Money/Credit/Debt
Highlights Global Tapering: The Bank of England has joined the Bank of Canada as central banks tapering the pace of bond buying. Markets are now trying to sort out who is next and concluding that it will not be the Federal Reserve, with US employment still well below the pre-pandemic peak. US Treasury yields will continue trading sideways until there is greater clarity on the pace of US labor market improvement, especially after the big downside miss in the April jobs report. US Treasury Curve: We are adding a new recommended US butterfly trade to our Tactical Overlay portfolio, going long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/30 barbell using US Treasury futures. This trade should benefit with US Treasury curve steepening overshooting the pace of past cycles, while offering attractive carry if persistent Fed dovishness slows the cyclical transition to a bear-flattening curve regime. Feature Heading into 2021, one of our key investment themes for the year was that no major central bank would shift to a less dovish monetary policy stance before the Fed. Not even five months into the year, our theme has already been proven incorrect. Last week, the Bank of England (BoE) announced a slower pace of its asset purchases, following a similar tapering decision by the Bank of Canada (BoC) last month. Chart of the WeekUS Jobs Recovery Lagging, Despite Vaccine Success We had assumed that no central bank could tolerate the currency strength that would inevitably occur by tapering ahead of the Fed. That was clearly not the case in Canada, and the Canadian dollar has already appreciated 4.6% versus the greenback since the BoC taper announcement April 21. The British pound also rallied solidly against both the US dollar and euro immediately after the BoE taper announcement last week. Markets are beginning to speculate on future taper candidates, like the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), with the New Zealand dollar being one of the strongest currencies in the G10 versus the US dollar since the end of March (+4.4%). Investors had been debating the possibility that the Fed could begin tapering sometime in the second half of 2020, largely based on what has to date been a successful US vaccination campaign. Yet while that led to optimism that the US economy can quickly reopen and return to normal, the fact remains that the recovery in US employment from the COVID shock has lagged other major economies (Chart of the Week). The big downside miss on the April US payrolls report highlights how the Fed can be patient before joining the tapering club. US Treasury yields are likely to continue trading sideways, and the US dollar will trade soft, until markets can sort out the true state of US labor demand versus supply. Which Central Bank Could Follow The BoC And BoE? Back in March, we published a report that discussed what we called the “pecking order of global liftoff”.1 We looked at how interest rate markets were pricing in an increasingly diverse path out of the coordinated global monetary easing enacted last year during the COVID recession (Chart 2). We looked at both the timing of “liftoff” (the first rate hike) and the pace of hikes afterward to the end of 2024. We then ranked the countries by the market-implied timing of liftoff. Chart 2Sorting Out The Relative Hawks & Doves Among Global CBs At the time, overnight index swap (OIS) curves were discounting the earliest liftoff from the RBNZ (June 2022) and BoC (August 2022). The Fed was expected to hike in January 2023, followed by the BoE in June 2023 and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in July 2023. The European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) were the laggards, with no rate hiked discounted until September 2023 and February 2025, respectively. In terms of the pace of rate hikes after liftoff through 2024, our list was broken into two groups. The more aggressive central banks were expected to be the BoC (+175bps), RBA (+156bps), RBNZ (+140bps) and the Fed (+139bps). Much smaller amounts of rate hikes were anticipated from the BoE (+63bps), ECB (+25bps) and BoJ (+9bps). In the two months since our March report, the market timing of liftoff, and the pace of subsequent hikes, has shifted for all those countries (Table 1). The BoC is now expected to move in September 2022, ahead of the RBNZ (October 2022). In 2023, the Fed is now priced for liftoff in March 2023, followed by the BoE and RBA (both in July 2023). The ECB liftoff date is little changed (now August 2023), while the market has dramatically pushed out the timing of any BoJ hike (now November 2025). The cumulative rate hikes through 2024 are moderately lower for all countries except Australia (a reduction in total tightening of 56bps). Table 1The Fed Is Sliding Down The “Pecking Order Of Liftoff” List What is interesting about these changes is that the market has pulled forward the timing of liftoff for the BoE and RBA, while pushing it out for the BoC, RBNZ, BoJ and, most importantly, the Fed. The Fed is now drifting down the “pecking order” for liftoff, expected to lift rates only a couple of months before the BoE or RBA. This is a major change from previous monetary policy cycles, when the Fed would typically be a first mover when it comes to tightening policy. Chart 3The Momentum Of Global QE Has Already Been Slowing While the BoC and BoE decisions to taper quantitative easing (QE) have garnered the headlines, the pace of global central bank balance sheet expansion had already peaked at the start of 2021 (Chart 3). The pace has slowed most dramatically in Canada and the US, but this was a result of certain emergency programs expiring – most notably the Fed’s corporate bond buying vehicles late last year and the BoC’s short-term repo facilities more recently. Greater financial market stability was the reason cited to end those programs, while still leaving government bond QE buying in place unchanged. The year-over-year pace of global QE was set to slow, simply from less favorable comparisons to 2020 after the surge in central bank balance sheet expansion last year. Yet now we are starting to see actual tapering of government bond purchases from some central banks. Is such “early tightening” warranted? Back in that same March report where we discussed the order of global liftoff, we gave our assessment of the most important factors that could drive central banks to consider a shift to a less dovish stance (like tapering). For the BoC, we cited booming house prices and robust business confidence as reasons the BoC could turn less dovish sooner (Chart 4). For the BoE, we noted a sharper-than-expected recovery in domestic investment and consumer spending, as the locked-down UK economy reopens, as reasons why the BoE could begin to tweak its policy settings. For both central banks, all those indicators were mentioned as factors leading to their decision to taper. For the Fed, we determined that rising inflation expectations and increasing labor market tightness would both be required for the Fed to turn less dovish. Only inflation expectations have reached that goal, with the US Employment/Population ratio still well below the pre-pandemic peak (Chart 5). For the RBA, we looked solely at realized inflation measures, as the RBA has explicitly noted that Australian wage growth must rise sustainably towards 3% - nearly double current levels - before realized CPI inflation could return to the 2-3% target range. For both the Fed and RBA, the necessary conditions for a change in current policy settings have not yet been met. Chart 4What The More Hawkish CBs Are Watching Chart 5What The More Dovish CBs Are Watching For the ECB, we noted that realized inflation (and the ECB’s inflation forecasts), along with the Italy-Germany government bond spread as a measure of financial conditions, were the most important indicators to watch before the ECB could consider any move to taper its QE programs (Chart 6). Italian spreads have widened a bit in recent months, while the latest set of ECB economic forecasts still call for headline euro area inflation to remain well south of the 2% target out to 2023. For the BoJ, we simply cited a rise in realized inflation as the only possible development that could lead to a BoJ taper. The BoJ now forecasts that Japanese inflation will not reach the 2% central bank target until at least 2024. So for both the ECB and BoJ, the conditions do not warrant any imminent tapering of bond buying. Chart 6What The Most Dovish CBs Are Watching As another way to determine who could taper next, we turn to our Central Bank Monitors, which are designed to measure the pressure on policymakers to ease or tighten monetary setting. All the Monitors have responded to the recovery in global growth and inflation, along with the easing of financial conditions implied by booming markets, over the past year. Yet only the RBA Monitor is calling for tightening (Chart 7), indicating that the RBA’s current focus on only wages and realized inflation is a departure from their behavior in the past. The Fed and BoE Monitors have risen to the zero line, suggesting no further pressure to ease policy but no tightening is needed either. The ECB, BoJ and RBNZ Monitors are all close, but just below, the zero line, suggesting diminishing need for more monetary stimulus (Chart 8). Chart 7Bond Yields Have Moved Ahead Of Our CB Monitors Chart 8Yields Overshooting Tightening Pressures Here Too Based on our assessment of the above indicators, we judge the RBNZ to be the next central bank most likely to taper, sometime in the 2nd half of 2021. We still see the Fed starting to signal tapering later this year, but with actual slowing of US Treasury (and Agency MBS) purchases not occurring until early 2022. The year-over-year momentum of bond yields correlates strongly with the Central Bank Monitors. The rise in global bond yields seen over the past year has exceeded the pace implied by the Monitors. This is unsurprising given how rapidly the global economy has recovered from pandemic-fueled recession in 2020. Supply chain disruptions and surging commodity prices have also given a lift to bond yields via rising inflation expectations, even as central banks have promised to keep rates on hold for at least the next couple of years. Yet purely from a monetary policy perspective, the surge in global bond yields looks to have gone a bit too far, too fast. Bottom Line: Markets are now trying to sort out who will taper next after the BoC and BoE, and have concluded that it will not be the Federal Reserve, with US employment still well below the pre-pandemic peak. US Treasury yields will continue trading sideways until there is greater clarity on the pace of US labor market improvement, especially after the big downside miss in the April jobs report. Bond yields in other developed markets appear to have overshot economic momentum, and a period of consolidation is needed before yields can begin moving higher again. US Treasury Curve: How Much Steepening Left? Chart 9A Pause In The UST Bear-Steepening Trend For most of the past year, the primary trend in the US Treasury curve has been one of bear steepening. Longer maturity yields have borne the brunt of the upward pressure stemming from the rapid recovery in US (and global) economic growth from the depths of the 2020 COVID-19 recession. In recent weeks, however, the surge in longer-maturity Treasury yields has stalled, as have the immediate steepening pressures (Chart 9). Purely from a fundamental economic perspective, a steepening Treasury curve is an expected result of the reflationary mix of growth, inflation and monetary policy currently at work in the US. For example, since the 2020 lows, 5-year/5-year forward inflation expectations from the TIPS market have risen 143bps while the ISM manufacturing index surged from a low of 41 to a high of 65 in March of this year (Chart 10). Combine that with the Fed cutting rates to 0% last year, while promising to keep rates unchanged through 2023 and reinforcing that commitment through QE, and it is no surprise to see a steeper US Treasury curve. Chart 10UST Curve Steepening Has Been Driven By Reflation Yet even despite these obvious steepening pressures, the pace of the Treasury curve steepening does seem to be a bit rapid compared to history. In Chart 11, we show a “cycle-on-cycle” analysis, comparing the slope of various US Treasury curve segments (2-year versus 5-year, 5-year versus 10-year, 10-year versus 30-year) to the average of the previous five US business cycles, dating back to the 1970s. The curves are lined up to the start date of the previous recession, with the vertical line in the chart representing that date. Thus, this chart allows us to see how the Treasury curve evolved heading into, and coming out of, economic downturns. Chart 11 shows that the current 2-year/5-year curve, with a steepness of 63bps, is in line with past steepening moves coming out of recession. For the curve segments at longer maturities, the pace of steepening has been much more rapid than in the past. In fact, the current 5-year/10-year slope of 82bps is already above the average past peak level, as is the 10-year/30-year curve of 72bps. If we do the same cycle-on-cycle analysis for the three previous US recessions dating back to 1990, the current curve slopes are more in line with levels seen one year into the economic expansion (Chart 12). During those previous cycles, the curve steepening trend ended around two years into the expansion. This suggests that the current curve steepening could continue into 2022, except for one major difference – the Fed cut rates to 0% very rapidly last year, far faster than in the previous easing cycles. This suggests that additional curve steepening from current levels can only occur through a surge in US inflation. Chart 11Current UST Steepening Has Moved Fast Compared To Past Cycles Chart 12Can More UST Curve Steepening Occur With A 0% Funds Rate? The slope of the Treasury curve is typically correlated to the level of the nominal fed funds rate, but is even more strongly correlated to the funds rate minus actual inflation, or the real fed funds rate. When the real funds rate is below the natural real rate of interest, a.k.a. r-star, the Treasury curve has historically exhibited its strongest steepening trend. That can be seen in Chart 13, where we show the real fed funds rate (adjusted by US core CPI inflation) compared to the New York Fed’s estimate of r-star. The gap between the two series is shown in the bottom panel, correlating very strongly to the 2-year/30-year Treasury curve slope. Chart 13Curve Steepening Results When Real Rates Are Below R* With the nominal funds rate at zero, that gap between r-star and the real fed funds rate can only widen in a fashion that would support more curve steepening if a) realized US inflation moves higher or b) r-star moves higher. Both outcomes are possible as the US economic recovery, fueled by expanding vaccinations and fiscal stimulus. Both real rates and r-star are much lower in the current cycle than in previous economic recoveries, although the r-star/real funds rate gap appears to be following a more typical path that suggests potential additional steepening pressure (Chart 14). The wild card in this analysis is the Fed itself. If US economic growth and inflation evolve in way that makes it more likely the Fed would have to begin tapering QE and, eventually, signal future rate hikes, the Treasury curve may shift to a more typical bear-flattening trend seen during tightening cycles. We saw an example of that after the release of the March US employment report, where over a million jobs were created in a single month, causing 5-year Treasury yields to jump higher than longer-maturity Treasuries (i.e. curve flattening). Looking ahead, it appears that the US yield curve is more likely to slowly transition to a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime than continue the bear-steepening/bull-flattening: trend of the past twelve months. One way to position for this is to enter into butterfly curve trades that offer attractive carry or valuation. For that, we turn to our Treasury curve valuation models. We have been recommending a Treasury yield curve trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 19, going long a 7-year bullet versus going short a 5-year/10-year barbell (Chart 15). This barbell is now very cheap on our models, which measure value by regressing the butterfly spread on the underlying slope of the curve. In this case, the spread between the 5/7/10 butterfly is unusually wide compared to the slope of the 5/10 Treasury curve. According to our model, this butterfly spread discounts nearly 100bps of additional 5/10 steepening, an excessive amount compared to past cycles. Chart 14R* - Real Funds Rate Gap Below Previous Cyclical Peaks Chart 15Maintain Our Current 5/7/10 UST Butterfly Trade While the valuation is attractive on the 5/7/10 butterfly (Table 2), the carry on this position is a modest 12bps. A butterfly with more attractive carry is the 2/5/30 butterfly. Table 2US Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Table 3US Butterfly Strategies: Carry Chart 16Enter A New 2/5/30 UST Butterfly Trade This butterfly has a neutral valuation (Chart 16) on our model, but offers 35bps of carry - the most attractive among all butterflies involving a 5-year bullet (Table 3). With US Treasury yields, and the Treasury curve slope, likely to remain rangebound for the next few months, going for higher carry trades is an attractive strategy – particularly if used in conjunction with a below-benchmark duration stance, which we still advocate. The 2/5/30 butterfly represents an attractive near-term hedge to that more defensive duration posture. Bottom Line: We are adding a new recommended US Treasury butterfly trade to our Tactical Overlay portfolio, going long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/30 barbell. This trade should benefit with US Treasury curve steepening overshooting the pace of past cycles, while offering attractive carry if persistent Fed dovishness slows the cyclical transition to a bear-flattening curve regime. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger", dated March 16, 2021, 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 Biden’s first 100 days are characterized by a liberal spend-and-tax agenda unseen since the 1960s. It is not a “bait and switch,” however. Voters do not care about deficits and debt. At least not for now. The apparent outcome of the populist surge in the US and UK in 2016 is blowout fiscal spending. Yet the US and UK also invented and distributed vaccines faster than others. US growth and equities have outperformed while the US dollar experienced a countertrend bounce. While growth will rotate to other regions, China’s stimulus is on the wane. Of Biden’s three initial geopolitical risks, two are showing signs of subsiding: Russia and Iran. US-China tensions persist, however, and Biden has been hawkish so far. Our new Australia Geopolitical Risk Indicator confirms our other indicators in signaling that China risk, writ large, remains elevated. Cyclically we are optimistic about the Aussie and Australian stocks. Mexico’s midterm elections are likely to curb the ruling party’s majority but only marginally. The macro and geopolitical backdrop is favorable for Mexico. Feature US President Joe Biden gave his first address to the US Congress on April 28. Biden’s first hundred days are significant for his extravagant spending proposals, which will rank alongside those of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society, if not Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, in their impact on US history, for better and worse. Chart 1Biden's First 100 Days - The Market's Appraisal The global financial market appraisal is that Biden’s proposals will turn out for the better. The market has responded to the US’s stimulus overshoot, successful vaccine rollout, and growth outperformance – notably in the pandemic-struck service sector – by bidding up US equities and the dollar (Chart 1). From a macro perspective we share the BCA House View in leaning against both of these trends, preferring international equities and commodity currencies. However, our geopolitical method has made it difficult for us to bet directly against the dollar and US equities. Geopolitics is about not only wars and trade but also the interaction of different countries’ domestic politics. America’s populist spending blowout is occurring alongside a sharp drop in China’s combined credit-and-fiscal impulse, which will eventually weigh on the global economy. This is true even though the rest of the world is beginning to catch up in vaccinations and economic normalization. As for traditional geopolitical risk – wars and alliances – Biden has not yet leaped over the three initial foreign policy hurdles that we have highlighted: China, Russia, and Iran. In this report we will update the view on all three, as there is tentative improvement on the Russian and Iranian fronts. In addition, we will introduce our newest geopolitical risk indicator – for Australia – and update our view on Mexico ahead of its June 6 midterm elections. Biden’s Fiscal Blowout From a macro point of view, Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was much larger than what Republicans would have passed if President Trump had won a second term. His proposed $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan (AJP) is also larger, though both candidates were likely to pass an infrastructure package. The difference lies in the parts of these packages that relate to social spending and other programs, beyond COVID relief and roads and bridges. The Republican proposal for COVID relief was $618 billion while the Republicans’ current proposal on infrastructure is $568 billion – marking a $3 trillion difference from Biden. In reality Republicans would have proposed larger spending if Trump had remained president – but not enough to close this gap. And Biden is also proposing a $1.8 trillion American Families Plan (AFP). Biden’s praise for handling the vaccinations must be qualified by the Trump administration’s successful preparations, which have been unfairly denigrated. Similarly, Biden’s blame for the migrant surge at the southern border must be qualified by the fact that the surge began last year.1 A comparison with the UK will put Biden’s administration into perspective. The only country comparable to the US in terms of the size of fiscal stimulus over 2019-21 so far – excluding Biden’s AJP and AFP, which are not yet law – is the United Kingdom. Thus the consequence of the flare-up of populism in the Anglo-Saxon world since 2016 is a budget deficit blowout as these countries strive to suppress domestic socio-political conflict by means of government largesse, particularly in industrial and social programs. However, populist dysfunction was also overrated. Both the US and UK retain their advantages in terms of innovation and dynamism, as revealed by the vaccine and its rollout (Chart 2). Chart 2Dysfunctional Anglo-Saxon Populism? No sharp leftward turn occurred in the UK, where Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Conservatives had the benefit of a pre-COVID election in December 2019, which they won. By contrast, in the US, President Trump and the Republicans contended an election after the pandemic and recession had virtually doomed them to failure. There a sharp leftward turn is taking place. Going forward the US will reclaim the top rank in terms of fiscal stimulus, as Biden is likely to get his infrastructure plan (AJP) passed. Our updated US budget deficit projections appear in Chart 3. Our sister US Political Strategy gives the AJP an 80% chance of passing in some form and the AFP only a 50% chance of passing, depending on how quickly the AJP is passed. This means the blue dashed line is more likely to occur than the red dashed line. The difference is slight despite the mind-boggling headline numbers of the plans because the spending is spread out over eight-to-ten years and tax hikes over 15 years will partially offset the expenditures. Much will depend on whether Congress is willing to pay for the new spending. In Chart 3 we assume that Biden will get half of the proposed corporate tax hikes in the AJP scenario (and half of the individual tax hikes in the AFP scenario). If spending is watered down, and/or tax hikes surprise to the upside, both of which are possible, then the deficit scenarios will obviously tighten, assuming the economic recovery continues robustly as expected. But in the current political environment it is safest to plan for the most expansive budget deficit scenarios, as populism is the overriding force. Chart 3Biden’s Blowout Spending Biden’s campaign plan was even more visionary, so it is not true that Biden pulled a “bait and switch” on voters. Rather, the median voter is comfortable with greater deficits and a larger government role in American life. Bottom Line: The implication of Biden’s spending blowout is reflationary for the global economy, cyclically negative for the US dollar, and positive for global equities. But on a tactical time frame the rotation to other equities and currencies will also depend on China’s fiscal-and-credit deceleration and whether geopolitical risk continues to fall. Russia: Some Improvement But Coast Not Yet Clear US-Russia tensions appeared to fizzle over the past week but the coast is not yet clear. We remain short Russian currency and risk assets as well as European emerging market equities. Tensions fell after President Putin’s State of the Nation address on April 21 in which he warned the West against crossing Russia’s “red lines.” Biden’s sanctions on Russia were underwhelming – he did not insist on halting the final stages of the Nord Stream II pipeline to Germany. Russia declared it would withdraw its roughly 100,000 troops from the Ukrainian border by May 1. Russian dissident Alexei Navalny ended his hunger strike. Putin attended Biden’s Earth Day summit and the two are working on a bilateral summit in June. Chart 4Russia's Domestic Instability Will Continue De-escalation is not certain, however. First, some US officials have cast doubt on Russia’s withdrawal of troops and it is known that arms and equipment were left in place for a rapid mobilization and re-escalation if necessary. Second, Russian-backed Ukrainian separatists will be emboldened, which could increase fighting in Ukraine that could eventually provoke Russian intervention. Third, the US has until August or September to prevent Nord Stream from completion. Diplomacy between Russia and the US (and Russia and several eastern European states) has hit a low point on the withdrawal of ambassadors. Fourth, Russian domestic politics was always the chief reason to prepare for a worse geopolitical confrontation and it remains unsettled. Putin’s approval rating still lingers in the relatively low range of 65% and government approval at 49%. The economic recovery is weak and facing an increasingly negative fiscal thrust, along with Europe and China, Russia’s single-largest export destination (Chart 4). Putin’s handouts to households, in anticipation of the September Duma election, only amount to 0.2% of GDP. More measures will probably be announced but the lead-up to the election could still see an international adventure designed to distract the public from its socioeconomic woes. Russia’s geopolitical risk indicators ticked up as anticipated (Chart 5). They may subside if the military drawdown is confirmed and Biden and Putin lower the temperature. But we would not bet on it. Chart 5Russian Geopolitical Risk: Wait For 'All Clear' Signal Bottom Line: It is possible that Biden has passed his first foreign policy test with Russia but it is too soon to sound the “all clear.” We remain short Russian ruble and short EM Europe until de-escalation is confirmed. The Russian (and German) elections in September will mark a time for reassessing this view. Iran: Diplomacy On Track (Hence Jitters Will Rise) While Russia may or may not truly de-escalate tensions in Ukraine, the spring and summer are sure to see an increase in focus on US-Iran nuclear negotiations. Geopolitical risks will remain high prior to the conclusion of a deal and will materialize in kinetic attacks of various kinds. This thesis is confirmed by the alleged Israeli sabotage of Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility this month. The US Navy also fired warning shots at Iranian vessels staging provocations. Sporadic attacks in other parts of the region also continue to flare, most recently with an Iranian tanker getting hit by a drone at a Syrian oil terminal.2 The US and Iran are making progress in the Vienna talks toward rejoining the 2015 nuclear deal from which the US withdrew in 2018. Iran pledged to enrich uranium up to 60% but also said this move was reversible – like all its tentative violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) so far (Table 1). Iran also offered a prisoner swap with the US. Saudi Arabia appears resigned to a resumption of the JCPA that it cannot prevent, with crown prince Mohammed bin Salman offering diplomatic overtures to both the US and Iran. Table 1Iran’s Nuclear Program And Compliance With JCPA 2015 Still, the closer the US and Iran get to a deal the more its opponents will need to either take action or make preparations for the aftermath. The allegation that former US Secretary of State John Kerry’s shared Israeli military plans with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is an example of the kind of political brouhaha that will occur as different elements try to support and oppose the normalization of US-Iran ties. More importantly Israel will underscore its red line against nuclear weaponization. Previously Iran was set to reach “breakout” capability of uranium enrichment – a point at which it has enough fissile material to produce a nuclear device – as early as May. Due to sabotage at the Natanz facility the breakout period may have been pushed back to July.3 This compounds the significance of this summer as a deadline for negotiating a reduction in tensions. While the US may be prepared to fudge on Iran’s breakout capabilities, Israel will not, which means a market-relevant showdown should occur this summer before Israel backs down for fear of alienating the United States. Tit-for-tat attacks in May and June could cause negative surprises for oil supply. Then there will be a mad dash by the negotiators to agree to deal before the de facto August deadline, when Iran inaugurates a new president and it becomes much harder to resolve outstanding issues. Chart 6Iran Deal Priced Into Oil Markets? Hence our argument that geopolitics adds upside risk to oil prices in the first half of the year but downside risk in the second half. The market’s expectations seem already to account for this, based on the forward curve for Brent crude oil. The marginal impact of a reconstituted Iran nuclear deal on oil prices is slightly negative over the long run since a deal is more likely to be concluded than not and will open up Iran’s economy and oil exports to the world. However, our Commodity & Energy Strategy expects the Brent price to exceed expectations in the coming years, judging by supply and demand balances and global macro fundamentals (Chart 6). If an Iran deal becomes a fait accompli in July and August the Saudis could abandon their commitment to OPEC 2.0’s production discipline. The Russians and Saudis are not eager to return to a market share war after what happened in March 2020 but we cannot rule it out in the face of Iranian production. Thus we expect oil to be volatile. Oil producers also face the threat of green energy and US shale production which gives them more than one reason to keep up production and prevent prices from getting too lofty. Throughout the post-2015 geopolitical saga between the US and Iran, major incidents have caused an increase in the oil-to-gold ratio. The risk of oil supply disruption affected the price more than the flight to gold due to geopolitical or war risk. The trend generally corresponds with that of the copper-to-gold ratio, though copper-to-gold rose higher when growth boomed and oil outperformed when US-Iran tensions spiked in 2019. Today the copper-to-gold ratio is vastly outperforming the oil-to-gold on the back of the global recovery (Chart 7). This makes sense from the point of view of the likelihood of a US-Iran deal this year. But tensions prior to a deal will push up oil-to-gold in the near term. Chart 7Biden Passes Iran Test? Likely But Not A Done Deal Bottom Line: The US-Iran diplomacy is on track. This means geopolitical risk will escalate in May and June before a short-term or interim deal is agreed in July or August. Geopolitical risk stemming from US-Iran relations will subside thereafter, unless the deadline is missed. The forward curve has largely priced in the oil price downside except for the risk that OPEC 2.0 becomes dysfunctional again. We expect upside price surprises in the near term. Biden, China, And Our Australia GeoRisk Indicator Ostensibly the US and Russia are avoiding a war over Ukraine and the US and Iran are negotiating a return to the 2015 nuclear deal. Only US-China relations utterly lack clarity, with military maneuvering in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea and tensions simmering over the gamut of other disputes. Chart 8Biden Still Faces China Test The latest data on global military spending show not only that the US and China continue to build up their militaries but also that all of the regional allies – including Japan! – are bulking up defense spending (Chart 8). This is a substantial confirmation of the secular growth of geopolitical risk, specifically in reaction to China’s rise and US-China competition. The first round of US-China talks under Biden went awry but since then a basis has been laid for cooperation on climate change, with President Xi Jinping attending Biden’s virtual climate change summit (albeit with no bilateral summit between the two). If John Kerry is removed as climate czar over his Iranian controversy it will not have an impact other than to undermine American negotiators’ reliability. The deeper point is that climate is a narrow basis for US-China cooperation and it cannot remotely salvage the relationship if a broader strategic de-escalation is not agreed. Carbon emissions are more likely to become a cudgel with which the US and West pressure China to reform its economy faster. The Department of Defense is not slated to finish its comprehensive review of China policy until June but most US government departments are undertaking their own reviews and some of the conclusions will trickle out in May, whether through Washington’s actions or leaks to the press. Beijing could also take actions that upend the Biden administration’s assessment, such as with the Microsoft hack exposed earlier this year. The Biden administration will soon reveal more about how it intends to handle export controls and sanctions on China. For example, by May 19 the administration is slated to release a licensing process for companies concerned about US export controls on tech trade with China due to the Commerce Department’s interim rule on info tech supply chains. The Biden administration looks to be generally hawkish on China, a view that is now consensus. Any loosening of punitive measures would be a positive surprise for Chinese stocks and financial markets in general. There are other indications that China’s relationship with the West is not about to improve substantially – namely Australia. Australia has become a bellwether of China’s relations with the world. While the US’s defense commitments might be questionable with regard to some of China’s neighbors – namely Taiwan (Province of China) but also possibly South Korea and the Philippines – there can be little doubt that Australia, like Japan, is the US’s red line in the Pacific. Australian politics have been roiled over the past several years by the revelation of Chinese influence operations, state- or military-linked investments in Australia, and propaganda campaigns. A trade war erupted last year when Australia called for an investigation into the origins of COVID-19 and China’s handling of it. Most recently, Victoria state severed ties with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Despite the rise in Sino-Australian tensions, the economic relationship remains intact. China’s stimulus overweighed the impact of its punitive trade measures against Australia, both by bidding up commodity prices and keeping the bulk of Australia’s exports flowing (Chart 9). As much as China might wish to decouple from Australia, it cannot do so as long as it needs to maintain minimum growth rates for the sake of social stability and these growth rates require resources that Australia provides. For example, global iron ore production excluding Australia only makes up 80% of China’s total iron ore imports, which necessitates an ongoing dependency here (Chart 10). Brazil cannot make up the difference. Chart 9China-Australia Trade Amid Tensions Chart 10China Cannot Replace Australia This resource dependency does not necessarily reduce geopolitical tension, however, because it increases China’s supply insecurity and vulnerability to the US alliance. The US under Biden explicitly aims to restore its alliances and confront autocratic regimes. This puts Australia at the front lines of an open-ended global conflict. Chart 11Introducing: Australia GeoRisk Indicator (Smoothed) Our newly devised Australia GeoRisk Indicator illustrates the point well, as it has continued surging since the trade war with China first broke out last year (Chart 11). This indicator is based on the Australian dollar and its deviation from underlying macro variables that should determine its course. These variables are described in Appendix 1. If the Aussie weakens relative to these variables, then an Australian-specific risk premium is apparent. We ascribe that premium to politics and geopolitics writ large. A close examination of the risk indicator’s performance shows that it tracks well with Australia’s recent political history (Chart 12). Previous peaks in risk occurred when President Trump rose to power and Australia, like Canada, found itself beset by negative pressures from both the US and China. In particular, Trump threatened tariffs and the Australian government banned China’s Huawei from its 5G network. Today the rise in geopolitical risk stems almost exclusively from China. There is potential for it to roll over if Biden negotiates a reduction in tensions but that is a risk to our view (an upside risk for Australian and global equities). Chart 12Australian GeoRisk Indicator (Unsmoothed) What does this indicator portend for tradable Australian assets? As one would expect, Australian geopolitical risk moves inversely to the country’s equities, currency, and relative equity performance (Chart 13). Australian equities have risen on the back of global growth and the commodity boom despite the rise in geopolitical risk. But any further spike in risk could jeopardize this uptrend. Chart 13Australia Geopolitical Risk And Tradable Assets An even clearer inverse relationship emerges with the AUD-JPY exchange rate, a standard measure of risk-on / risk-off sentiment in itself. If geopolitical risk rises any further it should cause a reversal in the currency pair. Finally, Australian equities have not outperformed other developed markets excluding the US, which may be due to this elevated risk premium. Bottom Line: China is the most important of Biden’s foreign policy hurdles and unlike Russia and Iran there is no sign of a reduction in tension yet. Our Australian GeoRisk Indicator supports the point that risk remains very elevated in the near term. Moreover China’s credit deceleration is also negative for Australia. Cyclically, however, assuming that China does not overtighten policy, we take a constructive view on the Aussie and Australian equities. Biden’s Border Troubles Distract From Bullish Mexico Story The biggest criticism of Biden’s first 100 days has been his reduction in a range of enforcement measures on the southern border which has encouraged an overflow of immigrants. Customs and Border Patrol have seen a spike in “encounters” from a low point of around 17,000 in 2020 to about 170,000 today. The trend started last year but accelerated sharply after the election and had surpassed the 2019 peak of 144,000. Vice President Kamala Harris has been put in charge of managing the border crisis, both with Mexico and Central American states. She does not have much experience with foreign policy so this is her opportunity to learn on the job. She will not be able to accomplish much given that the Biden administration is unwilling to use punitive measures or deterrence and will not have large fiscal resources available for subsidizing the nations to the south. With the US economy hyper-charged, especially relative to its southern neighbors, the pace of immigration is unlikely to slacken. From a macro point of view the relevance is that the US is not substantially curtailing immigration – quite the opposite – which means that labor force growth will not deviate from its trend. What about Mexico itself? It is not likely that Harris will be able to engage on a broader range of issues with Mexico beyond immigration. As usual Mexico is beset with corruption, lawlessness, and instability. To these can be added the difficulties of the pandemic and vaccine rollout. Tourism and remittances are yet to recover. Cooperation with US federal agents against the drug cartels is deteriorating. Cartels control an estimated 40% of Mexican territory.4 Nevertheless, despite Mexico’s perennial problems, we hold a positive view on Mexican currency and risk assets. The argument rests on five points: Strong macro fundamentals: With China’s fiscal-and-credit impulse slowing sharply, and US stimulus accelerating, Mexico stands to benefit. Mexico has also run orthodox monetary and fiscal policies. It has a demographic tailwind, low wages, and low public debt. The stars are beginning to align for the country’s economy, according to our Emerging Markets Strategy. US and Canadian stimulus: The US and Canada have the second- and third-largest fiscal stimulus of all the major countries over the 2019-21 period, at 9% and 8% of GDP respectively. Mexico, with the new USMCA free trade deal in hand, will benefit. US protectionism fizzled: Even Republican senators blocked President Trump’s attempted tariffs on Mexico. Trump’s aggression resulted in the USMCA, a revised NAFTA, which both US political parties endorsed. Mexico is inured to US protectionism, at least for the short and medium term. Diversification from China: Mexico suffered the greatest opportunity cost from China’s rise as an offshore manufacturer and entrance to the World Trade Organization. Now that the US and other western countries are diversifying away from China, amid geopolitical tensions, Mexico stands to benefit. The US cannot eliminate its trade deficit due to its internal savings/investment imbalance but it can redistribute that trade deficit to countries that cannot compete with it for global hegemony. AMLO faces constraints: A risk factor stemmed from politics where a sweeping left-wing victory in 2018 threatened to introduce anti-market policies. President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known as AMLO) and his MORENA party gained a majority in both houses of the legislature. Their coalition has a two-thirds majority in the lower house (Chart 14). However, we pointed out that AMLO’s policies have not been radical and, more importantly, that the midterm election would likely constrain his power. Chart 14Mexico’s Midterm Election Looms These are all solid points but the last item faces a test in the upcoming midterm election. AMLO’s approval rating is strong, at 63%, putting him above all of his predecessors except one (Chart 15). AMLO’s approval has if anything benefited from the COVID-19 crisis despite Mexico’s inability to handle the medical challenge. He has promised to hold a referendum on his leadership in early 2022, more than halfway through his six-year term, and he is currently in good shape for that referendum. For now his popularity is helpful for his party, although he is not on the ballot in 2021 and MORENA’s support is well beneath his own. Chart 15AMLO’s Approval Fairly Strong MORENA’s support is holding at a 44% rate of popular support and its momentum has slightly improved since the pandemic began. However, MORENA’s lead over other parties is not nearly as strong as it was back in 2018 (Chart 16, top panel). The combined support of the two dominant center-right parties, the Institutional Revolutionary Party and the National Action Party, is almost equal to that of MORENA. And the two center-left parties, the Democratic Revolution Party and Citizen’s Movement, are part of the opposition coalition (Chart 16, bottom panel). The pandemic and economic crisis will motivate the opposition. Chart 16MORENA’s Support Holding Up Despite COVID Traditionally the president’s party loses seats in the midterm election (Table 2). Circumstances are different from the US, which also exhibits this trend, because Mexico has more political parties. A loss of seats from MORENA does not necessarily favor the establishment parties. Nevertheless opinion polling shows that about 45% of voters say they would rather see MORENA’s power “checked” compared to 41% who wish to see the party go on unopposed.5 Table 2Mexican President’s Party Tends To Lose Seats In Midterm Election While the ruling coalition may lose its super-majority, it is not a foregone conclusion that MORENA will lose its majority. Voters have decades of experience of the two dominant parties, both were discredited prior to 2018, and neither has recovered its reputation so quickly. The polling does not suggest that voters regret their decision to give the left wing a try. If anything recent polls slightly push against this idea. If MORENA surprises to the upside then AMLO’s capabilities would increase substantially in the second half of his term – he would have political capital and an improving economy. While the senate is not up for grabs in the midterm, MORENA has a narrow majority and controls a substantial 60% of seats when its allies are taken into account. In this scenario AMLO could pursue his attempts to increase the state’s role in key industries, like energy and power generation, at the expense of private investors. Even then the Supreme Court would continue to act as a check on the government. The 11-seat court is currently made up of five conservatives, two independents, and three liberal or left-leaning judges. A new member, Margarita Ríos Farjat, is close to the government, leaving the conservatives with a one-seat edge over the liberals and putting the two independents in the position of swing voters. Even if AMLO maintains control of the lower house, he will not be able to override the constitutional court, as he has threatened on occasion to do, without a super-majority in the senate. Bottom Line: AMLO will likely lose some ground in the lower house and thus suffer a check on his power. This will only confirm that Mexican political risk is not likely to derail positive underlying macro fundamentals. Continue to overweight Mexican equities relative to Brazilian. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix 1 The market is the greatest machine ever created for gauging the wisdom of the crowd and as such our Geopolitical Risk Indicators were not designed to predict political risk but to answer the question of whether and to what extent markets have priced that risk. Our Australian GeoRisk Indicator (see Chart 11-12 above) uses the same simple methodology used in our other indicators, which avoid the pitfall of regression-based models. We begin with a financial asset that has a daily frequency in price, in this case the AUD, and compare its movement against several fundamental factors – in this case global energy and base metal prices, global metals and mining stock prices, and the Chilean peso. Australia is a commodity-exporting country. It is the largest producer of iron ore and is among the largest producers of coal and natural gas. It is also a major trading partner for China. Due to the nature of its economy the Australian dollar moves with global metal and energy prices and the global metals and mining equity prices. Chile, another major commodity producer also moves with global metal prices, hence our inclusion of the peso in this indicator. The AUD has a high correlation with all of these assets, and if the changes in the value of the AUD lag or lead the changes in the value of these assets, the implication is that geopolitical risk unique to Australia is not priced by the market. We included the peso as Chile is not as affected as Australia by any conflict in the South China Sea or Northeast Asia, which means that a deviation of the AUD from CLP represents a unique East Asia Pacific risk. Our indicator captures the involvement of Australia in a few regional and international conflicts. The indicator climbed as Australia got involved in the East Timor emergency and declined as it exited. It continued declining even as Australia joined the US in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which showed that investors were unperturbed by faraway wars, while showing measurable concern in the smaller but closer Timorese conflict. Risks went up again as the nation erupted in labor protests as the Howard government made changes to the labor code. We see the market pricing higher risk again during the 2008 financial crisis, although it was modest and Australia escaped the crisis unscathed due to massive Chinese stimulus. Since then, investors have been climbing a wall of worry as they priced in Northeast Asia-related geopolitical risks. These started with the South Korean Cheonan sinking and continued with the Sino-Japanese clash over the Senkaku islands. They culminated with the Chinese ADIZ declaration in late 2013. In 2016, Australia was shocked again when Donald Trump was elected, and investor fears were evident when the details of Trump-Turnbull spat were made public. The risk indicator reached another peak during the trade wars between the US and the rest of the world. Investors were not worried about COVID-19 as Australia largely contained the pandemic, but the recent Australian-Chinese trade war pushed the risk indicator up, giving investors another wall of worry. If the Biden administration forces Australia into a democratic alliance in confrontation with autocratic China then this risk will persist for some time. Jesse Anak Kuri Associate Editor Jesse.Kuri@bcaresearch.com We Read (And Liked) ... The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, And The Fate Of Liberty This book is a sweeping review of the conditions of liberty essential to steering the world away from the Hobbesian war of all against all. In this unofficial sequel to the 2012 hit, Why Nations Fail: The Origins Of Power, Prosperity, And Poverty, Daron Acemoglu (Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and James A. Robinson (Professor of Global Conflict Studies at the University of Chicago) further explore their thesis that the existence and effectiveness of democratic institutions account for a nation’s general success or failure. The Narrow Corridor6 examines how liberty works. It is not “natural,” not widespread, “is rare in history and is rare today.” Only in peculiar circumstances have states managed to produce free societies. States have to walk a thin line to achieve liberty, passing through what the authors describe as a “narrow corridor.” To encourage freedom, states must be strong enough to enforce laws and provide public services yet also restrained in their actions and checked by a well-organized civil society. For example, from classical history, the Athenian constitutional reforms of Cleisthenes “were helpful for strengthening the political power of Athenian citizens while also battling the cage of norms.” That cage of norms is the informal body of customs replaced by state institutions. Those norms in turn “constrained what the state could do and how far state building could go,” providing a set of checks. Though somewhat fluid in its definition, liberty, as Acemoglu and Robinson show, is expressed differently under various “leviathans,” or states. For starters, the “Shackled Leviathan” is a government dedicated to upholding the rule of law, protecting the weak against the strong, and creating the conditions for broad-based economic opportunity. Meanwhile, the “Paper Leviathan” is a bureaucratic machine favoring the privileged class, serving as both a political and economic brake on development and yielding “fear, violence, and dominance for most of its citizens.” Other examples include: The “American Leviathan” which fails to deal properly with inequality and racial oppression, two enemies of liberty; and a “Despotic Leviathan,” which commands the economy and coerces political conformity – an example from modern China. Although the book indulges in too much jargon, it is provocative and its argument is convincing. The authors say that in most places and at most times, the strong have dominated the weak and human freedom has been quashed by force or by customs and norms. Either states have been too weak to protect individuals from these threats or states have been too strong for people to protect themselves from despotism. Importantly, many states believe that once liberty is achieved, it will remain the status quo. But the authors argue that to uphold liberty, state institutions have to evolve continuously as the nature of conflicts and needs of society change. Thus society's ability to keep state and rulers accountable must intensify in tandem with the capabilities of the state. This struggle between state and society becomes self-reinforcing, inducing both to develop a richer array of capacities just to keep moving forward along the corridor. Yet this struggle also underscores the fragile nature of liberty. It is built on a precarious balance between state and society; between economic, political, and social elites and common citizens; between institutions and norms. If one side of the balance gets too strong, as has often happened in history, liberty begins to wane. The authors central thesis is that the long-run success of states depends on the balance of power between state and society. If states are too strong, you end up with a “Despotic Leviathan” that is good for short-term economic growth but brittle and unstable over the long term. If society is too strong, the “Leviathan” is absent, and societies suffer under a pre-modern war of all against all. The ideal place to be is in the narrow corridor, under a shackled Leviathan that will grow state capacity and individual liberty simultaneously, thus leading to long-term economic growth. In the asset allocation process, investors should always consider the liberty of a state and its people, if a state’s institutions grossly favor the elite or the outright population, whether these institutions are weak or overbearing on society, and whether they signify a balance between interests across the population. Whether you are investing over a short or long horizon, returns can be significantly impacted in the absence of liberty or the excesses of liberty. There should be a preference among investors toward countries that exhibit a balance of power between state and society, setting up a better long-term investment environment, than if a balance of power did not exist. Guy Russell Research Analyst GuyR@bcaresearch.com GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Footnotes 1 "President Biden’s first 100 days as president fact-checked," BBC News, April 29, 2021, bbc.com. 2 "Oil tanker off Syrian coast hit in suspected drone attack," Al Jazeera, April 24, 2021, Aljazeera.com. 3 See Yaakov Lappin, "Natanz blast ‘likely took 5,000 centrifuges offline," Jewish News Syndicate, jns.org. 4 John Daniel Davidson, "Former US Ambassador To Mexico: Cartels Control Up To 40 Percent Of Mexican Territory," The Federalist, April 28, 2021, thefederalist.com. 5 See Alejandro Moreno, "Aprobación de AMLO se encuentra en 61% previo a campañas electorales," El Financiero, April 5, 2021, elfinanciero.com. 6 Penguin Press, New York, NY, 2019, 558 pages. Section III: Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights Chart of the WeekThe Bond Bear Mantle Being Passed To Canada? US Treasuries: The steady climb of US bond yields has left longer-maturity Treasuries in an oversold position. However, underlying growth and inflation momentum remains bond bearish and the Fed is likely to begin preparing the market later this year for a tapering of asset purchases in 2022. Maintain a medium-term defensive posture towards US Treasuries (below-benchmark duration and an underweight country allocation). Canada: The Canadian economy is gaining significant positive momentum, with an increased pace of vaccinations boosting optimism despite a third wave of COVID-19. We now see a growing risk of the Bank of Canada shifting to a less dovish policy stance sometime in the next few months, led by a tapering of its bond buying – perhaps even before the Fed does the same (Chart of the Week). Downgrade Canadian government bonds to underweight in global fixed income portfolios. US Treasuries: The Pause That Refreshes Chart 2UST Yield Uptrend Has Paused After leading the global government bond market selloff over the past several months, US Treasury yields have calmed down of late. The 10-year Treasury yield is down 14bps from the most recent peak of 1.74% reached March 31, while the 30-year Treasury yield is down 16bps from the peak of 2.45% reached on March 18. These moves have been concentrated in the real yield component, with inflation breakevens stable, as the 10yr and 30yr TIPS yields are down -15bps and -20bps, respectively, since the dates of those peaks in nominal yields (Chart 2). The drift lower in US yields has occurred in the face of an explosive surge in US economic data. Retail sales rose +9.8% in March compared to February and a staggering +27.7% on a year-over-year basis. The Fed’s regional manufacturing surveys showed very robust results for April, with the New York Empire State index hitting the highest level since October 2017 and the Philadelphia Fed headline index surging to a level last seen in 1973. This follows the very strong payrolls and ISM data for March that came out in early April. Yet the US economic data is not unanimously positive. The latest readings from the University of Michigan consumer confidence and NFIB small business optimism surveys both remained well below pre-pandemic peaks (Chart 3). Annual core CPI inflation only inched up 0.2 percentage points in March to 1.6%, a tepid move compared to the base effect driven surge that took year-over-year headline CPI inflation from 1.7% in February to 2.6%. Chart 3Some Mixed Messages From Recent US Data Chart 4Fewer Positive US Data Surprises The overall flow of US economic data has been disappointing versus elevated expectations, as evidenced by the almost uninterrupted decline in the Citigroup US data surprise index since peaking in July of 2020 (Chart 4). This indicator reliably correlated to the momentum of US Treasury yields prior to the COVID-19 outbreak and now, given the bullish growth combination of vaccine optimism and fiscal stimulus, the bond market’s focus is returning to how US data evolves versus expectations - and what that means for the Fed’s future moves on monetary policy. The most senior leadership at the Fed continues to send a consistent message on policy, with no rate hikes expected before 2024 and no hints at when the tapering of quantitative easing (QE) could begin. Yet some Fed officials have started to be a bit more vocal about their comfort level with the current accommodative policy stance and the associated risks to financial stability and inflation. Last week, Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan noted that he would like to see the Fed begin to withdraw its support for the economy “at the earliest opportunity”. St. Louis Fed President James Bullard was even more specific, noting that once the share of vaccinated Americans reaches “herd immunity” levels of 75-80%, it will be time for the Fed to debate tapering QE. At the moment, however, there is no need for the Fed to move preemptively. Our Fed Monitor - comprised of economic, inflation and financial market data that would signal pressure for the Fed to ease or tighten policy – is at a neutral level (Chart 5). Our 12-month Fed discounter, which measures the change in interest rates over the next year that is priced into the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve, is at 7bps, consistent with a stand-pat Fed. The latest read this month from the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers (and Survey of Market Participants) showed no change in the median longer-run expectation for the fed funds rate of 2.25% that has prevailed over the past year (middle panel) – despite a sharp recovery in US growth expectations. Chart 5UST Valuations A Bit Stretched The market pricing of the Fed’s next move is still relatively benign, with liftoff not expected until February 2023. This suggests that a pause in the trend of rising Treasury yields was essentially the market getting a bit ahead of itself in pricing in higher longer-term yields. This can be seen by looking at various valuation measures. For example, the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield now sits at 2.4%, which is at the high end of the range of longer-run fed funds rate expectations from the Primary Dealer survey. Also, various measures of the term premium on 10-year Treasury yields have returned to the above-zero levels last seen during the Fed’s 2016-2018 rate hiking cycle – even with the Fed not signaling any need to tighten policy in response to rising inflation expectations. Despite these signs of stretched near-term UST valuation, there is still no sign of major global bond investors being comfortable with increasing exposure to Treasuries. For example, despite yields on 10-year Treasuries (hedged into euros and yen) looking historically attractive compared to the near-zero yields on JGBs and sub-zero yields on German Bunds, the US Treasury’s capital flow data shows that foreign investors remain net sellers of Treasuries (Chart 6). It is possible that those foreign buyers need more evidence of a sustained decrease in US bond volatility before moving money into US Treasuries, where duration losses from higher US yields could wipe out the yield pickup from moving into US bonds. While valuations are a bit stretched for Treasuries, technicals appear very oversold. Both the deviation of the 10-year Treasury yield from its 200-day moving average, and the 6-month rate of change of the Bloomberg Barclays US Treasury total return index, are at levels seen only four previous times since 2010 (Chart 7). The JP Morgan client duration positioning surveys and the Market Vane Treasury sentiment index are also approaching post-2010 bearish extremes. It should be noted that both of those measures reached even more bearish extremes during the latter half of the Fed’s 2026-2018 tightening cycle, so there is potential for Treasury sentiment to become even more bearish once the Fed starts to tighten monetary policy – a scenario looking increasingly likely over the next 6-12 months. Chart 6No Foreign Bid For USTs (Yet) Chart 7USTs Are Technically Oversold We continue to expect a robust US economy and rising inflation to force the Fed to begin preparing the market in the latter half of 2021 for QE tapering in 2022, with the first rate hike of the next tightening cycle coming in late 2022. As that outcome appears largely consistent with current market pricing, amid oversold technicals, it is likely that Treasury yields will continue to move sideways over at least the next few weeks. Yet there is little to suggest that yields have peaked and are about to enter a new downtrend, given the accelerating pace of US vaccinations that is boosting optimism on an eventual end to the US leg of the pandemic. Stay defensive on US Treasury exposure, as the cyclical rise in yields is not over yet. Bottom Line: The steady climb of US bond yields has left longer-maturity Treasuries in an oversold position. However, underlying growth and inflation momentum remain bond bearish and the Fed is likely to begin preparing the market later this year for tapering of asset purchases in 2022. Maintain a medium-term defensive posture towards US Treasuries (below-benchmark duration and an underweight country allocation). Canada: Downgrade To Underweight In a Special Report published back in February along with our colleagues at BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy, we outlined the case for placing Canadian government debt on “downgrade watch” in global fixed income portfolios.1 We expected Canadian bond yields to continue rising along with the rise in global bond yields and, hence, we maintained our below-benchmark recommended duration exposure within Canada. Chart 8Canada: A High Beta Bond Market Once Again However, we concluded that it was too soon to shift to a full-blown underweight stance on Canadian government bonds with COVID-19 cases still raging through the country, the vaccination program off to a very slow start, and the Bank of Canada (BoC)’s QE program preventing Canadian bonds from returning to their usual “high-beta” status within developed economy bond markets. It now appears that we were too cautious on that front. Canadian government bonds have been one of the worst performing markets year-to-date within the Bloomberg Barclays Global Government bond index, delivering a local currency return of –4.1% - worse than the -3.5% return earned on US Treasuries so far in 2021.2 It is clear that the Canadian government bonds are once again a market more sensitive to global interest rate moves (Chart 8). In that February Special Report, we laid out three factors that could prompt the BoC to move to a less dovish, and more bond bearish, monetary policy stance faster than we expected. Much of that list has already started to come to fruition. 1) Good News On The Vaccine Rollout Sadly, Canada is suffering a third wave of COVID-19 cases that has resulted in the nation’s most populous province, Ontario, implementing the harshest lockdown yet seen during the pandemic. Yet the pace of vaccinations has also been rising with the share of Canadians receiving at least one jab is now 21% (Chart 9) - higher than that of the overall European Union (EU). Canada is now administering more daily vaccinations than both the UK and EU. The quickening pace of vaccinations is already providing a major lift to Canadian economic confidence. The Bloomberg Nanos consumer confidence index is at an all-time high (Chart 10), while the BoC’s Business Outlook Survey for the spring of 2021 was incredibly solid. Two-thirds of firms in that survey expect sales to exceed pre-pandemic levels, even with the latest upturn in COVID-19 cases. Chart 9Canadian Vaccine Rollout Improving Chart 10Booming Optimism The BoC’s Q1/2021 Consumer Survey showed similar levels of optimism. 74% of Canadians surveyed aged 25-54 are planning to engage in levels of social and economic activities equal to, or greater than, those seen prior to the pandemic once the majority is vaccinated (Chart 11). A net majority (18%) of those surveyed plan to spend more on the types of “high-touch” service spending unavailable during the pandemic, like travel, movies and dining in restaurants, once a majority is vaccinated (Chart 12). Chart 11Canadians Are Ready To Have Fun Once Again All of the Canadian survey data is sending a clear message: a faster vaccine rollout will leader to much faster spending by consumers and businesses. 2) Signs Of Financial Stability Risks Highly-indebted Canadians' love affair with real estate has always concerned the BoC. While a combination of cutting policy interest rates to zero and ramping up QE helped stabilize Canadian financial markets during the 2020 pandemic shock, it has also set off a new surge of housing speculation. According to the Bloomberg Nanos consumer survey, 67% of Canadians now expect house prices to appreciate. The demand for homes has given a lift to the Canadian economy through a surge in new housing starts (residential investment is 8% of Canadian real GDP), while pushing national house price inflation back above 10% (Chart 13). Chart 12A Surge In "High-Touch" Spending Awaits Canadian Herd Immunity As already indebted Canadian households pile on more debt to partake in another national home-buying party, the BoC must now concern itself with the potential financial stability risks from a too-rapid rise in housing values. Chart 13Yet Another Canadian Housing Boom In a recent speech, BoC Deputy Governor Toni Gravelle noted that the BoC had to introduce QE in 2020 to help fight COVID-related dysfunction across a variety of Canadian financial markets, including government bonds where liquidity dried up.3 Gravelle also noted that the BoC would begin to dial back QE once it was clear that financial markets no longer needed the support from QE. With Canadian equities booming and Canadian corporate bond spreads near the lowest levels of the past decade (Chart 14), it seems clear that the BoC can begin dialing back its government bond purchase program if it is no longer necessary and likely fueling another housing bubble. 3) Additional Large Fiscal Stimulus The governing Canadian Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau delivered a massive amount of fiscal stimulus to the pandemic-stricken Canadian economy in 2020. In the 2021/22 federal budget announced yesterday, another huge burst of spending was introduced, equal to C$101bn or 4.2% of Canadian GDP over the next three years. The spending was described as another COVID relief package, but included many long-term programs like national child care, raising the minimum wage and boosting green investments. According to the projections from the latest IMF World Fiscal Monitor, the “fiscal thrust” for Canada – the change in the cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance as a share of GDP - was projected to turn from a stimulus of +9% in 2020 to a drag of -2% in 2021 (Chart 15). The spending announced in the latest budget will effectively eliminate that drag for the next three years. This will provide a major lift to an economy already likely to see booming post-pandemic growth. Chart 14BoC QE No Longer Necessary Chart 15No Fiscal Drag Now Expected In 2021 Chart 16Canadian Real Yields Are Too Low Given the combination of expanding vaccinations, surging confidence, a renewed housing boom and soaring financial markets, it will be difficult for the BoC to maintain its current policy settings for much longer. This is a central bank that engaged in QE reluctantly last year and numerous BoC officials have stated – even in the worst days of the global pandemic - that they would begin to remove accommodation once it was no longer needed. Interest rate markets have already moved to price in a full-blown BoC tightening cycle. The Canadian OIS curve now discounts “liftoff” (a full 25bp rate hike) in October 2022, with 163bps of rate hikes priced in to the end of 2024 (Chart 16). The projected path of rates is below the BoC’s inflation forecasts to 2023. Thus, the implied Canadian real policy rate is expected to remain negative over the next two years – even though the BoC estimates that the neutral policy rate range is 1.75% to 2.75%, or -0.25% to +0.75% in real terms after subtracting the midpoint of the BoC’s 1-3% inflation target band. In other words, Canadian interest rate markets are vulnerable to any BoC shift in a less dovish direction, as seems increasingly likely sometime in the next few months. Our BoC Monitor is rapidly moving out of the “easier policy required” zone (Chart 17), and the rapid improvement in the Canadian employment situation suggests the BoC will be under more pressure to begin signaling a path towards withdrawing policy accommodation. This will start with an announced tapering of QE purchases, perhaps even ahead of any signals from the Fed that it is doing the same (Chart 18). This justifies a more cautious stance on Canadian fixed income exposure. Chart 17Downgrade Canadian Government Bonds To Underweight Chart 18Could The BoC Start Tapering Before The Fed? While a BoC tapering announcement before the Fed would likely put upward pressure on the Canadian dollar versus the US dollar, that would be something the BoC could live with if the economy was rapidly gaining strength – especially as our currency strategists believe the “loonie” to be undervalued. Thus, we are formally downgrading our strategic recommended allocation to Canadian government bonds to underweight (2 out of 5, see table on page 16). We are also maintaining our recommended below-benchmark duration exposure within dedicated Canadian bond portfolios. We are also cutting the allocation to Canada to underweight in our model bond portfolio and placing the proceeds in both, the US and core Europe (see pages 14-15). Bottom Line: The Canadian economy is gaining significant positive momentum, with an increased pace of vaccinations boosting optimism despite a third wave of COVID-19. We now see a growing risk that the Bank of Canada shifts to a less dovish policy stance sometime in the next few months, led by a tapering of its bond buying. Downgrade Canadian government bonds to underweight in global fixed income portfolios. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle?", dated February 12, 2021, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 That Canadian return is virtually the same after hedging into US dollars, hence that local currency return can be compared to the US dollar denominated Treasury market return. 3https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2021/03/market-stress-relief-role-bank-canadas-balance-sheet 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 Stronger global growth in the wake of continued and expected fiscal and monetary stimulus, and progress against COVID-19 are boosting oil demand assumptions by the major data suppliers for this year. We lifted our 2021 global demand estimate by 640k b/d to 98.25mm b/d, and assume OPEC 2.0 will make the necessary adjustments to keep Brent prices closer to $60/bbl than not, so as not to disrupt a fragile recovery. We are maintaining our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts at $65/bbl and $75/bbl. Commodity markets are ignoring the rising odds of armed conflict involving the US, Russia and China and their clients and allies. Russia has massed troops on Ukraine’s border and warned the US not to interfere. China has massed warships off the coast of the Philippines, and continues its incursions in Taiwan’s air-defense zone, keeping US forces on alert. Intentional or accidental engagement would spike oil prices. Two-way price risk abounds. In addition to the risk of armed hostilities, faster distribution of vaccines would accelerate recovery and boost prices above our forecasts. Downside risk of a resurgence in COVID-19-induced lockdowns remains, as rising death and hospitalization rates in Brazil, India and Europe attest (Chart of the Week). Feature Oil-demand estimates – ours included – are reviving in the wake of measurable progress in combating the COVID-19 pandemic in major economies, and an abundance of fiscal and monetary stimulus, particularly out of the US.1 On the back of higher IMF GDP projections, we lifted our 2021 global demand estimate by 640k b/d to 98.25mm b/d in this month’s balances. In our modeling, we assume OPEC 2.0 will make the necessary adjustments to keep Brent prices closer to $60/bbl than not, so as not to disrupt a fragile recovery. In an unusual turn of events, the early stages of the recovery in oil demand will be led by DM markets, which we proxy using OECD oil consumption (Chart 2). Thereafter, EM economies, re-take the growth lead next year and into 2023. Chart of the WeekCOVID-19 Deaths, Hospitalizations Threaten Global Recovery Chart 2DM Demand Surges This Year Absorbing OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity We continue to model OPEC 2.0, the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, as the dominant producer in the market. The growth we are expecting this year will absorb a significant share of OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity, most of which – ~ 6mm b/d of the ~ 8mm b/d – is to be found in KSA (Chart 3). The core producers’ spare capacity allows them to meet recovering demand faster than the US shale producers can mobilize rigs and crews and get new supply into gathering lines and on to main lines. We model the US shale producers as a price-taking cohort, who will produce whatever the market allows them to produce. After falling to 9.22mm b/d in 2020, we expect US production to recover to 9.56mm b/d this year, 10.65mm b/d in 2022, and 11.18mm in 2023 (Chart 4). Lower 48 production growth in the US will be led by the shales, which will account for ~ 80% of total US output each year. Chart 3Core OPEC 2.0 Spare Capacity Will Respond First To Higher Demand Chart 4Shale Is The Marginal Barrel In The Price Taking Cohort OPEC 2.0’s dominant position on the supply side allows it to capture economic rents before non-coalition producers, which will remain a disincentive to them until the spare capacity is exhausted. Thereafter, the price-taking cohort likely will fund much of its E+P activities out of retained earnings, given their limited ability to attract capital. Equity investors will continue to demand dividends that can be maintained and grown, or return of capital via share buybacks. This will restrain production growth to those firms that are profitable. We expect the OPEC 2.0 coalition’s production discipline will keep supply levels just below demand so that inventories continue to fall, just as they have done during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the demand destruction it caused (Chart 5). These modeling assumptions lead us to continue to expect supply and demand will continue to move toward balance into 2023 (Table 1). Chart 5Supply-Demand Balances in 2021 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) We continue to expect this balancing to induce persistent physical deficits, which will keep inventories falling into 2023 (Chart 6). As inventories are drawn, OPEC 2.0’s dominant-producer position will allow it to will keep the Brent and WTI forward curves backwardated (Chart 7).2 We are maintaining our 2022 and 2023 Brent forecasts at $65/bbl and $75/bbl (Chart 8). Chart 6OPEC 2.0 Policy Continues To Keep Supply Below Demand... Chart 7OECD Inventories Fall to 2023 Chart 8Brent Forecasts Rise As Global Economy Recovers Two-Way Price Risk Abounds Risks to our views abound on the upside and the downside. To the upside, the example of the UK and the US in mobilizing its distribution of vaccines is instructive. Both states got off to a rough start, particularly the US, which did not seem to have a strategy in place as recently as January. After the US kicked its procurement and distribution into high gear its vaccination rates soared and now appear to be on track to deliver a “normal” Fourth of July holiday in the US. The UK has begun its reopening this week. Both states are expected to achieve herd immunity in 3Q21.3 The EU, which mishandled its procurement and distribution likely benefits from lessons learned in the UK and US and achieves herd immunity in 4Q21, according to McKinsey’s research. Any acceleration in this timetable likely would lead to stronger growth and higher oil prices. The next big task for the global community will be making vaccines available to EM economies, particularly those in which the pandemic is accelerating and providing the ideal setting for mutations and the spread of variants that could become difficult to contain. The risk of a resurgence in large-scale COVID-19-induced lockdowns remains, as rising death and hospitalization rates in Brazil, India and Europe attest. Cry Havoc The other big upside risk we see is armed conflict involving the US, Russia, China and their clients and allies. Commodity markets are ignoring these risks at present. Even though they do not rise to the level of war, the odds of kinetic engagement – planes being shot down or ships engaging in battle in the South China Sea – are rising on a daily basis. This is not unexpected, as our colleagues in BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy pointed out recently.4 Indeed, our GPS service, led by Matt Gertken, warned the Biden administration would be tested in this manner by Russia and China from the get-go. Russia has massed troops on Ukraine’s border and warned the US not to interfere. China has massed warships off the coast of the Philippines, and continues its incursions in Taiwan’s air-defense zone, keeping US forces on alert. Political dialogue between the US and Russia and the US and China is increasingly vitriolic, with no sign of any leavening in the near future. Intentional or accidental engagement could let slip the dogs of war and spike oil prices briefly. Finally, OPEC 2.0 is going to have to accommodate the “official” return of Iran as a bona fide oil exporter, if, as we expect, it is able to reinstate its nuclear deal – i.e., the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – with Western states, which was abrogated by then-President Donald Trump in 2018. This may prove difficult, given our view that the oil-price collapse of 2014-16 was the result of the Saudis engineering a market-share war to tank prices, in an effort to deny Iran $100+ per-barrel prices that had prevailed between end-2010 and mid-2014. OPEC 2.0, particularly KSA, has not publicly involved itself in the US-Iran negotiations. However, it is worthwhile recalling that following the disastrous market-share war launched in 2014, KSA and the rest of OPEC 2.0 did accommodate Iran’s return to markets post-JCPOA. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Brent and WTI prices rallied sharply following the release of the EIA’s Weekly Petroleum Status Report showing a 9.1mm-barrel decline in US crude and product stocks for the week ended 9 April 2021. This was led by a huge draw in commercial crude and distillate inventories (5.9mm barrels and 2.1mm barrels, respectively). These draws came on the back of generally bullish global demand upgrades by the major data services (EIA, IEA and OPEC) over the past week. These assessments were supported by EIA data showing refined-product demand – i.e., “product supplied” – jumped 1.1mm b/d for the week ended 9 April. With vaccine distributions picking up steam, despite setbacks on the Johnson & Johnson jab, the storage draws and improved demand appear to have catalyze the move higher. Continued weakness in the USD also provided a tailwind, as did falling real interest rates in the US. Base Metals: Bullish Nickel prices fell earlier this week, as China’s official Xinhua news agency reported that Chinese Premier, Li Keqiang stressed the need to strengthen raw materials’ market regulation, amidst rising commodities prices, which been pressuring corporate financial performance (Chart 9). This statement came after China’s top economic advisor, Liu He also called for authorities to track commodities prices last week. Nickel prices fell by around $500/ ton earlier this week on this news, and were trading at $16,114.5/MT on the London Metals exchange as of Tuesday’s close. Other base metals were not affected by this news. Precious Metals: Bullish The US dollar and 10-year treasury yields fell after March US inflation data was released earlier this week. US consumer prices rose by the most in nearly nine years. The demand for an inflation hedge, coupled with the falling US dollar and treasury yields, which reduce the opportunity cost of purchasing gold, caused gold prices to rise (Chart 10). This uncertainty, coupled with the increasing inflationary pressures due to the US fiscal stimulus will increase demand for gold. Spot COMEX gold prices were trading at $1,746.20/oz as of Tuesday’s close. Ags/Softs: Neutral The USDA reported ending stocks of corn in the US stood at 1.35 billion bushels, well below market estimates of 1.39 billion and the 1.50 billion-bushel estimate by the Department last month, according to agriculture.com’s tally. Global corn stocks ended at 283.9mm MT vs a market estimate of 284.5mm MT and a Department estimate of 287.6mm MT. Chart 9Base Metals Are Being Bullish Chart 10Gold Prices To Rise Footnotes 1 Please see US-Russia Pipeline Standoff Could Push LNG Prices Higher, which we published on 8 April 2021 re the IMF’s latest forecast for global growth. Briefly, the Fund raised its growth expectations for this year and next to 6% and 4.4%, respectively, nearly a full percentage-point increase versus its January forecast update for 2021 2 A backwardated forward curve – prompt prices trading in excess of deferred prices – is the market’s way of signaling tightness. It means refiners of crude oil value crude availability right now over availability a year from now. This is exactly the same dynamic that drives an investor to pay $1 today for a dollar bill delivered tomorrow than for that same dollar bill delivered a year from now (that might only fetch 98 cents today, e.g.). 3 Please see When will the COVID-19 pandemic end?, published 26 March 2021 by McKinsey & Co. 4 Please see The Arsenal Of Democracy, a prescient analysis published 2 April 2021 by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy. The report notes the Biden administration “still faces early stress-tests on China/Taiwan, Russia, Iran, and even North Korea. Game theory helps explain why financial markets cannot ignore the 60% chance of a crisis in the Taiwan Strait. A full-fledged war is still low-probability, but Taiwan remains the world’s preeminent geopolitical risk.” Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades
Highlights Global Inflation: The case for maintaining a strategic overall allocation to inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) versus nominal government debt in dedicated global fixed income portfolios remains intact. Global growth expectations are accelerating as vaccinations increase, spare capacity is increasingly being absorbed across the developed world and central banks (led by the Federal Reserve) continue to show no inclination to tighten policy anytime soon. Inflation-Linked Bond Allocations: ILB valuations, however, are no longer uniformly cheap across all countries. Real yields are now moving in a less coordinated fashion as markets try to sort out the timing and pace of eventual future central bank tightening. We recommend shifting inflation-linked bond exposure from Canada to Germany, as both markets have similar valuations but the Bank of Canada is likely to turn less dovish well ahead of the ECB. Feature Chart of the WeekMarkets Remain Unconcerned About An Inflation Overshoot The global reflation trade over the past year has been highly rewarding to investors. Equity and credit markets worldwide have delivered outstanding returns on the back of highly stimulative monetary and fiscal policies implemented to deal with the negative economic effects of COVID-19. The global INflation trade has also paid off for investors in inflation-linked bonds (ILBs), which have outperformed nominal government debt across the developed economies dating back to last spring. The rising trend for global inflation breakevens remains intact, but is approaching some potential resistance points. A GDP-weighted average of 10-year breakeven inflation rates among the major developed economies is just shy of the 2% level that has represented a firm ceiling over the past decade (Chart of the Week). At the same time, the Bloomberg consensus forecast for headline CPI inflation for that same group of countries calls for an increase to only 1.8% by year-end before slowing to 1.7% in 2022. The latest forecasts from the IMF are similar, calling for headline inflation in the advanced economies to reach 1.6% in 2021 and 1.7% in 2022. If those modest forecasts for realized inflation come to fruition, then there is likely not much more upside in inflation breakevens, in aggregate. Country selection within the ILB universe will become more important over the next 6-12 months, as divergences in growth, realized inflation and central bank reactions will lead to a more heterogeneous path for global inflation breakevens. Underlying Inflation Backdrop Still Supports Rising Breakevens On a total return basis, ILBs enjoyed an extended run of success prior to this year. The cumulative total return of the asset class (in local currency terms) between 2012 and 2020 was a whopping 61% in the UK, 25% in Canada, 22% in the US and 21% in the euro area (aggregating the individual countries in the region with inflation-linked bonds). However, the absolute performance of ILBs has been more disperse on a country-by-country basis so far in 2021. ILBs are down year-to-date in Canada (-6.2%), the UK (-5.0%) and the US (-1.4%). On the other hand, euro area ILBs have delivered a positive total return of +0.5% so far in 2021. Real bond yields have climbed off the lows in the US, UK and, most notably, Canada where the overall index yield on the Bloomberg Barclays inflation-linked bond index is now in positive territory for the first time since before the pandemic started (Chart 2). At the same time, real bond yields have been drifting lower in the euro area. These real yield moves are related to shifting perceptions of central bank responses to the global growth upturn. For example, pricing in overnight index swap (OIS) curves have pulled forward the timing and pace of future interest rate increases in the US and Canada – i.e. real policy rates will become less negative - while there has been comparatively little change in euro zone rate expectations. While the absolute returns for ILBs have become less correlated, the relative trade between nominal and inflation-linked government bonds in all countries remains intact. 10-year breakeven inflation rates have been steadily climbing in the US and UK, while depressed Japanese breakevens have crept modestly higher (Chart 3). Even Europe, where inflation has remained subdued for years, has seen a significant shift higher in inflation breakevens. (Chart 4). The turn in breakevens has occurred alongside a major change in investor perceptions of future inflation, with surveys like the ZEW showing an overwhelming majority of financial professionals expecting higher inflation in the US, Europe and the UK. Chart 2A Fading Bull Market In Inflation-Linked Bonds Chart 3A Solid Recovery In Inflation Expectations Chart 4European Inflation Expectations Starting To Normalize Inflation forecasts have shifted in response to faster global growth expectations on the back of vaccine optimism and aggressive US fiscal stimulus. Yet inflation forecasts remain modest compared to the huge growth figures expected for 2021 and 2022. In its latest World Economic Outlook published last week, the IMF upgraded its global real GDP forecast to 6.0% for 2021 and 4.4% for 2022. This represented an increase of 0.5 and 0.4 percentage points, respectively, from the last set of forecasts published back in January. While growth upgrades occurred across all major developed and emerging economies, the biggest upgrades came in the US and Canada, for both 2021 and 2022. As a result, the IMF projects the output gap in both countries to turn positive over 2022 and 2023, and be nearly closed in core Europe, Australia and Japan (Chart 5). The IMF is not projecting a major inflation surge on the back of those upbeat growth forecasts, though. While headline inflation in the US is expected to climb to 2.3% in 2021 and 2.4% in 2022, the same measure in Canada is only projected to rise to 1.7% and 2.0% over the same two years. European inflation is expected to remain subdued, reaching only 1.4% this year and drifting back to 1.2% in 2022 despite real GDP growth averaging 4.1% over the two-year period. The IMF attributes the benign inflation outcomes, even in the face of booming growth rates and the rapid elimination of output gaps, to the structural disinflationary backdrop for so-called “non-cyclical” inflation (Chart 6). The IMF defines this as the components of inflation indices that are less sensitive to changes in aggregate demand. The IMF estimates show that the contribution from non-cyclical components to overall inflation in the advanced economies had fallen to essentially zero at the end of 2020. Chart 5A Big Expected Narrowing Of Output Gaps Chart 6Non-Cyclical Components Still Weighing On Global Inflation There is considerable upside risk for the more cyclical components of inflation that could result in inflation overshooting the IMF projections (Chart 7). Chart 7Cyclical Backdrop Is Inflationary For example, in the US, the Prices Paid component of the ISM Manufacturing index remains elevated at post-2008 highs, while the year-over-year change in the Producer Price Index soared to 6% in March. Across the Atlantic, the European Commission business and consumer surveys have shown a big surge in the net balance of respondents expecting higher inflation in manufacturing and retail trade. Previous weakness in the US dollar and surging commodity prices are playing a major role in this rapid pick-up in price pressures seen in many countries. Given the current backdrop of strong global growth expectations, with actual activity accelerating as vaccinations increase and more parts of the global economy reopen, inflation pressures are unlikely to fade in the near term. With realized inflation rates set to spike due to base effect comparisons to the pandemic-fueled collapse one year ago, the upward pressure on global ILB inflation breakevens will persist in the coming months – especially with breakevens still below levels that would prompt central banks to turn less dovish sooner than expected. Bottom Line: The case for maintaining a strategic overall allocation to inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) versus nominal government debt in dedicated global fixed income portfolios remains intact. Global growth expectations are accelerating as vaccinations increase, spare capacity is increasingly being absorbed across the developed world and central banks (led by the Federal Reserve) continue to show no inclination to tighten policy anytime soon. Assessing Value In Developed Market Inflation-Linked Bonds Chart 8USD Outlook Now More Mixed Although the current backdrop remains conducive to a continuation of the rising trend in global ILB breakevens, there are factors that could begin to slow the upward momentum. The future path of the US dollar is now a bit less certain (Chart 8). While the DXY index is still down 7.4% compared to a year ago, it is up 2.4% so far in 2021. Shorter-term real interest rate differentials between the US and the other major developed markets remain dollar-bearish. At the same time, longer-term real yield differentials have risen in favor of the US (middle panel). Furthermore, US growth is outperforming other developed economies, typically a dollar-bullish factor (bottom panel). Given the usual negative correlation between the US dollar and commodity prices, a loss of downside dollar momentum could also slow the pace of commodity price appreciation. This represents a risk to additional global ILB outperformance versus government bonds. Our GDP-weighted aggregate of 10-year ILB breakevens for the major developed economies is currently just under 2% - levels more consistent with oil prices over $80/bbl than the current price closer to $60/bbl (Chart 9). Chart 9Breakevens Consistent With Much Higher Oil Prices Given some of these uncertainties over the strength of any future inflationary push from a weaker US dollar and rising commodity prices, a broad overweight allocation to ILBs across the entire developed market universe may no longer generate the same strong returns versus nominal government bonds seen over the past year. With the “easy money” already having been made in the global breakeven widening trade, country allocation within the ILB universe has now become a more important dimension for bond investors to consider. To assess the relative attractiveness of individual ILB markets, we turn to a few valuation tools. Our regression-based valuation models for 10-year ILB breakevens in the US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia are all presented in the Appendix on pages 14-17. The two inputs into the model are the annual rate of change of the Brent oil price in local currency terms (as a measure of shorter-term inflation pressure) and a five-year moving average of realized headline CPI inflation (as a longer-term trend that provides a structural “anchor” for breakevens based off actual inflation outcomes). We first presented these models in April 2020, but we have now made a change in response to some of the unprecedented developments witnessed over the past year.1 Despite the strong visual correlation between the level of oil prices and inflation breakevens in most countries, we chose to use the annual growth of oil prices, rather than the level, in our breakeven models. This is because we found it more logical to compare a rate of change concept like inflation (and breakevens) to the rate of change of oil. However, the oil input into our breakeven models could produce nonsensical results during periods of extreme oil volatility that did not generate equivalent swings in breakeven inflation rates. A good example of that occurred in 2016, when the annual rate of change of the Brent oil price briefly surged toward 100%, yet 10-year US TIPS breakevens did not rise above 2% (Chart 10). An even bigger swing in oil prices has occurred over the past year, with oil prices up over +200% compared to the collapse in prices that occurred one year ago. Putting such an extreme move into our US model would have pushed the “fair value” level of the 10-year TIPS breakeven to 4% - an implausible outcome given that the 10-year breakeven has never risen to even as high as 3% in the entire 24-year history of the TIPS market. Chart 10Pass-Through Of Extreme Oil Moves Has Limits To deal with this problem, we have truncated the rate of change of oil prices in all our breakeven models at levels consistent with past peaks of breakevens. Going back to the US example, we have “capped” the rate of change of the Brent oil price at +40%, as past periods when oil price momentum was greater than 40% did not translate into any additional increase in TIPS breakevens. We then re-estimated the model using this truncated oil price series to generate fair value breakeven levels. Chart 11A Mixed Impact Of USD Moves On Non-US Breakevens We did this for all eight of our individual country breakeven models and in all cases, truncating extreme oil moves improved the accuracy of the model. Interestingly, we did not truncate the downside momentum of oil prices, as there was no obvious “cut-off” point where periods of collapsing oil prices did not generate equivalent declines in breakevens. Oil prices remain the most critical short-term variable to determine ILB breakeven valuation. While it is intuitive to think that currency movements should also have a meaningful impact on inflation (both realized and expected), the effect is not consistent across countries. For example, euro area breakevens appear to be positively correlated to the euro, while Japanese breakevens rarely rise without yen weakness (Chart 11). One other factor to consider when evaluating the value of breakevens is the possible existence of an inflation risk premium component during periods of higher uncertainty over future inflation. Such uncertainty could result in increased demand for ILBs from investors driving up the price of ILBs (thus lowering the real yield) relative to nominal yielding bonds, leading to wider breakevens that do not necessarily reflect a true rise in expected inflation. A simple way to measure such an inflation risk premium is to compare market-based breakevens to survey-based measures of inflation forecasts taken from sources like the Philadelphia Fed's Survey of Professional Forecasters and the Bank of Canada’s Survey Of Consumer Expectations. The assumption here is that the survey-based measures represent a more accurate (or, at least, less biased) depiction of underlying inflation expectations in an economy. We present these simple measures of inflation risk premia, comparing 10-year breakevens to survey-based measures of inflation expectations, in Chart 12 and Chart 13. Breakevens had been trading well below survey-based measures of inflation expectations after the negative pandemic growth shock in 2020 in all countries shown. After the steady climb in global breakevens seen over the past year, those gaps have largely disappeared, with breakevens now trading slightly above survey based inflation expectations in the US, UK and Australia. Chart 12No Major Inflation Risk Premia In These Markets Chart 13Canadian & Australian Breakevens In Line With Inflation Surveys Chart 14Assessing The Value Of Breakevens In Chart 14, we show the valuation residuals from our 10-year ILB breakeven models, along with two other measures of potential breakeven valuation: a) the distance between current breakeven levels and their most recent pre-pandemic peaks; and b) the difference between breakevens and the survey-based measures of inflation expectations. The model results show that breakevens are furthest below fair value in France, Japan and Germany, and the most above fair value in the UK and Australia. The message of undervaluation from our models is confirmed in the other two metrics for France, Japan, Germany, Canada and Italy. The overvaluation message for Australia is consistent across all three valuation metrics, while the signals are mixed for US and UK breakevens. In Japan, while the combined signals of all three valuation metrics indicate that breakevens are far too low, the very robust positive correlation between Japanese breakevens and the USD/JPY exchange rate implies that a bet on wider breakevens requires a much weaker yen. In Canada, while the 10-year breakeven does appear cheap, the real yield has also climbed faster than any of the other countries over the past several months as markets have rapidly repriced a more hawkish path for the Bank of Canada. Recent comments from Bank of Canada officials have leaned a bit hawkish, hinting at a possible taper of its bond-buying program, as the central bank appears unhappy with the renewed boom in Canadian housing values. An early tightening of monetary conditions would likely cap any additional upside in Canadian inflation breakevens. In Europe, the undervaluation of breakevens is more compelling. The ECB is likely to maintain its dovish policy settings into at least 2023, even if growth recovers later this year as increased vaccinations lead to the end of lockdowns. As shown earlier, European breakevens can continue to rise even if the euro is also appreciating versus the US dollar, especially if growth is recovering and oil prices are rising. Euro area breakevens are likely to continue drifting higher over at least the rest of 2021. Currently in our model bond portfolio, we have allocations to ILBs out of nominal government bonds in the US, France, Canada and Italy, with no allocations in Germany, Japan, Australia or the UK. After assessing our valuation measures, we are comfortable with the ILB exposure in France and Italy and lack of positions in the UK and Australia. We still see the upside case for US breakevens, with the economy reopening rapidly fueled further by fiscal policy, and the Fed likely to maintain its current highly dovish forward guidance until much later in 2021. We are reluctant to add exposure to Japanese ILBs, despite attractive valuations, as we are not convinced that USD/JPY has enough upside potential to help realize that undervaluation of Japanese breakevens. Thus, as a new change to our model portfolio this week that reflects our assessment of ILB breakeven valuations and risks, we are closing out the exposure to Canadian ILBs and adding a new position in German ILBs of equivalent size (see the model bond portfolio tables on pages 18-19). Bottom Line: ILB valuations are no longer uniformly cheap across all countries. Real yields are now moving in a less coordinated fashion as markets try to sort out the timing and pace of eventual future central bank tightening. We recommend shifting inflation-linked bond exposure from Canada to Germany, as both markets have similar valuations but the Bank of Canada is likely to turn less dovish well ahead of the ECB. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Global Inflation Expectations Are Now Too Low", dated April 28, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Chart A1Our US 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A2Our UK 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A3Our France 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A4Our Italy 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A5Our Japan 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A6Our Germany 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A7Our Canada 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Chart A8Our Australia 10-Year Inflation Breakeven Model Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns