Fixed Income
Highlights The Chinese economy is recovering at a slower rate than the equity market has priced in. There is a high likelihood of negative revisions to Q2 EPS estimates and an elevated risk of a near-term price correction in Chinese stocks. We expect a meaningful pickup in credit growth in H1 to improve domestic demand gain tractions in H2. This supports our overweight stance on Chinese stocks in the next 6-12 months, in both absolute and relative terms. There is still a strong probability that the yield curve will flatten, and the 10-year government bond yield may even dip below 2% in the wake of disappointing economic data in Q2. But our baseline scenario suggests the 10-year government bond yield should bottom no later than Q3 of this year. Feature This week’s report addresses pressing concerns from clients in China’s post-Covid-19 environment. China’s economy contracted by 6.8% in Q1, the largest GDP growth slump since 1976. Furthermore, the IMF’s baseline scenario projects a 3% contraction in global economic growth in 2020, with the Chinese economy growing at a mere 1.2%.1 This dim annual growth outlook means that the contraction in China’s economy will likely extend to Q2, dragging down corporate profit growth. In our April 1st report2 we recommended that investors maintain a neutral stance on Chinese stocks in the next three months due to uncertainties surrounding the pandemic, the oversized passive outperformance in Chinese stocks, and heightened risks for further risk-asset selloffs. On a 6- to 12-month horizon, however, we have a higher conviction that Chinese stocks will outperform global benchmarks. Our view is based on a decisive shift by policymakers to a “whatever it takes” approach to boost the economy. We believe that the speed of China’s economic recovery in the second half of 2020 will outpace other major economies. Q: China’s economy is recovering ahead of other major economies. Why did you recently downgrade your tactical call on Chinese equities from overweight to neutral relative to global stocks? A: China’s economy is recovering, but it is recovering at a slower rate than the equity market has fully priced in (Chart 1A and 1B). We believe the likelihood of negative revisions to Q2 EPS estimates is high, and the risk of a near-term price correction in Chinese stocks remains elevated. Chart 1AElevated Chinese Equity Outperformance Relative To Global Stocks Chart 1BChinese Stocks Largely Ignored Weakness In Domestic Economy The lackluster March data suggests that the pace of China’s economic recovery in April and even May will likely disappoint, weighing on the growth prospects for Q2’s corporate earnings (Chart 2). Chart 2EPS Growth Estimates Likely To Capitulate In Q2 The work resumption rate in China’s 36 provinces jumped sharply between mid-February and mid-March. However, since that time, the resumption rate among large enterprises has hovered around 80% of normal capacity (Chart 3). Chart 3Work Resumption Hardly Improved Since Mid-March The flattening of the work resumption rate curve is due to a lack of strong recovery in demand. Chart 4So Far No Strong Recovery In Domestic Demand The flattening of the resumption rate curve is due to a lack of strong recovery in demand. Although there was a surge in Chinese imports in crude oil and raw materials, the increase was the result of China taking advantage of low commodity prices. This surge cannot be sustained without a pickup in domestic demand. The March bounce back in domestic demand from the manufacturing, construction, and household sectors has all been lackluster (Chart 4). External demand, which growth remained in contraction through March, will likely worsen in Q2 (Chart 5). Exports shrunk by 6.6% in March, up from a deep contraction of 17.2% in January-February. Export orders can take more than a month to be processed, therefore, March’s data reflects pent-up orders from the first two months of the year. The US and European economies started their lockdowns in March, so Chinese exports will only feel the full impact of the collapse in demand from its trading partners in April and May. The work resumption rate will advance only if the momentum in domestic demand recovery increases to fully offset the collapse in external demand. The current 83% rate of work resumption implies that industrial output growth in April will remain in contraction on a year-over-year basis (Chart 6). Chart 5External Demand Will Worsen In Q2 Chart 6Will Q2 Industrial Output Growth Remain In Contraction? Although we maintain a constructive outlook on Chinese risk assets in the next 6 to 12 months, the short-term picture remains volatile in view of the emerging economic data. As such, we recommend investors to maintain short-term hedges for risk asset positions. Q: China’s policy response to mitigate the economic blow from COVID-19 has been noticeably smaller than programs rolled out in key developed economies, especially the US. Why do you think such measured stimulus from China warrants an overweight stance on Chinese stocks in the next 6-12 months relative to global benchmarks? A: It is true that the size of existing Chinese stimulus, as a percentage of the Chinese economy, is smaller than that has been announced in the US. But this is due to a different approach China is taking in stimulating its economy. In addition, both the recent policy rhetoric and PBoC actions suggest a large credit expansion is in the works. This will likely overcompensate the damage on China’s aggregate economy, and generate an outperformance in both Chinese economic growth and returns on Chinese risk assets in the next 6 to 12 months. China’s policy responses have an overarching focus on stimulating new demand and investment, which is a different approach from the programs offered by its Western counterparts. In the US, the combination of fiscal and monetary stimulus amounts to 11% of GDP as of April 16, with almost all policy support targeted at keeping companies and individuals afloat. In comparison, China’s policy response accounts for a mere 1.2% of its GDP.3 However, this direct comparison understates the enormous firepower in the Chinese stimulus toolkit, specifically a credit boom. As noted in our February 26 report,4 China has largely resorted to its “old economic playbook” by generating a huge credit wave to ride out the economic turmoil. Our prediction of the policy shift towards a significant escalation in stimulus was confirmed at the March 27 Politburo meeting. Moreover, the April 17 Politburo meeting reinforced a “whatever it takes” policy shift with direct calls on more forceful central bank policy actions, a first since the global financial crisis in 2008.5 Since 2008, the overnight repo rate’s breaking into the IORR-IOER corridor has been a reliable indicator leading to impressive credit upcycles. The PBoC’s recent aggressive easing measures have pushed down the interbank repo rate below the central bank’s interest rate on required reserves (IORR). The price for interbank borrowing is now near the lower range of the rate corridor, between the IORR and the interest rate on excess reserves (IOER). Since 2008, the overnight repo rate’s breaking into the IORR-IOER corridor has been a reliable indicator leading to impressive credit upcycles (Chart 7). Such credit super cycles, in turn, have led to both economic booms and an outperformance in Chinese stocks. Chart 7Another Credit Super Cycle Is In The Works Chart 8Financial Conditions Were Extremely Tight In 2011-2014 The 2012-2015 cycle was an exception to the relationship between the overnight interbank repo rate, credit growth and Chinese stock performance. A steep pickup in credit growth in 2012 coincided with a leap in the overnight interbank repo rate, and the credit boom did not help boost demand in the real economy or improve Chinese stock performance. This is because corporate borrowing was severely curtailed by high lending rates during a four-year monetary tightening cycle from 2011 to 2014 (Chart 8). The credit boom during that cycle was largely driven by explosive growth in short-term shadow-bank lending and wealth management products (WMP), and did not channel into the real economy.6 We do not think such an extreme phenomena will replay under the current circumstances. Monetary stance will likely remain tremendously accommodative through the end of the year to facilitate a continuous rollout of medium- to long-term bank loans and local government bonds. Chinese financial institutions’ “animal spirits” may have been unleashed. But under the scrutiny of the Macro-Prudential Assessment Framework and the New Asset Management Rules,7 the "animal spirits" are unlikely to run up enough risks to prompt the PBoC to prematurely tighten liquidity conditions in the interbank market. Marginal propensity in China is pro-cyclical, which tends to lag credit cycles by 6 months. Chart 9Marginal Propensity In China Is Pro-Cyclical Both corporate and household marginal propensity, a measure of the willingness to spend, will pick up as well. Marginal propensity is pro-cyclical, which tends to lag credit cycles by 6 months (Chart 9). In other words, when interest rates are low and credit growth improves, corporates and households tend to spend more. The meaningful expansion in credit growth, which started in Q1 and will sustain in the coming two to three quarters, will help corporate and household spending gain tractions in H2. This constructive view on Chinese stimulus and economic recovery supports our overweight stance on Chinese stocks in the next 6-12 months, in both absolute and relative terms. Q: The yield curve in Chinese government bonds has steepened following PBoC’s aggressive monetary easing announcements. Has the Chinese 10-year bond yield bottomed? A: No, we do not think the 10-year bond yield has bottomed. There is probability the 10-year government bond yield may briefly dip below 2% in Q2. However, barring a multi-year global economic recession, we think the 10-year government bond yield will bottom no later than Q3 this year. Chart 10A Wide Gap Between The Long and Short The short end of the yield curve dropped disproportionally compared with the long end, following the PBoC’s announcement to place its first IOER cut since 2008 (Chart 10). This led to a rapid steepening in the yield curve. While our view supports a flattening of the yield curve in Q2 and even a 50bps drop in the 10-year government bond yield, we think that the capitulation will be brief. In order for the 10-year government bond yield to remain below 2% for an extended period of time, the market needs to believe one or more of the following will happen: The pandemic will cause a multi-year global economic recession, preventing the PBoC from normalizing its policy stance in the foreseeable future. The duration and depth of the economic impact from the pandemic are still moving targets. Our baseline scenario suggests that the Chinese economic recovery will pick up momentum in H2 this year. The PBoC will not normalize its policy stance even when the economy has stabilized. The PBoC has a track record as a reactive central bank rather than a proactive one. Still, during each of the past three economic and credit cycles, the PBoC has started to normalize its interest rate on average nine months following a bottom in the business cycle (Chart 11). The tightening of interest rate even applied to the prolonged economic downturn and deep deflationary cycle in 2015/16 (Chart 12). Chart 11The 'Old Faithful' PBoC Policy Normalization Pattern Chart 12Policy Normalized Even After A Long Economic Downturn Chart 132008 Or 2015? How the yield curve has historically behaved also depended on the market’s expectations on the speed of the economic recovery, and the timing of the subsequent monetary policy normalization. The yield curved spiked in the wake of substantial monetary easing and pickup in credit growth, in both 2008 and 2015 (Chart 13). While in 2008 the yield curve moved in lockstep with the 3-month SHIBOR with a perfect reverse correlation, in the 2015/16 cycle the yield curve spiked initially but quickly flattened. The long end of the yield curve capitulated as soon as the market realized the economic slowdown was a prolonged one. The 10-year government bond yield, after trending sideways in early 2016, only truly bottomed after the nominal output growth troughed in Q1 2016 (Chart 13, bottom panel). Will the yield curve behave like in 2008, or more like in 2015 in this cycle? We think it will be somewhere in between. The current economic cycle bottomed in Q1, but the economy is only recovering slowly and we expect a U-shaped economic recovery rather than a 2008-style V-shaped one. At the same time, our baseline scenario does not suggest the current environment will evolve into a 4-year deflationary cycle as in the 2012-2016 period. Therefore, we expect the low interest rate environment to endure for another two to three quarters before the PBoC starts to reverse its policy stance back to the pre-COVID-19 range. As such, the yield on 10-year government bonds will fall, possibly by as much as 50bps, when the economic data disappoint in Q2 and more rate cuts are forthcoming. But it will bottom when the economic recovery starts to gain traction in H22020 and the market starts to price in a subsequent monetary policy normalization. When growth slows and debt rises sharply, the PBoC will need to join its western counterparts to permanently maintain an ultra-low interest rate policy to accommodate its high debt level. We acknowledge the fact that China’s potential output growth is trending down (Chart 14). But it has been trending downwards since 2011. A structurally slowing rate of economic growth has not prevented the PBoC from cyclically raising its policy rate. Hence, unless we see evidence that the pandemic is meaningfully lowering China’s potential growth on par with growth rates in the DMs, our baseline scenario does not support a structural ultra-low interest rate environment in China. China’s debt-to-GDP ratio will most likely rise substantially this year, given that the credit impulse will gain momentum and GDP will grow very modestly. However, this rapid rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio will most likely not be sustained beyond this year. Even if we assume that credit impulse will account for 40% of GDP in 2020 (the same magnitude as in 2008/09), a sharp reversal in the output gap in 2021, as predicted by IMF,8 will flatten the debt-to-GDP ratio curve (Chart 15). Moreover, following every credit super cycle in the past, Chinese authorities have put a brake on the debt-to-GDP ratio. Chart 14China's Potential Growth Is Likely To Trend Lower... Chart 15...But Has Not Stopped PBoC From Flattening The Debt Curve All in all, while we see a high possibility for the 10-year government bond yield to fall in Q2, the decline will be limited in terms of duration. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1IMF World Economic Outlook, April 2020 2Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Investing During A Global Pandemic," dated April 1, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3IMF, Policy Responses To COVID-19 https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Policy-Responses-to-COVID-19#U 4Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook?" dated February 26, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5“Stable monetary policy must become more flexible” and “use RRR reductions, lower interest rates, re-lending and other measures to preserve adequate liquidity and guide the loan prime rate downwards.” Statements from Xi Jinping, April 17, 2020 Politburo Meeting. http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2020-04/17/content_5503621.htm 6 Bankers’ acceptances - short-term debt instruments guaranteed by commercial banks - swelled by 887% between end-2008 and 2012. The outstanding amount of WMPs jumped from 1.7 trillion RMB in 2009 to more than 9 trillion RMB by H12013. In contrast, the amount of RMB-denominated bank loans increased by only 67% during the same period. 7The Macro-Prudential Assessment Framework and the New Asset Management Rules were implemented in 2016 and 2018, respectively. They are designed to create additional restrictions to curb shadow-bank lending and broaden the PBoC’s oversight on banks’ WMP holdings. 8The April IMF World Economic Outlook predicts a 1.2% Chinese GDP growth in 2020 and a 9.2% GDP growth in 2021. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Social distancing makes it impossible to do jobs that require close personal interaction, yet these are the very job sectors that have kept jobs growth alive in recent decades. If social distancing persists, then AI will penetrate these job sectors too. Aggregate wage inflation is set to collapse – not just temporarily, but structurally. Structurally overweight US T-bonds versus the core European bonds in Germany, France, Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden. Structurally overweight big technology, structurally underweight banks. Structurally overweight S&P 500 versus Euro Stoxx 50. Fractal trade: long Australian 30-year bond versus US 30-year T-bond. Feature Social distancing will feature large in our lives for the foreseeable future, and it carries a profound consequence. Social distancing really means physical distancing. And physical distancing diminishes the ways that we can interact with other humans – through the qualities of empathy, sympathy, the ability to recognise and respond to emotional cues, and to express ourselves through complex movements. You cannot hug someone on Facetime. Social distancing makes it impossible to do jobs that require close personal interaction. From an economic perspective, social distancing makes it impossible to do jobs that require close personal interaction. It follows that in the recent bloodbath of job losses, the biggest casualties have been in employment sectors that rely on this close personal interaction: food services and drinking places (waitresses, bartenders, and baristas), ambulatory healthcare services, hotels, and social assistance (Table I-1). Table I-1Social Distancing Is Destroying Jobs That Require Close Personal Interaction A profound consequence arises because these are the very sectors that have kept jobs growth alive in recent decades (Table I-2). Millions of new jobs that rely on close personal interaction have more than offset the structural job destruction in manufacturing and finance. As well as being export-proof, jobs that require this close personal interaction have been ‘artificial intelligence (AI) proof’. That is, until now. Table I-2Jobs That Require Close Personal Interaction Have Been The Engine Of Jobs Growth One UK doctor told the New York Times “we’re basically witnessing 10 years of change in one week”. Before the virus, online consultations made up only 1 percent of doctors’ appointments. But now, three in four UK patients are seeing their doctor remotely. Moravec’s Paradox + Social Distancing = A Very Tough Jobs Market Regular readers will know that one of our mega-themes is the far-reaching societal and economic implications of Moravec’s Paradox. Named after the professor of robotics, Hans Moravec, the paradox points out that: For AI the hard things are easy, but the easy things are hard. By the hard things, we mean things that require ‘narrow-frame pattern recognition’ within a defined body of knowledge. For example, playing chess, translating languages, diagnosing medical conditions, and analysing legal problems. We find these tasks hard, but AI finds them effortless. By the easy things, we mean our social skills: empathy, sympathy, the ability to recognise and respond to emotional cues, and to express ourselves through complex movements. To us, all these things are second nature, but AI finds them very hard to replicate. The reason, it turns out, is that the higher brain that enables us to learn and play chess and solve similar abstract problems evolved relatively recently. Whereas the ancient lower brain that enables complex movement and the associated giving and receiving of emotional signals took much longer to evolve. As AI is just reverse engineering the human brain, AI has found it easy to replicate the less-evolved higher brain functions, but very difficult to replicate the skills that emanate from the deeply evolved lower brain. Millions of new jobs that rely on close personal interaction have more than offset the structural job destruction in manufacturing and finance. The far-reaching societal and economic implication is that we have misunderstood and mispriced what is difficult and what is easy. By reverse engineering the brain, AI is correcting this mispricing. So far, AI has been most disruptive to high-paying jobs requiring abstract problem-solving skills, such as in finance. AI has been less disruptive to jobs requiring close personal interaction (Table I-3). But if social distancing persists, then AI will disrupt those jobs too, especially during a recession. Table I-3New Jobs That Require Close Personal Interaction Have Offset Lost Jobs In Manufacturing And Finance Labour Market Disruption Intensifies During A Recession To paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, industries adopt labour-saving technologies gradually then suddenly. And the suddenly tends to be during a recession. This is because once an industry has already shed many workers, it is easier to restructure the industry with a new labour-saving technology that reduces labour input permanently. At the start of the Great Depression a substantial part of the US automobile industry was still based on skilled craftsmanship. These smaller, less productive craft-production plants were the ones that shut down permanently, while plants that had adopted labour-saving mass production had the competitive advantage that enabled them to survive. The result was a major restructuring of the auto productive structure. Likewise, until the late 1990s, the ‘typing pool’ was a ubiquitous feature of the office environment. But once the 2000 downturn arrived, these typing jobs became extinct to be replaced by the wholesale roll-out of Microsoft Word. After the 2008-09 recession, UK economic power became focussed in a few large firms that could access the finance to ensure their survival. As small firms went by the wayside, job growth came disproportionately from self-employment and the ‘gig economy’. In this case, the labour market disruption hurt productivity as an army of freelancers ended up doing their own sales, marketing and accounts in which they had no specialism (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2). Chart I-1The 1990s UK Recovery Produced No Increase In Self-Employment... Chart I-2...But The 2010s UK Recovery Produced A Huge Increase In Self-Employment The point is that all recessions produce major structural changes in the labour market and the current recession will be no different. If social distancing persists, it will nullify the social skill advantage that humans have over AI. Therefore, one structural change will be that AI disrupts the more ‘human’ job sectors that have so far escaped its penetration. All recessions produce major structural changes in the labour market. To repeat, labour market disruption arrives suddenly. Within the space of a few weeks, most UK patients have switched to receiving their medical care online or by telephone. Admittedly, the patients are still ‘seeing’ a human doctor, but the question and answer consultations are a classic example of narrow-frame pattern recognition. Meaning that it would be a small step to upgrade the human doctor to the superior diagnosis from AI. And if AI can produce a superior diagnosis to your human doctor, why can’t AI also produce a a superior legal analysis to your human lawyer? The Investment Implications Even when the labour market seemed to be humming and unemployment rates were at multi-decade lows, aggregate wage inflation was anaemic (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). A major reason was the hollowing out of high paying jobs and substitution with low paying jobs. Now that unemployment rates are surging, and AI is penetrating even more job sectors, aggregate wage inflation is set to collapse – not just temporarily, but structurally. Chart I-3Unemployment Rates Have Been At Multi-Decade Lows... Chart I-4...But Wage Inflation Has Been ##br##Anaemic This leads to the following investment implications: 1. All bond yields will gravitate to their lower bound, so any bond yield that can go lower will go lower. 2. It follows that bond investors should continue to overweight US T-bonds versus the core European bonds in Germany, France, Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Any Bond Yield That Can Go Lower Will Go Lower 3. Underweight banks structurally. Depressed and flattening yield curves combined with shrinking demand for private credit constitutes a strong headwind. Banks are now underperforming in both up markets and in down markets (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Banks Are Underperforming In Both Up Markets And Down Markets 4. Overweight technology structurally. As AI penetrates even more job sectors, the superstar companies of big tech will continue to thrive. The duopoly of Apple and Google are designing proximity-tracking apps for every smartphone in the world. Big tech is laying down the law to governments, and there is not even a hint of antitrust suits. Tech is now outperforming in both up markets and in down markets (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Tech Is Outperforming In Both Up Markets And Down Markets 5. Finally, if big tech outperforms banks, the sector composition of the S&P 500 versus the Euro Stoxx 50 makes it inevitable that the US equity market will structurally outperform the euro area equity market (Chart I-8). Chart I-8If Big Tech Outperforms Banks, The S&P 500 Must Outperform The Euro Stoxx 50 Fractal Trading System* The steep decline in the US 30-year T-bond yield means that it has crossed below the Australian 30-year bond yield for the first time in recent history. Resulting from this dynamic, this week’s recommended trade is long the Australian 30-year bond versus the US 30-year T-bond. Set the profit target at 9 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. Chart I-930-Year Govt. Bonds: Australia Vs. US In other trades, long IBEX versus Euro Stoxx 600 hit its 3 percent stop-loss, while long nickel versus copper is half way to its 11 percent profit target. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 63 percent. 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 System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - 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
Yesterday. BCA Research's US Bond Strategy service's analysis concluded that it is premature to call the bottom in Treasury yields. We are seeing the bad US economic data, which raises the possibility that we are close to the trough in US economic growth.…
Highlights Q1/2020 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark by -40bps during the first quarter of the year – a number that would have been far worse if not for the changes in exposures for duration (increased) and spread product (decreased) made in early March. Winners & Losers: Underperformance was concentrated in sovereign debt, US Treasuries in particular (-94bps), as yields plummeted. This detracted from the outperformance in spread product (+51bps) led by US investment grade corporates (+34bps) and emerging markets (+20bps). Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: Given the ongoing uncertainty over when the COVID-19 pandemic and economy-crushing global lockdown will end, we are sticking close to benchmark on overall duration and spread product exposure. Instead, we recommend focusing more on country allocation and spread product relative value to generate outperformance, favoring markets where there is direct involvement from central banks. Feature Global bond markets were roiled in the first quarter of 2020 by the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Government bond yields crashed to all-time lows while volatility reached extremes across both sovereign debt and credit. The quick, coordinated policy response from global monetary and fiscal authorities – which includes unprecedented levels of direct central bank asset purchases, both in terms of size and the breadth across markets and counties - has helped stabilize global credit spreads and risk assets, more generally. The outlook remains highly uncertain, however, with many governments worldwide looking to reopen their collapsed economies, risking the potential resurgence of a virus still lacking effective treatment or a vaccine. We are focusing more on relative value between counties and sectors. In this report, we review the performance of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio during the eventful first quarter of 2020. We also present our updated recommended positioning for the portfolio for the next six months. The main takeaway there is that we are focusing more on relative value between counties and sectors while staying close to benchmark on both overall global duration and spread product exposure versus government bonds (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning For The Next Six Months Chart 1Q1/2020 Performance: Lagging, But It Could Have Been Much Worse As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. Q1/2020 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: A Missed Rally In Sovereigns, Outperformance In Credit The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in the first quarter was -0.1%, underperforming the custom benchmark index by -40bps (Chart 1).1 That relative underperformance came from the government bond side of the portfolio, while our spread product allocation outperformed the benchmark. US Treasuries underperformed the most (-91bps) with losses concentrated in the +10 year maturity bucket. (Table 2). After US Treasuries, euro area high-yield corporates were the second worst performer, underperforming the benchmark by -10bps. Outperformance in spread product was driven by US investment grade industrials (+22bps) and EM credit (+20bps). Table 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Overall Return Attribution The potential losses to our model portfolio were greatly mitigated by changes in positioning during the quarter. Our decision to raise overall global duration exposure to neutral at the beginning of March helped shield the portfolio as yields plummeted.2 We followed this by upgrading sovereign debt in the US and Canada, both higher-beta countries, to overweight while moving to an underweight stance on US high-yield debt, euro area investment-grade and high-yield debt, and emerging market (EM) USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt.3 In an environment of rampant uncertainty, these allocation changes helped prevent catastrophic losses in the model portfolio that had previously been positioned for a pickup in global growth. The potential losses to our model portfolio were greatly mitigated by changes in positioning during the quarter. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated -91bps of underperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +51bps. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1/2020 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector The most significant movers were: Biggest Outperformers Overweight US investment grade industrials (+22bps) Underweight euro area investment grade corporate bonds (+16bps) Underweight EM USD-denominated corporates (+12bps) Overweight US investment grade financials (+10bps) Underweight Japanese government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (+8bps) Biggest Underperformers Underweight US government bonds with maturity greater than 10 years (-36bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 3-5 years (-17bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (-16bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 1-3 years (-13bps) Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-12bps) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q1/2020. The returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q1/2020 (red for underweight, dark green for overweight, gray for neutral).4 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Predictably, government debt performed the best in Q1/2020 as global bond yields fell and monetary authorities raced to support economies and inject liquidity. UK, US, and Canadian government debt delivered the best returns this quarter. While we started the year neutral or underweight those assets, we moved to an overweight allocation in March, which helped salvage some returns. Also worth noting is that Australian government debt, where we have maintained a structural overweight stance, was one of the top performing markets during the first quarter. The deepest losses were sustained in EM USD-denominated sovereign and corporate debt, and euro area high-yield. Although it seems a distant memory at this point, we did start this quarter on an optimistic note and expected spreads on these products to narrow as global growth picked up. However, we were able to shield our portfolio against excessive losses in these products by moving to an underweight stance in March once the severity of the COVID-19 global economic shock become apparent. Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index during the first quarter of the year. The underperformance was concentrated in government bonds, which rallied on the back of the global pandemic. However, the portfolio outperformed the benchmark in spread products, where the combination of massive fiscal/monetary easing and direct central bank asset purchases have brought credit spreads under control. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Typically, in these quarterly performance reviews of our model bond portfolio, we attempt to make return forecasts for the portfolio based off scenario analysis and quantitative predictions of various fixed income asset classes. In the current unprecedented economic and financial market environment, however, we are reluctant to rely on model coefficients and correlations to estimate expected returns. Instead, in this report, we will focus on discussing the logic behind our current model portfolio positioning and how those allocations should expect to contribute to the overall portfolio performance over the next six months. Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by three main factors: Our recommended overweight stance on US spread product that is backstopped by the Fed—US investment grade corporates, Agency CMBS, and Ba-rated high-yield; Our recommended overweight stance on relatively higher-yielding sovereigns like the US and Italy; Our recommended underweight stance on EM USD-denominated corporates and sovereigns, where the specter of defaults and liquidity crunches looms. In terms of specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we have moderated our stance on global spread product since our previous review of the portfolio.5 While the monetary liquidity backdrop is highly bullish, with central banks aggressively buying bonds and keeping policy rates at the zero lower bound, it is still unclear if and when economies will be able to successfully reopen and put an end to the COVID-19 recession. We are now recommending only a small relative overweight of two percentage points for spread product versus the benchmark index (Chart 5), leaving room to add more should the news on the virus and global growth take a turn for the better. Chart 5Overall Portfolio Allocation: Slightly Overweight Credit We also remain neutral on overall portfolio duration exposure. Our Global Duration Indicator, which contains growth data like our global leading economic indicator and the global ZEW expectations index, has plunged and is signaling bond yields will stay depressed over the next six months (Chart 6). Yet at the same time, yields in most countries have been unable to hit new lows after the panic-driven bond rally in late February and early March, even as global oil prices have collapsed and inflation expectations remain depressed, suggesting that yields already discount a lot of bad news. Chart 6Our Duration Indicator Is Signaling Government Bond Yields Will Stay Low We do not see much value in taking a big directional bet on yields through overall duration exposure at the present time. We also think it is far too early to contemplate reducing duration – even with many global equity and credit markets having rallied sharply off the lows – given the persistent uncertainty over the timing of a recovery in global growth. Thus, we are maintaining a neutral overall portfolio exposure (Chart 7). Chart 7Overall Portfolio Duration: At Benchmark Chart 8Country Allocation: Favor Those With Higher Betas To Global Yields Within the government bond side of the model bond portfolio, we recommend focusing more on country allocation to generate outperformance. That means concentrating exposures in relatively higher yielding markets like the US, Canada and peripheral Europe while maintaining underweights in core Europe and Japan, where yields have relatively little room to fall. That allocation also lines up with the sensitivity of each market to changes in the overall level of global bond yields, i.e. the yield beta (Chart 8). By favoring those higher beta markets, the model portfolio would still benefit from a renewed leg down in global bond yields, while still maintaining an overall neutral level of portfolio duration. By favoring those higher beta markets, the model portfolio would still benefit from a renewed leg down in global bond yields. Turning to spread product allocations, we recommend focusing more on policymaker responses to the COVID-19 recession rather than the downturn itself. Yes, the earlier widening of global high-yield spreads is forecasting a sharp plunge in global growth and rising unemployment rates (Chart 9, top panel). At the same time, the now double-digit year-over-year growth in global central bank balance sheets - a measure that has led global high-yield bond excess returns by one year in the years after the Global Financial Crisis (bottom panel) – is pointing to a period of improved global corporate bond market performance over the next 6-12 months. Chart 9Global Corporate Performance Should Benefit From Global QE In other words, we are focusing on global QE rather than global recession, while maintaining a modest recommended overall weighting on global spread product. Chart 10Credit Allocation: Buy What The Central Banks Are Buying That allocation could be larger, but we suggest picking the lowest hanging fruit in the credit universe rather than going for the highest beta credit markets. That means concentrating spread product allocations on the parts of global credit markets where central banks are directly buying (Chart 10). We are focusing on global QE rather than global recession, while maintaining a modest recommended overall weighting on global spread product. In the US, that means overweighting US investment grade corporate bonds (particularly those with maturities of less than five years), US Ba-rated high-yield that the Fed is now allowed to hold in its corporate bond buying program, and euro area investment grade corporate bonds (excluding bank debt) that the ECB is also buying in its increased bond purchase programs. Chart 11Stay Underweight EM Credit One new change we are making this week is upgrading US agency commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) to overweight, funding by a reduction in US agency residential mortgage-backed securities (MBS) to underweight. While the Fed is still buying agency MBS debt in its new QE programs, MBS spreads have already compressed substantially and are now exposed to potential refinancing risk as eligible US homeowners look to take advantage of the recent plunge in US mortgage rates. We prefer to increase the allocation to agency CMBS, which the Fed can now buy within its expanded QE programs and which offer more attractive spreads than agency MBS (middle panel). One part of the spread product universe where we continue to recommend an underweight stance is USD-denominated EM corporate and sovereign debt. The time to buy those markets will be when the US dollar has clearly peaked and global growth has clearly bottomed. Neither of those conditions is in place now, with the price momentum in both the EM currency index and the trade-weighted US dollar still tilted towards a stronger greenback. That backdrop is unlikely to change in the next few months, suggesting a defensive stance on EM credit is still warranted (Chart 11). A defensive stance on EM credit is still warranted. Model bond portfolio yield and tracking error considerations The selective global government bond and credit portfolio we have just outlined does not come without a cost. While we are currently overweight countries with higher-yielding government bonds, our underweight positions on riskier spread product like EM debt and lower-rated US junk bonds bring the yield of our model portfolio down to 1.8%, –15bps below the yield of the model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 12). We feel that is an acceptable level of “negative carry” given the still heightened levels of uncertainty over global growth. This leads us to focus more on relative value between countries and sectors to generate outperformance that we expect to offset the impact of underweighting the highest yielding credit markets. Chart 12Portfolio Yield: Moderately Below Benchmark Chart 13Portfolio Volatility: Currently High, But Expected To Fall Finally, turning to the risk budget of the model portfolio, we are aiming for a “moderate” overall tracking error, or the gap between the portfolio’s volatility and that of the benchmark index. However, given our pro-risk positioning in the first two months of 2020, combined with the extreme volatility in markets during the first quarter, the realized portfolio tracking error blew through our self-imposed ceiling of 100bps (Chart 13). We expect this to settle down in the coming months as the recent changes in our positioning start to be reflected in the trailing volatility of our portfolio. Bottom Line: Given the ongoing uncertainty over when the COVID-19 pandemic and economy-crushing global lockdown will end, we are sticking close to benchmark on overall duration and spread product exposure. Instead, we recommend focusing more on country allocation and spread product relative value to generate outperformance, favoring markets where there is direct involvement from central banks. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Research Associate shaktis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "What Bond Investors Should Do After The 'Great Correction'", dated March 3 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Train Is Empty", dated March 10, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q1/2020 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 5 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2019 GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Performance Review: Praise Credit & Blame Duration", dated January 14, 2020, 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 Duration: While it’s possible that we are close to the US economic trough, we don’t see any immediate upside in Treasury yields. Investors should keep portfolio duration at benchmark and await signs of recovery in our preferred global growth indicators. Spread Product: Investors should buy spread products that offer attractive spreads relative to history and that benefit from Fed support. We favor: Aaa non-agency CMBS, Agency CMBS, Aaa ABS, municipal bonds and investment grade corporate bonds. High-Yield: We recommend an overweight allocation to Ba-rated high-yield corporates and an underweight allocation to high-yield bonds rated B and lower. Ba-rated bonds will benefit from Fed support and value in the B-rated and below credit tiers does not adequately compensate for likely default losses. Feature Chart 1Fed Actions Spur Rally Even though the economy remains closed and most of us are still confined to our homes, the mood in financial markets has shifted during the past few weeks. Risk assets are rallying as investors react to a cresting in the number of new COVID-19 cases and an unprecedented fiscal and monetary response. Since the Fed announced that it would step into the corporate bond market on March 23, equities have outpaced Treasuries by 28% and high-yield bonds have beaten the Treasury benchmark by 15% (Chart 1). Treasury securities initially rallied after the landmark Fed announcement but have only kept pace with cash during the past two weeks (Chart 1, bottom panel). This reversal in markets begs the question: Is the bottom already in? In this week’s report we ask that question about several different US bond sectors. Too Early To Call The Bottom In Treasury Yields At least in the Treasury market, we think it is premature to call the bottom in yields. Chart 2The Depths Of The Downturn In prior reports we outlined a checklist to call the trough in Treasury yields.1 Two of the items on that checklist were: a severe deterioration in the US economic data and signs of economic recovery in the rest of the world, particularly in those places where the pandemic struck first – like China. We are certainly now seeing the bad US economic data. The Economic Surprise Index is just off its all-time low and a composite of 10 high-frequency economic indicators compiled by the New York Federal Reserve is at its lowest point since the series began in 2008 (Chart 2). Similarly, weekly initial jobless claims set a record three weeks ago. Though they remain extremely elevated, new claims have declined in each of the past two weeks (Chart 2, bottom panel). All this at least raises the possibility that we are close to the trough in US economic growth. However, our second criterion of improving demand outside the US, particularly in China, has not been met. This is crucial because bond investors will need to see that there is light at the end of the tunnel before concluding that US economic activity will trend higher. China’s Manufacturing PMI bounced to just above 50 in March, suggesting that only a small majority of firms experienced better economic conditions in March compared to February. China’s credit impulse is advancing, demonstrating that policymakers are pumping a large amount of stimulus into the economy. But high-frequency growth barometers – like the CRB Raw Industrials index, the performance of cyclical versus defensive equity sectors and the trend in Emerging Market currencies – all remain downbeat (Chart 3). Bond investors will need to see improving demand outside the US before concluding that US economic activity will trend higher. For Treasury yields, the broad CRB Raw Industrials commodity benchmark is particularly important. This is because the ratio between the CRB index and the price of gold closely tracks the 10-year Treasury yield (Chart 4). In a typical economic downturn, we first see Treasury yields and the CRB index fall together as global demand weakens. Then, monetary policy responds by turning more accommodative, leading to a rebound in the price of gold as investors start to reckon with the potential long-run inflationary impact of monetary stimulus. Eventually, bond yields will bottom. But this will only occur once the stimulus seeps through to the real economy and gains in the CRB index start to outpace gains in gold. Chart 3No Global Growth Recovery Yet Chart 4Track The CRB/Gold Ratio The dynamic described above means that we should expect Treasury yields to lag risk assets as the market bottoms. In other words, we will see a sustained rebound in equity prices and corporate bond excess returns before Treasury yields move meaningfully higher. This is especially true in this cycle because the Fed has indicated that it will be slow to shift away from its accommodative policy stance. Bottom Line: While it’s possible that we are close to the US economic trough, we don’t see any immediate upside in Treasury yields. Investors should keep portfolio duration at benchmark and await signs of recovery in our preferred global growth indicators. To hedge against the risk of higher Treasury yields without making a large duration bet, investors should implement duration-neutral curve steepeners. We recommend going long the 5-year bullet and short the duration-matched 2/10 barbell.2 Is The Bottom In For Investment Grade Spread Product Excess Returns? We hesitate to call the bottom in overall spread product returns versus Treasuries. However, we do see many buying opportunities in specific US fixed income sectors. In deciding which sectors to own, we advise investors to search for sectors that: (A) Have attractive spreads and (B) Benefit from one or more of the Fed’s recently announced programs We described each of the Fed’s different lending facilities in last week’s Special Report, and will not repeat that exercise this week.3 Instead, we run through a list of sectors where we think spreads have already peaked and that bond investors should own today. Aaa CMBS Aaa-rated CMBS, both non-agency and agency-backed, meet our two criteria of offering attractive spreads and benefiting from Fed support (Chart 5). The Aaa non-agency CMBS index spread is 119 bps wider than at the end of 2019, and the securities can be used as collateral under the Fed’s Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility (TALF). Specifically, bondholders can borrow from TALF against their Aaa non-agency CMBS collateral at a rate of OIS + 125 bps (Chart 5, panel 2). TALF will also impose a haircut of around 15% on CMBS collateral. Chart 5Buy Aaa CMBS Agency-backed CMBS are even more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. The Agency CMBS index spread is 50 bps above its end-2019 level and the Fed is directly purchasing Agency CMBS as part of its ongoing mortgage-backed securities purchases. As of April 15, the Fed had purchased $5.7 billion of Agency CMBS since it announced CMBS purchases on March 23. The outstanding par value of the Bloomberg Barclays Agency CMBS index is about $204 billion. If the Fed’s current pace of purchases continues for one year, it will own just under half of the index’s par value. Aaa ABS Though the spread is not quite as attractive as for Aaa non-agency CMBS, the spread on Aaa-rated consumer ABS is 115 bps wider since the end of 2019 (Chart 6). As with CMBS, this sector also benefits from TALF with an interest rate of OIS + 125 bps, and an even smaller haircut. Chart 6Buy Aaa Consumer ABS & Munis Municipal Bonds We also like the opportunity in municipal bonds. Spreads between Aaa-rated municipal bond yields and Treasuries have come down off their recent all-time highs but remain attractive compared to historical levels (Chart 6, bottom panel). The Fed’s Municipal Liquidity Facility (MLF) offers direct 2-year loans to state & local governments. This will provide a back-stop for municipal debt with a maturity of 2 years or less but will also help municipalities meet interest payments on longer-maturity bonds when they are due. Aaa-rated CMBS, both non-agency and agency-backed, meet our two criteria of offering attractive spreads and benefiting from Fed support. We would therefore advise investors to buy municipal bonds at both the short and long ends of the curve. We also do not rule out further Fed measures to support the municipal bond market in the coming weeks, possibly even secondary market bond purchases. The amount of Fed support for state & local governments so far is much less than what is being done for the corporate sector. There is also no convincing moral hazard argument against scaling-up support for investment grade rated munis, especially when the Fed is already supporting some parts of the high-yield corporate market. Investment Grade Corporates As mentioned above, the Fed is providing an exceptional amount of policy support to the investment grade corporate bond market, mainly through three facilities: The Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF) that will purchase corporate bonds and ETFs in the secondary market. The Primary Market Corporate Credit Facility (PMCCF) that will purchase new bond issues in the primary market. The Main Street New and Expanded Lending Facilities (MSNLF & MSELF) that will purchase corporate loans from banks, removing them from bank balance sheets. All three of these facilities support the investment grade corporate bond market, and investment grade corporate spreads remain elevated compared to history across all credit tiers (Chart 7). Chart 7Buy Investment Grade Corporates Bottom Line: Investors should buy spread products that offer attractive spreads relative to history and that benefit from Fed support. We favor: Aaa non-agency CMBS, Agency CMBS, Aaa ABS, municipal bonds and investment grade corporate bonds. Have High-Yield Spreads Already Peaked? In the high-yield market we follow the same rules we applied in the previous section. We want to buy sectors that have attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. Within high-yield, the Ba credit tier meets these criteria as it offers an elevated spread and loans to Ba-rated issuers are eligible under the MSNLF and MSELF. The SMCCF will also purchase some high-yield ETFs and both the SMCCF and PMCCF will purchase securities that were recently downgraded to Ba from Baa. However, for the most part, securities rated B and below will not benefit from the Fed’s new facilities and thus will trade purely on fundamentals.4 This demarcation between securities rated Ba and above and those rated B and below is already showing up in excess returns. Since the Fed first announced corporate bond purchases on March 23, Ba-rated junk bonds have outperformed Treasuries by 16.88%, beating B-rated bonds (13.84%), Caa-rated bonds (9.53%) and the lowest Ca/C-rated credit tier (6.85%) (Table 1). Table 1Corporate Bond Performance Since Announcement Of Fed Purchases Assessing High-Yield Fundamentals Even without Fed support, lower-tier junk bonds are still worth buying if spreads provide adequate compensation for expected defaults. We assessed the likely magnitude of the looming default cycle in a recent Special Report.5 One main conclusion from that report is that, due to elevated corporate sector leverage, the recovery rate on defaulted debt will likely be low during the next 12 months – on the order of 20-25%. Second, based on the expected magnitude and duration of the current economic shock, we expect a significant surge in the speculative grade corporate default rate during the next 12 months, likely hitting a range of 9%-13%. Even without Fed support, lower-tier junk bonds are still worth buying if spreads provide adequate compensation for expected defaults. With these default loss assumptions in hand, we can see what sort of buffer is priced into different high-yield credit tiers. Charts 8-10 show calendar-year excess returns for Ba, B and Caa-C high-yield credit tiers on the vertical axes. On the horizontal axes, the charts show the index spread at the start of the 12-month investment horizon less realized default losses over the course of the year.6 Chart 8Ba Default-Adjusted Spread Chart 9B Default-Adjusted Spread Chart 10Caa-C Default-Adjusted Spread We first observe that a Default-Adjusted Spread below 200 bps usually coincides with negative excess returns for all three credit tiers. In fact, for the Caa-C tier, we’d like to see a Default-Adjusted Spread above 500 bps before going long. Second, the green diamonds in all three charts identify likely outcomes for the next 12 months in three different default loss scenarios. The “Mild Scenario” is defined as a 6% speculative grade default rate and 25% recovery rate. The “Moderate Scenario” is defined as a 9% speculative grade default rate and 25% recovery rate. The “Severe Scenario” is defined as a 12% default rate and 25% recovery rate.7 Based on those choices, we’d place our base case default loss assumptions for the next 12 months somewhere between the Moderate and Severe scenarios. Charts 8-10 clearly show that, while Ba-rated issuers might still perform decently, the B-rated and below credit tiers are not priced at all for our base case default outlook. Note that this analysis does not consider Fed support in any way. Factoring that in, Ba-rated bonds look even better compared to bonds rated B and below. Bottom Line: We recommend an overweight allocation to Ba-rated high-yield corporates and an underweight allocation to high-yield bonds rated B and lower. Ba-rated bonds will benefit from Fed support and value in the B-rated and below credit tiers does not adequately compensate for likely default losses. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “When And Where Will Bond Yields Trough?”, dated March 10, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For more details on why we recommend this yield curve positioning please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Life At The Zero Bound”, dated March 24, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Investment Strategy/US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Alphabet Soup: A Summary Of The Fed’s Anti-Virus Measures”, dated April 14, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 As we noted in last week’s Special Report, some B-rated issuers will benefit from the MSELF. But this support is minor compared to what is being offered to securities rated Ba and higher. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “Trading The US Corporate Bond Market In A Time Of Crisis”, dated March 31, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 We use Ba and Caa-C default losses for those credit tiers. For B-rated bonds, we found that overall speculative grade default losses work slightly better than default losses for the B credit tier specifically. 7 We use historical correlations to translate overall speculative grade default rate assumptions into default rate assumptions for the Ba and Caa-C credit tiers. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
The 10-year yield spread between US Treasurys and German Bunds has quickly narrowed, falling by 170bps from a higher of 279bps in November 2018. Despite this sharp narrowing, the spread remains elevated by historical standards, which begs the question of…
Highlights Risk assets have rallied thanks to a healthy dose of economic stimulus and mounting evidence that the number of new COVID-19 cases has peaked. Unfortunately, the odds of a second wave of infections remain high. In the absence of a vaccine or effective treatment, only mass testing can keep the virus at bay. Such testing will become available, but probably not for a few more months. Meanwhile, the global economy remains depressed. As earnings estimates are revised lower, stocks could give up some of their recent gains. Despite the fact that the supply of goods and services has fallen sharply during this recession, the overall effect has been deflationary. Deflationary pressures should subside later this year as demand picks up, commodity prices rise, and the US dollar weakens. Looking several years out, deglobalization and the increasing politicization of central banking could lead to accelerating inflation. Long-term investors should maintain a structurally below-benchmark duration stance in fixed-income portfolios, and position for steeper yield curves. Now What? Imagine being chased through the woods by an angry bear. You manage to climb a tree, getting high enough so that the bear cannot reach you. You breathe a sigh of relief. You are out of harm's way. Or so you think. You look down, and the bear is waiting for you at the base of the tree. You have no weapons. You feel cold and hungry. It is getting dark. This is the state the world finds itself in today. We have climbed up the tree. The number of new infections has peaked in Italy and Spain, the first large European countries hit by the virus. Hospital admissions in New York are falling. This, combined with a generous dose of economic stimulus, has allowed stocks to rally by 28% from their March 23 intraday lows. Yet, we have neither a vaccine nor a cure for the virus (although as we go to press, unconfirmed news reports suggest that Gilead’s drug, remdesivir, has had success in treating patients at a Chicago hospital). Chart 1Widespread Social Distancing Dampened The Spread Of All Flus And Colds COVID-19 is part of the coronavirus family, which includes four members that are responsible for up to 30% of common colds (most other colds are caused by rhino-viruses). Social distancing has driven the number of cold and influenza-like cases in the US to very low levels (Chart 1). But does anyone really think that the common cold or flu will be permanently eradicated because of recent measures? If not, what will prevent COVID-19, which is no less contagious than these other illnesses, from resurfacing? In short, the bear is still there, waiting for us to reopen the economy. A Deep Recession As we wait, the economic damage continues to mount. The IMF’s baseline scenario foresees the global economy contracting by 3% in 2020, with advanced economies shrinking by 6.1%. This is far deeper than during the 2008/09 financial crisis (Chart 2). The IMF’s projections assume that the pandemic subsides in the second half of 2020, allowing containment measures to be relaxed. If the pandemic were to last longer than that, global output would fall by an additional 3% in 2020 relative to the Fund’s already bleak baseline. A second outbreak next year would push global GDP almost 5% below the IMF’s baseline in 2021, while the combination of a longer outbreak this year and a second outbreak next year would cause the level of output to fall 8% below the 2021 baseline (Chart 3). Chart 2Severe Damage To The Global Economy This Year Chart 3Downside Risks To The IMF's Projections The Ties That Bind The sudden stop in economic activity has led to a dramatic surge in unemployment. US initial unemployment claims have risen by a cumulative 22 million over the past four weeks. The true scale of layoffs is probably higher than that, given that some state websites have been unable to handle the flood of insurance applications. Chart 4Only About One-Third Of Those Who Lose Their Jobs Apply For Benefits Historically, only about one-third of those laid off have applied for benefits (Chart 4). While the take-up rate will be higher this time – the CARES Act increases weekly unemployment compensation, while expanding eligibility to self-employed workers – it is still reasonable to assume that the claims data do not capture how much of the workforce has been laid idle. The one piece of good news is that at least so far, temporarily laid-off workers account for the vast majority of the increase in unemployment. This is encouraging because it implies that in most cases, the ties that bind workers to firms have not been permanently severed. In this respect, the recovery in employment following this recession may end up resembling that of another “man-made” recession: the 1982 downturn (Chart 5). Back then, policymakers felt that a recession was a price worth paying to quash inflation. Once inflation fell, central banks were able to cut rates, allowing economic activity to recover. Today, the hope is that by shutting down all nonessential businesses, the virus will be quashed, and life will return to normal. Chart 5Comparing The 1982 Recession Versus Today: Employment Edition Exit Plans It remains to be seen whether vanquishing the virus will be as straightforward as vanquishing inflation was in the early 1980s. As we noted last week, in the absence of a vaccine or an effective treatment, our best hope is that mass testing will allow businesses to reopen.1 The technology for such tests already exists; it just has yet to become available on a large enough scale. Just like during the Second World War, the production of weapons necessary to fight the virus will grow at an exponential pace (Chart 6). Chart 6Now Let's Do The Same For Test Kits Near-Term Pressures On Risk Assets Exponential change is a difficult concept for the human mind to grasp. What seems painfully slow at first can quickly become unfathomably fast later on. The apocryphal story about the origins of the game of chess comes to mind.2 This puts investors in a bit of a quandary. Growth is likely to recover in the latter half of 2020 as COVID-19 testing becomes pervasive and the effects of fiscal and monetary stimulus make their way through the economy. But, the near-term picture could be soured by news stories of continued acute shortages of medical supplies and delays in providing financial assistance to hard-hit households and businesses, not to mention dire corporate earnings performance. The one piece of good news is that at least so far, temporarily laid-off workers account for the vast majority of the increase in unemployment. Indeed, bottom-up analyst earnings estimates still have further to fall. The Wall Street consensus expects S&P 500 companies to earn $142 per share this year and $174 in 2021. Our US equity strategists are projecting only $100 and $140 in EPS, respectively. Stock prices and earnings estimates generally travel together (Chart 7). On balance, we continue to favor global equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon, owing to the fact that the cyclically-adjusted earnings yield is quite a bit higher than the bond yield (Chart 8). However, we have less conviction about the near-term (3-month) direction of stocks, and would recommend that investors maintain above-average cash levels for now which can be deployed on any major selloff. Chart 7Negative Earnings Revisions Will Weigh On Stocks In The Near Term Chart 8Favor Equities Over Bonds Over A 12-Month Horizon Inflation And Supply Shocks: A Keynesian Paradox? One of the distinguishing features of this recession is that it has involved a simultaneous supply shock and a demand shock. Businesses have had to curb supply in order to allow workers to stay at home, while workers have reduced spending out of fear of going to stores or other venues where they could inadvertently contract the virus. Worries about job losses have further dented demand. There is no question about what happens to output when both demand and supply decline: output falls. In contrast, the impact on the price level depends on which shock dominates (Chart 9). Chart 9Inflation And Supply Shocks As Appendix 1 illustrates with a set of simple numerical examples, in theory, a negative supply shock spread evenly across all sectors of the economy should cause the price level to rise. This is because unemployed workers, who are no longer contributing to output, will still end up consuming some goods and services by tapping into their savings, taking on new debt, or by receiving income transfers from the government. In the current situation, however, the supply shock has not been spread evenly throughout the economy. Some businesses have been completely shuttered, while others deemed essential have been allowed to operate. As the appendix shows, in such cases, the drop in aggregate demand is likely to be larger than if all sectors were equally impacted. In fact, it is possible for a supply shock to trigger a demand shock that is larger than the supply shock itself, leading to a perverse situation where a decline in supply results in a surfeit of output. A recent paper by Guerrieri, Lorenzoni, Straub, and Werning argues that the current pandemic represents such a “Keynesian supply shock.”3 Intuitively, such perverse supply shocks can arise if workers are cut off from purchasing many of the goods that they would normally buy. When the menu of available goods shrinks, even workers who are still employed could end up saving much of their income. Deflationary For Now All this implies that the pandemic is likely to be deflationary until more businesses reopen. The data seem to bear this out. The US core consumer price index fell by 0.1% month-over-month in March on a seasonally adjusted basis, led by steep declines in airfares and hotel lodging prices. High-frequency indicators, as well as the prices paid components of various purchasing manager indices, suggest that deflationary pressures have persisted into April (Chart 10). Chart 10Deflation Reigns For NowShelter inflation was reasonably firm in March but should soften over the coming months. A number of major apartment operators have announced rent freezes. In addition, the lagged effects from a stronger dollar and lower energy prices will contribute to lower goods inflation, while higher unemployment will hold back service inflation. Inflation Should Bounce Back In 2021 The discussion of Keynesian supply shocks suggests that aggregate demand will increase faster than supply as more sectors of the economy reopen. This should ease deflationary pressures. In addition, a rebound in global growth starting in the second half of 2020 will prompt a recovery in commodity prices. The forward oil curve is predicting that Brent and WTI crude prices will rise by 42% and 79%, respectively, over the next 12 months (Chart 11). Inflation expectations and oil prices tend to move closely together (Chart 12). Chart 11H2 2020 Rebound In Growth Will Lift Oil Prices Chart 12Inflation Expectations And Oil Prices Tend To Move Closely Together As a countercyclical currency, the US dollar will weaken over the next 12-to-18 months as global growth rebounds, providing an additional reflationary impulse (Chart 13). Falling unemployment will also eat into labor market slack, helping to support wages. Chart 13Stronger Global Growth In The Back Half Of The Year Will Weaken The Dollar, Putting Upward Pressure On US Inflation The Structural Outlook For Inflation… And Bond Yields Looking further out, the outlook for inflation will depend on whether the structural forces that have suppressed the rise in consumer prices over the past few decades intensify or abate. On the one hand, it is possible that the pandemic will cast a pall over consumer and business sentiment for years to come. If households and firms restrain spending, this would exacerbate deflationary pressures. Likewise, if governments tighten fiscal policy in order to pay off the debts incurred during the pandemic, this could weigh on growth. On the other hand, high government debt levels may increase the political pressure on central banks to keep rates low, even once the labor market recovers. This could eventually lead to economic overheating in two-to-three years. Chart 14Global Trade Was Already Stagnating A partial roll back in globalization could also cause consumer prices to rise. Global trade was already stagnant even before the trade war flared up (Chart 14). The pandemic may further inflame nationalist sentiment. Against the backdrop of high unemployment, Donald Trump is likely to campaign as a “war president,” relentlessly chiding Joe Biden for having too cozy a relationship with China. On balance, we suspect that inflation will rise more than expected over the long haul. This is not a particularly high bar to clear. Investors currently expect US inflation to average only 1.2% over the next decade based on TIPS breakevens. Market-based inflation expectations are even more subdued in most other advanced economies. If inflation does surprise to the upside, long-term bond yields are likely to increase by more than expected. Investors should maintain a structurally below-benchmark duration stance in fixed-income portfolios, and position for steeper yield curves. APPENDIX 1: Keynesian Supply Shocks Suppose there are two sectors, A and B. The economy consists of 2,000 workers, with each sector employing 1,000 workers. To keep things simple, assume that workers in each sector evenly split their consumption between the two sectors. Thus, a worker in sector A spends as much on goods from sector A as from sector B, and vice versa. Also assume that each worker, if employed, produces $1,000 of goods and receives a salary of $1,000 for his or her efforts. With this in mind, let us consider three scenarios: Scenario 1: Both Sectors Are Open For Business In this scenario, $1 million of good A and $1 million of good B are produced and supplied to the market. Since each of the 2,000 workers spends $500 on good A and $500 on good B, a total of $1 million of both goods are demanded. Aggregate demand equals aggregate supply. Scenario 2: Partial Closure Of Both Sectors Suppose that half the workers in both sectors are laid off. While the unemployed workers do not earn any income, they still spend half as much as they used to by tapping into their savings ($250 on good A and $250 on good B for each unemployed worker). Each employed worker continues to spend $500 on good A and $500 on good B. Now there is $500,000 in total of each good produced, but $750,000 of each good demanded. Aggregate demand exceeds supply. Scenario 3: Sector A, Deemed The Essential Sector, Remains Completely Open, While B Is Closed In this case, all sector A workers are still employed, earning $1,000 each. Since good B is no longer available for purchase, sector A workers increase spending on good A by 20% (from $500 to $600 per worker). Workers in sector B are all unemployed. However, they continue to tap into their savings. Rather than spending $250 on good A as they did in scenario 2, they increase their expenditures on good A by 20% (from $250 to $300). A total of $900,000 of good A is now demanded ($600*1,000+$300*1,000), which is less than the $1 million of good A supplied. Aggregate supply now exceeds demand for the part of the economy that is still open. The chart and table below summarize the results. The key insight is that a 50% shock to the entire economy curbs aggregate demand less than a 100% shock to half the economy. This implies that demand is likely to grow faster than supply as mass testing allows more of the economy to reopen. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Testing Times,” dated April 9, 2020. 2 In one account, the King of India was so impressed when the game of chess was demonstrated to him that he offered its inventor any reward he desired. After thinking for a while, the inventor said “Your Highness, please give me one grain of rice for the first square on the chessboard, two grains for the next square, four grains for the one after that, doubling the number of grains until the 64th square.” Stunned that the inventor would ask for such a puny reward, the King quickly agreed. A week later, the King’s treasurer informed His Highness that he would need to give the inventor 18 quintillion grains of rice, which is more than enough rice to cover the entire planet’s surface. “Holy Ganges, what have I done?” the King exclaimed, before having the inventor executed. 3 Veronica Guerrieri, Guido Lorenzoni, Ludwig Straub, and Iván Werning, “Macroeconomic Implications of COVID-19: Can Negative Supply Shocks Cause Demand Shortages?” NBER Working Paper No. 26918 (April 2020). Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Yesterday, BCA Research's Global Fixed Income Strategy service asserted that central banks have become best friends with corporate bond investors. The actions of policymakers worldwide to help mitigate the severe economic shock from the COVID-19…