Valuations
Highlights Chart 1Bond Bear On Pause? The start of a new year often brings optimism and nowhere is this more evident than in economic projections. In three of the past four years (2017 being the exception) Bloomberg consensus GDP growth expectations ended the year lower than where they began. A related pattern played itself out in the Treasury market. At the turn of each of the past four years the average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Index increased in December only to fall back in January. In two of those instances the January decline exceeded the December increase. Should we expect a similar January bond rally this year? Our favorite short-term indicators are not sending a strong signal (Chart 1). Net speculative futures positions weakly suggest that the 10-year yield will be lower in three months, but our auto regressive model suggests the Economic Surprise Index will still be in positive territory at the end of the month. In a recent report we showed that yields tend to rise in months where the Surprise Index is above zero.1 Perhaps most importantly, our 2-factor Treasury model shows that yields are significantly lower than is suggested by global economic fundamentals. Maintain below-benchmark duration. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 49 basis points in December and by 335 bps in 2017. At 94 bps, the average index spread is 28 bps tighter than at the beginning of 2017 and investment grade corporate spreads are extremely expensive compared to history (Chart 2). After adjusting for changes in the average duration of the index over time, we calculate that A-rated corporate spreads have only been tighter 5% of the time since 1989 (panel 2), and Baa-rated spreads have only been tighter 7% of the time (panel 3). Essentially, at this stage of the credit cycle we should expect excess returns no greater than carry. As for the credit cycle itself, we noted in our last report that with corporate balance sheets deteriorating, low inflation and still-accommodative monetary policy are the sole supports for corporate spreads.2 We expect spreads will start to widen later this year once inflation rises and policy becomes more restrictive. With excess returns likely to be lower in 2018 than in 2017, we should also expect a lower marginal return from increasing the riskiness within credit portfolios.3 For investors looking to scale back on credit risk, our model shows that Financials and Technology are the most attractive low-risk sectors. Energy, Basic Industry and Communications are all attractive high-risk sectors (Table 3). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 23 basis points in December and by 602 bps in 2017. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 1 bp on the month and 66 bps in 2017. Though spreads appear somewhat more attractive than for investment grade corporates, there is still not much room for spread compression in high-yield. In fact, we calculate that if the high-yield index spread tightens another 117 bps, junk bonds will be the most expensive they have been since 1995. In an optimistic scenario where the index spread tightens 100 bps, bringing it close to all-time expensive levels, then we would expect junk excess returns to be in the range of 600 bps (annualized). Given trends in corporate leverage, another 100 bps of spread tightening should be viewed as unlikely. More realistically, we expect excess returns in the range of 200 bps to 500 bps (annualized) between now and the end of the credit cycle (Chart 3). Given our forecast for default losses, flat spreads translate to a 12-month excess return of 213 bps. An additional warning sign for junk spreads is that the slope of the 2/10 Treasury curve is hovering around 50 bps. We showed in a recent report that when the 2/10 slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps, junk bonds underperform Treasuries in 48% of months, and average monthly excess returns (though still positive) are much lower than when the curve is steeper.4 MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 16 basis points in December and by 51 bps in 2017. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread narrowed 2 bps in December, the combination of a flat option-adjusted spread (OAS) and a 2 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). The Z-spread widened 2 bps in 2017, as an 8 bps OAS widening was offset by a decline of 6 bps in the compensation for prepayment risk. The substantial OAS widening in early 2017 was almost certainly caused by investors pricing-in the eventual run-off of the securities on the Fed's balance sheet. Now that run-off has begun we see no obvious catalyst for further OAS widening in the months ahead. Turning to the compensation for prepayment risk, with Treasury yields biased higher as the Fed continues to lift rates, we see little risk of a material increase in refinancing activity. This will ensure that overall MBS spreads stay capped near historically low levels (Chart 4). All in all, with MBS OAS looking more attractive relative to Aaa-rated credit than at any time since 2015 (panel 3), we think this is an opportune time for investors looking to de-risk their portfolios to shift some of their spread product allocation away from corporate bonds and into MBS. We already upgraded our recommended allocation to MBS from underweight to neutral in October, and will likely further increase exposure as we advance toward the end of the credit cycle. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in December, but outperformed by 216 bps in 2017. Sovereign bonds underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 36 bps in December, Foreign Agencies and Domestic Agencies underperformed by 8 bps and 1 bp, respectively. Local Authorities outperformed the benchmark by 17 bps, and Supranationals underperformed by 1 bp. Sovereign bonds were the best performers within the Government-Related index in 2017, delivering excess returns of 538 bps relative to duration-matched U.S. Treasuries. This outperformance was concentrated early in the year and was driven by the sharp depreciation of the U.S. dollar (Chart 5). With the market still priced for a relatively modest 63 bps of Fed rate hikes during the next 12 months, further sharp dollar depreciation appears unlikely. We recommend an underweight allocation to Sovereign debt. We remain overweight Local Authority and Foreign Agency bonds, sectors that delivered excess returns of 420 bps and 248 bps, respectively in 2017. Despite the outperformance, both of these sectors still offer attractive spreads after adjusting for credit rating and duration. We remain underweight Domestic Agency and Supranational bonds. Though both sectors offer low risk and high credit quality, they also only offer 15 bps and 17 bps of option-adjusted spread, respectively. We much prefer Agency-backed MBS and CMBS which are also relatively low risk and offer option-adjusted spreads of 28 bps and 42 bps, respectively. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 99 bps in December and by 332 bps in 2017 (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 5% in December, and is 12% below where it began 2017 (Chart 6). The recent decline follows a sharp increase that was driven by fluctuating supply trends related to the passage of U.S. tax legislation. The final tax bill ends the practice of advance refunding municipal bonds. As a result, December set a new high of $55.6 billion for municipal issuance as issuers rushed to get their advance refunding deals to market before the bill was passed (panel 3). Now that the bill has passed, visible supply has evaporated and the average M/T yield ratio has fallen back to one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean. The absence of advance refunding will bias municipal bond issuance lower in 2018, thus removing one potential risk for yield ratios. The M/T yield ratio for short maturity debt has risen considerably relative to the yield ratio for long maturity debt in recent months (panel 2), and the risk/reward trade-off now appears more balanced. We close our recommendation to favor long maturities versus short maturities on the Aaa Muni curve. The third quarter update of our Muni Health Monitor showed a slight improvement (panel 5), but still no clear reversal of trend. Although health remains supportive for now - and consistent with municipal upgrades outpacing downgrades - with yield ratios close to their lows we maintain an underweight allocation to Municipal bonds.  Treasury Curve: Favor 5-Year Bullet Over 2/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bear-flattened in December. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 13 bps on the month, and the 5/30 Treasury slope flattened 15 bps. The evolution of the Treasury curve in 2018 will come down to a trade-off between how quickly inflation rises versus how quickly the Fed lifts rates. For example, in a recent report we showed that the 10-year Treasury yield will likely settle into a range between 2.80% and 3.25% by the time that core PCE inflation reaches the Fed's 2% target.5 That same report shows that if that adjustment occurs relatively quickly, and the Fed has only lifted rates once or twice between now and then, then the 2/10 Treasury slope is much more likely to steepen than to flatten. Conversely, if the Fed lifts rates three or four more times between now and the time that inflation returns to target, then the curve is more likely to flatten. For our part, we think it is wise to maintain a position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-neutral 2/10 barbell. Such a position profits from a steeper curve, and our model shows that the butterfly spread is currently priced for significant curve flattening (Chart 7). According to our model, the 2/5/10 butterfly spread is discounting 27 bps of 2/10 flattening during the next six months.6 In other words, if the 2/10 slope steepens or flattens by less than 27 bps, then our recommended position will profit. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 41 basis points in December, but underperformed by 43 bps in 2017. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate went on a wild ride last year. It started 2017 at 1.95% and, driven by strong inflation prints and continued post-election euphoria, reached as high as 2.09% in January. The breakeven dropped to a low of 1.66% in June, as inflation started to disappoint in the second quarter, but has rebounded during the past couple of months and just recently broke back above 2%. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is currently 2.02%, above where it began 2017. According to our TIPS Financial Model, the recent widening in breakevens is in line with the message from other related financial market instruments (Chart 8). Specifically, oil prices, the trade-weighted dollar and the stock-to-bond total return ratio. Further, measures of pipeline inflation pressure continue to signal an increase in inflationary pressures (panels 3 and 4), and the trimmed mean PCE shows that the realized inflation data are forming a tentative bottom (bottom panel). The annualized 6-month rate of change in the trimmed mean PCE ticked up to 1.68% in November, higher than the 12-month rate of change (1.67%). The 1-month rate of change is higher still at 2.19%, annualized. We continue to see signs that inflation will start to rebound in the coming months, and this will cause long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to reach a range between 2.4% and 2.5% by the time that inflation returns to the Fed's target. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasury securities. ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities performed in line with the duration-equivalent Treasury index in December and outperformed by 92 basis points in 2017. In 2017, Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 79 bps and non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 217 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 1 bp in December, but tightened 21 bps in 2017. It now sits at 31 bps, only 4 bps above its all-time low (Chart 9). At 31 bps, Aaa-rated ABS now offer only a 3 bps spread advantage over Agency-backed MBS, and offer 11 bps less spread than Agency-backed CMBS. With consumer lending standards tightening and delinquency rates rising, we view no more than a neutral allocation to ABS as appropriate. On lending standards, the Fed's October Senior Loan Officer's Survey showed a continued tightening in lending standards on both credit cards and auto loans (panel 4), and also that demand for credit card and auto loans was essentially unchanged from the prior quarter. It also included a set of special questions regarding the reasons for changes in the supply and demand for consumer credit. Banks cited a less favorable or more uncertain economic outlook, a deterioration in existing loan quality and a general reduced risk tolerance as reasons for tightening the supply of credit. The hard data confirm that banks are seeing a deterioration in the quality of their consumer loan books (bottom panel). Although delinquencies remain depressed compared to history, with ABS spreads near all-time tights, rising delinquencies and tightening lending standards make for a poor risk/reward trade-off in the sector. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in December and by 201 bps in 2017. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 2 bps in December and 13 bps in 2017. At its current level of 64 bps, the index spread is about one standard deviation below its pre-crisis mean, and only 13 bps above its all-time low reached in 2004 (Chart 10). With spreads at such low levels in an environment of tightening commercial real estate (CRE) lending standards and falling CRE loan demand, we continue to view the risk/reward trade-off in non-Agency CMBS as unfavorable. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 21 basis points in December and by 133 bps in 2017. The index option-adjusted spread for Agency CMBS tightened 3 bps in December and 13 bps in 2017. At its current level of 42 bps, the sector offers greater option-adjusted compensation than a position in Agency-backed MBS (28 bps) and Aaa-rated consumer ABS (31 bps). Such an attractive spread pick-up in a sector that benefits from Agency backing is surely worth grabbing.   Treasury Valuation Chart 11Treasury Fair Value Models The current reading from our 2-factor Treasury model (based on Global PMI and dollar sentiment) pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.94% (Chart 11). Our 3-factor version of the model (not shown), which also incorporates the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index, places fair value at 2.92%. PMIs across the world continue to surge. December PMI data show increases in the four largest economic blocs (U.S., Eurozone, China, Japan), and more broadly show that 86% of the 36 countries with available data currently have PMIs above the 50 boom/bust line. Meanwhile, bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar continues to trend lower in response to strong growth in the rest of the world (bottom panel). This is also a bearish development for U.S. bonds. For further details on our Treasury models please refer to U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Models", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.48%. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Assistant jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Ill Placed Trust?", dated December 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Proactive, Reactive Or Right?", dated December 12, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Proactive, Reactive Or Right?", dated December 12, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Ill Placed Trust?", dated December 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)
Feature Chilean stocks have surged recently following the victory of conservative businessman Sebastian Pinera in the presidential elections. Odds are that we could be witnessing the beginning of a period of Chilean outperformance against the EM equity benchmark, rather than just a short-term political relief rally. Pieces have fallen into place to produce a re-rating in Chilean equities relative to other emerging markets, as illustrated by the top panel of Chart I-1. The cyclically adjusted P/E ratio shows that Chilean stocks are cheap relative to their EM peers. Furthermore, Chilean stocks in common currency terms are presently near a 20-year bottom relative to EM equities (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Hence, just from a mean reversion perspective, Chile's performance relative to EM stocks has the potential to rise. Besides the above points, Chile's business cycle and monetary policy also warrant this bourse's outperformance versus the EM benchmark. A Sweet Spot For Equities There are several signs that the business cycle has passed its bottom and is slowly recovering (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Chilean Stocks Relative To EM Chart I-2Chilean Economy Is Reviving... Moreover, there are also several factors that will lead the Central Bank of Chile (CBC) to keep monetary policy easy for the coming 6-12 months. This will create a sweet spot for share prices where economic growth starts to pick up but the central bank does not tighten. Capital expenditures in real terms and the bank loan impulse to corporations - the second derivative of outstanding commercial loans - might have bottomed although they are still very weak (Chart I-3, top panel). Furthermore, residential and non-residential construction starts are still shrinking while the improvement in the housing loan impulse seems to be stalling (Chart I-3, bottom panel). This suggests that the capex and credit cycles - the two most interest rate-sensitive segments of the economy - remain feeble, justifying low interest rates for a while. Most importantly, there are no signs of inflationary pressures: the output gap is negative and widening, which historically has led to falling core inflation (Chart I-4). Chart I-3...But Interest Rate Sensitive Sectors Are Still Weak Chart I-4Chile: The Output Gap And Inflation A wide range of inflation measures - consumer services and trimmed mean inflation rates - are low and remain in a downtrend (Chart I-5). The key driver and measure of underlying genuine inflation is wages. Overall and key sectors' wage growth are either slowing or muted (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Chile: Inflation Is Low Chart I-6Chile: Wage Growth Is Tame Notably, the number of unemployed people is still rising while the number of job vacancies has plummeted to very low levels (Chart I-7). This heralds low wage growth and disinflationary pressures ahead. Chilean local rates, unlike high-yielding EM local fixed-income markets, will not rise if commodities prices relapse and the Chilean peso depreciates. On the contrary, the CBC can and probably will cut interest rates if the economic recovery is endangered. Therefore, we expect money supply in Chile to continue outgrowing the same measure for aggregate EM. This tends to help Chilean stocks outperform the EM equity benchmark (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Chile: A Lot Of Slack In Labor Market Chart I-8Upgrade Chilean Stocks Versus EM Finally, the health of the Chilean banking system is better than that of some other EM peers as the former is well provisioned and not exposed to foreign currency risk. This will also help this equity market to outperform. As to absolute performance in U.S. dollar terms, it depends on copper prices and the trend in EM absolute performance. Our base case remains that copper prices will relapse due to a deceleration in Chinese capital expenditures in general and construction (both infrastructure and property development) in particular (Chart I-9). This will drive both the Chilean peso (and probably equity prices) down. In a nutshell, the equity valuations in absolute terms are neutral. Chart I-10 illustrates that the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio for the MSCI Chile index is 21, around its fair value. Barring a reversal in EM risk assets (which we expect to start sooner rather than later), share prices could rise further. Chart I-9Downside Risks To Copper Prices Chart I-10Chile: Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio Investment Conclusions We recommend EM dedicated equity investors to upgrade their allocation to Chile from neutral to overweight. The macro backdrop favors Chilean assets over their emerging markets peers. As such we recommend an overweight allocation in equity and corporate credit portfolios within their respective EM benchmarks. Can Chilean stocks outperform EM when copper prices fall? Chart I-11 suggests yes: historically there were periods when copper prices and Chile's relative equity performance versus EM were not correlated or even negatively correlated. Hence, our decision to upgrade Chilean stocks to an overweight while being negative on copper prices is not inconsistent. Chart I-11Copper Prices & Chilean Equities Versus EM: Not Always Positively Correlated For absolute return investors, the risk-reward profile for Chilean assets is not attractive if our baseline negative view on EM and industrial commodities prices plays out. Finally, we have been recommending to complement a short position in copper with a long leg in the Chilean peso. This allows traders to earn a bit of carry while waiting for copper prices to gap down. The CLP has lagged the recent spike in copper prices but we reiterate this position as risks to copper prices remain to the downside over the next six months. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights As bitcoin has developed into a fledgling form of money, the best valuation framework for it is the quantity theory of money. This states that the bitcoin money supply (in dollars) times bitcoin's velocity of circulation = the amount of world GDP carried out in bitcoin. In the short term, excessive herding signals a likely countertrend reversal, and implies that the bitcoin price will retest $12,750 at some point in the next 130 days. In the long term, the wholesale acceptance of cryptocurrencies in the global economy will be deflationary. Feature Bitcoin's near-vertical price ascent to $19,000 has left many commentators crying "bubble!" The problem with this is that you cannot define an asset bubble simply from the behaviour of a price. You need to assess fundamental value, and the extent of deviation above this fundamental value. Conceivably, bitcoin's near-vertical price ascent could be a correction from an "anti-bubble", in which the price was a long way below its fundamental value and rapidly corrected upwards. Which begs the question: what is the best way to assess the fundamental value of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies? Chart of the WeekCryptocurrencies Will Prevent Inflation, Just Like The Gold Standard A Valuation Framework For Bitcoin As bitcoin has developed into a fledgling form of money, one potential valuation framework is the quantity theory of money. This states that the money supply times its velocity of circulation equals nominal GDP. Given that the supply of bitcoin will not exceed an upper limit of 21 million coins, we can say that the bitcoin money supply (in dollars) is the bitcoin price times 21 million. We can then use the quantity theory to deduce: Bitcoin price times 21 million times bitcoin's velocity of circulation = Amount of world GDP carried out in bitcoin. If we additionally assume that bitcoin's velocity is similar to that of the stock of broad fiat money, 1.5, then we can rearrange and simplify the equation to approximately: Bitcoin price = Amount of world GDP carried out in bitcoin divided by 30 million So if the market was discounting that $0.5 trillion of world GDP would be carried out in bitcoin, then its price should be $16,700. Given the purported nefarious uses of cryptocurrencies at the moment, and an estimated size of the world's shadow economy at around $16 trillion, an assumption of $0.5 trillion of bitcoin use in the world economy does not seem excessive. On the other hand, nefarious use might make bitcoin's velocity of circulation a lot higher than conventional money. Which would pull bitcoin's fair price much lower. Suffice to say, the above assumptions are broad-brush and open to challenge. Nevertheless, despite the many caveats, the above framework is probably the most valid for valuing a cryptocurrency once it gains acceptance as a fledgling form of money. Putting Bitcoin Through Fractal Analysis The behaviour of price alone cannot gauge an asset bubble. But the behaviour of price alone can gauge a shortage of liquidity in the asset which implies a potential countertrend reversal. Liquidity is plentiful when the market is split between short-term momentum traders and longer-term value investors. This is because the two herds generally disagree with each other. If the price fluctuates up, the momentum trader wants to buy while the value investor wants to sell; and vice-versa. So the herds trade with each other with plentiful liquidity and little movement in price. This raises an obvious question. Can there really be any value investors in cryptocurrencies? The answer is potentially yes, if these investors believe that cryptocurrency acceptance will increase over time. And if they apply the aforementioned valuation framework from the quantity theory of money. Still, liquidity will periodically evaporate if too many value investors join the short-term momentum herd. Instead of dispassionately investing on the basis of a valuation framework, value investors get lured into participating in a strong rally, and their buy orders add fuel to the rally. A tipping point comes when all the value investors have joined the momentum herd. If a value investor then suddenly reverts to type and puts in a sell order, he will find that there are no buyers left. Liquidity has evaporated, and finding new liquidity might require a substantial reversal in the price to attract a buy order from an ultra-long-term deep value investor. As regular readers know, fractal analysis measures whether the herding behaviour in any financial instrument has reached its tipping point, signalling a likely end of its price trend. Today, the 130-day herding indicator for bitcoin is at a level which has indicated three previous countertrend reversals of at least one fifth of the preceding 130-day move (Chart I-2, Chart I-3, Chart I-4). Chart I-2Bitcoin: The 130 Day Fractal Dimension Signalled A Reversal In 2015 Chart I-3Bitcoin: The 130 Day Fractal Dimension Signalled Two Reversals In 2017 Chart I-4Bitcoin: The 65 Day Fractal Dimension Also Signalled Two Previous Reversals If this herding indicator signals a fourth countertrend reversal, it implies that the bitcoin price will retest $12,750 at some point in the next 130 days. Are Cryptocurrencies Inflationary Or Deflationary? On the face of it, the emergence of cryptocurrencies sounds inflationary. After all, if the general acceptance of cryptocurrencies for commercial transactions increases, there will be new money supply. And this new money supply will increase the nominal demand for goods and services. However, the truth is more nuanced. Unlike fiat money supply - which can expand without limit - each cryptocurrency has a defined limit to its supply. Although new cryptocurrencies can emerge, there seems to be a limit to the aggregate amount of cryptocurrency supply. The limiting factor is that it takes energy to create cryptocurrency through so-called 'mining'. Miners must compete to validate transactions that occur in a cryptocurrency. The competition takes the form of solving a mathematical problem - for example, finding the prime factors of a very large number. And the computational demands are energy sapping. Furthermore, the computational demands - known as 'proof of work' - get progressively more difficult for each additional new coin mined. Given that the computational resources in the world are finite and growing at a gentle and predictable rate, the implication is that the growth in the total amount of cryptocurrency is also limited. So while the emergence of cryptocurrencies does increase the money supply in the near-term (Chart I-5), a large-scale rejection of fiat money would make it impossible for uncouth policymakers to spike the overall money supply over the longer-term. Chart I-5Cryptocurrencies: Market Cap Is Now Non-Trivial Here's a further thought. Imagine if the proof of work computations, instead of being random mathematical calculations, solved useful problems that expanded the envelope of knowledge. This could boost real productivity, which is ultimately just a function of the stock of human ingenuity. In which case, any increase in money supply would be matched by an increase in potential real output. Interestingly, a recent paper from the Bank of Canada proposes that a wholesale acceptance of cryptocurrencies in the global economy could act as a new gold standard, whose effect would be mildly deflationary1 (Chart of the Week) and Table I-1). We fully agree with the Bank of Canada analysis. Table I-1No Persistent Inflation For 700 Years! The sting in the tail is that the analysis describes prices denominated in cryptocurrency terms. In fiat currency terms, the quantity theory of money implies that prices would rise2 - unless central banks reacted to the emergence of cryptocurrencies by shrinking the supply of fiat money. Would they? Very likely yes. If they didn't, the demise of fiat money would accelerate as people voted with their wallets and switched to superior stores of purchasing power. Nevertheless, we suspect that any central bank response would just delay the inevitable. As Larry Summers puts it: I am much more confident that the world of payments will look very different 20 years from now than I am about how it will look. And with that observation, I am signing off for 2017. I do hope you have enjoyed our provocative and counterintuitive insights this year. In the vast majority of cases, these insights have led to highly profitable investment recommendations. We promise to continue the success in 2018! Early next year, we will also unveil a major enhancement to our proprietary fractal trading strategy. So stay tuned. It just remains for me to wish you all a very enjoyable Festive Season and a prosperous 2018. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Bank of Canada Staff Working Paper, A Bitcoin Standard: Lessons from the Gold Standard https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2016/03/staff-working-paper-2016-14/ 2 Please see the Global Investment Strategy Special Report titled "Bitcoin's Macro Impact", dated September 15, 2017 available at gis.bcaresearch.com and Technology Sector Strategy Special Report titled "Cyber Currencies: Actual Currencies Or Just Speculative Assets?", dated December 12, 2017 available at tech.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* As discussed in the main body of this report, this week's trade is to expect a countertrend reversal in bitcoin. Go short with a profit target at $12750 and stop-loss at $28000. In other trades, long silver has had a strong 1-week bounce while long U.K. personal products / short U.K. food and beverages reached the end of its 65 day maximum holding period and closed with a small profit. 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-6 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations
Dear Clients, This is the final publication for the year, in which we recap some of the key developments in 2017. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on January 4, 2018 with a brief market update. The China Investment Strategy team wishes you a very happy holiday season and a prosperous New Year! Best regards, Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports Highlights 2017 served as a prime example of the periodic oscillation of Chinese economic policy between pursuing painful reforms and stimulating demand. While policymakers are merely attempting to control the private sector debt-to-GDP ratio, the risk of a tightening overshoot should not be discounted. Recent economic activity in China appears to have been driven by highly-polluting industries, in the context of strong public demand for an improvement in air quality. This raises the risk that environmental reforms over the coming few years could seriously curtail growth. The incredible returns from Chinese stocks this year means that investable equities are no longer "exceptionally cheap". Still, the range of valuation among Chinese investable sectors has increased, suggesting increased opportunity for alpha generation over the coming 6-12 months. Feature Following the publication of our special year end Outlook report for 2018,1 BCA's China Investment Strategy service recently expanded on our global view by outlining our three key themes for China over the coming year.2 As a year-end tradition, we dedicate this week's report to recapping some important developments of the past year and their longer-term implications. China's Mini Cycle In Requiem, From A Bigger Picture Perspective Chart 1Some Modest Deleveraging Achieved ##br##In The Corporate Sector 2017 saw the growth momentum of China's recent "mini cycle" peak, following a tightening in monetary conditions that began late last year. Part of the tightening in monetary conditions reflected normal countercyclical actions by the PBOC, but it also signified a strong desire on the part of policymakers to avoid significant further leveraging of the economy. As such, 2017 served as a prime example of the periodic oscillation of Chinese economic policy between promoting painful supply-side reforms and pushing demand-side countercyclical policies. Chart 1 highlights that policymakers did manage to achieve some modest outright deleveraging in the non-financial corporate sector in the first two quarters of the year, but at least half of this gain occurred because nominal GDP growth accelerated (i.e. the denominator of the debt-to-GDP ratio improved). No such deleveraging occurred in the household sector, which continued to see year-over-year debt growth of 24%. The struggling of Chinese policymakers to control the pace of credit growth reflects the inherent difficulty of China's new de-facto growth model, which shifted significantly in 2010. Chart 2 presents a stylized timeline of China's economic history over the past 15 years; rather than painting the rise in China's debt-to-GDP ratio in a sinister light, it underscores the unenviable lose-lose position facing Chinese policymakers in 2010. The chart describes how China's extremely rapid growth phase from 2002-2008 was followed by the global financial crisis and a normal rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio. This rise occurred due to a significant deceleration in nominal GDP growth, and standard counter-cyclical economic policy during an extremely challenging time for the global economy. However, following the onset of the economic recovery in 2009, it became clear that China's export-enabled catchup growth phase was durably over, and policymakers were faced with a hard choice: Either replace exports as a growth driver with debt-fueled domestic demand in order to buy the economy time to move up the value-added chain and to transition to a services-led economy (the "reflate" path), or allow the labor market to suffer the consequences of a sharp slowdown in export growth while preserving fiscal and state-owned firepower for some uncertain future opportunity (the "stagnate" path). Chart 2A Stylized Timeline Of China's Recent Economic History The well-known legacy of China's choice to pursue the "reflation" path is the significant and persistent gap between the growth rates of private non-financial credit and nominal GDP since 2010 (Chart 3). It is significant that this gap almost entirely closed in the first half of 2017, but a further deceleration in credit growth will be necessary to keep it closed given that nominal GDP growth is likely to decline over in the coming year. Chart 3No Overall Deleveraging,##br## But A Halt To Rising Leverage Table 1 underscores the lasting economic impact of the "sudden stop" experienced by China's external sector, even given the choice to pursue the "reflate" path, by presenting the contribution to real GDP growth by broad expenditure categories. Relative to the 2002-2008 average, the largest negative contributor to growth during the global financial crisis and its aftermath was from net exports, made up by a stimulus-induced acceleration in investment. However, over the following five years most of the deceleration in growth came from gross capital formation, as private producers adjusted to the new export environment by rapidly slowing their additions to new capacity. Absent new investment from China's state-owned sector (which occurred as part of the reflation plan), Table 1 strongly suggests that gross capital formation in China would have slowed much more aggressively than it did had policymakers not chosen to reflate the economy. Given this, many investors have a sanguine view on the risks posed by China's massive increase in debt-to-GDP, and are likely to view policymaker efforts to durably close this gap as a policy mistake. According to this perspective, global investors would be far less concerned if the post-2010 rise in debt had occurred explicitly on the government's balance sheet, and since most of the rise in non-financial corporate debt is attributable to the state-owned sector, it is quasi-sovereign in nature and thus not likely to be the source of a financial crisis. Table 1The Global Financial Crisis Caused A Lasting Economic Impact, ##br##Even Given China's Choice To Reflate Chinese policymakers would argue that their goal is simply to control China's debt-to-GDP ratio and to stop continued leveraging, not to put the financial system on an active deleveraging path that would risk destabilizing the economy. But even within this policymaker framework, there are two clear potential risks, both of which will need to be tracked over the coming year. The first is that the monetary tightening that has already occurred (and is still underway) causes debt service payments to become unbearable for state-owned firms, which forces a crisis that inflicts considerable short-term pain on the economy. The second is that other reform initiatives, those intended to pare back heavy-polluting industry (see below), to hasten the transition of China's economy to "consumer-led" growth, and to continue to crack down on corruption and graft end up negatively impacting the economy in a way that policymakers did not intend. Both of these risks will need to be monitored closely in 2018 and beyond. Bottom Line: 2017 served as a prime example of the periodic oscillation of Chinese economic policy between promoting painful supply-side reforms and pushing demand-side countercyclical policies. While policymakers are merely attempting to control the private sector debt-to-GDP ratio and are not pushing for active deleveraging, the risk of a tightening overshoot should not be discounted. Bumping Up Against The Environmental "Red Line" Another legacy of 2017 is the environmental impact of the recent economic mini cycle, and the lasting effect that poor air quality is likely to have on the country's reform agenda. Chart 4 presents one commonly used measure of air quality, termed PM2.5. It represents the concentration of airborne particulate matter that is 2.5 microns in size or smaller (smaller particles are more of a health risk), rescaled into an index. When using this measure, a value less than 50 is deemed to be good, whereas values above 50 are not ideal. At an index value of 150, PM2.5 concentrations become unhealthy for the entire population, not just sensitive groups. Chart 4Chinese Air Quality Deteriorated During ##br##This Growth Mini Cycle The chart shows the rolling 3-month average PM2.5 index for Beijing since 2010, along with the year-over-year change in the index. Three points are noteworthy: Over the past 8 years, Beijing's air quality has never been ranked as "good" for any significant period of time, and has typically contained moderate amounts of harmful particulate matter. Interestingly, at the onset of the recent growth mini-cycle in 2015, China's air quality deteriorated rapidly, nearly into unhealthy territory. This occurred again earlier in 2017, suggesting that the type of economic activity associated with growth over the past two years has been particularly negative for the environment. The slowdown in the Li Keqiang index over the past 6-9 months has corresponded with the largest year-over-year decline in Beijing's PM2.5 concentration since early-2015, when economic activity in China was slowing sharply. Given this, it is not surprising that President Xi's speech during the Party Congress in October emphasized the need to scale back highly-polluting heavy industry over the coming years. But if recent economic activity in China has been driven by these industries, this raises an obvious risk that environmental reforms over the coming few years could seriously curtail growth. This is especially true given that the Chinese public appears to be willing to sacrifice growth for an improvement in air quality (Chart 5). When outlining our key themes for 2018,3 we noted that next year's reform announcements will be highly significant not just because of the "what", but also the "how". We expect to see more details emerge in the lead up to the National People's Congress in March, but for now we are playing this theme by being long China's investable environmental, social, and governance (ESG) leaders index and short the investable benchmark (Chart 6). This trade is up 2% since we initiated it on November 16, and we expect further gains in 2018 if environmental reform remains a key priority for Chinese policymakers. Chart 5The Public Is Willing To Sacrifice Growth ##br##To Improve The Environment Chart 6Further Gains Likely##br## If The Environment Remains A Priority Bottom Line: Recent economic activity in China appears to have been driven by highly-polluting industries, in the context of strong public demand for an improvement in air quality. This raises the risk that environmental reforms over the coming few years could seriously curtail growth. A Year Of Spectacular Returns From Chinese Stocks. Now What? As of December 19, Chinese investable stocks (in US$) earned just over 50% in total return terms this year. Chart 7 shows that this ranks as the third largest annual gain among all major equity markets since 2010, behind only Russia and Brazil's commodity-fueled performance in 2016 (which was the mirror image of their spectacular losses in 2014/2015). Chart 7A Red Letter Year For Chinese Stocks There are two implications from China's amazing year-to-date equity market performance. First, it serves as a testament to the importance of tracking and playing economic mini cycles in China. BCA's China Investment Strategy service highlighted in February of this year that the economy would remain buoyant in the near term,4 and that investors should be overweight Chinese investable equities over the coming 6-12 months. Clearly this recommendation has panned out well. Second, it implies that Chinese stocks have re-rated significantly, and are no longer "exceptionally cheap". This means that the job of earning outsized returns from Chinese equities over the coming years will become more difficult, with investors possibly at some point needing to be selective in their allocation. The good news is that the range of valuation within China's investable market has increased, which implies more potential for alpha generation. In fact, Chart 8 highlights that this a global phenomenon, which appears to be at least somewhat related to the decline in intra-equity market correlation (panel 2). We plan on following up on the issue of sector-based alpha in the New Year, but for now there are no signs of a turnaround in the significant underperformance of investable value vs growth stocks (Chart 9). But given that the style dividend yield gap has grown to an elevated level (Chart 10), going long Chinese investable value / short investable growth is one of several potential trade ideas that we will be evaluating in the coming months. Stay tuned. Chart 8Lower Correlation Means Higher Valuation Dispersion Chart 9Chinese Value Stocks May Soon Attract Attentio Chart 10Value Is Now Particularly Valuable Bottom Line: The incredible returns from Chinese stocks this year means that investable equities are no longer "exceptionally cheap". Still, the range of valuation among Chinese investable sectors has increased, suggesting increased opportunity for alpha generation over the coming 6-12 months. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Special Report, "2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Themes For China In The Coming Year", dated December 7, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Themes For China In The Coming Year", dated December 7, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Be Aware Of China's Fiscal Tightening", dated February 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Portfolio Strategy The easy money has already been made in the liquidity-to-growth theme-levered long S&P energy/short global gold miners pair trade. Lock in profits and move to the sidelines, for now. Similarly, book gains in the long S&P materials/short S&P utilities market-neutral trade. A stealthy macro shift, at the margin, suggests that a more challenging phase lies ahead for this relative share price ratio. Recent Changes Book 18.3% profits in the long S&P energy/short global gold miners pair trade today. Take profits in excess of 8.6% in the long materials/short utilities pair trade today. Table 1 Feature Equities continued to defy gravity last week, vaulting to fresh all-time highs. Seasonality (or the pending Santa rally) appears to have trumped any "buy on rumor sell the tax news" jitters, at a time when macro data continue to surprise to the upside. Heading into 2018, easier fiscal policy will likely offset some of the uneasiness of the Fed's ongoing tightening cycle as we postulated in early October.1 Synchronized global economic and capex growth remain the key macro themes that dominate markets. The latest GDP revisions in the G3 confirm our global capex upcycle bias: U.S., euro area and, especially, Japanese gross fixed capital formation are on fire (Chart 1). Importantly, once the tax bill related dust settles, profits will come back to the forefront as a key stock market driver. In that regard, the news on the EPS front is ebullient and, along with the forward multiple, all that matters. Table 2 shows annual SPX returns going back to 1979, and breaks down the composition of the capital (not total) return into two components: forward earnings growth and the forward P/E multiple (January 1979 is the first IBES data point for forward EPS SPX estimates). Chart 1Synchronized Global Capex Table 2Disentangling SPX Returns Currently, sell side analysts expect 11% EPS growth for 2018, and our sense is that 8-12% EPS growth is achievable next year, a message that our SPX EPS macro model corroborates (Chart 2). Keep in mind that there is no tax cut penciled into our EPS model's numbers. Chart 2SPX EPS Macro Model Flashing Green What is interesting from the multiple/EPS analysis is that over the last four decades when forward profit growth was in this high single-digit / low double-digit range (ten iterations), the multiple expanded modestly (on average, adding 2.6 percentage points to the market's return) and EPS did the heavy lifting (explaining, on average, roughly 80% of the S&P 500's 12.9% average annual return, Table 3). If we consider periods when EPS growth was positive but below 8% (eleven iterations), SPX returns are close to 10%, on average, with EPS and the multiple contributing almost equally to the market's return. One caveat is that two recessionary years and the dot com bust are part of this segment skewing the results to the downside (Table 3).2 Table 3Disentangling SPX Returns Continued Nevertheless, if history at least rhymes, were EPS growth to stay positive next year and hit the 8-12% mark, then a profit driven low double-digit broad equity market return is likely. If profits disappoint and grow between 0-8%, barring recession, empirical evidence suggests that equity returns will still prove healthy. Adding it up, the path of least resistance is higher for equities on a cyclical 9-12 month horizon. Granted, since Brexit the SPX has rallied in a near straight line up and a healthy and temporary pause for breath is likely in Q1/2018. As a result, this week we are booking impressive gains in two tactical market-neutral trades we initiated in late-August and mildly de-risking our portfolio. Lock In Profits In The Long Energy/Short Gold Producers Trade In late-August we initiated a liquidity-to-growth handoff levered market-neutral trade: long S&P energy/short global gold miners. Over the past four months this trade is up 18.3%. It also sports a positive annual dividend carry of 200bps. With the equity market overshoot phase likely going on hiatus sometime in early 2018 is it still prudent to hold this high-octane intra-commodity and market-neutral trade? The short answer is no. Nothing in terms of macro data has changed to trip up this pair trade. If anything, the handoff of global liquidity to economic growth has gained steam in the past few months. Global GDP, IP, manufacturing PMIs, global trade (Chart 3) and gross capital formation are all growing simultaneously across all of the G7 and most of the EMs. Even China's economy seems to have stabilized. The Fed announced its plans to wind down its balance sheet as expected in September and the BoE and BoC have both tightened monetary policy. Even the ECB announced a halving of the size of its monthly purchases in late-October (but extended it for nine months). All these central bank (CB) moves suggest that, at the margin, the global liquidity injection is reversing, with CBs actually mopping up liquidity. This is de facto negative for the shiny metal and gold mining equities as interest rates are headed higher (Chart 4). Chart 3Brisk Global Growth... Chart 4...Higher Rates... Moreover, geopolitical uncertainty is steadily receding, especially now that the Senate also passed a tax bill, and a final bill will likely soon be signed into law.3 Historically in times of duress, safe haven assets are bid up and vice versa, and the current low policy uncertainty backdrop is conducive to additional gains in the relative share price ratio (policy uncertainty shown inverted, Chart 5). Meanwhile, on the relative operating front, energy stocks have the upper hand versus gold miners. The oil and gas rig count has resumed its advance and remains 150% clear of the lows hit during the depths of the global manufacturing recession of late-2015/early-2016. Anecdotes of global oil majors comfortably registering positive EPS, in the new era of $50/bbl oil, and reinstating stock buybacks and eliminating scrip dividends (RDS, BP & ENI) suggest that the worst is behind the industry. In contrast, safe haven asset demand is in retreat and will continue to weigh on global gold ETF flows. Anecdotally, the BITCOIN/ICO/cryptocurrency mania may also steal some of bullion's thunder, as this mania is capturing investor's imagination. Either a flare up in global geopolitical risk or a global growth scare could cause investors to start shifting capital into gold ETFs. Our relative EPS models do an excellent job in capturing this energy positive/gold negative backdrop and continue to suggest that energy profits will outpace gold mining EPS (Chart 6). Chart 5...And Diminishing Uncertainty##br## Still Bode Well For The Trade Chart 6But We Do Not Want To##br## Overstay Our Welcome If these different macro and operational forces all emit an unambiguously bullish signal for S&P energy shares compared with global gold miners, why book profits? Our sense is that there are high odds of a pullback in Q1/2018 and from a portfolio management and risk perspective it is prudent to lock in handsome profits in excess of 18.3% in a four month period. There are high odds that most of these key drivers are reflected in relative share prices versus late-August. Relative valuations are pricier today and technicals are also flashing yellow (bottom panel, Chart 4). We deem that the easy money has already been made in this market-neutral trade, despite the still favorable relative macro backdrop. This was a tactical three-to-six month pair trade that has mostly played out and we would not like to overstay our welcome. Were the broad market pullback to occur in the upcoming quarter, and the ratio to trade significantly lower, we would not hesitate to reinstate this pair trade. Our cyclical strategy is to "buy the broad market dip" and remain opportunistic on a tactical basis. Bottom Line: Lock in 18.3% profits in the long S&P energy/short global gold miners pair trade and move to the sidelines for now. Take Profits In Materials Vs. Utilities Similar to booking gains in the liquidity-to-growth levered market-neutral long S&P energy/short global gold miners pair trade, we also recommend taking profits in the reflation levered long S&P materials/short S&P utilities pair trade. Since its late-August inception this market-neutral trade has generated returns in excess of 8.6% and added alpha to our portfolio. While overall macro conditions continue to underpin the relative share price ratio, some cracks are appearing on the surface. Global reflation has matured and synchronized global growth is as good as it gets. The ISM manufacturing and services surveys have ticked down in sympathy recently, warning that the easy gains are behind this market neutral trade (Chart 7). Worrisomely, our relative sector Cyclical Macro Indicators are sniffing out this marginal shift in the macro backdrop and suggest that a more challenging phase lies ahead for the relative share price ratio (Chart 8). BCA's view remains that a sizable selloff in the bond markets is the most likely scenario in 2018. This is one of our key themes for next year, and given that this trade typically moves in lockstep with interest rates, the path of least resistance is higher. Nevertheless, the fact that this ratio has not kept up with the slingshot recovery in the stock-to-bond (S/B) ratio is slightly disconcerting. The top panel of Chart 9 shows that the gap between the S/B and the materials/utilities ratios has widened further since late-August. Chart 7As Good As It Gets? Chart 8Fatigue Signs Chart 9More Balanced Backdrop=Move To The Sidelines On the operating front, our relative EPS models are also showing signs of fatigue. Materials profits cannot expand indefinitely at the breakneck pace observed since the 2016 trough, at a time when utilities EPS have stabilized. Currently, the relative earnings models suggest that materials are on an even keel with utilities (Chart 9). Tack on rising odds of a healthy broad market pullback in Q1/2018, and from a risk management perspective we would rather de-risk the portfolio a notch by locking in near double-digit gains since inception in this volatile pair trade. Bottom Line: Book gains of 8.6% in the long S&P materials/short S&P utilities pair trade. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Easy Fiscal Offset Tighter Monetary Policy?" dated October 9, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 For reference and completion purposes Table 3 also tabulates the results during EPS contractions (nine iterations) and in profit boom times, i.e. forward EPS growth north of 12% (nine iterations). 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy & Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here - Equity Sector Implications," dated December 11, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and stay neutral growth over value.
Highlights Growth in the Taiwanese economy has trended sideways this year, but a budding turnaround in weak domestic demand suggests that growth should improve in 2018. The appreciation of the TWD from its 2016 low reflects investor inflows rather than bullish fundamentals. The risk of a protectionist backlash means that monetary authorities are reluctant to intervene aggressively to limit the rise. We recommend that investors stick with our existing long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade, for now. A breakout in relative Taiwanese tech sector performance coupled with a weakening TWD would likely be a sufficient basis to close the trade at a healthy profit. Feature We last wrote about Taiwan in February of this year,1 when the risk of protectionist action from the Trump administration loomed large. While there have been no negative trade actions levied against Taiwan this year, macro factors, particularly the strength of the currency, continue to argue for an underweight stance within the greater China bourses (China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan). Our long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade has generated an impressive 19% return since its inception in February. The trade has become significantly overbought, but we recommend that investors stick with it, for now. A material easing in pressure on Taiwan's trade-weighted exchange rate appears to be the most likely catalyst to close the trade and to upgrade Taiwan within a portfolio of greater China equities. The Taiwanese Economy In 2017: What Has Changed? Real GDP growth in Taiwan has generally trended sideways in 2017, decelerating in the first half of the year and then recovering in the third quarter (Chart 1). While these fluctuations in its growth profile have been somewhat muted, overall GDP growth has masked a sizeable divergence between domestic demand and export growth. Taiwan is a highly trade-oriented economy, with exports of goods & services accounting for nearly 65% for its GDP, and a recent acceleration in real export volume has positively contributed to overall growth. Over 50% of Taiwan's exports are tech-based, and Chart 1 panel 2 highlights the close link between global semiconductor sales (which have risen sharply over the past year) and Taiwanese nominal exports. But as Chart 1 panel 3 shows, growth in real domestic demand has fallen back into contractionary territory, driven largely by a sharp decline in gross fixed capital formation. This decline in investment is somewhat surprising, given the close historical relationship between Taiwan's real exports and investment (Chart 2, panel 1). But the sharp drop may have been a lagged response to the export shock that occurred during the synchronized global growth slowdown in 2015, as it led to a non-trivial accumulation of inventory (Chart 2, panel 2). The recent acceleration of export growth and a renewed draw in inventories suggests that the severe pullback in investment is likely to reverse in the coming year. Chart 1A Divergence Between Domestic Demand##br## And Exports Chart 2Investment Likely To Rebound Over ##br##The Coming Year The evolution of Taiwanese capital goods imports is likely to provide an important confirming signal about the trend in real investment, given the close historical correlation between the two series. For now, the growth in capital goods imports is rebounding from negative territory (Chart 3), which is consistent with the view that investment is set to recover. Finally, while real consumer spending growth also decelerated in the first half of the year, the acceleration in Q3 has brought consumption back to its 5-year moving average. More importantly, Chart 4 highlights that the consumer confidence index in Taiwan is closely correlated with real spending, with the former heralding a rise in the latter over the coming months. Chart 3Capital Goods Signal An Investment Recovery Chart 4Consumption Also Set To Improve Bottom Line: Growth in the Taiwanese economy has trended sideways this year, but a budding turnaround in weak domestic demand suggests that growth should improve in 2018. The Taiwanese Dollar: Driven By Flows, Not Fundamentals Taiwanese stock prices have underperformed Greater China bourses since the beginning of the year (Chart 5), despite the recent improvement in real export growth and signs of an impending improvement in domestic demand. To us, this underperformance has been largely caused by the strength in the Taiwanese currency. The Taiwanese dollar has appreciated since early-2016, both against the U.S. dollar and in trade-weighted terms (Chart 6). Although the currency retreated from May to August of this year, it has since resumed its uptrend and currently stands between 8-9% higher than last year's low in trade-weighted terms. Chart 5Significant Underperformance Of ##br##Taiwan Vs Greater China Chart 6Material Currency Appreciation##br## Since Early-2016 Crucially, Chart 7 highlights that the rise in the TWD cannot be explained by relative monetary policy or by an improvement in the terms of trade. The chart shows how the USD/TWD began to decouple from the relative 2-year swap rate spread in early-2016, and how the trend in Taiwan's export price index has been negatively correlated with the trade-weighted exchange rate. The best explanation for the recent strength in Taiwan's currency appears to be a surge in capital inflows oriented towards Taiwan's equity market (Chart 8). Foreign ownership of Taiwanese stocks has increased significantly over the past few years and is currently at a record high of 43%. Given that Taiwan's equity market is enormously tech-focused, it appears that global investors have been attracted to Taiwanese stocks as part of a play on the global tech rally. As we will discuss below, this has become somewhat of a self-defeating strategy, at least in terms of Taiwan's relative performance vs Greater China bourses. While it is possible that monetary authorities will attempt to combat the appreciation of the Taiwanese dollar, Chart 9 highlights that there is little room to maneuver. First, Taiwan's policy rate of 1.375% is already extremely low, and is only 12.5 bps above the level that prevailed during the worst of the global financial crisis. Second, panels 2 and 3 suggests that while past central bank intervention was successful at depreciating the TWD, monetary authorities also seem reluctant to allow Taiwan to be labeled as a currency manipulator. Our proxy for central bank intervention is the rolling 3-month average daily depreciation in TWD/USD in the first 30 minutes of aftermarket trading, a period that the central bank has historically used to intervene in the foreign exchange market. The chart shows that periods of intervention have been associated with a subsequent decline in TWD/USD, but that intervention durably ended once Taiwan was added to the U.S. Treasury's watch list of potential currency manipulators (first vertical line). Taiwan was removed from the watch list in October of this year (second vertical line), after central bank intervention ceased. Chart 7Currency Strength Not Supported ##br##By Fundamentals Chart 8Equity-Oriented Capital Inflows##br## Are Pushing Up The TWD Chart 9Little Room For Policy ##br##To Push Down The Exchange Rate Bottom Line: The appreciation of the TWD from its 2016 low reflects investor inflows rather than bullish fundamentals. While there is scope for further central bank intervention to help depreciate the currency, the risk of a protectionist backlash means that monetary authorities are reluctant to act. The Relative Outlook For Taiwanese Equities Table 1 presents a simple performance attribution analysis for Taiwan's year-to-date stock returns relative to Greater China bourses,2 in an attempt to answer the following question: Has Taiwan underperformed because it is underweight sectors that have outperformed, or because its highly-weighted sectors underperformed? To test this question we calculate a "hypothetical" return for the Taiwanese stock market, which shows what would have occurred if Taiwan's tech and ex-tech sectors had earned the benchmark return instead of their own. Table 1Taiwan's Poor Performance This Year Is Due To Its Tech Sector The table clearly shows that Taiwan would have substantially outperformed Greater China in this hypothetical scenario, underscoring that its sector weighting is not the source of the underperformance. While both Taiwan's tech and ex-tech indexes underperformed those of Greater China, it is apparent that most of the gap in performance can be linked to Taiwan's tech sector. Tech accounts for roughly 60% of Taiwan's equity market capitalization, and the sector significantly underperformed Greater China tech this year. Chart 10 highlights that Taiwan's tech sector underperformance is significantly explained by the rise in Taiwan's trade-weighted currency. Panels 2 & 3 of the chart shows Taiwan's rolling 1-year tech sector beta and alpha vs Greater China tech, both compared with the (inverted) year-over-year percent change in the trade-weighted exchange rate. Here, we define alpha using Jensen's measure, which is the difference between Taiwan's tech sector price return and what would have been expected given its beta and Greater China's tech sector performance. The chart clearly shows that the sharp rise in Taiwan's trade-weighted exchange rate caused both a decline in Taiwan's tech sector beta (from a historical average of about 1) as well as a significantly negative alpha over the past year. Chart 10, in combination with the currency-driven downtrend in Taiwan's export prices shown in Chart 7, suggests that Taiwan's equity market has suffered in relative terms due to the outsized appreciation in its currency. This is somewhat ironic, as we noted above that the currency appreciation itself appears to be caused by capital inflow oriented towards Taiwan's tech sector, meaning that global investors have inadvertently contributed to Taiwan's equity market underperformance relative to Greater China bourses. Looking forward, there are cross-currents affecting the outlook for Taiwanese stock prices. Chart 11 shows that technical conditions and relative valuation argue against maintaining an underweight stance; Taiwanese stocks are heavily oversold vs Greater China, and have de-rated in relative terms since the beginning of the year. Taiwanese tech in particular is quite cheap in relative terms. In addition, panel 1 of Chart 10 suggests that Taiwanese tech (in relative terms) may have undershot the appreciation in the currency. Chart 10Taiwan's Tech Underperformance Is Explained By Currency Appreciation Chart 11Taiwan Vs China: Oversold, And Cheaper Than Usual However, Taiwan's tech sector is mostly made up of the semiconductors & semiconductor equipment industry group, and there are signs that the growth rate in global semiconductor sales is in the process of peaking. Chart 12 illustrates the close correlation between the growth of global semi sales and Taiwan's absolute 12-month forward earnings per share, with the recent gap likely having occurred due to the currency impact noted above. The chart suggests that earnings expectations for Taiwan are highly unlikely to accelerate if semi sales growth slows, meaning that Taiwanese stocks, particularly the tech sector, currently lack a catalyst to re-rate. Chart12Taiwan Is Lacking A Re-Rating Catalyst From our perspective, a lasting depreciation in the currency appears to be the most likely catalyst for a re-rating, as it would increase the odds that the relationship shown in Chart 10 would durably recouple. Until then, any exogenous rebound in relative tech sector performance is likely to be met with a self-limiting TWD appreciation. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors, for now, stick with our existing long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade. However, a breakout in relative Taiwanese tech sector performance coupled with a weakening TWD would likely cause us to close the trade, and upgrade Taiwanese stocks to at least neutral within a greater China equity portfolio. Stay tuned. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Assistant linx@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Taiwan's 'Trump' Risk", dated February 2, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We use MSCI's Golden Dragon index to represent Greater China, which includes China investable, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese stocks. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations