncertainty has been this high (Chart 2, shown inverted). Chart 1Complacency Reigns Chart 2Uncertainty Is A Growth Impediment If rhetoric about anti-globalization measures turns into reality, that will deal a serious blow to burgeoning economic confidence before it translates into actual economic growth. Thus, the risk of sudden market downdrafts has risen to its highest level of this bull market. Chart 3 shows that positive economic surprises remain primarily sentiment/confidence driven, rather than from upside in hard economic data. To be sure, the stock market trades off of 'soft data' given its leading properties, but the size of the current gap is unusually large and reinforces that a big jump in 'hard data' surprises is already discounted. This gap represents a latent risk, as it did in the spring of 2011 just before the summertime equity market swoon. Chart 3A Big Gap Means Big Shoes To Fill Worryingly, the behavior of corporate insiders suggests that their confidence does not match their share price valuations. According to Barron's1, the insider sell/buy ratio has soared to an extremely bearish level for markets. For context, their gauge is close to 60; anything over 20 is deemed bearish while less than 12 falls into the bullish zone. Chart 4An Increasing Supply Of Stock The spike in secondary issuance corroborates insider selling (Chart 4). Insiders would not be unloading their shares if they felt earnings prospects would outperform what is discounted in current valuations. Even the pace of share buybacks has slowed considerably, to the point where the number of shares outstanding (excluding financials) has moved higher for the first time in 6 years (Chart 4). An increase in the supply of shares, from sources that have incentive to sell when the reward/risk tradeoff is unattractive, is a yellow flag. All of this argues for maintaining a capital preservation mindset rather than chasing market euphoria in the near run. Elevated complacency suggests that the consensus is focused solely on return rather than risk. It will be more constructive to put money to work when anxiety levels are higher than at present. This week we recommend adding a defensive materials sector gem, buying some portfolio insurance and we update our tech sector views. Packaging Stocks Are Gift Wrapped While our materials sector Cyclical Macro Indicator is hitting new lows, this is often a sign that the countercyclical S&P containers & packaging index deserves a second look. We have shown in past research that its strongest relative performance phases often occur when the overall materials sector is struggling. This group offers a more attractively valued alternative to play a transportation recovery than either rails or air freight, as discussed in last week's Report. From a macro perspective, deflation in global export prices should provide a strong tailwind. Why? Low prices spur volume growth. Global export volumes have begun to rebound, consistent with the increase in U.S. port traffic and intermodal (consumer) goods shipments (Chart 5). Any increase in global trade would bolster sentiment toward this high volume industry. Companies in this index are also highly exposed to the food and beverage business since the bulk of consumable non-durable goods products require packaging materials. As such, its fortunes rise and fall with swings in food prices. When food inflation is rising, consumers spend less in real terms, undermining the volume of food packaging demand. The opposite is also true. The current contraction in the food CPI has spawned a boom in food consumption, as measured by the surge in real (volumes) personal outlays on food & beverage products (Chart 6). This phenomenon is also true on a global basis, as food exports are booming (Chart 6, bottom panel), a remarkable development given U.S. dollar appreciation. Chart 5Stealth Play On Volume Growth Chart 6Booming Food Demand... Chart 7... Should Drive Up Multiples If food and beverage consumption stays robust, then the relative valuation expansion in packaging stocks will persist (food demand shown advanced, Chart 7). Increased demand for packaging products has become evident in the budding rebound in pricing power (Chart 8). The producer price index for containers has picked up nicely on a 6-month rate of change basis, albeit it is still low in annual growth terms. Nevertheless, any increase in pricing power would support profit margins if volume expansion persists, given the industry's disciplined productivity focus. Headcount remains in check, likely reflecting automation and investment, and is falling decisively relative to overall employment (Chart 8). The implication is that profit margins have a chance to outperform, particularly if energy prices stay range-bound (Chart 8). U.S. protectionism, and/or a continued rise in bond yields on the back of improving global economic momentum constitute relative performance risks to this position. Chart 9 shows that relative performance is mostly inversely correlated with global bond yields, given that it is a disinflationary winner. Chart 8Productivity Gains Chart 9A Risk Factor However, the global economy has already been through a phase of upside surprises. Moreover, now that China has moved to cool housing, investors should temper expectations for more stimulus to cause Chinese growth to accelerate. Conversely, economic disappointment could materialize before midyear if financial conditions tighten further. In sum, packaging stocks offer attractive exposure within an otherwise unattractive S&P materials sector. Bottom Line: Raise the S&P containers & packaging index to overweight. Gold: Back To Overweight As A Portfolio Hedge Gold mining shares look increasingly attractive, at least as a portfolio hedge. We took profits on our overweight position in the middle of last summer, just prior to the share price crunch, because tactical sentiment and positioning had gotten too stretched. Thereafter, the equity risk premium melted, dimming appetite for portfolio insurance (Chart 10). Moreover, bond yields rose in response to firming economic expectations, increasing the opportunity cost of holding an income-free asset like gold. However, in the absence of a global economic boom, which seems unlikely, and if trade barriers are erected and policy uncertainty continues to escalate, there is a limit to how high real rates can rise. Potential GDP growth remains low throughout the world, weighed down by excessive debt, weak productivity and deflationary demographics (Chart 11, second panel). Chart 10End Of Correction? Chart 11Structurally Bullish A revival in market volatility and an unwinding of previously frothy technical conditions have created an attractive re-entry point in gold shares. The yield curve stopped steepening when the Fed raised interest rates last month (Chart 12). The last playable rally began when the yield curve started to flatten, signaling doubts about the longevity of the business cycle. If the yield curve does not steepen anew, and interest rate expectations move laterally, then the U.S. dollar is less likely to be a barrier to gold price gains. Sentiment toward the yellow metal is no longer overheated, as evidenced by both surveys and investor behavior. Flows into gold ETFs have been trending lower in recent months, reversing last summer's buying frenzy (Chart 12). Speculative positions have also been unwound (Chart 12). Netting it out, the surge in U.S. policy uncertainty, prospects for economic disappointment relative to increasingly elevated expectations and any pause in the U.S. dollar rally support reestablishing overweight positions in gold mining stocks as a portfolio hedge, especially now that overbought conditions have been unwound (Chart 13). Chart 12No Longer Frothy Chart 13Time To Buy Hedges Bottom Line: Return to an overweight position in gold mining shares, using the GDX as a proxy. A Tec(h)tonic Shift Our Special Report published in early-December showed that the tech sector underperforms when inflation pressures accelerate. Companies in the S&P technology sector are typically mature and have shifted from reinvesting for growth to paying dividends and buying back stock. Thus, the rise in bond yields and headline inflation imply higher discount rates and by extension, lower valuations, all other things equal, for the long duration tech sector (Chart 14). Tech companies exist in a deflationary business model mindset. While relative pricing power had been in an uptrend since 2011, it has recently relapsed into the deflationary zone (Chart 15, middle panel). As shown in last Monday's Weekly Report, the tech sector is one of the few suffering from deteriorating pricing power. Chart 14Stiff Headwinds Chart 15Pricing Power Disadvantage Among the broad eleven sectors, tech stocks have the highest international sales exposure, so a higher dollar is also a net negative for exports, revenues and by extension profit growth, relative to the broad market. Industry sales growth is nil, significantly trailing the S&P 500's recent pick up in top line growth rate. History shows that tech relative performance is negatively correlated with the U.S. dollar in the latter stages of a currency bull market. While the temptation to position for an increase in capital spending via the tech sector is high, data do not show any demand improvement. Tech new order growth is decelerating. The tech new orders-to-inventories ratio is on the verge of contracting, and further weakness would herald downward pressure on forward earnings estimates (Chart 16). Net earnings revisions have swung violently downward recently. Any prolonged de-rating would warn of negative share price momentum given the tight correlation between the two (Chart 16). Meanwhile, the loss of tech sector competitiveness and a retreat from globalization via protectionism de-globalization pose serious headwinds to the industry's longer-term prospects. Return on equity is already ebbing, reflecting more intense profit margin pressure from the surge in wage growth and a lack of revenue gains. As a result, EBITDA growth has been non-existent (Chart 17). Chart 16Momentum Is Fading Chart 17Growth Remains Elusive Chart 18Profits Set To Underperform All of these factors are encapsulated in our S&P technology operating profit model, which has an excellent record in forecasting tech earnings. Chart 18 shows that tech profits are likely to contract as the year progresses, a far cry from what is expected for the broad market and the 450bps of profit outperformance embedded in analyst forecasts in the coming 12 months. Bottom Line: Reducing tech exposure on price strength is a prudent strategy. Stay underweight. 1 http://www.barrons.com/public/page/9_0210-instrans.html Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).
Highlights Signing executive orders and memoranda post-Inauguration is a common tactic for new presidents. Unfortunately for investors, political rhetoric has caused uncertainty to surge, while actions affecting profitability have been minimal. The potential for radical changes to trade policy changes should not be underestimated. However, details about timing and contours are too vague to be of any support to potential industry-specific beneficiaries. Fed policymakers will focus primarily now on wage and price inflation to guide them on the appropriate pace of rate hikes. Policymakers increasingly believe the economy is operating at full employment. Feature Chart 1Policy Uncertainty Surge It has been a confusing two weeks in Washington. Since taking oath, President Trump has signed eighteen executive orders and presidential memoranda.1 This is not uncommon: Barack Obama signed an equal amount during his first week of his first presidential term, and executive orders are a frequent tactic used by new presidents to quickly deliver on campaign promises. Unfortunately for investors, Trump's signature has not yet found its way to policies that alter the profitability of U.S. businesses and/or clearly lower the risk premium for financial assets (although at the time of writing, there are rumors about an order that will affect Dodd-Frank). Instead, there has been a tremendous amount of rhetoric that has caused political uncertainty to spike higher (Chart 1). We have warned in past weekly reports that it would be difficult for equity prices to sustain gains built on the premise that a new American government will succeed in implementing a pro-business strategy while simultaneously avoiding any negative shocks from trade reform and foreign policy blunders. Actions under the new administration so far support this view. On Trade: Trade is the area of most confusion thus far in the Trump presidency. As our Geopolitical team highlighted in a recent report,2 the new White House seems focused on bringing the U.S. current account deficit down and will attempt to do so by using three primary tools: Protectionism, possibly in the form of a "destination-based border adjustment tax," as discussed in our Special Report two weeks ago.3 Dirigisme: President Trump has not shied away from directly intervening to keep corporate production inside the U.S. and has insisted on a vague proposal to impose a 35% "border tax" on U.S. corporates that manufacture abroad for domestic consumption, though details are scant. Structural Demands: Trump and team appear ready to lob threats at other countries with trade surpluses, such as China - by charging the country with currency manipulation. Note that the above tools are in the White House's toolbox, but are yet to be employed. In terms of concrete action to date, President Trump has signed orders to pull out of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). But this was a non-event since the TPP was never ratified by Congress. Takeaway: The potential for radical changes to trade policy should not be underestimated. However, details about timing and contours are too vague to be of any support to potential industry-specific beneficiaries. On the flipside, confusing and vague rhetoric should not (yet) form the basis of a negative economic and profit outlook. On Infrastructure: Trump signed an executive order to expedite environmental reviews for high-profile infrastructure projects. This executive order may expedite already approved projects, but any new spending requires approval from Congress. The budget will be announced only in mid- to late- April. Moreover, it is still an open question as to whether Congressional Republicans will try to axe government spending. Senior members of Trump's transition team have proposed a plan to cut federal spending by $10.5 trillion over the next 10 years! That would amount to a severe fiscal drag, rather than the much hoped-for fiscal thrust expected from infrastructure spending and tax cuts. Takeaway: As we have argued in the past, infrastructure spending could provide a fillip to U.S. growth, but at minimum, investors should not expect that to occur until late 2017 or 2018. On Taxes: None of the executive orders or memoranda directly address taxes. However, a majority of pundits believe that Trump's executive order on January 25 to Build The Wall with Mexico will be funded by U.S. taxpayers. Takeaway: Tax reform requires congressional approval. There has been no step forward as yet for a more market-friendly tax backdrop. On Regulation: On January 30, President Trump signed an executive order stating that for every new regulation proposed, two existing ones would be repealed. On the surface, this seems like excellent news for businesses, especially smaller ones that consistently argue that "red tape" is a major problem for their companies (Chart 2). After all, the U.S. ranks very poorly among global peers on how easy it is to start a business (Table 1). Note that the World Bank assigns the U.S. a much higher overall score for ease of doing business (8th), but this is due to high scores in only two areas: access to credit and bankruptcy protection laws! Chart 2(Part II) Regulation Is A Problem Table 1(Part I) Regulation Is A Problem Unfortunately, the language of the executive order is sufficiently vague that it is not clear what impact there will actually be. First, it is impossible to know which agencies and branches of government the order applies to. Second, it is not clear that a President has the legal authority to mandate the number of regulations, i.e. this executive order may be impossible to uphold. The President also signed a memorandum to streamline and reduce the regulatory burden for manufacturers. Though there is no immediate impact on businesses, the memorandum opens a 60 day window for the secretary of commerce to consult stakeholders. Takeaway: The President is serious about deregulation, but if anything, the 2-for-1 regulation order only serves to underscore that unwinding the regulatory burden is a complicated process that is unlikely to be achieved in the first 100 days of office. The bottom line is that the new administration has been busy, but little of their work thus far has been of direct concern to financial markets and underlying profitability. Instead, policy uncertainty has risen: protectionism, de-regulation and tax reform are all high on their agenda, but details are scant. This has left investors with little visibility. Our view is that the underpinnings of a self-reinforcing recovery are in place and thus will fuel outperformance of stocks relative to bonds on an intermediate time horizon (see last week's Special Report and also below).4 However, the rise in policy uncertainty serves to solidify our conviction that at current prices, risk assets are vulnerable to a near-term correction. Indeed, although not uniformly bearish, equity technical readings are beginning to herald a more treacherous phase ahead. Equity Technicals: Mixed Messages We are monitoring technical indicators for warning of a near-term equity pullback within the context of a longer term bull market. So far, the message is mixed. For example, our composite technical indicator is in the middle of its range and is not heralding danger. However, sentiment readings are at a bullish extreme. Our composite sentiment indicator remains near historic highs, which tends to be a good contrarian indicator (Chart 3). Meanwhile, the number of stocks above their 30 week and 10 week averages has also shot higher. Importantly, insiders are taking advantage of the price rally to sell their stock. The insider sell/buy ratio has soared to levels that typically herald corrections. Somewhat curiously, the VIX index - a measure of the cost of insurance - remains at bargain basement levels. This suggests that investors may be complacent to a near-term correction. Overall, sentiment readings have become extreme as has price momentum. As highlighted above, we expect that the near term catalyst for a pullback will likely center around policy disappointment. A more encouraging intermediate term outlook is supported by stronger economic fundamentals and, at least for now, a go-slow Fed. Fed & Economy Last week's FOMC policy statement included only minor tweaks from the previous one. Policymakers were silent as to how they view the impact on growth and inflation from the new Administration. Data released since the December minutes - when it appeared that the committee was shifting to a less dovish stance - have supported the Fed's more optimistic outlook. For example, the ISM manufacturing is trending higher, while the non-manufacturing index continues to be strong (Chart 4). On the manufacturing side, the composite index rose again in January, as the sector recovers from an energy-led recession. New orders held onto earlier impressive gains. The new orders-to-inventories ratio ticked down, but remains elevated, suggesting that there is more upside for industrial production in the coming months. Chart 3Equity Technicals: Mixed Message Chart 4Positive Economic Momentum In addition, as highlighted in our January 16 Weekly Report, conditions are ripe for a rebound in consumer spending.5 As confidence in the employment backdrop rises, the likelihood for a lower savings rate improves. Indeed, the January employment report, released on Friday, surprised to the upside, as non-farm payrolls grew by 227 000 (Chart 5). Despite the strong payrolls growth, the unemployment rate ticked higher to 4.8% due to an increase in the participation rate and average hourly earnings increased by a meager 0.1% m/m. Still, we expect that wages will rise as the labor market steadily tightens and Fed policymakers will focus primarily now on wage and price inflation to guide them on the appropriate pace of rate hikes. To this end, more policymakers are making the case that the economy is at full employment. In a speech in mid-January, San Francisco Fed president Williams argued that the economy has achieved full employment and that the economy only needs to create about 80 000 jobs to keep up with labor force growth.6 The implication is that with an average monthly payroll of 180 000, job creation will quickly put downward pressure on the unemployment rate. The San Francisco Fed has introduced a new, "Non Employment Index"7 which attempts to correct for the structural decline in participation (Chart 6). To construct the index, researchers treat everybody in the population as potentially in the labor force and construct a broader unemployment rate-a "non-employment index." This measure incorporates the unemployed and nonparticipants alike, based on their respective tendency to find jobs. They argue that when one carefully accounts for the availability of nonparticipants this way, the resulting broad non-employment index is consistent with a labor market at full strength. As the top panel of Chart 6 shows, even accounting for participation in this way, the non-employment index gives a very similar message to the standard unemployment rate. Chart 5Solid Employment Fundamentals Chart 6Full Employment = Wage Pressures The bond market is currently priced for two rate hikes later this year. We agree with this assessment, though view any surprises to the upside. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 The latter have less legal weight than an executive order but serve as guidelines for the priorities of government. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?," dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 23, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "The State Of The Economy In Pictures," dated January 30, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "U.S. Consumer: The Comeback Kid," dated January 16, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 6 http://www.frbsf.org/our-district/press/presidents-speeches/williams-speeches/2017/january/looking-back-looking-ahead economic-forecast/?utm_source=frbsf-home-president-speeches&utm_medium=frbsf&utm_campaign=president-speeches 7 https://www.richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/non_employment_index
Highlights U.S. growth will remain firm over the next 12 months, but then will begin to slow from its above-trend pace as the economy runs out of spare capacity. Fiscal stimulus, by the time it is enacted, may simply end up pushing up wages, interest rates, and the dollar, rather than boosting corporate profits. While the U.S. is not at an imminent risk of a recession, the historic record suggests that recessions are more likely to occur when an economy has achieved full employment. Equity investors should favor Europe and Japan, two places where central banks are in no hurry to raise rates, profit margins still have room to expand, and valuations are reasonably favorable. Feature The Rusty Lining The U.S. economy is approaching full employment. The headline unemployment rate has fallen to 4.7%, close to most estimates of NAIRU. Broader measures of labor market slack, which incorporate marginally-attached and involuntary part-time workers, are also approaching pre-recession levels (Chart 1). Consistent with this observation, the job openings rate in the JOLT survey, the share of households reporting that jobs are "plentiful" versus "hard to get" in the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence survey, and the share of small businesses reporting difficulty in finding suitably qualified workers in the NFIB survey are near 2007 levels (Chart 2). Chart 1U.S. Labor Market: Not Much Slack Left Chart 2Most Labor Market Survey Measures ##br## Now Consistent With Full Employment It is obviously good news that most people in the U.S. who want to work are able to find jobs. However, at the risk of sounding like spoilsports, we see three risks associated with this development. First, and most obviously, the fact that the U.S. economy is close to full employment means that it will not be able to grow at an above-trend pace for much longer. Second, efforts by the Trump administration to lift aggregate demand with fiscal stimulus may prove to be counterproductive: Rather than boosting GDP growth, the stimulus may simply lead to higher wage inflation and a stronger dollar. This could hurt corporate profits. Third, there is compelling evidence that the risks of a recession rise as an economy approaches full employment and begins to overheat. We discuss all three issues in turn. Weak Supply Will Limit Growth One of the more striking aspects of the U.S. economic recovery is that the output gap - the difference between what an economy is capable of producing and what it actually is producing - has nearly disappeared even though GDP growth has been rather lackluster. This has occurred for one simple reason: Potential GDP growth has been extremely weak. Chart 3 shows that the slowdown in potential GDP growth has been a global phenomenon. In every major economy, the output gap would be larger today than in 2008 if potential GDP had grown at the rate that the IMF forecasted back then. Chart 3AWeak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Chart 3BWeak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Many commentators are hopeful that the combination of sizeable tax cuts and President Trump's pledge to reduce red tape will lead to a marked acceleration in potential U.S. GDP growth. There is some validity to this view. Statutory corporate tax rates in the U.S. are among the highest in the OECD, while the Code of Federal Regulations is 178,000 pages long, eight times the size that it was in 1960 (Chart 4). Still, we are skeptical that the economic benefits of slashing corporate taxes and cutting red tape would be as great as some pundits are touting. If one includes the various loopholes and deductions that companies can avail themselves of, effective corporate tax rates in the U.S. are not particularly high compared with those of other countries.1 Cutting corporate taxes may also do precious little to lift investment spending, given that U.S. companies are already flush with cash and have access to plenty of cheap financing. While the regulatory burden on U.S. businesses has increased somewhat over the past seven years, it is still quite low compared to other major economies according to the World Bank's Doing Business report (Chart 5). And many of the regulations that businesses routinely complain about serve a useful purpose, particularly in the areas of health, clean air and water, and financial stability. Consistent with the analysis above, there is little evidence that Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation initiatives had much effect on productivity growth in the 1980s (Chart 6). Meanwhile, Trump's efforts to crack down on illegal immigration will reduce labor force growth, curbing potential GDP growth in the process. Trade protectionism will also dent productivity in some sectors of the economy. The bottom line is that potential growth is unlikely to rise much above 2% for the foreseeable future. Chart 4There Are Prolific Writers In The U.S. Administration Chart 5Regulatory Burden In The U.S. Is Relatively Low Chart 6The Reagan Years Were No Boon For U.S. Productivity Flagging Fiscal Multipliers As we discussed last week, market participants may be overestimating the extent to which fiscal policy will be eased over the next two years.2 Suppose, however, that the optimists are right; suppose Donald Trump is able to fully deliver on his campaign pledge to raise infrastructure spending and slash taxes. Let us also suppose that, contrary to our expectations, lower personal and corporate tax rates do prompt households to significantly boost spending, while incentivizing firms to increase capital expenditures. What then? The answer is that this still may not translate into significantly faster economic growth. The reason is straightforward: When the output gap is small, an increase in aggregate demand will largely translate into higher inflation rather than increased output. An overheated economy, in turn, will drive up real interest rates, leading to less spending on rate-sensitive goods such as consumer durables, housing, and business equipment. In addition, higher interest rates will cause the dollar to strengthen, swelling imports and reducing exports. This "crowding out" effect will reduce the net effect of fiscal stimulus on growth. The empirical evidence bears this out. Table 1 shows the fiscal multipliers are much smaller when an economy is close to full employment. Table 1The Effect Of A $1 Increase In Fiscal Spending On Aggregate Demand The implication is that Trump's fiscal stimulus plan, by the time it is enacted, may simply end up lifting interest rates, the dollar, and wages, without delivering much acceleration in real business sales. Again, this is not just a theoretical possibility. Chart 7 shows that the ratio of corporate profits-to-GDP has tended to decline when the unemployment rate has fallen below its full employment level. This suggests that the re-acceleration in earnings growth that began last summer could run out of steam later this year. Chart 7The Effects Of Full Employment Recession Risks Are Slowly Rising Business cycle recoveries may not die of old age. However, as anyone who's been around long enough knows, old age isn't exactly conducive to good health either. Chart 8 shows that there is a positive correlation between the degree of labor market slack and the length of time until the next recession. This implies that recessions are more likely to occur when an economy approaches full employment. In fact, outside of the 1982 recession, which in many respects was just a continuation of the 1980 recession, there has never been a case in the post-war era where a recession began at a time when the unemployment rate was above its full employment level. Formal econometric analysis bears this out: According to our calculations, the U.S. has had nearly a 31% chance of falling into recession over the subsequent 12-month period when the economy was at or above full employment, compared with only an 8% chance at all other times.3 Part of the relationship between economic slack and recession risk can be explained by the fact that the unemployment rate is mean reverting. Thus, when the unemployment rate is very low, it is more likely to go up than down. And history suggests that even a slight rise in the unemployment rate is a powerful harbinger of recession. In fact, Chart 9 shows that there has never been a case where the unemployment rate has risen more than one third of a percentage point without the U.S. falling into a recession. Chart 8U.S.: A Tighter Labor Market Means We Are Getting Closer To The Next Recession Chart 9Even A Small Increase In The Unemployment Rate Warns Of A Recession When Animal Spirits Bite Back Mean reversion, however, is only part of the story. As Hyman Minsky famously noted, stability begets instability. By this, he meant that good economic times tend to encourage excessive risk taking, and this sows the seeds of a future crisis. The good news is that the U.S. does not currently suffer from any major economic imbalances. Perhaps it was the severity of the crisis; perhaps it was the lackluster recovery; but whatever the reason, animal spirits have been slow to return this time around. Sure, stocks have soared thanks to ultra-low interest rates, but both business and residential investment remain subdued (Chart 10). Nevertheless, signs of excess are starting to appear in places. Corporations may have been restrained in their capital spending plans, but that did not stop them from piling on new debt to finance share buybacks, and mergers and acquisitions (Chart 11). As a result, our Corporate Health Monitor has been in deteriorating territory since the second half of 2013 (Chart 12). Chart 10Business And Residential Investment Remain Subdued Chart 11Companies Have Been Piling On New Debt Chart 12U.S. Corporate Health Keeps Deteriorating Policy risks have also increased. These include the possibility of a global trade war, rising support for anti-establishment parties in Europe, and a pronounced slowdown in China that precipitates mass capital flight and a sharp depreciation of the RMB. Complicating matters is the fact that policy rates remain quite low across all major economies, which limits the ability of central banks to respond to another economic downturn. Investment Conclusions Chart 13More Optimism About The ##br##Longevity Of The Business Cycle Fears of secular stagnation, which were all the rage just 12 months ago, have given way to unbridled confidence about the future. Investors now dismiss the exact same things they once feared from Donald Trump, even though Trump the President has proven to be little different from Trump the Candidate. Among participants in the New York Fed's Survey of Primary Dealers who assign a non-zero probability that rates will fall back to zero at some point over the next three years, the median respondent expects that it would take 27 months to reach this sorry state of affairs, up from 11 months in April 2016 (Chart 13).4 If one uses this as proxy for when investors believe the next recession will roll around, it implies that market participants now believe that the recovery will last more than twice as long as they thought last summer. We agree that U.S. growth is likely to remain firm over the next 12 months. As we argued last October in a report entitled "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen," the U.S. economy has a lot of momentum behind it.5 As such, we continue to expect Treasury yields to rise and the dollar to appreciate over the next 12 months. Nevertheless, we are cognizant that much can go wrong with this assessment. Chart 14 shows that most of the recent better-than-expected data has been confined to survey measures of economic activity - what economists call "soft data." The so-called "hard data" has been mediocre. This is not a major red flag, as the hard data often lags the survey results, but it does underscore the fragile nature of the recovery. Chart 14Survey Measures Have Improved More Than The Hard Data All this puts U.S. stocks in a difficult position. If growth does end up disappointing, equities will suffer. However, if growth remains strong, bond yields are likely to rise further, taking the dollar up with them. Meanwhile, a tight labor market will increasingly put upward pressure on real wages, hurting corporate profit margins in the process. With that in mind, investors should overweight equity markets in Europe and Japan, two places where central banks are in no hurry to raise rates, profit margins still have room to expand, and valuations are more favorable. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. statutory corporate tax rate was 39.2% while the GDP-weighted average rate in the OECD excluding the U.S. was 29.6% (based on 2010 data). Meanwhile, the U.S. effective tax stood at 27.1% versus the 27.7% average of its OECD peers (based on 2008 data). Studies conducted before the Great Recession also show that the U.S. effective rate is about the same as the GDP-weighted average rate of other major countries. For further details, please see Jane G. Gravelle, "International Corporate Tax Rate Comparisons and Policy Implications," Congressional Research Service (January 6, 2014). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Speed Bumps For The Global Reflation Trade," dated January 27, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 The probability of a U.S. recession occurring within the next 12 months is calculated by employing a simple logistic model using data from 1960 to the present. The dependent variable (Y) is assigned the value "1" during months when a recession occurs over the subsequent 12-month period, or "0" otherwise. An independent variable (X) is assigned the value "1" when the economy is at full employment, or "0" otherwise. Assuming full employment is reached when the unemployment rate is at least 25 bps lower than the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, the resulting probabilities for a recession within the next year are as follows: P(Y=1 given that X=1) = 31%; P(Y=1 given that X=0) = 8%; P(Y=1 given that X=1 or given that X=0) = 17%. In a nutshell, the probability of a recession occurring increases by 23 percentage points (from 8% to 31%) once full employment is reached. 4 In both the April 2016 and December 2016 surveys, all but one respondent indicated that there was a non-zero chance that rates will fall to zero over the relevant forecast horizon. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen," dated October 14, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
The small/large cap share price ratio has soared since the U.S. election, and a much needed correction/consolidation phase has materialized. Whether this develops into a bearish trend change depends on the path of relative profit margins. So far, small company business optimism has soared, partly because of an increase in planned price hikes, but also from an anticipated reduction in the regulatory burden. If price hikes persist, then rising labor costs will be more easily absorbed. Our Cyclical Capitalization Indicator is still climbing steadily, suggesting that a narrowing in the profit margin gap between small and large companies should unfold, to the benefit of the former. If so, then overbought conditions will be unwound in a benign fashion, as occurred in 2010/2011, only this time, relative valuations are much more attractive. We continue to maintain a small vs. large cap bias, but are closely monitoring profit margin influences.
