Gov Sovereigns/Treasurys

Policy, Polls, Probability

Highlights Bond yields have room to move higher in the near run, but a move above 2% would represent a buying opportunity. U.S. elections are too close to call. Even if Trump wins, we caution that federal fiscal spending programs will have to work hard to offset the ongoing drag from sluggish state and local spending. Economic and inflation data will not stand in the way of a Fed rate hike in December. But heightened market volatility associated with the elections could still derail their plans. Feature October was a tough month for Treasuries, as the 10-year climbed 25 basis points since October 1. The sell-off puts Treasury yields closely in line with our bond strategists' estimate of fair value. This week, we review the factors that argue for or against a further rise in bond yields. Our conclusion is that the Treasury sell-off is likely to continue in the near run. Yields above 2% would represent a buying opportunity. The primary bearish driver for Treasuries in the next two months is the Fed. As we discuss below, recent economic data has been decent enough to meet the Fed's threshold for a rate hike and inflation indicators are moving towards the Fed's 2% target. Indeed, the FOMC statement released last Wednesday sent a mildly hawkish signal by highlighting that growth has improved, while both inflation expectations and realized inflation are tracking higher. The statement very much keeps a December rate hike in play, but it does not elevate the odds. In the FOMC meeting just prior to last year's rate hike, the Fed specifically mentioned the "next meeting" as a possibility for a rate increase. The Fed did not go as far this time around1 as policymakers are no doubt wary of spooking the markets when uncertainty is running high ahead of the U.S. election. Whether the Fed actually pulls the trigger in December will continue to hinge on the incoming economic data and the behavior of the markets following the election, but our base case remains that the Fed will follow through with a rate hike. The market is currently priced for a 65% chance of a rate move before the end of the year. This is roughly the same as the probability of a 2015 rate hike at this time last year (Chart 1). As long as the economic data remain reasonably firm, as we expect, then rate hike probabilities should follow last year's path and move to 100% by the December 13-14 FOMC meeting. Last year, the revision in the rate hike probability from November-December corresponded with a 35 bps rise in the 10-year Treasury. Chart 1Room For Expectations To Move Higher Since last year, the Fed has drastically downgraded its long-term rate projections. Recall that ahead of the December 2015 FOMC meeting, the Fed projected that the Fed funds rate would reach 1.4% in 2016. Since then, the Fed has revised downward its interest rate forecast to two rate hikes in 2017. Assuming the Fed does not revise these forecasts, it is unlikely that Treasuries respond as negatively as they did in 2015. Moreover, as we noted above, at 1.8% today, Treasuries are already roughly at fair value. During last year's sell-off, bond yields were starting from a substantially overbought level. This argues for a somewhat more muted reaction to a Fed rate hike, although we still expect yields could move higher. Beyond December, i.e. once the rate hike is priced in, our base case is that yields trend sideways for a time. The Fed's forecast for growth in 2017 is 2.0%, which would represent an increase of 0.5% from the first three quarters of 2016. If economic growth meets the Fed's expectation of 2%, then it is reasonable to expect that policymakers would increase twice next year, i.e. in line with their current forecasts. As shown in Chart 1, the Treasury market is not yet priced for this outcome: market participants currently assign only 80% odds to one rate hike by the end of 2017. The message is that the Fed, even with a reasonable (for the first time in years!) forecast for growth, will end up being a source of upward pressure on bond yields beyond 2017. There is nonetheless an important mitigating factor for bond yields: the U.S. dollar. A stronger currency represents a tightening of financial conditions that acts to depress expectations of future economic growth. This can spell trouble for risk assets and also lower the market-implied odds of future rate hikes. Indeed, a central bank can tighten monetary conditions, but does not have control over how much of the tightening comes via interest rates and how much through currency appreciation. In the current environment, the Fed knows that the process of normalizing interest rates will trigger bouts of volatility, because its actions will be exaggerated by movements in the currency. The bottom line is that we expect the Fed to tighten in December, followed by two more quarter-point hikes in 2017. Given that the bond market is not yet priced for this, the recent sell-off in bond yields will continue, perhaps to as high as 2%. Thereafter, we would expect Treasuries to trade in a fairly narrow range, with 2% representing the higher end of the band. A Coin Toss Election In the very near term, the U.S. elections pose an important risk to the view expressed above. For the past several months, market odds of a Trump Presidency have been positively correlated with the uncertainty index and negatively correlated with Treasury yields (Chart 2 and Chart 3). On the eve of the election, the race is once again too close to call. Our expectation has been that any flight-to-quality related to a Trump victory will be short-lived. However, with equity market multiples stretched and the earnings outlook still leaving much to be desired, equity markets are ripe for a correction. Chart 2Bond Market Tracks Uncertainty Chart 3Trump And Uncertainty In our September 26 Weekly Report, we warned that investors may be assigning too low odds of a Trump Presidential win. We posited that if the polls remained tight, the potential for further volatility was high. We followed up in mid-October, advising clients how to implement portfolio insurance against downside market risks, and specifically against a Trump election win. One recommended vehicle for insurance that we highlighted was the U.S. dollar, which is part of our Protector Portfolio (Chart 4 and Chart 5). We believe the currency will rally due to the combination of coming fiscal expansion and risk aversion flows on the back of a Trump win. True, this strategy has not held up in recent days, as the U.S. dollar has softened while Trump improves in the polls and risk assets have corrected. Still, the dollar's reputation as a safe-haven currency is well-deserved. It has consistently outperformed during times of crisis - even when the U.S. itself was the source, as most recently demonstrated during the summer 2011 budget impasse. Chart 4Protector Portfolio Components Chart 5Protector Portfolio Returns In a recent report,2 our geopolitical strategists outline several things to watch for on November 8, the day of the election, and in its immediate aftermath. The immediate developments most relevant for investors are anything that prolongs the period of uncertainty regarding voting. For example, the 2000 election is a reminder that the results may not be clear immediately. Although the 2000 election was held on November 7, the official result was not declared until November 26; Al Gore did not concede until December 12. This time, any number of things could delay declaring a winner, including a tie in the electoral college, or a "faithless elector," i.e. an electoral college member that does not cast his/her ballot for the candidate chosen by popular vote, and therefore causes the Supreme Court to intervene. A delay in declaring the election result would increase uncertainty and therefore be negative for risk assets. Longer term, the margin of victory has become important for policy. It is now clear that a Clinton win, if it were to happen, will be a narrow one. According to our Geopolitical Strategy team, it is almost guaranteed at this point that the chances of a Democratic sweep in the House of Representatives are zero. This is a positive development for the market as a Democratic sweep would mean a slew of anti-business regulation out of Congress. Nonetheless, a narrow win - with sub-50% of the vote - would give Hillary Clinton an extremely weak mandate. The probability of a compromise between the White House and GOP in Congress is therefore declining and puts in jeopardy any possibility of modest fiscal stimulus under a Clinton White House, or of corporate tax reforms. The likelihood of more fiscal spending in 2017 has become common lore among investors. Thus, a disappointment on that front would be negative for risk assets. Post-Election Government Spending Throughout the twists and turns of the U.S. election campaign, one higher conviction view that has endured at BCA is that popular sentiment is shifting away from fiscal austerity and that 2017 would feature more ambitious spending programs. That would be quite welcome, given that real government consumption and investment - at all levels of government - has been a drag on growth during most of the recovery since the Great Recession. Ongoing weakness at the Federal level is due to restraint in defense expenditure, while state and local spending has been weak due to a significant downtrend in tax revenues. It is notable that the decline in state tax revenues is not confined to oil-producing states. A recent report by the Rockefeller Institute compiled state tax revenue forecasts for 2017 and concludes that the decline in tax revenues from all sources (sales, income and corporate) will be slow to recover next year.3 Remember that states can only spend what they take in outside of infrastructure spending. If state and local governments can manage to cut the drag on real GDP to 0%, that would still leave a major onus for government spending on the federal government. Assuming the contribution to real GDP from state and local spending is zero, it would require a 6% annual growth in federal spending to return total government spending as a contribution to GDP back to its historic average of 0.4% (Chart 6). As Chart 7 shows, fiscal spending of that magnitude rarely occurs outside of recession. Chart 6(Part 1) How Much Fiscal Spending? Chart 7(Part 2) How Much Fiscal Spending? Importantly, how much long-term effect a fiscal boost will deliver depends on how well fiscal multipliers - which measure how much a dollar of increased government spending or reduced taxes raises output - are working. Indeed, the magnitude of fiscal multipliers continues to be a massive source of disagreement in policy circles. Recent work by the IMF suggests that the multiplier, in some economies and under certain interest rate settings, could be as high as four: for each dollar the U.S. government spends, it will generate another $4 dollars of GDP!4 Other academics put the fiscal multiplier at less than 0.5. The wide range of forecasts is due to several factors, but there are nonetheless some generally held principles: Fiscal stimulus tends to be more effective when the output gap is large: when output is well below its potential, the monetary policy response to an increase in spending is likely to be limited. In other words, fiscal multipliers are larger in recessions than in expansions.5 The type of fiscal stimulus matters, a lot. Table 1 shows a range of CBO estimates for different types of government activity. For example, income tax cuts on high income earners tend to have a low multiplier effect (well below 1), while direct spending by government, e.g. infrastructure outlays, tends to have a much higher multiplier (above 1). Multiplier effects tend to last no more than eight quarters when output is close to potential. Fiscal stimulus tends to have a more impressive impact, although short-lived (four quarters) when the output gap is large. Table 2 shows the CBO-estimated effect of an increase in demand over eight quarters under two different economic scenarios. The first is when monetary policy is constrained, and the second is when monetary policy responds to the increase in demand from government stimulus. Our guess is that we are currently somewhere in between the two economic scenarios presented: there is still an output gap and monetary policy is already off the zero bound. Thus, the fiscal multiplier is likely a little above than one, meaning that government spending does not "crowd out" private spending. Table 1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers Table 2The Effect Of A $1 Increase In Aggregate Demand Over Eight Quarters Overall, government expenditures will contribute positively to GDP next year, though the amount of fiscal expansion is dependent on the political configuration in Washington after the elections. Similarly, the impact of any spending will depend on what form new fiscal measures takes. CBO research suggests that the fiscal multiplier will be slightly above 1. Business Sentiment: Neither Euphoria Nor Misery Without further participation from the government sector, the economy is likely to achieve above 2% real GDP growth. A more optimistic scenario could unfold if capex improves substantially and/or a Trump win significantly opens the fiscal taps. Recent private sector data shows that businesses are continuing on a mild expansion path. The ISM surveys of business confidence were little changed in October - sentiment among manufacturers is broadly unchanged, while respondents from the service sector were slightly less optimistic than the previous month (Chart 8). Still, the major indices remain above their boom/bust lines and respondents' comments suggest neither euphoria nor misery. Meanwhile, payrolls increased by 161,000 in October. Although this was slightly below the consensus forecast of 175,000, there was a cumulative 44,000 in upward revisions to the prior two months. Elsewhere, wages accelerated more than expected and average hourly earnings rose 0.4% m/m, pushing the annual growth rate to a new cyclical high of 2.8% (Chart 9). Chart 8ISM Surveys Are Steady Chart 9Wage Growth Is Perking Up To paraphrase from this week's FOMC statement, the employment report provides some further evidence that the U.S. economy is progressing towards the Fed's dual mandate. In itself, it reinforces the case for the Fed raise interest rates in December. It seems now that the only thing that could derail the Fed is an election surprise and related heightened market volatility. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20151028a.htm 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "It Ain't Over 'Till The Fat Man Sings," dated November 1, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_finance/state_revenue_report/2016-09-21-SRR_104_final.pdf 4 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp1493.pdf 5 "How Powerful Are Fiscal Multipliers In Recessions? Alan Auerbach and Yuriy Gorodnichenko, NBER Reporter 2015, http://www.nber.org/reporter/2015number2/auerbach.html

9 years ago

Four Important Lessons From Japan

Special Report

Highlights Lesson 1: Don't fear the end of the debt super cycle. Lesson 2: The ECB will ultimately target the long-term bond yield. Lesson 3: Financials will structurally underperform. Lesson 4: Personal Products (Beauty) will structurally outperform. Feature Striking similarities exist between the post debt super cycle economies in the euro area and Japan. Feature ChartPersonal Products Will Outperform Structurally... Financials Will Not In many regards, the euro area looks remarkably like Japan with a 17 year lag. Line up the 2007 peak in the euro area credit boom with the 1990 peak in the Japan credit boom - and the subsequent evolutions of many economic and financial metrics also line up almost perfectly: for example, the policy interest rate; the 10-year bond yield; inflation; and nominal GDP (Chart I-2, Chart I-3, Chart I-4, Chart I-5). Chart 2Striking Similarities Between The Euro Area... Chart 3...And Japan, Advanced By 17 Years Chart I-4Striking Similarities Between The Euro Area... Chart I-5...And Japan, Advanced By 17 Years This is very useful because if the euro area continues in Japan's footsteps, Japan's experience can teach us several important lessons about the euro area economy and financial markets out to the year 2034. Lesson 1: Don't Fear The End Of The Debt Super Cycle Does the euro area economy have "lost decades" ahead of it? Not exactly. Japan's so-called lost decades describe its stagnant nominal GDP since the mid-1990s. But this emphasis on nominal income is misleading (Chart I-6). The average citizen's standard of living does not depend on nominal GDP or even on real GDP. What truly matters is real GDP per head combined with the absence of extreme income inequality. Real incomes must grow and the growth must be reasonably distributed across society. On both counts, the euro area can be encouraged by Japan's experience. Since the late 1990s, Japan's real GDP per head has averaged close to 1% growth a year, broadly in line with the expected real productivity growth in a developed economy. This is exactly the real growth rate to be expected when there is no artificial and unsustainable tailwind from credit expansion. It is an economy's natural state of growth when the debt super cycle comes to an end, as it did in Japan more than 20 years ago.1 And it is good growth because it comes entirely from productivity improvements. Mankind's persistent ability to learn, experiment, and innovate produces more and/or better output from a fixed set of inputs. Furthermore, unlike other major economies, income inequality in Japan has not increased through the past 20 years and remains amongst the lowest in the developed world (Chart I-7). Again, this is not surprising. It is credit expansions that inflate bubbles in financial assets and exacerbate income and wealth inequalities. Therefore, unlike bad growth fuelled by credit booms, real growth that comes from productivity improvements is sustainable and unpolarising. The first lesson from Japan is that the euro area can expect structural growth in real GDP per head of around 1% a year. Chart I-6What ##br##"Lost Decades"? Chart I-7Income Inequality In Japan ##br##Has Not Increased Lesson 2: The ECB Will Ultimately Target The Long-Term Bond Yield One objection to Lesson 1 is that in a highly indebted economy, nominal GDP growth does matter. As debt is a nominal amount, it is nominal incomes that determine the ability to service and repay the high level of debt. So given a free choice, policymakers would prefer to have inflation at 2% or 4% rather than at -1%; and nominal GDP growth at 3% or 5% rather than zero. Unfortunately, policymakers do not have this free choice. Contrary to what central bankers promise, inflation and nominal GDP growth cannot be dialled up or down at will to hit a point-target. As we explained in The Case Against Helicopters,2 inflation is a notoriously non-linear phenomenon which is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to control. As a reminder, look at the standard identity of monetary economics: MV = PT M is the broad money supply, V is its velocity of circulation, P is the price level and T is the volume of transactions. PT is effectively nominal GDP. The big problem is that both the broad money supply M and its velocity V - whose product determines nominal GDP - are highly non-linear. M is non-linear because the commercial banking system money multiplier - the ratio of loans to reserves - is non-linear (Chart I-8). At a tipping point of inflation, the onus suddenly flips from lending as little as possible to lending as much as possible. Chart I-8The Money Multiplier Is Non-Linear Admittedly, the central bank (in cahoots with the government) could by-pass the commercial banking system to control the money supply M directly. But it can do nothing to change the extreme non-linearity of the other driver of nominal GDP, the velocity of money V. Again, at a tipping point of inflation, the onus suddenly flips to spending money - both newly created and pre-existing balances - as fast as possible. At which point, nominal GDP growth and inflation suddenly and uncontrollably phase-shift from ice to fire with little in between. Therefore in the highly indebted euro area economy with near-zero inflation, the prudent course of action is not to risk uncontrolled inflation with so-called "helicopter money". Instead, the second lesson from Japan is to expect the ECB ultimately to emulate the BoJ and target the long-term bond yield. But which bond yield? Most likely, it would be the euro area synthetic 10-year yield, which the ECB already calculates and publishes, or a close proxy. In combination with the ECB's (as yet unused) OMT program - whose mere presence limits individual sovereign yield spreads - expect euro area government bond yields to remain structurally well anchored. Lesson 3: Financials Will Structurally Underperform Japanese financial sector profits today stand at less than half their level in 1990. For euro area financial sector profits, the concerning thing is that their evolution is tracking the Japanese experience with a 17 year lag. If euro area financial profits continue to follow in Japan's footsteps, expect no sustained growth over the next 17 years (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Euro Area Financial Profits May Experience No Sustained Growth In a post debt super cycle world, banks lose the lifeblood of their business: credit creation. And this becomes a multi-decade headwind to financial sector profit growth and share price performance. Euro area financials face two other headwinds similar to those in post debt super cycle Japan. As explained in Lesson 2, high indebtedness makes the economy hyper-sensitive to rising bond yields. The upshot is that the interest rate term-structure, which drives banks' net lending margins, cannot sustainably steepen. Also, just like Japan's 'zombie' banks, many European banks will take a long time to fully recognise the extent of their non-performing loans. The consequent squeeze on new lending combined with a requirement for additional capital further weighs down banks' return on equity. So the third lesson from Japan is that euro area financials is not a sector to buy and hold for the long term. Rather, it is a sector to play for periodic strong countertrend rallies. Now is not the time for such a play. Lesson 4: Personal Products (Beauty) Will Structurally Outperform Over the past 20 years, Japan's nominal GDP has gone sideways. But over this same period, the sales of skin cosmetics and beauty products have almost tripled (Chart I-10). This has helped the personal products sector to outperform very strongly. While Japanese financial profits have halved since 1990, Japanese personal products profits have quintupled (Feature Chart). Once again, the useful thing is that euro area personal product profits are uncannily tracking the Japanese experience with a 17 year lag. If euro area personal product profits continue to follow in Japan's footsteps, expect them to almost triple over the next 17 years (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Beauty Sales Have Boomed In Japan Chart I-11Euro Area Personal Products Profits Might Triple The very strong growth in beauty sales and profits in Japan is an extended example of the phenomenon known as the lipstick effect. Our Special Report Buy Beauty: The Lipstick Effect Stays Put3 provides the detail. But in a nutshell, the demand for beauty products and cosmetics - epitomised by lipstick - experiences a surge when the economic environment feels harsh. For many people, the post debt super cycle world of 1% real income growth with high indebtedness and no more bingeing on credit does feel like an extended hangover - at least compared to the spendthrift era that preceded it. Hence, it creates the ideal backdrop for an extended play of the lipstick effect, as witnessed in Japan. The fourth lesson from Japan is that euro area personal products is a sector to buy and hold for the long term. Expect profits to trend up at around 6% a year, and the sector to strongly outperform the broader market. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Admittedly, after the debt super cycle ended in Japan, government levering was needed to counter the impact of aggressive de-levering in the private sector. But in the euro area, this will not be needed to the same extent as the de-levering in the private sector is not as aggressive. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'The Case Against Helicopters' published on May 5, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'Buy Beauty: The Lipstick Effect Stays Put' published on April 14, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model This week's recommended trade is to go short French banks versus the CAC40. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

9 years ago

Europe

Tactical Asset Allocation And Market Indicators

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights Chart 1Model Weights In October, the model outperformed global equities in USD and local-currency terms; it also outperformed the S&P 500 in local-currency terms, while performing in line with the S&P in USD terms. For November, the model trimmed its allocation to cash and stocks and boosted its weighting in bonds (Chart 1). The model increased its weighting in French, Dutch, and Swedish stocks at the expense of the U.S., Japan, Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Emerging Asia. Within the bond portfolio, allocation to New Zealand and the U.K. was increased, while the allocation to U.S., Australian and Spanish paper was reduced. The risk index for stocks deteriorated in October, while the bond risk index improved noticeably. Feature Performance In October, the recommended balanced portfolio gained 0.6% in local-currency terms, and was down 1% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a loss of 1.4% for the global equity benchmark, and a 1% loss for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we do provide recommendations from time to time. The higher allocation to EM stocks in October was timely, but the boost to bonds was a drag on the model's performance. Weights The model cut its allocation to stocks from 67% to 66% and increased its bond weighting from 21% to 26%. The allocation to cash was decreased from 12% to 8%, while commodities remain excluded from the portfolio (Table 1). The model reduced its allocation to New Zealand equities by 3 points, Emerging Asia by 2 points and U.S., Japan, Germany and Switzerland by 1 point each. Meanwhile, it increased allocation to Dutch, French and Swedish stocks by 4 points, 3 points and 1 point, respectively. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to U.K. and New Zealand paper was increased by 6 points and 5 points respectively, while allocation to Australia, Spain and the U.S. was cut by 3 points, 2 points and 1 point, respectively. Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Table 1Model Weights (As Of October 27, 2016) Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time, we do provide our recommendations. The dollar appreciated in October and investors should position for additional dollar strength. Our Dollar Capitulation Index seems to be breaking out to the upside following a pattern of lower highs. Since 2008, such breakouts have been followed by a significant rally in the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators Our model continues to exclude commodities from the portfolio. The risk index for this asset class remains at the highest level in over two years (Chart 4). For the first time since June 2014, the risk index for global equities is above the neutral line (Chart 5). The higher overall risk reflects deteriorating liquidity and momentum readings. Our model cut its weighting in equities for the third month in a row. Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk The value component of the risk index for U.S. stocks improved in October, but this was overshadowed by worsening liquidity and momentum readings. The model slightly trimmed its allocation to U.S. equities (Chart 6). Even after the latest small uptick in the risk index for Dutch equities, it remains one of the lowest among the model's universe. The allocation to this bourse was increased. (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Netherlands Stock Market And Risk The risk index for U.K. stocks declined slightly in October, but remains firmly in high-risk territory both compared to its own history and its global peers. This asset class remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 8). The model slightly upgraded Swedish equities, despite a worsening risk index. The continued favorable liquidity backdrop remains a boon for Swedish stocks (Chart 9). Chart 8U.K. Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Swedish Stock Market And Risk After declining for four consecutive months, the overall risk index for bonds is not at extreme high-risk levels anymore. The increase in yields has helped completely unwind overbought conditions, as per our momentum indicator. The model used the latest selloff to increase its allocation to bonds (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys declined markedly in October, but a few other markets also feature improved risk readings. As a result, the model downgraded U.S. Treasurys (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk The selloff in New Zealand bonds has pushed the momentum indicator into oversold territory, boosting the allocation to this asset class (Chart 12). The risk index for euro area bonds remains firmly in the high-risk zone even after a notable decline. However, there are select bond markets in the common-currency area that have relatively more favorable risk readings (Chart 13). Chart 12New Zealand Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13Euro Area Bond Yields And Risk Within the euro area, Italian bonds feature a risk reading that has fallen below the neutral line. While the cyclical indicator continues to move into more bond-negative territory, it is currently being offset by the oversold reading on the momentum indicator (Chart 14). U.K. gilt yields moved up as the post-Brexit inflation backdrop became gilt-unfriendly and growth surprised on the upside. Now, with momentum moving from overbought to oversold over just a couple of months, any negative economic surprises could potentially weigh on gilt yields. The model has added this asset class to the portfolio (Chart 15). Chart 14Italian Bond Yields and Risk Chart 15U.K. Bond Yields And Risk A more hawkish Fed could push the dollar higher. The 13-week momentum measure for the USD remains above, but close to the neutral line. The recovery of the 40-week rate of change from mildly negative levels which have represented a floor since 2012 would suggest that a new leg in the dollar bull market is in the offing (Chart 16). Both the 13-week and 40-week momentum measures for the euro are below the neutral line (Chart 17). Growing monetary divergences could continue weighing on EUR/USD before the technical indicators are pushed into more oversold territory. Fears of hard Brexit knocked down the pound. The 13-week rate of change is now close to its post-Brexit lows, while the 40-week rate of change measure is at the most oversold level since 2000 (excluding the great recession). At these technical levels the pound seems overdue to find a temporary bottom (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Euro Chart 18Sterling Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com

9 years ago

Global

The ECB's Next Move: Extend & Pretend

Highlights ECB Monetary Policy: Euro Area inflation will likely remain below the European Central Bank (ECB) 2% target for the next few years due to persistent excess capacity in Europe. The ECB will signal this at the December monetary policy meeting, providing the justification to extend their quantitative easing (QE) asset purchase program beyond the current March 2017 expiration date. ECB QE Changes: The constraints imposed on the ECB's bond purchases are self-imposed, and can be easily altered in the event of potential "shortages" of available debt for the QE program. Fears of a potential taper of ECB buying because of those constraints, which have bearish implications for Euro Area bond yields, are overstated. Country Allocation: Move to an above-benchmark stance on core European government debt, which are a low-beta safe haven in the current environment of a cyclical rise in global bond yields. Feature After spending the past couple of months fretting over the next move by the U.S. Federal Reserve or the Bank of Japan, investors' attention shifted to Europe last week. With the current European Central Bank (ECB) government bond quantitative easing (QE) program set to expire in March of next year, the markets were seeking any sort of guidance on whether the ECB will end the program as scheduled, or extend the program beyond March - perhaps with a reduction ("taper") in the size of the bond buying. ECB President Mario Draghi provided no new information at the post-meeting press conference last Thursday, leaving bond investors in limbo until the December meeting when the results of the ECB's assessment of their QE program will be published. Some alterations of the program will likely be announced, but it is too soon for the ECB to consider ending their QE program. With regards to the title of this Weekly Report - the most likely outcome is that the ECB will extend the QE program past March 2017, but will tinker with the rules of QE in an effort to pretend that the central bank is still following a prudent logic for its purchases. Fears of an early taper are overstated, and this makes core European government debt a potential oasis of safety while global bond yields remain in a bear phase. Plenty Of Reasons For The ECB Not To Taper This talk of a tapering of ECB asset purchases following the scheduled end of the current QE program seems premature. After all, neither the ECB's own economic forecasts, nor those of its Survey of Professional Forecasters, are calling for inflation to get close to the 2% target until at least 2018 (Chart of the Week). The ECB staff will prepare a new set of forecasts for the December policy meeting that will include projections for 2019 - perhaps these new estimates will have inflation finally reaching the 2% goal. But in the absence of a credible forecast of inflation returning to target, the ECB will be hard pressed to signal any move to a less-accommodative monetary policy. Headline Euro Area inflation is currently only 0.4%, despite a recent increase in the oil price denominated in Euros, which has been a reliable directional indicator for Euro Area inflation (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekNo Need For An ECB Taper Chart 2European Inflation Is Stubbornly Low The steady decline in the Euro Area unemployment rate over the past three years has coincided with a move higher in overall labor compensation, but this has been purely a "volume" effect resulting from steadily increasing employment growth. With the entire region not yet at full employment, there has been minimal upward pressure on wages or inflation in domestically focused sectors like services (bottom panel). In other words, the lack of Euro Area inflation is a direct function of the excess capacity in Euro Area product and labor markets. According to the IMF, the Euro Area output gap will not close until 2020, which will limit any rise in inflation over the rest of the decade (Chart 3). It will take a more prolonged period of above-trend economic growth to close the output gap, reducing the Euro Area unemployment rate below the full employment NAIRU level, before any recovery in wages or core inflation can take place (bottom panel). This lack of realized inflation is weighing on Euro Area inflation expectations and creating some potential credibility problems for the ECB. As we have discussed in earlier Weekly Reports, inflation expectations in much of the developed economies seem to follow an "adaptive" process, where expectations are formed in lagged response to actual inflation.1 If central banks are fully credible in their ability to use monetary policy to fight inflation (and demand) shortfalls, then those forward-looking expectations should eventually gravitate towards the central bank inflation target. However, if there is a large and persistent shock to realized inflation, then inflation expectations can deviate from the central bank target for an extended period. Using a 5-year moving average of realized headline CPI inflation as a proxy for inflation expectations is a reasonably good (albeit simple) approximation of this adaptive process (Chart 4). The current 60-month moving average for Euro Area headline inflation is 0.6%, not far from the 5-year Euro Area CPI swap rate of 0.9%. However, if the ECB's inflation forecasts for the next two years come to fruition (1.2% in 2017, 1.6% in 2018), then the 5-year moving average will continue to decline, as those higher inflation figures would not offset the sharp fall in inflation witnessed over the past few years. Chart 3Excess Capacity Holding Inflation Down Chart 4Inflation Expectations Will Stay Low Simply put, the ECB's current projections are not consistent with inflation expectations hitting the 2% target by 2018, and likely even beyond that. The ECB will be presenting new projections in December, but it would take a significant upgrade of their growth and inflation forecasts to "move the needle" on longer-term inflation expectations. Perhaps a move away from fiscal austerity across the Euro Area could trigger an upgrade on growth expectations, as that would imply a faster pace of growth and a more rapidly narrowing output gap. However, while the topic of greater fiscal spending has been heating up in the halls of governments in Washington, London and Tokyo, there has been little sign that Euro Area governments are about to open the fiscal spigots anytime soon (and certainly not before elections in Germany and France in 2017). Chart 5European Banks Getting More Cautious? ECB Still Needs To Support Loan Growth The state of Euro Area banks, and what it means for future lending activity, is another factor for the ECB to consider before contemplating any move to a less-accommodative monetary policy. The current growth rates of money and credit are showing no signs of significant deceleration (Chart 5). The latest ECB Euro Area bank lending survey, released last week, did show a modest decline in the net number of banks reporting easier lending standards to businesses, as well as a reduction in the number of banks reporting increasing loan demand from firms. The ongoing hit to European bank profitability from the current negative interest rate environment could be playing a role in the banks moving to a less easy environment for lending. As can be seen in the bottom panel of Chart 5, there is a reliable leading relationship between Euro Area bank equity prices and the growth in bank lending to businesses. The downturn in Euro Area bank stocks in 2016, which has been driven by declining profit expectations, could pose a risk to credit growth in the months ahead. According to a special question asked within the ECB's bank lending survey, a net 82% of respondents reported that the ECB's negative deposit rate has damaged banks' net interest income over the past six months.2 In that same survey, a net 12% of banks reported a boost to loan demand from the ECB's negative interest rate policy, and a net 15% of banks reported that the additional liquidity provided by the ECB bond purchases went towards extending loans to businesses. So while negative interest rates may be hurting bank profit margins, the impact of the ECB's QE is helping offset that to some degree by providing banks with capital gains on their bond portfolios that can be used to finance lending. So without any sign that inflation will soon approach the ECB's target, thus requiring a potential tapering of QE or even a move away from negative interest rates, the prudent course for the ECB to take to support Euro Area credit demand, and economic growth, is to continue with the QE program beyond the March 2017 expiration date. That will require some changes to the ECB's rules of the program, but, in the end, these are only self-imposed constraints. Bottom Line: Euro Area inflation will likely remain below the ECB 2% target over the next few years due to persistent excess capacity in Europe. The ECB will signal this at the December monetary policy meeting, providing the justification to extend their quantitative easing asset purchase program beyond the current March 2017 expiration date. The ECB Has Some Policy Options To Avoid A Taper Tantrum Core European bond yields have been depressed by the ECB's QE program, which have acted to push down both the future expected path of interest rates and the term premium (Chart 6). This has helped anchor real bond yields in negative territory, even with inflation expectations at such low levels. But any signs of potential slowing of the pace of QE buying could quickly unwind this effect, which makes the ECB's next steps so critical for the path of global bond yields. In Chart 7, we show the level and growth rate for the ECB's monetary base, along with five potential future scenarios: The ECB ends their QE program in March 2017, as currently planned; The ECB extends QE for six months to September 2017, at the current pace of €80bn in bond buying per month; The ECB extends QE program for twelve months to March 2018, at a pace of €80bn per month; The ECB extends QE to September 2017, but reduces the pace of purchases to €60bn per month; The ECB extends QE to March 2018, but cuts to €60bn per month. Chart 6ECB QE Still Holding Down Yields Chart 7ECB Needs To Keep The Monetary Base Growing As can be seen in the bottom panel of Chart 7, the growth rate of the ECB's monetary base (and the asset side of their balance sheet) will decelerate sharply in 2017 & 2018 if the ECB does end the QE program as scheduled next March. Extending the program, however, does push out the rapid deceleration phase for monetary base into 2018. This is of critical importance for the Euro Area bond market, as both the outright level and term premium component of German Bund yields have been broadly correlated with the growth rate of the monetary base (Chart 8). In other words, extending the ECB QE program into the future is most important to prevent a "taper tantrum" in European bonds, by signalling to the markets that the ECB wishes to maintain low interest rates for longer. The ECB could even announce a reduction in the pace of purchases, along with an extension, and bond yields should remain well-behaved. This will also help prevent an unwanted appreciation of the Euro, the value of which currently reflects the far easier monetary stance in Europe (Chart 9). Chart 8An ECB Taper Would Be Bad For Bunds Chart 9An Easy-For-Longer ECB Will Weigh On The Euro Given the persistent debates within the ECB (and between the ECB and some Euro Area governments) about the long-run merits of QE, the combination of both an extension and reduction in QE purchases could be the compromise option that satisfies all parties. Alternatively, the ECB could choose to maintain the pace of bond purchases but alter the selection rules governing the program. Given the recent concerns in bond markets that the ECB is "running out of bonds to buy", changing the rules of the QE program is a sensible way for the central bank to free itself from the self-imposed shackles on its bond purchases. There are three options that the ECB can consider: Moving away from strictly allocating the bond purchases according to the ECB "capital key", which essentially weights the bond purchases by the size of each economy; Raising the issuer limits on QE, which limits the ECB to holding no more than 33% of any single issuer or individual bond issue; Reducing the current yield floor on QE, which prevents the ECB from buying any bonds with yields below the ECB deposit rate, which is currently -0.4%; We think option 1 is the least likely to occur, as this would imply buying a greater share of countries with more problematic debt profiles, like Italy or Portugal. There is little chance of such a strategy being well received by the governments in Berlin and Brussels, and the ECB would likely wish to avoid a major political confrontation by allowing larger deviations from the capital key Option 2 is an easier solution to implement. The 33% issuer constraint was always an arbitrary level that was aimed more at bonds with so-called "collective action clauses", where a majority of bondholders can force a decision on all bondholders in the event of a debt restructuring. It is understandable why the ECB would not want to become to decision-making counterparty in the event of a future messy bond restructuring in Europe. However, the ECB's ownership percentages within each Euro Area country are nowhere near the 33% limit at the moment (Chart 10) and, at the current pace and composition of buying, that 33% limit will not even be reached for Germany anytime soon.3 There is room for the ECB to raise the issuer limits, as it has already done for some other parts of its asset purchase programs, like bonds issued by European Union supranationals.4 Chart 10ECB Holdings Are Far From The 33% Issuer Limit Chart 11Lowering The Yield Floor For QE Makes Sense Option 3 is the most binding constraint of all on the ECB purchases, as very large shares of the European government bond market are now trading below the ECB's -0.4% deposit rate (Chart 11). In the case of Germany, nearly 70% of all QE-eligible debt is trading below the ECB's yield floor, which has raised investor concerns that the ECB will soon be unable to buy enough German debt at the current pace of purchases. However, that yield floor constraint is completely arbitrary - there is nothing stopping the ECB from buying bonds trading at a yield below the deposit rate, other than (we suspect) a desire to impose some sort of price discipline on the QE buying to make the ECB appear more credible with its purchases. Chart 12The QE Yield Floor Can Be Changed If the ECB decided to lower the yield floor below the current -0.4% deposit rate, this would open up a greater share of the core European bond markets to QE buying (Chart 12). This would also change the current market narrative that the ECB will soon run out of German bonds to buy. In the end, the most likely path the ECB will take following its December re-assessment of its QE program is a combination of lowering the yield floor on QE bond purchases below -0.4% and raising the issuer limits above 33%. There appears to be plenty of leeway for the ECB to alter their purchases, but without necessarily reducing the monthly pace of buying. Combined with an extension of the end-date of the QE program beyond March, this should alleviate any concerns that the ECB will soon hit a wall with its asset purchases. Bottom Line: The constraints imposed on the ECB's bond purchases are self-imposed, and can be easily altered in the event of potential "shortages" of available debt for the QE program. Fears of a potential taper of ECB buying because of those constraints are overstated. Investment Implications: Move To An Above-Benchmark Stance On Core European Bonds With the ECB having no need to end its QE program early, the case for moving to an overweight stance on core Europe is a strong one. As we noted in our last Weekly Report, favoring bond markets of countries with the lowest inflation rates is a logical investment strategy in the current environment of a modest cyclical upturn in global growth and inflation.5 That justifies our current below-benchmark recommendation on U.S. and U.K. government debt, as both realized inflation and expected inflation are rising in both countries. That leaves the Euro Area and Japan as possible candidates to move to above-benchmark weightings, given their defensive properties as low-beta bond markets. Although with the Bank of Japan now pegging the Japanese government bond (JGB) yield curve with a 10-year yield at 0%, we do not see a compelling investment case for overweighting JGBs as a defensive trade. If an investor wants safety at a 0% yield - with no chance of a capital gain from a decline in yields - than owning T-bills, or even gold, is just as viable as owning JGBs. We recently upgraded Japan to neutral in our recommended portfolio allocation, and we see no reason to move from that. Thus, core European bonds stand out as the candidate to upgrade as a defensive trade during the current bond bear phase, which we expect will continue until at least December when the Fed is expected to deliver another rate hike in the U.S. We see a case for moving to above-benchmark for both Germany and France, but especially so in the latter. The beta of bond returns between France and both the U.S. (Chart 13) & U.S.(Chart 14) is very low, making French bonds a good market to favor at the expense of U.S. Treasuries and U.K. Gilts in currency-hedged bond portfolios. Chart 13French Bonds Are Low Beta To USTs... Chart 14...And To U.K. Gilts Bottom Line: Move to an above-benchmark stance on core European government debt, which are a low-beta safe haven in the current environment of a cyclical rise in global bond yields. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Why Are Global Inflation Expectations Still So Low", dated March 1, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The Q4 2016 ECB Euro Area Bank Lending Survey can be found at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/pdf/blssurvey_201610.pdf. 3 Please note that the denominator in the percentages shown in Chart 10 include only bonds with maturities that are eligible for ECB QE purchases, omitting bonds that will mature in less than 2 year and more than 30 years. 4 For more details on that change to the supranational issuer limits, please see https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/implement/omt/html/pspp-qa.en.html. 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Return Of The Bond Vigilantes", dated October 18, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

9 years ago

Dollar Watching: An Update

Highlights Duration: Treasury yields will continue to rise as a December Fed rate hike is priced in. A surge in bullish dollar sentiment between now and December would cause us to back away from our below-benchmark duration stance. Spread Product: Maintain a neutral allocation to spread product, favoring convexity over credit risk. A surge in bullish dollar sentiment between now and December would cause us to downgrade spread product relative to Treasuries. TIPS: The increased sensitivity of TIPS breakevens to core inflation argues for a continued overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries. Sovereign Debt: Continue to favor U.S. corporate credit over USD-denominated sovereign government debt within a neutral allocation to spread product. Feature About one month ago, we outlined how we expected our investment strategy to evolve over the remainder of this year and into 2017.1 Our continued expectation that the Fed will lift rates in December leads us to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and a neutral allocation to spread product2 until a December rate hike has been fully discounted by the market. Chart 1Dollar Sentiment: A Key Indicator Beyond December, our investment strategy will depend largely on how the dollar responds to an upward re-rating of rate expectations. Strong dollar appreciation would likely cause us to reverse our below-benchmark duration stance and become even more cautious on spread product. Conversely, a tame dollar could mean that the sell-off in bonds and rally in spreads have further to run. The dollar has appreciated by close to +2% since early September and bullish sentiment toward the dollar has also edged higher (Chart 1). However, so far the increases appear muted compared to the rapid dollar appreciation that occurred in the run-up to last December's rate hike. The reason we care about the dollar is that a stronger currency represents a tightening of financial conditions that acts to depress expectations of future economic growth. This can spell trouble for risk assets and also lower the market-implied odds of future rate hikes. For example, spread product was performing well last year until rate hike expectations started to move higher in late October. As the market began to anticipate a December Fed rate hike, it did not take long for the combination of higher rate expectations and increasingly bullish dollar sentiment to weigh on risk assets (Chart 2). The Market Vane survey of bullish sentiment toward the dollar surged above 80% last December, and this tightening of financial conditions is what prompted the sell-off in spread product and sharp decline in Treasury yields that kicked off 2016. Chart 2More Bullish Dollar Sentiment Is A Risk For Spread Product With last year's example in mind, the relevant question for current investment strategy is: How much dollar appreciation can the market tolerate before Treasury yields reverse their uptrend and credit spreads start to widen? To answer that question we make an assessment of U.S. and global growth relative to this time last year. All else equal, if U.S. growth is improved compared to last year, then it should require a greater dollar appreciation to have a similar impact on yields and spreads. Relatedly, if the growth outlook outside of the U.S. is improved, then it would mean that the dollar's reaction to rising U.S. rate expectations might not be as strong. On this note, there is some evidence pointing toward a more resilient U.S. and global economy than at this time last year. In the U.S., our preferred leading indicators suggest that growth contributions from capital spending, housing, net exports, government spending and inventories should all move higher in the coming quarters (Chart 3). This should act to offset a likely moderation in consumer spending growth (Chart 4). All in all, the domestic U.S. growth outlook appears similar to - if not slightly better than - what was seen at this time last year. There is more cause for optimism in the global growth indicators. The aggregate global PMI and LEI are tracking close to levels seen last year, but rising diffusion indexes suggest that further increases are likely (Chart 5). Already, manufacturing PMIs in all the major economic blocs have entered clear uptrends (Chart 5, bottom two panels). This suggests that the global growth outlook is actually much brighter than at this time last year, and improved diffusion indexes suggest that the global recovery has also become more synchronized. Chart 3U.S. Growth Outlook Improving... Chart 4...Outside Of Consumer Spending Chart 5Global Growth On The Upswing The implication of a U.S. economic outlook that is broadly similar to last year and an improved outlook for global growth is that the U.S. dollar may not react as strongly to rising Fed rate hike expectations in 2016 as it did in 2015. If this turns out to be the case, then the performance of spread product should also be more resilient and the uptrend in Treasury yields is less likely to reverse. Bottom Line: We continue to track the dollar and dollar sentiment closely to inform our near-term investment strategy. While dollar sentiment has edged higher, it has not yet reached the elevated levels seen last year. A more synchronized global growth recovery makes such a spike in bullish dollar sentiment less likely this time around. What Is A High Pressure Economy? Chart 6What A "High Pressure Economy" Looks Like Fed Chair Janet Yellen introduced a new buzzword to the market two weeks ago when she suggested in a speech3 that "it might be possible to reverse the adverse supply-side effects [of the financial crisis] by temporarily running a 'high-pressure economy' with robust aggregate demand and a tight labor market." Some investors took this to mean that the Fed would be increasingly tolerant of inflation overshooting its 2% target. We think this interpretation is incorrect, although we do think that Yellen's description of a "high pressure economy" provides a lot of information about the Fed's reaction function. More than anything, Yellen's speech was a response to recent trends in the labor market. The downtrend in the unemployment rate started to abate late last year, even though the economy has continued to add jobs at an average pace of just under +200k per month. A sharp rebound in the labor force participation rate has prevented the unemployment rate from falling, despite robust job growth (Chart 6). It is this dynamic that Yellen refers to when she talks about a "high pressure economy". Essentially, her theory suggests that, despite the low unemployment rate, the economy might be able to continue to add jobs without inflation spiking higher. Put differently, the unemployment rate might be less useful as an input to the Fed's forecast of future inflation than in past cycles. The key implication for investors is that if the Fed doesn't trust the unemployment rate to provide a signal about future inflation, then it is forced to rely on the actual inflation data for guidance. In our view, core PCE and core CPI inflation are now the two most important inputs to the Fed's reaction function. On that note, while last week's September core CPI release was soft, both core CPI and core PCE remain in uptrends that began in early 2015. Further, diffusion indexes suggest that these uptrends will persist (Chart 7). The Fed's increased focus on core inflation also has implications for our TIPS call. The sensitivity of TIPS breakevens to realized core inflation has shifted higher since the Great Recession (Chart 8). In our view, this has occurred because of how the zero-lower-bound on interest rates has constrained the Fed's ability to influence investor expectations. Chart 7The Inflation Uptrend Is Intact Chart 8TIPS Breakevens & Core Inflation When the fed funds rate was well above the zero-lower-bound, investors could reasonably assume that the Fed would act to offset any temporary price shocks. As such, long-maturity TIPS breakevens remained in a relatively narrow range and were mostly influenced by perceptions about the stance of Fed policy. In a zero-lower-bound world, investors can reasonably question whether the Fed has the ability to offset a deflationary price shock. As such, inflation expectations are increasingly driven by the actual inflation data rather than the Fed. With the Fed and the market both increasingly taking their cues from the actual inflation data, it means that the Fed will likely remain sufficiently accommodative for core PCE to return to target and also that TIPS breakevens will move higher alongside the trend in realized inflation. Bottom Line: The increased sensitivity of TIPS breakevens to core inflation argues for a continued overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries. Sovereign Credit: A Dollar Story Chart 9Sovereign Debt & The Dollar As noted above, in the current environment the path of the U.S. dollar takes on increased importance for our entire portfolio strategy. However, there is one sector of the fixed income market where the dollar is always paramount - USD-denominated sovereign debt. Specifically, we refer to the Barclays Sovereign index which consists of the U.S. dollar denominated debt of foreign governments, mostly emerging markets.4 In the long-run, the performance of sovereign debt relative to equivalently-rated and duration-matched U.S. corporate credit tends to track movements in the dollar and bullish sentiment toward the dollar (Chart 9). When the dollar appreciates it makes USD-denominated debt more expensive to service from the perspective of a foreign issuer, and therefore causes sovereign debt to underperform domestic alternatives. As stated above, we do not anticipate a near-term spike in the dollar, like what was witnessed near the end of last year. However, given that the Fed is much further along in its tightening cycle than other major central banks, the long-run bull market in the U.S. dollar should remain intact. This will continue to be a major headwind for sovereign debt. Further, the recent performance of sovereign debt relative to U.S. credit has bucked its traditional correlations with the dollar. Notice that the beta between sovereign excess returns and the dollar has moved into positive territory (Chart 9, bottom two panels). Historically, the correlation does not remain at these levels for long and sovereign debt should underperform as the more typical negative correlation is re-established. At present, there is not even an attractive valuation argument for sovereign debt relative to U.S. credit. The spread differential between the Sovereign index and an equivalently-rated, duration-matched U.S. credit index is well below zero (Chart 10), and only the USD-debt of Hungary, South Africa, Colombia and Uruguay offer spreads that appear attractive relative to the U.S. Credit index (Chart 11). Chart 10No Spread Pick-Up In Sovereigns Chart 11USD-Denominated Sovereign Debt By Issuing Country Bottom Line: Continue to favor U.S. corporate credit over USD-denominated sovereign government debt within a neutral allocation to spread product. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching", dated September 13, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 We favor negatively convex assets (MBS) over credit within a neutral allocation to spread product, on the view that negatively convex assets will outperform as yields head higher in advance of a December rate hike. In anticipation of a December Fed rate hike we are also maintain a short position in the December 2017 Eurodollar futures contract as well as positions in 2/10 and 10/30 curve flatteners. The three trades have returned: +20bps, -23bps and +4bps respectively. 3 http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20161014a.htm 4 The largest issuers in the Barclays Sovereign Index are: Mexico (22%), Philippines (14%) and Colombia (11%). Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

9 years ago

Flying At The Edge

Highlights When interest rates are ultra-low, central banks have no margin for policy error. A small loosening or tightening has the potential to produce either a stall or catastrophic turbulence. The analogy is flying a plane at high altitude. Bond investors should have a strong preference for U.S. T-bonds over German bunds (currency hedged). Currency investors should prefer the euro over the dollar. For equity investors, valuations do not appear structurally attractive anywhere, once a sufficient equity risk premium is factored in. But a setback in the region of 5-10% could create a tactical entry point. Feature As the ECB Governing Council convenes for its October monetary policy meeting, an experience familiar to pilots1 provides a perfect analogy for central banks' very limited margin for error. Pilots call the experience "flying in coffin corner." Chart of the WeekUnusually High Turbulence For The German 30-Year Bund Next time you're in a plane climbing to 35,000 feet, here's something to think about; or perhaps, not to think about. As the plane gains altitude, its stall speed increases while its upper speed limit simultaneously decreases. For the pilot, this means less and less margin for error (Figure I-1). The plane's stall speed is the minimum speed to generate sufficient lift. At higher altitude, as the air gets thinner, the stall speed increases. Meanwhile, the plane's upper speed limit is set by the speed of sound. Airliners cannot fly too close to the speed of sound because the sonic shockwave produces violent and catastrophic turbulence. At higher altitude, as the air temperature drops, so does the speed of sound. Which means the plane's upper speed limit decreases. By the time the plane has reached the rarefied atmosphere of 35,000 feet, these lower and upper speed limits are barely 25 knots (30mph) apart,2 leaving almost no room for flight data misinterpretation or pilot error.3 Hence, at high altitude pilots morbidly say they are "flying in coffin corner." Analogously, in the rarefied atmosphere of zero or near-zero interest rates, central bank policy is also in coffin corner. When short-term and long-term interest rates approach the zero bound, there is no room for economic data misinterpretation or policy error. A small loosening or tightening of monetary policy has the potential to produce either a stall or catastrophic turbulence (Figure I-2 and Chart of the Week). Figure I-1Flying At High Altitude ##br## Has No Margin For Error Figure I-2Monetary Policy At Ultra-Low Rates ##br##Has No Margin For Error Avoiding A Stall At today's zero or near-zero interest rates in the euro area, a small loosening of monetary policy risks stalling the banking system, and thereby stalling the economy. A bank's core business is simple. Take in deposits, and lend them out at a higher interest rate than the deposit-rate - with the difference in the two defining the bank's net interest margin. A part of the net interest margin is a compensation for the risk of non-performing loans. This should be profit-neutral if correctly priced. The other large part of the net interest margin comes from the interest rate term-structure, as loans tend to be long-term while deposits are short-term. Hence, all else being equal, the bank's profitability suffers as the term-structure flattens. For a while, the bank can protect its profitability by cutting the interest rate paid on short-term deposits to well below the policy rate. However, once the policy rate hits zero, this profit-protection strategy hits a wall - because a negative deposit rate would risk an exodus of deposits into cash or cash-substitutes. Alternatively, the bank could charge a higher rate to borrowers, but this would tighten credit conditions. The third possibility is for the bank to suffer a hit to its already-thin net lending margin, but this would also tighten credit conditions. The pressure on the bank's profitability and share price would increase the cost of equity, making it harder to raise capital (Chart I-2). Given that an insufficient capital buffer is a major constraint to euro area bank lending, this would be a de facto tightening of credit conditions. The paradox is that at the zero bound, the smallest additional monetary loosening - via interest rate cuts or QE - risks stalling euro area bank credit creation (Chart I-3). Thereby it risks stalling economic growth. Chart I-2The ECB's QE Has Hurt Bank Valuations Chart I-3The Interplay Between Bank Profits And Bank Credit Creation Avoiding Violent Turbulence An extended period of ultra-low interest rates, and a commitment to keep them structurally low, has compressed the yields on government bonds pushing up their prices. As competing asset classes, the prices of corporate bonds and equities have also increased. This phenomenon is called the Portfolio Balance Effect. The big problem is that the prices of riskier assets have increased by more than is justified by the portfolio balance effect alone. This distortion is the result of a behavioural finance phenomenon called Mental Accounting Bias. Mental Accounting Bias describes the irrational distinction between the return from an investment's yield and that from its capital growth. The distinction is irrational because the money that comes from yield and the money that comes from capital growth is perfectly fungible.4 Rationally, what should matter is an investment's total return. But psychologically, the distinction between yield and capital is very stark. Fears about self-control cause people to compartmentalise yield as spending money and capital as saving money. Hence, people who want their investments to generate spending money - say, retirees - have an irrational focus on yield. Traditionally, the safe income from cash and government bonds satiates the people who irrationally focus on yield. However, in recent years, central banks' extended experiments with ZIRP, NIRP and QE have forced these yield-focussed investors out of cash and government bonds into risky investments. And just like every distortion, this phenomenon has generated memes to justify the act: 'reach for yield', 'search for yield', and 'there is no alternative' (TINA). But the irrational focus on yield instead of total return has artificially bid up the prices of risky investments. To the point that they no longer offer a sufficient risk premium5 for the very real possibility of substantial losses over a 5-10 year horizon (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). The unfortunate thing is that as central bankers have little expertise in psychology or behavioural finance, they have been blind to the very dangerous behavioural distortion that their monetary policy experiments have unwittingly unleashed. Chart I-4A Positive Yield On Equities##br## Can Produce A Negative 5-Year Return... Chart I-5...And Even A Negative ##br##10-Year Return The risk is that the smallest monetary tightening could trigger an aggressive unwinding of this behavioural distortion. Recall the violent turbulence in global financial markets at the start of the year after just one 25bps rate hike from the Federal Reserve. Now consider what might happen if the Fed hiked again and the ECB simultaneously announced a rapid tapering of its QE program. How Must The Pilots Fly? In a rarefied atmosphere, pilots have very little margin to alter speed without inducing a stall or violent turbulence. The same applies to central banks today. The ECB has the hardest piloting task. It is becoming difficult to justify the current aggressive pace of QE given the danger of stalling the euro area banking system; and given that the euro area's nominal GDP and nominal wage bill are both growing at a very respectable 3% (Chart I-6). But an abrupt end to the ECB's QE could create violent turbulence in QE-distorted financial markets. Chart I-6What Deflation Threat? Euro Area Nominal GDP And The Wage Bill Growing At 3% Hence, the ECB's best course of action is to hint at a very gradual deceleration of QE to start at some point in the second half of 2017. Turning to developed economy central banks in general, we remind readers of a very powerful observation. Since 2008, no major central bank has been able to hike interest rates by more than 1.75%. And every central bank that has hiked rates has had to start unwinding those hikes within a year, ultimately taking the policy rate to a new all-time low (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8). Chart I-7Since 2008, All Rate Hikes ##br##Have Been Quickly Reversed Chart I-8Will The U.S. Be ##br##Any Different? No Given the turbulence that rate hikes will generate in the financial markets and/or the economy, we fully expect the Federal Reserve to go through exactly the same experience. The important upshot is that global central bank policy through 2017-18 will be considerably less divergent than is discounted. Bond yields could creep higher in the short term. But on a 1-year horizon, bond investors should have a strong preference for U.S. T-bonds over euro area bonds, and especially over German bunds (currency hedged). Over the same horizon, currency investors should prefer the euro over the dollar. For equity investors, valuations do not appear structurally attractive anywhere once a sufficient equity risk premium is factored in. Moreover, the potential for ECB QE-tapering combined with expectations for a Fed rate hike could generate some near-term turbulence. That said, a setback in the region of 5-10% could create an excellent entry point for a 3-month trade. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week. Last week's long silver/short lead pair trade has bounced sharply. And the short U.K. A-rated corporate bonds trade has achieved its 4% profit target. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. 1 Your author is a former pilot in the Royal Air Force reserve. 2 For an Airbus A330. 3 Tragically, a combination of flight data misinterpretation and pilot error at 35,000 feet was disastrous for Air France flight AF447 flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris in June 2009. Going through a storm, the airspeed indicator started giving a false reading and the pilot took the wrong corrective action, resulting in a catastrophic stall. 4 Assuming no difference in tax treatment of income and capital gains. 5 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "The Great Distortion... And How It will End" dated September 15, 2016 available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations

9 years ago

Europe

Return Of The Bond Vigilantes

Highlights Global Duration: The current mix of rising government bond yields, bear-steepening yield curves and rising inflation expectations is not surprising, given reduced political uncertainty and greater perceived tolerance of higher inflation by central banks. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, favoring low-inflation countries (core Europe, Japan) over higher-inflation countries (U.S., U.K.). U.K. Gilts: The selloff in Gilts looks similar to the path followed by U.S. Treasuries after the Fed's quantitative easing programs, only with a much larger currency decline. Yields have more upside in the near-term, especially against bond markets with lower inflation pressures. Downgrade U.K. allocations to below-benchmark (2 of 5) and upgrade core European exposure by upgrading France to neutral (3 of 5). U.K. Corporates: The Bank of England's corporate bond purchase program has made valuations quite expensive in the sectors where the central bank has been most active. We continue to recommend an above-benchmark stance on U.K. Investment Grade corporates versus nominal Gilts, but focusing on sectors that still over some relative value (mostly Communications). Feature Chart of the WeekA Rough Couple Of Months For Bonds There is not a lot of love for government bonds right now. Yields continue to grind higher, led by rising inflation expectations and bear-steepening moves in the core Developed market yield curves at a time when bond durations are extremely elevated (Chart of the Week). Bond investors may be starting to worry about monetary authorities falling behind the inflation-fighting curve, particularly with the heads of some major central banks openly expressing tolerance of inflation overshooting policy targets. It remains to be seen if the markets will start discounting significantly higher inflation. Within the major Developed economies, only in the U.K. are market-based inflation expectations currently above the central bank target level ... and only then after a historic currency collapse that has already caused a surge in U.K. import prices. The more important point is that the monetary authorities seem almost happy (relieved?) to see inflation expectations finally moving up and are unlikely to be very aggressive in trying to stop that trend. Only in the U.S. is there talk of a monetary tightening in the near term and, even there, little has been promised after a likely December rate hike with some Fed officials talking about letting the U.S. economy "run hot" for a while. The time for bond investors to start worrying more about inflation is when central banks begin to worry less about inflation. Favoring the bond markets with the lower rates of inflation seems like a reasonable investment strategy to pursue in the current environment. Global Duration - Stay Below-Benchmark In our previous Weekly Report,1 we revisited the reasons behind our current below-benchmark duration recommendation that has stood since July. We concluded that the case for higher yields was still intact. An additional factor that we did not discuss, but which has also had a significant influence on bond yields this year, has been the rise of political uncertainty on both sides of the Atlantic. Between the U.K. Brexit drama, and the rise of the protectionist Donald Trump in the U.S. Presidential election, investors have had to worry more about political risk than in previous years. This uncertainty created massive safe haven flows into core Developed market bonds, helping drive yields down to secular lows (Chart 2). Chart 2Uncertainty Fading, Yields Rising Yet the shock of the Brexit vote has not resulted in any noticeable slump in global growth, with even the U.K. economic data starting to show some improvement of late (more on that in the next section). As investors have come to realize that the Brexit vote was having no material effect on global growth, the political uncertainty premium on global bond yields has unwound, with yields in the major Developed bond markets now back to, or even surpassing, the pre-Brexit levels. In the case of the U.S. election, the recent decline in Trump's polling numbers has coincided with the rise in U.S. Treasury yields (Chart 3). Given the significant changes to all aspects of the U.S. government that Trump has proposed (foreign policy, immigration policy, tax policy, etc), his campaign represents the "greater uncertainty" choice in the U.S. election. So as his polling numbers decline, so should any impact on U.S. Treasury yields from political uncertainty. While this is hardly the only factor influencing Treasury yields, it is one piece of the puzzle that has turned a bit more bond bearish of late. So with less political uncertainty weighing on bonds, investors can turn their focus back to the usual drivers of yields - growth, inflation and monetary policy expectations. The news is not very bond bullish on those fronts either. Global economic indicators are not pointing to any material slowing of growth, with the OECD leading economic indicators (LEI) currently in the process of bottoming out or increasing (Chart 4). While absolute growth rates are hardly booming in the Developed world, the cyclical upturn in many Emerging economies this year has been a positive surprise. If the Emerging LEIs are to be believed, this pickup in growth can continue into next year. Chart 3Trump Really Is The 'King Of Debt' Chart 4Signs Of A Global Growth Upturn Meanwhile, inflationary pressures are potentially appearing in some of the Developed economies, most notably the U.S. and the U.K. The end of the disinflationary shock from the oil price collapse in 2014/15 has played a large role here. However, measures of spare economic capacity like the output gap or the unemployment gap2 have narrowed considerably in the major Developed economies (Chart 5), so it is perhaps no surprise that inflation expectations are starting to move higher in some of the those countries. Against this backdrop where the world might be a bit more inflationary than has been the case over the past several years, these comments last week from two prominent central bankers may have set off some alarm bells for bond investors: Bank of England Governor Mark Carney: "We're willing to tolerate a bit of overshoot in inflation over the course of the next few years in order [...] to cushion the blow [from Brexit]." U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen: "[...] it might be possible to reverse these adverse supply-side effects [from a deep recession] by temporarily running a 'high-pressure economy,' with robust aggregate demand and a tight labor market." This comes on top of the Bank of Japan's decision last month to move to deliberately target an overshoot of the 2% inflation target in order to raise depressed longer-term inflation expectations. The central banks may have a tough time convincing the markets that they would tolerate much of a rise in inflation above the policy targets. Already, interest rate expectations embedded in money market yield curves have either priced out additional rate cuts or, in the case of the U.S., priced in some modest rate hikes (Chart 6). This pricing appears correct, in our view. Chart 5The Gaps Are Closing Fast Chart 6Rate Expectations Have Turned Less Dovish We still see the Fed delivering on another rate hike in December but, even then, the median FOMC projection is only calling for two more rate hikes in 2017 following one increase this year. In the case of the Euro Area, our base case remains that the European Central Bank (ECB) will not end its asset purchase program in early 2017, as currently scheduled, but will also not push short-term interest rates deeper into negative territory. In the U.K., our expectation is that the BoE will not provide any new stimulus (i.e. cutting the policy rate to 0% or extending the current asset purchase program beyond March of next year), but will not move to quickly tighten policy either, even with U.K. inflation surging and the Pound collapsing. Chart 7Inflation Expectations Are Moving First The Bank of Japan (BoJ) may try another interest rate cut in the coming months to try and help weaken the yen, but given its new policy of yield curve "targeting", we do not expect longer-term Japanese government bond (JGB) yields to move in response to a rate cut, if it does occur. Meanwhile, we expect no policy moves from the Bank of Canada or the Reserve Bank of Australia over the next six months, even though the domestic economy looks in good shape in the latter. We continue to advise keeping a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration, as the global growth and inflation backdrop has become a bit less bond-friendly at a time when longer-term bond yields remain generally overvalued. In terms of our country allocation, we recommend below-benchmark exposure where inflation expectations are rising the fastest and are most likely to continue doing so - the U.S. and, as of this week, the U.K. (see the next section). We also continue to recommend favoring inflation-linked bonds/swaps in the U.S. and U.K. over nominal government debt. Finally, we advise neutral allocations to the markets where inflation expectations are farthest from the central bank targets: Japan and core Europe (Chart 7). Bottom Line: The current mix of rising government bond yields, bear-steepening yield curves and rising inflation expectations is not surprising, given reduced political uncertainty and greater perceived tolerance of higher inflation by central banks. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, favoring low-inflation countries (core Europe, Japan) over higher-inflation countries (U.S., U.K.). U.K.: Monetary Overkill From The BoE? U.K. Gilts have suffered major losses over the past couple of months, with the benchmark 10-year yield up +30bps since the BoE cut rates and introduced a new round of quantitative easing (QE) back on August 4th. Reducing the policy rate and ramping up QE should, in theory, be supportive for the Gilt market. However, the BoE's actions may be causing the growth and inflation backdrop in the U.K. to become very unfriendly for Gilts: Domestic economic data have improved sharply higher in the months after the June Brexit vote, with retail sales and manufacturing in particular showing large improvements, even as business optimism took a hit following the vote to leave the European Union (Chart 8); U.K. realized inflation has started to move higher in response to the collapse of the Pound and higher import prices, which now are rising at a positive annual rate for the first time since 2011 (Chart 9 & Chart 10). Chart 8What Post-Brexit Slump? Chart 9Blame The Pound For Rising U.K. Inflation This type of response from Gilt yields to a QE announcement is not unprecedented; a similar pattern unfolded after the Fed's QE announcements earlier in the decade. In Chart 11, we show a "cycle-on-cycle" analysis of the U.K. and the U.S. financial markets around past QE announcements. The dotted lines in all panels of the chart represent the equally-weighted average of the three Fed QE announcements (in 2008, 2010 and 2012), while the solid line is the current U.K. cycle. The vertical line in the chart represents the day of the QE announcement, so in this chart we are "lining up" the U.K. now with the U.S. back then. Chart 10BoE QE: Good For Corporates, Bad For Inflation Chart 11Gilts Following The Post-Fed-QE Playbook The conclusion from Chart 11 is that Gilts are behaving in a similar fashion to Treasuries after the Fed announced its QE programs. Yields rose almost immediately, led by a wider term premium and higher inflation expectations. The initial response was modestly bullish for the currency, but then that was quickly reversed as inflation expectations continued to rise. Risk assets like equities and credit performed very well in response to the QE. The biggest difference between the U.K. now and the U.S. then is the magnitude of the currency decline. The Pound has fallen -17% since the Brexit vote, and the decline has accelerated in recent weeks on the back of increased worries about a possible "hard Brexit" - a more protectionist outcome than was originally feared after the June vote. With the U.K. having a massive current account deficit (-5.7% of GDP), any news that could stall capital inflows into the U.K. (like worries about greater protectionism) can trigger an outsized currency decline. With the Pound unlikely to rebound in the near-term, the inflationary effects of the weaker currency can continue to feed through into both realized and expected inflation. Already, the 10yr U.K. CPI swap rate has risen to 3.6% - the high end of the range of the post-2008 crisis era. We have recommended favoring inflation-linked Gilts over nominal Gilts since the BoE's QE announcement in August, and we continue to recommend owning U.K. inflation protection. If Gilts continue to follow the post-Fed-QE playbook shown in Chart 11, then Gilt yields will likely to rise until the end of the year. Chart 12Gilt Underperformance Will Continue We have maintained an overweight stance on Gilts since the BoE announcement, as we had expected the QE effect on the supply/demand balance in the Gilt market to dominate via an even more depressed Gilt term premium. A strong possibility of a final BoE rate cut to 0% was also a reason to favor Gilts over other Developed economy government bonds. But with the Pound continuing to plunge and inflation expectations soaring, and with little sign of a big downturn in the U.K. economy, it is difficult to argue that the BoE needs to easy policy again. Even if they did, the markets would likely interpret the next cut as being "monetary overkill" that was unnecessary and creates future inflation risks. This would likely exacerbate the current selloff in Gilts. The recent comments from BoE Governor Carney highlighted earlier in this report suggest that he is quite comfortable with the current monetary policy stance, and that he is not overly concerned about the inflationary effects of a weaker Pound. This suggests that the BoE will not be quickly reversing any of the August monetary easing measures, even as U.K. inflation continues to rise. Given this new policy of "benign neglect" towards rising inflation by the BoE, this week we are downgrading our recommended stance on U.K. fixed income from above-benchmark (4 of 5) to below-benchmark (2 of 5). As an offset, we are upgrading our allocation to core European bonds to neutral (3 of 5) - specifically in France, where we are currently below-benchmark (2 of 5). The spreads between U.K. Gilts and French debt have been widening as Gilt yields have increased (Chart 12), and we see the spreads returning to their pre-Brexit ranges in the months ahead. Bottom Line: The selloff in Gilts looks similar to the path followed by U.S. Treasuries after the Fed's quantitative easing programs, only with a much larger currency decline. Yields have more upside in the near-term, especially against bond markets with lower inflation pressures. Downgrade U.K. allocations to below-benchmark (2 of 5) and upgrade core European exposure by upgrading France to neutral (3 of 5). A Quick Update On U.K. Corporate Bonds The BoE's expanded QE program also included an increase in Investment Grade non-financial corporate bond purchases. The plan called for the BoE to purchase 10bn pounds worth of corporate debt over an 18-month period. The BoE has pursued a weighting scheme across sectors that differs from the market-capitalization based weightings of a traditional U.K. corporate bond benchmark index. For example, the BoE is buying far more debt from sectors like Electricity, Consumer Non-Cyclicals, Industrials and Transportation relative to the weights in the Barclays U.K. corporate bond index (Chart 13). Chart 13BoE Corporate Bond Purchases Are Not Following The Benchmark The impact of the BoE bond buying can be seen in current corporate bond spread valuations. The BoE's heavy focus on Utilities & Industrials issuers drove the spreads on the Barclays benchmark indices for those sectors down to the lows of the past few years (Chart 14). We can also see this in our own U.K. sector spread relative value framework, where the sectors that have the heaviest BoE involvement also have the most expensive spreads (Table 1). Chart 14U.K. Corporate Spreads Are Tight (Ex Financials) Table 1U.K. Investment Grade Corporate Sector Spread Valuations With the BoE becoming such a large marginal player in the U.K. corporate bond market, an overweight position versus nominal Gilts is still warranted. The weakness of the Pound is also supportive of the performance of U.K. non-financial corporates, as evidenced by the strong correlation of corporate bond excess returns, equity returns and the swings of the trade-weighted Pound over the past five years (Chart 15 & Chart 16). Chart 15U.K. Equities & Corps Are Both Performing Well... Chart 16...Thanks To The Plunging Currency In terms of individual sector recommendations, favor names in the Communications sectors (specifically, Cable & Satellite and Wireless), where spreads are cheap in our valuation framework and the BoE can potentially buy bonds as part of its QE program. One final note: U.K. Financials score the cheapest in our sector valuation model, and there is a case for shifting to an overweight in those sectors (most Banks and Insurers), even if the BoE is not buying those bonds. Financials will likely benefit from higher Gilt yields and a steeper Gilt curve, but could also require higher risk premiums as the Brexit process plays out and the business models of banks may need to be altered in a post-EU U.K. This likely makes U.K. Financials more of a riskier carry trade than an undervalued spread-compression trade. Bottom Line: The Bank of England's corporate bond purchase program has made valuations quite expensive in the sectors where the central bank has been most active. We continue to recommend an above-benchmark stance on U.K. Investment Grade corporates versus nominal Gilts, but focusing on sectors that still over some relative value where the central bank is buying (mostly in Communications). Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Bond Bear Phase Continues", dated October 11, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 The unemployment rate minus the NAIRU or "full employment" level of unemployment The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

9 years ago

Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle

Special Report

Highlights Muni Credit Cycle: The reading from our Municipal Health Monitor supports low Muni/Treasury yield ratios for now, but will become less supportive near the end of 2017. This is consistent with historical lags between the muni and corporate credit cycles. Issuance: State & local government investment spending will increase in 2017, as will muni issuance for new capital. Pensions: The pension funding problem will only get worse in the coming years. Credit ratings do not adequately reflect the risk from under-funded pensions. Election: Muni/Treasury yield ratios have not yet discounted Donald Trump's recent plunge in the polls. Maintain an overweight allocation to municipal bonds for the time being, but stand prepared to gradually reduce exposure as the muni credit cycle starts to turn in late 2017. Feature The financial crisis marked a major inflection point in the municipal bond market. Not only did the economic fall-out from the housing crash lead to historically large state & local government budget gaps, but the end of bond insurance and a growing realization that municipal default is possible have focused investor attention on credit quality more than ever before. In this Special Report we zero-in on the Municipal/Treasury (M/T) yield ratio.1 We identify its major short-run and long-run drivers, and assess where it is headed in the context of the municipal bond credit cycle. The Longer-Run Outlook For Yield Ratios An important input to our understanding of the municipal credit cycle is our Muni Health Monitor (MHM). The MHM is a composite of eight indicators of state & local government budget health. Full details of the indicator and its components can be found in the Appendix to this report. The MHM has an excellent track record of signaling the major inflection points in muni ratings migration (Chart 1). We observe that the MHM bottomed in 2006, one year before the previous trough in ratings migration. The MHM also crossed into "deteriorating health" territory six months before municipal downgrades started to outpace upgrades in 2008. More recently, the MHM crossed back into "improving health" territory in Q4 2012. Muni ratings migration also peaked in Q4 2012 and upgrades began outpacing downgrades in Q4 2014. Chart 1The Municipal Health Monitor Leads Ratings We pay attention to the trends in muni ratings because ratings and state & local government net borrowing explain more than 50% of the variation in the average M/T yield ratio since 1997 (Chart 2). Further, increased investor focus on the creditworthiness of municipal issues has made the yield ratio even more responsive to ratings and net borrowing since the Great Recession. So where are we currently situated in the muni credit cycle? The MHM remains in "improving health" territory, but appears to have entered an extended bottoming-out phase. Given the re-leveraging that has already occurred in the corporate sector, it would be extremely unusual for the MHM to improve further during this cycle. In fact, our Corporate Health Monitor tends to lead the MHM by about two years (Chart 3). This squares with what we know about the behavior of state & local governments throughout the economic cycle. Chart 2The Muni Credit Cycle Illustrated I Chart 3The Muni Credit Cycle Illustrated II Typically, the corporate sector will increase debt loads when times are good and will then be forced to de-lever when the economy enters recession, profits contract and those debt loads become unsustainable. State & local government budget gaps, on the other hand, will tend to narrow during an economic recovery as rapid income growth translates into increased tax revenue. It is only during a recession that state & local government budget gaps widen, since tax revenue plummets while expenditure growth - particularly for social benefits - remains firm. The end result is that the municipal credit cycle tends to lag the corporate credit cycle. This is also apparent in the ratings data (Chart 3, bottom panel), which suggest that we should expect to see muni downgrades (and hence yield ratios) head higher near the end of next year. The typical lag between the corporate credit cycle and the municipal credit cycle suggests that M/T yield ratios should remain well behaved until late-2017, and then begin to move higher. However, the extraordinary length of the current economic recovery gives us some cause to believe that the lags in this cycle may be somewhat longer. We turn to a macro analysis of net state & local government borrowing to shed some further light on this issue. Net borrowing is simply the difference between revenues and expenditures. On the revenue side of the ledger, state & local governments have already seen a significant deceleration in tax receipts during the past year (Chart 4). Every source of tax revenue - except for property taxes - has slowed alongside what has been disappointing overall economic growth so far in 2016. While a return to the 10% revenue growth that was seen in the mid-2000s is unlikely, we expect most of the recent deceleration will soon be reversed. Aggregate weekly hours bounced sharply in September (Chart 5), and federal income tax withholdings also continue to grow rapidly. Both indicators suggest that income growth will be stronger during the next few months, which will support state & local tax receipts. On the expenditures side, while spending on social benefit programs has increased, state & local governments have largely dealt with budget gaps by cutting back severely on discretionary spending (Chart 6). Investment spending has also collapsed and, as a result, gross municipal bond issuance has been dominated by refinancing (Chart 6, bottom two panels). Chart 4S&L Government Revenue Chart 5Income Growth Will Rebound Chart 6S&L Government Expenditures This could all be about to change. Both U.S. Presidential candidates have prioritized infrastructure spending as part of their platforms. Hillary Clinton plans to increase infrastructure spending by $500 billion. This consists of $250 billion of federal infrastructure spending over the next five years and $25 billion of seed money to create a national infrastructure bank. The bank would also accept an additional $225 billion in direct loans. Clinton's plan would also bring back the Build America Bonds (BABs) program. Donald Trump has also expressed a desire to invest heavily in infrastructure, and has floated figures in the range of $1 trillion, although he has been less specific about the details. Historically, about 70% of public investment has occurred at the state & local government level (Chart 7). This suggests that if infrastructure spending became a priority it would lead to a large increase in state & local government investment and hence municipal bond issuance. However, with Clinton's plan it is still unclear whether the bulk of infrastructure spending would be financed through the Treasury market or the muni market. Certainly, to the extent that increased spending is financed through the BABs program, then tax-exempt muni issuance would not be impacted. In our view, state & local government investment spending will head higher in 2017 even without any support from the new President. The need for state & local governments to invest in infrastructure has been evident for some time, but only recently have budgets become healthy enough for governments to consider it. There is a strong correlation between state & local government investment spending and the net percentage of states with a total balance (general fund plus rainy day fund) that exceeds 5% of expenditures (Chart 8). This figure has just recently moved into positive territory and, not coincidentally, more than $200 billion worth of infrastructure spending will be on ballots requesting voter approval in November.2 Chart 7State & Local Government ##br##Drives Investment Chart 8Healthy Enough##br## To Invest The combination of resilient, but not surging, revenue growth and increased investment spending in 2017 is consistent with the idea that the muni credit cycle will follow the lead of the corporate cycle and start to turn near the end of next year. Bottom Line: The reading from our Municipal Health Monitor supports low Muni/Treasury yield ratios for now, but will become less supportive near the end of 2017. This is consistent with historical lags between the muni and corporate credit cycles. The Pension Problem Of course, the elephant in the room with regards to the long-run outlook for municipal credit quality is pensions. So far pensions have only entered our discussion of the muni credit cycle tangentially, since the pension funded ratio is a component of the MHM (see Appendix). However, large unfunded pension liabilities - should they persist - have the potential to be severely destabilizing for the muni market at some point in the future. According to the U.S. National Accounts, aggregate defined benefit pension entitlements at the state & local government level total $5.6 trillion, only 65% of which are currently funded by assets. However, this aggregate figure masks large divergences between a few municipalities with unsustainable pension liabilities and the majority of municipalities where pension liabilities are probably manageable. Chart 9Low Returns Put Pressure On Pensions In a recent report,3 the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College found that 36 states should be able to fund their existing liabilities by making annual payments that total less than 15% of revenue. However, five states - Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii and Kentucky - require annual payments in excess of 25% of revenue. The breakdown is found to be similar at the city level, where pension costs were found to be manageable for the majority of cities, although Chicago, Detroit, San Jose, Miami, Houston, Baltimore, Wichita and Portland all face annual pension costs that exceed 40% of revenue. Unfortunately, while the pension situations of most municipalities are currently manageable, they are only likely to get worse. Changes in the aggregate pension funded ratio closely track returns from a portfolio that is 50% invested in the S&P 500 and 50% invested in the Barclays Treasury index (Chart 9). Based on current equity valuations, it is probably only reasonable to expect 6% annual nominal returns from the equity market during the next 10 years,4 and the 10-year Treasury yield suggests that 1.8% is a reasonable expectation for annual nominal Treasury returns. Taken together, annual nominal investment returns from a 50/50 portfolio during the next decade could be close to 4%, far below the historical average of 8.9% and also below the 7.6% average return assumed by state & local pension plans in 2014. The two main points are that: The pension problem is likely to get worse, not better Given that large under-funded pensions are concentrated in only a few states, inter-state muni allocations are very important On this second point, we observe that states with lower pension funded ratios have higher General Obligation (GO) bond yields (Chart 10), and also that not all of the difference is reflected in credit ratings. We ran a cross-sectional regression of GO bond yields against credit rating and found that a correlation remains between the residual from that regression and the pension funded ratio (Chart 11). In other words, credit rating does not adequately control for the risk presented by under-funded pensions. Chart 10Municipal Bond Yields Vs. Pension Funded Ratios Chart 11Municipal Bond Yields Vs. Pension Funded Ratios: Controlling For Credit Rating Bottom Line: The pension funding problem will only get worse in the coming years. Credit ratings do not adequately reflect the risk from under-funded pensions. The Short-Run Outlook For Yield Ratios So far we have discussed the muni credit cycle and noted that M/T yield ratios should begin to move higher on a sustained basis at some point near the end of 2017. However, the near-term drivers of M/T yield ratios suggest that an overweight allocation to municipal bonds remains appropriate for the time being. We have found that the bulk of near-term volatility in M/T ratios can be explained by four factors (Chart 12): The Global Policy Uncertainty Index5 Gross municipal bond issuance Net municipal mutual fund flows Ratings migration The Brexit shock to policy uncertainty has now mostly been reversed. Meanwhile, our Muni Excess Supply Indicator (Chart 12, panel 4) shows that gross issuance has been outpacing fund inflows of late. This should put upward pressure on yield ratios, although this pressure has been largely offset by still supportive ratings migration (Chart 12, bottom panel). Considering all factors, this short-term model shows that the average M/T yield ratio is close to fair value. A reading close to fair value is consistent with muni returns that should exceed those from duration-equivalent Treasuries most of the time (Table 1), even before adjusting for the muni tax advantage. In fact, Table 1 shows that the odds of muni underperformance only really increase once the M/T ratio appears more than one half standard deviation expensive on our model. Chart 12A Short-Term Muni Model Table 1Municipal Bond Excess Returns* Based On Fair Value Model** Residual: 2010 - 2016 The other near-term factor that supports a continued overweight allocation to municipal debt is the prospect of a Clinton victory in next month's election. Since the beginning of the year, the average M/T ratio has closely tracked the probability of a Trump election victory (Chart 13). The reasoning is entirely logical. Trump has promised large tax cuts for the highest earners. Such tax cuts would significantly de-value the tax advantage of municipal bonds and pressure yield ratios higher. In contrast, Clinton promises to raise taxes on high income individuals. This would make the tax advantage of municipal debt more valuable, and pressure yield ratios lower. Chart 13Trump Is Bad For Yield Ratios The average M/T yield ratio has not yet discounted Trump's recent plunge in the polls. This argues for the maintenance of an overweight allocation to municipal debt in the near term. Bottom Line: M/T yield ratios appear fairly valued in the near-term, and have not yet discounted Donald Trump's recent plunge in the polls. Maintain an overweight allocation to municipal bonds for the time being, but stand prepared to gradually reduce exposure as the muni credit cycle starts to turn in late 2017. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com Appendix: The BCA Municipal Health Monitor The BCA Municipal Health Monitor is an equal-weighted composite of eight indicators meant to quantify trends in state & local government budget gaps and debt service capability. The components consist entirely of data that are publicly available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal Reserve, Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Association of State Budget Officers. The eight components are described below, and shown graphically in Charts A1 & A2. Chart A1Muni Health Monitor Components I Chart A2Muni Health Monitor Components II Leverage: The ratio of total state & local government liabilities (excluding unfunded pension liabilities) to total financial assets. Interest Coverage: State & local government current budget surplus (excluding interest expenditures) divided by interest expenditures. The current surplus is calculated as the difference between current revenues and current expenditures (i.e. investment spending is excluded). Pension Funded Ratio: Total assets of state & local government pension funds divided by total pension liabilities. Revenue: State & local government current revenue in nominal terms, as a deviation from its 18-quarter trend. Surplus Margin: State & local government current budget surplus as a % of current revenue. Liquidity: State & local government total financial assets less short-term liabilities, as a % of total financial assets. Employment Growth: Year-over-year % change in state and local government employment. Total Balance: Aggregate state government total year-end balance. The total balance is the general fund balance plus the rainy day fund, as a % of total expenditures. 1 The average M/T yield ratio shown in this report is calculated by taking an equal-weighted average of M/T yield ratios for 2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 30-year maturities. For each maturity point the yield ratio is calculated as the ratio between the Bloomberg Fair Value Aaa Municipal bond yield and the Federal Reserve's constant maturity Treasury yield. 2 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/mega-deals-lead-ballo… 3 http://crr.bc.edu/briefs/will-pensions-and-opebs-break-state-and-local-… 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Valuations: Risks And Opportunities", dated July 1, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 The index was created by Professors Scott Baker, Nick Bloom and Steven Davis and is driven by the number of times terms related to economic and policy uncertainty are found in newspaper articles. Full details of the methodology are available at www.policyuncertainty.com

9 years ago