Monetary
Highlights The labor market continues to tighten and pressure the Fed. Tightening financial conditions suggest more muted returns for U.S. dollar assets and are associated with a peak in cyclical sectors. BCA's proprietary Monetary Indicator (MI) has turned lower, indicating that liquidity is drying up. Assessing performance of financial markets and the economy as financial conditions tighten. Feature Chart 1Oil Prices And Breakevens##BR##Moving In Lock Step Oil prices rose last week, U.S. equity prices climbed and credit spreads narrowed. Energy prices surged in the wake of President Trump's withdrawal from the 2015 JCPOA deal with Iran. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy team noted that the decision is unambiguously bullish for oil prices.1 Escalating geopolitical risks2 with Iran will add the potential for oil supply losses down the road and hence, add a premium to prices. Venezuelan oil production has been declining for the past two years, sitting at only 1.5 million b/d. The pace of future declines is unknown, but the potential for another steep contraction is worrisome as Venezuela's economic collapse continues and links in the oil export supply chain are breaking down. In light of these factors, BCA expects oil prices to test $90/bbl by the end of year. Importantly, inflation expectations are escalating along with oil prices (Chart 1). Continued upward pressure will have implications for monetary policy, particularly in the U.S. where inflation is approaching the Fed's target. The bottom panel of Chart 1 shows that the correlation between Brent crude and the 10-year Treasury breakeven swaps is positive and rising. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 3.28%.3 The Fed is poised to raise rates gradually this year and next as the labor market tightens further, pushing up wage inflation. Fed rate hikes will squeeze financial conditions and ultimately trigger the next recession in early 2020. Tightening financial conditions suggest more muted returns for U.S. dollar assets and are associated with a peak in cyclical sectors of the economy. Meanwhile, liquidity indicators remain generally favorable for financial assets and the U.S. economy. Nonetheless, BCA's proprietary Monetary Indicator (MI) has turned lower, indicating that liquidity is drying up. The March To 3.5% Data from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in April and the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) in March support our stance that the slack in the U.S. labor market is tightening and will ultimately lead to higher wage inflation. As noted in last week's report,4 the U.S. economy created an average of 208,000 new jobs in the three months ending April and the unemployment rate fell to a new cycle low of 3.9%. Annual wage inflation moderated in April to just 2.6% from a recent high of 2.8% in January. Chart 2 shows that small business owners' compensation plans remained near all-time highs in April. This metric is closely aligned with the wages and salaries component of the Employment Cost Index (ECI) and suggests further acceleration ahead for the ECI (panel 1). Job openings via the JOLTS data also hit a new zenith in March, creating an even wider gap between openings and hires (panel 2). Moreover, quits minus layoffs, another indicator of labor market slack, reached a record high (panel 3). The stout labor market has lifted the prime age (25-54 years) participation rate. BCA expects that the overall participation rate will remain flat in the next year or so. However, we concur with the Congressional Budget Office that due to demographics, the participation rate will drift lower in the next decade.5 Moreover, the robustness of the labor market is widespread. Charts 3A and 3B show the ratio of job openings to the number of unemployed in 10 sectors of the economy. The ratio is at an all-time high in 9 of the 10 sectors. The exception is the information sector, which includes industries such as newspaper and magazine publishing, broadcasting and telecommunications. Chart 2Labor Market Slack Is Disappearing Chart 3AStrength In The Labor Market... Chart 3B... Is Broad-Based Bottom Line: The U.S. labor market continued to tighten as Q2 began. BCA's stance is that the unemployment rate will fall to a 50-year low of 3.5% by mid-2019.6 The FOMC pegs the longer-term unemployment rate at 4.5%.7 The implication is that BCA and the FOMC expect the U.S. economy to continue to run below full employment this year. However, BCA's view is that the FOMC's forecast for the unemployment rate at the end of 2018 (3.8%) is too high and only marginally lower than the current 3.9%. This is inconsistent with real GDP growth well in excess of its supply-side potential. The macro backdrop will likely justify the FOMC hiking more quickly than the March 2018 dots forecast. The risks are skewed to the upside. BCA expects the 2/10 curve to remain around 50bps until the inflation breakevens are re-anchored between 2.3% and 2.5% as upward pressure on the short end from Fed rate hikes is offset by the upward thrust of the breakevens on the long end.8 Stay underweight duration. How High Is High? Chart 4Cyclical Spending Suggests That##BR##Monetary Policy Remains Accommodative The uptrend in cyclical spending suggests that U.S. monetary policy remains accommodative for the time being. Chart 4 shows overall cyclical spending as a share of potential GDP (panel 1) and for sectors most sensitive to the business cycle and interest rates: consumer spending on durables (panel 2), capital spending (panels 3 and 4) and housing (panel 4). All of these metrics are in an uptrend, although the rate of increase has declined during the past few quarters because of slightly weaker consumer spending on durables. In last week's report, we noted that rising rates and tighter financial conditions will not impact household and business spending this year.9 Table 1 shows that since 1960 total cyclical spending as a share of potential GDP has peaked six quarters prior to the onset of a recession. Consistent with our prior research,10 housing reached a zenith several quarters before other sectors. On the other hand, business spending on commercial real estate topped out only a year before a recession. Housing also provides the earliest warning in long economic cycles,11 peaking 14 quarters before the end of an expansion. Overall, cyclical sectors in long expansions crest 10 quarters before the onset of a downturn. Bottom Line: The performance of cyclical segments of the economy suggests that monetary policy is still accommodative. A distinct peak in these sectors will signal that Fed policy has turned restrictive and that long-term rates are close to their cyclical highs. Until then, stay long stocks over bonds and underweight duration. Tightening liquidity and financial conditions are associated with peaks in the cyclical sectors of the economy. Table 1Recession Signals From Cyclical Sectors Of The Economy Liquidity And Financial Conditions While liquidity conditions are accommodative, they are not nearly as abundant as prior to the Lehman event. The October 2017 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report on liquidity12 noted that monetary conditions are super easy, while balance sheet and financial market liquidity are reasonably constructive. In contrast, funding liquidity, while vastly improved since the global financial crisis (GFC), is still a long way from the pre-Lehman go-go years, according to several important indicators such as bank leverage. Moreover, the Fed is in the process of unwinding a massive amount of monetary liquidity provided by its quantitative easing program. The gauges of liquidity have turned restrictive in recent months. Chart 5 shows M2 growth less GDP growth (top panel) along with monetary conditions and world reserves ex gold. Furthermore, the gap between nominal GDP growth and short rates has narrowed this year (Chart 6). Still, GDP growth is outpacing short rates, a sign that monetary liquidity is still present. Chart 5Monetary Liquidity Indicators (I) Chart 6Monetary Liquidity Indicators (II) Balance sheet liquidity for corporations, households and the banking sector remains supportive. The top panel of Chart 7 presents short-term assets-to-total liabilities for the corporate sector. It is a measure of readily available cash or cash-like instruments that make it easier to weather economic downturns and/or credit tightening phases. The non-financial corporate sector is in very good shape from this perspective. The seizure of the commercial paper market during the GFC encouraged firms to hold more liquid assets on their balance sheets. However, the uptrend began in the early 1990s and likely reflects tax avoidance efforts. The impact of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 may partially reverse this trend. Households are also very liquid when short-term assets are compared with income (panel 2). Liquidity is low as a share of individuals' total discretionary financial portfolios, but this is not surprising given extraordinarily unattractive interest rates. In the banking sector, short-term assets as a percentage of total bank credit has climbed in the past decade as banks were forced to hold more liquid assets in the wake of the 2007-2009 financial crisis (Chart 8). Chart 7Balance Sheet Liquidity Chart 8Banking Sector Liquidity Charts 9 and 10 show market liquidity in the U.S. equity and high-yield markets. For the equity market, we present the one-year moving average of trading volume divided by shares outstanding or share turnover to get a sense of relative liquidity between firms (Chart 9). This measure has improved in recent years, but remains compressed vis-a-vis pre-crisis levels. BCA's Equity Trading System favors firms with lower liquidity, since investors pay a premium for liquidity.13 Liquidity in the high-yield market has recovered in recent years, but flows into high-yield bond funds turned negative in mid-2017 (Chart 10, panels 1 and 2). Nonetheless, the default-adjusted junk spread remains below its long-term average (panel 3). BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service recommends investors overweight high-yield bonds relative to Treasuries.14 Chart 9Equity Market Liquidity Chart 10High Yield Bond Market Liquidity Funding liquidity - as measured by primary dealers' securities lending - has recovered from financial crisis lows, but has not reached pre-crisis highs (Chart 11, panel 1). Primary dealers make loans to other financial institutions with the purpose of buying securities, thereby providing both funding liquidity and market liquidity. The uptrend in margin debt remains in place (panel 2). The steep escalation in this direct measure of funding liquidity is less impressive when compared with the S&P 500's market cap. Bank's lending standards for C&I loans are another measure of funding liquidity (Chart 12). These surveys reflect bank lending standards on loans to the household or corporate sectors. Nonetheless, a financial institution's appetite for lending for the purposes of securities purchases is highly correlated. Lending standards eased in 2017 and in early 2018, but they are not as loose as they were earlier in this cycle or in the pre-crisis period (2005-2007). Chart 11Funding Liquidity:##BR##Securities Lending And Margin Debt Chart 12Funding Liquidity:##BR##Bank Lending Standards Perspective On Liquidity And Financial Conditions BCA expects that both monetary and financial conditions will constrict in the next year as inflation moves through the Fed's 2% target and the FOMC gradually boosts rates in the next 12 months. A stronger dollar and higher bond yields will contribute to the tightening, but higher equity prices are an offset. Chart 13, Appendix Chart 1, and Tables 2 and 3 show BCA's MI versus key U.S. financial assets and commodities, and U.S. economic variables. The S&P 500 index has historically rallied strongly when the MI is above its long-term average. Moreover, BCA's stocks-to-bonds ratio rises, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds outperform Treasuries. However, oil prices struggle in this environment (Chart 13 and Table 2). Chart 13Risk Assets When BCA's Proprietary Monetary Indicator Is Below Zero Table 2Performance Of Risk Assets When Monetary Indicator Is Above Zero Table 3Performance Of Risk Assets When Monetary Indicator Is Below Zero When MI is below zero, on the other hand, economic performance is mixed. GDP growth, cyclical spending as a share of GDP, and employment tend to peak when the MI is decelerating, but recessions rarely occur when the MI is negative (Appendix Chart 1, panels 2, 3 and 4). Core inflation often peaks when the MI is above zero (not shown). However, the MI is sending a negative signal because interest rates have increased and credit growth has slowed. Table 3 indicates the performance of U.S. financial assets when the MI is below zero. We used the periods in which the MI was persistently below zero to avoid false signals. Note that the average and median returns for most asset classes in Table 3 (MI below zero) are well below those in Table 2 (MI above zero). Notable exceptions are oil and the dollar, which strengthen when the MI is below zero. S&P 500 earnings growth struggles during this episodes. Chart 14, Appendix Chart 2, and Tables 4 and 5 present financial conditions versus key U.S. financial assets and commodities, and U.S. economic variables. BCA expects the financial conditions index (FCI) to decline further into negative territory in the next few years. U.S. equities and credit tend to perform better when the FCI rises (Table 4) rather than when it falls (Table 5). However, when it does fall, gold and oil are stronger. Chart 14Risk Assets When Financial Conditions Tighten Table 4Performance Of Risk Assets When Financial Conditions Are Easing Table 5Performance Of Risk Assets When Financial Conditions Are Tightening Moreover, we note that GDP growth and cyclical spending as a share of GDP often peak when FCI drops. Employment and inflation are mixed at best when the FCI decelerates (Appendix Chart 2). Bottom Line: The U.S. economy is growing above its long-term potential, the labor market is tightening and inflation is at the Fed's target but poised to move higher next year. The Fed will increase rates to cool the overheating economy. Therefore, liquidity and financial market conditions will deteriorate further in the next year as Treasury yields increase and the dollar climbs in tandem with a more aggressive Fed. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," published May 9, 2018. Available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," published March 28, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Coming To Grips With Gradualism," published May 9, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Stressing The Housing And Consumer Sectors," published May, 7 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/workingpaper/53616-wp-laborforceparticipation.pdf 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Waiting...," published March 26, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20180321.pdf 8 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Back To Basics," published April 17, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Stressing The Housing And Consumer Sectors," published May 7, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "2018: Synchronized Global Growth," published December 4, 2017, and "Drives U.S. Economy And Markets," published December 4, 2017. Both available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, published November 24, 2016. Available at bca.bcarearch.com. 12 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "Liquidity And The Great Balance Sheet Unwind," published October 2017. Available at bca.bcarearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Research's Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Introducing ETS: A Top-Down Approach to Bottom-Up Stock Picking," published December 3, 2015. Available at ets.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary "Coming To Grips With Gradualism," published May 8, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix Chart 1The Economy When Monetary Indicator Is Below Zero Appendix Chart 2The Economy When Financial Conditions Are Tightening
Highlights Tinbergen's rule says that the successful implementation of economic policy requires there to be at least as many "instruments" as "objectives." Policymakers today are increasingly discovering that they have too many of the latter but not enough of the former. By turning fiscal policy into a political tool rather than one for macroeconomic stabilization, the U.S. has found itself in a position where it can either meet President Trump's goal of having a smaller trade deficit or the Fed's goal of keeping the economy from overheating, but not both. In the near term, we expect the Fed's priorities to prevail. This will keep the dollar rally intact, which could spell bad news for some emerging markets. Longer term, the Fed, like most other central banks, must confront the vexing problem that the interest rate necessary to prevent asset bubbles from frequently forming may be higher than the rate necessary to keep the economy near full employment. Getting inflation up a bit may be one way to mitigate this problem, as it would allow nominal interest rates to rise without pushing real rates into punitive territory. This suggests that the structural path for bond yields is up, consistent with our thesis that the 35-year bond bull market is over. Feature Constraints And Preferences The late Jan Tinbergen was one of the great economists of the twentieth century. Often referred to as the father of econometrics, Tinbergen and Ragnar Frisch were the first people to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1969. One of Tinbergen's most enduring contributions was his demonstration that the successful implementation of economic policy requires there to be at least as many "instruments" (i.e., policy tools) as "objectives" (i.e., policy goals). Just like any system of equations can be "overdetermined" or "underdetermined," any set of "policy functions" may have a unique solution, many solutions, or no solution at all. The first outcome corresponds to a situation where there are as many instruments as objectives, the second where there are more instruments than objectives, and the third where there are fewer instruments than objectives. In essence, the Tinbergen rule is a mathematical formulation of the idea that it is hard to hit two birds with one stone. The Tinbergen rule often comes up in macroeconomics. Consider a country that wants to have a low and stable unemployment rate (what economists call "internal balance") and a current account position that is neither too big nor too small ("external balance"). This amounts to two objectives, which can be realized with the right mix of two instruments: Monetary and fiscal policy. As discussed in greater detail in Appendix A, the classic Swan Diagram, named after Australian economist Trevor Swan, shows how this is done. Chart 1Spain: The Cost Of The Crisis If the country wants to add a third objective to its list of policy goals, it has to either give up one of its existing objectives or find an additional policy instrument. Suppose, for example, that a country wants to move to a pegged exchange rate. It can either forego monetary independence, or introduce capital controls in order to allow domestic interest rates to deviate from the interest rates of the economy to which it is pegging its currency. This is the logic behind Robert Mundell's "Impossible Trinity," which states that an economy cannot simultaneously have all three of the following: A fixed exchange rate, free capital mobility, and an independent central bank. It can only choose two items from the list. Peripheral Europe learned this lesson the hard way in 2011. Not only did euro membership deny Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland access to an independent monetary policy and a flexible currency, but the ECB's failure under the bumbling leadership of Jean-Claude Trichet to backstop sovereign debt markets necessitated fiscal austerity at a time when these economies needed stimulus. These countries were left with no effective macro policy instruments whatsoever, thus putting them at the complete mercy of the bond vigilantes, German politicians, and the multilateral lending agencies. The only thing they could do was incur a brutal internal devaluation to make themselves more competitive. Even for "success stories" such as Spain, the cost in terms of lost output was over one-third of GDP (Chart 1) - and probably much more if one includes the deleterious effect on potential GDP growth from the crisis. Trump Versus Tinbergen One might think that the U.S. is largely immune from Tinbergen's rule. It is not. President Trump and the Republicans in Congress have rammed through massive tax cuts and spending increases (Chart 2). By doing so, they have turned fiscal policy into a political tool rather than one for macroeconomic stabilization. In and of itself, that is not an insuperable constraint since monetary policy can still be used to achieve internal balance. The problem is that Trump has also declared that he wants external balance, meaning a much smaller trade deficit. Now we have two policy objectives (full employment and more net exports) and only one available instrument: Monetary policy. Chart 2The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline This puts the Fed in a bind. If the Fed hikes rates aggressively, this will keep the economy from overheating, thus achieving internal balance. But higher rates are likely to bid up the value of the dollar, leading to a larger trade deficit. On the flipside, if the Fed drags its feet in raising rates, the dollar could weaken, resulting in a smaller trade deficit and moving the economy closer to external balance. However, the combination of low real interest rates, a weaker dollar, and dollops of fiscal stimulus will cause the unemployment rate to fall further, leading to higher inflation. Investor uncertainty about which path the Fed will choose may be partly responsible for the gyrations in the dollar of late. At least for the next year or so, our guess is that the Fed's independence will keep it on course to raise rates more than the market is currently pricing in, which will result in a stronger dollar. Beyond then, the picture is less clear. This is partly because the increasing politicization of society may begin to affect the Fed's behavior. History suggests that inflation tends to be higher in countries with less independent central banks (Chart 3). But it is also because Tinbergen's ghost is likely to make another appearance, this time in a wholly different way. Chart 3Inflation Tends To Be Higher In Countries Lacking Independent Central Banks The Fed's "Other" Mandate Officially, the Fed has two mandates: ensuring maximum employment and stable prices. In practice, this "dual mandate" can be boiled down to a single policy objective: Keeping the unemployment rate near NAIRU, the so-called Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. The Fed has sought to meet this objective through the use of countercyclical monetary policy: Easing monetary policy when output falls below potential and tightening it when the economy is at risk of overheating. So far, so good. The problem is that the Fed, like most other central banks, is being asked to take on another policy objective: ensuring financial stability. Here's the rub though: The interest rate necessary to prevent asset bubbles from frequently forming may be higher than the rate necessary to keep the economy near full employment. Excessively low rates are a threat to financial stability. A decline in interest rates pushes up the present value of expected cash flows; the lower the discount rate, the more of an asset's value will depend on cash flows that may not be realized for many years. This tends to increase asset market volatility. In addition, borrowers need to devote a smaller share of their incomes towards servicing their debt obligations when interest rates are low. This tends to increase debt levels. From The Great Moderation To The Great Intemperance Starting in the 1990s, far from entering an era which policymakers once naively referred to as the "Great Moderation," it is possible that the world entered a precarious period where the only way to generate enough spending was to push down interest rates so much that asset bubbles became commonplace. In a world where central bankers have to choose between insufficient demand and recurrent asset bubbles, the idea of a "neutral rate" loses much of its meaning. By definition, the neutral rate is a steady-state concept. However, if the interest rate that produces full employment and stable inflation is so low that it also generates financial instability, how can one possibly describe this interest rate as "neutral"? Faced with the increasingly irreconcilable twin objectives of keeping the unemployment rate near NAIRU and putting the financial system on the straight and narrow, central bankers have reached out for a second policy instrument: macroprudential regulations. So far, however, the jury is still out on whether this tool is sufficiently powerful to prevent future financial crises. Politics has a bad habit of getting in the way of effective regulation. President Trump and the Republicans have been looking for ways to water down the Dodd-Frank Act. The Democrats are complaining that banks and other financial institutions are not doing enough to channel credit to various allegedly "underserved" groups. Faced with such political pressure, it is not clear that regulators can do their jobs. If You Can't Raise r-Star, Raise i-Star What is the Fed to do? One possibility may be to aim for somewhat more inflation. A higher inflation target would allow the Fed to raise nominal policy rates while still keeping real rates low enough to maintain full employment. Higher nominal rates would impose more discipline on borrowers and discourage excessive debt accumulation. Higher inflation would also reduce the likelihood of reaching the zero bound again, while also limiting the economic fallout of asset busts. The Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Index declined by 34% in nominal terms and 41% in real terms between April 2006 and March 2012. Had inflation averaged 4% over this period rather than 2.2%, a 41% decline in real home prices would have corresponded to a less severe 26% decrease in nominal prices, resulting in fewer underwater mortgages. Finally, higher inflation would allow countries to increase nominal income growth. In fact, higher inflation may be the only viable way to reduce debt-to-GDP ratios in a high-debt, low-productivity growth world. Investment Conclusions We advised clients on July 5, 2016 that we had reached "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market." As fate would have it, this was the exact same day that the 10-year yield reached an all-time closing low of 1.37%. Bond positioning is very short now (Chart 4), so a partial retracement in yields is probable. Cyclically and structurally, however, the path for yields is up. Much like what transpired between the mid-1960s and the early 1980s, investors should expect global bond yields to reach a series of "higher highs" and "higher lows" with each passing business cycle (Chart 5). Chart 4Traders Are Short Treasurys Chart 5A Template For The Next Decade? Just as was the case back then, the Fed is now behind the curve in raising rates. The three-month and six-month annualized change in core PCE has reached 2.6% and 2.3%, respectively. Yesterday's CPI report was softer than expected, but the miss was almost entirely due to a deceleration in used car prices and airfares, both of which are likely to be temporary. Meanwhile, the labor market remains strong. The unemployment rate is down to 3.9%, just slightly above the 2000 low of 3.8%. According to the latest JOLTS survey released earlier this week, there are now more job openings than unemployed workers, the first time this has happened in the 17-year history of the survey (Chart 6). Faced with this reality, the Fed will keep begrudgingly raising rates until the economy slows. Right now, the real economy is not showing much strain from higher rates. The cyclical component of our MacroQuant model, which draws on a variety of forward-looking economic indicators, moved back into positive territory this week. Both the housing market and capital spending are in reasonably good shape (Chart 7). Chart 6There Are Now More Vacancies Than Jobseekers Chart 7Higher Rates Have Not (Yet) Slowed The Economy The U.S. financial sector should also be able to weather further monetary tightening. Corporate debt has risen, but overall U.S. private-sector debt as a percent of GDP is still 18 percentage points lower than in 2008 (Chart 8). Lenders are also more circumspect than they were before the Great Recession. For example, banks have been tightening lending standards on credit and automobile loans, which should reverse the increase in delinquency rates seen in those categories (Chart 9). Chart 8U.S. Private Debt Still Below Pre-Recession Levels Chart 9Lenders Are More Circumspect These Days Resilience to Fed tightening may not extend to the rest of the world, however. Following the script of the late 1990s, it is likely that the combination of higher U.S. rates and a stronger dollar will cause some emerging markets to fall out of bed before U.S. financial conditions have tightened by enough to slow U.S. growth (Chart 10). This week's turbulence in Turkey and Argentina may be a sign of things to come. For now, investors should underweight EM assets relative to their developed market peers. Chart 10Tightening U.S. Financial Conditions Do Not Bode Well For EM Stocks Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com APPENDIX A The Swan Diagram The Swan Diagram depicts four "zones of economic unhappiness," each one representing the different ways in which an economy can deviate from "internal balance" (low and stable unemployment) and "external balance" (an optimal current account position). A rightward movement along the horizontal axis represents an easing of fiscal policy, whereas an upward movement along the vertical axis represents an easing in monetary policy. All things equal, easier monetary policy is assumed to result in a weaker currency. The internal balance schedule is downward sloping because an easing in fiscal policy must be offset by a tightening in monetary policy in order keep the unemployment rate stable. The external balance schedule is upward sloping because easier fiscal policy raises aggregate demand, which results in higher imports, and hence a deterioration in the trade balance. To bring imports back down, the currency must weaken. Any point to right of the internal balance schedule represents overheating; any point to the left represents rising unemployment. Likewise, any point to the right of the external balance schedule represents a larger-than-acceptable current account deficit, whereas any point to the left represents an excessively large current account surplus. Appendix Chart 1Four Zones Of Unhappiness Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights The U.S. labor market is now at full employment and the plethora of fiscal stimulus coming down the pike could cause the economy to overheat. If the recent rebound in the U.S. dollar reverses, this will only add to aggregate demand by boosting net exports. There are two main scenarios in which the U.S. can avoid overheating while the value of the greenback resumes its decline: 1) The Fed tightens monetary policy by enough to slow growth but other central banks tighten monetary policy even more; 2) the U.S. is hit by an adverse demand shock that forces the Fed to back away from further rate hikes. Neither scenario can be easily discounted, but both seem unlikely. The first scenario assumes that the neutral real rate of interest is fairly high outside the U.S., when most of the evidence says otherwise. The second scenario ignores the fact that adverse demand shocks, even if they originate from the U.S., tend to become global fairly quickly. Weaker global growth is usually bullish for the dollar. This suggests that the dollar rally has legs. EUR/USD is on track to hit 1.15 over the coming months, but a plunge below that level is possible given that the dollar is one of the most momentum-driven currencies out there. For now, investors should favor DM over EM equities and oil over metals. Feature Running Hot More than a decade after the Great Recession began, the U.S. labor market is back to full employment (Chart 1). The headline unemployment rate stands at 4.1%, below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. Broader measures of labor slack, such as the U-6 rate, the number of workers outside the labor force wanting a job, and the share of the unemployed who have quit their jobs, are also back to pre-recession levels. Most business surveys show that companies are struggling to fill vacant positions (Chart 2). Wage growth is picking up, especially among low-skilled workers, whose compensation tends to be more closely tied to labor slack than their better-skilled counterparts (Table 1). Chart 1U.S. Is Back To Full Employment Chart 2Survey Data Point To Higher Wage Growth Ahead Table 1Wage Growth Is Accelerating Despite its recent rebound, the broad trade-weighted dollar is still down nearly 7% since its December 2016 high. According to the New York Fed's macro model, a sustained decline in the dollar of that magnitude would be expected to boost the level of GDP by about 0.5%. This would be equivalent to a permanent 50 basis-point cut in interest rates in terms of its effect on aggregate demand.1 Not that long ago, market participants and numerous pundits expected the dollar to continue its slide. Net short dollar positions reached their highest level in nearly six years in mid-April, before moving lower over the past two weeks (Chart 3). "Short dollar" registered as the second-most crowded trade in the monthly BofA Merrill Lynch survey of fund managers that was conducted between April 6 and 12, behind only "long FAANG-BAT stocks."2 Chart 3Short Dollar Is A Crowded Trade The Fed's Dilemma This raises an obvious question. If the consensus view that so many market investors subscribed to only a few weeks ago turns out to be correct and the dollar does give up its recent gains, how is the Fed supposed to tighten financial conditions by enough to keep the economy from overheating? One response is the Fed could raise rates by enough to slow growth. If the dollar falls while this is happening, so be it. The Fed can always hike rates more quickly in order to ensure that the contractionary effect of higher interest rates more than offsets the stimulative effect of a weaker dollar. The problem with this answer is that the dollar is only likely to weaken if other central banks are tightening monetary policy as much or more than the Fed. Chart 4 shows that the dollar has generally moved in line with interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners. Chart 4Historically, The Dollar Has Moved In Line With Interest Rate Differentials There is little scope for rate expectations to narrow at the short end of the yield curve if U.S. growth remains above trend for the remainder of the year, as we expect will be the case. This is simply because most other major central banks are in no hurry to raise rates. The ECB has effectively pledged not to raise rates until at least the middle of next year. The U.K. remains mired in a post-Brexit slump. The BoJ is nowhere close to meeting its 2% inflation target (20-year CPI swaps are still trading at 0.6%). There is some room for rate expectations to converge further along the yield curve. However, for that to happen, investors must come to believe that the gap in the neutral rate of interest between the U.S. and its trading partners will shrink. It is far from obvious that they will do so. The Neutral Rate Is Higher In The U.S. Than The Euro Area Consider a comparison between the U.S. and the euro area. A reasonable proxy for the market's view of the neutral rate is the expected overnight rate ten years ahead, which can be calculated using eurodollar and euribor futures. The spread currently stands at about 100 basis points in favor of the U.S., down from 150 basis points at the start of 2017. Taking into account the fact that market-based inflation expectations are somewhat lower in the euro area, the spread in real terms is close to 50 basis points. That is not a lot, considering all the reasons to suppose that the neutral rate is higher in the U.S.: U.S. fiscal policy is a lot more stimulative. The IMF expects the U.S. fiscal impulse, which measures the change in the structural budget deficit, to reach 0.8% of GDP in 2018 and 0.9% in 2019. The fiscal impulse in the euro area and most other economies is likely to be much smaller (Chart 5). While the U.S. fiscal impulse will fall back to zero in 2020-21 barring a fresh wave of tax cuts or spending increases, the difference in the structural fiscal balance between the U.S. and the euro area will still widen to a record high of 6% of GDP by then (Chart 6). It is this difference that determines the gap in neutral rates.3 The U.S. will feel decreasing private-sector deleveraging headwinds in the years ahead. Euro area private-sector debt, measured as a share of GDP, is above U.S. levels and still close to all-time highs. In contrast, U.S. private-sector debt is down by 18% of GDP from its 2008 peak (Chart 7). The demographic divide between the U.S. and the euro area will widen. A rising labor participation rate allowed the euro area's labor force to grow at virtually the same pace as the U.S. between 2000 and 2015 (Chart 8). However, now that the euro area participation rate is above the U.S., the scope for further structural gains in participation in the euro area are limited. Over the past two years, labor force growth in the euro area has fallen behind the United States. If this trend continues and labor force growth in the two regions converges to the underlying rate of growth in the working-age population, it could reduce euro area GDP growth by over 0.5 percentage points relative to U.S. growth. Slower GDP growth typically implies a lower neutral rate. Chart 5U.S. Fiscal Policy##br## Is More Stimulative Chart 6U.S. And Euro Area: Gap In Fiscal##br## Balances Will Hit Record Highs Chart 7Deleveraging Headwinds Will Be##br## Stronger In The Euro Area Than The U.S. Chart 8Slowing Euro Area Labor Force ##br##Participation Will Weigh On Growth When Things Go Sour If other major central banks find themselves hard-pressed to raise rates anywhere close to U.S. levels, how about the opposite case: The one where an adverse shock forces the Fed to cut rates towards overseas levels? Since interest rates in many other economies remain at rock-bottom levels, there is little scope for their central banks to cut rates even if they wanted to. In contrast, the Fed is no longer constrained by the zero bound, which gives it greater leeway to ease monetary policy. While such a scenario cannot be easily ruled out, it is mitigated by the fact that frothy asset markets in the U.S. have not produced large imbalances in the real economy. This stands in sharp contrast to the last two recessions. The Great Recession was exacerbated by a massive overhang of empty homes. The 2001 recession was aggravated by a huge overhang of capital equipment left in the wake of the dotcom bust. The surging dollar and increased Chinese competition also laid waste to a large part of the U.S. manufacturing base, necessitating a period of painful adjustment. Today, both the housing and manufacturing sectors are in reasonably good shape. This suggests that rates can rise further before growth stalls out. And even if the U.S. economy begins to flounder, it is not clear that this would lead to a weaker dollar. Remember that the U.S. mortgage market was the focal point of the Global Financial Crisis, and yet the dollar still strengthened by over 20% between July 2008 and March 2009. A recent IMF study concluded that changes in U.S. financial conditions have an outsized effect on growth outside the United States.4 Weaker global growth is generally good for the dollar (Chart 9). The old adage "When America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold" still rings true. If higher U.S. rates lead to a stronger dollar, this could put pressure on emerging markets. Similar to what transpired in the mid-to-late 1990s, a feedback loop could arise where rising EM stress causes the dollar to strengthen, leading to even more EM stress: A vicious circle for emerging markets, but a virtuous one for the greenback. Chart 10 shows that EM equities are almost perfectly inversely correlated with U.S. financial conditions. Chart 9Decelerating Global Growth Tends ##br## To Be Bullish For The Dollar Chart 10Tightening U.S. Financial Conditions Will Not Bode Well For EM Stocks Investment Conclusions The dollar is bouncing back. This week's FOMC statement caused the greenback to briefly sell off before it rallied back. We do not think the Fed's decision to include the word "symmetric" in describing its inflation target was as important as some observers believe. The Fed has stressed that it has a symmetric target for many years. If anything, the inclusion of the word could mean that the Fed now realizes that it is behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy and thus wants to prepare the market for the inevitable inflation overshoot. That could mean more rate hikes down the road, not fewer. As such, we expect the dollar to continue strengthening. Our Foreign Exchange Strategy team's intermediate-term timing model sees EUR/USD hitting 1.15 in the next three-to-six months (Chart 11). A plunge below this level is possible given that the dollar is one of the most momentum-driven currencies out there (Chart 12). Chart 11Euro Is Poised To Weaken Chart 12The Dollar Is A Momentum-Driven Currency Sterling should also edge lower against the dollar over the next few quarters. Our global fixed-income strategists remain bullish on gilts, reflecting their view that the market has been too hawkish about how many hikes the BoE can deliver over the next year. Over a longer-term horizon, the pound has upside against both the U.S. dollar and most other currencies. If a new Brexit referendum were held today, the "remain" side would probably win (Chart 13). Rules are made to be broken. It is the will of the people, rather than legal mumbo-jumbo, that ultimately matters. In the end, the U.K. will stay in the EU. The Japanese yen faces cyclical downside risks as global bond yields move higher, leaving JGBs in the dust. However, similar to sterling, the longer-term prospects for the yen are brighter. The currency is cheap and should benefit from Japan's large current account surplus and its status as a massive holder of overseas assets (Chart 14). Chart 13Bremorse Sets In Chart 14The Yen's Long-Term Outlook Is Bullish Emerging market currencies rallied between early 2016 and the beginning of this year, but have faltered lately (Chart 15). BCA's EM and geopolitical strategists expect the Chinese government to expedite structural reforms and take steps to slow credit growth and cool the bubbly housing market. We do not anticipate that this will lead to a proverbial hard landing, but it could put renewed pressure on commodity prices over the next few months. Metals are much more exposed to a China slowdown than oil (Chart 16). Correspondingly, we favor "oily" currencies such as the Canadian dollar over "metallic" currencies such as the Australian dollar. Chart 15EM Currencies Have Been ##br##Wobbling Of Late Chart 16Base Metals Are More Sensitive ##br##To Slower Chinese Growth As for risk assets in general, our model still points to near-term downside risks to global equities (Chart 17). However, we expect these risks to fade as global growth stabilizes at an above-trend pace. That should set the stage for a rally in developed market stocks into year-end. Chart 17MacroQuant* Model: Still Pointing To Moderate Downside Risks For Stocks Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Specifically, the New York Fed model says that a 10% depreciation in the dollar would be expected to raise the level of real GDP by 0.5% in the first year and by a further 0.2% in the second year, for a cumulative increase of 0.7%. A 7% decline in the dollar would thus translate into a 0.7*7 = 0.49% increase in GDP. Using former Fed chair Janet Yellen’s preferred specification of the Taylor rule equation, which assigns a coefficient of one on the output gap, a permanent 0.49% of GDP increase in net exports would have the same effect on aggregate demand as a permanent 49 basis-point decline in the fed funds rate. Assuming a constant term premium, this would also be equivalent to a 49 basis-point decline in long-term Treasury yields. 2 FAANG stands for Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. BAT stands for Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent. 3 Conceptually, changes in the budget deficit drive changes in aggregate demand, whereas the level of the budget deficit drives the level of aggregate demand. One can see this simply by noting that aggregate demand is equal to C+I+G+X-M. A one-off increase in G temporarily lifts the growth rate in demand, but permanently increases the level of demand. The neutral rate is determined by the level of demand and not the change in demand because the neutral rate, by definition, is the interest rate that equalizes the level of aggregate demand with aggregate supply. 4 Please see “Getting The Policy Mix Right,” IMF Global Financial Stability Report, (Chapter 3), (April 2017). Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Looking Beyond The Next Few Months The next couple of months could remain tricky for equity markets. But, with economic growth set to remain above trend for another year or so and central banks cautious about the pace of monetary tightening, we continue to expect risk assets to outperform over the 12-month horizon. To begin, our short-term concerns. Global growth has clearly slowed in recent months, with Q1 U.S. GDP growth coming in at 2.3%, well below the 2.9% in Q4; global PMIs have also come down from their recent peaks, led by the euro zone and Japan (Chart 1). Inflation has begun to spook investors, with a sharp pick-up in core U.S. inflation, including a rise to 1.9% YoY in the core PCE inflation measure that the Fed watches most closely (Chart 2). Geopolitics will dominate the headlines over the next six weeks, with the waiver on Iran sanctions expiring on May 12, the end of the 60-day consultation for U.S. tariffs on China on May 21, the possible imposition of tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods starting on June 4, and likely developments with North Korea and NAFTA. Recommended Allocation Chart 1Global Growth Has Slowed Chart 2...And Inflation Picked Up Investors inclined to make short-term tactical shifts might, therefore, want to reduce risk over the next one to three months. For most clients of the Global Asset Allocation service with a longer perspective, however, we continue to recommend an overweight on equities and other risk assets. In the U.S., in particular, fiscal stimulus will, according to IMF estimates, boost GDP growth by 0.8 percentage points this year and 0.9 percentage points next (Chart 3). U.S. corporate earnings should grow by almost 20% this year and around 12% next and, while this is already in analysts' forecasts, it is hard to imagine equity markets struggling against such a strong backdrop. Not one of the recession/bear market warning signals we are watching (inverted yield curve, rising credit spreads, Fed policy in restrictive territory, significant decline in PMIs, peak in cyclical spending) is yet flashing. Neither do we see any signs that higher interest rates or expensive energy prices are slowing growth. Lead indicators of capex have come off a little, but still point to robust growth (Chart 4). The housing market tends to be the most vulnerable to rising rates and the average rate on a 30-year U.S. fixed mortgage has risen to 4.5% (from 3.7% at the start of the year and a low of 3.3% in late 2016). But housing data still look strong, with a continued rise in house prices and mortgage applications steady (Chart 5). Perhaps the sector most vulnerable to rising U.S. rates in this cycle is emerging markets, where borrowers have grown foreign-currency debt to $3.2 trillion, according to the BIS - one reason for our longstanding caution on EM assets (Chart 6). With crude oil rising to $75 a barrel, U.S. retail gasoline prices now average $2.80 a gallon, up from below $2 in 2016, and transportation companies are complaining of rising costs. But, historically, oil prices have needed to rise by 100% YoY before they triggered recession (Chart 7). Chart 3U.S. Stimulus Will Boost The Economy Chart 4Capex Remains Robust Chart 5No Signs Of Higher Rates Hurting Housing Chart 6Could EM Be Most Affected By Higher Rates? Chart 7Oil Hasn't Risen Enough To Cause Recession Eventually, however, strong growth, especially in the U.S., will become a headwind for risk assets. There is still some slack in the labor market, with another 500,000 people likely to return to work eventually (Chart 8). When that happens, perhaps early next year, the currently sluggish wage growth will begin to accelerate. Fiscal stimulus is likely to prove inflationary, since it is unprecedented for a government to stimulate the economy so aggressively when it is already close to full capacity (Chart 9). These factors will push inflation expectations back to their equilibrium level, and the market will then need to adjust to the Fed accelerating the pace of rate hikes to choke off inflation, which will push up real bond yields (Chart 10). Chart 8Still 500,000 Who Could Return To Work Chart 9Stimulus Unprecedented In Such A Strong Economy Chart 10Eventually Real Rates Will Need To Rise When that starts to happen - perhaps late this year or early next year - the yield curve will invert, and investors will start to price in the next recession. That will be the time to turn defensive, but it is still too early now. Fixed Income: Markets are currently pricing only a 50% probability of three more Fed hikes this year, and only two hikes next year. As markets start to anticipate further tightening, long rates are also likely to rise (Chart 11). We see 10-year U.S. Treasury yields at 3.3-3.5% by year-end, and so recommend an overweight in TIPs and a short duration position. The ECB is unlikely to need to rush rate hikes, however, given the slack in the euro zone (Chart 12), and so the spread between U.S. and core euro yields should widen further. Corporate credit spreads are unlikely to contract further but, as long as growth continues, we see U.S. high-yield bonds, in particular, providing attractive returns within the fixed-income bucket. Our bond strategists find that between the 2/10 yield curve crossing below 50 BP and its inverting, high-yield debt has since 1980 given an annualized 368 BP of excess return.1 Chart 11Fed Expectations Drive Long Rates Chart 12Still Plenty Of Slack In The Euro Zone Equities: Our preference remains for developed equities over emerging, and for more cyclical, higher-beta markets such as euro zone and Japan. The risk of a stronger yen over the coming months is a concern for Japanese equities in local currency terms but, as our recommendations are expressed in U.S. dollars, the currency effect cancels out, and so we keep our overweight for now. At this stage of the cycle our preference is for value stocks (especially financials) over growth stocks (especially IT): value/growth usually performs in line with cyclicals/defensives, but the relationship has moved out of sync in the past year or so (Chart 13), mostly because of the performance of internet stocks, whose premium valuation makes them very vulnerable to any bad news. Currencies: A widening of interest-rate differentials between the U.S. and euro zone is likely to push down the euro against the U.S. dollar over the next few months, especially given how crowded the long-euro trade has become. The vulnerability of EM currencies to rising U.S. rates has been seen in the past few weeks, with sharp falls in currencies such as the Turkish lira, Brazilian real, and Russian ruble. We expect this to continue. Overall, we expect a moderate appreciation of the trade-weighted U.S. dollar over the next 12 months. Commodities: The crude oil price continues to rise in line with our forecasts, and we expect to see Brent crude above $80 a barrel before the end of the year. The price next year will depend on whether the OPEC agreement is extended, and how much U.S. shale oil production reacts to the higher price. On the assumption of a moderate increase in supply from both OPEC and the U.S., the crude price is likely to fall back moderately in 2019. We see the long-term equilibrium crude price in the $55-65 range, the level where global supply can be increased enough to satisfy around 1.5% annual growth in demand. We remain more cautious on industrial commodities, and see the first signs coming through of a slowdown in China, which will dent demand (Chart 14). Chart 13Value Stocks Look Attractive Chart 14Signs Of China Slowing Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt," dated 24 April, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation
Highlights Duration: The global bond bear market is still intact, although the "leadership" has passed over to the U.S. where growth is the firmest and inflation expectations are rising the fastest. Maintain an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, focusing underweights in countries that can actually tighten monetary policy this year (U.S., Canada, the euro area). ECB: The ECB has started to take notice of the latest batch of softening euro area economic data. Yet it will take a much more prolonged slowdown for the ECB's medium-term economic forecasts to be proven incorrect, which would alter the likely timetable for a tapering of asset purchases by year-end. Canada: The Bank of Canada has adapted a more cautious tone of late, which seems overly pessimistic given the underlying trends in Canadian growth and inflation. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds. Feature We're Sticking With Our Country Allocations One of our key investment themes for 2018 has been that economic growth, monetary policies and bond yields would be far less correlated between countries than was seen in 2017. This would create cross-country fixed income trading and investment opportunities that were much harder to come by last year. With the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield finally reaching the 3% level last week, that story looks to be playing out. Yields are going up elsewhere, but nothing like what is happening in the U.S., where growth remains firm compared to the string of negative data surprises seen in other countries (Chart of the Week). This theme of divergence can also be seen in the recent actions and comments from central bankers. Officials at the U.S. Federal Reserve have continued to signal, with increasing conviction, that additional rate hikes will be needed later this year (although not at this week's FOMC meeting). This is to be expected given that not only is U.S. growth holding up well (Q1 real GDP growth "only" slowed to an above-potential pace of 2.3%), but both core PCE inflation and the Wages & Salaries component of the Employment Cost Index are accelerating at a marginal pace not seen since the 2008 crisis (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekU.S. Economy Outperforming,##BR##USTs Underperforming Chart 2No Reason For The Fed##BR##To Turn Less Hawkish At the same time, policymakers in other major developed countries have turned somewhat more cautious: The Bank of Japan (BoJ) announced that it will no longer provide a specific date when it expects inflation to reach its target The European Central Bank (ECB) took the highly unusual step of holding a monetary policy meeting last week without actually discussing the monetary policy outlook, according to ECB President Mario Draghi Bank of England (BoE) Governor Mark Carney dampened expectations of a rate hike in May that was nearly fully discounted by markets The Bank of Canada (BoC), which had already delivered several rate hikes when inflation was below its 2% target, chose to keep rates on hold despite inflation finally breaching 2% Sweden's Riksbank pushed out the expected timing of its next rate hike (yet again) to the end of 2018, even with inflation now at target With global growth losing some momentum, it is no surprise that policymakers are trying to not sound too hawkish, which could trigger an unwelcome decline in inflation expectations. Here again, divergences between countries have opened up. Rising oil prices are translating into higher market-based inflation expectations in countries like the U.S. and Canada where growth is still above-potential and leading economic indicators are rising (Chart 3). This is not the case in places like the U.K., Australia and Japan where growth is sluggish, leading indicators are slowing, but with markets still pricing in interest rate increases over the next year (Chart 4). This divergence is a critical underpinning of our current recommended country allocation within government bond markets - overweighting the U.K., Australia and Japan where tighter monetary policy will be difficult to achieve; while underweighting the U.S. and Canada, where rate hikes are still in the cards. Chart 3Shifting Oil/Inflation Correlation... Chart 4...In Countries Where Growth Is Slowing The European Duration Call Gets A Bit Trickier The evidence on the euro area is a bit less conclusive on this front, however. The OECD's leading economic indicator has only dipped modestly from its recent peak, and the correlation between oil prices and inflation expectations has not broken down. Draghi stated in his press conference following last week's policy meeting that the ECB Governing Council was focused on "very important" current euro area economic data that had clearly lost momentum in the first quarter of this year. He noted that there were many one-off factors that could have caused the softer growth (weather, labor strikes, the timing of holidays), but that the slump was very broad-based and hit almost all euro area countries. This makes the next few months of data critical to determine the ECB's next policy move, which could be an announcement of a tapering of its asset purchases when the current program ends in September. From our perspective, the sluggish Q1 euro area economic performance looks to be driven by a major slowing of export growth. Industrial confidence remains at a high level and growth in retail sales volumes has remained stable since the middle of 2017 (Chart 5). Yet the annual growth rate of total euro area exports has slumped to less than 3%, with exports to Asia now contracting on a year-over-year basis (bottom two panels). If the export slump continues in the coming months, this could begin to impact hiring activity across the euro area. A rise in unemployment would definitely change the ECB's calculus in altering its policy stance. At the moment, the Governing Council can look at a steadily declining overall euro area unemployment rate - which is approaching the OECD's estimate of the full employment NAIRU - combined with moderate increases in core HICP inflation, wage growth and inflation expectations, as confirmation that trends are still broadly following the path laid out in its latest economic projections (Chart 6). Chart 5An Export-Led Cooling##BR##Of Euro Area Growth Chart 6ECB Will Not Lift Rates Until##BR##Inflation Expectations Move Back To 2% The ECB has made it clear that it views a tapering of its asset purchases and any subsequent interest rate hikes as separate policy decisions. The hurdle to end the bond purchases is much lower than it is for raising interest rates. On the former, as long as unemployment and inflation continue to evolve along the lines of the ECB's projections, then a full tapering of bond purchases will occur by year-end (with an announcement occurring at either of the June or July ECB meetings). On the latter, it will take inflation expectations (as measured by the 5-year EUR CPI swap, 5-years forward) rising back above 2% for the ECB to feel confident that rate increases will be necessary, as was the case during the mid-2000s tightening cycle and the 2011 mini-cycle (bottom panel). For now, we are maintaining our moderate underweight stance on euro area government debt. Looking ahead, we will be watching the correlation between oil prices denominated in euros and inflation expectations, as well as the development of leading economic indicators in the euro area. If the Q1 growth slump widens into a broader downturn, then the ECB could be forced to revise its economic projections lower and continue with the asset purchases into 2019. While that is not our base case scenario, such a development would force us to reconsider our stance on euro area debt. Bottom Line: The global bond bear market is still intact, although the "leadership" has passed over to the U.S. where growth is the firmest and inflation expectations are rising the fastest. Maintain an overall below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, focusing underweights in countries that can actually tighten monetary policy this year (U.S., Canada, the euro area). In Europe, it will take a much more prolonged slowdown for the ECB's medium-term economic forecasts to be proven incorrect, which would alter the likely timetable for a tapering of asset purchases later this year. Canada: Still On Track For More Hikes This Year The BoC has been sending more cautious signals of late regarding its next policy moves, after delivering 75bps of rate hikes since last summer. Some of this simply reflects a more measured tone taken by other central banks in response to signs of global growth losing some momentum, as discussed earlier. Yet in the case of Canada, it is difficult to make a credible case that the central bank should not continue its rate hiking cycle, particularly with inflation now above the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target band. Upside Risks To Canadian Growth Versus BoC Projections Yes, the Canadian economy has lost some of the rapid upward momentum seen in 2016 and 2017, led mostly by weakness in exports which are now contracting on a year-over-year basis (Chart 7). This was focused in aircraft, transportation equipment, and energy products. The latter is due to poor weather conditions and transportation bottlenecks involved in getting oil out of Alberta rather than a sign of weakening demand for Canadian oil. The BoC did take a more cautious view on exports in the latest set of economic projections presented in the April Monetary Policy Report (MPR). The central bank now expects real exports to be stagnant in 2018, downgrading the expected contribution to real GDP growth to zero from the +0.6 percentage points presented in the January MPR. This was, by far, the biggest downgrade to any of the GDP growth components in the BoC's forecast, and was main reason why the BoC downgraded its overall 2018 real GDP growth projection to 2.0% from 2.2%. Yet at the same time, the BoC actually upgraded its global growth projection to 3.8% from the 3.6% figure in the January MPR. We suspect that the downgrade to the export contribution to expected 2018 growth was the BoC trying to inject some room for error in its growth forecasts for any negative outcome in the current round of NAFTA trade negotiations with the U.S. and Mexico. Otherwise, it makes no sense to have such a large downgrade without becoming more pessimistic on global growth. Our Geopolitical strategists are now much more optimistic that a NAFTA deal will be reached, rather than having the U.S. exit the agreement as President Trump has threatened. If that happens, the BoC's growth projections may end up being too low. We can see a similar level of "excessive cautiousness" with regards to the BoC's assessment of the Canadian labor market and the outlook for consumption. Consumer spending has also cooled off a bit from very robust levels, although an unusually long and harsh winter likely played a large role there, as evidenced by the suspiciously large plunge in retail sales growth (Chart 8). The fundamental underpinnings for Canadian consumption still look solid, though. Chart 7Canadian Economy Holding Up Well,##BR##Despite Weak Exports Chart 8Solid Income Fundamentals##BR##For The Canadian Consumer Consumer confidence remains near cyclical highs. Wage growth currently sits at 3.2% in nominal terms and 1.5% in real terms. The BoC noted in its Spring Business Outlook Survey that wage pressures are increasing due to greater competition in the labor market (3rd panel) and, to a lesser extent, recent minimum wage increases. The BoC noted in the April MPR that wages were growing "somewhat below what would be expected were the economy operating with no excess labor." Yet that argument appears overly pessimistic - the unemployment rate is currently 0.7 percentage points below the OECD's NAIRU estimate, at a time when nominal wages are growing in excess of 3%. Again, there is a greater chance that the BoC will end up surprised by how strong Canadian wage growth will turn out over the next 6-12 months. Even the persistent structural problems of very high Canadian household debt levels and overheated house prices appear less of an issue at the moment. The household debt/GDP ratio has stabilized as growth in mortgage debt has decelerated since mid-2017 - an outcome that can be attributed to rising mortgage rates, tighter lending standards on mortgage lending and poor housing affordability in the major cities (Chart 9). Meanwhile, the supply side of the housing market is finally improving with housing starts now back to pre-recession levels. National house price inflation has cooled from the overheated 15% growth rates to a more "normal" pace around 5%, according to data from Terranet. There will be a long-term day of reckoning for the highly-indebted Canadian homeowner during the next recession. In the near term, however, the combination of rising supply, lower demand and softer house prices suggest that the Canadian housing market is trending in a direction of becoming less imbalanced. The BoC took note of these developments in the April MPR, using much less cautious language in describing the risk to the inflation outlook from household debt and overheated housing markets. The outlook for Canadian business investment also has the potential to give an upside surprise to the BoC. The Spring Business Outlook Survey showed that firms' capital spending intentions remain very strong (Chart 10), a fact confirmed by the robust growth in import volumes of machinery & equipment (middle panel). Finally, the overall financial condition for Canadian companies is in good shape, according to our new Canadian Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) that was introduced last week.1 The CHM correlates strongly with the overall Business Outlook Survey Indicator (bottom panel), which suggests that the cyclical improvement in the financial health of Canadian companies will support capital spending in the coming quarters - especially if the uncertainty over the NAFTA negotiations fades away. Chart 9A Better Supply/Demand Balance##BR##In Canadian Housing? Chart 10Canadian Capex##BR##Is In Good Shape The BoC Will Be Surprised By Canadian Inflation, Too Chart 11Inflation Now Above The BoC's 2% Target With the economy likely to continue expanding at an above-potential pace in the next 6-12 months, the current uptrend in inflation is should continue. Headline CPI inflation is already above the 2% target and core inflation is right at target (Chart 11). The BoC is forecasting that CPI inflation will only remain modestly above 2% until the end of 2018, and will return back to 2% in 2019. Yet there is essentially no spare capacity left in the Canadian economy, based on output gap estimates of both the BoC and International Monetary Fund (IMF). The BoC has slightly revised its projection for the Q1 2018 output gap, leaving it somewhat wider than the previous forecasts due to positive revisions of potential GDP growth (now 1.8% from 1.6% in the January MPR, based on a faster pace of trend labor productivity). These are small changes, however, and real GDP growth is likely to be faster than the BoC is projecting in 2018. Market-based inflation expectations have been steadily rising along with the increase in global energy prices (bottom panel), and we continue to expect inflation breakevens to widen over the balance of 2018. BoC Will Not Disappoint Market Expectations On Rate Hikes The markets are currently discounting a similar pace of rate hikes in Canada and the U.S. over the next year, according to pricing in the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) markets (Chart 12). The BoC's estimate of the neutral policy rate is between 2.5% and 3.5%, which is well above the current policy rate of 1.25%. The OIS market is discounting 75bps of hikes over the twelve months, which would take the policy rate to 2% - still a below-neutral, accommodative level for an economy that is already at full employment and where inflation has risen back to the BoC's target. We expect the BoC to continue to follow its typical pattern of following moves by the Fed with a lag. This is a sensible strategy given how exposed Canadian growth is to U.S. growth through exports, and also given how responsive the Canadian dollar is to the expected rate differentials between the U.S. and Canada. Given our view that the Fed will deliver at least another 50bps of rate hikes over the course of 2018, with the potential for more if inflation continues to accelerate without any growth slowdown, the BoC will likely deliver on the rate hikes currently discounted by markets. This is the main reason why we are maintaining our underweight stance on Canadian Government bonds (bottom panel). The BoC has a much higher potential to actually hike rates by at least as much as the market is expecting, which is not the case in every other developed market country except the U.S., where we are also underweight. This week, however, we are stopping ourselves out of our recommended Tactical Overlay trade in the Canadian BAX interest rate futures curve (long the Dec/18 contract versus the June/18 contract). We introduced that trade back in January, positioning for more rapid BoC rate hikes in the latter half of 2018 that would flatten the BAX futures curve. The recent dovish turn by the BoC has resulted in a steepening of the BAX futures curve, however, and we are stopping ourselves out at a modest loss of -0.12% (Chart 13). Chart 12Stay Underweight##BR##Canadian Government Debt Chart 13We Are Stopped Out Of##BR##Our BAX Futures Curve Trade Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada has adapted a more cautious tone of late, which seems overly pessimistic given the underlying trends in Canadian growth and inflation. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Corporate Health Monitor Chartbook: Growth Is Papering Over The Cracks", dated April 24, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights Both the euro's undervaluation and the euro area's massive trade surplus constitute disequilibria, which cannot persist in the long term. Hence, the trade-weighted euro will structurally appreciate... ...and euro area sectors that are domestically-oriented, like travel and leisure, will structurally outperform those that are export-oriented, like autos. Banks are not a sector to buy and hold for the long term, but rather a sector to own for periodic cyclical rallies. We anticipate the next such cyclical opportunity will arise later this year. Feature Yanis Varoufakis, the former Finance Minister of Greece, recently highlighted EU institutions' obsession with protecting their credibility at all costs. Once set on a course, EU institutions tend to suffer a blinkered tunnel-vision. A big fan of Shakespeare, Varoufakis likened this resistance to change course - no matter the repercussions - to Lady Macbeth's declaration that "what's done cannot be undone."1 As Mario Draghi prepares to take the stage again, we recall the final line of his last performance on March 8 as an echo of Lady Macbeth. Asked to justify the ECB's obsession with the 2 per cent inflation point-target, Draghi declared that "there are serious costs about changing course on credibility". We fully understand the ECB's desire to protect its credibility. The trouble is that it is set on a course that is incredibly difficult to accomplish: a single mandate to sustain a 2 per cent inflation point-target, based on a consumer price basket that omits one of the largest items of household expenditure - housing itself. Chart of the WeekAs The Euro's Undervaluation Corrects, It Will Help Euro Area Domestics And Hurt Exporters Euro Area Inflation Is Running Higher Than The HICP Suggests Homeowners will testify that the cost of maintaining their homes constitutes one of their largest expenses. Which makes the omission of this cost from the euro area Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) completely ludicrous. Using the experience of U.S. inflation which does include owner occupiers' housing costs, we estimate that a price basket that correctly included home maintenance costs would outperform the HICP by an average of 0.5 percentage points a year (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Including Owner Occupiers' Housing Costs ##br##Adds 0.5% To Inflation Recognizing this error, the U.K.'s Office For National Statistics recently changed its main inflation index from the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) to the Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers' housing costs (CPIH), acknowledging that "the costs of housing services associated with owning, maintaining and living in one's home are an important component of household expenditure that are not included in the CPI... Therefore the CPIH is the most comprehensive measure of inflation." We expect the BoE's target for 2 per cent inflation to switch eventually to the CPIH too, albeit it remains the CPI for the time being. However, a 1 to 3 per cent 'variation band' around the CPI inflation target does give the BoE considerable breathing space. By comparison, the ECB's target for 2 per cent inflation excluding owner occupiers' housing costs and excluding a variation band gives it a significantly more difficult task than its peer central banks. The crucial point is that the ECB's ultra-loose policy is to a large extent a function of a tunnel-vision pursuit of an HICP inflation rate which significantly understates true inflation. As true inflation is higher than suggested, it means that true real interest rates are lower than suggested. And as currency markets feel true real interest rate differentials - rather than those derived from the faultily constructed HICP - it means that markets have undervalued the euro. This has resulted in an over-competitive euro area, and a massive trade surplus (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Euro Area Trade Surplus Is A Mirror-Image ##br##Of The Undervalued Euro Both the currency undervaluation and the associated trade surplus constitute disequilibria, which cannot persist in the long term. We have no strong conviction for the very near term move in the euro, but there are two longer term implications: the trade-weighted euro will structurally appreciate by about 10%; and euro area sectors that are domestically-oriented, like travel and leisure, will structurally outperform those that are export-oriented, like autos (Chart of the Week). Japanese Lessons For Europeans: The Homework A few weeks ago in Japanese Lessons For Europeans we made some counterintuitive observations about Japan's post-bubble economic experience.2 Most notably, we showed that on a real GDP per head basis, Japan has outperformed every other major economy over the past twenty years. Our finding was based on real GDP divided by working age (15-64) population because we wanted to capture real productivity gains - which rely mainly on the productive population. The counterintuitive finding elicited a couple of questions. One question was whether the result changes if we were to divide by the total population rather than the working age population. The answer is, not really. Dividing by total population, Japan would no longer be top of the leader board, but the broad result would still hold. Japan has performed impressively, and we fail to see the so-called 'lost decades' (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4Japan Has Performed Impressively On ##br##Real GDP Per Working Age Population... Chart I-5...And Real GDP Per##br## Total Population Still, some people pointed out that Japan's public indebtedness now equals 210% of its GDP, up from 120% at the start of the century. So a second question was whether Japan's impressive performance is entirely due to its fiscal largesse. The answer is, not exactly. What matters is the change in total indebtedness - public plus private. As a share of GDP, public indebtedness is up by 90% but private indebtedness is down by 40%. So total indebtedness is up by 50% of GDP, considerably less than the increases elsewhere in the developed world. For example, over the same period, the U.K.'s total indebtedness is up by 100% of GDP. Moreover, even the level of Japan's total indebtedness as a share of GDP - at 370% - is not that different to other major economies. In Belgium, it is 340%; in France it is 305%; in Canada it is approaching 300% (Charts I-6-Chart I-17). Chart I-6Japan: Total Debt Up From 315% ##br##To 370% Of GDP Chart I-7U.S.: Total Debt Up From 185% ##br##To 250% Of GDP Chart I-8Canada: Total Debt Up From 225%##br## To 290% Of GDP Chart I-9Australia: Total Debt Up From 150% ##br##To 235% Of GDP Chart I-10U.K.: Total Debt Up From 180%##br## To 280% Of GDP Chart I-11Switzerland: Total Debt Up From 245%##br## To 270% Of GDP Chart I-12Germany: Total Debt Down From 185%##br## To 180% Of GDP Chart I-13France: Total Debt Up From 190%##br## To 305% Of GDP Chart I-14Italy: Total Debt Up From 195%##br## To 265% Of GDP Chart I-15Spain: Total Debt Up From 165% ##br##To 270% Of GDP Chart I-16Belgium: Total Debt Up From 260% ##br## To 340% Of GDP Chart I-17Sweden: Total Debt Up From 210% ##br##To 275% Of GDP Public Sector Leveraging Must Counterbalance Private Sector Deleveraging People who take on debt tend to be young, while those who pay down debt tend to be older. As population pyramids in developed economies shift to older cohorts, there are fewer people who wish to take on debt and more people who wish to pay it down. Specifically, the 50-70 age cohort tends to use pre-retirement income and retirement lump-sum payments to extinguish any outstanding mortgage debts. Consider an older person with an income of €1000 who wishes to pay down €100 of debt. It follows that the person will spend €900. Ordinarily, the banking sector will then reallocate the paid-down €100 to, say, a younger person who wants to borrow it. When the borrower spends the €100, aggregate expenditure totals €1000, which equals the original income. And all is well and good. However, in a world where there is an excess of people who wish to pay down debt versus those that wish to borrow, it might not be possible to reallocate the paid-down €100 to a new borrower in the private sector, even with interest rates at ultra-low levels. In this case, the only way to prevent a contraction in expenditure - a recession - is if the government steps in to borrow and spend the aforementioned €100 to keep the economy's expenditures at €1000. Moreover, because the private sector is paying down debt, what seems to be fiscal largesse does not lead to crowding out, inflation, or surging interest rates. The above illustration describes the structural situation in many developed economies at the moment. And it explains why we should not look at the evolution of indebtedness in the public sector and the private sector separately, but rather in combination. This is another important Japanese lesson for Europeans. A final observation is that if the private sector is deleveraging, private indebtedness as a share of GDP tends to drift lower. This necessarily means that banks total assets' are growing slower than overall sales in the economy. As banks' asset growth is their main driver of long-term profit growth, it also means that banks struggle to outperform the market on a sustained basis. This has been the experience in Japan since 1990 and in the euro area since 2008 (Chart I-18). Chart I-18When The Private Sector Pays Down Debt, Banks Structurally Underperform With private indebtedness declining as a share of GDP in many major economies, we conclude that banks are not a sector to buy and hold for the long term, but rather a sector to own for periodic cyclical rallies. We anticipate the next such cyclical opportunity will arise later this year. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 From Yanis Varoufakis's 2018 Rose Shakespeare Lecture. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Japanese Lessons For Europeans" April 5, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* It was a mixed week for our trades. Long USD/ZAR is approaching the end of its 3 month maximum holding period comfortably in profit. Against this, the recent intense volatility in the metals market closed the pair-trade long lead/short nickel at its stop-loss. We are not initiating any new trades this week. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-19 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Corporate Bonds & The Yield Curve: Corporate bond excess returns fall sharply once the yield curve flattens to below 50 basis points, though they typically remain positive until the yield curve inverts. Interestingly, excess returns for equities relative to Treasuries exhibit the opposite pattern. Corporate Bonds & Leverage: The outlook for top-line corporate revenue growth is strong, but employee compensation costs will also rise this year. We are doubtful that corporate profit growth will keep pace with debt growth for the remainder of year, meaning that leverage is likely to rise. Rising leverage will be a signal to reduce exposure to corporate bonds. Bond Map: We perform a back-test to assess the effectiveness of the Bond Map framework for sector allocation that was introduced in last week's report. Feature It's been a while, but last week's bond market performance was reminiscent of an old fashioned risk-on phase. The 10-year Treasury yield reached its highest level since early 2014, causing a temporary halt in the yield curve's flattening trend. Spread product also responded to investor optimism, and returns from the investment grade corporate bond index now lag the duration-equivalent Treasury index by only 52 basis points year-to-date, up from a mid-March trough of -94 bps (Chart 1). High-Yield index returns also rebounded, and that index is now outpacing Treasuries by +150 bps so far this year. Chart 1Corporate Credit: Annual Excess Returns But for corporate bond investors, now is not the time for complacency. Out of the criteria we use to signal turns in the credit cycle, we are progressively checking more and more off our list.1 Spreads are already tight relative to history and corporate debt levels are already high. That much has been true for some time. Next up, we await a more restrictive monetary policy and a more severe slow-down in corporate profit growth to below the pace of corporate debt growth. Both of those conditions also need to be met before corporate defaults start to occur and spreads start to widen materially. In this week's report we consider each of those two conditions in turn, noting the triggers that will need to be hit for us to downgrade our current overweight allocation to corporate bonds. Condition 1: Restrictive Monetary Policy Chart 2Monetary Policy Not Yet Restrictive On the monetary policy front, we expect that monetary conditions will turn restrictive in the not-to-distant future (Chart 2). For the time being, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are still below levels that are consistent with the Fed achieving its 2% inflation target. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 2.17% and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 2.24%. But once both of those rates reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, they will be consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations and the Fed will have one less reason to stay cautious. We will start paring exposure to corporate bonds once both the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate cross above the 2.3% threshold. The re-anchoring of inflation expectations will also impart further upside to nominal Treasury yields, and we therefore maintain our below-benchmark duration stance and continue to follow the road-map laid out in our February report detailing the two-stage Treasury bear market.2 Another traditional signal of restrictive monetary policy is a flat or inverted yield curve (Chart 2, panel 2). Intuitively, a very flat yield curve tells us that the market expects very few (if any) Fed rate hikes in the future. An inverted yield curve tells us that the market actually anticipates rate cuts. While the yield curve is not yet close to inverting, it is approaching levels that are consistent with much lower (and often negative) excess returns for both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds, as is discussed below. A third indicator of the stance of monetary policy is simply the spread between the real federal funds rate and an estimate of its equilibrium level - the level consistent with neither an accommodative nor a restrictive policy stance (Chart 2, bottom panel). While the fact that the real fed funds rate is currently quite close to the popular Laubach-Williams estimate of its equilibrium level certainly reinforces our view that policy is almost restrictive, the large degree of uncertainty inherent in this sort of estimate leads us to prefer the market signals from the slope of the yield curve and TIPS breakeven inflation rates when forming an investment strategy. The Yield Curve And Corporate Bond Returns To assess the importance of the yield curve as a predictor of turns in the credit cycle, we split each cycle going back to the mid-1970s into regimes based on the yield curve slope. We then calculate excess returns during each phase for both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds, as well as the stock-to-bond total return ratio. We use the 3/10 yield curve slope instead of the more often quoted 2/10 slope because it allows for the inclusion of more historical data. This decision did not materially impact the results of our analysis. Chart 3 shows how we divided each cycle into three phases: Chart 3Corporate Bond Performance And The Yield Curve Phase 1 runs from the end of the previous NBER-defined recession until the slope crosses below 50 bps. Phase 2 runs from the time that the slope crosses below 50 bps until it crosses below zero. Phase 3 runs from the time that the yield curve first inverts to the start of the next recession. Notice that we do not include recessionary periods in our analysis, usually the periods with the worst excess corporate bond returns. The results of our analysis are shown in Table 1, and the first obvious result is that corporate bond excess returns are much higher in Phase 1 than in Phase 2, although Phase 2 returns are usually still positive.3 Negative excess returns occur more often than not in Phase 3, after the yield curve has inverted. Table 1Risk Asset Performance In Different Yield Curve Regimes The biggest exception to the above observations is that Phase 2 High-Yield returns actually exceeded Phase 1 High-Yield returns in the 2001-07 cycle. In our view, this exception results from the fact that corporate profit growth was well above corporate debt growth in 2005, and did not really decline until 2007, shortly after the yield curve inverted. In contrast, Phase 2 returns were exceptionally weak in the prolonged period between 1994 and 2000. In this instance, corporate profit growth actually fell below corporate debt growth in 1998, well before the yield curve inverted in 2000. This reinforces that both the stance of monetary policy and the trend in corporate leverage matter for corporate bond returns. The latter is discussed in the next section of this report. Another interesting result shown in Table 1 is that the pattern of stock market excess returns over Treasuries is the mirror image of the pattern in corporate bond excess returns. The stock market tends to perform better in Phase 2 than in Phase 1, and often even performs well in Phase 3 after the yield curve has inverted. This means that multi-asset investors should consider paring exposure to corporate bonds relative to Treasuries before they think of reducing exposure to the stock market. Bottom Line: Restrictive monetary policy is one condition that must be met before we reduce exposure to corporate bonds in our recommended portfolio. The first indication of this will likely be the re-anchoring of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. We will start paring exposure to corporate bonds when that occurs. The slope of the yield curve is already at levels that are consistent with very low excess returns. Though we demonstrate that an inverted yield curve is historically linked to even lower returns. Conviction that the yield curve is about to invert will be another trigger to further reduce corporate bond exposure in the future. Condition 2: Rising Leverage The second condition that will cause us to take even more credit risk off the table is when gross leverage for the nonfinancial corporate sector - calculated as total debt over pre-tax profits - enters an uptrend. Chart 4 shows that periods of spread widening almost always coincide with rising gross leverage, or put differently, periods when the rate of debt growth exceeds the rate of profit growth. Profit growth has kept pace with debt growth during the past few quarters, causing leverage to flatten-off and allowing corporate spreads to narrow. Going forward, the outlook for top-line corporate revenue growth (a.k.a. net value added) remains favorable, owing to an ISM index that is well above the 50 boom/bust line and still climbing (Chart 5). But on the expense side of the ledger, employee compensation - the largest expense for the corporate sector - is also poised to increase in the months ahead. Unit labor costs jumped sharply in the fourth quarter of 2017 (Chart 5, panel 2), and with the unemployment rate at 4.1% and the economy still adding jobs at a robust pace - nonfarm payrolls have increased by an average of +211k during the past six months - a further acceleration in employee compensation is likely this year. Chart 4Corporate Leverage Has Flattened Off Chart 5Wage Growth Will Hamper Profits The key question then becomes whether corporations will be able to offset rising compensation costs by lifting prices. This remains uncertain, but early indications are not favorable. Our Profit Margin Proxy - the growth in the corporate sector's implicit selling price deflator relative to the growth in unit labor costs - does an excellent job tracking pre-tax profits (Chart 5, bottom panel). At the moment, this indicator signals that profit growth will moderate in the coming quarters. Bottom Line: The outlook for top-line corporate revenue growth is strong, but employee compensation costs will also rise this year. We are doubtful that corporate profit growth will keep pace with debt growth for the remainder of year. A decline in the rate of profit growth to below the rate of corporate debt growth will be another signal to reduce exposure to corporate bonds. The Bond Map Back-Test Last week we introduced the BCA Bond Map, a graphical depiction of the current risk/reward trade-off on offer from the different sectors of the U.S. bond market.4 To summarize, in our excess return Bond Map we plot the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps of excess return on the vertical axis, and the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus Treasuries on the horizontal axis (Chart 6). The diagram is then split into four quadrants based on the location of the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate index, which we have modified to also include junk bonds. The upper-left quadrant, which we label "Best Bets", contains those sectors that offer less risk and greater excess return potential than the benchmark. The upper-right quadrant, which we label "Exciting", contains those sectors that offer higher risk than the benchmark but also higher potential returns. The bottom-left ("Boring") quadrant contains those sectors with low risk of losses but also low probability of gains, and the bottom-right ("Avoid") quadrant contains those sectors with higher risk than the benchmark and lower expected returns. As can be seen in Chart 6, the current excess return Bond Map shows that Local Authorities, Foreign Agencies and investment grade corporate bonds offer the best combination of risk and expected return. No sectors currently plot in the "Avoid" quadrant. Chart 6Excess Return Bond Map (As Of April 20, 2018) This week, we publish the results of a back-test of the real time performance of our Bond Map. To do this we produced the Bond Map at the beginning of each calendar year starting in 2006 and then calculated average excess returns for each quadrant. For example, if three sectors were in the "Best Bets" quadrant at the beginning of the year, we calculated 12-month excess returns for each sector and then averaged them together to get an excess return for "Best Bets" sectors that year.5 Table 2 shows the average and standard deviation of calendar year excess returns for each quadrant, using a sample that spans from 2006-2017. As would be expected, the "Exciting" quadrant displays the highest average excess return, but also the highest standard deviation. Conversely, the "Boring" quadrant delivers the lowest average return and the lowest risk. The performance of the "Best Bets" quadrant is somewhere in between, delivering a greater average return than the "Boring" quadrant with less risk than the "Exciting" quadrant. Although the Sharpe Ratio for the "Best Bets" quadrant turns out to be worse than the Sharpe ratio for both the "Exciting" and "Boring" quadrants. This provides some support for the investment strategy of favoring either the "Exciting" or "Boring" quadrants depending on your assessment of the macro environment. The "Avoid" quadrant actually delivered negative excess returns on average, with elevated risk. Table 2Excess Return Bond Map Track Record (2006-2017) For comparison we also show the average and standard deviation of excess returns for the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate index, augmented with High-Yield. The benchmark delivered excess returns only slightly greater than the "Boring" quadrant, with significantly more risk. The total return version of the Bond Map is shown in Chart 7. This is identical to the excess return Bond Map, except it shows the number of days of average increase/decrease in yields for each sector to lose/earn 5% total return. We perform the identical back-test as with the excess return map, and display the results in Table 3. Chart 7Total Return Bond Map (As Of April 20, 2018) Table 3Total Return Bond Map Track Record (2006-2017) Here we see the interesting result that the average total returns are higher in the "Best Bets" quadrant than in the "Exciting" quadrant, but strangely the "Best Bets" quadrant also delivered greater volatility. The "Boring" quadrant delivered the best Sharpe Ratio, while the "Avoid" sector delivered both lower average returns and greater volatility than the "Boring" quadrant. For comparison, the average total returns for the Aggregate index (plus High-Yield) were lower than the total returns from any of the four quadrants, but also with less volatility. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 We define the "turn" in the credit cycle as when corporate defaults start to occur and corporate spreads enter a sustained widening phase. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For the Phase 1 period in Cycle 2 we use an interval of June 1983 to July 1988 because High-Yield excess returns are only available starting in June 1983. In reality, the Phase 1 period should have started when the prior recession ended in December 1982. Using the correct interval (starting in December 1982) investment grade corporate bond excess returns are +131 bps and the stock-to-bond ratio returns are +5.19%, both annualized. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Back To Basics", dated April 17, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 We started our back-test sample in 2006 even though our sector data goes back to 2000. Because our bond map relies on historical estimates of spread/yield volatility, we wanted a sample of at least five years of data before starting the test. With each passing year more back-data is incorporated into our spread/yield volatility estimates, which should improve the Bond Map's accuracy over time. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification