Labor Market
COVID-19 is inflicting great pain on the US labor market. The surge in initial job claims to 6.6 million indicates that over the coming months, the US unemployment rate will spike much higher than the 4.4% recorded in March. Such an implosion of the labor…
Dear Client, I will be discussing the economic and financial implications of the pandemic with my colleague Caroline Miller this Friday, March 27 at 8:00 AM EDT (12:00 PM GMT, 1:00 PM CET, 8:00 PM HKT). I hope you will be able to join us for this webcast. Next week, we will send you a special report prepared by BCA’s Chief Economist Martin Barnes. Martin will provide his perspective on the current crisis, focusing on some of the longer-run implications. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The world is in the midst of a deep recession. Growth should recover in the third quarter as the measures taken to compensate for the initial slow response to the crisis are relaxed and existing measures are better calibrated to reduce economic distress. Continued monetary support and unprecedented fiscal stimulus should help drive the recovery once businesses reopen and workers return to their jobs. Investors should maintain a modest overweight to global equities. US stocks will lag their foreign peers over the next 12 months. The US dollar has peaked. A weaker dollar should help lift commodity prices and the more cyclical sectors of the stock market. High-yield credit spreads will narrow over the next 12 months, but we prefer investment-grade credit on a risk-reward basis. Investors are understating the potential long-term inflationary consequences of all the stimulus that has been unleashed on the global economy. Buy TIPS and gold. I. Macroeconomic Outlook The global economy is now in recession. The recession has occurred because policymakers saw it as the lesser of two evils. They judged, with good reason, that a temporary shutdown of most non-essential economic activities was a price worth paying to contain the virus. Outside of China, the level of real GDP is likely to be down 1%-to-3% in Q1 of 2020 relative to Q4 of 2019, and down another 5%-to-10% in Q2 relative to Q1. On a sequential annualized basis, this implies that GDP growth could register a negative print of 40% in some countries in the second quarter, a stunning number that has few parallels in history. Growth in China should stage a modest rebound in the second quarter, reflecting the success the country has had in containing the virus. Nevertheless, the level of Chinese economic activity will remain well below its pre-crisis trend, with exports increasingly weighed down by the collapse in overseas spending. A One-Two Punch The “sudden stop” nature of the downturn stems from the fact that the global economy was simultaneously hit by both a massive demand and supply shock. When households are confined to their homes, they cannot spend as much as they normally would. This is particularly the case in an environment of heightened risk aversion, which usually leads to increased precautionary savings. At times like these, businesses also slash spending in a desperate effort to preserve cash. All this reduces aggregate demand. On the supply side, production has been impaired because of workers’ inability to get to their jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than 30% of US employees can work from home (Chart 1). Since modern economies rely on an intricate division of labor, disturbances in one part of the economy quickly ripple through to other parts. The global supply chain ceases to function normally. Chart 1US: Who Can Work From Home And Who Cannot? Think of this as a Great Depression-style demand shock combined with a category five hurricane supply shock. The fact that both of these shocks have been concentrated in the service sector, which represents at least two-thirds of GDP in most economies, has made the situation even worse (Chart 2). During most recessions, the service sector is the ballast that helps stabilize the economy in the face of sharp declines in the more cyclical sectors such as manufacturing and housing. This time is different. Chart 2The Service Sector Accounts For A Big Chunk Of GDP And Has Been Very Hard Hit The Shape Of The Recovery: L, U, or V? Provided that the number of new infections around the world stabilizes during the next two months, growth should begin to recover in the third quarter. What will the recovery look like? From the perspective of sequential quarterly growth rates, a V-shaped recovery is inevitable simply because a string of quarters of negative 20%-to-40% growth would quickly leave the world with no GDP at all. However, thinking in terms of growth rates is not the best approach. It is better to think of the level of real GDP. Chart 3 shows three scenarios: 1) An L-shaped profile for real GDP where the level of output falls and then remains permanently depressed relative to its long-term trend; 2) A sluggish U-shaped recovery where output slowly rebounds starting in the second half of the year; and 3) A rapid V-shaped recovery where output quickly moves back to its pre-crisis trend. Chart 3Profile Of The Recovery: L, U, or V? We had previously thought that the recovery from the pandemic would be V-shaped. Compared to the sluggish recovery following the Great Recession, that is likely still true. However, at this point, we would prefer to characterize the probable recovery as being more U-shaped in nature. This is mainly because the measures necessary to contain the virus may end up having to remain in place, in one form or another, for the next few years. Why Not L? Given the likelihood that containment measures will continue to weigh on economic activity, how can an L-shaped “recovery” be avoided? While such a dire outcome cannot be ruled out, there are three reasons to think “U” is more likely than “L”. Reason #1: We Will Learn From Experience It is almost certain that we will figure out how to fine-tune containment measures to reduce the economic burden without increasing the number of lives lost. There are still many questions that remain unanswered. For example: Are restaurants where family members sit together really more dangerous than bars or conferences where strangers are milling about talking to one another? How dangerous is air travel? Modern airplanes have hospital-grade filtration systems that recirculate all the air in the cabin every three minutes. Might this explain why there has only been a handful of flight attendants that have tested positive for the virus? How contagious are children, who often may not present any symptoms at all? Which drugs might slow the spread of the disease or perhaps even cure it? To what extent would widespread mask-wearing help? Yes, a mask may not prevent you from catching the virus, but if there is major social stigma associated with being unmasked in public, then people who have the virus and may not know it will be less of a threat to others. One study estimates that the virus could be completely eradicated if 80% of people always wore masks.1 With time, we will learn the answers to these questions. We will also be able to stockpile masks, ventilators, respirators, and test kits – all of which are currently in short supply – to better combat the virus. Reason #2: We Are NowOvercompensating For Lost Time Second, most countries are currently at the stage where they are trying not just to bring down the basic reproduction number for the virus to 1, but to drive it down to well below 1. There is merit in doing so. If you can reduce the reproduction number to say, 0.5, meaning that 100 people with the virus will pass it on to only 50 other people, then the number of new infections will fall rapidly over time. This is what China was finally able to achieve. A recent study documented that China succeeded in bringing down the reproduction number in Wuhan from 3.86 to 0.32 once all the containment measures had been implemented (Chart 4).2 Chart 4Severe Containment Measures Have Changed The Course Of The Wuhan Outbreak The critical point is that once you reduce the number of new infections to a sufficiently low level, you can then relax the containment measures by just enough so that the reproduction number rises back to 1. At that point, the number of new infections at any given point in time will be constant. One can see this point by imagining a bicycle coasting down a mountain road. Ideally, the rider should apply uniform pressure on the brakes at the outset of the descent to prevent the bicycle from accelerating too quickly. However, if the rider is too slow to apply the brakes and ends up going too fast, he or she will then need to overcompensate by pressing hard on the brakes to slow the bike down before easing off the brakes a bit. Most of the world is currently in the same predicament as the cyclist who failed to squeeze the brakes early on. We are overcompensating to get the infection rate down. However, once the infection rate has fallen by enough, we can ease off the most economically onerous measures, allowing GDP to slowly recover. Reason #3: Containment Measure Will Be Eased As More People Acquire Immunity Much of the popular discussion of the epidemiology of COVID-19 has failed to distinguish between the basic reproduction number, R0, and the effective reproduction number, Re. The former measures the average number of people a carrier of the virus will infect in an entirely susceptible population, whereas the latter measures the average number of people who will be infected after some fraction of the population acquires immunity either by surviving the disease or getting vaccinated. Mathematically, Re = R0*(1-P), where P is the proportion of the population which has acquired immunity. For example, suppose P=0.5, meaning that half the population has acquired immunity. In this case, the average number of people a carrier will infect will be only half as high as when no one has immunity. As we discuss below, there is considerable uncertainty about how fast P will increase over time, including whether it could spike upwards if a vaccine becomes widely available. Still, any increase in P will make it more difficult for the virus to propagate. Over time, this will permit policymakers to raise R0 at an accelerating rate towards the level it would naturally be in the absence of any containment measures (Chart 5). Such a strategy would allow economic activity to increase without raising Re; that is to say, without triggering an explosion in the number of new cases. Chart 5Populations Acquiring Immunity Is Key The Virus Endgame How long will it take to dismantle all the containment measures completely? This partly depends on what medical breakthroughs occur and what measures are needed to “flatten the curve” of new infections (Chart 6). Right now, most countries are trying to drive down the number of new infections to very low levels in the hopes that either a vaccine will be invented or new treatment options will become available. Chart 6Flattening The Curve We are not medical experts and will not offer an opinion on how likely a breakthrough may be. What we would say is that combating the virus has become a modern-day Manhattan project. If the project succeeds, a V-shaped recovery could still ensue. What if the virus evades the best efforts of scientists to eradicate it? In that case, the only way for life to return to some semblance of normalcy is for the population to acquire herd immunity. How many people would need to be infected? In the context of the foregoing discussion, this is equivalent to asking how high P needs to rise for Re to fall below 1. The equation above tells us this must correspond to the value of P for which R0 (1-P) <1. Solving for P yields P > 1-1/R0. In the absence of social distancing and other containment measures, most estimates of R0 for COVID-19 place it between 1.5 and 4. This implies that between one-third (1-1/1.5) to three-quarters (1-1/4) of the population would need to be infected for herd immunity to set in. Even if one allows for the likelihood that significantly more resources will be marshalled to allow hospitals to service a greater number of patients, we estimate that it would take 2-to-3 years to reach that point.3 To be clear, the virus’ ability to spread will decline even before herd immunity is achieved. An increase in the share of the population who survived and became naturally inoculated against the virus would allow policymakers to relax containment measures, perhaps to such an extent that eventually only the simplest of actions such as increased hand-washing and widespread mask-wearing would be enough to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. This underscores our baseline expectation of a U-shaped economic recovery. Second-Round Effects Suppose the global economy starts to recover in the third quarter of this year as the measures taken to compensate for the initial slow response to the crisis are relaxed, existing measures are better calibrated to reduce economic distress, and more younger and healthier people acquire natural immunity to the virus, thus reducing the vulnerability of the old and frail. Does that mean we are out of the woods? Not necessarily! We still have to worry about the second-round economic effects. Even if the virus is contained, there is a risk that the economy will be so scarred by the initial drop in output that it will fail to recover. A vicious circle could emerge where falling spending leads to higher unemployment, leading to even less spending. In the current environment, the tendency for unemployment to rise may be initially mitigated by the decision of a few large companies with ample financial resources to pay their workers even if they are confined to their homes. This would result in a decline in labor productivity rather than higher unemployment. That said, given the severity of the shock and the fact that many of the hardest-hit firms are in the labor-intensive service sector, a sharp rise in joblessness is still inevitable, particularly in countries with flexible labor markets such as the US. Chart 7Worries Over Job Security Abound Today’s spike in US initial unemployment claims is testament to that point (Chart 7). In fact, the true increase in the unemployment rate will probably be greater than what is implied by the claims data because many state websites did not have the bandwidth to handle the slew of applications. In addition, under existing rules, the self-employed and those working in the “gig economy” do not qualify for unemployment benefits (this has been rectified in the bill now making its way to the White House). The Role Of Policy Could we really end up in a world where the virus is contained, and people are ready and able to work, only to find that there are no jobs available? While such a sorry outcome cannot be dismissed, we would bet against it. This outcome would only arise if there is insufficient demand throughout the economy when it reopens. Unlike in 2008/09 when there was a lot of moralizing about how this or that group deserved to be punished for their reckless behavior, no one in their right mind today would argue that the workers losing their jobs and the companies facing bankruptcy somehow had it coming. What can policymakers realistically do? On the monetary side, policy rates are already close to zero in most developed economies. A number of emerging markets still have scope to cut rates, but even there, many find themselves not far from the zero bound (Chart 8). Chart 8DM Rates At The Zero Bound, With EM Rates Approaching Chart 9A Mad Scramble For Cash That said, cutting interest rates right now is not the only, and probably not the most important, way for central banks to stimulate their economies. The global economy is facing a cash shortage. Companies are tapping credit lines at a time when banks would normally be looking to increase their own cash reserves. The mad scramble for cash has caused libor, repo, and commercial paper spreads to surge (Chart 9). And not just any cash. As the world’s reserve currency, the dollar is increasingly in short supply (Chart 10). This explains why cross-currency basis spreads have soared and why the DXY index has jumped to the highest level in 17 years. Chart 10Dollars Are In Short Supply Flood The Zone Chart 11US Mortgage Spreads Have Spiked The good news is that there is no limit to how many dollars the Federal Reserve can create. The Fed has already expanded the supply of bank reserves by initiating the purchase of $500 billion in treasuries and another $200 billion in agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) since relaunching its QE program on March 15th. Further MBS purchases will be especially useful given that mortgage rates have not come down as quickly as Treasury yields (Chart 11). The Fed has also dusted off the alphabet soup of programs created during the financial crisis to improve proper market functioning, and has even added a few more to the list, including a program to support investment-grade corporate bonds and another to support small businesses. In order to ease overseas funding pressures, the Fed has opened up swap lines with a number of central banks. We expect these lines to be expanded to more countries if the situation necessitates it. The Coming Mar-A-Lago Accord? We also think that there is at least a 50-50 chance that we could see coordinated currency interventions designed to drive down the value of the US dollar. Federal Reserve, Treasury, and IMF guidelines all permit currency intervention to counter “disorderly market conditions.” While a weaker dollar would erode the export competitiveness of some countries, this would be more than offset by the palliative effects of additional dollar liquidity stemming from US purchases of foreign securities, as well as the relief that overseas dollar borrowers would receive from dollar depreciation. Thus, on balance, a weaker dollar would result in an easing of global financial conditions. Liquidity Versus Solvency Risk Some might complain that the actions of the Fed and other central banks go well beyond their mandates. They might argue that it is one thing to provide liquidity to the financial system; it is quite another to socialize credit risk. We think these arguments are largely red herrings. For one thing, concern about credit risk can be addressed by having governments backstop central banks for any losses they incur. Moreover, there is no clear distinction between liquidity and solvency risk during a financial crisis. The former can very easily morph into the latter. For example, consider the case of Italy. Would you buy more Italian bonds if the yield rises? That depends on two competing considerations. On the one hand, a higher yield makes the bond cheaper. On the other hand, a higher yield may make it more difficult for the government to service its debt obligations, which raises the risk of default. If the second consideration outweighs the first, your inclination may be to sell the bond. To the extent that your selling causes yields to rise further, that could lead to another wave of selling. As Chart 12 illustrates, this means that there may be multiple equilibria in fixed-income markets. It is absolutely the job of central banks to try to steer the economy towards the good ”low yield” equilibrium rather than the bad “default” equilibrium. Chart 12Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort In this light, ECB president Christine Lagarde’s statement on March 12th that “we are not here to close spreads” – coming on the heels of a spike in Italian bond yields and a 13% drop in euro area stocks the prior day – was one of the most negligent things a central banker has ever said. To her credit, she has since walked back her comments. The ECB has also launched the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme (PEPP), a EUR 750bn asset-purchase program, which gives the central bank considerable flexibility over the timing, composition, and geographic makeup of purchases. Further actions, including upsizing the PEPP, creating a “conditionality-lite” version of the ESM program, and perhaps even issuing Eurobonds, are possible. All this should help Italy. Accordingly, BCA’s global fixed-income team upgraded Italian government bonds to overweight this week. Using Fiscal Policy To Align Financial Time With Economic Time While central banks will play an important role in mitigating the crisis, most of the economic burden will fall on fiscal policy. How much fiscal support is necessary and what should it consist of? To get a sense of what is optimal, it is useful to distinguish between the concept of financial time and economic time. Financial time and economic time usually beat at the same pace. Most of the time, people have financial obligations – rent, mortgage payments, spending on necessities – that they match with the income earned from work. Likewise, companies have expenses that they match with the revenue that they derive from various economic activities. No one worries when economic time and financial time deviate in predictable ways. For example, GDP collapses around 5pm on Monday only to recover at 9am on Tuesday. The fact that many western Europeans take most of August off for vacation is also not a problem, since everyone expects this. The problem occurs when economic time and financial time deviate in unpredictable ways. That is the case at present. Today, economic time has ground to a halt as businesses shutter their doors and workers confine themselves to their homes. Yet, financial time continues to march on. This implies that in the near term, the correct course of action is for governments to transfer money to households and firms to allow them to service their financial obligations. One simple way of achieving this is through wage subsidies, where the government pays companies most of the wage bill of their employees who, through no fault of their own, are unable to work. Note that this strategy does not boost GDP. By definition, an idle worker is one who does not contribute to economic output. What this strategy does do is alleviate needless hardship, while creating pent-up demand for when businesses start to open their doors again. Once the virus is contained, traditional fiscal stimulus that boosts aggregate demand will be appropriate. How much money are we talking about? In the case of the US, suppose that annualized growth is -5% in Q1, -25% in Q2, and +10% in Q3 and Q4, respectively. That would leave the level of real GDP down 4% on the year compared to 2019. Assuming trend GDP growth of 2%, that implies an annual shortfall of income (consisting of wages and lost profits) that the government would have to cover amounting to 6% of GDP. The $2 trillion stimulus bill amounts to 10% of GDP, although not all of that will be spent during the next 12 months and about a quarter of the amount is in the form of loans and loan guarantees. Still, on size, we would give it an “A”. On composition, we would give it a “B”, as it lacks sufficient funding for state and local governments to cover the likely decline in the tax revenues that they will experience. This could result in layoffs of first responders, teachers, etc. Given that the US was running a fiscal deficit going into the crisis, all this additional stimulus could easily push the budget deficit to over 15% of GDP. While this is a huge number, keep in mind that in a world where interest rates are below the trend growth rate of the economy, a government can permanently increase its budget deficit by any amount it wants while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over the long haul.4 Today, we are not even talking about a permanent increase in the deficit, but a temporary increase that could last a few years at most. If we end up in a depression, don’t blame the virus; blame politicians. Fortunately, given that the political incentives are aligned towards fiscal easing rather than austerity, our guess is that a depression will be averted. Appendix A summarizes the monetary and fiscal measures that have already been taken in the major economies. II. Investment Strategy As anyone who has ever watched a horror movie knows, the scariest part of the film is the one before the monster is revealed to the audience. No matter how good the makeup or set design, our imaginations can always conjure up something much more frightening than Hollywood can invent. Right now, we are fighting an invisible enemy that is ravaging the world. Victory is in sight. The number of new infections has peaked in China and South Korea. I mentioned during last week’s webcast that we should watch Italy very carefully. If the number of new infections peaks there, that would send an encouraging signal to financial markets that other western democracies will be able to get the virus under control. While it is too early to be certain, this may be happening: Both the number of new cases and deaths in Italy have stabilized over the past five days (Chart 13). Chart 13A Peak In The Number Of New COVID-19 Cases In Italy Would Send An Encouraging Signal Of course, there is still the risk that the number of new infections will rise again if containment measures are relaxed prematurely. However, as we spelled out in this report, there are good reasons to think that these measures will not need to be as severe as the ones currently in place. As such, it is likely that global growth will begin to rebound in the third quarter of this year. Equities: A Modest Overweight Is Warranted We turned more cautious on the near-term outlook for global equities earlier this year, but upgraded our recommendation on the morning of February 28th after the MSCI All-Country World Index fell by 12% over the prior week. While stocks did rally by 7% during the following three trading days, they subsequently plunged to multi-year lows. In retrospect, we should have paid more attention to our own warnings in our earlier report titled “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus.” 5 For now, we would recommend a modest overweight to stocks on both a 3-month and 12-month horizon. Monetary and fiscal easing and the prospect of a peak in the number of new cases in Italy could continue to support stocks in the near term, while a rebound in growth starting this summer should pave the way for a recovery in corporate earnings over a 12-month horizon. Chart 14US Equity Valuations Are Not Yet At Bombed-Out Levels Of course, when it comes to financial markets, one should always be prepared to adjust one’s conviction level if prices either rise or fall significantly. We mentioned two weeks ago that we would move to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 fell below 2250. While the index did briefly fall below this level, it has since bounced back to about 2630. At its current level, the S&P 500 is trading at 15.3-times forward earnings (Chart 14). While this is not particularly expensive, it is still well above the trough of 10.5-times forward earnings reached in 2011 during the height of the euro crisis. And keep in mind that current earnings estimates are based on the stale assumption that S&P 500 companies will earn $172 over the next four quarters, down only 3% from the peak earnings estimate of $177 reached in February. With this in mind, we are introducing a lower and upper bound for global equity prices at which we will adjust our view. To keep things simple, we will focus on the S&P 500, which accounts for over half of global stock market capitalization. If the S&P 500 falls below (and stays below) 2250, we would recommend a high-conviction overweight to global stocks. If the index rises above 2750, we would recommend a neutral equity allocation. Anything between 2250 and 2750 would justify the current stance of modest overweight. Going forward, we will adjust this range as events warrant it. Our full slate of views can be found in the table at the end of this report. Sector And Regional Equity Allocation: Favor Cyclicals and Non-US Over A 12-Month Horizon Not surprisingly, defensive equity sectors outperformed cyclicals both in the US and abroad during this month’s selloff. Financials also underperformed on heightened worries about rising defaults and the adverse effect on net interest margins from flatter yield curves (Chart 15). Chart 15Cyclicals And Financials Underperformed On The Way Down Chart 16Non-US Stocks Are Cheaper Even After Adjusting For Differences In Sector Weights Cyclicals and financials have outperformed the broader market over the past few days as risk sentiment has improved. They are likely to continue outperforming over a 12-month horizon as global growth eventually recovers and yield curves steepen modestly. To the extent that cyclicals and financials are overrepresented in stock market indices outside the US, this will give non-US equities the edge. Stocks outside the US also benefit from more favorable valuations. Even after adjusting for differences in sector weights, non-US stocks are quite a bit cheaper than their US peers as judged by price-to-earnings, price-to-book, and other valuation measures (Chart 16). The US Dollar Has Probably Peaked Another factor that should help cyclical stocks later this year is the direction of the US dollar. The greenback has been buffeted by two major forces this year (Chart 17). Chart 17The Dollar Has Been Facing Crosscurrents Chart 18USD Is A Countercyclical Currency Between February 19 and March 9, the dollar weakened as US bond yields fell more than yields abroad. This eliminated some of the yield advantage that had been supporting the dollar last year. Starting around the second week of March, however, global financial stresses escalated. Money began to flow into the safe-haven Treasury market. Global growth prospects also deteriorated sharply. As a countercyclical currency, this helped the dollar (Chart 18). Looking out, interest rate differentials are unlikely to return anywhere close to where they were at the start of this year, given that the Fed will probably keep rates near zero at least until the middle of 2021. Meanwhile, aggressive central bank liquidity injections should reduce financial stress, while a rebound in global growth will allow capital to start flowing back towards riskier foreign markets. This should result in a weaker dollar. Once Growth Bottoms, So Will Commodities Chart 19Low Prices Force US Shale Cutbacks The combination of a weaker dollar, a rebound in global growth starting this summer, and increased infrastructure stimulus spending in China should help lift resource prices. This will also buoy currencies such as the AUD, CAD, and NOK in the developed market space, and RUB, CLP, ZAR, and IDR, in the EM space. Oil prices have tumbled on the back of the sudden stop in global economic activity and the breakdown of the agreement between OPEC and Russia to restrain crude production. BCA’s commodity strategists expect the Saudis and Russians to come to an agreement to reduce output, as neither side has an incentive to pursue a prolonged price war. They see Brent prices averaging $36/barrel in 2020 and $55/barrel in 2021. However, prices are not likely to go much higher than $60/barrel because that would take them well above the current breakeven cost for shale producers, eliciting a strong supply response (Chart 19). Spread Product: Favor IG Over HY A rebound in oil prices from today’s ultra-depressed levels should help the bonds of energy companies, which are overrepresented in high-yield indices. This, together with stronger global growth and improving risk sentiment, should allow HY spreads to narrow over a 12-month horizon. Chart 20High-Yield Credit Is Pricing In Only A Moderate Recession Nevertheless, we think investment grade currently offers a better risk-reward profile. While HY spreads have jumped to more than 1000 basis points in the US, they are still nowhere close to 2008 peak levels of almost 2000 basis points. Like the equity market, high-yield credit is pricing in only a modest recession, with a default rate on par with the 2001 downturn (Chart 20). Moreover, central banks around the world are racing to protect high-quality borrowers from default. The Fed’s announcement that it will effectively backstop the investment-grade corporate bond market could be a game changer in this regard. Unfortunately for HY credit, the moral hazard consequences of bailing out companies that investors knew were risky when they first bought the bonds are too great for policymakers to bear. Government Bonds: Deflation Today, Inflation Tomorrow? As noted at the outset of this report, the current economic downturn involves both an adverse supply and demand shock. Outside of a few categories of consumer staples and medical products, we expect demand to fall more than supply, resulting in downward pressure on prices. This deflationary impulse will be exacerbated by rising unemployment. Looking beyond the next 12-to-18 months, the outlook for inflation is less clear. On the one hand, it is possible that the psychological trauma from the pandemic will produce a permanent, or at least semi-permanent, increase in precautionary savings. If budget deficits are reined in too quickly, many countries could find themselves facing a shortage of aggregate demand. This would be deflationary. On the other hand, one can easily envision a scenario where monetary policy remains highly accommodative and many of the fiscal measures put in place to support households are maintained long after the virus is eradicated. This could be particularly true in the US, where our geopolitical team now expects Joe Biden to win the presidential election. In such an environment, unemployment could fall back to its lows, eventually leading to an overheated economy. Our hunch is that the more inflationary scenario will unfold over the next 2-to-3 years. Interestingly, that is not the market’s opinion. For example, the 5-year US TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently only 0.69% and the 10-year rate is 1.07%. This means that a buy-and-hold investor will make money owning TIPS versus nominals if inflation averages more than 0.69% per year for the next five years, or 1.07% per year for the next decade. That is a bet we would be willing to take. Finally, a word on gold. Just as during the Global Financial Crisis, gold failed to be an attractive hedge against financial risk during the recent stock market selloff – bullion dropped by 15% from $1704/oz to $1451/oz, before rebounding back to $1640/oz over the past few days as risk sentiment improved. Nevertheless, gold remains a good hedge against long-term inflation risk. And with the US dollar likely to weaken over the next 12 months, gold prices should move up even if near-term inflationary pressures remain contained. As such, we are upgrading our outlook on the yellow metal. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Appendix A Appendix A Table 1Central Banks Still Had Some Options When Crisis Hit Appendix A Table 2Massive Stimulus In Response To Pandemic Footnotes 1 Jing Yan, Suvajyoti Guha, Prasanna Hariharan, and Matthew Myers, “Modeling the Effectiveness of Respiratory Protective Devices in Reducing Influenza Outbreak,” U.S. National Library of Medicine, (39:3), March 2019. 2 Chaolong Wang, Li Liu, Xingjie Hao, Huan Guo, Qi Wang, Jiao Huang, Na He, Hongjie Yu, Xihong Lin, Sheng Wei, and Tangchun Wu, “Evolving Epidemiology and Impact of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions on the Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China,”medrxiv.org, March 6, 2020. 3 This calculation assumes that 5% of infected people need ICU care and each spends an average of 2 weeks in the ICU. It also assumes that hospitals are able to expand their capacity by 30 additional ICU beds per 100,000 people per year to treat COVID-19. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019, available at gis.bcarearch.com. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus,” dated February 21, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Financial markets have experienced two weeks of wild swings: Following the negative 5-standard-deviation weekly move in the S&P 500 two weeks ago, the index moved at least 2.8% in each of last week’s first four sessions. 10- and 30-year Treasury yields made one all-time low after another. The coronavirus has arrived in the United States: It would appear inevitable that the coronavirus is going to spread across the US; the unknowns are how long it will spread, how deadly it will be, and how much it will impact the economy. Confronted with these unknowns, markets shot first and left asking questions for later. The selling may have gone a little far. The Fed and the Democratic candidates for president were in the news last week, … : The Fed made its first intra-meeting rate cut since the financial crisis was raging, cutting the fed funds rate by 50 basis points instead of waiting for its regularly scheduled March 17-18 gathering. Super Tuesday upended the chase for the Democratic presidential nomination, as our geopolitical strategists foresaw. … and we offer our quick read on their market impact: We expect that the Fed’s rate cut will be modestly positive for markets and the economy, while Joe Biden’s move to the head of the Democratic pack greatly diminished a risk that would otherwise have troubled investors all the way to November 3rd. Feature US equities have endured a rollercoaster ride over the last two-and-a-half weeks. From its all-time intraday high of 3,393.52 on February 19th, to the February 28th intraday low of 2,855.84, the S&P 500 corrected by 15.8% in just seven sessions. The brunt of the decline occurred two weeks ago, when the index lost 11.5% in its fourth worst week in the last six decades. The decline amounted to more than a negative 5-standard-deviation event, and took its place among what we now consider to be landmark episodes in US stock market history (Table 1). Table 1Socialism + Pandemic = History (But Not The Good Kind) The epic rout followed a weekend of distressing news. First, the coronavirus (COVID-19) slipped its Asian bonds, popping up fully formed in Italy and Iran in a sobering demonstration of its global reach. Second, Bernie Sanders had seemingly solidified his grip on the Democratic presidential nomination by trouncing the rest of the crowded field in the Nevada caucuses with nearly twice the share of the vote that he captured in his Iowa and New Hampshire wins. We therefore characterize the February 28th intraday low as the coronavirus/Sanders bottom. The former is still running around freely, but the latter has been largely contained. COVID-19 will surely be with us for a while longer, and may yet push the S&P 500 below its February 28th low, but it will have to do so without help from Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden reclaimed front-runner status following his tremendous Super Tuesday performance, and support for him coalesced with remarkable speed, relieving investors’ acute concern about a Sanders presidency. The primary campaign is still in its early stages, and the gaffe-prone Biden is capable of multiple stumbles between now and the nominating convention, but a general election without a self-declared socialist bent on ending health insurance as we know it will provoke considerably less market anxiety. The Rate Cut Equities had been pining for a rate cut, beginning last week’s surge upon the news that central bankers would be joining the G-7 Finance Ministers on their hastily arranged Tuesday morning conference call. After an immediate 2.5% pop upon the announcement of the intra-meeting cut, however, the S&P 500 sagged and wound up ending Tuesday’s session nearly 2% lower than its pre-cut level. The dismal market reception, and Powell’s own halting, tepid responses to questions at the press conference to discuss the rationale for the move left investors wondering if the Fed had made a mistake. We neither know nor care if it will turn out to be good policy, but we expect that the rate cut will lend support to risk assets over our 12-month investment horizon. Why would the Fed use monetary policy to try to combat a public health crisis, or any supply shock? Monetary policy tools were not made to fight public health crises. They will not speed the development of an antidote, make medical care more widely available, or make up for a lack of preparedness at the public health agencies leading the effort to blunt COVID-19’s spread. They also are not particularly well-suited to combat supply shocks. They cannot resolve global supply bottlenecks, put more people back to work in China, South Korea and Italy, or create and distribute all the test kits and protective clothing that medical professionals sorely need. It is within the Fed’s power, however, to try to keep COVID-19’s second-order economic consequences from taking root. Negative headlines, deserted shopping districts and runs on products like hand sanitizer and face masks can drag down business and consumer confidence. Falling confidence can weigh on consumption and investment, hobbling output, stifling employment growth, and raising the specter of a negatively self-reinforcing dynamic in which layoffs lead to less consumption, which feeds more layoffs, and less investment, etcetera. If the Fed can bolster the spirits of consumers and businesses, it can help to contain COVID-19’s adverse economic impact. Won’t this move leave the Fed with less ammunition down the road? Yes, it surely will, especially if the Fed would prefer to stick to conventional policy tools to combat the next recession. Last week’s cut may postpone the start date of that recession, however, affording the Fed a chance to execute a series of rate hikes before it arrives. For an investor with a timeframe that doesn’t exceed twelve months, it may not matter, provided the increased accommodation successfully reduces near-term recession risk. Do you think this move will be effective? At the margin, yes, we think it will. First of all, it will contribute to the mortgage-refinancing wave that has been building since the beginning of the year (Chart 1). With an average 3.45% 30-year fixed-rate mortgage rate, data provider Black Knight estimates 11 million borrowers could save at least 75 basis points by refinancing their existing loans.1 If the average rate were to fall to 3%, as it would if the spread between mortgage rates and Treasury yields simply eases back to the 2% neighborhood (Chart 2), the pool of potential refinancers would expand to 19 million. Reduced mortgage payments put more money in homeowners’ pockets and will help support consumption at the margin. Chart 1Mortgage Refis Were Already Ramping Up, ... Chart 2... And There Will Be Even More Activity Once Mortgage Spreads Normalize Lower rates will also increase demand for new-home purchases, which have positive multiplier effects, and other big-ticket consumer goods. They will also support investment at the margin, as hurdle rates fall, and more opportunities are projected to generate a positive net present value. Potential homebuyers may be less prone to attend open houses or conduct home searches if COVID-19 spreads, and skittish managers may be less prone to invest, but easier monetary conditions do promote economic activity. Finally, a Fed that is demonstrably committed to easing monetary conditions to mitigate COVID-19’s potential negative impacts may help shore up business and consumer confidence. It will take confidence to keep gloomy virus headlines from becoming a self-fulfilling recession prophecy. As Figure 1 illustrates, the Fed does have the means to boost demand in financial markets and the real economy. Figure 1Monetary Policy And The Economy What will it mean for markets? It may encourage investors to pay more for each dollar of a corporation’s earnings, helping to cushion equities from falling earnings projections (the Confidence/Risk Taking channel in Figure 1), though we think a surer outcome is that it will keep the search for yield at a fever pitch. Life insurers, pension funds and endowments can no longer rely on highly-rated sovereign bonds to deliver the income to meet their fixed obligations, but have very little leeway to allocate away from fixed income. They have therefore been forced to venture further and further out the risk curve (Figure 1’s Portfolio Balance Effect), which has had the effect of providing an ample supply of funds for less-than-pristine borrowers. Under zero- and negative-interest-rate policy (ZIRP and NIRP, respectively) just about any borrower aside from brick-and-mortar retailers and thinly capitalized oil drillers can attract a line of would-be lenders out the door and around the corner simply by offering an incremental 50-75 bps of yield. Since no borrower defaults, or goes bankrupt, as long as there is a lender willing to roll over its maturing obligations, extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy has had the effect of limiting default rates. We expect that the Fed’s move back in the direction of ZIRP will continue to squeeze spreads and ease financial conditions. That’s far from an ideal fundamental basis for owning spread product, and it won’t keep credit outperforming forever, but we expect it will allow spread product to continue to generate positive excess returns over Treasuries and cash over the next twelve months. Recession Prospects There is no doubt that the probability of a recession is rising. COVID-19 is already exerting intense pressure on the airline and hotel industries, and strapped small businesses will find themselves in its crosshairs soon. It is certainly possible that a recession could sneak up on us while we focus on our assessment of the monetary policy backdrop. But just as COVID-19 survival rates are heavily influenced by a patient’s intrinsic condition, the economy’s prognosis may be a function of its pre-outbreak status. To assess the economy’s vital signs, we begin with housing, the major economic segment with the greatest interest-rate sensitivity. If monetary policy is less accommodative than we’ve estimated, the housing market might be gasping for air, but it appears to be as fit as a fiddle. Permits and starts turned sharply higher in the middle of last year (Chart 3, top panel), following the sales component of the NAHB survey (Chart 3, bottom panel) and purchase mortgage applications (Chart 3, middle panel). Homes are already quite affordable, relative to history (Chart 4, top panel), and they’re bound to get even more affordable as mortgage rates fall. Chart 3Housing Charts Are Up And To The Right Across The Board Chart 4Homes Are Amply Affordable Nothing in the available data indicates that housing is running too hot. Residential investment’s contribution to GDP has flipped from barely negative to modestly positive (Chart 5), and there are no signs that its current course is unsustainable. Unsold inventories and the share of vacant homes are at 25-year lows (Chart 6), and starts and permits are only just catching up with the multi-year average of household formations, suggesting that the market has been undersupplied since the crisis excesses were worked off. The overall takeaway is that the housing market is in the early days of an overdue recovery that has plenty of room to run. Chart 5Residential Investment's Current Pace Is Easily Sustainable, ... Chart 6... And The Housing Market Still Looks Undersupplied Chart 7The Labor Market Is Strong Table 2No Sign Of Recession Here February’s employment situation report, ignored by markets in the throes of Friday's selloff, suggests that the labor market, and by extension the economy, was in fighting trim before COVID-19 took root in American soil (Chart 7). February’s net job additions far surpassed consensus estimates, and the figures for January and December were revised appreciably higher (Table 2). With the three-month moving average of net additions coming in one-third higher than expected, the report was nothing short of tremendous. The March release is sure to be worse, and the all-time record streak of expanding monthly payrolls may well come to an end, but the patient was in an awfully robust state before it encountered the virus, and that bodes well for its immediate future. The Democratic Primaries Super Tuesday turned out to be super for US financial markets. With all of the Democratic party’s machinery now at the service of Joe Biden, the probability that frightening left-tail outcomes might emerge from the general election has been dramatically reduced. Markets can live with a Biden-Trump contest no matter how it turns out. Although we thought that markets were exaggerating the potentially negative conditions that would ensue under President Sanders, they would have been subject to rolling bouts of angst every time his general election prospects rose. Though our geopolitical strategists unwaveringly saw the former vice president as the Democratic frontrunner, theirs was a decidedly minority view. Following the Nevada caucus, Sanders was viewed far and wide as the presumptive nominee. Although a Biden administration would presumably be less market-friendly than the current administration, he himself is a card-carrying member of the establishment and wouldn’t do anything that would upset the apple cart. From an investment perspective, Biden is the candidate that would Make America Predictable Again, and even if re-election is markets’ preferred outcome, the prospect of a Biden presidency is hardly frightening. Investment Implications Although our conviction level has fallen in the face of COVID-19 uncertainties, we hold to our view that a soft patch is more likely than a recession, and a correction is more likely than a bear market. We remain constructive on risk assets because we think the selling has gotten overdone. There may well be more of it, and the S&P 500 could reach its 2,708.92 bear-market level before we can publish again next Monday, but we will be buying it in our own account all the way there. We think the most plausible worst-case scenario is a sharp but short recession, produced by a nasty supply shock that frightens households and businesses enough that they cease to consume or invest. The demand strike would imperil indebted businesses that suffered the biggest revenue declines: airlines, hotels, restaurants, retailers, thinly capitalized oil producers and a range of small businesses. They would shrink their workforces and many would default on their loans. That would be bad, as all recessions are bad, but it wouldn’t be a replay of the crisis. Credit extended to the sorts of borrowers listed above, ex-small businesses, is well-dispersed throughout the economy via corporate bonds and securitizations. The exposures the SIFI banks and their large- and mid-cap regional bank cousins have retained will be easily absorbed by the layers of additional capital mandated by Dodd-Frank and Basel 3. It seems to us that markets are pricing in a significant probability of something much worse than a run-of-the-mill recession, and we think that sets up an attractive risk-reward profile for investors in risk assets. We reiterate our risk-friendly recommendations, though we now recommend that fixed-income investors maintain benchmark duration positioning. We failed to appreciate the potential scope for a decline in long yields and are correcting course now. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Boston, Claire and Raimonde, Olivia, “A 30-Year Mortgage Below 3%? Treasury Rally Offers Bargain Loans,” Bloomberg, March 5, 2020.
Highlights Duration: The coronavirus is still weighing on yields and could push them down further in the near-term. However, the history of past viral outbreaks suggests that yields will move sharply higher once the daily number of new cases falls to zero. Fed: We would speculate that, this year, the Fed is very likely to change its framework so that it can seek a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target. This may involve moving to an “average inflation targeting” regime implemented via operational inflation ranges. Labor Market: It is very likely that employment growth peaked for the cycle in 2015, but falling employment growth is only consistent with the end of the economic recovery when it breaks below monthly labor force growth, causing the unemployment rate to rise. Feature Chart 1Fresh Lows! The ultimate economic fallout from the coronavirus remains uncertain, but bond investors are starting to fear the worst. As we go to press, the 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields have both made new cyclical troughs at 1.36% and 1.83%, respectively (Chart 1). The 3-month / 10-year Treasury slope is once again inverted and the 2/10 slope is down to 11 bps, from 34 bps at the start of the year (Chart 1, bottom panel). This behavior tells us that the market is pricing-in a significant economic slowdown stemming from the coronavirus, one that will force the Fed to ease policy this year. Indeed, the overnight index swap curve is priced for more than 50 bps of rate cuts during the next 12 months, and fed funds futures are discounting 58% chance of a 25 basis point rate cut in either March or April. In direct opposition to the market’s moves, the past week saw several FOMC members push back against the idea of a rate cut. Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said in an interview:1 There are many different scenarios about what’s going to happen between now and say June or July. My baseline expectations are that the economy is not going to see rising risks and it’s going to stay stable, so we won’t have to do anything. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard was even more forceful, saying:2 There’s a high probability that the coronavirus will blow over as other viruses have, be a temporary shock and everything will come back. But there’s a low probability that this could get much worse. Markets have to price that in, and that drags down the center of gravity a little bit. But if this all goes away, I expect that pricing will come back out of the market and we’ll be back to the on-hold scenario. Finally, Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida challenged the notion that expectations for a 2020 rate cut are widespread. Similar to Bullard, he claimed that market prices reflect hedging against potential downside risks. He went on to cite survey measures that show investors looking for a flat funds rate in their base case scenarios.3 There’s a wide gap between survey and market rate expectations. Clarida’s point about the discrepancy between market and survey rate expectations is well taken. Chart 2 shows that the median forecast from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants calls for an unchanged fed funds rate through 2022. However, it’s important to note that this survey was taken prior to the January FOMC meeting, when the coronavirus was only just starting to hit the news. Chart 2A Wide Gap Between Market And Survey Expectations Do They Protest Too Much? We can sympathize with the FOMC’s desire to push back against market expectations that it feels are off target, but we also think the strategy could prove self-defeating. If the market starts to believe that the Fed will not ease policy quickly enough, the yield curve will flatten even more and risk assets (equities and credit spreads) will sell off. Both of those developments would increase the pressure on the Fed to ease policy. Chart 3The History Of Viral Outbreaks In fact, if the present market turmoil continues, the Fed is very likely to deliver a rate cut sometime this year in an effort to support confidence and limit the potential economic damage from the coronavirus. Unfortunately, at this point we have no idea whether the coronavirus will spread further during the next couple of months, or whether it will be contained. In the former scenario, financial conditions will continue to tighten and the Fed will ease policy. In the latter scenario, financial conditions will not tighten aggressively and the Fed will stay on hold. In either case, given the uncertainty of the situation, we recommend stepping aside on our prior recommendation to short the August 2020 fed funds futures contract. No matter how long it takes to contain the coronavirus, we would expect growth to rebound quickly once the situation is resolved. This has been the pattern of past viral outbreaks: a steady decline in bond yields that sharply reverses course when the daily number of new cases reaches zero (Chart 3). Even accounting for its sharp drop during the past few days, the 10-year Treasury yield is still tracking the pattern of past viral outbreaks, and a jump in yields seems likely once the virus is contained. For this reason, we are inclined to maintain below-benchmark duration on a 12-month horizon. The US Election Is The Biggest Risk To Our Cyclical View The main risk to our 6-12 month below-benchmark portfolio duration stance is the possibility that as soon as the market is done worrying about the coronavirus it jumps right to worrying about the outcome of the US election. This could keep Treasury yields low throughout all of 2020. We argued last week that Treasury yields could come under downward pressure if Bernie Sanders looks set to win the election, while a victory for Donald Trump or one of the other Democratic candidates would be neutral for yields.4 As it stands now, Sanders has taken a more decisive lead in the Democratic leadership race after winning in Nevada. But President Trump’s approval rating has also been tacking higher. We will continue to monitor this risk closely in the coming weeks, and may alter our cyclical duration view depending on how polls evolve in March. The Fed may be forced to cut rates this year if financial conditions continue to tighten. Bottom Line: The coronavirus is still weighing on yields and could push them down further in the near-term. However, the history of past viral outbreaks suggests that yields will move sharply higher once the daily number of new cases falls to zero. Likewise, credit spreads have near-term upside until the virus is contained, but will tighten anew once the threat has passed. As discussed last week, the fundamental credit cycle backdrop remains supportive.5 The Fed may be forced to cut rates this year if financial conditions continue to tighten. Dual Mandate Update As discussed above, Fed participants generally view the current level of interest rates as appropriate and have been reluctant to hint at any upcoming policy changes. It’s not that difficult to see why. If we recall that the Fed’s dual mandate – as set by Congress – is to pursue maximum employment and price stability, then it’s pretty clear that current policy is delivering on both fronts. Chart 4 shows that the sum of the unemployment rate and 12-month consumer price inflation – the so-called Misery Index – is about as low as it has been since the 1960s. Further, the outlook for 2020 is that employment growth will remain firm and inflation tepid. Chart 4The Fed Has The Economy In A Good Spot Labor Market Chart 5Employment Growth Greater Than Labor Force Growth It is very likely that employment growth peaked for the cycle back in 2015, but falling employment growth is only consistent with the end of the economic recovery when it breaks below monthly labor force growth, causing the unemployment rate to rise. During the past 12 months, monthly employment gains have averaged +171k compared to a +122k average increase in the labor force (Chart 5). In other words, employment growth is slowly trending down but it remains at a comfortable level. Beyond decelerating employment, rising labor force participation is the other important trend in the US labor market. While it’s tempting to think that stronger labor force growth might only raise the bar for what employment growth is necessary to keep the recovery on track, this is not the case. In practice, gross labor flow data show that, since 2017, 73% of people that entered the labor force transitioned directly to being employed. Only 27% of those entering the labor force transitioned to unemployed status. Simply, rising labor force growth tends to push employment growth higher as well. It does not make it more likely that the unemployment rate will rise. Rising labor force participation has not gone unnoticed. The minutes from January’s FOMC meeting revealed that: Many participants pointed to the strong performance of labor force participation despite the downward pressures associated with an aging population, and several raised the possibility that there was some room for labor force participation to rise further. The prime age participation rate is already back to pre-crisis levels and the female 24-54 part rate is making new highs (Chart 6). Nonetheless, US prime age participation remains low compared to other developed countries – like its closest neighbor Canada – making further gains possible. Chart 6Do Part Rates Have More ##br##Upside? Chart 7Don't Be Alarmed By The Drop In Job Openings Finally, many have pointed to the recent drop in Job Openings as a reason to be concerned about the state of the US labor market (Chart 7). We view these concerns as unfounded. First, the drop in openings does not appear to be related to flagging labor demand. The Job Hires rate is steady and involuntary layoffs are low. Against a backdrop of steady demand, fewer openings could simply mean that there is a little more slack in the labor market than was previously thought. Inflation On inflation, we see little chance of a meaningful surge this year. The Prices Paid and Supplier Delivery components of the ISM Manufacturing index, two indicators that tend to lead changes in core inflation, are downtrodden (Chart 8). Meanwhile, base effects could cause 12-month core CPI to jump in the next month or two, but are more likely to drag it down on a 6-month horizon (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 8Inflation Will Remain Tame In 2020 At the component level, shelter is the largest component of core CPI but it is unlikely to accelerate in the coming months. The National Multifamily Housing Council’s Survey of Apartment Market Conditions just ticked below 50 (Chart 9). Shelter inflation is more likely to rise when the index is firmly above 50 in “tightening” territory. Further, the recent jump in core goods inflation is set to wane in the coming months. Core goods inflation tracks non-oil import prices with a lag of about 18 months, and import prices have been on a declining trend (Chart 9, bottom panel). Chart 9Shelter And Core Goods Inflation Bottom Line: The Fed is performing well on its dual mandate. Employment growth is firm, inflationary pressures are tepid and continued accommodative monetary policy might be able to pull more people into the labor force. Absent any desire to preemptively ease to counteract the effects of the coronavirus, the Fed’s on hold policy stance is appropriate. Tracking The Fed’s Balance Sheet We strongly disagree with the suggestion that the increase in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet meaningfully impacted Treasury yields or risky assets this year.6 But the Fed’s balance sheet policy remains a point of interest nonetheless, and last week we received more information about what the Fed intends to do with its balance sheet this year. Specifically, the Fed has decided that $1.5 trillion will serve as a firm floor for bank reserves. That is, the Fed will not allow the supply of reserves to fall below that level, and will typically maintain a significant buffer above $1.5 trillion. To accomplish this, the Fed would prefer to transition away from daily repo transactions. It would rather rely on its Treasury and T-bill purchases to keep reserves at desired levels. $1.5 trillion will be the firm floor on bank reserves. With that in mind, the Fed now plans to scale daily repo operations back to zero by the end of April. The Fed’s $60 billion per month T-bill purchases will continue through the second quarter. After that, the pace of asset purchases will be lowered, with the goal of simply keeping reserve supply stable. It has not yet been decided whether Treasury purchases after June will be concentrated in T-bills or spread out across the maturity spectrum. Chart 10 and Table 1 show our updated projections for what the Fed’s balance sheet will look like at the end of June. Our projections show a reserve level of $1.7 trillion at the end of June, significantly above the $1.5 trillion floor. This provides a healthy buffer in case a spike in the Treasury’s General Account leads to a temporary drop in reserve supply. Chart 10The Fed's Balance Sheet Securities And Reserves Table 1Fed's Balance Sheet Projections The Biggest Changes The Fed Could Make This Year (And More Details About The Ongoing Strategic Review) Chart 11Monitoring Financial Conditions The minutes from the January FOMC meeting, released last week, revealed a few important details about the Fed’s ongoing strategic review. The strategic review is a process that the Fed expects to complete by mid-year, where it will consider potential changes to its monetary policy strategy, tools and communication practices. At the last FOMC meeting, the committee took up the issues of how to incorporate financial stability into the Fed’s monetary policy strategy and of whether it should consider targeting an inflation range instead of a specific point. Financial Stability The traditional consensus in central banking was that interest rates should not be used to manage financial stability risks. Rather, monetary policy should remain focused on the dual mandate of full employment and inflation. In January’s discussion, FOMC participants generally agreed that macroprudential and regulatory policies remain the preferred methods for dealing with financial stability risks. But participants also recognized that this might not suffice: Many participants remarked that the Committee should not rule out the possibility of adjusting the stance of monetary policy to mitigate financial stability risks, particularly when those risks have important implications for the economic outlook and when macroprudential tools had been or were likely to be ineffective at mitigating those risks. At January’s FOMC meeting, the Fed staff also presented the idea of a “financial stability escape clause” that would “provide leeway for the central bank to deviate from its usual monetary policy strategy if financial vulnerabilities become significant.” For our part, we have consistently argued that, if inflation expectations remain stubbornly low, the Fed may eventually lift rates this cycle in response to signs of excess in financial markets.7 So far, we don’t see asset valuations as stretched enough to prompt Fed tightening (Chart 11), but the longer that interest rates stay low, the more likely it is that financial market valuations will reach bubbly levels. Inflation Ranges The FOMC discussed two types of inflation ranges at the January FOMC meeting. They discussed ranges that are symmetrical around the Fed’s 2% target, and “operational ranges” that could be moved around depending on the Fed’s policy goals. In theory, the advantage of a symmetric inflation range around the Fed’s 2% target is that it could help communicate the inherent uncertainty in measuring inflation, and the difficulty in forecasting it with precision. However, participants worried that introducing a symmetric inflation range at a time when inflation has been running below the Fed’s 2% target would signal that the Fed is comfortable with below-target inflation. In contrast, the idea of an operational range has some appeal, especially if the Fed decides to shift from a pure forward-looking 2% inflation target to a target that seeks to achieve average 2% inflation over time. How would this work? In an environment where inflation had been running below 2% for several years, the Fed would set its operational range to be 2%-2.5% for a time (Chart 12). Once it judged that enough of an overshoot of 2% had taken place to make up for past downside misses, it would shift back to a symmetric operational range of say 1.75%-2.25%. Or perhaps, if it judged that inflation needed to undershoot 2% for a time, it would set its operational range as 1.5%-2%. Crucially, the operational range would be moved around at the discretion of the Committee with the goal of achieving 2% inflation on average over time. Chart 12The Fed Could Adopt An Operational Target Inflation Range of 2-2.5 This Year The Most That Could Be Announced This Year Based on the info we’ve received so far from the FOMC minutes and the speeches of several Fed Governors, two in particular from Governor Lael Brainard.8 We now have a decent sense of the most dramatic changes that could be announced this year. In all likelihood, the announced changes will be somewhat less dramatic than those listed below, as consensus amongst committee members on all the details will be difficult to achieve. The Fed will change from a forward-looking 2% inflation target to one that seeks to achieve average inflation of 2% over time. It will implement its new inflation targeting framework by using operational inflation ranges that will be moved around at the discretion of the Committee. The Fed will allow for the possibility of changing interest rates in response to financial stability risks, if it is thought that those risks threaten the dual mandate of full employment and 2% inflation. It will announce a new tool for implementing monetary policy at the zero-lower bound where it puts a hard cap on bond yields out to some specific maturity. The cap won’t be lifted until some specified economic goals are met. We would speculate that, this year, the Fed is very likely to change its framework so that it can seek a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target. This may involve moving to an “average inflation targeting” regime implemented via operational inflation ranges, or it could be a more watered down version of the same idea. Similarly, we would also expect that any announced changes to the Fed’s policy strategy will include more explicit language related to financial stability risks. As for the idea of adopting bond yield caps at the zero-lower bound, a policy that is similar to the Bank of Japan’s current Yield Curve Control policy. This may not be announced this year, especially since the Fed probably believes that it has more time to mull over this sort of proposal. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Transcript: Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic Speaks with CNBC’s Steve Liesman on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Today,” CNBC, dated February 21, 2020. 2 Please see “CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Excerpts: St. Louis Fed President James Bullard Speaks with CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Today,” CNBC, dated February 21, 2020. 3 Please see “CNBC Exclusive: CNBC Transcript: Federal Reserve Vice Chair Richard Clarida Speaks with CNBC’s Steve Liesman,” CNBC, dated February 20, 2020. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Credit Cycle Is Far From Over,” dated February 18, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Credit Cycle Is Far From Over,” dated February 18, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Our rationale is explained in US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Fed In 2020,” dated December 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Fed In 2020,” dated December 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Governor Lael Brainard, “Federal Reserve Review of Monetary Policy Strategy, Tools, and Communications: Some Preliminary Views,” dated November 26, 2019, and “Monetary Policy Strategies and Tools When Inflation and Interest Rates Are Low,” dated February 21, 2020, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Why did S&P 500 profit margins fall in 2019?: Compensation gains, trade tensions and spotty growth were the most likely culprits, though the absence of standardized disclosure hinders full attribution. Was it a one-off, or the beginning of a trend?: We believe that profit margins have likely peaked, though we expect that they will contract only modestly this year. The outcome of the election could have a significant margin impact going forward. The coronavirus outbreak may be worsening around Wuhan, but it does not appear to be metastasizing elsewhere: Our China strategists foresee an extended lockdown of Hubei province, but expect that the rest of the Chinese economy will be able to overcome it. They are cautiously optimistic about the prospects for containment. Sustainability What a difference a year makes. Last President’s Day, the S&P 500 was more than 5% below its September 2018 peak (18% below its current level), amidst widespread fears that the Fed may have tightened into a recession. The month-long government shutdown was an embarrassing own goal, and trade tensions loomed as a threat to corporate earnings and global growth. It would take another two months before the S&P 500 fully recovered, only to have the yield curve invert soon thereafter. The coronavirus epidemic (COVID-19) has the curve flirting with inversion again, but stocks have shrugged off the growth risks. They continue to scale the wall of worry as self-appointed bubble spotters’ blood pressure soars, leaving them sputtering like Judge Smails or the bank official overseeing Charles Foster Kane’s trust. While we acknowledge that COVID-19 and Bernie Sanders’ post-Iowa-and-New Hampshire position at the head of the Democratic pack could yet become problematic for markets and the economy, our take aligns much more closely with Fed Chair Powell’s House testimony last week. “There’s nothing about this expansion that is unstable or unsustainable.” COVID-19 Update Chart 1What Happens In Hubei Our China Investment Strategy colleagues were encouraged by the latest Chinese data on the outbreak. Although they foresee that Wuhan, and quite possibly all of Hubei province, will be shut down through the end of March, they do not think the action will thwart China’s nascent growth recovery. In their estimation, domestic companies will be able to reroute their supply chains with minimal disruption. If the equity market avoids a virus-related plunge, as they expect, the economy may dodge the deleterious impact on confidence that might otherwise emerge. Our sanguine China outlook encountered some resistance from clients, who have been surprised at how swiftly markets seemed to put the outbreak aside, and skeptical of official reports that seemed a little too good to be true. We suggested that they employ a trust-but-verify approach similar to ours. We are taking official data as given, while using other countries’ data as a reasonableness check. We are monitoring the magnitude of PRC policy efforts to mitigate the virus’ drag and remaining vigilant for any signs of global supply chain disruptions. Bottom Line: Our China strategists were heartened by official reports indicating that the coronavirus has been mostly contained in Hubei province (Chart 1), but are actively seeking out other evidence for corroboration before concluding that the worst is over. Making Sense Of Declining Profit Margins As we showed last week, S&P 500 profit margins narrowed across 2019, with 2% EPS growth lagging 5% growth in per-share revenue. Margins do not remain fixed over time, but the contraction represented a notable shift after several years of steady margin expansion. Even when EPS declined on a year-over-year basis for four straight quarters across 2015 and 2016, margins mainly held their own as revenues, which contracted year-over-year for six consecutive quarters, had it worse (Chart 2). Chart 2Fun While It Lasted We primarily attribute last year’s decline to gains in labor’s share of income. Although average hourly earnings growth decelerated from 2018 to 2019, real unit labor cost growth flipped from negative to positive. Tariffs also likely detracted from income, as domestic businesses were surely not able to pass through all of their increased cost of goods sold to their customers against a backdrop of persistently low inflation and limited pricing power. Decelerating US and global growth was also a drag (Chart 3). Chart 3Growth Decelerated Everywhere In 2019 Have Profit Margins Peaked? Excepting meaningful structural changes, profit margins are a mean-reverting series. Following steady margin expansion over three business cycle expansions spanning nearly three decades, mean reversion is an unappealing prospect for equity investors (Chart 4). Unless corporate tax rates are raised, though, the mean going forward will be higher than the mean established when federal taxation was more onerous. Additionally, an in-depth Bank Credit Analyst study argued that profit margins have not grown as much as it would appear to the naked eye,1 but they are elevated, and their future direction will influence prospective equity returns. Chart 4Margins Have Thrived In The Last Three Expansions A definitive analysis of S&P 500 margins would compile detailed revenue and expense data for each constituent in the index, but compiling the bottom-up data would repeatedly bump up against inconsistent disclosure conventions across companies and industries. For now, we will have to content ourselves with what we can glean from top-down analysis. Margins shrank in 2019 because of rising real unit labor costs, increased tariffs and global growth deceleration. Employee compensation is far and away the single biggest expense item for businesses as a whole. Changes in compensation are therefore the most consistently critical driver of changes in margins. Other key factors include: overall economic growth, growth relative to capacity, globalization, competitive intensity, and growth of the capital stock. GDP Growth Over time, growth in a company’s revenues should converge with the weighted average of economic growth in the countries in which it operates. The sensitivity of any given company’s net income to changes in sales revenue depends on its operating leverage, but any company with at least some fixed costs will see its margins expand as sales rise. We expect that US GDP growth will moderate going forward, given that hoped-for increases in economic capacity do not appear to have offset the growth overhang from the stimulus package’s increased deficits.2 For the current year, however, we expect that an acceleration in non-US growth may largely offset moderating US growth for the aggregate S&P 500. (Chart 5) Chart 5Sales Growth Feeds Operating Leverage The Output Gap The degree of excess capacity in the economy is most easily proxied by the output gap, the difference between the economy’s actual output and its long-run potential output, which is a function of productivity and labor force growth. Pricing power is directly related to the output gap; it’s weak when the gap is negative, and robust when the gap is positive. Excess capacity is the enemy of profits, and margins benefit when it is worked off, even if positive output gaps can’t persist indefinitely (Chart 6). With the economy continuing to grow at close to its estimated trend rate, the output gap isn’t likely to have an impact this year. Globalization allows US companies to tap lower-cost inputs in the developing world. Chart 6Excess Capacity Erodes Pricing Power Globalization Globalization has been a major force promoting margin expansion over the last 20 to 30 years, granting US-domiciled businesses access to the developing world’s lower-cost inputs. Outsourcing saves money and global supply chains have significantly reduced product costs. Tariffs and other trade barriers are an obstacle to outsourcing, and it is our in-house geopolitical strategists’ view that the US will continue to backtrack from globalization no matter which party captures the White House in November. Changes in the sum of exports and imports as a share of GDP provide a simple proxy for changes in the intensity of globalization (Chart 7). Chart 7More Open Borders = Higher Margins Competitiveness Margins are directly related to the intensity of globalization, but they are inversely related to the intensity of competition, which is itself inversely related to the degree of industry concentration. The laissez-faire approach to anti-trust enforcement which has generally prevailed since the Reagan administration has promoted concentration. Businesses gain pricing power as their industries move along the spectrum from perfect competition toward monopoly, just as they gain increasing power to set wages as individual labor markets move toward monopsony. Pressure for federal action to reverse the four-decade trend toward concentration will rise if the Democrats win the White House, especially as our Geopolitical Strategy service holds that the party that takes the presidency will also take the Senate. Productivity Changes in margins are directly related to the pace of productivity gains. Workers are able to do more in a given period of time when they’re endowed with more and/or better tools, and investment provides those tools. Increases in the size of the capital stock lead to productivity gains. The NFIB survey suggests that small businesses are poised to increase capital expenditures, and the capex intentions components of the regional Fed manufacturing surveys have begun pointing in that direction as well, but investment has consistently disappointed since the crisis (Chart 8), and productivity growth has been tepid for an extended period of time as a result. Chart 8Investment Pays Off In Higher Margins Unit Labor Costs Rising labor costs by themselves do not necessarily mean that margins will contract. If output increases more than rising wages, margins will expand. We therefore watch unit labor costs, which measure output-adjusted changes in compensation. Growth in real unit labor costs is our preferred measure for their additional insight into profitability, given that changes in the overall price level are a solid proxy for changes in sales prices. When real unit labor costs are falling, corporate margins are likely expanding as revenue gains can be expected to outpace employees’ compensation per unit of output. Given the especially tight labor market, we expect real unit labor costs to continue to rise, chipping away at profit margins (Chart 9). Chart 9Persistently Negative Real Unit Labor Costs Have Boosted Margins Taxes, Interest Rates And The Dollar The biggest driver of after-tax margins in recent years has been the 40% reduction in the top marginal federal corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% beginning in 2018. We expect no material corporate tax changes if the president wins re-election, while we would expect that an incoming Democratic administration, fortified by House and Senate majorities, would prioritize increasing corporate tax revenues. We expect a modest rise in interest rates over the year, which is unlikely to materially impact firms’ interest expense. We expect that the dollar will weaken in 2020, as incremental growth in the rest of the world exceeds incremental growth in the US, providing the S&P 500 with a modest margin tailwind. Bottom Line: On balance, we expect that the S&P 500 will face modest margin headwinds in 2020. If the Democrats assume control of the White House and both houses of Congress next January, downward pressure on margins could intensify. Investment Implications Falling margins against a backdrop of tepid revenue growth suggest that 2020 S&P 500 earnings growth will be nothing to write home about. Stocks will have to get an assist from multiple expansion if they are to continue producing double-digit annual returns. We do not think multiple expansion is much of a stretch – it would be consistent with the latter stages of previous bull markets – but equities do not need to generate double-digit returns to top the prospective returns on offer from Treasuries, credit-sensitive fixed income or cash. As long as the margin compression unfolds slowly, equities will merit at least an equal-weight allocation in balanced portfolios as will spread product in dedicated fixed income portfolios. Corporate profit margins would quickly feel the burn in a Sanders administration. We expect that profit margins will compress slowly, as it remains our base case (albeit with limited conviction) that the president will win re-election. Under a Democratic regime, however, corporate tax rates would likely rise, anti-trust enforcement would likely unwind some of the buildup in industry concentration, and organized labor would gain a more sympathetic ear in Washington. If Bernie Sanders were to win the presidency instead of one of the Democratic moderates, margin compression would likely unfold much more rapidly (and multiples would be at immediate risk, to boot). The upcoming election is thus approaching something of a binary outcome for equities. We still see monetary policy as the swing factor for the ongoing expansion, and financial market returns, and we therefore remain constructive on the economy and risk assets. The election could upend that framework, however, passing the baton from the Fed to elected officials. We will be tracking the primary and general election ups and downs closely. Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the October 2012 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Are US Corporate Profit Margins Really All That High?" available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2 The economic case for the stimulus package rested on the expectation that it would promote investment in the capital stock that would not otherwise occur (via immediate expensing of investments and repatriation of capital held overseas) and facilitate labor force participation. A capex burst that followed its passage quickly fizzled, and we are of the opinion that the minor provisions intended to expand labor force participation have had little effect.
Highlights Provided that the coronavirus outbreak is contained, global growth should accelerate over the course of 2020. Stocks usually rise when the economy is strengthening. But could this time be different? We explore five scenarios in which the stock market could decouple from the economy: 1) The economy holds up, but stretched valuations bring down equities, especially high-flying growth stocks; 2) Bond yields rise in response to faster growth, hurting equities in the process; 3) A strong US economy lifts the value of the dollar, denting multinational profits and tightening financial conditions abroad; 4) Faster wage growth cuts into corporate profits; and 5) Redistributionist politicians seek to shift income from capital to labor. We are not too concerned about the first four scenarios, but we do worry about the fifth, especially now that betting markets are giving Bernie Sanders a nearly 50% chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. Matters should be clearer by mid-March, by which time more than 60% of Democratic delegates will have been awarded. If Bernie Sanders does emerge as the nominee at that point, we will consider trimming back our bullish cyclical bias towards stocks. Coronavirus: A Break In The Clouds? Chart 1Coronavirus Remains Mostly Contained To China Investors continue to grapple with two distinct narratives about how the coronavirus outbreak is unfolding. On the pessimistic side, some contend that the true number of infections in China is much higher than the Chinese authorities are disclosing. How else, they ask, can one explain why the government has taken the extreme step of imposing some form of quarantine on 400 million of its own people? More optimistic observers argue that the Chinese government is simply being proactive. While the number of cases in Hubei province spiked yesterday, this was due to a loosening in the definition for what constitutes a confirmed infection. Whereas previously a positive laboratory test was required, now a positive imaging-based clinical examination will suffice. Under the new definition, the number of newly confirmed cases fell from 6,528 on February 11th to 4,273 on February 12th. Under the old definition, newly diagnosed cases peaked on February 2nd (Chart 1). The revised definition adopted in Hubei brought the mortality rate in the province down to 2.7%. The mortality rate observed in the rest of China is 0.5%. The share of all cases in China originating in Hubei also rose to 81%. Even before the rule change, the share of cases diagnosed in Hubei had risen from 52% on January 26th to 75% on February 11th. This suggests progress in limiting the outbreak to the province. Critically, the number of cases in the rest of the world remains low. In the US, a total of 13 cases have been confirmed as of February 12th, just two more than the 11 reported on February 2nd. The Exception To The Rule? Provided that the coronavirus outbreak is contained, global growth should bounce back forcefully in the second quarter. If that were to occur, history suggests that equities will continue to rally, while bond prices will fall (Chart 2). But could history fail to repeat itself? In this week’s report, we explore five scenarios in which that may happen. Scenario 1: Stretched valuations bring down equities, especially high-flying growth stocks Stocks have moved up considerably since their December 2018 lows. This suggests that investors have become more confident about the economic outlook. Nevertheless, while most investors may no longer be worried about an imminent recession, they do not foresee a sharp acceleration in global growth either. This is evidenced by the fact that cyclical stocks have generally underperformed defensives (Chart 3). Oil prices have also languished, while copper prices are back near a 2.5-year low (Chart 4). Chart 2Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Chart 3Cyclicals Have Failed To Outperform Defensives At the broad index level, global equities trade at 16.7-times forward earnings. Conceptually, the inverse of the PE ratio – the earnings yield – should serve as a reasonable guide for the total real return that equities will deliver over the long haul.1 At 6%, the global earnings yield still points to decent returns for global stocks. Relative to bonds, the case for owning stocks is even more compelling. The equity risk premium, which one can compute as the earnings yield minus the real bond yield, remains well above its historic average (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Prices Have Taken It On The Chin Chart 5Relative Valuations Favor Equities That said, there are pockets where valuations have gotten stretched. US equities trade at 19.5-times forward earnings compared to 14.1-times in the rest of the world. Growth stocks, in particular, have gotten very expensive (Chart 6). The five largest stocks in the S&P 500 (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Facebook) now account for 18% of the index, the same share that the top five stocks (Microsoft, Cisco, GE, Intel, and Exxon) commanded in 2000. The big risk for stocks is that wages go up not because the overall size of the economic pie is growing, but because policies are implemented that shift a bigger share of the pie from capital to labor. Despite the similarities between today and the dotcom era, there are a few critical differences – most of which make us less worried about the current state of affairs. First, while tech valuations are currently stretched, they are not in bubble territory. The NASDAQ Composite trades at 30-times trailing earnings. At its peak in March 2000, the tech-heavy index traded at more than 70-times earnings (Chart 7). Chart 6Growth Stocks Have Become Expensive Relative To Value Stocks Chart 7Not Yet Partying Like 1999 Second, IPO activity has also been more muted today than during the dotcom boom (Chart 8). Only 110 companies went public last year, with the gain on the first day of trading averaging 24%. In 1999, 476 companies went public. The average first day gain was 71%. Meanwhile, companies continue to buy up their shares. The buyback yield stands at 3%, twice as high as in the late 1990s. Third, there is no capex overhang like in the late 1990s (Chart 9). This reduces the odds of a 2001-recession scenario where falling equity prices prompted companies to pare back capital expenditures, leading to rising unemployment and even lower equity prices. Chart 8IPO Activity Is Muted Today Compared To The Late 1990s Chart 9No Capex Boom This Time Scenario 2: Bond yields rise in response to faster growth, hurting equities in the process The period between November 2018 and September 2019 was an odd one for the stock-to-bond correlation. If one looks at daily data, stocks did best when bond yields were rising. Yet, for the period as a whole, stocks finished higher while bond yields finished lower (Chart 10). Chart 10Daily Changes: S&P 500 Vs. 10-Year Treasury Yield How can one explain this seeming paradox? The answer is that the underlying trend in bond yields was squarely to the downside last year. While yields did rise modestly on days when equities rallied, yields fell sharply on days when equities swooned. If one zooms out, one sees the underlying trend, whereas if one zooms in, one only sees the wiggles around the trend. Bond yields trended lower last year because the Fed and most other central banks were delivering one dose of dovish medicine after another. This year, however, the Fed is on hold, and while a few central banks may still cut rates, global monetary policy is unlikely to become much looser. This means that bond yields are likely to drift higher if economic growth surprises on the upside. Will rising bond yields sabotage the stock market? We do not think so. Stocks crashed in late 2018 because investors became convinced that US monetary policy had turned restrictive after the Fed had raised rates by a cumulative 200 basis points over the prior two years. The fact that the Laubach-Williams model, one of the most widely followed models of the neutral rate, showed that real rates had moved above their equilibrium level did not help sentiment (Chart 11). Chart 11The Fed Will Keep Policy Easy For The Time Being Chart 12Stocks Do Well When Earnings And Growth Surprise On The Upside Today, real rates are about 100 basis points below the Laubach-Williams estimate. This will not change anytime soon, given that the Fed is likely to remain on hold at least until the end of the year. So long as rates stay put, monetary policy will remain accommodative, allowing the economy to grow at a solid pace. Granted, rising long-term bond yields will reduce the present value of future cash flows, thus potentially hurting stocks. However, as we discussed three weeks ago, the discount rate is not the only thing that affects equity valuations.2 The expected growth rate of earnings matters too. As Chart 12 shows, global equity returns are highly sensitive to earning revisions. While earnings may disappoint in the first quarter due to the economic damage from the coronavirus, they should bounce back during the remainder of this year. This should pave the way for higher equity prices. Scenario 3: A strong US economy lifts the value of the dollar, denting multinational profits and tightening financial conditions abroad The US is a fairly closed economy. Imports and exports account for only 14.6% and 11.7% of GDP, respectively. In contrast, the US stock market is very exposed to the rest of the world. S&P 500 companies derive over 40% of their sales from abroad. As such, changes in the value of the dollar tend to have a bigger impact on Wall Street than on Main Street. Estimating the degree to which a stronger dollar reduces S&P 500 profits is no easy task. Direct estimates that measure the currency translation effect on overseas profits from a stronger dollar tend to yield fairly modest results, typically showing that a 10% appreciation in the trade-weighted dollar reduces S&P 500 profits by about 2%. These estimates, however, generally do not take into account feedback loops between a strengthening dollar and global financial conditions (Chart 13). According to the Bank of International Settlements, $12 trillion of dollar-denominated debt has been issued outside the US. A stronger dollar makes it more challenging to service this debt, which can put a significant strain on borrowers. As a result, a vicious cycle can erupt where a stronger dollar leads to tighter financial conditions, which in turn lead to weaker global growth and an even stronger dollar. Chart 13A Strong US Dollar Could Tighten Global Financial Conditions, Leading To Lower Equity Prices, Especially In EM Such an outcome cannot be dismissed, especially if the spread of the coronavirus fuels significant foreign inflows into the safe-haven US Treasury market. Nevertheless, we continue to see it as a low-probability event given the tailwinds to global growth, including the lagged effects of last year’s decline in bond yields, an improvement in the global manufacturing inventory cycle, diminished Brexit and trade war risks, and ongoing policy stimulus out of China. In fact, one can more easily envision the opposite outcome – a virtuous cycle of dollar weakness, leading to easier global financial conditions, stronger growth, and ultimately, an even weaker dollar (Chart 14). In such an environment, earnings growth is likely to accelerate (Chart 15). Chart 14The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 15The Virtuous Cycle Of Dollar Easing Scenario 4: Faster wage growth cuts into corporate profits Labor compensation is the largest expense for most companies. Thus, it stands to reason that faster wage growth could depress earnings, and by extension, share prices. Although this is possible conceptually, in practice, it happens less often than one might guess. Chart 16 shows that rising wage growth is positively correlated with earnings. The bottom panel of the chart explains why: Wages tend to rise most quickly when sales are growing rapidly. Strong demand growth adds to revenues, while allowing companies to spread fixed costs over a large amount of output. The resulting improvement in “operating leverage” helps buffer profit margins from higher wages. Scenario 5: Redistributionist politicians seek to shift income from capital to labor As long as wages are rising against a backdrop of fast sales growth, equities will fare well. The big risk for stocks is that wages go up not because the overall size of the economic pie is growing, but because policies are implemented that shift a bigger share of the pie from capital to labor. Bernie Sanders has promised to do just that. The S&P 500 has tended to increase when Sanders’ perceived chances of winning the Democrat nomination have risen (Chart 17). Investors have apparently concluded that Trump would clobber Sanders in a presidential race. Hence, the better Sanders performs in the primaries, the more likely Trump is to be re-elected. Chart 16Stocks Tend To Do Best When Wage Growth Is Rising Chart 17The Sanders Effect On Stocks Is this really a safe assumption? We are not so sure. Sanders has still beaten Trump in 49 of the last 54 head-to-head polls tracked by Realclearpolitics over the past 12 months. Sanders tends to appeal to white working class voters – the same demographic that propelled Trump into office. Sanders is also benefiting from a secular leftward shift in voter attitudes on economic issues. According to a recent Gallup poll, 47% of Americans believe that governments should do more to solve problems, up from 36% in 2010. Almost 40% of Americans have a positive view on socialism (Chart 18). Today’s youth in particular is enamored with left-wing ideology (Chart 19). Chart 18The US Is Moving To The Left Chart 19Woke Millennials Cozying Up To Socialism It’s not just the Democratic voters who are trending left. Some prominent Republicans are having second thoughts too. Tucker Carlson is probably the best leading indicator for where the Republican Party is heading. His attacks on “woke capitalism” have become a staple of his popular evening show.3 It is not surprising why many Republicans are having a change of heart. For decades, the Republican Party has been a cheap date for corporate interests: It has given businesses what they want – lower taxes, less regulation, etc. – without asking for much in return (aside from campaign contributions, of course). This has allowed corporations to focus on appealing to left-wing interests by taking increasingly strident positions on a variety of social issues. The fact that some of these positions – such as support for open-border immigration policies – are a boon for profits has only increased their appeal. The risk for corporations is that they end up with no real political support. If the Democrats move further to the left, “soak the rich” policies will become popular no matter how much virtue signaling corporate leaders deliver. Likewise, if Republicans abandon big businesses, today’s fat profit margins will become a thing of the past. When The Music Ends The current market climate resembles a Parisian ball on the eve of the French Revolution. The music is still playing, but the discontent among the commoners outside is growing. The question is when will this discontent boil over? Trump’s victory in 2016 represented a shot across the bow of the political establishment. Fortunately for corporate interests, aside from his protectionist impulses, Trump has been on their side. Bernie Sanders would not be so friendly. Matters should be clearer by mid-March. Super Tuesday takes place on March 3rd. By March 17th, more than 60% of Democratic delegates will have been awarded. If Bernie Sanders emerges as the likely nominee at that point, we will consider trimming back our bullish cyclical 12-month bias towards stocks. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. 2 Please see Global investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Yields: How High Is Too High?” dated January 17, 2020. 3 Ian Schwartz, “Tucker Carlson: Elizabeth Warren's "Economic Patriotism" Plan "Sounds Like Donald Trump At His Best," realclearpolitics, June 6, 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Relative to December, average hourly earnings growth is stabilizing, but it remains well below its October peak. This deceleration is a temporary phenomenon created by the global manufacturing slowdown. First, the business compensation per hour series used to…