Financial Markets
Highlights In case you missed it in real-time, please listen to a playback of this this quarter’s webcast ‘What Are The Most Attractive Investments In Europe?’ available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Growth is set to plunge in the first quarter, keeping bond yields depressed for the early part of 2020 at least. Stay structurally overweight equities versus bonds so long as bond yields stay around current or lower levels. A 10 basis points decline in the 10-year bond yield can offset a 2 percent decline in stock market profits. Underweight economically sensitive sectors – and regional and country equity indexes with a high weighting to them – until growth and bond yields enter a convincing uptrend. A strong signal for shifting to a more pro-cyclical stance in the coming months would be if/when the 10-year bond yield has reached a sufficiently strong 6-month deceleration. Fractal trade: the strong outperformance of utilities versus oil and gas is technically stretched. Feature Chart I-1Forget Growth, It's All About Valuation ‘Global health scare takes world stock markets to new highs’ would make a jarring, provocative, and counterintuitive headline. But it would be true… at least so far. Most economists expect the global health scare emanating from China to depress economic growth. My colleague, Peter Berezin, forecasts global growth to drop to near zero during the first quarter. Yet the aggregate stock market seems largely unfazed. Most bourses are riding high, and in some cases not far from all-time highs. How can this be if the market is downgrading growth? Ultra-Low Bond Yields Are Protecting The Stock Market Although stock market profits are being revised down, the multiple paid for those profits is rising by more than the profits are falling. Stock market valuations have become hyper-sensitive (inversely) to ultra-low bond yields. Meaning that the valuation boost from a small decline in bond yields is more than sufficient to counter the growth drag from the coronavirus scare. This is not just a recent phenomenon. For the past two years, a good motto for investors has been: forget growth, it’s all about valuation (Chart of the Week). Through 2018-19, profits drifted sideways. Yet the stock market fell 30 percent, then rose 30 percent – because the multiple paid for the profits plunged in 2018, then surged in 2019 (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). The reason was the dramatic swing in bond yields. This is hardly surprising given that the prospective return on equities is sensitive to the prospective return offered by competing (long-duration) bonds. But crucially, at ultra-low bond yields, this sensitivity becomes hyper-sensitivity. Chart I-2The Big Moves In The Stock Market... Chart I-3...Have Been About Valuation, Not Growth When bond yields approach their lower bound, bonds become extremely risky investments because the scope for price rises diminishes while the scope for price collapses increases. The upshot is that all (long-duration) investments become equally risky, and the much higher prospective returns required on formerly more risky equities collapses to the feeble return offered on now equally-risky bonds. Given that valuation is just the inverse of the prospective return, the valuation of equities becomes hyper-sensitive to small changes in bond yields. A 10 basis points decline in the bond yield can offset a 2 percent decline in stock market profits Through 2018-2019, the 10-year T-bond yield took a round trip from around 2 percent to 3.2 percent and then down to around 1.6 percent today. This explains the mirror-image round trip in the stock market’s multiple: from 16 down to 13 and then up to around 17 today, a 30 percent increase. Which means that broadly speaking, a 10 basis points decline in the bond yield can offset a 2 percent decline in stock market profits (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Bond Yield Is Driving The Stock Market's Valuation Therefore, as the coronavirus scare illustrates, the biggest structural threat to the aggregate stock market does not come from slowing growth so long as bond yields continue to adjust downwards. The biggest threat comes from an outsized increase in bond yields, stemming from a subsequent modest acceleration in either growth or inflation. But we do not expect this in the first half of the year (at least). Bond Yields To Stay Depressed For The First Half At Least Although the coronavirus scare is a convenient scapegoat for the growth downgrade, the scare has just amplified a growth deceleration that was going to happen anyway. As we explained at the start of the year in Strong Headwind Warrants Caution In H1, a growth deceleration in Europe and worldwide during early 2020 was already well baked in the cake. The 6-month acceleration in bond yields at the end of 2019 was among the sharpest in recent years. Growth decelerations stem neither from the level of bond yields nor from the change in bond yields (or financial conditions). Growth decelerations stem from the acceleration of bond yields. And the 6-month acceleration in bond yields at the end of 2019 – both in Europe and worldwide – was among the sharpest in recent years (Chart I-5). Chart I-5After A Sharp 6-Month Acceleration In Bond Yields, Yields Stay Depressed For The Following 6 Months Although the link between a bond yield acceleration and a GDP deceleration seems hard to grasp, it results from a basic accounting identify. GDP is a flow statistic. So if a credit flow contributes to GDP, it must be a credit flow deceleration that contributes to a GDP deceleration. And if the level of the bond yield establishes the size of a credit flow, it must be a bond yield acceleration that establishes the size of a credit flow deceleration (Chart I-6). Chart I-6A Bond Yield Acceleration Causes A Credit Flow Deceleration Given the lags between bond yields impacting credit flows and credit flows impacting spending, a sharp 6-month acceleration in the bond yield – like the one experienced at the end of 2019 – tends to keep the bond yield depressed for the following six months. On this basis, we would not expect an outsized increase in the bond yield during the first half of this year. In fact, a continued decline in yields could eventually turn into a sharp 6-month deceleration in the bond yield, leading to an acceleration in credit flows and growth, and providing a forthcoming opportunity to become more pro-cyclical. Big Winners And Losers Across Sectors, Regions, And Countries To repeat, the growth scare has not had a major impact on the aggregate stock market (so far) because the valuation boost from a small decline in bond yields is more than sufficient to counter the downgrade to profits. But the growth scare has had a major impact on sector, regional, and country winners and losers. Understandably, the sectors most exposed to the declining bond yield have performed very well. These fall under two categories: the first is bond proxies, meaning sectors that pay a stable bond-like income, such as utilities; the second is long-duration investments meaning sectors whose income is likely to grow rapidly, such as tech and healthcare. This is because the more distant is the future cash flow, the greater is the uplift to its ‘net present value’ for a given decline in the bond yield. The growth scare has had a major impact on sector, regional, and country winners and losers. Conversely, the sectors most exposed to short-term growth have performed poorly. These include banks and energy. Banks suffer also because declining bond yields erode their net interest (profit) margin (Chart I-7). In turn, the sector winners and losers have determined the regional and country equity market winners and losers. Nowadays, a stock market’s relative performance is predominantly a play on its distinguishing overweight and underweight ‘sector fingerprint’. This is because major stock markets are dominated by multinational corporations which are plays on their global sectors, rather than the region or country in which they have a stock market listing. It follows that when tech and healthcare outperform, the tech-heavy Netherlands and healthcare-heavy Denmark stock markets must outperform. When energy underperforms, the energy-heavy Norway and UK stock markets must underperform. It also follows that the tech-heavy and healthcare-heavy US stock market must outperform (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Sector Winners And ##br##Losers... Chart I-8...Explain Regional And Country Winners And Losers Some of the more extreme sector and country outperformances and underperformances are now technically stretched (see following section). Nevertheless, a general strategy to underweight economically sensitive sectors – and regional and country equity indexes with a high weighting to them – will remain appropriate until growth and bond yields enter a convincing uptrend. To reiterate, one strong signal for shifting to a more pro-cyclical stance in the coming months would be if/when the bond yield has reached a sufficiently strong 6-month deceleration. Stay tuned. Fractal Trading System* The strong outperformance of utilities versus oil and gas is technically stretched, especially in the US, and a reversal is likely within the next three months. Short US utilities versus oil and gas, setting a profit target of 7.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, short Ireland versus Europe reached the end of its holding period having achieved half of its profit target. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 59 percent. Chart I-9US: Utilities Vs. Oil And Gas 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. * 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. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations 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 - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
A dangerous break up in historical correlations marked this year’s trading, as both the VIX and the SPX became positively correlated. Worrisomely, since 2018 every time such a breakdown occurred, the broad market subsequently suffered a setback (see chart). Importantly, while the SPX vaulted to all-time highs, the VIX neither collapsed to all-time lows nor cyclical lows. Equity market volatility also stays stubbornly close to 15, slightly below the ten-year average. As a reminder, a “VIX reading of 15 means that in 30 days the S&P 500 is expected to trade between 4.3% lower and 4.3% higher than its current level”.1 Bottom Line: VIX resilience highlights that there is more stress beneath the equity market’s surface than first meets the eye. Please refer to this Monday’s Weekly Report for more details. 1 https://us.spindices.com/vix-intro/
Highlights Chinese policymakers will deliver more growth-supporting measures in the coming months, but Chinese government bond yields have already priced in a much weaker economic slowdown and a more aggressive policy response. While we think monetary policy may get even looser in the very near term, there is limited potential for the short-end of the Chinese government bond yield curve to remain at such low levels. The PBoC’s recent liquidity injections are mostly a preventive measure to avoid an acute cash crunch in the real economy, and the historical path following the 2003 SARS outbreak suggests the additional monetary easing action is unlikely to be sustained over the coming 6-12 months. As such, Chinese government bond yields will rebound in expectation of better economic conditions and more restrictive monetary conditions. On a cyclical basis, we continue to overweight Chinese equities over government bonds. Feature Chinese bond yields have declined sharply over the past two weeks, as investors weighed both the economic consequences of the Covid-19 outbreak and the likelihood of more accommodative monetary policy. Following the extended Chinese New Year holiday, China’s central bank (PBoC) has carried out five cash injections, pumping nearly 3 trillion yuan into the interbank market (Chart 1). It also lowered the de jure policy rate - the 7-day reverse repo rate - by 10bps to cut the cost of funding for commercial banks. The 3-month SHIBOR (which trades very closely to the 3-month repo rate), which we have long viewed as China’s de facto short-term policy rate, quickly reversed its January rise and fell back to its July-2018 low (Chart 2). Chart 1Large And Frequent Liquidity Injections Since The Onset Of The Virus Outbreak Chart 2Monetary Conditions Turned Much Easier In Just Three Weeks The PBoC’s aggressive easing measures of late have sparked market speculation that China is entering another major monetary and credit easing cycle, and that a government bond rally is well underway with even lower yields to come. Chart 3Extremely Tight Relationship Between Interbank Lending Rate And Government Bond Yields In our January 29 Special Report1 on China’s government bond market, we discussed how there has been a strong relationship in the past decade between unexpected changes in the 3-month SHIBOR and the long-end of China’s government bond yields. In order for the current rally in government securities to be sustained, investors need to believe that the PBoC’s easing measures are here to stay and that there will be additional policy rate cuts in the months to come (Chart 3). There are indications that Chinese policymakers are looking to deliver more growth-supporting measures over the coming months. However, it is likely that the current bond rally will be a near-term event rather than a cyclical (6-12 months) trend. Therefore, on a cyclical time horizon, we continue to recommend overweighting Chinese stocks versus Chinese government bonds and would advise against an aggressively long duration stance. Has The Covid-19 Epidemic Peaked? The fact that the number of new suspected cases is also in decline sends a signal that the outbreak outside Hubei may have largely been contained. Chart 4Financial Market Shakes Off Some Of The "Fear Element" From The Outbreak Investors appear to concur with our view that the Covid-19 outbreak has largely become a Hubei-specific crisis.2 Chinese stocks in the onshore and offshore markets have recovered more than half of the losses from their bottom on February 3, when the number of new cases outside of the Hubei epicenter reached a tentative peak. The 12-month change in the yields of Chinese 3 and 10-year government bonds also inched up since then (Chart 4). While the Chinese government’s rollout of supportive measures, including liquidity injections and policy rate cuts since early February might have helped improve market sentiment, the fact the epidemic outside Hubei province seems to be contained also helps explain the bottom in equity prices and bond yields. In addition, the number of new suspected cases outside Hubei province has trended down since February 9 (Chart 5). The diagnosis methodology was recently revised to include suspects with clinical symptoms, regardless of whether they had a history of contact with infected cases from Wuhan. This new methodology has lowered the bar for registering newly suspected cases. While the situation surrounding the Covid-19 outbreak is still fluid, the fact that the number of new suspected cases is also in decline sends a signal that the outbreak outside Hubei may have largely been contained. Bottom Line: Outside of the epicenter, the Covid-19 outbreak may have peaked. This means the fear element driving down Chinese government bond yields may soon end. Chart 5The Situation Continues To Get Better Outside Of The Epicenter Current Bond Rally Unlikely A Cyclical Play Bond yields now appear to have largely priced in a delayed economic recovery and more aggressive policy response. We think the current rally in Chinese government bonds will thus only be a short-term event rather than a cyclical (6-12 month) play. The rally in China’s government bond market since mid-2018 was largely driven by market expectations of a significant slowdown in the Chinese economy, and a much easier monetary policy in responding to a slowing Chinese domestic demand and a protracted Sino-US trade war. Bond market is pricing in a 2015-2016-style economic slowdown and a policy response that is more aggressive than four years ago. Cyclically, we think both of these factors are absent from the current situation, and a normalization back to the pre-outbreak monetary stance may come earlier than the market expects. In the last two weeks, Chinese government bond markets have discounted a sharp slowdown in economic activity; 10-year Chinese government bond yields are back below 3.0% for the first time since 2016 and the 3-month SHIBOR is now 25bps lower than the bottom in 2015-2016 (Chart 6). This suggests the market is pricing in a 2015-2016-style economic slowdown and a policy response that is more aggressive than four years ago. The nature of the current situation, as we pointed out in our previous reports,3 represents a temporary delay rather than a derailing of an economic recovery in China. The Covid-19 outbreak and the unprecedented containment measures paused the Chinese economy in the first quarter, just as it was coming off of a two-year soft patch. But domestic demand was not nearly as weak as in 2015-2016 before the outbreak (Chart 7). Chart 6Bond Market Is Pricing In A 2015-2016-Style Economic Slowdown Chart 7A Chinese Economic Recovery Was Budding Pre-Outbreak Chart 8The PBoC Is Generally A Reactive Central Bank, But A Proactive Central Bank In Reversing Crisis Easing If the virus is contained outside of the epicenter in the next couple of weeks and the hit to China’s overall economy is limited to Q1, then the PBoC will likely normalize policy back to its pre-outbreak stance. While the PBoC is generally a reactive central bank and has historically lagged a pickup in economic activity, it was proactive in normalizing its monetary policy following short-term shocks. Chart 8 shows the historical path of 3-month SHIBOR in the year following a bottom in economic activity in 2009, 2012, and 2015. In all three economic slowdowns, there has not been a significant rise in interbank rates in the first nine months of an economic recovery. Following the SARS outbreak, however, the PBoC reversed its easy stance and significantly tightened liquidity conditions in the banking system only four months after the peak of the SARS outbreak. While we do not expect the PBoC to shift into a tightening mode this year, a shift back to the pre-outbreak policy trajectory sometime in Q2 is highly likely, provided the Covid-19 outbreak is contained outside of Hubei province. In turn, Chinese government bond yields will rebound in expectation of better economic conditions and more restrictive monetary conditions. PBoC is also unlikely to open a liquidity floodgate. Despite large liquidity injections in the past two weeks, we are not convinced that the PBoC intends to fully open the liquidity tap in the interbank market. So far, most of the financial support measures have been a combination of targeted low-cost funding to non-financial corporations and fiscal subsidies to local governments and businesses. This differs from 2015-2016 when the PBoC aggressively cut interbank rates and the 1-year benchmark lending rate, and kept excessive liquidity in the interbank system for a prolonged period (Chart 9). As Chart 9 (bottom panel) shows, PBoC’s net fund injections have been extremely volatile since Covid-19 erupted in January. This suggests that while the PBoC has added large doses of liquidity into the interbank market, demand for financial support in the banking system has mostly matched or even outstripped supply. In other words, the PBoC is not flooding the interbank system with cash, rather it is preventing an outbreak-induced illiquidity issue from turning into a widespread insolvency problem. The PBoC is trying to prevent an outbreak-induced illiquidity issue from turning into a widespread insolvency problem. Chart 9Monetary Policy Not Turning Back To A 2015-2016-Style "Floodgate Irrigation" Chart 10Private Sector Highly Leveraged... This approach is warranted. Small businesses have been disproportionally hit by the outbreak and are reporting a severe shortage of cash. China’s private sector is particularly vulnerable to cash flow restrictions because many businesses are highly leveraged (Chart 10). A joint survey of 995 small and mid-size companies by Tsinghua and Peking universities showed that more than 60% of respondents said they can survive for only one to two months with their current savings (Chart 11). Chart 11…Making Small Businesses Especially Vulnerable To Cash-Flow Constraints Additionally, there is a risk that the PBoC is underestimating the demand for cash in the banking system, particularly from small- and medium-sized banks. This underestimation could lead to a rise in the interbank lending rate. This occurred in 2017 when the crackdown of shadow bank lending caused a funding squeeze for China’s small and mid-sized banks, which led to a material rise in interbank lending rates and government bond yields (shown in Chart 6). It is also the reason that we primarily track the 3-month SHIBOR over the 7-day rate, as the former tends to capture the effects of these funding squeezes whereas the latter does not. The demand for cash in the interbank market in the current quarter will be higher than in the same period last year. The government has announced an additional debt quota of 848 billion yuan, on top of the previously authorized quota of 1 trillion yuan worth of local government bonds that would be frontloaded in Q1. This is a 32% increase from a total of 1400 billion yuan of bonds that local government frontloaded in Q1 2019. This implies the demand for cash in the interbank market will remain high as commercial banks account for about 80% of local government bond purchases.4 A temporary spike in corporate bond defaults leading to a jump in the interbank rate could also push up government bond yields. Additionally, the delayed resumption of work, the loss of production and the cash crunch facing small companies raise the risk of a surge in overdue bank loans and defaults. This could also escalate the demand for cash from smaller banks, because large commercial banks may be unwilling to lend to riskier borrowers in the interbank market. The 3-month SHIBOR has inched up since the takeover of Baoshang Bank in May 2019. Chart 12Average Lending Rates Lag Short-Term Bond Yields We expect the PBoC to lower the loan prime rate (LPR), following the 10bps cut in the medium lending facility rate (MLF) on February 17. As we pointed out in our January 29 Special Report, this easing by the PBoC will reduce corporate lending rates, but not necessarily interbank rates. Chart 12 shows that the change in average lending rates lags the change in Chinese government bond yields. Therefore, the upcoming cuts in the LPR are a result of lowered interbank rates and bond yields, not a cause for changes in government bond yields going forward. Bottom Line: Monetary policy will remain relatively loose this year, but we think the PBoC’s recent aggressive easing will be a temporary event. Any additional easing by the PBoC this year will likely be through providing short-term cash relief and temporarily lowered funding costs to non-financial corporations. There are also near-term risks that interbank rates may be pushed up due to a liquidity crunch. Hence, yields at the short-end will likely be volatile in the near term whereas yields at the long-end are unlikely to stay at their current low levels. Investment Conclusions While we think monetary policy may get even looser in the very near term, there is limited potential for the short-end of the Chinese government bond yield curve to remain at such low levels. Barring a lasting economic slowdown from the Covid-19 outbreak, the long-end of the curve has the potential to move moderately higher in the second half of the year, as China’s economy recovers from the outbreak-induced shock. Bond yields at the short-end will likely be volatile in the near term whereas yields at the long-end are unlikely to stay at their current low levels. Given this, we continue to expect Chinese domestic and investable equities to outperform government bonds in the next 6-12 months, and we would advise Chinese fixed-income investors against an aggressively long duration stance. Onshore corporate bonds, while risking a higher default rate in the near term, shares a similar outlook on a cyclical basis: onshore spreads are pricing in (massively) higher default losses than we believe are warranted. This means that onshore corporate bonds will still outperform duration-matched government bonds without any changes in yield, underpinning another year of Chinese corporate bond market outperformance versus government bonds. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "How To Analyze And Position Towards Chinese Government Bonds," dated January 29, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Evolving Crisis," dated February 13, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Recovery, Temporarily Interrupted," dated February 5, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 ChinaBond, as of 2019 Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Duration: Bond yields will stay low until the daily number of new COVID-19 cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. We therefore recommend maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. Rising odds of a Bernie Sanders presidential win could prevent bond yields from rising at all this year. We may adjust our recommendations in the coming months if this risk increases. Spread Product: Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, with a preference for high-yield. Accommodative monetary conditions will ensure that the supply of credit remains ample for some time yet. This will keep defaults low and spreads tight. Monetary Policy: The Fed is in no rush to tighten policy, but has also set a high bar for further cuts. Investors should short August 2020 fed funds futures. Yields Will Move Higher … But Not Yet Chart 1A Peak In New Cases? Uncertainty about the economic impact of the coronavirus – now officially called COVID-19 – is the cloud that continues to hang over financial markets. Last week, bond yields fell when a change in the definition of what constitutes a confirmed infection caused the number of reported cases to spike. However, even after revisions, the daily number of new cases looks like it may have peaked (Chart 1). The end result is that the 10-year Treasury yield sits at 1.58%, not far from where it was last week (Chart 2). Notably, the 10-year yield continues to shrug off the notable improvement in US economic data (Chart 2, bottom panel), taking its cues instead from COVID-19 headline risk. Even if the downtrend in new COVID-19 cases continues, it is too soon to be looking for higher bond yields. For one thing, the most up-to-date economic data releases were collected during January, before the outbreak. Weaker readings during the next 1-2 months are assured, and investors may not look through the weakness given that many were already skeptical about the prospects for global economic recovery. Our read of the data is that global growth was in the process of bottoming when COVID-19 struck. We therefore expect global growth to move higher once the virus’ impact abates. In terms of timing, using the 2003 SARS outbreak as a comparable, we expect bonds to remain bid until the daily number of new cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. Yields continue to shrug off improvements in economic data. It’s not just the long-end of the curve that has responded to COVID-19. The front-end has also moved to price-in high odds of a rate cut in the coming months. Specifically, the overnight index swap curve is priced for a 42 bps decline in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months (Chart 2, panel 2), and the fed funds futures market is pricing a 74% chance of a rate cut by the end of the summer. As we discussed last week, given that any economic impact from COVID-19 will be temporary, we think the bar for a Fed rate cut this year is quite high.1 As such, our Golden Rule of Bond Investing dictates that investors should keep portfolio duration low on a 12-month horizon.2 We also recommend shorting August 2020 fed funds futures, a trade that will earn 23 bps of unlevered return if the Fed stands pat between now and August (Chart 2, panel 3). Turning to corporate credit, we see that, so far, COVID-19’s impact on spreads has been minor. The investment grade corporate bond index spread is only 3 bps wider than at the start of the year, and the junk index spread is only 8 bps wider (Chart 3). Value remains stretched in the investment grade space, but high-yield spreads look quite attractive. The sell-off in the energy sector has boosted the high-yield index spread considerably (Chart 3, bottom 2 panels). We view this as a medium-term buying opportunity for junk. Once the COVID outbreak abates and global growth ticks higher, the oil price is bound to increase, leading to some tightening in energy spreads. Chart 2Bond Yields Driven By COVID Chart 3HY More Attractive Than IG Will Bonds Feel The Bern? Beyond COVID-19, there is one more risk on the horizon this year. Specifically, the risk that Bernie Sanders is elected President in November. This outcome is far from certain. Sanders is currently leading all other candidates in the Democratic Primary, but fivethirtyeight.com’s model puts the odds of a brokered convention at 38%.3 This means that the race is still wide open and might only be settled at the convention in July. But given Sanders’ lead, it is worth considering the bond market implications if he were to become the next President. The most obvious implication is that risk assets (equities and corporate spreads) would respond to Sanders’ agenda of wealth redistribution by selling off. This could spur a flight-to-quality into government bonds, causing Treasury yields to fall. However, that flight-to-quality won’t occur if markets also start to price-in the long-run implications of Sanders’ agenda. I.e. the fact that the redistribution of wealth from capital to labor would lower the economy’s marginal propensity to save, and likely raise inflation expectations, leading to higher interest rates. It’s important to note that there are a lot of hurdles to overcome before Sanders’ full policy agenda is implemented. First he must secure the Democratic nomination, then defeat Donald Trump in the general election. Even after that, he will still need to convince the House and Senate to pass non-watered down versions of his proposals. With such a long road ahead, we don’t think Sanders’ momentum will push bond yields higher in 2020. Rather, the risk is that Sanders’ rise keeps bond yields low in 2020 as risk assets sell off. If Bernie Sanders looks poised to win the nomination, we will consider reducing our 6-12 month allocation to spread product and increasing our recommended portfolio duration. The outlook for the Democratic Primary should become clearer after Super Tuesday on March 3. If Sanders looks poised to win the nomination we will consider reducing our recommended 6-12 month allocation to spread product and increasing our recommended portfolio duration. Bottom Line: Bond yields will stay low until the daily number of new COVID-19 cases falls to zero, at which point a sell-off is likely. We therefore recommend maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. Rising odds of a Bernie Sanders presidential win could prevent bond yields from rising at all this year. We may adjust our recommendations in the coming months if this risk increases. Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product versus Treasuries, with a preference for junk. Though the credit cycle is far from over (see next section), we may reduce our recommended allocation to spread product versus Treasuries if Sanders’ election chances rise. Bank Lending Standards Won’t Push Credit Spreads Wider In 2020 The net change in commercial & industrial (C&I) bank lending standards, as reported in the Fed’s quarterly Senior Loan Officer Survey, is a vitally important indicator for the credit cycle. Easing lending standards tend to coincide with a low default rate and falling credit spreads, while tightening lending standards usually coincide with spread widening and a rising default rate. With that in mind, it is mildly concerning that bank lending standards have been fluctuating around neutral levels for quite some time, and have in fact tightened in two of the past five quarters (Chart 4). In this week’s report we consider whether tighter bank lending standards could pose a risk to our overweight spread product view in 2020. Chart 4Bank Lending Standards And Monetary Variables Bank lending standards are such an important credit cycle variable because they tell us about the supply of credit. A corporate default only occurs when credit supply is lower than the amount required for that firm’s survival. On a macro scale, we can think of two main reasons why lenders might restrict the credit supply: They perceive the monetary environment as restrictive. That is, they worry about higher interest rates and slower growth in the future. They perceive corporate balance sheets as being in poor health. That is, they worry that firms won’t be sufficiently profitable to make good on their debts. We find that monetary indicators do a very good job of predicting when lending standards will tighten. Looking back at the past two cycles, lending standards didn’t tighten until after: The yield curve inverted (Chart 4, panel 2). The real fed funds rate was above its estimated equilibrium level (Chart 4, panel 3). Inflation expectations were at or above target levels (Chart 4, bottom panel). Presently, all three of these monetary indicators are supportive. Some portions of the yield curve have been inverted at various times during the past year. But in general, the inversion signal from the yield curve has not been as strong as it was when lending standards tightened in prior cycles. For instance, the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope has not inverted this cycle, and it currently sits at +20 bps (Chart 4, panel 2). Further, the real fed funds rate is below most estimates of its neutral level and the Fed is signaling that it will keep it there for a long time yet. This dovish posture is justified by inflation expectations that remain well below target. It is conceivable that, despite the accommodative monetary environment, banks might be so concerned about poor balance sheet health that they are becoming more cautious with their lending. However, a survey of corporate health metrics doesn’t point to an imminent tightening of bank lending standards either (Chart 5). Chart 5Bank Lending Standards And Corporate Balance Sheet Variables In past cycles, tighter bank lending standards were preceded by: A trough in gross leverage (pre-tax profits over total debt) (Chart 5, panel 2). A peak in interest coverage (Chart 5, panel 3). Negative pre-tax profit growth (Chart 5, panel 4). A peak in profit margins (Chart 5, bottom panel). Currently, gross leverage is the only one of the above four variables that is clearly sending a negative signal. As for the other three, interest coverage and profit margins are barely off their cyclical highs, and profit growth has been fluctuating around zero for three years. If global growth rebounds during the next 12 months, as we expect, then profit growth will also move modestly higher. Bottom Line: Neither monetary nor balance sheet variables point to an imminent tightening of bank lending standards. We expect that the supply of credit will remain ample in 2020, keeping the default rate low and credit spreads tight. A Note On Falling C&I Loan Demand In addition to questions about lending standards, the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey also asks banks to report whether they are seeing stronger or weaker demand for C&I loans. In response, banks have reported weaker C&I loan demand for six consecutive quarters, ending in Q4 2019. Historically, it is unusual for C&I loan demand to fall without a concurrent tightening in lending standards (Chart 6). Chart 6Explaining Weakening Loan Demand We also see the impact of weaker loan demand in the hard data. C&I loan growth has been falling since early 2019 (Chart 6, panel 2) and net corporate bond issuance had been on a sharp downtrend since 2015, before moving higher last year (Chart 6, bottom panel). So what’s going on with C&I loan demand? We can think of two reasons why firms might seek out less credit. First, they may face a dearth of investment opportunities, or alternatively, they might perceive some benefit from carrying less debt on their balance sheets. On the first point, we find that new orders for core capital goods do a very good job explaining the swings in C&I lending (Chart 7). Specifically, we see that the global growth slowdown of 2015/16 drove both investment spending and C&I lending lower. Then, both series recovered in 2017/18 before moving down again during last year’s slowdown. Surveys about firms’ capital spending plans also dropped last year, consistent with the deceleration in C&I lending, but remain at high levels (Chart 7, bottom three panels). All of this suggests that C&I loan growth will recover this year as global growth improves and the investment landscape brightens. Capital goods new orders do a good job explaining C&I lending. Corporate bond issuance has followed a different path from C&I lending during the past few years. Specifically, bond issuance slowed in 2015/16 as investment spending dried up. But it did not recover in 2017/18 the way that investment spending and C&I lending did. This appears to be a result of the 2018 corporate tax cuts and repatriation holiday. Chart 8 shows that the Financing Gap – the difference between capex spending and retained earnings – plunged in 2018 because firms suddenly received a huge influx of retained earnings. The influx came in part from the lower tax rate, but mostly from repatriated cash that had been stranded overseas. Simply, firms didn’t need to issue bonds to finance their investment plans in 2018 because they had a lot more cash on hand. Chart 7C&I Lending Follows ##br##Investment Chart 8A Negative Financing Gap Limits The Need For Debt What about the possibility that firms are demanding less debt because they are trying to clean up their balance sheets? Beyond a few anecdotes, we don’t see much support for this idea. In fact, an equity index of firms with low debt/asset ratios has been underperforming an index of firms with high debt/asset ratios (Chart 9). This suggests that there is currently little reward for firms that are paying down debt. Chart 9Firms Not Rewarded For Healthy Balance Sheets Bottom Line: Weaker demand for C&I loans is a result of the recent global growth downturn and decline in investment spending. It is not a harbinger of the end of the credit cycle. Loan demand should improve as global growth rebounds this year. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on our Golden Rule of Bond Investing please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Most of the macro and operating indicators we track are sending conflicting messages on the anticipated direction in the cyclical/defensive ratio. Stay on the sidelines on cyclicals versus defensives. While the coronavirus epidemic will take a bite out of airline demand in the near-term, firm consumer confidence, rising consumer outlays, recovering services PMIs, rising airline pricing power, falling kerosene prices, compelling relative valuations and oversold technicals, all signal that airlines are well positioned to regain altitude on a cyclical time horizon. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature The SPX shrugged off the persistently negative coronavirus epidemic news and made fresh all-time highs last week (top panel, Chart 1). Domestic flush liquidity remains the dominant macro theme coupled with the expectation of a sizable fiscal and monetary easing out of China in the coming months. Importantly, according to the CME there is a 60% chance of a Fed interest rate cut priced in for the July 29, 2020 FOMC meeting which jumps to over 80% probability for the December 16, 2020 meeting. This is sustaining downward pressure on the 10-year Treasury yield, which in turn is boosting equities. A glum JOLTS report along with the 12-month fed funds rate discounter corroborate that additional Fed easing is likely nearing (middle & bottom panels, Chart 1). Chart 1Is A Fed Interest Rate Cut Looming? Chart 2Unsustainable Rise In “Tenuous Trio” The extreme concentration in excess returns in a handful of tech stocks is another potential trouble spot for equities that we have been highlighting recently. Nevertheless, beneath the surface trouble is brewing. Chart 2 shows three asset classes rising concurrently. The “tenuous trio” as we have called stocks, Treasurys and the greenback in the past, cannot rise in tandem. When all three asset prices appreciate, it typically foreshadows equity market trouble. In this particular iteration, even the VIX is up for the year, representing a big break in historical correlations. Worrisomely, since 2018 every time the VIX and the SPX became positively correlated, the broad market subsequently suffered a setback (Chart 3). While the SPX is making all-time highs, the VIX is neither making all-time lows nor cyclical lows. Importantly, equity market volatility is staying stubbornly close to 15, slightly below the ten-year average. As a reminder, a “VIX reading of 15 means that in 30 days the S&P 500 is expected to trade between 4.3% lower and 4.3% higher than its current level”.1 Chart 3Watch Out For Vol The extreme concentration in excess returns in a handful of tech stocks is another potential trouble spot for equities that we have been highlighting recently.2 Chart 4 shows the percentage of GICS2 sectors with negative two-year relative share price momentum. The higher this diffusion rises the fewer the sectors that drive the SPX’s return. Historically, when our diffusion hits the 70% mark, it signals exhaustion in equity market returns. In fact, 70% readings in this diffusion indicator led both the 2000 and 2007 peaks in the SPX. Chart 4Heed The Diffusion Index’s Message This week we update our views on the cyclical /defensive portfolio bent and a niche industrials sub-group. Meanwhile on the economic front, the JOLTS report made for grim reading. Labor market softness was evident across the board and it was not squarely concentrated in the manufacturing sector. While this indicator only goes back two cycles, it is flashing yellow for the prospects of the broad equity market (top panel, Chart 5). Importantly, we will continue to monitor the job openings numbers as they are sending the exact opposite signal compared with unemployment insurance claims (job openings shown inverted, middle & bottom panels, Chart 5). This week we update our views on the cyclical /defensive portfolio bent and a niche industrials sub-group. Chart 5Avoid Getting JOLTed Mixed Signals We have been neutral the cyclicals/defensives ratio for the past 8 months and continue to recommend investors stay on the sidelines for a while longer. It has been particularly difficult to distinguish a clear signal from noise lately for the cyclicals versus defensives ratio. Relevant macro drivers, operating metrics and profit fundamentals, valuations and technicals all have been emitting conflicting messages and the recent coronavirus epidemic will likely make the waters murkier still. US Equity Strategy’s Global Trade Activity Indicator has turned south recently following in the footsteps of the Chinese manufacturing PMI data that ticked down and are slated to drop below the boom/bust line in the current month (top & bottom panels, Chart 6). The bond market also reflects a gloomy global economic backdrop with the global 10-year Treasury yield sinking like a stone. Such a lackluster bond market will likely weigh on relative share prices (middle panel, Chart 6). CEOs remain a depressed bunch and it is all but certain that for, at least, the next three months executives will put capex plans on the backburner. Basic resources are most at risk and keep in mind that relative capex growth was already decelerating prior to the coronavirus epidemic (top & second panels, Chart 7). Chart 6Trade Uncertainty… Chart 7… And Capex Softness Weighs On Cyclicals A soft sales backdrop coupled with inventory accumulation are firing a warning shot. Relative share prices will likely succumb to the still weak total business sales-to-inventories ratio (third panel, Chart 7). Importantly, an inventory liquidation phase will continue to exert downward pressure on relative profit margins (bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 8Pricing Power Proxy Blues Our simple relative pricing power proxy for the cyclical/defensive ratio best encapsulates these relative selling price pressures. The CRB metals-to-gold price ratio is on the verge of a breakdown and warns that the wide gulf that has opened up between our pricing power proxy and relative share prices will narrow via a sell off in the latter (Chart 8). Nevertheless, this stands in marked contrast to the ISM manufacturing prices paid subcomponent of the Report On Business survey and actual cyclicals/defensives pricing power momentum (bottom panel, Chart 9). Chart 9The US Dollar Holds The Key Were the greenback to depreciate in the coming months as our FX strategists expect, then cyclicals selling prices would definitively regain the upper hand versus their defensives counterparts (top & middle panels, Chart 9). But, the jury is still out. Sell-side analysts remain optimistic that relative profits will stage a significant comeback in the next year, but on a short-term basis have been trimming cyclical versus defensive earnings revisions (middle & bottom panels, Chart 10). While our macro-factor relative profit growth models were staging a comeback all last year, they ticked down last month (second panel, Chart 10). Finally, relative technical and valuation conditions are both tracing out a bottom near the one standard deviation below the historical mean, a level that has marked prior recoveries in relative share prices (Chart 11). Chart 10Mixed Bag Chart 11Unloved & Undervalued Bottom Line: Most of the macro and operating indicators we track are sending conflicting messages on the anticipated direction in the cyclical/defensive ratio. Remain on the sidelines on cyclicals versus defensives, but stay tuned. Clipped Wings? Airline stocks have taken it to the chin lately on the back of coronavirus demand destruction fears, but we reiterate our overweight stance as extreme bearishness appears overdone. Investors tend to overreact to events such as virus epidemics, but we deem that such fears typically create trading opportunities, especially in the hardest-hit sectors. Similar to hotels (that we upgraded to neutral last week), airlines are part of the tourism-related industries that have suffered disproportionately. Were we not overweight the S&P airlines index, we would not hesitate to initiate such a position. True, consumer and business demand for air transportation services will come under pressure in the near-term, however looking further out such demand destruction will likely prove transitory. Chart 12 shows that the cyclical demand backdrop is robust for the US airline industry. Overall consumer outlays jumped recently, PCE services momentum is perking up, airfare PCE is outpacing overall consumer spending – an impressive feat – and consumer confidence is perched near cycle highs sustaining a wide gap with relative share prices (bottom panel, Chart 12). US domestic and international passenger enplanements are running near the 5%/annum growth rate and the recent rebound in the global and US services PMIs suggests that any kink in demand will likely prove short-lived (Chart 13). Chart 12Firming Cyclical… Chart 13…Demand Backdrop… Importantly, this firm cyclical demand backdrop is reflected in accelerating airline selling price inflation both on domestic and international routes (second & third panels, Chart 14). However, profit margins have yet to reflect this encouraging top line growth backdrop. The airline load factor spread (calculated as load factor minus break-even load factor) also heralds a profit margin expansion phase (bottom panel, Chart 14). Chart 14…Is A Boon For Selling Prices Chart 15Lower Fuel Costs Should Turbocharge Profit Margins Tack on the roughly 16% year-to-date drubbing in oil prices and airline profit margins will expand in 2020. This is true especially for the bulk of the industry that does not hedge kerosene costs (jet fuel shown inverted, Chart 15). The analyst community has been pessimistic about the prospects of airline stocks. Revenue and profit growth expectations are slated to tail the SPX in the coming twelve months. This sets a low bar for the industry to surpass in coming earnings seasons (Chart 16). Finally, investors have thrown in the towel, pushing relative valuations to extremely depressed levels to the tune of nearly two standard deviations below the historical mean (middle panel, Chart 17). Relative technicals are also washed out and signal that, at least, a reflex rebound is in store in the coming months (bottom panel, Chart 17). Chart 16Low Bar To Surpass Chart 17Contrary Alert: Pessimism Reigns Supreme In sum, while the coronavirus epidemic will take a bite out of airline demand in the near-term, firm consumer confidence, rising consumer outlays, recovering services PMIs, rising airline pricing power, falling kerosene prices, compelling relative valuations and oversold technicals, all signal that airlines are well positioned to regain altitude on a cyclical time horizon. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the S&P airlines index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5AIRLX – LUV, DAL, UAL, AAL, ALK. Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 https://us.spindices.com/vix-intro/ 2 Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Three EPS Scenarios”, dated January 13, 2020, and “When The Music Stops…”, dated January 27, 2020, both available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Strategic (10-Year) Trade Recommendations Size And Style Views June 3, 2019 Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert) January 22, 2018 Favor value over growth May 10, 2018 Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%) June 11, 2018 Long the BCA Millennial basket The ticker symbols are: (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V).
Highlights Provided that the coronavirus outbreak is contained, global growth should accelerate over the course of 2020. Stocks usually rise when the economy is strengthening. But could this time be different? We explore five scenarios in which the stock market could decouple from the economy: 1) The economy holds up, but stretched valuations bring down equities, especially high-flying growth stocks; 2) Bond yields rise in response to faster growth, hurting equities in the process; 3) A strong US economy lifts the value of the dollar, denting multinational profits and tightening financial conditions abroad; 4) Faster wage growth cuts into corporate profits; and 5) Redistributionist politicians seek to shift income from capital to labor. We are not too concerned about the first four scenarios, but we do worry about the fifth, especially now that betting markets are giving Bernie Sanders a nearly 50% chance of becoming the Democratic nominee. Matters should be clearer by mid-March, by which time more than 60% of Democratic delegates will have been awarded. If Bernie Sanders does emerge as the nominee at that point, we will consider trimming back our bullish cyclical bias towards stocks. Coronavirus: A Break In The Clouds? Chart 1Coronavirus Remains Mostly Contained To China Investors continue to grapple with two distinct narratives about how the coronavirus outbreak is unfolding. On the pessimistic side, some contend that the true number of infections in China is much higher than the Chinese authorities are disclosing. How else, they ask, can one explain why the government has taken the extreme step of imposing some form of quarantine on 400 million of its own people? More optimistic observers argue that the Chinese government is simply being proactive. While the number of cases in Hubei province spiked yesterday, this was due to a loosening in the definition for what constitutes a confirmed infection. Whereas previously a positive laboratory test was required, now a positive imaging-based clinical examination will suffice. Under the new definition, the number of newly confirmed cases fell from 6,528 on February 11th to 4,273 on February 12th. Under the old definition, newly diagnosed cases peaked on February 2nd (Chart 1). The revised definition adopted in Hubei brought the mortality rate in the province down to 2.7%. The mortality rate observed in the rest of China is 0.5%. The share of all cases in China originating in Hubei also rose to 81%. Even before the rule change, the share of cases diagnosed in Hubei had risen from 52% on January 26th to 75% on February 11th. This suggests progress in limiting the outbreak to the province. Critically, the number of cases in the rest of the world remains low. In the US, a total of 13 cases have been confirmed as of February 12th, just two more than the 11 reported on February 2nd. The Exception To The Rule? Provided that the coronavirus outbreak is contained, global growth should bounce back forcefully in the second quarter. If that were to occur, history suggests that equities will continue to rally, while bond prices will fall (Chart 2). But could history fail to repeat itself? In this week’s report, we explore five scenarios in which that may happen. Scenario 1: Stretched valuations bring down equities, especially high-flying growth stocks Stocks have moved up considerably since their December 2018 lows. This suggests that investors have become more confident about the economic outlook. Nevertheless, while most investors may no longer be worried about an imminent recession, they do not foresee a sharp acceleration in global growth either. This is evidenced by the fact that cyclical stocks have generally underperformed defensives (Chart 3). Oil prices have also languished, while copper prices are back near a 2.5-year low (Chart 4). Chart 2Stocks Usually Outperform Bonds When Global Growth Is Accelerating Chart 3Cyclicals Have Failed To Outperform Defensives At the broad index level, global equities trade at 16.7-times forward earnings. Conceptually, the inverse of the PE ratio – the earnings yield – should serve as a reasonable guide for the total real return that equities will deliver over the long haul.1 At 6%, the global earnings yield still points to decent returns for global stocks. Relative to bonds, the case for owning stocks is even more compelling. The equity risk premium, which one can compute as the earnings yield minus the real bond yield, remains well above its historic average (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Prices Have Taken It On The Chin Chart 5Relative Valuations Favor Equities That said, there are pockets where valuations have gotten stretched. US equities trade at 19.5-times forward earnings compared to 14.1-times in the rest of the world. Growth stocks, in particular, have gotten very expensive (Chart 6). The five largest stocks in the S&P 500 (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Facebook) now account for 18% of the index, the same share that the top five stocks (Microsoft, Cisco, GE, Intel, and Exxon) commanded in 2000. The big risk for stocks is that wages go up not because the overall size of the economic pie is growing, but because policies are implemented that shift a bigger share of the pie from capital to labor. Despite the similarities between today and the dotcom era, there are a few critical differences – most of which make us less worried about the current state of affairs. First, while tech valuations are currently stretched, they are not in bubble territory. The NASDAQ Composite trades at 30-times trailing earnings. At its peak in March 2000, the tech-heavy index traded at more than 70-times earnings (Chart 7). Chart 6Growth Stocks Have Become Expensive Relative To Value Stocks Chart 7Not Yet Partying Like 1999 Second, IPO activity has also been more muted today than during the dotcom boom (Chart 8). Only 110 companies went public last year, with the gain on the first day of trading averaging 24%. In 1999, 476 companies went public. The average first day gain was 71%. Meanwhile, companies continue to buy up their shares. The buyback yield stands at 3%, twice as high as in the late 1990s. Third, there is no capex overhang like in the late 1990s (Chart 9). This reduces the odds of a 2001-recession scenario where falling equity prices prompted companies to pare back capital expenditures, leading to rising unemployment and even lower equity prices. Chart 8IPO Activity Is Muted Today Compared To The Late 1990s Chart 9No Capex Boom This Time Scenario 2: Bond yields rise in response to faster growth, hurting equities in the process The period between November 2018 and September 2019 was an odd one for the stock-to-bond correlation. If one looks at daily data, stocks did best when bond yields were rising. Yet, for the period as a whole, stocks finished higher while bond yields finished lower (Chart 10). Chart 10Daily Changes: S&P 500 Vs. 10-Year Treasury Yield How can one explain this seeming paradox? The answer is that the underlying trend in bond yields was squarely to the downside last year. While yields did rise modestly on days when equities rallied, yields fell sharply on days when equities swooned. If one zooms out, one sees the underlying trend, whereas if one zooms in, one only sees the wiggles around the trend. Bond yields trended lower last year because the Fed and most other central banks were delivering one dose of dovish medicine after another. This year, however, the Fed is on hold, and while a few central banks may still cut rates, global monetary policy is unlikely to become much looser. This means that bond yields are likely to drift higher if economic growth surprises on the upside. Will rising bond yields sabotage the stock market? We do not think so. Stocks crashed in late 2018 because investors became convinced that US monetary policy had turned restrictive after the Fed had raised rates by a cumulative 200 basis points over the prior two years. The fact that the Laubach-Williams model, one of the most widely followed models of the neutral rate, showed that real rates had moved above their equilibrium level did not help sentiment (Chart 11). Chart 11The Fed Will Keep Policy Easy For The Time Being Chart 12Stocks Do Well When Earnings And Growth Surprise On The Upside Today, real rates are about 100 basis points below the Laubach-Williams estimate. This will not change anytime soon, given that the Fed is likely to remain on hold at least until the end of the year. So long as rates stay put, monetary policy will remain accommodative, allowing the economy to grow at a solid pace. Granted, rising long-term bond yields will reduce the present value of future cash flows, thus potentially hurting stocks. However, as we discussed three weeks ago, the discount rate is not the only thing that affects equity valuations.2 The expected growth rate of earnings matters too. As Chart 12 shows, global equity returns are highly sensitive to earning revisions. While earnings may disappoint in the first quarter due to the economic damage from the coronavirus, they should bounce back during the remainder of this year. This should pave the way for higher equity prices. Scenario 3: A strong US economy lifts the value of the dollar, denting multinational profits and tightening financial conditions abroad The US is a fairly closed economy. Imports and exports account for only 14.6% and 11.7% of GDP, respectively. In contrast, the US stock market is very exposed to the rest of the world. S&P 500 companies derive over 40% of their sales from abroad. As such, changes in the value of the dollar tend to have a bigger impact on Wall Street than on Main Street. Estimating the degree to which a stronger dollar reduces S&P 500 profits is no easy task. Direct estimates that measure the currency translation effect on overseas profits from a stronger dollar tend to yield fairly modest results, typically showing that a 10% appreciation in the trade-weighted dollar reduces S&P 500 profits by about 2%. These estimates, however, generally do not take into account feedback loops between a strengthening dollar and global financial conditions (Chart 13). According to the Bank of International Settlements, $12 trillion of dollar-denominated debt has been issued outside the US. A stronger dollar makes it more challenging to service this debt, which can put a significant strain on borrowers. As a result, a vicious cycle can erupt where a stronger dollar leads to tighter financial conditions, which in turn lead to weaker global growth and an even stronger dollar. Chart 13A Strong US Dollar Could Tighten Global Financial Conditions, Leading To Lower Equity Prices, Especially In EM Such an outcome cannot be dismissed, especially if the spread of the coronavirus fuels significant foreign inflows into the safe-haven US Treasury market. Nevertheless, we continue to see it as a low-probability event given the tailwinds to global growth, including the lagged effects of last year’s decline in bond yields, an improvement in the global manufacturing inventory cycle, diminished Brexit and trade war risks, and ongoing policy stimulus out of China. In fact, one can more easily envision the opposite outcome – a virtuous cycle of dollar weakness, leading to easier global financial conditions, stronger growth, and ultimately, an even weaker dollar (Chart 14). In such an environment, earnings growth is likely to accelerate (Chart 15). Chart 14The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 15The Virtuous Cycle Of Dollar Easing Scenario 4: Faster wage growth cuts into corporate profits Labor compensation is the largest expense for most companies. Thus, it stands to reason that faster wage growth could depress earnings, and by extension, share prices. Although this is possible conceptually, in practice, it happens less often than one might guess. Chart 16 shows that rising wage growth is positively correlated with earnings. The bottom panel of the chart explains why: Wages tend to rise most quickly when sales are growing rapidly. Strong demand growth adds to revenues, while allowing companies to spread fixed costs over a large amount of output. The resulting improvement in “operating leverage” helps buffer profit margins from higher wages. Scenario 5: Redistributionist politicians seek to shift income from capital to labor As long as wages are rising against a backdrop of fast sales growth, equities will fare well. The big risk for stocks is that wages go up not because the overall size of the economic pie is growing, but because policies are implemented that shift a bigger share of the pie from capital to labor. Bernie Sanders has promised to do just that. The S&P 500 has tended to increase when Sanders’ perceived chances of winning the Democrat nomination have risen (Chart 17). Investors have apparently concluded that Trump would clobber Sanders in a presidential race. Hence, the better Sanders performs in the primaries, the more likely Trump is to be re-elected. Chart 16Stocks Tend To Do Best When Wage Growth Is Rising Chart 17The Sanders Effect On Stocks Is this really a safe assumption? We are not so sure. Sanders has still beaten Trump in 49 of the last 54 head-to-head polls tracked by Realclearpolitics over the past 12 months. Sanders tends to appeal to white working class voters – the same demographic that propelled Trump into office. Sanders is also benefiting from a secular leftward shift in voter attitudes on economic issues. According to a recent Gallup poll, 47% of Americans believe that governments should do more to solve problems, up from 36% in 2010. Almost 40% of Americans have a positive view on socialism (Chart 18). Today’s youth in particular is enamored with left-wing ideology (Chart 19). Chart 18The US Is Moving To The Left Chart 19Woke Millennials Cozying Up To Socialism It’s not just the Democratic voters who are trending left. Some prominent Republicans are having second thoughts too. Tucker Carlson is probably the best leading indicator for where the Republican Party is heading. His attacks on “woke capitalism” have become a staple of his popular evening show.3 It is not surprising why many Republicans are having a change of heart. For decades, the Republican Party has been a cheap date for corporate interests: It has given businesses what they want – lower taxes, less regulation, etc. – without asking for much in return (aside from campaign contributions, of course). This has allowed corporations to focus on appealing to left-wing interests by taking increasingly strident positions on a variety of social issues. The fact that some of these positions – such as support for open-border immigration policies – are a boon for profits has only increased their appeal. The risk for corporations is that they end up with no real political support. If the Democrats move further to the left, “soak the rich” policies will become popular no matter how much virtue signaling corporate leaders deliver. Likewise, if Republicans abandon big businesses, today’s fat profit margins will become a thing of the past. When The Music Ends The current market climate resembles a Parisian ball on the eve of the French Revolution. The music is still playing, but the discontent among the commoners outside is growing. The question is when will this discontent boil over? Trump’s victory in 2016 represented a shot across the bow of the political establishment. Fortunately for corporate interests, aside from his protectionist impulses, Trump has been on their side. Bernie Sanders would not be so friendly. Matters should be clearer by mid-March. Super Tuesday takes place on March 3rd. By March 17th, more than 60% of Democratic delegates will have been awarded. If Bernie Sanders emerges as the likely nominee at that point, we will consider trimming back our bullish cyclical 12-month bias towards stocks. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. 2 Please see Global investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Yields: How High Is Too High?” dated January 17, 2020. 3 Ian Schwartz, “Tucker Carlson: Elizabeth Warren's "Economic Patriotism" Plan "Sounds Like Donald Trump At His Best," realclearpolitics, June 6, 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights An analysis on Turkey is available on page 10. In the short term, EM share prices will likely continue searching for a direction as visibility is extremely low. Beyond the near term, an appropriate strategy for EM equity investors is buying breakouts and selling breakdowns. The forthcoming stimulus from China is not a surefire guarantee of an immediate cyclical recovery. Low and falling willingness to spend among Chinese consumers and enterprises could overwhelm the positive boost from the stimulus. Forecasting changes in willingness to spend is not straightforward. Elsewhere, we are recommending a new trade: Short Turkish banks / long Russian banks. Feature Chart I-1EM Vs DM Equities: The Path Of Least Resistance Is Down EM risk assets and currencies as well as China-related financial markets are facing higher than usual uncertainty. Not only are the magnitude and duration of the coronavirus shock to the mainland’s economy unknown, but also both the scale of China’s forthcoming stimulus and its multiplier are highly uncertain. How should investors navigate through such uncertainty? For EM equity investors, an appropriate strategy is buying breakouts and selling breakdowns. Presently, we maintain a neutral stance on the absolute performance of EM stocks. We initiated a long position on December 19 and closed it on January 30 to manage risks amid the coronavirus outbreak. For asset allocators, we continue to recommend underweighting EM within global equity and credit portfolios (Chart I-1). As to exchange rates, investors should stay short a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar. The EM equity index and EM currencies have been in a trading range in the past 12 months (Chart I-2). In the short term, markets will likely continue searching for a direction as visibility is extremely low. Beyond the near term, however, EM share prices and currencies are unlikely to remain in a narrow trading range. They will either break out or break down. Which way the market swings is contingent on corporate profits and the business cycle. A Framework To Assess Shocks What framework should investors use to gauge economic and financial market outcomes? We recommend the following: When a system – in this case the Chinese economy – is hit by an external shock, its most likely trajectory depends on the duration and magnitude of the shock as well as the initial health of the system. If the system is balanced and robust, a moderate shock can certainly shake it, but will not knock it over. A V-shaped recovery is most likely in this case. By contrast, if the system is unbalanced and precarious, a measured tremor could produce an outsized negative impact. As a result, this economy is more likely to experience a U-shaped recovery. No one can gauge with any precision the impact of the coronavirus outbreak on China’s economy. The only thing we can assess is the health of the mainland economy prior to this exogenous shock. Beyond the near term, EM share prices and currencies are unlikely to remain in a narrow trading range. Which way the market swings is contingent on corporate profits and the business cycle. In this regard, we present the following analysis on both the economy’s cyclical condition and structural vitality: 1. Cyclically, China’s growth was ostensibly bottoming when the coronavirus outbreak occurred. The top panel of Chart I-3 illustrates that – at that time – the Chinese broad money impulse foreshadowed a revival in nominal industrial output from late 2019 until mid-2020. In the second half of this year, however, the same indicator projected renewed growth deterioration. Chart I-2EM Stocks And Currencies Are In A Trading Range: How Long Will It Last? Chart I-3Without The Coronavirus Outbreak, Chinese Recovery Would Have Been Muted And Short-Lived Notably, the broad money impulse has often led the credit and fiscal spending impulse, and it currently signals a rollover in the latter sometime in the first half of 2020 (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Chart I-4EM Corporate Profits: Modest And Temporary Improvement Consistently, China’s narrow money growth had been projecting a muted and only temporary rebound in EM corporate profits – which are often driven by the Middle Kingdom’s business cycle – from late 2019 until the middle of 2020 (Chart I-4). Thereafter, EM profit growth was set to relapse anew. In short, even prior to the coronavirus outbreak, our indicators were signaling that any economic improvement on the back of the Chinese government’s 2018-19 stimulus would have been muted and short-lived from late 2019 until mid-2020. Hence, the negative shock from the public health emergency could end up nullifying the pending recovery. 2. Structurally, as we have written extensively, China has enormous credit and money excesses. The economy has become addicted to rampant money and credit creation. This, along with the misallocation of capital and the resulting growth in the number of zombie companies, makes the system vulnerable, even to moderate shocks. It is reasonable to assume that there are some companies that enjoy great financial health, some zombies that are unable to service their debt at all, and a certain number of enterprises that generate just enough cash flow to service their debt. While the coronavirus-induced downtrend in the economy will not materially change the financial status of healthy or zombie businesses, it will likely alter the financial standings of debtors that were on the proverbial edge. Assuming the unavoidable drop in cash flows due to the country’s sudden shutdowns, these debtors will struggle to service their debt. This will likely alter their short-to-midterm decision making. For example, if they were planning to expand their operations and hire more employees, these plans are likely to be shelved for now. Low and falling willingness among households to consume and among enterprises to invest and hire could overwhelm the positive boost from the stimulus. In short, the coronavirus-induced shutdowns are cutting into cash flows, but they do not in any way reduce debt burdens. Chart I-5 illustrates that debt servicing costs as a share of income for companies and households in China are among the highest in the world. Chart I-5China Has A High Debt Service-To-Income Ratio Notably, this measure for China is relative to nominal GDP while for other countries it is relative to disposable income. Disposable income is smaller than GDP as it takes into account taxes paid. Therefore, on a comparable basis, this ratio for China will be meaningfully higher than the one shown on Chart I-5. Bottom Line: Provided the Chinese economy is highly leveraged, it is reasonable to conjecture that the recovery following the adverse shock from the coronavirus will be U- rather than V-shaped. Stimulus: Yes. Multiplier: Unknown. It is a given that the Chinese authorities will inject more fiscal and monetary stimulus into the system. Nevertheless, the ultimate size of stimulus is unknown. So far, the following has been announced: On the monetary and credit side: A RMB300 billion re-lending quota to supply special low-cost funds to assist national commercial banks and local banks to provide preferential interest rate loans to key enterprises for epidemic prevention and control; On February 3, open market operation rates were cut by 10 basis points, and the key 7-day repo rate fell by 45 basis points; The People’s Bank of China injected liquidity1 via open market operations; The People’s Bank of China encouraged banks to lower lending costs for small and medium enterprises by 10% in some provinces. Critically, the banking regulatory authority has indicated it will allow an extension of the transition period for the implementation of the New Asset Management Regulation beyond 2020. Chart I-6Marginal Propensity To Spend Varies From Cycle To Cycle On the fiscal side: Additional local government debt quotas of RMB848 billion have been approved, on top of the previously authorized quota of RMB1 trillion in November 2019; the front-loaded debt quota will offer local governments more flexibility with their budgets and support growth via public investment; Cumulatively about RMB66 billion in supplementary funds has been deployed to support local governments and businesses, according to the Ministry of Finance; The authorities have delayed or partially waived taxes, social security fees, and government-owned rents for affected businesses; The government has instituted refunds of unemployment insurance premiums to enterprises who retain most employees in some cities; The central government will provide temporary interest rate relief (equivalent to 50% of the re-lending policy rate) on loans to key enterprises involved in the fight against the epidemic. However, stimulus in and of itself is not a sufficient condition on which to bet on a V-shaped recovery. Stimulus (or in the opposite scenario, tightening) does not always immediately entail an economic recovery (or on the flip side, a downturn). For one, policy stimuli always work with a time lag. In addition, the size of stimulus is still unknown. What’s more, the multiplier of the stimulus varies from cycle to cycle. Chart I-7Chinese Households Are Indebted We gauge the magnitude of any stimulus in China by observing money, credit and fiscal spending impulses. The multiplier is in turn contingent on economic agents’ (households and enterprises) propensity to spend. The impact of a large amount of stimulus can be offset by a low/falling marginal willingness to spend (a lower multiplier). Before the coronavirus outbreak, the marginal propensity to spend in China had improved slightly for households and had barely stabilized in the case of companies (Chart I-6). It is plausible to assume that a negative shock to confidence will likely dent both households’ and companies’ marginal propensity to consume. This is especially true since both economic agents are highly leveraged, as discussed above (Chart I-7). Finally, the leads and lags between the measures of stimulus like money impulses or credit and fiscal spending impulses and EM stocks in general and Chinese share prices in particular are not constant, as illustrated in Chart I-8 and Chart I-9. Chart I-8China: Share Prices And Money Impulse Chart I-9EM Stock Prices And China Credit And Fiscal Impulse Bottom Line: Forthcoming stimulus is not a surefire guarantee of an immediate cyclical rally – neither for EM risk assets and currencies, nor for other China-related plays. This does not mean that a rally will not occur. Rather, gauging the timing and potential drawdown that precede it are almost impossible. The basis is that low and falling willingness among households to consume and among enterprises to invest and hire could overwhelm the positive boost from the stimulus. Unfortunately, forecasting changes in willingness to spend is not straightforward. Investment Strategy Chart I-10An Inconclusive Message From This Reliable Indicator We are currently neutral on EM stocks in absolute terms. We will be watching for market-based indicators to signal a breakout or breakdown and will adjust our strategy accordingly. One of our favorite indicators – the Risk-On /Safe-Haven currency ratio – is presently inconclusive (Chart I-10). Relative to DM, EM share prices broke to new lows last week as illustrated in Chart I-1 on page 1. We continue recommending an underweight position in EM within a global equity portfolio. Consistently, we are reiterating our long-standing short EM / long S&P 500 strategy. The US dollar’s technical profile is bullish (Chart I-11), which entails that its bull market is not yet over. We continue shorting an equally-weighted basket of BRL, CLP, COP, ZAR, KRW, IDR and PHP against the US dollar. We are also short the CNY versus the greenback on a structural basis. Within the EM currency space, we favor the MXN, RUB, CZK, THB and TWD. Finally, EM exchange rates hold the key to the performance of both EM local currency and US dollar bonds. Given our negative view on the currency, we are reluctant to chase the decline in domestic bond yields and narrowing spreads in the sovereign credit space (Chart I-12). Chart I-11The US Dollar Rally Is Intact Chart I-12EM: Local Bond Yields And Sovereign Spreads Are Too Low Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkey: Doubling Down On Unsound Policies Despite the steep drop in oil prices, Turkish stocks have failed to outperform the EM equity benchmark (Chart II-1). When a market fails to outperform amid a historically bullish backdrop, it is often a sign of trouble ahead. The basis for the decoupling between Turkey’s relative performance and oil prices is President Erdogan’s doubling down on populist and unorthodox macro policies. He is eager to boost growth at any cost. As a litmus test of aggressive expansionist policies, local currency broad money growth has already surged to 24% (Chart II-2). In brief, these overly expansionary policies will undermine the currency, lift inflation and lead to a further exodus of investors from the country’s financial markets. Chart II-1A Bearish Sign For Turkish Equities Chart II-2Turkey: Rampant Money Creation Chart II-3Turkey: Booming Fiscal Spending First, the central bank has cut interest rates to below inflation. The outcome is negative policy rates in real terms. Moreover, the central bank has resumed plentiful liquidity provisioning to banks to prevent interbank rates from rising. Second, government expenditures are surging (Chart II-3). Ballooning government borrowing is largely being financed by commercial banks – i.e., the latter are involved in outright monetization of public debt (Chart II-4, top panel). Chart II-4Public Debt Monetization By Commercial Banks In the past two years, banks have purchased some TRY 250 billion of government bonds. This has boosted their share of holdings of government local currency bonds from 45% to 58% (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This has not only capped local bond yields, but also enormously expanded money supply. When a commercial bank purchases a bond from a non-bank entity, it creates a new deposit (broad money supply), as we discussed in November 29, 2018 report. The authorities have also announced tax cuts on various consumer goods in order to boost consumption. This is leading to a resurgence in consumer goods imports. In short, the trade balance is bound to widen again as domestic consumption resumes. Third, the government is forcing both state-owned and private banks to substantially boost credit flows to the economy. Last week, the AKP proposed a new banking bill that could force banks to fund large-scale projects. Further, the banking regulator is penalizing banks that fail to meet a “credit volume criteria’ by lowering the interest rate banks receive on their required reserves at the central bank. Crucially, the authorities are forcing banks to cut lending rates. Banks’ net interest rate margins have declined to all-time lows (Chart II-5). It will narrow further as they continue to cut lending rates, while holding deposit rates high to avoid flight from local currency deposits into US dollars. Banks, especially public ones, have dramatically accelerated their credit origination. This will lead to capital misallocation and potentially to non-performing loans (NPLs). On banks’ balance sheets, NPLs have been, and will remain, artificially suppressed. Neither banks nor regulators are incentivized to provision for potential loan losses. Insolvent banks can operate indefinitely so long as their shareholders and regulators allow it, and the central bank provides sufficient liquidity. This will most certainly be the case in Turkey in the years to come. Constraints in such a scenario are surging inflation and currency devaluation. Turkish authorities have whole-heartedly opted for these lax fiscal, monetary and bank regulatory policies. This entails that inflation and currency devaluation are unavoidable. Overly expansionary policies will undermine the currency, lift inflation and lead to a further exodus of foreign investors from the country’s financial markets. Lastly, surging wages and unit labor costs corroborate that inflationary pressures are genuine and rampant (Chart II-6). The minimum wage is set to increase by another 15% this year. Chart II-5Banks' Net Interest Margins At All Time Lows Chart II-6Turkey: Wages Are Surging The government has been trying to regulate prices in the consumer sector by putting administrative price caps in place. Yet inflation remains persistently high in both goods and services sectors. Investment Recommendation Chart II-7Excessive Stimulus Is Bearish For The Lira The Turkish lira is again on a precipice. Only government intervention can temporarily prevent a major down leg. We are reiterating our underweight call on Turkish stocks within an EM equity portfolio. As a new trade, we are recommending a short Turkish banks / long Russian banks position. In contrast to Turkey, Russia’s macro policies have been, and remain, extremely orthodox. The new Russian government is poised to boost fiscal stimulus and the economy will accelerate with low inflation. We will discuss Russia in next week’s report. Finally, a surging fiscal and credit impulse in Turkey often leads to higher inflation and downward pressure on the currency (Chart II-7). As such, local currency government yields offer little protection at these levels against a depreciating currency. Therefore, investors should underweight the Turkish currency, local fixed-income and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. Andrija Vesic Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We published A Primer On Liquidity on January 16, 2020 illustrating that the linkages from liquidity provisions by central banks and both increased spending in the real economy and higher asset prices are ambiguous. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations
Highlights Global Growth & Market Volatility: Fears over global growth have pushed government bond yields lower as markets discount dovish monetary policy responses to the China viral outbreak. That combination may, perversely, be helping keep risk assets stable, even as investors try to assess the potential hit to global growth from a sharp China demand shock, through lower interest rate and currency volatility. Tactical Trade Overlay: We are in the process of revamping our Tactical Trade Overlay framework, thus we are closing all our recommended current positions this week. We will begin unveiling the new trade selection process - with more specific rules on idea development, holding period, security selection and performance measurement - in the coming weeks. Feature Chart of the WeekLow Inflation Sustaining The Low Volatility Backdrop The timing of the coronavirus outbreak in China has introduced uncertainty into what was looking like a true bottom in global growth after the 2019 slowdown. The epicenter of that improvement seen in measures like the global PMI was China, where not only was there a visible pickup in soft data like the manufacturing PMI about also hard data like import growth. The coronavirus outbreak - and the severe actions to contain its spread via widespread quarantines, factory shutdowns, supply chain disruptions and travel bans – has most likely triggered a “sudden stop” in Chinese economic growth in the first quarter of the year that will spill over beyond China’s borders. This could potentially snuff out the nascent 2020 global growth recovery if the virus is not soon contained. Global government bond markets, however, have already discounted a fairly sharp slowdown in global activity. 10-year US Treasury yields are back below 1.6%. Inflation expectations across the developed economies remain well below central bank targets and short-term interest markets are discounting additional rate cuts to varying degrees. This has created a backdrop of relative tranquility in interest rate and currency markets, with option implied volatilities for the latter back to post-crisis lows (Chart of the Week). Perversely, the shorter-term uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus outbreak may have created a backdrop for risk assets to stay resilient, by reducing the more longer-lasting uncertainty that comes from interest rate and currency market volatility. Perversely, the shorter-term uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus outbreak may have created a backdrop for risk assets to stay resilient, by reducing the more longer-lasting uncertainty that comes from interest rate and currency market volatility. If the virus is contained and the hit to the world economy limited to just the first quarter of the year, then our underlying thesis of faster growth underpinning another year of global corporate bond market outperformance versus government bonds will remain intact. Extending The “Sweet Spot” For Global Risk Assets Chart 2How Low Will These Go? Investors are right to be worried about the potential hit to the global economy from China. Prior to the outbreak of the coronavirus, a modest improvement in Chinese import demand was underway that was finally starting to put a floor under global trade activity after the sharp 2019 downturn (Chart 2). Without that boost from Chinese demand, the world economy will be far less likely to recover in 2020. BCA Research’s Chief Investment Strategist, Peter Berezin, has attempted some back-of-the-envelope calculations to determine the potential hit to global growth from a “sudden stop” of China’s economy from the coronavirus.1 Assuming that real GDP growth will essentially be zero in the first quarter of 2020, Peter calculates that global growth will slow to 1.7% in Q1 – or one-half the IMF’s expected average growth rate for 2020 of 3.4%. The bulk of that effect comes from the direct impact of Chinese growth slowing from a trend pace of 5.5% in Q1, but that also includes spillover effects to the rest of the world from weaker Chinese spending on imported goods and tourism (Chart 3). Chart 3Chinese GDP Growth Will Plunge In Q1, But Should Recover In The Remainder Of 2020 - Provided The Coronavirus Outbreak Is Contained Importantly, Peter sees Chinese and global growth recovering during the rest of 2020, if the virus is contained by the end of March. The potential hit to overall global growth this year would only be 0.3 percentage points under that scenario. There is obviously a lot of uncertainty involved in making such estimates, from the timing of the spread of the virus to the potential monetary and fiscal policy responses from China (and other nations) to boost growth. Yet a total hit to global growth of only 0.3 percentage points would be fairly modest and may not end up derailing the signs of an economic rebound seen in indicators like the ZEW economic sentiment surveys. The individual country expectations component of the ZEW survey have shown solid improvements for the US, the UK, the euro area and even Japan over the past few months (Chart 4). Also, the current conditions component of the ZEW survey was just starting to bottom out in the most recent readings in the US, the UK and euro area. We have found that the spread between those two measures (ZEW current conditions minus expectations) is a reliable coincident indicator of year-over-year real GDP growth in the countries surveyed. Chart 4Will The Coronavirus Delay, Or Derail, The Recovery Process? As of the latest read of the data from mid-January – importantly, before the start of the more widespread media coverage of the viral outbreak in China – the “current conditions minus expectations gap” from the ZEW survey was still trending downward (Chart 5). Chart 5The ZEW "Current Vs Expected" Gap Is Still Signaling Soft Global Growth In other words, the boost in expectations had not yet translated into in a larger pickup in current economic activity. The risk now is that the turnaround in that gap, and in global GDP growth, will be delayed by a severe pullback in Chinese demand. The response of global business confidence to the virus is critical. According to the Duke University CFO Global Business Outlook survey taken at the end of 2019, more than half (52%) of US CFOs believe the US will be in an economic recession by the end of 2020, and 76% predict a recession by mid-2021. These numbers are similar to the 2018 survey, where 49% of CFOs thought a recession was likely by the end of 2019 and 82% predicted a recession by the end of 2020. The “CFO recession odds” are even larger outside the US, particularly in Asia and Latin America (Chart 6). Chart 6Duke/CFO Survey Respondents' 1-Year-Ahead Probability Of A Recession The Duke CFO survey also asks a question on CFO optimism about the outlook for their own businesses. That data, measured on a scale of 0 to 100, shows that companies remain relatively optimistic about their own companies (Chart 7). The levels of optimism at the end of 2019 were roughly the same as at the end of 2018, except for the US where CFO optimism has soared above the highs seen prior to the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 8). Chart 7Duke/CFO Survey Respondents’ Own Company Optimism Level Chart 8US Companies Are Thinking Globally, But Acting Locally The interesting implication of this data is that a considerable number of global companies has believed that recession was “only a year or two away” since the end of 2018, but have not expressed similar pessimism when it comes to their own businesses. The extreme financial market volatility at the end of 2018 likely explains why investors thought a recession was likely in 2019 or 2020, while the US-China trade war last year meant those recession fears were “extended” into 2020 and 2021. Yet one big variable changed over that period since the end of 2018 – global monetary policy was eased significantly and bond yields (i.e. borrowing costs) fell sharply for both governments and companies. Looking ahead, the likely policy response to the sharp fall in Chinese growth in Q1/2020 will be continued dovishness from global central bankers. With the US dollar now firming again, in what is shaping up to be a typical response of the greenback to slower global growth expectations, the reflation narrative that was brewing for 2020 has been postponed (Chart 9). With the US dollar now firming again, in what is shaping up to be a typical response of the greenback to slower global growth expectations, the reflation narrative that was brewing for 2020 has been postponed. A softer US dollar is a necessary ingredient for that reflation. Thus, a stable-to-firmer dollar will keep global inflation pressures muted, allowing central banks to maintain their current dovish policy biases. This will help keep market volatility for bonds, currencies and equities subdued – if the China demand shock to global growth is contained to the first quarter. From a fixed income investment perspective, an extended period of low rates/currency volatility, combined with very low government yields already reflecting a sharp global growth slowdown that is not yet assured, is an ideal “sweet spot” backdrop for corporate credit spreads to remain relatively stable. From a fixed income investment perspective, an extended period of low rates/currency volatility, combined with very low government yields already reflecting a sharp global growth slowdown that is not yet assured, is an ideal “sweet spot” backdrop for corporate credit spreads to remain relatively stable (Chart 10). Chart 9Renewed USD Strength Would Delay Global Reflation We continue to recommend a strategic (6-12 months) overweight allocation to corporate credit versus government bonds for global fixed income investors, focused on high-yield credit in the US. Chart 10Still A Sweet Spot For Global Credit Bottom Line: Fears over global growth have pushed government bond yields lower as markets discount dovish monetary policy responses to the China viral outbreak. That combination may, perversely, be helping keep risk assets stable, even as investors try to assess the potential hit to global growth from a sharp China demand shock, through lower interest rate and currency volatility. A Quick Note: Rebooting Our Tactical Trade Overlay Framework Back in 2016, we introduced a part of our service that was separate from our main framework which emphasized medium-term (6-12 month) investment recommendations.2 We called this piece our Tactical Trade Overlay and it was intended to focus on ideas with shorter-term horizons (less than 6-months) with specific “exit strategies”. The majority of past trades included in the Overlay did fit that description. The current list of open positions, however, has drifted away from the original mandate with recommendations now being held far longer than six months. We are in the process of developing a new framework for the Tactical Trade Overlay, with more specific rules on idea development, holding period, security selection and performance measurement. Thus, this week, we are closing out all the recommendations currently in the Overlay (see the table on page 12). The goal is to create a list of trade suggestions for our clients with the capability and/or mandate to seek out “quicker” ideas that can also be implemented in more liquid instruments whenever possible. The new Overlay will also include ideas from smaller fixed income markets not included in our Model Bond Portfolio (i.e. New Zealand or Sweden), but with the same focus on holding periods of six months or less. We will be introducing the new Tactical Overlay framework over the next few months. We plan on publishing separate reports covering the new process for selecting ideas for different types of fixed income trades, similar to the current groupings in the Overlay (rates trades, yield curve trades, relative value trades, inflation trades). The first such report, to be published by the end of February, will introduce a methodology for identifying yield curve trades in global government bond markets. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "From China To Iowa", dated February 7, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "GFIS Overlay Trades Review", dated October 4, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Receding interest in the coronavirus epidemic, rising demand prospects, a looming profit turnaround and compelling valuations, all signal that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P hotels index. Lift exposure to neutral. An historical parallel with chemicals industry regulation suggests that the path of least resistance is lower for the S&P interactive media & services industry. Recent Changes Lock in gains of 20% and augment the S&P hotels index to neutral. Table 1 Feature Equities ripped higher last week as the coronavirus scare subsided, the Senate acquitted President Trump and the PBoC and the Fed sustained the liquidity injections. From a macro perspective, bond yields have served as a suspension for the SPX, absorbing the economic shock and catapulting the broad equity market to fresh all-time highs. The usual suspects, tech stocks, led the charge as lower interest rates equate to higher multiples. Keep in mind that the SPX is trading near an eighteen-year high on a forward P/E ratio basis (Chart 1). Such investor complacency is worrisome, especially given the persistently soft economic backdrop. Importantly, the latest GDP release revealed that net exports had the largest contribution to real output growth – trumping even PCE – on the back of a collapse in imports (second & third panels, Chart 2). Chart 1Flush Liquidity Chart 2Net Exports Jump Is A Yellow Flag In fact, the quarter-over-quarter plunge in real imports is the steepest since the GFC, and on a par with both the 9/11 induced recession in the early-2000s and the Savings & Loan recession in the early-1990s (top panel, Chart 3). Historically, when imports crest they are a precursor of recession (bottom panel, Chart 3). While this may be a one quarter blip in the data as a result of the trade war, we will continue to closely monitor the US trade balance. Meanwhile, consumer outlays are also decelerating, corroborating last quarter’s real imports collapse (bottom panel, Chart 2). If this pillar of economic strength gives way in the coming quarters, it will stoke up recession fears anew and vindicate the bond market’s message. Ultimately, what matters for stocks, aside from interest rates, is EPS growth. On that front, the Street continues to expect 10% profit growth for calendar 2020 which is a tall order according to our analysis in mid-January, warning that the SPX is still 8% overvalued as per our base case EPS and multiple scenario.1 Chart 3Imports Flashing Red Chart 4Sector Contribution To 2020 SPX EPS GrowthChart 4 shows the sector contribution to profit growth for this year. The tech sector sits atop the table and leads its peers by a wide margin (Table 2). Health care and financials occupy the second and third spots. While these rankings are more or less in line with the sector profit and market cap weights, what stands out is the delta between the market cap and earnings weights (Table 2). Table 2Sector EPS And Market Cap Weights According to this valuation proxy, real estate, tech and consumer discretionary sectors are the most expensive, while energy, health care and financials are the cheapest (Table 2). As a reminder we remain neutral tech, and underweight both real estate and consumer discretionary, and overweight all three undervalued sectors: energy, health care and financials. This week we book gains and lift to neutral a niche consumer discretionary sub sector that the coronavirus epidemic has badly bruised, and update our view on the largest communication services sub-group. Crystalize Gains And Upgrade Hotels To Neutral Google trends data shows that peak interest in the coronavirus was registered on January 26 in China, January 30 in the US and one day later globally (Chart 5). These trends may change in the coming weeks, but it appears that the initial fears and interest on the coronavirus are quickly subsiding, highlighting that the worst may likely be behind us with regard to fear mongering. Thus, we are compelled to lift the hard-hit S&P hotels index to neutral and cement gains of 20% since inception. While Chinese, global and US outputs will likely take a hit in Q1, subsequently recover in Q2 in the aftermath of the epidemic and only Q3 will come in as a clean quarter, the beating down of this niche consumer discretionary sub-group is overdone. Macro headwinds are turning into mild tailwinds. Last week the ISM non-manufacturing report rebounded smartly, and consumer confidence remains resilient. The implication is that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P hotels index (top & middle panels, Chart 6). Tack on our vibrant industry demand indicator underscoring that the two-year bear market will likely go on hiatus (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 5Risks Receding Chart 6Upbeat Demand A number of other indicators we track send a similar message. Relative retail sales are rebounding with discretionary sales reclaiming the upper hand (top panel, Chart 7). While overall PCE is decelerating (bottom panel, Chart 2), relative consumer outlays on hotels is picking up momentum signaling that the bar for positive relative profit surprises is low (middle panel, Chart 7). Importantly, almost all of the negative coronavirus news flow is likely reflected in the roughly 25% forward P/E discount to the broad market that the index is changing hands at. If the coronavirus epidemic is petering out, then such undervaluation is no longer warranted (bottom panel, Chart 7). Importantly, our S&P hotels EPS growth model does an excellent job in encapsulating all these moving parts and is currently signaling that relative profit growth is slated to turn the corner in the coming quarters (Chart 8). Chart 7Grim News Is Priced In Chart 8Model Points To A Turnaround Netting it all out, receding interest in the coronavirus epidemic, rising demand prospects, a looming profit turnaround and compelling valuations, all signal that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P hotels index. Beyond the risk of a resurgence in the coronavirus epidemic, what prevents us from upgrading all the way to an above benchmark allocation is a challenging profit margin backdrop. Chart 9 highlights that not only are industry CEOs showing no restraint with respect to labor additions, but also lodging inflation is now contracting. Taken together, there are rising odds that the S&P hotels index may suffer from a profit margin squeeze (bottom panel, Chart 9). Netting it all out, receding interest in the coronavirus epidemic, rising demand prospects, a looming profit turnaround and compelling valuations, all signal that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P hotels index. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P hotels index to neutral and lock in gains of 20% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5HOTL – MAR, CCL, HLT, RCL, NCLH. Chart 9Margin Squeeze Is A Risk Regulation Is Coming While most mega cap tech stocks had a better-than-expected Q4 earnings season, GOOGL and FB were left behind. We reiterate our underweight stance in the S&P interactive media & services index (we still consider them tech stocks) which serves as a great hedge to our overweight S&P software index. As a reminder we remain underweight this communications services subgroup on a cyclical basis, and since mid-December also on a secular ten-year time horizon.2 Regulation is a powerful force. President Trump is only slightly favored for reelection and there is bipartisan support to toughen anti-trust regulation, which his own Department of Justice has pursued. Republican Senator of Missouri Josh Hawley has spearheaded the assault on tech companies from the right wing, while leading Democratic presidential contenders represent the push from the left wing. Indeed, if the Democrats take power, they are likely to enact a federal privacy law following in the footsteps of California and the European Union. Such a law would face court battles but would ultimately have popular tailwinds: corporate protectionism, wealth inequality, and social demands for privacy across the political spectrum. Looking back to the early- and mid-twentieth century with regard to US government regulation aimed at protecting the consumer is instructive. What catches our attention are the Biologics Control Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act. The first two acts affected the pharmaceutical and food industries and the third act the chemicals industry. While we do not have sector data dating back to the early 1900s, we have chemicals equity prices since 1958. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 dealt a blow to chemical equity prices in absolute and relative terms (Chart 10). In fact, investments in chemical stocks were dead money for a whole decade until 1985 when they broke out in absolute terms and troughed in relative terms (Chart 10). New regulation will cast a shadow over the S&P interactive media & services index. This is true especially if a privacy law is passed, but even if it is postponed or shot down by the Supreme Court, companies will have to contend with a higher regulatory burden in order to comply with California’s and Europe’s privacy laws. Beyond the threat of privacy regulation protecting the consumer, the monopolistic power these companies exert will also come under the microscope. While we doubt the government will break up these two companies given their industry dominance, and the need to maintain international competitiveness,3 anti-monopoly probes clearly pose a big risk. This is true even under a GOP administration. During times of inequality, especially during recessions, governments will seek popularity by punishing scapegoats. The firms that are the chief beneficiaries of the business cycle will be the first in line for scrutiny. Keep in mind, Ronald Reagan’s Republican administration broke up “Ma Bell” into seven regional “Baby Bells” on January 1, 1984. Interestingly, AT&T also had the largest market capitalization in the S&P 500 in 1982. What concerns us the most is a forced sale of “crown jewel” assets as the result of a court ruling in an anti-monopoly suit. This would jeopardize the companies’ ecosystems. Imagine if Alphabet were forced to divest their Google Marketing Platform (old DoubleClick) and Google Ads, or YouTube or Google Cloud. Facebook could be forced to sell WhatsApp or Instagram. Chart 10Regulation Hurts Stocks Chart 11Risks Are Neither Reflected In Profit Estimates… All of these risks pose a threat to EPS growth and still sky-high industry profit margins. Importantly, relative profit growth is climbing at a 13% rate (middle panel, Chart 11) and coupled with the drubbing in 10-year Treasury yields, have pushed valuations to overshoot territory. As we went to print the S&P interactive media & services index was trading at a 34% forward P/E premium to the broad market (Chart 12). Similarly on a forward P/E/G ratio basis this industry is trading at roughly a 30% premium to the SPX (bottom panel, Chart 12). In sum, an historical regulatory parallel with chemicals industry regulation suggests that the path of least resistance is lower for the S&P interactive media & services industry. Over the past year profit margins have been narrowing as costs have been creeping up for the industry, but are still more than twice the level of SPX margins (second panel, Chart 13). If federal regulation puts a price on consumer data in the coming years, especially through direct legislation, then this added cost will squeeze industry profit margins and dent profitability. Chart 12…Nor In Pricey Valuations Chart 13Margin Compression Looms The chief constraint on US government regulation is the desire to maintain international competitiveness in a world of great power competition, in which US rivals attempt to promote their own tech companies globally. However, neither colonialism nor the Cold War stopped earlier anti-monopoly crusades. Politicians primarily court domestic constituencies with such pursuits. Regulators would have to set the terms of any breakup with various interests in balance, but the point is that even a limited breakup that does not mortally wound the company would still come as a negative shock at first. In sum, an historical regulatory parallel with chemicals industry regulation suggests that the path of least resistance is lower for the S&P interactive media & services industry. Bottom Line: Stay underweight S&P interactive media & services index both on a cyclical and structural ten-year time horizon. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG S5INMS – GOOGL, GOOG, FB, TWTR. Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Three EPS Scenarios” dated January 13, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.\ 2 Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Special Report, “Top US Sector Investment Ideas For the Next Decade” dated December 16, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Special Report, “Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?” dated August 1, 2018, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Surviving A Breakup: The Investor's Guide To Monopoly-Busting In America,” dated March 20, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com and gps.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)