Inflation/Deflation

Yes, Own Stocks… But Not For The Reason You Think

Highlights The reason to own stocks is not profit growth. The combination of unspectacular sales growth and down-trending profit margins means that global profit growth will be lacklustre, at best. The reason to own stocks is that the ultimate low in the T-bond yield is yet to come. This ultimate low in the T-bond yield will define the ultimate high in the global stock market’s valuation and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until that ultimate low in bond yields, long-term investors should own stocks… …and tilt towards long-duration growth sectors and growth-heavy stock markets such as the S&P500 that will benefit most from the final collapse in yields. The correction in DRAM, corn, and lumber prices suggests that the recent mania in inflation expectations is about to end. Fractal trade shortlist: copper and tin are fragile, go long T-bonds versus TIPS. Feature Chart of the WeekGlobal Profits Surged During The Credit Boom, But Have Gone Nowhere Since The main reason to own stocks is not what you think. The usual long-term argument to own stocks is based on profit growth – specifically, that an uptrend in profits drives up stock prices. Except that since 2008, this is not true (Chart of the Week and Chart I-2). Profits have barely grown, yet the global stock market has doubled.1 Chart I-2Since The Credit Boom Ended, Global Profits Have Barely Grown As profits have barely grown since 2008, the main reason that the global stock market has doubled is that the valuation paid for those profits has surged. Looking ahead, we expect this to remain the main reason to own stocks. The Reason To Own Stocks Is Not Profit Growth Profits are the product of sales and the profit margin on those sales. During the credit boom of the nineties and noughties, the strong tailwind of credit creation supercharged sales growth. At the same time, the profit margin on those sales trended higher (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Since The Credit Boom Ended, Sales Growth Has Slowed And Profit Margins Have Trended Lower Hence, in the decade leading up to 2008, global stock market profits surged, outstripping both sales and world GDP. Then the credit boom ended, and profits languished, because: Absent the tailwind from the credit boom, sales growth moderated. The profit margin trended lower. In the post-pandemic years, we expect both trends to persist. The credit boom is not coming back. Furthermore, as the pandemic recession was not protracted, sales are not at a depressed level from which they can play a sharp catch-up, as they did after the 2008 recession and the 2015 emerging markets recession. The structural downtrend in the profit margin will continue. Meanwhile, the structural downtrend in the profit margin will continue. Governments are desperate to mitigate – or at least, contain – the ballooning deficits that have paid for their pandemic stimuluses. Raising corporate taxes from structurally depressed levels is an easy and politically expedient response, as we have already seen from both the Biden administration in the US, and the Johnson administration in the UK. Higher corporate taxes will weigh on structural profit margins (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Corporate Taxes Will Rise From Structurally Depressed Levels The combination of unspectacular sales growth and down-trending profit margins means that global profit growth will continue to be lacklustre, at best. The Reason To Own Stocks Is That The Ultimate High In Valuations Is Yet To Come To repeat, the main reason that the global stock market has doubled since 2008 is that its valuation has surged (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Main Driver Of The Stock Market Has Been Valuation Expansion In turn, the stock market’s valuation has surged because bond yields have plummeted. Empirically, the valuation of the global stock market is tightly connected with the simple average of the (inverted) yields on the safest sovereign bond, the US T-bond, and the riskier sovereign bond, the Italian BTP. The main reason that the global stock market has doubled since 2008 is that its valuation has surged. Through 2012-13, the decline in the Italian BTP yield, by signifying the fading of euro break-up risk, boosted stock valuations. In more recent years though, it has been the US T-bond yield that has been more influential in driving the global stock market’s valuation (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Stock Market's Valuation Expansion Is Due To Lower Bond Yields But the crucial point to grasp is that the relationship between the declining bond yield and stock market valuation becomes exponential. This is because as bond yields approach their lower bound, bond prices have less additional upside but considerably more downside. This extra riskiness of bonds means that investors demand a diminishing risk premium on equities versus bonds. So, as bond yields decline, the required return on equities – which equals the bond yield plus the risk premium – collapses. And as valuation is just the inverse of required return, valuations soar. Chart I-7 and Chart I-8 demonstrate this exponential relationship in practice. Note that the bond yield is on the logarithmic left scale while the stock market’s valuation is on the linear right scale. The logarithmic versus linear scale visually demonstrates that at a lower bond yield, a given change in the bond yield has a much greater impact on the stock market’s valuation. Chart I-7The Relationship Between Lower Bond Yields And Stock Market Valuation Expansion Is Exponential Chart I-8When Bond Yields Reach Their Ultimate Low, Stock Market Valuations Will Surge Specifically, if the 30-year yield in the US reached the recent low achieved in the UK, it would boost the stock market’s valuation by nearly 50 percent. We fully expect this to happen at some point in the coming years because of The Shock Theory Of Bond Yields which we introduced in last week’s report. In a nutshell, the shock theory of bond yields states that each successive deflationary shock takes the bond yield to a lower structural level, until it can go no lower. Although it is impossible to predict the timing and nature of individual shocks such as the pandemic, it is easy to predict the statistical distribution of shocks. On this basis, the likelihood of a net deflationary shock is 50 percent within the next three years, and 81 percent within the next five years. Whatever that deflationary shock is, and whenever it arrives, it will mark the ultimate low in the 30-year T-bond yield – at a level close to the recent low in the UK. This ultimate low in the T-bond yield will also define the ultimate high in the global stock market’s valuation and the end of the structural bull market in stocks. Until that ultimate low in bond yields, long-term investors should own stocks. And tilt towards long-duration growth sectors that will benefit most from the final collapse in yields. Growth sectors and growth-heavy stock markets such as the S&P500 will continue to outperform, as they have done consistently since 2008. The Inflation Bubble Is Bursting The last couple of months has seen a mania in inflation expectations. As industries reconfigured for the end of lockdowns, supply bottlenecks in some commodities led to understandable spikes in their prices. These commodity price increases then unleashed fears about inflation. As investors sought inflation hedges, it drove up commodity prices more broadly … which added to the inflation fears…which added further fuel to the mania in inflation expectations. And so, the indiscriminate rally in commodities continued. The inflation bubble is bursting. But now it seems that the indiscriminate rally is over. DRAM prices have rolled over, belying the thesis that there is widespread shortage in semiconductors (Chart I-9). More spectacularly in the past week, the corn price has tumbled by 12 percent while the lumber price has slumped by 25 percent (Chart I-10). Chart I-9DRAM Prices Have ##br##Rolled Over Chart I-10Lumber Prices Are Correcting, Will Other Commodities Follow? Given that the commodity rally was indiscriminate, there is a danger that any correction will spread into other commodities like the industrial metals, copper and tin – especially as their fractal structures are at a level of fragility that has identified previous turning points in 2008, 2011, 2015, 2017 and 2020 (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). Chart I-11Copper's Fractal Structure Is Fragile Chart I-12Tin's Fractal Structure Is Fragile In any case, the mania in inflation expectations is about to end. An excellent way to play this is to expect compression in the market implied inflation rate in T-bond yields versus TIPS yields (Chart I-13). Chart I-13The Mania In Inflation Expectations Is About To End Hence, this week’s recommended trade is to go long the 10-year T-bond versus the 10-year TIPS, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.6 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 To clarify, Chart 2 shows world stock market earnings per share, both 12-month forward and 12-month trailing. Whereas Charts 1 and 3 show sales and net profits (not per share). Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

5 years ago

ECB Outlook: Walking On Eggshells

Highlights ECB Tapering?: Investor fears that the ECB could follow the Bank of Canada and Bank of England and begin to taper its bond buying sooner than expected – perhaps as soon as next month’s policy meeting – are misplaced. The last thing the ECB wants to see is the surge in the euro and Italian bond yields that would surely follow any move to pre-emptively begin reducing monetary accommodation in response to faster European growth and inflation. Euro Area Bond Strategy: We are sticking with our current European bond recommendations: overweighting Europe within global bond portfolios - favoring Peripheral sovereigns and corporates versus government debt of the core countries - while also overweighting inflation-linked bonds in France, Italy and Germany where breakevens are undervalued. We also suggest a new tactical trade to fade the current market pricing of ECB rate hikes by going long the December 2023 euribor interest rate futures contract. Feature Dear Client, Next week, we will be jointly publishing a Special Report, discussing the investment implications of the current global housing boom, with our colleagues at the monthly Bank Credit Analyst. You will be receiving that report on Friday, May 28. We will return to regular weekly publishing schedule on Tuesday, June 1. - Rob Robis Chart of the WeekAn Underwhelming Rise In European Bond Yields For next month’s monetary policy meeting, European Central Bank (ECB) President Christine Lagarde reportedly plans to invite the Governing Council members to meet in person for the first time since the start of the pandemic. That provides an interesting subtext to a meeting that will surely involve a debate over how much monetary support is still necessary for an increasingly vaccinated Europe that is emerging from the depths of COVID-19. Some ECB officials have already noted that the risks to economic growth and inflation expectations were now “tilted to the upside”, according to the minutes of the last ECB meeting in April. With European economic confidence improving, European bond yields have moved higher in response (Chart of the Week). The benchmark 10-year German bund yield now sits at -0.11%, up 46bps year-to-date but with half of that move occurring over the past month. The pickup up in yields has not been contained to the core countries of Germany and France – the 10-year Italian government bond yield is now up to 1.11%, over twice the level that began 2021 (0.52%). Inflation expectations have picked up sharply, with the 5-year/5-year forward euro CPI swap now up to 1.63%, a level last seen in December 2018. These yield increases have lagged the big moves seen in other countries; 10-year government bond yields in the US and Canada have seen year-to-date increases of 72bps and 90bps, respectively. In those countries, yields have surged because of rising inflation expectations and worries about a tapering of central bank bond buying – concerns that turned out to be accurate in the case of Canada, where the Bank of Canada did indeed announce a slower pace of bond buying last month. In our view, it is still too soon for the ECB to contemplate such a shift to a less dovish policy stance. This message is corroborated by our ECB Monitor that has risen but is still not signaling a need for tighter monetary policy. The bond selloff in Europe looks like a case of "too much, too fast". The ECB Now Has A Lot To Think About Recent euro area economic data has not only caught up to the earlier strength visible in the US, but in some cases is back to levels not seen for many years. The expectations component of the German ZEW survey surged nearly 14 points in May and is now up to levels last seen in 2000. The Markit PMI for manufacturing reached an all-time high of 62.9 in April. The European Commission’s consumer confidence index for the euro area is nearly back to pre-pandemic levels (Chart 2), which bodes well for a continued recovery of the Markit PMI for services. More positive news on the pandemic is driving the surge in growth expectations. The pace of new COVID-19 cases has fallen steadily, with Italy – one of the hardest-stricken regions during the initial months of the pandemic – now seeing the lowest rate of new cases since October (on a rolling 7-day basis). Meanwhile, the pace of vaccinations has accelerated after a slow initial rollout; the number of daily jabs administered (per 100 people) is now greater in Germany, France and Italy than in the US (Chart 3). Chart 2European Growth Is Recovering Chart 3Inoculation Acceleration In Europe Chart 4How Much Spare Capacity Is There In Europe? The rapid increase in inoculations is setting Europe up for a solid recovery from the lockdown-driven double-dip recession of Q4/2020 and Q1/2021. The European Commission upgraded its growth forecasts for the euro area last week, with real GDP now expected to expand by 4.3% in 2021 and 4.4% in 2022, compared with previous forecasts of 3.8% in both years. All euro area countries are now expected to see a return to the pre-pandemic level of economic output by the end of 2022 – a number boosted by a pickup in public investment through the Next Generation EU (NGEU) package, which is expected to begin paying out funds later this summer. The ECB will surely raise its own forecasts at the June meeting, both for economic growth and inflation. The outlook for the latter will likely turn into the biggest source of debate within the ECB Governing Council. Despite the fairly coordinated recovery of survey-based data like the manufacturing PMIs, there remains a wide divergence of unemployment rates - and measures of spare capacity, more generally - within the euro area (Chart 4). This will make it difficult for the ECB to determine if the current surge in realized inflation, which has pushed the annual growth of headline HICP inflation towards the 2% level in many euro zone nations, can persist with countries like Italy and Spain still suffering from very high unemployment. The wide dispersion of unemployment rates within the euro zone also suggests that the current level of policy rates (at or below 0%) is appropriate. One simple metric to measure the “breadth” of European labor market strength is to look at the percentage of euro area countries that have an unemployment rate below the OECD’s estimate of the full employment NAIRU.1 That metric correlates well with an estimate of the appropriate level of euro area short-term interest rates generated by a basic Taylor Rule. Currently, only 43% of euro zone countries are beyond full employment, which is consistent with an ECB policy rate round 0% (Chart 5). Chart 5Policy Rates Near 0% Are Still Appropriate A slightly larger share of countries (47%) is witnessing an acceleration in wage growth (bottom panel). This could mean that some of the NAIRU estimates for the individual countries are too low, which would fit with the acceleration in overall euro area wage growth seen since 2015. With so many euro area countries still working off the rise in unemployment generated by the pandemic, however, it will take some time for the ECB to get a clear enough read on labor market dynamics to determine if any necessary monetary policy adjustments should be made. The “breadth” of data trends do not only correlate to theoretical interest rate measures like the Taylor Rule. Actual ECB policy decisions are motivated by the degree to which higher growth and inflation is evident across the euro area. In Chart 6, we show a similar metric to the labor market breadth measures from Chart 5, but using other economic and inflation data. Specifically, we show the percentage of euro area countries that are seeing: Chart 6ECB Typically Tightens When Growth AND Inflation Are Broad Based a) Accelerating growth momentum, indicated by an OECD leading economic indicator that is higher than the level of one year earlier; b) Accelerating inflation momentum, comparing the latest reading on headline HICP inflation to that of one year earlier; c) Relatively high inflation, measured by headline HICP inflation being above the ECB’s “just below 2%” target. Looking at all previous periods of ECB monetary tightening since the inception of the euro in 1998 – taking the form of actual policy rate hikes or a flat-to-declining trend in the ECB’s balance sheet – it is clear that the ECB does not tighten without at least 75% of euro area countries seeing both economic growth and inflation accelerate. Actual rate hikes occur when at least 75% of countries had inflation above 2%, as occurred during the hiking cycles of 2000, 2005-2007 and 2011. More recently, the ECB paused the expansion of its balance sheet in 2017 when growth and inflation accelerated, but did not make any policy rate adjustments as only 50% of countries had inflation above 2%. Today, essentially all euro area countries are seeing accelerating growth momentum compared to the pandemic-depressed levels of a year ago. 59% of the euro area is seeing faster inflation, a number that is likely to move higher as more of Europe reopens from lockdown amid a surge in global commodity prices. Yet only 12% of euro area countries have headline inflation above 2%, suggesting that realized inflation is not yet strong enough to trigger even an ECB balance sheet adjustment, based on the 2017 experience. Don’t Bet On A June ECB Taper So judging by past ECB behavior, an announcement to taper bond buying at the June policy meeting would be highly premature. A more likely scenario is that an upgrade of the ECB’s growth and inflation forecast prompts a discussion of what to do with all the varying parts of the ECB’s monetary stimulus – quantitative easing, bank funding programs like TLTROs, as well as policy interest rates. Yet it will be impossible for the ECB Governing Council to reach any conclusions on their next step(s) at the June meeting because the very nature of the ECB's inflation target might soon change. The ECB is currently conducting a review of its monetary policy strategy – the first since 2003 – that is scheduled for completion later this year. Some adjustment to the ECB inflation target is expected to allow more flexibility, but it is not yet clear what that change will look like. Could the ECB follow the lead of the Federal Reserve and move to an “average inflation target” regime, tolerating overshoots of the inflation target after periods of below-target inflation? ECB Chief Economist Philip Lane noted back in March that “there was a very strong logic” to the Fed’s new approach. He also said that the “very different histories of inflation” in some European countries may make it difficult to reach an agreement on any system that allows even temporary periods of higher inflation.2 More recently, Bank of Finland Governor Olli Rehn – a moderate member of the Governing Council who was considered a candidate for the current ECB presidency – came out in favor of the ECB shifting to a Fed-like average inflation target for Europe in a recent Financial Times interview.3 Rehn noted that a Fed-like focus on aiming for maximum unemployment “makes sense in the current context of a lower natural rate of interest.” Rehn went on to describe the ECB’s current wording of its inflation target as having “generated a perception of asymmetry” such that “2 per cent is perceived as a ceiling and that is dampening inflation expectations.” We imagine that Jens Weidmann from the Bundesbank would vehemently oppose any move to change the ECB inflation target to tolerate even a temporary period of inflation above 2%. German headline HICP inflation already reached 2.1% in April, with more increases likely as the German economy reopens from extended pandemic lockdowns. Yet even if Weidmann were to not dig in his heels against any “loosening” of the ECB inflation target, the looming conclusion of the ECB strategy review makes it highly unlikely that any change in policy – like tapering – could credibly be announced before then. If higher inflation will be tolerated, then why bother to taper at all? Looking beyond the inflation strategy review, there are other factors that could weigh on the ECB in its deliberations on the next monetary policy move: China policy tightening: China – Europe’s largest trading partner – has seen its policymakers begin to rein in credit growth, and fiscal spending, after allowing a surge in borrowing in 2020 to help boost growth during the pandemic. Our measure of the China credit impulse leads the annual growth rate of European exports to China by around nine months (Chart 7), and is flagging a dramatic slowing of exports in the latter half of this year. This represents a downside risk to euro area growth, particularly in countries that export more heavily to China like Germany. Slowing loan growth: The annual growth rate of overall euro area bank lending peaked at 12.2% back in February and is now down to 10.9% (Chart 8). Much of the softening has occurred in Germany and France – countries that had seen a big take-up of subsidized bank funding through the ECB’s TLTROs. The pricing incentives set up by the ECB for the latest TLTRO program were highly attractive, and it appears that German and French banks took advantage of the cheap funding to ramp up lending activity. This makes the economic interpretation of the bank lending data more challenging for the ECB, especially with Italian loan growth – and TLTRO usage – now accelerating. Chart 7Warning Signs For European Export Demand Chart 8ECB LTROs Are Becoming Italy-Focused NGEU spending: As mentioned earlier, disbursements from the €750bn NGEU (a.k.a. “recovery fund”) are expected to begin later this year, pending EU approval of government investment proposals. NGEU funds are intended to finance initiatives that can boost future economic growth, like investments in digital and green programs. Most euro area countries have already submitted their proposals, led by Italy’s request for €192bn. Chart 9NGEU Will Give A Big Boost To European Growth Over The Next Five Years Chart 10NGEU Impact Will Be Front Loaded A recent study by S&P Global concluded that NGEU investments could boost overall euro area growth by between 1.3 and 3.9 percentage points, cumulatively, between 2021 and 2026 (Chart 9).4 That same study also noted that the impacts of the spending will be front-loaded over the next two years (Chart 10). The Italian government believes that NGEU investment could double Italy’s anemic trend growth rate to 1.5%. Many ECB officials have noted that NGEU is the kind of structural fiscal stimulus that makes it less necessary to maintain highly accommodative monetary policy. Until the NGEU proposals are finalized and the final approved amounts are dispersed, however, the ECB will be unable to adjust its economic forecasts to account for more government investment. Given all of these immediate uncertainties, including how successfully Europe can reopen from pandemic lockdowns, we do not see a plausible scenario where the ECB Governing Council could conclude at the June policy meeting that an immediate change in the current monetary policy tools and guidance was needed. Bottom Line: Investor fears that the ECB could follow the Bank of Canada and Bank of England and begin to taper its bond buying sooner than expected – perhaps as soon as next month’s policy meeting – are misplaced. Likely ECB Next Moves & Investment Implications While a June taper announcement from the ECB is unlikely, a hint towards a future move is quite possible. The ECB is notorious for preparing markets well in advance of any policy shifts, thus the official statement following the June meeting – as well as ECB President Lagarde’s press conference – could contain clues as to what the ECB will do next. Chart 11ECB Easing Takes Many Forms A discussion of what will happen with the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program (PEPP) – which is scheduled to end next March – could come up in June. We deem it more likely that the topic will be raised at the September policy meeting when there will be more clarity on the success of the reopening of Europe’s economy, and to the final approved size of the NGEU funds, which will determine the need to maintain an asset purchase program introduced because of the COVID-19 shock. There are certainly many policy options available for the ECB to choose from when they do decide to dial back accommodation. There are several policy interest rates that could be adjusted. Although it is likely that when the ECB next tries to hike interest rates, the first rate to move will be the overnight deposit rate which is currently at -0.5% and represents the “floor” for short-term interest rates in Europe (Chart 11). Rate hikes will not occur before the balance sheet tools are reduced or unwound, however, which means asset purchases will be dialed back first. Market participants are well aware of that order of policy choices, as a very flat path for short-term interest rates is currently discounted in the European overnight index swap (OIS) curve. The spread between forward rates in the OIS and CPI swap curves can be used as a proxy for the market forward pricing of real interest rates. Currently, the market-implied real ECB policy rate is expected to stay between -2% and -1% over the next decade (Chart 12). Put another way, the markets are pricing in a very flat path for ECB policy rates that will stay below expected inflation over the next ten years. While the natural real rate of interest in Europe is likely very low given low trend growth, a real rate as low as -2% discounts a lot of bad structural news for the European economy. By comparison, the NY Fed’s last estimate of the natural real rate (r-star) for Europe – calculated in Q2/2020 before the economic volatility surrounding the pandemic made r-star estimation more unreliable – was positive at +0.6%. The prolonged path of negative expected real interest rates in Europe goes a long way in explaining the persistence of negative real bond yields in the benchmark German government yield curve. Simply put, there is little belief that the ECB will ever be able to engineer a full-blown rate hike cycle – an outcome that Japanese fixed income investors are quite familiar with. Given the ECB’s constant worry about the level of the euro, and its role in impacting European growth and inflation expectations, markets are correct in thinking that it will be difficult for the ECB to lift rates much without triggering unwanted currency appreciation. It is no coincidence that the euro has been consistently undervalued on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis ever since the ECB moved to a negative interest rate policy back in 2014 (Chart 13). Chart 12Markets Expect Negative European Real Rates For The Next Decade Looking ahead, the ECB will need to be careful about signaling any changes in monetary policy, including tapering, that would force markets to revise up the future path of European interest rates and give the euro a large boost. Chart 13Low ECB Rates Keeping The Euro Undervalued That means that European real bond yields are likely to stay deeply negative over at least the latter half of 2021, with any additional nominal yield increases coming from higher inflation expectations (Chart 14). This will limit how much more European bond yields can rise from current levels. Chart 14European Bond Strategy Summary We continue to believe that core European bond yields will trade with a “low yield beta” to US Treasury yields over at least the second half of 2021 and likely into 2022 when we expect the Fed to begin tapering its bond buying. Thus, we are sticking with our strategic recommendation to overweight core European government bonds versus US Treasuries in global bond portfolios. We simply see greater odds of a taper occurring in the US than in Europe, with the Fed more likely to deliver subsequent post-taper rate hikes than the ECB. We still recommend a moderately below-benchmark duration stance within dedicated European bond portfolios, although if the 10-year German bund yield rises significantly into positive territory, we would likely look to raise our suggested European duration exposure. We are also maintaining our recommended overweight on European inflation-linked bonds, as breakeven spreads in Germany, France and Italy are the only ones that remain below fair value in our suite of global valuation models. On European credit, we continue to recommend overweighting spread product versus sovereign bonds. That includes Italian and Spanish government bonds, as well as both investment grade and high-yield corporate debt. The time to turn more bearish on those markets will be when the ECB does begin to taper its asset purchases, as credit spreads have tended to widen during periods when the growth of the ECB’s balance sheet has been decelerating (Chart 15). We expect that when the ECB does finally decide to taper, the net amount of TLTROs will likely be maintained near current levels (by introducing new TLTROs to replace expiring ones). This will ensure that borrowing costs in the more fragile countries like Italy do not spike higher from the double-whammy of reduced ECB buying of Italian bonds and diminished access to cheap ECB bank funding. One final note – we are introducing a new trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 19 this week, as a way to fade the markets pricing in a more hawkish ECB outlook. A 10bp rate hike – the most likely size of any first attempt for the ECB to lift rates – is now priced in the OIS curve around mid-2023. By the end of 2023, nearly 25bps of hikes are discounted in forward rate curves. We do not expect the ECB to lift rates at all in 2023, but even if rates were increased, a cumulative 25bps of hikes within six months is unlikely to be delivered. Thus, we recommend going long the December 2023 3-month Euribor interest rate futures contract at an entry price of 100.27 (Chart 16). Chart 15ECB Tapering Would Be Bad News For European Credit Chart 16Go Long Dec/2023 Euribor Futures Bottom Line: The last thing the ECB wants to see is the surge in the euro and Italian bond yields that would surely follow any move to pre-emptively begin reducing monetary accommodation in response to faster European growth and inflation. We are sticking with our current European bond recommendations: overweighting Europe within global bond portfolios - favoring Peripheral sovereigns and corporates versus government debt of the core countries - while also overweighting inflation-linked bonds in France, Italy and Germany where breakevens are undervalued. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 NAIRU is an acronym for the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment. 2 Lane’s comments came from a wide-ranging interview with the Financial Times published on March 16, 2021, which can be found here: https://www.ft.com/content/2aa6750d-48b7-441e-9e84-7cb6467c5366 3 Rehn’s comments were published earlier this month on May 9 and can be found here: https://www.ft.com/content/05a12645-ceb2-4cd5-938e-974b778e16e0 4 The S&P Global report, titled “Next Generation EU Will Shift European Growth Into A Higher Gear”, can be found here: https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/210427-next-generation-eu-will-shift-european-growth-into-a-higher-gear-1192994 Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

5 years ago

Testing The Limits Of Transitory Inflation

Special Report

Dear Client, This week, the US Bond Strategy service is hosting its Quarterly Webcast (May 19 at 10:00 AM EDT, 3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 11:00 PM HKT). In addition, we are sending this Quarterly Chartpack that provides a recap of our key recommendations and some charts related to those recommendations and other areas of interest for US bond investors. Please tune in to the Webcast and browse the Chartpack at your leisure, and do let us know if you have any questions or other feedback. To view the Quarterly Chartpack PDF please click here. Best regards, Ryan Swift, US Bond Strategist

5 years ago

Peak Growth And A Whiff Of Stagflation

Highlights US growth has likely peaked. Economic momentum will slow over the coming quarters as the tailwind from stimulus fades and the vaccination campaign winds down. Historically, a slowdown in US growth, as proxied by a decline in the ISM manufacturing index, has been associated with lower overall equity returns, the outperformance of defensive stocks over cyclicals, large caps over small caps, and US equities over their overseas peers. A falling ISM has also been associated with a strengthening dollar, lower Treasury yields, wider credit spreads, a decline in the US Treasury/German bund spreads, falling oil prices, and an increase in the gold-to-copper price ratio. Compared to past episodes, there are three reasons to expect the coming US slowdown to be relatively benign: First, growth is slowing from exceptionally strong levels; second, growth in many other parts of the world is still speeding up; and third, monetary policy will remain highly accommodative in the face of what is likely to be a transitory increase in inflation. We continue to maintain a positive 12-month view on global equities. Nevertheless, with global growth momentum likely to slow later this year, investors who are maximally overweight risk should pare back cyclical exposure. Crypto update: We warned that “Bitcoin is on a collision course with ESG” two weeks ago. Elon Musk’s flip-flop on allowing customers to pay for Teslas in Bitcoin is yet another piece of evidence that ESG concerns will win out. With that in mind, we are going short Bitcoin. Beware The Second Derivative US growth has likely peaked. Economic momentum will slow over the coming quarters as the tailwind from fiscal stimulus fades and the vaccination campaign winds down. According to the Brookings Institution, fiscal easing contributed nearly seven percentage points to US growth in the first quarter (Chart 1). However, fiscal policy is set to detract from growth in the remainder of the year, reflecting the one-off nature of some of the stimulus measures. Chart 1After A Strong Boost, Fiscal Thrust Is Turning Negative On the pandemic front, the number of new cases continues to trend lower in the US, thanks mainly to a successful vaccination campaign. A falling infection rate has allowed states to dismantle lockdown measures. Conceptually, it is the change in social distancing measures that correlates with economic growth. While some restrictions remain in place (especially in the educational sector), we are now well past the point of maximum loosening. How have financial markets performed during episodes of slowing US economic growth? To answer this question, we looked at the performance of various assets during periods when the ISM manufacturing index was falling and when it was rising. To add a bit more granularity to the analysis, we also looked at cases when the ISM was trending up and above 50, trending down and above 50, trending down and below 50, and trending up and below 50. As summarized in Table 1 and the Appendix Charts, the key results are as follows: Stocks tend to do best when the ISM is rising. Since 1950, the S&P 500 has risen on average by 1.51% during months when the ISM was trending higher, compared to 0.49% during months when the ISM was trending lower. The results were virtually the same if one restricts the sample to the post-1995 period. While the change in the ISM generally matters more for the S&P 500, absolute levels matter too. Since 1995, the best period for the S&P 500 was when the ISM was below 50 but trending higher (S&P 500 up 2.07%), while the worst period was when the ISM was below 50 and trending lower (S&P 500 up 0.03%). This suggests that swings in the ISM have a bigger effect on the stock market during periods of economic contraction. During periods where the ISM was falling but still above 50, the S&P 500 has delivered a positive – though far from stellar – monthly return of 0.69%. US defensively-geared equities outperformed cyclicals when the ISM was trending lower. During periods when the ISM was falling but still above 50, defensives beat cyclicals by 0.45%. Defensives outperformed cyclicals by 0.84% during periods when the ISM was below 50 and trending lower. US small caps underperformed large caps during periods when the ISM was falling. Non-US stocks also underperformed their US counterparts in a falling ISM environment. The relationship between the ISM and value/growth performance is more ambiguous. To the extent that there is one, value generally outperforms growth when the ISM is below 50. Treasury yields tend to increase, while the yield curve tends to steepen, when the ISM is trending higher. Reflecting the higher beta that Treasuries have to the global business cycle, Treasury yields generally rise more than Germany bund yields when the ISM is on the upswing. Corporate credit spreads tend to widen when the ISM is falling. Spreads narrow the most when the ISM is below 50 but rising. As a countercyclical currency, the US dollar tends to weaken when the ISM is rising and strengthen when the ISM is falling. The prices of cyclically-sensitive commodities such as oil and copper normally decline when the ISM is trending lower, although in general, the bulk of the decline in commodity prices usually occurs only when the ISM has dipped below 50. There is not much of a relationship between gold prices and the ISM. Table 1The Economic Cycle And Financial Assets Implications For Today Assuming that the ISM has peaked but remains above 50, the analysis above suggests that the S&P 500 will rise modestly over the coming months; US stocks will edge out non-US stocks; defensives will outperform cyclicals; and large caps will perform slightly better than small caps. The analysis also suggests that Treasury yields will move lower; the Treasury-bund spread will narrow; corporate credit spreads will be flat-to-wider; the dollar will strengthen modestly; and commodities will move broadly sideways. Our own 12-month view is more pro-risk than implied by the ISM analysis. There are three reasons for this: First, US growth is slowing from exceptionally strong levels; second, growth in many other parts of the world is still accelerating; and third, monetary policy remains highly accommodative. Let’s examine each assumption in turn. Reason #1: US growth is slowing from exceptionally strong levels While payroll growth surprised sharply on the downside in April, we suspect this was mainly due to pandemic-induced distortions to the seasonal adjustment mechanism used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Seasonally unadjusted payrolls rose by 1.1 million in April, which is broadly consistent with the strong pace of GDP growth tracking estimates. The Atlanta Fed GDPNow model points to growth of 11% in Q2. Bloomberg consensus estimates have US real GDP rising by 8.1% in the second quarter. Growth will decline to 7% in Q3 and 4.7% in Q4, but still average 4% in 2022 (Table 2). Table 2Growth Is Peaking, But At A Very High Level Chart 2Firms Will Need To Rebuild Inventories US households were sitting on $2.2 trillion in excess savings as of the end of April. This is money they would not have had in absence of the pandemic. Slightly less than half of that stockpile can be attributed to transfer payments, mainly in the form of stimulus checks and unemployment benefits. The rest stems from decreased spending during the pandemic. Not all of this money will be spent immediately. However, given the large sums involved – $2.2 trillion is equivalent to 15% of annual personal consumption – even a partial depletion of these excess savings will be enough to power consumption for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, firms will have to boost production in order to restore depleted inventories. The inventory-to-sales ratio stands at record low levels (Chart 2). The decline in inventories pushed up the ISM new orders-to-inventory ratio in April, even as the overall ISM index slid from 64.7 in March to 60.7. The new orders-to-inventory ratio tends to lead the ISM index, which suggests that any decline in the ISM index over the coming months will be gradual. An easing of supply-side constraints should also support growth. Even though overall employment was still 5.2% below pre-pandemic levels in April, a record share of small firms surveyed by the NFIB reported difficulty in filling vacant positions (Chart 3). Enhanced unemployment benefits have eroded the incentive to find work. In addition, many schools remain partially shuttered. Chart 4 shows that mothers with young children have seen a much larger decline in labor force participation than other groups. Chart 3Firms Are Struggling To Find Workers Chart 4Mothers With Children Had To Leave The Labor Force Enhanced unemployment benefits will expire in September. As schools resume normal operations, more workers will flow back into the labor market. At the same time, some of the bottlenecks currently gripping the global supply chain should abate, allowing for increased output. Reason #2: Growth in many other parts of the world is still accelerating Chart 5Over 40% Of S&P 500 Revenues Come From Abroad Chart 6Euro Area Data Has Surprised On The Upside S&P 500 constituent firms derive 43% of their revenues from abroad (Chart 5). While Bloomberg estimates suggest that US growth will peak in the second quarter, growth in the euro area is not expected to peak until the third quarter. Mathieu Savary, who heads BCA’s European Investment Strategy service, sees upside risks to European growth estimates for the second half of this year. Consistent with Mathieu’s observations, recent economic data has been surprising to the upside in the euro area (Chart 6). Just this week, economic expectations for both Germany and the wider euro area leaped to the highest level in more than 20 years, according to the ZEW economic research institute. Growth in Japan should also pick up in the remainder of the year. Japan’s vaccination campaign has gotten off to a very slow start, with less than 3% of the population being inoculated to date. The government imposed its third state of emergency on April 25 in response to rising viral case counts. It subsequently extended those restrictions on May 11. The authorities intend to vaccinate the country’s 36 million elderly people by July, when the Olympics are set to begin. This should permit some easing in lockdown measures. Investors are worried that the Chinese economy will slow this year. The Chinese PMIs peaked in November 2020, about the same time as the combined credit/fiscal impulse reached an apex (Chart 7). Jing Sima, BCA’s chief China strategist, expects the general government budget deficit to remain at a still-ample 8% of GDP this year, similar to where it was last year. She expects credit growth to slow by 2%-to-3%, converging towards the pace of nominal GDP growth. Keep in mind that China’s credit-to-GDP ratio stands at 270%. Thus, if credit grows in line with nominal GDP growth of about 10%, this would still leave the stock of credit roughly 27% of GDP higher at the end of 2021 compared to the end of 2020. This hardly constitutes “deleveraging”. A resilient Chinese economy should buoy other emerging markets. Progress on the pandemic front should also help. The UN estimates that as many as 15 billion vaccine doses could be produced by the second half of 2021, enough to inoculate most of the world’s population (Chart 8). The shortages of vaccines in emerging markets could turn into a surfeit by the end of this year, something that market participants do not seem to fully appreciate. Chart 7China: Peak Stimulus And Peak Growth The rotation in growth momentum from the US to the rest of the world should put downward pressure on the US dollar. A weaker dollar, in turn, has usually coincided with the outperformance of non-US stock markets (Chart 9). Chart 8Vaccine Production Set To Ramp Up Further Chart 9A Weaker Dollar Has Coincided With The Outperformance Of Non-US Stock Markets Reason #3: Monetary policy remains highly accommodative The slowdown in US growth is coming at a time when inflation is rising. The core CPI increased by 0.9% month-over-month in April. This was the biggest monthly jump since August 1981. The year-over-year rate climbed to 3.0%, the highest in 25 years. The “whiff of stagflation” helped push the S&P 500 down this week. As we discussed last week, we are very much in the camp that expects inflation to rise significantly over the long haul. Over the next one or two years, however, we would fade inflationary fears. As the example of the 1960s illustrates, a long period of overheating is often necessary to push up inflation in a sustained manner. The US unemployment rate reached its full employment level in 1962. However, it was not until 1966 – when the unemployment rate was two full percentage points below equilibrium – that inflation finally took off (Chart 10). The official core CPI likely overstates underlying inflationary pressures. The pandemic threw all sorts of prices out of whack. Stripping out volatile food and energy prices from inflation is not enough. One needs more refined measures of inflation. Luckily, they exist. Chart 11 shows that median CPI, trimmed-mean CPI, and sticky price CPI all remain well contained. Similarly, relatively clean measures of wage growth, such as the Atlanta Fed Wage Tracker, do not point to an imminent wage-price spiral (Chart 12). Chart 10Inflation Started Accelerating Quickly Only When Unemployment Reached Very Low Levels In The 1960s Chart 11Cleaner Measures Of Inflation Are Telling A Different Story Chart 12Wage Growth Is Still Lackluster All this means that the Fed can afford to sustain exceptionally easy monetary policy. That should keep growth at an above-trend pace and continue to support to equity valuations. Investment Conclusions My “golden rule” for investing is to stay bullish on stocks unless one thinks there is a recession around the corner (Chart 13). Seeing around the corner is not easy, of course, but it is not impossible either. Chart 13Recessions And Bear Markets Tend To Overlap Last year’s recession was caused by a true exogenous shock – the pandemic. Most recessions are endogenous in nature, however. They result from growing imbalances that are usually laid bare by tighter monetary policy. One can debate the extent to which the global economy is plagued by imbalances of one form or another. But one thing is clear, monetary policy is unlikely to turn contractionary any time soon. In this environment, one should remain positive on equities and other risk assets over a 12-month horizon. Nevertheless, with global growth momentum likely to slow later this year, investors who are maximally overweight risk should pare back cyclical exposure. Go Short Bitcoin We warned that “Bitcoin is on a collision course with ESG” two weeks ago in a report entitled “How To Short Bitcoin, Or Anything Else, Without Losing Your Shorts.” Elon Musk’s flip-flop on allowing Tesla customers to pay for Teslas in Bitcoin is yet another piece of evidence that ESG concerns will win out. News that Colonial Pipeline paid hackers 75 bitcoin (nearly $5 million) in ransom further cements Bitcoin’s status as the currency of choice for criminals around the world. With all that in mind, we are going short Bitcoin as of midnight Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) using the shorting technique described in that report. The technique flips the usual risk-reward from shorting on its head. Normally, when you short a stock, your gain is capped at 100% of the initial position whereas your potential loss is unlimited. With our shorting technique, your potential loss is capped at 100% while your potential gain is unlimited. This makes shorting as an investment strategy a lot safer. APPENDIX The Economic Cycle And Financial Assets APPENDIX CHART 1A APPENDIX CHART 1B Appendix Chart 1C Appendix Chart 1D Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores

5 years ago

Global

Surging Metals Prices And The Case For Carbon-Capture

Highlights Over the 2021-22 period, renewable capacity will account for 90% of global electricity-generation additions, per the IEA's latest forecast. This will follow the 45% surge (y/y) in renewable generation capacity added last year, which occurred despite the COVID-19 pandemic (Chart of the Week). Continued investment in renewables and EVs – along with a global economic rebound – are pushing forecasts at banks and trading companies to a $13k - $20k/MT range for copper, vs. ~ $10.6k/Mt (~ $4.80/lb) at present. Should these stronger metals forecasts prove out, investments that extend low-carbon use of fossil fuels via carbon-capture and circular-use technologies will become more attractive. Investment in these technologies has been limited because there is no explicit global reference price to assess investments against. A carbon market or tax would provide such a bogey and accelerate investment. It could be monitored via a Carbon Market Club, which would limit trade to states posting and collecting the tax.1 Feature At almost 280GW, renewable energy capacity additions last year increased 45% y/y, the most since 1999, according to the IEA's most recent update on renewable energy.2 For this year and next, renewables are expected to account for 90% of capacity additions, led by solar PV investment increasing ~ 50% to 162GW. Wind capacity grew 90% last year, increasing to 114GW, and is expected to increase ~ 50% to end-2022. As renewables generation – and EV investment – continues to grow, demand for bulks (steel and iron ore) and base metals, led by copper, will pull prices higher. This is occurring against a backdrop of flat supply growth and physical deficits over the four years ended 2020 (Chart 2). According to the IEA, a 40% increase in steel and copper prices over the September 2020 to March 2021 period played a role in higher solar PV module prices. Chart of the WeekRenewables Capacity Surges The supply side of the copper market will remain in deficit this year and next, in our assessment, and may continue on that trajectory if, as Wood Mackenzie expects, demand grows at a 2% p.a. rate over the next 20 years and miners remain reluctant to commit to the capex required to keep up with demand.3 Chart 2Physical Deficits Will Draw Copper Stocks... ESG risk for copper – and other metals required to build the generation and infrastructure required in the renewables buildout – will increase as prices rise, which also will add to cost.4 Cost increases coupled with increasing ESG risks in this buildout will increase the attractiveness of carbon-capture and circular-economy technology investment, in our view. This would extend the use of low-carbon fossil fuels if the technology can move the world closer to a net-zero carbon future. However, unless and until policy catalyzes this investment, – e.g., via a global carbon trading price or tax – investment in these technologies likely will continue to languish. Carbon-Capture Tech's Unfulfilled Promise The history of Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) has been one of high hopes and unmet expectations. It is generally recognized as a route to mitigate climate change; however, its deployment has been slower than expected. Low-carbon technology requires more critical metals than its fossil-fuel counterpart (Chart 3). Apart from the issue of cost, the ESG risks of mining metals for the renewable energy transition will increase as more metals are demanded, which we discussed in previous research.5 According to Wood Mackenzie, mining companies will need to invest nearly $1.7 trillion in the next 15 years to help supply enough metals to transition to a low carbon world.6 Chart 3Low-Carbon Tech Is Metals Intensive Given these looming physical requirements for metals, fossil fuels most likely will need to be used for longer than markets currently anticipate, as a bridge to the low-carbon future, or as part of that future, depending on how successfully carbon is removed from the hydrocarbons used to power modern society. If so, using fossil fuels while mitigating their environmental impact will require highly focused technology to lower CO2 and other green-house gas (GHG) emissions during the transition to a low-carbon future. Enter CCUS technology: This technology traps CO2 from sources that use fossil fuels or biomass to make the energy required to run modern societies. In the current iterations of this technology, CO2 can either be compressed and transported, or stored in geological or oceanic reservoirs. This can then be used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) to extract harder-to-reach oil by injecting CO2 into the reservoirs holding the hydrocarbons.7 The Scope For CCUS Investment CCUS investment spending is increasing, as are the number of planned facilities using or demonstrating this technology. In the 2020 edition of its Energy Technology Perspectives, the IEA noted 30 new integrated CCUS facilities have been announced since 2017, mostly in advanced economies such as US and Europe, but also in some EM nations. As of 2020, projects at advanced stages of planning represented a total of $27 billion, more than double the investment planned in 2017 (Chart 4). Among its many goals, the Paris Agreement seeks a balance between emissions by man-made sources and removal by greenhouse gas (GHGs) sinks (absorption of the gases) in the second half of the 21st century. Practically, many countries – especially EM economies – will still need to use fossil fuels to develop during this period (Chart 5).8 Chart 4Carbon-Capture Projects To Date Chart 5EM Development Will Require Fossil-Fuel Energy CCUS In The Energy Sector As a fuel that emits fewer GHGs than coal – i.e., half the CO2 of coal – natural gas can be used effectively as a bridge to green-power generation (Chart 6). Chart 6Natural Gas Will Remain Attractive As A Bridge Fuel The CO2 in natgas needs to be removed before dry gas is sold as pipeline-quality gas or LNG. This CO2 is normally vented to the atmosphere; however, by using CCUS technology, it can be reinjected into geological formations and used for EOR. For this reason, LNG companies in the US, the world’s largest LNG exporter, have been looking into investing in CCUS technology in a bid to become greener.9 CCUS can also be used to produce low-cost hydrogen – so-called blue hydrogen – using natural gas and coal, as opposed to the more expensive electrolysis process, which uses renewables-based electricity to produce "green" hydrogen. The lower blue-hydrogen costs will make clean hydrogen more accessible to emerging nations, opening new avenues for the world to use the energy carrier in its decarbonization effort. The Value Of Ccus In Other Industries CCUS technology can be retrofitted to existing power and industrial plants, which, according to the IEA, could otherwise still emit 8 billion tons of CO2 in 2050, around one-quarter of annual energy-sector emissions in 2020. Of the fossil fuel generators, coal-fired power generation presents the biggest CO2 challenge, with most of the emissions coming from China and other EM Asia nations, where the average plant age is less than 20 years. Since the average age of a coal fired power plant is 40 years, according to the US National Association of Regulatory Commissioners, this implies that these plants have a long remaining life and could still be operating until 2050. CCUS is the only alternative to retiring or repurposing existing power and industrial plants. The IEA believes that CCUS is imperative to reach net-zero carbon emissions. In its Sustainable Development Scenario - in which global CO2 emissions from the energy sector decline to net-zero by 2070 – CCUS accounts for 15% of the cumulative reduction in emissions. If the world needs to reach net-zero by 2050 instead, it will need almost 50% more CCUS deployment.10 Properly implemented and scaled, CCUS can allow industries to continue using oil, gas and coal and to attain net-zero carbon emission targets, boosting demand for fossil fuels in the medium term. This is especially important to EM development. Why Aren’t We Further Along In CCUS? What Can Be Done? The main reason CCUS isn’t used more widely is because of its cost. Currently, the cost of capturing carbon varies, based on the amount of CO2 concentration, with Direct Air Capture being most expensive (Chart 7). Given the prohibitive costs, CCUS has not been commercially viable. However, the same argument could have been used against implementing renewable sources of energy. While at one point the Levelized Cost of Energy from renewable sources was high, as these sources have been scaled up – aided in no small part by government subsidies – costs have fallen, following something akin to a Moore’s Law cost-decay curve. A Levelized Cost of Energy for solar generation reported by Lazard Ltd., which allows for comparisons across technologies (e.g., fossil-fuel vs renewable), shows generation costs fell by 89% to $40/MWh from $359/MWh from 2009-2019 (Chart 8). This learning curve was able to take place because of government subsidies, which promoted the deployment of solar technology. Chart 7CCUS Can Be Expensive Chart 8Subsides Could Support CCUS, Just As Was Done For Solar The cost of CCUS technology is falling. For example, in 2019 the Global CCS Institute reported it cost $100/ton to capture carbon from the Canada-based Boundary Dam using a CCS unit built in 2014. The cost of carbon captured at the US-based Petra Nova plant – built three years later – using improved technology was $65/ton. Both are coal-powered electricity plants. The report also noted coal-fired power plants planning to commence operations in 2024-28 using the same CCS technology as those at Boundary Dam and Petra Nova expect carbon costs to be ~ $43/ton, due to steeper learning curves, research, lower capital costs due to economies of scale, and digitalization. One commonality amongst these sources of cost reductions is that companies need to invest more into CCUS and familiarize themselves with this technology. As was the case with renewables, government subsidies would reduce the prohibitive costs of operating CCUS technology, and draw more participation to refining this technology. Early, first-of-its-kind CCUS will be expensive, however subsidies in the form of capital support or tax credits will increase CCUS implementation and research. Boundary Dam and Petra Nova are examples of facilities that benefitted from government subsidies. The facilities received $170 million and $200 million respectively from Canadian and US Government agencies at the time of the CCS units’ construction. The US has also implemented a 45Q tax credit system which pays facilities $50/ton of CO2 stored and $35/ton of CO2 if it is used in applications like Enhanced Oil Recovery. According to the Global CCS Institute, in late-2019, of the eight new CCUS projects that were added in the US, four cited the presence of 45Q as the key driver. Putting Carbon Markets And Taxes To Work The EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) market, which was implemented in 2005, is an example of innovative policy which incentivizes companies to curb emissions, using market forces. The price of carbon measured in these markets puts a tangible value on a negative externality, which before this went unrecorded. The downside of this ETS is its reliance on the EU's environmental policy implementation, which is subject to policy changes that complicate supply-demand analysis for longer-term planning – e.g., the recent increase in its emissions target to a minimum of 55% net reduction in GHG emissions by 2030. An alternative to policy-driven trading of emissions rights is a per-ton tax on emissions, which governments would impose and collect. This would raise costs of technologies using fossil fuels – including those used in the mining industry to increase supply of critical bulks and base metals needed for the renewables transition. At the same time, such a tax would give firms supplying and using technologies that raise CO2 levels an incentive to lower CO2 output using CCUS technologies. ETS markets and governments imposing CO2 taxes could form Carbon Market Clubs – a technology developed by William Nordhaus, the 2018 Nobel Laureate in Economics – that restrict trading to states that can demonstrate their participation and support of actual carbon-reduction detailed in the Paris Agreement via trading or tax schemes.11 As the green energy transition gains traction and governments implement more net-zero emissions policies, the price of carbon will rise. As the price of carbon rises, the price tag associated with companies’ carbon emissions will increase with it. With market participants expecting the price of carbon to continue to rise after hitting record values, the incentive for companies operating in the EU to use CCUS technology will rise, as would the incentive for firms facing a carbon tax.12 Bottom Line: Given the meteoric price rise of green metals, underfunded capex, and the ESG risks associated with mining metals for the low carbon future, we expect fossil fuels to play a larger role in the transition to a low-carbon society than markets are currently expecting. For countries to be able to use fossil fuels while ensuring they achieve their climate goals, the use of CCUS technology is important. To increase CCUS uptake, governments will need to subsidize this technology until demand for it gains traction, just like in the case of renewables. Encouraging ETS and carbon-tax schemes also will be required to catalyze action. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Ashwin Shyam Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy ashwin.shyam@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Bullish Brent prices were knocking against the $70/bbl door going to press, following the IEA's assessment of a robust demand recovery in 2H21 (Chart 9). The IEA took its 1H21 demand growth down 270k b/d, owing to COVID-19-induced demand destruction in India, OECD Americas and Europe, but left its 2H21 estimate intact, making overall demand growth for this year 5.4mm b/d. The EIA also expects 5.4mm b/d demand growth for this year, and growth of 3.7mm b/d next year. OPEC left its full-year 2021 demand growth estimate at 6mm b/d. OPEC 2.0 meets again on June 1 and will look to return more of its sidelined production to the market, in our estimation. We will be updating our supply-demand balances and price forecasts in next week's report. Base Metals: Bullish Spot copper prices traded on either side of $4.80/lb on the CME/COMEX market this week as we went to press. Threats of a tax increase in Chile, where a bill calling for such a measure is making its way through Congress; a potential strike by mine workers; and a shortage of sulfuric acid used in the extraction of ore brought about, according to Bloomberg, by reduced global sulfur supplies due to lower refinery runs during the pandemic all are keeping copper well bid. Our target for Dec21 COMEX copper remains $5/lb (~ $11k/ton on the LME). We remain long calendar 2022 COMEX copper vs short 2023 COMEX copper expecting physical supply deficits to continue to force storage draws, which will backwardate the metal's forward curve. Precious Metals: Bullish US CPI data on Wednesday showed that headline inflation rose by 4.2% for the month of April compared to the previous year. While this increase is the highest since 2008, this jump could also be fueled by a low base effect – Inflation levels were falling this time last year as the pandemic picked up. While rising prices increases demand for gold as an inflation hedge, if the Federal Reserve increases interest rates on the back of this data, the US dollar will rise, negatively affecting gold prices (Chart 10). However, we do not expect the Fed to abruptly change its guidance on this report, and therefore expect the central bank will treat this blip as transitory. As of yesterday’s close, COMEX gold was trading at $1,835.9/oz. Ags/Softs: Neutral Going to press, the Chicago soybean market was surging ahead of the scheduled World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report due out later Wednesday. Front-month beans were trading ~ $16.70/bu, up 2% on the day. This month's WASDE will contain the USDA's first estimate for demand in ag markets for the 2021/22 crop year. Markets are expecting supplies to tighten as demand strengthens. Chart 9 Chart 10 Footnotes 1 Please see Carbon Market Clubs and the New Paris Regime published by the World Bank in July 2016. The intellectual and computational framework for such technology was developed by William Nordhaus, the 2018 Nobel Laureate in Economics. 2 Please see Renewable Energy Market Update, Outlook for 2021 and 2022.pdf, published by the IEA this week. 3 WoodMac notes, "without additional substantial investment, production will decline from 2024 onwards. Coupled with demand growth, this decline in output will lead to a theoretical shortfall of around 16 Mt by 2040." The consultancy estimates an additional $325 - $500+ billion will be needed to meet copper demand over this period. Please see Will a lack of supply growth come back to bite the copper industry? Published 23 March 2021 by woodmac.com. 4 Please see Renewables ESG Risks Grow With Demand, which we published 29 April 2021. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Refer to footnote 4. 6 Please see Low carbon world needs $1.7 trillion in mining investment, published by Reuters. 7 This method is used to increase oil production. It changes the properties of the hydrocarbons, restores formation pressure and enhances oil displacement in the reservoir. Using EOR, oil companies can recover 30% to 60% of the original oil level in the reservoir. Please see Enhanced Oil Recovery published by the US Department of Energy. 8 Please see the Reuter’s column CO2 emission limits and economic development. 9 Please see World Oil’s U.S. LNG players tout carbon capture in bid to boost green image. 10 Please see IEA’s Special Report on Carbon Capture Utilisation and Storage, published as a part of the Energy Technology Perspective 2020. 11 See footnote 1 above. 12 Please see Cost of polluting in EU soars as carbon price hits record €50 by the Financial Times. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2021 Summary of Closed Trades

5 years ago

Commodities

The 'Shock Theory' Of Bond Yields

Highlights The US is only one deflationary shock away from a European level of bond yields. On a multi-year horizon, a deflationary shock is a near-certainty. The shock will be deflationary, because even if it starts inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The reason is that the sharp backup in bond yields resulting from an inflationary shock would undermine the value of $300 trillion worth of global real estate, and thereby unleash a massive deflationary impulse. Hence, the US 30-year bond will ultimately deliver an absolute return approaching 100 percent, in absolute terms… …and relative to core European and Japanese bonds. Fractal trade shortlist: Stocks to consolidate versus bonds; Commodities look dangerously frothy; Buy USD/CAD. Feature Chart of The WeekThe Structural Level Of Bond Yields Depends On The Number Of Lasting Deflationary Shocks Ten years ago, 30-year bond yields in the US, UK and Germany stood at near-identical levels, around 3 percent. Today though, those yields are widely dispersed: the US at 2.3 percent, the UK at 1.3 percent, and Germany at 0.3 percent. What happened? In 2012, the German bond yield decoupled from the UK and the US, because the deflationary shock from the euro debt crisis was focussed in the euro area. Then, in 2016, the UK bond yield decoupled from the US, because the deflationary shock from Brexit was focussed in the UK and EU27 (Chart Of The Week). The ‘Shock Theory’ Of Bond Yields Welcome to a new concept – the ‘shock theory’ of bond yields. According to this theory, the structural level of high-quality government bond yields is simply a function of the number of lasting deflationary shocks that the economy has suffered. Each successive deflationary shock takes the bond yield to a lower structural level until it can go no lower (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Each Successive Deflationary Shock Takes The Bond Yield To A Lower Structural Level, Until It Can Go No Lower Since 2011, US, UK and German bond yields have decoupled because the US has suffered the legacies of one fewer deflationary shock than the UK, and two fewer deflationary shocks than Germany. But the important corollary is that the US is only one deflationary shock away from a European level of bond yields. When that deflationary shock arrives and the US 30-year bond yield reaches the recent low achieved in the UK, it will equate to a price gain of over 50 percent. And if the yield reaches the recent low achieved in Germany, it will equate to a price gain of well over 100 percent. Many people say that such gains are impossible. Yet ten years ago these same people were saying that UK and German long-duration bonds could never reach near-zero yields, and look what happened! Our high-conviction view is that the long-duration US bond will ultimately deliver a stellar absolute return, and a stellar relative return versus core European and Japanese bonds. The simple reason is that another deflationary shock is just a matter of time away. Long-Term Investors Must Always Plan For A Shock Most strategists and investors claim that shocks, such as the pandemic, are inherently unpredictable, and therefore that you cannot plan for them. We disagree. Yes, the timing and nature of individual shocks are inherently unpredictable. But as we explained in How To Predict Shocks, the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. What constitutes a shock? There is no established definition, so our definition is any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 25 percent.1 (Chart I-3) Using this definition through the last 50 years, we can say that the statistical distribution of the number of shocks in any ten-year period is Poisson (3.33) and the statistical distribution of the time between shocks is Exponential (3.33). Chart I-3A Shock Is A 25 Percent Move In The Long Duration Bond Price, And A Shock Tends To Come Every 3 Years It follows that in any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certain 96 percent (Chart I-4). And even in any five-year period, the likelihood of a shock is an extremely high 81 percent. Chart I-4On A Multi-Year Horizon, A Shock Is A Near-Certainty For many people, this creates a cognitive dissonance. Even though a shock is a near-certainty, they cannot visualise its exact nature or timing, so they resist planning for it. Yet long-term investors must always plan for shocks. Not to do so is unforgiveable. An Inflationary Shock Will Quickly Morph Into A Deflationary Shock The crucial question is, will the next shock be deflationary, or inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that it will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if the shock starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The simple reason is that the sharp backup in bond yields that would come from an inflationary shock would undermine the value of $300 trillion worth of global real estate, and thereby unleash a massive deflationary impulse. The 2010s housing boom was unprecedented in its penetration and regional breadth, simultaneously encompassing cities, suburbs, and rural areas across North America, Europe, Asia and Australasia. As prices doubled almost everywhere, the value of global real estate surged by $150 trillion (Chart I-5), of which $75 trillion was due to the valuation uplift from lower bond yields (Chart I-6). To put this into context, lower bond yields have boosted the value of global real estate by the equivalent of world GDP! Chart I-5In The 2010s Housing Boom, The Value Of Global Real Estate Surged By $150 Trillion… Chart I-6…Of Which $75 Trillion Was Due To Lower Bond Yields Many people believe that real assets, such as real estate and equities, perform well in an inflationary shock, but this is a misunderstanding. Granted, the income generated by real assets should keep pace with nominal GDP. But the valuation paid for that income will collapse if it starts off at an elevated level, such as now. The starting valuation needed to generate a given real return during an inflationary shock is much lower than during price stability. For example, for equities in the low-inflation 1990s and 2000s, a starting price to earnings multiple of 15 consistently generated a prospective 10-year real return of 10 percent. But in the inflation shock of the 1970s, the same starting multiple of 15 generated a real return of zero. To generate a real return of 10 percent, the starting multiple had to halve to 7 (Chart I-7). Chart I-7In The 1970s Inflationary Shock, Valuations Collapsed How much can bond yields rise before undermining the value of global real estate? Over the past decade the global rental yield has not been able to deviate from the global long-duration bond yield by more than 100 bps.2 Given that the bond yield is already around 25 bps above the rental yield, we deduce that the long-duration bond yield can rise by no more than 75 bps before global real estate prices start getting hurt (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Bond Yield Can Rise By No More Than 75 Bps Before Global Real Estate Prices Get Hurt To repeat our key structural recommendation, the long-duration US bond will ultimately deliver a stellar absolute return, and a stellar relative return versus core European and Japanese bonds. Candidates For Countertrend Reversal This week we note that the rally in stocks versus bonds (MSCI All Country World versus 30-year T-bond) is likely to consolidate in the coming months – given the fragility in the 260-day fractal structure similar to previous turning points in 2008, 2010, 2013, and 2020 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Rally In Stocks Versus Bonds Is Likely To Consolidate In The Coming Months We also repeat our warning to steer clear of commodities. The rally in all commodities is becoming dangerously frothy, displaying the extremes of fractal fragility seen in 2008. (Chart I-10and Chart I-11). Chart I-10The Rally In Commodities Is Becoming Dangerously Frothy... Chart I-11...Displaying The Extremes Of Fractal Fragility Seen In 2008 A good trade right now is to short the Canadian dollar. Based on the loonie’s composite fractal structure, a lot of good news is already priced in, including the dangerously frothy commodity markets and the Bank of Canada’s (hawkish) taper of asset purchases. As such we expect the Canadian dollar to reverse in the coming months (Chart I-12). Chart I-12Short The Canadian Dollar Go long USD/CAD, setting a profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.7 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 25 percent. 2 Here, the global long-duration bond yield is defined as the average of the 30-year yields in the US and China. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Equity Market Performance Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

5 years ago

Who Tapers Next?

Highlights Global Tapering: The Bank of England has joined the Bank of Canada as central banks tapering the pace of bond buying. Markets are now trying to sort out who is next and concluding that it will not be the Federal Reserve, with US employment still well below the pre-pandemic peak. US Treasury yields will continue trading sideways until there is greater clarity on the pace of US labor market improvement, especially after the big downside miss in the April jobs report. US Treasury Curve: We are adding a new recommended US butterfly trade to our Tactical Overlay portfolio, going long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/30 barbell using US Treasury futures. This trade should benefit with US Treasury curve steepening overshooting the pace of past cycles, while offering attractive carry if persistent Fed dovishness slows the cyclical transition to a bear-flattening curve regime. Feature Heading into 2021, one of our key investment themes for the year was that no major central bank would shift to a less dovish monetary policy stance before the Fed. Not even five months into the year, our theme has already been proven incorrect. Last week, the Bank of England (BoE) announced a slower pace of its asset purchases, following a similar tapering decision by the Bank of Canada (BoC) last month. Chart of the WeekUS Jobs Recovery Lagging, Despite Vaccine Success We had assumed that no central bank could tolerate the currency strength that would inevitably occur by tapering ahead of the Fed. That was clearly not the case in Canada, and the Canadian dollar has already appreciated 4.6% versus the greenback since the BoC taper announcement April 21. The British pound also rallied solidly against both the US dollar and euro immediately after the BoE taper announcement last week. Markets are beginning to speculate on future taper candidates, like the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), with the New Zealand dollar being one of the strongest currencies in the G10 versus the US dollar since the end of March (+4.4%). Investors had been debating the possibility that the Fed could begin tapering sometime in the second half of 2020, largely based on what has to date been a successful US vaccination campaign. Yet while that led to optimism that the US economy can quickly reopen and return to normal, the fact remains that the recovery in US employment from the COVID shock has lagged other major economies (Chart of the Week). The big downside miss on the April US payrolls report highlights how the Fed can be patient before joining the tapering club. US Treasury yields are likely to continue trading sideways, and the US dollar will trade soft, until markets can sort out the true state of US labor demand versus supply. Which Central Bank Could Follow The BoC And BoE? Back in March, we published a report that discussed what we called the “pecking order of global liftoff”.1 We looked at how interest rate markets were pricing in an increasingly diverse path out of the coordinated global monetary easing enacted last year during the COVID recession (Chart 2). We looked at both the timing of “liftoff” (the first rate hike) and the pace of hikes afterward to the end of 2024. We then ranked the countries by the market-implied timing of liftoff. Chart 2Sorting Out The Relative Hawks & Doves Among Global CBs At the time, overnight index swap (OIS) curves were discounting the earliest liftoff from the RBNZ (June 2022) and BoC (August 2022). The Fed was expected to hike in January 2023, followed by the BoE in June 2023 and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in July 2023. The European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) were the laggards, with no rate hiked discounted until September 2023 and February 2025, respectively. In terms of the pace of rate hikes after liftoff through 2024, our list was broken into two groups. The more aggressive central banks were expected to be the BoC (+175bps), RBA (+156bps), RBNZ (+140bps) and the Fed (+139bps). Much smaller amounts of rate hikes were anticipated from the BoE (+63bps), ECB (+25bps) and BoJ (+9bps). In the two months since our March report, the market timing of liftoff, and the pace of subsequent hikes, has shifted for all those countries (Table 1). The BoC is now expected to move in September 2022, ahead of the RBNZ (October 2022). In 2023, the Fed is now priced for liftoff in March 2023, followed by the BoE and RBA (both in July 2023). The ECB liftoff date is little changed (now August 2023), while the market has dramatically pushed out the timing of any BoJ hike (now November 2025). The cumulative rate hikes through 2024 are moderately lower for all countries except Australia (a reduction in total tightening of 56bps). Table 1The Fed Is Sliding Down The “Pecking Order Of Liftoff” List What is interesting about these changes is that the market has pulled forward the timing of liftoff for the BoE and RBA, while pushing it out for the BoC, RBNZ, BoJ and, most importantly, the Fed. The Fed is now drifting down the “pecking order” for liftoff, expected to lift rates only a couple of months before the BoE or RBA. This is a major change from previous monetary policy cycles, when the Fed would typically be a first mover when it comes to tightening policy. Chart 3The Momentum Of Global QE Has Already Been Slowing While the BoC and BoE decisions to taper quantitative easing (QE) have garnered the headlines, the pace of global central bank balance sheet expansion had already peaked at the start of 2021 (Chart 3). The pace has slowed most dramatically in Canada and the US, but this was a result of certain emergency programs expiring – most notably the Fed’s corporate bond buying vehicles late last year and the BoC’s short-term repo facilities more recently. Greater financial market stability was the reason cited to end those programs, while still leaving government bond QE buying in place unchanged. The year-over-year pace of global QE was set to slow, simply from less favorable comparisons to 2020 after the surge in central bank balance sheet expansion last year. Yet now we are starting to see actual tapering of government bond purchases from some central banks. Is such “early tightening” warranted? Back in that same March report where we discussed the order of global liftoff, we gave our assessment of the most important factors that could drive central banks to consider a shift to a less dovish stance (like tapering). For the BoC, we cited booming house prices and robust business confidence as reasons the BoC could turn less dovish sooner (Chart 4). For the BoE, we noted a sharper-than-expected recovery in domestic investment and consumer spending, as the locked-down UK economy reopens, as reasons why the BoE could begin to tweak its policy settings. For both central banks, all those indicators were mentioned as factors leading to their decision to taper. For the Fed, we determined that rising inflation expectations and increasing labor market tightness would both be required for the Fed to turn less dovish. Only inflation expectations have reached that goal, with the US Employment/Population ratio still well below the pre-pandemic peak (Chart 5). For the RBA, we looked solely at realized inflation measures, as the RBA has explicitly noted that Australian wage growth must rise sustainably towards 3% - nearly double current levels - before realized CPI inflation could return to the 2-3% target range. For both the Fed and RBA, the necessary conditions for a change in current policy settings have not yet been met. Chart 4What The More Hawkish CBs Are Watching Chart 5What The More Dovish CBs Are Watching For the ECB, we noted that realized inflation (and the ECB’s inflation forecasts), along with the Italy-Germany government bond spread as a measure of financial conditions, were the most important indicators to watch before the ECB could consider any move to taper its QE programs (Chart 6). Italian spreads have widened a bit in recent months, while the latest set of ECB economic forecasts still call for headline euro area inflation to remain well south of the 2% target out to 2023. For the BoJ, we simply cited a rise in realized inflation as the only possible development that could lead to a BoJ taper. The BoJ now forecasts that Japanese inflation will not reach the 2% central bank target until at least 2024. So for both the ECB and BoJ, the conditions do not warrant any imminent tapering of bond buying. Chart 6What The Most Dovish CBs Are Watching As another way to determine who could taper next, we turn to our Central Bank Monitors, which are designed to measure the pressure on policymakers to ease or tighten monetary setting. All the Monitors have responded to the recovery in global growth and inflation, along with the easing of financial conditions implied by booming markets, over the past year. Yet only the RBA Monitor is calling for tightening (Chart 7), indicating that the RBA’s current focus on only wages and realized inflation is a departure from their behavior in the past. The Fed and BoE Monitors have risen to the zero line, suggesting no further pressure to ease policy but no tightening is needed either. The ECB, BoJ and RBNZ Monitors are all close, but just below, the zero line, suggesting diminishing need for more monetary stimulus (Chart 8). Chart 7Bond Yields Have Moved Ahead Of Our CB Monitors Chart 8Yields Overshooting Tightening Pressures Here Too Based on our assessment of the above indicators, we judge the RBNZ to be the next central bank most likely to taper, sometime in the 2nd half of 2021. We still see the Fed starting to signal tapering later this year, but with actual slowing of US Treasury (and Agency MBS) purchases not occurring until early 2022. The year-over-year momentum of bond yields correlates strongly with the Central Bank Monitors. The rise in global bond yields seen over the past year has exceeded the pace implied by the Monitors. This is unsurprising given how rapidly the global economy has recovered from pandemic-fueled recession in 2020. Supply chain disruptions and surging commodity prices have also given a lift to bond yields via rising inflation expectations, even as central banks have promised to keep rates on hold for at least the next couple of years. Yet purely from a monetary policy perspective, the surge in global bond yields looks to have gone a bit too far, too fast. Bottom Line: Markets are now trying to sort out who will taper next after the BoC and BoE, and have concluded that it will not be the Federal Reserve, with US employment still well below the pre-pandemic peak. US Treasury yields will continue trading sideways until there is greater clarity on the pace of US labor market improvement, especially after the big downside miss in the April jobs report. Bond yields in other developed markets appear to have overshot economic momentum, and a period of consolidation is needed before yields can begin moving higher again. US Treasury Curve: How Much Steepening Left? Chart 9A Pause In The UST Bear-Steepening Trend For most of the past year, the primary trend in the US Treasury curve has been one of bear steepening. Longer maturity yields have borne the brunt of the upward pressure stemming from the rapid recovery in US (and global) economic growth from the depths of the 2020 COVID-19 recession. In recent weeks, however, the surge in longer-maturity Treasury yields has stalled, as have the immediate steepening pressures (Chart 9). Purely from a fundamental economic perspective, a steepening Treasury curve is an expected result of the reflationary mix of growth, inflation and monetary policy currently at work in the US. For example, since the 2020 lows, 5-year/5-year forward inflation expectations from the TIPS market have risen 143bps while the ISM manufacturing index surged from a low of 41 to a high of 65 in March of this year (Chart 10). Combine that with the Fed cutting rates to 0% last year, while promising to keep rates unchanged through 2023 and reinforcing that commitment through QE, and it is no surprise to see a steeper US Treasury curve. Chart 10UST Curve Steepening Has Been Driven By Reflation Yet even despite these obvious steepening pressures, the pace of the Treasury curve steepening does seem to be a bit rapid compared to history. In Chart 11, we show a “cycle-on-cycle” analysis, comparing the slope of various US Treasury curve segments (2-year versus 5-year, 5-year versus 10-year, 10-year versus 30-year) to the average of the previous five US business cycles, dating back to the 1970s. The curves are lined up to the start date of the previous recession, with the vertical line in the chart representing that date. Thus, this chart allows us to see how the Treasury curve evolved heading into, and coming out of, economic downturns. Chart 11 shows that the current 2-year/5-year curve, with a steepness of 63bps, is in line with past steepening moves coming out of recession. For the curve segments at longer maturities, the pace of steepening has been much more rapid than in the past. In fact, the current 5-year/10-year slope of 82bps is already above the average past peak level, as is the 10-year/30-year curve of 72bps. If we do the same cycle-on-cycle analysis for the three previous US recessions dating back to 1990, the current curve slopes are more in line with levels seen one year into the economic expansion (Chart 12). During those previous cycles, the curve steepening trend ended around two years into the expansion. This suggests that the current curve steepening could continue into 2022, except for one major difference – the Fed cut rates to 0% very rapidly last year, far faster than in the previous easing cycles. This suggests that additional curve steepening from current levels can only occur through a surge in US inflation. Chart 11Current UST Steepening Has Moved Fast Compared To Past Cycles Chart 12Can More UST Curve Steepening Occur With A 0% Funds Rate? The slope of the Treasury curve is typically correlated to the level of the nominal fed funds rate, but is even more strongly correlated to the funds rate minus actual inflation, or the real fed funds rate. When the real funds rate is below the natural real rate of interest, a.k.a. r-star, the Treasury curve has historically exhibited its strongest steepening trend. That can be seen in Chart 13, where we show the real fed funds rate (adjusted by US core CPI inflation) compared to the New York Fed’s estimate of r-star. The gap between the two series is shown in the bottom panel, correlating very strongly to the 2-year/30-year Treasury curve slope. Chart 13Curve Steepening Results When Real Rates Are Below R* With the nominal funds rate at zero, that gap between r-star and the real fed funds rate can only widen in a fashion that would support more curve steepening if a) realized US inflation moves higher or b) r-star moves higher. Both outcomes are possible as the US economic recovery, fueled by expanding vaccinations and fiscal stimulus. Both real rates and r-star are much lower in the current cycle than in previous economic recoveries, although the r-star/real funds rate gap appears to be following a more typical path that suggests potential additional steepening pressure (Chart 14). The wild card in this analysis is the Fed itself. If US economic growth and inflation evolve in way that makes it more likely the Fed would have to begin tapering QE and, eventually, signal future rate hikes, the Treasury curve may shift to a more typical bear-flattening trend seen during tightening cycles. We saw an example of that after the release of the March US employment report, where over a million jobs were created in a single month, causing 5-year Treasury yields to jump higher than longer-maturity Treasuries (i.e. curve flattening). Looking ahead, it appears that the US yield curve is more likely to slowly transition to a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime than continue the bear-steepening/bull-flattening: trend of the past twelve months. One way to position for this is to enter into butterfly curve trades that offer attractive carry or valuation. For that, we turn to our Treasury curve valuation models. We have been recommending a Treasury yield curve trade in our Tactical Overlay portfolio on page 19, going long a 7-year bullet versus going short a 5-year/10-year barbell (Chart 15). This barbell is now very cheap on our models, which measure value by regressing the butterfly spread on the underlying slope of the curve. In this case, the spread between the 5/7/10 butterfly is unusually wide compared to the slope of the 5/10 Treasury curve. According to our model, this butterfly spread discounts nearly 100bps of additional 5/10 steepening, an excessive amount compared to past cycles. Chart 14R* - Real Funds Rate Gap Below Previous Cyclical Peaks Chart 15Maintain Our Current 5/7/10 UST Butterfly Trade While the valuation is attractive on the 5/7/10 butterfly (Table 2), the carry on this position is a modest 12bps. A butterfly with more attractive carry is the 2/5/30 butterfly. Table 2US Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals Table 3US Butterfly Strategies: Carry Chart 16Enter A New 2/5/30 UST Butterfly Trade This butterfly has a neutral valuation (Chart 16) on our model, but offers 35bps of carry - the most attractive among all butterflies involving a 5-year bullet (Table 3). With US Treasury yields, and the Treasury curve slope, likely to remain rangebound for the next few months, going for higher carry trades is an attractive strategy – particularly if used in conjunction with a below-benchmark duration stance, which we still advocate. The 2/5/30 butterfly represents an attractive near-term hedge to that more defensive duration posture. Bottom Line: We are adding a new recommended US Treasury butterfly trade to our Tactical Overlay portfolio, going long the 5-year bullet and short the 2/30 barbell. This trade should benefit with US Treasury curve steepening overshooting the pace of past cycles, while offering attractive carry if persistent Fed dovishness slows the cyclical transition to a bear-flattening curve regime. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger", dated March 16, 2021, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

5 years ago

Entering A New Yield Curve Regime

Highlights Duration: Despite last month’s weak employment growth, we continue to expect the economy to reach maximum employment in time for the Fed to lift rates in 2022. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. TIPS: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have returned to levels that are consistent with the Fed’s target. Breakevens are also discounting a very rapid increase in near-term inflation at the front-end of the curve. Investors should take this opportunity to reduce TIPS exposure from overweight to neutral and to close inflation curve flattener and real yield curve steepener positions. Yield Curve: The Treasury curve has transitioned into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime beyond the 5-year maturity point, and as such, our recommended yield curve positioning must be re-considered. We recommend that investors position for maximum carry across the yield curve by going long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/30 barbell. April Payrolls Shock The Bond Market In the current environment, there is probably nothing more important for US bond investors than keeping a close eye on the monthly employment data. The Federal Reserve has made the first rate hike contingent on a return to “maximum employment”, and bond yield fluctuations reflect the market’s changing assessment of the timing and pace of future Fed rate hikes. Chart 1A Big Miss On Payrolls With that in mind, investors got a shock last Friday when April’s employment report disappointed expectations by one of the widest margins ever. The economy added only 266 thousand jobs to nonfarm payrolls in April while the Bloomberg consensus estimate was calling for 1 million! At present, the market is looking for Fed liftoff in February 2023 (Chart 2). We calculate that monthly employment growth must average at least 412 thousand for the Fed to reach its maximum employment goal by the end of 2022, in time to lift rates in early-2023 (Chart 1 on page 1). Average monthly employment growth of at least 698 thousand is required to hit the Fed’s maximum employment target by the end of this year.1 Chart 2Market Priced For Liftoff In February 2023 The last section of this report (titled “Evidence Of A Labor Shortage In The April Payrolls Report”) explores possible reasons for the weaker-than-expected employment data and concludes that payroll growth will be stronger in the second half of this year. We continue to expect that the economy will reach maximum employment in time for the Fed to lift rates in 2022, and as such, we advise bond investors to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Peak Inflation Last week, we downgraded our allocation to TIPS from overweight to neutral and closed two yield curve positions – an inflation curve flattener and a real yield curve steepener – that had been in place since April 2020.2 We made these moves for two reasons: There is a good chance that realized inflation won’t match the aggressive expectations that are already discounted in the front-end of the inflation curve. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are now consistent with the Fed’s target. In other words, they can’t rise much further without the Fed acting to bring them back down. On the first point, we continue to expect that inflation will be relatively strong between now and the end of the year, but the market has already more than priced-in this outcome. The 1-year CPI swap rate is currently 3.18% and the 2-year CPI swap rate sits at 2.99% (Chart 3). Even if we assume that core CPI increases by a robust +0.2% per month going forward, that will only cause 12-month core CPI inflation to reach 2.29% by the end of this year (Chart 4). Chart 3An Inflation Snapback Is Priced In Chart 4Inflation In 2021 Chart 5TIPS Are Very Expensive To further that point, this week we unveil our new TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator (Chart 5). The indicator is based on the theory of adaptive expectations – the theory that inflation expectations are formed based on recent trends in the actual inflation data. In essence, the indicator compares the current 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate to different measures of inflation and determines whether 10-year TIPS are currently cheap or expensive relative to 10-year nominal bonds. A negative reading indicates that TIPS are expensive, while a positive reading suggests that TIPS are cheap. At present, the indicator sits at -0.88. Historically, when TIPS are this expensive on our indicator there are strong odds that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will fall during the next 12 months (Table 1). Table 1TIPS Breakeven Valuation Indicator Track Record On the second point, we have often noted that a range of 2.3% to 2.5% on long-maturity TIPS breakevens (levels seen during the mid-2000s) is consistent with the Fed’s inflation target. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates haven’t spent much time near those levels during the past decade, but that is starting to change. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate recently shot up to 2.52%, above the top-end of our target band, while the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate sits near the low-end of the range at 2.34% (Chart 6). Even Fed Chair Powell acknowledged that TIPS breakeven rates are “pretty close to mandate consistent” in the press conference that followed the April FOMC meeting.3 This is not to say that we expect the Fed to pivot quickly towards tightening. However, once the economy reaches maximum employment and the Fed starts to lift rates, the pace of rate hikes will be much quicker if long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are threatening to break above 2.5%. This puts a long-run ceiling on TIPS breakevens, one that we are quickly approaching. As for our inflation curve flattener and real yield curve steepener positions, neither makes sense unless TIPS breakeven rates continue to rise (Chart 7). Chart 6Long-Maturity Breakevens Are At Target Chart 7Exit Inflation Curve Flattener And Real Yield Curve Steepener The cost of inflation compensation is much more volatile at the front-end of the curve than at the long end, which means that the inflation curve tends to flatten when breakevens rise and steepen when they fall. In other words, the inflation curve will not flatten further unless breakevens move higher. While we don’t see room for further inflation curve flattening, we also think that the curve will remain inverted. With the Fed targeting a temporary overshoot of its 2% inflation target, an inverted inflation curve is much more consistent with the Fed’s stated goals than a positively sloped one. As for the real yield curve, it’s easiest to think of a real yield curve steepener as the combination of a nominal curve steepener and an inflation curve flattener. If the inflation curve holds steady, then there is no difference between a real yield curve steepener and a nominal yield curve steepener. On that note, the next section of this report discusses why the case for a nominal yield curve steepener is also starting to break down. Bottom Line: Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates have returned to levels that are consistent with the Fed’s target. Breakevens are also discounting a very rapid increase in near-term inflation at the front-end of the curve. Investors should take this opportunity to reduce TIPS exposure from overweight to neutral and to close inflation curve flattener and real yield curve steepener positions. Nominal Treasury Curve: Pick Up Carry In Bullets The average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index troughed on August 4th 2020 and rose by 92 basis points until it peaked on April 2nd. The Treasury curve steepened dramatically during that period, with increases in the 10-year and 30-year yields far outpacing the rise in the 5-year yield (Table 2). Table 2Treasury Yield Changes Since The August 2020 Trough But the shape of the yield curve has behaved differently since yields peaked on April 2nd. The average index yield is down 11 bps since then, but the decline has been led by the 5-year while the 10-year and 30-year yields have been relatively sticky. We view this as evidence that, as we edge closer to an eventual rate hike cycle, the yield curve is entering a new regime. This is a natural progression. When rate hikes are only expected to occur far into the future, there will be very little volatility at the front-end of the curve and the yield curve will tend to steepen when yields rise and flatten when they fall. But over time, as we get closer to expected rate hikes, volatility will shift toward shorter and shorter maturities. This will eventually cause the yield curve to flatten when yields rise and steepen when they fall. Chart 8Buy 5-Year Versus 2/30 While there is still very little volatility in 1-3 year yields, it looks like the curve beyond the 5-year maturity point has transitioned into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime. That is, when yields rise we should expect the 5/30 slope to flatten and when yields fall we should expect the 5/30 slope to steepen. Indeed, we see that a gap has recently opened up between the trends in the 5/30 slope and the Treasury index yield, while the 2/5 slope remains tightly correlated with the level of yields (Chart 8). The big implication of this regime shift is that we should no longer expect our current recommended yield curve position, long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell, to perform well in a rising yield environment. To profit from rising yields, investors would be better off positioning for a flatter 5/30 curve by going short the 10-year bullet and long a duration-matched 5/30 barbell. However, this is not the strategy we’d recommend for investors who are already running below-benchmark portfolio duration and are thus already exposed to rising yields. The reason is that while we think the market’s current expected fed funds rate path is slightly too dovish, it is not that far from a reasonable forecast. Put differently, we see bond yields as biased higher but the near-term upside could be limited. For this reason, and since we are already exposed to higher yields through our portfolio duration call, we prefer to enter a yield curve position that will profit from an environment of stable yields. That is, a carry trade that offers a large amount of yield pick-up. The best trade in that regard is a position long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/30 barbell (Chart 8, bottom panel). This position offers a positive yield pick-up of 31 bps, a nice cushion against the risk of capital losses from further 2/30 steepening. Bottom Line: The Treasury curve has transitioned into a bear-flattening/bull-steepening regime beyond the 5-year maturity point, and as such, our recommended yield curve positioning must be re-considered. We recommend that investors position for maximum carry across the yield curve by going long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/30 barbell. Evidence Of A Labor Shortage In The April Payrolls Report Given the well-founded optimism about the pace of US economic recovery (real GDP grew 6.4% in the first quarter after all) it was very surprising that only 266 thousand jobs were added in April. One possible reason for the weak job growth is that a lack of labor supply is holding it back. We explored this issue in a recent report and concluded that there is a lot of evidence to support the claim.4 While it is a bad idea to read too much into any single datapoint, we think it’s likely that the labor shortage played a significant role in April’s poor employment number. At first blush, the industry breakdown of April’s employment report appears to refute the labor shortage narrative. For example, the Leisure & Hospitality sector added 331 thousand jobs on the month, by far the most of all the industry groups (Table 3). This is interesting because the Leisure & Hospitality sector – primarily restaurants and bars – is a close-contact service industry with low average wages, the exact sort of industry where we would expect to see evidence of a labor shortage. Table 3Employment By Industry But we don’t think strong Leisure & Hospitality job growth refutes the labor shortage narrative. For one thing, while +331k is a lot of new jobs in a single month, it could have been a lot more. The third column of Table 3 shows that the Leisure & Hospitality industry is still 2.8 million jobs short of where it was prior to COVID. Further, other indicators within the Leisure & Hospitality sector clearly point toward a lack of labor supply. The Job Openings Rate is much higher in the Leisure & Hospitality sector than in the economy as a whole (Chart 9) and Leisure & Hospitality wages have grown much more quickly during the past few months (Chart 9, bottom panel). It seems highly likely that Leisure & Hospitality job growth would be stronger if not for supply side constraints. More generally, economy-wide measures of labor demand have recovered much more quickly than the actual employment data (Chart 10). The job openings rate and the NFIB Jobs Hard To Fill survey have both surpassed their pre-COVID peaks, and more households describe jobs as “plentiful” than as “hard to get”. The one outlier is the unemployment rate which, after controlling for furloughed workers, has barely budged off its peak (Chart 10, bottom panel). This points strongly to labor supply being the limiting factor, not demand. Chart 9Leisure & Hospitality Wages Are Accelerating Chart 10Evidence Of A Labor Shortage Bottom Line: There is a lot of evidence that a lack of labor supply is holding back job growth. However, we expect that supply constraints will be cleared up relatively soon as widespread vaccination makes people more comfortable re-entering the labor force, and as expanded unemployment benefits lapse. We expect that job growth will be much stronger in the second half of 2021 and into 2022. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We define maximum employment as an unemployment rate of 4.5% and a labor force participation rate equal to its pre-COVID level of 63.3%. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020. 3 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20210428.p… 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Making Money In Municipal Bonds”, dated April 27, 2021. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

5 years ago