Equities
In early 2016, our sister publication Global Alpha Sector Strategy did a cycle-on-cycle analysis on the ISM manufacturing index and relative industrials performance in the following twelve months every time the ISM sank below the boom/bust line for 5 or more consecutive months. The conclusion was that it did not pay to underweight industrials stocks, as too much bearishness was already baked in the cake. The opposite is also true. We analyzed relative industrials performance since the early 1990s every time the ISM manufacturing new orders sub-index hit 60. The bottom panel of the chart shows median relative performance in the ensuing twelve months. The implication is that industrials stocks will suffer in the coming quarters as too much optimism is already discounted since the post-election reflex advance. Bottom Line: We reiterate our recent high-conviction underweight stance on the S&P industrials sector.
Highlights Trump's protectionism supercharges our theme of Sino-American tensions. China is at a stark disadvantage to the U.S. in a trade war. China cannot give concessions easily; it may batten down the hatches. Remain short RMB; but go long "One China," i.e. mainland stocks versus Taiwan/Hong Kong. Feature "Life's short span forbids us to enter on far reaching hopes." - Horace, Odes "Of course, you know, this means war." - Bugs Bunny, Looney Tunes President-elect Trump has said he will not designate China a "currency manipulator" on the first day of his presidency, contrary to what he promised during the campaign. Is this a sign that Trump is "normalizing" after the wild threats of his campaign? What are the real risks of a U.S.-China "trade war"? How should investors prepare? Trade War Is More Likely Than You Think BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has long cautioned investors that geopolitical tensions in East Asia were severely underestimated by the market.1 In 2013, we argued that a Sino-American military conflict was more likely than most of our clients dared to think.2 And over the past several years, in one-on-one conversations and in presentations at numerous conferences, we have stressed that tensions in East Asia could imperil the largest trade relationship. Why so alarmist? We have always based our analysis on three key pillars: Multipolarity: With the U.S. in a relative decline, containing China's rise has become a national security issue. The U.S. "Grand Strategy" operates under the imperative that no regional power is allowed to become a regional hegemon, as that would be a stepping stone to global competition. "Pivot" To Asia: The U.S. geopolitical deleveraging from the Middle East was from the start designed to free up more U.S. resources for Asia. While the Obama Administration pursued the pivot cautiously, it was putting the infrastructure in place for a confrontation with China. Regional dynamics: China is surrounded by neighbors that are cautious about Beijing's intentions for geographic, historical, and strategic reasons. They have therefore sought to balance their increasing economic addiction to China with deeper military and political links to the U.S. Chart 1China, Not NAFTA, In Trump's Crosshairs Trump's victory has made markets considerably less oblivious to the risks we have stressed to clients for the past five years. The idea that a trade war might erupt is now widely discussed. And Trump's repeated statements about Taiwan, North Korea, and the South China Sea have awoken some investors to the reality that a trade conflict could spill over into strategic areas, and vice versa. Nevertheless, judging by the ebullient market reaction relative to previous U.S. presidential transitions, most investors think that cool heads will inevitably prevail. They may be right, but from where we sit it is premature - and imprudent - to bet on it. Make no mistake, China, not NAFTA, will suffer the brunt of Trump's efforts to fulfill his protectionist campaign promises (Chart 1). We see 70% odds that a "crisis event" will affect U.S.-China trade patterns in a significant way over the next four years. How Did We Get Here? The Global Financial Crisis caused a sharp break in Sino-American relations: It interrupted the economic symbiosis between China and American households refused to keep re-leveraging, forcing China to become more internally driven economy (Chart 2). With final demand in the U.S. declining, China decided to re-leverage with credit, injecting its existing overproduction and overcapacity with steroids. But this only accelerated China's capture of global export market share, while supercharging the deflationary global effects (Chart 3). On top of its credit policies, China has struggled to internationalize the RMB. So now, it is not only still washing the world with its industrial overcapacity but also inadvertently - or not so innocently - reducing the prices of its goods with the weakening of its currency (Chart 4). Chart 2U.S.-China Symbiosis Has Died Chart 3China's Historic Export Grab Chart 4China Still Exporting Deflation U.S.-China trade disputes have a long history. China's WTO entrance was agreed only with the stipulation that China be treated as a "non-market economy" for 15 years. Punitive trade bills almost passed through Congress in 2005 and 2010-11, for instance, but were held back at the last minute.3 Since 2009, in particular, protectionist policies have emerged. President Obama began his term with an unprecedented use of the authority under Section 421 of the 1974 Trade Act to punish China for "market distorting" exports of car tires, and with protectionist "Buy America" provisions in his economic stimulus package. After that, a sequence of tit-for-tat punitive measures took place affecting a range of goods on both sides, attempted Chinese investments in the U.S., and American companies operating in China. China's meteoric rise, surging trade surpluses with the U.S., and the rapid loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs was the main cause of tension (Chart 5). Americans benefited from China's rise, namely from cheaper goods and lower interest rates, but it caused significant economic dislocations.4 Meanwhile Chinese protectionism discouraged American elites that had endorsed China's rise on the hopes of gradually unfolding market access. Amid the heightened political risks of the global recession and its aftermath, China intensified intellectual property theft, non-tariff barriers, indigenous innovation policies, and cyber-attacks.5 The saving grace, for markets, was that the aforementioned tensions always remained within bounds. The WTO was a mutually recognized adjudicator. Also, the rival American and Chinese commercial authorities played a slow, step-by-step, predictable game, with the punitive measures being mostly proportional. When pressures flared in the U.S., the executive branch stayed Congress's hand; meanwhile China's government could steamroll any internal opposition to its trade policies. No more. Hillary Clinton might have helped contain trade tensions, but the outlook has darkened irrespective of Trump. Notably, American multinational corporations have increasingly decried Chinese protectionism and lobbied for the U.S. government to help persuade China to give them greater market access and a better legal-regulatory climate (Chart 6). As the Obama administration exited the stage in December 2016, the U.S., Japan and others refused to accept China's "market economy" status despite the fifteen-year deadline coming due. This means the U.S. and its allies explicitly wanted to reserve the power to impose anti-dumping duties more easily on China, which is what "Non-Market Economy" status entails (Chart 7).6 China considers this delay an outright violation of U.S. commitments under WTO. Chart 5A Tale Of Two Manufacturers Chart 6American Business Under Pressure In China Chart 7China's Non-Market Status A Liability Further, Clinton had promised to create a special prosecutor for trade disputes and to triple the number of enforcement officers. More broadly, she wanted to continue Obama's "Pivot to Asia" policy that had roiled U.S.-China strategic relations. Bottom Line: U.S.-China trade relations had already turned sour as a result of the divergence of interests following the Global Financial Crisis. China has emerged as a trade juggernaut and the U.S. corporate and political establishments have become far more anxious about it recently. Now Trump has supercharged the situation. Will Trump "Normalize" In Office? With Trump, the U.S. is likely to undergo a "regime change" in terms of how trade policy is conducted - the only question is how long-lasting it will be. U.S. presidents have very few constraints on trade and foreign policy (Table 1). Ignore Trump's statements and look at his team: Incoming Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, National Trade Council chief Peter Navarro, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.7 This group, especially Navarro, is stridently hawkish on China and appears ready to bring the full weight of the United States' economic and strategic advantages to the table in order to negotiate a new framework of relations. Table 1Trump Is Not Constrained On Trade Policy The model is the renegotiation of trade relations with an ascendant Japan in the 1980s. And China looks ripe for a crackdown by this yardstick. The penetration of Chinese exports meet or exceed Japan's position at its peak in the 1980s (Chart 8). Meanwhile the RMB has not appreciated nearly as much as the yen had done by this time (Chart 9). Ultimately the two resolved their differences because Japan acceded to major U.S. demands, strengthening its currency after the 1985 Plaza Accord and accelerating financial liberalization. It helped that the two were staunch allies without genuine security tensions (unlike the U.S. and China today). Chart 8China Has Gotten Away ##br##With More Than Japan Did Chart 9Reagan Forced Faster ##br##Appreciation On Japanese Yen From the Trump administration's point of view, the standard trade remedies have failed given that U.S. trade deficits have deteriorated all along. True, China has made considerable structural adjustments in recent years (Chart 10). But relative to the U.S., China has not really changed its ways. In fact, the current account surplus, which has collapsed from 10% to around 2% since 2008, is now roughly equal to the trade surplus with the United States (Chart 11). Chart 10China's Economic Rebalancing Under Way Chart 11China's Trade Surplus With U.S. Indispensable Therefore we do not put much stock in Trump's claim that he will not call China a currency manipulator on day one - this does not signal a "normalization" or softening of Trump's protectionist line. There was always a technical issue with this pledge that made the timing awkward.8 The manipulator charge will remain a Sword of Damocles hanging over China this year and next, but it is also only one tool in Trump's toolkit - and not the most intimidating one either (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Calling China A Currency Manipulator: The Process At a minimum, Trump could easily do what Obama did in February 2009 on tires - simply approve recommendations from his own Treasury Department for tariffs on specific goods. At a more aggressive level, he has the example of Richard Nixon before him. Nixon imposed a 10% surcharge on all dutiable goods in 1971. We would not put it beyond Trump to take arbitrary actions within the four-year term if international economic conflicts heat up dramatically. (We will be especially leery in the lead-up to the 2018 or 2020 elections if Trump's touted deal-making is not going his way.) Congress is not likely to prove a major constraint, at least not at first. Trump's election is a strong signal that the U.S. populace wants more protectionist policies. Congressional Republicans are limited, given the laws empowering the president on trade, and they will face the reality that his electoral strategy succeeded in great part because of voter demand for protectionism in key Midwestern states. Democrats, in these and other competitive states, have to perform verbal gymnastics to oppose Trump's positions on trade that substantially echo their own. And as mentioned, U.S. multinationals are not likely to "domesticate" Trump - rather, they will lobby for relative moderation or tactfulness within his general framework. Bottom Line: Trump is relatively unconstrained on trade policy. We expect his administration to begin with a "shot across the bow" in the first 100 days - a mostly but not entirely symbolic punitive measure against China - and then to seek high-level negotiations toward a framework for the administration's relations with China over the next four years. We expect the initial shot to rattle markets, then for a calming period to ensue, which will give a false sense of security. But given the lack of constraints on Trump, we are not optimistic. What Are China's Options? In a trade war with the U.S., China is outgunned on every front. Its economy is far more vulnerable to a disruption of exports to the U.S. than vice versa (Chart 12). It does not have ready alternatives to the U.S., given that U.S. imports of Chinese goods are roughly equal to Japanese, South Korean, German, Vietnamese and British imports combined. And China is most competitive in goods that the U.S. can easily source elsewhere (Chart 13). Chart 12The Numbers Favor The U.S. In A Trade War Chart 13The U.S. Can Find Substitutes For China Yes, China can disrupt the supply chain for the iPhone, but no, the Trump administration is not going to confuse Apple's interests with what it views as the "National Interest." Certainly China will favor non-American companies - Airbus over Boeing, etc - but the U.S. growth model is not reliant on exports, so it is not clear that the Trump administration will heed Boeing's cries about long-term competitiveness. The states most exposed to Chinese retaliation - Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Louisiana, and South Carolina - will not harm his electoral base. His Midwestern Rust Belt states could suffer, according to some research, but voters there may approve of his protectionist measures and Trump's other economic policies may blunt the short-term impact of Chinese retaliation.9 Looking at major Chinese export categories to the U.S., like textiles, electrical machinery, and equipment, suggests that 30 million Chinese jobs could be affected - perhaps ten times as many as the comparable U.S. jobs at risk from Chinese retaliation (far more than proportional given population). There is one factor that stands in China's favor. The history of trade wars says something different than the raw balance of trade. Like all wars, trade wars seek political ends, and a government's internal unity and resilience can be critical to its ability to bear out the worst.10 Politically, it is not clear that the U.S. has a better stomach for a full trade war than China: The U.S. remains divided - Polarization will worsen under Trump given his low approval ratings, low favorability, narrow popular victory margin, and controversial policy inclinations. Though China-bashing and economic patriotism can win some support, and we do not expect Congress or the corporate lobby to prevent Trump from launching a trade crusade if he wishes, nevertheless we see a fair chance that Trump would lose credibility and be forced to moderate his stance once negative trade consequences began to be felt at home. China is relatively unified - Xi has set himself up to be the "core" of power in the Communist Party in anticipation of worsening domestic conditions.11 It is worth remembering that the original use of the "core leader" moniker emerged in the wake of the Tiananmen Square crackdown when the Western world imposed sanctions on a newly liberalized China and it was forced to retreat into its shell from 1989-1992 (Chart 14). China's leadership wants to make the country less dependent on the U.S., and more autarkic, but is having difficulty imposing austere changes on itself. Trump may hasten the reforms while giving Chinese leaders a convenient "foreign devil" to distract the populace from the pain of restructuring. Chart 14China Rode Out Western Pressure In 1989 The above should not suggest that China wants a trade war, however. Trump is threatening to kick the export leg out from under its growth model at a time when the other leg - investment - stands at risk from domestic credit excesses.12 But the recent case study of Russia and economic sanctions is instructive. President Vladimir Putin used sanctions to blame all of the economic ills that befell Russia on the West, even though the Kremlin was often at fault. That policy largely worked. Bottom Line: China stands to suffer the most economically in a trade war with the United States. Chinese policymakers may therefore choose to ride out the economic costs of a trade war while blaming the U.S. for the pain. But closing its economy today would derail global growth and cause a dramatic spike in geopolitical risk, unlike in 1989. Strategic Spillover Trump's approach is likely to increase geopolitical risk because he wants to use the strategic disagreements plaguing Sino-American relations as leverage to get concessions on trade. The three hot spots are: Taiwan - Tensions with Taiwan spiked when Trump revealed that his administration considers the "One China" policy to be up for negotiation. China has engaged in serious saber-rattling in response, both around Taiwan and in the South China Sea. By linking trade disputes with Taiwan, Trump likely made it harder for Xi to compromise on the former without looking weak on the latter. Trump's negotiating style may work in business, but will not work with China on Taiwan, which is a matter of sovereignty and a clear red line. North Korea - Trump has said North Korea will not manage to test an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), which it is preparing to do. He is threatening to hold China to account for not curbing the North's violations of UN resolutions on nuclear proliferation and missile development. This would likely mean an expansion of the practice adopted under Obama of sanctioning Chinese entities for dealing with North Korean partners. This situation would likely shake up markets that have normally been able to ignore North Korea. South China Sea - Trump has repeatedly signaled that China has militarized the South China Sea, and his incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested that China be deprived of access, a policy that would trigger a shooting war if operationalized. Persistent tensions here are unlikely to go away anytime soon and could spark a diplomatic crisis or naval conflict (if not with the U.S. then with regional players like Vietnam). Thus Trump's administration is likely to make serious demands on China regarding its strategic situation and national security even while demanding an overhaul of trade policies that will force difficult economic reforms on China. Bottom Line: China's political strengths at home make it unlikely to compromise on Trump's major strategic demands. Contrary to adding leverage in trade negotiations - where the U.S. already has the upper hand - using these issues as negotiating tools is likely to cause China to fear for its security and thus become more defiant. Risks To The View The risk to this view would be that the U.S. and China manage to negotiate a new framework and actually improve relations, with the U.S. giving more respect to China's legitimate rights and regional initiatives in exchange for Chinese concessions. But is China capable of conceding significantly on Trump's major demands? RMB appreciation? No. Many commentators have pointed out that Trump's view of the RMB is outdated - the PBoC is now propping it up, not suppressing it. The driver of RMB weakness is China's excessive monetary and credit expansion, weakening productivity growth, domestic investors' desires to move capital out, corporate deleveraging, the need for stimulus, tightening Fed policy, and rising geopolitical risks. While it is possible that the PBoC will defend the RMB to the hilt, the near-term path of least resistance is down, and that sets China on a collision course with the Trump administration. Market access and dumping? Yes. Trump complains that China taxes U.S. imports unfairly and dumps goods into the American market, killing jobs. To appease the U.S., China could take concrete steps to remove non-tariff barriers and open wider investment avenues for U.S. businesses - it has recently suggested it might do so.13 Less likely, it could accelerate overcapacity cuts and reduce subsidies to state-owned enterprises. These moves would fit with its avowed reform goals and strengthen Chinese self-sufficiency in the long run, and Xi's administration likely has the power to do them. China could also improve intellectual property protections and declare a ceasefire on cyber-attacks on companies. All of this is possible, but clearly extremely difficult to achieve. Strategic concerns? Maybe. It is conceivable but unlikely that China could de-escalate matters in the South China Sea and agree to a "freedom of navigation" guarantee for the United States, which is not a party to the territorial disputes. A significant compromise on North Korea would be even less likely, since China is unwilling to move beyond the usual, ineffective management and impose real hardship on the regime for its violations of UN resolutions and improving nuclear and missile capabilities. One impetus for China to concede on these points is that it is fearful of creating instability in a politically sensitive year in which it will oversee a major five-year leadership rotation at its National Party Congress. Trump may deliberately threaten to disrupt the transition in order to extract concessions. Bottom Line: We operate on a constraint-based methodology: Trump has very few constraints on trade policy, China has major constraints on making these concessions, so there is no basis for assuming that the two countries will skip conflict and go directly to a new level of cooperation. Investment Recommendations We remain short the RMB. The currency has fallen by 5.62% since we initiated this trade. The trade itself has suffered a bit since the end of last year as a result of the PBoC's efforts to fight speculation. But monetary expansion sans productivity improvements continues apace in China, and we expect USD strength to persist, so we think there is room for the RMB to fall further. In the near term, however, the USD could experience further pullback as investors start pricing the negatives of the Trump administration. Therefore we are closing our long USD/EUR trade for a 4.55% gain. We remain somewhat positive on China relative to EM - because of the relative unity and centralization of its government and financial resources at its disposal - but we would not recommend investing in Chinese assets in the absolute due to the heightened internal and external risks outlined above. Hence we propose going long the "One China" policy, i.e. long Chinese mainland stocks versus Taiwan and Hong Kong (Chart 15). This enables us to play the fact that mainland valuations are depressed while the global trend of de-globalization and the conflicts within Greater China and with the U.S. are likely to increase uncertainties about Hong Kong and Taiwan. These two are particularly vulnerable to tighter regulations or sanctions from Beijing. Yan Wang, Senior Vice-President at BCA's China Investment Strategy, argues that while there is no case for a clear directional move in Chinese stocks - especially given the ongoing tightening of policies on the property sector - nevertheless they should be favored relative to global equities, given that growth is improving, fiscal policy will remain accommodative, and valuations are depressed (Chart 16).14 Meanwhile our negative outlook on China in absolute terms supports a globally negative outlook on cyclical equities relative to defensives. Cyclicals move with EM in general and China in particular. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President in charge of U.S. Equity Strategy, notes that EM performance does not warrant the sharp rise in U.S. cyclicals versus defensives, nor that in globally oriented versus domestically oriented stocks (Chart 17).15 This creates the opportunity for a tactical short. Chart 15Chinese Stocks Are Cheap Chart 16China Trades With Cyclicals Chart 17Go Long The 'One China Policy' Finally, we caution investors about investing in companies with major exposure to China (Table 2). We would recommend that clients short a "China, Inc" Index of the top 20 S&P 500 stocks exposed to trade with China relative to the rest of S&P 500. The "China, Inc" stocks have been outperforming the market for a while (Chart 18). We fear that China may retaliate against some of these firms as the trade war with the U.S. heats up. Table 2'China, Inc.' May Suffer From Trade War Chart 18Short 'China, Inc.' Relative To Market Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President, marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kurri, Research Analyst 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Imad Moosa, The U.S.-China Trade Dispute: Facts, Figures And Myths (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2012). 4 For prominent research on this topic, please see David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning From Labor-Market Adjustment To Large Changes In Trade," Annual Review of Economics 8 (2016), pp. 205-40, available at www.annualreviews.org; Autor et al., "Foreign Competition And Domestic Innovation: Evidence From U.S. Patents," NBER Working Paper No. 22879, December 2016, available at www.nber.org. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "Reflections On China's Reforms," dated December 11, 2013, and "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Scholars have shown that countries granting China market economy status have subsequently initiated fewer antidumping cases against it. Please see Francisco Urdinez and Gilmar Masiero, "China And The WTO: Will The Market Economy Status Make Any Difference After 2016?" The Chinese Economy 48:2 (2015), pp. 155-172. Technically speaking, the difference in duty rates can be substantial between market and non-market economies; please see the U.S. Government Accountability Office, "U.S.-China Trade: Eliminating Nonmarket Economy Methodology Would Lower Antidumping Duties For Some Chinese Companies," GAO-06-231, January 2006, available at www.gao.gov. 7 Ross has criticized China more heavily since joining Trump; Navarro is the author of Death By China: Confronting The Dragon, A Global Call To Action (Pearson, 2011); together they criticized China in a paper for Trump's campaign, "Scoring The Trump Economic Plan: Trade, Regulatory, & Energy Policy Impacts," dated September 29, 2016, available at assets.donaldjtrump.com. Lighthizer worked on Ronald Reagan's Treasury Department's team that engaged in the tough trade negotiations with Japan in the mid-1980s. 8 The existing statutory procedure, now enshrined in Title VII of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, involves the Treasury Department making semi-annual assessments and potentially initiating bilateral or multilateral negotiations. According to the more or less standard time frame since 1988, any charges of currency manipulation would occur in the April report at earliest, and more likely in the October report or thereafter. For Trump to have designated China a manipulator on day one, he would either have had to issue a simple statement of intent or an executive directive that bypassed the formal foreign exchange review process. 9 Please see Andy Kiersz, "Here's Every State's Biggest International Trading Partner," Business Insider, October 20, 2016, available at www.businessinsider.com. See also Marcus Noland et al, "Assessing Trade Agendas In The US Presidential Campaign," Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-6, dated September 2016, available at piie.com. 10 Serbia "defeated" the much larger Austria-Habsburg in their "Pig War" in the early 1900s, while Ireland won most of its key demands from England despite losing the "Economic War" of the 1930s. Russia's attempts over the past decade to bully Ukraine into submission have not succeeded in achieving Russia's political aims. In each of these cases, a far greater economic disparity existed than currently exists between the U.S. and China, and yet even then the weaker country's popular support, and the willingness of neighbors to exploit the new trade opportunities that opened up, enabled the weaker country to win the political clash of wills. 11 Please see "China: Xi Is A "Core" Leader... So What?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see "China unveils new plan to further open economy to foreign investment," Reuters, January 17, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard," dated January 12, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "2017 High-Conviction Calls," dated January 9, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.
The sharp packaged food share price decline means that difficult conditions are now being discounted. Sales growth expectations have cratered, reflecting the negative impact of food price deflation and the strong U.S. dollar on this export-dependent industry. However, the strong currency no longer appears to be crimping demand: real exports of food and beverage products have surged in recent months. On the flipside, imports have declined, suggesting less fierce foreign competition. In addition, a strong U.S. dollar should continue to keep a lid on raw food prices. Low input commodity costs have helped propel our profit margin proxy to new cyclical highs, heralding ongoing margin expansion. The latter demonstrates impressive operating discipline amidst a tough sales backdrop. We recommend using the sell-off to lift underweight positions up to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5PACK-MDLZ, KHC, GIS, K, TSN, CAG, SJM, HSY, MJN, CPB, MKC, HRL.
While momentum and buoyant expectations have been a powerful support for equity markets, it is critical to keep a close on eye on the cyclical valuation backdrop to avoid getting caught up in any hype. For instance, the total market capitalization (MC) of the U.S. stock market is more than 120% of (nominal) GDP, more than double the 2008 trough. MC as a share of GDP has only been higher during the TMT bubble in the late-1990s. Since the 2008 low, central bank balance sheet expansion and the accrual of earnings to the corporate sector rather than to laborers have powered this remarkable surge. Low interest rates have also incented investors to bid up MC using leverage. Margin debt is now at previous peaks relative to GDP. MC to GDP has averaged 75% over the last forty five years. Even if nominal GDP boomed at 8% per annum for the next five years, market cap would still be over 80% of GDP, or well above the average. It may be too optimistic to expect market cap to stay above average over the next five years even if economic growth booms, because strong growth would imply a shift from interest rate normalization to more restrictive settings, and wages would take an ever increasing share of corporate profits, removing two key valuation supports. Consequently, we recommend a capital preservation mindset and a focus on controlling risk, as opposed to chasing short-term momentum driven returns.
Highlights Portfolio Strategy The elevated ratio of market cap-to-GDP discounts strong growth far into the future, suggesting that a market validation phase may be lurking. Capital markets-sensitive stocks have had a good run, but the six month outlook is more mixed than bullish. Lift the packaged food group to neutral following the price plunge, because expectations have undershot. Recent Changes S&P Packaged Foods Index - Lift to neutral, locking in a profit of 3%. Table 1 Feature Equities are approaching their first fundamental test since the post-election surge. Fourth quarter earnings season will soon begin in earnest, with the strong U.S. dollar threatening to temper forward guidance, based on its tight inverse correlation with future net earnings revisions (Chart 1). The post-election stock market valuation expansion has been sentiment-driven: our Equity Sentiment Composite is at a bullish extreme, powering the advance in multiples. That echoes the massive growth forecast upgrade on the back of expectations of a more business friendly, reflationary fiscal policy. The NFIB survey of small business optimism has soared to levels typically reserved for a V-shaped rebound exiting recession (Chart 1). Soaring growth expectations mean that a volatile, equity validation phase is inevitable. The timing is difficult to pinpoint, however, because momentum can be a powerful and seductive force. In other words, performance anxiety and fear of missing out are overwhelming cyclical warning flags. For instance, the total market capitalization (MC) of the U.S. stock market is more than 120% of (nominal) GDP, more than double the 2008 trough (Chart 2). MC as a share of GDP has only been higher during the TMT bubble in the late-1990s. Since the 2008 low, central bank balance sheet expansion and the accrual of earnings to the corporate sector rather than to laborers have powered this remarkable surge. Low interest rates have also incented investors to bid up MC using leverage. Margin debt is now at previous peaks relative to GDP (Chart 2). It is possible that a repeat of TMT period could be unfolding, but betting on a multi-standard deviation event is high risk and low reward, especially given already elevated margin debt, and more recently, rising debt-servicing costs. MC to GDP has averaged 75% over the last forty five years. Even if nominal GDP boomed at 8% per annum for the next five years, market cap would still be over 80% of GDP, or well above the average. It may be too optimistic to expect market cap to stay above average over the next five years even if economic growth booms, because strong growth would imply a shift from interest rate normalization to restrictive settings, and wages would take an ever increasing share of corporate profits, removing two key valuation supports. What is clear is that subsequent long-term returns from current levels of MC/GDP have been poor. Chart 3 inverts and advances MC/GDP by 10-years, and plots that with 10-year rolling equity returns: long-term return potential looks paltry. Admittedly, this valuation gauge does little to forecast short-term market moves, but over the next 3-6 months, our concern is that economic euphoria will prove to have overshot reality. Chart 1Too Many Bulls? Chart 2Investors Already Fully Committed Chart 3Paltry Long-Term Returns Ahead The steady decline in total bank loan growth to nil and slide in federal income tax receipts to zero growth is worrying. The latter is an excellent confirming indicator for overall employment and economic growth (Chart 2, bottom panel). The current message does not confirm the budding economic boom currently discounted by the stock market. Consequently, we recommend a capital preservation mindset and a focus on controlling risk, as opposed to chasing short-term momentum driven returns. Against this backdrop, this week we highlight an undervalued consumer-dependent area and revisit the red-hot financials sector. Where To Next For Capital Markets? Anything financials-related surged after the election. A short covering rally morphed into optimism that the sector's regulatory burden will be loosened, ultimately allowing companies to earn a higher return on equity, thereby warranting increased valuations. In response, we upgraded our overall financial sector view in November, boosting our exposure to the previously lagging asset management & custody bank (AMCB) group to overweight and the capital markets group to neutral. The surge in equities relative to bonds has provided a catalyst for these groups to outperform (Chart 4), and that has the potential to become a longer-term asset preference shift amidst Fed tightening. That dynamic bodes well for a continued re-rating of the AMCB index. Does the same hold true for the higher beta capital markets group? The jury is still out. Capital markets stocks have historically gotten off to a slow start during Fed tightening cycles. Table 2 shows the average relative 6-, 12- and 24-month returns once the Fed begins hiking interest rates. Capital market stocks have underperformed during the first six months, regaining that in the subsequent 6 months, before finally accelerating meaningfully in year two. Using this as a guide (and the most recent hike as the true start to a Fed tightening cycle) would suggest that the initial relative performance surge is vulnerable to a pullback in the first half of this year. Meanwhile, the bull case for capital markets includes more than just higher rates and a steeper yield curve. The share price jump suggests that industry profit outperformance looms (Chart 5). A similar relative performance surge in 2013 was accompanied by a massive earnings surge. Chart 4Good News For Capital Markets... Chart 5... But Already Discounted? Table 2Capital Markets & Fed Tightening Cycles Earnings outperformance requires a sustained increase in capital formation, but we are reluctant to extrapolate the recent improvement in market and economic sentiment to an actual increase in demand for capital just yet. Typically, a rise in the stock-to-bond (S/B) ratio foretells of an increase in animal spirits. A rise in the S/B ratio signals that deflationary risks are receding, and points to a re-acceleration in new stock issuance (Chart 4), a plus for fee generation. But companies have already been taking advantage of cheap financing to issue equity and debt to fund M&A and buybacks, reflecting the lack of organic growth opportunities in recent years. Incremental equity raises will require a validation of growth-sponsored capital needs, rather than more financial engineering. As a share of GDP, M&A has already reached levels that coincided with previous peaks in speculative activity (Chart 6). At best, a period like 1999 could occur, when M&A stayed at a high level for two years, helping profits and share prices to outperform. But that period was a massive speculative asset bubble, and positioning for a replay is fraught with risk. Chart 6Already Past The Peak? Chart 7Limited New Capital Formation We are more concerned that capital formation might not live up to what is quickly becoming embedded in share prices. Chart 7 shows that the yield curve already appears to be peaking, suggesting that economic expectations have hit a ceiling. Moreover, bank loan growth has dropped to nil over the past three months, led by the commercial & industrial credit category (Chart 7). The sharp decline in C&I loan demand implies that business funding requirements are diminishing. This is corroborated by the plunge in corporate bond issuance, which has occurred within the context of narrowing corporate bond spreads and increase in risk appetites, ideal conditions for companies to issue debt (Chart 7). All of this is consistent with the message from the corporate sector financing gap, which is signaling that companies are no longer spending in excess of their cash flow (Chart 7). The corporate sector is not in a financial position to embark on a major expansion phase. Our Corporate Health Monitor remains in deteriorating health territory, underscoring limited balance sheet capacity for growth. That is consistent with a rising corporate bond default rate and more subdued M&A activity (Chart 8). Directionally, M&A activity has a critical influence on swings in capital markets return on equity, given generous profit margins for this vertical (Chart 8). Chart 8Hard To Envision A Continued M&A Boom Chart 9Firms Are Not Positioning For Growth Even the capital markets industry itself is not yet putting its money to work in anticipation of an upturn in business activity. Staff level changes are pro-cyclical. Companies hire to meet increase demand on their resources and are quick to slash when revenue opportunities diminish. As such, capital markets employment provides a good confirming indicator for earnings momentum. Chart 9 shows that capital markets hiring has dried up, similar to loan demand. The implication is that the expected upturn in relative forward earnings momentum may not materialize in the short run. Perhaps lags will eventually close these gaps, but with valuations now more dear than at any time since the Great Financial Crisis (Chart 9), prudence warrants patience before adopting a more optimistic positioning. Bottom Line: The S&P AMCB index continues to represent a more attractive risk-adjusted exposure to the improvement in market and economic sentiment than the capital markets group, because a meaningful increase in capital formation is still not assured. Stay overweight the former, and neutral on the latter. Time To Nibble On Packaged Foods Packaged foods stocks have been through the grinder in the last few months. We have been underweight this group, because it had not corrected alongside the rest of the consumer products complex (Chart 10), while leading revenue metrics had softened and employment costs had increased. However, the sharp share price decline means that difficult conditions are now being discounted. Chart 11 shows that the relative forward P/E ratio is well under the long-term average. Sales growth expectations have cratered, reflecting the negative impact of food price deflation and the strong U.S. dollar on this export-dependent industry. Chart 10Food Stocks Have Spoiled Chart 11Expectations Have Undershot We doubt conditions will worsen, especially relative to depressed expectations. In fact, previous drags are stabilizing, on the margin. For instance, the consumer price index for food products has troughed on a growth rate basis, suggesting that the de-rating in sales expectations has run its course (Chart 11). On the downside, capacity utilization rates are still low as a consequence of the previous retrenchment in food spending and increase in capacity. Indeed, the food production footprint has expanded over the last several years, which has been a contributing factor to the rise in labor costs and constraints on profitability. The good news is that industry wage inflation has crested and utilization rates appear to have troughed. Importantly, the U.S. dollar is not undermining growth prospects as much as dire forecasts suggest. Real exports of food and beverage products have surged in recent months (Chart 12). On the flipside, imports have declined, suggesting less fierce foreign competition. Chart 12The Strong Dollar Is Not A Death Knell... Chart 13... Especially If It Keeps Costs Down Total food demand growth has improved, as measured by the combination of export growth and real domestic food spending (Chart 12). Even the food shipments-to-inventories ratio has edged back into positive territory, a plus for future selling price increases. In addition, a strong U.S. dollar should continue to keep a lid on raw food prices (Chart 13). Low input commodity costs have helped propel our profit margin proxy to new cyclical highs, heralding ongoing margin expansion. The latter demonstrates impressive operating discipline amidst a tough sales backdrop. More recently, sales growth at food and beverage stores has reaccelerated (Chart 13), suggesting that factories will get busier, providing additional support to profit margins and reversing sagging return on equity. If ROE stabilizes, then the valuation compression will end. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P packaged food index to neutral, locking in a 3% profit since our underweight call in September 2015. A further upgrade is possible if utilization rates begin to improve, heralding an increase in pricing power. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).
Highlights The uptrend in consumer confidence has the potential to be lasting, and therefore lead to an acceleration in real consumption over the next several quarters. In contrast, the rise in business optimism is thus far built on shakier fundamentals, and therefore vulnerable to disappointment - at least until corporate executives see signs of a pickup in consumer demand. Some of the cyclical tailwinds that have aligned for consumers are: very low essential spending burdens, rising incomes, a positive wealth effect, and improved credit scores. Several areas of the U.S. equity market are set to outperform on the back of this improved consumer profile. Feature Financial markets continue to be optimistic about a more fertile business backdrop under a Trump presidency. At current valuations, equities are likely to undergo a testing phase. Indeed, the equity market's reaction to President-elect's press conference last week - the first in months - may be an omen of what is in store should Trump disappoint relative to what appears like very high expectations for the early days of his Presidency. At first blush, it appears that the surge in sentiment among a broad range of economic agents was precipitated by just one factor: Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election. Measures of both business and consumer confidence all rose sharply after November 8th (Chart 1). An important question is how sustainable and how far-reaching is this new-found optimism? After all, a major missing ingredient in the recovery to date has been faith that the economic future would get better. Last year, over half of respondents to a Nielsen global confidence survey still believed the world was in recession. Our take is that the uptrend in consumer confidence has the potential to be lasting, and therefore lead to an acceleration in real consumption over the next several quarters. In contrast, the rise in business optimism is thus far built on shakier fundamentals, and therefore vulnerable to disappointment - at least until corporate executives see signs of a pickup in consumer demand. This view runs counter to the current popular narrative, where businesses - and therefore their stock prices - perform better once a new era of pro-business policies are ushered in. We have noted in past weekly reports that we believe the equity market has overshot and that policy is likely to under-deliver; it is a high bar to assume that the new American government will succeed in implementing a pro-business strategy of lower corporate taxes, increased infrastructure spending and a lighter regulatory burden, while simultaneously avoiding any negative shocks from trade reform and foreign policy blunders.1 Thus, we interpret the surge in business confidence, as reported in various surveys, to be exaggerated and prone to a pullback. On the flipside, a number of cyclical tailwinds have aligned for consumers. Although consumer sentiment surveys also spiked higher since November, this merely extends an already rising trend. Below, we outline the fundamental factors that support stronger consumption growth in the coming quarters. Cost Of Essentials Is Ultra-Low First, the cost of many essential items have declined throughout the recovery, particularly energy prices (Chart 2). The decline in energy prices since 2014 means that spending on energy as a percent of disposable income is near thirty year lows. Likewise, spending on food and interest payments as a share of income is also as low as it has been in thirty years. It is only the seemingly incessant climb in medical payments that keeps overall spending on essential items above 40% of disposable income. Still, at 41% of total disposable income, spending on essential items is far from burdensome relative to historical norms. Chart 1Confidence Surge: Some Trump, ##br##Some Fundamentals Chart 2Essential Spending Burden##br## Is Very Low Incomes Are Rising And Jobs Are Secure Much more importantly, the main driver of consumption trends, income, is on track to accelerate (Chart 3). Despite a moderation in payroll growth, overall income growth is likely to stay perky, now that wage growth is rising. Indeed, as we highlighted in a Special Report in November, the labor market has reached full employment, which is the necessary threshold for a broad-based acceleration in wages (Chart 4). Although there are structural factors that will mitigate rapid wage hikes, it is likely that mild upward pressure on wages will continue throughout 2017 (Chart 5). This is obviously good news because higher wages means that consumers will have the wherewithal to spend more. In addition to this, a tighter job market has boosted job security. Various measures of consumer confidence highlight that over the past year, consumers now have much greater confidence in long-term job prospects. This is important because when job security is high, the propensity to spend instead of save is much higher (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3Income Properties Drives Spending##br## More Than Any Other Factor Chart 4(Part I) Full Employment Calls##br## For Gradually Higher Wages Chart 5Part (II) Full Employment Calls##br## For Gradually Higher Wages Although income is the primary driver of consumption, the trend can be enhanced by several factors, including consumer wealth, the ability of consumer to finance purchases and fiscal handouts. The Wealth Effect Will Remain A Tailwind The wealth effect is the change in spending that accompanies a change, or perceived change, in wealth. The combined wealth effect from real estate and financial markets has been positive for some time (Chart 6). Thus, it is not a new driver of consumer spending, but is nonetheless positive that wealth positions continue to improve. If our forecasts for financial markets and house prices pan out, i.e. that the bull market in stocks continues over time, that bonds experience only a mild bear market and that house price appreciation remains in the mid-single digits, then a positive wealth effect will continue to support consumption in 2017. Debt/Deleveraging Cycle Is Advanced One of the major headwinds to consumer spending since 2008 has been the long, dark shadow of deleveraging. But that process is now well-advanced for the consumer sector. Consumer debt levels as a percent of disposable income peaked in 2008 at over 120%, but are now back under 100%, i.e. at the level that existed prior to the housing bubble and bust. Indeed, the financial obligation ratio for households (both renters and homeowners) is lower today than at any time in the past thirty-five years (Chart 7). Of course, part of this is due to very low interest rates, but our Bank Credit Analyst will show in their February publication that even a 100 basis point rise in borrowing rates from current levels would not lift the interest payment burden to elevated levels by historical standards. Chart 6Wealth Effect Will Remain Positive Chart 7Credit Conditions Are Not Problematic Finally, access to credit remains favorable. In late 2016, lending standards for consumer loans tightened slightly in late 2016, but access to credit generally is not a constraint on spending. A second important point is the ability of those scarred from the housing bust to re-enter the credit market. By law, information about any credit payment delinquencies, including mortgage payment delinquencies, must be removed from an individual's credit record after seven years. Therefore, if no other delinquencies occurred, individuals who experienced a foreclosure see their credit scores recover in seven years and can once again become candidates for mortgage purchases and therefore homeownership. According to research by the Chicago Federal Reserve, since the peak of foreclosures occurred prior to 2011, the bulk of borrowers that foreclosed during the housing bubble and bust are now seeing their credit scores improve. By 2016, both prime and sub-prime borrowers who entered foreclosure between six and nine years earlier (in 2007-10) appear to have recovery rates that are converging with the historical rates of recovery among their predecessor cohorts: nearly 100% of sub-prime borrowers from 2007-2010 who foreclosed have re-attained their previous credit scores, while over 60% of prime borrowers from 2007-2010 re-attained theirs (Chart 8). This means that in large part, the massive drag on housing demand due to poor credit scores from the previous housing bust have been alleviated. Chart 8Share Of Home Mortgage Borrowers Who Recovered ##br##Pre-Delinquency Credit Score After Foreclosure Fiscal Help? President-elect Donald Trump has promised fiscal stimulus in the form of infrastructure spending, corporate tax cuts and personal income tax cuts. The latter could have a positive impact on consumption, although it would likely be small. According to the Tax Policy Centre, if enacted, the highest income taxpayers (0.1 percent of the population, or those with incomes over $3.7 million in 2016 dollars) would experience an average tax cut of nearly $1.1 million, over 14 percent of after tax income. Households in the middle fifth of the income distribution would receive an average tax cut of $ 1,010, or 1.8 percent of after -tax income, while the poorest fifth of households would see their taxes go down an average of $110 or 0.8 percent of their after-tax income.2 The bottom line is that fiscal policy, if Trump's plan is enacted, could be a small positive tailwind for consumption in 2017. Overall, there are increasing signs that the scar tissue from the Great Recession is finally fading and that the improvement in consumer confidence is sustainable. This, combined with better income prospects will give households the wherewithal to spend more freely and will push real GDP growth up to 2.5% or perhaps slightly stronger. Our past research shows that sustainable capital spending cycles only get underway once businesses see clear evidence that consumer final demand is on the upswing. Thus, perhaps a healthier capex cycle will get underway, and businesses will have a fundamental reason to be more upbeat about their prospects. But for now, it seems more likely that businesses are at risk of being disappointed with the speed and efficacy of federal policy changes. On this basis, favoring equity sectors geared to the consumer rather than capex still makes sense. Favor Consumer-Geared Equity Sectors An acceleration in consumer spending will benefit consumer-sensitive equity sectors and would also support our domestic-over-global equity tilt. In our December 5th report, we outlined the bullish prospects and compelling value on offer in the consumer discretionary sector. In addition, our sister publication, U.S. Equity Strategy service just published their annual high conviction equity list. Home improvement retail, and consumer finance stocks were top of the list of high conviction overweights: Home Improvement Retail (Chart 9): Enticing long-term housing prospects argue for looking through the recent rise in mortgage rates. And as highlighted above, consumers have only recently started re-levering, with banks more than willing to facilitate renewed appetite for mortgage debt. In addition, remodeling activity is booming and anecdotes of house flipping activity picking up steam are corroborating that the housing market is vibrant. Now that house prices have recently overtaken the 2006 all-time highs, the incentive to upgrade and remodel should accelerate. While the recent backup in bond yields has been a setback for housing affordability, the U.S. consumer is not priced out of the housing market. Yields are rising in tandem with job security and wages. Mortgage payments remain below the long-term average as a share of income and effective mortgage rates remain near generationally low levels. Consumer Finance (Chart 10): This group offers early-cyclical exposure and is levered to the rising interest rate environment and debt-financed consumer spending. Chart 9Home Improvement Retail Stocks Chart 10Consumer Finance Stocks Importantly, higher interest rates have boosted credit card interest rate spreads (the industry's equivalent net interest margin metric), underscoring that the next leg up in relative share prices will be earnings led. This group is well-placed to take advantage of the improving consumer trends discussed above. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Q&A: The Top Ten", dated November 21, 2016, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 2 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-revised-tax-plan/full Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process. The model's recommended weightings for the major asset classes are unchanged: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), slightly overweight Treasury allocation at 40% (benchmark 30%) and underweight cash at 0% (benchmark 10%). The diffusion index of the three components for The Equity Model remained neutral. The technical component retained its "buy" signal, with slightly more advancement in the breadth & trend indicators relative to the momentum indicator. The monetary component, which measures overall liquidity conditions, is still favorable for equities, albeit is moving into less bullish territory. However, on the cyclical front, the earnings-driven component still warrants caution. Even as real operating earnings have marginally improved, they remain at a significant distance from positive economic expectations. Earnings momentum is also sluggish, based on our earnings diffusion index. Our qualitative stance for the allocation of Treasuries in balanced portfolios is neutral (since November 7, 2016) in contrast to the slightly overweight recommendation from our quantitative model, unchanged from last month. Although the valuation and technical components of the bond model are still constructive, the cyclical component is significantly less bullish this month. Chart 11Portfolio Total Returns Chart 12Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report "Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model", February 6, 2009.
Bank stocks have experienced a sentiment-driven surge since the U.S. election, supported by expectations for higher interest rates. However, lost in the exuberance has been a marked deceleration in credit creation. Total bank loan growth has dropped to nil over the last three months, led by the previously booming C&I category. That is a sign that while businesses are expecting an economic improvement, they are not yet positioning for one via increasing working capital requirements. Coupled with increased bank staffing levels, the growth in bank loans-to-employment, a decent productivity proxy, has also dropped to zero. Importantly, the yield curve widening has taken a breather, which may be a catalyst for some profit-taking, especially if upcoming bank earnings results disappoint on the credit growth front. We are underweight this index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5BANKX - WFC, JPM, BAC, C, USB, PNC, BBT, STI, MTB, FITB, CFG, RF, KEY, HBAN, CMA, ZION, PBCT.
Highlights The global 6-month credit impulse is now in its longest upcycle in a decade. Given also that bond yields have had their sharpest spike in a decade, we would not bet on the upcycle lasting much longer. Lean against the rise in bond yields and bank equities. Underweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. Underweight the IBEX versus the Eurostoxx600. Feature A few days into the New Year, two over-arching economic questions are exercising our minds. Is the relationship between sharply higher bond yields and weaker bank credit creation still valid? And is the relationship between weaker bank credit creation and decelerating economic growth still valid? Chart of the WeekCredit Impulses Heading In Different Directions We suspect the answers are yes and yes. European Investors Must Think Globally, Not Locally Europe is not an investment island. Major European stock market indexes comprise large multinational companies whose sales and profits come from across the world. The upshot is that European stock markets almost always move up and down in tandem with other major world stock markets, such as the S&P500 and Nikkei225 (Chart I-2). Mainstream bond markets might seem to be more parochial, given that they are supposedly under the influence of the local central bank. But investors buy and sell high quality bonds as a global asset class. The upshot is that European bond markets also almost always move up and down in tandem with other major developed bond markets (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Major Equity Markets Move Together Chart I-3Major Bond Markets Move Together Hence, European investors must look first and foremost at global drivers. For us, the most important such driver is the global 6-month credit impulse - which sums the 6-month (dollar) credit impulses in the euro area, the United States and China. Does the global 6-month credit impulse have any predictive power? Yes. Chart I-4 shows that it has consistently led the 6-month cycle in the global government bond yield, which is a good proxy for the global growth cycle. Admittedly, this powerful predictive relationship weakened somewhat through 2013-14 during the most aggressive and distortive phase of worldwide QE. However, in the past couple of years, as QE has waned, the global 6-month credit impulse's predictive power has strongly re-asserted itself (Chart I-5). Chart I-4The Credit Impulse Leads ##br##The Global Growth 'Mini-Cycle' Chart I-5The Credit Impulse's Predictive ##br##Power Has Re-Asserted Itself In effect, the charts illustrate that whatever the structural economic backdrop, the global economy experiences a perpetual 'mini-cycle' lasting about 15-24 months. Higher bond yields (or credit restrictions) weaken the credit impulse; the weaker impulse then depresses growth; the depressed growth lowers bond yields; lower bond yields (or credit easing) strengthen the credit impulse; the stronger impulse then boosts growth; the boosted growth lifts bond yields; and back to the beginning... Remember, the credit impulse measures the growth in the credit flow. The important point to grasp is that the impulse can weaken even if the credit flow numbers themselves seem strong. For example, if the credit flow increased from $100bn to $150bn to $190bn it might appear to be growing very healthily. But actually, the impulse would have weakened from $50bn to $40bn, creating a headwind. Where are we in the perpetual mini-cycle? Today, the euro area credit impulse is losing momentum, while the U.S. impulse is waning. Which leaves China's rising credit impulse as the only component supporting the global credit impulse (Chart of the Week). But for how much longer? To repeat, it would just take the global credit flow to decelerate for the impulse to roll over. Now consider that high-quality bond yields have had their sharpest 6-month spike in a decade. And that the current 10 month upcycle in the global credit impulse already makes it the longest in a decade. Hence, we would not bet on this mini-upcycle lasting much longer. A Few Words On Our Credit Cycle Framework Our credit cycle framework has several features which uniquely define it. First, the framework focusses on bank credit. This is because the magic of fractional reserve banking allows a bank to create money and new spending power out of thin air. When somebody borrows from a bank, his bank account and spending power goes up, but nobody's spending power has to go down. In contrast, when somebody borrows by issuing a bond, it merely reallocates spending power from one person to another person. The borrower sees his bank account and spending power go up, but the lender sees his bank account and spending power go symmetrically down. Spending will rise to the extent that the borrower has a higher propensity to spend than the lender, but this may or may not be the case. Second, as already discussed, the framework focusses on the bank credit impulse - which measures the growth in the bank credit flow. This is just to compare apples with apples. Remember that GDP is itself a flow statistic. So the growth in GDP receives a contribution from the growth in the credit flow1 (and not from the flow itself). Third, the framework focusses on the 6-month bank credit impulse. We choose this periodicity because 6 months is about the time that it takes to for credit to be fully spent, thereby yielding the greatest predictive power from the credit impulse to economic activity. Fourth, the framework calculates the credit cycle using bank credit to the non-financial sector2 rather than the more commonly-quoted money supply statistics such as euro area M3. The simple reason is that not all loans generate economic activity. Bank to bank lending may stay trapped in the financial system. The money supply - which is on the liabilities side of the banks' balance sheet - would not pick up this distinction. As M3 captures all bank deposits, it would still be expanding rapidly, giving the false signal that demand should be growing. Hence, it is better to focus on bank lending - which is on the assets side of the banks' balance sheet - and only count lending that is likely to generate economic activity (Chart I-6). This reasoning only works if the official data on bank loans is accurate and complete. In China, this is unlikely to be the case, given its large shadow banking system. But unofficial shadow lending must eventually show up in the money supply. Therefore, exceptionally for the China sub-component, our credit cycle framework does prefer to use the money supply (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Our Euro Area Credit Impulse##br## Uses Bank Lending... Chart I-7...But Our China Credit Impulse ##br##Uses Money Supply A Few Words On Our Reductionist Framework We are also strong believers in Investment Reductionism. This philosophy stems from two guiding principles: Occam's Razor - which says that when there are competing explanations for the same effect, the simplest explanation is usually the best; and the Pareto Principle - which says that 80% of effects come from just 20% of causes.3 The important point is that most of the moves in most financial markets result from a very small number of over-arching macro drivers. To reiterate, Europe is not an investment island. Investment Reductionism means that much of asset allocation, sector selection, and regional and country allocation distills down to getting the global growth cycle right. The remaining charts should leave readers in no doubt. Chart I-8 shows that the global 6-month credit impulse leads the cyclical direction of the global bond yield, and thereby determines asset class selection. Chart I-9 then shows that the direction of bond yields determines sector selection: for example Banks versus Technology. Chart I-8Investment Reductionism Step 1: The Global##br## Credit Impulse Leads The Bond Yield Cycle Chart I-9Step 2: The Bond Yield ##br##Drives Sector Selection Chart I-10 and Chart I-11 then show that the sector selection of Banks versus Technology determines both the regional allocation of Eurostoxx600 versus S&P500, and the country allocation of IBEX versus Eurostoxx600. Chart I-10Step 3: Sector Selection Drives##br## Regional Allocation Chart I-11Step 4: Sector Selection Drives ##br##Country Allocation To sum up, the global 6-month credit impulse is now in its longest up-cycle in a decade, and bond yields have had their sharpest spike in a decade. Hence, we would not chase cyclicality at this juncture. Which means that on a 6-month horizon: Lean against the rise in bond yields and bank equities. Underweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500.4 Underweight the IBEX versus the Eurostoxx600. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Equivalently, the credit impulse is the growth in the growth (second derivative) of the credit stock. 2 The non-financial sector includes households, (non-financial) firms and government. 3 Often known as the 80-20 rule. 4 BCA Strategists differ on this position. Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is to express a tactical short in equities via Italy's MIB. An alternative market-neutral trade is to go short Italy's MIB and symmetrically long Hong Kong's Hang Seng. * 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 For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-12 Chart I-13 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 Barring major external disruption, Chinese GDP growth will likely continue to accelerate into the first half of 2017. The overall policy stance will stay accommodative to safeguard against potentially negative shocks from abroad. Trade tensions between the world's two largest economies will inevitably increase, the degree of which matters greatly for how the Chinese economy as well as the global economy perform in the medium to long term. The dollar trend will continue to dictate the USD/RMB cross rate in the near term. The PBoC will continue to intervene heavily to prevent excessive currency weakness. Shorting the CNH/USD is not much different from a direct bet on the dollar index. Aggressive directional bet on Chinese shares is not warranted in the near term. Strategically favor Chinese equities over their global peers. Feature China has rung into 2017 with strengthening growth momentum that has been building in recent months, but the New Year clearly brings new challenges. China is on the receiving end of two major external uncertainties - namely, the anti-globalization backlash from the U.S. under President-elect Donald Trump and the outlook for the U.S. dollar, both of which are completely beyond its control. 2017 will also be a highly charged year in Chinese politics, as the ruling Communist Party prepares for a generational leadership reshuffle. This means the Chinese leadership will be more sensitive to perceived "provocations" from abroad, making political risk between the U.S. and China even less predictable. The Chinese authorities will remain highly vigilant about economic and financial stability. Meanwhile, the government will continue to mobilize the public sector and fiscal resources to support the economy, as external uncertainties mount. Domestic Demand Should Remain Buoyant Most of the recent data releases coming out of China have surprised to the upside, and the regained strength appears rather broad-based (Chart 1). Some indicators that are highly sensitive to industrial activity such as transportation freight, electricity generation and construction machine sales have rebounded sharply, partly due to last year's low base. Meanwhile, the consumer sector has remained buoyant, with strong expansion in durable goods sales such as cars and air conditioners. Looking forward, we expect the economy to continue to improve, at least in the next two quarters. Leading indicators are still strengthening. The latest PMI figures, both manufacturing and non-manufacturing, have continued to climb, and remain above the boom-bust threshold. The labor market is on the mend. The employment component of the PMIs has been rising in recent months, indicating increased hiring as the economy picks up (Chart 2). This could lead to a self-feeding virtuous cycle where an improving labor market leads to rising income growth and strengthening aggregate demand, which further boosts overall business activity and the labor market. Chart 1Broad-Based Recovery Chart 2Labor Market On The Mend The corporate sector is recovering. Inventories are exceptionally low, setting the stage for inventory restocking, which could further boost production (Chart 3). Profit growth among both private and state-owned enterprises has continued to accelerate. Rising profits are easing financial stress, particularly for debt-laden, asset-heavy sectors. This is also reflected in banks' asset quality; banks' non-performing loan accumulation has slowed sharply of late (Chart 4). In addition, recovery in the corporate sector should also bode well for investment, which is still subdued. The housing crackdown since early October has once again set the stage for negative surprises. Home sales have already begun to slow, and the government appears determined to check housing demand. A key difference between now and previous rounds of housing crackdowns is that developers have been quite cautious throughout the current cycle1: confidence has been downbeat, and housing starts have remained quite weak. Consequently, housing inventories have been quickly depleted nationwide. The demand crackdown has dashed hopes for a housing-led growth recovery, but low inventories and sluggish housing construction has also reduced the risk of another housing-led investment bust, which has typically followed previous housing tightening campaigns. Chart 3Inventory Restocking Will ##br##Further Boost Production Chart 4Corporate Sector Recovery ##br## Also Helps Banks Our model shows that Chinese GDP growth likely accelerated notably in the final quarter of the year, and the momentum will probably carry forward into the first half of 2017, assuming no major external disruption (Chart 5). The inauguration of Donald Trump next week marks the biggest uncertainty for China's growth outlook in recent history due to his well-publicized anti-globalization stance, especially his proposed harsh anti-China trade policies. Chart 5Growth Should Continue To Improve The Trump Wildcard Speculation on President-elect Trump's forthcoming China policies run amok, ranging from pragmatic deal-making, simmering frictions and tit-for-tat retaliation, to the inevitability of a full-fledged trade war and even to a geo-strategic alliance with Russia against China. It is impossible to tell at the moment where reality will eventually end up, but what is clear is that trade tensions between the world's two largest economies will inevitably increase, the degree of which matters greatly for how the Chinese economy as well as the global economy perform in the medium to long term. Low-profile trade tensions and punitive barriers will prove damaging to specific sectors and industries, but should not have a major macro impact. Chinese products that are likely to be subject to American punitive tariffs are some heavy industries such as metals. The usual suspects that may fall victim to Chinese retaliation are American transportation equipment and agricultural products - two main American export items to China. At the macro level, however, China's export sector performance should improve on a cyclical basis, especially if "Trumponomics" successfully lifts U.S. economic growth this year (Chart 6). As one of the major beneficiaries of globalization, China stands to suffer if the broad globalization trend reverses. The saving grace is that exports as a share of the Chinese economy have already almost halved to below 20%, a level comparable to the early 2000s before China joined the World Trade Organization (Chart 7). In other words, China's "globalization dividends" have already diminished to some extent. Moreover, Chinese exports depend more on the U.S. market than the other way around. Therefore, it is in China's best interests to avoid an escalation of trade frictions with the U.S., simply because it has more to lose.2 Nonetheless, it goes without saying that no country gains in a trade war, and the world risks a deep economic recession if the two largest economies engage in an all-out trade battle. Geo-strategic containment of some kind further darkens the outlook for both China and the world. A "cold war" between China and the U.S. would mark a drastic break from the global environment of the past four decades that allowed China to focus solely on economic development. One can only hope that a "clash of the titans" will not drag the world into a self-destructive downward spiral. Chart 6Trumponomics Should Also ##br##Help Chinese Exports Chart 7Globalization Dividends ##br## Have Already Diminished In short, it is too early to evaluate the impact of America's new trade policy on China's growth outlook. We suspect the near-term impact should be limited, as it is unlikely that trade tensions will immediately erupt once Trump takes office. Nonetheless, the situation needs to be monitored closely going forward. Policy: Fiscal Takes The Helm We expect the Chinese authorities will further downplay the significance of the annual GDP growth target as a binding policy constraint. Growth recovery and improvement in labor market conditions reduce the need for further pump-priming, but the overall policy stance will stay accommodative to safeguard against potentially negative shocks from abroad. On the monetary policy front, the case for further interest rate cuts has diminished (Chart 8). The People's Bank of China (PBoC) recently reiterated that its monetary stance will stay decisively "neutral." In our view, this means the PBoC will continue to fine-tune interbank liquidity, but any symbolic policy move in either direction can be ruled out, unless the economic situation takes a sudden turn. In contrast, fiscal policy will be more stimulative. The annual budget deficit will likely be further increased in the March session of the People's Congress. Moreover, some high-profile investment plans have been released in recent weeks, meaning policy-led investment spending will remain elevated going forward. The country aims to invest RMB 2 trillion, or US$290 billion, in tourism between 2016 and 2020. This would translate into annual growth of more than 14% in direct investment in the industry. China's National Energy Administration (NEA) plans to invest RMB 2.5 trillion (US$360 billion) to develop the nation's energy sector over the next five years, with a focus on renewable resources. Installed renewable power capacity including wind, hydro, solar and nuclear is expected to contribute to about half of new electricity generation in five years, which will boost growth and reduce pollution. The government continues to promote private-public partnerships (PPPs) to build infrastructure. The published PPP proposals so far amount to a whopping RMB 12.5 trillion, with a heavy concentration on the transportation network and urban development (Chart 9). Chart 8Expect No Change In Policy Interest Rate Chart 9Fiscal Takes The Helm It is worth noting that recent growth improvement has been accompanied by a notable slowdown in fiscal spending, leaving room for reacceleration going forward (Chart 10). In short, fiscal spending and policy-led investment will remain the key tools for the Chinese government to stabilize the economy. Chart 10Fiscal Spending Is Set To Reaccelerate Chart 11Weak RMB Or Strong Dollar? The RMB: Which Way Will The Wind Blow? Since the New Year, offshore RMB (CNH) liquidity has tightened dramatically, which has led to a massive surge in the Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate (HIBOR) of the RMB and a sharp rebound in the CNH/USD cross rate. This is widely viewed as a successful short squeeze engineered by the PBoC to punish speculators. It is certainly true that the authorities "allowed" offshore RMB liquidity to dry up, but the sharp spike in the HIBOR rate also closely resembles a classic emerging market currency crisis: speculative attacks on the exchange rate forces the monetary authorities to dramatically jack up interest rates to maintain exchange rate stability - a textbook example of the "Impossible Trinity" thesis at work. In China's case, however, the offshore HIBOR rate bears no relevance on the funding cost of the Chinese corporate sector. As such, the PBoC couldn't care less about periodic tightening in CNH liquidity, as it has no consequence on the domestic economy. This bodes poorly for the internationalization of the RMB, but is a low-cost tool for the PBoC to maintain control over the exchange rate. Two observations can be made from this episode: It is unlikely that the PBoC will completely give up control over the RMB exchange rate, especially in this politically charged year. Sharp depreciation in the RMB/USD may be viewed as a sign of systemic financial risk and economic weakness, a taboo ahead of the Party Congress later this year. Since the New Year, the Chinese authorities have further tightened capital account controls to restrict capital outflows - a reflection of the PBoC's determination to maintain exchange rate stability. There is now an almost universal consensus that the U.S. dollar will strengthen further this year, and that the RMB will decline. It is of course foolish to blindly bet against consensus, but it also means shorting the CNH/USD has already become a very crowded trade. The sharp rebound of the CNH/USD a few days ago is a classic example of a market stampede where investors rush to a narrow exit when conditions change. All this has made the risk-return profile of shorting the RMB against the dollar unfavorable, as the PBoC, with its formidable resources, could unexpectedly hit back at any time. Indeed, the performance of the CNH/USD cross rate has closely tracked the broad U.S. dollar index over the past two years, a situation unlikely to change going forward (Chart 11). The bottom line is that the dollar trend will continue to dictate the USD/RMB cross rate in the near term. The PBoC will continue to intervene heavily to prevent excessive currency weakness. For investors, shorting the CNH/USD is not much different from a direct bet on the dollar index. What To Do With Chinese Stocks? Chart 12Chinese Shares Valuation Perspective Chinese stocks will likely range-bound in the near term. The downside is limited by accommodative policy, stable/improving growth and depressed valuation, especially for H shares (Chart 12). The upside is capped by the ongoing macro concerns and brewing tension with the incoming U.S. administration. Chinese shares may also be vulnerable if the more frothy global bourses correct. Therefore, aggressive directional bet is not warranted in the near term. From a big picture point of view, however, we remain convinced that market concerns on China's macro conditions are overdone, and Chinese equities have been unduly punished. Investors with longer-term horizons should hold H shares. Strategically we favor Chinese equities over their global peers. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010," dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture," dated November 17, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations