Bear/Bull Market
Highlights Higher copper prices will follow in the wake of China's surge in steel demand, which lifted Shanghai steel futures to an all-time high just under 5,200 RMB/MT earlier this month, as building and infrastructure projects are completed this year (Chart of the Week). Copper will register physical deficits this year and next, which will pull inventories even lower and will push demand for copper scrap up in China and globally. High and rising copper prices could prompt government officials to release some of China's massive state holdings of copper – believed to total some 2mm MT – if the current round of market jawboning fails to restrain demand and price increases. Strong steel margins and another round of environmental restraints on mills are boosting demand for high-grade iron ore (65% Fe), which hit a record high of just under $223/MT earlier this week. Benchmark iron ore prices (62% Fe) traded at 10-year highs this week, just a touch below $190/MT. We are lifting our copper price forecast for December 2021 to $5.00/lb from $4.50/lb. In addition, we are getting long 2022 CME/COMEX copper vs short 2023 CME/COMEX copper at tonight's close, expecting steeper backwardation. Feature Government-mandated reductions of up to 30% in steel mill operations for the rest of the year in China's Tangshan steel hub to reduce pollution will tighten an already-tight market responding to a construction and infrastructure boom (Chart 2). This boom triggered a surge in steel prices, and, perforce, in iron ore prices (Chart 3). As it has in the past, this sets the stage for the next leg of copper's bull run. Chart of the WeekSurging Steel Presages Stronger Copper Prices In our modeling, we have found a strong relationship between steel prices, particularly for reinforcing bar (rebar), and copper prices, as can be seen in the Chart of the Week. Steel goes into building and infrastructure projects at the front end (in the concrete that is reinforced by steel and in rolled coil products), and then copper goes into the completed project (in the form of wires or pipes). Chart 2Copper Bull Market Will Continue In addition to the building and construction boom, continued gains in manufacturing will provide a tailwind for copper prices, which will be augmented by the global recovery in activity 2H21. Chart 4 shows the relationship between nominal GDP levels and copper prices. What's important here is economic growth in Asia (including China) and ex-Asia is, unsurprisingly, cointegrated with copper prices – i.e., economic growth and industrial commodities share a long-term equilibrium, which explains their co-movement. Chart 3Steel Boom Lifts Iron Ore Prices Media reports tend to focus on the effects of Chinese government spending as a share of GDP – e.g., total social financing relative to GDP – to the exclusion of the economic, particularly when trying to explain commodity price movements. To the extent the Chinese government is successful in further expanding the private sector – on the goods and services sides – organic economic growth will become even more important in explaining Chinese commodity demand. Chart 4Global Economic Grwoth Will Boost Copper Prices In our copper modeling, we find copper prices to be cointegrated with nominal Chinese GDP, EM Asian GDP and EM ex-Asian GDP, along with steel and iron ore prices, which, from a pure economics point of view, is what would be expected. On the other hand, there is no cointegration – i.e., no economic co-movement or a shared trend – between these industrial commodity prices and total social financing as a percent of nominal China GDP. These models allow us to avoid spurious relationships, which offer no help in explaining or forecasting these copper prices. Chart 5Iron Ore, Copper Demand Will Lift With The "Green Energy" Buildout Chart 6Renewables Dominate Incremental New Generation Longer term, as we have written in past research reports, the transition to a low-carbon energy mix favoring distributed renewable electricity generation, more resilient grids and electric vehicles (EVs) will be a major source of demand growth for bulks like iron ore and steel, and base metals, particularly copper (Chart 5).1 Already, renewable generation represents the highest-growth segment of incremental power generation being added to the global grid (Chart 6). Copper Supply Growth Requires Higher Prices Copper supply will have a difficult time accommodating demand in the short term (to end-2022) when, for the most part, the buildout in renewables and EVs will only be getting started. This means that over the medium (to end-2025) and the long terms (2050) significant new supply will have to be developed to meet demand. In the short term, the supply side of refined copper – particularly the semi-refined form of the metal smelters purify into a useable input for manufactured products (condensates) – is running extremely low, as can be seen in the longer-term collapse of Treatment Charges and Refining Charges (TC/RC) at Chinese smelters (Chart 7). At ~ $22/MT last week, these charges were the lowest since the benchmark TC/RC index tracking these charges in China was launched in 2013, according to reuters.com.2 Chart 7Copper TCRCs Fall As Supplies Fall, Pushing Prices Higher The copper supply story also can be seen in Chart 8, which converts annual supply and demand into balances, which will be mediated by the storage market. The International Copper Study Group (ICSG) estimates mine output again registered flat year-on-year growth last year, while refined copper supplies were up a scant 1.5% y/y. Chart 8Physical Deficits Will Draw Copper Stocks... Consumption was up 2.2%, according to the ICSG's estimates, which expects a physical deficit this year of 456k MT, after adjusting for Chinese bonded warehouse stocks. This will mark the fourth year in a row the copper market has been in a physical deficit, which, since 2017, has averaged 414k MT. The net result of this means inventories will once again be relied on to fill in supply gaps, and global stockpiles, which are down ~25% y/y, and will continue to fall (Chart 9). With mining capex weak and copper ore quality falling, higher prices will be required to incentivize significant new investment in production (Chart 10). However, the lead time on these projects is five years in the best of circumstances, which means miners have to get projects sanctioned with final investment decisions made in the near future (Chart 11). Chart 9...Which After Four Years Of Physical Deficits Are Low Chart 10Higher Copper Prices Required To Reverse Weak Capex, Falling Ore Quality Chart 11Falling Lead Times To Bring New Mines Online, But Time Is Short Investment Implications Our focus on copper is driven by the simple fact that it spans all renewable technologies and will be critical for EVs as well, particularly if there is widespread adoption of this technology (Chart 12). We continue to expect copper supply challenges across the short-, medium- and long-term investment horizons. To cover the short term, we recommended going long December 2021 copper on 10 September 2020, and this position is up 39.2%. To cover the longer term, we are long the S&P Global GSCI commodity index and the iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT), recommended 7 December 2017 and 12 March 2021 , respectively, which are down 2.3% and 0.8%. Chart 12Widespread EV Uptake Will Create All New Copper Demand At tonight's close, we will cover the medium-term opportunity of the copper supply-demand story developed above by getting long the 2022 CME/COMEX copper futures strip and short 2023 CME/COMEX copper futures strip, given our expectation the continued tightening of the market will force inventories to draw, leading to a steeper backwardation in the copper forward curve. The principal risks to our short-, medium- and long-term positions above are a global failure to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, which, we believe is a short-term risk. Second among the risks to these positions is a large release of strategic copper concentrate reserves held by China's State Reserve Bureau (aka, the State Bureau of Minerial Reserves). In the case of the latter risk, the actual holdings of the Bureau are unknown, but are believed to be in the neighborhood of 2mm MT.3 Bottom Line: We remain bullish industrial commodities, particularly copper. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Texas is expected to add 10 GW of utility-scale solar power by the end of 2022, according to the US EIA. Texas entered the solar market in a big way in 2020, installing 2.5 GW of capacity. The EIA expects The Great State to add ~ 5GW per year in the next two years, which would take total solar capacity to just under 15 GW. Roughly 30% of this new capacity is expected to be built in the Permian Basin, home to the most prolific oil field in the US. By comparison, the leading producer of solar power in the US, California, will add 3.2 GW of new solar capacity, according to the EIA (Chart 13). To end-2022, roughly one-third of total new solar generation in the will be added in Texas, which already is the leading wind-powered generator in the country. Wind availability is highest during the nighttime hours, while solar is most abundant during the mid-day period. Precious Metals: Bullish Palladium prices, trading ~ $2,876/oz on Wednesday, surpassed their previous record of $2,875.50/oz set in February 2020 and are closing in on $3,000/oz, as supply expectations continue to be lowered by Russian metals producer Nornickel, the largest palladium producer in the world (Chart 14). Earlier this week, the company updated earlier guidance and now expects mine output to be down as much as 20% this year in its copper, nickel and palladium operations, due to flooding in its mines. Palladium is used as a catalyst in gasoline-powered automobiles, sales of which are expected to rebound as the world emerges from COVID-19-induced demand destruction and a computer-chip shortage that has limited new automobile supply. In addition, production of platinum-group metals (PGMs) is being hampered by unreliable power supply in South Africa, which has forced the national utility suppling most of the state's power (> 90%) to revert to load-shedding schemes to conserve power. We remain long palladium, after recommending a long position in the metal 23 April 2020; the position is up 35.6%. Chart 13 Chart 14 Footnotes 1 Please see, e.g., Renewables, China's FYP Underpin Metals Demand, which we published 26 November 2020. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see RPT-COLUMN-Copper smelter terms at rock bottom as mine squeeze hits: Andy Home published by reuters.com 14 April 2021. The report notes direct transactions between miners and smelters were reported as low as $10/MT, in a sign of just how tight the physical supply side of the copper market is at present. 3 Please see Column: Supercycle or China cycle? Funds wait for Dr Copper's call, published by reuters.com 20 April 2021. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades
Highlights On a timeframe of a few years, a net deflationary shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its precise nature or its precise timing. Hence, investors must build such a deflationary shock or shocks into their long-term investment strategy. Specifically: The 10-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach zero, and the 30-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach 0.5 percent. For patient investors, this presents a mouth-watering 100 percent return on the long-duration T-bond. The structural bull market in equities will continue until T-bond yields reach their ultimate low. Patient equity investors should steer towards ‘growth’ sectors that will surge on the ultimate low in T-bond yields. Fractal trade shortlist: Taiwan versus China, Netherlands versus China, and Sweden versus Finland. Feature Chart I-1For Long-Term Investors, A Shock Is A Near-Certainty Predicting shocks is easy. The precise nature and timing of shocks is not predictable, but the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. This means that the longer our investment timeframe, the more certain we are of encountering at least one shock – even if we cannot predict its precise nature or timing. Many economists and strategists blame their forecasting errors on shocks, such as the pandemic, which they point out are ‘unforecastable.’ Absent the shocks, they argue, their predictions of the economy and the markets would have turned out right. This is a valid excuse for short-term forecasting errors, but it is not a valid excuse for long-term forecasting errors. On a long-term horizon, encountering a major shock, or several major shocks, is a near-certainty. Hence, economists and strategists who are not incorporating the well-defined statistical distribution of shocks into their long-term investment forecasts and strategies are making a mistake. Individual Shocks Are Not Predictable In the 21 years of this century so far, there have been five shocks whose economic/financial consequences have been felt worldwide: the dot com bust (2000); the global financial crisis (2007/8); the euro debt crisis (2011/12); the emerging markets recession (2014/15); and the global pandemic (2020). To these we can add two wide-reaching political shocks: the Brexit vote (2016); and Donald Trump’s shock victory in the US presidential election (2016). In total, this constitutes seven shocks, four economic/financial, two political, and one natural (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Seven Global Shocks Of The Century (So Far) Some people argue that economic/financial shocks are predictable, because they arise from vulnerabilities in the economy or financial markets, which should be easy to spot. Unfortunately, though such vulnerabilities are obvious in hindsight, the greatest economic minds cannot see them in real time. The greatest economic minds cannot see economic vulnerabilities. Infamously, on the eve of the global financial crisis, Ben Bernanke was insisting that “there’s not much indication that subprime mortgage issues have spread into the broader mortgage market.” Equally infamously, on the eve of the euro debt crisis, Mario Draghi was asking “what makes you think that the ECB must become lender of last resort to governments to keep the eurozone together?” (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4) Chart I-3Bernanke Couldn't See The GFC Chart I-4Draghi Couldn't See The Euro Debt Crisis Which begs the question, what is the current vulnerability that today’s great economic minds cannot see? As we have documented many times, most recently in The Rational Bubble Is Turning Irrational, the current vulnerability is the exponential relationship between rising bond yields and the risk premiums on equities and other risk-assets (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Meaning that $500 trillion of risk-assets are vulnerable to any substantial further rise in bond yields. Chart I-5A 1.5 Percent Decline In The Bond Yield Had A Smaller Impact On The Earnings Yield When The Bond Yield Started At 4 Percent... Chart I-6...Than When The Bond Yield Started ##br##At 3 Percent The second type of shock – political shocks – should be predictable as they mostly arise from well-defined events such as elections and referenda, which an army of political experts analyses ad nauseam. Yet the greatest political minds could not see Brexit or President Trump coming. Indeed, even ‘Team Brexit’ didn’t see Brexit coming, because it had no plan on how to implement Brexit once the vote was won. The third type of shocks – natural shocks – are clearly unpredictable as individual events. Nobody knows when the next major pandemic, earthquake, volcano eruption, tsunami, solar flare, or asteroid strike is going happen. Yet, to repeat, while the precise nature and timing of shocks is not predictable, the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. The Statistical Distribution Of Shocks Is Highly Predictable The good news is that shocks follow well-defined statistical ‘power laws’ which allow us to accurately forecast how many shocks to expect in any long timeframe. The 7 shocks experienced through the past 21 years equates to a shock every three years on average, or 3.33 shocks in any 10-year period. The expected wait to the next shock is three years. The next few paragraphs delve into some necessary mathematics, but don’t worry, you don’t need to understand the maths to appreciate the key takeaways. If the past 21 years is representative, we propose that the number of shocks in any 10-year period follows a so-called Poisson distribution with parameter 3.33. From this distribution, it follows that the probability of going through a 5-year period without a shock is just 19 percent, and the probability of going through a 10-year period without a shock is a negligible 4 percent (Chart of the Week). The result is that if you are a long-term investor, then encountering a shock is a near-certainty and should be built into your investment strategy. How can we test our assumption that the number of shocks follows a Poisson distribution? The maths tells us that if the number of shocks follows a Poisson distribution with parameter 3.33, then the ‘waiting time’ between shocks follows a so-called Exponential distribution also with parameter 3.33. On this basis, 63 percent of the waits between shocks should be up to three years, 23 percent should be four to six years, and 14 percent should be over six years. Now we can compare this expected distribution with the actual distribution of waits between the 7 shocks encountered so far in this century. We find that the theory lines up closely with the practice, validating our assumption of a Poisson distribution (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7The Theoretical Waiting Time Between Shocks… Chart II-8…Is Close To The Actual Waiting Time Between Shocks To repeat the key takeaways, on a long-term timeframe, encountering at least one shock is a near-certainty, and the expected wait to the next shock is three years. A Shock Is A Near-Certainty, And It Will End Up Deflationary Nevertheless, there remains a pressing question: Will the next shock(s) be deflationary or reflationary? It turns out that all shocks end up with both deflationary and reflationary components: either a deflationary impulse followed by a reflationary backlash or, as we highlighted in The Road To Inflation Ends At Deflation, a reflationary impulse followed by a deflationary backlash. But the crucial point is that the deflationary component will swamp the reflationary component. In the seven shocks of this century so far, six have been deflationary impulses with a weaker reflationary backlash; and one – the reflation trade of 2017-18 – was a reflationary impulse with a stronger deflationary backlash. It is our high conviction view that in the next shock(s), the deflationary component will continue to hold the upper hand (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Each Shock Has A Deflationary And Reflationary Component... But The Deflationary Component Tends To Dominate The simple reason is that as financial asset prices, real estate prices, and debt servicing costs get addicted to ever lower bond yields, the economy and financial markets cannot tolerate bond yields reaching previous tightening highs and, just like all addicts, need a new extreme loosening to feel any stimulus. This means that when the next shock comes – as it surely will – it will require lower lows and lower highs in the bond yield cycle. Let’s sum up. On a timeframe of a few years, a shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its precise nature – economic/financial, political, or natural – or its precise timing. Furthermore, the shock will be net deflationary. Hence, investors must build such a deflationary shock or shocks into their long-term investment strategy. Specifically: The 10-year T-bond yield will eventually reach zero, and the 30-year T-bond yield will ultimately reach 0.5 percent. For patient investors, this constitutes a mouth-watering 100 percent return on the long-duration T-bond. The 10-year T-bond yield will eventually reach zero. The structural bull market in equities will continue until T-bond yields reach their ultimate low. Patient equity investors should tilt towards ‘growth’ sectors that will surge on the ultimate low in T-bond yields. Candidates For Countertrend Reversals This week we have noticed an unusual decoupling among the tech-heavy markets of Taiwan, Netherlands, and China (Chart I-10). Chart I-10An Unusual Decoupling Between Tech-Heavy Netherlands And China Among these three markets, the strong short-term outperformance of both Taiwan and Netherlands are due to supply bottlenecks in the semiconductor sector that have boosted Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing and ASML, but we expect these bottlenecks ultimately to resolve. On this basis and combined with extremely fragile 130-day fractal structures, Taiwan versus China and Netherlands versus China are vulnerable to reversals (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11Underweight Taiwan Versus China Chart I-12Underweight Netherlands Versus China Our first recommended trade is to underweight Netherlands versus China, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent. Another outperformance that looks fragile on its 130-day fractal structure is Sweden versus Finland, driven by industrials and financials versus energy and materials (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Underweight Sweden Versus Finland Our second recommended trade is to underweight Sweden versus Finland, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4.7 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - ##br##Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights The Biden Administration's $2.25 trillion infrastructure plan rolled out yesterday will, at the margin, boost global demand for energy and base metals more than expected later this year and next. Global GDP growth estimates – and the boost supplied by US stimulus – once again will have to be adjusted higher (Chart of the Week). Energy and metals fundamentals continue to tighten. OPEC 2.0's so-far-successful production management strategy will keep the level of supply just below demand, which will keep Brent crude oil on either side of $60/bbl. Base-metals output will struggle to meet higher demand from the ongoing buildout of renewables infrastructure and growing electric-vehicle sales. Of late, concerns that speculative positioning suggests prices will head lower – or, at other times, higher – are entirely misplaced: Spec positioning conveys no information on price levels or direction. Energy and metals prices, on the other hand, do convey useful information on spec positioning, demonstrating specs do not lead the news or prices, they follow them. Short-term headwinds caused by halting recoveries and renewed lockdowns – particularly in the EU – will fade in 2H21 as vaccines roll out, if the experience of the UK and US are any guide. Continued USD strength, however, would remain a headwind. Feature If the Biden administration is successful in getting its $2.25 trillion infrastructure-spending bill through Congress, the US will join the rest of the world in the race to re-build – in some cases, build anew – its long-neglected bridges, roads, schools, communications and high-speed transportation networks, and, critically, its electric-power grid. There's a lot of game left to play on this, but our Geopolitical Strategy group is giving this bill an 80% of passage later this year, after all the wrangling and log-rolling in Congress is done. In and of itself, the infrastructure-directed spending coming out of Biden's plan will be a catalyst for higher US industrial commodity demand – energy, metals and bulks. In addition, it will support the lift in the demand boost coming out of higher GDP growth globally, which will be pushed higher by US fiscal spending, as the Chart of the Week shows. Of note is the extremely robust growth expected in India, China and the US, which are among the largest consumers of industrial commodities globally. Overall growth in the G20 and globally will be expansive in 2022 as well. Chart of the WeekBiden's $2.25 Trillion Infrastructure Bill Will Boost Global Commodity Demand Higher GDP growth translates directly into higher demand for commodities, all else equal, as can be seen in the relationship between EM and DM GDP, supply and inventories and Brent crude oil prices in Chart 2. While we have reduced our Brent forecast for this year to $60/bbl on the back of renewed demand-side weakness in the EU due to problems in acquiring and distributing COVID-19 vaccines, we expect this to be reversed next year and into 2025, with prices trading between $60-$80/bbl (Chart 3). OPEC 2.0, the oil-producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, has done an excellent job of keeping the level of oil supply below demand over the course of the pandemic, which we expect to continue to the end of 2025.1 Chart 2Higher GDP Growth Presages Higher Commodity Demand Chart 3Brent Crude Oil Prices Will Average - / bbl to 2025 As the Biden plan makes its way through Congress, markets will get a better idea of how much diesel fuel, copper, steel, iron ore, etc., will be required in the US alone. What is important to note here that the US is just moving to the starting line, whereas other economies like China and the EU already have begun their investment cycles in renewables and EVs. At present, key markets already are tight, particularly copper (Chart 4) and aluminum (Chart 5). In both markets, we expect physical deficits this year and next, which inclines us to believe the metals leg of this renewables buildout is just beginning – higher prices will be required to incentivize the development of new supply.2 Chart 4Copper Will Post Physical Deficit... Chart 5...As Will Aluminum This is particularly important in copper, where growth in mining output of ore has been flat for the past two years. Copper is the one metal that spans all renewables technologies, and is a bellwether commodity for global growth. We expect copper to trade to $4.50/lb (up ~ $0.50/lb vs spot) on the COMEX in 4Q21 on the back of increasing demand and tight supplies – i.e., falling mining supply and refined copper output growth (Chart 6). Worth noting also is steel rebar and hot-rolled coil prices traded at record highs this week on Chinese futures markets. Stronger steel markets continue to support iron ore prices, although the latter is trading off its recent highs and likely will move lower toward the end of the year as Brazilian supply returns to the market.3 We use steel prices as a leading indicator for copper prices – steel leads copper prices by ~ 9 months. This makes sense when one considers steel is consumed early in infrastructure and construction projects, while copper consumption occurs later as airports and houses are fitted with copper for electric, plumbing and communications applications. Chart 6Copper Ore Output Flat Does Speculative Positioning Matter? Of late, media pundits and analysts have cited an unwinding of speculative positions in oil and metals markets following sharp run-ups in net long positions as a harbinger of weaker prices in the near future (Chart 7).4 At other times, speculation has been invoked as a reason for price surges – e.g., when oil rocketed toward $150/bbl in mid-2008, which was followed by a price collapse at the start of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).5 Brunetti et al note, "The role of speculators in financial markets has been the source of considerable interest and controversy in recent years. Concern about speculative trading also finds support in theory where noise traders, speculative bubbles, and herding can drive prices away from fundamental values and destabilize markets." (p. 1545) Chart 7Speculative Positioning Lower In Brent Than WTI We recently re-tested earlier findings in our research, which found that knowledge of how specs are positioned – either on the long or the short side of the market – conveys no information on the level of prices or the change that should be expected given that knowledge. However, knowledge of the price level does convey useful information on how speculators are positioned in futures markets.6 In cointegrating regressions of speculative positions in crude oil, natural gas and copper futures on price levels for these commodities, we find the level of prices to be a statistically significant determinant of spec positions. We find no such relationship using spec positions as an explanatory variable for prices.7 On the other hand, Chart 2 above is an example of statistically significant relationships for Brent and WTI price as a function of supply-demand fundamentals displaying coefficients of determination (r-squares) of close to 90% in the post-GFC period (2010 to now). This supports our earlier findings regarding spec behavior: They follow prices, they don't lead them.8 We are not dismissive of speculation. It plays a critical role in markets, by providing the liquidity that enables commodity producers and consumers to hedge their price exposures, and to investors seeking to diversify their portfolios with commodity exposures that are uncorrelated to their equity and bond holdings. Short-Term Headwinds Likely Dissipate COVID-19 remains the largest risk to markets generally, commodities in particular. The mishandling of vaccine rollouts in the EU has pushed back our assumption for demand recovery deeper into 2H21, but it has not derailed it. We expect COVID-related deaths and hospitalizations to fall in the EU as they have in the UK and the US following the widespread distribution of vaccines, which should occur in the near future as Brussels organizes its pandemic response (Chart 8). Making vaccines available for other states in dire straits will follow, which will allow the global re-opening to progress as lockdowns are lifted (Chart 9). Chart 8EU Vaccination Rollouts Will Boost Global Economic Recovery Chart 9Global Re-Opening Has Slowed, But Will Resume In 2H21 The other big risk we see to commodities is persistent USD strength (Chart 10). The dollar has rallied for the better part of 2021, largely on the back of improving US economic prospects relative to other states, and success in its vaccination efforts. The resumption of the USD's bear market may have to wait until the rest of the world catches up with America's public-health response to the pandemic, and the global economy ex-US and -China enters a stronger expansionary mode. Bottom Line: We remain bullish industrial commodities expecting demand to improve as the EU rolls out vaccines and begins to make progress in arresting the pandemic and removing lockdowns. Global fiscal and monetary policy, which likely will be bolstered by a massive round of US infrastructure spending beginning in 4Q21 will catalyze demand growth for oil and base metals. This will prompt another round of GDP revisions to the upside. The dollar remains a headwind for now, but we expect it to return to a bear market in 2H21. Chart 10The USD's Evolution Remains Important Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Going into the April 1 meeting of OPEC 2.0 today, we are not expecting any increase in production. OPEC earlier this week noted demand had softened, mostly due to the slow recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic in the EU, which, based on their previous policy decisions, suggests the producer coalition will not be increasing production. The coalition led by KSA and Russia will have to address Iran's return as a major exporter to China this year, which appears to have been importing ~ 1mm b/d of Iranian crude this month (Chart 11). This puts Iran in direct competition with KSA as a major exporter to China, in defiance of the US re-imposition of sanctions against Iranian exports. China and Iran over the weekend signed a 25-year trade pact that also could include military provisions, which could, over time, alter the balance of power in the Persian Gulf if Chinese military assets – naval and land warfare – deploy to Iran under their agreement. Details of the deal are sparse, as The Guardian noted in its recent coverage. Among other things, government officials in Tehran have come under withering criticism for entering the deal, which they contend was signed with a "politically bankrupt regime." The Guardian also noted US President Joe Biden " is prepared to make a new offer to Iran this week whereby he will lift some sanctions in return for Iran taking specific limited steps to come back into compliance with the nuclear agreement, including reducing the level to which it enriches uranium," in the wake of the signing of this deal. Base Metals: Bullish Copper fell this week, initially on an inventory build, and has now settled right under the $4/lb mark, as investors await details on the US infrastructure bill unveiled in Pittsburgh, PA, on Wednesday. According to mining.com, a major chunk of the proposed bill will be devoted to investments in infrastructure, which will be metals-intensive. Precious Metals: Bullish Gold fell further this week, as US treasury yields rose, buoyed by the increased US vaccine efforts and President Biden’s proposed spending plans (Chart 12). USD strength also worked against the yellow metal, which has been steadily declining since the beginning of this year. COMEX gold fell below the $1,700/oz mark for the third time this month and settled at $1,683.90/oz on Tuesday. Chart 11 Chart 12 Footnotes 1 Please see Five-Year Brent Forecast Update: Expect Price Range of $60 - $80/bbl, which we published 25 March 2021. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Industrial Commodities Super-Cycle Or Bull Market?, which we published 4 March 2021 for additional discussion, particularly regarding the need for additional capex in energy and metals markets. 3 Please see UPDATE 1-Strong industrial activity, profit lift China steel futures, published by reuters.com 29 March 2021. 4 See, e.g., Column: Frothy oil market deflates as virus fears return published 23 March 2021. 5 Brunetti, Celso, Bahattin Büyüksahin, and Jeffrey H. Harris (2016), " Speculators, Prices, and Market Volatility," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 51:5, pp. 1545-74, for further discussion. 6 Please see Specs Back Up The Truck For Oil, which we published 26 April 2018, and Feedback Loop: Spec Positioning & Oil Price Volatility published 10 May 2018. Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 We group money managers (registered commodity trading advisors, commodity pool operators and unregistered funds) and swap dealers (banks and trading companies providing liquidity to hedgers and speculators) together to test these relationships. 8 In our earlier research, we also noted our results generally were supported in the academic literature. See, e.g., Fattouh, Bassam, Lutz Kilian and Lavan Mahadeva (2012), "The Role of Speculation in Oil Markets: What Have We Learned So Far?" published by The Oxford Institute For Energy Studies. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Summary of Closed Trades
Highlights Underweighting T-bonds, tech versus the market, growth versus value, new economy versus old economy, and US versus the euro area are all just one massive correlated trade. Get the direction of the T-bond yield right, and you will get the whole correlated trade right. The rise in the 10-year T-bond yield will meet resistance much closer to 2 percent than to 3 percent… …because the level of the yield is already starting to weigh on the stock market, the financial system, and the real economy. Hence, on a 6-month horizon, fade the massive correlated trade. When allocating to stock markets, don’t confuse a ‘stock effect’ for a ‘country effect’. Fractal trade shortlist: European autos and European personal products. The Pareto Principle Of Investment Chart of the WeekCorrelated Trade: Tech And The US One of the guiding principles of investment is that: Investment is complex, but it is not complicated. The words complex and complicated are often used synonymously, but they mean different things. Complex means something that is not fully predictable or analysable. Complicated means something that is made up of many parts. Investment is not complicated because a few parts drive the relative prices of everything. This is also known as the Pareto Principle, or the 20:80 rule. Just 20 percent of the input determines 80 percent of the output.1 Right now, the 20 that is determining the 80 is the bond yield. Higher bond yields are hurting high-flying tech stocks. This is because the ‘net present value’ of cashflows that are weighted deep into the future are highly sensitive to rising yields. Therefore, underweighting T-bonds means underweighting tech versus the market. Which extends to growth versus value, new economy versus old economy, US versus the euro area, and so on. In effect, all these positions have become one massive correlated trade (Chart of the Week, Chart I-2, and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Correlated Trade: T-Bond, And Growth Vs. Value Chart I-3Correlated Trade: Growth Vs. Value, ##br##And Tech Get the direction of the bond yield right and your whole investment strategy will be right. You will be a hero. Get the direction of the bond yield wrong and your whole investment strategy will be wrong. You will be a zero. Get the direction of the bond yield right and your whole investment strategy will be right. The hero/zero decision for investors is: from the current level of 1.7 percent, at what level will the 10-year T-bond yield peak and reverse? If the answer is, say, 3 percent, then the recent direction of this correlated trade has much further to go, and investors should stay on the ride. But if the answer is, say, 2 percent, then this correlated trade does not have much further to go, and it will soon be time to get off. To repeat, investment is not complicated, but it is complex. The evolution of the bond yield is not fully analysable or predictable. Still, our assessment is that the rise in the 10-year T-bond yield will meet resistance much closer to 2 percent than to 3 percent. This is because the level of yields is already starting to weigh on the stock market, the financial system, and the real economy. Specifically: The global stock market rally has stalled since mid-February because high-flying growth stocks have been reined back by rising bond yields. Recent margin calls and liquidations in the hedge fund space presage points of fragility in the financial system. Note, there is never just one cockroach. US mortgage applications for home purchases and building permits for new housebuilding appear to be rolling over (Chart I-4). Admittedly, these are just straws in the wind. But straws in the wind can be the first sign of a brewing storm. Chart I-4Are Higher Bond Yields Starting To Weigh On The Housing Market? On a 6-month horizon, fade the underweighting to bonds, tech versus the market, growth versus value, new economy versus old economy, and US versus the euro area correlated trade. Sectors Still Rule The Stock Market World The evolution of the pandemic, the pace of vaccination roll-outs, and the size of fiscal stimuluses have become polarised by region and country, with clear leaders and laggards. This raises the question: are the regions and countries that are winning against the pandemic the investment winners too? For the major stock markets, the answer is an emphatic no. Compared with the US, the euro area is experiencing an aggressive third wave of infections, is lagging in its vaccination roll-outs, and is unleashing much less fiscal stimulus. Yet euro area equities have not been underperforming US equities. Proving that the outperformance and underperformance of the major stock markets has very little to do with what is going on in the local economy. The outperformance and underperformance of the major stock markets has very little to do with what is going on in the local economy. By far the biggest driver of euro area versus US stock market performance is the euro area’s massive underweighting to tech stocks vis-à-vis the US. Hence, the tech sector’s recent travails have boosted the euro area stock market’s relative performance. Similar types of sector skews explain the relative performance of all the major stock markets (Table I-1). For example, developed markets (DM) versus emerging markets (EM) is nothing more than healthcare versus basic resources (Chart I-5). Table I-1The Sector Fingerprints Of The Major Stock Markets Chart I-5DM Vs. EM Is Nothing More Than Healthcare Vs. Basic Resources Exchange rates can also have a bearing on stock market relative performance – though the main transmission mechanism is not through competitiveness, but through the so-called ‘currency translation effect.’ Specifically, the multinationals that dominate the major stock markets have their cost bases diversified across multiple currencies. Hence, for a euro-listed multinational company, a weaker euro doesn’t boost its competitiveness. But it does boost the translation of its multi-currency profits into euros, the currency of its stock market listing. Thereby, the weaker euro boosts its stock price. Don’t Confuse A ‘Stock Effect’ For A ‘Country Effect’ Many people think that there is also a strong ‘country effect’ in stock market selection. For example, if US tech hardware outperforms euro area tech hardware, then this is clearly not a sector effect. It must be to do with a difference between the US and the euro area, meaning a country effect. The truth is more nuanced. Many sectors are now highly concentrated in one or two dominant stocks. US tech hardware is concentrated in Apple while euro area tech hardware is concentrated in ASML. Hence, if US tech hardware is outperforming euro area tech hardware, it is because Apple is outperforming ASML (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Is US Tech Vs. Euro Area Tech A 'Country Effect' Or A 'Stock Effect'? Likewise, if euro area pharma is outperforming UK pharma, it is because the dominant euro area pharma stock, Sanofi, is outperforming the dominant UK pharma stock, AstraZeneca (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Is Euro Area Pharma Vs. UK Pharma A 'Country Effect' Or A 'Stock Effect'? So, if US tech hardware is outperforming euro area tech hardware, and euro area pharma is outperforming UK pharma, are these ‘country effects’, or are they ‘stock effects’? We would argue that, in truth, they are stock effects. Meaning they have little to do with what is happening in the country of listing, and much more to do with the specifics of the company. For example, if UK pharma is underperforming, it is because AstraZeneca is underperforming. And if AstraZeneca is underperforming, it is more likely to do with the performance of its Covid-19 vaccine than the performance of the UK economy. The problem is that most performance attributions will incorrectly count what are stock effects as country effects. And the more concentrated that sectors become, the more pronounced this error becomes. Yet nowadays, extreme concentration in one or two stocks per sector is the norm rather than the exception. Hence, what appears to be a country effect is, in most cases, a stock effect. What appears to be a country effect is, in most cases, a stock effect. The important lesson is that when allocating to the major stock markets, do not think in terms of regions or countries because the country effect is, in truth, negligible. Think in terms of the sectors and the dominant stocks that you want to own, and the regional and country allocation will resolve itself automatically. On this basis our high-conviction structural position to be overweight DM versus EM simply follows from our high-conviction structural position to be overweight healthcare versus basic resources. In the DM versus EM decision, everything else is largely irrelevant. Candidates For Countertrend Reversals This week’s candidates for countertrend reversal are European autos, and European personal products. The euphoria towards electric vehicles (EVs) has taken European auto stocks to a technically overbought extreme (Chart I-8). Chart I-8European Autos Are Overbought Conversely, the euphoria towards economic reopening plays has taken European personal products stocks to a technically oversold extreme (Chart I-9). Chart I-9European Personal Products Are Oversold Our recommended trade is overweight European personal products versus European autos (Chart I-10), setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 15 percent. Chart I-10Overweight European Personal Products Versus European Autos Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The exact numbers 20 and 80 are simply indicative of the Pareto Principle rather than set in stone, they could also be 5 and 95, or indeed 5 and 99 as they do not need to sum to 100. Fractal Trading System 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Euro Area Chart II-2Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Asia Chart II-4Other Developed Interest Rate Chart II-5Expectations Chart II-6Expectations Chart II_7Expectations Chart II-8Expectations
Highlights A positive backdrop still supports a cyclical bull market in Chinese stocks, but the upside in prices could be quickly exhausted. Investors may be overlooking emerging negative signs in China’s onshore equity market. The breadth of the A-share price rally has sharply declined since the beginning of this year; historically, a rapid narrowing in breadth has been a reliable indicator for pullbacks in the onshore market. Recent stock price rallies in some high-flying sectors of the onshore market are due to earnings multiples rather than earnings growth. Overstretched stock prices relative to earnings risk a snapback. We remain cautious on short-term prospects for China’s onshore equity markets. Feature Market commentators remain sharply divided about whether Chinese stocks will continue on their cyclical bull run or are in a speculative frenzy ready to capitulate. Stock prices picked up further in the first three weeks of 2021, extending their rallies in 2020. The positives that support a bull market, such as China’s economic recovery and improving profit growth, are at odds with the negatives. The downside is that the intensity of post-pandemic stimulus in China has likely peaked and monetary conditions have tightened. In addition, China’s stock markets may be showing signs of fatigue. While aggregate indexes have recorded new highs, the breadth of the rally—the percentage of stocks for which prices are rising versus falling—has been rapidly deteriorating. In the past, a sharp narrowing in breadth led to corrections and major setbacks in Chinese stock prices. Timing the eventual correction in stock prices will be tricky in an environment where plentiful cash on the sidelines from stimulus invites risk-taking. For now, there is little near-term benefit for investors to chase the rally in Chinese stocks. While we are not yet negative on Chinese stocks on a cyclical basis, the risks for a near-term price correction are significant. Investors looking to allocate more cash to Chinese stocks should wait until a correction occurs. Positive Backdrop On a cyclical basis, there are still some aspects that could push Chinese stocks even higher. The question is the speed of the rally. The more earnings multiples expand in the near term, the more earnings will have to do the heavy lifting in the rest of the year to pull Chinese stocks higher. The following factors have provided tailwinds to Chinese stocks, but may have already been discounted by investors: Chart 1Chinas Economic Recovery Continues China’s economic recovery continues. China was the only major world economy to record growth in 2020. The massive stimulus rolled out last year should continue to work its way through the economy and support the ongoing uptrend in the business cycle (Chart 1). China’s relative success containing domestic COVID-19 outbreaks also provides confidence for the country’s consumers, businesses and investors. Chinese consumers have saved money—a lot of it. Although the household sector has been a laggard in China’s aggregate economy, much of the consumption weakness has been due to a slower recovery in service activities, such as tourism and catering (Chart 2). More importantly, Chinese households have accumulated substantial savings in the past two years. Unlike investors in the US, Chinese households have limited investment choices. Historically, sharp increases in household savings growth led to property booms (Chart 3, top panel). Given that Chinese authorities have become more vigilant in preventing further price inflation in the property market, Chinese households have been increasingly investing in the domestic equity market (Chart 3, middle and bottom panels). Reportedly, there has been a sharp jump in demand for investment products from households; mutual funds in China have raised money at a record pace, bringing in over 2 trillion yuan ($308 billion) in 2020, which is more than the total amount for the previous four years. The equity investment penetration remains low in China compared with developed nations such as the US.1 Thus, there is still room for Chinese households to deploy their savings into domestic stock markets. Chart 2Consumption Has Been A Laggard In Chinas Economic Recovery Chart 3But Chinese Households Have Saved A Lot Of Dry Powder Global growth and the liquidity backdrop remain positive. The combination of extremely easy monetary policy worldwide and a new round of fiscal support in the US will provide a supportive backdrop for both global economic growth and liquidity conditions. Foreign investment has flocked into China’s financial markets since last year and has picked up speed since the New Year (Chart 4). On a monthly basis, portfolio inflows account for less than 1% of the onshore equity market trading volume, but in recent years foreign portfolio inflows have increasingly influenced China’s onshore equity market sentiment and prices (Chart 5). Chart 4Foreign Investors Are Piling Into The Chinese Equity Market Chart 5And Have Become A More Influential Player In The Chinese Onshore Market Geopolitical risks are abating somewhat. We do not expect that the Biden administration will be quick to unwind Trump’s existing trade policies on China. However, in the near term, the two nations will likely embark on a less confrontational track than in the past two and a half years. Slightly eased Sino-US tensions will provide global investors with more confidence for buying Chinese risk assets. Lastly, localized COVID-19 outbreaks have flared up in several Chinese cities, prompting local authorities to take aggressive measures, including community lockdowns and stepping up travel restrictions. A deterioration in the situation could delay the recovery of household consumption; however, any negative impact on China’s aggregate economy will more than likely be offset by market expectations that policymakers will delay monetary policy normalization. Domestic liquidity conditions could improve, possibly providing a short-term boost to the rally in Chinese stocks. Bottom Line: Much of the positive news may already be priced into Chinese stocks. Non-Negligible Downside Risks There is a consensus that Chinese authorities will dial back their stimulus efforts this year and continue to tighten regulations in sectors such as real estate. Investors may disagree on the pace and magnitude of policy tightening, but the policy direction has been explicit from recent government announcements. However, the market may have ignored the following factors and their implications on stock performance: Deteriorating equity market breadth. In the past three weeks, the rally in Chinese stocks has been supported by a handful of blue-chip companies. The CSI 300 Index, which aggregates the largest 300 companies listed on both the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges (i.e. the A-share market) outperformed the broader A-share market by a large margin (Chart 6). Crucially, stock market breadth has declined rapidly (Chart 7). In short, the majority of Chinese stocks have relapsed. Chart 6Large Cap Stocks Outperform The Rest By A Sizable Margin Chart 7The Breadth Of Onshore Stock Price Rally Has Narrowed Sharply Chart 8Narrowing Market Breadth Has Historically Led To Price Pullbacks Previously, Chinese stocks experienced either price corrections or a major setback as the breadth of the rally narrowed (Chart 8). However, the relationship has broken down since October last year; the number of stocks with ascending prices has fallen, while the aggregate A-share prices have risen. In other words, breadth has narrowed and the rally in the benchmark has been due to a handful of large-cap stocks. Top performers do not have enough weight to support the broad market. An overconcentration of returns in itself may not necessarily lead to an imminent price pullback in the aggregate equity index. The five tech titans in the S&P 500 index have been dominating returns since 2015, whereas the rest of the 495 stocks in the index barely made any gains. Yet the overconcentration in just a few stocks has not stopped the S&P 500 from reaching new highs in the past five years. Unlike the tech titans which represent more than 20% of the S&P index, the overconcentration in the Chinese onshore market has been more on the sector leaders rather than on a particular sector. China’s own tech giants such as Alibaba, Tencent, and Meituan, represent 35% of China’s offshore market, but most of the sector leaders in China’s onshore market account for only two to three percent of the total equity market cap (Table 1). Given their relatively small weight in the Shanghai and Shenzhen composite indexes, it is difficult for these stocks to lift the entire A-share market if prices in all the other stocks decline sharply. The CSI 300 Index, which aggregates some of China’s largest blue-chip companies and industry leaders, including Kweichow Moutai, Midea Group, and Ping An Insurance, is not insulated from gyrations in the aggregate A-share market. Historically, when investors crowded into those top performers, the weight from underperforming companies in the broader onshore market would create a domino effect and drag down the CSI 300 Index. In other words, the magnitude of returns on the CSI 300 Index can deviate from the broader onshore market, but not the direction of returns. Table 1Top 10 Constituents And Their Weights In The CSI 300, Shanghai Composite, And Shenzhen Composite Indexes Chinese “groupthinkers” are pushing the overconcentration. With the explosive growth in mutual fund sales, Chinese institutional investors and asset managers have started to play important roles in the bull market. Unlike their Western counterparts, Chinese fund managers’ performances are ranked on a quarterly or even monthly basis by asset owners, including retail investors. As such, they face intense and constant pressure to outperform the benchmarks and their peers, and have great incentive to chase rallies in well-known companies. In a late-state bull market when uncertainties emerge and assets with higher returns are sparse, fund managers tend to group up in chasing fewer “sector winners,” driving up their share prices. Chart 9Forward Earnings Growth Has Stalled Earnings outlook fails to keep up with multiple expansions. Despite the massive stimulus last year and improving industrial profits, forward earnings growth in both the onshore and offshore equity markets rolled over by the end of last year (Chart 9). Earnings from some of China’s high-flying sectors have been mediocre (Chart 10). Even though the ROEs in the food & beverage, healthcare and aerospace sectors remain above the domestic industry benchmarks, the sharp upticks in their share prices are largely due to an expansion of forward earnings multiples rather than earnings growth (Chart 11). The stretched valuation measures suggest that investors have priced in significant earnings growth, which may be more than these industries can deliver in 2021. Chart 10Other Than Healthcare, High-Flying Sectors Have Seen Mediocre Earnings Chart 11Too Much Growth Priced In Cyclical stocks may be sniffing out a peak in the market. The performance in cyclical stocks relative to defensives in both the onshore and offshore equity markets has started to falter, after outperforming throughout 2020 (Chart 12). Historically, the strength in cyclical stocks relative to defensives corresponds with improving economic activity (and vice versa). Therefore, the recent rollover in the outperformance of cyclical stocks versus defensives indicates that China’s economic recovery and the equity rally could soon peak. An IPO mania. New IPOs in China reached a record high last year, jumping by more than 100% from 2019. IPOs on the Shanghai, Shenzhen and Hong Kong stock exchanges together were more than half of all global IPOs in 2020. The previous rounds of explosive IPOs in China occurred in 2007, 2010/11, and 2014/15, most followed by stock market riots (Chart 13). Chart 12Cyclical Stocks May Be Sniffing Out A Peak In The Market Chart 13IPO Manias In The Past Have Led To Market Riots Bottom Line: Investors may be neglecting some risks and pitfalls in the Chinese equity markets, which could lead to near-term price corrections. Investment Conclusions We still hold a constructive view on Chinese stocks in the next 6 to 12 months. Yet the equity market rally has been on overdrive for the past several weeks. The higher Chinese stock prices climb in the near term, the more it will eat into upside potentials and thus push down expected returns. The divergence between forward earnings and PE expansions in Chinese stocks is reminiscent of the massive stock market boom-bust cycle in 2014/15 (Chart 14A and 14B). This is in stark contrast with the picture at the beginning of the last policy tightening cycle, which started in late 2016 (Chart 15A and 15B). Valuation is a poor timing indicator and investor sentiment is hard to pin down. Nevertheless, the wide divergence between the earnings outlook and multiples indicates that Chinese stock prices are overstretched and at risk of price setbacks. Chart 14AA Picture Looking Too Familiar Chart 14BA Picture Looking Too Familiar Chart 15AAnd A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle Chart 15BAnd A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle We remain cautious on the short-term prospects for the broad equity market. Investors looking to allocate more cash to Chinese stocks should wait until a price correction occurs. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Only 20.4% of Chinese households’ total net worth is in financial assets versus the US, where the share is 42.5%. PBoC, “2019 Chinese Urban Households Assets And Liabilities Survey.” Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
The recent market selloff continues to bear the mark of a correction. A pullback had become nearly unavoidable. Growth stocks had moved vertically and reached furious valuations. Yet, bond yields were not declining anymore. The correction could run further as…
Highlights US Dollar: The overvalued US dollar is finally cracking under the weight of aggressive Fed policy reflation and non-US growth outperformance coming out of the COVID-19 recession. The US dollar weakness has more room to run, forcing investors to reconsider bond allocation and currency hedging decisions in multi-currency portfolios. Currency-Hedged Bond Yields: For USD-based investors, US Treasuries still offer enough yield such that currency-hedged non-US government bond yields remain less appealing in most countries. The notable exceptions are Germany, France, the UK, Sweden and Japan, where both unhedged and USD-hedged yields are below comparable US yields – stay underweight those sovereign markets versus the US in USD-hedged portfolios. Currency-Hedged Corporates: For corporate bonds, both US high-yield and investment grade offer more attractive yields, in both USD and euros, relative to euro area equivalents. Stay overweight US corporates versus the euro area in USD-hedged and EUR-hedged portfolios. Feature Chart of the WeekStart Hedging USD Exposure? The mighty US dollar (USD), which had remained impervious to plunging US interest rates and surging US COVID-19 cases, is finally breaking down. The DXY index of major developed economy currencies is down -3% so far in 2020, and nearly -10% from the peak seen in March during the worst of the COVID-19 global market rout. Other forms of currency, like precious metals and even Bitcoin, are also surging with the price of gold hitting a new all-time high yesterday. A new USD bear market would represent a major change to the global economic and investment landscape, affecting global economic growth, inflation, corporate profitability and capital flows. We will cover these topics in more detail in the coming weeks and months with the USD entering what appears to be a sustainable bearish trend. In this report, however, we tackle the most basic question for global fixed income investors in light of the new weakening trend for the USD – what to do with non-US bond holdings, and currency hedges, after nearly a decade of generating outperformance by hedging non-US currencies into USD (Chart of the Week). Say Farewell To The USD Bull Market Chart 2These Currencies Have Clearly Broken Out The latest breakdown of the USD has been broad-based across the developed market currencies, although some currencies have been faring much better. The biggest moves versus the USD have been for majors like the euro, Australian dollar and Swiss franc, all of which have clearly broken out above their 200-day moving averages (Chart 2). In fact, the 200-day moving averages for those currencies are now moving higher, indicating that the new medium-term trend for those pairs is appreciation versus the USD. Other important currencies like the British pound, Canadian dollar and Japanese yen have gained ground versus the USD, but at a much slower pace (Chart 3). This reflects some of the unique issues within those economies (ongoing Brexit uncertainty in the UK, the pause in the oil price rally in Canada and flailing growth in Japan). Yet even the Chinese yuan, heavily managed by Chinese policymakers, has seen some mild upward pressure versus the greenback (bottom panel). The USD is clearly a currency that wants to weaken further, with the decline broadening in terms of the number of currencies now rising versus the USD. There are numerous reasons why this is happening now and is likely to continue doing so in the months ahead: The USD is clearly a currency that wants to weaken further, with the decline broadening in terms of the number of currencies now rising versus the USD. The Fed’s aggressive rate cuts earlier this year – and even dating back to the 75bps of easing delivered in 2019 – have dramatically reduced the robust interest rate differentials that had previously boosted the USD and attracted global capital flows into the currency (Chart 4). This is true for both nominal and inflation-adjusted real yields. Chart 3These Currencies Are On The Cusp Of Breaking Out Chart 4Low US Rates + Better Non-US Growth = A Weaker USD Chart 5Does The USD Require A COVID-19 Risk Premium? Chart 6Relative QE Trends Are USD-Negative Chart 7The USD Is No Longer A High Carry Currency Economic growth has been rebounding from the COVID-19 shock faster outside the US. The latest round of manufacturing purchasing managers’ index (PMI) data for July published last week showed significant monthly increases in the euro area, the UK and even Japan, with only a modest pickup in the US. This boosted the spread between the US and non-US manufacturing PMI, which correlates strongly to the price momentum of the US dollar, to the highest level in nearly three years (bottom panel). The surge in new COVID-19 cases in the southern US states represents a dramatic divergence with the lower number of cases in Europe and other developed countries (Chart 5). While there are some renewed flare-ups of the virus in places like Spain and Japan, the numbers pale in comparison to the explosion of new US cases. With the most affected areas in the US already reestablishing restrictions on economic activity, the gap between US and non-US growth seen in the PMI data is likely to widen in a USD-bearish direction. The Fed has been more aggressive in the expansion of its balance sheet compared to other major central banks like the ECB and Bank of Japan. While not a perfect indicator, the ratio of the Fed’s balance sheet to that of other central banks did coincide with the broad directional moves in the USD during the Fed’s “QE-era” after the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 6). We may be entering another such period, but with a lower impact as many other central banks are also aggressively expanding their balance sheets through asset purchases. Summing it all up, it is clear that the US weakness has further to run over the next few months - and perhaps longer with the Fed promising the keep the funds rate near 0% until the end of 2022. This fundamentally alters bond investing, and currency hedging, considerations, as the carry earned by being long US dollars is now far less attractive than has been the case over the past few years (Chart 7). In the current environment of microscopic global government bond yields, currency fluctuations will dominate the relative return performance between individual countries. Bottom Line: The overvalued US dollar is finally cracking under the weight of aggressive Fed policy reflation and non-US growth outperformance coming out of the COVID-19 recession. The US dollar weakness has more room to run, forcing investors to reconsider bond allocation and currency hedging decisions in multi-currency portfolios. Where Are The Most Attractive Yields Now For USD-Based Investors? Chart 8Puny Bond Yields Across The Developed Markets In the current environment of microscopic global government bond yields, currency fluctuations will dominate the relative return performance between individual countries. That makes the decisions on bond allocation at the country level more challenging, as the relative yields on offer represent a tiny proportion of a bond’s overall return on a currency-unhedged basis. For example, a 30-year US Treasury currently yields 1.25%, while a 30-year German government bond yields -0.08% (Chart 8). While the decision to hold the US Treasury over the German bond should be obvious given that 133bp (annualized) yield differential, the -4.6% decline in EUR/USD seen so far in the month of July alone has already swamped the additional income earned by owning the US Treasury. This example shows why the decision to actively take, or hedge, the currency exposure of a foreign bond relative to a domestic equivalent so important for any global fixed income investor. For someone whose base currency is entering a depreciation trend, like the USD, the currency decision becomes critical – in fact, it is the ONLY decision that matters for the expected return on any unhedged bond allocation. A proper “apples for apples” comparison of the relative attractiveness of yields in different countries, however, needs to be done after adjusting for cost of currency hedging. On that basis, US fixed income assets still look relatively attractive, even in a USD bear market. In Tables 1-4, we present developed market government bond yields across different maturity points (2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 30-year) for twelve countries. In each table, we show the current yield in local currency terms, while also showing the yield hedged into six different currencies (USD, EUR, GBP, JPY, CAD, AUD). We calculate the gain/cost of hedging using the ratio of current spot exchange rates and 3-month forward exchange rates. That is an all-in cost of hedging that includes both short-term interest rate differentials and the additional currency funding costs determined by cross-currency basis swaps. Table 1Currency-Hedged 2-Year Government Bond Yields Table 2Currency-Hedged 5-Year Government Bond Yields Table 3Currency-Hedged 10-Year Government Bond Yields Table 4Currency-Hedged 30-Year Government Bond Yields Using the example of the 30-year US and German bonds described earlier, that 30-year German yield of -0.08%, hedged into USD, has an all-in yield of +0.74%. This is still well below the 30-year US Treasury yield of 1.25%. Thus, that 30-year EUR-denominated German bond is unattractive compared to the USD-denominated US Treasury, after converting the German bond to a USD-equivalent security through hedging. That relationship holds even if we were to hedge the Treasury into euros. As can be seen in Table 4, the 30-year US Treasury has a EUR-hedged yield of +0.48%, 56bps above the EUR-denominated 30-year German bond yield. Therefore, while owning the US Treasury seems like the riskier bet on an unhedged basis now with the EUR/USD appreciating rapidly, the US bond is the superior yielding bet once currency risk is hedged away. Right now, Italy, Spain and Australia offer the highest yields both in unhedged and USD-hedged terms for most maturities. For those that prefer charts over numbers, much of the data in Tables 1-4 is shown as static snapshots of government bond yields curves in Chart 9 (for local currency, or unhedged, yield curves), while Chart 10 shows all yields hedged into USD. The charts show that there appear to be far more interesting relative value opportunities across countries at varying yield maturities now, but those gaps become smaller after hedging non-US bonds into USD. Chart 9Currency-Unhedged Global Government Bond Yield Curves Chart 10USD-Hedged Global Government Bond Yield Curves Right now, Italy, Spain and Australia offer the highest yields both in unhedged and USD-hedged terms for most maturities, making those bonds interesting to USD-based investors that choose to either take or hedge the EUR and AUD exposure of those bonds. In Tables 5-8, we take the yield data from the previous tables and show the hedged yields as spreads to the “base yield” of each currency, which is the government bond yield for that country. For example, in Table 3, we can see that for all countries shown, the 10-year yield hedged into GBP terms produces a yield that is above that of the 10-year UK Gilt. This is true even or negative yielding German bunds and Japanese government bonds. Thus, looking purely from a yield perspective, currency-hedged non-UK government bonds look very attractive to a UK bond investor with GBP as the base currency. Table 5Currency-Hedged 2-Year Govt. Bond Yields Spreads Within The "G-6" Table 6Currency-Hedged 5-Year Govt. Bond Yields Spreads Within The "G-6" Table 7Currency-Hedged 10-Year Govt. Bond Yields Spreads Within The "G-6" Table 8Currency-Hedged 30-Year Govt. Bond Yields Spreads Within The "G-6" Chart 11Global Spread Product Yields Are Low We can try the same analysis above for global spread products like corporate debt. Currency returns still matter for the returns on these assets, but less so given the higher outright yields offered compared to government bonds. Yields are relatively low across investment grade credit, junk bonds, mortgage-backed securities and emerging market debt after the massive rallies seen since March, but remain much higher than the sub-1% levels seen in most of the developed market government bond universe (Chart 11). In Table 9, we show the index yield (using Bloomberg Barclays indices) in both unhedged and currency-hedged terms for the main global credit sectors we include in our model bond portfolio universe. The index yields do not change that much after currency hedging costs are included, but there are some notable differences between corporate bonds of similar credit quality in the US and euro area. Table 9Currency-Hedged Spread Product Yields Specifically, for both investment grade and high-yield corporate credit, the yield in the US is higher than that seen in the euro area. This is true for both USD-hedged and EUR-hedged terms, thus making US corporates more attractive simply from a yield perspective without factoring in credit quality. Currency-hedged non-UK government bonds look very attractive to a UK bond investor with GBP as the base currency. Looking within the high-yield universe by credit tiers, US yields are higher than euro area equivalents for Ba-rated bonds, while euro area yields are slightly higher for B-rated debt (Chart 12). Yields on lower-quality Caa-rated debt are similar, both for US yields hedged into euros and vice versa. Chart 12No Major Differences In US & Euro Area Junk Yields Within investment grade, there is no contest with US yields higher than euro area equivalents across all credit tiers (Chart 13). Chart 13US IG Yields Are More Attractive Than Euro Area IG (in USD & EUR) Summing it all up, the new trend towards USD weakness has not altered much of the relative attractiveness of US fixed income assets on a currency-hedged basis for USD-based investors. This is true even after the sharp fall in US bond yields since March. Bottom Line: In Germany, France, the UK, Sweden and Japan, both unhedged and USD-hedged government bond yields are below comparable US Treasury yields – underweight those sovereign markets versus the US in USD-hedged portfolios. For corporate bonds, both US high-yield and investment grade offer more attractive yields, in both USD and euros, relative to euro area equivalents. Stay overweight US corporates versus the euro area in USD-hedged and EUR-hedged portfolios. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights Chinese stocks are still in the “public participation phase” of a cyclical bull market and have not yet reached the “excess phase.” Economic fundamentals should provide support for more upside in Chinese stock prices in the next 6 to 12 months. Even if Chinese stocks evolve into a boom-bust cycle reminiscent of 2014-15, near-term technical price corrections should provide good buying opportunities. We remain overweight Chinese equities in both absolute and relative terms, and recommend investors increase their exposure to beaten-down cyclically-geared stocks, particularly in China’s domestic market. Feature Chinese stocks rallied by 15% and 13% in the onshore and offshore markets, respectively, in the first 10 days of July. However, both markets gave up almost half of their gains in the third week of the month. The above-expectation Q2 GDP growth figure, which was released last Thursday, only exacerbated the market selloffs. This month’s rollercoaster ride in Chinese equities reminds investors of the boom-bust stock market cycle in 2014-2015, and raises the inevitable question: is it too late to buy or is it too early to sell Chinese stocks? We believe Chinese stocks are still at an early stage of a cyclical bull market. While the recent near-vertical escalation in equity prices was clearly overdone, any near-term technical corrections will provide good buying opportunities. Three Phases Of A Bull Market Chinese bull markets typically last 2-2.5 years and involve three phases.1 The length and boundaries of each phase in a bull run are often blurred and are best identified in hindsight. However, this framework helps put the ongoing market rally in both A shares and investable stocks into perspective. In our view, the A share market is currently in the early stage of the “public participation phase”, whereas investable stocks seem to be halfway through (Chart 1A and 1B). Chart 1AA Shares In Early Stage Of The “Public Participation Phase (PPP)” Chart 1BChinese Investable Shares May Be Halfway Through PPP We think that the current bull market started in January 2019, following a bear market from 2016 to 2018. We upgraded Chinese stocks from neutral to cyclically overweight in April 2019, which was a couple of months into the “accumulation phase” of the bull market underway. The accumulation phase is the start of an uptrend, typically after a bear market, when smart money begins to buy stocks; fundamentals still look bleak and valuations are at exceptionally depressed levels. Chart 2China’s Economy Should Be On Track To A Cyclical Upturn The public participation phase typically exhibits a massive increase in trading volumes and explosive growth in new investor accounts. This phase begins when the market is already off the bottom and negative sentiment begins to wane on signs of economic improvement (Chart 2). As the bull trend is clearly established, technical and trend traders also begin to pile in, generating a self-feeding cycle. The market begins to feel overheated, making value investors uncomfortable, but valuations are not yet extreme (Chart 3). This phase tends to last longer than the other two stages in a bull market primary trend. The expansion of multiples remains the dominant driver for the broad market while earnings struggle (Chart 4). Chart 3Valuations In A Shares Are Not Too Extreme For investable shares, we believe that the bull market is probably more than halfway through the public participation phase (Chart 5). The market has decisively broken out of its key technical resistance and entered into expensive territory (Chart 6). Still, neither A-share nor investable markets seem to be in the “excess phase” as witnessed in 2015 (Table 1). Chart 4Market Returns Between Multiples And Earnings Growth: Chinese A Shares Chart 5Market Returns Between Multiples And Earnings Growth: Chinese Investable Shares Chart 6Valuations In Chinese Investable Shares Are Becoming Expensive, But Not Too Stretched Table 1Multiples In Chinese Stocks Are Not Yet In The “Excess Phase” China's short and volatile stock market history provides some classic examples of equity boom-bust cycles. The massive bull market in Chinese A shares between 2013 and 2016 fits the three phases perfectly: stock prices jumped by a whopping 93% in the three phases of the bull market between early 2013 and May 2015. The bull market eventually marched onto the excess phase in the first half of 2015 and reached the ultimate top in May 2015 with a trailing P/E of 25 and price-to-book of over 3. Bottom Line: Both the A-share and investable bourses still have room for upside in the ongoing bull market. Remain overweight on both investable and domestic shares, but domestic stocks have more latitude for rally as China’s economy and earnings continue to recover. Pullbacks Not Enough To Turn Bearish On July 1 we upgraded our tactical (0 to 3 months) call on Chinese stocks and initiated long Chinese domestic and investable stock trades relative to global benchmarks. While it is impossible to predict whether the current market will supercharge into a boom-bust cycle as seen in 2014-15, we intend to keep the trades given our conviction that cyclically there is still upside to Chinese stock prices. To turn cyclically bearish on Chinese shares, the following conditions need to develop: First, the broad market should reach an overvalued extreme, at which point gravity would set in. Some sectors and small-cap names, particularly in the ChiNext board, are currently stretched (Chart 7). However, overall market valuations still appear reasonable, based on our composite valuation indicator. Historically, major peaks in the market occurred when the valuation indicator reached much higher levels. Further, cyclically-adjusted equity risk premiums (ERPs) in both Chinese onshore and offshore stocks are materially higher than their historical means (Chart 8). This suggests investors have already priced in extremely high uncertainties surrounding the Chinese economy. Perhaps overdone, in our view. As China's economy continues to recover, their ERPs should shrink, pushing stock prices higher. Chart 7A Structural Bull Run In Chinese Tech Stocks Chart 8Equity Risk Premium In Chinese Stocks Are Extremely High And Will Likely Shrink, Pushing Stock Prices Higher Secondly, liquidity should tighten. An important liquidity source is margin lending, which has gone up exponentially since late June and invited regulatory attention (Chart 9). Instead of waiting for overleverage in the market to form a momentum like in the 2014 cycle, Chinese regulators seem to be more vigilant and restrictive this time. By acting early and removing some steam from recent market velocity, a healthier secular bull market can develop. China’s overall monetary conditions are another important source of liquidity. If the policy stance turns from easing to tightening before the economy fully recovers, then it will lead to a compression in multiples in the equity market before stock prices can gain support from an earnings recovery. Historically, Chinese authorities tend to maintain an easing stance for at least three quarters following a nadir in the economy (Chart 10). The track record of Chinese policymakers suggests that the PBoC will likely keep monetary policy accommodative through the end of this year. Chart 9Chinese Authorities Have Been Cracking Down On Overleverage Early In This Bull Run Chart 10Easy Policy Should Sustain Through End Of 2020 Finally, the economy should weaken significantly, which would elevate the equity risk premium and threaten the earnings outlook. A second wave of COVID-19 would have to be severe enough to substantially impact China’s economic recovery, however, the pandemic situation in China seems to be contained and earnings recovery is on course (Chart 11, 12A, 12B, and 12C). Additionally, a major pandemic-triggered shock would only force Chinese authorities to up their ante on reflation and revive domestic demand, which could benefit stocks. Chart 11COVID-19 Virus Spread Has Been Largely Contained Within China Chart 12AA Share Prices Are Not Too Far Ahead Of Earnings Recovery Bottom Line: Chinese equities will likely experience technical corrections in the near term, but the downside risks are not enough to turn bearish. Chart 12BChinese Investable Stock Prices Seem A Bit Ahead Of Its Own Historical Performance… Chart 12C…But Still Not Too Expensive Compared With Global Benchmarks Investment Conclusions Regardless of the direction of Chinese stocks in absolute terms, we recommend investors overweight equities within a global equity portfolio (Chart 13). Investors should also tilt their exposure to battered cyclicals, particularly in China’s domestic stock market (Chart 14). We favor consumer discretionary, materials and industrials in the next 6 to 12 months. Chart 13We Remain Overweight On Chinese Stocks Chart 14Cyclical Stocks Are Likely To Prevail Over Defensives Chinese equity prices have run ahead of economic fundamentals and setbacks will be likely in the near term. Still, these setbacks are buying opportunities and we recommend buying on the dip if Chinese equities, in either onshore or offshore markets, were to fall by 5% to 10% from current levels. However, consecutive selloffs accumulating to a 15% or greater fall in Chinese stock prices within a short period of time (e.g. 2 to 3 weeks) would prompt us to close our long Chinese equity trades. Historically, when the prices of Chinese equities fell by such a magnitude, the selloffs tended to trigger panic among China’s massive retail investors and, in turn, form a self-reinforcing downward spiral and push Chinese stocks into a prolonged bear market (Chart 15). Chart 15Oversized Selloffs Historically Tend To Push Chinese Stocks Into Prolonged Bear Markets Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Three Phases Of A Bull Market," dated April 22, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights A clear U-turn in markets could make investors more conscious of losses, making them likely to sell. Hence, the fear-of-missing-out (FOMO) rally could turn into a fear-of-losing-out, or FOLO selloff. The P/E ratio is negatively correlated to the discount rate and the latter is the sum of the risk-free rate and the equity risk premium (ERP). Enormous lingering uncertainty warrants using an ERP that is at the upper end of its historical range. By using the average equity risk premium in their equity valuation models, investors are underpricing risks that are presently exceptionally high. Several market-based indicators and technical configurations point to a relapse in the global equity rally and renewed US dollar strength. Feature For some time, we have been arguing that the global equity advance since late March can best be described as a fear-of-missing-out, or FOMO, rally. During a FOMO rally, investors are forced to chase share prices higher due to fear of missing out on gains. A clear U-turn in markets and falling share prices could make investors more conscious of losses, and they would likely resort to selling stocks. This will turn the FOMO rally into a fear-of-losing-out, or FOLO, selloff. Marginal investors trade with momentum during both FOMO and FOLO scenarios. This is why we argued in our June 18 note that current investment strategies should be placing more emphasis on momentum than would normally be the case. In a nutshell, if FOMO forces subside, investors – which are facing enormous uncertainty on several fronts – will likely require higher risk premiums to commit money to stocks. For now, the momentum of the equity rally has stalled, but it has not yet reversed (Chart I-1). Our momentum indicator for global share prices is struggling to break above the zero line. In the past, the indicator being above or below zero often differentiated bull versus bear markets, respectively (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Chart I-1Global Share Prices Are Facing An Important Resistance In this report, we examine the bullish narrative behind the rally and offer our interpretation of those arguments. Then, we present our assessment of the fundamentals. Finally, we highlight the signs we are looking for to confirm that a major selloff will soon occur. The Bull Case: Climbing A Wall Of Worries? The bull case rests on the thesis that risk assets are climbing a wall of worries, i.e., investors are correct to look through many apparent negatives. The following are the key bullish arguments that have supported the rally: Policymakers around the world will do whatever it takes. The US, China and Europe will continue to augment stimulus to prevent another relapse in economic activity. We have never doubted the willingness of policymakers around the world to provide stimulus to their economies amid the pandemic. Where we have had reservations and questions is in whether policymakers will be capable of limiting the bear market in stocks to only one month amid the pandemic and the worst global recession in decades. There is plenty of cash on the sidelines looking to be invested. We agree with the lots-of-cash-on-the-sidelines thesis. Our measure of US dollar cash that might be deployed in financial assets is illustrated in Chart I-2. It plots the ratio of the US broad money supply to the market value of all US dollar-denominated securities. The US broad money supply represents all US dollars in the world – in cash and in electronic bank deposits. The denominator is the market capitalization of US dollar-denominated stocks and all types of bonds held by non-bank investors. If the market shows resilience and the pandemic situation and corporate profits ameliorate, cash on the sidelines will leak into assets, lifting their prices. The counterargument is as follows: If and when the equity momentum reverses, FOMO will be followed by a FOLO phase. In such a case, investors will sell to avoid losses or protect profits, and cash on the sidelines might not matter for a period of time. The global economy reached a bottom in April-May. We agree that the worst of the contraction in economic activity globally was in April and May, when major economies were in lockdown. Nevertheless, it is also plausible that global share prices could relapse even if the bottom in economic output has already been reached. Interestingly, in the 2001-2002 recession, global stocks made a major new low in late 2002/early 2003 even though global growth bottomed in 2001 (Chart I-3). Chart I-2The US: Broad Money Supply Relative To US Equity And Bond Markets Capitalization Chart I-3Global Stocks And The Business Cycle In 2000-2003 This recession is different from the perspective of the magnitude of the drop in business activity. Many businesses are still operating below their breakeven points and will likely continue to do so for some time. As such, a marginal increase in the level of activity or slower annual contraction might not be sufficient to enable them to service their debt and resume hiring and business investment. Therefore, the recovery will be stumbling and hesitant and relapses are quite likely, especially in the context of the ongoing pandemic. Finally, one of the pervasive arguments dominating the current investment landscape is that equities are cheap given very low interest rates. Unlike some of our colleagues, we are not in accord with this valuation thesis on global stocks in general and US equities in particular. One consideration that is missing in this argument is the equity risk premium. The P/E ratio is negatively correlated to the discount rate.1 The discount rate is the sum of the risk-free rate and the equity risk premium (ERP). Presently, one should use an ERP that is materially higher than its historical mean (Chart I-4, top panel). Investors are currently facing record-high uncertainty related to the pandemic and the business cycle, as well as the structural trends in the economic, political and geopolitical spheres. This warrants using an ERP that is at the upper end of its historical range. Chart I-4Exceptionally High Uncertainty Warrants A Higher Equity Risk Premium Critically, the ERP is not a static variable. Yet many equity valuation models assume that the ERP is constant, and therefore compare equity multiples with risk-free rates. Such models are wrong-headed because a change in the ERP can in and of itself cause large fluctuations in share prices. The bottom panel of Chart I-4 plots the US ERP and the global policy uncertainty index. The latter is at an all-time high while US ERP is well below its highs. In a nutshell, if FOMO forces subside, investors – which are facing enormous uncertainty on several fronts – will likely require higher risk premiums to commit money to stocks. Bottom Line: By using the average ERP in their equity valuation models, investors are underpricing risks that are presently exceptionally high. Bear Markets (Like Pandemics) Occur In Waves The duration and magnitude of the rally from the late-March lows admittedly has taken us by surprise. Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that the bear market associated with the worst recession and pandemic in a century was confined to only one down leg (albeit a vicious one) and lasted just one month. Just as corrections are inherent parts of bull markets, bear market rallies are an integral part of bear markets. It would be unprecedented if this bear market did not have at least one bear market rally. We do not mean EM or DM share prices will drop to new lows. Our point is that global stocks and EM currencies will likely experience a setback large enough to make investors feel that the bear market is back. Like pandemics, bear markets occur in waves. The timing, duration and magnitude of the second wave of the equity selloff is as impossible to predict as that of the second wave of COVID-19. Just as corrections are inherent parts of bull markets, bear market rallies are an integral part of bear markets. Our fundamental case for a relapse in EM equities and currencies is as follows: First, a downturn in US equities will dampen EM risk assets. The former are vulnerable due to the second wave of the pandemic that is already underway in a considerable portion of the US. Even if the second COVID-19 wave does not produce simultaneous shutdowns across the entire country, rolling lockdowns in parts of the US and lingering general uncertainty will hinder business investment and hiring. This will delay the profit recovery that the market has priced in. Second, global equities have rallied too fast and too far, as evidenced by the unprecedented gap that has opened up between stock prices and forward EPS (Chart I-5). The 12-month forward P/E ratio is 19.5 for global equities, 22.5 for the US and 14 for EM. Rising share prices amid falling projected EPS levels has been one of the key reasons behind our argument that the equity advance of the past three months has been a FOMO rally. Third, retail participation in this equity rally has been unprecedented. This has been true not only in North America but also in many Asian markets. Specifically, Chart I-6 demonstrates increased retail participation in equity markets in Korea, Thailand, and Malaysia. These are corroborated by numerous media articles such as: Amateur Traders Pile Into Asian Stocks, Making Pros Nervous Small India Investors Are Latest to Snag Beaten-Down Stocks Fear of Missing Historic Rally Has Koreans Borrowing to Invest Retail Investors Are Driving Record Turnover in Thai Stocks Singapore’s Retail Investors Load Up On What Institutions Dump Chart I-5The Global Forward P/E Ratio Is At Its Highest Since 2002 Chart I-6A Stampede By Asian Retail Investors Into Local Equities Chart I-7Oil Inventories Are Rising In The US And OECD Retail investors chasing share prices higher is another fact leading us to term this advance as a FOMO rally. If share prices relapse meaningfully, retail investors may well turn from net buyers to net sellers – i.e. FOMO will turn into FOLO. Fourth, oil prices have had a nice run, despite crude inventories in the US and OECD countries continuing to mushroom (Chart I-7). Rising inventories signify that demand remains deficient relative to supply. Hence, the oil price rally can also be qualified as a FOMO rally, driven by investors rather than demand-supply dynamics. Interestingly, global energy stocks have a higher correlation with forward oil prices rather than the spot rate. Both share prices of oil producers and three-year forward oil prices have already rolled over (Chart I-8). Finally, geopolitical tensions between the US and China are set to escalate as President Trump attempts to save his re-election campaign by rallying the nation behind the flag against foreign adversaries. China would certainly respond. As part of China’s response, North Korea will likely be “allowed” by Beijing to test a strategic weapon, undermining President Trump’s foreign policy achievements. The resulting geopolitical uncertainty will further weigh on the confidence of investors in Asian markets. Critically, share prices in north Asia – China, Korea and Taiwan – that account for 60% of the MSCI EM equity benchmark will come under selling pressure. Excluding these three bourses, EM shares prices have already rolled over (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Global Oil Stock Prices Move With Forward Oil Prices Chart I-9Diverging Equity Performance: North Asia Versus The Rest Of EM In short, the key risk to Chinese, Korean and Taiwanese stocks is geopolitics. The rest of the EM universe is suffering from the acute COVID-19 crisis and numerous economic challenges. Bottom Line: The overarching message from our fundamental analysis is that the rally in global and EM share prices has ignored many negatives and is at a risk of a meaningful relapse. Gauging The Second Selling Wave: Technical Observations Chart I-10The US Dollar And VIX Have Not Yet Broken Below Their Supports We constantly monitor numerous market indicators. We highlight below some of the most important ones that we feel are pointing to a second sell-off wave occurring sooner than later. The broad trade-weighted US dollar and the VIX index have not yet entered a bear market (Chart I-10). In fact, it seems they are finding support at their 200-day moving averages and respective horizontal lines - shown on Chart I-10. A rebound in both the trade-weighted dollar and VIX will coincide with an air pocket in global stocks. Our Risk-On/Safe-Haven Currency ratio has rolled over (Chart I-11). It correlates with EM shares prices, and points to a relapse in EM stocks. Chart I-11The Risk-On/Safe-Haven Currency Ratio Heralds A Pullback In EM Stocks Finally, credit spreads of riskier parts (CAA rated) of the US high-yield corporate bond universe have commenced widening versus the aggregate US high-yield benchmark. These relative spreads are shown inverted in Chart I-12. Chart I-12US Credit Markets Internals Point To A Relapse In US Small Cap Stocks Underperformance of riskier parts of the US corporate credit market often coincides with lower US small-cap share prices (Chart I-12). Bottom Line: Several critical market-based indicators and technical configurations point to a relapse in global equities and renewed US dollar strength. The odds of a selloff in EM share prices, currencies and credit markets are considerable. Investment Recommendations In our June 18 report, we contended that a breakout of global share prices and a breakdown in the trade-weighted US dollar would indicate that this rally might persist for a while. Conversely, a drawdown in global equities and a rebound in the greenback could be considerable. Since then, neither global stocks have broken out nor the US dollar broken down. Hence, the jury is still out. At the moment, the risk-reward profile of EM stocks remains unattractive. Within a global equity portfolio, we continue underweighting EM. Within a global credit portfolio, we are neutral on EM sovereign credit versus US corporate credit. The rationale is as follows: the low odds of public debt defaults among mainstream developing countries and the Federal Reserve’s purchases of US corporate bonds has channeled flows to EM credit, possibly precluding relative EM underperformance. We continue shorting the following basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar: BRL, CLP, ZAR, TRY, IDR, PHP and KRW. Structurally, we are also short the RMB and SAR. Finally, we continue receiving rates in Mexico, Colombia, India, China, Malaysia, Korea, Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan and Egypt. Central banks in the majority of EM countries will continue cutting rates, but we find better value in these fixed-income markets. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The P/E ratio inversely correlates to the discount rate: P/E ratio = (Payout rate x (1 + Growth rate))/ (Discount rate – Growth rate) Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations