Market Returns
Two weeks ago, we highlighted that S&P 500 profit margins have likely peaked for the cycle and that our margin proxy, weighed down by mounting concerns over wage growth and nil pricing power, was pointing to a further decline (top panel). We are updating this today to show BCA’s Monetary Indicator (MI) and its confirming negative signal for SPX margins (MI shown inverted, second panel) These profit headwinds have been likely reflected in sell-side estimates that have forward EPS growth rates trailing forward revenue growth rates according to IBES data, implying contracting margins through the first nine months of the year. Including the slight year over year margin contraction in Q4/18, this means a full calendar year of falling margins. Grinding lower margins are a cause for short-term concern. Nevertheless, from a cyclical perspective we reiterate two important points: first, unit labor costs – the best measure of wage growth – remain muted as productivity growth has ramped up recently. Second, using empirical evidence dating back to the 1960s, the ultimate SPX profit margin mean reversion occurs during recessions, when EPS suffer a major setback; as a reminder, BCA’s review remains that the U.S. will avoid recession in the next 12 months. Thus, despite a near-term margin soft patch, we expect a mid-year margin inflection point courtesy of EPS growth green-shoots (please refer to Chart 3 from the March 18th Weekly Report).
Highlights Chart 1What’s The Downside? How low can it go? This is the question most investors are asking these days about the 10-year Treasury yield. Our answer is that it can’t go much lower unless the U.S. economy falls into recession, an event we don’t anticipate in 2019. Considering the main macro drivers of the 10-year Treasury yield, we find that the Global Manufacturing PMI (Chart 1), U.S. dollar bullish sentiment (not shown) and Global Economic Policy Uncertainty (not shown) are all close to mid-2016 levels. In other words, the economic growth and policy environment is almost identical to the one that produced a 1.37% 10-year Treasury yield in mid-2016. What’s preventing a return to mid-2016 yield levels is that the Fed has delivered nine rate hikes since then, and rising wage growth confirms that the output gap has closed considerably (bottom panel). In other words, with short-maturity yields much higher than three years ago, we would need to see a much more pronounced growth slowdown, i.e. PMIs well below 50, to re-produce a sub-2% 10-year Treasury yield. If 2019 continues to follow the 2016 roadmap and the Global PMI bottoms-out around 50, then the 10-year Treasury yield has probably already found its floor. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +268 bps. The Federal Reserve’s pause opens a window for corporate spreads to tighten during the next few months. We recommend overweight positions in corporate bonds for now, but will be quick to reduce exposure once spreads reach our near-term targets. Aaa spreads are already below target levels and we recommend avoiding that credit tier. Other credit tiers still have room to tighten, though Aa and A-rated bonds are only 3 bps and 5 bps above target, respectively (Chart 2).1 Once spreads reach more reasonable levels for this phase of the cycle, we will be quick to reduce corporate bond exposure because some indicators of corporate default risk are already sending warning signals.2 Most notably, corporate profits grew only 4.0% (annualized) in Q4 2018 while corporate debt rose 5.3% (annualized). The result is that our measure of gross leverage ticked higher for the first time since Q3 2017 (bottom panel). Going forward, with corporate profit growth likely to stabilize in the mid-single digit range, gross leverage will probably stay close to its current level. That would be consistent with a 3% speculative grade default rate, significantly above the 1.7% rate currently projected by Moody’s. Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview High-Yield: Overweight High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 23 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +566 bps. Junk spreads for all credit tiers remain above our near-term spread targets.3 At present, the Ba-rated option-adjusted spread is 235 bps, 55 bps above our target. The B-rated spread is 285 bps, 102 bps above our target. The Caa-rated spread is 802 bps, 244 bps above our target (Chart 3). Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview Elevated spreads mean that investors are currently well compensated for default risk, but that could change later in the year. In a recent report we showed that some leading default indicators – gross leverage, C&I lending standards and job cut announcements (bottom panel) – are showing signs of deterioration.4 Specifically, our model suggests that the speculative grade default rate could be 3% or higher during the next 12 months. Moody’s currently forecasts 1.7%. If the Moody’s forecast is correct, the high-yield default adjusted spread is 306 bps. If the Moody’s forecast turns out to be correct, then investors will take home a default-adjusted spread of 306 bps, well above the historical average of 250 bps. If our 3% forecast is correct, then the default-adjusted spread falls to 230 bps, slightly below the historical average (panel 4). In either case, investors are reasonably well compensated for bearing default risk, but that will change when spreads reach our near-term targets. We will be quick to cut exposure at that time. MBS: Neutral Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +27 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread widened 3 bps on the month, driven entirely by an increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). The option-adjusted spread (OAS) held flat at 40 bps. Falling mortgage rates since the beginning of the year have caused an increase in refinancing activity, leading to some widening in nominal MBS spreads (Chart 4). However, the tepid pace of new issuance in recent years means that the existing mortgage stock is not very exposed to refinancing risk. Consider that, despite an 80 bps drop in the 30-year mortgage rate, the MBA Refinance index has only risen to 1290. The Refi index’s historical average is 1824. Chart 4MBS Market Overview Further, housing starts and new home sales appear to have stabilized, meaning that there is probably not much further downside for mortgage rates. As a consequence, we don’t see much more scope for MBS spread widening. While MBS spreads appear relatively safe, the sector does not offer attractive expected returns compared to the investment alternatives. For example, the index option-adjusted spread for conventional 30-year MBS is well below its average historical level (panel 3) and the sector offers less compensation than normal compared to corporate bonds (panel 4). MBS also offer a poor risk/reward trade-off compared to other Aaa-rated spread products, as we showed in a recent report.5 Government-Related: Underweight The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 23 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +115 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 13 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +334 bps. Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 53 bps and Foreign Agencies outperformed by 42 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +139 bps and +151 bps, respectively. Domestic Agencies outperformed by 11 bps in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +20 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 4 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +16 bps. The USD-denominated sovereign debt of most countries continues to look expensive relative to equivalently-rated U.S. corporate credit. However, in a recent report we highlighted that Mexican sovereign debt is an exception (Chart 5).6 Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Not only is Mexican sovereign debt cheap relative to U.S. corporates, but our Emerging Markets Strategy service has shown that the Mexican peso is cheap.7 The prospect of a stronger peso versus the U.S. dollar makes the spread on offer from Mexican sovereign debt look even more attractive. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 39 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +52 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio rose 1% in March, and currently sits at 82% (Chart 6). This is more than one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and right around the average of 81% that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Chart 6Municipal Market Overview The Municipal / Treasury yield ratio for short maturities (2-year and 5-year) remains well below the yield ratio for longer maturities (10-year, 20-year and 30-year). In other words, the best value in the municipal bond space is at the long-end of the curve, and we continue to recommend that investors favor those maturities. Recently released data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that state & local government revenue growth declined in Q4 2018, for the first time since Q2 2017. As a result, our measure of state & local government interest coverage fell from a lofty 17 all the way down to 5 (bottom panel). Positive interest coverage means that state & local governments are still generating sufficient revenue to cover current expenditures and interest payments, and we therefore don’t anticipate a surge in muni ratings downgrades any time soon. We also continue to note that municipal bonds tend to perform better in the middle-to-late phases of the economic cycle, while corporate credit delivers its best returns early in the recovery.8 Investors should maintain an overweight allocation to municipal debt. Treasury Curve: Adopt A Barbell Curve Positioning Treasury yields fell dramatically in March, as the Fed surprised markets with a larger-than-expected downward revision to its interest rate projections. The result is that the overnight index swap curve is now priced for 34 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months (Chart 7). Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 7 bps to end the month at 14 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 1 bp to end the month at 58 bps. In recent reports we urged investors to adopt barbell positions along the yield curve. In particular, investors should avoid the 5-year and 7-year maturities and instead focus their allocations at the very short and long ends of the curve.9 There are three main reasons to prefer a barbell positioning. First, the 5-year and 7-year yields are most sensitive to changes in our 12-month discounter. In other words, those yields fall the most when the market prices in rate cuts and rise the most when it prices in rate hikes. As long as recession is avoided, the market will eventually price rate hikes back into the curve. Favor the 2/30 barbell over the 7-year bullet. Second, barbells currently offer a yield pick-up relative to bullets. The duration-matched 2/10 barbell offers 10 bps more yield than the 5-year bullet (panel 4), and the duration-matched 2/30 barbell offers 9 bps more yield than the 7-year bullet. This means that investors will earn positive carry in barbell positions while they wait for rate hikes to get priced back in. Finally, all barbell combinations look cheap according to our yield curve fair value models (see Appendix B). TIPS: Overweight TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 44 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +76 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 7 bps to end the month at 1.88% (Chart 8). The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 8 bps to end the month at 1.98%. Both rates remain below the 2.3% - 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed’s target. Chart 8Inflation Compensation As we noted in last week’s report, with financial conditions no longer excessively easy, the Fed has pivoted to a more dovish stance in an effort to re-anchor inflation expectations at levels more consistent with its 2% target.10 This change should support wider TIPS breakevens, though investors will also need to see evidence of firming realized inflation before meaningful upside materializes. So far, such evidence is in short supply. Note that trimmed mean PCE inflation has rolled over again after having just touched 2% (bottom panel). Trimmed mean PCE is running at 1.84% year-over-year. Nevertheless, we would maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. First, our commodity strategists see further upside in the price of oil (panel 2), and second, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 6 bps too low relative to the fair value from our Adaptive Expectations model (panel 4).11 ABS: Underweight Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +40 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 2 bps on the month and currently sits at 34 bps, exactly equal to its pre-crisis low (Chart 9). Chart 9ABS Market Overview We showed in a recent report that Aaa-rated consumer ABS offer a relatively poor risk/reward trade-off compared to other U.S. fixed income sectors, a result that is echoed by the Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C.12 This should not be surprising given that Aaa ABS spreads are close to all-time lows. What is surprising is that ABS spreads are so tight while the consumer delinquency rate is rising (panel 3). Although the delinquency rate remains well below pre-crisis levels, it will likely continue to rise going forward. Household interest payments are rising quickly as a share of disposable income (panel 3) and banks are tightening lending standards for both credit cards and auto loans (bottom panel). We recommend an underweight allocation to consumer ABS, preferring to take Aaa spread risk in MBS and CMBS. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 5 basis points in March, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +146 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 2 bps to end the month at 73 bps, below its average pre-crisis level but somewhat higher than recent tights (Chart 10). Chart 10CMBS Market Overview In a recent report we noted that non-agency CMBS offer the best risk/reward trade-off of any Aaa-rated U.S. spread product.13 While we remain cautious on the macro outlook for commercial real estate, noting that prices are decelerating (panel 3) and banks are tightening lending standards (panel 4) amidst falling demand (bottom panel), we view elevated CMBS spreads as providing reasonable compensation for this risk for the time being. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in March, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +74 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 2 bps on the month and currently sits at 50 bps. The Excess Return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector remains appropriate. Appendix A - The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 34 basis points of cuts during the next 12 months. We do not anticipate any rate cuts during this timeframe, and therefore recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return and excess return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the fed funds rate. Excess returns are relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Cash index. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Excess returns are calculated by subtracting assumed cash returns in each scenario from our total return projections. Appendix B - Butterfly Strategy Valuation The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of +53 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 53 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of March 29, 2019) Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of March 29, 2019) Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C - Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Map employs volatility-adjusted breakeven spread analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Map does not incorporate any macroeconomic view. The horizontal axis of the Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps of excess return. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For further details on how we arrive at those spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Assessing Corporate Default Risk”, dated March 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For further details on how we arrive at our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Assessing Corporate Default Risk”, dated March 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting China’s Stimulus”, dated January 17, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 For further details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 12 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 13 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation
Highlights Just when it looked like the agricultural complex was starting to perk up, it was slapped down again. After crawling its way back from a mid-2018 crash – retracing more than half of its decline – the CCI Grains and Oilseeds index plummeted in February, declining by nearly 9% (Chart Of The Week). The decline was broad-based, but was led by wheat, which was dragged down by muted demand and accounted for most of the index’s decline. Looking forward, we expect U.S. financial conditions and developments on the trade-war front to remain the main forces driving ag prices. Ample inventories will provide the cushion necessary to moderate the impact of potential supply-side shocks. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Venezuela suffered another power outage earlier this week, indicating the deterioration of its infrastructure is accelerating. While officials claim to have restored power, we expect more such outages going forward, which will severely reduce the country’s production and export capacity. Separately, Aramco announced it will buy 70% of Sabic, a Saudi state-owned petchem producer, for $69 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal. Base Metals: Neutral. China’s MMG Ltd was set to declare force majeure following protests at its Las Bambas mine in Peru earlier this week. The mine produces ~ 385k MT p.a., most of which goes to China. Precious Metals: Neutral. The inversion of the U.S. yield curve put a bid into the gold market this week, as investors sought a safe-haven refuge. Continued weakness in bond yields, and accommodative central banks responding to low inflation expectations globally will continue to support gold. Agriculture: Underweight. A more patient Fed will be supportive of ag prices in 2H19, as we discuss below. Feature Chart of the WeekWheat Had A Rough Start To 2019 A Patient Fed Will Support Ags In 2H19 While differences across ag markets will arise due to idiosyncratic supply shocks and targeted trade policies, a common determinant of ag price movements more generally is U.S. financial conditions. Since our last assessment of global ag markets, Fed policymakers have adopted a much more patient approach to monetary policy.1 In line with the pause in the Fed’s rates-normalization policy, financial conditions have eased considerably (Chart 2). We believe this will, ceteris paribus, bring relief to commodity markets in general, ags in particular, in the second half of this year. Chart 2Easier Financial Conditions Bode Well For Ags The bulk of this relief will be transmitted through the impact of a weaker dollar. Since the dollar is a countercyclical currency, its weakness implies an improvement in global growth. This more solid economic backdrop is associated with greater aggregate demand, particularly in EM economies, as well as demand for agricultural products. The lagged effects of financial tightening, weak Chinese credit growth and the trade war will persist in 2Q19. Furthermore, when the USD weakens against the currencies of ag exporting countries, farmers there are incentivized to hoard or cut exports – thus reducing supply – awaiting periods when a stronger greenback will raise their profits. At the same time, ags priced in USD become relatively more affordable for importing nations, incentivizing them to raise consumption. The net impact of this contraction in supply amid greater demand will pull up prices – illustrated by the relatively tight inverse relationship between ag prices and the dollar (Chart 3). Chart 3A Weaker USD Will Be A Tailwind In 2H19 Going into mid-2019, we expect global economic indicators to continue to be uninspiring. The lagged effects of financial tightening, weak Chinese credit growth and the trade war will persist in 2Q19. However, as these factors fade and give way to an improvement in global economic conditions and easier financial conditions, we expect the dollar to peak around mid-year. As such, a resurgence in global growth in the second half of the year will be reflected in an improvement in the value of the currencies of major ag exporters ex-U.S. (Chart 4). Ceteris paribus, this also benefits ag prices. Chart 4Weak Local Currencies Supporting Farm Profits, Incentivizing Production China’s Economy Remains Central Our outlook hinges on developments in the Chinese economy. Peter Berezin – our Chief Global Investment Strategist – expects Chinese authorities to not only stabilize credit growth, but also increase it, creating room for improvement in the world’s second largest economy.2 This combination of supportive global growth and a softer dollar bodes well for ag prices in 2H19. The Fed pause and associated easing in U.S. financial conditions will support global growth, causing the U.S. dollar to weaken – a bullish force for ag markets. Apart from the currency impact, easy financial conditions are supportive of global growth. A rise in income levels of emerging economies will support demand for goods and services generally, and agricultural commodities specifically.3 The market now expects 36 and 51 basis points of rate cuts over the coming 12 and 24 months, respectively. Similarly, following last week’s FOMC meeting, the median Fed dot indicates no rate hikes this year from the U.S. central bank, and only one in 2020. While our Global Investment Strategists would not be surprised to see a hike this year, the noticeably less hawkish tone in the Fed’s forward guidance and dot plots are positive for ag markets.4 Looking beyond that into late-2020 or early 2021, a potential pick-up in inflation will force the Fed to take a more hawkish stance, and once again support the U.S. dollar. This will weigh down on ag prices over the strategic time horizon. Bottom Line: The Fed pause and associated easing in U.S. financial conditions will support global growth, causing the U.S. dollar to weaken – a bullish force for ag markets. However, this is unlikely to occur before mid-year. In the meantime, a stronger dollar on the back of the lagged effects of growth dampening events in 2018, will remain a headwind. Ample Inventories Will Cushion Against Supply Shocks Putting aside the more or less uniform impact of U.S. financial conditions, individual supply-demand fundamentals will manifest as idiosyncratic risks and opportunities. The USDA has been revising its projections for ending stocks higher in its monthly World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) across the board since it released the first projections for the 2018/2019 crop year last May. However, we find that solely on the back of fundamentals, soybeans are more likely to resist upward pressure from easier U.S. financial conditions in 2H19 vs. wheat and corn. The USDA’s latest projections for the current crop year indicate that global bean markets are well supplied. Expectations of a global surplus this crop year – for the seventh consecutive year – will add to the growing cushion (Chart 5). Chart 5Beans Surplus Will Add To the Glut Since May, global ending bean stocks have been revised higher by a total of 20.47mm MT. The change in projections comes on the back of upward revisions to production and beginning stocks, compounded by downward revisions to consumption. The latter will likely contract further if the U.S. and China do not reach an agreement on the trade front (see below). Consequently, unless a weather disruption weakens supply, we expect soybean inventories to stand at record highs relative to consumption at the end of the current crop year. In the case of wheat, the impact on prices will likely be marginal. The global balance is expected to shift to a deficit in the current marketing year, following five years of surplus (Chart 6). While this is a positive for wheat prices, given that global inventory levels are relatively elevated – capable of supporting 37% of consumption – and the current deficit is relatively small, we do not expect the deficit to pressure prices in the near term. Chart 6Elevated Wheat Inventories Will Cushion Against Minor Deficit Despite continued downward revisions to the USDA’s wheat production projections, expectations of ending stocks have actually risen on the back of downward revisions to consumption. Similarly, corn fundamentals are also unlikely to sway prices much. The grain is expected to remain in deficit for the second consecutive year, which will pull inventories down off their 2016/17 peak to be capable of covering ~27% of global consumption (Chart 7). Despite this contraction in availability, global supplies remain relatively elevated, especially compared to the 2003 to 2012 period. Thus unless there is a significant supply shock, we don’t expect much support from fundamentals. Chart 7A Global Corn Deficit ... Unlike wheat demand, which has been downgraded, the USDA has revised corn consumption up relative to the first projections for the crop year released last May. Nevertheless, stronger expectations of consumption have been overwhelmed by upward revisions to production and beginning inventory levels. Given that world inventories already are bloated, we do not expect the likely deficit in wheat and corn supplies this crop year to pressure prices much to the upside. Since the mid-1990s, U.S. farmers had been planting more corn and wheat at the expense of soybean acreage (Chart 8). On a global level, while wheat remains more popular in terms of acreage, it is generally trending downwards, while corn and soybean plantings are trending up. However, over the longer term, U.S. farmers are expected to dedicate more land to corn relative to soybeans. Chart 8... Will Be Met By Rising U.S. Acreage Bottom Line: Given that world inventories already are bloated, we do not expect the likely deficit in wheat and corn supplies this crop year to pressure prices much to the upside. Similarly, a global glut in soybean supplies will only add to swelling inventories. The Trade War And Soybeans: It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over Aside from U.S. financial conditions and supply-demand balances, U.S. trade policy has also been roiling ag markets since China slapped U.S. soybeans with 25% tariffs in mid-2018. In fact, since the escalation of the trade dispute, soybean prices have been moving largely in response to developments on the trade front (Chart 9). As developments since the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires last December have been more favorable, soybean markets are on the path to recovery. Chart 9Markets Optimistic Of A Trade War Resolution So far, even though U.S. soybean exports to China picked up over the past two months, total U.S. exports still lag levels typical for this time of year (Chart 10). This comes despite U.S. efforts to raise shipments to other trading partners. Furthermore, U.S. exports will now be in direct competition with the Brazilian crop, which usually dominates trade flows at this time of year (Chart 11). While the U.S. tariff hike from 10% to 25% on $200bn of Chinese goods has been postponed, a resolution to the trade war has yet to occur. The path to a resolution is fraught with risks. While the U.S. tariff hike from 10% to 25% on $200bn of Chinese goods has been postponed, a resolution to the trade war has yet to occur. The path to a resolution is fraught with risks. The Trump-Xi meeting that was expected to occur in late-March was postponed; the next most likely date for a meeting is at the G20 summit in end-June. This leaves another 3 months of trade uncertainty. Nevertheless, our models indicate that soybeans are now priced at fair value, based on U.S. financial variables – absent a trade war (Chart 12). Furthermore, the premium priced into Brazilian beans above those traded on the CBOT has returned to its historical average (Chart 13). Thus, we do not expect a further reduction in the premium in the event Sino-U.S. trade negotiations are successful. Chart 13Premium For Brazilian Beans Has Normalized Rather, markets will be disappointed if the U.S. and China are unable to conclude a deal. This would put CBOT prices at risk and support the premium on those traded in Brazil. Given that our geopolitical strategists assign a non-negligible 30% probability that the trade war escalates further, we believe markets are overly optimistic that a deal will be concluded.5 If the trade war drags on and turns into a multi-year conflict, soybean markets will likely take a more meaningful hit. According to the USDA’s latest long-term projections released earlier this month, China’s soybean imports were projected to rise 32.1mm MT during the 2018-28 period – a massive downward revision from the 46mm MT expected for the 2017-2027 period contained in the previous long-run projections. Furthermore, outbreaks of African swine fever in China may put demand there at risk. Over 100 cases have so far been reported in China, with several cases already reported in Vietnam as well. This threatens to depress China’s need for soybean as animal feed, regardless of what happens on the trade front. Bottom Line: A positive outcome from the U.S.-China trade negotiations is not a given. Nevertheless, soybean markets are treating it as such. Our geopolitical strategists assign 30% odds that a final deal falls through. This non-negligible probability threatens to cause soybean prices to relapse anew, should Sino-U.S. trade negotiations break down. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “2019 Key Views: Policy-Induced Volatility Will Drive Markets,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy December 13, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled “What’s Next For The Dollar,” dated March 15, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Global Financial Conditions Will Drive Grain Prices In 2018,” dated November 30, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research’s Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled “Questions From The Road,” dated March 22, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled “China-U.S. Trade: A Structural Deal?,” dated March 6, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades
Highlights For the Eurostoxx50 to outperform the S&P500, the big euro area banks have to outperform the big U.S. tech stocks. Tactically overweight Eurostoxx50 versus S&P500 as well as other pro-cyclical positions such as overweight EM versus DM… …but prepare to take profits in the summer months. In the medium term, the euro area versus U.S. long-bond yield spread has plenty of scope to compress from its current -180 bps… …and EUR/USD has the scope to head higher. Feature Without a shadow of a doubt, the chart that causes the greatest stir among our clients is the Chart of the Week. It shows that one of the biggest investment decisions, the choice between the euro area and U.S. equity markets, reduces to the choice between the three large euro area banks – Santander, BNP Paribas, and ING – and the three U.S. tech behemoths – Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Chart of the WeekEurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 Is Just 3 Banks Vs. 3 Tech Stocks! Clients are simultaneously amazed and unsettled by this manifestation of the Pareto Principle, which states that the vast majority of an effect is explained by a tiny minority of causes. Financials feature large in the Eurostoxx50 while tech giants dominate the S&P500. But the amazing thing is that almost all of the relative performance can be explained by just three stocks in each market. The vast majority of an effect is explained by a tiny minority of causes. The chart creates a cognitive dissonance. What about the things that are supposed to matter for stock market selection: relative economic growth, profits growth, margins, valuations and geopolitics? The answer is that all of these are interesting areas of study, but they are mere details in the big picture. For the Eurostoxx50 to outperform the S&P500, the big euro area banks have to outperform the big U.S. tech stocks (Chart I-2). Period. Chart 2For The Eurostoxx50 To Outperform The S&P500, Euro Area Banks Have To Outperform U.S. Tech Our view is that in the immediate future this is certainly possible, but that over the long haul it will prove to be a very tall order. When The Mean Is Meaningless The structural performances of vastly different equity sectors can diverge for a very long time. How long? Japanese banks have underperformed U.S. tech for thirty years and counting! In this situation, mean-reversion and ‘standard deviations’ from the mean become meaningless concepts (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Japanese Banks Have Underperformed U.S. Tech For Thirty Years And Counting! The statistical concept of a standard deviation is only meaningful if the underlying data is stationary, which is to say mean-reverting. If it isn’t, then it is impossible to say that a sector price or valuation is stretched either versus another sector, or versus its own history. One problem is that sector performances and valuations undergo phase-shifts when they enter a different economic climate. The structural outlook for bank profits experiences a phase-shift when a debt super-cycle ends. Therefore, comparing a bank valuation after a debt super-cycle with the valuation during a debt super-cycle is as meaningless as comparing your height as an adult to your height when you were a child! Sector performances and valuations undergo phase-shifts when they enter a different economic climate. To which, a frequent riposte is: within the same sector, euro area companies appear cheaper than their counterparts elsewhere in the world. But again, this apparent value is deceptive because it is simply an adjustment for the so-called ‘currency translation effect’ and the anticipated long-term moves in exchange rates. If investors anticipate the euro ultimately to strengthen – because they see that it is trading well below purchasing power parity – then a multinational company listed on a euro area bourse will suffer a future headwind to its mixed-currency denominated profits when they are translated back to a stronger euro. To discount this anticipated headwind, the euro area multinational must trade cheaper compared with a peer in, say, the U.S. But the cheapness is a false impression. Pulling together these complexities of sector effects, phase-shifts in sector valuations and currency effects, making the big call between Europe and America on the basis of performance or valuation mean-reversion is dangerous. Instead, we come back to the basic question: should you tilt towards euro area financials or towards U.S. tech? Own Banks For The Short Term Only Japanese financial sector profits peaked in 1990 and stand at less than half that level today. Euro area financial sector profits peaked in 2007, and are tracking the Japanese experience with a 17-year lag. If euro area financial profits continue to follow in Japan’s footsteps, expect no sustained growth through the next 17 years (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Euro Area Financial Profits Are Following Japanese Footsteps In a post credit boom era, banks lose the lifeblood of their business: credit creation. This loss becomes a multi-decade headwind to financial sector profit growth and share price performance. Bank profits are dependent on two other drivers. One is operational leverage – the amount of equity held against the balance sheet. More stringent European regulation is making this a headwind too. Banks have to hold more equity capital against assets, diluting their profitability. The other driver is the net interest margin – the difference between rates received on loans and rates paid on deposits. In this regard, both fintech and the blockchain are likely to create a further headwind to bank profitability. Japan’s experience suggests that euro area financials will struggle to outperform structurally. Admittedly, U.S. tech may also face its own headwinds or phase-shift, most obviously antitrust lawsuits to counter its near-monopoly status. But even allowing for this, Japan’s experience suggests that euro area financials will struggle to outperform structurally. Rather, financials is a sector to play for outperformance phases lasting no more than a few quarters. Last autumn, we noted that short-term credit impulses in the major economies were flipping from a sharp down-oscillation into an up-oscillation phase (Chart I-5). On that basis, we recommended a tactical overweight to Eurostoxx50 versus S&P500 as well as other pro-cyclical positions such as overweight EM versus DM. Those pro-cyclical sector positions have broadly succeeded, but they are still appropriate given that up-oscillation phases very reliably last around nine months. Chart I-5Short-Term Credit Impulses Have Flipped To Up-Oscillations The caveat is: prepare to take profits in the summer months. The Fed Is Now At ‘Neutral’, But Where Is The ECB? Last week, the Federal Reserve confirmed that “the Federal funds rate (at 2.5 percent) is now in the broad range of estimates of neutral – the rate that tends neither to stimulate nor to restrain the economy.” This begs the question: where is the ECB policy rate (now at 0 percent) relative to its neutral? Our very high conviction view is that the ECB policy rate is well below neutral. Financials is a sector to play for outperformance phases lasting no more than a few quarters. The twenty year life of the euro captures multiple manias and crises, some centred in Europe, some in the U.S. Through these twenty years, the euro area versus U.S. long bond yield spread has averaged -50 bps1 (Chart I-6). Over this same period, the euro area versus U.S. annual inflation differential has also averaged -50 bps (Chart I-7). Ergo, the real interest rate differential has averaged zero. Meaning, the ex-post neutral real interest rates in the euro area and the U.S. have been exactly the same. Chart I-6The Euro Area Vs. U.S. Yield Spread Has Averaged -50 Bps... Chart I-7...The Euro Area Vs. U.S. Inflation Spread Has Also Averaged -50 Bps With little difference in the neutral real rates over the past two decades, is there a valid reason to expect a difference in the future? An obvious response is the fragility of the euro area’s banking system will require the ECB to persist with its zero interest rate policy for years. In Germany and France, bank lending is healthy, and could easily weather modestly tighter monetary policy. In fact, the evidence suggests that this fear is exaggerated. In Germany and France, bank lending is healthy, and could easily weather modestly tighter monetary policy (Chart I-8). The problem has been localised in Italy, where bank lending relapsed once again in 2018. Chart I-8Bank Lending Is Healthy In Germany And France However, on closer examination this was a direct result of political tensions. Recently, Italian bank lending has been a very tight (inverse) function of the Italian bond yield. The BTP yield spiked last year when Rome escalated its budget spat with Brussels, and bank lending took a hard hit. But now that the Italian bond yield has retraced, lending should recover (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Italian Bank Lending Should Recover Now That The Bond Yield Has Come Down The central issue is can the U.S. policy rate – which is at neutral – and the ECB policy – which is below neutral – diverge much from here? Our high conviction answer is no. Therefore, in the medium term, the euro area versus U.S. long-bond yield spread has plenty of scope to compress from its current -180 bps, one way or the other (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Can Interest Rate Expectations Diverge Much From Here? It also implies that after remaining range-bound in the immediate future, EUR/USD has the scope to head higher. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System This week’s recommended trade is to go long SEK/NOK, as it is close to the limit of tight liquidity that has signaled many previous technical reversals in this currency cross. Set a profit target of 1.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, the on-going rally in government bonds caused the short position in 30-year T-bonds to hit its stop-loss. This leaves us with five open positions. Long SEK/NOK. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Calculated from the over 10-year government bond yield: euro area average, weighted by sovereign issue size, less U.S. Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Investors should use the following dynamic for tactical asset allocation: 1. Sum the 10-year yields on the T-bond, German bund, and JGB. 2. When the sum is near 4 percent, it is prudent to de-risk portfolios and sit aside, at least for a while. It is a good level to buy a mixed portfolio of high-quality 10-year government bonds. 3. Just below this level, a sum in the 3-4 percent range defines a kind of ‘no man’s land’ in which equities drift sideways. 4. When the sum is near 3 percent, the seemingly rich valuations of equities versus bonds is fully justified. And it is appropriate to redeploy tactically from bonds to equities (Chart of the Week). 5. Use the 65-day fractal dimension to pinpoint the precise transition points between asset-classes: as for example, successfully achieved for the DAX versus German bunds. Right now, with the sum near 3 percent, it is still appropriate to be overweight equities versus bonds, and our preferred expression is overweight the DAX versus the German long bund. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Rule Of 4 Becomes The Rule Of 3 The global long bond yield recently hit a two-year low (Chart I-2). This is the direct result of central banks’ pivot to dovish – a commitment to keep policy rates at current levels, rather than to hike, for the foreseeable future. Chart I-2The Global Long Bond Yield Recently Hit A Two-Year Low One consequence is that high-quality bonds have become riskier. Consider a German bund or a JGB which is yielding zero percent. The short-term potential for capital appreciation – nominal or real – has almost vanished, while the potential for vicious losses has increased dramatically. The technical term for this negative asymmetry is negative skew. Years of research in a field of behavioural economics called Prospect Theory concludes that negative skew is the metric that best encapsulates investment risk. The Correct Way Of Thinking About Investment Risk A great misunderstanding of finance is to equate risk with volatility. Risky assets, such as equities, are risky not because they are volatile in the conventional sense. After all, who minds when their asset price goes up sharply? Risky assets are risky because they have the propensity to experience much larger short-term losses than short-term gains – captured in the saying: equities climb up the stairs on the way up, but they jump out of the window on the way down. High-quality bonds have become riskier. Another great misunderstanding of finance is the idea that bonds offer a diversification benefit and, therefore, that investors should accept a lower return from them. This argument is also flawed. The bond market is bigger than the equity market, and just as bonds are a diversifier for equity investments, equities are a diversifier for bond investments. Indeed, equities have protected bond investors during vicious sell-offs in the bond market such as after Trump’s shock victory in 2016. So we could equally argue that equities offer a diversification benefit. In fact, the correct way of thinking about investment risk is as follows: An investment’s risk depends on the negative asymmetry of its short-term returns. At very low bond yields, bond returns develop the same negative asymmetry as equity returns (Chart I-3). This means that equities lose their excess riskiness versus bonds, requiring equity valuations to experience a phase transition sharply higher (Chart I-4). But when bond yields normalize, equities regain their excess riskiness versus bonds – and their valuations must suffer a phase transition sharply lower. The phase transition in equity valuations is most pronounced when the global 10-year bond yield goes up or down through 2 percent (Chart I-5). This dynamic proved to be the biggest driver of asset allocation in 2018, and is likely to be a big driver in 2019 too. Essentially, higher bond yields can suddenly and viciously undermine the valuation support of equities, triggering a plunge in the stock market and other risk-assets which threatens a disinflationary impulse. The unsurprising response from central banks is to pivot back to dovish, pulling back bond yields to previous lows. These lower bond yields then push up equity (and other risk-asset) valuations back to previous highs. An investment’s risk depends on the negative asymmetry of its short-term returns. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or decline further. But the longer-term danger is that these rich valuations are hyper-sensitive to rising bond yields. The Bubble In Everything The current episode of elevated risk-asset valuations is not unprecedented, but there is a crucial difference. Previous episodes of elevated risk-asset valuations tended to be localised, either by geography or sector: 1990 was focussed in Japan; 2000 was focussed in the dot com related sectors; 2008 was focussed in the U.S. mortgage and credit markets. Extraordinary monetary policy has boosted the valuations of all risk-assets across all geographies and all asset-classes. By comparison, the post-2008 global experiment with quantitative easing, and zero and negative interest rate policy has boosted the valuations of all risk-assets across all geographies and all asset-classes – equities (Chart I-6), credit (Chart I-7), and real estate (Chart I-8). This makes it considerably more dangerous, because we estimate that the total value of global risk-assets including real estate is $400 trillion, equal to about five times the size of the global economy.1 Chart I-6Equities Remain Richly Valued Chart I-7Credit Remains Richly Valued Chart I-8The EM Real Estate Boom Happened After 2008 Let’s say you had a risk-asset that was priced to generate 5 percent a year over the next decade. Now imagine that the valuation boost from ultra-accommodative monetary policy capitalises all of those future returns to today. For those future returns to drop to zero, today’s price must surge by 63 percent.2 If you were prudent, you might amortise today’s windfall to generate the original 5 percent a year over the next decade. But if you were imprudent, you might spend a large amount of the windfall today. The total value of global risk-assets equals five times the size of the global economy. Now let’s imagine a valuation derating moves the risk-asset’s returns back to the future. For those that had prudently amortised the original windfall, nothing has really changed and future spending patterns would not be impacted. But not everybody is prudent. For those that had imprudently spent the original windfall, future spending would inevitably suffer a nasty recession. The Rule Of 4 Becomes The Rule Of 3 How can we sense the crucial 2 percent level in the global 10-year bond yield? The answer is that it broadly equates to when the sum of the 10-year yields on the T-bond, German bund and JGB is at a 4 percent level (Chart I-9). This is the genesis of our very successful ‘Rule of 4’. In 2019, just as in 2018, investors should use the following dynamic for tactical asset allocation. The rule of 4 identifies when the global 10-year bond yield is at 2 percent. Chart I-9When The Sum Of 10-Year Yields On The T-Bond, Bund, And JGB Equals 4 Percent, The Global 10-Year Yield Equals 2 Percent Sum the 10-year yields on the T-bond, German bund, and JGB. When the sum is near 4 percent, it is prudent to de-risk portfolios and sit aside, at least for a while. It is a good level to buy a mixed portfolio of high-quality 10-year government bonds. Just below this level, a sum in the 3-4 percent range defines a kind of ‘no man’s land’ in which equities drift sideways. When the sum is near 3 percent, the seemingly rich valuations of equities versus bonds is fully justified. And it is appropriate to redeploy tactically from bonds to equities. Use the 65-day fractal dimension to pinpoint the precise transition points between asset-classes: as for example, successfully achieved for the DAX versus German bunds (Chart I-10). Overweight equities versus bonds. With the sum of the three 10-year yields now near 3 percent, the rule of 4 has, in a sense, become the rule of 3. It is still appropriate to be tactically overweight equities versus bonds, and our preferred expression is to overweight the DAX versus the German long bund. Chart I-10Use The 65-Day Fractal Dimension To Pinpoint The Precise Transition Points Between Asset-Classes Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Trapped: Have Equities Trapped Bonds?”, September 13, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 5 percent compounded over ten years.
Highlights Portfolio Strategy As growth becomes scarce, investors flock to sectors that are slated to outgrow the broad market and shy away from the ones that are forecast to trail the SPX’s growth rate. This week we rank sectors and subsectors by EPS growth in our universe of coverage, and identify sweet and trouble spots. Fired up crack spreads, firming refining industry operating metrics, reaccelerating exports along with washed out technicals and compelling valuations, all signal that the time is ripe to buy into refining weakness. The cable industry’s demand headwinds are reflected in depressed relative valuations at a time when industry pricing power is trying to stage a comeback and a drifting lower greenback may also provide positive profit offsets. Stick with a benchmark allocation. Recent Changes Boost the S&P Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing index to overweight all the way from underweight today, locking in relative profits of 21%. Table 1 Feature Equities broke out last week and surpassed the upper band of their recent trading range, despite economic data releases that continued to surprise to the downside. Two weeks ago, we cautioned investors not to put cash to work as a tactical indigestion period loomed, with the SPX facing stiff resistance near the 2,800 level. In addition, we posited that most of the good news related to the U.S./China trade spat front was reflected in the S&P 500’s V-shaped recovery (top panel, Chart 1). In relative terms, the bottom panel of Chart 1 confirms that the easy money has already been made on the assumption of a positive resolution to the U.S./China trade dispute. Chart 1Trade Deal Priced In Going forward, the earnings juggernaut will have to remain in place in order for stocks to vault to fresh all-time highs, likely in the back half of the year. The Trump administration’s massive fiscal stimulus artificially fueled profit growth last year both by lowering the corporate tax rate and by encouraging overseas cash repatriation. The latter boosted share buybacks to an all-time record. Despite 24% EPS growth and $1tn in equity retirement, the SPX ended 2018 6% lower. Why? It became clear that EPS growth was headed lower. In order to gauge trend EPS growth we opt to use EBITDA, a cash flow proxy measure that strips out the direct impact of last year’s fiscal easing. Chart 2 clearly shows that trend growth took a step down following the positive base effects of the GFC-induced collapse and averaged close to 5%/annum from 2012 to 2014. Subsequently, the late-2015/early-2016 manufacturing recession sunk EBITDA into contraction, but the euphoria surrounding the newly elected President pushed trend EBITDA growth to near 10%/annum for two full years in 2017 and 2018. Chart 2Return To 5% Growth? Since the late-2018 peak, 12-month forward EBITDA growth continues to drift lower and is now hovering just shy of 3%. Our sense is that 5% organic profit growth is consistent with nominal GDP printing 4%-4.5% at this stage of the business cycle, signaling that a return to the 2012-2014 growth backdrop is likely later in the year. As a reminder, positive profit growth in calendar 2019 remains one of the three pillars underpinning stocks that we have highlighted since the beginning of this year. Stocks have come full circle recovering all of last December’s losses, but in order to make fresh all-time highs, profits will have to deliver. We deem that an earnings validation phase is transpiring and there are early signs that profit growth will trough sometime in the first half of the year. Not only has EBITDA breadth put in a bottom (Chart 2), but also economically hypersensitive indicators suggest that forward EBITDA growth will soon tick higher. Namely, the ISM manufacturing new orders component has perked up on a year-over-year basis. The trough in lumber futures momentum corroborates this message, as does the tick higher in the U.S. boom/bust indicator (Chart 3). Chart 3Growth Green-shoots Given the current macro backdrop and awaiting the profit validation, when growth becomes scarce investors flock to sectors that are outgrowing the broad market and shy away from ones that trail the SPX’s growth rate. Typically, in recessionary times that would equate to investors bidding up defensive sectors that command stable cash flow businesses and avoiding highly cyclical industries. But, BCA does not expect a recession in the coming year. Thus, in order to identify high growth sectors that should outperform during the current soft patch and growth laggards that should underperform, we compiled a table with the GICS1 sectors and all the subsectors we cover. First, we rank the GICS1 sectors and then within each sector we rank the subsectors, both times by absolute 12-month forward EPS growth using I/B/E/S/ data (see second columns, Table 2). We aim to reproduce this table once a quarter. Table 2Identifying S&P 500 Sector EPS Growth Leaders And Laggards The third columns in Table 2 show the sector growth rate relative to the SPX. The final columns in Table 2 highlight the trend in relative growth. In more detail, they compare the current relative growth rate to that of three months ago: a positive sign indicates an upgrade in analysts’ relative estimates and a negative sign a downgrade in analysts’ relative estimates. Industrials and financials (we are overweight both) are leading the pack outpacing the broad market by 410bps and 350bps, respectively, and enjoy a rising profit trend. On the flip side, energy (overweight) and real estate (underweight) trail the broad market by 490bps and 1480bps, respectively, and showcase a deteriorating EPS trend. With regard to energy, we first identified that analysts are really punishing this sector in the January 22 Weekly Report and the sector’s 2019 EPS contribution was and remains negative.1 Our overweight call will be offside if oil prices suffer a new setback, but our Commodity & Energy strategy service remains bullish on oil, implying relative EPS outperformance in 2019. Year-to-date, energy has bested the SPX by 170bps. This week, we make an energy sector subsurface tweak, and also update a communication services subgroup. Light My Fire Last summer we took refiners down to a below benchmark allocation as all of the good news was perfectly reflected in soaring relative share prices (top panel, Chart 4), at a time when cracks were forming. Now we are compelled to book gains of 21% and boost exposure all the way to overweight. Chart 4Crack Spreads Are On Fire Today, refiners paint a near exact opposite picture compared with last July. Relative share prices are no longer rising by 50%/annum. Instead, momentum has collapsed and is now contracting (middle panel, Chart 4). Sell-side analyst exuberance has turned into outright pessimism: refiners’ profits are expected to trail the broad market in the coming year. By comparison, last summer they were penciled in to beat the market by 30 percentage points (bottom panel, Chart 4). Granted M&A activity had also added fuel to the fire, but now all the hot air has come out of the refining industry, and then some. Refiners’ riches move in tandem with crack spreads. When refining margins widen, profits excel and vice versa. Now that refining margins are in a slingshot recovery, refining ills will turn into fortunes (bottom panel, Chart 4). Importantly, wide Brent-WTI spreads underpin crack spreads. Moreover, the crude oil versus refined product inventory backdrop currently reinforces a widening in refining margins. In absolute terms, gasoline stockpiles are being worked off (gasoline inventories shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 5) and grinding higher demand for refined petroleum products (top panel, Chart 5) will further tighten the industry’s inventory outlook. Chart 5Healthy Supply/Demand Backdrop One way domestic refiners are taking advantage of the still wide Brent-WTI differential is via the export markets. Net refined products exports are running at over 3mn barrels/day (bottom panel, Chart 6), and the softening greenback since November will further boost profits with a slight lag as U.S. refining exports will grab an even larger slice of the global pie (U.S. dollar shown inverted and advanced, middle panel, Chart 6). Chart 6U.S. Dollar Softness Is A Boon To Refining Profits On the valuation front, both the relative forward P/E and P/S have undershot their respective historical means and EPS breadth is as bad as it gets, offering investors an excellent entry point in the pure-play oil & gas refining industry (Chart 7). Chart 7Extreme Analyst Pessimism Reigns In sum, fired up crack spreads, firming refining industry operating metrics, reaccelerating exports along with washed out technicals and compelling valuations, all signal that the time is ripe to buy into refining weakness. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index to overweight all the way from a below benchmark allocation, crystalizing 21% in relative profits since last summer’s inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILR – PSX, MPC, VLO, HFC. Cable’s Down But Not Out Cable & satellite stocks had been in an uninterrupted run from the depths of the Great Recession until the peak in relative share prices in August 2017. Since then, cord cutting news and the proliferation of on demand streaming services have wreaked havoc on the industry and cable stocks have trailed the market by over 33% from peak to the most recent trough (top panel, Chart 8). Chart 8Cable Signals Are… This deteriorating demand backdrop more than offset the industry’s reaction function, which has been intra and inter-industry M&A. Now that the M&A dust has settled, what is next in store for the industry? We reckon that leading profit indicators are a mixed bag and we continue to recommend a benchmark allocation in this niche communications services subgroup. The top panel of Chart 8 shows that relative outlays on cable are on a slippery slope, and will continue to weigh heavily on relative share prices for the coming quarters. Nevertheless, the ISM services survey ticked higher recently and is on the cusp of making fresh recovery highs, unlike its sibling the ISM manufacturing survey. This is encouraging news for cable executives and suggests that demand for cable services may not be as moribund as the PCE release is projecting (second panel, Chart 9). Chart 9..A Mixed… While the cable demand backdrop is unclear, industry pricing power has managed to exit deflation. Cable selling prices have been positive for the better part of the past decade, but starting in late-2017 they collapsed by roughly 600bps relative to overall inflation. True, this deflationary impulse dented profit margins, but currently the industry’s selling prices – and to a much lesser extent profit margins – are in a V-shaped recovery mostly courtesy of base effects (middle & bottom panels, Chart 8). Absent a sustained hook up in cable demand, selling price inflation will prove fleeting and the recent margin expansion phase will also lose steam. Meanwhile, cable stocks and the U.S. dollar enjoy a positive correlation as most of the constituents’ earnings are derived domestically (Chart 10). The recent U.S. dollar softness will, at the margin, weigh on relative profits and thus relative share prices, especially if the Fed stays pat and refrains from raising rates for the rest of the year as the bond market currently expects. Chart 10…Bag Finally, earnings breadth continues to fall, but relative valuations are still well below the historical mean (third & bottom panels, Chart 9). Netting it all out, cable’s demand headwinds are well reflected in depressed relative valuations at a time when industry pricing power is trying to stage a comeback and a drifting lower greenback may both provide positive profit offsets. Bottom Line: Remain on the sidelines in the S&P cable & satellite index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CBST – CMCSA, CHTR, DISH. Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting 2019 Earnings” dated January 22, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps
We continue to expect copper prices to increase in the near term, as China’s credit cycle bottoms and DM central banks soften their monetary-policy stance. Fiscal and monetary stimulus in China also will be supportive of base metals prices going forward. The evolution of the Sino - U.S. trade negotiations remains a risk to our view, given how important the outcome of these talks will be for investors’ expectations and sentiment. Markets appear to be discounting a positive outcome. Anything that scuppers these talks – or results in a no-deal outcome – will be a negative for base metals, copper in particular. Our tactical long copper position is up by 1.2% since we initiated it last week. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Russian oil companies are expected to keep production lower until July, when the current OPEC 2.0 production-cutting agreement now in place expires. We expect the deal will be extended to year-end.1 Separately, the risk of a complete shutdown in Venezuela’s oil industry rose significantly, as a power failure in most of the country all but eliminated potable water supplies and significantly reduced oil exports. Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral. High-grade iron-ore prices got a boost this week as Vale was ordered to temporarily suspend exports from its primary port at Guaiba Island terminal in Rio de Janeiro state, according to Metal Bulletin’s Fastmarkets.2 The price-reporting agency’s 62% Fe Iron Ore Index rose $1.46/MT at $85.25/MT Tuesday. Precious Metals: Neutral. Spot gold is back above $1,300/oz, on the back of monetary policy easing among important central banks. This also is supporting base metals globally (see below). Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grain markets continue to drift sideways, awaiting definitive news re Sino - U.S. trade talks, specifically when presidents Xi and Trump will meet to finalize a deal (see below). Separately, wheat and corn inventories are expected to rise on the back of higher supplies and lower exports, the USDA forecast in its latest world supply-demand estimates. Feature Recent data releases confirm our view that global growth will remain weak in 1Q19 and early 2Q19. This will continue to put downward pressure on cyclical commodities – chiefly base metals and oil (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekGlobal Growth Slows In 1Q19 The persistence of the slowdown provoked major central banks to adopt a dovish stance in the short-term. This is easily seen in the recent actions by the U.S. Fed, the European Central Bank (ECB), the Bank of Canada (BoC) and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), all of which have communicated a pause in their rate normalization policies.3 At the moment, the frail global growth is partly balanced by expectations of a positive outcome re the ongoing Sino - U.S. trade negotiations (Chart 2). In the coming months, we expect the effect of accommodative DM monetary policy combined with an expansion in China’s credit (more on this below) and fiscal stimulus – i.e., tax cuts announced earlier this month amounting to almost $300 billion (~ 2 trillion RMB) meant to support policymakers’ GDP growth targets – will go a long way toward reversing the earlier contraction. The effect of these policy decisions will be apparent in 2H19. Chart 2China Growth To Hook Higher China’s Credit Cycle Bottomed In December 2018 The evolution of China’s credit cycle remains a central pillar to our view commodity demand growth in 2H19 will surpass consensus expectations. The massive growth reported in China’s January credit statistics revived investors’ expectations that China’s banks will re-open the credit valves as they did in 2016.4 In our view, this number does signal a bottom in China’s credit cycle, and implies Chinese – and indirectly EM – growth will bottom sometime this year. However, we still are not expecting a complete blowout credit expansion this year. We continue to believe Chinese policymakers will focus on stabilizing credit in 1H19 with moderate increases in supply, and start increasing stimulus in 2H19 or 2020 in order to maximize its effect later in 2020 ahead of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2021. The soft February credit number released this week supports this argument.5 China’s Credit Cycle Matters For Base Metals Demand The relationship between China’s credit cycles and base metal prices endures and remains robust. We measure China’s aggregate credit using bank and non-bank claims on non-financial enterprises, households, local and central governments, and non-bank financial institutions. This corresponds to adding outstanding central and local government bonds to China’s Total Social Financing (TSF).6 The annual change in aggregate credit – or its impulses – do not perfectly capture the cycles in global base metal demand. These variables provide interesting signals about the direction and magnitude of movements in credit, however, they do not track base metals’ price cycles accurately and consistently (Chart 3). Chart 3Metals Price Cycles Don't Track Changed In China's Credit To decompose this variable into its trend and cycle, we use a proxy of the credit cycle constructed using the Hodrick-Prescott and Hamilton filters, and the standardized 12-month credit impulse (Chart 4).7 Chart 4China's Credit Cycle Proxy We find that our credit cycle proxy Granger causes base metal prices, import volume and industrial activity (Table 1).8 On average, it leads these variables by 4-6 months (Chart 5). Hence, we believe our credit cycle proxy provides valuable information about future commodity demand in China. Table 1China Credit Cycle Correlations In fact, when regressing copper prices and the LMEX against it, we found that 60% and 58% of the variation in copper prices and the LMEX, can be explained by the linear relationship with our China credit cycle proxy, respectively (Chart 6). Chart 6China's Credit Cycle and Metals Prices Given the leading property of China’s credit cycles with respect to industrial activity and metal prices, we included this new proxy in our Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index.9 This improves the correlation of our index with copper prices (Chart 7). Chart 7Credit Cycle Improves BCA's GIA Currently, our models suggest copper prices should increase in the coming months as China’s credit cycle bottoms and DM central banks soften their monetary policy stance. The evolution of the China-U.S. trade negotiations remains a risk to our view as the outcome will weigh on investors’ expectations and sentiment. China’s Vs. DMs’ Credit Cycles Between 2009 and 2014, China’s credit cycle lagged the U.S. and EU’s broad money cycles (Chart 8). This counter-cyclicality is partly explained by its elevated level of exports to the U.S. and of hard goods to Europe. When the global economic cycle works in China’s favor – i.e., when the Fed and ECB are accommodative or fiscal stimulus is deployed in either or both regions – China’s exports rise as U.S. and EU aggregate demand increases. This typically reduces the need for endogenous fiscal or monetary stimulus within China. Chart 8China's Credit Cycle Lags U.S., EU Money Cycles On the other hand, when the global economic cycle contracts and fiscal and monetary policy ex China becomes a headwind, Chinese policymakers typically need to deploy fiscal and monetary policy to keep growth going, or at least avoid a contraction in their economy. Between 2016 and 2017, DM and China credit cycles aligned and increased simultaneously. Taking into account the 4-to-6-month lag between the time credit supply is increased and commodity demand rises, this created bullish conditions for metals and oil from 2H16 to 1H18, pushing copper prices up by 60%. In 2018, both regions’ cycles rolled over. Base metals markets currently are experiencing the consequences of this contraction in credit availability and tightening of financial conditions generally. Going forward, we expect China will step in to raise domestic demand and offset the impact of the decline in credit availability elsewhere, which is affecting demand for its exports in the short-term. In the medium-term, the U.S. and EU, along with India, do not appear to be inclined to absorb Chinese exports to the extent they did in the past, which means the pivot to domestically generated growth through consumer- and services-led demand is the most viable alternative Chinese policymakers have to keep growth on target. Bottom Line: The dovish turn of major DM central banks combined with a bottoming of China’s credit cycle will support cyclical commodities at the margin in the coming months. During the second half of this year, we expect a more significant pick up in China’s credit, setting the stage for a year-end rally in base metal prices. As a consequence, the impact of China’s credit growth on base metals demand could diminish compared to previous stimulus targeting industrial demand. Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “Russia’s oil companies ready to cut output until July: TASS,” published by reuters.com March 12, 2019. 2 Please see Fastmarkets MB’s Daily Steel, March 12, 2019. 3 Please see “Pervasive Uncertainty, Persuasive Central Banks,” published by BCA Research’s Global Fixed Income Strategy March 12, 2019. It is available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see “China Macro And Market Review,” published by BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy March 13, 2019. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 See footnote 4 above. 6 For more details please see “EM: A Sustainable Rally Or A False Start?” published by BCA Research’s Emerging Market Strategy March 7, 2019. It is available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 7 Hamilton notes the HP filter can be problematic. In general, we agree with critics of the filter (i.e. it results in spurious dynamics that are unrelated with the true data-generating process, it has an end-point bias which affects its real-time properties, and it is highly dependent on the parameter selection). However, there are some arguments in support of using the HP filter to proxy the credit cycle. First, as long as there are no clear theoretical foundation for an accurate measurement of the credit cycle, empirical validation should remain the number one criteria by which one selects its proxy. Second, credit cycles vary in duration and this weakens the ability to construct a reliable proxy. The usual parameter used with the HP filter favors short-term cycles (i.e. ~ 2 years) while the Hamilton filter focuses on medium-term cycles (i.e. ~ 5 years). Therefore, both can convey useful information. Third, China’s aggregate credit variable in level has a quasi-linear trend and is roughly approximated by a trend-stationary process with breaks in the trend and constant. Such a process should converge in limit when decomposed using the HP filter. Please see James D. Hamilton (2018), “Why You Should Never Use the Hodrick-Prescott Filter,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol 100(5), pages 831-843. and Phillips, Peter C. B. and Jin, Sainan (2015), “Business Cycles, Trend Elimination, and the HP filter,” Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 2005. 8 Granger causality refers to a statistical technique developed by Clive Granger, the 2003 Nobel Laureate in Economics, which is used to determine whether one variable can be said to have caused (or predicted) another variable, given the past performance of each. Using standard econometric techniques, Granger showed one variable can be shown to have “caused” another, and that two-way causality also can be demonstrated (i.e., a feedback loop between the variables can exist based on the historical performance of each). 9 Please see “Oil, Copper Demand Worries Are Overdone,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 14, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades
Highlights Analysis on South Africa is published below. The “EM” label does not guarantee a secular bull market. None of the individual EM bourses has outperformed DM on a consistent basis over the past 40 years. EM share performance in both absolute terms and relative to DM has exhibited long-term cycles of around seven to 10 years. Getting these cycles right is instrumental to successful investing in EM. EM investing is predominantly about exchange rates. From a long-term (structural) perspective, EM equities are only modestly cheap in absolute terms but are very cheap versus the U.S. Feature We often receive questions from asset allocators about the long-term outlook for EM equities and currencies. The general perception among longer-term allocators is that while EMs may underperform over the short term, they always outperform developed markets (DM) in the long run. Consistently, the overwhelming majority of investors’ long-term return forecasts ascribe the highest potential return to EM equities and bonds among various regions and asset classes. This week we focus on the historical long-term performance of EMs. Contrary to popular sentiment, our findings show that EM stocks and currencies have not outperformed their U.S./DM peers in the past 40 years – as long as EMs have existed as an asset class. Hence, there is no guarantee that EM share prices and currencies will always outperform their DM counterparts on a secular basis going forward. Notably, EM share performance in both absolute terms and relative to DM has exhibited long-term cycles of around seven to 10 years. Getting these cycles right is instrumental to successful investing in EM. At the moment, the odds are that the current bout of EM equity and currency underperformance is not yet over, and more downside is likely before a major upturn emerges. The “EM” Label Does Not Guarantee A Secular Bull Market EM share prices have been in a wide trading range since 2010 (Chart I-1), despite the 10-year bull market in the S&P 500. Chart I-1Lost Decade For EM Stocks Remarkably, there is no single EM bourse that has been in a bull market during this decade (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). This proves that this has indeed been a “lost” decade for EM. Chart I-2Individual EM Bourses: A Very Long-Term Perspective Chart I-3Individual EM Bourses: A Very Long-Term Perspective Historically, secular bull markets have been followed by bear markets not only in the boom-bust economies of Latin America, EMEA and Southeast Asia but also in former Asian tiger economies including Korea, Taiwan and Singapore (Chart I-4). This is despite the fact that per-capita real income has been growing rather rapidly in these Asian economies. Chart I-4Former Asian Tigers: Long-Term Equity Performance Remarkably, China and Vietnam have been exhibiting similar dynamics over the past 20 years – rapid per-capita real income growth and poor equity market returns (Chart I-5). Chart I-5China And Vietnam: Stock Prices And GDP Per Capita The message from all of these charts is as follows: Periods of industrialization and urbanization – even if successful – do not always entail structural bull markets. The U.S. fits this pattern as well. During the period between 1870 and 1900, the U.S. was experiencing industrialization and urbanization along with many productivity enhancements such as the steam engine, electricity and infrastructure construction. Even though America’s prosperity and real income per-capita levels surged during this period, corporate earnings per share and stock prices were rather flat (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The U.S. In The Late 1800s: Stocks, Profits And GDP Hence, rising per-capita real income and prosperity do not translate into higher share prices on a consistent basis. This is not to say that no country can ever deliver healthy stock market gains in the long run. Some certainly will, and it is our job to identify and expose these to clients. The point is that the “emerging market” status does not guarantee a structural bull market. Asset Allocation: Play Cycles Chart 7 illustrates that EM relative equity performance versus DM in general and the U.S. in particular has gone through several major swings over the past 40 years. Remarkably, none of the individual EM bourses has outperformed DM on a consistent basis over this time frame (Chart I-8A and I-8B). Chart I-7EM Versus DM: Relative Total Equity Returns Chart I-8ANo Single EM Bourse Has Outperformed DM In Past 40 Years Chart I-8BNo Single EM Bourse Has Outperformed DM In Past 40 Years Failure to outperform DM stocks is not only inherent for bourses in twin-deficit and inflation-prone regions/countries such as Latin America, Russia, Turkey, South Africa and South East Asia (including India), but it has also been true for share prices in rapidly growing countries such as China and Vietnam (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Chinese And Vietnamese Stocks Have Not Outperformed DM Remarkably, equity markets in the former Asian tigers – Korea, Taiwan and Singapore – have also failed to outperform their DM peers in the past 40 years (Chart I-10). This is in spite of the fact that real income per-capita growth in these Asian nations has by far outpaced that in both the U.S. and DM (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Former Asian Tigers Have Not Outperformed DM Equities... Chart I-11…Despite Economic Outperformance Evidently, the assumption that EM stocks will outperform DM equities on the back of higher potential growth rates is not validated by historical data. First, higher potential growth does not always ensure robust realized GDP growth. Second, even if real GDP-per-capita growth rises considerably, this does not always guarantee superior equity market returns. Some of the reasons for this include productivity benefits being transferred to employees rather than to shareholders, chronic equity dilution, and a misallocation of capital that boosts economic growth at the expense of shareholders. Bottom Line: EM relative stock performance versus DM has been fluctuating in well-defined long-term cycles. In our view, EM relative equity performance has not yet reached the bottom in this downtrend. We downgraded EM stocks in April 2010 and have been recommending a short EM equities / long S&P 500 strategy since December 2010 (please refer to Chart I-7 on page 5). EM Investing Is Primarily About Exchange Rates Exchange rates hold the key to getting EM equity cycles right for international investors. As demonstrated in Chart I-12, historically the bulk of EM equity return erosion has been due to currency depreciation. Chart I-12EM Investing Is All About Exchange Rates Exchange rates of structurally weak EM economies depreciate chronically. Common reasons include lack of productivity growth, high inflation, current account deficits, uncontrolled fiscal expansion, and reliance on volatile foreign portfolio flows. Periods of currency depreciation also occur in emerging Asian economies that have low inflation and typically run current account surpluses. Chart I-13 shows spot rates for Korea, Taiwan and Singapore versus the SDR which is a weighted average of USD, the euro, JPY, GBP, and CNY.1 Chart I-13Former Asian Tiger Currencies: Wide Fluctuations None of these Asian-tiger currencies has consistently appreciated versus the SDR. As in the case of share prices, there have been multi-year exchange rate swings. Further, U.S. dollar total returns on EM local bonds are also primarily driven by their currencies (Chart I-14). Consequently, the cycles in EM local currency bonds match EM exchange rate cycles. Chart I-14Total Return On Local Currency Bonds EM credit spread fluctuations are also by and large contingent on their exchange rates. Credit spreads on EM sovereign and corporate U.S. dollar bonds gauge debt servicing risk. The latter is highly influenced by exchange rates. Currency depreciation (appreciation) increases (decreases) debt servicing costs thereby affecting credit spreads. Bottom Line: Exchange rate fluctuations are driven by macro crosscurrents, making macro an indispensable know-how for EM investing. We maintain that EM currencies are susceptible to renewed weakness against the U.S. dollar as China’s growth continues to weaken, weighing on EM growth and thereby their respective exchange rates (Chart I-15). In turn, the U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency and does well when global growth decelerates. Chart I-15EM Currencies Are Pro-Cyclical Valuations: The Starting Point Matters… In recent years, a long-term bullish case for EM equities and currencies has often been made on the grounds of cheap valuations. Chart I-16 illustrates the equity market-cap weighted real effective exchange rate for EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan – a measure that is pertinent for both EM equity and fixed-income investors.2 It reveals that EM currency valuations are only slightly below their historical mean. Chart I-16EM Ex-China, Korea, Taiwan Currencies Are Modestly Cheap As to the CNY, KRW and TWD, their valuations are not at an extreme, and the CNY holds the key. The main long-term risk to the RMB is capital outflows from Chinese households and companies as discussed in February 14 report. For long-term investors, the pertinent equity valuation yardstick is the cyclically adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio. The idea behind the CAPE model is to remove cyclicality of corporate profits when computing the P/E ratio – i.e., to look beyond a business cycle. Hence, the CAPE ratio is a structural valuation model – i.e., it works in the long term. Only investors with a time horizon greater than three years should use this valuation measure in their investment decisions. Our CAPE model gauges equity valuations under the assumption of per-share earnings converging to their trend line. The latter is derived by a regression of the cyclically adjusted EPS in real U.S. dollar terms on time. The EM CAPE ratio presently stands at 0.5 standard deviations below its historical mean (Chart I-17). This means EM stocks are modestly cheap from a long-term perspective. Meanwhile, the U.S.’s CAPE ratio is very elevated (Chart I-18). Chart I-17EM Equities Are Modestly Cheap From AA1 Structural Perspective Chart I-18U.S. Stocks Are Expensive From AA1 Structural Perspective On a relative basis, EMs are very attractive relative to U.S. stocks (Chart I-19). This entails that the probability of EM stocks outperforming U.S. equities is very high from a secular perspective – longer than three years. Chart I-19EM Equities Are Cheap Versus U.S. From AA1 Structural Perspective Nevertheless, a caveat is in order. Our CAPE model assumes that EPS in real U.S. dollar terms will rise at the same pace as it has historically. The slope of the time trend – the historical compound annual growth rate (CARG) of EPS in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms – is 2.8% for EM and 2% for the U.S. Please note that we determined the earnings time trend (trend line) using historical ranges – 1983 to present for EM, and 1935 to present for the U.S. Hence, these CAPE models assume that EM EPS will grow 0.8 percentage points (2.8% minus 2%) faster than U.S. corporate EPS in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms, as they have done historically. Under this assumption, EM stocks are considerably cheaper than the U.S. market. That said, in the medium term, corporate earnings are the key driver of EM share prices, and contracting profits pose a risk to EM performance, as discussed in our February 21 report. Bottom Line: From a long-term perspective, EM equities and currencies are only modestly cheap in absolute terms. Based on our CAPE ratio model, EM stocks are very cheap versus the U.S. However, the CAPE ratio is a structural valuation measure, and only investors with a time horizon of longer than three years should put considerable emphasis on it. …But Beware Of A Potential Value Trap If for whatever reason there is a change in the slope of the EM EPS long-term trend – i.e., per-share earnings fail to expand in the coming years at their historical rate, as discussed above, our CAPE model would be invalidated. In such a case, EM share prices are unlikely to enter a secular bull market in absolute terms and outperform their U.S. counterparts structurally. The key to sustaining the current upward slope in the long-term trajectory of EPS in real U.S. dollar terms is for EM/Chinese companies to undertake corporate restructuring and increase efficiency. Critically, recurring Chinese credit and fiscal stimulus as well as cheap and abundant money from international investors have not fostered corporate restructuring in China, nor in other EM countries. The basis is that easy and cheap financing and economic growth propped-up by periodic Chinese stimulus has made companies complacent, undermining their productivity and efficiency. The ultimate outcome will be weak corporate profitability over the long run. Another long-term risk to corporate earnings in China and some other EMs is the expanding role of the state in the economy. In these circumstances, China/EM corporate profitability will also suffer over the long run. The basis is that in any country the private sector is better than the government in generating strong corporate earnings. Bottom Line: Without structural reforms and corporate restructuring in EM/China, EM stocks are unlikely to outperform their DM peers on a secular basis. Investment Conclusions The medium-term EM outlook remains poor for the reasons we elaborated on in last week’s report titled, EM: A Sustainable Rally or A False Start? Further, investor sentiment on EM is very bullish, and positioning in EM equities and currencies is elevated (Chart I-20). We continue to recommend underweighting EM stocks, credit markets and currencies versus their DM counterparts and the U.S. in particular. Chart I-20Investors Are Very Bullish On EM From a long-term perspective, EM equity and currency valuations are modestly cheap. However, a durable long-term expansion in EM economies is contingent on a sustainable bottom in Chinese growth. The latter hinges on deleveraging and corporate restructuring in China, neither of which have occurred to a meaningful extent. For EM equity portfolios, we presently recommend overweighting Mexico, Brazil, Chile, central Europe, Russia, Thailand and Korean non-tech stocks. Our current (not structural) underweights are South Africa, Indonesia, India, the Philippines, Hong Kong and Peru. Within the EM equity space, two weeks ago we booked triple-digit profits on our strategic long positions in EM tech versus both the overall EM index and EM materials stocks, respectively. These positions were initiated in 2010. The basis for these strategic recommendations was our broader theme for the decade of being long what Chinese consumers buy, and short plays on Chinese construction, which we initiated on June 8, 2010. This week we are closing our long central European banks / short euro area banks equity position. We recommended it on April 6, 2016, and it has produced a 14% gain since then. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com South Africa: Debt Deflation Or Currency Depreciation? South Africa’s public debt dynamics are on an unsustainable track. Two prerequisites for public debt sustainability are (1) for interest rates to be below nominal GDP growth or (2) continuous robust primary fiscal surpluses. Hence, a government can stabilize its debt-to-GDP ratio by either having nominal GDP above its borrowing costs, or by running persistent and sizable primary fiscal surpluses. Neither of these two stipulations are presently satisfied in South Africa. The gap between government local currency bond yields and nominal GDP growth is at its widest in over the past 10 years (Chart II-1). Meanwhile, the primary fiscal deficit is 0.75% of GDP (Chart II-2). Chart II-1South Africa: An Unsustainable Gap Chart II-2South Africa Has Not Had A Primary Fiscal Surplus In A Decade Faced with very low real potential GDP growth stemming from the economy’s poor structural backdrop, the authorities in South Africa ultimately have two choices to stabilize the public debt-to-GDP ratio: Tighten fiscal policy substantially, trying to achieve persistent large primary budget surpluses; or Inflate their way out of debt, which would require a large currency depreciation to boost nominal GDP growth above borrowing costs. With this in mind, we performed a simulation on public debt, assuming fiscal tightening but no substantial currency depreciation (Table II-1). The first scenario uses the 2019 consolidated budget government assumptions and projections for nominal GDP, government revenues and expenditures, i.e., it is the government's scenario. In this scenario, the public debt-to-GDP ratio rises only to 58% by the end of the 2021-‘22 fiscal year. However, government forecasts always end up being optimistic. We believe this scenario is implausible due to its overestimation of nominal GDP, and hence government revenue growth. As the government tightens fiscal policy, nominal GDP growth and ultimately government revenue will disappoint substantially. For the second scenario, we used government projections for fiscal spending in the coming years, but our own estimates for nominal GDP and government revenue growth. Notably, excluding interest payments and fiscal support for ailing state-owned enterprises like Eskom, nominal growth of government expenditures in the current year is at 7.5%, and estimated to be 6.8% the next two fiscal years. That is why we project nominal GDP and government revenue growth to be very weak. The basis of our assumption is as follows: Barring considerable currency depreciation, as the authorities undertake substantial fiscal tightening in the next three years, nominal GDP and consequently government revenue growth will plunge. Importantly, government revenues exhibit a non-linear relationship with nominal GDP – government revenues fluctuate much more than nominal GDP (Chart II-3). Chart II-3Government Revenues Are 'High-Beta' On Nominal GDP Growth As government revenue growth underwhelms, the primary deficit will widen and the public debt-to-GDP ratio will escalate, reaching 70% of GDP by the end of the 2021-‘22 fiscal year, according to our projections (Table II-1). Overall, without considerably lower interest rates and material currency depreciation, the government’s financial position will enter a debt deflation spiral. Fiscal tightening will hurt nominal growth damaging fiscal revenues. As a result, the fiscal deficit will widen – not narrow – and the debt-to-GDP ratio will rise. Therefore, the only feasible option for South Africa to stabilize public debt is to reduce interest rates dramatically and depreciate the currency. This will engender higher inflation and nominal growth, thereby boosting government revenues and capping the public debt burden. At 10%, the share of foreign currency debt as part of South Africa’s public debt is low. Hence, currency depreciation will do less damage to public debt dynamics than keeping interest rates at high levels. On the whole, the rand is a very structurally weak currency, and is bound to depreciate due to deteriorating public debt dynamics. Chart II-4 plots the real effective exchange rate of the rand based on CPI and PPI. It is evident that its valuation is not yet depressed. Chart II-4The Rand Is Modestly Cheap Meanwhile, cyclical headwinds also warrant currency depreciation (Chart II-5). Chart II-5Widening Trade Deficit Warrants Currency Depreciation Market Recommendations Continue shorting the ZAR versus the U.S. dollar and the MXN. Consistent with the negative outlook for the exchange rate, investors should underweight South African local currency government bonds and sovereign credit within respective EM portfolios. Finally, we recommend EM equity portfolios remain underweight South African equities. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Special Drawing Rights. The value of the SDR is based on a basket of five currencies: the U.S. dollar, the euro, the Chinese renminbi, the Japanese yen, and the British pound sterling. 2 We exclude these three currencies since their bourses have very large equity market cap in the EM stock index and, hence, would make any aggregate currency measure unrepresentative for the rest of EM. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights All the U.S. data look broadly similar to us, …: The data series are decelerating, one by one, but they generally remain at a fairly high level relative to history. … and we have begun sounding like a broken record in our morning meetings, … : “There’s no doubt that [insert data series name here] is slowing, but it’s still nowhere close to heralding a recession. As a matter of fact, it remains at a level consistent with above-trend growth. That’s what we should expect given the pattern of fiscal thrust across last year and this year, combined with still-accommodative monetary policy.” … so we’re revisiting our checklists to see if we should change our bearish rates and bullish equities views: We periodically review our checklists, which we rolled out in the fall, to assess whether or not our positioning rationale still applies. Our recommendations may still be the same, but at least we put them to the test: The business cycle, the inflation outlook, the Fed’s reaction function, the corporate profit outlook, and valuations have not changed enough to dictate changing our views. We continually seek out evidence that we’re getting it wrong, but we haven’t found any in the current data. Feature We have become a bit self-conscious about offering our take on the latest U.S. economic data releases at BCA’s daily morning meetings. It’s one thing to be out of step with the prevailing view, or to offer a novel theory that fails to achieve much traction in the room. (Strategists who don’t get shot down by their peers every once in a while aren’t pushing the conventional wisdom enough.) It’s quite another to keep recycling the same narrative, and we’re at something of a loss for a way to maintain our colleagues’ interest. Beep. You’ve reached the voicemail box of the U.S. Investment Strategy team. We believe today’s (insert series name here) release indicates that while the U.S. economy is decelerating, it continues to be on a path to grow at, if not above, trend in 2019. This is consistent with the 60-basis-point decline in fiscal thrust from 2018 to 2019. That decline is large enough to ensure deceleration in 2019, but the 40 bps that’s still going to be deployed this year is also sufficient to ensure that the economy will be able to grow above its 2% trend rate, provided the rest of the world does not fall apart. Thank you for your call, and please do not hesitate to call again if we can be of any further assistance. Beep. We created our bond upgrade and equity downgrade checklists last fall to help guard against sticking with our views beyond their sell-by date. Both checklists have a negative bias, in that they’re meant to help reveal the points at which the underpinnings of our views no longer apply. The bond checklist is broadly geared to identifying either, one, the presence of slack in the economy that might call for easier policy, or, two, a convergence of the fixed-income markets’ views with ours that would limit the potential payoff from maintaining below-benchmark duration positioning.1 Our equity downgrade checklist looks out for signs of an approaching recession, pressure on corporate earnings, inflation pressures that might inspire the Fed to remove accommodation in a hurry, or signs of euphoria that can’t be sustained.2 Reviewing the data series that comprise the checklists did not lead us to change our views. The exercise does help us adhere to a process, however, and we think they help keep us from falling into an analytical rut. We will revisit them with increasing frequency as the cycles we’re trying to track approach their inflection points, while keeping an eye out for any new indicators that might broaden their insights. Is A Bearish Rates View Still Appropriate? The first section of our bond checklist (Table 1) focuses on market perceptions of the Fed. Following our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s golden rule, if the Fed hikes more than it is expected to hike, long-duration positions will underperform. If it hikes less than expected, long-duration positions will outperform. As implied by the overnight index swap (OIS) curves, the money market now expects that the fed funds rate has peaked at 2.5%, and that a rate cut will likely bring it down to 2.25% by the end of 2020 (Chart 1). Table 1Bond Upgrade Checklist Chart 1Markets Are Pricing In A Rate Cut We beg to differ. With little to no slack remaining in the economy as a whole (the output gap is closed), and unemployment well below its natural level and poised to fall further, we think inflation pressures are percolating below the surface. Once they begin to reveal themselves, we expect the Fed will have no choice but to resume its tightening campaign. Our estimate of the equilibrium rate (3% now, rising to about 3⅜% by year-end) appears to be well above the financial markets’ estimate, and we therefore believe the Fed has plenty of room to hike without capsizing the economy. An inverted yield curve has historically been a reliable sign that the Fed has gone too far in its efforts to prevent overheating, and we are watching it now for hints that the fed funds rate may be done rising. Though the curve flattened considerably as the 10-year Treasury yield plunged in the fourth quarter (Chart 2), we think it’s very unlikely to invert while the Fed is on hold. An on-hold Fed implies that the 3-month bill rate will remain in the mid-to-high 2.40s and that the 10-year Treasury yield would have to dip below 2.5% for the curve to invert. Such an outcome would be completely incompatible with below-target inflation and above-trend economic growth. Chart 2The Yield Curve Has Flattened, But Inversion Is A Stretch Inflation is not yet an issue on most investors’ radar screens because it has been conspicuously missing in action around the developed world for the last ten years. In the U.S., headline measures rolled over upon oil’s slide, masking the fact that the core measures are hovering around 2% and remain in uptrends (Chart 3). Inflation break-evens have plunged, and are well below the 2.3-2.5% level that is consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target, but their decline was nearly entirely a function of the decline in oil prices (Chart 4). Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service is calling for higher crude prices across the rest of this year, so even though we’ve checked the break-evens box, we expect we’ll be unchecking it as the break-evens reverse in step with oil. Chart 3Headline Inflation's Decline ... Chart 4... Is An Oil Story The labor market remains quite tight. Although the unemployment rate ticked up in December and January, it came down again in February and remains below the estimated natural rate of unemployment where upward wage pressures typically begin to take hold (Chart 5, top panel). Unemployment ticked higher in December and January, despite robust job gains, because the share of working-age Americans participating in the labor force rose. The exodus of the baby boomers from the work force will make it very difficult for the participation rate to keep rising, however (Chart 5, middle panel), and the elevated level of workers quitting their jobs (Chart 5, bottom panel) indicates that employers are poaching workers from one another, driving wages higher. Chart 5The Labor Market Is Tight And Getting Tighter Instability is a double-edged sword as it relates to monetary policy. The Fed is likely to return to hiking rates if it believes it can cut off rising instability before it goes too far. If instability is far enough advanced that it threatens the economy, however, the Fed may well ease policy to try to counteract it. For now, it appears to us that the key cyclical segments of the economy are on track to keep warming up, but are nowhere near overheating (Chart 6). We are not overly concerned about the frisky lending climate that Governor Brainard called out in September, but ongoing anecdotal reports of bond-market froth will presumably keep the Fed alert to the need to dial back accommodation. Acutely bad conditions elsewhere in the global economy would make the Fed consider rate cuts, but if the rest of the world perks up by mid-year, in line with BCA’s base case, the Fed will feel less urgency to indemnify the U.S. against foreign distress. Chart 6Cyclical Segments Are Warming Up Should We Still Be Constructive On Equities? Every box in our equity downgrade checklist remains unchecked, starting with our silent recession alarms (Table 2). The yield curve has not inverted, and as we noted in the review of our rates checklist, we do not believe it will while the Fed remains on hold. Growth has come off the boil, but the LEI is not close to contracting on a year-over-year basis (Chart 7). The fed funds rate remains below our estimate of equilibrium, as we expect it will for the rest of the year, and the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate has not risen by a third of a percentage point from its current cyclical bottom. Table 2Equity Downgrade Checklist Chart 7The LEI May Be Decelerating, But It's Still A Ways From Contracting Labor market tightness will eventually manifest itself in higher wages, which will squeeze corporate profit margins, but until real wage gains begin to outstrip productivity growth (i.e., until labor starts capturing a bigger piece of the pie), corporate earnings will not be at risk (Chart 8). The dollar has spent the last several months going sideways, and BBB corporate yields are now below their level when we rolled out the equity checklist in mid-October (Chart 9). The savings rate has backed up to near the top of its six-year range, and we would check the box if it were to break out of it (Chart 10). There have been no blowups in EM or anywhere in the rest of the world that cast a shadow over U.S. corporate earnings. Chart 8Wage Growth Doesn't Cut Into Profits Until It Outstrips Productivity And Inflation Chart 9Round Trip Chart 10The Savings Rate Has Risen, But Not Enough To Check The Box As noted in our bond checklist comments, above, core inflation measures have dipped below 2% but remain in an uptrend. Both headline CPI and the inflation break-evens relapsed with oil prices, but we expect that a crude recovery will help restore inflation expectations. Bull markets tend to end amid a general feeling of euphoria, and we therefore continue to keep an eye out for signs of over-exuberance. Valuations are elevated but hardly extreme, and we don’t see anecdotal indications of widespread silliness, or suspension of disbelief. Investment Implications From our perspective, overheating in the U.S. remains a very real possibility. Since that is a distinctly minority view, the potential reward for underweighting Treasuries and holding all bond exposures below benchmark duration is alluring. We reiterate our recommendations that investors underweight Treasuries and maintain below-benchmark-duration across their fixed-income portfolios. We expect we will continue to do so until the U.S. economy weakens, or the Treasury curve begins to price in some of our bearish rates view. We reiterate our cyclical recommendation to overweight equities despite the tactical caution we expressed last week.3 We simply expect that the S&P 500 will have to consolidate some of its rapid year-to-date gains before moving on to an eventual new cycle high at 3,000 or above. Stocks don’t go straight up, even if they did for nearly all of January and February, and it is reasonable to expect elevated volatility in the latter stages of a bull market. We thought that the 2,800 level might provide some technical resistance, offering tactically oriented sellers an attractive point to reduce equity exposures, while tactically oriented buyers were likely to find better entry points going forward. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “What Would It Take To Change Our Bearish Rates View?,” published September 17, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see the U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Introducing Our Equity Downgrade Checklist,” published October 15, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see the U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “How Much Do U.S. Equities Have Left?,” published March 4, 2019. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.