Equities
Highlights The consensus expects a 12% year-over-year increase in EPS in Q4 2017 versus Q4 2016, and 14% for 2018. The repercussions of the tax bill on operating conditions in 2018 will be a focus for corporate management teams and investors when discussing Q4 2017 results. The December readings on retail sales and CPI bolster the Fed's case for a rate hike in March. We expect a smooth transition in February for incoming FOMC Chair Powell, which will ensure a gradual normalization of monetary policy. However, Federal Reserve Board (FRB) vacancies, hawk/dove shifts and dissents are concerns. Feature U.S. equities continued their winning streak last week, as investors marked up expectations for both global growth and 2018 S&P 500 profits. The next section of this report offers a preview of the Q4 2017 earning season. There was even a hint of inflation in the air, as December's core CPI rose a stronger than expected 1.8% year-over-year. The overflow of Fed speakers did little to change the market's view that the next rate hike will occur at the March meeting. We discuss the composition of the FOMC in the final section of this week's report. The 10-year Treasury yield moved nearly 10 bps higher, ending the week at 2.56%. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategists put the 10-year fair value at 2.94%.1 Moreover, the 2-year Treasury yield touched 2% last Friday for the first time since 2008. S&P 500 Earnings: Q4 2017 The consensus expects a 12% year-over-year increase in EPS in Q4 2017 versus Q4 2016, and 15% for 2018. Energy, materials and technology shares will lead the way in earnings growth, while telecom and real estate earnings will languish. Excluding the energy sector, the consensus expects Q4 2017 EPS to rise by 10% year-over-year. The upbeat profit picture for the past quarter and 2018 reflects the rebound in oil prices, which are expected to boost energy sector EPS by an impressive 138% in Q4 (Chart 1). Energy-related capex and overall S&P 500 earnings are closely linked (Chart 1, panel 2). An improving global growth environment and still muted labor costs continued to drive a counter-cyclical rally in profit margins in Q4 and in early 2018. Moreover, the direct effect of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, enacted late last year, will likely boost U.S. real GDP growth in 2018 by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points. Hurricane reconstruction spending and a likely congressional agreement to raise the cap on federal discretionary spending could add another 0.2 points to the growth figure this year. However, much depends on the ability of tax changes and immediate capital expensing to further lift animal spirits in the business sector and bring forward investment spending. The repercussions of the tax bill on operating conditions in 2018 will be a focus for corporate management teams and investors when discussing Q4 2017 results. Specifically, corporations' use of cash via the benefit of lower tax rates and repatriating cash from overseas will be at the forefront. Chart 2 shows that through Q3 2017, share buybacks and dividends ran slightly ahead of prior cycles, while capex was about average. BCA will continue to monitor this mix. Improving economic conditions in Europe and the emerging markets (EM), the U.S. dollar, the sustainability of margins, and the aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, all will likely be closely vetted during Q&A conference calls. Chart 1S&P 500 Sensitive To Oil Prices##BR##And Oil Driven Capex Chart 2Comparison Of Corporate Outlays##BR##Across Four Economic Expansion Phases Analysts may also fix their attention on rising interest rates and the shape of the yield curve. On January 12 the 10-year Treasury yield hit its highest point since March, reaching 2.56%. Moreover, in Q4 2017 the 10-year yield was 16 bps above Q3 2017 and 26 above Q4 2016. BCA expects the 2/10 yield curve to steepen in the next six months before flattening in the final half of the year. The curve and rising rates provide a boost to the financial sector of the S&P 500. BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy team remains overweight the Financials sector since May 2017.2 As always, guidance from corporate leaders on trends in Q1 2018 and beyond are more important than the actual Q4 results (Chart 3). Investors should guard against management over-optimism because earnings growth forecasts very often move lower over time. In Q4, as in the first three quarters of 2017, firms with elevated overseas sales should benefit from the improved growth profile in Europe, Japan and the EM. Chart 4 shows that the lofty ISM figures provide a favorable backdrop for earnings and sales in 2018. Moreover, Chart 5 indicates that industrial production (IP), a proxy for S&P 500 sales, is poised to advance in 2018 and lift corporate profits. Global GDP growth projections for this year and next have steadily perked up, in sharp contrast with prior years when forecasters relentlessly lowered GDP estimates (Chart 6). Chart 32018 Estimates Turned Higher After Tax Law Passed; '19 Likely To Move Lower Chart 4Favorable Macro Backdrop For Earnings And Sales In addition, BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service notes3 that following a trough in 2015, the number of positive revenue revisions has steadily outpaced the number of positive earnings revisions, despite actual earnings growth vastly outpacing revenue growth. One plausible reason for the recent very positive revenue revisions is that firms are shifting some profits from 2017 into 2018 to capture the maximum benefit from tax reform. Chart 5ISM Components Suggest IP##BR##Poised To Accelerate Chart 6Global Growth Estimates##BR##Still Accelerating The U.S. dollar, which has been only a small drag on EPS in recent quarters, should become a modest plus in Q4; the dollar is down by 3% versus a year ago against a broad basket of currencies. Moreover, in the most recent Beige Book (November 29), mentions of a "strong dollar" declined by 8 compared with a year ago. This indicates that the stronger currency has faded as a primary concern of managements in recent months (Chart 7). Nonetheless, BCA's view is that the dollar will advance by 5% in the next 12 months. The appreciation would trim EPS growth by roughly 1 to 2 percentage points, although most of this would occur next year due to lagged effects. Another increase in the dollar, on its own, should not provide a substantial headwind for the stock market. Indeed, the dollar would only climb in the context of robust U.S. economic growth and an expanding corporate top line. Legislative progress on an infrastructure package in the U.S. and an improvement in U.S. business capital spending would boost the greenback's prospects. The effects of this past fall's major hurricanes on Q4 results will be muted for the S&P 500 and most sectors. Several weather-sensitive industries (insurance, airlines, chemicals, refining, leisure, etc.) saw significant disruptions to their Q3 results. These industries will probably see some snapback in their Q4 results. Investors are skeptical that margins can advance in Q4 2017 for the sixth consecutive quarter. BCA's view is that we are in a temporary sweet spot for margins, which should continue for the next couple of quarters, but the secular mean reversion of margins will resume beyond that time as wage pressures begin to percolate. The bottom line is that we expect the earnings backdrop will be supportive of equity prices in 2017Q4 and early in 2018. Beyond that, EPS growth will begin to decelerate in the second half of 2018 and will become more of a headwind for stock prices as we enter 2019 (Chart 8). Stay overweight stocks versus bonds. Chart 7The Dollar Should Not Be##BR##A Factor In Q4 Earnings Season Chart 8Strong S&P Growth Ahead,##BR##Will Start To Slow Soon Fed Leadership Transition: Smooth Sailing Ahead? Chart 9December's CPI Data Will Be Met##BR##With A Sigh Of Relief From The Fed Following a disappointing 0.1% m/m increase in November, core CPI posted a 0.3% m/m rebound in December (Chart 9). While welcomed news, there are a few counterpoints to note. First, the gain was concentrated in two subcomponents: housing and medical care. Shelter accounts for over 40% of core CPI and our models are pointing to a moderation ahead. Second, core services (ex-shelter and medical care) inflation remains anemic at sub-2% and core goods prices are still deflating. Third, annual core inflation is running at just 1.8%. Core CPI inflation of 2.4-2.5% is consistent with the Fed's 2% target for the core PCE deflator. December's retail sales report added to the upbeat tone of the economy as 2018 ended. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow reading for Q4 2017 stood at 3.3% on January 12, up from 2.7% on January 5. U.S. inflation should gradually revert to target by year-end. In U.S. fixed income portfolios, investors should maintain below-benchmark duration and overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Rising inflation breakevens will also exert a steeping bias to the yield curve. The bounce in core CPI is certainly encouraging, but the Fed needs to see further firm prints to gain greater confidence that inflation is indeed heading back to target. With two more CPI reports ahead of the March FOMC meeting, the Fed may have the evidence it needs by then to hike rates again. We expect a smooth transition in February for incoming FOMC Chair Powell, which will ensure a gradual normalization of monetary policy. Powell will not want to create waves as the FOMC nudges the Fed funds rate closer to its projected terminal point of 2.75%.4 There are several reasons for our unequivocal view that there will be a smooth transition in FOMC leadership: Fed Chair Precedents: In previous FOMC leadership transitions, the monetary policy path remained continuous, on average about 13 months, before changing direction (Chart 10). For example, former Chair Bernanke continued to hike rates four more times after Greenspan retired (February 2006), with the tightening cycle peaking in June 2006. Yellen maintained a steady zero-interest rate policy (ZIRP) for almost two years following the departure of Bernanke in early 2014. Greenspan retained the tightening policy path initiated by Volcker, although it was temporarily interrupted to avert a credit crunch after the 1987 stock market crash. Thereafter, Chair Greenspan resumed hiking rates for a little more than one year. Chair Powell, known as a conforming centrist, will certainly follow the lead of his predecessors. U.S. monetary policy will remain unchanged from former Chair Yellen, unless there is an unforeseen shock to global growth or a sharp deviation from the expected path for inflation. Chart 10Fed Chair Precedents: Continuous Monetary Policy Path FOMC Composition Changes: Each year ushers in a different set of voters on the FOMC linked to the rotation of regional FRB presidents. More uncertainty has been created this year with the departures of several regional presidents and vacancies on the Board of Governors. The composition of voting FOMC members will be slightly more hawkish for 2018 relative to 2017 (Chart 11). The continuity and efficacy of monetary policy will be further promoted as the path for more rate hikes (at least two) are already discounted by forward markets and three more rate increases are expected in 2018. FRB Minneapolis President Kashkari and FRB Chicago President Evans depart this year as non-voting members. Kashkari is considered the most dovish; he will return as a voter in 2020 while Evans will come back in 2019. Chart 11Composition Of Voting FOMC Members 2017 Vs. 2018 In contrast, the arrival of FRB Presidents Mester (Cleveland), Williams (San Francisco) and Barkin (Richmond) tip the scale somewhat towards tighter policy. Most importantly, FRB's New York Dudley, a centrist, will leave about five months after Yellen's term expires next month. Board Governor Lael Brainard, an Obama-era appointee, will remain as the most dovish voter of the two existing doves in the mix. The FOMC's hawkish bias will no longer be a matter of perception but rather a matter of reality. The nomination of Marvin Goodfriend by President Trump to the Fed's Board should move matters towards neutrality (Goodfriend is not a definite hawk as he also cautious about fighting deflation) and ensure that the Fed operates with at least four governors in 2018. Goodfriend's successful confirmation would leave only three Board vacancies: the Vice-Chair and two governors. On the margin, the voting members of the FOMC skew more hawkish in 2018, but history suggests that new Fed Chairs favor gradual transitions over sudden shifts in policy. FRB Vacancies: The three outstanding Board vacancies should not prevent the smooth transition of leadership from Yellen to Powell next month. In recent years, the duration of FRB vacancies has been longer when compared with prior years. According to a recent report by the Bipartisan Policy Center,5 lengthy vacancies are most evident at the Fed among 13 independent financial regulatory agencies. From 1986 to the present, the 67% vacancy rate at the Fed was more than triple the percentage of 21% from 1947 to 1986 (Chart 12). The Center also calculated that since January 1, 2000, there has been at least one Federal Reserve Board vacancy more than 80% of the time, emphasizing that a "full Fed Board is as rare as a vacancy used to be." While the FOMC had a full Board most of the time (79%) from 1947 to 1986, in the past 30 years this occurred only one-third of the time (33%) (Chart 13). Therefore, even the structural shift in the FOMC's composition did not deter or unhinge the lift-off from a zero interest-rate policy in December 2015 (the first rate hike since June 2006) and the eventual debut of the Fed's balance sheet normalization last September. The implication for investors is that the FOMC has been operating in an era of a higher vacancy rate for some time, and therefore used to operating that way, and the vacancies should not play a major role in the Fed's policy path this year or in the transition from Yellen to Powell. Chart 12Vacancies Are Now The Norm Chart 13More Than One Vacancy Is Not Uncommon Too FOMC Dissents: Even with less than a full slate of governors on the Fed's Board, there has not been governor dissent since 2005 (Chart 14) We expect a somewhat similar frequency of dissents as in previous cycles. In 2017, all four dissents were registered by regional Fed presidents. Chair Yellen never expressed discord when she was a member of the Board of Governors nor when she was President of the FRB San Francisco. Notably, incoming Chair Powell has not dissented since joining the Board in 2012. Moreover, any opposition declared by Board members was usually for easier policy (78% for easier policy and 28% for tighter policy). For example, in the fall of 2015, prior to the first rate hike of the cycle, two dovish Fed governors opposed Chair Yellen. Governors Brainard and Tarullo wanted to delay boosting rates into 2016 because they believed that inflation was still too low. They contended that a "wait-and-see" approach was less risky than acting prematurely, arguing that the risks to global growth and U.S. inflation remained to the downside. One reason for this disagreement came from differing views on market-based inflation expectations. Given the tight link with oil prices, market-based, long-term inflation expectations had melted. Similarly in 2017, FRB Minneapolis President Kashkari and FRB Chicago President Evans disagreed, also citing inflation concerns. They made the case that the persistence of low inflation may not be entirely due to "transitory factors" as the FOMC Committee claimed. Chart 14Dissent By Reserve Bank Presidents And Fed Governors Bottom Line: The path of the economy and inflation, and not the composition of the Fed, will have the most significant impact on Fed policy in 2018. There was some support at the December 2017 FOMC meeting to study the use of inflation and/or nominal GDP targeting as policy framework, but the Fed will remain committed to its current policies. Meanwhile, incoming Chairman Powell will probably maintain the same gradual approach towards rate increases as his predecessor, even though there is a slightly more hawkish tilt to the makeup of the FOMC's voting members. The Board's vacancies at the start of 2018 are a risk, but past vacancies have not led to drastic policy changes. BCA expects three or four rate gains this year, but it is still too early to decrease risk in portfolios. Remain overweight equities relative to bonds. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Jizel Georges, Senior Analyst jizelg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "January Effect," published January 9, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Girding For A Breakout," published on May 1, 2017. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Insight "What's Up With SPX Revenue Vs. Profit Revisions," published on January 12, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcprojtabl20171213.pdf 5 "Financial Regulators Struggling With Longer Vacancies At The Top", Schardin, Justin and Sheth, Ashmi, Bipartisan Policy Center, March 2017.
Highlights An increase in the "synthetic" supply of bitcoins via financial derivatives, along with the launch of bitcoin-like alternatives by large established tech companies, will cause the cryptocurrency market to collapse under its own weight. Other areas that could see supply-induced pressures over the coming years include oil, high-yield debt, global real estate, and low-volatility trades. In contrast, the U.S. stock market has seen an erosion in the supply of shares due to buybacks and voluntary delistings. Investors should consider going long U.S. equities relative to high-yield credit, while positioning for higher volatility. Such an outcome would be similar to what happened in the late 1990s, a period when the VIX and credit spreads were trending higher, while stocks continued to hit new highs. A breakdown in NAFTA talks remains the key risk for the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso. Feature Bubbles Burst By Too Much Supply The "cure" for higher prices is higher prices. The dotcom and housing bubbles did not die fully of their own accord. Their demise was expedited by a wave of new supply hitting the market. In the case of the dotcom bubble, a flood of shares from initial and secondary public offerings inundated investors in 2000 (Chart 1). This put significant downward pressure on the prices of internet stocks. The housing boom was similarly subverted by a slew of new construction - residential investment rose to a 55-year high of 6.6% of GDP in 2006 (Chart 2). Chart 1Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 1 Chart 2Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 2 Is bitcoin about to experience a similar fate? On the surface, the answer may seem to be "no." As more bitcoins are "mined," the computational cost of additional production rises exponentially. In theory, this should limit the number of bitcoins that can ever circulate to 21 million, about 80% of which have already been created (Chart 3). Yet if one looks beneath the surface, bitcoin may also be vulnerable to a variety of "supply-side" factors. Chart 3Bitcoin: Most Of It Has Been Mined First, the expansion of financial derivatives tied to the value of bitcoin threatens to create a "synthetic" supply of the cryptocurrency. When someone writes a call option on a stock, the seller of the option is effectively taking a bearish bet while the buyer is taking a bullish bet. The very act of writing the option creates an additional long position, which is exactly offset by an additional short position. Moreover, to the extent that a decision to sell a particular call option will depress the price of similar call options, it will also depress the underlying price of the stock. This is simply because one can have long exposure to a stock either by owning it outright or owning a call option on it. Anything that hurts the price of the latter will also hurt the price of the former. As bitcoin futures begin to trade, investors who are bearish on bitcoin will be able to create short positions that cause the effective number of bitcoins in circulation to rise. This will happen even if the official number of bitcoins outstanding remains the same. Imitation Is The Sincerest Form Of Flattery An increase in synthetic forms of bitcoin supply is one worry for bitcoin investors. Another is the prospect of increased competition from bitcoin-like alternatives. There are now hundreds of cryptocurrencies, most of which use a slight variant of the same blockchain technology that underpins bitcoin. Chart 4Governments Will Want Their Cut So far, the proliferation of new currencies has been largely driven by technologically savvy entrepreneurs working out of their bedrooms or garages. But now companies are getting in on the act. The stock price of Kodak, which apparently is still in business, tripled earlier this week when it announced the launch of its own cryptocurrency. That's just a small taste of what's to come. What exactly is stopping giants such as Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, and Google from issuing their own cryptocurrencies? After all, they already have secure, global networks. Amazon could start giving out a few coins with every sale, and allow shoppers to purchase goods from the online retailer using its new currency. It's simple.1 The only plausible restriction is a legal one: The threat that governments will quash upstart cryptocurrencies for fear that will drive down demand for their own fiat monies. As we noted several weeks ago, the U.S. government derives $100 billion per year in seigniorage revenue from its ability to print currency and use that money to buy goods and services (Chart 4).2 As large companies get into the cryptocurrency arena, governments are likely to respond harshly - sooner rather than later. This week's news that the South Korean government will consider banning the trading of cryptocurrencies on exchanges is a sign of what's to come. Who Else? What other areas are vulnerable to an eventual tsunami of new supply? Four come to mind: Oil: BCA's bullish oil call has paid off in spades. Brent has climbed from $44 last June to $69 currently. Further gains may not be as easily attainable, however. Our energy strategists estimate that the breakeven cost of oil for U.S. shale producers is in the low-$50 range.3 We are now well above this number, which means that shale supply will accelerate. This does not mean that prices cannot go up further in the near term, but it does limit the long-term potential for crude. Real estate: Ultra-low interest rates across much of the world have fueled sharp rallies in home prices. Inflation-adjusted home prices in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and parts of Europe are well above their pre-Great Recession levels (Chart 5). U.S. real residential home prices are still below their 2006 peak, but commercial real estate (CRE) prices have galloped to new highs (Chart 6). Rent growth within the U.S. CRE sector is starting to slow, suggesting that supply is slowly catching up with demand (Chart 7). Chart 5Where Low Rates Have ##br##Fueled House Prices Chart 6Commercial Real Estate Prices Have ##br##Surpassed Pre-Recession Levels Chart 7Rent Growth Is Cooling Corporate debt: Low rates have also encouraged companies to feast on credit. The ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP in the U.S. and many other countries is close to record-high levels (Chart 8A and Chart 8B). Credit spreads remain extremely tight, but that may change as more corporate bonds reach the market. Chart 8ACorporate Debt-To-GDP ##br##Is Close To Record Highs Chart 8BCorporate Debt-To-GDP ##br##Is Close To Record Highs Low-volatility trades: A recent Bloomberg headline screamed "Short-Volatility Funds Are Being Flooded With Cash."4 The number of volatility contracts traded on the Cboe has increased more than tenfold since 2012. Net short speculative positions now stand at record-high levels (Chart 9). Traders have been able to reap huge gains over the past few years by betting that volatility will decline. The problem is that if volatility starts to rise, those same traders could start to unload their positions, leading to even higher volatility. In contrast to the aforementioned areas, the stock market has seen an erosion in the supply of shares due to buybacks and voluntary delistings. The S&P divisor is down by over 8% since 2005. The number of U.S. publicly-listed companies has nearly halved since the late 1990s (Chart 10). This trend is unlikely to reverse any time soon, given the elevated level of profit margins and the temptation that many companies will have to use corporate tax cuts to step up the pace of share repurchases. Chart 9Low Volatility Is In High Demand Chart 10Erosion Of Supply In The Stock Market Bet On Higher Equity Prices, But Also Higher Volatility And Higher Credit Spreads The discussion above suggests that the relationship between equity prices and both volatility and credit spreads may shift over the coming months. This would not be the first time. Chart 11 shows that the VIX and credit spreads began to trend higher in the late 1990s, even as the S&P 500 continued to hit new record highs. We may be entering a similar phase now. Continued above-trend growth in the U.S. and rising inflation will push up Treasury yields. We declared "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" on July 5, 2016 - the exact same day that the 10-year Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%.5 Higher interest rates will punish financially-strapped borrowers, leading to wider credit spreads. Equity volatility is also likely to rise as corporate health deteriorates and the timing of the next downturn draws closer. Our baseline expectation is that the U.S. and the rest of the world will fall into a recession in late 2019. Financial markets will sniff out a recession before it happens. However, if history is any guide, this will only happen about six months before the start of the recession (Table 1). This suggests that global equities can continue to rally for the next 12 months. With this in mind, we are opening a new trade going long the S&P 500 versus high-yield credit. Chart 11Volatility Can Increase And Spreads ##br##Can Widen As Stock Prices Rise Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Four Currency Quick Hits Four items buffeted currency and fixed-income markets this week. The first was a news story suggesting that China will slow or stop its purchases of U.S. Treasury debt. China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) decried the report as "fake news." Lost in the commotion was the fact that China's holdings of Treasurys have been largely flat since 2011 (Chart 12). China still has a highly managed currency. Now that capital is no longer pouring out of the country, the PBoC will start rebuilding its foreign reserves. Given that the U.S. Treasury market remains the world's largest and most liquid, it is hard to see how China can avoid having to park much of its excess foreign capital in the United States. The second item this week was the Bank of Japan's announcement that it will reduce its target for how many government bonds it buys. This just formalizes something that has already been happening for over a year. The BoJ's purchases of JGBs have plunged over the past twelve months, mainly because its ¥80 trillion target is more than double the ¥30-35 trillion annual net issuance of JGBs (Chart 13). Chart 12China's Holdings Of Treasurys: ##br##Largely Flat Since 2011 Chart 13BoJ Has Been Reducing ##br##Its Bond Purchases Ultimately, none of this should matter that much. The Bank of Japan can target prices (the yield on JGBs) or it can target quantities (the number of bonds it owns), but it cannot target both. The fact that the BoJ is already doing the former makes the latter irrelevant. And with long-term inflation expectations still nowhere near the BoJ's target, the former is unlikely to change. What does this mean for the yen? The Japanese currency is cheap and its current account surplus has swollen to 4% of GDP (Chart 14). Speculators are also very short the currency (Chart 15). This increases the likelihood of a near-term rally, as my colleague Mathieu Savary flagged this week.6 Nevertheless, if global bond yields continue to rise while Japanese yields stay put, it is hard to see the yen moving up and staying up a lot. On balance, we expect USD/JPY to strengthen somewhat this year. Chart 14Yen Is Already Cheap... Chart 15...And Unloved The third item was the revelation in the ECB's December meeting minutes that the central bank will be revisiting its communication stance in early 2018. The speculation is that the ECB will renormalize monetary policy more quickly than what the market is currently discounting. If that were to happen, EUR/USD would strengthen further. All this is possible, of course, but it would likely require that euro area growth surprise on the upside. That is far from a done deal. The euro area economic surprise index has begun to edge lower, and in relative terms, has plunged against the U.S. (Chart 16). Unlike in the U.S., the euro area credit impulse is now negative (Chart 17). Euro area financial conditions have also tightened significantly relative to the U.S. (Chart 18). Chart 16Euro Area Economic ##br##Surprises Edging Lower Chart 17Negative Credit Impulse In The Euro ##br##Area Will Weigh On Growth Chart 18Diverging Financial Conditions ##br##Favor U.S. Over The Euro Area Meanwhile, EUR/USD has appreciated more since 2016 than what one would expect based on changes in interest rate differentials (Chart 19). Speculative positioning towards the euro has also gone from being heavily short at the start of 2017 to heavily long today (Chart 20). Reasonably cheap valuations and a healthy current account surplus continue to work in the euro's favor, but our best bet is that EUR/USD will give up some of its gains over the coming months. Chart 19The Euro Has Strengthened More Than ##br##Justified By Interest Rate Differentials Chart 20Euro Positioning: From Deeply ##br##Short To Record Long Lastly, the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso came under pressure this week on news reports that the U.S. will be pulling out of NAFTA negotiations. Of the four items discussed in this section, this is the one that worries us most. The global supply chain has become highly integrated. Anything that sabotages it would be greatly disruptive. At some level, Trump realizes this, but he also knows that his base wants him to get tough on trade, and unless he does so, his chances of reelection will be even slimmer than they are now. Ultimately, we expect a new NAFTA deal to be reached, but the path from here to there will be a bumpy one. Housekeeping Notes Our long global industrials/short utilities trade is up 12.4% since we initiated it on September 29. We are raising the stop to 10% to protect gains. We are also letting our long 2-year USD/Saudi Riyal forward contract trade expire for a loss of 2.9%. Given the recent improvement in Saudi Arabia's finances, we are not reinstating the trade. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 My thanks to Igor Vasserman, President of SHIG Partners LLC, for his valuable insights on this topic. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Bitcoin's Macro Impact," dated September 15, 2017; and Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Don't Fear A Flatter Yield Curve," dated December 22, 2017. 3 Please see Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Breakeven Analysis: Shale Companies Need ~$50 Oil To Be Self-Sufficient," dated March 15, 2017. 4 Dani Burger, "Short-Volatility Funds Are Being Flooded With Cash," Bloomberg, November 6, 2017. 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Alert, "End Of The 35-year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016. 6 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy, "Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!" dated January 12, 2018. Tactical Global Asset Allocation Recommendations Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
With the Q4 reporting season set to take off in earnest next week, the composition of estimates bears some analysis. As shown in the bottom panel, following a trough in 2015, the number of positive revenue revisions has steadily outpaced the number of positive earnings revisions, despite actual earnings growth vastly outpacing revenue growth. We think there are three conceivable reasons for this odd trend, none of which are mutually exclusive. First, there are decent odds that analysts simply have better visibility into final demand while taking a wait-and-see approach to margins. Second, net revenue revisions could follow changes in producer pricing, a theory supported by our bottom panel. Lastly, the recent very positive revenue revisions could reflect some shifting of profits from 2017 into 2018 in order to capture the benefit of recent tax reform, especially given the downgrade to Q4/2017 EPS estimates and upgrade to Q1/2018 and calendar 2018 EPS estimates. Whether or not this impacts Q4 performance vis-Ã -vis estimates remains to be seen, though a perceived weakening of the current earnings juggernaut could be the catalyst for the long-awaited S&P 500 pullback; stay tuned.
Highlights Chinese policymakers are walking a tightrope, attempting to balance contradictory objectives. While their task is not impossible, we find that financial markets are overly complacent. Recent price action in EM risk assets resembles a final bear capitulation phase, and a classic top formation. Currency appreciation and moderation in export growth will damp corporate profits of exporters in Korea and Taiwan. Stay short KRW versus THB and short MYR versus RUB and USD. Feature "...at first, a stick may bend under strain, ready all the time to bend back, until a certain point is reached, when it breaks." Irving Fisher, The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions (1933) China continues to tighten financial regulations1 and onshore corporate bond yields keep marching higher. Yet EM and China-related financial markets have been extremely buoyant, completely ignoring the tightening dynamics underway. This reminds us of the above quote from Irving Fisher. The Chinese economy has been able to "...bend under strain, ready all the time to bend back..." In other words, growth has so far done well, despite ongoing liquidity and regulatory tightening (Chart I-1). This has led many investors and commentators to proclaim that the economy is healthy and will slow only a bit, or not at all. Chart I-1China: Will Economy Continue ##br##Defying Weak Credit Impulse? Yet, financial market risks linger. At a certain point, cumulative pressure from policy tightening will cause China's recovery to falter - "break," as per Fisher's quote above - impacting the rest of the world in general and EM in particular. This precept is pertinent to China at present because its money, credit and property markets are frothy, as we have written repeatedly in recent years, making them especially vulnerable to tightening. We thought such a deceleration in China's business cycle would occur in 2017, but it has not yet transpired. Forward-looking indicators such as money supply growth and the yield curve have been heralding a growth slowdown for many months (see Chart I-1). Nevertheless, this recovery has proved to be enduring; even though some segments have slowed, overall nominal growth, corporate pricing power and profits have done well. Does such growth resilience warrant an upgrade on China's outlook? An economy's past performance does not guarantee its future performance. This is relevant to China now, especially given the cumulative impact of the ongoing triple policy tightening - liquidity, regulatory and anti-corruption efforts in the financial industry2 - which will likely be substantial. Walking A Tightrope China's policymakers are walking a tightrope trying to balance contradictory objectives such as curbing financial speculation and credit excesses, capping inflation and maintaining a stable currency on the one hand, and maintaining robust growth on the other. Inflationary pressures are escalating in the mainland economy. Chart I-2 demonstrates that pricing power for 5,000 industrial companies - a diffusion index for producer prices compiled by the People's Bank of China - is approaching its 2007 and 2010 highs, while nominal interest rates are currently much lower than they were in 2007 and 2010 (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Notably, most of China's nominal recovery in the past two years has been due to prices, not volumes (Chart I-3). Given that rising prices benefit corporate profits much more than rising volumes, Chinese corporate profits have surged. Yet, the flip side of these dynamics is rising inflation. Chart I-2China: Inflationary Pressure Are Rising, ##br##While Interest Rates Are Low Chart I-3China: It Has Been Nominal (Price) Not ##br##Volume Manufacturing Recovery Mounting inflation amid enormous money excesses - the Chinese banking system has originated RMB 142 trillion (equivalent to $22 trillion) since January 20093 - risks triggering rising inflation expectations, which would then feed back into inflation. With real interest rates already extremely low (Chart I-4), increasing inflation expectations could lead to growing demand for foreign currency, in turn exerting downward pressure on the RMB exchange rate. Chart I-4China: Inflation-Adjusted ##br##Interest Rates Are Low Chinese households have been uneasy about the real (inflation-adjusted) value of their deposits, and have been opting for speculative investments that promise higher yields than bank deposits. Hence, policymakers cannot ignore households' desire for higher real interest rates if they aim to cool down speculative investment activities and contain systemic risks in the system. Overall, the authorities need to tread carefully, balancing between the need to preserve decent growth while keeping inflation at bay. Falling behind the inflation curve is as dangerous as being too aggressive in tightening. For now, rising domestic inflationary pressures, robust DM growth and the resilience of financial markets will justify further policy tightening in China. Controlling leverage, curbing financial market excesses and limiting speculation in the real estate market are all major components of the structural reforms agenda that China's top policymakers committed to at the Party Congress in October. Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers are walking a tightrope, trying to balance contradictory objectives. While their task is not impossible, we find that financial markets are overly complacent. The odds of successfully navigating these contradictory objectives amid lingering money, credit and property market imbalances are 30% or lower. In the meantime, financial markets seem priced for perfection. This gap between the market's views and our perception of risks leads us to maintain a negative investment stance. EM's Blow-Out Phase EM stocks and currencies have gone vertical in recent weeks, despite being overbought and not cheap. The recent price actions in EM and global risk assets looks like a final bear capitulation phase and a classic top formation. The EM overall equity and small-cap indexes have reached their 2011 high (Chart I-5, top and middle panels). Meanwhile, EM high-yield (junk) corporate and quasi-sovereign bond yields are at their historical lows (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Economic data, corporate profits and news flows are typically extremely positive at tops of cycles, and very negative at bottoms. Given that share prices have surged and credit spreads are extremely low, a lot of good news has already been discounted. In particular, EM long-term EPS growth expectations have shot up above their previous highs (Chart I-6). This indicator can serve as a proxy for investor sentiment on EM stocks, at the moment suggesting extreme bullishness. EM stocks topped out in the past when this indicator reached the current levels. Chart I-5Are EM At Their Zenith? Chart I-6Analysts Are Super Bullish On EM Profits Growth Needless to say, global investors' positioning is stretched in favor of risk assets. Chart I-7 entails that U.S. individual investors' holdings of cash was at a record low as of December, while their exposure to equities was not far from record highs. Apart from China-related risks, a potential rise in U.S. bond yields and/or the U.S. dollar, could spoil the EM party. Many investors have invested in EM on the assumption of continued weakness in the greenback and subdued U.S. bond yields. It would be unusual if this current robust global growth does not lead to higher inflation expectations or higher bond yields. With respect to market signals, Chart I-8 illustrates that global steel stocks in absolute terms, and the relative performance of emerging Asian stocks versus DM equities have approached their very long-term moving averages. The latter might become a major technical resistance. Failure to break above this resistance level would be consistent with EM share prices rolling over at their 2011 highs (see Chart I-7). Altogether, this could signal a major top in EM risk assets. Chart I-7Asset Allocation Of ##br##U.S. Individual Investors Chart I-8Select Segments Are At Their ##br##Long-Term Technical Resistances Bottom Line: The EM rally has endured much longer and has gone much farther than we envisioned. However, we maintain our cautious stance, and recommend underweighting EM stocks, currencies and credit versus their DM counterparts. Emerging Asia: Currencies And Business Cycle Chart I-9Geopolitics And Asian Currencies Emerging Asian currencies have recently been on the fly, surging versus the U.S. dollar. Apart from strong global manufacturing, one reason behind the emerging Asian currency appreciation has been geopolitics. We suspect political leaders in Taiwan and Korea have instructed their central banks to allow their currencies to appreciate to gratify the Trump administration's aspirations of a weaker greenback. The top panel of Chart I-9 shows that the Taiwanese dollar's sharp appreciation coincided with Trump's controversial phone call with the Taiwanese president on December 3rd, 2016. Similarly, Trump's visit to South Korea on November 7th, 2017 jives with the latest up leg in the Korean won (Chart I-9, bottom panel). It seems President Trump's geopolitical assurances to Taiwan and Korea are somewhat tied to these policymakers' increased tolerance for currency appreciation. Notably, foreign exchange reserves in both Taiwan and Korea have risen little, despite their strong trade surpluses and foreign capital inflows over the past year. This confirms that their central banks have been reluctant to purchase U.S. dollars and in turn cap their currencies' appreciation. In addition to the political context, there are a number of other important drivers of Asian exchange rates and the region's business cycle: The growth rate of Korean and Taiwanese total exports in U.S. dollars has moderated (Chart I-10). This, along with KRW and TWD appreciation, implies a meaningful deceleration in exporters' revenue growth in local currency terms. Besides, China's container freight index - the price to ship containers worldwide - has relapsed and it correlates well with Asia's export cycle (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Moderation In Asian Exports Growth Chart I-11A Negative Signal For Asian Exports Even though DRAM prices are rising, other semiconductor prices have rolled over (Chart I-12). Semiconductor prices and volumes are vital for the tech-heavy Taiwanese and Korean manufacturing sectors. The RMB rally is also late. Enormous pent-up demand for foreign assets from Chinese residents due to low mainland real interest rates creates the potential for capital outflows to cap RMB strength. This would weigh on the ongoing Asian currency rally. Finally, net EPS revisions of Korean and Taiwanese technology companies' have rolled over (Chart I-13), probably reflecting a dampening effect of currency appreciation. This could in turn lead to foreign capital outflows from their equity markets causing currency selloffs. Chart I-12Divergence In Semiconductor Prices Chart I-13Asia Tech Companies: Net EPS Revisions Corroborating budding signs of a slowdown in exports and corporate profits, emerging Asian stocks have begun underperforming DM equities, as shown in Chart I-8 on page 7. The deceleration in export revenues and currency appreciation are adverse developments for share prices in export-related sectors of Korea and Taiwan. Nevertheless, for dedicated EM equity portfolios, we recommend overweighting the Taiwanese bourse and Korean technology stocks (and being neutral on the rest of KOSPI). The basis is that share prices of hardware tech manufacturers have less downside than other EM sectors. Their attractive relative valuations combined with prospects for robust growth in DM warrant their outperformance against the overall EM equity index in common currency terms. As to exchange rates, the Trump factor will delay and mitigate Asian currency depreciation, but will not preclude it if export growth slows, as we expect. In such a scenario, policymakers in Asia will opt for modest currency depreciation, reversing their recent gains. In terms of investment strategy, we have been shorting the Korean won versus the Thai baht. This trade has so far been flat, but we are maintaining it because the won is a higher-beta currency than the baht, and the former will underperform the latter as Asia's business cycle eventually slows. In addition, we are also shorting the Malaysian ringgit versus the U.S. dollar and the Russian ruble due to weak domestic fundamentals in Malaysia. Bottom Line: Currency appreciation will damp corporate profits of exporters in Korea and Taiwan. This will weigh on EM share prices in aggregate, given that the Korean and Taiwanese markets together account for 27% of the MSCI EM market cap, compared with an 12% share of the entire Latin American region. The 12-month outlook for Asian currencies is downbeat: continue shorting the MYR versus both the U.S. dollar and the RUB, and stay long the THB versus the KRW. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 This week the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) announced a set of sweeping new rules to control banks' entrusted lending (Source: Caixin). This is in addition to a slew of regulatory measures for financial institutions that have been introduced over the past year. 2 We discussed these in details in Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Questions For Emerging Markets," dated November 29, 2017, a link available on page 13. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall," dated December 20, 2017, a link available on page 13. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights Upbeat economic reports for December set the stage for a solid 2018. The FOMC minutes acknowledged the flatter curve and only a minority of members discounted the signal from the curve. A majority thought that a tighter labor market would lead to higher inflation. The Citi Economic Surprise Index is peaking, but risk assets should hold up as the Index rolls over. Feature The first week of 2018 brought more good news for risk assets. U.S. stocks beat bonds, oil prices rose, and credit spreads narrowed amid a solid set of economic data. Several high-profile U.S. companies announced share buybacks, and/or one-time bonuses or wage increases linked to the tax cut plan passed by Congress at the end of 2017. Moreover, there were hints of further economic stimulus as lawmakers from both sides of the aisle discussed relaxing the sequester rules that would lift federal spending this year. Markets shrugged off a fresh round of saber rattling between the U.S. and North Korea. Gold prices nudged higher and the U.S. dollar fell despite the upbeat economic news. December's reports on manufacturing and service sector ISM, vehicle sales and the labor market, along with November's numbers on construction spending, trade and factory orders, all lifted estimates for Q4 GDP and boosted the prospects for corporate earnings in Q4 2017 and beyond. Chart 1 shows that the elevated ISM figures provide a favorable backdrop for earnings and sales in 2018. Moreover, Chart 2 indicates that IP, a proxy for S&P 500 sales, is poised to advance in 2018 and provide a lift to corporate profits. We will preview the S&P 500's Q4 2017 earnings reports in next week's U.S. Investment Strategy. Chart 1Favorable Macro Backdrop For Earnings And Sales Chart 2ISM Components Suggest IP Poised To Accelerate The Atlanta Fed GDP Now estimate stood at 2.7% on January 5, while the New York Fed's Nowcast for Q4 GDP was a healthy 4% (Chart 3). Both soundings are well above the FOMC's assessment of the economy's long-term potential growth rate (1.8%) and puts GDP growth in 2017 above the Fed's forecast. The implication is that the output gap pushed deeper into positive territory as 2017 ended, setting the stage for higher inflation in 2018. The December 2017 jobs report, released last Friday, January 5, does not change BCA's outlook for the U.S. economy or the Fed. The U.S. economy added a lower than expected 148,000 new jobs in December, which left the unemployment rate unchanged at 4.1%. Despite the softer than anticipated data, the 3-month average of payrolls growth is still a very healthy 204,000. The monthly increase in wages quickened to 0.3% m/m in December, up from 0.1% m/m last month. However, annual wage inflation remains modest at just 2.5% (Chart 4). Chart 3U.S. Economic Growth Well##BR##Ahead Of Potential In Q4 Chart 4Labor Market Still Tightening Despite##BR##Soft December Report The indications for Q4 GDP growth are solid. Aggregate hours worked rose 2.5% at an annualized rate in Q4 2017. Assuming modest growth in productivity, the payrolls data are consistent with over 3% GDP growth in Q4. There is nothing in the December payroll data to suggest that the underlying trajectory in the U.S. economy has changed. The economy continues to grow above trend. Wage gains are modest at the moment, but should accelerate as the labor market keeps tightening with above-trend GDP growth. This upbeat economic outlook is also supported the December 2017 non-manufacturing ISM survey, also released last Friday. While the overall index fell from 57.4 to 55.9, it is still consistent with solid GDP growth. Moreover, the employment index rose from 55.3 to 56.3, which signals firm job gains, and the prices paid index held steady at a fairly elevated level of 60.8. Bottom Line: It's been solid start to 2018 and it's steady as she goes for the U.S. economy and the Fed. FOMC Minutes: A Rubric BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service expects that the 2/10 yield curve will languish between 0 and 50 bps in 2018. The curve will steepen from 51 bps at the end of 2017 through mid-year 2018, and then flatten into year-end (Chart 5). Which asset classes would benefit if our curve call is accurate? BCA's "The Bucket List"1 explains our view of the curve in 2018 and details the past performance of various U.S. assets in differing yield curve environments. Chart 5A Flat Yield Curve Is OK For Most Risk Assets BCA expects that the yield curve will first steepen in 2018, then become flatter, ultimately spending most of the year between 0 and 50 bps. A flat curve is the ideal environment for the S&P 500 and the stock-to-bond ratio. However, small cap stocks struggle when the curve is flat; BCA's view is that small caps will outperform large caps in 2018. A flat yield curve raises the risk of a sell-off in high yield, but provides a favorable grounding for oil, which is in line with BCA's fundamental view. BCA expects EPS growth will be positive this year; earnings growth is higher 75% of the time when the curve is flat. The yield curve's slope was a focus of debate at the FOMC's December 12-13, 2017 meeting. Participants cited several reasons for the flat curve2: recent increases in the target range for the federal funds rate; reductions in investors' estimates of the longer-run, neutral real interest rate; lower longer-term inflation expectations; lower term premiums Fed economists recently updated their quantitative assessments of the FOMC's minutes. The note provides a guide (Table 1 in the Fed paper3 and Tables 1 and 2 below) to the number of quantitative descriptors in the minutes (one, a couple, a few, etc.). We use this rubric to assess the committee's latest views on the yield curve and inflation. Table 1FOMC Assessment Of The Yield Curve Table 2FOMC Assessment Of Inflation In short, the FOMC acknowledged the flatter curve and only a minority of members discounted the signal from the curve. Moreover, a majority thought that a tighter labor market would lead to higher inflation. Only one participant held the view that secular trends were muting inflation. Bottom Line: BCA expects the Fed to deliver 3 to 4 rate hikes in 2018, which is still not fully priced in by the market. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration in fixed income portfolios. Asset allocators should remain overweight stocks versus bonds. Growth is strong and the yield curve is not inverted yet. Therefore, it is still early to de-risk portfolios. Is Economic Surprise Peaking? The Citigroup (Citi) Economic Surprise Index is elevated relative to its recent history, but it may have further to run. Economic prospects were cheery following the 2016 presidential election and the economic data exceeded those lofty projections, aided by a warmer than usual winter. However, the temperate conditions borrowed activity from the spring, which was cooler and wetter than normal, and the combination of lofty expectations and seasonal distortions sent the Citi Economic Surprise Index spiraling lower through mid-year 2017. Since its bottom in June 2017 at -78.6%, the index climbed for 135 days before its peak in late December 2017 (Chart 6, panel 1). On average since 2010, the Citi Index moved from trough-to-peak in 96 days, which means the recent run-up was much longer than usual. However, that phenomenon may have been due to the raised economic expectations and variable weather patterns at the start of 2017. Chart 6Economic Surprise Index Has Surged, But Expectations Remain Muted At 80.7%, the Index has been above zero for 68 days (Chart 6, panel 1). It typically takes 46 days for it to climb from zero to its zenith. Table 3 shows the performance of financial markets and other assets after the Index moves from zero to the peak. The most recent episode (October through December 2017) matched historical averages across most asset classes, although the underperformance of small caps versus large ran counter to the past as the Surprise Index climbed from zero. Table 3Risk Assets Perform Well As Surprise Index Climbs Since 2010, the Index has stayed above 40 for an average of 51 days (Chart 6, panel 1). The Index has been over 40 since November 16, 2017, or 35 days. This suggests that it can remain elevated for another month or so before it again moves lower. However, the Index is mean reverting and investors wonder what will happen to risk assets after economic surprise rolls over. Table 4 and Chart 7 shows the performance of key financial markets and commodities when the Citi Index returned to zero from 40-plus. There have been six such intervals since 2010. On average, gold and oil perform well as the surprise index dips to zero. Stocks and credit outperform Treasuries during these episodes, and small caps beat large caps. Rising economic surprise (Table 3) is a more favorable environment for stocks, credit and oil than when the surprise index is rolling over. However, the performance of gold and small caps is better after the Citi Surprise Index peaks (Table 4). Table 4Risk Assets Hold Up When Citi Surprise Index Rolls Over Chart 7U.S. Assets As Economic Surprise Rolls Over Nonetheless, muted economic expectations will limit the downside in the Index in the coming months. Panel 3 of Chart 6 shows that the outlook for both hard and soft economic data remained muted through the end of November 2017, especially when compared with the significant improvement in economic prospects in late 2016 and early 2017. Bottom Line: Risk assets outperformed as the Citi Economic Surprise Index climbed in the second half of 2017. The Index can stay near recent peaks for several more months thanks to subdued economic forecasts, but it will roll over eventually. However, the elevated level of the Index suggests that there are near-term risks for equities and credit because a lot of good economic news is already priced in. Still, we recommend that investors ride out the volatility given our view that stocks will outperform bonds in the next 6-12 months. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Bucket List", published December 18, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20171213.htm 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-fomc-meeting-minutes-an-update-of-counting-words-20170803.htm
Highlights Question #1: Will global growth remain above trend? Yes. Question #2: Will growth continue to outperform outside the U.S.? No. Question #3: Will productivity growth pick up? Yes, but only cyclically. The structural outlook remains bleak. Question #4: Will continued strong global growth finally deliver higher inflation? Yes, although the increase in inflation will be gradual and concentrated in economies that already have little spare capacity. Feature Global Growth In Focus We wish all our readers a joyous and prosperous 2018. As the new year begins, four questions about the global growth outlook loom large. Question #1: Will global growth remain above trend? Our answer: Yes. It is likely that global growth will come down a notch from its current elevated pace. However, it should remain firmly above trend. For one thing, the global economy continues to exhibit a lot of positive momentum. Real-time measures of economic activity, such as the Goldman Sachs Current Activity Indicator (CAI), highlight that global real GDP is rising at a robust pace (Chart 1). Our global leading indicator, as well as a wide swath of PMI data, suggest that this trend has legs (Chart 2). Chart 1APositive Global Growth Momentum Can Be Seen Here Chart 1BPositive Global Growth Momentum Can Be Seen Here Since 1980, above-trend global growth in one year has been accompanied by above-trend growth in the following year nearly three-quarters of the time. This bodes well for 2018. Chart 2... And Here Too Chart 3Financial Conditions Tend To Lead Growth By Six-To-Nine Months Global financial conditions eased significantly in 2017, thanks mainly to higher equity prices and narrower credit spreads. Easier financial conditions tend to benefit growth with a 6-to-9 month lag (Chart 3). The 6-month global credit impulse, which tends to lead activity, is also positive (Chart 4). Fiscal policy should remain stimulative. The fiscal thrust moved into positive territory in advanced economies in 2016-17 and this should remain the case in 2018 (Chart 5). Tax cuts will add about 0.3 percentage points to U.S. growth, while hurricane reconstruction spending and a likely congressional agreement to raise the cap on federal discretionary spending will add another 0.2 points. Chart 4Positive Credit Impulse Is Another Tailwind For Growth Chart 5Fiscal Policy Has Turned More Stimulative Our political strategists expect further fiscal easing in Japan this year. They also believe that German coalition talks will produce more government spending, with the SDP extracting concessions from Merkel on public investment and the CSU securing a commitment for more defense expenditure. On the flipside, our strategists expect some fiscal tightening in France as President Macron takes steps to trim France's bloated welfare state. Question #2: Will growth continue to outperform outside the U.S.? Our answer: No. Global revisions were more favorable outside the U.S. in the first nine months of 2017, which helps explain why the dollar came under downward pressure (Chart 6). More recently, U.S. growth estimates have begun to drift higher. As a result, the U.S. surprise index has surged relative to those of other economies (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Growth Expectations Were Lagging... ##br## But Not Anymore Chart 7U.S. Economic Surprise Index Increased ##br## Relative To Those Of Other Countries We expect the data to continue to favor the U.S. Aggregate U.S. hours worked in November was up 3.4% at an annualized rate over Q3 levels. If we add in productivity growth, Q4 GDP growth was probably in excess of 4% - well above current consensus estimates. Financial conditions have eased a lot more in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Fiscal policy is also set to loosen relatively more in the U.S. Euro area growth is likely to tick lower next year from its current stellar pace, as the impact of a stronger euro begins to bite. The 6-month credit impulse has already turned negative there. Japanese growth should also cool somewhat from the heady pace of 2.7% seen over the past two quarters. The Chinese economy will decelerate modestly in 2018. The authorities are tightening the screws on the shadow banking system, expediting efforts to reduce excess capacity in the industrial sector, and clamping down on corruption. All of these reforms will pay off in the long run, but they could dent growth in the short run. Question #3: Will productivity growth pick up? Our Answer: Yes, but only cyclically. The structural outlook remains bleak. U.S. nonfarm productivity rose by 1.5% over the prior year in Q3, well above the post-2010 average of 0.8%. This improvement occurred despite the fact that low-skilled workers continue to re-enter the labor market - dragging down output-per-hour in the process - a phenomenon that is not well captured by the official productivity data. Productivity growth elsewhere in the world also appears to be on the upswing (Chart 8). Increased business investment should support productivity in 2018. Corporate surveys indicate that a rising percentage of companies anticipate boosting capital budgets (Chart 9). This often happens in the last few innings of business-cycle expansions, as more companies begin to experience capacity constraints. Chart 8Productivity Growth Showing Signs Of ##br## A Tentative Recovery Chart 9Surveys Are Signaling Acceleration ##br## In Capex Unfortunately, while the cyclical outlook for productivity is improving, the structural backdrop remains downbeat. As we have discussed in the past, flagging educational achievement, decreased creative destruction, and a shift in technological innovation towards consumers and away from businesses all augur poorly for future productivity trends.1 The much-hyped Amazon effect makes for good news stories, but is not borne out by the data.2 Question #4: Will continued strong global growth finally deliver higher inflation? Our answer: Yes, although the increase in inflation will be gradual and concentrated in economies that already have little spare capacity. Chart 10A Pick-Up In Wage Growth Would Put Upward Pressure ##br## On Service Inflation Going into 2017, the Fed had expected core PCE inflation to end the year at 1.9%. It is likely to have finished the year at only 1.5%. We expect core PCE inflation to move toward 2% by the end of 2018. Wage growth should accelerate as the labor market continues to tighten. This should put upward pressure on service inflation (Chart 10). Goods price inflation should also recover due to the lagged effects of a weaker dollar and the bleed-through of higher energy prices into several core components of the CPI (airline fares being a notable example). Slower rent growth will dampen inflation. However, this will be partially offset by higher health care prices. The cost control measures introduced in the Affordable Care Act helped push down PCE health care services inflation from 3% in late 2010 to less than 0.5% in early 2016 (Chart 11). Many of these measures have been realized, and as a consequence, health care inflation has begun to revert to its long-term trend (though in level terms, the savings to consumers remain). The Republican tax bill could put some upward pressure on health care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the repeal of the Individual Mandate will raise premiums on health care exchanges by 10% because a larger share of healthy individuals will decide to forgo buying health insurance.3 Japanese inflation should move modestly higher in 2018, but from extremely depressed levels. The Japanese unemployment rate is now a full percentage point lower than in 2007 and the ratio of job opening-to-applicants has reached the highest level since 1974 (Chart 12). Chart 11U.S. Inflation Breakdown Chart 12Japan's Tightening Labor Market Euro area inflation will be held down by the lagged effects of a stronger euro and continued high levels of slack across southern Europe. Outside Germany, labor market underutilization is still 6.3 percentage points higher than it was in 2008 (Chart 13). U.K. inflation should edge lower as the spike in import prices stemming from the post-Brexit pound depreciation dissipates. Chart 13There Is Still Labor Market Slack Outside Of Germany Investment Conclusions A shift in global growth leadership back towards the U.S. would benefit the beleaguered U.S. dollar. Higher U.S. inflation will prompt the Fed to raise rates four times in 2018, one more hike than implied by the dots and two more hikes than implied by current market expectations. Rising inflation should also keep Treasury yields on an upward trajectory. We expect the 10-year yield to finish 2018 at around 3%. As long as inflation is rising in response to stronger growth, and from below-target levels, both U.S. and global risk assets should continue to rally. Only once U.S. inflation rises above 2% in 2019, and growth begins to slow on the back of binding supply-side constraints, will equities flounder. Stay long stocks for now, but look to significantly trim exposure towards the end of the year. Regionally, we favor euro area and Japanese equities over U.S. stocks for the next 12 months on a currency-hedged basis. Both the euro area and Japanese stock markets are dominated by large multinational companies whose prospects are geared more towards global growth than demand in their own regions. Above-trend global growth and rising capital spending should disproportionately benefit European and Japanese bourses, given that they have a greater tilt towards cyclically-sensitive companies. Valuations also tend to favor non-U.S. stocks. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?," dated May 31, 2017; Weekly Report, "A Secular Bottom In Inflation," dated July 28, 2017; and Weekly Report, "Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?" dated September 22, 2017. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated September 1, 2017. 3 Please see "Repealing the Individual Health Insurance Mandate: An Updated Estimate," Congressional Budget Office, dated November 8, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Should the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield approach 3% it would be a red flag, and a trigger to downgrade equities. Equity investors should stay overweight defensive-heavy Switzerland and Denmark. Contrary to what the consensus is expecting, global growth will lose steam in the first half of 2018. EUR/USD will continue to trend higher through 2018 as long-term interest rate differentials converge further. The multi-year prognosis for GBP/USD is higher. U.K. parliamentary arithmetic simply does not support a hard Brexit. Furthermore, a hard Brexit would require either a North/South or East/West hard border in Ireland, which will be politically impossible to deliver. Feature A happy and prosperous 2018 to you all! In this first report of the year, we describe some investment outcomes in 2017 that at first glance seemed odd or unexpected; but that on deeper reflection provide valuable insights for 2018. Some of these insights deviate substantially from the BCA house view. Bonds Became More Risky Than Equities The first oddity of 2017 concerns the 'drawdowns' suffered by bonds and equities. A drawdown is defined as an investment's peak to trough decline. In 2017, the odd thing was that the drawdowns suffered by government bonds - a supposedly safe asset-class - were equal to or worse than those suffered by equities - a supposedly risky asset-class (Chart of the Week, Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart of the WeekBonds Suffered Worse Drawdowns Than Equities Chart I-2Bonds Suffered Worse Drawdowns Than Equities Chart I-3Bonds Suffered Worse Drawdowns Than Equities Contrary to classical theory, empirical evidence now proves that investors do not define an investment's risk in terms of its volatility, the fluctuations of its return around a mean. Instead, investors define risk as the ratio of large and sudden drawdowns versus potential gains. This unattractive asymmetry in an investment's return is technically known as negative skew. And it is as compensation for this negative skew that investors demand an excess return, the so-called 'risk premium'. Significantly, at low bond yields, the mathematics of bond returns necessarily means that their negative skew increases. The risk of large and sudden drawdowns rises while the prospect for price gains diminishes. But if bond risk becomes 'equity-like', it follows that equities' prospective long-term return should become 'bond-like'. Meaning, equities should no longer offer a meaningful risk premium over bonds. Is this the case? According to my colleague Martin Barnes, BCA Chief Economist, the answer appears to be yes - at least in certain major markets. In BCA's Outlook 2018, Martin projects that from current valuations U.S. equities are set to deliver a total nominal return of 2.6% a year to 2028 - almost indistinguishable from the 2.5% a year that a U.S. 10-year T-bond will deliver over the same period. But the mathematics of bond pricing tells us that the negative skew on bond returns fully disappears when a yield approaches 3%. At which point the risk of bonds once again declines to become 'bond-like', and the required return on equities should once again rise to become 'equity-like'. This higher required return would necessarily require today's equity prices to drop, perhaps substantially. Admittedly in Europe there is a bigger gap between the expected returns from equities and bonds than there is in the U.S. The trouble is that global capital markets move together and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Hence, one lesson for 2018 is that investors should downgrade equities to neutral should the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield approach 3%. In this event, investors should redeploy the funds into U.S. T-bonds, because any substantial adjustment in risk-asset prices would trigger supportive flows into haven bonds, reversing the spike in yields. Euro/Dollar Hit A 3-Year High EUR/USD ended 2017 touching 1.21, a 3-year high. At first glance, this might seem odd given that the ECB has committed to maintaining its zero and negative interest rate policy for at least another year while the Federal Reserve has already hiked interest rates five times. But EUR/USD is not tracking short-term rate differentials. It is tracking long-term rate differentials, and EUR/USD at a 3-year high is fully consistent with the 30-year T-bond/German bund yield spread converging to its narrowest for several years (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Further Convergence In Long-Term Interest Rate Differentials Will Support EUR/USD Where will this yield spread go from here? Let's consider both sides of the spread. On the ECB side, policy is at the realistic limit of ultra-looseness, so policy rate expectations cannot go significantly lower, but they can go higher. On the Federal Reserve side, long-term policy rate expectations are not far from our upper bound of the 'high 2s' at which risk-assets become vulnerable to a sell-off, perhaps substantial. So these interest rate expectations cannot go sustainably higher, but they can go lower. Considering this strong asymmetry, the most likely outcome is that the 30-year T-bond/German bund yield spread will continue to converge. The upshot is that EUR/USD will continue to trend higher through 2018. No Connection Between Economic Outperformance And Stock Market Outperformance Chart I-5The Eurostoxx50 Underperformed Even Though##br## The Euro Area Economy Outperformed 2017 proved that there is no positive correlation between relative economic performance and relative equity market performance. For example, the euro area was one of the best performing developed economies, yet the Eurostoxx50 was one of the worst performing stock market indexes (Chart I-5). This seems odd, until you realise that major stock market indexes are dominated by multinational rather than domestic stocks. And that when stock markets have vastly different sector weightings, the sector effect completely swamps the domestic economy effect. Therefore the first decision for international equity investors should never be which regions to own. The first decision should always be which sectors to own, and above all whether to tilt to cyclicals or defensives. The regional and country allocation then just drops out automatically. At the moment, our mini-cycle framework for global growth suggests tilting to defensives rather than to cyclicals. Global growth experiences remarkably consistent - and therefore predictable - 'mini-cycles', with half-cycle lengths averaging 8 months. As the current mini-upswing started last May we can infer that it is likely to end at some point in early 2018 (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). So one surprise could be that global growth will lose steam in the first half of 2018 rather than in the second half - contrary to what the consensus is expecting. Chart I-6The Current Mini-Upswing##br## Is Long In The Tooth Chart I-7China Has Driven The Global 6-Month##br## Credit Impulse Higher We will provide further ammunition for our mini-cycle thesis in next week's report. In the meantime, we will leave you with one ramification of paring back equity exposure to cyclicals and redeploying to defensives. Stay overweight defensive-heavy Switzerland and Denmark. Realpolitik Will Prevent A Hard Brexit For the FTSE100, the paradox is that its relative performance is negatively correlated with relative economic performance. When the U.K. economy outperforms, the FTSE100 underperforms. And vice-versa (Chart I-8). Chart I-8FTSE 100 Relative Performance Is The Inverse ##br##Of U.K. Economic Relative Performance The simple explanation is that FTSE100 multinational sales and profits tend to be denominated in dollars and euros, whereas the FTSE100 index is denominated in pounds. The upshot is that an outperforming U.K. economy weighs on the U.K. stock market because a strengthening pound diminishes the FTSE100's multi-currency profits in pound terms. And vice-versa. Compared to a year ago, investors can be more optimistic about the long-term prospects for the U.K. economy and the pound (and therefore expect long-term underperformance from the FTSE100). This is because after the unexpectedly disastrous 2017 election for Theresa May, the parliamentary arithmetic simply does not support a hard Brexit. Furthermore, a hard Brexit would require either a North/South or East/West hard border in Ireland, which will be politically impossible to deliver. The constraints that come from this realpolitik means that Brexit's endpoint will retain much of the current trading relationship with the EU, albeit the journey to that eventual destination is likely to be a wild roller coaster ride. Therefore, the multi-year prognosis for GBP/USD is higher. But investors who want to optimize their timing into 'cable' can wait for one of the inevitable roller coaster dips in 2018. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* We are delighted to say that three of our recent trades quickly hit their profit targets: short bitcoin 29%, long silver 4.5% and long NZD/USD 3%. Against this, short Nikkei/long Eurostoxx50 hit its 3% stop-loss. This week's trade recommendation is to go short palladium. Set a profit target of 6% with a symmetrical stop-loss. This leaves us with three open trades. Chart I-9 For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights A "decision tree" for the allocation to Chinese stocks highlights several key questions for investors over the coming year. The equity allocation decision hinges on the condition of the global economy, the stance of monetary policy, the pace of structural reforms, and the character of the ongoing economic slowdown. Despite several identifiable risks, our "decision tree" suggests that investors should be overweight Chinese vs global stocks. Feature Unlike in past years, BCA's China Investment Strategy service published its 2018 themes report in December, as an addendum to BCA's special year end Outlook report.1 Our final report for 2017 echoed our key themes by recapping some of the most important developments in China last year, as well as their longer-term implications.2 These reports outline our framework for evaluating China's economy in 2018, and will serve as an important reference point over the coming months relating to the pace of China's economic slowdown, policymakers' actions and priorities, and investor attitudes toward Chinese assets. In today's brief report, we begin the New Year by walking through the Chinese equity "decision tree" that flows from the framework that we detailed in our themes piece noted above (Chart 1). The chart presents a set of questions that should be answered over the coming 6-12 months in order to decide on the ideal allocation to Chinese equities within a global portfolio. We elaborate on the decision tree below. Chart 1The Chinese Equity "Decision Tree" Is The Global Economy Slowing Significantly?: Developments in China need to be considered within a global context. We have noted in previous reports that a synchronized global economic slowdown was a key factor behind China's economic slowdown in 2015.3 If global growth were to slow significantly this year, it would bode poorly for the relative performance of Chinese stocks. Next week's report will discuss the evolution of the alpha and beta characteristics of China's investable stock market; while our research is still ongoing, the evidence suggests that Chinese equities in US$ terms have become a high-beta market that would likely suffer in relative terms if the global equity market stumbles. Chart 1 highlights that the appropriate allocation to Chinese equities vs global stocks is underweight if the answer to this first question is yes, with the upgrade/downgrade bias determined simply by whether there has been an appropriate response from Chinese and global policymakers. Is Significant Further Monetary Policy Tightening Likely?: Overly tight monetary policy was the second ingredient that contributed to the 2015 slowdown. Monetary conditions tightened somewhat in the first half of 2017 (Chart 2), but the overall stance is not restrictive. Taken alone, hawkish rhetoric from the PBOC would imply that significant further tightening is imminent. However our sense is that the bark of monetary authorities will be worse than their bite over the coming months, especially since growth momentum and house price appreciation has already peaked. Is The Pace Of Renewed Structural Reforms Likely To Be Aggressive?: October's Party Congress heralded stepped-up reform efforts in 2018 and beyond, which we have highlighted is a risk to a constructive stance towards Chinese stocks. While the "status quo" scenario of no significant reforms is highly unlikely, the intensity of reforms pursued over the coming year will have to be closely monitored by policymakers to avoid a repeat of the 2015 experience. Even if policymakers feel that their threshold for pain will be higher in 2018 than has previously been the case, they are very likely to avoid a significant slowdown as it would raise the risk of returning to the exact set policies that they are trying to turn away from. In other words, an intense pace of reform would risk turning a "two steps forward, one back" situation into a full-blown retreat from structural reform momentum. For now, our China Reform Monitor continues to suggest that reform intensity will be consistent with a rising equity market (Chart 3). Chart 2Chinese Monetary Conditions ##br##Have Tightened Chart 3Investors Don't Believe That Reforms##br## Will Upset The Apple Cart Is The Existing Slowdown In China's Growth Momentum Metastasizing? Our view of China's significant growth slowdown in 2015 suggests that the end of the recent economic "mini-cycle" is likely to be benign and controlled, absent a policy mistake or a major global shock. However, it is possible that the lagged effect of a deceleration in export growth and tighter monetary policy, both of which have already occurred, could cause a broader or deeper slowdown in economic growth beyond what we have already observed. In order to gauge this risk, we tested a wide range of commonly-watched macro data series for signs that they reliably lead economic activity in China,4 using the Li Keqiang index as our proxy for the business cycle. We concluded that measures of money & credit are among the most important predictors, and presented a composite leading indicator of the Li Keqiang index based on six series that passed our test criteria (Chart 4). For now, our indicator suggests that the Chinese economy will continue to slow over the coming months, but that the pace and magnitude of the decline will be benign and controlled. The first question in our decision tree is the easiest to answer: The highly synchronized nature of global economic growth suggests that a significant slowdown is not imminent, even if the pace of growth becomes narrower or slows modestly (Chart 5). While our decision tree highlights that answering "yes" to any of the last three questions means that investors should have a negative bias towards Chinese investable stocks (and should downgrade them in response to a technical breakdown), these questions are still addressing risks rather than probable events. This supports our current recommendation of being overweight Chinese investable equities with a positive bias. Chart 4The Chinese Economy##br## Will Gradually Slow Chart 5No Sign Of A Significant ##br##Global Economic Slowdown As a final point, some investors and market participants have noted that investable Chinese stocks experienced a non-trivial selloff at the end of 2017, with some questioning whether it is a harbinger of a more pronounced economic slowdown. Our answer is no, for two reasons. First, there is some evidence to suggest that the selloff was technical in nature, as the sectors that had experienced the largest gains prior to the selloff also experienced the largest declines (Chart 6). Second, the timing of the relative selloff in Chinese stocks coincided exactly with a relative selloff in the global tech sector (Chart 7), which is strongly indicative of a common, global, factor. But given the underlying strength in the global economy, we regard this event as idiosyncratic and do not view it as a threat to the relative performance of Chinese vs global stocks over the coming year. Chart 6The Late-Year Selloff Was Partially ##br##Driven By Technical Conditions Chart 7Global Tech Also Drove The Selloff##br## In Chinese Relative Performance Bottom Line: While there are several identifiable risks that need to be monitored in 2018, for now our "decision tree" for the relative allocation to Chinese equities suggests that investors should be overweight within a global equity portfolio. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Special Report, "2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017, and Weekly Report, "Three Themes For China In The Coming Year", dated December 7, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Legacies Of 2017", dated December 21, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tracking The End Of China's Mini-Cycle", dated October 12, 2017, and "China's Economy - 2015 vs Today (Part 1): Trade", dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle", dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations