Europe

Executive Summary Ebbing Stagflation Fear Will Prompt Rerating European inflation will rise further before peaking this summer. Core CPI will reach between 2.8% and 3.2% by year-end before receding. The combination of stabilizing growth and the eventual peak in inflation will cause stagflation fears to recede. European assets have greater upside. Cyclicals, small-caps, and financials will be major beneficiaries of declining stagflation fears. The underperformance of UK small-cap stocks is nearing its end. UK large-cap equities are a tactical sell against Eurozone and Swedish shares. TACTICAL INCEPTION DATE RETURN SINCE INCEPTION (%) COMMENT EQUITIES Buy European & Swedish Equities / Sell UK Large Caps Stocks 03/21/2022     Bottom Line: Stagflation fears are near an apex as commodity inflation recedes. A peak in these fears will allow European asset prices to perform strongly over the coming quarters.     Despite a glimmer of hope that Ukraine and Russia may find a diplomatic end to the war, the reality on the ground is that the conflict has intensified. Although the hostilities are worsening and the European Central Bank (ECB) surprised the markets with its hawkish tone, European assets have begun to catch a bid. The crucial question for investors is whether this rebound constitutes a new trend or a counter-trend move? Our view about Europe is optimistic right now. The path is not a direct line upward. The recent optimism about the outcome of the Russia-Ukraine talks is premature; however, we are getting to the point when markets are becoming desensitized to the war and energy prices are losing steam. Moreover, the increasing number of statements by Chinese economic authorities pointing toward greater stimulus and support to alleviate the pain created by China’s stringent zero-COVID policy are another positive omen. Higher Inflation For Some Time European headline inflation is set to exceed 7% this summer and core CPI will increase between 2.8% and 3.2% by the end of 2022. Related Report  European Investment StrategySpring Stagflation The main force that will push inflation higher in Europe remains commodity prices. Energy inflation is extremely strong at already 32% per annum (Chart 1). It will increase further because of both the recent jump in Brent prices to EUR122/bbl on March 8 and the upsurge in natural gas prices, which were as high as EUR212/MWh on the same day before settling to EUR106/MWh last Friday. The impact of energy prices will not be limited to headline inflation and will filter through to core CPI (Chart 1, bottom panel). The average monthly percentage change in the Eurozone core CPI inflation stands at 0.25% for the past six months (compared to an average of 0.09% over the past ten years), or the period when energy-prices inflation has been the strongest. Assuming monthly inflation remains at such an elevated level, annual core CPI will hit 3.3% in the Eurozone by the end of 2022 (Chart 2). Chart 2Core CPI to Rise Further Chart 1Energy Inflation: Alive And Well The picture is not entirely bleak. Many forces suggest that these inflationary forces will recede before year-end in Europe. Energy prices are peaking, which is consistent with a diminishing inflationary impulse from that space. We showed two weeks ago that the massive backwardation of oil curves, the heavy bullish sentiment, and the high level of risk-reversals were consistent with a severe but transitory adjustment in the energy market. Oil markets will experience further volatility, as uncertainty around peace/ceasefire negotiations continues to evolve in Ukraine. Nonetheless, the peak in energy prices has most likely been reached. BCA’s energy strategists expect Brent to average $93/bbl in 2022 and in 2023. The potential for a decline in headline CPI after the summer is not limited to energy prices. Dramatic moves in the commodity market, from metals to agricultural resources, have made headlines. Yet, the rate of change of commodity prices is decelerating, hence, the commodity impulse to inflation is slowing sharply. As Chart 3 shows, this is a harbinger of a slowdown in European headline CPI. Related Report  European Investment StrategyFallout From Ukraine Looking beyond commodity markets, the recent deceleration in European economic activity also suggests weaker inflation in the latter half of 2022. Germany will likely suffer a recession because it already registered a negative GDP growth in Q4 2021. Q1 2022 growth will be even worse because of the country’s high exposure to both China and fossil fuel prices. More broadly, the recent deceleration in the rate of change of both the manufacturing and services PMIs is consistent with an imminent peak in the second derivative of goods and services CPI (Chart 4). Chart 3Commodity Impulse Is Peaking Chart 4Inflation's Maximum Momentum Is Now Underlying drivers of inflation also remain tame in Europe. European negotiated wages are only expanding at a 1.5% annual rate, which translates into unit labor costs growth of 1% (Chart 5). This contrast with the US, where wages are expanding at a 4.3% annual rate. A peak in inflation, however, does not mean that CPI readings will fall below the ECB’s 2% threshold anytime soon. The European economy continues to face supply shortages that the Ukrainian conflict exacerbates (Chart 6). Moreover, the recent wave of COVID-19 in China increases the risk of disruptions in supply chains, as highlighted by the closure of Foxconn factories in Shenzhen. Finally, inflation has yet to peak; mathematically, it will take a long time before it falls back below levels targeted by Frankfurt. Chart 5The European Labor Market Is Not Inflationary Chart 6Not Blemish-Free Bottom Line: European headline inflation will peak this summer, probably above 7%. Additionally, core CPI is likely to reach between 2.8% and 3.2% in the second half of 2022. As a result of a decline in the commodity impulse, inflation will decelerate afterward, but it will remain above the ECB’s 2% target for most of 2023. Hopes For Growth Two weeks ago, we wrote that Europe was facing a stagflation episode in the coming one to two quarters, but that, ultimately, economic activity will recover well. Recent evidence confirms that assessment. Chart 7A Coming Chinese Tailwind? The tone of Chinese policymakers is becoming more aggressive, in favor of supporting the economy. On March 16, Vice-Premier Liu He highlighted that Beijing was readying to support property and tech shares and that it will do more to stimulate the economy. True, this response was made in part to address the need to close cities affected by the sudden spike of Omicron cases around China. Nonetheless, the global experience with Omicron demonstrates that, as spectacular and violent the surge in cases may be, it is short-lived. Meanwhile, the impact of stimulus filters through the economy over many months. As a result, Europe will experience the impact of China’s Omicron-induced slowdown, while it also suffers from the growth-sapping effects of the Ukrainian conflict; however, it will also enjoy the positive effect on growth of a rising credit impulse over several subsequent quarters (Chart 7). Beyond China, the other themes we have discussed in recent weeks remain valid. First, European fiscal policy will become looser, as governments prepare to fight the slowdown caused by the war, while also increasing infrastructure spending to wean Europe off Russian energy. Moreover, European military spending is well below NATO’s 2% objective. This will not remain the case, as military expenditure may leap from less than EUR100bn per year to nearly EUR400bn per year over the coming decade. Second, European spending on consumer durable goods still lags well behind the trajectory of the US. With the energy drag at its apex today, consumer spending on durable goods will be able to catch up in the latter half of the year, especially with the household savings rate standing at 15% or 2.5 percentage points above its pre-COVID level. Bottom Line: European growth will be very low in the coming quarters. Germany is likely to face a technical recession as Q1 2022 data filters in. Nonetheless, Chinese stimulus, European fiscal support, pent-up demand, and a declining energy drag will allow growth to recover in the latter half of the year. As a result, we agree with the European Commission estimates that European growth will slow markedly this year. Market Implications In the context of a transitory shock to European economic activity and a coming peak in inflation, European stock prices have likely bottomed. Chart 8Depressed Sentiment To Help Beta Sentiment has reached levels normally linked with a durable market floor. The NAAIM Exposure Index has fallen to a point from which global markets often recover. Europe’s high beta nature increases the odds that European equities will greatly benefit in that context (Chart 8). Valuations confirm that sentiment toward European assets has reached a capitulation stage. The annual rate of change of the earnings yields in the earnings yields has hit 73%, which is consistent with a market bottom (Chart 9). More importantly, the change in European forward P/E tracks closely our European Stagflation Sentiment Proxy (ESSP), based on the difference between the Growth and Inflation Expectations’ components of the ZEW survey (Chart 10). For now, our ESSP indicates that stagflation fears in Europe have never been so widespread, but these fears will likely dissipate as energy inflation declines. This process will lift European earnings multiples. Chart 9Bad News Discounted? Chart 10Ebbing Stagflation Fear Will Prompt Rerating Earnings revisions will likely bottom soon as well. The ESSP is currently consistent with a dramatic decline in European net earnings revisions (Chart 10, bottom panel). It will take a few more weeks for lower earnings revisions to be fully reflected. However, they follow market moves and, as such, the 17% decline in the MSCI Europe Index that took place earlier this year already anticipates their fall. Consequently, as stagflation fears recede, earnings revisions will rise in tandem with equity prices. Chart 11Maximum Pressure On Corporate Spreads A decline in stagflation fears is also consistent with a decrease in European credit spreads in the coming months (Chart 11). This observation corroborates the analysis from the Special Report we published jointly with BCA’s Global Fixed-Income Strategy team last week.  In terms of sectoral implications, a decline in stagflation fears is often associated with a rebound in the performance of small-cap equities relative to large-cap ones (Chart 12, top panel). This reflects the greater sensitivity of small-cap equities to domestic economic conditions compared to large-cap stocks. Moreover, small-cap equities had been oversold relative to their large-cap counterparts but now, momentum is improving (Chart 12). As a result, it is time to buy these equities. Similarly, financials have suffered greatly from the recent events associated with the Ukrainian conflict. European financial institutions have not only been penalized for their modest exposure to Russia, they have also historically declined when stagflation fears are prevalent (Chart 13). This relationship reflects poor lending activity when the economy weakens, and the risk of a policy-induced recession caused by high inflation. Financials will continue their sharp rebound as stagflation fears dissipate. Chart 13Financials Have Suffered Enough Chart 12Small-Caps Time To Shine The dynamics in inflation alone are very important. As Table 1 highlights, in periods of elevated inflation over the past 20 years, financials underperform the broad market by 11.3% on average. It is also a period of pain for small-cap equities and cyclicals. Logically, exiting the current environment will offer opportunities in European cyclical equities and for financials in particular. Table 1Who Suffers From High Inflation? Chart 14Long Industrials & Materials / Short Energy Finally, a pair trade buying industrials and materials at the expense of energy makes sense today. Materials and industrials suffer relative to energy equities when stagflation rises, especially in periods when these fears reflect rising energy pressures (Chart 14). A reversal in relative earnings revisions in favor of materials and industrials will propel this position higher. Bottom Line: Sentiment toward European assets reached a selling climax in recent weeks. Stagflation fears in Europe have reached an apex, and their reversal will lift both multiples and earnings revisions in the subsequent quarters. Diminishing stagflation fears will also boost the appeal of European corporate credit, contributing to an easing in financial conditions. Small-cap stocks, cyclicals, and financials will reap the greatest benefits from this adjustment. Going long materials and industrials at the expense of energy stocks is an attractive pair trade. Key Risk: A Policy Mistake The view above is not without risks. The number one threat to European growth and assets is a policy mistake from the ECB. On March 10, 2022, the ECB’s policy statement and President Christine Lagarde’s press conference showed that the Governing Council (GC) will decrease asset purchases faster than anticipated. Chart 15Will The ECB Repeat It Past Mistakes? It is important to keep in mind the dynamics of 2011. Back then, the ECB opted to increase interest rates as European headline CPI was drifting toward 2.6% on the back of rising energy prices. According to our ESSP, the April 2011 interest rates hike took place at the greatest level of stagflation fears recorded until the current moment (Chart 15). Lured by rising inflation, the ECB ignored underlying weaknesses in European economic activity, which wreaked havoc on European financial markets and growth. If the ECB were to increase rates as growth remains soft, a similar outcome would take place. For now, the ECB’s communications continue to de-emphasize the need for rate hikes in the near term, which suggests that the GC is cognizant of the risk created by weak growth over the coming months. Waiting until next year, when activity will be stronger and the output gap will be closed, will offer the ECB a better avenue to lift rates durably. This risk warrants close monitoring of the ECB’s communication over the coming months. If headline inflation does not peak by the summer, the ECB is likely to repeat its past error, which will substantially hurt European assets. Our optimism is tempered by this threat. UK Outperformance Long In The Tooth? Last week, the Bank of England (BoE) increased the Bank Rate by 25bps to 0.75%, in a move that was widely expected. Yet, the pound fell 0.7% against the euro and gilt yields fell 6 bps. This market reaction reflected the BoE’s choice to temper its forward guidance. The central bank is now expected to increase interest rates to 2.2% next year, before they decline in 2024. The dovish projection of the BoE shows the MPC’s concerns over the impact of higher energy costs and rising National Insurance contributions on household spending. In the BoE’s opinion, the economy is very inflationary right now, but it will slow, which will mitigate the inflationary impact down the road. We share the BoE’s worries about the UK’s near-term economic outlook. The combination of higher taxes, higher interest rates, and rising energy costs will have an impact on growth. However, the rapid decline in small-cap stocks, which have massively underperformed their large cap-counterparts, already discounts considerable bad news (Chart 16). Additionally, small-cap equities relative to EPS have begun to stabilize, while relative P/E and price-to-book ratios have also corrected their overvaluations. In this context, UK small-cap equities are becoming attractive. Chart 17UK vs Eurozone: A Stagflation Bet Chart 16UK Small-Cap Stocks Have Purged Their Excesses In contrast to small-cap stocks, UK large-cap equities have greatly benefited from the global stagflation scare. The UK large-cap benchmark had the right sector mix for the current environment, overweighting defensive names as well as energy and resources. It is likely that when stagflation fears recede, UK equities will undo their outperformance (Chart 17). Technically, UK equities are massively overbought against Euro Area and Swedish stocks, both of which have been greatly impacted by stagflation fears and their pro-cyclical biases (Chart 18 & 19). An attractive tactical bet will be to sell UK large-cap stocks while buying Eurozone and Swedish equities, as energy inflation declines and as China’s stimulus boosts global industrial activity in the latter half of 2022 Bottom Line: Move to overweight UK small-cap stocks within UK equity portfolios. Go long Euro Area and Swedish equities relative to UK large-cap stocks as a tactical bet. Chart 18UK Overbought Relative To Euro Area... Chart 19… And Sweden   Mathieu Savary, Chief European Strategist Mathieu@bcaresearch.com Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades

Executive Summary Investors Think The Fed Will Not Be Able To Raise Rates Much Above 2% The neutral rate of interest is 3%-to-4% in the United States. This is substantially higher than the market estimate of around 2%. It is also higher than the central tendency range for the Fed’s terminal interest rate dot, which remained at 2.3%-to-2.5% following this week’s FOMC meeting. If the neutral rate turns out to be higher than expected, this is arguably good news for stocks over the short-to-medium term because it lowers the risk that the Fed will accidentally induce a recession this year by bringing rates into restrictive territory. Over a longer-term horizon of 2-to-5 years, however, a higher neutral rate is bad news for stocks because it means that investors will eventually need to value equities using a higher discount rate. It also means that the Fed could find itself woefully behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. Bottom Line: Global equities will rise over the next 12 months as the situation in Ukraine stabilizes, commodity prices recede, and inflation temporarily declines. Stocks will peak in the second half of 2023 in advance of a second, and currently unexpected, round of Fed tightening beginning in late-2023 or 2024.   Dear Client, Instead of our regular report next week, we will be sending you a Special Report written by Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical Strategist, discussing the geopolitical implications of the war in Ukraine. We will be back the following week with the GIS Quarterly Strategy Outlook, where we will explore the major trends that are set to drive financial markets in the rest of 2022 and beyond. As always, I will hold a webcast discussing the outlook the week after, on Thursday, April 7th. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist https://www.linkedin.com/in/peter-berezin-1289b87/ https://twitter.com/BerezinPeter A Two-Stage Fed Tightening Cycle The FOMC raised rates by 25 basis points this week, the first of seven rate hikes that the Federal Reserve has telegraphed in its Summary of Economic Projections for the remainder of 2022. We expect the Fed to follow through on its planned rate hikes this year, but then go on pause in early-2023, as inflation temporarily comes down. However, the Fed will resume raising rates in late-2023 or 2024 once inflation begins to reaccelerate and it becomes clear that monetary policy is still too easy. This second round of monetary tightening is currently not anticipated by market participants. If anything, investors think the Fed is more likely to cut rates than raise rates towards the end of next year (Chart 1). The Fed’s own views are not that different from the markets’: The central tendency range for the Fed’s terminal interest rate dot remained at 2.3%-to-2.5% following this week’s FOMC meeting, with the median dot actually ticking lower to 2.4% from 2.5% (Chart 2). Chart 2The Fed Is Still In The Secular Stagnation Camp A Higher Neutral Rate Our higher-than-consensus view of where US rates will eventually end up reflects our conviction that the neutral rate of interest is somewhere between 3% and 4%. One can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that equates the amount of investment a country wants to undertake at full employment with the amount of savings that it has at its disposal.1 Anything that reduces savings or increases investment would raise the neutral rate (Chart 3). As we discussed last month, a number of factors are likely to lower desired savings in the US over the next few years: Households will spend down their accumulated pandemic savings. US households are sitting on $2.3 trillion (10% of GDP) in excess savings, the result of both decreased spending on services during the pandemic and the receipt of generous government transfer payments (Chart 4). Household wealth has soared since the start of the pandemic (Chart 5). Conservatively assuming that households spend three cents of every additional dollar in wealth, the resulting wealth effect could boost consumption by nearly 4% of GDP. Chart 5Net Worth Has Soared Since The Pandemic The household deleveraging cycle has ended (Chart 6). Household balance sheets are in good shape. After falling during the initial stages of the pandemic, consumer credit has begun to rebound. Banks are easing lending standards on consumer loans across the board. Baby boomers are retiring. They hold over half of US household wealth, considerably more than younger generations (Chart 7). As baby boomers transition from savers to dissavers, national savings will decline. Chart 6US Household Deleveraging Pressures Have Abated Chart 7Baby Boomers Have Amassed A Lot Of Wealth Government budget deficits will stay elevated. Fiscal deficits subtract from national savings. While the US budget deficit will come down over the next few years, the IMF estimates that the structural budget deficit will still average 4.9% of GDP between 2022 and 2026 compared to 2.0% of GDP between 2014 and 2019 (Chart 8). On the investment front: The deceleration in trend GDP growth, which depressed investment spending, has largely run its course.2 According to the Congressional Budget Office, real potential GDP growth fell from over 3% in the early 1980s to about 1.9% today. The CBO expects potential growth to edge down only slightly to 1.7% over the next few decades (Chart 9). Chart 8Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight Chart 9Much Of The Deceleration In Potential Growth Has Already Happened After moving broadly sideways for two decades, core capital goods orders – a leading indicator for capital spending – have broken out to the upside (Chart 10). Capex intention surveys remain upbeat (Chart 11). The average age of the nonresidential capital stock currently stands at 16.3 years, the highest since 1965 (Chart 12). Chart 10Positive Signs For Capex (I) Similar to nonresidential investment, the US has been underinvesting in residential real estate (Chart 13). The average age of the housing stock has risen to a 71-year high of 31 years. The homeowner vacancy rate has plunged to the lowest level on record. The number of newly finished homes for sale is half of what it was prior to the pandemic. Chart 11Positive Signs For Capex (II) Chart 12An Aging Capital Stock Chart 13Housing Is In Short Supply The New ESG: Energy Security and Guns The war in Ukraine will put further pressure on the neutral rate, especially outside of the United States. Chart 14European Capex Should Recover After staging a plodding recovery following the euro debt crisis, European capital spending received a sizable boost from the launch of the NextGenerationEU Recovery Fund (Chart 14). Capital spending will rise further in the years ahead as European governments accelerate efforts to make their economies less reliant on Russian energy. Meanwhile, European governments are trying to ease the burden from rising energy costs. France has introduced a rebate on fuel starting on April 1st. It is part of a EUR 20 billion package aimed at cutting heating and electricity bills. Other countries are considering similar measures. European military spending will also rise. Germany has already announced that it will spend EUR 100 billion more on defense. European governments will also need to boost spending to accommodate potentially several million Ukrainian refugees. A Smaller Chinese Current Account Surplus? Chart 15Will China Be A Source Of Excess Savings? The difference between what a country saves and invests equals its current account balance. Historically, China has been a major exporter of savings, which has helped depress interest rates abroad. While China’s current account surplus has declined as a share of its own GDP, it has remained very large as a share of global ex-China GDP, reflecting China’s growing weight in the global economy (Chart 15). Many analysts assume that China will double down on efforts to boost exports in order to offset the drag from falling property investment. However, there is a major geopolitical snag with that thesis: A country that runs a current account surplus must, by definition, accumulate assets from the rest of the world. As the freezing of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves demonstrates, that is a risky proposition for a country such as China. Rather than increasing its current account surplus, China may seek to bolster its economy by raising domestic demand. This could be achieved by either boosting domestic investment on infrastructure and/or consumption. Notably, the IMF’s latest projections foresee China’s current account surplus falling by more than half between 2021 and 2026 as a share of global ex-China GDP. If this were to happen, the neutral rate in China and elsewhere would rise. The Path to Neutral: The Role of Inflation If one accepts the premise that the neutral rate in the US is higher than widely believed, what will the path to this higher rate look like? The answer hinges critically on the trajectory of inflation. If inflation remains stubbornly high, the Fed will be forced to hike rates by more than expected over the next 12 months. In contrast, if inflation comes down rapidly, then the Fed will be able to raise rates at a more leisurely pace. As late as early February, one could have made a strong case that US inflation was set to fall. The demand for goods was beginning to moderate as spending shifted back towards services. On the supply side, the bottlenecks that had impaired goods production were starting to ease. Chart 16 shows that the number of ships anchored off the coast of Los Angeles and Long Beach has been trending lower while the supplier delivery components of both the ISM manufacturing and nonmanufacturing indices had come off their highs. Since then, the outlook for inflation has become a lot murkier. As we discussed last week, the war in Ukraine is putting upward pressure on commodity prices, ranging from energy, to metals, to agriculture. BCA’s geopolitical team, led by Matt Gertken, expects the war to worsen before a truce of sorts is reached in a month or two. Meanwhile, a new Covid wave is gaining momentum. New daily cases are rising across Europe and have exploded higher in parts of Asia (Chart 17). In China, the number of new cases has reached a two-year high. The government has already locked down parts of the country encompassing 37 million people, including Shenzhen, a major high-tech hub adjoining Hong Kong. Chart 17Covid Cases Are On The Rise Again In Some Countries Most new cases in China and elsewhere stem from the BA.2 subvariant of Omicron, which appears to be at least 50% more contagious than Omicron Classic. Given its extreme contagiousness, China may be forced to rely on massive nationwide lockdowns in order to maintain its zero-Covid strategy. While such lockdowns may provide some relief in the form of lower oil prices, the overall effect will be to worsen supply-chain disruptions. Watch For Signs of a Wage-Price Spiral As the experience of the 1960s demonstrates, the relationship between inflation and unemployment is inherently non-linear: The labor market can tighten for a long time with little impact on prices and wages, only for a wage-price spiral to suddenly develop once unemployment falls below a certain threshold (Chart 18). Chart 18A Wage-Price Spiral Was Ignited By Very Low Unemployment Levels In The 1960s Chart 19Wage Growth Has Picked Up, But Mostly At The Bottom End Of The Income Distribution For the time being, a wage-price spiral does not appear imminent. While wage growth has picked up, most of the increase in wages has occurred at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 19). Chart 20More Low-Wage Employees Should Return To Work Low-wage workers have not returned to the labor force to the same extent as higher-wage workers (Chart 20). However, now that extended unemployment benefits have lapsed and savings deposits are being drawn down, the incentive to resume work will strengthen. An influx of workers back into the labor market will cap wage growth, at least for this year. Long-Term Inflation Expectations Still Contained A sudden increase in long-term inflation expectations can be a precursor to a wage-price spiral because the expectation of higher prices can induce consumers to shop now before prices rise further, while also incentivizing workers to demand higher wages. Reassuringly, long-term inflation expectations have not risen that much. Expected inflation 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey registered 3.0% in March, down a notch from 3.1% in February (Chart 21). While the widely followed 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS inflation breakeven rate has climbed to 2.32%, it is still at the bottom of the Fed’s comfort zone of 2.3%-to-2.5% (Chart 22).3 Chart 21Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Contained (I) Chart 22Long-Term Inflation Expectations Remain Contained (II) Chart 23The Magnitude Of Damage Depends On How Long The Commodity Price Shock Lasts Moreover, the jump in market-based inflation expectations since the start of the war in Ukraine has been fueled by rising oil prices. The forwards are pointing to a fairly pronounced decline in the price of crude and most other commodity prices over the next 12 months (Chart 23). If that happens, inflation expectations will dip anew. Investment Implications The neutral rate of interest is higher in the United States than widely believed. A higher neutral rate is arguably good for stocks over the short-to-medium term because it lowers the risk that the Fed will accidentally induce a recession this year by bringing rates into restrictive territory. Over a longer-term horizon of 2-to-5 years, however, a higher neutral rate is bad news for stocks because it means that investors will eventually need to value stocks using a higher discount rate. It also means that the Fed could find itself woefully behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. While the war in Ukraine and yet another Covid wave could continue to unsettle markets for the next month or two, global equities will be higher in 12 months than they are now. With inflation in the US likely to temporarily come down in the second half of the year, bond yields probably will not rise much more this year. However, yields will start moving higher in the second half of next year as it becomes clear that policy rates still have further to rise. The bull market in stocks will end at that point.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  These savings can either by generated domestically or imported from abroad via a current account deficit. 2  Theoretically, there is a close relationship between trend growth and the equilibrium investment-to-GDP ratio. For example, if real trend growth is 3% and the capital stock-to-GDP ratio is 200%, a country would need to invest 6% of GDP net of depreciation to maintain the existing capital stock-to-GDP ratio. In contrast, if trend growth were to fall to 2%, the country would only need to invest 4% of GDP. 3  The Federal Reserve targets an average inflation rate of 2% for the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index. The TIPS breakeven is based on the CPI index. Due to compositional differences between the two indices, CPI inflation has historically averaged 30-to-50 basis points higher than PCE inflation. This is why the Fed effectively targets a CPI inflation rate of about 2.3%-to-2.5%. View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

Special Report

Executive Summary Is Factor Investing Dead? After decades of outperformance, in the past few years equity factors have started to underperform the broad indexes. But this may just be because US-centric factor research and US-dominated global factor indexes have masked an underlying divergence in the behavior of factor premiums in major countries/regions. In this report, we identify differences in smart beta strategies in the US, euro area (EMU), UK, Japan, Canada, Australia, and emerging markets (EM). Quality and Minimum Volatility factors are the most consistent across all markets. However, the magnitude of the factor premiums varies significantly among certain countries/regions. These variations can be attributed to a factor’s differing exposure to the same sector in specific countries, as well as the diverse performance of the same sector in specific countries. Value/Growth is an inferior framework to sector positioning. Quality remains a better factor than Growth.   Bottom Line: Factor investing is still a viable investing approach, but investors should consider that factor premiums have diverged among major countries/regions. Factor strategies may be less profitable in the US, Japan, and Australia. We suggest that global investors implement smart beta strategies on an individual country basis to better capture the factor premium in each country/region. Feature Chart 1Diverging Factor Performance Late last year, quant hedge fund AQR announced it would cut back resources because poor performance had induced significant investor outflows.1 Based on MSCI’s diversified multi-factor (DMF) index, which is a bottom-up 4-factor-index (value, momentum, quality and size) optimized using Barra equity models,2 the global DMF index underperformed the MSCI ACWI by 21% between March 2018 (when the relative performance peaked) and the end of January 2022, even though it had outperformed by 373% over the previous 20 years (Chart 1, top panel). Many clients have asked: Is factor investing dead? As shown in Chart 1, however, MSCI Global DMF’s recent poor relative performance was driven largely by a 23.6% underperformance from the developed markets (DM), especially the US (33% underperformance) and Japan (23.6% underperformance), while the DMF index in the emerging markets (EM) lagged its benchmark by only about 1% in the same period. We have advocated a simple approach to factor allocation to smooth out the cyclicality of individual factors by equally weighting five time-tested factors: Quality, Momentum, Minimum Volatility (Min Vol), Value and Equal Weight. Our equally-weighted-5-factor aggregate (EW5) index is less volatile than the more sophisticatedly optimized DMF; it therefore suffered less underperformance in the same period. However, even with this approach, the regional divergence is still notable, with the EW5 factor index in the developing markets underperforming its benchmark by 9%, while the EM EW5 factor index outperformed its benchmark by about 5.5% (Chart 1, panels 2 and 3). Interestingly, the EW5 index for Japan looks more like that for the US than it looks like the Japanese DMF (Chart 1, panels 4 and 5). This highlights the importance of factor allocation methodology. Table 1US Dominance In Global Markets US equities dominate the global equity index by market capitalization. Momentum and Quality, the two best performing factors globally, have even higher weightings in US companies than the broad benchmark, as shown in Table 1. An academic paper published in 2019 based on studies of the US and 38 international stock markets indicates that the US is the only country with a statistically significant, economically meaningful and robust post-publication decline of long-short equity factor returns.3 This is because the US is the most researched market and large mispriced anomalies are arbitraged away quickly after they are identified in academic publications, which results in lower strategy returns. Most quant funds are US-focused, which may explain the ill fortunes of some quant funds. Smart beta strategies are long-only factor strategies, instead of long-short strategies. At the aggregate level, the MSCI factor indexes in developed markets and emerging markets performed much better than in the US, in line with the academic findings (Chart 1, panels 2, 3, and 4). Yet, the Japanese DMF index’s relative performance peaked in October 2012 and has been in a consistent down trend since that time (Chart 1, panel 5). Our research shows that Japan is not an anomaly. Factor divergence among countries exists not only at the aggregate level, but also at the individual factor level. Factor Performances Diverge Among Countries/Regions Factor returns in the US, UK, EMU, Japan, Canada, Australia, and EM, both in absolute and relative terms, have had notable divergences in the past 20 years, as shown in Table 2.4 Several observations from Table 2: Quality and Min Vol are two factors with positive premiums in all countries. In terms of magnitude, however, Min Vol premiums in the US, Japan and Australia are the closest to zero, while the EM scores the highest. Quality premium in Australia is also close to zero while the UK stands out. Momentum is the best performing factor in all countries/regions except in Japan where it has a slightly negative premium. The ineffectiveness of Momentum in Japan may be due to its cultural biases. Momentum tends to fare better in countries that promote individuality (unlike Japan) and where self-attribution and overconfidence are more pervasive. EM is the only market where our five preferred factors (Momentum, Quality, Min Vol, Value and Equal Weight) have had positive premiums, even though the Value premium is not statistically different from zero, while the Growth premium is negative. Despite the well-telegraphed underperformance of Value versus Growth in the US and global markets, this has not been the case in Japan, Canada, and the EM. Momentum, Quality, Min Vol and Value in the EM and Canada have much higher absolute returns than in the US. This aspect cannot be fully explained by the overall index performance difference between these countries and the US. Even though Momentum, Quality, Min Vol and Value in the UK and euro area have returned much less than their US counterparts, the magnitude of the underperformance of each factor is much smaller than what the overall index performance divergence would imply. Table 2Factor Performance Divergence* The widely quoted explanation for the impressive factor performance in the EM, especially in the Chinese A-share market, is that emerging markets have higher trading costs such that it’s harder to arbitrage away the mispriced anomalies. It’s true that trading cost is higher in the EM than in the US, which explains why there are fewer EM-dedicated quant funds than US-focused quant funds. Trading cost alone, however, cannot fully explain the exceptionally large premiums in EM Momentum, Quality and Min Vol compared with the US. In fact, the market with the best factor relative performance since the end of 2001 has been the UK (Chart 2) where trading costs are comparable to the US. The EM is the second in terms of relative returns even though it is more volatile than the euro area. Canada has also performed better than the US, while Australia has been the least favorable market to harvest any factor premium. Japan behaves more like the US, yet with higher volatility. The risk-adjusted active return, defined as the average of the return difference (between EW5 and benchmark) divided by the volatility of the return difference, on an annualized basis using monthly returns, is illustrated in Chart 3. The chart shows both the full-period (from December 2001 to January 2022) risk-adjusted active return (RAAR) and four-year moving RAAR to demonstrate how factors have evolved in each market. Several observations can be made from Chart 3: In the past 20 years, factor premiums (aka active factor returns) in the US have gone through three stages: High premium, low positive premium and then sharply declining premium to negative territory. The last stage started about four years ago. The US factor premium is at its lowest level in the past 20 years and is also the lowest among the seven countries/regions (Chart 3, panel 5). This supports the argument that too many quant funds trade with each other in the US equity market, resulting in lower and lower factor returns. Japan shares a similar pattern with the US, but on a much smaller scale (Chart 3, panel 4). Canada and Australia are similar because their indexes are dominated by financials and commodities. The four-year RAAR trends oscillate in a similar fashion in both countries, but the Canadian cycle seems to lead the Australian cycle by about 2-1/2 years. Canada has a meaningfully positive average factor premium and its four-year RAAR is near a historical low. In contrast, Australia’s average premium is close to zero and its four-year RAAR is still above previous lows (Chart 3, panels 6 and 7). The EMU is the only market with a positive four-year moving RAAR, currently at the well-established lower bound (Chart 3, panel 2). The UK has the highest average premium. It is the only market in which the four-year RAAR has had large cyclical swings and only two brief periods in negative territory (Chart 3, panel 1). EM is the only market where the four-year RAAR has improved since the Covid-19 pandemic started in March 2020 (Chart 3, panel 3). Chart 2Factor Relative Return Performance* Chart 3Risk-Adjusted Active Performance Bottom Line: US-centric factor research and the US-dominated global factor indexes have masked different behaviors of factors in various countries/regions. Thus, it is important to analyze each market instead of drawing investment conclusions from US-based research. What Drives The Divergence In Quality Premium? The Quality factor has been consistently rewarded, but the magnitude of the Quality premium varies significantly among countries/regions, and non-US countries have low correlations with the US, as shown in Table 2 (on page 4) and Charts 4 and 5. Chart 4Quality Performance Divergence* Chart 5Quality Premium* Country Correlation MSCI Quality is defined by three accounting measures: Return on equity (ROE), debt-to-equity and five-year volatility of EPS YoY growth. Earnings may be affected by accounting standards. Countries have different accounting standards, which may explain part of the country divergence in Quality. Our research focuses on an important aspect of Quality, which is persistence, i.e., a Quality stock today will be a Quality stock in the future. The implication is that the Quality factor index has a low turnover and its sector composition does not change much over time. As such, we can take a snapshot and see the relationship between Quality and sector exposure. The sector weights of the broad benchmark in each market are shown in Table 3. Notably, the US and EM have the highest exposure to the Tech sector while both the UK and Australia have little. Although Australia and Canada are both regarded as commodity-driven markets, they have dissimilar exposures to non-Financials: Australia is concentrated in Materials and Healthcare, while Canada has a more even exposure in Energy, Industrial, Materials and Tech. Table 3Broad Market Sector Compositions Given that Quality is measured on profitability, capital structure and earnings stability, does Quality show universal sector preference? The answer is both Yes and No. Yes, because Quality is universally underweight Financials, Energy and Utilities (Table 4). It is also overweight Tech and underweight Real Estate in all markets, except Australia. Tech has outperformed Financials, Utilities and Energy in general (except for Canada), therefore, these three sector tilts may explain the universal existence of Quality premium (Chart 6). Table 4Quality Index Sector Deviations Chart 6What Drives Quality Premium? However, the commonality ends here. Canadian Tech has underperformed Financials by a very large margin (Chart 6, panel 3), which would have caused a huge underperformance in Quality; Quality indexes in the UK and EMU have benchmark exposures to Tech. So what else have contributed to Quality’s outperformance in these three countries/regions? A look at their exposures to other sectors reveals the answers. In the UK, EMU and Canada, Quality indexes have also overweight tilts in Industrials, Consumer Discretionary and Consumer Staples (Table 4). These three sectors have all outperformed their respective benchmarks in the past 20 years, as shown in Table 5. The table also shows that Consumer Staples is the only sector that has outperformed in all markets, yet both US and Australian Quality indexes underweight this sector. Table 5Sector Performance* In addition, in both the UK and Canada, Quality overweights Materials, which is a top outperforming sector in the UK, but an underperforming sector in Canada. Materials also outperforms in the EMU, yet EMU Quality underweights it. Despite the impressive overall outperformance since 2001, the Quality factor in DM has suffered in the past few years, especially since the Covid 19-induced selloff in March 2020. Quality relative performance in EM peaked long before DM but has stood out as the only significant outperformer since March 2020. This is because profitability in Quality has improved in EM but deteriorated in the US and other DM countries as shown in Charts 7 and 8. Chart 7Quality Premium Driver: ROE* Chart 8Quality Premium Driver: EPS* Chart 9Quality Premium Driver: Valuation* Valuation-wise, Quality indexes in the UK and Canada are at their cheapest levels since 2013, while Japan has become more expensive. Meanwhile, Quality valuation in the US, EMU and Australia is in line with their respective historical average5 (Chart 9). Bottom Line: Quality premium is driven by profitability and has strong sector preferences. The divergence of Quality premium among countries indicates that the same sector in different countries does not necessarily share the same behavior relative to its own benchmark. Sector behaviors in each market have not been as consistent as globalization would have implied, even though “global sectors” have become a well-accepted concept. What Drives The Min Vol Premium Divergence? Beside Quality, Min Vol has consistently outperformed in all the countries/regions in the past 20 years, even though the premiums in the US and Japan are close to zero, as shown in Table 2 on page 4. Over time, however, Min Vol’s relative performance is very cyclical. At the global aggregate level, this cyclicality is determined by its defensive nature given its positive correlation with the relative equity return ratio of Defensives/Cyclicals and negative correlation with bond yields. It is no surprise that the strong recovery in global equities and the rise in bond yields have caused Min Vol to underperform the broad market since March 2020. What is surprising, however, is the magnitude of the underperformance, which cannot be explained by historical relationships (Chart 10). Chart 10What Drives Global Min Vol Premium? Looking at the global aggregate only, however, can provide misguided information, because Global Min Vol is dominated by the US (56.81%) and Japan (9.88%), where Min Vol has performed the worst. In the most recent cycle since March 2020, the US is the only country where Min Vol has deviated sharply from the historical relationship with the relative performance of defensives/cyclicals and with bond yields, incurring the largest relative performance drawdown ever, erasing all the relative gains achieved in the previous two decades (Chart 11A). Japanese Min Vol also suffered large drawdown, but was in line with the defensives/cyclicals, albeit undershooting what implied by the bond yield (Chart 11B). The relative performance of Min Vol in the UK, Canada, EM, and Australia all behaved in line with what is implied by the historical relationships with bond yields and defensives/cyclicals, while Min Vol in EMU does not have a close correlation with defensives/cyclicals (Charts 11 C-G). Chart 11AUS Min Vol Premium Chart 11BJapan Min Vol Premium Chart 11CUK Min Vol Premium Chart 11DEMU Min Vol Premium Chart 11ECanada Min Vol Premium Chart 11FAustralia Min Vol Premium   Chart 11GEM Min Vol Premium Min Vol has become the worst performing factor since March 2020, led by the US, Japan, and EMU, while the UK has been almost flat, as shown in Table 6. This is in stark contrast to its historical track record (Table 2 on page 4) but can be explained by its defensive tilt in a strong equity market. Currently, Min Vol’s general defensive nature is reflected by its overweight in Consumer Staples and underweight in Consumer Discretionary, overweight in Communication Services and underweight in Energy in all markets. In interest-rate-sensitive sectors, Min Vol overweighs Utilities in all markets except Japan and underweights Financials in all markets, except EM (Table 7). Table 6Min Vol Was The Worst Performer Since The Covid-Induced Recovery* Table 7Min Vol Index Sector Deviations Communication Services in the UK and Australia bucked the trend, outperforming the broad market. UK Financial also opposed the trend but did not outperform. In addition, the UK is overweight in Real Estate, which did much better than the broad market (Table 8). Table 8Sector Performance Since March 2020 Chart 12Min Vol Premium Divergence: Valuation* Min Vol in EM has an overweight in Financials, which also outperformed. In addition, EM Consumer Discretionary resisted the general trend, coming in under its benchmark by 17% annualized; an underweight in this sector contributed to EM’s Min Vol’s performance. Why has US Min Vol performed so badly? According to a GAA Special Report published in January 2020, extreme overvaluation of Min Vol relative to the broad market could induce poor subsequent performance in near future. US Min Vol reached peak valuation relative to the market in 2019, and the subsequent underperformance was accompanied by sharp multiple contraction. Currently, Min Vol’s relative valuation is in line with historical average in the US, implying the turnaround since November 2021 may have further staying power (Chart 12). Bottom Line: Global Min Vol’s defensive tilts explain its underperformance since March 2020. However, divergences in the magnitude of underperformance among countries is explained by different sector exposures and the varying performance of some sectors in different countries, in addition to relative valuation. Chart 13Value Vs. Growth: Is This Time Different? Is It Time To Overweight Value Versus Growth? This is one of the most frequently asked questions over the past few years, especially after the turnaround in AQR last year hit the newswire. The impressive performance of AQR so far this year has prompted more heated debate on the sustainability of the “Revenge of Value” after Value's longest streak of underperformance).6 The recent rebound in the relative performance of Value versus Growth has been driven by extremely oversold conditions, very cheap valuation and faster EPS growth led by the rise in global bond yields. Even though sector exposures change over time for Value and Growth, sector exposures to Financials and Tech have been stable since 2010 at the global aggregate level (Chart 13). The large bets in Financial, Utilities and Tech are universal, as shown in Table 9. Other sector exposures in specific countries vary significantly. For example, the US Value/Growth split is basically between Tech, Communication Services and Consumer Discretionary versus the other eight sectors. These three sectors are dominated by a few mega-cap stocks. The other eight sectors are a mixed bag of cyclicals, defensives, and interest rate sensitives, which have different macro drivers. It does not make sense to overweight them together. It is important to note that Consumer Staples and Healthcare are overweight in Growth outside the US and EMU. Table 9Sector Tilts In Value And Growth In addition, Growth has similar sector preferences as Quality (Table 4 and Table 9), which explains the high correlation between the two factor premiums (Chart 14A), However, Quality has been a much better factor than Growth outside the US and Australia. In the US, Quality and Growth are almost the same with a stable correlation, but Quality has been inferior to Growth in Australia (Chart 14B). Chart 14AClose Correlation* Between Quality And Growth Chart 14BQuality Is Superior To Growth Outside US And Australia Finally, Value and Growth behave very differently in various market-cap segments, as shown in Table 10. Despite the well-telegraphed underperformance of Value versus Growth by the media, Value has consistently outperformed Growth in Canada, EM and Japan. Furthermore, mid-cap Value has also outperformed mid-cap Growth universally. Bottom Line: Value is extremely cheap and the rebound from an extremely oversold condition has been supported by the relative earnings trend and a rise in interest rates. Yet the mixed bag of sector exposure makes the Value/Growth allocation inferior to sector allocation. Investors who want to focus on Growth are advised to look for Quality outside of the US and Australia. Conclusions Related Report  Global Asset AllocationValue? Growth? It Really Depends! The US-centric factor research and media coverage have masked an underlying divergence of factor premiums in specific countries/regions. Factor premiums in the UK, EMU, Canada, and EM have been stronger than in the US, while Japan and Australia have been weaker. This divergence can be explained by different sector exposures of the same factor, along with varying behaviors of the same sector in specific countries/regions. While factor investing is not dead, it may be less profitable to utilize in the US, Japan, and Australia. We suggest that global investors implement smart beta strategies on an individual country basis to better capture the factor premium in each country. Even though Quality, Min Vol and Momentum have been outperformers in the past 20 years, all factors have embedded cyclicality. We do not advocate factor timing and reiterate our long-standing approach of equally weighting the five factors to smooth out the cyclicality of individual factors. Value/Growth is a popular style split; however, it is an inferior framework to sector positioning. In addition, Quality is a better factor than Growth, which is already included in our five-factor approach.   Xiaoli Tang Associate Vice President xiaolit@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see "Quant Hedge Fund Icon AQR Cuts Back as Investors Exit," Chief Investment Officer, dated November 15, 2021. 2     Please see "MSCI Diversified Multiple-Factorindexes Methodology," MSCI.com, dated May 2018. 3     Please see "Anomalies across the globe: Once public, no longer existent?" Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 135, Issue 1, January 2020, Pages 213-230. 4    Historical data for all MSCI factor indexes in major markets is available for this period 5    Since Jan 2013 based on MSCI data availability. 6     Jessica Hamlin, "AQR Posts Record Performance in January," Institutional Investor, dated February 9, 2022.