Monetary
Dear Client, Thank you for your continued readership and support this year. This is the last European Investment Strategy report for 2021. In this piece, we review ten charts covering important aspects of the European economy and capital markets. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on January 10th, 2022. The European Investment Strategy team wishes you and your loved ones a wonderful holiday season, and a healthy, happy, and prosperous new year. Best regards, Mathieu Savary Highlights European growth continues to face headwinds as it enters 2022. The ECB will be slow to remove more accommodation than what is implied by the end of the PEPP. Value stocks and Italian equities will enjoy a modest tailwind from rising Bund yields. The lower quality of European stocks creates a long-term headwind versus US benchmarks. The outperformance of European cyclicals relative to defensives will resume and financials will have greater upside. The relative performance of small-cap stocks will soon stabilize, but a weak euro will create a near-term risk. President Emmanuel Macron’s real contender is the center-right candidate Valerie Pécresse, not populists. Feature Chart 1: Wave Dynamics The current wave of COVID-19 infections continues to surge in Europe. As Chart 1 highlights, Austria and the Netherlands just witnessed intense waves that eclipsed those experienced earlier this year. However, these waves are already ebbing because of the containment measures implemented in recent weeks. In these two severely hit nations, hospitalization rates also increased significantly; however, they did not reach the degree experienced in France or the UK in the first half of 2021 (Chart 1, right panel). Chart 1Wave Dynamics Chart 1Wave Dynamics Europe will experience another test in the coming weeks as the highly contagious Omicron variant becomes the dominant COVID-19 strain. However, data from South Africa continues to suggest that this mutation is much less pathogenic than previous variants and will not place as much strain on the healthcare system as potential case counts would indicate. Nonetheless, it is too early to make this prognosis with great confidence. Importantly, even if a small proportion of infected people is hospitalized, a large enough a pool of infections could cause a rupture in the healthcare system. As a result, politicians will likely remain cautious until a larger share of the population receives its booster dose. Hence, Omicron still represents a near-term risk to economic activity, albeit one that will prove ephemeral. Chart 2: The Economy Is Not Out Of The Woods Yet European growth remains highly dependent on the fluctuations of the global economy because exports and capex account for a large share of the continent’s output. Consequently, global economic trends remain paramount when considering the European economic outlook. In the near-term, Europe continues to face headwinds beyond the uncertainty caused by the potential effects of the Omicron variant. Global economic activity, for instance, is likely to face some further near-term headwinds caused by the supply shock typified by elevated commodity prices and bottlenecks (Chart 2). Not only does this shock limit the ability of producers to procure important inputs, but it also increases the costs of production. Historically, this combination results in downward pressure on global manufacturing activity. Chart 2The Economy Is Not Out Of The Woods Yet Chart 2The Economy Is Not Out Of The Woods Yet The second problem remains the deceleration in the Chinese economy. Declining credit growth in China results in slower European exports, which also hurts the region’s PMI. The recent Central Economic Work Conference suggests that China is ready to inject more stimulus in its economy, which will help Europe. However, the beginning of 2022 will still witness the lagged impact of previous tightening in credit conditions on European economic indicators. Moreover, BCA’s China Investment Strategy team expects the stimulus to be modest at first and only grow in intensity later. It is unlikely to be as credit-heavy as in the past, which also means it will be less beneficial to Europe. Chart 3: A Careful ECB Last week, the European Central Bank aggressively upgraded its inflation forecast for 2022 and announced the end of the PEPP for March, however, it will increase temporarily the APP program to EUR40bn. Moreover, President Christine Lagarde remains steadfast that the Governing Council will not raise rates in 2022. Our Central Bank Monitor points to the need for tighter policy, yet the ECB continues to adopt a cautious tone, even if the Eurozone HICP inflation has reached 4%—the highest reading in thirteen years. First, the ECB still runs the risk of dislocation in the periphery, where Italian and Spanish spreads may easily explode if monetary accommodation is removed too quickly. Second, European inflationary pressures remain significantly narrower than they are in the US (Chart 3, left panel). Our Eurozone trimmed-mean CPI continues to linger well below core CPI readings, while in the US both measures track each other closely. Third, the decline in energy prices and the ebbing transportation bottlenecks mean that odds are growing that sequential inflation will soon experience an interim peak (Chart 3, right panel). Chart 3A Careful ECB Chart 3A Careful ECB This view of the ECB implies that German yields will not rise as much as US yields next year, which BCA’s US Bond Strategy team expects to reach 2.25% by the end of 2022. Moreover, the more tepid pace of the removal of accommodation and the implicit targeting of peripheral bond markets also warrant an overweight position in Italian bonds. Spreads will be volatile, but any move upward will be self-limiting because of their role in the ECB’s reaction function. As a result, investors should continue to pocket the additional income over German paper. Chart 4: A Murky Outlook For The Euro The market continues to test EUR/USD. Any breakdown below 1.1175 is likely to prompt a pronounced down leg toward 1.07-1.08, near the pandemic lows. The euro suffers from three handicaps. First, Europe’s economic links with China are greater than those of the US with China. Consequently, the Chinese economic deceleration hurts European rates of returns more than it hurts those in the US. Second, the acceleration of US inflation is inviting investors to reprice the path of the Fed’s policy rate, which accentuates the upside pressure on the dollar. Finally, the energy crisis is ramping up anew following Germany’s suspension of the approval of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and the buildup of Russian troops on Ukraine’s borders. Surging European natural gas prices act as a powerful headwind for EUR/USD because they accentuate stagflation risks in the Eurozone (Chart 4, left panel). While these create downside pressures on the euro, the picture is more complex. Our Intermediate-Term Timing Model shows that EUR/USD is one-sigma oversold (Chart 4, right panel). Over the past 20 years, it was more depressed only in 2010 and in early 2015. Such a reading indicates that most of the bad news is already embedded in EUR/USD and that sentiment has become massively negative. Thus, we are not chasing the euro lower, even though we will respect our stop-loss at 1.1175 if it were triggered. Instead, we will look to buy the euro at lower levels in the first quarter of 2021. Chart 4A Murky Outlook For The Euro Chart 4A Murky Outlook For The Euro Chart 5: German Yields Are Key To Value Stocks And Italian Equities The performance of European value stocks relative to that of growth stocks continues to exhibit a close relationship with the evolution of German Bund yields (Chart 5, left panel). Value stocks are less sensitive than growth stocks to higher yields because they derive a smaller proportion of their intrinsic value from long-term deferred cash flows; which suffer more from rising discount factors than near-term cash flows. Moreover, value stocks overweight financials, whose profitability increases when yields rise. The same relationship exists between the performance of Italian equities relative to the Eurozone benchmark (Chart 5, right panel). This correlation holds because of Italy’s significant value bias and its large exposure to financials. Chart 5German Yields Are Key To Value Stocks And Italian Equities Chart 5German Yields Are Key To Value Stocks And Italian Equities Based on these observations, BCA’s view that German Bund yields will rise toward 0.25% is consistent with a modest outperformance of value and Italian equities in 2022. For a more robust outperformance by value and Italian stocks, the Chinese economy will have to re-accelerate clearly and the dollar will have to fall significantly. However, these two outcomes could take more time to materialize than our bond view. Chart 6: Europe’s Quality Deficit The gyrations in the performance of European equities relative to US stocks continue to be influenced by China’s economic fluctuations. The deterioration in various measures of China’s credit impulse remains consistent with further near-term underperformance of European equities (Chart 6, left panel). Moreover, if Omicron has a significant impact on consumer behavior (via personal choices or government measures), it will once again hurt spending on services and boost the appeal of growth stocks, which Europe underrepresents. These headwinds will not be long lasting. Europe has an opportunity to outperform next year if global yields rise. However, European equity markets continue to suffer from a potent long-term disadvantage relative to those of the US. American benchmarks are composed of higher quality stocks than European ones. As a result of greater market concentration, more innovative applications of research, and the development of greater moats, US stocks generate wider profits margins than European companies and have a higher utilization of their asset base. Consequently, US shares sport significantly higher RoEs and earnings growth than European large-cap names (Chart 6, right panel). Historically, the quality factor has been one of the top performers and is an important contributor to the current strength of growth equities. Thus, even if Europe’s day in the sun arrives before the middle of 2022, it will again be a temporary phenomenon. Chart 6Europe’s Quality Deficit Chart 6Europe’s Quality Deficit Chart 7: Will the Cyclicals Outperformance Resume? For most of 2021, European cyclicals equities have not performed as well against defensive stocks as many investors hoped. In fact, the relative performance of cyclicals is broadly flat since March. Going forward, cyclicals will resume their uptrend against defensive equities and even break out of their range of the past twenty years. From a technical perspective, cyclicals have expunged many of their excesses. By the spring, European cyclicals had become prohibitively expensive compared to their defensive counterparts (Chart 7, left panel). However, their overvaluation has now passed and medium-term momentum measures are not overbought anymore, which creates a much better entry point for cyclical equities. From a fundamental perspective, cyclicals will also enjoy rising yields after being hamstrung by Treasury yields that have moved sideways for more than nine months (Chart 7, right panel). Moreover, the eventual stabilization of the Chinese economy will create an additional tailwind for these stocks. Chart 7Will The Cyclicals Outperformance Resume? Chart 7Will The Cyclicals Outperformance Resume? The biggest risk to cyclical stocks lies in inflation expectations. Ten-year CPI swaps have stopped increasing despite rising inflation. As the yield curve flattens and long-term segments of the OIS curve invert, markets register their fears that the Fed might tighten too much over the next two years. In other words, markets continue to agonize over the effect of a very low perceived terminal rate. These worries may cause the CPI swaps to decline significantly as the Fed hikes rates next year, creating a headwind for cyclicals. Chart 8: Favor Financials Financials in general and banks in particular have outperformed the European benchmark this year. This trend will persist in 2020. More than the positive impact of higher yields on the profitability of financials justifies this view. One of the key drivers supporting our optimism toward this sector is the continued improvement in the balance-sheet health of the European banking sector (Chart 8, left panel). Capital adequacy ratios remain in an uptrend and NPLs continue to be well-behaved. Meanwhile, both the governments’ liquidity support during the pandemic and the nonfinancial sector’s cash buildup over the past 18 months limit the risk that a brisk rise in insolvencies would threaten the viability of the banking system. European bank lending is also likely to remain superior to that of the post-GFC years. Consumer confidence is still sturdy, despite the recent increase in COVID cases and the tax hike created by rapidly climbing energy prices (Chart 8, right panel). Companies also benefit from an environment of low real rates and limited fiscal austerity. Unsurprisingly, capex intentions are elevated, which should support credit demand from businesses going forward. Chart 8Favor Financials Chart 8Favor Financials These factors imply that the current large discount embedded in European financials’ valuations remains excessive (even if a smaller discount is still warranted). As long as peripheral spreads do not blow out durably, financials will have scope to outperform further. Banks should also beat insurance companies. Chart 9: Small-Caps Are Nearly There Despite a sideways move followed by a 4% dip, the performance of European small-cap stocks remains in a pronounced uptrend relative to large-cap equities. The recent bout of underperformance is likely to end soon, unless a recession is around the corner. Small-cap stocks are becoming oversold (Chart 9, left panel) and will benefit from their pronounced procyclicality, especially if the recent improvement in global economic surprises continues next year. Moreover, above-trend European growth as well as an ECB that will maintain accommodative monetary conditions will combine to prevent a significant widening in European high-yield spreads, particularly once natural gas prices are turned down after the winter. This process will also help small-cap equities. The biggest risk for the European small-caps’ relative performance is the currency market. The relative performance of small-cap names is still closely correlated to the euro (Chart 9, right panel). As a result, if EUR/USD were to falter in the coming weeks, the underperformance of small-cap stocks could deepen. At the very least, small-cap stocks would languish before resuming their uptrend later in the year. Chart 9Small-Caps Are Nearly There Chart 9Small-Caps Are Nearly There Chart 10: A Risk to Macron’s Second Term The emergence of the new populist candidate Éric Zemmour has galvanized the media in recent weeks. However, he is very unlikely to pose a credible threat to French President Emmanuel Macron, unlike center-right candidate Valerie Pécresse, who just won the Les Républicains (LR) primary. In a Special Report published conjointly with our geopolitical strategists last summer, we identified the emergence of a single candidate able to unite the center-right as one of the biggest risks to Macron. As Chart 10 shows, Pécresse has made a comeback in the polls and is now expected to face Macron in the second round. According to an Elabe poll conducted after her victory in the primary, if the second round of the elections were held now, she would beat Macron. Will Pécresse manage to keep her momentum going until April 2022? First, she has to ensure the center-right remains united behind her. Up until the primaries, the center-right was divided. While she won the primary by a wide margin, her main opponent Éric Ciotti won the first round (25.6%), and Michel Barnier as well as Xavier Bertrand came close behind, with 23.9% and 22.7% respectively. Second, Pécresse must work hard to prevent voters from succumbing to the siren songs of Zemmour and Marine Le Pen, or to lean toward former Prime Minister Phillippe Edouard, a declared supporter of Macron. Investors should ignore Le Pen and Eric Zemmour. The real threat to Macron lies in Valerie Pécresse’s ability to keep the center-right united under her banner. Considering that the center-left does not represent an option and that the far-right is entangled in a tug-of-war, there is a high probability that Pécresse will reach the second round. Footnotes Tactical Recommendations Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Trades Currency Performance Fixed Income Performance Equity Performance
Highlights Our three strategic themes over the long run: (1) great power rivalry (2) hypo-globalization (3) populism and nationalism. The implications are inflationary over the long run. Nations that gear up for potential conflict and expand the social safety net to appease popular discontent will consume a lot of resources. Our three key views for 2022: (1) China’s reversion to autocracy (2) America’s policy insularity (3) petro-state leverage. The implications are mostly but not entirely inflationary: China will ease policy, the US will pass more stimulus, and energy supply may suffer major disruptions. Stay long gold, neutral US dollar, short renminbi, and short Taiwanese dollar. Stay tactically long global large caps and defensives. Buy aerospace/defense and cyber-security stocks. Go long Japanese and Mexican equities – both are tied to the US in an era of great power rivalry. Feature Chart 1US Resilience Global investors have not yet found a substitute for the United States. Despite a bout of exuberance around cyclical non-US assets at the beginning of 2021, the year draws to a close with King Dollar rallying, US equities rising to 61% of global equity capitalization, and the US 30-year Treasury yield unfazed by inflation fears (Chart 1). American outperformance is only partly explained by its handling of the lingering Covid-19 pandemic. The US population was clearly less restricted by the virus (Chart 2). But more to the point, the US stimulated its economy by 25% of GDP over the course of the crisis, while the average across major countries was 13% of GDP. Americans are still more eager to go outdoors and the government has been less stringent in preventing them (Chart 3). Chart 3Social Restrictions Short Of Lockdown Going forward, the pandemic should decline in relevance, though it is still possible that a vaccine-resistant mutation will arise that is deadlier for younger people, causing a new round of the crisis. The rotation into assets outside the US will be cautious. Across the world, monetary and credit growth peaked and rolled over this year, after the extraordinary effusion of stimulus to offset the social lockdowns of 2020 (Chart 4). Government budget deficits started to normalize while central banks began winding down emergency lending and bond-buying. More widespread and significant policy normalization will get under way in 2022 in the face of high core inflation. Tightening will favor the US dollar, especially if global growth disappoints expectations. Chart 4Waning Monetary And Credit Stimulus Chart 5Global Growth Stabilization Global manufacturing activity fell off its peak, especially in China, where authorities tightened monetary, fiscal, and regulatory policy aggressively to prevent asset bubbles from blowing up (Chart 5). Now China is easing policy on the margin, which should shore up activity ahead of an important Communist Party reshuffle in fall 2022. The rest of the world’s manufacturing activity is expected to continue expanding in 2022, albeit less rapidly. This trend cuts against US outperformance but still faces a range of hurdles, beginning with China. In this context, we outline three geopolitical themes for the long run as well as three key views for the coming 12 months. Our title, “The Gathering Storm,” refers to the strategic challenge that China and Russia pose to the United States, which is attempting to form a balance-of-power coalition to contain these autocratic rivals. This is the central global geopolitical dynamic in 2022 and it is ultimately inflationary. Three Strategic Themes For The Long Run The international system will remain unstable in the coming years. Global multipolarity – or the existence of multiple, competing poles of political power – is the chief destabilizing factor. This is the first of our three strategic themes that will persist next year and beyond (Table 1). Our key views for 2022, discussed below, flow from these three strategic themes. Table 1Strategic Themes For 2022 And Beyond 1. Great Power Rivalry Multipolarity – or great power rivalry – can be illustrated by the falling share of US economic clout relative to the rest of the world, including but not limited to strategic rivals like China. The US’s decline is often exaggerated but the picture is clear if one looks at the combined geopolitical influence of the US and its closest allies to that of the EU, China, and Russia (Chart 6). China’s rise is the most destabilizing factor because it comes with economic, military, and technological prowess that could someday rival the US for global supremacy. China’s GDP has surpassed that of the US in purchasing power terms and will do so in nominal terms in around five years (Chart 7). True, China’s potential growth is slowing and Chinese financial instability will be a recurring theme. But that very fact is driving Beijing to try to convert the past 40 years of economic success into broader strategic security. Chart 8America's Global Role Persists (If Lessened) Since China is capable of creating an alternative political order in Asia Pacific, and ultimately globally, the United States is reacting. It is penalizing China’s economy and seeking to refurbish alliances in pursuit of a containment policy. The American reaction to the loss of influence has been unpredictable, contradictory, and occasionally belligerent. New isolationist impulses have emerged among an angry populace in reaction to gratuitous wars abroad and de-industrialization. These impulses appeared in both the Obama and Trump administrations. The Biden administration is attempting to manage these impulses while also reinforcing America’s global role. The pandemic-era stimulus has enabled the US to maintain its massive trade deficit and aggressive defense spending. But US defense spending is declining relative to the US and global economy over time, encouraging rival nations to carve out spheres of influence in their own neighborhoods (Chart 8). Russia’s overall geopolitical power has declined but it punches above its weight in military affairs and energy markets, a fact which is vividly on display in Ukraine as we go to press. The result is to exacerbate differences in the trans-Atlantic alliance between the US and the European Union, particularly Germany. The EU’s attempt to act as an independent great power is another sign of multipolarity, as well as the UK’s decision to distance itself from the continent and strengthen the Anglo-American alliance. If the US and EU do not manage their differences over how to handle Russia, China, and Iran then the trans-Atlantic relationship will weaken and great power rivalry will become even more dangerous. 2. Hypo-Globalization The second strategic theme is hypo-globalization, in which the ancient process of globalization continues but falls short of its twenty-first century potential, given advances in technology and governance that should erode geographic and national boundaries. Hypo-globalization is the opposite of the “hyper-globalization” of the 1990s-2000s, when historic barriers to the free movement of people, goods, and capital seemed to collapse overnight. Chart 9From 'Hyper-Globalization' To Hypo-Globalization The volume of global trade relative to industrial production peaked with the Great Recession in 2008-10 and has declined slowly but surely ever since (Chart 9). Many developed markets suffered the unwinding of private debt bubbles, while emerging economies suffered the unwinding of trade manufacturing. Periods of declining trade intensity – trade relative to global growth – suggest that nations are turning inward, distrustful of interdependency, and that the frictions and costs of trade are rising due to protectionism and mercantilism. Over the past two hundred years globalization intensified when a broad international peace was agreed (such as in 1815) and a leading imperial nation was capable of enforcing law and order on the seas (such as the British empire). Globalization fell back during times of “hegemonic instability,” when the peace settlement decayed while strategic and naval competition eroded the global trading system. Today a similar process is unfolding, with the 1945 peace decaying and the US facing the revival of Russia and China as regional empires capable of denying others access to their coastlines and strategic approaches (Chart 10).1 Chart 10Hypo-Globalization And Hegemonic Instability Chart 11Hypo-Globalization: Temporary Trade Rebound No doubt global trade is rebounding amid the stimulus-fueled recovery from Covid-19. But the upside for globalization will be limited by the negative geopolitical environment (Chart 11). Today governments are not behaving as if they will embark on a new era of ever-freer movement and ever-deepening international linkages. They are increasingly fearful of each other’s strategic intentions and using fiscal resources to increase economic self-sufficiency. The result is regionalization rather than globalization. Chinese and Russian attempts to revise the world order, and the US’s attempt to contain them, encourages regionalization. For example, the trade war between the US and China is morphing into a broader competition that limits cooperation to a few select areas, despite a change of administration in the United States. The further consolidation of President Xi Jinping’s strongman rule will exacerbate this dynamic of distrust and economic divorce. Emerging Asia and emerging Europe live on the fault lines of this shift from globalization to regionalism, with various risks and opportunities. Generally we are bullish EM Asia and bearish EM Europe. 3. Populism And Nationalism A third strategic theme consists of populism and nationalism, or anti-establishment political sentiment in general. These forces will flare up in various forms across the world in 2022 and beyond. Even as unemployment declines, the rise in food and fuel inflation will make it difficult for low wage earners to make ends meet. The “misery index,” which combines unemployment and inflation, spiked during the pandemic and today stands at 10.8% in the US and 11.4% in the EMU, up from 5.2% and 8.1% before the pandemic, respectively (Chart 12). Large budget deficits and trade deficits, especially in the US and UK, feed into this inflationary environment. Most of the major developed markets have elected new governments since the pandemic, with the notable exception of France and Spain. Thus they have recapitalized their political systems and allowed voters to vent some frustration. These governments now have some time to try to mitigate inflation before the next election. Hence policy continuity is not immediately in jeopardy, which reduces uncertainty for investors. By contrast, many of the emerging economies face higher inflation, weak growth, and are either coming upon elections or have undemocratic political systems. Either way the result will be a failure to address household grievances promptly. The misery index is trending upward and governments are continually forced to provide larger budget deficits to shore up growth, fanning inflation (Chart 13). Chart 12DM: Political Risk High But New Governments In Place Chart 13EM: Political Risk High But Governments Not Recapitalized Chart 14EM Populism/Nationalism Threatens Negative Surprises In 2022 Just as social and political unrest erupted after the Great Recession, notably in the so-called “Arab Spring,” so will new movements destabilize various emerging markets in the wake of Covid-19. Regime instability and failure can lead to big changes in policies, large waves of emigration, wars, and other risks that impact markets. The risks are especially high unless and until Chinese imports revive. Investors should be on the lookout for buying opportunities in emerging markets once the bad news is fully priced. National and local elections in Brazil, India, South Korea, the Philippines, and Turkey will serve as market catalysts, with bad news likely to precede good news (Chart 14). Bottom Line: These three themes – great power rivalry, hypo-globalization, and populism/nationalism – are inflationary in theory, though their impact will vary based on specific events. Multipolarity means that governments will boost industrial and defense spending to gear up for international competition. Hypo-globalization means countries will attempt to put growth on a more reliable domestic foundation rather than accept dependency on an unreliable international scene, thus constraining supplies from abroad. Populism and nationalism will lead to a range of unorthodox policies, such as belligerence abroad or extravagant social spending at home. Of course, the inflationary bias of these themes can be upset if they manifest in ways that harm growth and/or inflation expectations, which is possible. But the general drift will be an inflationary policy setting. Inflation may subside in 2022 only to reemerge as a risk later. Three Key Views For 2022 Within this broader context, our three key views for 2022 are as follows: 1. China’s Reversion To Autocracy As President Xi Jinping leads China further down the road of strongman rule and centralization, the country faces a historic confluence of internal and external risks. This was our top view in 2021 and the same dynamic continues in 2022. The difference is that in 2021 the risk was excessive policy tightening whereas this coming year the risk is insufficient policy easing. Chart 15China Eases Fiscal Policy To Secure Recovery In 2022 China’s economy is witnessing a secular slowdown, a deterioration in governance, property market turmoil, and a rise in protectionism abroad. The long decline in corporate debt growth points to the structural slowdown. Animal spirits will not improve in 2022 so government spending will be necessary to try to shore up overall growth. The Politburo signaled that it will ease fiscal policy at the Central Economic Work Conference in early December, a vindication of our 2021 view. Neither the combined fiscal-and-credit impulse nor overall activity, indicated by the Li Keqiang Index, have shown the slightest uptick yet (Chart 15). Typically it takes six-to-nine months for policy easing to translate to an improvement in real economic activity. The first half of the year may still bring economic disappointments. But policymakers are adjusting to avoid a crash. Policy will grow increasingly accommodative as necessary in the first half of 2022. The key political constraint is the Communist Party’s all-important political reshuffle, the twentieth national party congress, to be held in fall 2022 (usually October). While Xi may not want the economy to surge in 2022, he cannot afford to let it go bust. The experience of previous party congresses shows that there is often a policy-driven increase in bank loans and fixed investment. Current conditions are so negative as to ensure that the government will provide at least some support, for instance by taking a “moderately proactive approach” to infrastructure investment (Chart 16). Otherwise a collapse of confidence would weaken Xi’s faction and give the opposition faction a chance to shore up its position within the Communist Party. Chart 16China Aims For Stability, Not Rapid Growth, Ahead Of 20th National Party Congress Party congresses happen every five years but the ten-year congresses, such as in 2022, are the most important for the country’s overall political leadership. The party congresses in 1992, 2002, and 2012 were instrumental in transferring power from one leader to the next, even though the transfer of power was never formalized. Back in 2017 Xi arranged to stay in power indefinitely but now he needs to clinch the deal, lest any unforeseen threat emerge from at home or abroad. Xi’s success in converting the Communist Party from “consensus rule” to his own “personal rule” will be measurable by his success in stacking the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee with factional allies. He will also promote his faction across the Central Committee so as to shape the next generations of party leaders and leave his imprint on policy long after his departure. The government will be extremely sensitive to any hint of dissent or resistance and will move aggressively to quash it. Investors should not be surprised to see high-level sackings of public officials or private magnates and a steady stream of scandals and revelations that gain prominence in western media. The environment is also ripe for strange and unexpected incidents that reveal political differences beneath the veneer of unity in China: defections, protests, riots, terrorist acts, or foreign interference. Most incidents will be snuffed out quickly but investors should be wary of “black swans” from China in 2022. Chinese government policies will not be business friendly in 2022 aside from piecemeal fiscal easing. Everything Beijing does will be bent around securing Xi’s supremacy at all levels. Domestic politics will take precedence over economic concerns, especially over the interests of private businesses and foreign investors, as is clear when it comes to managing financial distress in the property sector. Negative regulatory surprises and arbitrary crackdowns on various industrial sectors will continue, though Beijing will do everything in its power to prevent the property bust from triggering contagion across the economic system. This will probably work, though the dam may burst after the party congress. Relations with the US and the West will remain poor, as the democracies cannot afford to endorse what they see as Xi’s power grab, the resurrection of a Maoist cult of personality, and the betrayal of past promises of cooperation and engagement. America’s midterm election politics will not be conducive to any broad thaw in US-China relations. While China will focus on domestic politics, its foreign policy actions will still prove relatively hawkish. Clashes with neighbors may be instigated by China to warn away any interference or by neighbors to try to embarrass Xi Jinping. The South and East China Seas are still ripe for territorial disputes to flare. Border conflicts with India are also possible. Taiwan remains the epicenter of global geopolitical risk. A fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis looms as China increases its military warnings to Taiwan not to attempt anything resembling independence (Chart 17A). China may use saber-rattling, economic sanctions, cyber war, disinformation, and other “gray zone” tactics to undermine the ruling party ahead of Taiwan’s midterm elections in November 2022 and presidential elections in January 2024. A full-scale invasion cannot be ruled out but is unlikely in the short run, as China still has non-military options to try to arrange a change of policy in Taiwan. Chart 17BMarket-Based Risk Indicators Say China/Taiwan Risk Has Not Peaked China has not yet responded to the US’s deployment of a small number of troops in Taiwan or to recent diplomatic overtures or arms sales. It could stage a major show of force against Taiwan to help consolidate power at home. China also has an interest in demonstrating to US allies and partners that their populations and economies will suffer if they side with Washington in any contingency. Given China’s historic confluence of risks, it is too soon for global investors to load up on cheap Chinese equities. Volatility will remain high. Weak animal spirits, limited policy easing, high levels of policy uncertainty, regulatory risk, ongoing trade tensions, and geopolitical risks suggest that investors should remain on the sidelines, and that a large risk premium can persist throughout 2022. Our market-based geopolitical risk indicators for both China and Taiwan are still trending upwards (Chart 17B). Global investors should capitalize on China’s policy easing indirectly by investing in commodities, cyclical equity sectors, and select emerging markets. 2. America’s Policy Insularity Our second view for 2022 centers on the United States, which will focus on domestic politics and will thus react or overreact to the many global challenges it faces. The US faces the first midterm election after the chaotic and contested 2020 presidential election. Political polarization remains at historically high levels, meaning that social unrest could flare up again and major domestic terrorist incidents cannot be ruled out. So far the Biden administration has focused on the domestic scene: mitigating the pandemic and rebooting the economy. Biden’s signature “Build Back Better” bill, $1.75 trillion investment in social programs, has passed the House of Representatives but not the Senate. The spike in inflation has shaken moderate Democratic senators who are now delaying the bill. We expect it to pass, since tax hikes were dropped, but our conviction is low (65% subjective odds), as a single defection would derail the bill. The implication would be inflationary since it would mark a sizable increase in government spending at a time when the output gap is already virtually closed. Spending would likely be much larger than the Congressional Budget Office estimate, shown in Chart 18, because the bill contains various gimmicks and hard-to-implement expiration clauses. Equity markets may not sell if the bill fails, since more fiscal stimulus would put pressure on the Federal Reserve to hike rates faster. Whether the bill passes or fails, Biden’s legislative agenda will be frozen thereafter. He will have to resort to executive powers and foreign policy to lift his approval rating and court the median voter ahead of the midterm elections. Currently Democrats are lined up to lose the House and probably also the Senate, where a single seat would cost them their majority (Chart 19). The Senate is still in play so Biden will be averse to taking big risks. For the same reason, Biden’s foreign policy goal will be to stave off various bubbling crises. Restoring the Iranian nuclear deal was his priority but Russia has now forced its way to the top of the agenda by threatening a partial reinvasion of Ukraine. In this context Biden will not have room for maneuver with China. Congress will be hawkish on China ahead of the midterms, and Xi Jinping will be reviving autocracy, so Biden will not be able to improve relations much. Biden’s domestic policy could fuel inflation, while his domestic-focused foreign policy will embolden strategic rivals, which increases geopolitical risks. 3. Petro-State Leverage A surge in gasoline prices at the pump ahead of the election would be disastrous for a Democratic Party that is already in disarray over inflation (Chart 20). Biden has already demonstrated that he can coordinate an international release of strategic oil reserves this year. Oil and natural gas producers gain leverage when the global economy rebounds, commodity prices rise, and supply/demand balances tighten. The frequency of global conflicts, especially those involving petro-states, tend to rise and fall in line with oil prices (Chart 21). Chart 20Inflation Constrains Biden Ahead Of Midterms Both Russia and Iran are vulnerable to social unrest at home and foreign strategic pressure abroad. Both have long-running conflicts with the US and West that are heating up for fundamental reasons, such as Russia’s fear of western influence in the former Soviet Union and Iran’s nuclear program. Both countries are demanding that the US make strategic concessions to atone for the Trump administration’s aggressive policies: selling lethal weapons to Ukraine and imposing “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran. Biden is not capable of making credible long-term agreements since he could lose office as soon as 2025 and the next president could reverse whatever he agrees. But he must try to de-escalate these conflicts or else he faces energy shortages or price shocks, which would raise the odds of stagflation ahead of the election. The path of least resistance for Biden is to lift the sanctions on Iran to prevent an escalation of the secret war in the Middle East. If this unilateral concession should convince Iran to pause its nuclear activities before achieving breakout uranium enrichment capability, then Biden would reduce the odds of a military showdown erupting across the region. Opposition Republicans would accuse him of weakness but public opinion polls show that few Americans consider Iran a major threat. The problem is that this logic held throughout 2021 and yet Biden did not ease the sanctions. Given Iran’s nuclear progress and the US’s reliance on sanctions, we see a 40% chance of a military confrontation with Iran over the coming years. With regard to Ukraine, an American failure to give concessions to Russia will probably result in a partial reinvasion of Ukraine (50% subjective odds). This in turn will force the US and EU to impose sanctions on Russia, leading to a squeeze of natural gas prices in Europe and eventually price pressures in global energy markets. If Biden grants Russia’s main demands, he will avoid a larger war or energy shock but will make the US vulnerable to future blackmail. He will also demoralize Taiwan and other US partners who lack mutual defense treaties. But he may gain Russian cooperation on Iran. If Biden gives concessions to both Russia and Iran, his party will face criticism in the midterms but it will be far less vulnerable than if an energy shock occurs. This is the path of least resistance for Biden in 2022. It means that the petro-states may lose their leverage after using it, given that risk premiums would fall on Biden’s concessions. Of course, if energy shocks happen, Europe and China will suffer more than the US, which is relatively energy independent. For this reason Brussels and Beijing will try to keep diplomacy alive as long as possible. Enforcement of US sanctions on Iran may weaken, reducing Iran’s urgency to come into compliance. Germany may prevent a hardline threat of sanctions against Russia, reducing Russia’s fear of consequences. Again, petro-states have the leverage. Therefore investors should guard against geopolitically induced energy price spikes or shocks in 2022. What if other commodity producers, such as Saudi Arabia, crank up production and sink oil prices? This could happen. Yet the Saudis prefer elevated oil prices due to the host of national challenges they face in reforming their economy. If the US eases sanctions on Iran then the Saudis may make this decision. Thus downside energy price shocks are possible too. The takeaway is energy price volatility but for the most part we see the risk as lying to the upside. Investment Takeaways Traditional geopolitical risk, which focuses on war and conflict, is measurable and has slipped since 2015, although it has not broken down from the general uptrend since 2000. We expect the secular trend to be reaffirmed and for geopolitical risk to resume its rise due to the strategic themes and key views outlined above. The correlation of geopolitical risk with financial assets is debatable – namely because some geopolitical risks push up oil and commodity prices at the expense of the dollar, while others cause a safe-haven rally into the dollar (Chart 22). Global economic policy uncertainty is also measurable. It is in a secular uptrend since the 2008 financial crisis. Here the correlation with the US dollar and relative equity performance is stronger, which makes sense. This trend should also pick up going forward, which is at least not negative for the dollar and relative US equity performance (Chart 23). Chart 22Geopolitical Risk Will Rise, Market Impacts Variable Chart 23Economic Policy Uncertainty Will Rise, Not Bad For US Assets We are neutral on the US dollar versus the euro and recommend holding either versus the Chinese renminbi. We are short the currencies of emerging markets that suffer from great power rivalry, namely the Taiwanese dollar versus the US dollar, the Korean won versus the Japanese yen, the Russian ruble versus the Canadian dollar, and the Czech koruna versus the British pound. We remain long gold as a hedge against both geopolitical risk and inflation. We recommend staying long global equities. Tactically we prefer large caps and defensives. Within developed markets, we favor the UK and Japan. Japan in particular will benefit from Chinese policy easing yet remains more secure from China-centered geopolitical risks than emerging Asian economies. Within emerging markets, Mexico stands to benefit from US economic strength and divorce from China. We would buy Indian equities on weakness and sell Chinese and Russian equities on strength. We remain long aerospace and defense stocks and cyber-security stocks. -The GPS Team We Read (And Liked) … Conspiracy U: A Case Study “Crazy, worthless, stupid, made-up tales bring out the demons in susceptible, unthinking people.” Thus the author’s father, a Holocaust survivor translated from Yiddish, on conspiracy theories and the real danger they present in the world. Scott A. Shay, author and chairman of Signature Bank, whose first book was a finalist for the National Jewish Book Award, has written an intriguing new book on the topic and graciously sent it our way.2 Shay is a regular reader of BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy and an astute observer of international affairs. He is also a controversialist who has written essays for several of America’s most prominent newspapers. Shay’s latest, Conspiracy U, is a bracing read that we think investors will benefit from. We say this not because of its topical focus, which is too confined, but because of its broader commentary on history, epistemology, the US higher education system – and the very timely and relevant problem of conspiracy theories, which have become a prevalent concern in twenty-first century politics and society. The author and the particular angle of the book will be controversial to some readers but this very quality makes the book well-suited to the problem of the conspiracy theory, since it is not the controversial nature of conspiracy theories but their non-falsifiability that makes them specious. As the title suggests, the book is a polemical broadside. The polemic arises from Shay’s unique set of moral, intellectual, and sociopolitical commitments. This is true of all political books but this one wears its topicality on its sleeve. The term “conspiracy” in the title refers to antisemitic, anti-Israel, and anti-Zionist conspiracy theories, particularly the denial of the Holocaust, coming from tenured academics on both the right and the left wings of American politics. The “U” in the title refers to universities, namely American universities, with a particular focus on the author’s beloved alma mater, Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. Clearly the book is a “case study” – one could even say the prosecution of a direct and extended public criticism of Northwestern University – and the polemical perspective is grounded in Shay’s Jewish identity and personal beliefs. Equally clearly Shay makes a series of verifiable observations and arguments about conspiracy theories as a contemporary phenomenon and their presence, as well as the presence of other weak and lazy modes of thought, in “academia writ large.” This generalization of the problem is where most readers will find the value of the book. The book does not expect one to share Shay’s identity, to be a Zionist or support Zionism, or to agree with Israel’s national policies on any issue, least of all Israeli relations with Arabs and Palestinians. Shay’s approach is rigorous and clinical. He is a genuine intellectual in that he considers the gravest matters of concern from various viewpoints, including viewpoints radically different from his own, and relies on close readings of the evidence. In other words, Shay did not write the book merely to convince people that two tenured professors at Northwestern are promoting conspiracy theories. That kind of aberration is sadly to be expected and at least partially the result of the tenure system, which has advantages as well, not within the scope of the book. Rather Shay wrote it to provide a case study for how it is that conspiracy theories can manage to be adopted by those who do not realize what they are and to proliferate even in areas that should be the least hospitable – namely, public universities, which are supposed to be beacons of knowledge, science, openness, and critical thinking, but also other public institutions, including the fourth estate. Shay is meticulous with his sources and terminology. He draws on existing academic literature to set the parameters of his subject, defining conspiracy theories as “improbable hypotheses [or] intentional lies … about powerful and sinister groups conspiring to harm good people, often via a secret cabal.” The definition excludes “unwarranted criticism” and “unfair/prejudiced perspectives,” which are harmful but unavoidable. Many prejudices and false beliefs are “still falsifiable in the minds of their adherents,” which is not the case with conspiracy theories, although deep prejudices can obviously be helpful in spreading such theories. Conspiracy theories often depend on “a stunning amount of uniformity of belief and coordination of action without contingencies.” They also rely excessively on pathos, or emotion, in making their arguments, as opposed to logos (reason) and ethos (credibility, authority). Unfortunately there is no absolute, infallible distinction between conspiracy theories and other improbable theories – say, yet-to-be-confirmed theories about conspiracies that actually occurred. Conspiracy theories differ from other theories “in their relationship to facts, evidence, and logic,” which may sound obvious but is very much to the point. Again, “the key difference is the evidence and how it is evaluated.” There is no ready way to refute the fabrications, myths, and political propaganda that people believe without taking the time to assess the claims and their foundations. This requires an open mind and a grim determination to get to the bottom of rival claims about events even when they are extremely morally or politically sensitive, as is often the case with wars, political conflicts, atrocities, and genocides: Reliable historians, journalists, lawyers, and citizens must first approach the question of the cause or the identity of perpetrators and victims of an event or process with an open mind, not prejudiced to either party, and then evaluate the evidence. The diagnosis may be easy but the treatment is not – it takes time, study, and debate, and one’s interlocutors must be willing to be convinced. This problem of convincing others is critical because it is the part that is so often left out of modern political discourse. Conspiracy theories are often hateful and militant, so there is a powerful urge to censor or repress them. Openly debating with conspiracy theorists runs the risk of legitimizing or appearing to legitimize their views, providing them with a public forum, which seems to grant ethos or authority to arguments that are otherwise conspicuously lacking in it. In some countries censorship is legal, almost everywhere when violence is incited. The problem is that the act of suppression can feed the same conspiracy theories, so there is a need, in the appropriate context, to engage with and refute lies and specious arguments. Clients frequently email us to ask our view of the rise of conspiracy theories and what they entail for the global policy backdrop. We associate them with the broader breakdown in authority and decline of public trust in institutions. Shay’s book is an intervention into this topic that clients will find informative and thought-provoking, even if they disagree with the author’s staunchly pro-Israel viewpoint. It is precisely Shay’s ability to discuss and debate extremely contentious matters in a lucid and empirical manner – antisemitism, the history of Zionism, Holocaust denialism, Arab-Israeli relations, the Rwandan genocide, QAnon, the George Floyd protests, various other controversies – that enables him to defend a controversial position he holds passionately, while also demonstrating that passion alone can produce the most false and malicious arguments. As is often the case, the best parts of the book are the most personal – when Shay tells about his father’s sufferings during the Holocaust, and journey from the German concentration camps to New York City, and about Shay’s own experiences scraping enough money together to go to college at Northwestern. These sequences explain why the author felt moved to stage a public intervention against fringe ideological currents, which he shows to have gained more prominence in the university system than one might think. The book is timely, as American voters are increasingly concerned about the handling of identity, inter-group relations, history, education, and ideology in the classroom, resulting in what looks likely to become a new and ugly episode of the culture and education wars. Let us hope that Shay’s standards of intellectual freedom and moral decency prevail. Matt Gertken, PhD Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The downshift in globalization today is even worse than it appears in Chart 10 because several countries have not yet produced the necessary post-pandemic data, artificially reducing the denominator and making the post-pandemic trade rebound appear more prominent than it is in reality. 2 Scott A. Shay, Conspiracy U: A Case Study (New York: Post Hill Press, 2021), 279 pages. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China Russia United Kingdom Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Australia South Africa Section III: Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights 1. How will the pandemic resolve? 2. Will services spending recover to its pre-pandemic trend? 3. Will we spend our excess savings? 4. How will central banks react to inflation? 5. Will cryptocurrencies continue to eat gold’s lunch? 6. How fragile is Chinese real estate? 7. Will there be another shock? Fractal analysis: Personal goods versus consumer services. Feature Chart of the WeekWill Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? “Judge a man by his questions, not by his answers” The quotation above is often misattributed to Voltaire instead of its true author, Pierre-Marc-Gaston de Lévis. Irrespective of the misattribution, we agree with the maxim. Asking the right questions is more important than finding answers to the wrong questions. In this vein, this report takes the form of the seven crucial questions for 2022 (and our answers). 1. How Will The Pandemic Resolve? As new variants of SARS-CoV-2 have arrived like clockwork, the number of new global cases of infection and the virus reproduction rate have formed a near-perfect mathematical ‘sine wave’. This near-perfect sine wave will propagate into 2022 (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Pandemic's Sine-Wave Will Propagate Into 2022 But how will this sine wave of infections translate into mortality, morbidity, and stress on our healthcare systems? As we explained in RNA Viruses: Time To Tell The Truth, the answer depends on the specific combination of contagiousness, immuno-evasion, and pathogenicity of each variant. Yet none of this should come as any surprise. Flus and colds also come in waves, which is why we call them flu and cold seasons. And the morbidity of a given flu and cold season depends on the aggressiveness of that season’s flu and cold variant. So, just like the flu and the cold, Covid will become an endemic respiratory disease which comes in waves. The trouble is that our under-resourced health care systems can barely cope with a bad flu season, let alone with an additional novel disease that can be worse than the flu. Hence, until we add enough capacity to our healthcare systems, expect more disruptions to economic activity from periodic non-pharmaceutical interventions such as travel bans, vaccine passports, and face-mask mandates. 2. Will Services Spending Recover To Its Pre-Pandemic Trend? The pandemic has given us a crash course in virology and epidemiology. We now understand antigens, antibodies, and ‘reproduction rates.’ We understand that a virus transmits as an aerosol in enclosed unventilated spaces, and that singing, and yelling eject this viral aerosol. We understand that vaccinations for RNA viruses have limited longevity, do not prevent reinfections, and that certain environments create ‘super-spreader’ events. Armed with this new-found awareness, a significant minority of people have changed their behaviour. Services which require close contact with strangers – going to the dentist or in-person doctors’ appointments, going to the cinema or to amusement parks, or using public transport – are suffering severe shortfalls in demand. Given that this change in behaviour is likely long-lasting, demand for these services is unlikely to regain its pre-pandemic trend in 2022 (Charts I-3 - I-6). Chart I-3Dental Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-4Physician Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-5Recreation Services Are Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Chart I-6Public Transportation Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend Therefore, to keep overall demand on trend, spending on goods will have to stay above its pre-pandemic trend. This will be a tough ask. Durables, by their very definition, last a long time. Even clothes and shoes, though classified as nondurables, are in fact quite durable. Meaning that are only so many cars, iPhone 13s, gadgets, clothes and shoes that any person can own before reaching saturation. If, as we expect, spending on goods falls back to its pre-pandemic trend, but spending on services does not recover to its pre-pandemic trend, then there will be a demand shortfall in 2022 (Chart of the Week). 3. Will We Spend Our Excess Savings? If spending falls short of income – as it did through the pandemic – then, by definition, our savings have gone up. Many people claimed that this war chest of savings would unleash a tsunami of spending. Well, it didn’t. And, it won’t. Previous episodes of excess savings in 2004, 2008, and 2012 had no impact on the trend in spending (Chart I-7). The explanation comes from a theory known as Mental Accounting Bias. The theory states that we segment our money into different accounts, which are sometimes physical, sometimes only mental, and that our willingness to spend money depends on which mental account it occupies. This contrasts with standard economic theory which assumes that money is perfectly fungible, meaning that a dollar in a current (checking) account is no different to a dollar in a savings or investment account. In practice, money is not fungible, because we attach different emotions to our different mental accounts. A dollar in our current account we will gladly spend, but a dollar in our savings account we will not spend. Hence, the moment we move the dollar from our current account into our savings account, our willingness to spend it collapses. This explains why consumption trends have no connection with windfall income receipts once those income receipts end up in our savings mental or physical account. Pulling all of this together, the war chest of savings accumulated during the pandemic is unlikely to change the overall trend in spending. 4. How Will Central Banks React To Inflation? The real story of the current ‘inflation crisis’ is that while goods and commodity prices have surged exactly as expected in a positive demand shock, services prices have not declined as would be expected in the mirror-image negative demand shock. The result is that aggregate inflation has surged even though aggregate demand has not (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8Goods Prices Have Reacted To A Positive Demand Shock... Chart I-9...But Service Prices Have Not Reacted To A Negative Demand Shock Why have services prices remained resilient despite a massive negative demand shock? One answer, as explained in question 2, is that much of the shortfall in services demand is due to behavioural changes, which cannot be alleviated by lower prices. If somebody doesn’t go to the dentist or use public transport because he is worried about catching Covid, then lowering the price will not lure that person back. In fact, the person might interpret the lower price as a signal of greater risk, and might become more averse. In technical terms, the price elasticity of demand for certain services has flipped from its usual negative to positive. This creates a major problem for central banks, because if the price elasticity of services demand has changed, then surging aggregate inflation is no longer a reliable indicator of surging aggregate demand. To repeat, inflation is surging even though aggregate demand is barely on its pre-pandemic trend. Hence in 2022, central banks face a Hobson’s choice. Choke demand that does not need to be choked, or turn a blind eye to inflation and risk losing credibility. 5. Will Cryptocurrencies Continue To Eat Gold’s Lunch? Most of the value of gold comes not from its economic utility as a beautiful, wearable, and electrically conductive metal, but from its investment value as a hedge against the debasement of fiat money. The multi-year investment case for cryptocurrencies is that they are set to displace much of gold’s investment value. Still, to displace gold’s investment value, cryptocurrencies need to match its other qualities: an economic utility, and limited supply. A cryptocurrency’s economic utility comes from its means of exchange for the intermediation services that its blockchain provides. For example, if you issue a bond or smart-contract using the Ethereum blockchain, then you must pay in its cryptocurrency ETH. Which gives ETH an economic utility. Furthermore, the number of blockchains that will succeed as go-to places for intermediation services will be limited, and each cryptocurrency has a limited supply. Thereby, the supply of cryptocurrencies that have a utility is also limited. With an economic utility, a limited supply, and drawdowns that are becoming smaller, cryptocurrencies can continue to displace gold’s dominance of the $12 trillion anti-fiat investment market. Therefore, the cryptocurrency asset-class can continue its strong structural uptrend, albeit punctuated by short sharp corrections (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Cryptocurrencies Will Continue To Displace Gold's Investment Value The corollary is that the structural outlook for gold is poor. 6. How Fragile Is Chinese Real Estate? A decade-long surge in Chinese property prices has lifted Chinese valuations to nosebleed levels. According to global real estate specialist Savills, prime real estate yields in China’s major cities are now barely above 1 percent, and the world’s five most expensive cities are all in China: Hangzhou, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Beijing, and Shanghai (Chart I-11). Without a social safety net and with limited places to park their money, Chinese savers have for years been encouraged to buy homes, in the widespread belief that property is the safest investment, whose price only goes up. With the bulk of people’s wealth in property acting as a perceived economic safety net, even a modest decline in house prices would constitute a major shock to the household sector’s hopes and expectations of what property is. Therefore, in contrast to the US housing debacle in 2008, the Chinese government will ensure that its property market adjustment does not come from a collapse in home prices. Rather, it will come from a collapse in property development and construction activity. This will have negative implications for commodities, emerging Asia, developing countries that produce raw materials, and machinery stocks worldwide. 7. Will There Be Another Shock? Most strategists claim that shocks, such as the pandemic, are unpredictable. We disagree. Yes, the timing and source of an individual shock is unpredictable, but the statistical distribution of shocks is highly predictable. We define a shock as any event that causes the long-duration bond price in a major economy to rally or slump by at least 20 percent.1 Using this definition through the last 60 years, the statistical distribution of the number of shocks in any ten-year period is Poisson (3.33) and the time between shocks is Exponential (3.33). This means that in any ten-year period, the likelihood of suffering a shock is a near-certain 95 percent; in any five-year period, it is an extremely high 80 percent; in a two-year period it is a coin toss at 50 percent; and even in one year it is a significant 30 percent (Chart I-12). Therefore, on a multi-year horizon, another shock is a near-certainty even if we do not know its source or precise timing. The question is, will it be net deflationary, or net inflationary? Our high-conviction view is that it will be net deflationary. Meaning that even if it starts as inflationary, it will quickly morph into deflationary. The simple reason is that it is not just Chinese real estate that is fragile. Through the past ten years, world prime residential prices are up by 70 percent while rents are up by just 25 percent2 (Chart I-13). Meaning that the bulk of the increase in global real estate prices is due to skyrocketing valuations. The culprit is the structural collapse in global bond yields – which, in turn, is due to persistently ultra-low policy interest rates combined with trillions of dollars of quantitative easing. Chart I-13Property Price Inflation Has Far Exceeded Rent Inflation This means that bond yields have very limited scope to rise before pulling the bottom out of the $300 trillion global real estate market. Given that this dwarfs the $90 trillion global economy, it would constitute a massive deflationary backlash to the initial inflationary shock. Some people counter that in an inflationary shock, property – as the ultimate real asset – ought to perform well even as bond yields rise. However, when valuations start off in nosebleed territory as now, the initial intense headwind from deflating valuations would obliterate the tailwind from inflating incomes. Investment Conclusions To summarise, 2022 will be a year in which: Covid waves continue to disrupt the economy; a persistent shortfall in spending on services is not fully countered by excess spending on goods; China’s construction boom comes to an end; inflation takes time to cool, pressuring central banks to raise rates despite fragile demand; and the probability of another shock is an underestimated 30 percent. We reach the following investment conclusions: Overweight the China 30-year bond and the US 30-year T-bond. There will be no sustained rise in long-duration bond yields, and the risk to yields is to the downside. Long-duration equity sectors and stock markets that are least sensitive to cyclical demand will continue to rally (Chart I-14). Chart I-14The US Stock Market = The 30-Year T-Bond Multiplied By Profits Overweight the US versus non-US. Underweight Emerging Markets. Underweight old-economy cyclical sectors such as banks, materials, and industrials. Commodities will struggle. Underweight commodities that haven’t corrected versus those that have (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Underweight Commodities That Haven't Yet Corrected Overweight the US dollar versus commodity currencies. Cryptocurrencies will continue their structural uptrend at the expense of gold. Goods Versus Services Is Technically Stretched Finally, this week’s fractal analysis corroborates the massive displacement from services spending into goods spending, highlighted by the spectacular outperformance of personal goods versus consumer services. This outperformance is now at the point of fragility on its 260-day fractal structure that has signalled previous reversals (Chart I-16). Therefore, a good trade would be to short personal goods versus consumer services, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 12.5 percent. Chart I-16Underweight Personal Goods Versus Consumer Services Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 As bond yields approach their lower limit, this definition of a shock will need to change as it will become impossible for long-duration bond prices to rally by 20 percent. 2 Based on Savills Prime Index: World Cities – Capital Values, and World Cities – Rents and Yields, June 2011 through June 2021. Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields - Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Omicron vs. The Fed: The new COVID variant has thrown a growth scare into markets, but the bigger concern is the Fed belated playing catch up to high inflation and low unemployment. Fade the Omicron bond rally, and position for higher US Treasury yields over the next year with the Fed threatening to taper faster, and potentially hike sooner, than markets expect. New Zealand: Underlying growth and inflation fundamentals, soaring house prices, and the central bank’s historical reaction function indicate that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand will lift the cash rate to 2% by the end of 2022. However, markets are already priced for this, leaving little room for New Zealand debt to continue underperforming on a relative basis. We are upgrading New Zealand sovereigns to neutral and initiating a long NZ/short US 10-year spread trade. A Year-End Bout Of Uncertainty Chart of the WeekMarkets Have Been Worried About The Fed Since September Over the past two weeks, we have published Special Reports and thus have not had an opportunity to comment on market moves and news. Needless to say, it has been an eventful period! The emergence of the new Omicron variant, and the hawkish shift in the Fed’s guidance on future policy moves, have injected fresh uncertainty and volatility into global financial markets. Since the existence of Omicron was revealed to the world on Nov 26, 30-year US Treasury yields have fallen by as much as -23bps and the S&P 500 index has been down by as much as -4.4%. Yet the evolving Fed stance, with Fed Chair Jerome Powell hinting last week that the end of tapering and start of rate hikes could begin sooner than expected next year, is having a more lasting influence on risk asset performance. Dating back to the September 23 FOMC meeting, when the Fed first signaled an imminent tapering of bond purchases and pulled forward the timing of liftoff into 2022, the 2-year US Treasury yield has gone up from 0.22% to 0.63%. Importantly, there has been little pullback on the pricing at the front-end of the US Treasury curve due to the Omicron shock. That pre-September-FOMC low in the 2-year Treasury yield also marked the peak in riskier fixed income market performance for 2021, with the Bloomberg Global High-Yield and Emerging Market USD-Denominated Sovereign total return indices down -2.0% and -1.8%, respectively, since Sept 23 (Chart of the Week). Other risk assets also appear to be responding more to news about the Fed than Omicron. Equity markets stopped climbing since the Fed announced the first taper of bond purchases at the November 3 FOMC meeting – three weeks before the world knew of Omicron - which also coincided with troughs in the VIX index and corporate credit spreads, not only in the US but in Europe and emerging markets as well (Chart 2). Of course, it is difficult to disentangle which is having a greater impact, the variant or the Fed, when details on both are evolving at the same time. Omicron Investors are understandably right to be nervous about a new COVID variant that can reportedly evade existing vaccines and even infect those who have had COVID previously. The whole idea of “putting COVID in the rearview mirror’ that has helped fuel booming equity and credit markets was predicated on vaccines being both effective and widely available. However, when investors see COVID case numbers start to pick up in the US and Europe, with vaccination rates twice that of South Africa where Omicron was first detected (Chart 3), this raises concern about a return to pre-vaccine economic restrictions and uncertainty. Chart 2A Typical Risk-Off Response To The Emergence Of Omicron Chart 3Omicron Putting A Dent In Vaccine Optimism The “Omicron effect” on fixed income markets has been most evident in the repricing of interest rate expectations. Since the presence of Omicron was revealed on November 26, there has been a reduction in the cumulative amount of tightening discounted to the end of 2024 in the overnight index swap (OIS) curves of the major developed economies (Table 1). The moves were most evident in the US (32bps of hikes priced out), Canada (37bps) and Australia (37bps). Table 1Pricing Out Some Rate Hikes Because Of Omicron Much is still unknown about the dangers of the Omicron variant. The admittedly very early data out of South Africa, however, indicates that there has not been a major surge in hospitalizations related to Omicron cases. A new COVID strain that proves to be more virulent, but that does not strain health care systems, should help allay investor concerns over a major economic hit from Omicron. This presents an opportunity to put on positions that will profit from a rebound in global bond yields led by higher US Treasury yields. The Fed The Omicron threat to date has not been enough to move the Fed off its plans to rein in the monetary accommodation put in place in 2020 to fight the pandemic. If Omicron is to have any impact on the US economy, it will do so at a time when the economy continues to grow well above trend. The November reading on the ISM Manufacturing survey showed strength in the overall index, with a stabilization of the New Orders/Inventory ratio that leads overall growth, and only a very modest reduction in the still-elevated Prices Paid and Supplier Deliveries indices (Chart 4). The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is suggesting that US real GDP growth could come in at a whopping 9.7% in Q4. As further evidence that the US economy is growing at a pace well above trend, just look to labor market data. New US jobless claims are at the lowest level since 1969. The November US Payrolls report showed that the headline unemployment rate fell 0.4 percentage points on the month to 4.2% - within the range of full employment estimates of the FOMC - even with actual job growth falling short of consensus forecasts (Chart 5, top panel). Chart 4Nothing Bond-Bullish In US Manufacturing The improving health of the labor market is being felt more broadly, with big declines seen in unemployment rates for minorities and less-educated Americans (second panel). That point is of critical importance to the Powell Fed that has emphasized reducing racial and educational gaps in US unemployment as part of reaching its goal of “maximum employment”. Chart 5Nothing Bond-Bullish In US Labor Markets Tightening labor markets are also evident in accelerating wage momentum. Excluding the 2020 spike driven by labor force compositional effects related to COVID lockdowns, the year-over-year growth in average hourly earnings reached a 39-year high of 5.9% in November (third panel). The Fed now seems willing to finally confront high US inflation and strong economic growth with some tightening of monetary policy. Chart 6A Near-Term Break From Supply-Fueled Inflation? Powell caused some investor agita last week when he indicated that the taper could end before mid-2022, the previous FOMC guidance, which would open the door for rate hikes. We see Powell’s comments as less about signaling an intensifying hawkishness and more about giving the Fed optionality on when to start lifting rates next year in the event the US economy continues to overheat. The Fed strongly believes that tapering must end before rate hikes can begin, so a more accelerated taper allows for an earlier liftoff date, if necessary. To that end, the supply fueled surge in inflation this year, which has lingered for far longer than the Fed anticipated, may be showing some signs of easing. Several indices of global shipping container prices are off the highs, while there is a reduced backlog of container ships off key US ports like Los Angeles. Overall commodity price momentum has peaked, in line with slower, but still strong, global industrial activity (Chart 6). An easing of supply-driven price pressures would be welcome by the FOMC. It would allow time to evaluate both the Omicron threat and evolving US labor market dynamics, instead of being forced to fight a rearguard action against accelerating inflation. However, a shift away from goods/commodity inflation to more domestically driven inflation would not lessen the need for the Fed to begin lifting rates next year – in fact, it could even strengthen the case for the Fed to hike rates faster, and by more, than currently discounted in markets. Importantly, forward looking indicators are still pointing to solid US growth next year (Chart 7): The Conference Board’s leading economic indicator continues to grow at a pace signaling above-trend growth US financial conditions remain highly accommodative even with the recent market turbulence The New York Fed’s yield curve based recession probability model is indicating that the spread between the 10-year US Treasury yield and the 3-month US Treasury bill rate, currently 138bps, is consistent with only a 9% chance of a US recession over the next year (bottom panel) We continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration stance within US fixed income portfolios, with a yield target on the 10-year benchmark US Treasury yield of 2-2.25% to be reached by the end of 2022. We also continue to recommend positioning in Treasury curve steepening trades. This is admittedly a counter-intuitive suggestion given that the Fed is moving towards a rate hiking cycle, but we see too much flattening priced into the Treasury forward curve over the next year (Chart 8). Chart 7A Positive Message From US Leading Growth Indicators Chart 8Our Favorite Bearish US Rates Trades For global bond investors, our favorite trade that will benefit from higher US bond yields next year is to position for a wider 10-year US Treasury-German Bund spread (bottom panel). We expect the ECB to avoid any rate increases until at least mid-2023, well after the Fed has begun to tighten. Forward curves in the US and Germany currently discount a relatively stable Treasury-Bund spread in 2022, thus there is no negative carry incurred by positioning for a wider spread. Bottom Line: Omicron has thrown a growth scare into markets, but the bigger concern is that the Fed is belated starting to play catch up to high inflation and low unemployment. Fade the Omicron bond rally, and position for higher US Treasury yields over the next year. New Zealand: How Much Further Can The Bond Selloff Go? Chart 9NZ Sovereign Underperformance Has Been Driven By RBNZ Hawkishness Over the past year, New Zealand bonds have sold off much faster than developed market peers (Chart 9). Markets correctly recognized the Reserve Bank Of New Zealand (RBNZ) as a central bank that would move more aggressively to tamp down on inflation and manage the financial stability and political risks arising from soaring house prices. The RBNZ has already delivered back-to-back hikes at its October and November meetings, after its plans to hike at the August meeting were thrown off by the Delta variant. Markets are now pricing in a further 172bps of tightening over the coming year, having largely faded any downside growth risk from the Omicron variant. Expectations of continued tightening have been buoyed by the response of New Zealand policymakers, who are largely looking past the Omicron variant. Restrictions have already begun to ease, with the country having entered its “Traffic Light” COVID-19 Protection Framework. The new variant is also unlikely to affect the RBNZ’s tightening path, with Chief Economist Yuong Ha stating that, given the lifting of restrictions, the RBNZ would have raised rates even if Omicron had become known before its November 24 meeting. Given the bond-bearish backdrop, New Zealand government bonds have underperformed substantially this year. On a relative hedged and duration-matched basis, New Zealand sovereigns have underperformed by -6.6% year-to-date with -4.0 percentage points of that underperformance coming after July 21 when we formally moved to an underweight stance on New Zealand debt within global government bond portfolios (Chart 9, bottom panel). However, with monetary policy entering a new phase, led by an increasingly hawkish Fed, we believe it is appropriate to re-assess our New Zealand call and judge whether this underperformance can continue into 2022. The growth picture is broadly supportive of the RBNZ’s stated policy path. Real GDP as of Q2 was above its pre-Covid trend and 2.6% over the RBNZ’s own estimate of potential GDP, supported by an easing of travel restrictions and strong consumer spending (Chart 10). On a forward-looking basis, however, the risk is now that the economy is running too hot, jeopardizing future growth. Consumer and business sentiment has been worsening as inflation expectations soar, with consumers fearing a hit to purchasing power and businesses concerned about the impact of rising input costs on profit margins. Household and business inflation fears also have a strong basis in the realized inflation data, which has soared to a 10-year high of 4.9% (Chart 11). More troublingly, underlying inflation measures such as the trimmed mean and core (excluding food and energy) are now at series highs of 4.8% and 4%, respectively, indicating that higher inflation could prove to be sticky. The RBNZ now sees headline inflation peaking at 5.7% in Q1/2022 before settling to 2% by the end of its forecast horizon in 2024. Chart 10The NZ Economy Is Overheating Chart 11The RBNZ Will Welcome A Slight Growth Slowdown The RBNZ clearly attributes higher inflation to an economy running above longer-term capacity rather than short-term supply factors. The Bank’s measure of the output gap is now at the most positive level since 2007, and survey measures of capacity utilization remain elevated. In contrast to the Fed, which is still nominally focused on maximum employment, the RBNZ actually believes that employment is above its maximum sustainable level, and sees a rising unemployment rate as necessary to ease capacity constraints. Given that the RBNZ is clearly comfortable with, and will likely welcome, a gradual rise in unemployment, it will take much more than a slight growth shock to deter the RBNZ from its tightening path. Chart 12Higher Rates Necessary To Stabilize The NZ Housing Market The newest, and most politically potent, part of the RBNZ’s remit—house prices – has further supported a bias to tighten monetary policy. However, while still dramatically elevated, house price growth looks to have peaked (Chart 12). The central bank’s hawkish shift earlier in the year has made a clear impact, with house price growth peaking shortly after mortgage rates started picking up in April of this year. Overall household mortgage credit has also begun to decelerate, indicating that the passthrough from monetary policy to credit demand and housing via the mortgage rate is working as intended. However, there is likely further to go. The last time house price growth was somewhat stable around 6.6% in the 2012-2019 period, benchmark 5-year mortgage rates averaged 6.1%. Assuming the spread between the 5-year mortgage and policy rates remains around 4%, history indicates that we would need to see the policy rate rise to at least 2% to cool down the housing market. That 2% level is also the RBNZ’s mean estimate of a “neutral” cash rate—a level at which policy would be neither accommodative nor restrictive (Chart 13). Current market pricing is quite consistent with the RBNZ’s own projected path of rates as of the November meeting—both of which are set to exceed the neutral rate by the end of 2022. Historical experience from the pre-crisis period indicates that this is not uncommon, and that a bout of restrictive policy might be needed to cool down an overheating economy. Indeed, if the RBNZ’s historical reaction to inflation is any guide, it seems likely that policymakers will want to push rates above inflation. The top two panels of Chart 14 show how anomalous deeply negative real policy rates are in New Zealand. Even if we make the case that developed market real rates are in a structural downtrend, as realized real rates have peaked out at successively lower levels with each tightening cycle, the current gap between the cash rate and core inflation seems obviously unsustainable and requires a tightening of policy. Chart 14NZ Real Rates Are Too Low Chart 15Go Long The 10-Year NZ Government Bond/US Treasury Spread Another way to think about where policy rates are in relation to a “neutral” level is to look at the yield curve (Chart 14, bottom panel). Typically, the yield curve inverts when markets judge that monetary policy is too restrictive and that short rates are too high relative to a long-run average. However, the New Zealand government bond curve has historically remained inverted for extended periods of time, troughing at around -100bps. This again indicates that the RBNZ is comfortable raising rates above neutral and keeping policy restrictive when needed. Putting together the four factors we have looked at—growth, inflation, asset prices, and the RBNZ’s reaction function—it looks likely that the RBNZ will continue along the tightening path it has set out and chances of any dovish surprise seem slim. At the same time, markets are priced to perfection in terms of the pace and amount of tightening discounted. For New Zealand sovereigns to continue underperforming, however, we will need to see markets price in, on the margin, even more tightening from the RBNZ relative to its peers. With the Fed and other central banks having become more focused on responding to US inflation dynamics, bond-bearish upside shocks to market rate expectations will increasingly come from outside New Zealand. At the same time, in the event of a negative global growth shock, perhaps relating to COVID-19, there is relatively more room for hikes to be priced out in New Zealand. Given our view that bond and rates markets have appropriately priced in the extent of the RBNZ’s likely tightening cycle, we are upgrading New Zealand sovereign debt to neutral, taking profits on our current underweight stance. While we do not include New Zealand debt in our model bond portfolio, we are expressing our view via a new tactical cross-country spread trade: long New Zealand 10-Year government bonds vs. US 10-Year Treasuries (Chart 15). Forwards are currently pricing in a flat spread between the two countries, meaning that any future spread tightening will put our trade in the black. Given that there is more space for markets to price in increased hawkishness from the Fed, we believe that spread compression is likely. We are implementing this trade by going long New Zealand cash bonds and shorting 10-year US Treasury futures. Details can be found on Page 18. Bottom Line: Underlying growth and inflation fundamentals, soaring house prices, and the central bank’s historical reaction function indicate that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand will lift the cash rate to 2% by the end of 2022. However, markets are already priced for this, leaving little room for New Zealand debt to continue underperforming on a relative basis. We are upgrading New Zealand sovereigns to neutral and initiating a long NZ/short US 10-year spread trade. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma Senior Analyst ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Recommended Positioning Active Duration Contribution: GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. Custom Performance Benchmark The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Global Fixed Income - Strategic Recommendations* Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Overlay Trades
The RBA kept monetary policy unchanged at its Tuesday meeting. Governor Philip Lowe sounded cautiously optimistic in his policy statement. He noted that the Australian economy is on track towards recovery following the Delta-induced setback and that although…
Highlights Chart 1Curve Flattening Is Overdone Fed Chair Jay Powell made big news last month. During Senate testimony, Powell not only signaled that the Fed is likely to accelerate the pace of asset purchase tapering when it meets in December, he also suggested that the Fed won’t necessarily wait until “maximum employment” is achieved before lifting rates. Powell’s comments suggest that the first Fed rate hike could come as early as June 2022 and as late as December 2022, and the exact timing will depend on how inflation and inflation expectations move during the next few months. The front-end of the Treasury curve is fairly priced for either scenario. The 2-year Treasury yield is currently 0.60%. If we assume that the Fed eventually lifts rates at a pace of 100 bps per year until reaching a 2.08% terminal rate, we calculate a fair value range for the 2-year yield of 0.39% to 0.74%, depending on whether Fed liftoff occurs in June or December. In contrast, the same assumptions give us a fair value range of 1.69% to 1.79% for the 10-year Treasury yield, well above its current level of 1.40% (Chart 1). The investment implications are clear. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and put on Treasury curve steepeners, overweight the 2-year note and underweight the 10-year. Feature Table 1Recommended Portfolio Specification Table 2Fixed Income Sector Performance Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 89 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +102 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 12 bps on the month and our quality-adjusted 12-month breakeven spread is now at its 7th percentile since 1995. This indicates that valuations remain stretched even after the recent widening (Chart 2). The back-up in spreads was driven by the combination of the Fed’s shift toward a more hawkish policy stance and concerns about the new omicron COVID variant. This led to a large flattening of the yield curve in addition to wider corporate bond spreads. The slope of the yield curve is a critical indicator for our corporate bond call. We are very comfortable owning corporate bonds when the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is above 50 bps, but our work suggests that returns to credit risk take a significant step down once the slope flattens into a range of 0 – 50 bps.1 The 3-year/10-year Treasury slope currently sits at 49 bps, just below our 50 bps threshold. However, our range of fair value estimates suggests that the 3/10 slope should be between 63 bps and 86 bps today, and that it should only break below 50 bps between March and September of next year (bottom panel). All in all, we expect the pace of Treasury curve flattening to abate during the next couple of months and this will allow spreads to tighten back to their recent lows. We will turn more cyclically defensive on corporate bonds next year when the break below 50 bps in the 3/10 slope is confirmed by our fair value readings. Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* High-Yield: Overweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 121 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +444 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 50 bps on the month, leading to a significant rise in the spread-implied default rate. The spread-implied default rate is the 12-month default rate that is priced into the junk index, assuming a 40% recovery rate on defaulted debt and an excess spread of 100 bps. At present, the spread-implied default rate sits at 3.8% (Chart 3). For context, defaults have come in at an annualized rate of 1.6% so far this year and we showed in a recent report that corporate balance sheets are in excellent shape.2 Specifically, the ratio of total debt to net worth for the nonfinancial corporate sector has fallen to 41%, the lowest ratio since 2010 (bottom panel). We conclude that the default rate will be comfortably below 3.8% during the next 12 months, allowing high-yield bonds to outperform duration-matched Treasuries. We recommend that investors favor high-yield over investment grade corporate bonds, and we expect that last month’s spread widening will reverse in relatively short order. However, as noted on page 3, we will turn more defensive on credit risk (including high-yield bonds) next year once we are confident that the 3/10 Treasury curve has sustainably moved into a flatter regime (0 – 50 bps). MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 46 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -90 bps. The zero-volatility spread for conventional 30-year agency MBS widened 13 bps on the month, driven by an 11 bps widening of the option-adjusted spread and a 2 bps increase in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) (Chart 4). We wrote in last week’s report that MBS’ recent poor performance is attributable to an option cost that is too low relative to the pace of mortgage refinancings, noting that the MBA Refinance Index has been slow to fall this year despite the back-up in yields.3 The robust pace of home price appreciation has been an important factor boosting refis, as homeowners have been increasingly incentivized to tap the equity in their homes. With no indication that cash-out refi activity is about to slow, we expect refi activity will remain sticky going forward. This will put upward pressure on MBS spreads. We recommend adopting an up-in-coupon bias within an overall underweight allocation to MBS. Higher coupon MBS exhibit more attractive option-adjusted spreads and higher convexity than lower coupon MBS. This makes high-coupon MBS (4%, 4.5%) more likely to outperform low-coupon MBS (2%, 2.5%, 3%) in an environment where bond yields are flat or rising (bottom panel). Government-Related: Neutral Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-neutral Treasury index by 35 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +33 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 157 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -220 bps. Foreign Agencies underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 9 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +36 bps. Local Authority bonds underperformed by 16 bps in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +406 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 2 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +18 bps. The investment grade Emerging Market Sovereign bond index outperformed the equivalent-duration US corporate bond index by 42 bps in November. The Emerging Market Corporate & Quasi-Sovereign index underperformed duration-matched US corporates by 16 bps (Chart 5). Both EM indexes continue to offer significant yield advantages versus US corporate bonds with the same credit rating and duration. We continue to recommend overweighting USD-denominated EM sovereigns and corporates versus investment grade US corporates with the same credit rating and duration.4 Within EM sovereigns, attractive countries include: Russia, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar. Municipal Bonds: Maximum Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 29 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +371 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The economic and policy back-drop remains favorable for municipal bond performance. Trailing 4-quarter net state & local government savings are incredibly high (Chart 6) and 2021’s federal spending splurge will support state & local government coffers for some time. A recent report showed that the average duration of municipal bond indexes has fallen significantly during the past few decades, a trend that has implications for how we should perceive municipal bond valuation.5 Specifically, the trend makes municipal bonds more attractive relative to both Treasury securities and investment grade corporates. Long-maturity bonds are especially compelling. We calculate that 12-17 year maturity Revenue Munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 14% relative to credit rating and duration matched US corporate bonds. 12-17 year General Obligation Munis offer a breakeven tax rate of 22% versus corporates (panel 2). High-yield muni spreads are reasonably attractive compared to high-yield corporates (panel 4), but we recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield munis versus high-yield corporates. The deep negative convexity of high-yield munis makes them susceptible to extension risk if bond yields rise. Treasury Curve: Buy 2-Year Bullet Versus Cash/10 Barbell Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve flattened dramatically in November. Increasingly hawkish rhetoric from the Fed pushed front-end yields higher as news about the omicron COVID strain pressured long-dated yields lower. The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope flattened 16 bps on the month, it currently sits at 75 bps. The 5-year/30-year Treasury slope flattened 11 bps on the month, it currently sits at 56 bps. As noted on the front page, long-dated Treasury yields have fallen to well below levels consistent with a reasonable Fed rate hike cycle. This drop in long-maturity yields has pushed the 2/5/10 butterfly spread to extremely high levels, both in absolute terms and relative to our model’s fair value (Chart 7). This signals that 2/10 yield curve steepeners are incredibly cheap. Indeed, we observe that the 2/10 slope has already flattened to below the levels that were witnessed on the last two Fed liftoff dates in 2015 and 2004 (panel 4). A trade long the 5-year bullet and short a duration-matched 2/10 barbell does indeed look attractive in this environment. However, we note that the 2/5 Treasury slope has also flattened to below levels seen on the prior two Fed liftoff dates (bottom panel). In other words, the 2/5 slope also has room to steepen during the next 6-12 months, and we prefer to focus our long positions on the 2-year Treasury note rather than the 5-year. This leads us to recommend a position long the 2-year note and short a duration-matched barbell consisting of cash and the 10-year note. We also advise investors to own a position long the 20-year bond versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 10-year note and 30-year bond. This latter position offers a very attractive duration-neutral yield advantage of 24 bps. TIPS: Neutral Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS performed in line with the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index in November, leaving year-to-date excess returns unchanged at +739 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 8 bps on the month while the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 17 bps. The 10-year and 2-year rates currently sit at 2.44% and 3.24%, respectively. The Fed’s preferred 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 8 bps on the month. It currently sits at 2.16%, below the Fed’s 2.3% - 2.5% target range. Our valuation indicator shows that 10-year TIPS are slightly expensive compared to 10-year nominal Treasuries (Chart 8), and we retain a neutral allocation to TIPS versus nominals at the long-end of the curve. We acknowledge the risk that a prolonged period of high inflation could lead to a break-out in long-dated TIPS breakevens, but this now looks less likely given the Fed’s increasing hawkishness. We see better trading opportunities at the front-end of the TIPS curve, where the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate remains well above the Fed’s target range (panel 4). Short-maturity breakevens are more sensitive to swings in CPI than those at the long-end. Therefore, the 2-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate has considerable downside during the next 6-12 months, assuming inflation moderates as we expect it will. We recommend an underweight allocation to TIPS versus nominals at the front-end of the curve. Given our view that CPI inflation will be lower in 6-12 months, we recommend shorting 2-year TIPS outright, positioning in 2/10 TIPS breakeven inflation curve steepeners (bottom panel) and 2/10 TIPS (real) yield curve flatteners. All three trades will profit from falling short-maturity inflation expectations. ABS: Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +26 bps. Aaa-rated ABS underperformed by 11 bps on the month, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +13 bps. Non-Aaa ABS performed in line with Treasuries in November, keeping year-to-date excess returns steady at +93 bps. During the past two years, substantial federal government support for household incomes has caused US households to build up an extremely large buffer of excess savings. During this period, many households have used their windfalls to pay down consumer debt and credit card debt levels have fallen to well below pre-COVID levels (Chart 9). The result is that the collateral quality backing consumer ABS is exceptionally high. Investors should remain overweight consumer ABS and should take advantage of the high quality of household balance sheets by moving down the quality spectrum, favoring non-Aaa rated securities over Aaa-rated ones. Non-Agency CMBS: Neutral Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 40 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +155 bps. Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 30 bps in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +63 bps. Non-Aaa Non-Agency CMBS underperformed Treasuries by 70 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +469 bps (Chart 10). Though returns have been strong this year and spreads remain attractive, particularly for lower-rated CMBS, we continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to the sector because of the structurally challenging environment for commercial real estate. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +58 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 9 bps on the month. It currently sits at 40 bps (bottom panel). Though Agency CMBS spreads have recovered to well below their pre-COVID levels, they still look attractive compared to other similarly risky spread products. Stay overweight. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix A: Butterfly Strategy Valuations 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: US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com US 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 -62 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope flattens by less than 62 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 November 30th, 2021) Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As Of November 30th, 2021) Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix B: Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the US bond market. It is a purely computational exercise and does not impose any macroeconomic view. The Map’s vertical axis shows 12-month expected excess returns. These are proxied by each sector’s option-adjusted spread. Sectors plotting further toward the top of the Map have higher expected returns and vice-versa. Our novel risk measure called the “Risk Of Losing 100 bps” is shown on the Map’s horizontal axis. To calculate it, we first compute the spread widening required on a 12-month horizon for each sector to lose 100 bps or more relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Then, we divide that amount of spread widening by each sector’s historical spread volatility. The end result is the number of standard deviations of 12-month spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus a position in Treasuries. Lower risk sectors plot further to the right of the Map, and higher risk sectors plot further to the left. Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Expected Returns In Corporate Bonds”, dated September 21, 2021. 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed’s Inflation Problem”, dated November 23, 2021. 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Omicron Impact”, dated November 30, 2021. 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Damage Assessment”, dated September 28, 2021. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Best & Worst Spots On The Yield Curve”, dated October 26, 2021.
The PBoC’s decision to cut the reserve requirement ratio by 50 bps is unlikely to be a game changer for the Chinese economy. The more important drivers of China’s business cycle and financial markets are credit growth and investment. Both these variables…