Money/Credit/Debt
Highlights We have been cautious on asset allocation on a tactical (3-month) horizon for two months. The backdrop has deteriorated enough that we believe that caution is now warranted beyond a tactical horizon. Trim exposure to global stocks to benchmark and place the proceeds in cash on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. Government bonds remain at underweight. Our growth and earnings indicators are not flashing any warning signs. Indeed, while economic growth is peaking at the global level, it remains impressive in the U.S. Nonetheless, given the advanced stage of the economic cycle and the fact that a lot of good news is discounted in risk assets, we believe that it is better to be early and leave some money on the table than to be late. There are several risks that loom large enough to justify caution. First, the clash between monetary policy and the markets that we have been expecting is drawing closer. The FOMC may soon be forced to more aggressively tighten the monetary screws. The ECB signaled that it will push ahead with tapering. Perhaps even more important are escalating trade tensions, which could turn into a full-scale trade war with possible military implications. China has eased monetary policy slightly, but the broad thrust of past policy tightening will continue to weigh on growth. The RMB may be used to partially shield the economy from rising tariffs. Global bonds remain vulnerable. In the U.S., rate expectations in 2019 and beyond are still well below the path implied by a "gradual" tightening pace. In the Eurozone, there is also room for the discounted path of interest rates beyond the next year to move higher. Lighten up on both U.S. IG and HY corporate bonds, placing the proceeds at the short-end of the Treasury and Municipal bond curves. Duration should be kept short. We would consider upgrading if there is a meaningful correction in risk assets. More likely, however, we will shift to an outright bearish stance later this year or in early 2019 in anticipation of a global recession in 2020. Diverging growth momentum, along with the ongoing trade row, will continue to place upward pressure on the dollar. Shift to an overweight position in U.S. equities versus the other major markets on an unhedged basis. The risk of an oil price spike to the upside is rising. Feature The time to reduce risk-asset exposure on a cyclical horizon has arrived. Escalating risks and our assessment that equities and corporate bonds offered a poor risk/reward balance caused us to trim our tactical (3-month) allocation to risk assets to neutral two months ago. We left the 6-12 month cyclical view at overweight, because we expected to shed our near-term caution once the global slowdown ran its course, geopolitical risk calmed down a little, and EM assets stabilized. Nonetheless, the backdrop for global financial markets has deteriorated enough that we believe that caution is now warranted beyond a tactical horizon. It is not that there have been drastic changes in any particular area. Indeed, while profit growth is peaking at the global level, 12-month forward earnings continue to rise smartly in the major markets (Chart I-1). In the U.S., our corporate pricing power indicator is still climbing, forward earnings estimates have "gone vertical", and the net earnings revisions ratio is elevated (Chart I-2). The negative impact of this year's dollar strength on corporate profits will be trounced by robust sales activity. The U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders and growth appears likely to remain well above-trend in the second half of the year. Chart I-1Forward EPS Estimates Still Rising Chart I-2Some Mixed Signals For Stocks This economic and profit backdrop might make the timing of our downgrade seem odd at first glance. Nevertheless, valuations and the advanced stage of the economic and profit cycle mean that it is prudent to focus on capital preservation and be quicker to take profits than would be the case early in the cycle. BCA has recommended above-benchmark allocations to equities and corporate bonds for most of the time since mid-2009. There are several risks that loom large enough to justify taking some money off the table. One of our main themes for the year, set out in the 2018 BCA Outlook, is that markets are on a collision course with policy. This is particularly the case in the U.S. Real interest rates and monetary conditions still appear to be supportive by historical norms, but this cycle has been anything but normal and the level of real interest rates that constitute "neutral" today is highly uncertain. The fact that broad money growth has slowed in absolute terms and relative to nominal GDP is a worrying sign (Chart I-3). Dollar-based global liquidity is waning based on our proxy measure, which is particularly ominous for EM assets (bottom panel). Chart I-3Liquidity Conditions Are Deteriorating Moreover, our Equity Scorecard remained at 'two' in June, which is below a level that is consistent with positive excess returns in the equity market (please see the Overview section of the May 2018 Bank Credit Analyst). Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay indicator reveals that investment flows are no longer favoring stocks over bonds in the U.S. (Chart I-2). Perhaps even more importantly for the near term are the escalating trade tensions, which could turn into a full trade war with possible military implications (see below). These and other risks suggest to us that the period of "prudent caution" may extend well into the 6-12 month cyclical horizon. For those investors not already at neutral on equities and corporate bonds, we recommend trimming exposure and placing the proceeds in cash rather than bonds. Fixed-income remains at underweight. There are risks on both sides for government bonds, but we believe that it is more likely that yields rise than fall. Trade Woes: Not Yet At Peak Pessimism The Trump Administration upped the ante in June by announcing plans to impose tariffs on another $200 billion of Chinese exports to the U.S., as well as to restrict Chinese investment in the U.S. We would expect China to retaliate if this is implemented but, at that point, China's proportionate response would cover more goods than the entire range of U.S. imports. Retaliation will therefore have to occur elsewhere. Tariffs are bad enough, but our geopolitical team flags the risk that trade tensions spill over into the South China Sea and other areas of strategic disagreement. The South China Sea or Taiwan could produce market-moving "black swan" geopolitical events this year or next.1 The Trump Administration has also launched an investigation into the auto industry, and has threatened to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Congress will likely push hard to save the agreement because it is important for so many U.S. companies, especially those with supply chains that criss-cross the borders with Canada and Mexico. Still, Trump has the option of triggering the six-month withdrawal period as a negotiating tactic to increase the pressure on the two trading partners. This would really rattle equity markets. Many believe that Trump will back away from his aggressive negotiating tactics if the U.S. stock market begins to feel pain. We would not bet on that. The President's popularity is high, and has not been overly correlated with the stock market. Moreover, blue collar workers, Trump's main support base, do not own many stocks. The implication is that the President will be willing to take risks with the equity market in order to score points with his base heading into the mid-term elections. The bottom line is that we do not believe that investors have seen "peak pessimism" on the trade front. A trade war would result in a lot of stranded capital, forcing investors to mark down the value of the companies in their portfolios. Can Trump Reduce The Trade Gap? One of the Administration's stated goals is to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. It is certainly fair to ask China to pay for the intellectual property it takes from other countries. Broadly speaking, rectifying unfair trade practices is always a good idea. However, erecting a higher tariff wall alone is unlikely to either shrink the trade gap or boost U.S. economic growth, especially given that other countries are retaliating in kind. During the 2016 election campaign, then-candidate Trump proposed a 35% and 45% across-the-board tariff on Mexican and Chinese imports, respectively. We estimated at the time that, with full retaliation, this policy would reduce U.S. real GDP by 1.2% over two years, not including any knock-on effects to global business confidence.2 Cancelling NAFTA would be much worse. The bottom line is that nobody wins a trade war. Moreover, the trade deficit is more likely to swell than deflate in the coming years, irrespective of U.S. trade policy action. The flip side of the U.S. external deficit is an excess of domestic investment over domestic savings. The latter is set to shrivel given the pending federal budget deficit blowout and the fact that the household savings rate continues to decline and is close to all-time lows. This, together with an expected acceleration in business capital spending, pretty much guarantees that the U.S. external deficit will swell in the next few years. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 18, discusses the consequences of the deteriorating long-term fiscal outlook and the associated "twin deficits" problem. We conclude that a market riot point will be required to change current trends. But even if disaster is avoided for a few more years, the dollar will ultimately be a casualty. In the near term, however, trade friction and the decoupling of U.S. from global growth should continue to support the dollar. We highlighted the divergence in growth momentum in last month's Overview. Fiscal policy is pumping up the U.S. economy, while trade woes are souring confidence abroad. Coincident and leading economic indicators confirm that the divergence will continue for at least the near term (Chart I-4). Policy Puts We do not believe that the current 'soft patch' in the Eurozone and Japanese economies will turn into anything worse over the next year. We are much more concerned with the Chinese economy. May data on industrial production, retail sales, and fixed asset investment all disappointed. Property prices in tier 1 cities are down year-over-year. Our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index, a widely followed measure of economic activity, is in a clear downtrend (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Growth Divergence To Continue Chart I-5China's Growth Slowdown The authorities will likely provide fresh stimulus if the trade war intensifies. Indeed, recent statements from the Ministry of Finance suggest that planned fiscal spending for the year will be accelerated/brought forward, and the PBOC has already made a targeted cut to the reserve requirement ratio and reduced the relending rate for small company loans. Chart I-6U.S. Small Business Is Ecstatic However, the bar for a fresh round of material policy stimulus is higher today than it was in the past; elevated debt levels, excess capacity in some parts of the industrial sector, and worries about pollution all limit the extent to which the authorities can respond with monetary or fiscal stimulus. The most effective way for China to retaliate to rising U.S. tariffs is to weaken the RMB, but this too could be quite disruptive for financial markets and, thus, provides another reason for global investors to scale back on risk. Similarly, the bar is also rising in terms of the Fed's willingness to come to the rescue. Policymakers have signaled that they will not mind an overshoot of the inflation target. Nonetheless, the facts that core PCE inflation is closing in on 2% and that unemployment rate is well below the Fed's estimate of full employment, mean that the FOMC will be slower to jump to stock market's defense were there to be a market swoon. Small business owners are particularly bullish at the moment because of Trump's regulatory, fiscal and tax policies. The NFIB survey revealed that confidence soared to the second highest level in the survey's 45-year history (Chart I-6). Expansion plans are also the most robust in survey history. With the output gap effectively closed, increasing pressure on resource utilization should translate into faster wage gains and higher inflation. This was also quite apparent in the latest NFIB survey. Reports of higher compensation hit an all-time high as firms struggle to find qualified workers, and a growing proportion of small businesses plan to increase selling prices. Despite the signs of a very tight labor market, the FOMC's inconsistent macro projection remained in place in June. Policymakers expect continued above-trend growth for 2018-2020, but they forecast a flat jobless rate and core inflation at 3.5% and 2.1%, respectively. If the Fed is right on growth, then the overshoot of inflation will surely be larger than officials are currently expecting. Risk assets will come under downward pressure when the Fed is forced to shift into a higher gear and actively target slower economic growth. We expect the Fed to hike more aggressively next year than is discounted, and lift the consensus 'dot' for the neutral Fed funds rate from the current 2¾-3% range. Bonds remain vulnerable to this shift because rate expectations in 2019 and beyond are still well below the path implied by a "gradual" quarter-point-per-meeting tightening pace (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Market Expectations For Fed Funds Are Below A ''Gradual'' Pace At a minimum, rising inflation pressures have narrowed the Fed's room to maneuver, which means that the "Fed Put" is less of a market support. Italy Backs Away From The Brink Last month we flagged Italy as a reason to avoid risk in financial markets, but we are less concerned today. We believe that Italy will eventually cause more volatility in global financial markets, but for the short-term it appears that this risk has faded. The reason is that the M5S-Lega coalition has already punted on three of its most populist promises: wholesale change to retirement reforms, a flat tax of 15%, and universal basic income. The back-of-the-envelope cost of these three proposals is €100bn, which would easily blow out Italy's budget deficit to 7% of GDP. There was also no mention of issuing government IOUs that would create a sort of "parallel currency" in the country. If this is wrong and there is another blowout in Italian government spreads, investors should fade any resulting contagion to the peripheral countries. Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain - the hardest-hit economies in 2010 - have undertaken significant fiscal adjustment and, unlike Italy, have closed a lot of the competitiveness gap relative to Germany. Spread widening in these countries related to troubles in Italy should be considered a buying opportunity.3 ECB: Tapering To Continue The ECB looked through the recent Italian political turmoil and struck a confident tone in the June press conference. President Draghi described the first quarter cooling of the euro area economy as a soft patch driven mainly by external demand. We agree with the ECB President; in last month's Overview we highlighted several factors that had provided extra lift to the Eurozone economy last year. These tailwinds are now fading, but we believe that growth is simply returning to a more sustainable, but still above-trend, pace. That said, rising trade tensions are a wildcard to the economic outlook, especially because of Europe's elevated trade sensitivity. Draghi provided greater clarity on the outlook for asset purchases and interest rates. The pace of monthly purchases will slow from the current €30bn to €15bn in the final three months of year and then come to a complete end (Chart I-8). On interest rates, the ECB expects rates to remain at current levels "at least through the summer of 2019". This means that September 2019 could be the earliest timing for the ECB to deliver the first rate hike. Chart I-8ECB Balance Sheet Will Soon Stop Growing We agree with this assessment on the timing of the first rate increase. It will likely take that long for inflation to move into the 1½-2% range, and for long-term inflation expectations to surpass 2%. These thresholds are consistent with the ECB's previous rate hike cycles. Still, there is room for the discounted path of interest rates beyond the next year to move higher as Eurozone economic slack is absorbed. The number of months to the first rate hike discounted in the market has also moved too far out (24 months). Thus, we expect that bunds will contribute to upward pressure on global yields. Bond investors should be underweight the Eurozone within global fixed income portfolios. In contrast, we recommend overweight positions in U.K. gilts because market expectations for the Bank of England (BoE) are too hawkish. Investors should fade the central bank's assertion that policymakers now have a lower interest rate threshold for beginning to shrink the balance sheet. The knee-jerk rally in the pound and gilt selloff in June will not last. First, the OECD's leading economic indicator remains in a downtrend, warning that the U.K. economy faces downside risks (Chart I-9). Second, Brexit uncertainty will only increase into the March 2019 deadline. Prime Minister May managed to win a key parliamentary vote on the Withdrawal Bill in late June, but the Tories will face more tests ahead, including a vote on the Trade and Customs Bill. The fault lines between the hard and soft Brexiteers within the Tory party could bring an early end to May's government. Either May could be replaced with a hard Brexit prime minister, such as Brexit Secretary David Davis, or the U.K. could face a new general election. The latter implies the prospect of a Labour-led government. Admittedly, this will ensure a soft Brexit, but Jeremy Corbyn would almost surely herald far-left economic policies that will dampen business sentiment. As a result, we believe that the BoE is sidelined for the remainder of the year, which will keep a lid on gilt yields and sterling. Corporate Bonds: Poor Value And Rising Leverage Our newfound caution for equities on a 6-12 month investment horizon carries over to the corporate bond space. Corporate balance sheets have been deteriorating since 2015 Q1 based on our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM). The first quarter's improvement in the CHM simply reflected the tax cuts and thus does not represent a change in trend (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Fade BoE Hawkish Talk Chart I-10Q1 Improvement In Corporate ##br##Health To Reverse The improvement was concentrated in the components of the Monitor that use after-tax cash flows, and as such they were influenced by the sharp decline in the corporate tax rate. Profit margins, for example, increased from 25.8% to 26.4% on an after-tax basis in Q1 (Chart I-10, panel 2), but would have fallen to 25.5% if the effective corporate tax rate had remained the same as in 2017 Q4. As the effective corporate tax rate levels-off around its new lower level (bottom panel), last quarter's improvement in the Corporate Health Monitor will start to unwind. More importantly, the corporate sector has been leveraging aggressively, as we highlighted in our special reports that analysed company-level data from the U.S. and the Eurozone.4 We highlighted that investors and rating agencies are not too concerned about leverage at the moment, but that will change when growth slows. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to plunge to new historic lows (Charts I-11A and I-11B). Chart I-11ACorporate Leverage Will Come ##br##Back To Haunt Bondholders Chart I-11BCorporate Leverage Will Come ##br##Back To Haunt Bondholders Both U.S. investment grade (IG) and high-yield (HY) corporates are expensive, but not at an extreme, based on the 12-month breakeven spread.5 However, both IG and HY are actually extremely overvalued once we adjust for gross leverage (Chart I-12). Chart I-12U.S. Leverage - Adjusted ##br##Corporate Bond Valuation We have highlighted several other indicators to watch to time the exit from corporate bonds. These include long-term inflation expectations (when the 10-year TIPS inflation breakeven reaches the 2.3-2.5% range), bank lending standards for C&I loans, the slope of the yield curve, and real short-term interest rates or monetary conditions. While monetary conditions have tightened, the overall message from these indicators as a group is that it is still somewhat early to expect rising corporate defaults and sustained spread widening. That said, we have also emphasized that it is very late in the credit cycle and return expectations are quite low. Excess returns historically have been modest when the U.S. 3-month/10-year yield curve slope has been in the 0-50 basis point range. Similar to our logic behind trimming our equity exposure, the expected excess return from corporate bonds no longer justifies the risk. We recommend lightening up on both U.S. IG and HY corporate bonds, moving to benchmark and placing the proceeds at the short-end of the Treasury and Municipal bond curves. Duration should be kept short. Also downgrade EM hard currency sovereign and corporate debt to maximum underweight. We are already underweight on Eurozone corporates within European fixed-income portfolios due to the pending end to the ECB QE program. Conclusions The political situation in Italy and tensions vis-à-vis North Korea appear to be less of a potential landmine for investors, at least for the next year. Nonetheless, the risks have not diminished overall - they have simply rotated into other areas such as international trade. It is also worrying that the FOMC will have to become more aggressive in toning down the labor market. What makes the asset allocation decision especially difficult is that the economic and earnings backdrop in the U.S. is currently constructive for risk assets. Nonetheless, recessions and bear markets are always difficult to spot in real time. Given the advanced stage of the economic cycle and the fact that a lot of good news is discounted in risk assets, we believe that it is better to be early and leave some money on the table than to be late and go over the cliff. This does not mean that we will recommend a neutral allocation to risk assets for the remainder of the economic expansion. We would consider upgrading if there is a meaningful correction in equity and corporate bond prices at a time when our growth indicators remain positive. More likely, however, we will shift to an outright bearish stance on risk assets later this year or in early 2019 in anticipation of global recession in 2020. The divergence in growth momentum between the U.S. and the rest of the major economies, along with the ongoing trade row, will continue to place upward pressure on the dollar. We envision the following pecking order from weakest to strongest currency versus the greenback: dollar bloc and EM commodity currencies, non-commodity sensitive EM currencies, the euro and yen. The Canadian dollar is an exception; we are bullish versus the U.S. dollar beyond a short-term horizon due to expected Bank of Canada rate hikes. Tightening financial conditions are likely to culminate in a crisis in one or more EM countries; as a share of GDP, exports and international reserves, U.S. dollar debt is at levels not seen in over 15 years. Slowing Chinese growth and trade tensions just add to the risk in this space. The recent upturn in base metal prices will likely reverse if we are correct on the Chinese growth outlook. Oil is a different story, despite our bullish dollar view. OPEC 2.0 - the oil-producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia - agreed in June to raise oil output by 1 million bpd. The coalition aims to increase production to compensate for an over-compliance of previous deals to trim output, as well as production losses due to lack of investment and maintenance (Chart I-13). The bulk of the losses reflect the free-fall in Venezuela's output. Our oil experts believe that OPEC 2.0 does not have much spare capacity to lift output. Meanwhile, the trend decline in production by non-OPEC 2.0 states is being magnified by unplanned outages in places like Nigeria, Libya and Canada. While U.S. shale producers can be expected to grow their output, infrastructure constraints - chiefly insufficient pipeline capacity to take all of the crude that can be produced in the Permian Basin to market - will continue to limit growth in the short-term. In the face of robust demand, the risk to oil prices thus remains to the upside. A stronger dollar will somewhat undermine the profits of U.S. multinationals. U.S. equities also appear a little expensive versus Europe and Japan based on our composite valuation indicators (Chart I-14). Nonetheless, the sector composition of the U.S. stock market is more defensive than it is elsewhere and relative economic growth will favor the U.S. market. On balance, we no longer believe that euro area and Japanese equities will outperform the U.S. in local currency terms. Overweight the U.S. market on an unhedged basis. Chart I-13Oil Production Outlook Chart I-14Composite Equity Valuation Indicators Consistent with our shift in broad asset allocation this month, we have adjusted our global equity sector allocation to be more defensive. Materials and Industrials were downgraded to underweight, while Healthcare and Telecoms were upgraded (Consumer Staples was already overweight). Financials was downgraded to benchmark because the flattening term structure is expected to pressure net interest margins. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 28, 2018 Next Report: July 26, 2018 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?," March 28, 2017 and "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Overview, dated December 2016, Box I-1. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap?," June 13, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, March 2018 and June 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 The breakeven spread is the amount of spread widening that would have to occur over 12 months for corporates to underperform Treasurys. We focus on the breakeven spread to adjust for changes in the average duration of the index over time. II. U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus when the economy is already at full employment. The budget deficit is on track to surpass 6% of GDP in a few years. It would likely peak above 8% in the case of a recession. The alarming long-term U.S. fiscal outlook is well known, but it has just become far worse. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. The federal government will be spilling far more red ink over the next decade than during any economic expansion phase since the 1940s. The debt/GDP ratio could surpass the previous peak set during WWII within 12 years. Shockingly large budget deficits in the past have sparked some attempt in Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. Factors that explain the political shift include disappointing income growth, income inequality, and rising political clout for Millennials, Hispanics and the elderly. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change over the next decade, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions necessary. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, there are costs: in the long-term, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. Profligacy: (Noun) Unconstrained by convention or morality. Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted before in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus at a time when the economy is already at full employment. Investors are celebrating the growth-positive aspects of the new fiscal tailwind at the moment, but it may wind up generating a party that is followed by a hangover as the Fed is forced to lean hard against the resulting inflationary pressures. Moreover, even in the absence of a recession, the federal government will likely be spilling far more red ink than during any economic expansion since the 1940s (Chart II-1). What are the long-term implications of this macro experiment? Will the U.S. continue to easily fund large and sustained budget deficits? Chart II-1U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period Historically, shockingly large budget deficits sparked some attempt by Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, we argue in this Special Report that there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. On The Bright Side The Trump tax cuts, the immediate expensing of capital spending and a lighter regulatory touch have stirred animal spirits in the U.S. The Administration's trade policies are a source of concern, but CEO confidence is generally high. The NFIB survey highlights that small business owners are almost euphoric regarding the outlook. The IMF estimates that the tax cuts and less restrictive spending caps will provide a direct fiscal thrust of 0.8% in 2018 and 0.9% in 2019 (Chart II-2). The overall impact on the economy over the next 12-18 months could be larger to the extent that business leaders follow through on their newfound bullishness and ramp up capital spending. Chart II-2Lots Of Fiscal Stimulus In 2018 And 2019 Fiscal policy is a clear positive for stocks and other risk assets in the near term, as long as inflation is slow to respond. In addition to the near-term boost, there will be longer-term benefits from the 2017 tax act. Various provisions of the act affect the long-run productive potential of the U.S. economy, by promoting increases in investment and labor supply. Corporate tax cuts and the full expensing of business capital outlays should permanently increase the nation's capital stock relative to what it otherwise would be, leading to a slightly faster trend pace of productivity growth. Similarly, lower income taxes are projected to encourage more people to enter the workforce or to work longer hours. The CBO estimates that the tax act will boost the level of potential real GDP by 0.9% by the middle of the next decade. This may not sound like much, but it translates into almost a million extra jobs. The supply-side benefits of the 2017 tax act are therefore meaningful. Unfortunately, given the lack of offsetting spending cuts, it comes at the cost of a dramatically worse medium- and long-term outlook for government debt. The CBO estimates that the recent changes in fiscal policy will cumulatively add $1.7 trillion to the federal government's debt pile, relative to the previous baseline (Chart II-3). The annual deficit is projected to surpass $1 trillion in 2020, and peak as a share of GDP at 5.4% in 2022. Federal government debt held by the private sector will rise from 76% this year to 96% in 2028 in this scenario. Chart II-3Comparing To The Reagan Era The budget situation begins to look better after 2020 in the CBO's baseline forecast because a raft of "temporary provisions" are assumed to sunset as per current law, including some of the personal tax cuts and deductions included in the 2017 tax package. As is usually the case, the vast majority of these provisions are likely to be extended. The CBO performed an alternative scenario in which it extends the temporary provisions and grows the spending caps at the rate of inflation after 2020. In this more realistic scenario, the deficit reaches 7% of GDP by 2028 and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio hits 105% (Chart II-3). Moreover, there will undoubtedly be a recession sometime in the next five years. Even a mild downturn, on par with the early 1990s, could inflate the budget deficit to 8% or more of GDP. The Demographic Time Bomb Chart II-4The Withering Support Ratio The pressure that the aging population will place on federal coffers over the medium term is well known, but it is worth reviewing in light of Washington's new attitude toward deficit financing. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. In 1970, there were 5.4 people between the ages of 20 and 64 for every person 65 or older. That ratio has since dropped to 4 and will be down to 2.6 within the next 20 years (Chart II-4). Spending on entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Security and government pensions) is on an unsustainable trajectory (Charts II-5 and II-6). In fiscal 2017, these programs absorbed 76% of federal revenues and the CBO estimates that this will rise to almost 100% by 2028, absent any change in law. If we also include net interest costs, total mandatory spending1 is projected to exceed total federal government revenues as early as next year, meaning that deficit financing will be required for all discretionary spending. Chart II-5Entitlements Will Explode ##br##Mandatory Spending Chart II-6All Discretionary Spending ##br##To Be Deficit Financed? The CBO last published a multi-decade outlook in 2017 (Chart II-7). The Federal debt/GDP ratio was projected to reach 150% by 2047. If we adjust this for the new (higher) starting point in 2028 provided by the CBO's alternative scenario, the debt/GDP ratio would top 164% in 2047. Chart II-7An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation To put this into perspective, the demands of WWII swelled the federal debt/GDP ratio to 106% in 1946, the highest on record going back to the early 1700s (Chart II-8). The debt ratio could rocket past that level before 2030, even in the absence of a recession. Chart II-8U.S. Debt In Historical Context These extremely long-term projections are only meant to be suggestive. A lot of things can happen in the coming years that could make the trajectory better or even worse. But the point is that current levels of taxation are insufficient to fund entitlements in their current form in the long run. Chart II-9 shows that outlays as a share of GDP have persistently exceeded revenues since the mid-1970s, except for a brief period during the Clinton Administration. The gap is set to widen over the coming decade. Something will have to give. Chart II-9U.S. Outlays And Revenues Forget Starving The Beast "Starve the Beast" refers to the idea that the size of government can be restrained through a low-tax regime that spurs growth and pressures Congress to cut spending and control the budget deficit. It has been the mantra of Republicans since the Reagan era. The 1981 Reagan tax cuts included an across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates, taking the top rate down from 70% to 50%. Corporate taxes were slashed by $150 billion over a 5-year period and tax rates were indexed for inflation, among other changes. It was not surprising that the budget deficit subsequently ballooned. Outrage grew among fiscal conservatives, but Congress spent the next few years passing laws to reverse the loss of revenues, rather than aggressively attacking the spending side. Today, Congressional fiscal hawks are in retreat and the Republican Party under President Donald Trump is not as fiscally conservative as it once was. This trend reflects the pull toward the center of the economic policy spectrum in response to a shift to the left among voters. BCA's political strategists have highlighted that this is the "median voter theory" (MVT) in action.2 The MVT posits that parties and politicians will approximate the policy choices of the median voter in order to win an election or stay in power. Every U.S. presidential election involves candidates making a mad dash to the most popularly appealing positions. President Trump exhibited this process when he ran in the Republican primary on a platform of increased infrastructure spending and zero cuts to "entitlement" spending. The Great Financial Crisis, disappointingly slow growth, stagnating middle class incomes and the widening income distribution have resulted in a leftward shift among voters on economic issues. Adding to the shift is the rising political clout of the Millennial generation, which generally favors more government involvement in the economy and will become the major voting block as it ages in the 2020s. There also are important changes underway in the ethnic composition of the electorate. The rising proportion of Hispanic voters will on balance favor the Democrats, according to voting trends (Chart II-10). A previous Special Report by Peter Berezin, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, predicted that Texas will become a swing state in as little as a decade and a solid Democrat state by 2030.3 Chart II-10The Proportion Of Minority Voters Set To Grow President Trump's shift to the left on economic policy helped him to out-flank Clinton in the election, particularly in the Rust Belt, where his protectionist and anti-austerity message resonated. Even his anti-immigration appeal is mostly based on economic reasoning - i.e. jobs, rather than cultural factors. Trump has admitted that he is not all that concerned about taking the country deeper into hock. The Republican rank-and-file has generally gone along with Trump's agenda because he has delivered traditional Republican tax cuts and continues to rate highly among his supporters (his approval is around 90% among Republicans). Fiscal hawks within the GOP have been forced to the sidelines while Trump and moderate Republicans have passed bipartisan spending increases with Democratic assistance. Where's The Outrage? Chart II-11Entitlements Are Popular* The implication is that, unlike the Reagan years, we do not expect there will be a strong political force capable of leading a fight against budget deficits. After a decade of disappointing income growth, voters are in no mood for tax hikes. On the spending side, health care and pensions are still politically untouchable. A recent study by the Pew Research Center confirms that only a very small percentage of Americans of either political stripe would agree with cuts to spending on education, Medicare, Social Security, defense, infrastructure, veterans or anti-terrorism efforts (Chart II-11). It is therefore no surprise that a populist such as Trump has promised to defend entitlement programs. Moreover, the graying of America will make it increasingly difficult for politicians to tame the entitlement beast. An aging population might generally favor the GOP, but it will also solidify opposition towards cutting Medicare and Social Security. As for defense, U.S. military spending was 3.3% of GDP and almost 15% of total spending in 2017 (Chart II-12). Congress recently lifted the spending cap for defense expenditures, but it is still projected to fall as a share of total government spending and GDP in the coming years. It is conceivable that Congress could eventually trim the defense budget even faster, but spending is already low by historical standards and it is hard to see any future Congress gutting the military at a time when the global challenge from China and Russia is rising. Indeed, given the geopolitical atmosphere of great power competition, defense spending is more likely to rise. Chart II-12What's Left To Cut? So, what is left to cut? If entitlements and defense are off the table, that leaves non-defense discretionary spending as the sacrificial lamb. This category includes spending by the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Justice, State and Veteran Affairs. Such spending has already declined sharply during the past several decades (Chart II-12). Non-defense discretionary spending amounted to $610 billion in 2017, which is only 15.3% of total federal spending. To put this into perspective, cutting every last cent of non-defense discretionary spending by 2022 would still leave a budget deficit of about 2½% of GDP. And it would be political suicide. The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice and Veterans Affairs account for more than half of non-defense discretionary spending. But these programs are very popular among voters. And, at only 1.3% of total spending, eliminating all foreign aid won't make much difference. Either President Trump or Vice-President Mike Pence will be the GOP presidential candidate in 2020. Pence could be more fiscally conservative than Trump, but Congress is unlikely to remain GOP-controlled through 2024. Similarly, it is difficult to see the Democrats making more than a token effort to rein in the deficit if the party is in charge after 2020. Perhaps they will raise taxes on the rich and push the corporate rate back up a bit, but voters will probably not favor a full reversal of the Trump tax cuts. Democrats will not tackle entitlements either. In other words, we can forget about "starving the beast" as a viable option no matter which party is in power. There will be little appetite for fiscal austerity in the U.S. through to the mid-2020s at a minimum. International Comparison This all places the U.S. out of sync with other major industrialized countries, where structural budget deficits have been tamed in most cases and are expected to remain so according to the IMF's latest projections (Chart II-13). The U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit is projected to be almost 7% of GDP in 2019, by far the highest among other industrialized countries except for Norway. Spain and Italy are expected to have relatively small structural deficits of 2½% and 0.8%, respectively, next year. Greece is running a small structural surplus! Including all levels of government, the IMF estimates that the U.S. general government gross debt/GDP ratio is projected to be well above that of the U.K., France, Germany, Spain and Portugal in 2023 (Chart II-14). It is expected to be on par with Italy at that time, although the newly-installed populist government there is likely to negotiate a loosening of the fiscal rules with Brussels, leading to higher debt levels than the IMF currently expects. The implication is that the U.S. government appears destined to become one of the most indebted in the developed world. Chart II-13U.S. Budget Deficit Stands Out Chart II-14International Debt Comparison The Fiscal Tipping Point Investors are not yet worried about the path of U.S. fiscal policy; the yield curve is quite flat, CDS spreads on U.S. Treasurys have not moved and the dollar is still overvalued by most traditional measures. The challenge is timing when a fiscally-induced crisis might occur. A warning bell does not ring when government debt or deficits reach certain levels. Fiscal trends generally do not suddenly spiral out of control - it is a gradual and insidious process reflected in multi-year deficits and slowly accumulating debt burdens. Eventually, a tipping point is reached where the only solution is drastic policy shifts or in extreme cases, default. Along the way, there are a number of signs that fiscal trends are entering dangerous territory. The relevance of the various signs will be different for each country, reflecting, among other things, the depth and structure of the financial system, the soundness of the economy, the dependence on foreign capital, and the asset preferences of domestic investors. Some key signs of building fiscal stress are given in Box II-1. None of the factors in Box II-1 appear to be a threat at the moment for the U.S. Moreover, comparisons with other countries that have hit the debt wall in the past are not that helpful because the U.S. is a special case. It has a huge economy and has political and military clout. The dollar is the world's main reserve currency and the country is able to borrow in its own currency. This suggests that the U.S. will be able to "get away with" its borrowing habit for longer than other countries have in the past. At the same time, financial markets are fickle and, even with hindsight, it not always clear why investors switch from acceptance to bearishness about a particular state of affairs. BOX II-1 Traditional Signs Of An Approaching Debt Crisis Government deficits absorb a rising share of net private savings, leaving little for new investment. Interest payments account for an increasingly large share of government revenues, squeezing out discretionary spending and requiring tough budget action merely to stop the deficit from rising. The government exhausts its ability to raise tax burdens. Traditional sources of debt finance dry up, requiring alternative funding strategies. Fears of inflation and/or default lead to a rising risk premium on interest rates and/ or a falling exchange rate. Political shifts occur as governments get blamed for eroding living standards, high taxes, and continued pressure to cut spending. The Costs Of Fiscal Profligacy Even if the U.S. is not near a fiscal tipping point, this does not mean that massive debt accumulation is costless: Interest Costs: Spending 3% of GDP on servicing the federal government's debt load over the next decade is not a disaster. Nonetheless, it does reduce the tax dollars available to fund entitlements or investing in infrastructure. Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Lawmakers would have less flexibility to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected events, such as natural disasters or recessions. As noted above, a recession in 2020 could generate a federal deficit of more than 8% of GDP. In that case, Congress may feel constrained in supporting the economy with even temporary fiscal stimulus. National Savings: Because government borrowing reduces national savings, then either capital spending must assume a smaller share of the economy or the U.S. must borrow more from abroad. Most likely it will be some combination of both. Crowding Out: If global savings are not in plentiful supply, then the additional U.S. debt issuance will place upward pressure on domestic interest rates and thereby "crowd out" business capital spending. This would reduce the nation's capital stock, leading to lower growth in productivity and living standards than would otherwise be the case. The CBO estimates that the positive impact on the capital stock from the changes to the corporate tax structure will overwhelm the negative impact from higher interest rates over the next decade. Nonetheless, the crowding out effect may dominate over a longer-time horizon. Academic studies suggest that every percentage point rise in the government's debt-to-GDP ratio adds 2-3 basis points to the equilibrium level of bond yields. If this is correct, then a rise in the U.S. ratio of 25 percentage points over the next decade in the CBO's baseline would lift equilibrium long-term bond yields by a meaningful 50-75 basis points. Much depends, however, on global savings backdrop at the time. External Trade Gap: If global savings are plentiful, then it may not take much of a rise in U.S. interest rates to attract the necessary foreign inflows to fund both the higher U.S. federal deficit and the private sector's borrowing requirements. Of course, this implies a larger current account deficit and a faster accumulation of foreign IO Us. Twin Deficits The U.S. has run a current account deficit for most of the past 40 years, which has cumulated into a rising stock of foreign-owned debt. The Net International Investment Position (NIIP) is the difference between the stock of foreign assets held by U.S. residents and the stock of U.S. assets held by foreign investors. The NIIP has fallen increasingly into the red over the past few decades, reaching 40% of GDP today (Chart II-15). The current account deficit was 2.4% at the end of 2017, matching the post-Lehman average. Nonetheless, this deficit is set to worsen as increased domestic demand related to the fiscal stimulus is partly satisfied via higher imports. Chart II-15Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position We estimate that a two percentage point rise in the budget deficit relative to the baseline could add a percentage point or more to the current account deficit, taking it up close to 4% of GDP. Upward pressure on the external deficit will also be accentuated in the next few years to the extent that the U.S. business sector ramps up capital spending. The implication is that the NIIP will fall deeper into negative territory at an even faster pace. A 2% current account deficit would be roughly consistent with stabilization in the NIIP/GDP ratio. But a 4% deficit would cause the NIIP to deteriorate to almost 80% of GDP by 2040 (Chart II-15). The sustainability of the U.S. twin deficits has been an area of intense debate among academics and market practitioners for many years. The U.S. has been able to get away with the twin deficits for so long in part because of the dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. The critical role of the dollar in international transactions underpins global demand for the currency. This has allowed the U.S. to issue most of its debt obligations in U.S. dollars, forcing the currency risk onto foreign investors. The worry is that foreign investors will at some point begin to question the desirability of an oversized exposure to U.S. assets within their global portfolios. We argued in our April 2018 Special Report 4 that the U.S. situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar and Treasury bond prices are about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns about the unsustainability of the current account deficit. Even though the NIIP/GDP ratio will continue to deteriorate in the coming years, it does not appear that the U.S. is close to the point where foreign investors would begin to seriously question America's ability or willingness to service its debt. That said, the "twin deficits" and the downward trend in U.S. productivity relative to the rest of the world will ensure that the underlying long-term trend in the dollar will remain down (Chart II-16).5 Chart II-16Structural Drivers Of The U.S. Dollar Conclusions The long-term U.S. fiscal outlook was dire even before the Great Recession and the associated shift to the political left in America. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change before the mid-2020s, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions. Given demographic trends, it appears more likely that taxes will rise than entitlements cut. We do not foresee a crisis occurring in the next few years. Nonetheless, arguing that the U.S. fiscal situation is sustainable for the foreseeable future does not mean that it is desirable. There will be costs associated with current fiscal trends, even on a relatively short 5-10 year horizon. Interest costs will mushroom, potentially crowding out government spending in other areas. U.S. government debt has already been downgraded by S&P to AA+ in 2013, and the other two main rating agencies are likely to follow suit during the next recession as the deficit balloons to 8% or more. Investors may begin to demand a risk premium in order to entice them to continually raise their exposure to U.S. government bonds in their portfolios. Taxes will eventually have to rise to service the government debt, and some capital spending will be crowded out, both of which will undermine the economy's growth potential. Finally, the dollar will also be weaker than it otherwise would be in the long-term, representing an erosion in America's standard of living because everything imported is more expensive. Could Japan offer a roadmap for the U.S.? The Bank of Japan has effectively monetized 43% of the JGB market and has control over yields, at least out to the 10-year maturity. Moreover, Japan has enjoyed a "free lunch" so far because monetization has not resulted in inflation. The reason that Japan has enjoyed a free lunch is that it has suffered from a chronic lack of demand and excess savings in the private sector. The government has persistently run a deficit and fiscally stimulated the economy in order to offset insufficient demand in the private sector. The Bank of Japan purchased bonds and drove short-term interest rates down to zero. These policies have made very slow progress in eradicating lingering deflationary economic forces. However, if animal spirits in the business sector perk up, then inflation could make a comeback unless the policy stimulus is dialed down in a timely manner. In other words, the BoJ-financed fiscal "free lunch" should disappear at some point. The U.S. is in a very different situation. There is no lack of aggregate demand or excessive savings in the private sector. The economy is at full employment, and thus persistent budget deficits should turn into inflation much more quickly than was the case in Japan. In other words, the U.S. is unlikely to enjoy much of a "free lunch", whether the Fed monetizes the debt or not. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Mandatory spending refers to entitlements; that is, government expenditure programs that are required by current law. These include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, government pensions and other smaller programs. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing The Median Voter Theory," June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "America's Fiscal Fortune: Leave Your Wallet On The Way Out," June 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed?," April, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 In the near term, fiscal stimulus and increased business capital spending will likely boost the dollar. But this effect on the dollar will reverse in the long-term. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The divergence between the U.S. corporate earnings data and our equity-related indicators continued in June. Forward earnings estimates continue to climb at an impressive pace. The U.S. net revisions ratio pulled back a little, but remains well above the zero line. Moreover, positive earnings surprises continue to trounce negative surprises. That said, the earnings upgrades are partly due to the Trump tax cuts, which are still being reflected in analysts' estimates. Second, some of our indicators are warning that there are clouds on the horizon. Our Monetary Indicator has fallen to levels that are low by historical standards, which is a negative sign for risk assets. This partly reflects the slowdown in growth in the monetary aggregates (see the Overview section). Our Equity Technical Indicator is threatening to dip below the zero line, which would be a clear 'sell' signal. Our Equity Valuation Indicator is flirting with our threshold of overvaluation, at +1 standard deviations. This is not bearish on its own, but valuation does provide information on the downside risks when the correction finally occurs. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. has rolled over, although this hasn't yet occurred for Japan and the Eurozone. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. This indicator suggests that flows into the U.S. stock market are waning. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on a 'sell' signal in June. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. The U.S. 10-year Treasury is slightly on the inexpensive side and our Composite Technical Indicator suggests that the bond has still not worked off oversold conditions. This suggests that the consolidation period has further to run, although we still expect yields to move higher over the remainder of the year. The dollar is expensive on a PPP basis, but is not yet overbought. The long-term outlook for the dollar is down, but it has more upside in the next 6-12 months. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst
While copper prices remain comfortably within the $2.90 to $3.30/lb range they've occupied this year, the rising threat of a Sino - U.S. trade war spilling into the global trading system, along with slowing credit and monetary stimulus in China, will continue to roil copper markets. Refined copper prices - like most commodities - are highly sensitive to the level of world copper demand and EM imports, particularly out of Asia, which are closely tied to income. EM income growth is expected to remain strong; however, a global trade war, or a significant slowing in trade that reduces investment in EM markets and stymies income growth will be bearish for copper prices. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Going into tomorrow's OPEC 2.0 meeting in Vienna, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia apparently were divided on how much crude oil production needed to be restored to the market. Increases of as little as 300k to 600k b/d and as much as 1.5mm b/d are flying around the market in the lead-up to the meeting.1 Meanwhile, China threatened to impose tariffs on oil imports from the U.S. if President Trump goes ahead with additional tariffs. The increased Sino - American acrimony on trade issues raises the likelihood China will significantly increase oil imports from Iran, in our estimation, which will exacerbate tensions even further. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper treatment and refining charges (TC/RCs) soared at the end of last week following the closure of India's largest smelter. The Metal Bulletin TC/RC index went to an average of $85/MT at the end of last week, up from $82.25/MT. The pricing service also reported China's primary copper-smelting capacity is lower in June due to environmental constraints. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices dropped below $1,300/oz following the FOMC meeting last week, as Fed officials - e.g., Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan - nodded toward a fourth rate hike this year, even though his base case remained at three. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grains and beans are down as much as 10% in the past week, on the back of additional tariffs announced by the Trump administration - 10% on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. The new tariffs were a retaliatory move by the administration, and represent an escalation of tit-for-tat measures by both sides. Feature Chart of the WeekMajor Drivers of Copper Prices Still Supportive Rising EM incomes and expanding world trade volumes, particularly EM imports, have supported base metals prices for the past two years. This was partly aided by expansionary fiscal and monetary policy in China, the world's largest base-metals market, in 2016, which reversed overly restrictive monetary and fiscal policy in the two years prior. For the most part, these supportive underpinnings are still in place for EM commodity growth over the next two years (Chart of the Week). However, their stability increasingly is being threatened by rising Sino - American trade tensions, and the limited room for credit and fiscal expansion in China.2 Global Copper Demand And Trade In its most recent update of global growth, the World Bank is expecting the rate of growth globally to level off this year and next. However, the Bank expects income growth in EM and developing economies - the growth engines of commodity demand - to go from 4.3% last year to 4.5% this year, and 4.7% next year. EM growth will be dominated by South Asia (Chart 2).3 EM GDP growth is of particular importance to commodity markets, since this constitutes the bulk of commodity demand growth generally, particularly in base metals and oil. For the largest EM economies, the income elasticity of demand for copper is 0.70, meaning a 1% increase in income leads to a 0.70% increase in copper consumption. The Bank notes, "The seven largest emerging markets (EM7) accounted for almost all the increase in global consumption of metals, and two-thirds of the increase in energy consumption" over the past 20 years.4 In what the Bank refers to as Low Income Countries (LICs) - a grouping of smaller economies loaded with commodity producers - GDP is expected to grow 6% p.a. on average over the 2018 - 2020 period. Chart 2World Bank Expects Solid EM Growth EM GDP growth fuels copper demand. Since 2000, a 1% increase in global copper consumption ex-China translates into an almost 2% increase in high-grade refined copper prices, based on results of our modeling. When we replace ex-China demand with China, we see a 1% increase in China's consumption translates into a 0.75% increase in high-grade copper prices over the 2000 - 2018 interval. China's growth is expected to slow going forward, in the wake of a managed slowdown, and due to the fact that, as its economy evolves, more of its growth will come from services and consumer demand, which are less commodity intensive. GDP growth also fuels trade, and vice versa. The Bank estimates the income elasticity of trade averaged 1.5% from 2000 - 07, and 1.2% from 2010 - 17, meaning a 1% increase in income has led to a roughly 1.4% growth in trade over this period. In our modeling, we've found a 1% increase in EM trade volumes translates into a 1.3% increase in high-grade copper prices, an elasticity in line with post-GFC trade growth. The other key variable in our modeling is the broad trade-weighted USD, which remains a highly important variable for copper prices. In both our global copper-demand and EM import volume models for copper prices, the level of the USD is an important explanatory variable - a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWIB translates into ~ 3% decrease (increase) in copper prices since 2000 in our estimates.5 Tight Credit Conditions In China Can Weigh On Copper ... We've been expecting China's managed slowdown in 2H18 to be offset by strong global demand, which, all else equal, would keep copper demand fairly stable.6 While we still do not expect a hard landing in China, the slowdown we've been expecting is showing up in weaker industrial production prints, disappointing retail sales in May, and most significantly, regulatory and liquidity tightening weighing on money and credit. Chinese demand makes up ~ 50% of global metal consumption, these markets would be especially vulnerable in the case of a significant slowdown. The fear of a more serious slump is founded on tighter financial conditions restricting capital spending, and GDP growth. Granger causality tests to determine the direction of causation between Chinese monetary variables and copper prices point to causality running from de-trended levels of all four measures of money and credit to copper prices (Table 1).7 Table 1Chinese Credit And Copper Prices: Evidence Of Causality Furthermore, y/y changes in copper prices are more highly correlated with monetary variables expressed in terms of de-trended levels, than with those same variables expressed as y/y growth rates, or impulses (Chart 3). Across the four credit and money measures, this expression yields an average correlation coefficient of 0.56, compared with 0.38 and 0.37 when expressed as y/y growth rates and impulses as a percent of GDP, respectively. Our modeling also indicates that it generally takes two to three quarters for the full effect of a change in China's credit conditions to be transmitted to copper markets. When we restrict the sample size to the period from 2010 to now we get similar results to our longer intervals (Chart 4). However monetary variables are more highly correlated with copper prices in the shorter sample. Chart 3Chinese Credit Leads Copper Prices By 3 Quarters... Chart 4...A Slightly Longer Lead Time Since 2010 Correlations in the period since 2010 average 0.61, 0.57, and 0.45 for the de-trended levels, y/y growth rates, and impulses, respectively. This can be put down to the fact that China's role as a demand market for copper has been steadily growing over this period. Given that between 2000 and 2017, China's share of global copper demand swelled from 12% to 50%, it is only natural that the impact of its domestic economy on global copper prices also increased (Chart 5). Furthermore, the time lag between Chinese monetary variables and copper markets in the more recent sample increased slightly, with money and credit variables leading prices by 9-10 months, compared to 6-8 months in the full sample. Chart 5China's Growing Role In Copper Markets Bottom Line: De-trended Chinese money and credit variables statistically cause, and are correlated with, y/y changes in copper prices. While these relationships have generally strengthened with China's growing role in the demand side of global copper markets, rolling correlations highlight that there are also extended periods of weak correlations, suggesting fundamental factors can overwhelm the impact of China's credit environment on global copper markets, as has been the case for the past two years. ...But Other Factors Can Take Over In estimating the effect of China's money and credit conditions on copper markets, we find that the relationship can be dominated by supply - demand fundamentals, and overall global macro conditions. More specifically, we find that in periods where DM equity markets outperform EM equity markets, the coefficients in our models with y/y copper prices as the dependent variable are on average 13% lower than the full sample period (Chart 6). Similarly, in periods where EM outperforms DM, the models' credit coefficients are on average 15% higher than the full sample period.8 Our modeling indicates the pre-2005 period as well as the post-2015 intervals as periods during which strong copper demand from growing DM economies weakened the long-term relationship between Chinese money and credit variables and copper prices. Given our expectation that DM demand will remain supportive, this will, to some extent, offset the negative implications of the deteriorating credit environment in China on copper demand and prices. Similarly, in periods characterized by backwardated copper markets, the magnitude of the impact of Chinese money and credit variables on copper prices is on average 35% lower than the full sample (Chart 7). On the other hand, when the copper market is in contango, the magnitude of the impact of Chinese financial variables is on average 13% higher than the full sample period. This highlights the importance of physical fundamentals, and the fact that in cases where they deviate from the direction of the Chinese credit environment - such as during a supply shock - the physical fundamentals weaken historical correlation relationships. Chart 6Credit-Copper Relationship Weakens When DM Outperforms EM ... Chart 7... And When Markets Are Backwardated To rank the top explanatory financial variables in terms of their effect on the evolution of copper prices, we estimated regression models with monetary variables, along with the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar, and world excluding China copper demand as independent variables (Table 2). Table 2USD Usually Dominates Copper's Evolution The results, which can be interpreted as the y/y percentage point (pp) change in copper prices from a one y/y pp increase in each of the three explanatory variables, indicate that Chinese credit has a similar effect as a one y/y pp increase in world excluding China copper demand, a not-unexpected result, given the rest of the world accounts for 50% of demand. On the other hand, the USD has an outsized effect on the copper market. In our modeling, we've found that, in general, a one pp increase (decrease) in the broad trade-weighted USD translates into a one pp change in copper prices, using y/y models.9 Will Copper Vs. USD Correlations Return To Equilibrium? Our House view calls for a stronger USD going forward. Despite our expectation that DM demand will remain supportive, absent supply-side shocks, a stronger USD along with deteriorating credit conditions in China will weigh on copper prices.10 Ongoing trade disputes will only further bear down on the copper market. Stronger EM GDP growth and the associated increase in copper consumption and trade volumes will offset the strong-USD effects, but a trade war would undermine this support. A caveat to this conclusion is that while credit growth has been generally restrained, the Chinese government - fearful that its policy measures to date are spiraling out of control - may partially reverse its efforts and attempt some easing.11 Bottom Line: The impact of Chinese credit conditions on copper prices is weakened in periods where DM stock prices outperform EM, and when the copper forward curve is backwardated. In terms of the relative magnitude of the effect of China's credit conditions, we find that it has a similar sized effect as the rest of the world's copper demand on the red metal's price, while the USD has a relatively larger effect. This implies that a stronger USD, coupled with tighter financial conditions in China, will compete with expanding EM GDPs and trade growth going forward. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we've coined for the oil producer coalition lead by KSA and Russia. In November 2016, the coalition agreed to remove 1.8mm b/d of production. We estimate actual production cuts amount to 1.2mm b/d, while as much a 1.5mm b/d of production has been lost to depletion and a lack of maintenance drilling (e.g., infill and other forms of enhanced oil recovery). 2 Our colleague Peter Berezin, writing in this week's Global Investment Strategy, noting slowing industrial production, retail sales and fixed-asset investment, observes, China's "policy response has been fairly muted." Further, unlike 2015, when China stimulated its economy and lifted EM generally, this go-round, there is less room to maneuver owing to high debt levels and overcapacity. Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global risk Assets To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "The Role of Major Emerging Markets in Global Commodity Demand" in the Bank's Global Economic Prospects, June 2018, beginning on p. 61. 4 The Bank's EM7 are Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Russian Federation, and Turkey. They account for ~ 25% of global GDP, and some 60% of global metals consumption. The income elasticities of aluminum and zinc demand for this group are 0.80 and 0.30, respectively. Please see Table SF1.1 on p. 70 of the Bank's June report. 5 The R2 statistic measuring the goodness of fit between actual copper prices and the modeled prices is 94% for the copper-consumption model, and 96% for the EM trade model over the 2000 - 2018 interval. The USD TWIB was used as an explanatory variable in both models. 6 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "China's Managed Slowdown Will Dampen Base Metals Demand," dated March 29, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Given that in levels, the money and credit variables display a deterministic upward trend, we removed the trend from the data in order to isolate the fluctuations around this trend. This de-trended series is what is significant to copper demand, and thus the evolution of copper prices. 8 We use a threshold OLS model to estimate the y/y model coefficients. The average change in the value of the coefficient is based on the coefficients in the models' outputs of the four money and credit measures. 9 The R2 statistics measuring the goodness of fit between actual y/y changes and those estimated in our models were ~63% in all four models. 10 We discussed this at length last week in BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Correlations Vs. USD Weaken," dated June 14, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 11 Some preliminary signs of potential easing include (1) the PBOC's most recent monetary policy decision in which it did not follow the US Fed's interest rate decision by hiking rates, as it generally does, and (2) a reduction in the reserve requirement ratio. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Insert table images here Trades Closed in
Dear Client, I will be visiting clients next week. Instead of our Weekly Report, we will be sending you a Special Report written by my colleagues Matt Gertken and Ray Park. The report addresses the North Korean situation and argues that a positive, if not perfect, diplomatic solution will result from U.S.-North Korean negotiations. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights The U.S. can withstand further rate hikes. Neither economic nor financial imbalances are especially elevated, while fiscal stimulus will offset much of the sting from tighter monetary policy. Unfortunately, America's resilience to higher rates does not extend to the rest of the world. A stronger dollar is undermining emerging markets, which are already under pressure from slower Chinese growth and the looming prospect of trade wars. The crisis in Italy will further restrain the ECB from withdrawing monetary support. Investors focused on capital preservation should remain underweight Italian bonds. More speculatively-minded investors could consider opening a long position in BTPs versus bunds, but not before the Italian 10-year yield has reached 4%. EUR/USD came within a whisker of our 1.15 target this week. We will book profits on our long DXY trade recommendation if the dollar index reaches 96. A defensive posture is appropriate for now, but risk assets should recover later this year as the global economy finds its footing. This could set the scene for a blow-off rally in stocks. Feature Gauging The Pain Threshold From Higher Rates Chart 1Market Expectations Slightly Below Fed Dots After the recent turbulence, the market is pricing in 100 basis points of Fed rate hikes between now and the end of 2020 (Chart 1). Such a pace of rate hikes would be quite slow by historic standards. In past tightening cycles, the Fed would typically raise rates by about 50 basis points per quarter. Investors expect the real fed funds rate to peak at around 1%, well below the historic average of 3%-to-5%. Underlying these expectations is the presumption that the neutral rate of interest - the rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation - is quite low, and that the Fed will not have to raise rates much above neutral to cool the economy. According to the April FOMC minutes, "a few" participants thought that the fed funds rate was already close to its equilibrium level. There are many reasons to think that R-star has fallen over time, but in practice, the margin of error around estimates of the neutral rate is huge. Thus, rather than getting bogged down over technical issues, investors would be well served by taking a more practical approach and asking what they should be on the lookout for to determine whether interest rates have moved into restrictive territory. The State Of The U.S. Housing Market Housing has historically been the most important interest rate-sensitive sector, so much so that Ed Leamer entitled his 2007 Jackson Hole symposium paper "Housing Is The Business Cycle."1 Given the recent runup in mortgage yields, it is not too surprising that the latest data on U.S. housing has been on the weak side (Chart 2). Mortgage applications for purchase have come off their highs. Housing starts, building permits, and new and existing home sales all declined in April. Homebuilder sentiment improved a tad, but this was due to an increase in the current sales component; future sales expectations were flat on the month. The share of respondents who indicated that now was a good time to buy a home in the latest University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey declined to 69% in May, continuing its slide from a peak of 83% in December 2014. Still, we would not fret too much about the state of the U.S. housing market (Chart 3). Construction activity has been slow to increase this cycle, which has pushed vacancies to ultra-low levels. Home prices have been rising briskly, but are still 13% below their 2006 peak once adjusted for inflation. On both a price-to-rent and price-to-income basis, home prices do not appear overly stretched. Mortgage servicing costs, expressed as a share of disposable income, are near all-time lows. The homeownership rate has also been trending higher, thanks to faster household formation and an improving labor market. Chart 2U.S. Housing: Higher Mortgage##br## Rates Are A Headwind... Chart 3...But Don't##br## Fret Yet Household Debt Is Not Yet At Worrying Levels Lenders also remain circumspect (Chart 4). Mortgage debt has barely grown as a share of disposable income throughout the recovery, and is still 31 percentage points below 2007 levels. The average FICO score for new mortgages stands at a healthy 761, well above pre-recession standards. The Urban Institute Housing Credit Availability Index, which measures the percentage of home purchase loans that are likely to default over the next 90 days, is nowhere close to dangerous levels. This is particularly the case for private-label mortgages, whose default risk has hovered at just over 2% during the past few years, down from a peak of 22% in 2006. A dwindling share of loan originations since the financial crisis has involved adjustable rate mortgages (Chart 5). This has made the housing market more resilient to Fed rate hikes. Other parts of the household credit arena look more menacing, but not so much that they threaten to short-circuit the economy. Banks have been tightening lending standards on auto loans since Q2 of 2016 and credit card loans since the second quarter of last year. This should help moderate the increase in default rates that has been observed in those categories (Chart 6). Chart 4Mortgage Debt Is Not ##br##A Cause For Concern Chart 5Housing Market: More Resilient To ##br##Rate Hikes Than It Used To Be Chart 6Lenders Are More ##br##Circumspect These Days Student debt has continued to trend higher, but the vast majority of these loans is backstopped by the government. While the Treasury's own finances are on an unsustainable trajectory, this is more of a long-term concern than a short-term problem. If anything, fiscal stimulus over the next two years will allow the Fed to raise rates more than it could otherwise without endangering the economy. Corporate Borrowing: High But Not Extreme Like a river, market liquidity tends to flow along the path of least resistance, rather than towards those who happen to be the most thirsty. While the household sector was piling on debt during the 2001-2007 boom, the U.S. corporate sector was still recovering from the hangover produced by the capex boom in the late 1990s. A decade later, corporate balance sheets were in good shape. Spurred on by ultra-low interest rates, corporate debt levels began to rise. Today, the ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP is near a record high. Valuations for corporate assets have reached lofty levels. In inflation-adjusted terms, commercial real estate prices are 4% above their pre-recession peak (Chart 7). U.S. equities also trade at a historically elevated multiple to earnings, sales, and book value (Chart 8). There are bright spots, however (Chart 9). Thanks to lofty corporate profits, the ratio of corporate debt-to-EBITDA is in the middle of its post-1990 range based on national accounts data. Interest payments-to-EBIT are near historic lows. Corporate bonds now represent 60% of total corporate liabilities. Bonds tend to have much longer maturities than bank loans, which provides a buffer against default risk. Although the picture is not as benign if one performs a bottom-up analysis of publicly-listed companies, the overall message is that the U.S. corporate sector can handle higher rates. Corporate stresses will eventually rise, but it will likely take a recession for this to happen, which we don't expect until 2020. Chart 7Commercial Real Estate Prices: ##br##Above Pre-Recession Levels Chart 8U.S. Equities##br## Are Overvalued Chart 9Corporate Debt Is High,##br## But So Are Profits Cyclical Spending Still Subdued The discussion above suggests that U.S. interest rate-sensitive sectors can withstand further rate hikes. This conclusion is buttressed by the observation that the cyclical sectors of the economy - the ones that tend to weaken the most during recessions - have yet to reach levels that make them vulnerable to a sharp retrenchment. Chart 10 shows that the sum of business capital spending, residential and commercial construction, and consumer discretionary goods purchases is still well below levels that have preceded past recessions. Along the same lines, the private sector financial balance - the difference between what the private sector earns and what it spends - is currently in surplus to the tune of 2.2% of GDP. This compares to deficits of 5.4% of GDP in 2000 and 3.8% of GDP in 2006 (Chart 11). Further monetary tightening, to the extent that it prevents any brewing imbalances in the real economy and financial markets from worsening, may be just what the doctor ordered. Chart 10Cyclical Spending Still Below Levels##br## Preceding Past Recessions Chart 11U.S. Private Sector Financial##br## Balance Is Healthy The Sneeze Felt Around The World The U.S. is not an island unto itself. Even if a bit outdated, the old adage which says that when the U.S. sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold, still rings true. As such, focusing on the neutral rate only as it pertains to the U.S. is a bit too parochial. There may be a lower "shadow" neutral rate which, if breached, causes pain outside the U.S. before it causes pain in the U.S. itself. Emerging markets are particularly sensitive to changes in U.S. financial conditions. About 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. A stronger dollar and higher U.S. interest rates make it more difficult for EM borrowers to service their debts. While EM foreign-currency debt has declined as a share of total debt outstanding, this is only because the past decade has seen a boom in local debt issuance (Chart 12). As a share of GDP, exports, and international reserves, U.S. dollar debt is at levels not seen in over 15 years (Chart 13). Most emerging markets entered 2018 with strong growth momentum. Recent tracking estimates point to some deceleration in GDP growth, but nothing too alarming (Chart 14). That could begin to change. EM financial conditions have started to tighten, which is likely to weigh on activity. BCA's Emerging Market and Geopolitical Strategy teams have flagged the prospect of policy-inducing tightening in China. Trade tensions also seem to be escalating again following President Trump's decision this week to curb Chinese investment in the U.S., impose a 25% tariff on $50 billion of Chinese imports, and slap tariffs on foreign steel. All this could put an additional dent in global growth. While this publication does not expect a full-blown EM crisis, a period of EM underperformance over the next few months is likely. Chart 12EM Borrowers Like Local Credit, ##br##But Don't Dislike Foreign-Currency Debt Chart 13EM Dollar##br## Debt Is High Chart 14EM Growth Decelerating,##br## But Not Dramatically... Yet Italy: If You Are Gonna Do The Time, You Might As Well Do The Crime Even if emerging markets avoid another major crisis, one can always count on Europe to try to fill the void. The Italian 10-year bond yield is up over 100 basis points since the middle of April. Assuming a fiscal multiplier of one, a standard Taylor Rule equation says that Italy would need 2% of GDP in fiscal stimulus per year to offset the tightening in financial conditions brought upon by the recent increase in borrowing costs.2 That is 20% of GDP in stimulus over the next decade to pay for a fiscal package that has yet to be implemented by a government that does not yet (and may never) exist. At this point, investors are basically punishing Italy for a crime – defaulting and possibly jettisoning the euro – it has yet to commit. If you are going to get reprimanded for something you have not done, you have more incentive to do it. The market realizes this, which is why it is locked in a vicious circle where rising yields make default more likely, leading to even higher yields (Chart 15). The fact that GDP per capita in Italy is no higher now than when the country adopted the euro in 1999, and Italian public support for euro area membership is lower than elsewhere, has only added fuel to investor concerns (Chart 16). Chart 15When A Lender Of Last Resort Is Absent, Multiple Equilibria Are Possible Chart 16Italy: Neither Divine Nor A Comedy As we go to press, rumours are swirling that the Five Star Movement and Lega may be able to form a government after agreeing to appoint a less euroskeptic finance minister than the one the Italian President previously rejected. Regardless of whether this happens, investors are likely to remain on edge. Support for Lega has risen by seven percent since voters went to the polls in March. Populism is here to stay. All this suggests that the brewing crisis in Italy will not blow over easily. Investors focused on capital preservation should remain underweight Italian bonds. More speculatively-minded investors should consider opening a long position in BTPs versus bunds, but not before the Italian 10-year yield reaches 4%. At that point, the risk-reward trade-off from owning Italian debt would be too good to ignore. Until the Italian bond market reaches a capitulation point, the euro will remain under pressure. The Italian sovereign debt market is the biggest in Europe and the fourth largest in the world after the U.S., Japan, and China. If foreign investors continue to shun Italian debt, that will reduce capital inflows into the euro area. This means less demand for the common currency. Investment Conclusions The softening of global growth this year, along with tensions in emerging markets and Italy, have lit a fire under the dollar. Our long DXY trade is up 10.7% inclusive of carry. We continue to think that the path of least resistance for the dollar is up, but we will be looking to book gains on our trade recommendation once the dollar index reaches 96. That's roughly 2% above current levels. Slower global growth is bad news for cyclical equities. European and Japanese equities have a greater tilt towards cyclical sectors, so it is likely that their stock markets will underperform the U.S. over the next few months. This is particularly the case for Europe, where banks have come under pressure due to slower domestic growth, rising bond yields in Italy and Spain, and heightened exposure to emerging markets. For now, our MacroQuant model, which is designed to capture short-term movements in the stock market, is recommending a somewhat below-benchmark allocation to equities. Looking further out, our 12-month cyclical view on stocks remains modestly constructive, reflecting our expectation that the next major recession in developed markets is still two years away. Keep in mind that even the EM crisis in the 1990s did not plunge the U.S. into recession. On the contrary, the crisis restrained the Fed from raising rates too quickly. The resulting dose of liquidity led to a massive blow-off rally in equities, which took the S&P 500 up 68% between October 1998 and March 2000. European stocks did even better during that period, outperforming their U.S. peers by 40% in local-currency terms. We may be heading for a similar sequence of events. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Edward E. Leamer, "Housing Is The Business Cycle," Proceedings, Economic Policy Symposium, Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, (2007). 2 The original Taylor Rule introduced by John Taylor in 1992 assigns a coefficient of 0.5 on the output gap. Thus, a one hundred basis-point rise in interest rates would be necessary to offset a 2% of GDP increase in output. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights The 10-year Italian BTP yield at 4% yield marks a 'line in the sand' at which the current drama could escalate into something considerably worse. The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase. Stay underweight in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. Prefer France's CAC over Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX. The equity market's range-bound pattern can continue, as long as the line in the sand isn't breached. It is a good time to own a small portfolio of high-quality 30-year government bonds. It was a spectacular week for our fractal trades with four positions hitting their profit targets: long Poland/short Italy; short energy/long basic materials; short Spanish Bonos/long German bunds; and long AUD/NOK. Feature Italian politics have blindsided almost everybody, us included. Few anticipated that the unlikely bedfellows 5S and Lega would try and form a 'government of change'. In March we wrote: "The Italian election result is not an investment game changer. The one exception would be if 5S and Lega joined forces to govern, as it could throw EU integration into reverse. But the likelihood of this unholy alliance seems very low." Even fewer anticipated that Italy's President, Sergio Mattarella, would then scupper this government of change by vetoing the proposed Finance Minister. This has cast a new pall of uncertainty over Italian politics and Italian public support for EU rules and institutions. The 10-Year BTP Yield At 4% Marks A 'Line In The Sand' The market's response has been to fear the worst: shoot first, ask questions later. The danger is that this sets off a negative feedback loop. Higher bond yields weaken Italy's still-fragile banks; which threatens Italy's economic recovery; ahead of a possible new election, this increases the support for parties and policies that push back against EU rules; which further lifts bond yields; and then in a vicious circle until the fear of the worst becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy... Chart of the WeekItalian Banks' Solvency Would Be In Question If The 10-Year BTP Yield Breached 4% The Italian BTP versus German bund yield spread is effectively a fear gauge for Italy's future in the euro (Chart I-2). As these fears increase, and Italian bond prices decline, it erodes the value of Italian banks' €350 billion portfolio of BTPs and weakens the banks' balance sheets. Chart I-2The BTP-Bund Yield Spread Is A Fear ##br## Gauge For Italy's Future In The Euro As a rule of thumb, investors start to get nervous about a bank's solvency when equity capital no longer covers net non-performing loans (NPLs). On this rule, the largest Italian banks now have €165 billion of equity capital against €130 billion of net NPLs, implying excess capital of €35 billion (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Italian Banks' Equity Capital Exceeds Net NPLs By Euro 35 Bn It follows that there would be fresh doubts about Italian banks' mark-to-market solvency if their bond valuations sustained a drop of just a tenth from the recent peak. We estimate this equates to the 10-year BTP yield breaching and remaining above 4%.1 Hence, the 10-year BTP yield at 4% marks a 'line in the sand' at which the current drama could escalate into something considerably worse (Chart of the Week). To short-circuit the negative feedback loop, the financial markets would need to sense a discernible shift in Italian support for its populist parties; or an explicit de-escalation in the populist pushback against the EU. The question is: could this happen quickly enough? Global Growth Is In A Mini-Downswing The market's concerns about Italy come at a time when global growth has in any case been losing momentum. This is one development that did not blindside us, and has unfolded exactly as predicted. In January we wrote: "Global growth experiences remarkably consistent - and therefore predictable - 'mini-cycles', with half-cycle lengths averaging 8 months. As the current mini-upswing started in May 2017 we can infer that it is likely to end at some point in early 2018. So one surprise could be that global growth will lose steam in the first half of 2018 rather than in the second half - contrary to what the consensus is expecting." The theory underlying these mini-cycles is an economic model called the Cobweb Theorem.2 When bond yields rise, interest rate sensitive sectors in the economy feel a headwind, but with a delay. Similarly, when bond yields decline, interest rate sensitive sectors feel a tailwind, but again with a delay. The delay occurs because credit demand leads credit supply by several months (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Turning Points In The Bond Yield Lead Turning Points In The Credit Impulse As credit demand leads credit supply, the turning point in the price of credit (the bond yield) always leads the quantity of credit supplied (the credit impulse). The result is a perpetual mini-cycle oscillation in both economic variables. And because the quantity of credit supplied is a marginal driver of economic activity, this also creates mini-cycles in economic activity. These mini-cycles are remarkably regular with half-cycle lengths averaging around eight months, and the regularity creates predictability. Moreover, as most investors are unaware of these cycles, the next turning point is not discounted in financial market prices - providing a compelling investment opportunity for those who do recognise the predictability. The global 6-month credit impulse is now indisputably in a mini-downswing phase, and exactly as predicted in January, the majority of economically sensitive sectors have underperformed. The glaring anomaly is oil, whose supply-side dynamics have dominated price action (Chart I-5). Given oil's major impact on headline inflation, inflation expectations, and on central bank reaction functions, the global bond yield has also disconnected from the mini-cycle - until now. Chart I-5Oil Is The Glaring Anomaly Mini-downswings last six to eight months and the usual release valve is a decline in bond yields. So one concern is that the apparent disconnect between decelerating global activity and slow-to-react bond yields could extend the current mini-downswing phase beyond the summer. How To Invest Right Now From an equity market perspective, the relative performance of the classically cyclical sectors - banks, basic materials and industrials - very closely tracks the phases of the global credit impulse mini-cycle (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). For example, in all five of the last five mini-downswings, banks have underperformed healthcare, and we are seeing exactly the same in the current mini-cycle. Chart I-6In A Mini-Downswing##br## Banks Underperform Chart I-7In A Mini-Downswing ##br##Basic Materials Underperform For the next few months at least, it is appropriate to stick with underweights in the classically cyclical sectors: banks, basic materials and industrials. This strategy has worked extremely well since we initiated it at the start of the year, and it should continue to do so. Sector strategy necessarily impacts stock market allocation. Our core philosophy of investment reductionism teaches us that for most stock markets, the sector (and dominant company) skews swamp any effect that comes from the domestic economy. The defining skew for Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX is their large overweighting to banks (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Irrespective of the political uncertainties, our sector allocation establishes our near-term caution on these two markets. Prefer France's CAC over Italy's MIB and Spain's IBEX. Chart I-8Italy's MIB = Long Banks Chart I-9Spain's IBEX = Long Banks For bonds, the implication is that yields can move only slightly higher before stronger headwinds to risk-assets and/or the global economy provide a natural cap and a tradeable reversal in yields. Hence, it is a good time to own a portfolio of high-quality 30-year government bonds. Regarding currencies, the recent developments in Italy have hurt our 50:50 combined long position in EUR/USD and SEK/USD; but this has been countered by gains in our short position in EUR/JPY. We have no tactical conviction on any of these crosses, but we will maintain this medium term currency portfolio unless the Italian 10-year BTP yield breaches the 4% line in the sand. Finally, the hardest call to make is on the direction of equity market. This is because a mini-downswing in global growth creates a headwind to earnings expectations; conversely, if bond yields are capped, this will provide some support to equity market valuations. On balance, this suggests that the year-to-date pattern of a range-bound equity market is set to continue. The caveat is that if Italy's line in the sand is breached, it would warrant a substantial de-risking. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Assuming that the average maturity of Italian banks' BTPs is around 5 years. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'The Cobweb Theory And Market Cycles' published on January 11 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* It was a spectacular week for our fractal trades with four positions hitting their profit targets: long Poland/short Italy; short energy/long basic materials; short Spanish Bonos/long German bunds; and long AUD/NOK. This week, we note that the 65-day fractal dimension of the Polish zloty / U.S. dollar (or inverse) is approaching its lower limit. Go long PLN/USD with a profit target of 3.5% and symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Last year's broad-based global growth recovery has given way to slower growth and increasing differentiation in growth rates across economies. The U.S. has gone from laggard to leader in the global growth horse race, helping to drive the dollar to a five-month high. The biggest risk to our cautious view on emerging markets is that China stimulates the economy proactively as an insurance policy against a possible trade war. So far, there is little evidence that this is happening, but we are watching the data closely. The turmoil in Italy's bond markets is a timely reminder that if the European periphery wants more stimulus, this has to happen through a weaker euro rather than through larger budget deficits. Stay short EUR/USD. We expect to take profits at around the 1.15 level. Feature From Convergence To Divergence 2017 was the year of synchronized global growth. For the first time since 2007, all 46 countries tracked by the OECD experienced positive GDP growth. The euro area economy surprised on the upside, recording real GDP growth of 2.3%. This was slightly above U.S. levels, despite the fact that trend growth is about half a percentage point lower in the euro area. Growth in Japan nearly doubled to 1.7% from the prior year. Emerging markets, which succumbed to a broad-based slowdown starting in 2015, came roaring back. The U.S. dollar tends to perform poorly when global growth is accelerating and the composition of that growth is shifting away from the United States. This was precisely the setting that the global economy found itself in last year, which is why the greenback came under pressure. Things are looking sharply different this year. Global growth has cooled, as evidenced by both the PMIs and economic surprise indices (Chart 1). Euro area growth was sliced in half in the first quarter; U.K. growth decelerated further; and Japanese growth fell into negative territory for the first time since 2015. In contrast, the U.S. has held up relatively well. While growth did dip to 2.3% in Q1, the latest tracking estimates suggest a rebound in the second quarter. Retail sales accelerated in April. The Philly Fed PMI also surprised on the upside, with the new orders component reaching the highest level since 1973. The New York's Fed model is pointing to growth of 3.2% in Q2, while the Atlanta Fed's Nowcast is signaling growth of 4.1%. The divergence in growth rates between the U.S. and most major economies has been mirrored in recent inflation prints. U.S. core inflation has moved higher, but has stumbled elsewhere (Chart 2). Chart 1Global Growth Has Cooled With The U.S.##br## Faring Best Chart 2Inflation Is Accelerating In The U.S., ##br##Decelerating Elsewhere The relatively strong pace of U.S. growth has led to a widening in interest-rate differentials between the United States and its peers. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has risen by 95 basis points since its September lows, compared to 20 points for German bunds, 47 points for U.K. gilts, and 4 points for JGBs. With the exception of the U.K., the increase in spreads has been dominated by the real rate component (Chart 3). Chart 3Widening Interest Rate Differentials Between The U.S. And Its Peers ##br##Have Been Driven By The Real Component King Dollar Reigns Supreme Conceptually, it is real, rather than nominal, interest rate differentials that ought to move currencies. We noted earlier this year that the dollar's failure to strengthen on the back of rising Treasury yields was an anomaly that was unlikely to persist. Sure enough, the dollar has now begun to recouple with real interest rate differentials (Chart 4). Our sense is that this year's trends can last a while longer. Leading Economic Indicators have continued to move in favor of the U.S., suggesting that U.S. outperformance is not likely to end anytime soon (Chart 5). Fiscal policy should also help prop up U.S. aggregate demand. The U.S. structural budget deficit is set to widen much more than elsewhere over the next few years (Chart 6). Chart 4Dollar Is Recoupling With Rate Differentials Chart 5U.S. Is Outshining Its Peers Chart 6U.S. Fiscal Policy Is More Stimulative The U.S. economy is now back to full employment. For the first time in the 17-year history of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), the number of job openings exceeds the number of unemployed workers (Chart 7). Our composite labor survey indicator has continued to move higher (Chart 8). Core PCE inflation has already accelerated to 2.3% on an annualized 6-month basis and 2.6% on a 3-month basis. The New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, which leads inflation by about 18 months, is pointing to higher inflation over the coming quarters (Chart 9). This means that the bar for further gradual rate hikes is quite low. Chart 7There Are Now More Vacancies Than Jobseekers Chart 8U.S. Wage Growth Is Set To Grind Higher Chart 9U.S. Inflation: Upside Risks Recent revelations by Kevin Warsh - who was once the favorite to lead the Federal Reserve - that Trump was dismissive of the Fed's historic independence during their interview, is only likely to strengthen Jay Powell's resolve to avoid being seen as a Trump flunky.1 China: Shifting Into The Slow Lane? Of course, the outlook for the dollar and bond spreads will also hinge on what happens in the rest of the world. We are watching two economies especially closely: China and Italy. The latest data suggest that China has lost some growth momentum. Retail sales and fixed asset investment decelerated in April. Property sales also declined from an elevated level. Sales tend to lead prices. Home prices were flat in most tier 1 cities over the prior year, reflecting elevated inventory levels, tighter lending standards, and stricter administrative controls (Chart 10). Further price weakness is likely, which could dampen construction activity in the months ahead. Industrial production beat expectations in April, but the overall trend in industrial activity remains to the downside. Electricity production, freight traffic, and excavator sales have all been decelerating (Chart 11). Import growth has also come down, which is one reason why GDP growth in the rest of the world has moderated (Chart 12). Chart 10China: Housing Has Cooled Chart 11China: Industrial Activity Is Slowing Chart 12China: Import Growth Has Decelerated Trade War Fears: Will China Overcompensate? In addition to the regular cyclical growth risks, concerns about a trade war loom in the background. The Trump Administration's decision last weekend to defer imposing tariffs on China caused investors to breathe a sigh of relief, but much remains unresolved, including ongoing allegations that China is stealing intellectual property from the U.S. and other countries. Trump's decision to pull out of June's summit with North Korea will only strain America's relationship with China. Considering the damage to China that a full-out trade war would cause, it would be sensible for the government to take out some insurance against a possible downturn. Thus far, any evidence that the authorities are trying to stimulate the economy through either fiscal or monetary means is sketchy (Chart 13). Reserve requirements were cut by 100 basis points in April, but corporate borrowing costs remain elevated. Fiscal outlays are growing at broadly the same pace as last year. The trade-weighted RMB has continued to strengthen. Still, it is hard to believe that the government has not put together a contingency plan that it could roll out if circumstances warrant it. The biggest risk to our fairly cautious view on emerging markets is that China launches a stimulus package in response to a trade war that quickly ends in détente. Similar to what occurred in 2008/09, this would leave China with more stimulus than it actually needed. Italy: From Fiscal Austerity To Bunga Bunga Unlike in China, Italy's incoming coalition government - forged through an uneasy alliance between the populist Five Star Movement (M5S) and the right-leaning League - has made no secret about its desire to ease fiscal policy. The M5S wants more social spending while the League has lobbied for a flat tax. These measures, along with a host of others, would add €100 billion, or 6% of GDP, to the budget deficit. Given that the Italian unemployment rate stands at 11% - 5.3 percentage points above its 2007 low - one could make a compelling case that Italy would benefit from temporary fiscal stimulus. However, the proposed policies are being marketed as permanent in nature. Moreover, several policies, such as the proposal to roll back the planned increase in the retirement age, would actually reduce potential GDP by shrinking the size of the labor force. It is no wonder that bond markets are worried (Chart 14). Chart 13China: No Clear Evidence Of Stimulus ... Yet Chart 14Mamma Mia! Propping Up Demand In Italy Much has been written about what Italy should be doing, but the fact is that there are no simple solutions. Italy suffers from a shrinking working-age population and anemic productivity growth, both of which reduce the incentive for firms to expand capacity. Like many other European countries, Italy also suffers from a debt overhang. This is obviously true for government debt but it is also true, to some extent, for private debt. While the ratio of private debt-to-GDP is below the euro area average, it stills stands at 113%, up from 65% in the mid-1990s (Chart 15). The desire to save more in order to pay back debt, coupled with a reluctance to invest in new capacity, has left Italy with what economists call a private-sector financial surplus (Chart 16). Chart 15Italian Private Sector Has Been Taking ##br## On Less Debt Since The Crisis Chart 16Italy: The Private Sector Wants To Save If the private sector earns more than it spends, the excess savings have to be absorbed either by the government through its own dissaving or by the rest of the world through a current account surplus. Both options are problematic for Italy. Running large budget deficits for a prolonged period of time would take the level of government debt-to-GDP to stratospheric levels. Japan has been able to get away with this strategy because it issues debt in its own currency. This is a luxury that is not at Italy's disposal. Despite Mario Draghi's pledge to do "whatever it takes" to preserve the euro area, it is far from clear that the ECB would keep buying Italian debt if the country began to openly skirt the EU's deficit rules. Absent an effective lender of last resort, the Italian bond market could fall victim to a speculative attack - a process in which higher yields lead to even higher yields, and eventually a default (Chart 17). Chart 17When A Lender Of Last Resort Is Absent, Multiple Equilibria Are Possible This just leaves the option of trying to bolster aggregate demand by exporting excess production abroad via a current account surplus. To its credit, Italy has been able to shift its current account balance from a deficit of 1.4% of GDP in 2007 to a projected surplus of 2.6% of GDP this year. However, some of that surplus simply reflects the fact that a weak economy has suppressed imports. Progress in reducing unit labor costs relative to its euro area peers has been painfully slow (Chart 18). Chart 18Italy: More Work To Be Done To Improve Competitiveness If Italy had a flexible exchange rate, it could simply devalue its currency to gain competitiveness. Since it does not have one, it has to improve competitiveness by restraining wage growth and implementing productivity-enhancing structural reforms. The former requires the presence of labor market slack, while the latter, even in a best-case scenario, will take substantial time to achieve. And neither option is politically popular. Given the difficulty of raising Italy's competitiveness relative to the rest of the euro area, the only realistic short-term solution is to boost it relative to the rest of the world. That requires a weak euro which, in turn, requires a dovish ECB. Investment Conclusions In our Second Quarter Strategy Outlook, published on March 30th, we predicted that the dollar was poised to experience a violent rally as short sellers rushed to cover their positions. This view has played out in spades. As we go to press, the nominal broad-trade weighted dollar has gained 4% since early April. It is up 30% since bottoming in July 2011 and is only 6% below its December 2016 peak (Chart 19). The dollar rally has brought our views closer in line with the market. Notably, EUR/USD is now less than two percent above our target of $1.15. The dollar is an ultra-high momentum currency. Chart 20 shows that a simple strategy of buying the DXY when it was above its moving average and selling it when it was below its moving average would have delivered a sizable profit over the past two decades (the exact moving average does not matter much, but the 50-day seems to work best). As such, while we intend to turn neutral on the dollar if it gains another few percent or so, an overshoot is quite probable. Chart 19The Dollar Has Bounced Back Chart 20The Dollar Trades On Momentum About 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. In many cases, dollar borrowers have non-dollar revenue streams. Thus, a stronger dollar automatically hurts their businesses. In the past, this has often ignited a feedback loop where a stronger dollar triggers capital outflows from emerging markets, leading to an even stronger dollar. Our EM strategists strongly feel that such a vicious cycle is fast approaching, especially if China's economy continues to slow. In the late 1990s, brewing EM tensions triggered several brutal equity selloffs. For example, the S&P lost 22% between July 20 and October 8, 1998. However, EM stress also restrained the Fed from tightening too quickly. The resulting dose of liquidity set the stage for a massive blow-off rally between the fall of 1998 and the spring of 2000. A similar dynamic could unfold this time around. We remain overweight global equities for now, but are hedging the risk by being short AUD/JPY, a trade that has gained 5% since we initiated it on February 1st. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Ben White, "How Trump could break from the Fed's independence," Politico, May 9, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights The spike in volatility in early 2018 did not change the trajectory of most of the cross-asset correlations that we track. The 2017 tax bill, rising energy prices, and banks' willingness to lend all suggest strong capital spending this year. Our view is that stagflation is not a near-term threat. Nonetheless, investors are concerned about a return of a period of decelerating growth and rising inflation. We examine the performance of U.S. financials in and out of stagflation. We reexamine the link between inflation, deficits, credit and money supply growth. Feature Chart 11H GDP Tracking Well Above Potential The VIX moved lower last week even as U.S. bond yields rose. Tensions with North Korea re-escalated, but Trump's trade spat with China eased. On balance, the spike in volatility in early 2018 did not change the trajectory of most of the cross-asset correlations that we track. Economic growth prospects in the U.S. remained upbeat. A series of reports for April and May on housing, consumer spending, manufacturing and capital spending all indicated that real GDP growth in Q2 2018 was tracking to over 4% after a 2.3% gain in Q1, well above the economy's potential growth rate of 1.8% (Chart 1). Capital spending remains poised to lift off in 2018 aided by the supply-side impact of the 2017 tax cut bill and higher oil prices. Despite upbeat economic news in the U.S., there were additional signs last week that growth outside the U.S. was slowing.1 This deceleration, coupled with recent readings on wage and price inflation, suggest that investors may be concerned that stagflation is imminent. BCA's view is that the next bout of stagflation is still several years away. In this week's report, we look at the longer-term relationship between inflation, money supply, credit growth and deficits. Early 2018 Volatility Spike: An Update Surges in volatility do not signal either the end of a business cycle or an equity bear market. Moreover, while there are many examples of shifts in correlation around elevated equity volatility, there is no consistent relationship between the two.2 Nonetheless, 60% of volatility upheavals outside of recessions occurred during the late stages of a business cycle. Thus, the recent jump in volatility is another signal that the economy is in the final stages of expansion. Our November 13, 2017 report discussed financial market volatility and its relationship with the business cycle, monetary policy and economic volatility.3 In that report, we noted that any meaningful pickup in inflation would upset the 'low vol' applecart. Prices of U.S. dollar financial assets have recovered since early February's market turbulence, but are not back to pre-spike levels. Chart 2 shows that at 13.7, the VIX is 63% lower than its early February peak. Neither the stock-to-bond ratio (panel 2) nor the S&P 500 (panel 3) has returned to its late January high, but both have bounced up. Small caps (panel 4) have hit a new record, but emerging market equity prices (in U.S. dollars) have languished. The price of West Texas Intermediate oil reached a fresh cycle high in late March and is now above $70 (Chart 3, panel 2). BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects West Texas to average $70/bbl this year. Moreover, increasing geopolitical risks to supplies (Venezuela and Iran) raise the chances of WTI prices reaching $80/bbl by the end of the year, with Brent prices threatening $90/bbl.4 Our stance on oil prices this year supports more energy-related capex (see next section). Panel 3 shows that despite higher realized inflation and inflation expectations, gold prices have rolled over since the volatility spike. High-yield spreads briefly returned to their late January lows in mid-April, but are now back to the middle of the range that they have been in since early February (panel 4). The dollar has surged in recent months (panel 5). BCA's view is that the dollar will continue to strengthen as the Fed raises rates more than the market expects and as U.S. economic growth outpaces growth outside the U.S.5 Chart 2The VIX And U.S. Financial Assets... Chart 3...Before And After The February Vol Spike Chart 4 shows three-year rolling correlations between several major U.S. asset classes. The early 2018 volatility spike coincided with a shift in the link between the 10-year Treasury yield and the broad dollar (panel 2). The relationship between Treasury yields and oil troughed prior to the spike and continues to climb (panel 4). Otherwise, the longer-term, cross-asset class correlations in place prior to early February are still in play. Chart 4Spike In Vol Vs. Stock, Bond Dollar, Oil Correlations However, shorter-term correlations within the S&P 500 have shifted (Chart 5). The early February volatility run up marked a bottom in the correlation between sectors, industries and individual S&P 500 stocks. This is consistent with what happened in the wake of volatility spikes in 2010 and 2011, but not following the 2015 episode. Bottom Line: The recent vol spike did not signal the end of the expansion or the bull market. Stay long stocks over bonds. Chart 5Intra-S&P 500 Correlations Shifted After The Vol Spike Soundings From The Supply Side BCA expects the U.S. economy to grow above its long-term potential this year and into next year, further reducing slack in both the product and labor markets, and ultimately pushing up inflation. We discussed the housing and consumer sectors in early May6 and this week, we assess business capital spending. Our recent reports7 discussed the near-term benefits to the U.S. economy from higher government spending, but there are supply side benefits as well. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) boosted its estimate of the economy's long-run potential growth rate due to the supply-side benefits of lower taxes on the labor market and the immediate expensing of capital outlays. Faster growth in the long run would reduce the projected cumulative budget deficit from 2018-2027 by $1 trillion. The CBO also expects that labor force growth will pick up as lower personal income tax rates encourage workers to work longer hours.8 BCA's view is that capital spending was on the upswing before the tax bill passed last year (Chart 6). Moreover, our model for business capital spending suggests gains even without higher oil prices (Chart 7). Chart 8 shows that banks are easing their lending standards for C&I loans (panel 1) and that higher rates have not yet increased the cost of funding to restrictive levels (panel 2). However, demand has been tepid, although it is still trending higher (panel 3). The tax repatriation portion of the 2017 tax cut may have temporarily reduced businesses' demand for loans. Chart 6S&P 500 Sensitive To Oil ##br##Prices And Oil Driven Capex Chart 7Business Spending Poised To Lift Off Chart 8Supply And Demand For C&I Loans Bottom Line: A surge in U.S. capital spending is likely in the second half of 2018 and into 2019. The rising cost of human capital and sagging productivity are additional incentives for firms to spend on labor-saving equipment. Moreover, increased oil prices will drive additional spending in the energy sector. Our U.S. Equity Strategy team recommends an overweight to the Industrials sector.9 While surging capex this year and next will help to boost productivity in the short run, a comprehensive, economy-wide infrastructure package would be helpful in steering the economy away from stagflation in the long run. Stagflation Scenario BCA's 2018 Outlook10 notes that stagflation may be not be present in the U.S. for several more years, likely not until the early 2020s after the next recession. However, BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy service states that the global economy may be entering a period of mild stagflation characterized by slowing economic growth and rising inflation.11 Nonetheless, some investors are concerned that a prolonged period of stagflation may ensue. We define stagflation as episodes of decelerating real economic growth and accelerating core inflation (Chart 9). Accordingly, stagflation occurred in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. Since then, there have been an additional six episodes, all of them milder than earlier occurrences. The last bout was between July 2015 and October 2016. Chart 9Risk Assets And Stagflation We show the performance of U.S. financial assets, commodities, the dollar and S&P 500 earnings when stagflation was present (Table 1) and when it was not (Table 2). Note that recessions occurred during four of the stagflationary periods (late '60s/early '70s, early-to-mid '70s, late '70s, and late '90s-to-early 2000s). There were two recessions (early 1980s and 2007-2009) when stagflation did not appear. Table 1Risk Assets, Commodities, Gold Oil And The Dollar During Stagflation Table 2Risk Assets, Commodities, Gold Oil And The Dollar When No Stagflation Is Present U.S. stocks, the stock-to-bond ratio, investment-grade credit and high-yield bonds outperform when there is no stagflation. Small cap performance relative to large caps is also better when stagflation is present. Gold (average gain of 85%) and oil (86%) are the standout performers during these cycles. Without stagflation present, gold rises by only 13% on average and oil prices fall by 11%. The dollar climbs by 4% on average without stagflation and declines by 5% when stagflation develops. Restricting our analysis to only the more benign bouts of stagflation in the past 20 years we find similar results; stocks, the stock-to-bond ratio, investment grade and high yield credit perform better when there are bouts of benign stagflation. A notable exception is that there has been little difference in the performance of gold in or out of stagflation in the past two decades. Bottom Line: BCA expects inflation to reach the Fed's 2% target this year and accelerate in 2019, prompting more aggressive central bank actions in mid-2019 through mid-2020 than the market currently prices in. Increased rates will send the economy into recession in 2020. Stagflation will likely take hold as the economy recovers from that recession. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds for now, but look to pare back exposures later this year. Investors with longer time horizons should begin to prepare for lower real returns in the 2020s after the end of the recession early in the decade. Inflation: A Longer-Term View Some investors are concerned that rising deficits will immediately lead to higher inflation. We take a longer-term approach based on our analysis of the link between inflation and federal government interest payments, private credit growth, money supply growth and federal budget deficits. There is only a loose relationship between federal government interest payments as a share of GDP and inflation (Chart 10). For example, interest payments were high relative to GDP in the 1990s, but inflation was low. In the 1970s, inflation was high while interest payments as a share of GDP were not at an extreme. However, there is a strong connection between the growth of private credit and money supply, and inflation. Chart 11 shows that elevated rates for private credit growth are associated with increased inflation and vice versa. High inflation in the 1970s was accompanied by strong credit growth. In this decade, we have experienced meager private credit creation and very low inflation. Chart 12 shows a similar relationship between M2 growth and inflation. Note that strong M2 growth in the 1970s coincided with high inflation, while minimal growth in money supply in the 1930s was accompanied by deflation. On the other hand, there is only a tenuous connection between deficits as a share of GDP and inflation (Chart 13). In the inflationary 1970s, deficits averaged just 2% of GDP. However, the 1950s and 1960s saw both exceedingly low inflation and deficits. So far in the 2010s, deficits have averaged near 5% of GDP, but inflation has been muted at barely over 1%. Chart 10Long Run Relationship Between Federal ##br##Net Interest Payments And Inflation Chart 11Long Run Relationship Between ##br##Private Credit Growth And Inflation Chart 12Long Run Relationship Between ##br##M2 Growth And Inflation Chart 13Long Run Relationship Between Federal ##br##Budget Deficits And Inflation Moreover, the fiscal stimulus put in place late last year and early this year is likely to push inflation higher as it adds to aggregate demand in an economy that is already at full employment. Bottom Line: BCA expects inflation to reach the Fed's 2% target based on the core PCE measure this year, and move above that goal next year, which would drive up both short and long rates. Stay short duration. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report "Serenity Now," published May 15, 2018. Available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Late Innings," published February 26, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Patience Required," published November 13, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility," published May 10, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Swan Songs," published May 18, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Stressing The Consumer And Housing Sectors," published May 7, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's The Bank Credit Analyst, published May 2018 and U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Late Innings," published February 26, 2018. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com and usis.bcaresearch.com. 8 https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/53651… 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Earnings Take Center Stage," published October 2, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's The Bank Credit Analyst "2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," published November 20, 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Research's Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report "Stagflation-ish," published April 18, 2018. Available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights The labor market continues to tighten and pressure the Fed. Tightening financial conditions suggest more muted returns for U.S. dollar assets and are associated with a peak in cyclical sectors. BCA's proprietary Monetary Indicator (MI) has turned lower, indicating that liquidity is drying up. Assessing performance of financial markets and the economy as financial conditions tighten. Feature Chart 1Oil Prices And Breakevens##BR##Moving In Lock Step Oil prices rose last week, U.S. equity prices climbed and credit spreads narrowed. Energy prices surged in the wake of President Trump's withdrawal from the 2015 JCPOA deal with Iran. BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy team noted that the decision is unambiguously bullish for oil prices.1 Escalating geopolitical risks2 with Iran will add the potential for oil supply losses down the road and hence, add a premium to prices. Venezuelan oil production has been declining for the past two years, sitting at only 1.5 million b/d. The pace of future declines is unknown, but the potential for another steep contraction is worrisome as Venezuela's economic collapse continues and links in the oil export supply chain are breaking down. In light of these factors, BCA expects oil prices to test $90/bbl by the end of year. Importantly, inflation expectations are escalating along with oil prices (Chart 1). Continued upward pressure will have implications for monetary policy, particularly in the U.S. where inflation is approaching the Fed's target. The bottom panel of Chart 1 shows that the correlation between Brent crude and the 10-year Treasury breakeven swaps is positive and rising. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 3.28%.3 The Fed is poised to raise rates gradually this year and next as the labor market tightens further, pushing up wage inflation. Fed rate hikes will squeeze financial conditions and ultimately trigger the next recession in early 2020. Tightening financial conditions suggest more muted returns for U.S. dollar assets and are associated with a peak in cyclical sectors of the economy. Meanwhile, liquidity indicators remain generally favorable for financial assets and the U.S. economy. Nonetheless, BCA's proprietary Monetary Indicator (MI) has turned lower, indicating that liquidity is drying up. The March To 3.5% Data from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) in April and the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) in March support our stance that the slack in the U.S. labor market is tightening and will ultimately lead to higher wage inflation. As noted in last week's report,4 the U.S. economy created an average of 208,000 new jobs in the three months ending April and the unemployment rate fell to a new cycle low of 3.9%. Annual wage inflation moderated in April to just 2.6% from a recent high of 2.8% in January. Chart 2 shows that small business owners' compensation plans remained near all-time highs in April. This metric is closely aligned with the wages and salaries component of the Employment Cost Index (ECI) and suggests further acceleration ahead for the ECI (panel 1). Job openings via the JOLTS data also hit a new zenith in March, creating an even wider gap between openings and hires (panel 2). Moreover, quits minus layoffs, another indicator of labor market slack, reached a record high (panel 3). The stout labor market has lifted the prime age (25-54 years) participation rate. BCA expects that the overall participation rate will remain flat in the next year or so. However, we concur with the Congressional Budget Office that due to demographics, the participation rate will drift lower in the next decade.5 Moreover, the robustness of the labor market is widespread. Charts 3A and 3B show the ratio of job openings to the number of unemployed in 10 sectors of the economy. The ratio is at an all-time high in 9 of the 10 sectors. The exception is the information sector, which includes industries such as newspaper and magazine publishing, broadcasting and telecommunications. Chart 2Labor Market Slack Is Disappearing Chart 3AStrength In The Labor Market... Chart 3B... Is Broad-Based Bottom Line: The U.S. labor market continued to tighten as Q2 began. BCA's stance is that the unemployment rate will fall to a 50-year low of 3.5% by mid-2019.6 The FOMC pegs the longer-term unemployment rate at 4.5%.7 The implication is that BCA and the FOMC expect the U.S. economy to continue to run below full employment this year. However, BCA's view is that the FOMC's forecast for the unemployment rate at the end of 2018 (3.8%) is too high and only marginally lower than the current 3.9%. This is inconsistent with real GDP growth well in excess of its supply-side potential. The macro backdrop will likely justify the FOMC hiking more quickly than the March 2018 dots forecast. The risks are skewed to the upside. BCA expects the 2/10 curve to remain around 50bps until the inflation breakevens are re-anchored between 2.3% and 2.5% as upward pressure on the short end from Fed rate hikes is offset by the upward thrust of the breakevens on the long end.8 Stay underweight duration. How High Is High? Chart 4Cyclical Spending Suggests That##BR##Monetary Policy Remains Accommodative The uptrend in cyclical spending suggests that U.S. monetary policy remains accommodative for the time being. Chart 4 shows overall cyclical spending as a share of potential GDP (panel 1) and for sectors most sensitive to the business cycle and interest rates: consumer spending on durables (panel 2), capital spending (panels 3 and 4) and housing (panel 4). All of these metrics are in an uptrend, although the rate of increase has declined during the past few quarters because of slightly weaker consumer spending on durables. In last week's report, we noted that rising rates and tighter financial conditions will not impact household and business spending this year.9 Table 1 shows that since 1960 total cyclical spending as a share of potential GDP has peaked six quarters prior to the onset of a recession. Consistent with our prior research,10 housing reached a zenith several quarters before other sectors. On the other hand, business spending on commercial real estate topped out only a year before a recession. Housing also provides the earliest warning in long economic cycles,11 peaking 14 quarters before the end of an expansion. Overall, cyclical sectors in long expansions crest 10 quarters before the onset of a downturn. Bottom Line: The performance of cyclical segments of the economy suggests that monetary policy is still accommodative. A distinct peak in these sectors will signal that Fed policy has turned restrictive and that long-term rates are close to their cyclical highs. Until then, stay long stocks over bonds and underweight duration. Tightening liquidity and financial conditions are associated with peaks in the cyclical sectors of the economy. Table 1Recession Signals From Cyclical Sectors Of The Economy Liquidity And Financial Conditions While liquidity conditions are accommodative, they are not nearly as abundant as prior to the Lehman event. The October 2017 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report on liquidity12 noted that monetary conditions are super easy, while balance sheet and financial market liquidity are reasonably constructive. In contrast, funding liquidity, while vastly improved since the global financial crisis (GFC), is still a long way from the pre-Lehman go-go years, according to several important indicators such as bank leverage. Moreover, the Fed is in the process of unwinding a massive amount of monetary liquidity provided by its quantitative easing program. The gauges of liquidity have turned restrictive in recent months. Chart 5 shows M2 growth less GDP growth (top panel) along with monetary conditions and world reserves ex gold. Furthermore, the gap between nominal GDP growth and short rates has narrowed this year (Chart 6). Still, GDP growth is outpacing short rates, a sign that monetary liquidity is still present. Chart 5Monetary Liquidity Indicators (I) Chart 6Monetary Liquidity Indicators (II) Balance sheet liquidity for corporations, households and the banking sector remains supportive. The top panel of Chart 7 presents short-term assets-to-total liabilities for the corporate sector. It is a measure of readily available cash or cash-like instruments that make it easier to weather economic downturns and/or credit tightening phases. The non-financial corporate sector is in very good shape from this perspective. The seizure of the commercial paper market during the GFC encouraged firms to hold more liquid assets on their balance sheets. However, the uptrend began in the early 1990s and likely reflects tax avoidance efforts. The impact of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 may partially reverse this trend. Households are also very liquid when short-term assets are compared with income (panel 2). Liquidity is low as a share of individuals' total discretionary financial portfolios, but this is not surprising given extraordinarily unattractive interest rates. In the banking sector, short-term assets as a percentage of total bank credit has climbed in the past decade as banks were forced to hold more liquid assets in the wake of the 2007-2009 financial crisis (Chart 8). Chart 7Balance Sheet Liquidity Chart 8Banking Sector Liquidity Charts 9 and 10 show market liquidity in the U.S. equity and high-yield markets. For the equity market, we present the one-year moving average of trading volume divided by shares outstanding or share turnover to get a sense of relative liquidity between firms (Chart 9). This measure has improved in recent years, but remains compressed vis-a-vis pre-crisis levels. BCA's Equity Trading System favors firms with lower liquidity, since investors pay a premium for liquidity.13 Liquidity in the high-yield market has recovered in recent years, but flows into high-yield bond funds turned negative in mid-2017 (Chart 10, panels 1 and 2). Nonetheless, the default-adjusted junk spread remains below its long-term average (panel 3). BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service recommends investors overweight high-yield bonds relative to Treasuries.14 Chart 9Equity Market Liquidity Chart 10High Yield Bond Market Liquidity Funding liquidity - as measured by primary dealers' securities lending - has recovered from financial crisis lows, but has not reached pre-crisis highs (Chart 11, panel 1). Primary dealers make loans to other financial institutions with the purpose of buying securities, thereby providing both funding liquidity and market liquidity. The uptrend in margin debt remains in place (panel 2). The steep escalation in this direct measure of funding liquidity is less impressive when compared with the S&P 500's market cap. Bank's lending standards for C&I loans are another measure of funding liquidity (Chart 12). These surveys reflect bank lending standards on loans to the household or corporate sectors. Nonetheless, a financial institution's appetite for lending for the purposes of securities purchases is highly correlated. Lending standards eased in 2017 and in early 2018, but they are not as loose as they were earlier in this cycle or in the pre-crisis period (2005-2007). Chart 11Funding Liquidity:##BR##Securities Lending And Margin Debt Chart 12Funding Liquidity:##BR##Bank Lending Standards Perspective On Liquidity And Financial Conditions BCA expects that both monetary and financial conditions will constrict in the next year as inflation moves through the Fed's 2% target and the FOMC gradually boosts rates in the next 12 months. A stronger dollar and higher bond yields will contribute to the tightening, but higher equity prices are an offset. Chart 13, Appendix Chart 1, and Tables 2 and 3 show BCA's MI versus key U.S. financial assets and commodities, and U.S. economic variables. The S&P 500 index has historically rallied strongly when the MI is above its long-term average. Moreover, BCA's stocks-to-bonds ratio rises, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds outperform Treasuries. However, oil prices struggle in this environment (Chart 13 and Table 2). Chart 13Risk Assets When BCA's Proprietary Monetary Indicator Is Below Zero Table 2Performance Of Risk Assets When Monetary Indicator Is Above Zero Table 3Performance Of Risk Assets When Monetary Indicator Is Below Zero When MI is below zero, on the other hand, economic performance is mixed. GDP growth, cyclical spending as a share of GDP, and employment tend to peak when the MI is decelerating, but recessions rarely occur when the MI is negative (Appendix Chart 1, panels 2, 3 and 4). Core inflation often peaks when the MI is above zero (not shown). However, the MI is sending a negative signal because interest rates have increased and credit growth has slowed. Table 3 indicates the performance of U.S. financial assets when the MI is below zero. We used the periods in which the MI was persistently below zero to avoid false signals. Note that the average and median returns for most asset classes in Table 3 (MI below zero) are well below those in Table 2 (MI above zero). Notable exceptions are oil and the dollar, which strengthen when the MI is below zero. S&P 500 earnings growth struggles during this episodes. Chart 14, Appendix Chart 2, and Tables 4 and 5 present financial conditions versus key U.S. financial assets and commodities, and U.S. economic variables. BCA expects the financial conditions index (FCI) to decline further into negative territory in the next few years. U.S. equities and credit tend to perform better when the FCI rises (Table 4) rather than when it falls (Table 5). However, when it does fall, gold and oil are stronger. Chart 14Risk Assets When Financial Conditions Tighten Table 4Performance Of Risk Assets When Financial Conditions Are Easing Table 5Performance Of Risk Assets When Financial Conditions Are Tightening Moreover, we note that GDP growth and cyclical spending as a share of GDP often peak when FCI drops. Employment and inflation are mixed at best when the FCI decelerates (Appendix Chart 2). Bottom Line: The U.S. economy is growing above its long-term potential, the labor market is tightening and inflation is at the Fed's target but poised to move higher next year. The Fed will increase rates to cool the overheating economy. Therefore, liquidity and financial market conditions will deteriorate further in the next year as Treasury yields increase and the dollar climbs in tandem with a more aggressive Fed. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds for now, but look to pare back exposure later this year. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report "Geopolitical Certainty: OPEC Production Risks Are Playing To Shale Producers' Advantage," published May 9, 2018. Available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," published March 28, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Coming To Grips With Gradualism," published May 9, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Stressing The Housing And Consumer Sectors," published May, 7 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/workingpaper/53616-wp-laborforceparticipation.pdf 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Waiting...," published March 26, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20180321.pdf 8 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Back To Basics," published April 17, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Stressing The Housing And Consumer Sectors," published May 7, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "2018: Synchronized Global Growth," published December 4, 2017, and "Drives U.S. Economy And Markets," published December 4, 2017. Both available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, published November 24, 2016. Available at bca.bcarearch.com. 12 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "Liquidity And The Great Balance Sheet Unwind," published October 2017. Available at bca.bcarearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Research's Equity Trading Strategy Special Report, "Introducing ETS: A Top-Down Approach to Bottom-Up Stock Picking," published December 3, 2015. Available at ets.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary "Coming To Grips With Gradualism," published May 8, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix Chart 1The Economy When Monetary Indicator Is Below Zero Appendix Chart 2The Economy When Financial Conditions Are Tightening