Fiscal
Highlights The global economy is in the midst of a painful recession. Monetary and fiscal authorities are responding forcefully to the crisis, but the lengths of the lockouts and quarantines remain a major source of downside risk to the economy. Investors should favor stocks over bonds during the next year. The short-term outlook remains fraught with danger, so avoid aggressive bets. Central banks can tackle the global liquidity crunch, thus spreads will narrow and the dollar will weaken. The long-term impact of COVID-19 will be inflationary. Feature “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1932 A violent global recession is underway. Last month, we wrote that a deep economic slump would be unavoidable if COVID-19 cases could not be controlled within two to three weeks.1 Since then, the number of new, recorded COVID-19 cases has mounted every day and fear prevails. Consumers are not spending; firms will face a cash crunch and/or bankruptcy, and employment will be slashed. The next few quarters could result in some of the worst GDP prints since the Great Depression. Risk assets have moved to discount this dire scenario. The global stock-to-bond ratio has collapsed by 47% since its peak on January 17th and stands at the 1st decile of it post-1980 distribution. 10-year US bond yields temporarily fell below 0.4%. The dollar has rallied against every currency and even gold traded below $1500 an ounce. Brent crude trades below $30/bbl. In this context, investors must assess if risk asset prices have declined enough to compensate for the economic hazards created by the COVID-19 pandemic. If the massive amount of monetary and fiscal stimulus announced can turn around the economy in the second half of the year, then stocks and risk assets are attractive. Otherwise, they are still not cheap enough and cash remains king. We think it is a good time to begin to parsimoniously deploy capital into risk assets. A Global Recession And An Extraordinary Response The global economy has suffered its worst shock since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), but policymakers are deploying every tool available. In our base case, GDP will contract more quickly for two quarters than it did during the GFC, and then will recover smartly. It is hard to pinpoint exactly how quickly global GDP will contract in the next six months, but key indicators point to a grim outcome. Chart I-1Global Growth Is Plunging China’s economy was at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic and its trajectory provides a glimpse into what the rest of the world should anticipate. In February, Chinese retail sales contracted by 20.5% annually and industrial production plunged by 13.5%. The German ZEW survey for March paints an equally bleak picture. The growth expectations component for the Eurozone and Germany fell to its lowest level since the GFC. The same indicator, but computed as an average of US, European and Asian subcomponents is also collapsing at an alarming pace (Chart I-1). The European flash PMI for March also points to a deep slowdown, with the services PMI plunging to 28.4, an all-time low. The performance of EM carry trades flashes a somber warning for our Global Industrial Production Nowcast (Chart I-2). Carry trade returns are imploding because global liquidity is incapable of meeting the demand for precautionary money by economic agents. This lack of liquidity is inflicting enormous damage on worldwide growth. Live trackers for US and global economic activity are also melting down. Traffic in some of the US’s largest cities is a fraction of last year's (Chart I-3). Globally, restaurant bookings have dried up and fewer airlines are flying compared to 2008. Initial jobless claims in the US have surged to 3.28 million, rapidly and decisively overtaking the weaknesses seen during the GFC. Chart I-2The Liquidation Of Carry Trade Is A Bad Omen Chart I-3Live Trackers Are In Free Fall Despite the dismal situation, some positive developments are emerging. It has been demonstrated that quarantines contain the spread of the virus. On March 18th, Wuhan recorded no new COVID-19 cases. Moreover, 10 days after its January 24th quarantine began, new cases started to fall off quickly (Chart I-4) in the city. If the recent softening in new cases in Italy’s Lombardy region continues, it will illustrate that democratic regimes can also reduce the pace of infection. Chart I-4Quarantines Do Work Most importantly, policymakers around the world have shown their willingness to do “whatever it takes.” Governments are easing fiscal policy with abandon. Germany’s state bank KfW is setting aside EUR550 billion to support the economy. France will spend EUR45 billion and has earmarked EUR300 billion in small business loan guarantees. Spain announced EUR200 billion to protect domestic activity. The White House just passed a stimulus package of $2 trillion, and Canada follows suit with a CAD82 billion relief bill. (Table I-1). As A. Walter and J. Chwieroth showed, the growing financial wealth of the middle class is forcing governments to always provide large bailouts after financial crises and recessions. Otherwise, their political parties suffer extreme repudiation from power.2 Table I-1Massive Stimulus In Response To Pandemic Central bankers have also become extreme reflators. Nearly every central bank in advanced economies has cut interest rates to zero or into negative territory. Most importantly, central banks have become lenders of last resort. The US Federal Reserve has announced it will engage in unlimited asset purchases; it has reopened various facilities to provide liquidity to the market and is using the US Department of the Treasury to lend directly to the private sector. Among its many measures, the European Central Bank is scrapping artificial limits on its bond purchases that were its capital keys and has offered a EUR750 billion bond purchase program. The ECB is also looking to open its OMT program. Other central banks are injecting cash directly into their domestic markets (Table I-2). The list and size of actions will expand until the markets are satiated with enough liquidity. Table I-2The Central Banks Still Had Some Options When Crisis Hit The impact of these policy measures is threefold. First, the actions are designed to alleviate the global economy’s cash crunch. Secondly, they aim to support growth directly. The private sector needs direct backing to survive the lack of cash inflows that will develop in the coming weeks. If fiscal and monetary authorities can plug that hole, then spending will not have to collapse as deeply nor for as long as would otherwise be the case. Finally, it is imperative that policymakers boost confidence and ease financial conditions to allow “animal spirits” to stabilize. If risk-taking continues to tailspin, then spending will never recover and the demand for cash will only grow, creating the worst liquidity trap since the Great Depression. Policymakers around the world have shown their willingness to do “whatever it takes.” The economy will continue to weaken in the second half of 2020 if quarantines remain in place beyond the summer. Not being epidemiologists, we are not equipped to make this call with any degree of certainty. Much depends on the evolution of the disease and the political decisions taken. We do not yet know if the population will be willing to endure the economic pain of a depression, or if political pressures will rise to force isolation on those over age 60 and those suffering dangerous comorbidities who are at higher risk, and allow everyone else to return to work and school.3 Investment Implications Part 1: Bonds and Stocks Chart I-5The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Has Capitulated While the short-term outlook remains murky for asset markets, investors with a 12-month or longer investment horizon should begin to move capital into equities at the expense of bonds. Beyond the relative technical and valuation backdrops (Chart I-5), the outlook for fiscal and monetary policy favors this allocation decision. US Treasury yields have dropped from 1.9% at the turn of the year to as low as 0.31% on March 9th. According to the bond market, inflation will average less than 1% during the coming 10 years. The OIS curve is pricing in a fed funds rate of only 68 basis points in five years. In response to this extreme pricing, Treasury bonds are exceptionally expensive (Chart I-6). Moreover, using BCA Research’s Golden Rule of Treasury Investing, there is little scope for yields to fall any lower. The Golden Rule states that the return of Treasury bonds is directly linked to the Fed's rate surprises. If over the next year the Fed cuts interest rates more than is currently priced into the OIS curve, then bond yields will fall in the next 12 months (Chart I-7). Given that the fed funds rate is already at its lower limit, the Fed will not be able to deliver such a dovish surprise and yields will have limited downside. Chart I-6Bonds Are Furiously Expensive Chart I-7The Fed Cannot Pull Another Dovish Surprise Out Of Its Hat The bond market is also vulnerable from a technical perspective. Our Composite Technical Indicator is as overbought today as it was in December 2008 (Chart I-8). Thus, bond prices are vulnerable to good news. Economic activity will be weak for many months, but the recent policy announcements will boost global fiscal deficits by more than $3 trillion in the next 12 to 18 months. Such a large supply of paper is bearish for bonds, especially when they are very expensive. Moreover, global central banks are engaging in large-scale quantitative easing (QE). Globally, monetary authorities have already announced the equivalent of at least $1.9 trillion in asset purchases. The GFC experience showed that QE programs put upward pressure on Treasury yields (Chart I-9). This time will not be different given the combination of QE, supply disruptions caused by quarantines and large fiscal stimulus. Chart I-8A Dire Combination For Bonds Chart I-9QE Pushes Yields Up Equities offer the opposite risk/reward ratio to bonds. Technical indicators are consistent with maximum pessimism toward equities and imply that most of the selloff is behind us, at least for the time being. The Complacency-Anxiety Indicator developed by BCA Research’s US Equity Strategy service points to widespread pessimism among investors,4 an intuition confirmed by our Sentiment indicator (Chart I-10). Moreover, our Equity Capitulation Index is as depressed as in March 2009. Investors with a 12-month or longer investment horizon should begin to move capital into equities at the expense of bonds. Despite the magnitude of the shock hitting the global economy, equities will rally if they become cheap enough and monetary conditions are accommodative enough. The BCA Valuation indicator has collapsed to “undervalued” territory and our Monetary Indicator has never been more supportive of equities (both variables are shown on page 2 of Section III). The gap between these two indicators is at its lowest level since Q1 2009 or 1982, two points that marked the end of bear markets (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Equities Have Capitulated Chart I-11Supportive Combined Valuation And Monetary Backdrop For Equities Equity multiples also offer some insight into the risk/reward ratio for stocks. The S&P 500 has collapsed by 34% since its February 19th peak and trades at 13 times forward earnings. True, analysts will revise their forecasts, but the market also only trades at 14 times trailing earnings, which cannot be downgraded. Most importantly, investors are extremely gloomy about expected growth when multiples and risk-free rates are so subdued. Risk assets cannot stabilize durably as long as the demand for dollar liquidity is not satiated. Table I-3Evaluating Where The Floor Lies We can use a simple discounted cash flow model to extract the expected growth rate of long-term earnings embedded in the S&P 500. To do so, we assume that the ERP is 300 basis points, close to the long-term outperformance of stocks versus bonds. At current multiples and 10-year yields, investors are pricing in a long-term growth rate of -2% annually for earnings (Table I-3). In comparison, investors were more pessimistic in 1974, 2008 and 2011 when they anticipated long-term earnings contractions of -2.5% annually. If we assume that the long-term growth of expected earnings will fall to that depth, then we can estimate trailing P/E multiples will be under different risk-free rates. If yields fall to zero, then the P/E would be 17.7 or a price level of 2,692; however, if they rise to 1.5%, then the P/E would decline to 13.9 or a price level of 2,115 (Table I-3). Chart I-12Expected Earnings Growth And Interest Rates Are Co-Integrated This method suggests that 2200 is the S&P 500’s likely floor. Risk-free rates and the expected growth rate of long-term earnings are correlated series because the anticipated evolution of economic activity drives both real interest rates and earnings (Chart I-12). Thus, it is unlikely that yields will climb if expected earnings growth falls. Instead, if the expected growth rate of long-term earnings drops to -2.5%, then yields should stand between 1% and 0.5%, implying equilibrium trailing P/Es of 15 to 16.3 times, or prices levels of 2,278 to 2,468. P/E will only fall much further if the dollar scramble lasts longer. As investors seek cash and liquidate all assets, the process can push anticipated growth rates lower while pulling bond yields higher (see next section). Investment Implications Part 2: The Uncontrolled Liquidity Crunch Is Still An Immediate Risk Risk assets cannot stabilize durably as long as the demand for dollar liquidity is not satiated. The large programs announced around the world seem to be calming this liquidity crunch. However, the situation is fluid and the crunch can come back at a moment's notice. Despite the magnitude of the shock hitting the global economy, equities will rally if they become cheap enough and monetary conditions are accommodative enough. Credit spreads blew up as investors priced in the inevitable increase in defaults that accompanies recessions (Chart I-13). Junk spreads moved to as high as 1100 basis points, their highest level since 2009. If we assume that next year, US EBITDA contracts by its average post-war magnitude (a timid assumption), then the interest coverage ratio will deteriorate to readings not seen since the S&L crisis, which will force default rates higher (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Defaults Will Rise Chart I-14Corporate Fundamentals Will Deteriorate The anticipated contraction in cash flows creates another more pernicious and dangerous consequence: an insatiable demand for dollar liquidity by the private sector. Companies are worried they may not generate the necessary cash flows to service their debt. This is especially worrisome for foreign borrowers who have loans in US dollars. The BIS estimates that foreign currency debt denominated in USDs stands at $12 trillion. Meanwhile, these foreign borrowers are hoarding dollars. The risk aversion of US-based companies is accentuating the dollar crunch. US companies have pulled on their credit lines en masse. US commercial banks must provide this cash to their clients. However, US banks must still meet liquidity requirements imposed by the Basel III rules. As a result, the banks are also hoarding as much cash as possible in the form of excess reserves and curtailed their capital market lending, especially in the repo market. Repos are the lifeblood of capital markets and without repos, market liquidity (the ability to sell and buy securities) quickly deteriorates. This chain of events has caused a sharp widening in Treasury bid-ask spreads, LIBOR-OIS spreads and commercial paper-T-Bill spreads, and has fueled weaknesses in mortgage and municipal bond markets (Chart I-15). The evaporation of the repo market accentuates the foreign liquidity crunch. Without functioning repo markets, dollar funding in offshore markets becomes more onerous, as highlighted by the widening in global cross-currency basis swap spreads (Chart I-16). Borrowers are buying dollars at any cost. This has led to the surge in the dollar from March 9th, which forced the collapse of risky currencies such as the NOK, the BRL or the MXN, but also of safe-haven currencies such as the JPY and the CHF. Chart I-15Symptoms Of A Liquidity Crunch Chart I-16Offshore Funding Pressures Point To A Dollar Shortage The strength in the dollar is problematic. As a symptom of the liquidity crunch, it accompanies forced selling of assets by investors seeking to acquire cash. Moreover, the USD is a funding currency, hence a strong dollar also tightens the global cost of capital for all foreign borrowers who have tapped into US capital markets. For US firms, it also accentuates deflationary pressures and the resulting lower price of goods sold increases the risk of bankruptcies. Thus, a strong dollar would feed the weakness in asset prices and further widen credit spreads. Moreover, because the liquidity crunch hurts growth and can concurrently push yields higher, it could pull P/Es below 15 and drive equity prices far below our 2,200 floor. On the positive side, central banks worldwide are keenly aware of the danger created by the liquidity crunch. The Fed has started and restarted a long list of liquidity facilities (Table I-2). Its unlimited QE program also addresses the dollar shortage directly by expanding the supply of money. Crucially, the Fed has re-opened dollar swap lines with other central banks, including emerging markets such as Korea, Singapore, Mexico and Brazil. Even the ECB and the Bank of England are relaxing liquidity ratios for their banks, which at the margin will alleviate the supply of liquidity in their domestic economies. The Fed will likely follow its European counterparts, which could play a large role in alleviating the global dollar shortage. Investors seeking to assess if the supply of liquidity is large enough should pay close attention to gold prices. The global, large-scale fiscal stimulus programs will also address the dollar liquidity crisis. When investors judge there is sufficient fiscal stimulus to put a floor under global economic activity, the markets will take a more sanguine view of the risk of default. If large enough, government spending will support corporate cash flows and, therefore, limit corporate bankruptcies. Consequently, demand for liquidity will also decline and mass asset liquidations will ebb. Chart I-17Gold Is The Ultimate Liquidity Gauge Investors seeking to assess if the supply of liquidity is large enough should look for some key market signals. We pay close attention to gold prices; after March 9th they fell despite the global spike in risk aversion due to gold's extreme sensitivity to global liquidity conditions. Both today and in the fall of 2008, gold prices fell when illiquidity grew. Our gold fair-value model shows that the precious metal is extremely sensitive to inflation expectations and real bond yields (Chart I-17). As illiquidity grows and the dollar appreciates, inflation breakevens collapse and real yields spike. Thus, the recent gold rebound suggests that the Fed and other major central banks have expanded the supply of liquidity sufficiently to meet demand, the price of money will fall (real interest rates) and inflation expectations will rebound. Monitor whether gold can remain well bid. Investment Implications Part 3: FX And Commodity Markets Chart I-18China's Stimulus Will Once Again Be Paramount China’s stimulus will be a key driver of the FX market in the post-liquidity-crunch world. Historically, because Chinese reflation has lifted the global manufacturing cycle, it possesses a large influence on the dollar’s trend (Chart I-18). We believe that China’s stimulus will be comparable to the one implemented in 2008 and will boost global growth. Moreover, the interest rate advantage of the US has declined and global macro volatility will not remain at current extremes for an extended time. These three factors (Chinese stimulus, lower interest rate differentials and declining volatility) will weigh on the USD in the coming 18 months (Chart I-18, bottom panel). EM currencies and the AUD will benefit most from the dollar depreciation later this year. In the short term, these currencies remain exposed to any flare up in the liquidity crunch and can cheapen further. But, as Chart I-19 highlights, investing in those currencies will likely generate long-term excess returns because they have cheapened significantly. Commodities, too, are becoming attractive at current valuations. Industrial metals such as copper will benefit greatly from China’s stimulus. A rising Chinese credit and fiscal impulse lifts the price of base metals because it pushes up Chinese infrastructure spending as well as residential and capex investment (Chart I-20). Moreover, a lower dollar and accommodative global monetary policy will further boost the appeal of industrial metals. Chart I-19EM FX Is Cheap Chart I-20China Will Drive Metal Prices Higher China’s stimulus will be a key driver of the FX market in the post-liquidity-crunch world. The oil outlook is particularly unclear as both demand and supply factors are in flux. At $27/bbl, Brent is cheap enough to compensate investors for the decline in demand that will emerge between now and the end of the second quarter. However, the market-share war between Saudi Arabia and Russia layers on the problem of supply risk. Saudi Aramco is set to increase production to 12.3 million barrels by April and Saudi’s GCC allies have announced they are increasing output as well. According to BCA Research’s Commodity and Energy Strategy service, the oil market is already oversupplied by 1.6 million barrels per day, a number that will expand if the KSA and its allies fulfill their production pledges. If this situation persists, oil will lag behind industrial metals when global risk aversion recedes. Nonetheless, our commodity strategists believe that the collapse in oil prices is more painful for Russia than for KSA. We believe there will be a compromise between OPEC and Russia in the coming weeks that will push supply lower.5 Additionally, the Texas Railroad Commission is preparing to impose limitations on Texas oil production, which has not been done since the 1970s. Such a decision would magnify any rebound in oil prices. Thinking Long-Term: The Return Of Stagflation? The COVID-19 outbreak will likely be viewed as an epoch-defining moment. The policy response to the outbreak will be far reaching and the disease will change the way firms manage supply chains for decades to come. There will be a substantial pullback in globalization. COVID-19 has generated an inflationary shock in the medium term. Chart I-21War Spending Is Always Inflationary COVID-19 has generated an inflationary shock in the medium term. Governments have suddenly abandoned their preferences for fiscal rectitude. The US deficit will reach a peacetime record of 15% of GDP. These are war-like spending measures. In history, gold standard or not, wars were the main reason for inflationary outbreaks as they involved massive budgetary expansions (Chart I-21). The large monetary easing accompanying the current fiscal expansion will only add to this inflationary impulse. Many of the proposals discussed by governments involve funneling cash directly to households, while central banks buy bonds issued by the same government. This is very close to helicopter money. These policies will increase the velocity of money, which is structurally inflationary (Chart I-22). Naysayers may point to the lack of inflation created by QE programs in the direct aftermath of the GFC. However, at that time, households and commercial banks were much sicker. Today, capital ratios in the US and the Eurozone are 60% and 33% higher than in 2007, respectively (Chart I-23). Thus, banks are much more likely to add to money creation instead of retracting from it as they did in the last cycle. Chart I-22If Velocity Rises, So Will Inflation Chart I-23Banks Are Much Healthier Than In 2008 Chart I-24Financial Assets Have No Inflation Cushion Markets are not ready for higher inflation. The 5-year/5-year forward CPI swaps in the US and the euro area stand at only 1.6% and 0.7%, respectively. Household long-term inflation expectations are also at all-time lows (Chart I-24). Therefore, an increase in inflation will have a deep impact on asset prices. The first implication is that gold prices have probably begun a new structural bull market. Inflation will surprise on the upside and keep real interest rates lower. Both these factors are highly bullish for the yellow metal. Additionally, easy fiscal policy and money printing will devalue currencies versus hard assets, which will benefit all precious metals, including gold. EM central banks have recently been diversifying aggressively in gold, which will add another impetuous to its rally. The second implication is that the stock-to-bond ratio has structural upside. Equities are not a perfect inflation hedge, but their profits can rise when selling prices accelerate. However, bonds display rock bottom real yields, inflation protection and term premia. Moreover, their low-running yields are below the dividend yields of equities, which has also boosted bond duration to record levels. Therefore, bonds offer even less protection against higher inflation. Hence, the stock-to-bond ratio will probably follow the historical experience of the 20th century structural bull market and inflect higher (Chart I-25). However, this outperformance will not stem from the superior performance of stocks in real terms; rather, it will emerge from a very poor performance by bonds. Chart I-25The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Will Follow The 20th Century Road Map Thirdly, the structural relative bear market in EM equities will likely end soon. EM equities will enjoy strong real asset prices and EM assets have much more appealing valuations than DM stocks. This is an imbedded inflation protection. The world is witnessing a fiscal and monetary push that will result in lower productivity growth and profit margins, along with feared inflation. The next decade could increasingly look like the stagflationary 1970s. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 26, 2020 Next Report: April 30, 2020 II. Revisiting The Neutral Rate Of Interest: A Contrarian View In A Time Of Crisis Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013, and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the real neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even once economic recovery takes hold unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). This report revisits the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrates why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. We also outline an inferential approach that investors can use to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. The core conclusion for investors is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, investors should avoid dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about yields as they may rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once a post-COVID-19 expansion takes hold. Over the past several weeks financial markets have moved rapidly to price in a global recession stemming from the COVID-19 outbreak. As financial market participants began to turn to policy makers for support, eyes focused first on the Federal Reserve, and then fiscal authorities. Earlier this week, the ECB joined the party and announced aggressive further measures of its own. When responding to the Fed’s return to the lower bound and its other recent monetary policy decisions, many market participants have expressed the view that the Fed is largely impotent to deal with a global pandemic. There are three elements to this view. The first is that interest rate cuts are ill equipped to stimulate domestic demand if quarantine measures or other forms of “social distancing” are in effect. The second element is that the Fed has only been capable of delivering a fraction of the reduction in interest rates compared to what has occurred in response to previous contractions. The third aspect of this view is that because the neutral rate of interest is so much lower now than it was in the past, Fed rate cuts will not be as stimulative as they were before. Chart II-1Monetary Policy Ceased To Be Stimulative Last Year, According To The LW R-star Estimate While we at least partly agree with the first and second elements of this view, we feel strongly that the third is flawed. Global investors have come to accept the secular stagnation narrative as described by Larry Summers in November 2013,6 and have gravitated to the only available real time estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the Laubach & Williams (“LW”) “R-star” estimate. This time series, which is regularly updated by the New York Fed,7 suggests that the real fed funds rate reached neutral territory in the first quarter of 2019 (Chart II-1). With this apparent visualization of secular stagnation as a guide, many investors have concluded that monetary policy ceased to be stimulative last year and that recent Fed rate cuts will be of limited benefit to economic activity even beyond the near term unless inflation meaningfully accelerates (thus pushing real rates lower for any given nominal Fed funds rate). In this Special Report we revisit the “LW” R-star estimate in detail, and demonstrate why the estimation is almost certainly wrong, at least over the past two decades. Our analysis does not reveal a precise alternative estimate of the neutral rate, although we do provide some inferential perspective on how investors may be able to monitor where the neutral rate is in real time and whether it is rising or falling. However, the core insight emanating from our report, particularly for US fixed income investors, is that US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. While bond yields may not rise significantly in the near-term, this underscores that they have the potential to rise meaningfully over a cyclical and secular horizon once economic activity recovers. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise may be larger than many investors currently expect. Demystifying The LW R-star Estimate The LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest has gained credibility for three reasons. First, as noted above, the evolution of the series fits with the secular stagnation narrative re-popularized by Larry Summers. Second, the series is essentially sponsored by the Federal Reserve even if it is not officially part of the Fed’s forecasting framework, as its two creators are long-time Fed employees (Thomas Laubach is a director of the Fed’s Board of Governors, and John Williams is the current President of the New York Fed). But, in our view, there is a third important reason that global investors have accepted the LW R-star estimate of the neutral rate of interest: the methodology used to generate the estimate is extremely technically complex, and thus is difficult for most investors to penetrate. Much of the technical complexity of the LW estimate is centered around the use of a statistical procedure called a Kalman filter (“KF”). Simply described, the KF is an algorithm that tries to estimate an unobservable variable based on 1) an idea of how the unobservable variable might relate to an observable variable (the “measurement equation”), and 2) an idea of how the unobservable variable might change through time (the “transition equation”). Through a repeated process of simulating the unobserved variable based on a set of assumptions, the KF is able to compare predicted results to actual results on an observation-by-observation basis, and use that information to generate ever more reliable future estimates of the unobserved variable (Chart II-2). Chart II-2A Very Simplified Overview Of The Kalman Filter Algorithm We acknowledge that a full technical treatment of the Kalman Filter as it relates to the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest is beyond the scope of this report, and we provide a more technical overview in Box II-1. But what emerges from a detailed analysis of the model is that the Kalman Filter jointly estimates R-star, potential GDP growth, potential GDP, and the variable “z”, the determinants of R-star that are not explained by potential GDP growth. As we will highlight in the next section, this joint estimation of these four variables is a crucial aspect of the model, because a valid estimate of R-star necessitates a valid estimate of the remaining variables. BOX II-1 A Technical Overview Of The Laubach & Williams R-star Model Chart Box II-1 shows that there are three sets of formulas involved in the LW estimation: the “law of motion” for the neutral rate of interest, two measurement equations, and three transition equations. The law of motion for the neutral rate is fairly simple: R-star is a function of trend real GDP growth, as well as “other factors” represented by the variable “z”. Laubach & Williams note that z “captures factors such as households’ rate of time preference”. The measurement equations are also fairly straightforward. First, the (unobservable) output gap is a function of lagged values of itself as well as the lagged real Fed funds rate gap (relative to the unobservable neutral rate). Second, inflation is a function of lagged values of itself, past values of the output gap, relative core import prices, and lagged relative imported oil prices (the latter two variables are included to capture potential supply shocks to inflation). Note that this second measurement equation is required for the model to work, as it relates the unobservable output gap to observable inflation. As presented in Chart II-2, the three transition equations are present to simulate how the unobservable variables might move through time. Potential growth and potential output are a random walk, and “z” from the law of motion follows either a random walk or an autoregressive process. Chart Box II-1The Laubach & Williams R-star Model Debunking The LW R-star Estimate Before criticizing the LW estimate of the neutral rate of interest, it is important for us to note that we have the utmost respect for the Federal Reserve and its research methods. We fully acknowledge that the LW R-star estimation is rooted in solid economic theory, and we have identified no technical errors in the setup of the LW model. Nevertheless, valid analytical efforts sometimes lead to problematic real-world results, and there are two key reasons to believe that the Kalman filter in the LW model is almost certainly misspecifying R-star, at least in terms of its estimate over the past two decades. The first reason relates to the sensitivity of the model to the interval of estimation (the period over which R-star is estimated). Chart II-3 presents the range of quarterly estimates of R-star since 2005, along with the difference between the high and low end of the range in the second panel. The chart shows that while previous estimates of R-star have generally been stable for values ranging between the early-1980s and 2006/2007, pre-1980 estimates have varied quite substantially and we have seen material revisions to the estimates over the past decade. Q1 2018 serves as an excellent example: in that quarter R-star was estimated to be 0.14%; today, the Q1 2018 R-star estimate sits at 0.92%. Chart II-3Since 2005, There Has Been Some Instability In The LW R-star Estimates However, Table II-1 and Chart II-4 highlight the real instability of the Kalman filter estimation by demonstrating the effect of varying the starting point of the model (please see Box II-2 for a brief description of how our estimation of R-star using the LW approach differs slightly from the original procedure). Laubach & Williams originally estimated R-star beginning in Q1 1961; Table II-1 shows what happens to today’s estimate of R-star simply by incrementally varying the starting point of the model from Q1 1958 to Q4 1979. Table II-1Alternative Current LW Estimates Of R-star By Model Starting Point Chart II-4Alternative Starting Points Produce Wildly Different Estimates Of R-star Today BOX II-2 The Laubach & Williams R-star Model With Simplified Inflation Expectations To proxy inflation expectations in their model, Laubach & Williams use a “forecast of the four-quarter-ahead percentage change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy (“core PCE prices”) generated from a univariate AR(3) of inflation estimated over the prior 40 quarters”. The authors note that a simplified measure of expectations, a 4-quarter moving average of quarterly annualized core inflation, does not materially alter their results. For the sake of parsimony we use this simplified measure in our analysis. We find that the effect shifts the current estimate of R-star only slightly (+10 basis points), and that the historical differences between our version of the 1961 estimation and the official series are indeed minor. The table highlights that the model fails to even generate a result in a majority of the cases (only 39 out of 88 of the model runs were error-free). In addition, Chart II-4 shows that of the successful estimates of R-star using the LW procedure and alternate starting dates of the model, the estimate of R-star today varies from -2% (in one case) to +2%. Excluding the one extremely negative outlier results in an effective estimate range of 0% to 2%, but the key point for investors is that this range is massive and underscores that the original model’s estimate of R-star today is heavily and unduly influenced by the interval of estimation. Investors should also note that of all of the alternative estimates of R-star today shown in Chart II-4, the estimate using the original interval is very much on the low end of the distribution. The second (and most important) reason to believe that the LW estimate is misspecifying R-star is that the output gap estimate generated by the model is almost certainly invalid, at least over the past two decades. Chart II-5presents the LW output gap estimate alongside an average of the CBO, OECD, and IMF estimates of the gap; panel 1 shows the official current LW output gap estimate, whereas panel 2 shows the range of output gap estimates that are generated using the different estimation intervals highlighted in Table II-1 and Chart II-4. Chart II-5The LW Output Gap Estimates, Upon Which R-star Depends, Have Been Wrong For Two Decades Given that the Kalman filter in the LW model jointly determines R-star and the output gap (by way of estimating potential output via estimating potential GDP growth) and that these estimates are dependent on each other, Chart II-5 highlights that in order to believe the LW R-star estimate investors must believe three things: That the US economy was chronically below potential in the late-1990s when the unemployment rate was below 5%, real GDP growth averaged nearly 5%, and the equity market was booming, That output exceeded potential in 2004/2005 by a magnitude not seen since the late-1970s / early-1980s despite an average unemployment rate, That the 2008/2009 US recession was not particularly noteworthy in terms of its deviation from potential output, and that the economy had returned to potential output by 2010/2011 when the unemployment rate was in the range of 8-9%. Chart II-6The US Economy Was Definitely Not At Full Employment In 2010 While we do not believe any of these three statements, the third is especially unlikely. Chart II-6 highlights that the economic expansion from 2009 – 2020 was the weakest on record in the post-war era in terms of average annual real per capita GDP growth. To us, this is a clear symptom of a chronic deficiency in aggregate demand, and that it is essentially unreasonable to argue that the economy was operating at full employment prior to 2014/2015. This means that the Kalman filter is generating incorrect and unreliable estimates of the output gap, which means in turn that the filter’s estimation of R-star is almost assuredly wrong. How Can Investors Tell What The Neutral Rate Is? An Inferential Approach Table II-2 presents the sensitivity of the original Q1 1961 LW estimate of R-star to a series of counterfactual scenarios for inflation, real GDP growth, nominal interest rates, and import and oil prices since mid-2009. While these scenarios do not in any way improve the validity of the LW R-star estimate, they do help clarify the theoretical basis of the model and they help reveal how investors may infer whether the neutral rate of interest is higher or lower than prevailing market rates, and whether it is rising or falling. Table II-2Sensitivity Of Current LW R-star Estimate To Counterfactual Scenarios (2009 - Present) Chart II-7Core Import Price Growth Has Been Weak On Average During This Expansion Table II-2 highlights that today’s estimate of R-star using the original LW approach is mostly sensitive to our counterfactual scenarios for growth and interest rates, but not inflation or oil prices. Shifting down import price growth also has a meaningful effect on R-star, but since core import price growth has been particularly weak over the past several years (Chart II-7), it seems unreasonable to suggest that they have been abnormally high and thus “explain” a low R-star estimate today. Table II-2 essentially highlights that the entire question of the neutral rate of interest over the past decade, and the core contradiction that led to the re-emergence of the secular stagnation thesis, can effectively be boiled down to the following simple question: “Why hasn’t US economic growth been stronger this cycle, given that interest rates have been so low?” Based on the (hopefully uncontroversial) view that interest rates influence economic activity and that economic activity influences inflation, we propose the following checklist for investors to ask themselves in order to not only determine the answer to this important question, but to help identify whether R-star in any given country is likely higher or lower than existing policy rates at any given point in time. Are interest rates above or below the prevailing level of economic growth? Are interest rates rising or falling, and how intensely? Are there identifiable non-monetary shocks (positive or negative) that appear to be influencing economic activity? Is private sector credit growth keeping pace with economic growth? Are debt service burdens in the economy high or low? The first question reflects the most basic view of R-star, which is that the real neutral rate of interest should be equal to, or at least closely related to, the potential growth rate of the economy, ceteris paribus. Questions 2 through 5 attempt to determine whether ceteris paribus holds. In terms of how the answers to these questions relate to identifying the neutral rate, consider two economies, “Economy A” and “Economy B” (Chart II-8). Economy A has broadly stable or slightly rising interest rates that are well below prevailing rates of economic growth (questions 1 & 2), no obvious beneficial shocks to domestic demand from fiscal policy or other factors (question 3), and strong private sector credit growth that is perhaps above or strongly above the current pace of GDP growth (question 4). Chart II-8'Economy A', Versus 'Economy B' Inferentially, it would seem that interest rates in this hypothetical economy are below R-star today. Question 5 is in our list because the more that active private sector leveraging occurs (thus pushing up debt burdens), the more that we would expect R-star in the future to fall. This is because debt payments as a share of income cannot rise forever, and we would expect that the capacity of economy A’s central bank to raise interest rates in the future are negatively related to economy A’s private sector debt service burden today. Now, imagine another economy (“Economy B”) with interest rates well below average rates of economic growth, an interest rate trend that is flat-to-down, no identifiable non-monetary policy shocks that are restricting aggregate demand, persistently sluggish credit growth, and high private sector debt service burdens in the past. If economy B is growing (even sluggishly) and not in the middle of a recession, it would seem that prevailing interest rates are below R-star, but not significantly so. In this scenario it would seem reasonable to conclude that R-star in economy B has fallen non-trivially below its potential growth rate, and that interest rate increases are likely to move monetary policy into restrictive territory earlier than otherwise would be the case. Is The United States “Economy B”? From the perspective of some investors, our description of economy B above perfectly captures the experience of the US over the past decade: an extremely low Fed funds rate, sluggish to weak growth and inflation, all the result of a huge build-up in leverage and debt service burdens during the last economic cycle. We do not doubt that R-star fell in the US for some period of time during the global financial crisis and in the early phase of the economic recovery. But we doubt that it is as low today as the secular stagnation narrative would imply, in large part because it ignores several important aspects concerning questions 2 through 5 noted above. Chart II-9Fiscal Austerity Has Been A Serious Non-Monetary Shock To Aggregate Demand Non-monetary shocks to the US and global economies: Over the past 12 years, there have been at least five deeply impactful non-monetary shocks to both the US and global economies that have contributed to the disconnect between growth and interest rates: 1) a prolonged period of US household deleveraging from 2008-2014, 2) the euro area sovereign debt crisis, 3) fiscal austerity in the US, UK, and euro area from 2010 – 2012/2014 (Chart II-9), 4) the US dollar / oil price shock of 2014, and 5) the recent trade war between the US and China. Several of these shocks have been policy-driven, and in the case of austerity the negative consequences of that policy has led to a lasting change in thinking among fiscal authorities (outside of Japan) that is unlikely to reverse in the near-future. Chart II-10Recent Trends In US Private Sector Leverage Do Not Suggest R-star Is Very Low Private sector credit growth: Chart II-10 highlights the extent of household deleveraging noted above by showing the growth in total household liabilities over the past decade alongside income growth. Panel 2 shows the leveraging trend of firms, as represented by the nonfinancial corporate sector debt-to-GDP ratio. Chart II-10 underscores two points: the first is that while US household sector credit contracted for several years following the global financial crisis, it is now growing again and has largely closed the gap with income growth. The second point is that the nonfinancial corporate sector has clearly leveraged itself over the course of the expansion, arguing that interest rates have not in any way been restrictive for businesses. While it is true that firms have largely leveraged themselves to buy back stock instead of significantly increasing capital expenditures, in our view this reflects the fact that US consumer demand was impaired for several years due to deleveraging. We doubt that firms would have altered their capital structures to this degree if they did not view interest rates as extremely low. Debt service burdens: Chart II-11 highlights that US household debt service burdens were at very elevated levels prior to the financial crisis, suggesting that the neutral rate did fall for some time following the recession. But today, the debt burden facing households is the lowest it has been in the past 40 years due to both rate reductions and deleveraging, arguing against the view that household debt levels will structurally weigh on interest rates in the years to come. Chart II-12 shows that the picture is different for nonfinancial corporations, as the substantial leveraging noted above has indeed raised debt service burdens for firms. However, the nonfinancial corporate sector debt service ratio remains 400 basis points below early-2000 levels when excess corporate sector liabilities had a clear impact on the economy, suggesting that the Fed’s capacity to raise interest rates still exists following the onset of economic recovery if corporate sector credit growth does not rise sharply relative to GDP over the coming 6-12 months. Chart II-11The Debt Burden Facing US Households Is At A Record Low Chart II-12Businesses Have Levered Up Their Balance Sheets, But There Is Still Room For Rates To Rise The intensity of recent interest rate changes: Finally, many investors have pointed to sluggish housing activity over the past three years as evidence of a low neutral rate. However, Chart II-13 highlights that the rise in the 30-year US mortgage rate from late-2016 to late-2018 was one of the largest two-year changes in US history, and Chart II-14 shows that the growth in household mortgage credit did not fall below its trend during this period until Q4 2018, when the US stock market fell 20% from its high in response to the economic consequences of the US/China trade war. Chart II-14 also shows that mortgage credit growth responded sharply to a recent reduction in interest rates. All in all, Charts II-13 & II-14 cast doubt on the notion that the level of mortgage rates over the past three years reached restrictive territory. Chart II-13Mortgage Rates Rose Very Significantly From Late-2016 To Late-2018 Chart II-14A Record Rise In Mortgage Rates Did Not Crack The Housing Market Investment Conclusions In the face of a global pandemic and an attendant global recession this year, the idea of eventual Fed rate hikes and the notion that the US economy will be able to tolerate them likely seems preposterous to many investors. We agree that over the coming 6-12 months US Treasury yields are unlikely to rise; even at current levels of the 10-year Treasury yield, we are reluctant to call a trough. Chart II-15US 10-Year Treasurys Are Mostly Priced For A Repeat Of The Past Decade However, Chart II-15highlights that over a long-term time horizon, the bond market is now essentially priced for a repeat of the ten-year path of the Fed funds rate following the global financial crisis. While some investors will view this as a reasonable expectation in the face of what they see as a persistent and unexplainable gap between growth and interest rates over the past decade, we think this gap is explainable and we highly doubt that a pandemic with minimal mortality risk to the working age population and the young will cause the US economy to be afflicted with active consumer deleveraging lasting 4 to 6-years, substantial and wide-ranging fiscal austerity, persistently rising trade tariffs, and sharply lower oil prices. So while we agree that the US economy will be substantially cyclically affected by COVID-19, US Treasury yields reflect a “low rates forever” view with much higher certainty than is analytically warranted and thus appear to be anchored by a false narrative. As such, we caution fixed-income investors against dogmatic medium-to-longer term views about bond yields, as their potential to rise following the upcoming recession may be larger than many investors currently believe. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com III. Indicators And Reference Charts Last month, we continued to strike a cautious tactical tone. Valuations were not depressed enough to compensate investors for the lack of clarity around the path of COVID-19. In other words, there was not enough of a risk premium imbedded in asset prices if COVID-19 cases were to spread around the world. Now that COVID-19 has spread around the planet, asset valuations have adjusted massively. The BCA Valuation Indicator for the S&P 500 is now in undervalued territory, thanks to both lower prices and interest rates. Meanwhile, the BCA Monetary Indicator has never been more accommodative than it is today. Together, these two indicators suggest that twelve months from now, equities will stand at higher levels than they do today. Tactically, equities have most probably found their floor. Both our Composite Sentiment Indicator and the VIX are consistent with a capitulation. Anecdotal evidences also point to a capitulation by retail investors. Additionally, Our RPI indicator is finally starting to try to turn up. Nonetheless, equities will likely re-test their Monday March 23rd floor as the length of US and global quarantines that are so damaging to growth (but for now, necessary) remain uncertain. The cleanest way to express a positive 12-month outlook on equities is to bet on a rise in the stock-to-bond ratio. 10-year Treasurys are as expensive as they were in late 2008 and early 1986, two periods followed by rapid rises in yields. Moreover, our Composite Technical Indicators is 2.5 sigma overbought. The yield curve is steepening anew, which confirms the intuition that yields will experience significant upside over the coming 12 months. On a longer-term basis, inflation expectations are too low to compensate investors for the inflation risk created by a larger monetary and fiscal expansion than the one witnessed in 2008. That being said, EM sovereigns are getting attractive for long-term investors. Following the surge in the dollar that accompanied the liquidity crunch that surrounded the COVID-19 panic, the dollar is now trading at its most expensive level since 1985. The large liquidity injections by the Fed should cap the dollar for now, but the greenback will need more clarity on the end of global quarantines before it can fall decisively. Nonetheless, it will depreciate significantly once the global economy rebounds due to the powerful reflationary impulse building up around the world. Finally, commodity prices are retesting their 2008 lows. They are not as oversold as they were then, but this is good sign as the advance/decline line of our Continuous Commodity Index continues to trend higher. Thus, if as we expect, the dollar’s surge is ending, commodities are likely to be in the process of finding a floor right now. Once investors become more optimistic about the outlook for global growth, commodities will likely rebound sharply, maybe even more so than stocks. Therefore, it is a good time to begin accumulating metals, energy and equities as well as FX linked to natural resources prices. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "March 2020," dated February 27, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Chwieroth, Jeffrey M., Walter, Andrew, The Wealth Effect: How the Great Expectations of the Middle Class Have Changed the Politics of Banking Crises, 2019. 3 A relaxation of social-distancing measures would likely mean that large-scale gatherings are still prohibited, and life would not return to normal for a long time. 4 Please see US Equity Strategy "The Darkest Hour Is Just Before The Dawn," dated March 23, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy "KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War," dated March 19, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 6 "IMF Fourteenth Annual Research Conference in Honor of Stanley Fischer," Washington DC, November 8, 2013. 7 "Measuring the Natural Rate of Interest," Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Highlights Policy Responses: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a full-blown global crisis and recession. Governments and central bankers worldwide are now responding with aggressive monetary easing and fiscal stimulus. Markets will not respond positively to such stimulus, however, until there is some visibility on the true depth, and duration, of the economic downturn. Fixed Income Strategy: With a global recession now a certainty, bond yields will remain under downward pressure and credit spreads should widen further. Given how far yields have already fallen, we recommend emphasizing country and credit allocation in global bond portfolios, while keeping overall duration exposure around benchmark levels. Model Portfolio Changes: Following up on our tactical changes last week, we continue to recommend overweighting government debt versus spread product. Specifically, overweighting US & Canadian government bonds versus Japan and core Europe, and underweighting US high-yield and all euro area and EM credit. Feature In stunning fashion, the sudden stop in the global economy due to the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a rapid return to crisis-era monetary and fiscal policies. The battle has now shifted to trying to fill the massive hole in global private sector demand left by efforts to contain the spread of the virus. It is unlikely that lower interest rates and more quantitative easing can mitigate the negative growth effects from travel bans, closing of bars and restaurants, and full scale lockdowns of cities. Fiscal policy, combined with efforts to boost market liquidity and ease the coming collapse of cash flows for the majority of global businesses, are the only plausible options remaining. It is unlikely that lower interest rates and more quantitative easing can mitigate the negative growth effects from travel bans, closing of bars and restaurants, and full scale lockdowns of cities. While the speed of these dramatic policy moves is unprecedented, the reason for them is obvious. Plunging equities and surging corporate bond credit spreads are signaling a global recession, but one of uncertain depth and duration given the uncertainties surrounding the spread of COVID-19 (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekCan Crisis-Era Monetary Policies Be Effective During A Pandemic? Chart 2Risk Assets Will Not Bottom Until New COVID-19 Cases Ex-China Peak The ability for policymakers to calibrate stimulus measures is pure guesswork at this point. The same thing goes for investors who see zero visibility on global growth, with the full extent of the virus yet to be felt in large economies like the United States and Germany – even as new cases in China, where the epidemic began, approach zero. The response from central bankers has been swift and bold – rapid rate cuts, increased liquidity programs for bank funding and increased asset purchases. The fact that global financial markets have remained volatile, even after what is a clear coordinated effort from policymakers, highlights how the unique threats to growth from the COVID-19 pandemic may be beyond fighting with traditional demand-side stimulus measures. We continue to recommend a cautious near-term investment stance, particular with regards to corporate bond exposure, until there is clear evidence that the growth rate of new COVID-19 cases outside China has peaked (Chart 2). Policymakers Throw The Kitchen Sink At The Problem The market moves and policy announcements have come fast and furious this past week, from virtually all major economies. We summarize some of the moves below: United States The Fed cut rates by -100bps in a Sunday night emergency move, taking the funds rate back to the effective lower bound of 0% - 0.25%. Importantly, Fed Chair Powell made it clear at his press conference that negative rates are not on the table, suggesting that we may have seen the last of the rate cuts for this cycle. A new round of quantitative easing (QE) was also announced, with purchases of $500 billion of Treasury securities and $200 billion of agency MBS that will occur in the “coming months”; Powell hinted that those amounts could be increased, if necessary (Chart 3). The MBS purchases are a clear effort to help bring down mortgage rates, which have not declined anywhere near as rapidly as US Treasury yields during the market rout (bottom panel). The Fed also cut the discount window rate – the rate at which banks can borrow from the Fed for periods of up to 90 days – by -150bps, bringing it down to 0.25%. The Fed said it is “encouraging banks to use their capital and liquidity buffers” – essentially telling banks to hold less cash for regulatory purposes. The Fed also reduced the rate on its US dollar swap lines with other central banks. The new rate is OIS +25bps. Coming on top of the massive increase in existing repo lines last week, the Fed is attempting to ensure that banks, both in the US and globally, that need USD funding have more liquidity available to support lending. Already, there are signs of worsening liquidity in the bank funding markets, like widening FRA-OIS spreads, but also evidence of illiquidity in financial markets like wide bid-ask spreads on longer-maturity US Treasuries and the growing basis between high-yield bonds and equivalent credit default swaps (Chart 4). Chart 3A Return To Fed QE Chart 4Market Liquidity Issues Forced The Fed's Hand Turning to fiscal policy, the full response of the Trump administration is still being formed, but a major $850bn spending package has been proposed that would provide tax relief for American households and businesses while also including a $50bn bailout of the US airline industry. This comes on top of previously announced plans to offer free testing for the virus, paid sick leave, business tax credits and a temporary suspension of student loan interest payments. Chart 5The ECB Has Limited Policy Options Euro Area The European Central Bank (ECB) unexpectedly made no changes to policy interest rates last week. It opted instead to increase asset purchases by €120bn until the end of 2020 (both for government bonds and investment grade corporates), while introducing more long-term refinancing operations (LTROs) to “provide a bridge” to the targeted LTRO (TLTRO-3) that is set to begin in June. The terms of TLTRO-3 were improved, as well; banks that accessed the liquidity to maintain existing lending could do so at a rate up to -25bps below the current ECB deposit rate of -0.5%, for up to 50% of the existing stock of bank loans. The ECB obviously had to do something, given the coordinated nature of the global monetary policy response to COVID-19. Yet the decisions taken show that the ECB is much more limited in its ability to ease policy further, with interest rates already negative, asset purchases approaching self-imposed country limits and, most worryingly, inflation expectations falling to fresh lows (Chart 5). The bigger responses to date have come on the fiscal front, with stimulus packages proposed by France (€45bn), Italy (€25bn), Spain (€3bn) and the European Commission (€37bn). The biggest news, however, came from Germany which has offered affected businesses tax breaks and cheap loans through the state development bank, KfW – the latter with an planned upper limit of €550bn (and with the German government assuming a greater share of risk on those new KfW loans). The German government has also vaguely promised to temporarily suspend its so-called “debt brake” to allow deficit financing of virus-related stimulus programs, if necessary. Other Countries The Bank of England cut interest rates by -50bps last week, while also lowering capital requirements for UK banks by allowing use of counter-cyclical buffers for lending. On the fiscal side, a £30bn package was introduced last week that included a tax cut for retailers, cash grants to small business, sick pay for those with COVID-19 and extended unemployment benefits. The Bank of Japan held an emergency meeting this past Sunday night, announcing no changes in policy rates but doubling the size of its ETF purchase program to $56 billion a year to $112 billion, while also increasing purchases of corporate bonds and commercial paper. The central bank also announced a new program of 0% interest loans to increase lending to businesses hurt by the virus. The Bank of Canada delivered an emergency -50bps cut in its policy rate last Friday, coming soon after the -50bp reduction from the previous week. The central bank also introduced operations to boost the liquidity of Canadian financial markets. The Canadian government also announced a fiscal package of up to C$20bn, including increased money for the state business funding agencies. The Reserve Bank of Australia did not cut its Cash Rate last week, which was already at a record-low 0.5%. It did, however, signal that it would begin a quantitative easing program for the first time, and introduce Fed-like repo operations, to provide more liquidity to the economy and local financial markets. The Australian government has also announced A$17bn of fiscal stimulus. Fiscal packages have also been introduced in New Zealand (where the Reserve Bank of New Zealand just cut its policy rate by -75bps), Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, and South Korea. To date, China has leaned more on monetary and liquidity measures – lowering interest rates and cutting reserve requirements – rather than a big fiscal stimulus package. Will all these policy measures be enough to offset the hit to global growth from COVID-19 and help stabilize financial markets? It is certainly a good start, particularly in countries with low government and deficit levels that have the fiscal space for even more stimulus, like Germany, Australia and Canada (Chart 6). Given these competing forces of global recession and monetary policy exhaustion on one side, but with increasingly more expansive fiscal policy on the other, we recommend a neutral (at benchmark) stance on overall global duration exposure on both a tactical and strategic basis. The ability to calibrate the necessary policy response is impossible to assess without knowing the full impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the global economy – including the size of related job losses and corporate defaults/bankruptcies. Policymakers are likely to listen to the combined message of financial markets – equity prices, credit spreads and government bond yields. The low level of yields and flat yield curves, despite near-0% policy rates across the developed world (Chart 7), suggests that investors see monetary policy as “tapped out”, leaving fiscal stimulus as the only way to fight the economic war against COVID-19. Chart 6At Global ZIRP, The Policy Focus Shifts To Fiscal Chart 7Are Bond Yields Discounting A Global Liquidity Trap? Given these competing forces of global recession and monetary policy exhaustion on one side, but with increasingly more expansive fiscal policy on the other, we recommend a neutral (at benchmark) stance on overall global duration exposure on both a tactical and strategic basis. Bottom Line: The COVID-19 pandemic has become a full-blown global crisis and recession. Governments and central bankers worldwide are now responding with aggressive monetary easing and fiscal stimulus. Markets will not respond positively to such stimulus, however, until there is some visibility on the true depth, and duration, of the economic downturn. Corporate Bonds In The US & Europe – Stay Tactically Defensive Chart 8This Crisis Is Different Than 2008 The COVID-19 global market rout has generated levels of market volatility not seen since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. The US VIX index of option-implied equity volatility spiked to a high of 84, while the equivalent German VDAX measure reached a shocking high of 93. Equity valuations in both the US and Europe remain much higher on a forward price/earnings ratio basis compared to the troughs seen in 2008, even after the COVID-19 bear market. Yet even though volatility has returned to crisis-era extremes, and corporate credit has sold off hard in both the US and Europe, credit spreads remain well below the 2008 highs (Chart 8). Nonetheless, the credit selloff seen over the past few weeks has still been intense. Both investment grade and high-yield spreads have blown out, and across all credit tiers in both the US (Chart 9) and euro area (Chart 10). Even the highest-rated segments of the corporate bond universe have seen spreads explode, with AAA-rated investment grade spreads having doubled in both the US and Europe. Chart 9Broad-Based Spread Widening For Both Investment Grade... Chart 10...And High-Yield With the COVID-19 pandemic tipping the global economy into recession, it is not clear that the spread widening seen to date has been enough to compensate for the typical surge in downgrades and defaults seen during recessions – even though spreads do look wide on a duration-adjusted basis. With the COVID-19 pandemic tipping the global economy into recession, it is not clear that the spread widening seen to date has been enough to compensate for the typical surge in downgrades and defaults seen during recessions – even though spreads do look wide on a duration-adjusted basis. One of our favorite metrics to value corporate bonds is to look at option-adjusted spreads, adjusted for interest rate duration risk. We call this the 12-month breakeven spread, as it measures the amount of spread widening over one year that would leave corporate bond returns equal to those of duration-matched US Treasuries. We then look at the percentile rankings of those breakeven spreads versus their history as one indicator of corporate bond value. Chart 11US Corporates Look Cheaper On A Duration-Adjusted Basis For the US, the 12-month breakeven spreads for the overall Bloomberg Barclays investment grade and high-yield indices are in the 82nd and 97th percentiles, respectively (Chart 11). This suggests that the latest credit selloff has made corporate debt quite cheap, although only looking through the prism of spread risk rather than potential default losses. Another of our preferred valuation metrics for high-yield debt is the duration-adjusted spread, or the high-yield index option-adjusted spread minus default losses. We then look at that default-adjusted spread versus its long-run average (+250bps) as a measure of high-yield value. To assess the current level of spreads, we use a one-year ahead forecast of the expected default rate using our own macro model. Over the past 12 months, the high-yield default rate was 4.5% and our macro model is currently calling for a rise to 6.2%. That estimate, however, does not yet include the certain hit to corporate profits from the COVID-19 recession. By way of comparison, the default rate peaked at 11.2% during the 2001/02 default cycle and at 14.6% during the 2008 financial crisis. In Chart 12, we show the historical default rate, our macro model for the default rate, and the history of the default-adjusted spread. We also show what the default-adjusted spread would look like in four different scenarios for the default rate over the next 12 months: 6%, 9%, 11% and 15%. The placement of these numbers in the bottom panel of Chart 12 indicates where the Default-Adjusted Spread will be if each scenario is realized. Chart 12US High-Yield Is Not Cheap On A Default-Adjusted Basis Right now, our expectation is that there will be a virus driven US recession, but it will be shorter in magnitude than past recessions; this suggests a peak default rate closer to 9%. Such a scenario would still be consistent with a positive default-adjusted spread and likely positive excess returns for US high-yield relative to US Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. However, if a default rate similar to that seen during past recessions (11% or 15%) is realized, that would lead to a negative default-adjusted spread. Adding up both pieces of our valuation framework suggests that, while US high-yield spreads offer value on a duration-adjusted basis, spreads do not compensate enough for potential default losses if the US recession lasts longer than we expect. Thus, we recommend a tactical underweight position in US high-yield until we see better visibility on the severity, and duration, of the US recession. Adding up both pieces of our valuation framework suggests that, while US high-yield spreads offer value on a duration-adjusted basis, spreads do not compensate enough for potential default losses if the US recession lasts longer than we expect. As for euro area corporates, spreads for both investment grade and high-yield do look relatively wide on a breakeven spread basis, although less so than US credit (Chart 13). However, with the World Health Organization declaring Europe as the new epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, the harsh containment measures seen in Italy, Germany, France and elsewhere – coming from a starting point of weak overall economic growth – suggest that euro area spreads need to be wider to fully reflect downgrade and default risks. Chart 13Euro Area Corporates Look A Bit Cheaper On A Duration-Adjusted Basis We recommend a tactical underweight allocation to both euro area corporate debt and Italian sovereign debt, as spreads have room to reprice wider to reflect a deeper recession (Chart 14). Chart 14Stay Underweight Euro Area Spread Product Bottom Line: Corporate bond spreads on both sides of the Atlantic discount a sharp economic slowdown, but the odds of a deeper recession – and more spread widening - are greater in Europe relative to the US. A Quick Note On Recent Changes To Our Model Bond Portfolio In last week’s report, we made several adjustments to our model bond portfolio recommended allocations on a tactical (0-6 months) basis.1 Specifically, we downgraded our overall recommended exposure to global spread product to underweight, while increasing the overall allocation to government debt to overweight. The specific changes made to the model bond portfolio are presented in tables on pages 14 & 15. Within the country allocation of the government bond side of the portfolio, we upgraded US and Canada (markets more sensitive to changes in global bond yields, and with central banks that still had room to ease policy) to overweight, while downgrading core Europe to underweight and Japan to maximum underweight (both markets less sensitive to global yields and with no room to cut rates). On the credit side of the portfolio, we downgraded US high-yield to underweight (with a 0% allocation to Caa-rated debt), while also downgrading euro area investment grade and high-yield debt to underweight. We also lowered allocations to emerging market USD denominated debt, both sovereign and corporate, to underweight. We left the allocation to US investment grade debt at neutral, as the other reductions left our overall spread product allocation at the desired level (35% versus the 43% spread product weighting in our custom benchmark portfolio index). In terms of the specific weightings, the portfolio is now +11% overweight US fixed income versus the benchmark, coming most through US Treasury exposure. The portfolio is now -7% underweight euro area versus the benchmark, equally thorough government bond and corporate debt exposure. The portfolio is now also has a -7% weight in Japan versus the benchmark, entirely from government bonds. Note that these weightings represent a tactical allocation only, as we are recommending a defensive stance on spread product exposure given the near-term uncertainties over COVID-19 and global growth. On a strategic (6-12 months) horizon, however, we are neutral overall spread product exposure versus government bonds. Corporate bond spreads already discount a sharp economic slowdown and some increase in defaults. However, the rapid shift to aggressive monetary and fiscal easing by global policymakers to combat the virus will likely limit the duration and, potentially, the severity of the global slowdown currently discounted in wide credit spreads. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Train Is Empty", dated March 10, 2020, available at gfis.bcarsearch.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
Dear Client, In addition to this week’s report, BCA Research will hold webcasts over the coming days to discuss the economic and financial outlook amid the myriad of uncertainties gripping global markets. I will take part in a roundtable discussion alongside my fellow BCA Strategists Arthur Budaghyan, Mathieu Savary, and Caroline Miller for a live webcast on Friday, March 13 at 8:00 AM EDT (12:00 PM GMT, 1:00 PM CET, 8:00 PM HKT). In addition, I will hold a webcast on Monday, March 16 at 12:00 PM EDT (4:00 PM GMT). Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights A global recession is now a fait accompli. The only question is whether there will be a technical recession lasting a couple of quarters, or a more prolonged downturn that produces a sizeable increase in unemployment rates. We lean towards the former outcome. Unlike during most recessions, the decrease in labor demand will be mitigated by a decline in labor supply, as potentially millions of workers are confined to their homes. This will limit the rise in unemployment, at least initially. The pandemic is likely to prompt firms to increase inventory levels for fear of further disruptions to their supply chains. This should provide a short-term boost to output. While it is possible that spending will remain broadly depressed even after the panic subsides, this seems unlikely. Private-sector finances were reasonably strong going into the crisis, while ultra-low government bond yields will incentivize increased fiscal outlays. Spending on leisure travel and public entertainment will remain subdued well into 2021, but much of this demand will be redirected to other categories of discretionary consumer purchases, particularly in the online realm. Health care expenditures will also increase. The collapse in oil prices following the breakdown of OPEC 2.0 represents a positive supply shock for the global economy, albeit one that will have negative consequences for oil-extraction sectors. We tactically upgraded stocks on the morning of Friday, February 28. That was obviously a major mistake: While global equities did rally 7% higher after our upgrade, they have since given up all their gains (and then some). For now, we are maintaining a modest overweight recommendation to equities. However, this is a low-conviction view, and we would not dissuade more conservative investors from reducing risk exposure. We would only consider upgrading stocks to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 dropped to 2250, or the number of new infections outside of China peaked. In the meantime, we are downgrading high-yield credit tactically, as the odds of earnings weakness prompting a near-term rise in default expectations warrant caution. What A Way To Start The Decade So far, the 2020s may not be roaring, but they are certainly not boring. At the outset of the crisis, there were three scenarios for the COVID-19 outbreak: 1) A regional epidemic largely confined to China; 2) a series of global outbreaks, successfully short-circuited by a combination of government intervention and voluntary “personal distancing” measures; 3) A full-blown pandemic that exposes a significant proportion of the planet to the virus. Unfortunately, the first scenario has been ruled out. Policymakers are now trying to achieve the second scenario. Successful containment would “flatten the curve” of new infections, while allowing the sick to receive better treatment than they would otherwise. It would also buy precious time to develop a vaccine and increase the output of face masks, hand sanitizers, and other products that could slow the spread of the disease. Health Versus Growth Ironically, while the second scenario is clearly preferable to a full-blown pandemic from a health perspective, it may be more damaging from the very narrow, technical perspective of GDP accounting. It all depends on how severe the measures to quash each outbreak need to be. If simple hygiene measures and social distancing turn out to be enough, the economic fallout will be minimal. If ongoing mass quarantines and business closures are necessary, the damage will be severe. History suggests that containment efforts can work. During the Spanish flu, US cities such as St. Louis, which took early action to slow the spread of the disease, ended up with far fewer deaths than cities such as Philadelphia which did not (Chart 1). Western Samoa did not impose any travel restrictions and lost a quarter of its population. American Samoa closed its border and suffered no deaths. Chart 1Containment Efforts Can Be Effective: The Case Of The Spanish Flu Recent experience suggests that COVID-19 can be stopped, even after community contagion has set in. The number of new Chinese cases has fallen from 3,892 on February 5 to 31 on March 11. South Korea seems to be getting the virus under control. The number of new cases there has declined from 813 on February 29 to 242 (Chart 2). Japan and Singapore also appear to be succeeding in preventing the virus from spreading rapidly. Chart 2Coronavirus: The Authorities In East Asia Seem To Be In Control Of The Situation What remains unclear is whether other countries can replicate East Asia’s experience. A recent Chinese study estimated that R-naught – the average number of people someone with the virus ends up infecting – fell from 3.86 at the outset of the outbreak to 0.32 following interventions (Chart 3).1 In other words, China was able to lower R-naught to one-third of what was necessary to stabilize the number of new infections. If one wanted to be optimistic, one could argue that other countries could get away with less heavy-handed measures, even if it is at the expense of a somewhat slower decline in the infection rate. Chart 3Severe Containment Measures Have Changed The Course Of The Wuhan Outbreak Unfortunately, given how contagious the virus appears to be, it is unlikely that simple measures such as regularly washing one’s hands, avoiding large gatherings, and wearing a face mask in public when sick will suffice. Trade-offs will have to be made between growth and health. Moreover, if the virus becomes endemic in a few countries that do not have the institutional capacity to contain it, this could create a viral reservoir that produces repeated outbreaks in the wider world. The result could feel like a ghastly game of whack-a-mole. The Fatality Rate The degree to which countries pursue costly containment measures depends on how deadly the virus turns out to be. On the one hand, there is some evidence that the fatality rate from COVID-19 is lower than the 2%-to-3% that has been widely reported once mild or asymptomatic cases, which often go undetected, are taken into account. This may explain why South Korea, which has arguably done a better job of testing suspected patients than any other country, has reported a fatality rate of only 0.7%. Like the seasonal flu, the death rate from COVID-19 appears to be heavily tilted towards the elderly. In Italy, 89% of COVID-19 deaths have occurred among those who are 70 and older. On the ill-fated Diamond Princess cruise liner, not a single person under the age of 70 has died. The fatality rate for passengers on the ship older than 70 is 2.4%. The seasonal flu kills about 1% of those it infects over the age of 70. Based on this simple calculation, COVID-19 is more lethal, but not light-years more lethal, than the typical flu (and possibly less lethal than the flu is for young children). Unfortunately, these optimistic estimates assume that patients with COVID-19 can continue to receive appropriate care. As we saw in Wuhan, where the official death rate stands at 4.5% compared to 0.9% in the rest of China, and as we are now seeing in Italy, once the health care system becomes overwhelmed, death rates can rise sharply. Bottom Line: Containing the virus will be economically costly, but given the potentially large death toll from a full-blown pandemic, most countries will be willing to pay the price. A Global Recession Even before the virus became endemic outside China, we estimated that global growth would fall to zero on a quarter-over-quarter basis in Q1. As we cautioned back then, the risk to our forecast was tilted to the downside, and that has proven to be the case. We now expect the global economy to shrink not just in the first quarter but in the second quarter as well, as country after country experiences a surge in new infections. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth constitute a technical recession. Despite the drop in new cases in China over the past two weeks, most high-frequency measures of economic activity such as property sales, railway-loaded coal volumes, and traffic congestion have yet to return anywhere close to normal levels (Chart 4). In the US, hotel occupancy rates, movie ticket sales, and attendance at sporting events were all close to normal levels as of last week. However, that is changing quickly. Already, automobile traffic in Seattle, one of the cities most hard-hit by the virus, has fallen sharply (Chart 5). Chart 4China: It Will Take Time For Life To Return To Normal Chart 5US: Staying Home More In Seattle Due To The Virus? Qualitatively Different While a recession in the first half of 2020 is now unavoidable, the nature of this recession is likely to be quite different than in the past. To understand why, it is useful to review what causes most recessions. A typical recession involves a prolonged loss of aggregate demand. Such a loss of demand can result from either financial market overheating or economic overheating. Financial market overheating can occur if a credit-fueled asset bubble bursts, leaving people with less wealth struggling to pay off debt. For example, US residential investment fell from 6.6% of GDP in 2005 to 2.5% of 2010. Thus, even after the credit markets thawed, there was still a large hole in aggregate demand that needed to be filled. A similar, though less severe, loss of demand occurred when the bursting of the dotcom bubble led to severe cutbacks in IT spending. Economic overheating occurs when a lack of spare capacity puts upward pressure on inflation. Wary of accelerating prices, central banks slam on the brakes, raising interest rates into restrictive territory. This often results in a recession. In both types of recessions, there are usually second-round effects that can swamp the initial shock to aggregate demand. As spending falls, firms start to lay off workers. The resulting loss in household income leads to less spending. Even those who retain their jobs are apt to feel less confident, leading to an increase in precautionary savings. For their part, businesses tend to cut production as inventory levels swell. Things only return to normal once enough pent-up demand has accumulated and/or policy has become sufficiently stimulative to revive spending. Framed in this way, one can see that the current downturn differs from past downturns in at least three important respects. First, unlike during most recessions, the decrease in labor demand this time around will be partly mitigated by a decline in labor supply, as potentially millions of workers are confined to their homes. While this will not prevent many workers from temporarily losing income, it will limit the increase in unemployment, at least initially. We have already seen this in China, where GDP growth collapsed but companies are complaining about a shortage of migrant labor. Second, rather than falling, inventory levels may actually rise. Since companies will have to deal with pervasive supply shocks of unknown frequency, duration, and magnitude, their natural inclination will be to increase inventory levels for fear that they will not be able to access their supply chains when they need them. If recent reports of hoarding of toilet paper and bottled water are any guide, the same sort of behavior will show up among consumers. Again, in the short term, this additional demand will help to keep unemployment from rising as much as it would otherwise. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the ongoing crisis is the result of an exogenous shock rather than an endogenous slowdown. In fact, a variety of economic indicators such as US payrolls, the Chinese PMI, and German factory orders were all pointing to an acceleration in global growth before the crisis began. This suggests that growth could recover quickly once the panic subsides. While it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty how long it will take for the panic to end, it may not last as long as many fear. Investors should particularly pay attention to the situation in Italy. If the number of new cases peaks there, it could create a sense that other western countries will be able to get the virus under control. Second-Round Effects? Although it is possible that economies will remain depressed even after the panic subsides, this seems unlikely. Private-sector finances were reasonably strong going into the crisis. The private-sector financial balance – the difference between what companies and households earn and spend – is in surplus in most countries, including China (Chart 6). Chart 6The Private Sector Spends Less Than It Earns In Most Economies Chart 7Lower Oil Prices Eventually Lead To Higher Growth Granted, not all sectors are likely to prove equally resilient. Spending on leisure travel and public entertainment will remain subdued well into 2021. The collapse in oil prices following the breakdown of OPEC 2.0 will also wreak havoc on oil producers. In both cases, however, there will be offsetting benefits. Much of the demand for travel and entertainment will be redirected to other categories of discretionary consumer purchases, particularly in the online realm. And while lower oil prices will hurt producers, they represent a boon for consumers and companies that use petroleum as an input. In general, as Chart 7 illustrates, global growth usually accelerates following declines in oil prices. Fiscal Policy Will Turn More Stimulative Even before the crisis began, we argued that most governments should permanently increase fiscal deficits in order to raise the neutral rate of interest. At the current juncture, with a recession upon us and government bond yields at ultra-low levels, the failure to enact meaningful fiscal stimulus would be economic malpractice of the highest order. In addition to easing measures being rolled out by central bankers, our sense is that we will get a lot of fiscal stimulus, sooner rather than later. During most recessions, there is always a chorus of voices from people whose own jobs are secure about how a downturn is necessary to cleanse the system. This time around, it is obvious that the victims are not to blame. Politicians will not endear themselves to voters by denying the need for fiscal support to households struggling with medical bills and lost time from work and businesses facing bankruptcy. President Trump’s pledge this week to cut payroll taxes and increase transfers to those affected by the virus is just a taste of what’s to come. Investment Conclusions Chart 8Stock-To-Bond Ratio: A Lot Of The Bad News Has Already Been Priced In We tactically upgraded stocks on the morning of Friday, February 28. That was obviously a major mistake: While global equities did rally 7% higher after our upgrade, they have since given up all their gains (and then some). In retrospect, we should have paid more attention to our own analysis in our report “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus.” For now, we are maintaining a modest overweight recommendation to equities. The total return ratio between stocks and bonds has fallen by a similar magnitude as in the run-up to prior recessions, suggesting that much of the bad news has already been priced in (Chart 8). Nevertheless, significant downside risks remain, which is why we would characterize our equity overweight as a fairly low-conviction view. We would not dissuade more conservative investors from reducing risk exposure. As discussed above, containing the virus could lead to significant economic disruptions. We would only consider upgrading stocks to a high-conviction overweight if the S&P 500 dropped to 2250, or the number of new infections outside of China peaked. In the meantime, we are downgrading high-yield credit tactically, as the odds of earnings weakness prompting a near-term rise in default expectations warrant caution. Safe-haven government bond yields will probably not rise much from current levels, at least in the near term. The Fed cut rates by 50 basis points last week and will cut rates by another 50 basis points next week. Looking further out, however, bonds are massively overvalued and will suffer mightily as life returns to normal. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Chaolong Wang, Li Liu, Xingjie Hao, Huan Guo, Qi Wang, Jiao Huang, Na He, Hongjie Yu, Xihong Lin, Sheng Wei, and Tangchun Wu, “Evolving Epidemiology and Impact of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions on the Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China,”medrxiv.org, March 6, 2020. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights China should fare a global recession better than most G20 economies, given its large domestic market and powerful policy response. China is likely to frontload a large portion of its multi-year infrastructure investment projects to this year. We project a near 10% increase in infrastructure investments in 2020. While at the moment we do not have high conviction in the absolute trend in Chinese stock prices, we think Chinese equities will still passively outperform global benchmarks in a global recession. Feature Chart 1A Black Monday Triggered By A "Perfect Storm" Investors are now pricing in a global recession, triggered by a worsening COVID-19 epidemic outside of China and a full-blown price war in the oil market. Global stocks tumbled by 7% on Monday March 9 while the US 10-year Treasury yield dropped to a record low (Chart 1). This extreme volatility reflects investors’ inability to predict how the epidemic will evolve or how long the oil price war will persist. If growth in the US and other major economies turns negative, then China’s disrupted supply side in Q1 will be met with weaker global demand in Q2 and even Q3. While our visibility is limited on the predominantly medically- or politically-oriented crisis, what we have conviction in forecasting at this point is that the Chinese economy will weather the storm better than most G20 economies. China’s policy response and the recovery in domestic demand will more than offset weaknesses from external demand. Thus Chinese stocks will likely outperform global benchmarks in the next 3 months and over a 6-12 month span, even though the absolute trend in both Chinese and global stock prices remains unclear over both these time horizons. A One-Two Punch In a recessionary scenario affecting the entire global economy, China would receive a one-two punch through shocks to both supply and demand tied to the COVID-19 outbreak and shrinking global demand. However, while a global recession would impact China’s export growth, it would not have the kind of bearing on China’s aggregate economy as it did in either 2008/2009 or 2015/2016. The reason is that the Chinese economy is less reliant on exports than it was in 2015 and considerably less than in 2008 (Chart 2). Domestic demand is now dominant, accounting for more than 80% of China’s economy, meaning that the country is less vulnerable to reductions in global demand. Chart 2The Chinese Economy Is Much Less Reliant On Exports Chart 3Global Economy Showing Reflation Signs Before COVID-19 Our current assessment is that the shocks from the virus epidemic and oil price rout on global demand will be brief.Global manufacturing and trade were on a path to recovery prior to the crisis (Chart 3). China’s external and domestic demand rebounded sharply in December and likely have improved even further until late January when the COVID-19 outbreak took hold in China (Chart 4). Even though China’s trade figures in the first two months of 2020 were distorted by COVID-19 (Chart 5),1 a budding recovery in both China’s domestic and global demand before the outbreak suggests the epidemic should disrupt rather than completely derail the global economy. Moreover, a rebound in trade following the crisis will likely be powerful, as the short-term disruption in business activities will lead to a sizable buildup in manufacturing orders. A rebound in trade following the crisis will likely be powerful. Chart 4Chinese Exports Likely To Have Improved Further Until COVID-19 Hit Chart 5Chinese Demand Likely To Pick Up Sharply In Q2 Bottom Line: China’s export growth will moderate if the virus outbreak prolongs and substantively weakens the global economy. However, the demand shock should have a relatively minor impact on China’s aggregate economy and the subsequent recovery should be robust. Infrastructure Investment Comes To Rescue, Again Chart 6Substantial Acceleration In Infrastructure Investment Likely In 2020 Infrastructure investment in China will likely ramp up significantly in 2020, which will mitigate the influence on the domestic economy from both COVID-19 and slowing global growth. The message from the March 4th Politburo Standing Committee2 chaired by President Xi Jinping further supports our view, that Chinese policymakers are committed to a major increase in infrastructure investment in 2020. Our baseline projection suggests a near 10% increase in infrastructure investment growth in 2020 (Chart 6). Local governments’ infrastructure investment plans for the next several years amount to about 34 trillion yuan.3 While local government budget and bond issuance will be approved at the annual National People’s Congress, which is delayed due to the epidemic, we have high conviction that a significant portion of the planned spending will be frontloaded this year. A significant portion of the multi-year infrastructure projects will likely be moved up to this year. In the first two months, local governments have frontloaded 1.2 trillion yuan worth of bonds, including nearly 1 trillion yuan of special-purpose bonds (SPBs). The consensus forecasts a total of 3-3.5 trillion yuan of SPBs to be issued in 2020, a 30% jump from 2019. Given tightened restrictions on the use of SPBs, we expect that 50% of the bonds will be invested in infrastructure projects, up from about 25% from 2019. This should contribute to about 10-15% of infrastructure spending in 2020. We are likely to also see significant additional funding channels to support infrastructure spending this year: Debt-swap program: With the aggressive easing by the PBoC in recent weeks, there is a high probability that another round of debt-swap program will materialize this year – a form of fiscal stimulus similar to the debt-to-bond swap program that the Chinese government initiated during the 2015-2016 cycle (Chart 7). As we pointed out in our report dated July 24, 2019, the Chinese authorities were formulating another round of local government off-balance-sheet debt swaps, which we estimated would be about 3-4 trillion.4 What was absent back then was a concerted effort from the PBoC to equip commercial banks with the required liquidity and further lower policy rate (Chart 8). Both monetary and policy conditions are now ripe for such a program to be rolled out. Chart 7Money Supply Likely To Pick Up Strongly At The Onset Of Substantial Stimulus Chart 8Monetary Conditions Are Ripe For Major Money Base Expansion Construction bond issuance: Borrowing through local government financing vehicles (LGFV) has climbed since the second half of last year. This follows two years of tightened regulations on local government borrowing. Net issuance of urban construction investment bonds (UCIB) reached 1.2 trillion in 2019, nearly doubling the amount from a year earlier. A total of 457 billion yuan in UCB has already been issued in the first two months of 2020, which indicates that the authorities are further relaxing LGFV borrowing. We think that net UCIB issuance could reach 1.5 trillion this year, a 25% increase compared with last year. Chart 9More Room To Widen Government Budget Deficit Government budget: Funding from the central and local governments budgets accounts for about 15% of overall infrastructure financing. We think that the government budget deficit will likely expand by about 2% of GDP in 2020. As Chart 9 shows, this figure is a conservative estimate compared with the 3%+ widening in the budget deficit during the 2008 and 2015 easing cycles. Bottom Line: Fiscal efforts to support the economy will significantly escalate this year. Monetary conditions and policy directions have already paved the way for a 2015-2016 style credit expansion. We expect infrastructure investment to rise to about 10% in 2020 compared with 2019. Will The RMB Join The Devaluation Club? The RMB appreciated by more than 1% against the USD in the past week, fanned by the expectation that China will have a faster recovery than other countries. The latest round of interest rate cuts by central banks around the world also pushed yield-seeking investors to RMB assets (Chart 10). Still, it is highly unlikely that the PBoC will allow the RMB to continue to appreciate at this rate. When other economies are in a competitive currency devaluation cycle, a strong RMB will generate deflationary headwinds for China’s economy and will partially offset the PBoC’s easing efforts (Chart 11). Chart 10Too Much Too Fast? Chart 11A Strong RMB Will Choke Off PBoC's Easing Efforts If the upward pressure in the RMB persists, then Chinese policymakers will be more inclined to expand the money base. Chart 12PBoC Likely To Rapidly Expand Its Balance Sheet Again We do not expect the PBoC to follow the US Federal Reserve and chase its policy rate even lower. However, if the upward pressure in the RMB persists, then Chinese policymakers will be more inclined to expand the money base. This further raises the probability that local government debt-swap programs will develop this year (Chart 12). The government may allow financial institutions to extend or swap maturing local government off-balance sheet debt with bank loans that carry lower interest rates and longer maturities. Or, it will simply move the debt to the PBoC’s balance sheet. Bottom Line: If upward pressure in the RMB endures, the PBoC will likely expand its balance sheet and make more room to buy local government debt, but it is unlikely to aggressively cut interest rates. Investment Conclusions Chart 13Chinese Stocks Will Likely Continue To Outperform, Even In A Global Recession Our recent change in view5 concerning the willingness of Chinese authorities to “stimulate the economy at all costs” meant that Chinese stocks were likely to outperform the global benchmarks in a rising equity market. In a global recessionary, which is now a fait accompli, Chinese leadership’s willingness to stimulate the economy will only intensify. China’s large domestic economy also makes the country less vulnerable to a global demand shock. At this point in time we do not have high conviction in the absolute trend in either Chinese or global stock prices, as their near-term performance is predominantly driven by a medically- and politically-oriented crisis. However, as we expect the Chinese economy to outperform in a global recession, our overweight call on Chinese equities remains intact on both a 3-month and 12-month horizon, in relative terms (Chart 13). Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 China had postponed January’s data release and instead, has combined the first two months of the year. 2 “We should select investment projects; strengthen policy support for land use, energy use, and capital; and accelerate the construction of major projects and infrastructure that have been clearly identified in the national plan.” http://cpc.people.com.cn/n1/2020/0305/c64094-31617516.html?mc_cid=2a979… 3 https://m.21jingji.com/article/20200306/504edc15217322ab37337da2ca35a49e.html?[id]=20200306/nw.D44010021sjjjbd_20200306_9-01.json 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report " Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 2): Will Proactive Fiscal Policy Lose Steam?," dated July 24, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China: Back To Its Old Economic Playbook?," dated February 26, 2020, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Dear Clients, This week we are issuing two Special Alerts on the Russo-Saudi market share war, one of which you have already received. Our weekly publication will proceed as usual on Friday, March 13. In this Special Alert, we update our view of the US election and address the urgent question of US fiscal stimulus. Upcoming reports will address the question of stimulus outside the United States. All very best, Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Feature Turmoil has engulfed financial markets as a Russo-Saudi market share war erupts at the same time as panic over the coronavirus spreads from China to Europe and the United States. The US and global stock markets are nearing bear market territory while the 10-year Treasury and global bond yields plumb new lows and deeper negatives (Chart 1). Our key risk-off indicators have all broken down (Chart 2). Chart 1The Bear Awakens Chart 2Global Risk-Off While the daily new cases of the virus are far from peaking in the US, the Democratic Party nomination process has eliminated the downside risk of a left-wing populist presidency. Political risk in the US will shift to Congress, fiscal stimulus, the general election, and the “lame duck” risk now threatening President Trump. Trump Not Yet Doomed, But No Longer Favored The US election is now “too close to call,” with the risks tilted toward a Trump loss. Bear markets tend to coincide with recessions (Chart 3). Woe betide a president seeking reelection amid a recession. Chart 3Bear Markets Tend To Coincide With Recessions We need to look to a previous era to identify precedents for Trump’s survival. William McKinley hung onto the office in 1900, Teddy Roosevelt in 1904, and Calvin Coolidge in 1924, all despite recessions.1 Rising unemployment will undo Trump’s re-election bid. In today’s terms, it is still possible that the virus panic will subside over the summer while a wave of global monetary and fiscal stimulus will kick in around September, creating a rebound that sends voters to the polls in an optimistic mood. But it is increasingly unlikely. Unemployment will rise as consumer confidence collapses in the face of the virus outbreak (Chart 4). This is deadly to a president with such narrow margins of victory in the key swing states. Chart 4Confidence Will Suffer, Layoffs To Ensue Chart 5Trump’s Approval Heading South Chart 6Republican Revival To Fall Back The coronavirus scare is already derailing President Trump’s approval rating. It had only tentatively recovered from a very low level throughout his first term and is highly unlikely ever to breach 50% (Chart 5). The surge in voters identifying as Republicans – which had recently, remarkably, surpassed Democrats – will reverse (Chart 6). Our quant election model is “too close to call” but will soon signal Trump loss. Our quant model was already flashing that the election is “too close to call,” due to the negative impact of Trump’s trade war on key swing states like Michigan and Pennsylvania. The weight of a feather can shift Wisconsin into the Democratic camp and turn the election against Trump (Chart 7). The model will inevitably show Trump losing the election once state-level data starts to reflect the virus shock. Chart 7Our Quant Election Model Says “Too Close To Call” … But Virus Panic Will Cause Wisconsin To Switch Bottom Line: The US election is too close to call at this point. With eight months to go, many things could still change, but a spike in unemployment will ruin Trump’s reelection bid. Biden, Not Sanders, Waiting In The Wings Chart 8Biden Has All But Clinched The Democratic Nomination The bad news for Trump – but the good news for markets – is that former Vice President Joe Biden has solidified his status as presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party presidential candidate. Biden romped to victory in Michigan and Missouri on March 10 – and is virtually tied with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in Washington, a liberal state that should favor the self-professed democratic socialist Sanders. Biden now clearly leads the count of pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention on July 13 – and voting patterns in the remaining primary elections would have to reverse entirely in order to give Sanders a 1,991-vote majority of delegates in the first round of voting in July (Chart 8). It is unlikely that Sanders can deprive Biden of a majority of delegates even though he will trounce Biden in the final debate on March 15. The important state elections on March 17 are all favorable to Biden: Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Ohio. Our delegate projections show Biden winning an outright majority by May 12 (Chart 9). Chart 9Biden Set To Win Majority Of Democratic Delegates By Spring Over the past year many clients have argued to us that neither Biden nor Sanders is electable. We have rejected this view on the basis that the economic cycle would most likely determine the election, since Trump had the misfortune of being a late-cycle president. The financial markets have dodged a bullet with Biden’s nomination since Sanders was capable of winning the nomination and now, with an impending recession, would be even odds (or favored) to take the White House. Chart 10Head-To-Head Polls Show Trump Vulnerability Average head-to-head polls show both Biden and Sanders beating Trump in the battleground states. This always suggested that Trump was highly vulnerable. But on the margin Biden is more electable than Sanders: he polls better against Trump than any Democrat, while Trump polls worse against him than any Democrat. Biden has an Electoral College pathway to victory via Florida and Arizona, as well as via the Midwestern states where Sanders is also competitive (Chart 10). Democrats ultimately chose Biden because he seemed the most likely to beat Trump. He also has the best position on the issue most important after the economy, which is health care (Chart 11). This reputation comes from his association with both President Barack Obama and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). A contested convention, in which the Democratic Party splits and progressive voters sit out the election, was always unlikely and is now virtually foreclosed. As he clinches the nomination Biden will seek to win over the support of progressives by choosing a progressive running mate and adopting more left-leaning policies on issues like inequality and the environment. Chart 11Democrats Chose Biden To Win And Restore Obamacare Chart 12Democratic Primary Turnout Strong In Vital Midwest Voter turnout in the primary elections suggests that voters are fired up in the Midwest (Michigan, Minnesota) but more complacent in the South (Texas, North Carolina) (Chart 12). Primary elections are different from general elections, but a worsening economy will provoke higher turnout. At minimum these data reinforce the point above that Trump is highly vulnerable in the Midwestern “Blue Wall” that narrowly brought him to power. Bottom Line: Biden is not only electable but at this stage equally likely as Trump to sit in the Oval Office in 2021. This is a market-positive policy outcome compared with the alternative – a Sanders presidency – which was almost equally probable in the event of a recession. Financial markets will see Biden as less negative than Sanders on regulation and taxes, and less negative than Trump on trade and foreign policy. Fiscal Stimulus A major source of uncertainty surrounding the election is fiscal policy, as a Democratic victory implies an increase in taxes on households and businesses. Not only is there a spike in tax provisions set to expire (top panel, Chart 13), but President Trump’s signature Tax Cut and Jobs Act could be repealed if he loses or made permanent if he wins. Chart 13Fiscal Uncertainty Looms Over US The short-term outlook is also in flux because the Trump administration is frantically trying to piece together an economic stimulus package to respond to the coronavirus shock. Democrats control the House of Representatives and have an incentive to delay and water down Trump’s stimulus proposals. However, they cannot be seen as playing politics with the nation’s health and livelihood and will ultimately agree to fiscal stimulus. This contradiction implies that financial markets will experience ongoing volatility as talks take place. Ultimately, Trump and the Democrats will cooperate, particularly as the financial constraint intensifies through market selling. Trump’s bid will be to stimulate the overall economy while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer will target the virus so as to keep the nation’s attention on health care without granting Trump a re-election fiscal bonus. The most significant short-term stimulus on offer would be a cut to payroll taxes. Trump’s preference may be to eliminate the entire 6% tax levied on worker income permanently, but he is more likely to get something on the magnitude of the 2011-12 temporary payroll tax cut (second panel, Chart 13). This was a two percentage point reduction in the tax (to 4%) for one year that ended up being extended for a second year. The size of the impact is roughly $75 billion for each percentage point for each year ($300 billion for two percentage points over two years). The risk is that the House Democrats may require modifications to Trump’s Tax Cut and Jobs Act that cause an impasse and financial markets to sell off before an agreement is reached.2 The Democrats, for their part, have a wish list of spending programs that they will insist on in exchange for a payroll tax cut. In particular they will seek to expand unemployment insurance for workers who lose their jobs in the impending slowdown, food stamps for unemployed and for children at home amid school closures, and mandatory paid leave (for parents with kids at home as well as sick people). The bill for such items can easily add up to $50-$100 billion in new spending. In addition, Congress and the White House have already approved an $8 billion virus mitigation package and additional packages of this size can happen quickly as the crisis requires. Trump is interested in another round of farm aid, given that China will fall short of its commodity purchases under the “phase one” trade deal, which could amount to $12-$15 billion. And Trump could always unilaterally rollback some of his tariffs on China or other trade partners. The combination of new spending and payroll tax cuts could bring the package to the $300-$400 billion range that Trump’s top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, disapprovingly said was out of the question. It could easily amount to half of that. If the market continues to tank and the outlook for the US economy grows blacker, it will convince the Democrats that Trump is ruined unless they hurt their own image by appearing blatantly obstructionist amid a crisis. Bear in mind that the market wants a substantial stimulus not only because of the desire for a clear rebound in activity once the virus panic subsides, but also because the increasing odds of a Democratic victory in November mean that US tax rates will go up and corporate earnings will be revised downward. The country now faces a 50% chance of a 1%-2% fiscal tightening for each year in 2021-25 (Chart 14). Chart 14Biden Tax Hike Will Hit Corporate Earnings Chart 15US Fiscal Thrust To Surprise To Upside Thus a 1% of GDP fiscal stimulus for 2020 is the minimum necessary to improve sentiment. The US fiscal thrust – the change in the cyclically adjusted budget deficit – has already turned slightly positive this year, from what was expected to be a slight negative, due to a fiscally profligate budget deal between Trump and the Democrats last year (Chart 15). The one thing these blood enemies have in common is the need for more spending. Infrastructure spending is popular and has room to rise. Eventually the US will get stimulus, and it will surprise to the upside, even if the Democrats drag their feet to ensure that maximum political damage is inflicted on Trump this year. Not only is the fiscal setting inherently more dovish than it was in 2008, but Congress is bailing out plague-stricken households, not just Wall Street, this time around. The real game changer would be an infrastructure package. Americans spend about $140 billion or 0.7% of GDP each year on transport infrastructure, but popular opinion in both major political parties supports increases (Chart 16). The proposed sums are very large – Trump is proposing $1 trillion over a decade while Biden is proposing $1.3 trillion. The House Democrats have a bill worth $760 billion in new spending over five years ready to be passed. Also Trump is willing to capitulate on the Democrats’ preferred type of spending (direct deficit spending) due to his election constraint. These plans are all projecting considerable infrastructure spending on top of the Congressional Budget Office’s base line projection (Chart 17). Chart 16US Spends 0.7% Of GDP On Infra Each Year Chart 17Median Voter Wants More Infra Spending The fiscal multiplier of government spending is generally higher than tax cuts. Furthermore, the coronavirus hurts the economy by frightening households into their homes, which means that even the Democrats’ proposed cash transfers for low-income earners (those with a high marginal propensity to consume) may be impeded. Government-mandated infrastructure spending, by contrast, ensures that economic activity will pick up once the measures take effect (that is, with a 6-12 month lag … something the Democrats will become increasingly willing to agree to this spring given the election calendar). The impending US fiscal stimulus provides justification for going long infrastructure, construction, engineering, materials, mining, and environmental services sub-sectors included in the BCA Infrastructure Equity Basket (Chart 18). China’s large-scale stimulus measures reinforce this recommendation, since these firms are levered to China/EM growth. On a tactical basis, this trade is akin to catching a falling knife. Given our expectation that the world still faces challenges in overcoming the current turmoil, and the Democrats will hem and haw so as not to grant Trump his re-election wish list immediately, we await an opportune time to initiate this trade. A final reason to remain defensive on risk assets: the “lame duck” risk. If and when Trump’s re-election appears out of reach, he has an incentive to turn the tables. This could involve a radical or disruptive move in foreign or trade policy (e.g. on Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, China, or even Russia). At that point Trump could attempt to cement his legacy of cold war with China, or he could even lash out against Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has ostensibly stabbed him in the back by initiating a market share war with Saudi Arabia that may not be pieced back together in time to prevent job losses in shale oil swing states (Chart 19). Chart 18Look For Chance To Go Long Infrastructure Stocks Chart 19A Russo-Saudi Oil Market War Hurts Trump In Shale Swing States Presidential powers are least constrained in the international sphere. At the moment Trump is trying to save the economy and his presidency. But if it becomes a foregone conclusion that they cannot be saved, then he becomes a pure liability for risk assets. Housekeeping We are throwing in the towel on our US tech sector shorts for a loss of 36% and 11%, respectively, and also closing our long Thailand relative trade for a loss of 17%. We are also closing our tactical long Italian government bonds relative to Spanish for a loss of 2%. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Coincidentally all were Republicans, like Trump – not that it matters. 2 The Democrats may seek to have Trump increase the tax rate on the highest income earners to the pre-TCJA level, or they may seek to increase the cap on the state and local tax deduction, which allows households (mostly high-income earners) in high-tax states to reduce their federal tax bill.
Highlights At the current rate of work resumption, March’s PMI should rebound to its “normal range” from February’s historic lows. If so, our simple calculation, using China’s PMI figures and GDP growth in Q4 2008 as a template, suggests that China's economic growth in Q1 2020 should come in at around 3.2%. Chinese stocks passively outperformed global benchmarks in the last two weeks. The likelihood of a stimulus overshoot in the next 6-12 months continues to rise, supporting our view that Chinese stocks will actively outperform global benchmark in the coming months. Cyclical stocks have significantly outperformed defensives lately. While this is consistent with our constructive view towards Chinese equities in general, the magnitude of a tech stock rally in the domestic market of late appears to be somewhat excessive. As such, investors should focus their sector exposure in favor of resources, industrials, and consumer discretionary. The depreciation in the RMB against the dollar will come primarily from a stronger dollar rather than a weaker RMB, and the downside in the value of the RMB should be limited. Feature Despite the past week’s plunge in global equities due to the threat of a worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese stocks have outperformed relative to global benchmarks. This underscores our view that epidemic risks within China are slowly abating, and China’s reflationary response to the crisis will likely overcompensate for the short-term economic shock. Tables 1 and 2 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets in the past month. On the growth front, both the February official and Caixin PMIs dropped to historic lows as a result of the virus outbreak and nationwide lockdown. On the other hand, economic data from January confirmed that pre-outbreak activity in China was on track to recovery. Daily data also suggests that production in China continues to resume. Moreover, monetary conditions have significantly loosened and fiscal supports have materially stepped up. Chinese equities in both onshore and offshore markets dropped by 2% and 7% respectively (in absolute terms) from their January 13 peaks. Nevertheless, they have both significantly outperformed global equities, particularly in the past week. Equally-weighted cyclical stocks versus defensives in the onshore market have also moved up sharply, driven by a rally in the technology sector stocks. While the outperformance of cyclical stocks is consistent with our constructive view towards Chinese stocks, the magnitude appears to be excessive. Thus, we would advise investors positioning for a cyclical recovery in China to favor exposure in resources, industrials and consumer discretionary stocks. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we have a number of observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Chart 1Inventory And Production Shortages Are A Bigger Near-Term Concern Than Weaknesses In Demand February’s drop in the official PMI below 40% is reminiscent of November 2008, which was the height of the global financial crisis. The raw material inventory sub-index of the PMI in February fell to a record low, a clear indication of strain in China’s manufacturing sector. While the finished goods inventory sub-index ticked up slightly compared with January, factories will likely run out of existing raw materials to produce goods if transportation logistics do not return to normal soon (Chart 1). A higher number in the new orders sub-index relative to production output also suggests the pressure on the supply side will intensify if the virus outbreak in China worsens and continues to disrupt manufacturing activities. This will in turn undermine the effectiveness of Chinese policy response. Daily data from various sources suggests Chinese industrial activities continue to pick up. Between February 10 (the first official return-to-work day after an extended Chinese New Year holiday) and February 25 (the cutoff date for responding to PMI surveys), daily coal consumption in China’s six largest power plants was only about 60% of consumption compared from the same period last year (adjusted for the Lunar Year calendar). This is in line with the 35.7 reading in February’s manufacturing PMI, versus 49.2 a year ago. In the last four days of February, however, coal consumption reached nearly 70% of last year’s consumption. This figure is in keeping with a 10 percentage point increase in the rate of work resumption of enterprises above-designated size in China’s coastal regions.1 If energy consumption and work resumption rates reach about 90% by the end of March compared with Q1 2019, then PMI in March should pick up to 45% or higher. A 45% or higher reading in March’s PMI will imply economic impact from the virus outbreak is mostly limited to February. A simple calculation using China’s GDP growth in Q4 2008 as a template suggests that China's economic growth in Q1 2020 should come in at around 3.2% in real terms. This is in line with the estimate from BCA's Global Investment Strategy service.2 As we pointed out in November last year,3 China is frontloading additional fiscal stimulus in Q1 2020 to secure the economic recovery, which started to bud prior to the virus outbreak. The increase in January’s credit numbers confirms our projection. The monthly flow in total social financing in January (with only three work weeks effectively) reached above RMB 5 trillion. This figure exceeded that in January 2019, the highest monthly credit number last year. Local government bond issuance in January was almost double that a year ago, and a total of 1.2 trillion local government bonds were issued in the first two months of this year - a 53% jump from the same period last year. This suggests that fiscal stimulus has indeed stepped up in 2020. Money supply in January was slightly distorted by the earlier Chinese New Year (it fell in January this year instead of February as in most years) and the COVID-19 outbreak. M1 registered zero growth from a year ago, whereas it grew by 0.4% in January 2019.4 Normally, during the month of the Chinese New Year, households have more cash in deposits whereas corporations have less as they pay pre-holiday bonuses to employees. This seasonality factor causes the growth rate in M0 to rise and M1 growth to fall. The seasonality was exacerbated by the nationwide lockdown on January 20 this year, as many real estate developers reportedly suffered from a significant reduction in home sales and delays in deposits for down payments. Household consumption in the service sector during the Chinese New Year was also severely suppressed. This explains near-zero growth in M1 and a larger-than-expected increase in household deposits in January (Chart 2). We expect the growth in both M0 and M1 to start normalizing in March, as production and household consumption continue to resume. While we do not expect large fluctuations in housing prices, we think growth in home sales may accelerate from Q2 2020. There are early signs that the government is starting to relax restrictions on the real estate sector, on a region by region basis. Land sales remain a major source of local governments’ income, accounting for more than half of total revenues as of last year. Chart 3 shows that as government expenditures lead land sales, a major increase in fiscal stimulus and local government spending means that a significant bump in land sales will be needed in 2020. A strengthening supply of land, coupled with the unlikelihood of large fluctuations in property prices, suggests that there will be more policy supports to the real estate sector and more incentives to boost housing demand. Chart 2Corporates Are Short On Cash Chart 3Land And Home Sales Likely To Pick Up In 2020 In the past two weeks, China’s equity market has registered a near-vertical outperformance in both investable and domestic stocks relative to global benchmarks (Chart 4). While this recent outperformance was passive in nature, our policy assessment supports future active outperformance. The recently announced pro-growth policy initiatives increasingly resemble those rolled out at the start of the last easing cycle in 2015/2016. These policy initiatives increase the odds that the upcoming “insurance stimulus” will overcompensate for the short-term economic shock, and will likely lead to a significant rebound in corporate profits in the next 6-12 months. This supports our bullish view on Chinese stocks. Chart 5 also shows that, unlike during the 2015’s “bubble and bust” cycle, both the valuation and margin trading as a percentage of total market cap in China’s onshore market remain materially lower than 2015. Equally-weighted cyclical sectors continue to outperform defensives in both China’s investable and domestic markets, particularly the latter where stock prices in the technology sector were up 12% within the past month. While the outperformance of cyclical stocks relative to defensives is consistent with our constructive view towards Chinese equities in general, the magnitude appears to be somewhat excessive. Given this, we would advise investors positioning for a cyclical recovery in China’s economy to focus their sector exposure in favor of resources, industrials, and consumer discretionary stocks. Chart 4Chinese Stocks Strongly Outperformed Global Benchmarks Over The Past Two Weeks Chart 5Onshore Market Trading Does Not Seem Overly Leveraged China’s three-month repo rate (the de facto policy rate) has fallen significantly in the past month, roughly 30bps below its lowest level in 2016 (Chart 6). China’s government bond yields have also reached their lowest level since 2016. While corporate bond yield spreads in other major economies have picked up sharply in the past month, the reverse is happening in China. This suggests that the market is pricing in further easing and the notion that policy supports will be effective in preventing a surge in corporate bond default rate. From a global perspective, yield spreads on China’s onshore corporate bonds have been elevated since 2016. This indicates that investors have long either priced in a much higher default rate among Chinese corporate bond issuers, or demand an unjustifiably large risk premium (Chart 7). Since we expect Chinese policymakers to continue easing, risks of a surge in China’s corporate bond default rate remain low this year. As such, until we see signs that the Chinese authorities are reverting to a financial de-risking mode, we will continue to favor onshore corporate versus duration-matched government bonds. Chart 6Monetary Policy Now More Accommodative Than 2015-2016 Chart 7Chinese Corporates Pay High Risk Premium For Their Bonds, Even At A Relatively Low Default Rate Chart 8The RMB Likely To Continue Outperforming Other EM Currencies As we go to press, the Federal Reserve Bank has just made a 50bps cut to the Fed rate, the first emergency cut since the global financial crisis. The USD weakened against the Euro, the Japanese Yen, as well as the RMB immediately following the rate cut. While this reflects the market’s concerns of a worsening virus outbreak and the rising possibility of an economic slowdown in the US, the USD as a countercyclical currency will likely appreciate against most cyclical currencies as the virus continues spreading globally. Hence, the depreciation in the RMB against the dollar will come primarily from a stronger dollar rather than a weaker RMB, and the downside in the value of the RMB should be limited. The continuation of resuming production in China and the expectations of a Chinese economic recovery in Q2 will support an appreciation in the RMB against other EM currencies (Chart 8). Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 http://app.21jingji.com/html/2020yiqing_fgfc/ 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus," dated February 21, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Questions From The Road: Timing The Turn," dated November 20, 2020, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 4 M1 is mainly made up by cash demand deposits from corporations, whereas M0 is mainly deposits from households Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights An analysis on Turkey is available on page 10. In the short term, EM share prices will likely continue searching for a direction as visibility is extremely low. Beyond the near term, an appropriate strategy for EM equity investors is buying breakouts and selling breakdowns. The forthcoming stimulus from China is not a surefire guarantee of an immediate cyclical recovery. Low and falling willingness to spend among Chinese consumers and enterprises could overwhelm the positive boost from the stimulus. Forecasting changes in willingness to spend is not straightforward. Elsewhere, we are recommending a new trade: Short Turkish banks / long Russian banks. Feature Chart I-1EM Vs DM Equities: The Path Of Least Resistance Is Down EM risk assets and currencies as well as China-related financial markets are facing higher than usual uncertainty. Not only are the magnitude and duration of the coronavirus shock to the mainland’s economy unknown, but also both the scale of China’s forthcoming stimulus and its multiplier are highly uncertain. How should investors navigate through such uncertainty? For EM equity investors, an appropriate strategy is buying breakouts and selling breakdowns. Presently, we maintain a neutral stance on the absolute performance of EM stocks. We initiated a long position on December 19 and closed it on January 30 to manage risks amid the coronavirus outbreak. For asset allocators, we continue to recommend underweighting EM within global equity and credit portfolios (Chart I-1). As to exchange rates, investors should stay short a basket of EM currencies versus the US dollar. The EM equity index and EM currencies have been in a trading range in the past 12 months (Chart I-2). In the short term, markets will likely continue searching for a direction as visibility is extremely low. Beyond the near term, however, EM share prices and currencies are unlikely to remain in a narrow trading range. They will either break out or break down. Which way the market swings is contingent on corporate profits and the business cycle. A Framework To Assess Shocks What framework should investors use to gauge economic and financial market outcomes? We recommend the following: When a system – in this case the Chinese economy – is hit by an external shock, its most likely trajectory depends on the duration and magnitude of the shock as well as the initial health of the system. If the system is balanced and robust, a moderate shock can certainly shake it, but will not knock it over. A V-shaped recovery is most likely in this case. By contrast, if the system is unbalanced and precarious, a measured tremor could produce an outsized negative impact. As a result, this economy is more likely to experience a U-shaped recovery. No one can gauge with any precision the impact of the coronavirus outbreak on China’s economy. The only thing we can assess is the health of the mainland economy prior to this exogenous shock. Beyond the near term, EM share prices and currencies are unlikely to remain in a narrow trading range. Which way the market swings is contingent on corporate profits and the business cycle. In this regard, we present the following analysis on both the economy’s cyclical condition and structural vitality: 1. Cyclically, China’s growth was ostensibly bottoming when the coronavirus outbreak occurred. The top panel of Chart I-3 illustrates that – at that time – the Chinese broad money impulse foreshadowed a revival in nominal industrial output from late 2019 until mid-2020. In the second half of this year, however, the same indicator projected renewed growth deterioration. Chart I-2EM Stocks And Currencies Are In A Trading Range: How Long Will It Last? Chart I-3Without The Coronavirus Outbreak, Chinese Recovery Would Have Been Muted And Short-Lived Notably, the broad money impulse has often led the credit and fiscal spending impulse, and it currently signals a rollover in the latter sometime in the first half of 2020 (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Chart I-4EM Corporate Profits: Modest And Temporary Improvement Consistently, China’s narrow money growth had been projecting a muted and only temporary rebound in EM corporate profits – which are often driven by the Middle Kingdom’s business cycle – from late 2019 until the middle of 2020 (Chart I-4). Thereafter, EM profit growth was set to relapse anew. In short, even prior to the coronavirus outbreak, our indicators were signaling that any economic improvement on the back of the Chinese government’s 2018-19 stimulus would have been muted and short-lived from late 2019 until mid-2020. Hence, the negative shock from the public health emergency could end up nullifying the pending recovery. 2. Structurally, as we have written extensively, China has enormous credit and money excesses. The economy has become addicted to rampant money and credit creation. This, along with the misallocation of capital and the resulting growth in the number of zombie companies, makes the system vulnerable, even to moderate shocks. It is reasonable to assume that there are some companies that enjoy great financial health, some zombies that are unable to service their debt at all, and a certain number of enterprises that generate just enough cash flow to service their debt. While the coronavirus-induced downtrend in the economy will not materially change the financial status of healthy or zombie businesses, it will likely alter the financial standings of debtors that were on the proverbial edge. Assuming the unavoidable drop in cash flows due to the country’s sudden shutdowns, these debtors will struggle to service their debt. This will likely alter their short-to-midterm decision making. For example, if they were planning to expand their operations and hire more employees, these plans are likely to be shelved for now. Low and falling willingness among households to consume and among enterprises to invest and hire could overwhelm the positive boost from the stimulus. In short, the coronavirus-induced shutdowns are cutting into cash flows, but they do not in any way reduce debt burdens. Chart I-5 illustrates that debt servicing costs as a share of income for companies and households in China are among the highest in the world. Chart I-5China Has A High Debt Service-To-Income Ratio Notably, this measure for China is relative to nominal GDP while for other countries it is relative to disposable income. Disposable income is smaller than GDP as it takes into account taxes paid. Therefore, on a comparable basis, this ratio for China will be meaningfully higher than the one shown on Chart I-5. Bottom Line: Provided the Chinese economy is highly leveraged, it is reasonable to conjecture that the recovery following the adverse shock from the coronavirus will be U- rather than V-shaped. Stimulus: Yes. Multiplier: Unknown. It is a given that the Chinese authorities will inject more fiscal and monetary stimulus into the system. Nevertheless, the ultimate size of stimulus is unknown. So far, the following has been announced: On the monetary and credit side: A RMB300 billion re-lending quota to supply special low-cost funds to assist national commercial banks and local banks to provide preferential interest rate loans to key enterprises for epidemic prevention and control; On February 3, open market operation rates were cut by 10 basis points, and the key 7-day repo rate fell by 45 basis points; The People’s Bank of China injected liquidity1 via open market operations; The People’s Bank of China encouraged banks to lower lending costs for small and medium enterprises by 10% in some provinces. Critically, the banking regulatory authority has indicated it will allow an extension of the transition period for the implementation of the New Asset Management Regulation beyond 2020. Chart I-6Marginal Propensity To Spend Varies From Cycle To Cycle On the fiscal side: Additional local government debt quotas of RMB848 billion have been approved, on top of the previously authorized quota of RMB1 trillion in November 2019; the front-loaded debt quota will offer local governments more flexibility with their budgets and support growth via public investment; Cumulatively about RMB66 billion in supplementary funds has been deployed to support local governments and businesses, according to the Ministry of Finance; The authorities have delayed or partially waived taxes, social security fees, and government-owned rents for affected businesses; The government has instituted refunds of unemployment insurance premiums to enterprises who retain most employees in some cities; The central government will provide temporary interest rate relief (equivalent to 50% of the re-lending policy rate) on loans to key enterprises involved in the fight against the epidemic. However, stimulus in and of itself is not a sufficient condition on which to bet on a V-shaped recovery. Stimulus (or in the opposite scenario, tightening) does not always immediately entail an economic recovery (or on the flip side, a downturn). For one, policy stimuli always work with a time lag. In addition, the size of stimulus is still unknown. What’s more, the multiplier of the stimulus varies from cycle to cycle. Chart I-7Chinese Households Are Indebted We gauge the magnitude of any stimulus in China by observing money, credit and fiscal spending impulses. The multiplier is in turn contingent on economic agents’ (households and enterprises) propensity to spend. The impact of a large amount of stimulus can be offset by a low/falling marginal willingness to spend (a lower multiplier). Before the coronavirus outbreak, the marginal propensity to spend in China had improved slightly for households and had barely stabilized in the case of companies (Chart I-6). It is plausible to assume that a negative shock to confidence will likely dent both households’ and companies’ marginal propensity to consume. This is especially true since both economic agents are highly leveraged, as discussed above (Chart I-7). Finally, the leads and lags between the measures of stimulus like money impulses or credit and fiscal spending impulses and EM stocks in general and Chinese share prices in particular are not constant, as illustrated in Chart I-8 and Chart I-9. Chart I-8China: Share Prices And Money Impulse Chart I-9EM Stock Prices And China Credit And Fiscal Impulse Bottom Line: Forthcoming stimulus is not a surefire guarantee of an immediate cyclical rally – neither for EM risk assets and currencies, nor for other China-related plays. This does not mean that a rally will not occur. Rather, gauging the timing and potential drawdown that precede it are almost impossible. The basis is that low and falling willingness among households to consume and among enterprises to invest and hire could overwhelm the positive boost from the stimulus. Unfortunately, forecasting changes in willingness to spend is not straightforward. Investment Strategy Chart I-10An Inconclusive Message From This Reliable Indicator We are currently neutral on EM stocks in absolute terms. We will be watching for market-based indicators to signal a breakout or breakdown and will adjust our strategy accordingly. One of our favorite indicators – the Risk-On /Safe-Haven currency ratio – is presently inconclusive (Chart I-10). Relative to DM, EM share prices broke to new lows last week as illustrated in Chart I-1 on page 1. We continue recommending an underweight position in EM within a global equity portfolio. Consistently, we are reiterating our long-standing short EM / long S&P 500 strategy. The US dollar’s technical profile is bullish (Chart I-11), which entails that its bull market is not yet over. We continue shorting an equally-weighted basket of BRL, CLP, COP, ZAR, KRW, IDR and PHP against the US dollar. We are also short the CNY versus the greenback on a structural basis. Within the EM currency space, we favor the MXN, RUB, CZK, THB and TWD. Finally, EM exchange rates hold the key to the performance of both EM local currency and US dollar bonds. Given our negative view on the currency, we are reluctant to chase the decline in domestic bond yields and narrowing spreads in the sovereign credit space (Chart I-12). Chart I-11The US Dollar Rally Is Intact Chart I-12EM: Local Bond Yields And Sovereign Spreads Are Too Low Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Turkey: Doubling Down On Unsound Policies Despite the steep drop in oil prices, Turkish stocks have failed to outperform the EM equity benchmark (Chart II-1). When a market fails to outperform amid a historically bullish backdrop, it is often a sign of trouble ahead. The basis for the decoupling between Turkey’s relative performance and oil prices is President Erdogan’s doubling down on populist and unorthodox macro policies. He is eager to boost growth at any cost. As a litmus test of aggressive expansionist policies, local currency broad money growth has already surged to 24% (Chart II-2). In brief, these overly expansionary policies will undermine the currency, lift inflation and lead to a further exodus of investors from the country’s financial markets. Chart II-1A Bearish Sign For Turkish Equities Chart II-2Turkey: Rampant Money Creation Chart II-3Turkey: Booming Fiscal Spending First, the central bank has cut interest rates to below inflation. The outcome is negative policy rates in real terms. Moreover, the central bank has resumed plentiful liquidity provisioning to banks to prevent interbank rates from rising. Second, government expenditures are surging (Chart II-3). Ballooning government borrowing is largely being financed by commercial banks – i.e., the latter are involved in outright monetization of public debt (Chart II-4, top panel). Chart II-4Public Debt Monetization By Commercial Banks In the past two years, banks have purchased some TRY 250 billion of government bonds. This has boosted their share of holdings of government local currency bonds from 45% to 58% (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This has not only capped local bond yields, but also enormously expanded money supply. When a commercial bank purchases a bond from a non-bank entity, it creates a new deposit (broad money supply), as we discussed in November 29, 2018 report. The authorities have also announced tax cuts on various consumer goods in order to boost consumption. This is leading to a resurgence in consumer goods imports. In short, the trade balance is bound to widen again as domestic consumption resumes. Third, the government is forcing both state-owned and private banks to substantially boost credit flows to the economy. Last week, the AKP proposed a new banking bill that could force banks to fund large-scale projects. Further, the banking regulator is penalizing banks that fail to meet a “credit volume criteria’ by lowering the interest rate banks receive on their required reserves at the central bank. Crucially, the authorities are forcing banks to cut lending rates. Banks’ net interest rate margins have declined to all-time lows (Chart II-5). It will narrow further as they continue to cut lending rates, while holding deposit rates high to avoid flight from local currency deposits into US dollars. Banks, especially public ones, have dramatically accelerated their credit origination. This will lead to capital misallocation and potentially to non-performing loans (NPLs). On banks’ balance sheets, NPLs have been, and will remain, artificially suppressed. Neither banks nor regulators are incentivized to provision for potential loan losses. Insolvent banks can operate indefinitely so long as their shareholders and regulators allow it, and the central bank provides sufficient liquidity. This will most certainly be the case in Turkey in the years to come. Constraints in such a scenario are surging inflation and currency devaluation. Turkish authorities have whole-heartedly opted for these lax fiscal, monetary and bank regulatory policies. This entails that inflation and currency devaluation are unavoidable. Overly expansionary policies will undermine the currency, lift inflation and lead to a further exodus of foreign investors from the country’s financial markets. Lastly, surging wages and unit labor costs corroborate that inflationary pressures are genuine and rampant (Chart II-6). The minimum wage is set to increase by another 15% this year. Chart II-5Banks' Net Interest Margins At All Time Lows Chart II-6Turkey: Wages Are Surging The government has been trying to regulate prices in the consumer sector by putting administrative price caps in place. Yet inflation remains persistently high in both goods and services sectors. Investment Recommendation Chart II-7Excessive Stimulus Is Bearish For The Lira The Turkish lira is again on a precipice. Only government intervention can temporarily prevent a major down leg. We are reiterating our underweight call on Turkish stocks within an EM equity portfolio. As a new trade, we are recommending a short Turkish banks / long Russian banks position. In contrast to Turkey, Russia’s macro policies have been, and remain, extremely orthodox. The new Russian government is poised to boost fiscal stimulus and the economy will accelerate with low inflation. We will discuss Russia in next week’s report. Finally, a surging fiscal and credit impulse in Turkey often leads to higher inflation and downward pressure on the currency (Chart II-7). As such, local currency government yields offer little protection at these levels against a depreciating currency. Therefore, investors should underweight the Turkish currency, local fixed-income and sovereign credit relative to their respective EM benchmarks. Andrija Vesic Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We published A Primer On Liquidity on January 16, 2020 illustrating that the linkages from liquidity provisions by central banks and both increased spending in the real economy and higher asset prices are ambiguous. Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations
Dear Clients, In our final publication of the year, we bring you a recap of this past week’s significant events in Sino-US relations and the key messages from the Central Economic Work Conference. Accordingly, we are upgrading our tactical stance towards Chinese stocks from neutral to overweight. Our publishing schedule will resume on January 9, 2020 with our monthly Macro and Market Review. Our China Investment Strategy team wishes you a happy holiday season and a prosperous New Year! Best regards, Jing Sima, China Investment Strategist Highlights We are upgrading our tactical call on Chinese stocks from neutral to overweight. Recent developments in the Chinese investable equity market point to a risk-on sentiment. The fact the US and China have reached an agreement likely marks the beginning of a truce, which could potentially last through the US presidential election in November 2020. The CEWC statement from last week reinforces our view that China's leadership feels the urgency to stabilize the economy now outweighs the desire to continue financial deleveraging. Feature Signals from the Chinese investable equity market have titled in a bullish direction. This shift is accompanied by two modestly bullish developments: First, the annual China Economic Work Conference (CEWC) concluded on December 12 with support for a more reflationary stance for the coming year. Then, a day later, the US and Chinese officials confirmed they have agreed on a Phase One trade deal. The combination of these developments provides a sufficient basis to upgrade our tactical (0-3 month) stance on Chinese stocks from neutral to overweight (within a global equity portfolio), to be consistent with our bullish cyclical (6-12 month) stance. Equity Market Signals Have Become Bullish In our previous reports, we highlighted that the relative performance of some sectors in the Chinese investable equity market reflects China’s policy direction and financial market conditions, supporting our bullish/bearish calls on Chinese stocks. Recently, two of the three equity market telltale signs that we have been watching have turned favorable for a bullish view on Chinese stocks (Chart 1A and 1B): Chart 1ACountercyclical Sector Stock Performance Points To Improvement In Economic Activity Chart 1BThe Breakdown Of Defensive Stocks Suggests A Return Of Risk-On Sentiment Chart 1A (top panel) shows that the relative performance of investable utility stocks have broken down, signifying that market participants anticipate the slowdown in China’s economy will soon bottom. Investable healthcare stocks have not breached their 200-day trend, but are headed in that direction (Chart 1A, bottom panel). Key equity market signs have turned supportive for a bullish tactical call on Chinese stocks. Cyclical stocks are outperforming defensives in both China’s onshore and offshore markets, reflecting improved investor sentiment towards China’s economic outlook (Chart 1B). Bottom Line: Key equity market signs have turned supportive for a bullish call on Chinese stocks for the next 0 to 3 months. Phase One Trade Deal: Unimpressive But Pragmatic Adding to this bullish shift in equity market signals was the first of two positive fundamental improvements over the past week. The US and China reached agreement on a Phase One deal just a few days before the 15% tariff increase on $160 billion of Chinese export goods to the US was scheduled to come into effect. Reportedly, the two sides agreed to pause the 15% tariff scheduled for December 15 and lower the tariff on about $120 billion of Chinese imports to 7.5%. However, the 25% tariffs on the first $250 billion of Chinese imports will remain in place (Chart 2). Chart 2Tariff Rollbacks Unimpressive... Chart 3...But China's Promise To Buy American Goods Helps Trump Claim Victory In return, China agrees to, in the next two years, boost imports of American goods and services by a total of $200 billion from their levels in 2017 (Chart 3). While no specific number has been confirmed from the Chinese side, in a news conference, Chinese officials said that China “will expand imports of some agriculture products currently in urgent need, such as pork and poultry.” Given that both sides picked low hanging fruit in the Phase One deal, the tougher issues to be discussed in Phase Two could lead to a breakdown in negotiations, which potentially could unravel the Phase One tariff rollbacks. Nevertheless, the agreement serves an interim purpose for both President Trump and President Xi: it allows Trump to claim a short-term political victory on his trade negotiations with China, and gives Xi some breathing space to focus on domestic economic challenges. Bottom Line: While the Phase Two negotiations, when commencing, will be a risk to the Phase One trade deal, the current agreement likely marks the beginning of a truce, which could potentially last through the November’s presidential election in 2020. CEWC: Reinforcing Reflationary Bias For 2020 In addition to the trade deal, another bullish factor for stocks is the fact that Chinese policymakers will proactively fine-tune economic policy to mitigate the impact from the US tariffs that remain in effect and to ensure stable economic growth in the coming year. President Xi at last week’s Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC) urged that Chinese policymakers must “make contingency plans” to combat challenges from both domestic and external environment. At the three-day annual CEWC this year, Chinese central and local government officials set the direction and strategy of China’s economic policy for the coming year. The meeting also reveals the challenges Chinese policymakers are facing, and the areas they will likely mobilize monetary resources to tackle. Investors can therefore benefit from insights into both the direction and constraints of China’s near-term policy framework. We highlight four investment-relevant messages from this year’s CEWC: A Greater Emphasis On Growth Stability The tone from this year’s CEWC reflects an urgency to stabilize the economy and meet growth targets. The tone from this year’s CEWC reflects an urgency to stabilize the economy and meet growth targets. The statement from the meeting mentioned “stability” 31 times, compared with 22 in 2018.1 The statement also reiterated the importance of doubling GDP and per capita income by 2020. This suggests that a growth imperative remains the top priority and reinforces the leadership’s reflationary policy stance for next year. We previously projected that the Chinese government would allow a lower GDP growth target for 2020, between 5.5 and 6.0%. However, we think growth targets to be set at next March’s National People’s Congress (NPC) are more likely to be in a “reasonable range” (verbiage used in the CEWC statement) between 5.8 and 6.2%. As noted in our December 11 report,2 the Chinese economy needs to increase by 6% in 2020 to double its size from the 2010 level in real terms. While China’s real GDP statistics are suspiciously smooth and largely invalid when it comes to equity market pricing, the deviation between market expectations and the actual GDP growth target range set at NPC can help investors gauge how much more (or less) ammunition Chinese policymakers are willing to deploy to support the economy in that year. China is falling short of its target to double real urban per capita income next year from 10 years ago (Chart 4). Nominal wage and salary per capita growth has experienced a sharp drop since the third quarter of 2018 and probably contributed to the subdued appetite for consumption (Chart 5). Chart 4Household Income: Rural Overshooting; Urban Falling Short Chart 5Wage Growth Only Started Stabilizing Recently To meet the target, urban per capita income will need to grow at an above-real GDP rate of 10% in 2020, almost doubling the growth in 2018 and 2019. Given the still weak domestic economic conditions, we are not optimistic that China will be able to double the growth rate of urban income per capita in 2020 from 2019. Additionally, income typically lags economic activity. Even if China’s economic slowdown bottoms in the first quarter of 2020, it is unlikely we will see significant improvement in income until a few quarters later. Therefore, we think policymakers will likely focus on overall economic and employment growth stability, and poverty reduction through improving rural income in 2020 (Chart 4, top panel). A Shift In Policy Priorities The new year marks the final year of the “Three Major Battles” against financial deleveraging, poverty elimination, and pollution. In this year’s CEWC statement, for the first time in three years, the order of the battles has been rearranged with financial deleveraging ranked behind poverty reduction and environment protection. The PBoC will stay on a mild rate-cutting cycle throughout next year. The shift in policy priorities suggests that the pressure to deleverage has greatly eased. Banks’ asset balance sheets will expand at a faster rate, while the pace of reduction in shadow banking will likely continue to moderate (Chart 6). The description of monetary policy stance was amended to “maintaining a flexible and appropriate monetary policy” from last year’s “appropriately loose or tight.” The change points to a more dovish tone, confirming our assessment that the PBoC will stay on a mild rate-cutting cycle to lower corporate funding costs throughout the next year3 (Chart 7). Chart 6In 2020, Expect Faster Bank Balance Sheet Expansion Chart 7The PBoC's Rate-Cutting Cycle Will Continue Next Year At this stage, we do not anticipate the Chinese policymakers will entirely abandon financial risk containment or significantly loosen financial regulations. Rather, we think the reduced pressure on deleveraging and lowering of funding costs will provide moderate support for the private sector, specifically small- and medium-sized enterprises. A slew of new policies announced before the CEWC, including an adjustment to some of the parameters in the Macro-Prudential Assessment (MPA) framework to encourage lending to the private sector,4 will help strengthen the impact of PBoC’s countercyclical measures. A Bigger Fiscal Push This year’s CEWC statement indicated policymakers will continue to fine-tune a proactive fiscal policy, but unlike last year, the meeting did not specify further cuts to taxes. The statement suggests fiscal support to the economy will mainly focus on infrastructure, and listed transportation, urban and rural development, and the 5G networks to be the government’s main investment projects next year. Chart 8Local Governments Have Borrowed More Than They Spent In 2019, infrastructure investment was subdued, despite increased quotas for local government special-purpose bond issuance. Our research shows that local government infrastructure expenditures in 2019 have consistently lagged behind their borrowing (Chart 8). The gap between local government infrastructure funding deficit and borrowing has only started flattening in the third quarter of this year. The delayed conversion from borrowing to spending means local governments have accumulated more spending power for 2020. In order to encourage local governments to speed up spending, the central government is also likely to further loosen up project restrictions. A bigger fiscal push by the central government, coupled with a frontloading of 2020 local government special-purpose bond issuance, will likely boost infrastructure spending to around 10% in the first two quarters, doubling the growth in the first eleven months of 2019.5 More robust fiscal stimulus will lead to an increase in the debt load of local governments, but Chinese policymakers are caught between a rock and a hard place and therefore must choose the least risky tools to stimulate the economy. In our view, local government bonds are still a better option over local government financing vehicles (LGFVs) or other illicit channels. Social Housing Gets Another Boost Surprisingly,6 last week’s CEWC statement again emphasized the importance of shantytown renovation (Chart 9). While this implies there would likely be a significant monetary boost to social housing in the coming year, the statement also indicated that policymakers would not want property prices to dramatically change in either direction. Even though local governments have been granted more flexibility to fine-tune their local housing policies, we think the possibility of a broad-based regulatory easing in the housing market remains low in 2020. Therefore, government subsidies in social housing in 2020 will unlikely to lead to another property market boom like that of 2016. Chart 9Social Housing Gets Another Fiscal Boost If the scale of the cyclical policy support in 2020 is still moderate, then we think the stimulus may delay, but not entirely derail China’s progress in structural rebalancing, particularly if the current financial regulations remain in place. The CEWC statement also mentioned deepening reforms of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and a “three-year SOE reform executive plan”, which we will be closely monitoring in the coming year. Last year’s reference to “striving for stronger, better and larger state assets” was replaced this year by “accelerating the reform of SOEs and optimization of SOE resource allocation”, implying there will be a greater emphasis on the quality and efficiency of SOEs’ assets. These plans can potentially impact SOE profit margins and accelerate the pace of industry consolidation among SOEs. The statement also dedicated a lengthy and detailed segment to "promoting high-quality development", covering topics ranging from the reform of the agricultural supply side to accelerating the implementation of regional development strategies. Further details are expected after next March’s NPC in Beijing. At that time, we will have a Special Report to consider some of the strategic and regional planning initiatives discussed at the meeting and their market implications. Bottom Line: The past week’s CEWC reinforces our view, that the Chinese leadership’s urgency to stabilize the economy has shifted to overweigh the desire to continue financial deleveraging. Monetary policy will only moderately loose further, but fiscal stimulus may overshoot in the first half of 2020. Investment Conclusions We have been cyclically overweight Chinese stocks on the basis of a bottoming in the economy in the first quarter of 2020, and the likelihood of an eventual trade deal. Tactically however, we have been more cautious because of the potential for further near-term downside in the economic data, and the uncertainty surrounding the timing and nature of a trade deal. While the tariff reduction in the trade deal announced last week is somewhat disappointing, the combination of a trade agreement, bullish equity market signals, and the positive messages from last week’s CEWC warrant an upgrade to our tactical stance on Chinese stocks from neutral to overweight. As such, our cyclical and tactical calls are now both aligned in favor of Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio. As a final point, we noted in last week's report that there are decent odds that all of the outperformance of Chinese stocks in 2020 will be frontloaded in the first half of the year. In the new year, we look forward to providing an ongoing assessment of whether Chinese economic growth has more or less potential upside than we currently expect, along with the attendant investment implications of our analysis. Stay tuned! Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-12/12/content_5460670.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-12/12/c_138626531.htm 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "2020 Key Views: Four Themes For China In The Coming Year," dated December 11, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3, 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Questions From The Road: Timing The Turn," dated November 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 http://www.gov.cn/premier/2019-12/14/content_5461147.htm 6 In our last week’s China Investment Strategy 2020 Outlook report, we had projected less monetary support to this sector in 2020. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations