Economic Growth
Dear clients, Over the next couple of weeks, we will be further analyzing China’s coronavirus outbreak, its economic impact, and the likely policy response, as well as the attendant investment recommendations. We will also examine any sector-related or regional themes that stem from the outbreak. Stay tuned. Jing Sima, China Strategist Highlights The peak in the number of new cases outside of the crisis epicenter will be more market-relevant than the total number of infections. New cases outside of the epicenter continue to rise, but a peak may be in sight. Our sense is that financial markets are likely to bottom earlier than the consensus expects. The economic impact on China from the outbreak will be large, but manufacturing activities in the majority of Chinese cities should resume by the end of February. It will take longer for the service sector to recover, implying a larger hit to the economy compared with the SARS episode given that services have grown in importance. This will force Chinese policymakers to set their financial deleveraging agenda aside for the rest of the calendar year. We maintain an overweight stance on Chinese stocks both tactically and cyclically, based on our view that the outbreak will soon be contained outside of Hubei province and that China’s budding economic recovery will be delayed, but not prevented, by the crisis. Feature The coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak in China has sparked a selloff in risk assets around the globe. China’s A-share equity market, after an extended Chinese New Year market closure, was in a free fall when it reopened on February 3. In the offshore market, the MSCI China Index has declined by 9% from its most recent high on January 13, 2020 (Chart 1). When attempting to forecast a turning point in bearish investor sentiment stemming from the outbreak, it is important to note that during the 2003 SARS epidemic, both global and Chinese equity markets rebounded when the number of new cases peaked in Hong Kong SAR and globally (Chart 2). Chart 1Chinese Stocks Have Been Hit Hard By The Virus Outbreak Chart 2Markets Bottomed As Total SARS Infections Peaked We maintain our long stance both tactically and cyclically on Chinese stocks, based on the following assessments: In the next three months, the panic brought on by 2019-nCoV will abate before the total number of new cases peaks, as investors focus on the turning point in the outbreak outside of the epicenter (Hubei province). Beyond the next three months, the outbreak will likely delay China’s economic recovery. However, this means that Chinese policymakers will not likely reduce the scale of their stimulative efforts this year. The Market Correction May Be Short-Lived Since the onset of the 2019-nCoV outbreak, many studies have attempted to predict the speed and magnitude of the spread of the virus. Using a mathematical model called Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovered (SEIR), The Lancet,1 The University of Hong Kong,2 and Johns Hopkins CSSE3 all drew a conclusion that a peak in the current episode is likely to occur between late April and early May. The number of cases outside of the crisis epicenter will likely drive financial market sentiment. While we think this conclusion may be true for the total number of new cases, the total count will be less relevant to investors during this episode than during the 2003 SARS outbreak. Instead, it will be more useful to break down the total infection count into two sets of data: the number of new cases within the city of Wuhan and Hubei Province (the epicenter of the outbreak), and the number of new cases outside of Hubei. The latter is more likely to be the primary driver of short-term outbreak-related market sentiment. While Hubei is experiencing an acceleration in the daily rate of new cases, the number of new cases across the rest of China seems to be flattening off of late (Chart 3). We think that the number of cases outside of Hubei will peak earlier than within the epicenter. This is in contrast to the 2003 SARS outbreak when the peak of new cases in the rest of China and globally lagged the epicenter Hong Kong SAR by a month (Chart 4). Chart 3Number Of 2019-nCoV New Cases Flattening Outside The Epicenter Chart 4SARS Outbreak Peaked Globally A Month After Peaking In The Crisis Epicenter There are two reasons for the difference between the 2003 SARS peak and projections for the 2019-nCoV outbreak: Timely cutoff of virus mobility outside of epicenter: The world responded quickly to contain the virus. During the 2003 SARS episode, Chinese authorities responded with protective measures only after the outbreak had already peaked in the epicenter. This time the Chinese government intervened at an early stage of the outbreak with forceful and in some cases extreme actions, including a near-complete lockdown of Wuhan (the crisis epicenter) and restrictions on inter- and intra-city traffic in other major metropolitan areas. Foreign governments in North America, Europe, and Southeast Asia took unprecedented measures to ban or limit air traffic to/from China. Furthermore, with timely and sufficient medical care, the fatality rate outside of the epicenter has been much lower4 – a significantly underreported fact. Mishandling of the crisis within the epicenter: Within Hubei province, particularly the city of Wuhan where the virus originated, the number of infections will likely continue climbing in the next two to even three months. The abovementioned studies suggest the number of cases in the epicenter is five to seven times higher than the official count. Local hospitals are experiencing severe shortages of medical supplies, meaning that people with mild-to-medium symptoms have reportedly been turned away. These patients are not included in the official statistics as confirmed or suspect cases. The discrepancy in reporting means these cases will be confirmed and recorded at a much later date. Without quarantine and treatment, these patients may continue to transmit the virus to others within the epicenter. This will have a tragic human cost, but it will hold few consequences for financial markets. The corrections in Chinese onshore and offshore stocks, while severe, will be fleeting. Bottom Line: Market sentiment will rebound following the peak in new 2019-nCoV cases outside the epicenter of Wuhan/Hubei. We think the peak may come as early as mid to late-February, which suggests the corrections in Chinese onshore and offshore stocks, while severe, will be fleeting. Economic Recovery In Sight Beyond the near-term, our view on China’s likely policy response and the economy’s fundamentals support a positive outlook for Chinese stocks over the next 6 to 12 months. In absolute dollar terms, the scale of the economic impact from the 2019-nCoV outbreak will likely be larger than the SARS episode in 2003. Unlike with SARS, when disruptions were mild and limited to the travel and retail sectors, the extreme measures China took in response to the coronavirus outbreak have essentially placed Chinese economic activity on hold. Chart 5Service Sector Now A Larger Part Of China's Economy Compared With 2003 China’s service sector is also likely to be more affected than manufacturing, because the outbreak coincided with the Chinese New Year holiday when services are normally in high demand. In addition, the service sector accounts for a much larger share of the Chinese economy than in 2003 (Chart 5). Therefore, the reduction in services output will have a comparatively bigger economic impact. However, as we think the 2019-nCoV outbreak outside of the epicenter will likely peak in February, the majority of nationwide manufacturing activity should resume no later than the last week of February. Chinese authorities have already signaled they will speed up government-led infrastructure investment as early as March. Chart 6Service Sector Took Longer To Recover After SARS Outbreak The service sector will take longer to recover. Following the 2003 SARS outbreak, the recovery in the service sector lagged the manufacturing and primary sectors by one quarter (Chart 6). This will likely delay the bottoming of the aggregate Chinese economy. We project a bottom in China’s economy towards the end of the second quarter of 2020. A delay in economic recovery will force Chinese policymakers to put aside their financial deleveraging agenda, and focus on economic growth for the year. 2020 marks the final year for policymakers to accomplish their goal to double GDP from 2010. This means policymakers will likely augment the amount of stimulus in order to stabilize the economy and avoid falling short of their growth target. Bottom Line: Business activities should resume in late February, with a bottoming in the economy towards the end of the second quarter of 2020. Monetary Support Already Lining Up The Chinese economy is on a structurally slowing trend, but is in an early stage of cyclically recovering from last year (Chart 7). This is in contrast with 2003 during the SARS outbreak when China’s economic growth was structurally accelerating, but the monetary environment was in a tightening cycle and industrial profit growth was downshifting (Chart 8). Chart 7Chinese Economy Is On A Structurally Slowing Trend, But Is Cyclically Recovering... Chart 8...And Is In An Expansionary Monetary Cycle As the performance of Chinese onshore stocks reflects domestic policy, Chinese A-shares, after briefly rebounded when the 2003 SARS outbreak peaked, underperformed the global benchmark during much of the 2004-2006 period when monetary policy tightened (Chart 9). Contrasting with 2003, we expect the PBoC to maintain a more accommodative monetary stance throughout 2020 (Chart 10): the PBoC cut the open market operation interest rates by 10bps on February 3. We expect this move to lead to a 5bps LPR and MLF rate cut in March. Moreover, the chance that the PBoC will cut the bank reserve requirement ratio (RRR) in Q2 is also increasing. Chart 9Chinese Onshore Equity Market Largely Driven By Domestic Policy Chart 10Easy Monetary Stance Is Here To Stay Bottom Line: Monetary policy will become more accommodative this year. Investment Conclusions Chinese stocks just went on sale, but the sale likely will not last long. Chart 11Chinese Stocks Are Priced At An Even Deeper Discount Over the next 0-3 months, Chinese equities will likely rebound as soon as the peak in the number of new cases outside of Wuhan/Hubei occurs. We believe the peak will happen within the next two weeks, and manufacturing activities in the majority of Chinese cities will resume following the peak in the outbreak. Depressed valuations in Chinese stocks compared with the global benchmark and the expectation of a rebound in Chinese economic activity should provide a good buying opportunity for global investors (Chart 11). In short, Chinese stocks just went on sale, but the sale likely won’t last long. Over a cyclical time horizon, we had previously predicted that China’s authorities may reduce the scale of the stimulus in the second half of this year as the economy starts to recover in Q1. The 2019-nCoV outbreak will alter the leadership’s policy trajectory and extend pro-growth support through 2020, and both the central and regional governments have announced a slew of policies in supporting businesses, particularly for the private sector. Our expectation that the viral outbreak will not derail China’s economic recovery suggests that corporate earnings will also rebound over a 6-12 month time horizon. One risk that we will be monitoring over the coming several months is the potential for firm- or sector-specific effects on earnings. The nationwide city lockdowns are certain to reduce or halt the flow of cash to businesses, and it is unclear whether this will have any disproportionate effects on corporate earnings relative to what we expect will occur for the economy beyond Q1. However, for now, our assumption is that the trend in earnings growth is likely to match that of the economy more generally unless evidence to the contrary presents itself. This supports an overweight position in Chinese stocks compared with their global peers over the coming 6-12 months. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 “Nowcasting and forecasting the potential domestic and international spread of the 2019-nCoV outbreak originating in Wuhan, China: a modelling study”, The Lancet, January 31, 2020. 2 “Real-time nowcast on the likely extent of the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, and forecasts domestic and international spread”, Hong Kong University, January 27, 2020 3 “Modeling the Spreading Risk of 2019-nCoV”, John Hopkins Center For Systems Science And Engineering, January 31, 2020. 4 As of February 3, 2020, the fatality rate of 2019-nCoV outside of Hubei stands at 0.2%, compared with a 3% fatality rate in Hubei province and 5.5% in Wuhan, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Global Growth Fears: Efforts to contain the China coronavirus outbreak risk creating the outcome that investors feared most in 2019 from the US-China trade war – weaker global growth and a severe disruption to supply chains worldwide. Monetary Policy Responses: Global bond yields have plunged as investors have piled into safe haven assets and priced in additional monetary easing from major central banks. Some of that decline in yields, however, may be a repricing of future rate hike probabilities with central banks like the Fed and ECB rethinking their inflation mandates and how to achieve them. Duration Strategy: Maintain a moderate below-benchmark cyclical (6-12 months) stance on overall interest rate duration in global fixed income portfolios. Yields now discount a significant hit to global economic growth from China. This outcome is far from certain, especially if China delivers more aggressive fiscal and monetary policy easing to mitigate the deflationary effects of the public health crisis. Feature Chart of the WeekBond Yields Have "Gone Viral" Global bond yields have declined sharply over the past two weeks, as investors have tried to process the potential implications of the China coronavirus outbreak. Scenes of empty streets in Chinese cities under quarantine look like something out of a Hollywood science fiction movie. Fears of a “zombie apocalypse” scenario plunging the global economy into recession are proliferating among doomsayers. The viral outbreak is interrupting global growth just as it is starting to show signs of recovery from the manufacturing slump of 2019 (Chart of the Week). Global bond yields had been slowly rising alongside that economic improvement, and risk premia in equity and credit markets had begun to narrow in earnest. Against that backdrop with markets priced for perfection, a massive public health crisis in the most marginal driver of global growth, China, was a potent trigger for a correction in risk assets. The story is obviously very fluid, with the number of infected continuing to grow in China and more cases being discovered across the world. At least 50 million Chinese citizens are now under quarantine, across several major cities. More countries are instituting travel bans to and from China, and important global companies like Apple are shuttering their China operations until further notice. The ultimate hit to global growth is yet to be determined, but measures being taken to slow the spread of the coronavirus will clearly have an impact on global trade, supply chain management and, thus, economic growth. This risks a repeat of the May-August period last year, when markets were pricing in the potential negative effects of US-China trade tariffs on global growth, triggering a major decline in global bond yields. A big driver of that bond rally last year was a shift towards expectations of easier global monetary policy. Those were largely realized as central banks cut rates while global growth was actually slowing. Bond yields now discount another round of rate cuts, most importantly from the US Federal Reserve, despite no formal indication (yet) that policymakers are looking to deliver more easing. The risk now is that investors will become too pessimistic, setting up a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction if the hit to global growth from the virus is less than feared. On that note, a significant Chinese economic growth slowdown now appears fully priced into global bond yields. The risk now is that investors will become too pessimistic, setting up a swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction if the hit to global growth from the virus is less than feared. On that note, a significant Chinese economic growth slowdown now appears fully priced into global bond yields, as we discuss later in this Weekly Report. Breaking Down The Latest Decline In Global Bond Yields The decline in government bond yields in the developed markets (DM) has been sharpest since Chinese authorities confirmed human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus on Monday, January 20. That appears to be the date when investors began to take the outbreak much more seriously. Growth-sensitive assets like emerging market (EM) equities, copper and oil prices peaked on Friday, January 17, while measures of volatility like the US VIX index and US high-yield credit spreads troughed (Chart 2). The price of safe haven assets like gold and the Japanese yen have also increased since that “pre-virus peak” on January 17, as have bond volatility measures like the US MOVE index or European swaption volatility (Chart 3). Importantly, the increases in rates volatility have been smaller to date compared to mid-2019, when the “convexity” trade triggered an insatiable demand for duration that drove longer-maturity global bond yields sharply lower. Chart 2A Pullback In Growth-Sensitive Assets Chart 3A Mild Bid For Safe Havens Compared To 2019 A breakdown of the decline in the benchmark 10-year government bond yields in the major DM countries (US, Germany, Japan, the UK, Canada and Australia) since that “pre-virus peak” is shown in Table 1. Table 1Global Bond Yield Changes Since January 17, 2020 The biggest declines were in the US (-33bps), Canada (-29bps) and Australia (-23bps) where central bank monetary policy expectations also saw the largest shift. Our 12-month discounters, which measure the change in short-term interest rates over a one-year horizon priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves, have fallen by -30bps in the US, -26bps in Canada and -22bps in Australia – indicating that markets had fully priced in a rate cutting response to the coronavirus outbreak from the Fed, Bank of Canada and Reserve Bank of Australia. Bond yields have fallen to a lesser extent in Germany (-19bps), the UK (-11bps) and Japan (-7bps), but with very modest declines in our 12-month discounters for those three countries were policy interest rates are close to, or below, 0%. Therefore, the decline global yields over the past two weeks can, on the surface, be attributed to expectations of easier monetary policy in response to the potential hit to growth, and tightening of financial conditions as risk assets sell off, from the coronavirus (Chart 4). Chart 4Falling Yields Reflect Expectations Of More Rate Cuts In 2020... Chart 5...But Also Expectations Of Lower Rates For Longer Yet when looking at our estimates of the term premium for all six countries, the decline in the nominal 10-year yields is almost equal to the reduction in the term premium. On the surface, this would be consistent with the idea that the fall in yields is due to risk aversion driving up the demand for the safety of government bonds – and can hence be unwound if the news were to turn less gloomy on the spread of the coronavirus. Yet interest rates further out the yield curve have also fallen by similar amounts in all countries shown, when looking at 1-year interest rates, 5-years forward (the bottom row of Table 1). That decline in longer-dated forwards does correlate strongly with lower inflation expectations as measured by 10-year CPI swap rates (Chart 5). This suggests an alternative explanation for the recent fall in global bond yields that is not related to worries over the coronavirus: bond markets increasingly believe that policy interest rates will be lower for a lot longer. An alternative explanation for the recent fall in global bond yields that is not related to worries over the coronavirus: bond markets increasingly believe that policy interest rates will be lower for a lot longer. With the Fed and ECB now openly discussing changing their monetary policy frameworks to manage achievement of their statutory inflation targets more proactively, the hurdle for contemplating any interest rate hikes in the future is now much higher. Thus, central banks are giving forward guidance to the markets that rates will be lower. That is a message that would also be consistent with the decline in the term premium, to the extent that the premium is compensation for the future volatility of short-term interest rates. When looking at all the components, the message from the most recent decline in global bond yields may be more complex than simple virus-driven risk aversion. Our Duration Indicator continues to improve alongside rebounding global economic sentiment, signaling cyclical upward pressure on yields (Chart 7) – assuming, of course, that the hit to Chinese growth from the coronavirus outbreak is no worse than currently discounted in financial asset prices. In the case of US Treasuries, the bond rally also has a cyclical component, with yields now down to levels more consistent with the softer pace of growth indicated by the ISM Manufacturing index and the recent softening trend in US data surprises (Chart 6). Yet with US monetary policy and financial conditions still highly accommodative, the odds still favor some improvement in the current trend-like pace for US GDP growth that will, eventually, begin to put moderate upward pressure on Treasury yields again. Chart 6Low UST Yields Are Not Just A coronavirus Story Chart 7Global Yields Were Due For A Corrective Pullback A similar message is given when we look at global bond yields, more generally. Our Duration Indicator continues to improve alongside rebounding global economic sentiment, signaling cyclical upward pressure on yields (Chart 7) – assuming, of course, that the hit to Chinese growth from the coronavirus outbreak is no worse than currently discounted in financial asset prices. Bottom Line: Efforts to contain the China coronavirus outbreak risk creating the outcome that investors feared most in 2019 from the US-China trade war – weaker Chinese growth and a severe disruption to global supply chains. Global bond yields have plunged as investors have piled into safe haven assets and priced in additional monetary easing from major central banks. Some of that decline in yields, however, may be a repricing of future rate hike probabilities with central banks like the Fed and ECB rethinking their inflation mandates and how to achieve them. How Much China Weakness Is Priced Into Global Bond Yields? The China coronavirus outbreak, and the response to contain it, represents a potentially severe hit to Chinese – and global – economic growth. A lot of comparisons have been made to the 2003 SARS outbreak to try and find a comparable past event. However, as our colleagues at BCA Research Emerging Markets Strategy have noted, China’s economy is so much larger now, rendering comparisons of the economic impact from SARS to that of the coronavirus far less meaningful.1 For example, China’s GDP at purchasing power parity accounts for 19.3% of world GDP compared to 8.3% in 2002 before the SARS outbreak occurred. China’s share of the global consumption of various industrial metals has surged, as well, from between 10-20% in 2002 to 50-60% today. A simple alternative way to measure the impact of any virus-driven slowing of Chinese economic growth would be to calculate the reduction in full-year 2020 GDP growth relative to consensus forecasts. In this sense, the comparison is made to current expectations rather than to a past episode – an approach that should be far more relevant for predicting the response of financial asset prices today. For example, the Bloomberg consensus expectation for Chinese nominal GDP growth for all of 2020 is currently 7.2%. Using that rate and the level of nominal GDP from 2019, we can calculate an expected level for nominal GDP for 2020. We can then make some simplifying assumptions for the impact on full-year growth from an extended period of lost output from the quarantines, government-ordered factory shutdowns and extended holidays, travel bans, etc. Assuming that one full month of expected nominal GDP growth is lost (i.e. 1/12th of the expected increase in the level of nominal China GDP), the full-year growth rate falls to 6.6% Assuming that two full months of expected nominal GDP growth are lost, the full year growth rate falls to 6.0% Global bond yields now reflect a considerable slowdown of Chinese economic activity from the coronavirus, representing between 1-2 months of expected full-year 2020 nominal GDP growth that will be lost. The last time that Chinese nominal GDP growth fell to a sub-7% pace was back in 2015 (Chart 8). The Caixin manufacturing PMI reached a low of 47.2 then, 3.9 points below the current level of 51.1. The level of global bond yields, using our “Major Countries” GDP-weighted aggregate, was at 0.72% - similar to today’s level. Global growth ex-China was also at similarly subdued levels in 2015 (i.e. the US ISM manufacturing index was below 50). Chart 8Global Yields Already Priced For A 2015-Type Slowdown In China Chart 9New Stimulus Measures In China Are Inevitable We conclude from this admittedly simple analysis that global bond yields now reflect a considerable slowdown of Chinese economic activity from the coronavirus, representing between 1-2 months of expected full-year 2020 nominal GDP growth that will be lost. The final impact on China economic growth in 2020 will likely be less than that full hit, as Chinese policymakers will surely look to ease monetary and fiscal policy to offset the hit to the economy (Chart 9). While BCA’s China strategists do not currently expect the same magnitude of policy responses as was seen in 2015/16, there will likely be enough to at least partially offset the hit to growth from containing the virus. In terms of timing, the critical point for financial markets – and bond yields – will be when the growth rate of new coronavirus cases peaks. During the 2003 SARS episode, global equity markets bottomed when that number of new cases peaked, which we believe to be a useful template for timing a potential turning point in the “fear narrative” (Chart 10). The number of new coronavirus infections continues to rise, however, suggesting that risk assets and bond yields will likely remain subdued in the near term. Chart 10Markets Bottomed In 2003 When The SARS Infection Rate Peaked When that turn does happen, any potential increase in global bond yields will be driven more by unwinding the declines in real yields and term premia of the past two weeks shown earlier in this report in Table 1. Chart 11Only A Pause In The Cyclical Upturn In Yields? That suggests a potential rise in the 10-year US Treasury yield of as much as 30bps, and a 23bps increase in the 10-year German bund yield. An additional increase of 5-10bps for both markets could come from higher inflation expectations, although that would likely need to be accompanied by a sizeable rebound in the price of oil and other industrial commodities. We are not seeing signs in our most favored leading indicators – like our global LEI diffusion index or the global ZEW index – suggesting that the next cyclical move in yields will be lower. We acknowledge that the recent fall in yields has gone against our expectations of a moderate grind higher global bond yields in 2020. However, we are not seeing signs in our most favored leading indicators – like our global LEI diffusion index or the global ZEW index – suggesting that the next cyclical move in yields will be lower (Chart 11). We will monitor those indicators in the coming months for any signs of a serious hit to global growth from the coronavirus outbreak. Bottom Line: Maintain a moderate below-benchmark cyclical (6-12 months) stance on overall interest rate duration in global fixed income portfolios. Yields now discount a significant hit to global economic growth from China. This outcome is far from certain, especially if China delivers more aggressive fiscal and monetary policy easing to mitigate the deflationary effects of the public health crisis. Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Coronavirus Versus SARS: Mind The Economic Differences", dated January 30, 2020, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights The SARS episode of 2003 suggests that the panic over the coronavirus will only subside when the number of new cases peaks. Although the latest data is somewhat encouraging, it is far from clear that we have reached that point. Provided the outbreak is contained, global equities should move higher over the course of the year. US companies remain net buyers of shares, implying that households and other holders have been net sellers. But against a backdrop of rising incomes, high savings, and improving confidence, households have also wanted to own more equities. How can households be net sellers of stocks while simultaneously increasing their equity exposure? There is only one answer: Share prices need to rise. The process will only stop once households decide they own enough stocks. In the US, while household equity holdings are on the high side as a share of household wealth, this is counterbalanced by the fact that the earnings yield on stocks is well above the yields on competing assets. Outside the US, household ownership of equities is quite low while the equity risk premium is still high. Going Viral We upgraded global equities after markets plunged in late 2018 and have remained overweight stocks on a 12-month horizon to this day. However, we indicated three weeks ago that equities had become technically overbought and would likely need to consolidate their gains. Thus, while we kept our 12-month views unchanged, we downgraded our tactical 3-month view on global stocks from overweight to neutral, while also advising clients with short horizons to boost exposure to cash and government bonds at the expense of riskier credit (our entire set of views can be found in the Global Investment Strategy View Matrix at the back of this report). Since then, the outbreak of the coronavirus has added another headwind to the near-term outlook for stocks. Many commentators have drawn comparisons between today’s outbreak and the SARS epidemic in 2003. The SARS episode imposed a significant but short-lived economic toll on the affected countries. While Chinese GDP growth fell to 3.4% in Q2 of 2003, it surged back to 15.7% in Q3, leaving the overall level of GDP down about 1% for the year as a whole relative to what would have transpired if the virus had never emerged.1 The broader Asia-Pacific region experienced a hit to growth of around 0.5%. In contrast, growth in developed economies was barely affected. Even in Canada, where 44 people died from SARS, the outbreak shaved only around 0.1% from the level of GDP in 2003, according to the Bank of Canada.2 The outbreak of the coronavirus has added another headwind to the near-term outlook for stocks. The obvious problem with the SARS analogy is that it is based on a sample of one. We do not know how this new strain of the virus compares to SARS or, for that matter, the Spanish flu, which killed 50-to-100 million people (3%-to-5% of the world’s population at the time). We do not even know if the full scope of the SARS outbreak was as fleeting as what we remember, since in a cosmic multiverse there will be a tendency to recall life-or-death outcomes more favorably than they actually were (I will have more to say about the financial implications of this in a future special report). Chart 1The Coronavirus Is Spreading Faster Than SARS Did What we do know is that, to date, the coronavirus has spread more quickly than SARS (Chart 1). It is not clear if that is because of faster, more accurate reporting methods or because the virus is more communicable. The Chinese Minister of Health has said that this new virus, unlike SARS, can be transmitted while people are still asymptomatic. While others have cast doubt on this claim, if it turns out to be correct, the coronavirus may be much more difficult to control. Viruses often become less lethal as they mutate because a virus that kills its host is also a virus that kills itself. Unfortunately, in a world of mass travel, a virus can spread across the globe before it has time to lose potency. The typical seasonal flu kills less than 0.1% of those who contract it. Most estimates suggest that SARS killed 10%-15% of infected patients. The Spanish flu killed a similar percentage. The death rate from the coronavirus is currently tracking at 2%-to-3%. However, it is possible that this estimate will rise. The vast majority of the people who have contracted the coronavirus are still sick. In fact, more people have died from it than have fully recovered (Chart 2). Thus, an honest assessment would simply admit that we do not know how bad this potential pandemic will get. Chart 2How Will This End: Outbreak, Epidemic, Or Pandemic? Chart 3Markets Bottomed As The SARS Infection Rate Was Peaking What should investors do? The SARS experience suggests that risk assets will only bottom when the number of new cases peaks (Chart 3). It is not clear that we have reached this point yet. While the number of new cases reported by China’s National Health Commission has stabilized over the past two days, this could just be a temporary respite (Chart 4). Until the rate at which new cases are diagnosed begins a clear downward trend, a somewhat cautious stance towards risk assets is warranted. Global Growth Should Recover Provided the outbreak is contained during the coming weeks, global equities should move higher over the course of the year. This is partly because global growth should pick up thanks to the lagged effects of last year’s decline in bond yields, an improvement in the global manufacturing inventory cycle, and diminished Brexit and trade war risks. Continued fiscal/credit stimulus out of China should also help. China spends less on health care than almost all other countries (Chart 5). It is likely that the past few weeks will prompt the government to increase social spending. Chart 4The Number Of New Cases Has Stagnated Over The Past Two Days Chart 5China: Public Spending On Health Care Has Room To Catch Up Higher Equity Prices: Just A Matter Of Arithmetic? Chart 6There Is A Structural Decline In Listed Companies In The US Chart 7The Supply Of US Stocks Has Been Drying Up In addition to stronger global growth, there is another factor supporting stocks which receives insufficient attention and is worth highlighting in this week’s report: corporate buybacks. US companies have repurchased about 3% of their shares every year for the past decade. On the flipside, only 110 companies went public last year, less than a third of the number of new listings in 1996-99. In fact, the number of publicly traded domestic companies has fallen by over 40% since 1996 (Chart 6). The combination of copious buybacks and dearth of IPOs has caused the S&P divisor – a broad measure of the total number of split-adjusted shares outstanding – to decline by a cumulative 9% since 2011. Between 1990 and 2004, the divisor increased by 40% (Chart 7). If companies are net buyers of stocks, then households and other holders must be net sellers of stock. But this raises an obvious question: What if households also want to be net buyers of stocks? Chart 8Households Are Bullish Chart 9High Equity Ownership By Households Translates Into Poor Long-Term Returns This question is highly relevant in today’s environment, where unemployment is low, wage growth is accelerating, the household savings rate is high, consumer confidence is strong, and a higher-than-average percentage of people expect stocks to increase in the coming months (Chart 8). Arithmetically, there is only one way that households can be net sellers of stocks while simultaneously increasing their equity exposure: Share prices need to rise. At what point will share prices stop rising? That depends on two things: 1) How much stock market wealth households hold relative to other assets; and 2) The risk-adjusted rate of return that households expect from stocks compared to other assets. Stock returns are highest when equity holdings are low, but sentiment towards stocks is improving. Conversely, returns are lowest when equity holdings are high, but stock market sentiment is deteriorating (Chart 9 and Table 1). Table 1Equity Returns Tend To Suffer When Bulls Are Losing Conviction The latter typically occurs during economic downturns when earnings are falling and risk aversion is rising. Thus, it is no surprise that recessions and equity bear markets tend to overlap (Chart 10). Chart 10Recessions And Bear Markets Tend To Overlap Where Things Stand Today In the US, household equity holdings are on the high side. According to Fed data and our own estimates, households currently hold 33% of their financial assets in stocks (Chart 11). This is higher than in 2007, but still below the dotcom peak of 39%. Similarly, the monthly asset allocation survey conducted by the American Association of Individual Investors shows a somewhat elevated allocation to equities, although one that is still broadly on par with the 2003-2007 and post-2014 averages (Chart 12). Chart 11US Household Equity Holdings Are On The High Side (I) Chart 12US Household Equity Holdings Are On The High Side (II) Chart 13Relative Valuations Favor Stocks One major difference with prior occasions when US equity allocations were elevated is that the earnings yield on stocks at present is still quite a bit higher than the yield on competing assets such as cash and bonds (Chart 13). While this is mainly because interest rates are so low, it does suggest that households may seek to further increase their equity allocations provided that the economy continues to perform well. Foreign companies have been less aggressive re-purchasers of their own shares than their US peers. That said, household equity ownership is significantly lower outside the US (Chart 14). The spread between equity earnings yields and bond yields is also higher abroad, reflecting the fact that both PE multiples and interest rates are generally lower outside the US. Given that investors tend to favor companies listed in their home country, efforts by non-US investors to increase their equity allocations will primarily benefit stock markets outside the US. In addition, stronger global growth tends to favor EM and European equities, largely because stock markets in those regions have more of a cyclical bent (Chart 15). Thus, on balance, we recommend that investors overweight non-US stocks this year. Chart 14Equity Ownership By Households Is Lower Outside The US Chart 15Stronger Global Growth Tends To Favor A Cyclical Bias In Equity Allocation Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Jong-Wha Lee and Warwick J. McKibbin, “Globalization and Disease: The Case of SARS,” Brookings Institution, dated February 2004. 2 Please see Monetary Policy Report, Bank of Canada, October 2003. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Most central banks still consider economic risks asymmetrical to the downside. This means that even if global growth rebounds in earnest, policy is likely to stay pat over the next three to six months. The conclusion is that relative growth fundamentals rather than central bank policy will likely drive FX price action in the next few months. Our bias remains that the growth impulse will be strongest outside the US during the first half of this year. Stay short the DXY index. The BoJ’s inaction this week makes long yen bets cheap insurance against a rise in FX volatility. Remain short USD/JPY and go short CHF/JPY. The pound remains a buy on dips but will likely underperform the euro over the next few months. EUR/GBP should touch 0.88. The BoC kept rates on hold, but erred on the dovish side, in line with our expectations. Stay short CAD/NOK and long AUD/CAD. We were stopped out of our long NOK/SEK trade for a profit of 1.8%. We will look to rebuy the cross at lower levels. Feature Chart I-1Currency Markets Have Priced In A Benign Recovery The powerful bounce in global equity markets since the August lows has pushed many stock indices into overbought territory. Chart I-1 shows that the rise in global stocks has already discounted an improvement in global manufacturing in order of magnitude similar to the 2012 and 2016 episodes. However, currency markets have been discounting a much more benign outcome (bottom panel). The divergence between currency and equity performance is a marked change from what has prevailed during past cycles. For example, trough to peak, AUD/JPY, a key barometer of greed versus fear in currency markets, appreciated 40% during the 2012 episode, and 25% in 2016-2017, along with rising equity prices. The performance of even more high-octane currency pairs such as the RUB/JPY, the ZAR/JPY, or even the BRL/JPY, was explosive. More muted currency action this time around therefore calls into question the durability of this recovery. Perhaps given that equities are long-duration assets, it is quite plausible that the drop in interest rates in 2019 has increased their relative appeal, boosting nominal values. While that makes sense, most bond markets have also seen higher yields over the past few months, making this explanation questionable. Alternatively, the easing in trade tensions and/or the Federal Reserve’s liquidity injections may have rekindled animal spirits among domestic investors. Or perhaps, a synchronized recovery has narrowed G10 growth differentials, muting currency performance in the process but boosting share prices. The rise in global stocks has already discounted an improvement in global manufacturing. However, currency markets have been discounting a much more benign outcome. Either way, the resolution to this dissonance will be either through marked improvement in global economic data in the coming months (which will support pro-cyclical currencies), or a period of indigestion for stock markets (which will lift volatility) – or a combination of both. At a minimum, this suggests tweaking currency portfolios in anticipation of these dynamics. On Volatility And The Dollar Everyone understands that currency markets are about relative trends. Therefore, the implicit assumption that the dollar will weaken as global growth picks up is that the epicenter of this recovery will be outside the US. Chart I-2 shows that economic data is not yet surprising to the upside outside the US, even though there has been marked improvement on a rate-of-change basis. Beneath the surface, the strongest data surprises have been in the euro area, Switzerland, New Zealand and Australia, while disappointments have been in Canada and the UK. In hindsight, the chart also highlights why the Canadian dollar was the best performing G10 currency in 2019, while the Swedish krona was the weakest. Chart I-2Growth Dispersion Has Fallen The drop in economic dispersion has pushed currency volatility near record lows (Chart I-3). Every seasoned investor does and should pay attention to low volatility. This is because what destroys portfolios is not exuberance, but complacency. This might sound like a tautology, but during the last three episodes of volatility dropping to these levels, the dollar soared and pro-cyclical currencies suffered severe losses. Everyone remembers 1997-1998, 2007-2008 and 2014-2015. Will this time be the same? While a rise in volatility is usually associated with a higher dollar, there are three key differences this time around. First, real rates turned positive in the US relative to its G10 counterparts in 2014 (Chart I-4). This meant the US dollar, which has typically been a funding currency (not least because it is a reserve currency), became the object of carry trades. It is a fair contention that any capital that wanted to find its way into US Treasurys has had more than five years of positive real carry to do so. With real relative yields in the US now rolling over, which way will capital gravitate? Chart I-3Volatility Near Record Lows Chart I-4Real Rates Lower In The US The dollar has been in a bull market since 2011, which has shifted valuations towards expensive quartiles. This is a key difference from previous low-volatility episodes when the dollar was much earlier into bull-market territory (Chart I-5). The dollar tends to run in long cycles, and a spike in volatility can either mark the beginning or the end of a cycle. As we have emphasized numerous times in previous reports, being long the US dollar is a consensus trade. Our primary basis for this is CFTC positioning data. However, a timelier leading indicator to watch is the gold-to-bond ratio. Currencies are about confidence, and a key measure of confidence in the US dollar is the total return in the US 10-year Treasury compared to gold bullion, which has collapsed (Chart I-6). The budget deficit in the US is about to explode, while it was low and falling during prior dollar riot points. Chart I-5The Dollar Is Expensive Chart I-6Tug Of War Between US Bonds And Gold More importantly, currency markets are likely to gyrate with relative fundamentals. The slowdown in the global economy was driven by the manufacturing sector, so it is fair to assume that this is the part of the economy that is ripe for mean reversion. Historically, cyclical swings in most economies tend to be driven by manufacturing and exports rather than services (and consumption). More specifically, the currencies that have borne the brunt of the manufacturing slowdown should logically be the ones to experience the quickest reversals. This is already being manifested in a very steep rise in their bond yields vis-à-vis those in the US. For example, yields in Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Japan have risen significantly versus those in the US since the bottom. A synchronized recovery in global growth will go a long way in further eroding the US’ yield advantage. Currencies are about confidence, and a key measure of confidence in the US dollar is the total return in the US 10-year Treasury compared to gold bullion. Bottom Line: Remain short the DXY index with an initial target of 90 and a stop loss at 100. The Yen As Portfolio Insurance Should our thesis that the dollar is in a downtrend for 2020 be correct, it is unlikely to occur in a straight line. This argues for having some portfolio insurance. The Bank of Japan’s inaction this week may have been a red herring, since one of the most potent moves in asset markets in recent months has been the +130-basis-point move in favor of Japanese yields (Chart I-7). The gap between the USD/JPY and real rates has opened up a rare arbitrage opportunity. Should a selloff in global risk assets materialize, the yen will strengthen. On the other hand, if global growth does eventually accelerate, the yen could weaken on its crosses but strengthen vis-à-vis the dollar. This keeps short USD/JPY bets in an enviable “heads I win, tails I do not lose too much” position. The rise in Japanese yields has been driven by three key pivotal developments: For most of the past five years, the BoJ was one of the most aggressive central banks in terms of asset purchases. This was a huge catalyst for a downturn in the trade-weighted yen (Chart I-8). With a renewed expansion in the Fed’s balance sheet, monetary policy is tightening on a relative basis in Japan. Total annual asset purchases by the BoJ are currently running at about ¥20 trillion, while JGB purchases are running at ¥15 trillion. This is a far cry from the central bank’s soft target of ¥80 trillion, and unlikely to change anytime soon. Chart I-7Japanese Bond Yields Have Surged Chart I-8The Yen And QE Movements in the yen are as influenced by external conditions as what is happening domestically, given Japan’s huge export sector. Credit default swap spreads of cyclical sectors are collapsing to new lows, symptomatic of an improving profit outlook (Chart I-9). This suggests it is the growth component driving Japanese yields higher (Japanese CPI swaps have indeed been flat). This also mirrors the recent outperformance of Asian cyclical sectors relative to defensive ones. The Abe government announced a huge fiscal package last year, in part driven by the disastrous typhoons as well as the upcoming Olympics. This allowed the BoJ to upgrade its growth forecasts in its latest policy minutes. The relative performance of construction and engineering stocks are an important barometer for when the funds are flowing into the economy (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Default Risk Easing In Japan Chart I-10Fiscal Stimulus And Construction Stocks As a defensive currency, the yen tends to weaken as global growth improves, given it is usually used to fund carry trades. That said, our contention is that the yen will surely weaken at the crosses, but could still strengthen versus the dollar. As mentioned above, one catalyst is the divergence from the traditional relationship with real rates. More importantly, the USD/JPY and the DXY tend to have a positive correlation, because the dollar drives the yen most of the time. Meanwhile, net short positioning in the yen versus the dollar makes it attractive from a contrarian standpoint (Chart I-11). Given extremely low volatility, this places short USD/JPY bets as an attractive vehicle to play a rise in volatility. Chart I-11Investors Are Short The Yen More conservative investors could go short CHF/JPY. The recent rise in the Swiss franc threatens the nascent recovery in inflation (Chart I-12), while weakness in the Japanese yen will help lift domestic tradeable goods prices. This puts more pressure on the Swiss National Bank rather than the BoJ. Meanwhile, as a safe haven, the yen is cheaper than the franc. This is confirmed by many of our in-house models. In simple terms, relative inflation with the US has been lower in Japan over the last several decades, but the franc has been stronger. In simple terms, relative inflation with the US has been lower in Japan over the last several decades, but the franc has been stronger (Chart I-13). Meanwhile, over the last two years, a rise in volatility has benefited the yen more than the franc. Chart I-12Strong Franc Is A Headwind For Swiss Inflation Chart I-13The Yen Is Cheaper ##br##Insurance Bottom Line: The yen is the most attractive safe-haven currency at the moment. Remain short USD/JPY and sell CHF/JPY. Housekeeping We were stopped out of our long NOK/SEK trade for a profit of 1.8%. We will look to rebuy this cross at lower levels. The trade is mostly about carry, and we are both positive on the NOK and SEK. This makes market timing important. NOK/SEK at 1.04 will be attractive. There were no new insights from the Norges bank this week, in the context of all the central bank meetings. We will also be looking to opportunistically buy the pound, but buying EUR or GBP volatility might be a better bet. For now, despite the robust labor report, economic surprises in the UK remain negative (Chart I-14). Stay tuned. Chart I-14GBP Is Vulnerable Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the US have been mixed: Industrial production fell by 1% year-on-year in December. The preliminary Michigan consumer sentiment index fell slightly to 99.1 in January. MBA mortgage applications fell by 1.2% for the week ended January 17th. However, existing home sales surprised to the upside, rising 3.6% month-on-month in December. Chicago Fed national activity index fell to -0.35 from 0.41 in December. Initial jobless claims increased to 211K for the week ended January 17th, better than expectations. The DXY index increased by 0.4% this week. There are growing concerns over whether China's coronavirus would significantly drag down global growth. While this is a hiccup in the short term, we remain positive and believe that global growth will accelerate this year on easy financial conditions and faded trade war risks. Report Links: On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been mostly positive: The current account balance came in at €33.9 billion in November. Headline and core inflation were both unchanged at 1.3% year-on-year respectively in December. The ZEW economic sentiment survey soared to 25.6 from 11.2 in January. The euro fell by 0.8% against the US dollar this week. On Thursday, the ECB maintained interest rates at -0.5%. The key takeaway from the ECB is that they are grappling with a review of their monetary policy objective in a manner that might increase accommodation. A switch to an explicit 2% inflation target and/or including a climate change objective into quantitative easing decisions heralds a much more dovish ECB. We are tightening our stop on long EUR/CAD to 1.42. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been negative: Industrial production fell by 8.2% year-on-year in November. The trade deficit widened to ¥152.5 billion in December. Imports and exports both fell by 4.9% and 6.3% year-on-year, respectively. All industry activity index increased by 0.9% month-on-month in November. Both the coincident index and the leading economic index fell to 94.7 and 90.8, respectively in November. The Japanese yen appreciated by 0.3% against the US dollar this week. The BoJ kept interest rates unchanged, in line with expectations. More importantly, the outlook report revised the growth forecast upward to 0.9% from 0.7% for the fiscal year 2020. Moreover, the BoJ revised down the inflation forecast by 10 bps due to lower crude oil prices. Please refer to our front section this week for a more in-depth analysis on the Japanese yen. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Signposts For A Reversal In The Dollar Bull Market - November 1, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the UK have been positive: Retail sales grew by 0.9% year-on-year in December. The Rightmove house price index increased by 2.7% year-on-year in January. The ILO unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.8% in November. Average earnings grew by 3.2% year-on-year in November. This followed a 3-month improvement in employment of 208K, after what had been a dismal employment report for most of 2019. The British pound appreciated by 0.7% against the US dollar this week. The biggest volatility in European currencies in the next few weeks is likely to emerge in the EUR/GBP cross. European economic data has had the best positive surprises in the last few weeks, in part due to base effects. However, the ECB’s transcript this week suggests leaning against any currency strength. In the UK, the pound will still trade partly on politics for now. Buying GBP and EUR volatility looks like a good bet. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been positive: The Westpac consumer confidence index fell by 1.8% in January. Consumer inflation expectations increased to 4.7% from 4% in January. 28.9K new jobs were created in December, above consensus. This was a combination of 29.2K part-time jobs but a loss of 0.3K full-time jobs. The participation rate was unchanged at 66% in December, while the unemployment rate fell further to 5.1%. The Australian dollar fell by 0.6% against the US dollar this week. The positive jobs report placed a bid under AUD, but that quickly dissipated as the coronavirus scare started to dominate headlines. We discussed AUD in depth last week and are buyers at 68 cents. Our primary rationale is that this is a potent contrarian bet. Report Links: On AUD And CNY - January 17, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been negative: Visitor arrivals fell by 3.5% year-on-year in November. Net migration fell to 2610 from 3400 in November. The performance services index fell to 51.9 from 52.9 in December. The New Zealand dollar fell by 0.5% against the US dollar this week. While we believe that the kiwi dollar will outperform the US dollar this year amid improving global growth, domestic constraints including decreasing net migration might limit upside potential. Stay long AUD/NZD and SEK/NZD. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been soft: Manufacturing sales fell by 0.6% month-on-month in November. Headline inflation was unchanged at 2.2% year-on-year in December. Core inflation however, fell to 1.7% from 1.9% in December. New house prices grew by 0.1% year-on-year in December. The Canadian dollar fell by 0.8% against the US dollar this week. On Wednesday, the BoC decided to put interest rates on hold, while opening the door for possible rate cuts later this year if the Canadian data disappointed. In short, like most other central banks, the BoC is data dependent. Our story for CAD is simple – if the epicenter of a growth rebound is outside the US, CAD will underperform its antipodean counterparts. Stay long AUD/CAD. Report Links: The Loonie: Upside Versus The Dollar, But Downside At The Crosses Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 There have been scant data from Switzerland this week: Producer prices fell by 1.7% year-on-year in December, compared with a decrease of 2.5% the previous month. Money supply (M3) grew by 0.7% year-on-year in December. The Swiss franc has been more or less flat against the US dollar this week. We continue to favor the Swiss franc as global risks persist, including concerns about the coronavirus. However, as discussed in the front section of this report, the yen is a better hedge than the franc at the current juncture. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Notes On The SNB - October 4, 2019 What To Do About The Swiss Franc? - May 17, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Norway this week: The Labor Force Survey recorded an increase in the unemployment rate to 4% in November. The Norwegian krone fell by 1.3% against the US dollar this week amid lower energy prices. On Thursday, the Norges Bank kept interest rates on hold at 1.5%, as widely expected. Moreover, the Bank Governor Øystein Olsen said that "The Committee’s current assessment of the outlook and the balance of risks suggests that the policy rate will most likely remain at the present level in the coming period," implying no change in the policy rate in the near-term. This suggests that going forward, relative fundamentals rather than policy decisions will dictate NOK’s path. Our bias is that a valuation cushion offers a margin of safety for long NOK positions. Remain short USD/NOK and CAD/NOK. Report Links: On Oil, Growth And The Dollar - January 10, 2020 Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 There was scant data out of Sweden this week: After rising from 6% to 6.8% in November, the unemployment rate fell back to 6% in December. The Swedish krona fell by 0.2% against the US dollar this week. Going forward, improving global growth, diminished trade tensions, and fewer concerns about a near-term recession all underpin the Swedish economy and the krona. SEK is the most potent G10 cross to play a global manufacturing rebound. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades
Highlights We continue to have a positive view on global equities over the next 12 months, but see heightened risks of a near-term correction. Despite dwindling spare capacity, government bond yields are still lower today than they were shortly after the financial crisis. Many investors argue that bond yields cannot rise much because asset values would plunge if yields rose sharply, while debt burdens would quickly become unsustainable. We disagree. We think there is greater scope for yields to rise than is widely believed. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios, favoring inflation-linked over nominal bonds and positioning for steeper yield curves. Gold should also do well next year. As long as bond yields are rising in response to stronger growth, as will be the case for the next two years, equities will fare well. The stock market will buckle, however, once stagflation sets in around 2022. Stocks Need To Work Off Overbought Conditions Before Moving Higher Again In last week’s report, entitled “Time For A Breather,” we downgraded our tactical three-month view on global equities from overweight to neutral on the grounds that stocks had run up too hard, too fast. Net long positions in equity futures among asset managers and levered funds are now at levels that have historically preceded corrections (Chart 1). Chart 1Stocks Are At A Heightened Risk Of A Correction Chart 2Breadth Is Quite Narrow Chart 3The Equity Risk Premium Is Fairly High, Especially Outside The US The rally has been lopsided, characterized by very narrow breadth. The top five stocks in the S&P 500 (Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, and Facebook) now comprise 18% of market cap, a higher share than in the late 1999/early 2000s (Chart 2). As my colleague, Anastasios Avgeriou, has pointed out, Apple’s $30 billion one day market cap gain on January 9th was greater than the market cap of the median stock in the S&P 500 index. Despite our near-term concerns, we continue to maintain a positive 12-month view on global equities. Easier financial conditions, a turn in the global inventory cycle, modestly looser fiscal policy in the UK and euro area, and re-upped fiscal/credit stimulus in China should all support global growth this year. Faster growth, in turn, will lift corporate earnings. The equity risk premium also remains quite high, particularly outside the US (Chart 3). A Fragile Trade Truce A de-escalation in the trade war should provide a further tailwind to equities. The “phase one” agreement signed on Wednesday features a commitment by China to purchase an additional $200 billion in US goods and services over the next two years relative to 2017 levels. In return, the US will halve tariffs, to 7.5%, on the $120 billion tranche in Chinese imports and suspend any further tariff hikes. No firm schedule exists to begin “phase two” talks, and at this point, it is quite likely that no negotiations will take place until after the US presidential election. Nevertheless, the tail risk of an out-of-control trade war has receded for the time being, which is positive for stocks. Better Chinese Trade Data Adding to growing optimism over the global economy and diminished trade tensions, Chinese trade data surprised on the upside this week. Exports rose 7.6% in December, well above the consensus estimate of 2.9%. Imports surged 16.3%, easily surpassing the consensus estimate of 9.6%. While base effects explain some of the improvement, the overall tone of the trade data is consistent with the strengthening Chinese PMIs and improvement in industrial production and retail sales (Chart 4). Chart 4Chinese Trade Data Is Improving Chart 5Better News Out Of China Has Propelled The Yuan Higher Versus The US Dollar Better news out of China has pushed the yuan to the strongest level against the US dollar since last summer (Chart 5). The Chinese currency is the most important driver of other EM currencies. If the yuan continues to strengthen, as we expect, EM assets – particularly EM stocks and local-currency bonds – should do well this year. How High Can Bond Yields (Realistically) Go? Despite rising over the past few months, global government bond yields are lower today than they were shortly after the financial crisis ended (Chart 6). The decline in yields has occurred alongside dwindling spare capacity. In most countries, the unemployment rate today is below 2007/08 lows (Chart 7). Many investors argue that bond yields cannot rise much from current levels because asset values would plunge if yields rose sharply, while debt burdens would quickly become unsustainable. If such an unfortunate turn of events were to occur, central bankers would have to shelve any tightening plans, just as Jay Powell had to do in late 2018. Chart 6Bond Yields Are Lower Today Than They Were After The Great Recession Chart 7Unemployment Rates Are Below Their Pre-Recession Lows In Most Economies Convexity Fears One argument often heard these days is that asset prices have become hypersensitive to changes in interest rates. There is some basis for thinking this. As Box 1 explains, the relationship between asset returns and interest rates tends to be “convex,” meaning that any given change in interest rates will have a bigger effect on returns if rates are low to begin with, as they are today. The effect is particularly pronounced for long duration assets such as long-term bonds, equities, or real estate. Nevertheless, while the theoretical presence of convexity in asset returns is crystal clear, many commentators overstate its practical importance. As Chart 8 shows, the average maturity of government debt stands at seven years. At that level of maturity, the effects of convexity tend to be quite small.1 Chart 8Average Debt Maturity Is Below 10 Years In Most Countries Granted, the overall stock of debt has increased in relation to GDP. However, much of that additional debt has been absorbed by central banks, reducing the amount of government debt available for the private sector. What about equities? The ratio of stock market capitalization-to-GDP has risen to 59%, up from a low of 24% in 2009, and close to its 2000 highs (Chart 9). Does that mean that stocks will sink if yields rise from current levels? Not necessarily. Remember that the discount rate is not the only thing that affects the present value of a stream of income. The expected growth rate of that income also matters. In fact, in the standard dividend discount model, it is simply the difference between the discount rate and the growth rate of dividends that determines how much a stock is worth. If higher bond yields coincide with rising growth expectations, stock prices do not need to fall at all. Chart 9Equity Market Cap Is Approaching Previous Highs Chart 10 shows that the monthly correlation between equity returns and bond yields remains as high as ever. This suggests that favorable economic news, to the extent that it leads investors to revise up the expected growth rate for earnings, usually more than compensates for a rising discount rate (Chart 11). Chart 10Correlation Between Equity Returns And Bond Yields Remains High Chart 11Earnings Estimates Tend To Move In Sync With Swings In Bond Yields So why are so many investors worried that higher bond yields will undercut stocks? The answer has less to do with convexity and more to do with the fear that bond yields will reach a level that chokes off growth. The combination of a rising discount rate and a falling growth rate would be toxic for equities and other risk assets. Debt Worries Likewise, it is not so much that corporate bond investors are worried that rising yields will cause interest payments to swell. After all, interest costs are still quite low as a share of cash flows for most firms (Chart 12). Rather, the fear is that higher yields will imperil growth, causing those cash flows to evaporate. Government debt is also much less of a problem than often assumed, at least in countries that issue bonds in their own currencies. The standard rule for debt sustainability says that the debt-to-GDP ratio will always converge to a stable level if the interest rate is below the growth rate of the economy.2 This is easily the case in almost all economies today (Chart 13). Chart 12US Corporate Sector: Interest Payments Are Not A Worry Chart 13Bond Yield Minus GDP Growth: Please Mind The Gap The only places where central banks are severely constrained in raising rates are in economies such as Canada, Sweden, and Australia where debt-financed housing bubbles have formed (Chart 14). However, even in these countries, the quality of mortgage underwriting has generally been strong, implying that a banking crisis would likely be avoided. Chart 14Canada, Sweden, And Australia Stand Out As Having Very Frothy Housing Markets It’s Really About The Neutral Rate The discussion above suggests that the main constraint to higher bond yields is the economy itself. If bond yields rise enough, the interest rate-sensitive sectors of the economy will weaken, and a recession will ensue. As long as bond yields are rising in response to stronger growth, as will be the case for the next two years, equities will be fine. Unfortunately, no one knows where the neutral rate – the interest rate demarcating the boundary between expansionary and contractionary monetary policy – really lies. Chart 15Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Slower trend growth has probably reduced the neutral rate, as has the shift to a more “capital-lite” economy. On the flipside, other forces have probably raised the neutral rate over the past few years. A tighter labor market has increased workers’ share of national income (Chart 15). Since workers spend more of every dollar of income than companies, this has raised aggregate demand. Fiscal policy has also been loosened, while elevated asset prices have likely incentivized some spending that would otherwise not have taken place. Even though we do not know the exact value of the neutral rate, we do know that the unemployment rate has been falling in most countries for the past 10 years, a period during which bond yields were generally higher than today. This suggests that monetary policy remains in expansionary territory. True, global growth did slow in 2018, just as the Fed was raising rates. However, this probably had more to do with the natural ebb and flow of the global manufacturing cycle, exacerbated by the Chinese deleveraging campaign and the brewing trade war. If global growth recovers this year, as we expect, estimates of the neutral rate will rise. This will allow equity prices to increase even in an environment of modestly higher bond yields. Inflation Is Coming… Eventually While stronger economic growth will lift bond yields this year, the big move in yields will only come when inflation breaks out. Core inflation tends to track unit labor costs (Chart 16). Unit labor cost inflation has remained range-bound for most of the recovery in the United States, which explains the failure of inflation to take flight. Unit labor cost inflation has been even more moribund elsewhere. Chart 16Core Inflation Tends To Track Unit Labor Costs Chart 17Correlation Between Labor Market Slack And Wage Growth Remains Intact Looking out, barring a major surge in productivity, rising wage growth should lead to accelerating unit labor cost inflation, first in the US and then in the rest of the world, which will translate into higher price inflation. We doubt that such a price-wage spiral will erupt this year. If anything, US wage growth has leveled off recently, with the year-over-year change in average hourly earnings falling back below the 3% mark. Nevertheless, the long-term correlation between labor market slack and wage growth remains intact (Chart 17). As wage growth reaccelerates, unit labor cost inflation will drift higher, setting the stage for a period of rising price inflation. Investors should maintain below-benchmark duration in global fixed-income portfolios, favoring inflation-linked over nominal bonds and positioning for steeper yield curves. Gold should also do well next year. As long as bond yields are rising in response to stronger growth, as will be the case for the next two years, equities will be fine. The stock market will buckle, however, once stagflation sets in around 2022. Box 1 Asset Prices And Interest Rates: The Role Of Convexity Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Assuming semi-annual compounding, the price of a 10-year bond with a 5% coupon rate falls by 7.9% if the yield increases from 1% to 2%, which is only slightly higher than the 7.6% decline that would be incurred if the yield increases from 4% to 5%. 2One might add that if the interest rate is below the growth rate of the economy, a higher starting point for the debt stock will allow for more debt issuance without leading to a higher debt-to-GDP ratio. As we have shown before, the steady-state debt-to-GDP ratio can be expressed as p/(r-g), where r is the interest rate, g is trend GDP growth, and p is the primary (i.e., non-interest) budget balance. Thus, for example, if the government wanted to achieve a stable debt-to-GDP ratio of 50% and r-g is -2%, it would need to run a primary budget deficit of 0.5*0.02=1% of GDP. However, if the government targeted a stable debt-to-GDP ratio of 200%, it could run a primary budget deficit of 2*0.02=4% of GDP. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights The World Bank lowered its growth forecast for EM economies – the growth engine for commodity demand – to 4.1% from 4.6% for 2020, which still will outpace last year’s rate of 3.5%. Our high-conviction call remains intact: The combination of expansionary monetary and fiscal policy will support commodity demand growth this year in excess of last year’s paltry rate. The Bank highlights policy uncertainty as a key risk, cautioning renewed trade tensions could derail the already-fragile global economy. The other side of this coin is: Lower policy uncertainty – particularly in the US – would provide a significant boost to global growth. This is in line with our long-standing assessment of the global economy. We continue to expect a revival in industrial commodity demand, particularly for oil and base metals, where we remain long. We see risk to the upside, if demand expands sooner or stronger than what the Bank – and the market – are pricing in. Feature We see upside risks arising from demand recovering sooner and stronger than markets are currently pricing. The title of the World Bank’s January 2020 Global Economic Prospects – Slow Growth, Policy Challenges – summarizes our maintained view for commodity markets this year. However, the Bank stresses downside risks to markets arising from policy uncertainty, whereas we see upside risks arising from demand recovering sooner and stronger than markets are currently pricing. In its current report, the Bank revised its 2020 real GDP growth estimates for EM economies to 4.1% p.a. from 4.6% p.a. previously. This still represents a rebound in growth vs. last year’s paltry 3.5% p.a. growth estimate. Still, growth will not approach the 6.2% rate seen in the 2005 – 2009 period, or the 5.7% rate seen in 2010 – 2014. The Bank’s forecast is a key input to our global commodity demand assessment, particularly for EM economies. The Bank’s view in its current report is consistent with our view that economic growth globally will accelerate modestly this year, fueled by accommodative monetary policies globally for the better part of last year (Chart of the Week). We continue to expect a modest increase in fiscal stimulus in major economies this year, particularly in the US, China and Germany. Chart of the WeekGlobal Monetary Accommodation Will Lift Manufacturing Our proprietary indicators – Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index, Global Commodity Factor (GCF), and EM Import Volume Model (EMIV) – continue to signal industrial growth will be lifting as global policy stimulus kicks in (Chart 2).1 Chart 2BCA Research Prop Indicators Continue To Signal Higher Growth This pick-up will become apparent in manufacturing and EM trade data over the course of 1H20. This pick-up will become apparent in manufacturing and EM trade data over the course of 1H20 – most global trade is in manufactured goods, which is important for EM economies (Chart 3). This will translate to higher demand for industrial commodities – mainly base metals and oil (Chart 4). Industrial-commodity demand also will get a boost at the margin from the phase-one trade deal signed in Washington, DC, this week, which reduced tariffs the US and China imposed on each others’ imports. Chart 3Global PMIs Will Recover In 2020 Chart 4Stronger Manufacturing Lifts Demand For Industrial Commodities It is important to note that supply is tightening for these industrial commodities. OPEC 2.0’s production discipline, coupled with reduced growth in US shale-oil output due to capital constraints, and tighter copper and aluminum supplies – will continue to leave these markets open to short-term price spikes should demand recover sooner and stronger than expected.2 Policy Uncertainty Continues To Hinder Growth The World Bank’s growth estimate for EM economies remains low vs. its historical average. The World Bank’s growth estimate for EM economies remains low vs. its historical average (Chart 5, top panel). The effect of elevated Global Economic Policy Uncertainty (GEPU) continues to plague EM economies. It has extracted a heavy toll on EM commodity exporters via a strong USD (Chart 5, top panel). This weaker GDP growth for EM generally over the 2015 – 2019 period reflects the market-share war launched by OPEC in late 2014, which saw global benchmark oil prices fall from more than $110/bbl in 1H14 to close to $25/bbl by January 2016, and the deleterious effects caused by safe-haven demand for the USD, which is partly driven by global policy uncertainty.3 Reduced policy uncertainty – particularly in the US – would go a long way to restoring EM economic growth, as the bottom panel of Chart 5 demonstrates: According to the World Bank’s calculations, a 10% reduction in US policy uncertainty would add 0.6% to EM investment growth. This would lift growth closer to its long-term average rate of 5.4% for 2000 – 2019 from the Bank’s currently projected rate of 4.3% for 2020 – 2022. Chart 5Lower Uncertainty Would Boost Growth Bottom Line: The World Bank’s and our forecasts both point to a modest pick-up in EM growth this year, which will lift industrial-commodity demand. While the Bank continues to flag risks to this recovery arising from renewed policy uncertainty – e.g., the resumption of the Sino-US tariff increases – we continue to see risks to the upside in our short term outlook, particularly if demand revives sooner and stronger than markets currently are pricing in. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight. OPEC crude production is estimated at 29.55mm b/d in December 2019, down 100k b/d from November levels, according to Platts. Iraq appears to be converging to quota and is expected to fully comply this month, according to Saudi Arabia officials.4 This implies a 180k b/d reduction in supply vs. November, assisting Saudi Arabia in its long attempt at balancing the oil market. Downside risks to Iraqi supply are mounting as continued internal discontent and ongoing tensions with the US – the Iraqi Parliament demand the US withdraw its troops from Iran – draws attention to the vulnerability of the country’s oil output. Base Metals: Neutral LME copper inventories stand at 130k MT, the lowest level since March 2018. (Chart 6). Tuesday, China reported a 9% month-to-month increase in copper imports. The most active copper future on the LMEX was up 1.5% at market close. Chinese iron-ore imports rose 11.8% to 101.3mm MT in December, the highest level in more than two years. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold prices remain above $1,550/oz, reflecting residual geopolitical tensions in the wake of the assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the former commander of Iran’s elite Quds force. Our gold models suggest prices are ~ $120/oz above a model based on US real rates and the broad trade-weighted dollar. This highlights gold’s ability to hedge against geopolitical tensions (Chart 7). We are moving our stop to $1,500/oz from $1,450/oz at tonight’s close. Chart 6LME Copper Stocks Resume Drawing Chart 7Gold Proves Its Worth As A Portfolio Hedge Ags/Softs: Underweight Expectations of a US-China trade deal are boosting demand for soybeans. China’s soybean imports jumped to a 19-month high of 9.54mm tons in December, a 67% year-on-year increase, as trade tensions recede. The USDA’s WASDE report on Friday showed yield increases more than offset a decline in area harvested for both corn and soybeans. For corn, the increase in production was not enough to keep up with the rise in use, mainly driven by higher feed, yet the average price for the 2019/20 season was unchanged at $9.00/bu. Higher feed usage levels drove U.S. wheat ending stocks below expectations. CBOT March Wheat futures were up 6.25 cents/bu on Tuesday. Footnotes 1 Our Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index uses trade data, FX rates, manufacturing data, and Chinese industrial activity statistics to gauge current global industrial activity. These statistics are highly correlated with trade-related activity, which, since most of this involve trade in manufactured goods, is important to global industrial activity. The Global Commodity Factor (GCF) uses principal component analysis to distill the primary driver of 28 different real commodity prices. The EM Import Volume Model (EMIV) model tracks EM import volumes which are reported with a two-month lag by the CPB in the Netherlands, which we update to current time using FX rates for trade-sensitive currencies, commodity prices and interest rates variables. We are also following shipping indexes, which are highly correlated with global trade volumes. 2 Please see On OPEC 2.0’s Agenda In Vienna: More Production Cuts, Longer Deal, published December 5, and Godot … Trade Deal … Wait For It … Base Metals Are Primed For A Rally, published November 28, 2019 for additional discussion. NB: We will be updating our global oil supply-demand balances and price forecasts next week. 3 This remains a major theme in our analysis, and one of the key risks we highlighted going into 2020. This policy uncertainty is transmitted to commodity markets globally via FX markets – as policy uncertainty rises, the broad trade-weighted USD for goods (TWIBG), our preferred benchmark, rises, as can be seen in the middle panel of Chart 5. We have shown that safe-haven demand strengthens the TWIBG index maintained by the Fed, which elevates the local-currency cost of commodities – most of which price and are invoiced in USD – which reduces demand at the margin; it also lowers the local-currency cost of production for commodities ex-US, which, at the margin, incentivizes supply. Please see 2020 Key Views: Policy Uncertainty Continues To Drive Commodity Markets, which we published December 19, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Saudi energy minister: We want sustainable oil prices published January 13, 2020 by reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2019 Summary of Closed Trades
Highlights 2019 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -38bps for all of 2019. Winners & Losers: The underperformance of our model bond portfolio in 2019 was concentrated in the government bond side of the portfolio (-103bps), a result of below-benchmark duration positioning and underweights to US Treasuries and Italian government bonds. On the other side was a solid outperformance from spread product allocations (+65bps), mostly driven by an overweight to US high-yield corporate bonds. Q4/2019 Performance: The year ended strongly, however, as the portfolio outperformed by +28bps in Q4, split equally between government bonds and spread product. Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: We are targeting a moderately aggressive level of overall portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration exposure alongside meaningful overweight allocations to global corporate credit. In our base case scenario, global growth will continue to recover supported by accommodative monetary policies, thus opening a window for another year of global corporates outperforming sovereign bonds in 2020. Feature Last week, we published the Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio strategy for the coming year, in which we translated our 2020 global fixed income Key Views into recommended investment positioning for the next 6-12 months.1 In this week’s report, take a final look back to review the performance of the model portfolio for both the fourth quarter of 2019 and the entire calendar year. We also present our updated scenario analysis, and return projections, for the portfolio over the next six months, incorporating the new recommended allocations introduced last week. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. 2019 Performance: A Short Summary Of A Long Year Chart of the Week2019 Performance: Credit Good, Duration Bad, But A Solid Q4 The 2019 performance of the model portfolio can be summarized by duration dominating credit. Government bond yields rapidly fell in the first three quarters of the year due to weakening global growth and growing political uncertainty, to the detriment of our below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration. At the same time, global credit markets performed strongly in 2019, even as risk-free government bond yields plunged, which benefited our overweight stance on global spread product. The 2019 performance of the model portfolio can be summarized by duration dominating credit. All in all, the overall portfolio return in 2019 was +7.9% (hedged into USD), underperforming our custom benchmark index by -38bps (Chart of the Week).2 That underperformance was more pronounced before the strong rebound in global bond yields witnessed at the beginning of the fourth quarter, at which point the portfolio was underperforming the custom benchmark by -68bps (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2019 Overall Return Attribution Looking at the breakdown of underperformance in 2019, our recommended positioning on government bonds (duration and country allocation) dragged the overall performance by -104bps, while our credit tilts (by country and broadly defined credit sectors) provided a partial offset, contributing +65bps. The details of the full year 2019 performance can be found in the Appendix on pages 14-16. In terms of specifics, the biggest sources of underperformance were underweights in US Treasuries (-66bps) and Italian government bonds (-28bps). Those positions, however, were used to “fund” corporate bond overweights in US investment grade (+28bps) and US high-yield (+46bps), as well as euro area corporate debt (+6bps) – allocations that performed well and helped offset the underperformance in US and Italian sovereign debt. More generally across the government bond portion of the portfolio, the drag on returns was concentrated in the 10+ year maturity buckets. This was a consequence of combining our below-benchmark duration stance with a curve-steepening bias that was hurt severely by the bullish flattening of global yield curves in the first three quarters of the year. The drag on returns from curve positioning was particularly acute in Japan and France, where the 10+ year maturity buckets underperformed by -27bps and -13bps, respectively. On a more positive note with regards to country selection, three of our favorite overweights for 2020 – Germany (+10bps), Australia (+7bps) and the UK (+5bps) – all outperformed versus the model portfolio benchmark. Q4/2019 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Winning On Both Sides The GFIS model bond portfolio performed well at the end of 2019, as fixed income markets began to discount stabilizing global growth and reduced central bank easing expectations. The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in Q4/2019 was only +0.1%, but this managed to outperform the custom benchmark index by a solid +28bps. The GFIS model bond portfolio performed well at the end of 2019, as fixed income markets began to discount stabilizing global growth and reduced central bank easing expectations. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +14bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +15bps. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2019 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2019 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector The most significant movers were: Biggest outperformers Underweight US government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (+8bps) Overweight US Ba-rated high-yield corporates (+5bps) Overweight US B-rated high-yield corporates (+5bps) Underweight Italian government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (+4bps) Underweight German government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (+3bps) Biggest underperformers Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 1-3 years (-2bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (-2bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-1bp) Overweight UK government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (-1bp) Underweight German government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-1bp) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q4/2019. The returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q4/2019 (red for underweight, green for overweight, gray for neutral).3 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Bond Portfolio In Q4/2019 Global spread product dominates the left half of the chart. EM corporates and EM sovereigns denominated in US dollars turned to be the best performers in Q4, followed by US and European corporate bonds. This was a boon for our model portfolio performance, given our overweight stances on global corporate bonds. This was due to credit spread narrowing, supported by accommodative monetary policy and fading fears of slower global growth. On the other hand, the right side of Chart 4 is predominantly occupied by government bonds. The worst performers in Q4 were German, New Zealand and UK governments bonds – three markets where we have been overweight, although we did take profits on our long-held bullish view on New Zealand in mid-November.4 Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index during the fourth quarter of the year. The outperformance came both from the government and spread product sides of the portfolio, driven by a smaller exposure to the long-ends of government bond yield curves and our recommended overweight position on US high-yield corporate bonds. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Chart 5Overall Portfolio Allocation: Significantly Overweight Credit Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by three main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias, our overweight stance on corporate debt versus global government bonds, and last week’s upgrade of EM USD-denominated sovereigns and corporates to overweight. In terms of specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we now have a more pronounced bias favoring global spread product over government debt, with a relative overweight of fifteen percentage points versus the benchmark index (Chart 5). We also remain modestly below-benchmark on duration, with an overall exposure equal to 0.5 years short of the benchmark (Chart 6). While we do not expect a major surge in bond yields this year, global yield curves discount inflation expectations that are too low and monetary policy easing in 2020 that is unlikely to be delivered (especially in the US). With global growth showing signs of bottoming out, and leading indicators pointing to continued improvement in the next 6-12 months, the risk/reward bias is tilted in favor of global yields moving higher, justifying reduced duration exposure. Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by three main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias, our overweight stance on corporate debt versus global government bonds, and last week’s upgrade of EM USD-denominated sovereigns and corporates to overweight. Chart 6Overall Portfolio Duration: Moderately Below Benchmark Chart 7Portfolio Yield: Significant Positive Carry From Credit Chart 8Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Moderately Aggressive To better position the model bond portfolio to this backdrop of slowly rising global yields, we adjusted our government bond country allocations last week in favor of lower-beta markets such as Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Australia and the UK, while maintaining underweight positions in higher-beta markets such as the US, Canada and Italy.5 Our decision to upgrade global credit exposure helps boost the yield of our model portfolio to around 3%, or +43bps in excess of the benchmark index yield (Chart 7). Further, these changes represent an increase in the usage of the “risk budget” of our model bond portfolio, which is now running a tracking error (or excess volatility versus that of the benchmark) of 73bps (Chart 8). This is slightly higher than the 58bps prior to last week’s changes, but is still below the maximum allowable tracking error of 100bps that we have imposed on the model portfolio since its inception. More importantly, this is consistent with our view that investors should maintain a “moderately aggressive” level of risk in fixed income portfolios in 2020. Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts To help provide some insight as to the potential excess returns from our model bond portfolio tilts, we use a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors. For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the US dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-US yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in US Treasury yields (Table 2B). We take yield forecasts for US Treasuries that are translated to shifts in non-US yields using these yield betas.6 Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries In Tables 3A and 3B, we present our three main scenarios for the next six months, defined by changes in the risk factors, and the expected performance of the model bond portfolio in each case. The scenarios, described below, all revolve around our expectation that the most important drivers of future market returns will continue to be the momentum of global growth and the path of US monetary policy. Base Case (Global Growth Recovery): The Fed stays on hold, the US dollar weakens by -2%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX hovers around 13, and there is a bear-steepening of the UST curve. This is a scenario where global growth keeps recovering, alongside a US dollar which slightly weakens. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +90bps in this case. Global Growth Accelerates: The Fed stays on hold, the US dollar weakens by -5%, oil prices rise by +15%, the VIX declines to 10, and there is a more pronounced bear-steepening of the UST curve. Under this scenario, the pickup in global growth is faster than anticipated, causing the US dollar to weaken substantially as global capital flows move into more growth-sensitive markets outside the US. Both of these forces support EM economies and support oil prices. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +125bps in this case. Global Growth Upturn Fails: The Fed cuts rates by -25bps, the US dollar appreciates by +3%, oil prices fall by -20%, the VIX rises to 25; there is a parallel shift down in the UST curve. This is a scenario where global growth merely stabilizes at weak levels but fails to rebound. The Fed finds itself delivering one more rate cut in order to support the US economy. Meantime, the US dollar appreciates as capital flows out of growth-sensitive regions into the safe-haven greenback, particularly as global recession fears result in increased financial market volatility. The model portfolio will underperform the benchmark by -38bps in this scenario. Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis The scenario inputs for the four main risk factors (the fed funds rate, the price of oil, the US dollar and the VIX index) are shown visually in Chart 9, while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 10. Chart 9Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 10US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis In terms of our conviction level among the main drivers of the model portfolio returns – duration allocation (across yield curves and countries) and asset allocation (credit versus government bonds) – we are confident that global growth is much more likely to rebound than decelerate further over the course of 2020. This will allow our increased spread product allocation to be the main driver of the portfolio returns. Thus, the overall expected excess return of our model bond portfolio over the benchmark is positive, given that the scenario analysis produces positive excess returns in the Base Case and “Global Growth Accelerates” outcomes. We are confident that global growth is much more likely to rebound than decelerate further over the course of 2020. This will allow our increased spread product allocation to be the main driver of the portfolio returns. Bottom Line: We are targeting a moderately aggressive level of overall portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration exposure alongside meaningful overweight allocations to global corporate credit. In our base case scenario, global growth will continue to recover supported by accommodative global monetary policy, thus opening a window for another year of global corporates outperforming sovereign bonds in 2020. Jeremie Peloso Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy For 2020: Selectively Aggressive”, dated January 7, 2020, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. 2 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 3 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q4/2019 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “When In Doubt, Trust The Leading Indicators”, dated November 19, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 We are defining “beta” here in terms of yield beta, or the sensitivity to changes in an individual country's bond yield to changes the overall level of global bond yields. 6 We are making a change in the betas used in our scenario analysis this week, using trailing 3-year yield betas to US Treasuries in place of the longer-term post-crisis yield betas that were measured over a full 10 years. Appendix Appendix Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2019 Overall Return Attribution Appendix Chart 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2019 Government Bond Performance Attribution Appendix Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2019 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights Duration: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. TIPS: We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. High-Yield: Investors should add (or increase) exposure to the high-yield energy sector, within an overweight allocation to junk bonds. Junk energy spreads are attractive, and exposure to the sector will mitigate the impact of a potential oil supply shock. Feature Only a month ago, investors were becoming more optimistic about a global growth rebound and the US/China phase 1 trade deal was pushing political risk into the background. Both of those factors caused the 10-year Treasury yield to rise throughout December, hitting an intra-day Christmas Eve peak of 1.95% (Chart 1). But since then, softer global PMI data and the US/Iranian military conflict brought global growth concerns and political risk back to the fore, breaking the uptrend in yields. Chart 1Bond Bear On Pause Global growth and political uncertainty are two of the five macro factors that we identify as important for US bond yields.1 And despite the recent setback, we think both factors will push yields higher in the coming months. Global Growth We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index are the three global growth indicators that correlate most strongly with US bond yields. One reason for the recent pullback in yields is the disappointing December data from the Global and US Manufacturing PMIs. The ISM Manufacturing PMI moved deeper into recessionary territory. The Global Manufacturing PMI had been in a clear uptrend since mid-2019, but fell back to 50.1 in December, from 50.3 the month before (Chart 2). The US and Chinese PMIs also declined in December, though they remain well above the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 2, panels 3 & 4). The Eurozone and Japanese PMIs, meanwhile, are still in the doldrums (Chart 2, panels 2 & 5). More worrying than the small tick down in Global PMI is the US ISM Manufacturing PMI moving deeper into recessionary territory, from 48.1 to 47.2. However, we have good reason to think that stronger data are just around the corner (Chart 3). Chart 2Global PMI Ticks Down Chart 3ISM Manufacturing Index Will Rebound First, the difference between the new orders and inventories components of the ISM index often leads the overall index at turning points, 2016 being a prime example (Chart 3, top panel). Much like in 2016, a gap is opening up between new orders-less-inventories and the overall ISM. Second, the non-manufacturing ISM index remains strong despite the weakness in manufacturing (Chart 3, panel 2). With no contagion to the service sector of the economy, we’d expect manufacturing to pick back up. Third, the ISM Manufacturing index has diverged sharply from the Markit Manufacturing PMI, with the Markit index printing well above the ISM (Chart 3, panel 3).2 The ISM index has been more volatile than the Markit index in recent years, and should trend toward the Markit index over time. Fourth, regional Fed manufacturing surveys have generally been stronger than the ISM during the past few months. A simple regression model of the ISM index based on data from regional Fed surveys suggests that the ISM index should be at 49.7 today, instead of 47.2 (Chart 3, bottom panel). Finally, unlike the PMI surveys, the CRB Raw Industrials index has increased quite sharply in recent weeks (Chart 4). We should note that it is not the CRB index itself but rather the ratio between the CRB index and gold that tracks bond yields most closely, and this ratio has actually declined lately due to the strength in gold. Nonetheless, a sustained turnaround in the CRB index would mark a big change from 2019 and would send a strong bond-bearish signal. Chart 4CRB Sends A Bond-Bearish Signal Political Uncertainty The second factor that sent bond yields lower during the past few weeks was the military conflict between the US and Iran. Tensions appear to have de-escalated for now, and we would expect any flight-to-quality flows to unwind during the next few weeks.3 But while we see policy uncertainty easing in the near-term, sending bond yields higher, we reiterate our view that US political uncertainty is the number one risk factor that could derail the 2020 bear market in bonds.4 Specifically, we see two looming US political risks. The first relates to President Trump’s re-election odds. For now, Trump’s approval rating is in line with past incumbent presidents that have won re-election (Chart 5). But if his approval doesn’t keep pace in the coming months, he will try to do something to change his fortunes. That could mean re-igniting the trade war with China, or once again ramping up tensions with Iran. A Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren victory would send a flight-to-quality into bonds. The second risk is that one of the progressive candidates – Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren – secures the Democratic nomination for president. Right now, both trail Joe Biden in the polls and betting markets (Chart 6), but things could change rapidly as the primary results come in during the next few months. The stock market would certainly sell off if an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders presidency seems likely, sending a flight to quality into bonds.5 Chart 5Trump’s Approval Rating Must Rise Chart 6Democratic Nomination Betting Odds Bottom Line: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. Playing An Oil Supply Shock In US Bond Markets US/Iranian military tensions are easing for now, but could flare again in the future. For that reason, it’s worth considering how US bond markets would respond in the event of a conflict between the US and Iran that removed a significant amount of the world’s oil supply from the market, causing the oil price to spike. The first implication is that US bond yields would fall. Even though it’s tempting to say that the inflationary impact of higher oil prices would push yields up, this effect would not dominate the flight-to-quality into US bonds that would result from the increase in political uncertainty. Case in point, Chart 1 shows that, while the inflation component of yields was stable as tensions flared during the past few weeks, it didn’t come close to offsetting the drop in the 10-year real yield. Beyond the impact on Treasury yields, there are two other segments of the US bond market that would be materially impacted by an oil supply shock: the TIPS breakeven inflation curve and corporate bond spreads. Buy TIPS Breakeven Curve Flatteners Table 1CPI Swap Curve Sensitivity To Oil When considering the impact of an oil supply shock on TIPS breakeven inflation rates, we first look at how the cost of inflation protection is influenced by changes in the oil price. Table 1 shows the sensitivity of weekly changes in different CPI swap rates to a $1 increase in the price of Brent crude oil. We use CPI swap rates instead of TIPS breakeven inflation rates because data are available for a wider maturity spectrum. Our analysis applies equally to the TIPS breakeven inflation curve. Two conclusions are apparent from Table 1. First, the entire CPI swap curve is positively correlated with the oil price, a higher oil price moves CPI swap rates higher and vice-versa. Second, the sensitivity of CPI swap rates to the oil price is greater at the short-end of the curve than at the long-end. This is fairly intuitive given that higher oil prices are inflationary in the short-term but could be deflationary in the long-run if they hamper economic growth. Chart 7Coefficients Stable Over Time Chart 7 shows that our two main conclusions are not dependent on the chosen time horizon. The 2-year CPI swap rate is positively correlated with the oil price for our entire sample period, as is the 10-year rate except for a brief window in 2014. The 2-year rate’s sensitivity is also consistently higher than the 10-year’s. Based on this analysis, we can suggest two good ways to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock that sends prices higher: Buy inflation protection, either in the CPI swaps market or by going long TIPS versus duration-equivalent nominal Treasuries. Buy CPI swap curve (or TIPS breakeven inflation curve) flatteners.6 But we can introduce one more wrinkle to our analysis. Oil prices can rise because of stronger demand or because a shock suddenly removes supply from the market. It’s possible that the cost of inflation protection behaves differently in each case. Fortunately, the New York Fed has made an attempt to distinguish between those two scenarios. In its weekly Oil Price Dynamics Report, the Fed decomposes Brent oil price changes into demand-driven changes and supply-driven changes.7 It does this by looking at how other financial assets respond to oil price changes each week. Chart 8 shows the cumulative change in the Brent oil price since 2010, along with the New York Fed’s supply and demand factors. According to the Fed, demand has pressured the oil price higher since 2010, but this has been more than offset by greater supply. Chart 8Supply & Demand Oil Price Decomposition Using the New York Fed’s supply and demand series, we look at how CPI swap rates respond to higher oil prices in three different scenarios. First, we identify 252 weeks when demand and supply both contributed to higher oil prices. Second, we identify 95 weeks when higher oil prices were driven solely by demand. Finally, and most pertinently, we identify 92 weeks when higher oil prices were driven only by supply (Table 2). Table 2Weekly Change In CPI Swap Rate When Brent Oil Price Increases Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios are consistent with our results from Table 1. CPI swap rates across the entire curve move higher more than half the time, with greater increases at the short-end of the curve. However, the scenario we are most interested in is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario. Presumably, a military conflict with Iran that took oil supply off the market would lead to less supply and also a decrease in global demand. Results for this scenario are more mixed. The 1-year CPI swap rate still rises 60% of the time, but rates further out the curve are somewhat more likely to fall. With this in mind, CPI swap curve or TIPS breakeven curve flatteners look like the best way to hedge against an oil supply shock, better than an outright long position in inflation protection. This is good news, since we have previously argued that owning TIPS breakeven curve flatteners is a good idea even without an oil supply shock.8 Corporate bond excess returns respond positively to changes in the oil price. We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. Buy Energy Junk Bonds Table 3Corporate Bond Sensitivity To Oil Corporate bonds are the second segment of the US fixed income market that could be materially impacted by an oil supply shock, particularly bonds in the energy sector. To assess the potential value of corporate bonds as a hedge, we repeat the above analysis but use weekly corporate bond excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries instead of CPI swap rates. Table 3 shows that investment grade and high-yield corporate bond returns both respond positively to changes in the oil price. Further, we see that energy bonds are more sensitive to the oil price, outperforming the overall index when the oil price rises, and vice-versa. Chart 9 shows that, while oil price sensitivities vary considerably over time, they are almost always positive. Also, energy sector sensitivity has been consistently above that of the benchmark index since 2014. Chart 9Betas Mostly Positive Going one step further, we once again use the New York Fed’s supply and demand decomposition to identify weeks when supply and/or demand was responsible for higher oil prices. Because we have more historical data for corporate bonds than for CPI swaps, this time we identify 340 weeks when both supply and demand drove the oil price higher, 123 weeks when only demand drove it higher and 142 weeks when only supply was responsible for the higher oil price (Table 4). Table 4Weekly Corporate Bond Excess Returns (BPs) When Brent Oil Price Increases Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios show that higher oil prices boost excess returns to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds more than half the time. Energy bonds also tend to outperform their respective benchmark indexes in the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ scenario, but perform roughly in-line with the benchmark in the ‘Demand Driven’ scenario. But once again, it is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario that we are most interested in. Here, we see that an oil supply disruption that leads to higher oil prices also leads to lower corporate bond excess returns. This is true for both the investment grade and high-yield indexes and for energy bonds in both rating categories. However, we also note that high-yield energy debt significantly outperforms the overall junk index during these “risk off” periods. In contrast, investment grade energy debt is not a clear outperformer. Chart 10HY Energy Spreads Are Very Attractive These results line up with our intuition. When oil prices are driven higher by demand it could simply be a sign of strong economic growth and not any specific trend related to the energy sector. As such, we’d expect all corporate bonds to perform well in those scenarios, but wouldn’t necessarily expect energy debt to outperform. However, supply disruptions in the Middle East directly benefit US shale oil players, whose debt is principally found in the high-yield energy sector. The investment grade energy sector is less exposed to the US shale space, and its documented outperformance in the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario is weaker as a result. We already recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield bonds and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. Within that overweight allocation to high-yield bonds, we recommend shifting some exposure toward the energy sector for two reasons. First, high-yield energy was severely beaten-down last year and is ripe for a rebound if global economic growth recovers, as we expect (Chart 10). Second, our analysis suggests that an allocation to energy will help mitigate losses in the event of a renewed flaring of US/Iranian tensions that removes oil supply from the market. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors initiate TIPS breakeven curve flatteners (or CPI swap curve flatteners) and add exposure to the high-yield energy sector. Both positions look attractive on their own terms, but will also help hedge the risk of an oil supply disruption if US/Iranian tensions flare back up in the months ahead. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The others are: the output gap, the US dollar and sentiment. For more details please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The Markit index is used in the construction of the Global PMI shown in Chart 2, 3 For more details on the politics behind the US/Iran conflict please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “A Reprieve Amid The Bull Market In Iran Tensions”, dated January 8, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Elizabeth Warren And The Markets”, dated September 13, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 In the TIPS market, an example of a breakeven curve flattener would be to buy 2-year TIPS and short the 2-year nominal Treasury note, while also buying the 10-year nominal Treasury note and shorting the 10-year TIPS. 7 https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/oil_price_dynamics_report 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Receding trade tensions; diminished risks of a hard Brexit; reduced odds of a victory for Elizabeth Warren in the US presidential elections; liquidity injections by most major central banks; and improved sentiment about the state of the global economy all helped push stocks higher late last year. Some clouds have formed over the outlook since the start of the year, however. The December US ISM manufacturing index fell to the lowest level since 2009, while the PMIs in the euro area, UK, and Japan gave up some of their November gains. The conflict between the US and Iran also flared up. Although tensions have abated in recent days, BCA’s geopolitical strategists worry that the détente may not last. The US is seeking to shift its military focus towards East Asia in order to counter China’s ascendency. They argue that this could create a dangerous power vacuum in the Middle East. Stock market sentiment is quite bullish at the moment, which makes equities more vulnerable to any disappointing news. While we are maintaining our positive 12-month view on global equities and high-yield credit in anticipation that global growth will rebound convincingly later this year, we are downgrading our tactical 3-month view to neutral. Ho Ho Ho After handing investors a sack of coal last Christmas, Santa was back to his true self this past holiday season. Global equities rose 3.4% in December, finishing the year off with a stellar fourth quarter which saw the MSCI All-Country World index surge by 8.6%. Five forces helped push stocks higher: 1) Receding trade tensions; 2) Diminished risks of a hard Brexit; 3) Reduced odds of a victory for Elizabeth Warren in the US presidential elections; 4) Liquidity injections by the Fed, ECB, and the People’s Bank of China; and arguably most importantly 5) Improved sentiment about the state of the global economy. Tarrified No More Trade tensions subsided sharply after China and the US reached a “Phase One” agreement. The deal prevented tariffs from rising on December 15th on $160 billion of Chinese imports. It also rolls back the tariff rate from 15% to 7.5% on about $120 billion in imports that have been subject to levies since September (Chart 1). Chart 1The Evolution Of The US-China Trade War In addition, the Trump Administration allowed the November 13th deadline on European auto tariffs to lapse. This suggests that the US is unlikely to impose tariffs under the Section 232 investigation of auto imports. The auto sector has been at the forefront of the global manufacturing slowdown, so any good news for that industry is welcome. To top it all off, the US House of Representatives ratified the USMCA, the successor to NAFTA, on December 19th. We expect it to be signed into law in the first quarter of this year. Brexit Risks Fading... Chart 2The Majority Of British Voters Aren't Keen On Brexit Boris Johnson’s commanding victory in the UK elections has given him the votes necessary to push a withdrawal bill through parliament by the end of the month. The British government will then seek to negotiate a free trade agreement by the end of the year. A “no-deal” Brexit is unacceptable to the majority of British voters (Chart 2). As such, the Johnson government will have no choice but to strike a deal with the EU. ... While Trump Gains On the other side of the Atlantic, President Trump’s re-election prospects improved late last year despite (and perhaps because of) the ongoing impeachment process. There is an uncanny correlation between the probability that betting markets assign to a Trump victory and the value of the S&P 500 (Chart 3). Chart 3An Uncanny Correlation Chart 4Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Nomination? It certainly has not hurt market sentiment that Elizabeth Warren’s poll numbers have been dropping recently (Chart 4). Warren’s best hope was to squeeze out Bernie Sanders as soon as possible, thereby leaving the far-left populist lane all to herself. That dream appears to have been dashed, which suggests that even if Trump loses, a centrist like Joe Biden could emerge as president. An Uneasy Truce It remains to be seen how President Trump’s decision to assassinate General Qassem Soleimani, a top Iranian commander, will affect the election outcome. A YouGov/HuffPost poll taken over the weekend revealed that 43% of Americans approved of the airstrike against Soleimani compared to 38% that disapproved.1 History suggests that the public’s patience for war will quickly wear thin if it results in American casualties or significantly higher gasoline prices. Neither side has an incentive to allow the conflict to spiral out of control. Foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted on Tuesday shortly after Iran lobbed missiles at two US military bases that Iran had “concluded” its retaliatory strike, adding that “We do not seek escalation or war.” Despite claims on Iranian public television that 80 “American terrorists” were killed in the attacks, no US troops were harmed. This suggests that the Iranians may be putting on a show for domestic consumption. The US economy is less vulnerable to spikes in oil prices than in the past. Nevertheless, plenty of things could still go wrong. BCA’s geopolitical team, led by Matt Gertken, has argued that the US is seeking to shift its military focus towards East Asia in order to counter China’s ascendency. This could create a dangerous power vacuum in the Middle East. There is also a risk that President Trump overplays his hand. Contrary to the President’s claims, Soleimani was quite popular in Iran (Chart 5). If Trump begins to mock the Iranian leadership’s feeble response, Iran will have no choice but to take more aggressive action. Chart 5Soleimani Was More Popular In Iran Than Trump Claims Chart 6US Economy Is Less Vulnerable To Spikes In Oil Prices Than In The Past One thing that could embolden Trump is that the US economy is less vulnerable to spikes in oil prices than in the past. US oil output reached as high as 12.9 mm b/d in 2019, allowing the country to become a net exporter of oil for the first time in history (Chart 6). Any increase in oil prices would incentivize further domestic production, which would help bring prices back down. The US economy has also become less energy intensive – it takes less than half as much oil to produce a unit of GDP today than it did in the early 1980s. Finally, unlike in the past, the Fed will not need to raise rates in response to higher oil prices due to the fact that inflation expectations are currently well anchored. In fact, as we discuss below, we expect the Fed and other central banks to continue to provide a tailwind for growth over the course of 2020. The Fed’s “It’s Not QE” QE Program The jump in overnight lending rates in mid-September torpedoed the Federal Reserve’s efforts to shrink its balance sheet. Thanks to a steady stream of Treasury bill purchases since then, the Fed’s asset holdings have swelled by over $400 billion, reversing more than half of the decline observed since early 2018 (Chart 7). Chart 7Fed's Asset Holdings Are Growing Anew Chart 8The Fed's Balance-Sheet Expansion Helped Fuel The Dot-Com Bubble The Fed has insisted that its latest intervention does not amount to a new QE program, stressing that it is buying short-term securities rather than long-dated bonds. In so doing, it is simply creating bank reserves, rather than seeking to suppress the term premium by altering the maturity structure of the private sector’s holdings of government debt. Nevertheless, even such straightforward interventions have proven to be powerful signaling tools. By growing its balance sheet, a central bank is implicitly promising to keep monetary policy very accommodative. It is worth remembering that the run-up in the NASDAQ in 1999 coincided with a significant balance-sheet expansion by the Fed in response to Y2K fears, which came on the heels of three “insurance cuts” in 1998 (Chart 8). Gentle Jay Paves The Way Chart 9Inflation Expectations Remain Muted In 2000, the Fed moved quickly to reverse the liquidity injection it had orchestrated the prior year. We do not expect such a reversal anytime soon. Moreover, unlike in 2000, when the Federal Reserve kept raising rates – ultimately bringing the Fed funds rate up to 6.5% in May 2000 – the Fed is likely to stay on hold this year. The Fed’s ongoing strategic policy review is poised to move the central bank even closer towards explicitly adopting an average inflation target of 2% over the course of a business cycle. Since inflation tends to fall during recessions, this implies that the Fed will seek to target an inflation rate somewhat higher than 2% during expansions. Realized core PCE inflation has averaged only 1.6% since the recession ended. Both market-based and survey-based measures of long-term inflation expectations remain downbeat (Chart 9). This suggests that the bar for raising rates this year is quite high. More Monetary Easing In The Euro Area And China Chart 10Chinese Monetary Easing Should Help Global Growth Bottom Out The ECB resumed its QE program in November after a 10-month hiatus. While the current pace of €20 billion in monthly asset purchases is well below the prior pace of €80 billion, the central bank did say it would continue buying assets for “as long as necessary” to bring inflation up to its target. The language harkens back to Mario Draghi’s 2012 “whatever it takes” pledge, this time applied to the ECB’s inflation mandate. Not to be outdone, the People’s Bank of China cut the reserve requirement ratio by 50 basis points last week, a move that will release RMB 800 billion ($US 115 billion) of fresh liquidity into the banking system. Historically, cuts in reserve requirements have led to faster credit growth and ultimately, to stronger economic growth both in China and abroad (Chart 10). The PBOC has also instructed lenders to adopt the Loan Prime Rate (LPR) as the new benchmark lending rate. The LPR currently sits 20bps below the old benchmark rate (Chart 11). Hence, the PBOC’s order amounts to a stealth rate cut. Our China strategists expect further reductions in the LPR over the next six months. In addition, the crackdown on shadow bank lending seems to be subsiding, which bodes well for overall credit growth later this year (Chart 12). Chart 11China: Stealth Monetary Easing Chart 12Crackdown On Shadow Banking In China Is Easing Rising Economic Confidence Chart 13Recession Fears Amongst Economists Began To Gather Steam At The Start Of Last Year Chart 14The Wider Public Was Also Worried About A Downturn At the start of 2019, nearly half of US CFOs thought the economy would be in a recession by the end of the year. Similarly, two-thirds of European CFOs and four-fifths of Canadian CFOs expected their respective economies to succumb to recession. Professional economists were equally dire (Chart 13). Households also became increasingly worried about a downturn. Google searches for “recession” spiked to near 2009-highs last summer (Chart 14). The mood has certainly improved since then. According to the latest Duke CFO survey, optimism about the economic outlook has increased. More importantly, CFO optimism about the prospects for their own firms has risen to the highest level in the 18-year history of the survey (Chart 15). Chart 15CFOs Have Become More Optimistic Of Late Show Me The Money Going forward, global growth needs to accelerate in order to validate the improved confidence of CFOs and investors alike. We think that it will, thanks to the lagged effects from the easing in financial conditions in 2019, a turn in the global inventory cycle, a de-escalation in the trade war, easier fiscal policy in the UK and euro area, and re-upped fiscal/credit stimulus in China. For now, however, the economic data remains mixed. On the positive side, household spending is still robust across most of the world, a fact that has been reflected in the resilience of service-sector PMIs (Chart 16). Chart 16AThe Service Sector Has Remained Resilient (I) Chart 16BThe Service Sector Has Remained Resilient (II) Chart 17US Wage Growth Has Picked Up, Especially At The Bottom Of The Income Distribution Chart 18US Housing Backdrop Is Solid The US consumer, in particular, is showing little signs of fatigue. The Atlanta Fed GDPNow estimates that real personal consumption grew by 2.4% in the fourth quarter, having increased at an average annualized pace of 3% in the first three quarters of 2019. Both a strong labor market and housing market have buoyed US consumption. Payrolls have risen by an average of 200K per month for the past six months, double what is necessary to keep up with labor force growth. This week’s strong ADP release – which featured a 29K jump in jobs in goods-producing industries in December, the best since April – suggests that today’s jobs report will remain healthy. In addition, wage growth has picked up, particularly at the bottom of the income distribution (Chart 17). Residential construction has also been strong. Homebuilder sentiment reached the best level since June 1999 (Chart 18). Global Manufacturing: Too Early To Call The All-Clear The outlook for manufacturing remains the biggest question mark in the global economy. The US ISM manufacturing index dropped to 47.2 in December, its lowest level since June 2009. The composition of the report was poor, with the new orders-to-inventory ratio dropping close to recent lows. Chart 19Other US Manufacturing Gauges Are Not As Weak As The ISM We would discount the ISM report to some extent. The regional Fed manufacturing indices have not been nearly as disappointing as the ISM (Chart 19). The Markit PMI, which tracks US manufacturing activity better than the ISM, clocked in at a respectable 52.4 in December, down only slightly from November’s reading of 52.6. Nevertheless, it is hard to be excited about the near-term outlook for US manufacturing, especially in light of Boeing’s decision to suspend production of the 737 Max temporarily. Most estimates suggest that the production halt will reduce real US GDP growth by 0.3%-to-0.5% in the first quarter. The euro area manufacturing PMI gave up some of its November gains, falling to 46.3 in December. While the index is still above its September low of 45.7, it has been under 50 for 11 straight months now. The UK and Japanese PMI also retreated. Chinese manufacturing has shown clearer signs of bottoming out. Despite dipping in December, the private sector Caixin manufacturing PMI remains near its 2017 highs. The official PMI published by the National Bureau of Statistics is less upbeat, but still managed to come in slightly above 50 in December. The production subcomponent reached the highest level since August 2018. Reflecting the positive trend in the Chinese economy, Korean exports to China rose by 3.3% in December, the first positive growth rate in 14 months (Chart 20). Taiwan’s exports have also rebounded. The manufacturing PMI rose above 50 in both economies in December. In Taiwan’s case, this was the first time the PMI moved into expansionary territory since September 2018. On balance, we continue to expect global manufacturing to recover in 2020. This is in line with our observation that global manufacturing cycles typically last three years, with 18 months of weaker growth followed by 18 months of stronger growth (Chart 21). That said, the weakness in European and US manufacturing (at least judged by the ISM) is likely to give investors pause. Chart 20Some Positive Signs Emerging From Korea And Taiwan Chart 21A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle Investment Conclusions We turned bullish on stocks in late 2018, having temporarily moved to the sidelines during the summer of that year. Global equities have gained 25% since our upgrade. We see another 10% of upside for 2020, led by European and EM bourses. Despite its recent gains, the real value of the MSCI All-Country World Index is only 3% above its prior peak in January 2018. The 12-month forward PE ratio of 16.3 is still somewhat lower than it was back then. The valuation picture is even more enticing if we compare equity earnings yields with bond yields, which is tantamount to computing a rough equity risk premium (ERP). The global ERP remains quite high by historic standards, especially outside the US where earnings yields are higher and bond yields are generally lower (Chart 22). Chart 22The Equity Risk Premium Is Fairly High, Especially Outside The US Chart 23Stock Market Sentiment Is Quite Bullish Nevertheless, sentiment is quite positive towards stocks at the moment (Chart 23). Elevated bullish sentiment, against the backdrop of ongoing uncertainty about the outlook for global manufacturing and an uneasy truce between the US and Iran, poses a near-term headwind to risk assets. As such, while we are maintaining our positive 12-month view on global equities and high-yield credit, we are downgrading our tactical 3-month view to neutral for the time being. We do not regard this as a major realignment of our views; we will turn tactically bullish again if stocks dip about 5% from current levels. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Ariel Edwards-Levy, “Here's What Americans Think About Trump's Iran Policy,” TheHuffingtonPost.com (January 6, 2020). MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades