High-Yield
Highlights Analyses on Asian semis, Argentina and Russia are available on pages 7, 12 and 14, respectively. The most likely trajectory for Chinese growth will be as follows: the initial plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that quick rebound will probably be followed by weaker growth. Financial markets will soon focus on growth beyond the temporary rebound. In our opinion, it will be weaker than markets are currently pricing. Thus, risks for EM risk assets and currencies are skewed to the downside. A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if EM corporate bond yields rise. In this week’s report we discuss what it will take for EM corporate credit spreads to widen. Feature The downside risks to EM risk assets and currencies are growing. We continue to recommend underweighting EM equities, credit and currencies versus their DM counterparts. Today we are initiating a short position in EM stocks in absolute terms. Chart I-1 illustrates that the total return index (including carry) of EM ex-China currencies versus the US dollar has failed to break above its 2019 highs, and has rolled over decisively. In contrast, the trade-weighted US dollar has exhibited a bullish technical configuration by rebounding from its 200-day moving average (Chart I-2). Odds are the dollar will make new highs. An upleg in the greenback will foreshadow a relapse in EM financial markets. Chart I-1EM Ex-China Currencies Have Been Struggling Despite Low US Rates Chart I-2The US Dollar Remains In A Bull Market Growth Trajectory After The Dust Settles The evolution of the coronavirus remains highly uncertain and unpredictable. As with any pandemic or virus outbreak, its evolution will be complex with non-trivial odds of a second wave. Even under the assumption that the epidemic will be fully contained by the end of March, its economic impact on the Chinese and Asian economies will likely be greater than global financial markets are currently pricing. As investors come to the realization that this initial pick-up in economic activity after the virus outbreak will be followed by weaker growth, the odds of a selloff in equities and credit markets will rise. In our January 30 report titled Coronavirus Versus SARS: Mind The Economic Differences, we argued that using the framework from the SARS outbreak to analyze the current epidemic is inappropriate. First, only a small portion of the Chinese economy was shut down in 2003, and for a brief period of time. The current closures and limited operations are much more widespread and likely more prolonged. Table I-1China’s Importance Now And In 2003 Second, China accounts for a substantially larger share of the global economy today than it did in 2003 (Table I-1). Hence, the global business cycle is presently much more sensitive to demand and production in the mainland than it was during the SARS outbreak. Global financial markets have rebounded following the initial selloff in late January on expectations that the Chinese and global economies will experience a V-shaped recovery. In last week’s report, we discussed why the odds favor a tepid recovery for the Chinese business cycle and global trade. The main point of last week’s report was as follows: with the median company and household in China being overleveraged, any reduction in cash flow or income will undermine their ability to service their debt and will dent their confidence for some time. Hence, consumption, investment and hiring over the next several months will be negatively affected, even after the outbreak is contained. This in turn will diminish the multiplier effect of policy stimulus in China. Chart I-3Our Expectations Of China’s Business Cycle The most likely pattern for Chinese growth will likely resemble the trajectory demonstrated in Chart I-3. It assumes the plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that snap-back will likely be followed by weaker growth, for reasons discussed in last week’s report. Equity and credit markets in Asia and worldwide have been sanguine because they have so far focused exclusively on expectations of a sharp rebound. As investors come to the realization that this initial pick-up in economic activity will be followed by weaker growth, the odds of a selloff in equities and credit markets will rise. Bottom Line: The most likely trajectory for Chinese and Asian growth will be as follows: the initial plunge in business activity will be succeeded by a rather sharp snap-back due to pent-up demand. However, that quick rebound will probably be followed by weaker growth. Financial markets are not pricing in this scenario. Thus, risks are skewed to the downside for EM risk assets and currencies. The Missing Ingredient For An Equity Selloff The missing ingredient for a selloff in EM equities is rising EM corporate bond yields. Chart I-4 illustrates that bear markets in EM stocks typically occur when EM US dollar corporate bond yields are rising. Hence, what matters for the direction of EM share prices is not risk-free rates/yields but EM corporate borrowing costs. Chart I-4The Destiny Of EM Equities Is DependEnt On EM Corporate Bond Yields EM (and US) corporate bond yields can rise under the following circumstances: (1) when US Treasury yields are ascending more than corporate credit spreads are tightening; (2) when credit spreads are widening more than Treasury yields are falling; or (3) when both government bond yields and corporate credit spreads are increasing simultaneously. Provided the backdrop of weaker growth is bullish for government bonds, presently corporate bond yields can only rise if credit spreads widen by more than the drop in Treasury yields. In short, the destiny of EM equities currently relies on corporate spreads. A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if their respective corporate bond yields rise. From a historical perspective, EM and US corporate credit spreads are currently extremely tight (Chart I-5). A China-related growth scare could trigger a widening in EM corporate credit spreads. As this occurs, corporate bond yields will climb, causing share prices to plummet. EM corporate spreads have historically been correlated with EM exchange rates, the global/Chinese business cycle, and commodities prices (Chart I-6). The Chinese property market plays an especially pivotal role for the outlook of EM corporate spreads. Chart I-5EM And US Corporate Spread Remain Tame Chart I-6EM Corporate Spreads Inversely Correlate With EM Currencies And Commodities Prices First, offshore bonds issued by mainland property developers account for a large share of the EM corporate bond index. Chart I-7China Property Market Will Continue Disappointing Second, swings in China’s property markets often drive the mainland’s business cycle and its demand for resources, chemicals and industrial machinery. In turn, Chinese imports of commodities affect both economic growth and exchange rates of EM ex-China. Finally, the latter two determine the direction of EM ex-China corporate spreads. China’s construction activity and property developers were struggling before the coronavirus outbreak (Chart I-7). Given their high debt burden, the ongoing plunge in new property sales and their cash flow will not only weigh on their debt sustainability but also force them to curtail construction activity. The latter will continue suppressing commodities prices. The sensitivity of EM corporate spreads to these variables have in recent years diminished because of the unrelenting search for yield by global investors. As QE policies by DM central banks have removed some $9 trillion of high-quality securities from circulation, the volume of securities available in the markets has shrunk. This has distorted historical correlations of EM corporate spreads with their fundamental drivers – namely, China’s construction activity, commodities prices, EM exchange rates and the global trade cycle. Nonetheless, EM corporate credit spreads’ sensitivity to these variables has diminished, but has not vanished outright. If EM currencies depreciate meaningfully, commodities prices plunge and China’s growth and the global trade cycle disappoint, odds are that EM corporate spreads will widen. Given that credit markets are already in overbought territory, any selloff could trigger a cascading effect, resulting in meaningful credit-spread widening. Bottom Line: A major and lasting selloff in EM stocks will only occur if their respective corporate bond yields rise. The timing is uncertain, but the odds of EM corporate credit spreads widening are mounting as Chinese growth underwhelms, commodities prices drop and EM currencies depreciate. If these trends persist, they will push EM shares prices over the cliff. As to today’s recommendation to short the EM stock index, we anticipate at least a 10% selloff in EM stocks in US-dollar terms. For currency investors, we are maintaining our shorts in a basket of EM currencies versus the dollar. This basket includes the BRL, CLP, COP, ZAR, KRW, IDR and PHP. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Are Semiconductor Stocks Facing An Air Pocket? Global semiconductor share prices have continued to hit new highs, even though there has not been any recovery (positive growth) in global semiconductor sales or in their corporate earnings (EPS). The coronavirus outbreak and the resulting delay in 5G phone sales in China in the first half of 2020 will trigger a pullback in semiconductor equities. Global semiconductor sales bottomed on a rate-of-change basis in June, but their annual growth rate was still negative in December. In the meantime, global semi share prices have been rallying since January 2019. This divergence between stock prices and revenue of global semiconductor stocks is unprecedented (Chart II-1). Chart II-1Over-Hyped Global Semi Share Prices Odds are that global semi stocks in general, and Asian ones in particular, will experience a pullback in the coming weeks. The coronavirus outbreak will likely dampen expectations related to the speed of 5G adoption and penetration in China. Critically, China accounted for 35% of global semiconductor sales in 2019, versus 19% for the US and 10% for the whole of Europe. In brief, semiconductor demand from China is now greater than the US and European demand combined. Furthermore, the latest news that the US administration is considering changing its regulations to prevent shipments of semiconductor chips to China’s Huawei Technologies from global companies - including Taiwan's TSMC - could hurt chip stocks further. Since Huawei Technologies is the global leader in 5G networks and smartphones, the ban, if implemented, will instigate a sizable setback to 5G adoption in China and elsewhere. Table II-1Industry Forecasts Of The 2020 Global 5G- Smartphone Shipments Our updated estimate of global 5G smartphone shipments is between 160 million and 180 million units in 2020, which is below the median of industry expectations of 210 million units (Table II-1). The key reasons why the industry’s expectations are unreasonably high, in our opinion, are as follows: Chinese demand for new smartphones will likely stay weak (Chart II-2). The mainland smartphone market has become extremely saturated, with 1.3 billion units having been sold in just the past three years – nearly equaling the entire Chinese population. Chinese official data show that each Chinese household owned 2.5 phones on average in 2018, and that the average household size was about three persons (Chart II-3). This suggests that going forward nearly all potential phone demand in China is for replacement phones, and that there is no urgent need for households to buy new phones. Chart II-2Chinese Smartphone Demand: Further Decline In 2020 Chart II-3Chinese Households: No Urgent Need For A New Phone The Chinese government’s boost to 5G infrastructure investment will likely increase annual installed 5G base stations from 130,000 units last year to about 600,000 to 800,000 this year. However, the total number of 5G base stations will still only account for about 7-9% of total base stations in China in 2020. Hence, geographical coverage will not be sufficiently wide enough to warrant a very high rate of 5G smartphone adoption and penetration. From Chinese consumers’ perspectives, a 5G phone in 2020 will be a ‘nice-to-have,’ but not a ‘must-have.’ Given increasing economic uncertainty and many concerns related to the use of 5G phones, mainland consumers may delay their purchases into 2021 when 5G phone networks will have more geographic coverage. The number of 5G phone models on the market is expanding, but not that quickly. Consumers may take their time to wait for more models to hit the market before making a 5G phone purchase. For example, Apple will release four 5G phone models, but only in September 2020. Moreover, the price competition between 5G and 4G phones is getting increasingly intense. Smartphone producers have already started to cut prices of their 4G phones aggressively. For example, the price of Apple’s iPhone XS, released in September 2018, has already dropped by about 50% in China. Outside of China, 5G infrastructure development will be much slower. The majority of developed countries will likely give in to pressure from the US and limit their use of Huawei 5G equipment. This will delay infrastructure installation and adoption of 5G throughout the rest of the world because Huawei has the leading and cheapest 5G technology. In 2019, China accounted for about 70% of worldwide 5G smartphone shipments. We reckon that in 2020 Chinese 5G smartphone shipments will be between 120 million and 130 million units. Assuming this accounts for about 70-75% of the world shipment of 5G phones this year, we arrive at our estimate of global 5G smartphone shipments of between 160 million and 180 million units. We agree that 5G technology is revolutionary. Nevertheless, we still believe global semi share prices are presently overhyped by unreasonably optimistic 2020 projections. Overall, investors are pricing global semi stocks using the pace and trajectory of 4G smartphones adoption. However, in 2020 the number and speed of 5G phone penetration will continue lagging that of 4G ones when the latter were introduced in December 2013 (Chart II-4). We agree that 5G technology is revolutionary, and its adoption and penetration will surge in the coming years. Nevertheless, we still believe global semi share prices are presently overhyped by unreasonably optimistic 2020 projections (Chart II-5). Chart II-4China 5G-Adoption Pace: Slower Than The Case With 4G Chart II-5Net Earnings Of Global Semi Sector: Too Optimistic? Investment Implications Global semi stocks’ valuations are very elevated, as shown in Chart II-6 and Chart II-7. Besides, semi stocks are overbought, suggesting they could correct meaningfully if lofty growth expectations currently baked into their prices do not materialize in the first half of this year. Chart II-6Global Semi Stocks Valuations: Very Elevated Chart II-7Global Semi Stocks’ Valuations: Very Elevated The coronavirus outbreak and the resulting delay in 5G phone sales in China in the first half of 2020, along with US pressure on global semi producers not to sell to Huawei, will likely trigger a pullback in semiconductor equities. We recommend patiently waiting for a better entry point for absolute return investors. Within the EM equity universe, we have not been underweight Asian semi stocks because of our negative outlook for the overall EM equity benchmark. The Argentine government will drag out foreign debt negotiations with the IMF and foreign private creditors to secure a more favorable settlement. We remain neutral on Taiwan and overweight Korea. The reason is that DRAM makers such as Samsung and Hynix have rallied much less than TSMC. Besides, geopolitical risks in relation to Taiwan in general and TSMC in particular are rising, warranting a more defensive stance on Taiwanese stocks relative to Korean equities. Ellen JingYuan He Associate Vice President ellenj@bcaresearch.com Argentina’s Eternal Tango With Foreign Creditors Chart III-1Downside Risks To Bond Prices Our view remains that debt negotiations will be drawn-out because the Argentine government is both unwilling and lacks the financial capacity to service public foreign debt. The administration’s recent attitude toward foreign creditors and the IMF have startled markets: sovereign Eurobond bond prices have tanked (Chart III-1). The reasons why the Fernandez administration will play tough ball with creditors and the IMF are as follows: The country’s foreign funding and the public sector debt situations are precarious. Hence, the lower the recovery rate they negotiate with creditors, the more funds will be available to expand social programs and secure domestic political support. Given Fernandez’s and Peronist’s voter base, the government is inclined to please the population at expense of foreign creditors. Moreover, Alberto Fernandez is facing increasing scrutiny from radical Peronists, who want to dissolve the debt altogether. Vice-president Fernandez de Kirchner stated that Argentina should not pay international agents until the economy escapes a recession. To further add to creditors’ frustration, the government has yet to announce a comprehensive economic plan to revive the economy and service outstanding debt. The public foreign currency debt burden is unsustainable – its level stands at $250 billion, about 4 times larger than exports. The country is still in a recession, and economic indicators do not show much improvement. Committing to fiscal austerity to service foreign debt would entail further economic suffering for Argentine businesses and households, something Fernandez rejected throughout his campaign. The authorities are singularly focused on reviving the economy: government expenditures have grown by over 50% annually under the current administration (Chart III-2). Crucially, Argentina has already achieved a large trade surplus and its current account balance is approaching zero (Chart III-3). Assuming exports stay flat, the economy can afford to maintain its current level of imports. This makes the authorities less willing to compromise and more inclined to adopt a tough stance in debt negotiations. Chart III-2Peronist Government Has Again Boosted Fiscal Spending Chart III-3Argentina: Current Account Is Almost Balanced The risk of this negotiation strategy is that the nation will not be able to raise foreign funding for a while. Nevertheless, the country is currently de facto not receiving any external financing. Hence, this risk is less pressing. Moreover, the administration has already delayed all US$ bond payments until August. This allows them to extend negotiations with creditors over the next six months, thereby increasing uncertainty and further pushing down bond prices. A lower market price on Argentine bonds is beneficial for the government’s negotiation strategy as it implies lower expectations for foreign creditors. Thus, the Fernandez administration’s strategy will be to play hardball and draw-out negotiations as long as possible. We expect Argentina to reach a settlement with creditors no earlier than in the third quarter of this year and at recovery rates below current prices of the nation’s Eurobonds. Russian financial assets will be supported due to improving public sector governance, accelerating domestic demand growth and healthy macro fundamentals. Bottom Line: The government will drag out foreign debt negotiations with the IMF and foreign private creditors to secure a more favorable settlement. Continue to underweight Argentine financial assets over the next several months. Juan Egaña Research Associate juane@bcaresearch.com Russia: Harvesting The Benefits Of Macro Orthodoxy Russian financial markets have shown resilience in face of falling oil prices. This has been the upshot of the nation’s prudent macro policies in recent years. We have been positive on Russia and overweight Russian markets over the past two years and this stance remains intact. Going forward, Russian financial assets will be supported due to improving public sector governance, accelerating domestic demand growth and healthy macro fundamentals: Fiscal policy will be relaxed substantially – both infrastructure and social spending will rise. Specifically, the Kremlin is eager to ramp up the national projects program. This is bullish for domestic demand. Russia’s public finances are currently in a very healthy state. Public debt (14% of GDP) is minimal and foreign public debt (4% of GDP) is tiny. The overall fiscal balance is in large surplus (2.7% of GDP). The current account is also in surplus. Hence, a major boost in fiscal spending will not undermine Russia’s macro stability for some time. As a major sign of policy change, President Putin has sidelined or reduced the authority of policymakers who have been advocating tight fiscal policy. This policy change has been overdue as fiscal policy has been unreasonably tight for longer than required (Chart IV-1). Chart IV-1Russia: Government Spending Has Been Extremely Weak Importantly, the recent changes at the highest levels of government are also positive for governance and productivity. The new Prime Minister Mishustin has earned this appointment for his achievements as the head of the federal tax authority. He has restructured and reorganized the tax department in a way that has boosted its efficiency/productivity substantially and increased tax collection. By promoting him to the head of government, Putin has boosted Mishustin’s authority to reform the entire federal governance system. Given his record of accomplishment, odds are that the new prime minister will succeed in implementing some reforms and restructuring. Thereby, productivity growth that has been stagnant in Russia for a decade could revive modestly. Also, Putin was reluctant to boost infrastructure spending as he was afraid of money being misappropriated without a proper monitoring system. Putin now hopes Mishustin can introduce an efficient governance system of fiscal spending to assure infrastructure projects can be realized with reasonably minimal losses. As to monetary policy, real interest rates are still very high. The prime lending rate is 10%, the policy rate is 6% and nominal GDP growth is 3.3% (Chart IV-2). Weak growth (Chart IV-3) and low inflation will encourage the central bank to continue cutting interest rates. Chart IV-2Russia: Interest Rates Remain Excessively High Chart IV-3Russia's Growth Is Very Sluggish Finally, the economy does not have any structural excesses and imbalances. The central bank has done a good job in cleansing the banking system and the latter is in healthy shape. Bottom Line: The ruble will be supported by improving productivity, cyclical growth acceleration and a healthy fiscal position. We continue recommending overweighting Russian stocks, local currency bonds and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. Last week, we also recommended a new trade: Short Turkish bank stocks / long Russian bank stocks. The main risk to the absolute performance of Russian markets is another plunge in oil prices and a broad selloff in EM. On November 14, 2019 we recommended absolute return investors to go long Russian local currency bonds and short oil. This strategy remains intact. Finally, we have been recommending the long ruble / short Colombian peso trade since May 31, 2018. This position has generated large gains and we are reiterating it. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations
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 Chart 1The 2003 SARS Roadmap The bond market impact from the coronavirus has already been substantial. The 10-year Treasury yield has fallen back to 1.51%, below the fed funds rate. Meanwhile, the investment grade corporate bond index spread is back above 100 bps, from a January low of 93 bps. The 2003 SARS crisis is the best roadmap we can apply to the current situation. Back then, Treasury yields also fell sharply but then rebounded just as quickly when the number of SARS cases peaked (Chart 1). The impact on corporate bond excess returns was more short-lived (Chart 1, bottom panel). Like in 2003, we expect that bond yields will rise once the number of coronavirus cases peaks, but it is difficult to put a timeframe on how long that will take. The economic impact from the virus could also weigh on global PMI surveys during the next few months, delaying the move higher in Treasury yields we anticipated earlier this year. In short, we continue to expect higher bond yields and tighter credit spreads in 2020, but those moves will be delayed until markets are confident that the virus has stopped spreading. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 80 basis points in January. The sector actually outpaced the Treasury benchmark by 7 bps until January 21 when the impact of the coronavirus started to push spreads wider. As stated on page 1, we expect the impact of the coronavirus on corporate spreads to be short lived. Beyond that, low inflation expectations will keep monetary conditions accommodative. This in turn will encourage banks to ease credit supply, keeping defaults at bay and providing a strong tailwind for corporate bond returns.1 Yesterday’s Fed Senior Loan Officer survey showed a slight easing of C&I lending standards in Q4 2019, reversing the tightening that occurred in the third quarter (Chart 2). We expect that accommodative Fed policy will lead to continued easing of C&I lending standards for the remainder of the year. Despite the positive tailwind from accommodative Fed policy and easing bank lending standards, investment grade corporate bond spreads are quite expensive. Spreads for all credit tiers are below our targets (panels 2 & 3).2 As a result, we advise only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporate bonds. We also recommend increasing exposure to Agency MBS in place of corporate bonds rated A or higher (see page 7). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 111 basis points in January. Junk outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 30 bps until January 21 when the coronavirus outbreak sent spreads sharply wider. Once the negative impact of the coronavirus passes, junk spreads will have plenty of room to tighten in 2020. In fact, the junk index spread is now at 390 bps, 154 bps above our target (Chart 3).3 While spreads for all junk credit tiers are currently above our targets, Caa-rated bonds look particularly cheap. We analyzed the divergence between Caa and the rest of the junk index in a recent report and came to two conclusions.4 First, the historical data show that 12-month periods of overall junk bond outperformance are more likely to be followed by underperformance if Caa is the worst performing credit tier. Second, we can identify several reasons for 2019’s Caa spread widening that make us inclined to downplay any negative signal. Specifically, we note that the Caa credit tier’s exposure to the shale oil sector is responsible for the bulk of 2019’s underperformance (bottom panel). Absent significant further declines in the oil price, this sector now has room to recover. MBS: Overweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 53 basis points in January. The sector was only lagging the Treasury benchmark by 7 bps as of January 21, when the coronavirus outbreak sent spreads wider. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread widened 8 bps in January, driven by a 7 bps widening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS) and a 1 bp increase in expected prepayment losses (aka option cost). The fact that expected prepayment losses only rose by a single basis point even though the 30-year mortgage rate fell by 23 bps is notable. It speaks to the high level of refi burnout in the mortgage market, which is a key reason why we prefer mortgage-backed securities over investment grade corporate bonds in our portfolio. Essentially, most homeowners have already had at least one opportunity to refinance during the past few years, so prepayment risk is low even if rates fall further. Competitive expected compensation is another reason to move into Agency MBS. The conventional 30-year MBS OAS is 49 bps, only 7 bps below the spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds (Chart 4). Also, spreads for all investment grade corporate bond credit tiers are below our cyclical targets. Risk-adjusted compensation favors MBS even more strongly. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency MBS plot well to the right of investment grade corporates. This means that the sector is less likely to see losses versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 14 basis points in January. The index was up 2 bps versus the Treasury benchmark until January 21, when the coronavirus outbreak hit. Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 99 bps on the month, and Foreign Agencies underperformed by 28 bps. Local Authorities, however, bested the Treasury benchmark by 60 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed Treasuries by 2 bps in January, while Supranationals outperformed by 2 bps. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated sovereign bonds, given that spreads remain expensive compared to US corporate credit (Chart 5). However, we noted in a recent report that Mexican and Saudi Arabian sovereigns look attractive on a risk/reward basis.5 This is also true for Local Authorities and Foreign Agencies, as shown in the Bond Map in Appendix C. Our Emerging Markets Strategy service also thinks that worries about Mexico’s fiscal position are overblown, and that bond yields embed too high of a risk premium (bottom panel).6 Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 33 basis points in January (before adjusting for the tax advantage). They were up 39 bps versus the Treasury index before the coronavirus outbreak hit on January 21. The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio swung around during the month, but settled close to where it began at 77% (Chart 6). We upgraded municipal bonds in early October, as yield ratios had become significantly more attractive, especially at the long-end of the Aaa curve (panel 2).7 Yield ratios have tightened a lot since then, but value remains at long maturities. Specifically, the 2-year, 5-year and 10-year M/T yield ratios are all below average pre-crisis levels at 62%, 65% and 78%, respectively. But 20-year and 30-year yield ratios stand at 89% and 93%, respectively, above average pre-crisis levels. Fundamentally, state and local balance sheets remain solid. Our Municipal Health Monitor is in “improving health” territory and state & local government interest coverage has improved considerably in recent quarters (bottom panel). Both of these trends are consistent with muni ratings upgrades continuing to outpace downgrades going forward. Treasury Curve: Maintain A Barbell Curve Positioning Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve bull-flattened dramatically in January. Treasury yields declined across the curve, and the 2/10 slope flattened from 34 bps to 18 bps. The 5/30 slope flattened from 70 bps to 67 bps. Despite the significant flattening, the 2/10 slope remains near the middle of our target 0 – 50 bps range for 2020, and we anticipate some bear-steepening once the coronavirus is contained.8 The front-end of the curve also moved in January to price-in 57 bps of Fed rate cuts during the next 12 months (Chart 7). At the beginning of the year the curve was priced for only 14 bps of rate cuts. We expect that the Fed would respond with rate cuts if the coronavirus epidemic worsens, leading to inversion of the 2/10 yield curve. However, for the time being the safer bet is that the virus will be contained relatively quickly and the Fed will remain on hold for all of 2020. Based on this view, we continue to recommend holding a barbelled Treasury portfolio. Specifically, we favor holding a 2/30 barbell versus the 5-year bullet, in duration-matched terms. The position offers positive carry and looks attractive on our yield curve models (see Appendix B).9 TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 75 basis points in January. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 12 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.66%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 16 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.71%. Both rates remain well below the 2.3%-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s target. The divergence between the actual inflation data and inflation expectations remains stark. Trimmed mean PCE inflation has been fluctuating around the Fed’s target since mid-2018 (Chart 8). However, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain stubbornly low. It takes time for expectations to adapt to a changing macro environment, but even accounting for those long lags, our Adaptive Expectations Model pegs the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate as 31 bps too low (panel 4).10 It is highly likely that the Fed will have to tolerate some overshoot of its 2% inflation target in order to re-anchor long-term inflation expectations. As a result, the actual inflation data will lead expectations higher, causing the TIPS breakeven inflation curve to flatten.11 ABS: Underweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 32 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 14 bps on the month. It currently sits at 26 bps, below its minimum pre-crisis level (Chart 9). Our Excess Return Bond Map (see Appendix C) shows that Aaa-rated consumer ABS ranks among the most defensive US spread products. This explains why the sector performed so well in January when other spread sectors struggled. ABS also offer higher expected returns than other low-risk sectors such as Domestic Agency bonds and Supranationals. However, we remain wary of allocating too much to consumer ABS because credit trends are slowly shifting in the wrong direction. The consumer credit delinquency rate remains low, but has put in a clear bottom. This is also true for the household interest expense ratio (panel 3). Senior Loan Officers also continue to tighten lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans. Tighter lending standards usually coincide with rising delinquencies (bottom panel). Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 43 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency CMBS tightened 6 bps on the month. It currently sits at 67 bps, below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). In last week’s Special Report, we explored how low interest rates have boosted commercial real estate (CRE) prices this cycle, and concluded that a sharp drawdown in CRE prices is likely only when inflation starts to pick up steam.12 In that report we also mentioned that non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS spreads look attractive relative to US corporate bonds from a risk/reward perspective (see our Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C), and that the macro environment is only slightly unfavorable for CMBS spreads. Specifically, CRE bank lending standards are just in “net tightening” territory. But both lending standards and loan demand are very close to neutral (bottom 2 panels). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 34 basis points in January. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 4 bps on the month to reach 54 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer a compelling risk/reward trade-off. An overweight allocation to this sector remains appropriate. Appendix A: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 57 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We anticipate a flat fed funds rate over that time horizon, and therefore anticipate that below-benchmark portfolio duration positions will profit. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B: Butterfly Strategy Valuations The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As Of January 31, 2020) Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of January 31, 2020) Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of 33 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 33 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Excess Return Bond Map (As Of January 31, 2020) Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For details on how we calculate our spread targets please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For details on how we calculate our spread targets please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Perspective On Risk And Reward”, dated October 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Country Insights: Malaysia, Mexico & Central Europe”, dated October 31, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Two Themes And Two Trades”, dated October 1, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For further details on our recommended yield curve trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best Spot On The Yield Curve”, dated January 21, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 For further details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12 Please see US Investment Strategy / US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Commercial Real Estate And US Financial Stability”, dated January 27, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation
It’s still early, but corporate bonds have so far not joined in with this year’s equity rally. Year-to-date, the investment grade corporate bond index is only up 8 bps versus Treasuries. High-yield bonds have fared better. Caa-rated junk bonds have…
Please note that next week’s US Bond Strategy Weekly Report will be replaced by a Special Report on Commercial Real Estate that was produced jointly with our US Investment Strategy team. That report will be published on Monday instead of Tuesday. Highlights Duration: Financial markets have taken the Fed’s dovish guidance on board, and the asset prices that are most sensitive to monetary policy are rallying strongly. If we follow the typical pattern, as was the case in 2015/16, accommodative policy will soon lead to a rebound in our preferred global growth indicators and higher bond yields. Keep portfolio duration low. Credit: The macro environment for corporate bonds remains attractive, but investors should favor high-yield bonds – particularly Caa-rated and energy debt – where spreads still have room to narrow. Yield Curve: Barbelled Treasury portfolios still make sense in the current macro environment. Specifically, we recommend that investors overweight a duration-matched 2-year/30-year barbell and underweight the 5-year bullet. Feature Bond yields have mostly trended sideways during the past few weeks, even as the S&P 500 surged. The result is that a wide gulf has opened up between the equity and bond markets (Chart 1). At times like this it becomes popular to ask whether the stock market or bond market is “right”. That is, are equities bound to sell off and re-converge with bonds? Or, will the stock market pull bond yields higher? We agree with our Global Investment Strategy team that the risk of a near-term equity sell-off is high.1 But we also think that both the equity and bond markets are responding rationally to an economic environment characterized by abundant central bank liquidity and global growth that has yet to convincingly rebound. Tech stocks are responsible for the bulk of the recent rally. To see why, we can take a look at the relative performance of different equity sectors. Technology stocks are responsible for the bulk of the recent rally, while defensive sectors have performed in-line with the benchmark index and cyclical sectors have lagged (Chart 2). This is consistent with an environment of depressed global growth and plentiful central bank liquidity. Chart 1Stocks Versus##br## Bonds Chart 2Cyclical (or Growth Sensitive) Sectors Have Lagged ... Many technology firms trade off the promise of large cash flows that will only be delivered in the distant future. In a sense, we can think of these stocks as long duration assets whose prices are very sensitive to the discount rate. The Fed’s highly accommodative interest rate guidance is the main reason for the tech sector’s outperformance. In contrast, cyclical equity sectors – like materials, industrials and energy – are less sensitive to Fed policy and more geared toward global economic growth. These sectors have lagged because global growth has yet to put in a decisive bottom. Like cyclical equity sectors, Treasury yields are also most sensitive to trends in global growth. In fact, the 10-year Treasury yield closely tracks the relative performance of cyclical versus defensive equity sectors (Chart 3). Commodity prices are also consistent with this picture (Chart 4). Gold has rallied sharply, something that often results from a shift toward more dovish monetary policy, while the growth-sensitive CRB Raw Industrials commodity index has only just begun to hook up. Historically, bond yields only rise when gains in the CRB index start to outpace gains in gold (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3... Consistent With Bond Yields Chart 4The CRB/Gold Ratio But we can’t think of monetary policy and global growth as completely separate issues. They tend to follow each other in a pattern explained by our Fed Policy Loop (Chart 5). Applying the Loop to the current environment, we see that the Fed eased policy after growth weakened last year and financial markets are currently responding to this shift in monetary conditions. The most interest rate sensitive assets – e.g. tech stocks and gold – are rallying. This represents an easing of financial conditions that will eventually lead to a rebound in global growth indicators. It is only when those global growth indicators increase that US bond yields will rise. Chart 5The Fed Policy Loop On that note, we also see signs that the economy is transitioning from the ‘Asset Price Inflation’ section of the Loop to the ‘Stronger Economic Growth’ section. The US ISM Manufacturing PMI is currently downbeat at 47.2, but it should be at 50.8 according to a model based on regional Fed manufacturing surveys (Chart 6). Further, the ISM non-Manufacturing index is well above 50 and moving higher (Chart 6, panel 2). Finally, industrial production growth is nowhere near as weak as it was in 2016, even though the PMI is lower (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 6ISM Will Soon Trough Bottom Line: Financial markets have taken the Fed’s dovish guidance on board, and the asset prices that are most sensitive to monetary policy are rallying strongly. If we follow the typical pattern, as was the case in 2015/16, accommodative policy will soon lead to a rebound in our preferred global growth indicators and higher bond yields. Keep portfolio duration low. Stay Long Junk It’s still early, but corporate bonds have so far not joined in with this year’s equity rally. Year-to-date, the investment grade corporate bond index is only up 8 bps versus Treasuries (Chart 7). High-yield bonds have fared better. They have outperformed duration-matched Treasuries by 48 bps so far this year, and the segments of the junk market that were most beaten down in 2019 are leading the charge. Caa-rated junk bonds have outperformed Treasuries by 108 bps so far in 2020. The energy sector has also fared well since December, and is up a decent 43 bps versus Treasuries in January. Chart 7Corporate Bond Returns Chart 8Favor HY Over IG We see the divergence between investment grade and high-yield returns continuing during the next few months, due to large differences in valuation. The investment grade corporate index spread is well below our cyclical target, while the high-yield index spread still looks cheap (Chart 8).2 High-yield’s attractiveness is mostly due to Caa-rated securities which underperformed dramatically in 2019 even as junk bonds overall delivered solid returns (Chart 8, bottom panel). As we discussed in a recent report, the underperformance of Caa-rated debt was in large part due to weakness in the shale oil sector.3 The yield curve is no longer deeply inverted out to the 5-year maturity point. Bottom Line: Corporate bonds will deliver solid returns as the economy transitions from the ‘Asset Price Inflation’ stage to the ‘Stronger Economic Growth’ stage of our Fed Policy Loop. However, relative valuation dictates that returns will concentrated in high-yield, especially Caa-rated and energy debt. Finding The Best Spot On The Yield Curve We have been recommending that investors run barbelled Treasury portfolios for some time, favoring the long and short ends of the curve at the expense of the belly (5-year/7-year). However, the shape of the curve has changed a lot since the 2/10 slope briefly inverted last August. Specifically, the curve is no longer deeply inverted out to the 5-year maturity point (Chart 9A). In light of this shift, it is worth considering whether our recommended curve positioning still makes sense. First, we take a look at the 12-month rolling yield for each point on the Treasury curve (Chart 9B). The 12-month rolling yield equals each security’s coupon return plus rolldown return. It is essentially the return you would earn in each maturity if the yield curve stayed completely unchanged during the next 12 months. Despite recent curve shifts, we still see a significant pick-up in rolling yield beyond the 5-year maturity point, as was the case last August. Chart 9APar Coupon Yield Curve Chart 9B12-Month Rolling Yield Curve But yield pick-up is just one consideration. We also need to think about how the shape of the curve will change during the next 6-12 months. One way to do this is to look at a sample of recent data – we use the past six months – and calculate how sensitive each point on the Treasury curve has been to changes in our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter.4 That is, if the market moves to price-in fewer Fed rate cuts during the next 12 months, as we expect, how should we expect each point on the Treasury curve to respond? To answer this question, Chart 10 shows how sensitive weekly changes in each Treasury yield have been to changes in our Discounter during the past six months. Chart 10Risk & Reward Along The Treasury Curve The first thing we notice is that the 5-year yield is the most sensitive to changes in our Discounter and the 2-year yield is the least sensitive. The 20-year and 30-year yields are relatively insulated from changes in the Discounter, and offer the greatest rolling yields. The second and third panels of Chart 10 show how these sensitivities change if we consider increases and decreases in our Discounter differently. Here we see that maturities from 5-20 years have been similarly sensitive to increases in the Discounter during the past six months. Meanwhile, the 5-year yield has been most sensitive to declines in the Discounter. The 2-year yield is not sensitive at all to a rising Discounter, but is fairly exposed to a falling Discounter. In general, since we expect the Discounter to move up during the next 6-12 months, the 2-year note looks like the safest place to camp out. Meanwhile, the 30-year bond looks attractive in terms of its yield pick-up per unit of sensitivity. The 2-year yield is least sensitive to changes in our Fed Funds Discounter. Another approach we can take is to look at how different parts of the yield curve respond to “risk on” and “risk off” market environments. To do this, we classify months as “risk on” if both the stock-to-bond total return ratio rises and the high-yield index spread tightens. Conversely, we classify months as “risk off” if both the stock-to-bond total return ratio falls and the high-yield index spread widens. Chart 11A shows the cumulative changes in different yield curve slopes since 2010 during “risk on” months only. The chart shows that, recently, “risk on” financial market behavior has coincided with the yield curve steepening out to the 7-year/10-year part of the curve, and then flattening beyond the 10-year point. Similarly, Chart 11B shows that “risk off” months have recently coincided with yield curve flattening out to the 7-year/10-year part of the curve, and steepening beyond that. Chart 11ASlope Changes In "Risk On" Environments Chart 11BSlope Changes In "Risk Off" Environments In other words, if recent correlations hold, a “risk on” environment during the next few months would cause the 7-year and 10-year yields to rise the most, while the 2-year and 30-year yields would have less upside. Investment Conclusions We expect economic growth to strengthen during the next 6-12 months, leading to “risk on” financial market behavior and a rising Fed Funds Discounter. Based on this view and our analysis of rolling yields and curve sensitivities, we conclude that a barbelled Treasury portfolio still makes the most sense. We want to be overweight the 2-year note because it should have less upside in a “risk-on” environment, and overweight the 30-year bond to get some extra yield pick-up while taking less risk than in the 5-year, 7-year or 10-year notes. In general, we want to avoid the 5-year, 7-year and 10-year maturities. According to our yield curve models, all three of those maturities look expensive relative to a duration-matched 2/30 barbell (Chart 12).5 Chart 12Butterfly Spread Fair Value Models If we wanted to get even more precise, we could note that a duration-matched 2/30 barbell offers 5 bps of yield pick-up compared to the 5-year note, only 1 bp of yield pick-up relative to the 7-year note and about the same yield as the 10-year note. To split hairs, those extra few basis points give us a slight preference for being short the 5-year bullet compared to the 7-year and 10-year notes, though we would prefer to avoid all three. Bottom Line: Barbelled Treasury portfolios still make sense in the current macro environment. Specifically, we recommend that investors overweight a duration-matched 2-year/30-year barbell and underweight the 5-year bullet. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Time For A Breather”, dated January 10, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 2 For details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter measures the 12-month change in the fed funds rate that is currently priced into the overnight index swap curve. 5 For details on our yield curve models please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Duration: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. TIPS: We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. High-Yield: Investors should add (or increase) exposure to the high-yield energy sector, within an overweight allocation to junk bonds. Junk energy spreads are attractive, and exposure to the sector will mitigate the impact of a potential oil supply shock. Feature Only a month ago, investors were becoming more optimistic about a global growth rebound and the US/China phase 1 trade deal was pushing political risk into the background. Both of those factors caused the 10-year Treasury yield to rise throughout December, hitting an intra-day Christmas Eve peak of 1.95% (Chart 1). But since then, softer global PMI data and the US/Iranian military conflict brought global growth concerns and political risk back to the fore, breaking the uptrend in yields. Chart 1Bond Bear On Pause Global growth and political uncertainty are two of the five macro factors that we identify as important for US bond yields.1 And despite the recent setback, we think both factors will push yields higher in the coming months. Global Growth We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index are the three global growth indicators that correlate most strongly with US bond yields. One reason for the recent pullback in yields is the disappointing December data from the Global and US Manufacturing PMIs. The ISM Manufacturing PMI moved deeper into recessionary territory. The Global Manufacturing PMI had been in a clear uptrend since mid-2019, but fell back to 50.1 in December, from 50.3 the month before (Chart 2). The US and Chinese PMIs also declined in December, though they remain well above the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 2, panels 3 & 4). The Eurozone and Japanese PMIs, meanwhile, are still in the doldrums (Chart 2, panels 2 & 5). More worrying than the small tick down in Global PMI is the US ISM Manufacturing PMI moving deeper into recessionary territory, from 48.1 to 47.2. However, we have good reason to think that stronger data are just around the corner (Chart 3). Chart 2Global PMI Ticks Down Chart 3ISM Manufacturing Index Will Rebound First, the difference between the new orders and inventories components of the ISM index often leads the overall index at turning points, 2016 being a prime example (Chart 3, top panel). Much like in 2016, a gap is opening up between new orders-less-inventories and the overall ISM. Second, the non-manufacturing ISM index remains strong despite the weakness in manufacturing (Chart 3, panel 2). With no contagion to the service sector of the economy, we’d expect manufacturing to pick back up. Third, the ISM Manufacturing index has diverged sharply from the Markit Manufacturing PMI, with the Markit index printing well above the ISM (Chart 3, panel 3).2 The ISM index has been more volatile than the Markit index in recent years, and should trend toward the Markit index over time. Fourth, regional Fed manufacturing surveys have generally been stronger than the ISM during the past few months. A simple regression model of the ISM index based on data from regional Fed surveys suggests that the ISM index should be at 49.7 today, instead of 47.2 (Chart 3, bottom panel). Finally, unlike the PMI surveys, the CRB Raw Industrials index has increased quite sharply in recent weeks (Chart 4). We should note that it is not the CRB index itself but rather the ratio between the CRB index and gold that tracks bond yields most closely, and this ratio has actually declined lately due to the strength in gold. Nonetheless, a sustained turnaround in the CRB index would mark a big change from 2019 and would send a strong bond-bearish signal. Chart 4CRB Sends A Bond-Bearish Signal Political Uncertainty The second factor that sent bond yields lower during the past few weeks was the military conflict between the US and Iran. Tensions appear to have de-escalated for now, and we would expect any flight-to-quality flows to unwind during the next few weeks.3 But while we see policy uncertainty easing in the near-term, sending bond yields higher, we reiterate our view that US political uncertainty is the number one risk factor that could derail the 2020 bear market in bonds.4 Specifically, we see two looming US political risks. The first relates to President Trump’s re-election odds. For now, Trump’s approval rating is in line with past incumbent presidents that have won re-election (Chart 5). But if his approval doesn’t keep pace in the coming months, he will try to do something to change his fortunes. That could mean re-igniting the trade war with China, or once again ramping up tensions with Iran. A Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren victory would send a flight-to-quality into bonds. The second risk is that one of the progressive candidates – Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren – secures the Democratic nomination for president. Right now, both trail Joe Biden in the polls and betting markets (Chart 6), but things could change rapidly as the primary results come in during the next few months. The stock market would certainly sell off if an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders presidency seems likely, sending a flight to quality into bonds.5 Chart 5Trump’s Approval Rating Must Rise Chart 6Democratic Nomination Betting Odds Bottom Line: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. Playing An Oil Supply Shock In US Bond Markets US/Iranian military tensions are easing for now, but could flare again in the future. For that reason, it’s worth considering how US bond markets would respond in the event of a conflict between the US and Iran that removed a significant amount of the world’s oil supply from the market, causing the oil price to spike. The first implication is that US bond yields would fall. Even though it’s tempting to say that the inflationary impact of higher oil prices would push yields up, this effect would not dominate the flight-to-quality into US bonds that would result from the increase in political uncertainty. Case in point, Chart 1 shows that, while the inflation component of yields was stable as tensions flared during the past few weeks, it didn’t come close to offsetting the drop in the 10-year real yield. Beyond the impact on Treasury yields, there are two other segments of the US bond market that would be materially impacted by an oil supply shock: the TIPS breakeven inflation curve and corporate bond spreads. Buy TIPS Breakeven Curve Flatteners Table 1CPI Swap Curve Sensitivity To Oil When considering the impact of an oil supply shock on TIPS breakeven inflation rates, we first look at how the cost of inflation protection is influenced by changes in the oil price. Table 1 shows the sensitivity of weekly changes in different CPI swap rates to a $1 increase in the price of Brent crude oil. We use CPI swap rates instead of TIPS breakeven inflation rates because data are available for a wider maturity spectrum. Our analysis applies equally to the TIPS breakeven inflation curve. Two conclusions are apparent from Table 1. First, the entire CPI swap curve is positively correlated with the oil price, a higher oil price moves CPI swap rates higher and vice-versa. Second, the sensitivity of CPI swap rates to the oil price is greater at the short-end of the curve than at the long-end. This is fairly intuitive given that higher oil prices are inflationary in the short-term but could be deflationary in the long-run if they hamper economic growth. Chart 7Coefficients Stable Over Time Chart 7 shows that our two main conclusions are not dependent on the chosen time horizon. The 2-year CPI swap rate is positively correlated with the oil price for our entire sample period, as is the 10-year rate except for a brief window in 2014. The 2-year rate’s sensitivity is also consistently higher than the 10-year’s. Based on this analysis, we can suggest two good ways to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock that sends prices higher: Buy inflation protection, either in the CPI swaps market or by going long TIPS versus duration-equivalent nominal Treasuries. Buy CPI swap curve (or TIPS breakeven inflation curve) flatteners.6 But we can introduce one more wrinkle to our analysis. Oil prices can rise because of stronger demand or because a shock suddenly removes supply from the market. It’s possible that the cost of inflation protection behaves differently in each case. Fortunately, the New York Fed has made an attempt to distinguish between those two scenarios. In its weekly Oil Price Dynamics Report, the Fed decomposes Brent oil price changes into demand-driven changes and supply-driven changes.7 It does this by looking at how other financial assets respond to oil price changes each week. Chart 8 shows the cumulative change in the Brent oil price since 2010, along with the New York Fed’s supply and demand factors. According to the Fed, demand has pressured the oil price higher since 2010, but this has been more than offset by greater supply. Chart 8Supply & Demand Oil Price Decomposition Using the New York Fed’s supply and demand series, we look at how CPI swap rates respond to higher oil prices in three different scenarios. First, we identify 252 weeks when demand and supply both contributed to higher oil prices. Second, we identify 95 weeks when higher oil prices were driven solely by demand. Finally, and most pertinently, we identify 92 weeks when higher oil prices were driven only by supply (Table 2). Table 2Weekly Change In CPI Swap Rate When Brent Oil Price Increases Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios are consistent with our results from Table 1. CPI swap rates across the entire curve move higher more than half the time, with greater increases at the short-end of the curve. However, the scenario we are most interested in is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario. Presumably, a military conflict with Iran that took oil supply off the market would lead to less supply and also a decrease in global demand. Results for this scenario are more mixed. The 1-year CPI swap rate still rises 60% of the time, but rates further out the curve are somewhat more likely to fall. With this in mind, CPI swap curve or TIPS breakeven curve flatteners look like the best way to hedge against an oil supply shock, better than an outright long position in inflation protection. This is good news, since we have previously argued that owning TIPS breakeven curve flatteners is a good idea even without an oil supply shock.8 Corporate bond excess returns respond positively to changes in the oil price. We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. Buy Energy Junk Bonds Table 3Corporate Bond Sensitivity To Oil Corporate bonds are the second segment of the US fixed income market that could be materially impacted by an oil supply shock, particularly bonds in the energy sector. To assess the potential value of corporate bonds as a hedge, we repeat the above analysis but use weekly corporate bond excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries instead of CPI swap rates. Table 3 shows that investment grade and high-yield corporate bond returns both respond positively to changes in the oil price. Further, we see that energy bonds are more sensitive to the oil price, outperforming the overall index when the oil price rises, and vice-versa. Chart 9 shows that, while oil price sensitivities vary considerably over time, they are almost always positive. Also, energy sector sensitivity has been consistently above that of the benchmark index since 2014. Chart 9Betas Mostly Positive Going one step further, we once again use the New York Fed’s supply and demand decomposition to identify weeks when supply and/or demand was responsible for higher oil prices. Because we have more historical data for corporate bonds than for CPI swaps, this time we identify 340 weeks when both supply and demand drove the oil price higher, 123 weeks when only demand drove it higher and 142 weeks when only supply was responsible for the higher oil price (Table 4). Table 4Weekly Corporate Bond Excess Returns (BPs) When Brent Oil Price Increases Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios show that higher oil prices boost excess returns to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds more than half the time. Energy bonds also tend to outperform their respective benchmark indexes in the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ scenario, but perform roughly in-line with the benchmark in the ‘Demand Driven’ scenario. But once again, it is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario that we are most interested in. Here, we see that an oil supply disruption that leads to higher oil prices also leads to lower corporate bond excess returns. This is true for both the investment grade and high-yield indexes and for energy bonds in both rating categories. However, we also note that high-yield energy debt significantly outperforms the overall junk index during these “risk off” periods. In contrast, investment grade energy debt is not a clear outperformer. Chart 10HY Energy Spreads Are Very Attractive These results line up with our intuition. When oil prices are driven higher by demand it could simply be a sign of strong economic growth and not any specific trend related to the energy sector. As such, we’d expect all corporate bonds to perform well in those scenarios, but wouldn’t necessarily expect energy debt to outperform. However, supply disruptions in the Middle East directly benefit US shale oil players, whose debt is principally found in the high-yield energy sector. The investment grade energy sector is less exposed to the US shale space, and its documented outperformance in the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario is weaker as a result. We already recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield bonds and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. Within that overweight allocation to high-yield bonds, we recommend shifting some exposure toward the energy sector for two reasons. First, high-yield energy was severely beaten-down last year and is ripe for a rebound if global economic growth recovers, as we expect (Chart 10). Second, our analysis suggests that an allocation to energy will help mitigate losses in the event of a renewed flaring of US/Iranian tensions that removes oil supply from the market. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors initiate TIPS breakeven curve flatteners (or CPI swap curve flatteners) and add exposure to the high-yield energy sector. Both positions look attractive on their own terms, but will also help hedge the risk of an oil supply disruption if US/Iranian tensions flare back up in the months ahead. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The others are: the output gap, the US dollar and sentiment. For more details please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The Markit index is used in the construction of the Global PMI shown in Chart 2, 3 For more details on the politics behind the US/Iran conflict please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “A Reprieve Amid The Bull Market In Iran Tensions”, dated January 8, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Elizabeth Warren And The Markets”, dated September 13, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 In the TIPS market, an example of a breakeven curve flattener would be to buy 2-year TIPS and short the 2-year nominal Treasury note, while also buying the 10-year nominal Treasury note and shorting the 10-year TIPS. 7 https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/oil_price_dynamics_report 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Incoming economic data suggests that China’s economy is in the process of bottoming, but also that the intensity of a recovery is likely to be more muted than it has been during past economic cycles. Recent Chinese equity market performance is consistent with a bottoming in the economy: cyclicals are outperforming defensives, and both the investable and domestic markets have broken above their respective 200-day moving averages versus global stocks. We continue to recommend that investors cyclically overweight Chinese domestic and investable stocks relative to the global benchmark. However, there is more potential upside for investable than domestic stocks, and the gains in both markets may be front loaded in the first half of the year. Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, several indicators now suggest that China’s economy is in the process of bottoming, but these indicators also imply that the intensity of a recovery in economic activity is likely to be more muted than it has been during past economic cycles. We see this as consistent with the views presented in our December 11 Weekly Report,1 which laid out four key themes for China and its financial markets for 2020. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Within financial markets, recent developments are also consistent with the view that Chinese economic activity will modestly accelerate and that a Sino-American trade truce will last until the US presidential election in November 2020. Chinese stocks have rallied both in absolute terms and relative to global equities over the past month, and cyclical stocks are clearly outperforming defensives on an equally-weighted basis in both markets. The RMB has also appreciated modestly, with USD-CNY having now durably fallen back below the 7 mark. We continue to recommend that investors cyclically overweight Chinese domestic and investable stocks relative to the global benchmark, with the caveat that we expect more potential upside for investable than domestic stocks and the gains in both markets may be front loaded in the first half of the year. We expect modest further gains in the RMB over the coming few months, as we see the PBoC is unwilling to allow rapid appreciation. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide several detailed observations below concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1A Bottoming In China's Economic Growth Is Now Likely Underway On a smoothed basis, the Bloomberg Li Keqiang index (LKI) rose in November, driven largely by an improvement in electricity output (Chart 1). While our alternative LKI is weaker than Bloomberg’s measure, we see the improvement in the latter as a sign of a bottoming process for growth that is now underway (Bottom panel, Chart 1). Our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index was essentially flat in November, with the large gap that has persisted between the degree of monetary accommodation and money & credit growth still present. There was a notable improvement in the Bloomberg Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) in November, but this can be attributed to a surge in headline inflation (which depressed real interest rates). This underscores that the ongoing uptrend in our LKI leading indicator is modest, and that an improvement in economic activity this year is thus unlikely to be sharp or intense. With the pace of pledged supplementary lending (PSL) injections and Tier 1 housing price appreciation as exceptions, all of the housing market data series that we track in Table 1 deteriorated in November. On a smoothed basis, residential housing sales rose at a slower pace and the previous surge in housing construction waned, in line with our expectation (Chart 2). House prices have continued to deviate from housing sales; deteriorating affordability and tight housing regulations have contributed to this divergence. Although funding from the PBoC’s PSL program improved in November, even further funding assistance is likely necessary in order to expect a strong uptrend in housing sales given the affordability and regulatory headwinds (Bottom panel, Chart 2). Both China’s Caixin and official manufacturing PMIs continue to signal positive signs for Chinese economic activity. While the Caixin PMI fell slightly in December, it stayed in expansionary territory for the fifth consecutive month. The official PMI also provided positive signs: the overall index remained above 50 for the second month, the production component rose further into expansionary territory, and the new export orders moved above the 50 mark. All told, China’s PMI data now clearly suggests that a bottoming in China’s economic growth is underway. Although the overall PMI data is sending a positive signal, Chart 3 highlights two series that are somewhat less positive. First, while the import component of the official PMI is rising, it is lagging other key sub-components and remains below 50. In addition, the PMI for small enterprises, which led the early phase of the 2016 recovery in the official PMI, has not meaningfully changed over the past few months. For now, these series suggest that a recovery in growth is likely to be muted compared with previous episodes over the past decade. Chart 2More Accommodative Funding Is Needed For Stronger Housing Sales Chart 3Weaker PMI Sub-Components Suggest A More Muted Recovery In USD terms, China’s equity markets (both investable and domestic) have rallied more than 8%-9% in absolute terms over the past month. In relative terms, both investable and A-share markets have also outperformed the global benchmark. It is notable that the relative performance trend of Chinese investable stocks has broken clearly above its 200-day moving average, which is the first time since the trade talks collapsed in May of last year (Chart 4A). The strong rally in China’s stock prices over the past month, particularly in the investable market, largely reflect the likely signing of a trade truce between the US and China. In our view, more accommodative monetary and fiscal support in 2020, as well as an ongoing truce, provide a sound basis to overweight China’s stocks within a global equity portfolio over both a tactical and cyclical horizon. However, we expect that China’s investable market has more upside potential than its domestic peer, given how much further the former fell in 2019. From an equity sector perspective, the most notable development over the past month is that cyclical sectors have outperformed defensives in both the investable and domestic markets and have broken above their respective 200-day moving averages (Chart 4B). Among cyclical sectors, industrials, energy, consumer discretionary, especially materials and telecommunication services, have all contributed to cyclical outperformance over the past month. The outperformance of cyclical sectors is strongly consistent with continued outperformance of Chinese stocks versus the global average, and strengthens our conviction that investors should be overweight Chinese markets within a regional equity portfolio. China’s 3-month repo rate fell meaningfully over the past week, in response to a 50 bps cut in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR). The decline has merely returned the repo rate back to the level that prevailed on average in 2019, but it does underscore the PBoC’s desire to modestly ease liquidity on a net basis. We will be presenting a Special Report on China’s government bond market later this month, but for now, our view remains that easier monetary policy is unlikely to materially impact Chinese government bond yields this year, unless the PBoC decides to target sharply lower interbank repo rates (which is not our expectation). Chart 4AThe Meaningful Rally In China's Equity Markets Sends A Positive Signal Chart 4BThe Outperformance Of Cyclicals Over Defensives Is Consistent With An Economic Recovery China’s onshore corporate bond spread has risen slightly over the past month alongside falling corporate yields. Despite persistent concerns of rising defaults on China’s onshore corporate bonds, the overall default rate remains quite low compared with those in developed economies, and China’s corporate bond market will benefit from even a modest improvement in economic growth this year. As such, we expect a continued uptrend in China’s onshore corporate bond total return index, and would favor onshore corporate over duration-matched Chinese government bonds. Chart 5A Modest Further Downtrend In USD-CNY This Year Is Likely The RMB has gained more than 1.35% versus the U.S. dollar over the last month, which caused USD-CNY to durably break below 7 (Chart 5). The rise was clearly in response to news that the US and China will agree to a trade truce, and we expect a further modest downtrend in USD-CNY as China’s economy continues to improve. Investors should note that we are likely to close our long USD-CNH trade (currently registering a gain of 1%) following the signing of the Phase One deal on Jan 15, given that we opened the trade as a currency hedge for our overweight towards Chinese stocks (denominated in USD terms). As such, upon the signing of the deal, we would recommend that investors favor Chinese stocks versus the global benchmark in unhedged terms. Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "2020 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year," dated December 11, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations