Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys
Highlights Duration: The Fed will ignore inflation for the time being and focus on its “maximum employment” target to decide when to lift rates off the zero bound. As a result, bond investors should also ignore inflation and focus on the employment data. We anticipate that significant positive nonfarm payroll surprises will start in late-summer/early-fall and that they will catalyze a move higher in bond yields. Keep portfolio duration below benchmark. Fed Operations: We see no implications for the Fed’s balance sheet or interest rate policies stemming from the recent uptick in ON RRP usage. It is possible that the Fed will decide to slightly increase the IOER or ON RRP rates at this month’s FOMC meeting in an effort to move the funds rate closer to the middle of its target range, but we don’t view this as a pressing need. Inflation: Inflation will moderate in the coming months, but 12-month core inflation will remain close to or above the Fed’s target at least through the end of 2022. Baffling Bond Market Strength We’ve received more questions than usual in recent days, mostly from readers seeking to understand why long-dated bond yields fell during a week that saw one of the strongest CPI prints of the past 40 years and the Treasury dump $38 billion of new 10-year supply on the market. We believe we can explain the conundrum. First, consensus expectations are finally starting to catch up with the pace of economic recovery. Economic surprise indexes measure the strength of economic data relative to consensus expectations and they have fallen a lot compared to the elevated levels seen last year (Chart 1). In fact, if it weren’t for incredibly strong inflation data these indexes would be much closer to “negative surprise” territory. The Industrial Sector and Labor Market components of the Bloomberg Economic Surprise Index have already dipped well below the zero line (Chart 1, bottom panel). Encouragingly, the fall in surprise indexes has more to do with investor expectations ratcheting higher than it does with a slowdown in the pace of economic growth, or at least that is the message you get from the CRB/Gold ratio, an excellent coincident indicator for bond yields (Chart 2). The CRB Raw Industrials commodity price index serves as a proxy for global economic growth and it remains in a solid uptrend. What has changed in the past few weeks is that gold is also staging a rally (Chart 2, bottom panel). This tells us that bond yields are not falling because of a slowdown in economic growth. Rather, they are falling because investors see the Federal Reserve turning increasingly dovish. Chart 1Surprise Indexes Chart 2CRB/Gold Ratio Why might investors have this impression of Fed Policy? During the past few months the Fed has successfully convinced markets that it will not lift rates until its “maximum employment” target is achieved, irrespective of what happens with inflation or inflation expectations (more on this in the section titled “A Checklist For Liftoff” below). This explains why bond investors are ignoring positive inflation surprises and focusing instead on the employment data, which have been disappointing. Nonfarm payroll growth came in significantly below consensus expectations in both May and April (Table 1). In light of those disappointing numbers, investors have pushed out expectations for the timing of Fed liftoff and bond yields have fallen as a result. Table 1Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Results Versus Consensus In For A Jolt Chart 3Labor Demand Is Not The Problem We view the recent drop in yields as a bond market over-reaction to weak employment data. Investors are focusing on the weaker-than-expected nonfarm payroll numbers but ignoring skyrocketing indicators of labor demand such as the JOLTS Job Openings Rate, the NFIB Jobs Hard To Fill survey and the Consumer Confidence Jobs Plentiful less Hard To Get survey (Chart 3). As we have noted in past reports, the demand for labor has already fully recovered from the pandemic and it is the lack of labor supply that is holding back the employment recovery.1 That is, people are not making themselves available to work. When we think about possible reasons why people are not making themselves available for job opportunities, the most obvious candidates relate to the pandemic and the fiscal response to the pandemic. Table 2 shows the net number of jobs lost since February 2020 broken down by major industry group. It shows that the Leisure & Hospitality sector (mostly restaurants and bars) accounts for about one third of the net job loss. Together, the Education & Health Services and Government sectors account for another third. A lot of these missing jobs are close-proximity service industry jobs that pay a relatively low average hourly wage. It therefore shouldn’t be too surprising that people are reluctant to take these jobs due to fears of contracting COVID and the fact that they have received large income supplements from the federal government in the form of stimulus checks and expanded unemployment benefits. Table 2Employment By Industry It seems unlikely that these constraints to labor supply will persist beyond the next few months. Virus fears will ebb over time, as long as the case count remains low, and government income support will also go away. There will be no more stimulus checks and expanded unemployment benefits are scheduled to expire in September. Chart 4S&L Government Hiring Will Increase With this in mind, we expect that labor supply constraints will ease by end-summer/early-fall and the result will be significant upside surprises to nonfarm payroll growth. Bond yields will likely stay rangebound in the near-term, but the next significant move will be an increase in yields driven by strong employment data. As a final point on the labor market, we noted above that the Government sector accounts for about 15% of the net job loss since February 2020. In fact, all those missing government jobs are from state & local governments.2 State & local governments cut expenditures drastically last year, but thanks to a faster-than-expected recovery in tax revenues and generous transfers from the federal government, they actually saw overall revenues exceed expenditures in 2020 and again in the first quarter of 2021 (Chart 4). The upshot is that state & local governments are now in a position to ramp up spending, and their pace of hiring should accelerate in the coming months. Bottom Line: The Fed will ignore inflation for the time being and focus on its “maximum employment” target to decide when to lift rates off the zero bound. As a result, bond investors should also ignore inflation and focus on the employment data. We anticipate that significant positive nonfarm payroll surprises will start in late-summer/early-fall and that they will catalyze a move higher in bond yields. Keep portfolio duration below benchmark. A Note On Reverse Repos And Fed Operations Chart 5An Over-Supply Of Reserves Many investors have noticed that usage of the Fed’s Overnight Reverse Repo Facility (ON RRP) has surged during the past few weeks, and many are also wondering if this will force the Fed to alter its interest rate or balance sheet policies. The short answer is no. In fact, the increased take-up of the ON RRP is a sign that the Fed’s operational strategy is working as intended. Let’s explain. The Fed’s main task is to set a target range for the federal funds rate and then ensure that the funds rate stays within that range. Today, that target range is between 0% and 0.25%. The fed funds market is where banks trade reserves amongst each other. If the Fed has over-supplied the market with reserves, then they will be very cheap to acquire and the fed funds rate will fall. Conversely, if the Fed has under-supplied the market with reserves, they will be more expensive to acquire and the fed funds rate will rise. At present, the market is awash with reserves. This is the result of the Fed’s asset purchases and the Treasury department’s ongoing policy of reducing its cash holdings.3 This over-supply of reserves is forcing the fed funds rate down, toward the lower-end of the Fed’s target band (Chart 5). This is where the ON RRP comes to the rescue. Through the ON RRP, the Fed pledges to borrow reserves from any eligible counterparty at a rate of 0% using a security off its balance sheet as collateral. This effectively gives any eligible counterparty the option of depositing excess reserves at the Fed in return for a rate of 0%. The result is that the ON RRP establishes a firm floor of 0% under the fed funds rate. Chart 6An Under-Supply Of Reserves This is why we say that the ON RRP is working as intended. The market is currently over-supplied with bank reserves and the ON RRP is absorbing that excess while keeping the funds rate anchored within the Fed’s target range. We should note that, in addition to the ON RRP rate, the Fed also pays a rate of interest on excess reserves (IOER). This IOER rate is currently 0.10%. Much like the ON RRP, the IOER should function as a floor on interest rates since it promises banks a rate of 0.10% for excess reserves deposited at the Fed. The problem is that the IOER is only available to primary dealer banks that have accounts at the Federal Reserve. There are other major players in overnight money markets, such as the GSEs and large money market funds, and these institutions do not have access to the IOER, only to the ON RRP. It is this broader counterparty access that makes the ON RRP the true floor on interest rates. It’s also interesting to look back at a time when the Fed was grappling with the opposite issue. In September 2019 the Fed was supplying the market with too few reserves and the fed funds rate was rising as a result (Chart 6). During this period, the fed funds rate actually did briefly break above the top-end of the Fed’s target range. This is because the Fed does not have a standing facility to put a ceiling above rates the way that the ON RRP provides a floor. In September 2019, the Fed had to conduct ad-hoc repo operations – lending reserves in exchange for securities – in order to bring the funds rate back down. Fortunately, the Fed has plans to rectify this problem. The minutes from the last FOMC meeting reveal that a “substantial majority of participants” supported the establishment of a standing repo facility to serve as a ceiling on interest rates in the same way that the ON RRP serves as a floor. The establishment of such a facility will make it easier for the Fed to shrink the size of its balance sheet when the time comes. All in all, we see no implications for the Fed’s balance sheet or interest rate policies stemming from the recent uptick in ON RRP usage. It is possible that the Fed will decide to slightly increase the IOER or ON RRP rates at this month’s FOMC meeting in an effort to move the funds rate closer to the middle of its target band (the fed funds rate is currently 0.06%), but we don’t view this as a pressing need. It is more likely that the Fed will stay the course, knowing that the over-supply of reserves will abate once the Treasury’s cash balance re-normalizes and that the ON RRP will keep the funds rate well-anchored in the meantime. A Checklist For Liftoff Table 3The Fed’s Liftoff Checklist At the beginning of this report we claimed that, in determining when to lift rates off the zero bound, the Fed will ignore inflation and inflation expectations and will be guided only by the labor market. This claim stems from the three criteria that the Fed has said will determine the timing of liftoff (Table 3). Yes, above-target inflation is one of the items on the checklist. However, the checklist places no upper limit on inflation that would cause the Fed to ignore the checklist’s “maximum employment” criteria. Further, it’s highly likely that inflation will remain close to or above the Fed’s target at least through the end of 2022. In essence, this means that the inflation portion of the Fed’s liftoff checklist has been achieved and it is only employment that will determine the timing of liftoff. Inflation To see why inflation is likely to remain close to or above target levels we look at 12-month core CPI (Chart 7A) and 12-month core PCE (Chart 7B) and run some scenarios based on future monthly growth rates of 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3% and 0.4%. For context, core CPI grew 0.9% in April and 0.7% in May. Core PCE grew 0.7% in April and May data have not yet been released. Chart 7A12-Month Core CPI Scenarios Chart 7B12-Month Core PCE Scenarios Charts 7A and 7B show that an average monthly growth rate of 0.2%, a significant drop from current rates, will cause 12-month core CPI and core PCE to level-off either at or above target levels and this leveling-off won’t even occur until the middle of next year. Given that we are likely to see at least a few more elevated monthly inflation prints, it is highly likely that inflation will be at or above the Fed’s target by the end of 2022. Employment As for the Fed’s “maximum employment” criteria, we have updated our scenarios for the average monthly pace of nonfarm payroll growth required to reach “maximum employment” by specific dates in the future. As a reminder, we define “maximum employment” as an unemployment rate between 3.5% and 4.5% and a labor force participation rate of 63.3%, equal to its February 2020 level. Our results are presented in Tables 4A-4C. We calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of between +378k and +462k is required to reach “maximum employment” by the end of 2022. As noted above, we expect that nonfarm payroll growth will come in far above this range starting in late-summer/early-fall. Table 4AAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 4.5% By The Given Date Table 4BAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 4% By The Given Date Table 4CAverage Monthly Nonfarm Payroll Growth Required For The Unemployment To Reach 3.5% By The Given Date All in all, we think that the Fed’s maximum employment and inflation criteria will both be met in time for a rate hike in 2022. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For more details on the lack of labor supply please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. 2 The federal government has added a net 24 thousand jobs since Feb. 2020. State & local governments have lost a net 1.2 million. 3 For more details on how the Treasury department’s cash management policy is influencing the supply of bank reserves please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Panic From Powell”, dated March 9, 2021. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights The ECB did not tighten policy, despite its upgrade to the Euro Area growth outlook. The rise in the Eurozone inflation will be transitory. The Euro Area continues to suffer from excessive slack, and current price pressures are narrow. The ECB rightfully worries about tightening financial conditions by prematurely removing monetary accommodation. The ECB does not want to move ahead of the release of its Strategy Review. Global growth is likely to experience a temporary hiccup this summer. The ECB will only taper its PEPP program in Q1 2022 with no firm announcement until Q4 2021. Stay overweight European peripheral bonds. Despite a favorable 18-month outlook, European cyclical equities face pronounced risks this summer. Investors should raise cash levels for now to keep dry powder for this fall. Feature At its policy meeting last week, the ECB refrained from adjusting policy. While the euro and bund yields barely budged on the news, Italian and Greek spreads narrowed a few basis point, welcoming the dissipating risk of decreased bond purchases. The ECB’s decision is in line with the analysis we published two weeks ago, which argued against the Governing Council hinting at a tapering of asset purchases at its June meeting. Growing signs that the expected pick-up in the Eurozone inflation will be transitory and that China’s credit slowdown will negatively impact Europe increase our confidence that the ECB will not announce any adjustment to its asset purchases until the fourth quarter of 2021. This setup supports European peripheral bonds. However, it also points to a correction in European cyclical stocks. The ECB Announcement ECB President Christine Lagarde highlighted the need for a steady hand, with no policy change. The risks to growth are now “broadly balanced,” but enough uncertainty remains that removing accommodation too early still creates a much poorer risk/reward trade-off than maintaining the current policy. The ECB boosted its growth forecast in 2021 and 2022. As Table 1A illustrates, 2021 GDP growth was raised to 4.6% from 4% in March, and 2022 GDP growth was raised to 4.7% from 4.1%. Activity was left unchanged at 2.1% in 2023. The ECB and this publication are on the same page; Euro Area domestic activity will enjoy a welcomed fillip as a result of the re-opening of the economy, a response to the improving pace of vaccination across the continent. Moreover, the NGEU program will start disbursing funds this summer and will add another boost to growth. Despite this significant upgrade to anticipated growth, the ECB kept its accelerated pace of asset purchases in place, at least through the summer, because the inflation outlook remains below its target of “close but below 2%” durably. As Table 1B shows, the ECB expects HICP to hit 1.9% in 2021, but it will subsequently slow to 1.5% in 2022 and 1.4% in 2021. Table 1AUpgraded Growth Forecast Table 1BBelow Target Inflation Bottom Line: The ECB did not taper its PEPP purchases, because of uncertainty and below-target inflation. Too Many Deflationary Risks The policy stance of the ECB is appropriate on three levels. First, the case for Eurozone inflation to be transitory is even stronger than it is in the US. Second, financial conditions could easily deteriorate if the ECB were to tighten policy too early. Finally, the Strategy Review due this fall further paralyzes the ECB for now. Transitory Inflation Headline and core CPI in the Eurozone will increase significantly in the coming months but will slow next year. The ECB’s core CPI measure, which excludes food and energy, is set to rise above the levels of the past 15 years. As the US re-opened, core CPI spiked on both yearly and monthly bases. The presence of bottlenecks across domestic and global supply chains indicates that the Euro Area will experience a similar outcome. Assuming that monthly inflation rates will settle between 0.2% and 0.25% for the remainder of 2021, by year’s end, annual inflation will stand between 2% and 2.5% (Chart 1). The European PMI indices confirm the upside for the Euro Area’s core inflation. Service inflation has been more stable than in the US, but goods inflation is rising in line with the higher manufacturing PMI (Chart 2). Services inflation will accelerate according to the services PMI. Chart 1Higher Inflation For 2021 Chart 12Accelerating Goods And Services Inflation Surveys confirm that this summer’s re-opening will jumpstart inflation. The employment components of both the European Commission’s Retail and Services Surveys are consistent with a rapid pickup in employment (Chart 3). This will support household income and consumption. Additionally, the EC’s Consumer Survey indicates that European households are ready to increase their purchase of homes and cars compared to last year (Chart 3, bottom panel). When stronger demand meets supply bottlenecks, higher prices ensue. Already, the EC’s Retail Survey points to this outcome (Chart 4). Despite these inflationary developments, most economic forces indicate that the Eurozone’s core and headline CPI will not stay elevated for long. Chart 3Stronger Employment In Pandemic-Hit Sectors Chart 4Re-Opening Pricing Pressures Our Trimmed Mean Inflation measure for the Euro Area (which mimics the construction of the Cleveland Fed Trimmed-Mean CPI in the US) has weakened to 0.1% (Chart 5). Hence, underlying inflation trends are still muted and the recent uptick in core CPI reflects outliers, as has been the case in the US. The outlook for the components of CPI confirms that any uptick in Euro Area inflation will be temporary. Shelter inflation, which accounts for 24% of the ECB core CPI, will rise as the unemployment rate declines. However, the strength in the euro is limiting import prices, which will cap non-energy industrial goods inflation (Chart 6). Moreover, the peak in oil price annual increases points toward a rollover in transportation inflation. Together, these two categories represent almost 60% of the core CPI components. Chart 5Inflation Is Not Broad-Based Chart 6Key CPI Components Will Slow Labor market dynamics are also consistent with a temporary inflation spurt. Total hours worked remain 6.5% below their pre-COVID-19 summit and underneath the level congruent with full employment based on the size of the Eurozone’s working-age population (Chart 7). This model understates the slack in the labor market, because the reforms implemented in peripheral economies in the wake of last decade’s Euro Area crisis have brought down structural unemployment. Moreover, the chart shows that, after total hours worked return to their equilibrium, it still takes a few years before negotiated wages firm up. Even if labor shortages materialized earlier than we anticipate, it does not guarantee a pickup in core CPI. From 2016 to 2019, a large proportion of Euro Area businesses cited labor shortages as a key factor limiting production. Yet, despite both this perceived tightness and a trendless euro, core CPI remained flat, averaging 1% per annum (Chart 8). Chart 7Still Too Much Slack Chart 8Labor Shortages Do Not Guarantee Inflation Outside of the labor market, the amount of stimulus injections also argues against a permanent increase in European inflation. BCA’s US Bond Strategy, Global Investment Strategy, and Bank Credit Analyst services believe that the current spurt of US Inflation is temporary, despite vast monetary and fiscal stimuli. In relation to 2019 GDP, the ECB’s liquidity injections have been larger than those of the Fed; however, the US fiscal activism greatly outdid that of the Eurozone (Chart 9). Consequently, the combined monetary and fiscal impulse in the US is larger, and its greater weight toward fiscal policy makes it more inflationary. Thus, if the US is unlikely to see durable inflation, the Eurozone is even less at risk. Chart 9More Timid European Stimulus Chart 10Lower European Inflation Expectations Euro Area inflation expectations are also muted compared to that of the US (Chart 10). This development confirms that Eurozone policy is less inflationary than that of the US. It also creates an anchor for realized inflation, which will constrain the acceleration in the Euro Area CPI. Financial Conditions The ECB is deeply concerned about the impact of the hurried removal of monetary accommodation on the Eurozone’s financial conditions. Chart 11The Euro Is Deflationary The ECB does not want to see a much more rapid pace of appreciation in the euro. If it begins to slow its QE program when the Fed remains reluctant to talk about tapering, EUR/USD will surge. This will feed into weaker core inflation in the region. The ECB’s broad trade-weighted euro, based on 41 currencies, has already rallied to a record high. Thus, an even more rapid euro rally would spell deeper deflationary pressures in the region (Chart 11). Peripheral spreads remain fragile. The ECB will not want to cause a rapid widening of Italian, Spanish, or Greek government bond spreads by decreasing its asset purchases prematurely. Otherwise, the health of the banking sector in the periphery will once again deteriorate, which will both harm the recovery and ignite deflationary tendencies. Strategy Review The ECB’s Strategy Review also prevents the Governing Council from adjusting policy. The ECB will release its Strategy Review in September or October. This exercise could result in a change to the inflation target. In line with the new Fed Average Inflation Target, the ECB objective may become more symmetric. Inflation has not hit the ECB’s target of nearly 2% since 2012, and the level of HICP stands 8% below what the target implies. Therefore, if the ECB adjusts its target this fall, it will become harder to justify the removal of accommodation. Bottom Line: The ECB wants to avoid a repeat of its 2011 policy mistake, when it tightened policy prematurely and catalyzed a period of profound weakness in the European economy. Eurozone inflation will increase this year; however, this bump is transitory and inflation will once again decline in 2022. Moreover, the ECB rightfully worries about tightening financial conditions, because the euro is exerting profound deflationary forces on the continent and peripheral spreads remain fragile. Finally, the ongoing Strategy Review limits what the ECB can do until its results are known. Look Out For Q4 2021 The ECB will keep the PEPP program in place until March 2022, as was originally announced. Therefore, the ECB will only telegraph its intention after the summer and will most likely announce in December its firm commitment to begin tapering. The program size does not constrain the ECB. The total envelope of the PEPP stands at EUR1850 billion, and the ECB has already purchased EUR1100 billion (Chart 12). Based on the current accelerated pace of purchases, the ECB will run out of room in February 2022. Thus, the ECB continues to enjoy great flexibility without adjusting the PEPP program meaningfully. Chart 12Plentiful PEPP Room Chart 13China Will Act As A Drag Chart 14The Global Growth Tax Is Biding The expanding threat of a global growth scare will likely limit the ability of the ECB to tighten policy ahead of Q4. China’s credit impulse is decelerating, which portends an imminent peak in our BCA Global Industrial Activity Nowcast (Chart 13). Moreover, the rise in global yields since August 2020 and the rapid rally in oil prices since April 2020 are consistent with a meaningful deceleration in global manufacturing activity. The collapse in our Global Leading Economic Indicator Diffusion Index also hints at a coming global soft patch (Chart 14). Hence, the heightened sensitivity of the Euro Area economy to the global manufacturing sector points toward softer-than-anticipated growth this summer. Historically, a deceleration of the Chinese PMI New Orders components warns of a decline in the 1-year forward EONIA (Chart 15). While the ECB is unlikely to flag a rate reduction in response to the upcoming global deterioration, it could respond by delaying its tapering decision. Ultimately, the accumulation of constraints and risks suggests that, even after the PEPP taper starts in 2022, the ECB will roll it into the older PSPP program. The ECB will want to keep a lid on peripheral spreads and guarantee that the euro does not melt up. Germany is unlikely to block this initiative, because its large Target 2 surplus means that problems in the periphery will percolate to the German banking system (Chart 16). Moreover, Germany’s export sector will benefit from a euro whose appreciation is contained. Chart 15Chinese New Orders Are Inconsistent With A Tighter ECB Chart 16Germany Does Not Want Italian Troubles Bottom Line: The ECB will not formally announce its tapering until December 2021. The ECB still has considerable room to continue using the PEPP program, and the global economy is likely to generate a negative growth surprise this summer. Instead, once the PEPP taper begins in 2022, the program will be rolled into the PSPP rather than being completely discarded. European policy, therefore, will remain accommodative. Investment Implications A dovish ECB is consistent with a continued overweight in European peripheral bonds. Chart 17European Peripheral Bonds Remain Attractive Portuguese, Greek, Spanish, and Italian bonds offer much more attractive valuations than the global or the European averages (Chart 17). The robust pace of ECB bond purchases, along with the increased fiscal risk-sharing created by the NGEU programs, will allow this value to continue to generate excess returns for investors. The growth scare, however, threatens our positive stance on European equities and cyclical stocks. We expect a correction to take place this summer or early fall. Thus, investors should raise cash now to buy cyclicals stocks once they correct. First, a deceleration in global growth catalyzed by a Chinese credit slowdown is consistent with an underperformance of cyclical stocks and European stocks in general. Second, the ECB Central Bank Monitor currently sports an elevated 2.1 reading, which is negative for cyclicals. A high reading for the monitor materializes when the Eurozone economy is experiencing strong momentum. However, markets are forward looking, and they rapidly internalize a brightened outlook. Once the price of cyclical stocks embed enough good news, they will start to generate poorer returns. Consequently, positive readings of the monitor are followed by negative relative excess returns for cyclical stocks, such as Industrials, Financials, Tech, and Consumer discretionary on both 6- and 12-month horizons (Table 2A). Table 2AThe Higher The ECB Monitor Rises, The More Poorly Cyclicals Perform The higher the ECB Monitor reaches, the worse the cyclical sectors’ excess returns become, even if the ECB does not tighten policy. Moreover, outliers do not distort the results of the study. The batting averages confirm that, the higher the ECB Monitor, the lower the probability of a subsequent outperformance of cyclicals. The reverse is true for defensive sectors. The higher the ECB Monitor climbs, the greater the subsequent 6- and 12-month relative excess returns for Telecommunication, Consumer Staples, Utilities, and Healthcare turn out. Their probability of outperformance also increases (Table 2B). Table 2BThe Higher The ECB Monitor Rises, The More Poorly Cyclicals Perform Investors should therefore curtail their exposure to risk over the coming months, tactically tilt toward some attractive defensive names and buy some hedges or raise some cash in order to participate more fully in the rest of the rally later this year. Bottom Line: An easy ECB policy favors an overweight stance in European peripheral bonds. However, if global growth slows, the current reading of our ECB Monitor is consistent with a period of underperformance for cyclical equities. Such underperformance should correlate with a corrective episode for the broad market as well as an underperformance of European stocks relative to the US. Investors, therefore, should raise cash levels and tactically move into attractive defensive names in order to buy back cyclicals later this year. Mathieu Savary, Chief European Investment Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Government Bonds Corporate Bonds Equity Performance Major Stock Indices Geographic Performance Sector Performance
Highlights Bond Market Performance: Government bonds in the developed economies are currently trapped in ranges, consolidating the sharp upward moves seen in the first quarter of 2021. This is only a pause in the broader cyclical uptrend, however, with central banks under increasing pressure to turn less dovish amid surging inflation and tightening labor markets. Oversold USTs: Technical indicators of yield/price momentum and investor sentiment/positioning suggest that US Treasuries are oversold. Working off this condition can take another 2-3 months, based on an analysis of past oversold episodes. Beyond that, higher yields loom with the Fed starting to prepare the markets for a taper in 2022. Stay underweight Treasuries in global bond portfolios on a cyclical basis. RBA Checklist: Only one of the five components of our “RBA Checklist” – designed to measure the pressures that would force the Reserve Bank of Australia to turn less dovish – is flashing such a signal. We are upgrading our recommended allocation for Australian government bonds to overweight on a tactical (0-6 months) investment horizon. Feature Dear Client, Next week, in lieu of our regularly weekly report, I will be hosting a webcast on Tuesday, June 15 where I will discuss the outlook for global fixed income markets in the second half of 2021. Following that, we will be jointly publishing our bi-annual Global Central Bank Monitor Chartbook with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy on Friday, June 18th. We will return to our regular publishing schedule on Tuesday, June 29th. Best Regards, Rob Robis Chart of the WeekA Tale Of Two Quarters The performance of government bond markets in the developed world so far in 2021 has been a tale of two quarters. In Q1, yields were rising steadily on the back of upside surprises in global growth and emerging signs of the biggest inflation upturn seen in nearly a generation. The Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index delivered a total return of -2.7% (hedged into US dollars) during the quarter, with no country escaping losses (Chart of the Week). The biggest declines were seen in the UK (-7.5%) the US (-4.3%), with the smallest losses occurring in Japan (-0.3%) and Italy (-0.7%). Chart 2Lower Vol Means High Yielders Outperform Low Yielders Q2 has been a different story, however. Yields have retreated somewhat from the year-to-date peaks seen at the end of Q1, leading to positive returns so far in Q2 in the UK (+0.8), the US (+1.2%) and Australia (+1.1%). The laggards are the low yielding euro area markets, most notably Italy (-0.7%) and France (-0.9%), that have seen yields move higher on the back of accelerating European growth. The Q2 returns look very much like a carry-driven market, with higher-yielding markets outperforming lower-yielding ones. That trend can persist if the current backdrop of low market volatility persists (Chart 2), although this calm will eventually be broken by a shift towards less dovish monetary policies. Some countries will make that shift at a faster pace than others, leading to relative value opportunities for bond investors in the latter half of 2021. This week, we discuss one such opportunity – Australia versus the US. US Treasuries: Oversold & Trendless – For Now After reaching a 2021 intraday high of 1.77% back on March 30, the benchmark 10-year US Treasury yield has traded in a narrow 15bp range between 1.55% and 1.70%. From a fundamental perspective, US yields are lacking direction because inflation expectations have already made a major upward adjustment to the more inflationary backdrop, but real yields have remained depressed by the continued dovish messaging from the Fed – for now - with regards to the timing of tapering or future rate hikes. From a technical perspective, however, the sideways pattern for US Treasury yields is also consistent for a market that trying to work off an oversold condition. Most of the technical indicators for the US Treasury market that we monitor regularly were at or close to the most bearish/oversold extremes seen since 2000 (Chart 3): Chart 3US Treasuries Are Working Off An Oversold Condition The 10-year Treasury yield is 39bps above its 200-day moving average, but that gap was as high as 84bps on March 19; The 26-week total return of the 10-year Treasury is -4.7%, after reaching a low of -8.8% on March 19; The JP Morgan client survey of bond managers and traders shows some of the largest underweight duration positioning in the 19-year history of the series; The Market Vane index of sentiment for Treasuries is in the bottom half of the range that has prevailed since 2000; The CFTC data on positioning in 10-year Treasury futures is the only one of our indicators that is not signaling an oversold market, with a small net long position of +3% (scaled by open interest). The overall message of these indicators suggests that price momentum and positioning reached such a bearish extreme by mid-March that some pullback in Treasury yields was inevitable. However, a look back at past periods when Treasuries became heavily oversold since the turn of the century shows that the duration and magnitude of such a pullback is highly variable – anywhere from two months to ten months. The main determining factors are the trends in economic growth and inflation in the US, and the Fed’s expected policy response to both. To show this, we conducted a simple study, updating work we first presented in a 2018 report.1 We looked at “oversold episodes” since 2000, which began when the 10-year Treasury yield was trading at least 50bps above its 200-day moving average. We then defined the end of the oversold episode as simply the point when the 10-year Treasury yield subsequently converged back to its 200-day moving average. We then looked at the length of the episode (in days), and the change in bond yields, for each oversold episode. There were nine such episodes since the year 2000, not counting the current one which has not yet ended. In Table 1, we rank the episodes by the number of days it took to complete each one, based on our simple moving average rule. We also show the change in both the 10-year Treasury yield and its 200-day moving average during each episode, to show how the convergence between the two unfolds. Table 1A Look At Prior Episodes Of An Oversold Treasury Market To describe the US economic backdrop during each episode, we looked at the change in the ISM manufacturing index and core PCE inflation during those oversold periods. We also show changes in two important determinants of the level of Treasury yields: inflation expectations using 10-year TIPS breakeven rates, and Fed rate hike expectations using our 12-month Fed discounter which measures the expected change in interest rates - one year ahead - priced into the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve. At the bottom of the table, we show the average for all nine oversold episodes, as well as the averages for the episodes were the ISM was rising and where core PCE inflation was rising. Chart 4US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2003-2007 There are a few messages gleaned from the results in Table 1: The longest correction of an oversold Treasury market since 2000 took place between February 2018 and December 2018, when 305 days passed before the 10-year yield fell back to its 200-day moving average; The shortest correction was between June 2007 and August 2007, where only 52 days elapsed; Treasury yields typically decline during oversold periods, with two notable exceptions: 2018 and 2013/14, which were also the two longest episodes; During all of the oversold periods, markets reduced the amount of expected Fed tightening by an average of 26bps. However, that was entirely concentrated in four of the nine episodes - including three of the four shortest episodes – and is typically associated with a decline in inflation expectations. Growth momentum appears to be a bigger factor than inflation momentum in determining the length of an oversold episode, with longer episodes typically occurring alongside a rising ISM index, and vice versa. The notable exception was the longest episode in 2018, where the ISM declined by six points, although the bulk of that decline occurred in a single month at the end of the period (November 2018). For the more visually oriented, we present the time series for all the data in Table 1, shaded for the oversold periods, in Chart 4 (for the 2003-2007 period), Chart 5 (2008-2012), Chart 6 (2013-2017) and Chart 7 (2018 to today). We’ve added one additional variable – our Fed Monitor, designed to signal the need for tighter or looser US monetary policy – in the bottom panel of each of those charts. Chart 5US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2008-2012 Chart 6US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2013-2017 Chart 7US Treasury Market Oversold Episodes: 2018 To Today What does this look back tell us about looking ahead? The current episode, at only 105 days old, is still 62 days “younger” than the average oversold period, and 76 days “younger” than the average period where core inflation was rising. This would put the end of the current episode sometime in August. The ISM is essentially unchanged over the current episode so far, making it difficult to draw conclusions based on growth momentum – although the longest episode in 2018 shows that yields can trade sideways for a long time, even in the absence of a big slowing of growth, if the Fed is in a rate hiking cycle. However, the current episode differs dramatically from others in this analysis on two critical fronts. Core inflation has surged 1.6 percentage points since the oversold period began in February, far more than any other episode, while the gap between a rapidly increasing Fed Monitor and a flat 12-month Fed Discounter is also unique among post-2000 oversold periods. In other words, the Treasury market is still vulnerable to a repricing of Fed tightening expectations, especially with positioning and sentiment measures like the Market Vane survey and net futures positioning not yet at fully bearish extremes. Bottom Line: The current oversold condition in the US Treasury market can take another 2-3 months to unwind, based on an analysis of past oversold episodes. Beyond that, higher yields loom with the Fed starting to prepare the markets for a taper in 2022. Stay underweight Treasuries in global bond portfolios on a cyclical basis. RBA Checklist Update: No Case For A Hawkish Turn Yet Australia has been one of the top performing government bond markets within the developed economies, as discussed earlier. This performance has occurred even with strong acceleration of both Australian economic momentum and market-based inflation expectations (Chart 8). Despite our RBA Monitor flashing pressure on the RBA to tighten, and the Australian OIS curve already discounting 48bps of rate hikes over the next two years, Australian bond yields have remained very well behaved during the “calm” second quarter for global fixed income. Chart 8RBA Policies Limiting Rise In Bond Yields Chart 9RBA Stimulus Takes Many Forms The continued dovish messaging from the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) is the main reason for the solid Australia bond performance. The central bank is signaling no imminent shift in its combination of 0.1% nominal policy rates, deeply negative real rates, yield curve control on 3-year bonds and quantitative easing on longer-maturity bonds (Chart 9). Other central banks are starting to inch towards reining in the massive monetary accommodation of the past year. Could the RBA be next? In a Special Report published back in January of this year, we outlined a list of variables to watch to determine when the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) could be expected to turn less dovish.2 This checklist would also inform our country allocation view on Australian government bonds, which has remained neutral. A quick update on the latest readings from the RBA Checklist shows little pressure on the RBA to begin preparing markets for tighter monetary policy. 1. The vaccination process goes quickly and smoothly We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Australia has weathered COVID-19 far better than most other Western countries in terms of actual cases and deaths, but the vaccine rollout Down Under has been underwhelming. Only 16% of the population has received at least one vaccine jab, while a mere 2% is fully vaccinated. These are numbers that are more comparable to pandemic-ravaged emerging market countries like India and Brazil where access to vaccines is an issue (Chart 10). Chart 10A Slow Vaccine Rollout Down Under The slow vaccine rollout is less worrisome in light of the Australian government having secured enough vaccine doses to inoculate the entire population, and with the domestic economy facing limited remaining COVID-19 restrictions. The issue has been distribution and that is now occurring at a quickening pace. Until a much greater share of the population is vaccinated, however, Australia will continue to maintain aggressive COVID-related international travel restrictions – the government just announced that borders will remain shut until mid-2022 - that will be a major drag on the economically-important tourism sector. 2. Private sector demand accelerates alongside fiscal stimulus (✔) We ARE placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Australia’s fiscal stimulus in response to the pandemic was one of the largest in the developed world. The stimulus was heavily focused on wage subsidies and income support measures like the JobSeeker program, which expired back in March. As the expensive stimulus programs are unwound, it is critical that the domestic economy can stand on its own without support. On that front, the news is good. Australia’s economy grew by 1.8% during Q1/2021, lifting the level of real GDP above the pre-pandemic peak (Chart 11). Both consumer spending and business investment posted solid growth during the quarter, fueled by surging confidence with the NAB business outlook measure hitting a record high in May (bottom panel). As a sign that the domestic economy is benefitting from a return to pre-pandemic habits, Q1 saw a 15% increase in spending in hotels, cafes and restaurants. That strength looked to extend into the Q2, with retail sales rising 1.1% in April, suggesting that Australian domestic demand is enjoying strong upward momentum. Chart 11A Confidence-Led Recovery In Domestic Demand Chart 12China Is A Drag On Australian Exports 3. China reins in policy stimulus by less than expected We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. China is by far Australia’s largest trading partner, so Chinese demand is always an important contributor to Australian economic growth. This is why we included a China element in our RBA Checklist. Specifically, we deemed the outcome that would potentially turn the RBA more hawkish would be Chinese policymakers pulling back monetary and fiscal stimulus by less than expected in 2021 after the big policy support in 2020. The combined fiscal and credit impulse for China has already slowed by 9% of GDP since December 2020, signaling a meaningful cooling of Chinese growth in the latter half of 2021 that should weigh on demand for imports from Australia (Chart 12). However, Chinese import demand has already been severely impacted because of worsening China-Australia political tensions, which has led Beijing to impose restrictions on Australian imports for a variety of products, include coal, wine, beef, barley and cotton. The result is that there has been no growth in Australian total exports to China over the past year – an outcome that was flattered by the surge in iron ore prices - which has weighed on overall Australian export growth. Given this weak starting point for Chinese demand for Australian goods, the sharp reduction in the China stimulus is, on the margin, a factor that will not force the RBA to turn less dovish sooner than expected. 4. Inflation, both realized and expected, returns to the RBA’s 2-3% target We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Australian inflation remains well below the RBA’s 2-3% target range, with the headline CPI and the less volatile trimmed mean CPI both expanding at only a 1.1% annual rate in Q1/2021 (Chart 13). The RBA is forecasting a brief boost to both measures in Q2, before settling back below 2% to the end of 2022. Chart 13No Bond-Bearish RBA Policy Shift Without More Inflation Chart 14Diminishing Financial Stability Risks From Housing The RBA’s message on the inflation outlook has been very consistent. A sustainable move of realized inflation back to the 2-3% target range – that would prompt a normalization of monetary policy – cannot occur without a significant tightening of labor markets that drives wage growth back to 3% from the Q1/2021 reading of 1.5%. The RBA currently does not expect that outcome to occur before 2024. The RBA believes that the full employment NAIRU is between 4-4.5%, well below the OECD’s latest estimate of 5.4%. Given the sharp drop in Australian unemployment already seen over the past few quarters, there is the potential for an upside surprise in the wage data that could lead the RBA to change its policy bias. The central bank would need to see a few quarters of such wage surprises, however, before altering its forward guidance on the timing of future rate hikes. 5. House price inflation begins to accelerate We are NOT placing a checkmark next to this part of our RBA Checklist. Given Australia’s past history with periods of surging home values, signs that housing markets were overheating could prompt the RBA to consider tighten monetary policy. The annual growth of median house prices has dipped from +8% in Q1 2020 to +4% in Q4 2020, despite robust housing demand as evidenced by the 40% growth in building approvals. At the same time, housing valuations have become less stretched with the ratio of median home prices to median household incomes falling -9% from the 2017 peak according to data from the OECD (Chart 14). The RBA remains sensitive to the potential financial stability risks from overvalued housing. The latest trends in the house price data, however, suggest that the central bank does not yet to have the use the blunt tool of tighter monetary policy to cool off an overheated housing market. Chart 15Upgrade Australia To Overweight (Vs. USTs) In sum, the majority of items in our RBA Checklist are signaling no immediate pressure on the central bank to tighten policy. The first 25bp rate hike is not discounted in the Australian OIS curve until April 2023, a little ahead of RBA guidance but still consistent with a very dovish policy bias. The inflation data, in our view, will be the critical factor that could prompt the markets to pull forward expected monetary tightening, leading to a surge in Australian bond yields. With the RBA already expecting a surge in inflation in the Q2/2020 data, the central bank would likely want to see at least a couple of more quarterly inflation prints – both for the CPI and wage price index - before signaling a more hawkish policy shift. Thus, the RBA will likely stay dovish over the latter half of 2021 Therefore, we are moving to an overweight recommended stance on Australian government bonds on a tactical (0-6 months) basis. In our model bond portfolio on pages 16-17, we are “funding” that shift to an above-benchmark weighting in Australia out of US Treasury exposure. Given our view that the Fed will soon begin to signal a 2022 taper of its asset purchases, relative policy dovishness should lead Australian government bonds to outperform US Treasuries in the latter half of this year. In addition, Australian bonds have a lower yield beta to changes in US Treasury yields, relative to the high beta to changes in non-US developed market yields (Chart 15), making allocations out of the US into Australia attractive from a risk management perspective in a global bond portfolio. Bottom Line: Only one of the five components of our “RBA Checklist” – designed to measure the pressures that would force the Reserve Bank of Australia to turn less dovish – is flashing such a signal. We are upgrading our recommended allocation to Australian government bonds to overweight on a tactical investment horizon. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Bond Markets Are Suffering Withdrawal Symptoms", dated March 20, 2018. 2 See BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy/Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Australia: Regime Change For Bond Yields & The Currency?", dated January 20, 2021. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights Chart 1Tracking Nonfarm Payrolls With 12-month PCE inflation already above the Fed’s 2% target, it is progress toward the Fed’s “maximum employment” goal that will determine both the timing of Fed liftoff and whether bond yields rise or fall. On that note, the bond market is currently priced for Fed liftoff in early 2023. We also calculate that average monthly nonfarm payroll growth of between 378k and 462k is required to meet the Fed’s “maximum employment” goal by the end of 2022, in time for an early-2023 rate hike. It follows from this analysis that any monthly employment print above +462k should be considered bond-bearish and any print below +378k should be considered bond-bullish (Chart 1). In that light, May’s +559k print is bond-bearish, and we anticipate further bond-bearish employment reports in the coming months as COVID fears fade and people return to a labor market that is already awash with demand. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration in US bond portfolios and also continue to favor spread product over duration-matched Treasuries. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +159 bps. The combination of above-trend economic growth and accommodative monetary policy supports positive excess returns for spread product versus Treasuries. At 142 bps, the 2/10 Treasury slope is very steep and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate sits at 2.27% - almost, but not quite, within the 2.3% to 2.5% range that the Fed considers “well anchored”.1 The message from these two indicators is that the Fed is not yet ready for monetary conditions to turn restrictive. Despite the positive macro back-drop, investment grade corporate valuations are extremely tight. The investment grade corporate index’s 12-month breakeven spread is almost at its lowest since 1995 (Chart 2). Though we retain a positive view of spread product as a whole, tight valuations cause us to recommend only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. We prefer high-yield corporates, municipal bonds and USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereigns. Last week, the Fed announced that it will wind down its corporate bond portfolio over the coming months. The corporate bond purchase facility has not been operational since December 2020, meaning that the corporate bond market has been functioning without an explicit Fed back-stop for all of 2021. The portfolio itself is also quite small compared to the size of the corporate bond market. As a result, we anticipate no material impact on spreads. 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 8 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +343 bps. In a recent report, we looked at the default expectations that are currently priced into the junk index and considered whether they are likely to be met.2 If we demand an excess spread of 100 bps and assume a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt, then the High-Yield index embeds an expected default rate of 3.3% (Chart 3). Using a model of the speculative grade default rate that is based on gross corporate leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) and C&I lending standards, we can estimate a likely default rate for the next 12 months using assumptions for profit and debt growth. The median FOMC forecast of 6.5% real GDP growth in 2021 is consistent with 31% corporate profit growth. We also assume that last year’s corporate debt binge will moderate in 2021. According to our model, 30% profit growth and 2% debt growth is consistent with a default rate of 3.4%, very close to what is priced into junk spreads. Given that the large amount of fiscal stimulus coming down the pike makes the Fed’s 6.5% real GDP growth forecast look conservative, and the fact that the combination of strong economic growth and accommodative monetary policy could easily cause valuations to overshoot in the near-term, we are inclined to maintain an overweight allocation to High-Yield bonds. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 36 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -9 bps. The nominal spread between conventional 30-year MBS and equivalent-duration Treasuries widened 7 bps in May. The spread remains wide compared to recent history, but it is still tight compared to the pace of mortgage refinancings (Chart 4). The conventional 30-year MBS option-adjusted spread (OAS) currently sits at 24 bps. This is considerably below the 51 bps offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds and the 27 bps offered by Agency CMBS. It is only slightly more than the 18 bps offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS. All in all, value in MBS is not appealing compared to other similarly risky sectors. In a recent report, we looked at MBS performance and valuation across the coupon stack.3 We noted that the higher convexity of high-coupon MBS makes them likely to outperform lower-coupon MBS in a rising yield environment. Higher coupon MBS also have greater OAS than lower coupons. This makes the high-coupon MBS more likely to outperform in a flat bond yield environment as well. Given our view that bond yields will be flat-to-higher during the next 6-12 months, we recommend favoring high coupons over low coupons within an overall underweight allocation to Agency MBS. Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 15 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +87 bps (Chart 5). Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 32 bps in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +53 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 2 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +37 bps. Local Authority bonds outperformed by 30 bps in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +360 bps. Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals both outperformed by 8 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +27 bps and +24 bps, respectively. We recently took a detailed look at USD-denominated Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign valuation.4 We found that, on an equivalent-duration basis, EM Sovereigns offer a spread advantage over investment grade US corporates. Attractive countries include: Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia and Colombia. We prefer US corporates over EM Sovereigns in the high-yield space where there is still some value left in US corporate spreads and where the EM space is dominated by distressed credits like Turkey and Argentina. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 21 basis points in May, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +286 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). We took a detailed look at municipal bond performance and valuation in a recent report and came to the following conclusions.5 First, the economic and policy back-drop is favorable for municipal bond performance. The recently enacted American Rescue Plan includes $350 billion of funding for state & local governments, a bailout that comes after state & local government revenues already exceeded expenditures in 2020 (Chart 6). President Biden has also proposed increasing income tax rates. However, there may not be time to pass these tax hikes before the 2022 midterm elections. Second, Aaa-rated municipal bonds look expensive relative to Treasuries (top panel). Muni investors should move down in quality to pick up additional yield. Third, General Obligation (GO) and Revenue munis offer better value than investment grade corporates with the same credit rating and duration, particularly at the long-end of the curve. Revenue munis in the 12-17 year maturity bucket offer a before-tax yield pick-up versus corporates. GO munis offer a breakeven tax rate of just 7% (panel 2). Fourth, taxable munis offer a yield advantage over investment grade corporates that investors should take advantage of (panel 3). Finally, high-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive relative to high-yield corporates, offering a breakeven tax rate of 22% (panel 4). But despite the attractive spread, we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates as the deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them prone to extension risk if bond yields gap higher. Treasury Curve: Buy 5-Year Bullet Versus 2/30 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury yields fell in May, with the 5-10 year part of the curve benefiting the most. The 7-year yield fell 8 bps in May while the 5-year and 10-year yields both fell 7 bps. Yield declines were smaller for shorter (< 5-year) and longer (> 10-year) maturities. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 5 bps to end the month at 144 bps. The 5/30 Treasury slope steepened 3 bps to end the month at 147 bps (Chart 7). We recently changed our recommended yield curve position from a 5 over 2/10 butterfly to a 5 over 2/30 butterfly.6 In making the switch we noted that the slope of the Treasury curve has behaved differently since bond yields peaked in early April. Prior to April, the rise in bond yields was concentrated at the very long-end (10-year +) of the curve. During the past two months, the belly of the curve (5-7 years) has seen more volatility. We conclude that we are now close enough to an expected Fed liftoff date that further significant increases in yields will be met with a flatter curve beyond the 5-year maturity point and that the 5-year and 7-year notes are likely to benefit the most if bond yields dip. We also observe an exceptional yield pick-up of +33 bps in the 5-year bullet over a duration-matched 2/30 barbell. Given our view that bond yields will be flat-to-higher during the next 6-12 months, we recommend buying the 5-year bullet over a duration-matched 2/30 barbell to take advantage of the strong positive carry in a flat yield environment, and as a hedge against our below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 86 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +484 bps. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates rose 1 bp and 2 bps on the month, respectively. At 2.42%, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the top-end of the 2.3% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation expectations being well anchored around the Fed’s target (Chart 8). Meanwhile, at 2.27%, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is just below the target band (panel 3). With long-maturity breakevens already consistent (or close to consistent) with the Fed’s target, they have limited upside going forward. The Fed has so far welcomed rising TIPS breakeven inflation rates, but it will have an increasing incentive to lean against them if they continue to move up. We also think that the market has priced-in an overly aggressive inflation outlook at the front-end of the curve. The 1-year and 2-year CPI swap rates stand at 3.76% and 3.12%, respectively. There is a good chance that these lofty inflation expectations will not be confirmed by the actual data. With all that in mind, investors should maintain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries and also a neutral posture towards the inflation curve (panel 4). The inflation curve could steepen somewhat in the near-term if short-maturity inflation expectations moderate, but we expect the curve to remain inverted for a long time yet. An inverted inflation curve is more consistent with the Fed’s Average Inflation Target than a positively sloped one, and it should be considered the natural state of affairs moving forward. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 13 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +33 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed by 13 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +26 bps. Non-Aaa ABS outperformed by 12 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +70 bps. The stimulus from last year’s CARES act led to a significant increase in household savings when individual checks were mailed in April 2020. This excess savings has still not been spent and, already, the most recent round of stimulus checks is pushing the savings rate higher again (Chart 9). The extraordinarily large stock of household savings means that the collateral quality of consumer ABS is also extraordinarily high. Indeed, many households have been using their windfalls to pay down consumer debt (bottom panel). Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should also take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 41 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +163 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed Treasuries by 27 bps in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +78 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS outperformed by 84 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +453 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Even with the economic recovery well underway, commercial real estate loan demand continues to weaken and banks are not making lending standards more accommodative (panels 3 & 4). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in May, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +125 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 7 bps on the month and it currently sits at 27 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have completely recovered their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of May 28TH, 2021) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of May 28TH, 2021) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 57 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 57 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of May 28TH, 2021) Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For further discussion of how we assess the state of monetary policy vis-à-vis spread product please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Lower For Longer, Then Faster Than You Think”, dated May 25, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “That Uneasy Feeling”, dated March 30, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A New Conundrum”, dated April 20, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Searching For Value In Spread Product”, dated January 26, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Entering A New Yield Curve Regime”, dated May 11, 2021.
Friday’s US employment report was another miss. Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 559 thousand in May, below the anticipated 675 thousand. Moreover, the labor force participation rate ticked down to 61.6% from 61.7%. Thus, the 0.3 percentage point…
European bond markets have calmed down after a rough couple of months that saw the benchmark 10-year German bund yield rise from a low of -0.39% on March 25 to a high of -0.11% on May 19. Yields on riskier European debt saw even bigger increases over that…
Highlights President Biden has called for the US intelligence community to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and one of Biden’s top diplomats has stated the obvious: the era of “engagement” with China is over. This clinches our long-held view that any Democratic president would be a hawk like President Trump. The US-China conflict – and global geopolitical risk – will revive and undermine global risk appetite. China faces a confluence of geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, suggesting that its equity underperformance will continue. Domestic Chinese investors should stay long government bonds. Foreign investors should sell into the bond rally to reduce exposure to any future sanctions. The impending agreement of a global minimum corporate tax rate has limited concrete implications that are not already known but it symbolizes the return of Big Government in the western world. Our updated GeoRisk Indicators are available in the Appendix, as well as our monthly geopolitical calendar. Feature In our quarterly webcast, “Geopolitics And Bull Markets,” we argued that geopolitical themes matter to investors when they have a demonstrable relationship with the macroeconomic backdrop. When geopolitics and macro are synchronized, a simple yet powerful investment thesis can be discerned. The US war on terror, Russia’s resurgence, the EU debt crisis, and Brexit each provided cases in which a geopolitically informed macro view was both accessible and actionable at an early stage. Investors generally did well if they sold the relevant country’s currency and disfavored its equities on a relative basis. Chart 1China's Decade Of Troubles Of course, the market takeaway is not always so clear. When geopolitics and macroeconomics are desynchronized, the trick is to determine which framework will prevail over the financial markets and for how long. Sometimes the market moves to its own rhythm. The goal is not to trade on geopolitics but rather to invest with geopolitics. One of our key views for this year – headwinds for China – is an example of synchronization. Two weeks ago we discussed China’s macroeconomic challenge. In this report we discuss China’s foreign policy challenge: geopolitical pressure from the US and its allies. In particular we address President Biden’s call for a deeper intelligence dive into the origins of COVID-19. The takeaway is negative for China’s currency and risk assets. The Great Recession dealt a painful blow to the Chinese version of the East Asian economic miracle. By 2015, China’s financial turmoil and currency devaluation should have convinced even bullish investors to keep their distance from Chinese stocks and the renminbi. If investors stuck with this bearish view despite the post-2016 rally, on fear of trade war, they were rewarded in 2018-19. Only with China’s containment of COVID-19 and large economic stimulus in 2020 has CNY-USD threatened to break out (Chart 1). We expect the renminbi to weaken anew, especially once the Fed begins to taper asset purchases. Our cyclical view is still bullish but US-China relations are unstable so we remain tactically defensive. Forget Biden’s China Review, He’s A Hawk Chinese financial markets face a host of challenges this year, despite the positive factors for China’s manufacturing sector amid the global recovery. At home these challenges consist of a structural economic slowdown, a withdrawal of policy stimulus, bearish sentiment among households, and an ongoing government crackdown on systemic risk. Abroad the Democratic Party’s return to power in Washington means that the US will bring more allies to bear in its attempt to curb China’s rise. This combination of factors presents a headwind for Chinese equities and a tailwind for government bonds (Chart 2). This is true at least until the government should hit its pain threshold and re-stimulate. Chart 2Global Investors Still Wary New stimulus may not occur in 2022. The Communist Party’s leadership rotation merely requires economic stability, not rapid growth. While the central government has a record of stimulating when its pain threshold is hit, even under the economically hawkish President Xi Jinping, a financial market riot is usually part of this threshold. This implies near-term downside, particularly for global commodities and metals, which are also facing a Chinese regulatory backlash to deter speculation. In this context, President Biden’s call for a deeper US intelligence investigation into the origin of COVID-19 is an important confirming signal of the US’s hawkish turn toward China. Biden gave 90 days for the intelligence community to report back to him. We will not enter into the debate about COVID-19’s origins. From a geopolitical point of view it is a moot point. The facts of the virus origin may never be established. According to Biden’s statement, at least one US intelligence agency believes the “lab leak theory” is the most likely source of the virus (while two other agencies decided in favor of animal-to-human transmission). Meanwhile Chinese government spokespeople continue to push the theory that the virus originated at the US’s Fort Detrick in Maryland or at a US-affiliated global research center. What is certain is that the first major outbreak of a highly contagious disease occurred in Wuhan. Both sides are demanding greater transparency and will reject each other’s claims based on a lack of transparency. If the US intelligence report concludes that COVID originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese government and media will reject the report. If the report exonerates the Wuhan laboratory, at least half of the US public will disbelieve it and it will not deter Biden from drawing a hard line on more macro-relevant policy disputes with China. The US’s hawkish bipartisan consensus on China took shape before COVID. Biden’s decision to order the fresh report introduces skepticism regarding the World Health Organization’s narrative, which was until now the mainstream media’s narrative. Previously this skepticism was ghettoized in US public discourse: indeed, until Biden’s announcement on May 26, the social media company Facebook suppressed claims that the virus came from a lab accident or human failure. Thus Biden’s action will ensure that a large swathe of the American public will always tend to support this theory regardless of the next report’s findings. At the same time Biden discontinued a State Department effort to prove the lab leak theory, which shows that it is not a foregone conclusion what his administration will decide. The good news is that even if the report concluded in favor of the lab leak, the Biden administration would remain highly unlikely to demand that China pay “reparations,” like the Trump administration demanded in 2020. This demand, if actualized, would be explosive. The bad news is that a future nationalist administration could conceivably use the investigation as a basis to demand reparations. Nationalism is a force to be reckoned with in both countries and the dispute over COVID’s origin will exacerbate it. Traditionally the presidents of both countries would tamp down nationalism or attempt to keep it harnessed. But in the post-Xi, post-Trump era it is harder to control. The death toll of COVID-19 will be a permanent source of popular grievance around the world and a wedge between the US and China (Chart 3). China’s international image suffered dramatically in 2020. So far in 2021 China has not regained any diplomatic ground. Chart 3Death Toll Of COVID-19 The US is repairing its image via a return to multilateralism while the Europeans have put their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China on hold due to a spat over sanctions arising from western accusations of genocide (a subject on which China pointedly answered that it did not need to be lectured by Europeans). Notably Biden’s Department of State also endorsed its predecessor’s accusation of genocide in Xinjiang. Any authoritative US intelligence review that solidifies doubts about the WHO’s initial investigation – even if it should not affirm the lab leak theory – would give Biden more ammunition in global opinion to form a democratic alliance to pressure China (for example, in Europe). An important factor that enables the US to remain hawkish on China is fiscal stimulus. While stimulus helps bring about economic recovery, it also lowers the bar to political confrontation (Chart 4). Countries with supercharged domestic demand do not have as much to fear from punitive trade measures. The Biden administration has not taken new punitive measures against China but it is clearly not worried about Chinese retaliation. Chart 4Large Fiscal Stimulus Lowers The Bar To Geopolitical Conflict China’s stimulus is underrated in this chart (which excludes non-fiscal measures) but it is still true that China’s policy has been somewhat restrained and it will need to stimulate its economy again in response to any new punitive measures or any global loss of confidence. At least China is limited in its ability to tighten policy due to the threat of US pressure and western trade protectionism. Simultaneous with Biden’s announcement on COVID-19, his administration’s coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs, Kurt Campbell, proclaimed in a speech that the era of “engagement” with China is officially over and the new paradigm is one of “competition.” By now Campbell is stating the obvious. But this tone is a change both from his tone while serving in President Obama’s Department of State and from his article in Foreign Affairs last year (when he was basically auditioning for his current role in the Biden administration).1 Campbell even said in his latest remarks that the Trump administration was right about the “direction” of China policy (though not the “execution”), which is candid. Campbell was speaking at Stanford University but his comments were obviously aimed for broader consumption. Investors no longer need to wait for the outcome of the Biden administration’s comprehensive review of policy toward China. The answer is known: the Biden administration’s hawkishness is confirmed. The Department of Defense report on China policy, due in June, is very unlikely to strike a more dovish posture than the president’s health policy. Now investors must worry about how rapidly tensions will escalate and put a drag on global sentiment. Bottom Line: US-China relations are unstable and pose an immediate threat to global risk appetite. The fundamental geopolitical assessment of US-China relations has been confirmed yet again. The US is seeking to constrain China’s rise because China is the only country capable of rivaling the US for supremacy in Asia and the world. Meanwhile China is rejecting liberalization in favor of economic self-sufficiency and maintaining an offensive foreign policy as it is wary of US containment and interference. Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are still capable of stabilizing relations in the medium term but they are unlikely to substantially de-escalate tensions. And at the moment tensions are escalating. China’s Reaction: The Example Of Australia How will China respond to Biden’s new inquiry into COVID’s origins? Obviously Beijing will react negatively but we would not expect anything concrete to occur until the result of the inquiry is released in 90 days. China will be more constrained in its response to the US than it has been with Australia, which called for an international inquiry early last year, as the US is a superior power. Australia was the first to ban Chinese telecom company Huawei from its 5G network (back in 2018) and it was the first to call for a COVID probe. Relations between China and Australia have deteriorated steadily since then, but macro trends have clearly driven the Aussie dollar. The AUD-JPY exchange rate is a good measure for global risk appetite and it is wavering in recent weeks (Chart 5). Chart 5Australian Dollar Follows Macro Trends, Rallies Amid China Trade Spat Tensions have also escalated due to China’s dependency on Australian commodity exports at a time of spiking commodity prices. This is a recurring theme going back to the Stern Hu affair. The COVID spat led China to impose a series of sanctions against Australian beef, barley, wine, and coal. But because China cannot replace Australian resources (at least, not in the short term), its punitive measures are limited. It faces rising producer prices as a result of its trade restrictions (Chart 6). This dependency is a bigger problem for China today than it was in previous cycles so China will try to diversify. Chart 6Constraints On China's Tarrifs On Australia By contrast, China is not likely to impose sanctions on the US in response to Biden’s investigation, unless Biden attacks first. China’s imports from the US are booming and its currency is appreciating sharply. Despite Beijing’s efforts to keep the Phase One trade deal from collapsing, Biden is maintaining Trump’s tariffs and the US-China trade divorce is proceeding (Chart 7). Bilateral tariff rates are still 16-17 percentage points higher than they were in 2018, with US tariffs on China at 19% (versus 3% on the rest of the world) while Chinese tariffs on the US stand at 21% (versus 6% on the rest of the world). The Biden administration timed this week’s hawkish statements to coincide with the first meeting of US trade negotiators with China, which was a more civil affair. Both countries acknowledged that the relationship is important and trade needs to be continued. However, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s comments were not overly optimistic (she told Reuters that the relationship is “very, very challenging”). She has also been explicit about maintaining policy continuity with the Trump administration. We highly doubt that China’s share of US imports will ever surpass its pre-Trump peaks. The Biden administration has also refrained so far from loosening export controls on high-tech trade with China. This has caused a bull market in Taiwan while causing problems for Chinese semiconductor stocks’ relative performance (Chart 8). If Biden’s policy review does not lead to any relaxation of export controls on commercial items then it will mark a further escalation in tensions. Chart 7US Tarrifs Reduce China In Trade Deficit Bottom Line: Until Presidents Biden and Xi stabilize relations at the top, the trade negotiations over implementing the Phase One trade deal – and any new Phase Two talks – cannot bring major positive surprises for financial markets. Chart 8US Export Controls Amid Chip Shortage Congress Is More Hawkish Than Biden Biden’s ability to reduce frictions with China, should he seek to, will also be limited by Congress and public opinion. With the US deeply politically divided, and polarization at historically high levels, China has emerged as one of the few areas of agreement. The hawkish consensus is symbolized by new legislation such as the Strategic Competition Act, which is making its way through the Senate rapidly. Congress is also trying to boost US competitiveness through bills such as the Endless Frontier Act. These bills would subject China to scrutiny and potential punitive measures over a broad range of issues but most of all they would ignite US industrial policy , STEM education, and R&D, and diversify the US’s supply chains. We would highlight three key points with regard to the global impact of this legislation: Global supply chains are shifting regardless: This trend is fairly well established in tech, defense, and pharmaceuticals. It will continue unless we see a major policy reversal from China to try to court western powers and reduce frictions. The EU and India are less enthusiastic than the US and Australia about removing China from supply chains but they are not opposed. The EU Commission has recommended new defensive economic measures that cover supply chains in batteries, cloud services, hydrogen energy, pharmaceuticals, materials, and semiconductors. As mentioned, the EU is also hesitating to ratify the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China. Hence the EU is moving in the US’s direction independently of proposed US laws. After all, China’s rise up the tech value chain (and its decision to stop cutting back the size of its manufacturing sector) ultimately threatens the EU’s comparative advantage. The EU is also aligned with the US on democratic values and network security. India has taken a harder stance on China than usual, which marks an important break with the past. India’s decision to exclude Huawei from its 5G network is not final but it is likely to be at least partially implemented. A working group of democracies is forming regardless. The Strategic Competition Act calls for the creation of a working group of democracies but the truth is that this is already happening through more effective forums like the G7 and bilateral summits. Just as the implementation of the act would will ultimately depend on President Biden, so the willingness of other countries to adopt the recommendations of the working group would depend on their own executives. Allies have leeway as Biden will not use punitive measures against them: Any policy change from the EU, UK, India, and Australia will be independent of the US Congress passing the Strategic Competition Act. These countries will be self-directed. The US would have to devote diplomatic energy to maintaining a sustained effort by these states to counter China in the face of economic costs. This will be limited by the fact that the Biden administration will be very reluctant to impose punitive measures on allies to insist on their cooperation. The allies will set the pace of pressure on China rather than the United States. This gives the EU an important position, particularly Germany. And yet the trends in Germany suggest that the government will be more hawkish on China after the federal elections in September. Bottom Line: The Biden administration is unlikely to use punitive measures against allies so new US laws are less important than overall US diplomacy with each of the allies. Some allies will be less compliant with US policies given their need for trade with China. But so far there appears to be a common position taking shape even with the EU that is prejudicial to China’s involvement in key sectors of emerging technologies. If China does not respond by reducing its foreign policy assertiveness, then China’s economic growth will suffer. That drag would have to be offset by new supply chain construction in Southeast Asia and other countries. Investment Takeaways The foregoing highlights the international risks facing China even at a time when its trend growth is slowing (Chart 9) and its ongoing struggle with domestic financial imbalances is intensifying. China’s debt-service costs have risen sharply and Beijing is putting pressure on corporations and local governments to straighten out their finances (Chart 10), resulting in a wave of defaults. This backdrop is worrisome for investors until policymakers reassure them that government support will continue. Chart 9China's Growth Potential Slowing Chart 10China's Leaders Struggle With Debt China’s domestic stability is a key indicator of whether geopolitical risks could spiral out of control. In particular we think aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait is likely to be delayed as long as the Chinese economy and regime are stable. China has rattled sabers over the strait this year in a warning to the United States not to cross its red line (Chart 11). It is not yet clear how Biden’s policy continuity with the Trump administration will affect cross-strait stability. We see no basis yet for changing our view that there is a 60% chance of a market-negative geopolitical incident in 2021-22 and a 5% chance of full-scale war in the short run. Chart 11China PLA Flights Over Taiwan Strait Putting all of the above together, we see substantial support for two key market-relevant geopolitical risks: Chinese domestic politics (including policy tightening) and persistent US-China tensions (including but not limited to the Taiwan Strait). We remain tactically defensive, a stance supported by several recent turns in global markets: The global stock-to-bond ratio has rolled over. China is a negative factor for global risk appetite (Chart 12). Global cyclical equities are no longer outperforming defensives. There is a stark divergence between Chinese cyclicals and global cyclicals stemming from the painful transition in China’s bloated industrial economy (Chart 13). Global large caps are catching a bid relative to small caps (Chart 14). Chart 12Global Stock-To-Bond Ratio Rolled Over Chart 13Global Cyclicals-To-Defensives Pause Chart 14Global Large Caps Catch A Bid Versus Small Caps Cyclically the global economic recovery should continue as the pandemic wanes. China will eventually relax policy to prevent too abrupt of a slowdown. Therefore our strategic portfolio reflects our high-conviction view that the current global economic expansion will continue even as it faces hurdles from the secular rise in geopolitical risk, especially US-China cold war. Measurable geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty are likely to rebound sooner rather than later, with a negative impact on high-beta risk assets. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Coda: Global Minimum Tax Symbolizes Return Of Big Government On Thursday, the US Treasury Department released a proposal to set the global minimum corporate tax rate at 15%. The plan is to stop what Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has referred to as a global “race to the bottom” and create the basis for a rehabilitation of government budgets damaged by pandemic-era stimulus. Although the newly proposed 15% rate is significantly below President Biden’s bid to raise the US Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) rate to 21% from 10.5%, it is the same rate as his proposed minimum tax on corporate book income. Biden is also raising the headline corporate tax rate from 21% to around 25% (or at highest 28%). Negotiators at the OECD were initially discussing a 12.5% global minimum rate. The finance ministers of both France and Germany – where the corporate income tax rates are 32.0% and 29.9%, respectively – both responded positively to the announcement. However, Ireland, which uses low corporate taxes as an economic development strategy, is obviously more comfortable with a minimum closer to its own 12.5% rate. Discussions are likely to occur when G7 finance ministers meet on June 4-5. Countries are hoping to establish a broad outline for the proposal by the G20 meeting in early July. It is highly likely that the OECD will come to an agreement. However, it is not a truly “global” minimum as there will still be tax havens. Compliance and enforcement will vary across countries. A close look at the domestic political capital of the relevant countries shows that while many countries have the raw parliamentary majorities necessary to raise taxes, most countries have substantial conservative contingents capable of preventing stiff corporate tax hikes (Table 1, in the Appendix). Our Geopolitical strategists highlight that the Biden administration’s compromise on the minimum rate reflects its pragmatism as well as emphasis on multilateralism. Any global deal will be non-binding but the two most important low-tax players are already committed to raising corporate rates well above this level: Biden’s plan is noted above, while the UK’s budget for March includes a jump in the business rate to 25% in April 2023 from the current 19%. Ireland and Hungary are the only outliers but they may eventually be forced to yield to such a large coalition of bigger economies (Chart 15). Chart 15Global Minimum Corporate Tax Impact Is Symbolic Rather Than Concrete Thus a nominal minimum corporate tax rate is likely to be forged but it will not be truly global and it will not change the corporate rate for most countries. The reality of what companies pay will also depend on loopholes, tax havens, and the effective tax rate. Bottom Line: On a structural horizon, the global minimum corporate tax is significant for showing a paradigm shift in global macro policy: western governments are starting to raise taxes and revenue after decades of cutting taxes. The experiment with limited government has ended and Big Government is making a comeback. On a cyclical horizon, the US concession on global minimum tax is that the Biden administration aims to be pragmatic and “get things done.” Biden is also working with Republicans to pass bills covering some bipartisan aspects of his domestic agenda, such as trade, manufacturing, and China. The takeaway from a global point of view is that Biden may prove to be a compromiser rather than an ideologue, unlike his predecessors. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim Vice President Daily Insights RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan, "Competition Without Catastrophe," Foreign Affairs, September/October 2019, foreignaffairs.com. Section II: Appendix Table 1OECD: Which Countries Are Willing And Able To Raise Corporate Tax Rates? GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan – Province Of China Korea Turkey Brazil Australia Section III: Geopolitical Calendar