Economic Growth
Dear Client, In addition to our regular Weekly Report, we sent you a Special Report on Wednesday prepared by my colleague Marko Papic, BCA's chief geopolitical strategist, assessing the election landscape in Europe this year. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy Highlights Global growth has accelerated, corporate earnings are rebounding, and leading indicators suggest that these positive trends will persist over the remainder of the year. This supports our cyclically bullish view on global equities. Looking further out, the impulse to growth from the easing in financial conditions that began in early 2016 will fade, setting the stage for a slowdown in 2018. If growth does falter next year, easier fiscal policy could provide an offsetting tailwind. However, there continues to be a large gap between what politicians are promising and what they can realistically deliver. What is different this time is that spare capacity is much lower than it was during previous mid-cycle slowdowns. Thus, while global bond yields could eventually dip, they remain in a secular uptrend. Feature The Elusive Correction We have been arguing since last fall that stronger global growth will help fuel a variety of reflationary trades.1 This part of our view has panned out nicely. What has surprised us is just how relentlessly the market has traded that view. With the exception of a few small wobbles, the S&P 500 has basically marched higher since the morning following the U.S. presidential election. Reflecting this development, the VIX fell to near record low levels earlier this week (Chart 1). The market's failure to take a breather has sabotaged our efforts to have our cake and eat it too - to maintain an overweight stance on global equities, while also profiting from the occasional correction. In contrast to our last three tactical hedges - which generated a cumulative return of 42% - our latest hedge is now down 9%. That's a lot of red ink. Out of pure risk management considerations, we will close this trade if the loss breaches 10%. Nevertheless, most indicators continue to warn of a looming correction. In particular, our U.S. equity strategists' new "Complacency-Anxiety" index is at an all-time high, suggesting that stocks have entered a technical overshoot phase (Chart 2).2 Chart 1VIX Is Near Record Lows Chart 2Complacency Reigns Cyclical Picture Still Solid In contrast to the short-term outlook, the 12-month cyclical picture for risk assets still looks reasonably good. Measures of current activity are rebounding as animal spirits begin to kick in (Chart 3). Falling unemployment and stronger wage growth are causing households to open their wallets. Against the backdrop of decreasing spare capacity, firms are reacting to this by increasing investment spending. Capital goods orders in the G3 economies have jumped higher in recent months, and capex intention surveys are pointing to further upside (Chart 4). Chart 3Current Activity Indicators Are Rebounding Chart 4An Upswing In Capex Corporate earnings have also accelerated on the back of faster economic growth. Consensus estimates call for global EPS to expand by 12% in local-currency terms this year, with the S&P 500 registering 10.4% growth, the STOXX Europe 600 gaining 14.3%, Japan's TOPIX adding 12.5%, and MSCI EM leading the pack at 16%. Outside the U.S., year-to-date earnings revisions have generally been positive, particularly in Japan and EM (in the U.S., 2017 EPS estimates have ticked down a modest 0.8%). BCA's in-house earnings models are consistent with this optimistic profit picture (Chart 5). What accounts for this fortuitous turn of events? A number of reasons help explain why growth accelerated in the second half of 2016: The drag on global growth from the plunge in commodity sector investment ran its course. U.S. energy sector capex, for example, tumbled by 70% between Q2 of 2014 and Q3 of 2016, knocking 0.7 percent off the level of U.S. GDP. The fallout for commodity-exporting EMs such as Brazil and Russia was considerably more severe. The global economy emerged from a protracted inventory destocking cycle (Chart 6). In the U.S., inventories made a negative contribution to growth for five straight quarters starting in Q2 of 2015, the longest streak since the 1950s. The U.K., Germany, and Japan also saw notable inventory corrections. Fears of a hard landing in China and a disorderly devaluation of the RMB subsided as the Chinese government ramped up fiscal stimulus, helping to reflate the economy. Global growth benefited with a lag from the easing in financial conditions that began in earnest in early 2016. Government bond yields fell to record low levels in July. In addition, junk bond spreads collapsed, dropping from a peak of 7.9% in February to 4.3% by year-end (Chart 7). Higher equity prices, particularly in a number of beaten down emerging markets, also helped. Chart 5Broad-Based Acceleration In Corporate Earnings Chart 6Inventory Destocking Was A Drag On Growth Chart 7Corporate Borrowing Costs Have Fallen How Much Longer? Chart 8Improvement In Global ##br##Leading Economic Indicators The key question for investors is how long the good times will last. Right now, most leading indicators that we follow are signaling that the expansion will endure for the remainder of this year (Chart 8). As we look towards 2018, however, things get murkier. Conceptually, it is the change in financial conditions that matters for growth. While the ongoing rally in global equities and continued narrowing in credit spreads has contributed to some easing in financial conditions since the U.S. presidential election, this has been partly offset by higher government bond yields. A stronger dollar has also led to an incremental tightening in the U.S., as well as in some emerging markets with high levels of U.S. dollar-denominated debt. As such, it is likely that the positive "impulse" to economic growth from the easing in financial conditions that took place last year will begin to dissipate towards the end of this year. Fiscal Policy To The Rescue? If growth does slow next year, easier fiscal policy could provide an offsetting tailwind. The fiscal thrust for developed economies turned positive in 2016, the first year this happened since 2010 (Chart 9). However, it remains to be seen whether this trend will continue. There is little support among Republicans in Congress for a big infrastructure program. It once seemed possible that Chuck Schumer and his fellow Democrats could find common ground with President Trump on this issue, but that is looking less likely with each passing day, given the level of vitriol in Washington. Broad-based tax cuts are a certainty, but the risk is that they will be coupled with cuts to government spending. Empirically, the latter have a larger "multiplier effect" on GDP than the former. To complicate matters, the introduction of a border adjustment tax - something to which we assign 50% odds - could generate significant near-term dislocations for the global economy.3 Meanwhile, much of Trump's regulatory agenda is in limbo. A repeal of Dodd-Frank is off the table. Senate Republicans do not have the 60 votes needed to scrap it. The Volcker rule is here to stay. On the other side of the Atlantic, the European Commission has recommended a further loosening in fiscal policy this year, but member states themselves are actually targeting somewhat smaller fiscal deficits (Chart 10). As is often the case, budgetary overruns are likely, but with the Greek bailout program now back on the ropes, Germany and a number of other countries may begin to dial up the austerity rhetoric. Chart 9Will Fiscal Policy Continue To Ease? Chart 10European Commission Recommending Greater Fiscal Expansion Uncertainty over the slew of European elections slated for this year could also weigh on business sentiment. Marine Le Pen is likely to place first in the initial round of the French presidential election, but faces an uphill battle in the subsequent runoff. Nevertheless, betting markets are assigning a one-in-three chance of Le Pen becoming president - similar to the odds they were assigning to a Brexit "yes vote" and a Trump victory (Chart 11). Italy also remains a risk, as my colleague Marko Papic, BCA's chief geopolitical strategist, discussed in this week's Special Report.4 Anti-euro sentiment is now stronger there than in any other major European economy (Chart 12). Chinese fiscal policy has already tightened significantly, with the year-over-year rate of change in government spending falling from a high of 25% in November 2015 to zero at present (Chart 13). So far the Chinese economy has held up well, but there is a risk that this may change. Despite Trump's backpedaling on the "One China" question, we expect the Trump administration to declare China a currency manipulator later this year. This will pave the way for higher tariffs on a variety of Chinese goods, which could lead to retaliatory measures by China. Chart 11Brexit, Then Trump... Is Le Pen Next? Chart 12Italy: Anti-Euro Sentiment Is A Risk Chart 13China: Fiscal Stimulus Is Fading Investment Conclusions Chart 14Diminished Slack In The Global Economy Global growth continues to be strong, and is likely to stay that way for the remainder of this year. However, there is a heightened risk that the global economy will falter in 2018. We remain cyclically overweight global equities and underweight government bonds, but are not dogmatic about this view. As the discussion above suggests, plenty of things could derail the reflation trade. If evidence begins to mount that a slowdown is coming earlier than we think, we will turn more bearish on stocks. Given that equities are technically overbought at present, we would not fault anyone for taking some money off the table. If growth does slow in 2018, does this mean that bond yields will fall back towards last year's lows? We don't think so. For one thing, a major deflationary commodity bust of the sort we endured in 2014-15 is not in the cards. In addition, there is less slack in the global economy now than there was last year, or for that matter, anytime since early 2008 (Chart 14). As we discussed in our Q1 Strategy Outlook, potential GDP growth is likely to remain structurally depressed across much of the world, owing to slower productivity and labor force growth.5 Lower potential growth means that excess capacity could continue to be absorbed even if growth slows somewhat from its current well-above trend pace. In the U.S., this absorption of excess capacity is nearly complete, with most labor market indicators suggesting that the economy is approaching full employment (Chart 15). In this vein, we would heavily discount the decline in average hourly earnings in January's employment report. Chart 16 shows that this was mainly driven by an anomalous drop in compensation in the financial sector. Broader measures continue to point to brewing wage pressures (Chart 17). We expect the Fed to raise rates three times this year, one more hike than the market is now pricing in. If this happens, the dollar is likely to strengthen modestly over the remainder of the year. Chart 15U.S. Economy Approaching ##br##Full Employment Chart 16Financial Sector Dragging ##br##Down Hourly Earnings In The U.S. Chart 17U.S.: Broad Measures Pointing ##br##To Rising Wage Pressures Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen," dated October 14, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Bridging The Gap," dated February 6, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook First Quarter 2017: From Reflation To Stagflation," dated January 6, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Chinese fiscal stimulus, both direct fiscal spending and infrastructure investment, has slowed significantly since late last year. This raises a red flag on the sustainability of the cyclical upturn. The Chinese economy should remain buoyant in the near term, despite fiscal retrenchment. Policy initiatives should be closely monitored. Tactically upgrade H shares back to "overweight." Stay cyclically positive, and favor Chinese equities in global and EM portfolios. There are early signs that deflation is re-emerging in Hong Kong. Feature The Chinese economy has maintained strong momentum since the beginning of the year. Some sectors are showing remarkable strength, an extraordinary development considering that January is historically a lackluster month for industrial activity due to seasonality factors. The recent strength is all the more noteworthy as policymakers have apparently rolled back fiscal support significantly since late last year, and have more recently also tightened on the monetary front.1 The divergence between strengthening growth momentum and waning policy support raises hopes that the economy has finally found its footing with self-sustainable dynamics, but at the same time raises the risk that growth may relapse anew without policy tailwinds - especially if struck by an exogenous shock. For now we maintain our benign view on China's cyclical growth outlook, but the risk is tilted to the downside, and policy initiatives should be closely monitored going forward. Meanwhile, we remain positive on Chinese equities on a cyclical basis. This week we are also upgrading our tactical "bullishness rating" on H shares back to "overweight." Strengthening Growth Versus Waning Fiscal Support Despite seasonal noise in the macro data in the first two months of the year, most macro numbers coming out of China of late have surprised significantly to the upside. Producer prices have continued to accelerate, heavy-machine sales have been booming, and even exports have rebounded sharply (Chart 1). The regained strength in the economy is partly attributable to early last year's low base, which has supercharged year-over-year growth rates. However, there is little doubt at this stage that China's growth recovery since early last year has developed into a mini boom. Beneath the robust growth numbers, there are some disconcerting undercurrents on the policy front (Chart 2). Fiscal spending growth has decelerated sharply since early 2016, and actually contracted towards year end. More importantly, capital spending on infrastructure construction, which can be viewed as an indicator for broader policy-driven spending in the economy, also slowed sharply in the last quarter. Fixed asset investment in transportation networks and utility concerns have also abruptly slowed. Investment in railway construction contracted by almost 30% in the final months of last year from a year earlier. All of this underscores a synchronized reduction in the public sector's involvement in the economy of late. Chart 1Growth Recovery... Chart 2... Meets Waning Fiscal Stimulus It is not immediately clear why the government has significantly scaled back fiscal support. Combined with the latest interest rate adjustments by the People's Bank of China, it is likely that the authorities have become content with the economy's performance to a degree that any direct policy pump-priming in their view is no longer necessary or justified. If China's ongoing cyclical growth improvement was due to the authorities' reflationary efforts, then the abrupt change in policy course certainly raises a red flag on how long the recovery may last. Can The Growth Recovery Continue Without Fiscal Support? Chart 3Monetary Conditions Matter More Than Fiscal We expect the Chinese economy to remain buoyant in the next two quarters, even without major acceleration in fiscal spending, for the following reasons: First, China's growth recovery since last year has been driven primarily by easing monetary conditions through a weakening exchange rate and falling real interest rates, rather than strong fiscal boost. Chart 3 shows that industrial sector growth deterioration worsened dramatically in 2014, which in hindsight was due to a combination of aggressive fiscal retrenchment and tighter monetary conditions index (MCI). Even though fiscal expenditures began to accelerate strongly starting in early 2015, the economy only began to improve a year later when the MCI started to ease. In fact, the industrial sector continued to improve throughout 2016 along with a rising MCI when fiscal expenditures decelerated. In other words, the industrial sector's performance is much more tightly correlated with the country's monetary conditions than the cyclical swings in fiscal spending. On one hand, the RMB exchange rate matters fundamentally for the manufacturing sector, which is heavily exposed to overseas markets. On the other hand, lower real interest rates, either through easing deflation or falling nominal rates, has been a primary driver of corporate profitability and overall business conditions, given the country's debt-centric financial intermediation system (Chart 4). As PPI is still rising rapidly and the trade-weighted RMB has once again rolled over, monetary conditions will likely continue to ease, which will further boost the industrial sector despite the fiscal cuts. Second, the slowdown in infrastructure spending will likely be compensated by accelerating investment in other sectors, manufacturing and mining in particular. Easing monetary conditions and ensuing growth improvement have significantly boosted corporate profitability, which should in turn boost manufacturing capital spending (Chart 5). It is likely that the multi-year slowdown in manufacturing sector capital spending has run its course and will accelerate going forward, albeit gradually.2 Investment in the mining sector is still contracting sharply. However, there has also been a dramatic improvement in profits among mining related industries, particularly coal and base metals (Chart 5, bottom panel). If historical correlations hold, the dramatic contraction in mining sector investment has likely already become very advanced, if not already bottomed. At minimum, it is highly unlikely that mining-related capex will continue to contract at an accelerating pace. Chart 4Interest Rates Versus Corporate Profits Chart 5Profits Versus Capital Spending A potential revival in manufacturing and mining capex will reverse a major growth headwind the Chinese economy has faced in recent years, which will continue to buoy growth despite slowing infrastructure construction. Manufacturing and mining account for over 33% of China's total fixed asset investment, higher than the 25% share of infrastructure alone (Chart 6). Indeed, there are signs that the corporate sector's intentions to expand capital investment may already be improving. In recent months medium- to long-term new loans to the corporate sector have accelerated strongly, which could be a sign that the corporate sector is beefing up on investment capital (Chart 7). Chart 6Manufacturing And Mining Capex ##br##Versus Infrastructure Construction Chart 7Longer Term Loans##br## Have Accelerated Sharply Finally, we maintain the view that overall inventory levels in the economy are unsustainably low, and improving growth and easing deflation should push producers to re-stock (Chart 8). This should also ease any near-term pressure on production, even if new orders are hit by slowing public sector demand. In other words, the economy has a built-in buffer for a period of weaker demand which could allow policymakers to re-orient demand-side policies in light of the new growth situation. Chart 8The Case For Inventory Restocking In short, we expect that waning fiscal support in the economy will not derail the cyclical recovery. Macro numbers may look toppy in the coming months, as the favorable base effect from last year's low levels wears out, but business activity should remain buoyant at least in the coming two quarters. Nonetheless, in a global environment that is still facing enormous challenges and mounting uncertainties, domestic policy tightening obviously raises downside risks. The annual People's Congress in early March should offer some important clues on the Chinese government's growth priorities and policy directions, and should be closely monitored. Tactically Upgrade H Shares In terms of Chinese stocks, our attempt to time a market correction in H shares ahead of the U.S. presidential elections in October did not bear fruit as expected.3 This week we are upgrading our tactical "bullishness rating" on H shares back to "overweight". Even though H shares did correct, they found support at key technical levels and have broken out of late, underscoring a strong technical pattern (Chart 9). We are still concerned that some global markets, especially U.S. stocks, appear frothy and are vulnerable to some sort of shakeout, but the market appears to be in a melt-up phase in the near term. The risk of being left out in a rising market is higher than otherwise. More importantly, Chinese H shares are not nearly as frothy, if not outright cheap, which should further limit downside risks. The Trump administration has notably toned down the anti-China rhetoric, and the near term risk of escalating trade tension between the U.S. and China has abated.4 This should also soothe investors' concerns on Chinese stocks. Bottom Line: Tactically upgrade H shares back to "overweight." A shares will likely remain largely trendless. Meanwhile, stay cyclically positive, and favor Chinese equities in global and EM portfolios. Hong Kong: Is Deflation Coming Back? Hong Kong's GDP numbers to be released next week are likely to show the economy accelerated in the final quarter of the year, according to our model (Chart 10). However, the improvement was likely almost entirely driven by exports rather than domestic factors. In fact, retail sales contracted by 3% in December from a year ago. More importantly, with the exception of essential items such as food, alcohol and tobacco, the growth rates of all other major consumer goods are in deeply negative territory. Durable goods, an important barometer for consumer confidence and spending power, dropped by a whopping 20% in value, or 15.8% in real terms from a year ago, underscoring very weak domestic demand. Therefore, Hong Kong's growth outlook will remain heavily dependent on external demand. Chart 9H Shares: A Technical Breakout Chart 10Hong Kong's Growth Recovery Weak domestic demand also weighs heavy on inflation. Hong Kong's headline inflation is falling rapidly, primarily driven by declining rental prices, and odds are high that inflation may dip below zero in the coming months. This means that deflation may re-emerge for the first time since 2005. These developing deflationary pressures underscore the frothy housing market, and also suggest the Hong Kong dollar may have become expensive again. The currency board system prevents nominal exchange rate adjustments, and therefore any adjustment has to be through changes in domestic prices. There is little systemic risk in Hong Kong's financial system, but the re-emergence of deflationary pressures further weakens domestic demand, augments growth difficulties and bodes poorly for asset prices, especially real estate. We will follow up on these issues in the coming weeks. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "On Chinese Tightening," dated February 9, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth Watch," dated January 19, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010," dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Dealing With The Trump Wildcard," dated January 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Chart I-1No Recovery In Domestic Demand Feature Today we are publishing charts on cyclical economic conditions within developing economies. The aim of this report is to aid investors in gauging the business cycle profiles of these individual emerging economies. Global trade and manufacturing have recovered, driven by an acceleration in U.S. and euro area demand. Chinese imports have also recovered, supporting global trade amelioration. Although there has been improvement in EM manufacturing PMIs (diffusion indexes), "hard" EM economic data have not recovered (Chart I-1). This is especially true for EM domestic demand measures such as consumer spending and real gross fixed capital formation. Given the still-lingering credit excesses in many EM countries, credit growth is likely to decelerate further, leaving little chance of domestic demand recovering. Bottom Line: Continue underweighting EM equities and credit markets versus their DM peers. China Chart I-2, Chart I-3, Chart I-4, Chart I-5, Chart I-6, Chart I-7 Chart I-2C2 Chart I-3C3 Chart I-4C4 Chart I-5C5 Chart I-6C6 Chart I-7C7 Korea Chart I-8, Chart I-9, Chart I-10, Chart I-11 Chart I-8C8 Chart I-9C9 Chart I-10C10 Chart I-11C11 Taiwan Chart I-12, Chart I-13 Chart I-12C12 Chart I-13C13 India Chart I-14, Chart I-15, Chart I-16, Chart I-17 Chart I-14C14 Chart I-15C15 Chart I-16C16 Chart I-17C17 Indonesia Chart I-18, Chart I-19 Chart I-18C18 Chart I-19C19 Malaysia Chart I-20, Chart I-21 Chart I-20C20 Chart I-21C21 Thailand Chart I-22, Chart I-23, Chart I-24 Chart I-22C22Chart I-24C24 Chart I-23C23 Philippines Chart I-25, Chart I-26 Chart I-25C25 Chart I-26C26 Brazil Chart I-27, Chart I-28, Chart I-29, Chart I-30, Chart I-31, Chart I-32 Chart I-27C27 Chart I-28C28 Chart I-29C29 Chart I-30C30 Chart I-31C31 Chart I-32C32 Mexico Chart I-33, Chart I-34, Chart I-35, Chart I-36, Chart I-37 Chart I-33C33 Chart I-34C34 Chart I-35C35 Chart I-36C36 Chart I-37C37 Colombia Chart I-38, Chart I-39, Chart I-40, Chart I-41 Chart I-38C38 Chart I-39C39 Chart I-40C40 Chart I-41C41 Peru Chart I-42, Chart I-43, Chart I-44 Chart I-42C42Chart I-43C43 Chart I-44C44 Chile Chart I-45, Chart I-46, Chart I-47, Chart I-48 Chart I-45C45 Chart I-46C46Chart I-47C47Chart I-48C48 Argentina Chart I-49, Chart I-50, Chart I-51, Chart I-52, Chart I-53 Chart I-49C49 Chart I-50C50 Chart I-51C51 Chart I-52C52 Chart I-53C53 Russia Chart I-54, Chart I-55 Chart I-54C54 Chart I-55C55 Turkey Chart I-56, Chart I-57, Chart I-58, Chart I-59 Chart I-56C56 Chart I-57C57 Chart I-58C58 Chart I-59C59 South Africa Chart I-60, Chart I-61, Chart I-62, Chart I-63 Chart I-60C60 Chart I-61C61 Chart I-62C62 Chart I-63C63 Central Europe Chart I-64, Chart I-65 Chart I-64C64 Chart I-65C65 Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights Rate Volatility: Forecast disagreement about GDP growth and T-bill rates will increase over the course of the year. This, alongside elevated policy uncertainty, will translate into higher interest rate volatility. Treasury Yields: Higher rate volatility should cause the term premium in the Treasury curve to increase at the margin. However, this impact could be offset if rate volatility and equity volatility rise in concert. An increase in equity vol would encourage flight-to-safety flows into bonds. MBS: Higher interest rate volatility and the unwinding of the Fed's mortgage portfolio will lead to wider MBS spreads during the next two years. Feature Low interest rate volatility has been a constant feature of the investing landscape during the past few years. In fact, you need to go back to the 1970s to find another period when interest rate volatility was consistently at or below its current level (Chart 1). Not surprisingly, the implied volatility priced into Treasury options is also as low as it has been during the past 30 years, with the exception of the period just prior to the financial crisis in 2007 (Chart 2). Chart 1Yield Volatility: Lowest Since The 70s Chart 2Implied And Realized Yield Volatility Move Together This begs the question of whether the current low-vol environment can be sustained, or whether overly complacent investors are in for a shock. At the very least, we believe that rate volatility has already passed its cyclical trough and will start to move up this year. Investors should prepare themselves for higher volatility. In this week's report we examine the key macro drivers of interest rate volatility and discuss the implications of rising vol for both Treasury yields, and crucially, mortgage-backed securities. Macro Uncertainty & Rate Volatility Chart 3Macro Drivers Of Rate Volatility In a Special Report published in 2014,1 we posited that the long-term trends in volatility across all asset classes are largely driven by common macroeconomic factors. Specifically, investor uncertainty regarding the outlook for economic growth and monetary policy. A 2004 paper by Alexander David and Pietro Veronesi2 provides some theoretical justification for this view, as the authors observed that investors tend to overreact to new information when macro uncertainty is high, and underreact when uncertainty is low. To test the linkage between interest rate volatility and macro uncertainty we consider three measures of uncertainty. The first two measures, shown alongside the MOVE index of implied Treasury volatility in Chart 3, are measures of GDP growth and T-bill rate forecast dispersion. We measure dispersion - the disagreement among forecasters - by looking at individual forecasts of GDP growth and T-bill rates and calculating the difference between the 75th and 25th percentiles. The series shown in Chart 3 are equal-weighted averages of the forecast dispersion calculated for five different time horizons, ranging from the current quarter to four quarters ahead. As can be seen in the top two panels of Chart 3, implied interest rate volatility is higher when the disagreement among forecasters is greater, consistent with our thesis. The third measure of uncertainty we consider is the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index created by Baker, Bloom and Davis.3 This index tracks uncertainty about the macro environment by counting the number of mentions of certain key words in major global newspapers. Elevated readings from this index have also coincided with high rate volatility in the past (Chart 3, bottom panel). GDP Growth Forecast Dispersion Chart 4Forecast Dispersion & Corporate Lending Disagreement among GDP growth forecasts reached an all-time low in the fourth quarter of 2016, but has since recovered to slightly more typical levels. Historically, we have found that C&I lending standards and corporate sector balance sheet health correlate most closely with GDP growth forecast dispersion (Chart 4) and both measures suggest that forecast dispersion is biased upward. T-Bill Rate Forecast Dispersion T-bill rate forecast dispersion was abnormally low between 2011 and 2014 for two reasons. The first reason is quite simply the zero-lower-bound on interest rates. A short rate bounded at zero necessarily trimmed the distribution of possible T-bill rate forecasts, since forecasters logically assumed that further interest rate cuts were not possible. This impact will gradually dissipate the further the fed funds rate moves off zero. Chart 5Fed Says March Meeting Is Live The second reason for extremely low T-bill rate forecast dispersion was the Fed's forward guidance. During this timeframe the Fed was actively trying to convince the public that interest rates would remain low. The most obvious example being the "Evans Rule", where the Fed promised not to lift interest rates at least until the unemployment rate had fallen below a specific threshold. This activist forward guidance limited the range of conceivable T-bill rate forecasts and crushed interest rate volatility. Nowadays, the Fed is engaged in a different sort of forward guidance, trying to convince markets that every FOMC meeting is live and that rate hikes could occur at any moment. Essentially, the Fed is trying to inject volatility into the rates market. Just a few weeks ago, when asked about the low probability markets are assigning to a March rate hike (Chart 5), San Francisco Fed President John Williams replied flatly: "I don't agree. All our meetings are live." Global Economic Policy Uncertainty We have written a lot about the policy uncertainty index in recent reports,4 focusing specifically on how it has diverged from its historical relationships with many asset prices. At the very least, we expect that sustained elevated policy uncertainty will place upward pressure on asset price volatility at the margin. Bottom Line: Forecast disagreement about GDP growth and T-bill rates will increase over the course of the year. This, alongside elevated policy uncertainty, will translate into higher interest rate volatility. Rate Volatility & Treasury Yields Long-dated nominal Treasury yields can be decomposed in a few different ways. In recent reports we have focused on the decomposition of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield into its real and inflation components. By identifying different macro drivers for each component we concluded that nominal Treasury yields will increase this year, driven by a rising inflation component and relatively stable real yields.5 Alternatively, we can think of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield as consisting of an expectations component equal to the market's expected path of short rates over the next ten years, and a term premium that reflects all of the other market imbalances and uncertainties associated with taking duration risk. This second approach is complicated by the fact that it requires a model of ex-ante interest rate expectations and every commonly used model is fraught with its own unique difficulties.6 Setting that aside, if we use the Kim & Wright (2005)7 estimate of the 10-year term premium we observe an expectations component that generally tracks the fed funds rate and a term premium component that is correlated with implied Treasury volatility (Chart 6), although the latter correlation is less than perfect. This decomposition also suggests that nominal Treasury yields should rise. The Fed is much more likely to hike rates than cut them and we have concluded that rate volatility is likely to trend higher from current depressed levels. However, the relationship between rate volatility and the term premium is complicated. The main reason for the complicated relationship between interest rate volatility and the term premium is the fact that elevated interest rate volatility also tends to be correlated with high equity volatility (Chart 7). So while higher rate volatility puts upward pressure on the term premium, the associated increase in equity volatility tends to raise investor risk aversion and increase the perceived value of bonds as a hedge against equity positions. This mitigates some (or often all) of the impact of rising rate volatility on the term premium. Chart 6Which Way For The ##br##Term Premium? Chart 7MOVE & VIX Have Opposing##br## Impacts On Bond Yields Bottom Line: Higher rate volatility should cause the term premium in the Treasury curve to increase at the margin. However, this impact could be offset if rate volatility and equity volatility rise in concert. An increase in equity vol would encourage flight-to-safety flows into bonds. Rate Volatility & MBS The relationship between rate volatility and MBS is much more straightforward than for Treasury yields. We observe a tight correlation between nominal MBS spreads and the MOVE implied volatility index (Chart 8). Chart 8 suggests that, even in the near-term, MBS spreads are too low for current levels of rate vol. The relationship between MBS spreads and rate volatility is easily explained. The defining characteristic of a negatively convex asset, such as MBS, is that its duration is positively correlated with the level of interest rates (Chart 9). This correlation leads to increased losses when yields rise and lower gains when yields fall. It's not surprising that negatively convex assets perform best in low volatility environments. Chart 8MBS Spreads Are Linked To Vol Chart 9MBS Duration Moves With Yields We maintain an underweight allocation to MBS given that spreads are already low and that the volatility environment is poised to become less favorable. Further, if the Fed continues along its planned normalization path it is likely to cease the reinvestment of its MBS portfolio at some point in 2018. There are two reasons why this poses a risk for MBS. The first reason is that the unwinding of the Fed's MBS portfolio is likely to place upward pressure on implied volatility. While private investors often hedge their MBS positions by purchasing volatility, the Fed has no incentive to do so. It follows that by removing a large stock of MBS from private hands the Fed has also removed a large source of demand for volatility. When this supply is re-introduced into the market, demand for volatility is likely to increase. The second reason relates more directly to the supply and demand balance for MBS. In years when net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) has been negative, excess MBS returns have tended to be positive (Chart 10). Further, while negative net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) has been the norm since Fed asset purchases began in 2009 (Chart 11), this state of affairs will change once the Fed starts to unwind its MBS portfolio. Chart 10Annual MBS Excess Returns ##br## Vs. Net Supply Since 1989 Chart 11Net Issuance Will Turn##br## Positive In 2018 During the past three years the Fed has been buying between $20bn and $40bn MBS per month, just to keep its balance sheet stable. Net new MBS issuance will not be strong enough to overcome this hurdle in 2017, but net MBS issuance (adjusted for Fed purchases) will swing quickly into positive territory in 2018 if the Fed decides to let its MBS portfolio run down. Bottom Line: Higher interest rate volatility and the unwinding of the Fed's mortgage portfolio will lead to wider MBS spreads during the next two years. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Volatility, Uncertainty And Government Bond Yields", dated May 13, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 "Inflation and earnings uncertainty and volatility forecasts", Alexander David and Pietro Veronesi, Manuscript, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago (2004). 3 Please see www.policyuncertainty.com for further details. 4 Please see Theme # 4 in U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 2017", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Time To Cut Duration?", dated January 17, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Bond Volatility - The Unwelcome Guest That Will Not Leave", dated June 16, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Don H. Kim and Jonathan H. Wright, "An Arbitrage-Free Term Structure Model and the Recent Behavior of Long-Term Yields and Distant-Horizon Forward Rates", FEDS 2005-33. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2005/index.htm Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights U.S. growth will remain firm over the next 12 months, but then will begin to slow from its above-trend pace as the economy runs out of spare capacity. Fiscal stimulus, by the time it is enacted, may simply end up pushing up wages, interest rates, and the dollar, rather than boosting corporate profits. While the U.S. is not at an imminent risk of a recession, the historic record suggests that recessions are more likely to occur when an economy has achieved full employment. Equity investors should favor Europe and Japan, two places where central banks are in no hurry to raise rates, profit margins still have room to expand, and valuations are reasonably favorable. Feature The Rusty Lining The U.S. economy is approaching full employment. The headline unemployment rate has fallen to 4.7%, close to most estimates of NAIRU. Broader measures of labor market slack, which incorporate marginally-attached and involuntary part-time workers, are also approaching pre-recession levels (Chart 1). Consistent with this observation, the job openings rate in the JOLT survey, the share of households reporting that jobs are "plentiful" versus "hard to get" in the Conference Board's Consumer Confidence survey, and the share of small businesses reporting difficulty in finding suitably qualified workers in the NFIB survey are near 2007 levels (Chart 2). Chart 1U.S. Labor Market: Not Much Slack Left Chart 2Most Labor Market Survey Measures ##br## Now Consistent With Full Employment It is obviously good news that most people in the U.S. who want to work are able to find jobs. However, at the risk of sounding like spoilsports, we see three risks associated with this development. First, and most obviously, the fact that the U.S. economy is close to full employment means that it will not be able to grow at an above-trend pace for much longer. Second, efforts by the Trump administration to lift aggregate demand with fiscal stimulus may prove to be counterproductive: Rather than boosting GDP growth, the stimulus may simply lead to higher wage inflation and a stronger dollar. This could hurt corporate profits. Third, there is compelling evidence that the risks of a recession rise as an economy approaches full employment and begins to overheat. We discuss all three issues in turn. Weak Supply Will Limit Growth One of the more striking aspects of the U.S. economic recovery is that the output gap - the difference between what an economy is capable of producing and what it actually is producing - has nearly disappeared even though GDP growth has been rather lackluster. This has occurred for one simple reason: Potential GDP growth has been extremely weak. Chart 3 shows that the slowdown in potential GDP growth has been a global phenomenon. In every major economy, the output gap would be larger today than in 2008 if potential GDP had grown at the rate that the IMF forecasted back then. Chart 3AWeak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Chart 3BWeak Supply Growth Has Narrowed Output Gaps Many commentators are hopeful that the combination of sizeable tax cuts and President Trump's pledge to reduce red tape will lead to a marked acceleration in potential U.S. GDP growth. There is some validity to this view. Statutory corporate tax rates in the U.S. are among the highest in the OECD, while the Code of Federal Regulations is 178,000 pages long, eight times the size that it was in 1960 (Chart 4). Still, we are skeptical that the economic benefits of slashing corporate taxes and cutting red tape would be as great as some pundits are touting. If one includes the various loopholes and deductions that companies can avail themselves of, effective corporate tax rates in the U.S. are not particularly high compared with those of other countries.1 Cutting corporate taxes may also do precious little to lift investment spending, given that U.S. companies are already flush with cash and have access to plenty of cheap financing. While the regulatory burden on U.S. businesses has increased somewhat over the past seven years, it is still quite low compared to other major economies according to the World Bank's Doing Business report (Chart 5). And many of the regulations that businesses routinely complain about serve a useful purpose, particularly in the areas of health, clean air and water, and financial stability. Consistent with the analysis above, there is little evidence that Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation initiatives had much effect on productivity growth in the 1980s (Chart 6). Meanwhile, Trump's efforts to crack down on illegal immigration will reduce labor force growth, curbing potential GDP growth in the process. Trade protectionism will also dent productivity in some sectors of the economy. The bottom line is that potential growth is unlikely to rise much above 2% for the foreseeable future. Chart 4There Are Prolific Writers In The U.S. Administration Chart 5Regulatory Burden In The U.S. Is Relatively Low Chart 6The Reagan Years Were No Boon For U.S. Productivity Flagging Fiscal Multipliers As we discussed last week, market participants may be overestimating the extent to which fiscal policy will be eased over the next two years.2 Suppose, however, that the optimists are right; suppose Donald Trump is able to fully deliver on his campaign pledge to raise infrastructure spending and slash taxes. Let us also suppose that, contrary to our expectations, lower personal and corporate tax rates do prompt households to significantly boost spending, while incentivizing firms to increase capital expenditures. What then? The answer is that this still may not translate into significantly faster economic growth. The reason is straightforward: When the output gap is small, an increase in aggregate demand will largely translate into higher inflation rather than increased output. An overheated economy, in turn, will drive up real interest rates, leading to less spending on rate-sensitive goods such as consumer durables, housing, and business equipment. In addition, higher interest rates will cause the dollar to strengthen, swelling imports and reducing exports. This "crowding out" effect will reduce the net effect of fiscal stimulus on growth. The empirical evidence bears this out. Table 1 shows the fiscal multipliers are much smaller when an economy is close to full employment. Table 1The Effect Of A $1 Increase In Fiscal Spending On Aggregate Demand The implication is that Trump's fiscal stimulus plan, by the time it is enacted, may simply end up lifting interest rates, the dollar, and wages, without delivering much acceleration in real business sales. Again, this is not just a theoretical possibility. Chart 7 shows that the ratio of corporate profits-to-GDP has tended to decline when the unemployment rate has fallen below its full employment level. This suggests that the re-acceleration in earnings growth that began last summer could run out of steam later this year. Chart 7The Effects Of Full Employment Recession Risks Are Slowly Rising Business cycle recoveries may not die of old age. However, as anyone who's been around long enough knows, old age isn't exactly conducive to good health either. Chart 8 shows that there is a positive correlation between the degree of labor market slack and the length of time until the next recession. This implies that recessions are more likely to occur when an economy approaches full employment. In fact, outside of the 1982 recession, which in many respects was just a continuation of the 1980 recession, there has never been a case in the post-war era where a recession began at a time when the unemployment rate was above its full employment level. Formal econometric analysis bears this out: According to our calculations, the U.S. has had nearly a 31% chance of falling into recession over the subsequent 12-month period when the economy was at or above full employment, compared with only an 8% chance at all other times.3 Part of the relationship between economic slack and recession risk can be explained by the fact that the unemployment rate is mean reverting. Thus, when the unemployment rate is very low, it is more likely to go up than down. And history suggests that even a slight rise in the unemployment rate is a powerful harbinger of recession. In fact, Chart 9 shows that there has never been a case where the unemployment rate has risen more than one third of a percentage point without the U.S. falling into a recession. Chart 8U.S.: A Tighter Labor Market Means We Are Getting Closer To The Next Recession Chart 9Even A Small Increase In The Unemployment Rate Warns Of A Recession When Animal Spirits Bite Back Mean reversion, however, is only part of the story. As Hyman Minsky famously noted, stability begets instability. By this, he meant that good economic times tend to encourage excessive risk taking, and this sows the seeds of a future crisis. The good news is that the U.S. does not currently suffer from any major economic imbalances. Perhaps it was the severity of the crisis; perhaps it was the lackluster recovery; but whatever the reason, animal spirits have been slow to return this time around. Sure, stocks have soared thanks to ultra-low interest rates, but both business and residential investment remain subdued (Chart 10). Nevertheless, signs of excess are starting to appear in places. Corporations may have been restrained in their capital spending plans, but that did not stop them from piling on new debt to finance share buybacks, and mergers and acquisitions (Chart 11). As a result, our Corporate Health Monitor has been in deteriorating territory since the second half of 2013 (Chart 12). Chart 10Business And Residential Investment Remain Subdued Chart 11Companies Have Been Piling On New Debt Chart 12U.S. Corporate Health Keeps Deteriorating Policy risks have also increased. These include the possibility of a global trade war, rising support for anti-establishment parties in Europe, and a pronounced slowdown in China that precipitates mass capital flight and a sharp depreciation of the RMB. Complicating matters is the fact that policy rates remain quite low across all major economies, which limits the ability of central banks to respond to another economic downturn. Investment Conclusions Chart 13More Optimism About The ##br##Longevity Of The Business Cycle Fears of secular stagnation, which were all the rage just 12 months ago, have given way to unbridled confidence about the future. Investors now dismiss the exact same things they once feared from Donald Trump, even though Trump the President has proven to be little different from Trump the Candidate. Among participants in the New York Fed's Survey of Primary Dealers who assign a non-zero probability that rates will fall back to zero at some point over the next three years, the median respondent expects that it would take 27 months to reach this sorry state of affairs, up from 11 months in April 2016 (Chart 13).4 If one uses this as proxy for when investors believe the next recession will roll around, it implies that market participants now believe that the recovery will last more than twice as long as they thought last summer. We agree that U.S. growth is likely to remain firm over the next 12 months. As we argued last October in a report entitled "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen," the U.S. economy has a lot of momentum behind it.5 As such, we continue to expect Treasury yields to rise and the dollar to appreciate over the next 12 months. Nevertheless, we are cognizant that much can go wrong with this assessment. Chart 14 shows that most of the recent better-than-expected data has been confined to survey measures of economic activity - what economists call "soft data." The so-called "hard data" has been mediocre. This is not a major red flag, as the hard data often lags the survey results, but it does underscore the fragile nature of the recovery. Chart 14Survey Measures Have Improved More Than The Hard Data All this puts U.S. stocks in a difficult position. If growth does end up disappointing, equities will suffer. However, if growth remains strong, bond yields are likely to rise further, taking the dollar up with them. Meanwhile, a tight labor market will increasingly put upward pressure on real wages, hurting corporate profit margins in the process. With that in mind, investors should overweight equity markets in Europe and Japan, two places where central banks are in no hurry to raise rates, profit margins still have room to expand, and valuations are more favorable. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 According to a report by the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. statutory corporate tax rate was 39.2% while the GDP-weighted average rate in the OECD excluding the U.S. was 29.6% (based on 2010 data). Meanwhile, the U.S. effective tax stood at 27.1% versus the 27.7% average of its OECD peers (based on 2008 data). Studies conducted before the Great Recession also show that the U.S. effective rate is about the same as the GDP-weighted average rate of other major countries. For further details, please see Jane G. Gravelle, "International Corporate Tax Rate Comparisons and Policy Implications," Congressional Research Service (January 6, 2014). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Two Speed Bumps For The Global Reflation Trade," dated January 27, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 The probability of a U.S. recession occurring within the next 12 months is calculated by employing a simple logistic model using data from 1960 to the present. The dependent variable (Y) is assigned the value "1" during months when a recession occurs over the subsequent 12-month period, or "0" otherwise. An independent variable (X) is assigned the value "1" when the economy is at full employment, or "0" otherwise. Assuming full employment is reached when the unemployment rate is at least 25 bps lower than the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment, the resulting probabilities for a recession within the next year are as follows: P(Y=1 given that X=1) = 31%; P(Y=1 given that X=0) = 8%; P(Y=1 given that X=1 or given that X=0) = 17%. In a nutshell, the probability of a recession occurring increases by 23 percentage points (from 8% to 31%) once full employment is reached. 4 In both the April 2016 and December 2016 surveys, all but one respondent indicated that there was a non-zero chance that rates will fall to zero over the relevant forecast horizon. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen," dated October 14, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
