Financial Markets
Highlights Analysis on Indonesia is available below. EM financial markets have diverged from the global growth indicators they have historically correlated with. This raises doubts about the sustainability of this rally. In China, broad bank credit has not accelerated at all, while non-bank credit growth rose sharply in January. The lack of recovery in broad bank credit growth is corroborated by lingering sluggishness in broad money growth. This refutes widespread perception in the global investment community that Chinese banks have re-opened the credit spigots again. Feature The headline news has all been positive for emerging markets over the past two months: The Federal Reserve is going on hold, China is stimulating its economy, the U.S. and China are nearing a trade agreement and risk-on market dynamics are permeating worldwide. Nevertheless, EM stocks have failed to outperform the global equity benchmark (Chart I-1, top panel). Notably, EM relative equity performance rolled over in late December when global share prices bottomed. Chart I-1EM Stocks Have Underperformed DM Ones Since Late December In absolute terms, EM equities have been attempting to break above their 200-day moving average, but have so far failed to do so decisively (Chart I-1, bottom panel). When a market struggles to break out or outperform amid favorable news flows and buoyant investor sentiment, the odds are that it is facing formidable headwinds under the surface, and is at risk of relapsing. We sense EM currently fits this profile. Needless to say, investor consensus is very bullish on EM, and dominated by the above-mentioned narrative, specifically the Fed turning dovish and China stimulating, which is reminiscent of 2016 when EM staged a cyclical rally. Consequently, investors have rushed to pile into EM stocks and fixed-income. Chart I-2 illustrates that asset managers’ net holdings of EM ETF (EEM) futures have doubled since October 2018. Chart I-2Investor Consensus Is Very Bullish On EM As of mid-February, EMs were by far the most overweight region within global equity portfolios, according to the most recent Bank of America/Merrill Lynch survey. The survey states that net 37% of global equity investors - who participated in the survey - were overweight EM. One of our clients that we met with on the road last week summed it up like this: “Investors have ‘recency bias’.” In other words, investors believe that 2019 will resemble 2016, and in turn have no appetite to bet against Chinese stimulus. We are in accord with this interpretation of investor behavior and the EM/China rally. Yet there are some noteworthy differences between today and 2016. First, in 2016, there was massive stimulus for China’s property market. At the time, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) monetized the unsold housing stock in Tier-3 and -4 cities via its Pledged Supplementary Lending facility. At present, there is no stimulus for real estate. Second, by early 2016 EM profits had already contracted substantially. EM profits have yet to shrink in the current downtrend. Our thesis is that EM profits will contract this year for reasons we elaborated on in depth in our previous report, Mind The Time Gap. China’s credit and fiscal impulse leads EM/Chinese profits by about 12 months, and the recent improvement in this indicator, if sustained, suggests that a trough in EM/Chinese corporate earnings will only be reached in late 2019 (Chart I-3). Therefore, as EM profits shrink, investors will likely sell EM risk assets. Chart I-3EM Corporate Earnings Are Beginning To Contract Altogether, these differences with 2016 make us reluctant to chase the current EM rally, and we continue to expect a meaningful reversal in EM risk assets in the months ahead. Monitoring Global Growth We maintain that EM is much more leveraged to global trade and China’s growth than to Fed policy. For a detailed discussion on this matter, please refer to EM: A Replay of 2016 or 2001? report from February 7, 2019. Therefore, the Fed’s dovish turn is not a sufficient reason to buy EM risk assets. To buy EM cyclically, we would need to change our outlook on global trade and Chinese imports. China influences the rest of the world via its imports. A closer look at the indicators that correlate with EM risk assets and commodities do not justify the recent EM rebound. In particular: The import sub-component of China’s NBS manufacturing PMI strongly correlates with EM share prices, excess returns in EM sovereign credit, and industrial metals prices and suggest that investors should fade this rebound (Chart I-4). Chart I-4EM Stocks, EM Credit Markets, As Well As Commodities Prices Are Driven By Chinese Imports The Caixin manufacturing PMI for China was up in February, but the NBS manufacturing PMI fell. In turn, manufacturing PMI indexes in Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Singapore are all plunging, with several of them dropping well below the 50 boom-bust mark (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Asian Manufacturing Is Contracting Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese and Singaporean shipments to China were shrinking in January, while their exports to the U.S. were resilient (Chart I-6). This confirms that global trade has been weak due to China, and that there are no signs of its reversal. Chart I-6Asian Exports To China And U.S. Moreover, Korea released its February export data, and its aggregate outbound shipments are contracting (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Korean Exports: Deepening Contraction Further, China’s container freight index – the price to ship containers – has rolled over again after picking-up late last year due to front-loading of shipments to the U.S. which were induced by the U.S. import tariffs. This signals ongoing weakness in global demand, and does not justify the latest rebound in EM financial markets in general and currencies in particular (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Global Trade Is A Risk To EM Currencies Finally, even in the U.S. where manufacturing has been the most resilient globally, the odds point to notable weakness in this sector. Specifically, the continuous underperformance of U.S. high-beta industrial stocks to U.S. overall industrials beckons a further slowdown in American manufacturing (Chart I-9). Chart I-9U.S. Manufacturing Is In A Soft Spot Bottom Line: Although financial markets are forward-looking, the recent rally has been too fast and has already gone too far. This has created conditions for a material setback as global/China growth will continue to disappoint in the months ahead. China: Credit Versus Money Growth We have been receiving questions from clients as to whether investors should heed to the message from China’s money or credit data, given they are presently sending contradictory messages (Chart I-10). Chart I-10China: Narrow, Broad Money, And Aggregate Credit Even though narrow money (M1) has historically been an excellent indicator for China/EM business cycles, the most recent (January) print – M1 annual growth rate registered a record low – was distorted due to technical/seasonal factors, and should be ignored. Specifically, deposits by enterprises plunged in January and household deposits surged as companies paid out bonuses to employees in late January ahead of the Chinese New Year that began on February 5 (Chart I-11). Provided enterprise demand deposits are in M1 but household demand deposits are a part of M2, M1 was artificially depressed in January. It will rebound in February. Chart I-11China: Technical Reasons For M1 Plunge In January Broad money provides a more comprehensive picture of money creation in China. As such, it is more relevant to compare broad money with aggregate credit. To compute aggregate credit, we add outstanding central and local government bonds to Total Social Financing (TSF). Chart I-12 illustrates the latest improvement in aggregate credit is not confirmed by either the PBoC’s broad money measure, M2, or our measure, M3 (M3 = M2 plus other deposits plus banks’ other liabilities excluding bonds). We created this M3 measure of broad money supply because in our opinion, M2 has been underestimating the extent of money creation in China in recent years due to financial engineering. Chart I-12The Recent Uptick In Aggregate Credit Is Not Confirmed By Broad Money As discussed in Box I-1 on pages 12-13, lending or purchasing of securities by banks simultaneously creates money. Therefore, bank broad credit acceleration should be mirrored in a broad money upturn. Does the lack of revival in broad money mean the latest uptick in aggregate credit data has been driven by non-bank credit? Our analysis suggests yes – non-bank credit is responsible for the strong rise in the aggregate credit numbers in January. We deconstructed aggregate credit into broad bank credit and non-bank credit (Diagram I-1). Chart I-13 illustrates that broad bank credit has not accelerated at all, while non-bank credit growth rose in January. Chart I-13China: Recent Credit Acceleration Is Due To Non-Bank Credit The lack of recovery in broad bank credit growth is corroborated by lingering sluggishness in broad money (both M2 and M3) growth (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Broad Bank Credit Is Consistent With Broad Money (As It Should Be) Consequently, this refutes the widespread perception in the global investment community that Chinese banks have re-opened the credit spigots. Chart I-15demonstrates the annual growth rate of each component of broad bank credit. While mainland banks’ loan growth to enterprises has accelerated, their lending to non-bank financial institutions has continued to shrink. Chart I-15Broad Bank Credit And Its Components In sum, broad bank credit and broad money have not revived, and their impulses are rolling over, having failed to break above zero (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The improvement in aggregate credit growth in January was due to credit provided/bonds purchased by non-banks rather than by banks. This does not tell us whether the credit growth acceleration is sustainable. For a more detailed discussion on the differences between money and credit, please refer to Box I-1 on page 12-13. Investors prefer simple narratives, and have readily embraced the story that China has opened up the credit faucets. Broad bank credit data and broad money supply data do not corroborate this thesis. It may change in the months ahead, but our point is that for the moment there is not yet a simple narrative about China’s credit cycle. Investment Implications Even though China’s aggregate credit impulse ticked up in January, the 2011-‘12 and 2015-‘16 episodes signify that its bottoming can last many months. Critically, EM financial markets have historically lagged turning points in the aggregate credit impulse. These time lags have been anywhere between three to 18 months over the past 10 years. Furthermore, in 2012 there was only a minor rebound in EM share prices – not a cyclical rally – in response to the significant rise in China’s aggregate credit impulse (Chart I-16, top panel). Chart I-16Beware Of The Time Lag Hence, even if January marked the bottom in the aggregate credit impulse – which is plausible in our opinion – EM risk assets will remain at risk based on historical time lags between the aggregate credit impulse and China-related financial markets.1 BOX 1 Why And When Money Supply Differs From Credit The following elaborates on the key differences between broad money supply and aggregate credit. 1. Why and when do broad money and credit diverge? When commercial banks provide loans to or buy bonds (or any other asset) from non-banks, they simultaneously create new money supply/deposits. Broad money supply is the sum of all deposits in the banking system, which is why we use the terms money and deposits interchangeably. When non-bank financial institutions – in China's case financial trust and investment corporations, financial leasing companies, auto-financing companies and loan companies – as well as enterprises and households make loans or buy bonds, they do not create money. Hence, money supply/deposits is mostly equal to net cumulative broad bank credit creation. The difference between aggregate credit and money supply is due to lending activities of non-bank entities (see Diagram I-1 on page 9). Lending, purchasing of bonds, or any other forms of financing by non-bank entities does not change money supply. Thus, aggregate credit is more relevant than money supply to forecast business cycle fluctuations. Apart from the fact that banks still play a very large role in aggregate financing in China, there are a few other reasons why one should not ignore broad money and rely solely on aggregate credit: Banks can extend credit, but might choose not to classify it as loans on their balance sheet for regulatory reasons. Chinese banks did this in the past by booking loans as non-standard credit assets. In any case, when a bank lends to a non-bank it creates new deposits/money, and it is hard to conceal deposits/liabilities. In these cases, broad money supply gives a better signal about the true extent of credit growth than statistics on loans. If under regulatory pressures banks reclassify their non-standard credit assets as loans, the amount of loans will expand, even though no new lending occurs. Yet, money supply/deposits will not change. In this case, loan numbers will give a false signal and money supply will be a better indicator for new credit origination by banks and, thereby, for economic activity. The true measure of Chinese bank loans and credit data were probably disguised over the past several years because banks and non-bank financial institutions were involved in financial engineering. However, in the past two years, the regulatory clampdown forced Chinese commercial banks to unwind some of these structures and properly reclassify items on their balance sheets. Both the masking of credit assets and the ensuing reclassification could have distorted loan and credit data. This is why we use broad money supply as a litmus test to gauge banks’ broad credit origination. Given TSF includes bank loans but does not include banks’ non-standard credit assets, we believe TSF understates the amount of credit in the economy. As a result, we have not been able to calculate an accurate aggregate level of non-bank credit. Only since mid-2017, when under the regulatory clampdown, banks have stopped classifying loans as non-standard credit assets, can the annual growth rate of TSF serve as a meaningful statistic. Hence, we estimate the annual growth rate of non-bank credit only starting in 2018 (please refer to Chart I-13 on page 9). 2. Does the central bank (PBoC) create money by injecting liquidity into the system? Barring lending to or buying assets from non-banks – which does not typically occur outside of quantitative easing (QE) programs – central banks do not create broad money or deposits. Central banks create banking system reserves, which are not part of the broad money supply in any country. Money supply/deposits, the ultimate purchasing power for economic agents, is created solely by commercial banks “out of thin air,” as we have discussed and illustrated in our series of reports on money, credit and savings. 3. Why do we use impulses (second derivatives of money/credit) rather than growth rates? Our goal is to forecast a change in economic activity/capital spending/imports/enterprise revenues – i.e., a change in flow variables. Money and credit are stock variables. Therefore, a change (the first derivative) in outstanding money and credit produces flow variables. The latter measures new credit and money origination in a given period. These are comparable with flow variables like spending, income and profits. To gauge changes in flow variables, i.e., the growth rate of spending, one needs to calculate a change in new money and credit origination – i.e., change in their net flow. In brief, to do an apples-to-apples comparison, one needs to use the second derivative (a change in change) in money and credit – i.e., changes in their flows – to predict changes in flow variables such as GDP/capital spending/imports/enterprise revenues. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com Indonesia: It Is Not All About The Fed Indonesian stocks have outperformed their emerging market peers significantly in the past few months as the Federal Reserve has turned dovish and U.S. rate expectations have declined. Although U.S. bond yields do strongly and inversely correlate with Indonesian stocks’ relative performance versus the EM equity benchmark (Chart II-1, top panel), we believe there are other factors – such as Chinese growth and commodities prices – that are also important to this market (Chart II-1, bottom panel). Chart II-1Indonesian Stocks: The Fed Versus Commodities In the next several months, slowing Chinese growth, lower commodities prices, and a renewed sell-off in EM markets will take a toll on Indonesian financial markets. Indonesian exports are contracting which will intensify as commodities prices fall and China’s purchases of coal and base metals drop (Chart II-2, top panel). Chart II-2Indonesia: Exports Are Shrinking Indonesia’s current account deficit is already large and will continue widening as the export contraction deepens (Chart II-2, bottom panel). Remarkably, the nation’s commercial banks have been encouraged to keep the credit taps open as the central bank – Bank Indonesia (BI) – has been injecting enormous amounts of liquidity (excess reserves) into the banking system (Chart II-3, top panel). Given these liquidity injections, bank credit and domestic demand growth have remained more resilient than would otherwise have been the case. Chart II-3The Central Bank Is Injecting Liquidity Yet, by injecting such enormous amounts of excess reserves into the system, the central bank has more than negated its previous liquidity tightening, resulting from the sales of its foreign exchange reserves in order to defend the rupiah (Chart II-3, bottom panel). The implications of such policy are that these excess reserves could encourage speculation against the rupiah, especially amid weakening global growth and falling commodities prices. Provided foreigners own large portions of Indonesian stocks and local-currency government bonds, a depreciation in the rupiah will produce a renewed selloff in the nation’s financial markets. A final point on Indonesian commercial banks: their net interest margins have been narrowing sharply (Chart II-4, top panel). Chart II-4Commercial Banks' Profits Will Weaken Moreover, as global growth slows, non-performing loans (NPLs) on the balance sheets of Indonesian banks will rise. In turn, provisioning for bad loans will also increase, and bank earnings will decline (Chart II-4, bottom panel). These dynamics will be bearish for Indonesian commercial banks, which account for 44% of the overall MSCI Indonesia index. Bottom Line: Continue avoiding/underweighting Indonesian stocks and fixed-income markets. We continue shorting the IDR versus the U.S. dollar. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please note that this represents the Emerging Markets Strategy team’s view and is different from BCA’s house view on global risk assets and global growth. The key point of contention is the outlook for China’s growth. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights Price differentials between global light-sweet crude oil benchmarks Brent and WTI will narrow over the next three years, as U.S. light-sweet crude oil exports expand and North Sea production growth remains challenged. U.S. product exports also will expand, as investments by Gulf Coast refiners allow them to take in more of the domestic light-sweet crude output. Growing volumes of WTI being exported to Europe are being priced relative to Brent. Over time, we expect the marginal light-sweet crude barrel for the global oil market – and the benchmark of refiners’ primary cost – will be directly linked to WTI – Houston pricing. Given this expectation of increased U.S. exports, we are initiating a long WTI vs. short Brent swap position at tonight’s close in 2020. The 2020 swap settled Tuesday at $6.6/bbl; we project it will average $3.25/bbl. In the heavy-sour markets, differentials – most prominently the Brent – Dubai spread – will remain tight, owing to OPEC 2.0 production cuts, lost Venezuelan and Iranian exports, due to U.S. sanctions, and ongoing difficulties getting Canadian heavy crude to refining markets. Energy: Overweight. OPEC 2.0 likely will decide to extend production cuts to year-end in June, as opposed to May, as was expected earlier.1 This will allow the Cartel to respond to whatever the U.S. decides on May 4 re extending waivers on Iranian export sanctions, and to export losses from U.S. sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company. Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang announced tax cuts amounting to almost $300 billion (~ 2 trillion RMB), as policymakers attempt to hit a GDP growth target of 6.0 to 6.5% this year. We are getting tactically long spot copper at tonight’s close, expecting this fiscal stimulus to boost prices over $3.00/lb in the next 3 – 6 months. Feature In a little more than two years from now, Exxon will add 1mm b/d of pipeline take-away capacity to the Permian Basin. The new pipe is in addition to the 2mm b/d of takeaway capacity currently being added to the basin, which is expected to be fully operational by the end of this year. Current production in the Permian is close to 4mm b/d, so the combined incremental new pipe will provide considerable room for production growth into the 2020s. Exxon’s pipeline expansion – undertaken with Plains All American and Lotus Midstream – was announced in January, just before the company proceeded with its final investment decision (FID) to expand the capacity of its Beaumont, TX, refinery by 250k b/d to 616k b/d. The new capacity is expected to come online in 2022, and will make Beaumont the largest refinery in the U.S. The refinery expansion will take in light-sweet crude from the Permian, where Exxon plans to triple production to 600k b/d by 2025.2 These announcements are not one-offs: Permian production, and shale-oil output generally, is booming. In the Permian, oil output rose just over 800k b/d last year, according to the U.S. EIA (Chart of the Week, panel 1). Overall U.S. shale output in the Big 5 basins – Anadarko, Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara and Permian – rose close to 1.5mm b/d in 2018.3 Output growth in the Permian will remain super-charged on the back of the pipeline buildout, and the capex being poured into it as the Majors and large E&P companies industrialize production there, not unlike a manufacturing process. We expect the Permian to lead the development of shale-oil production, driving total crude and liquids growth in the U.S., which last year grew by 2.2mm b/d to reach 19mm b/d by December (Chart of the Week, panel 2). Chart of the WeekBrent Physical Liquidity Continues To Fall Continued investments in state-of-the-art refinery expansions in the U.S. Gulf are expected to continue as well, given the production growth we expect for the Permian, and the pipeline expansions that will take that output to the Houston refining market. Chevron, for example, is expected to close on an acquisition from Brazilian state oil company Petrobras for the 110k b/d Pasadena Refining System, also in the Houston Ship Channel. The company will feed this unit with light-sweet crude from the Permian, which it told analysts this week it expects to grow to 600k b/d by end-2020 and 900k b/d by 2023.4 At present, the U.S. Gulf Coast refining infrastructure cannot absorb all of the light-sweet crude that will be produced in the Permian and the other major basins in coming years. The export markets – particularly the Atlantic Basin, which is home to the physical Brent market – will be absorbing more and more of U.S. light-sweet production in coming years as North Sea production stagnates relative to the U.S. shales (Chart of the Week, panel 3). Output in the U.K. North Sea was at its lowest level since 1973 in 2017, following the price collapse of 2014 – 2017 instigated by the OPEC market-share war launched in 2014. UK output was flattish last year, while Norwegian production was down slightly more than 6% in 2018, bringing it to just under 1.5mm b/d. Drilling activity is picking up this year, along with M&A activity as private equity firms step in to buy properties being sold by the U.S. Majors. As can be seen in the Chart of the Week, production is expected to begin picking up at the end of this year, but base effects from the low levels of late exaggerate the gains in percentage terms. U.S. Crude Exports Set To Soar The North Sea Brent market is arguably the most important crude oil market in the world. It is the underlying physical market for the world’s benchmark crude oil – Brent Blend – against which up to two-thirds of the world’s crude oil prices are indexed.5 Production of the five constituent streams comprising the Brent index – the Brent, Forties, Oseberg, Ekofisk and Troll crudes – has been falling year on year, and one of the streams (Forties) is regularly being exported to Asian refining markets. This has prompted the main price-reporting agencies to consider adding to the constituents of the Brent index, and changing the type of pricing it records.6 At the same time, increasing volumes of WTI light-sweet crude are making their way into the Brent North Sea physical market.7 These export volumes will increase, supported by the buildout of pipeline takeaway and deep-water harbor capacity in the U.S. Gulf, which, when done, will expand the capacity of Gulf ports to accommodate very large crude carriers (VLCCs).8 On the back of these rising exports to the European market, Argus Media, one of the price-reporting agencies, this year began publishing U.S. waterborne pricing assessments as differentials to the ICE Brent futures. According to Argus, slightly over a quarter of the 2.6mm b/d of crude exports out of the U.S. last November went to Europe to compete with North Sea grades like Brent and Forties, two of the Brent index constituents. For the week ended February 22, 2019, the four-week average of crude oil exports from the U.S. was close to 3.1mm b/d, a record for average exports. According to S&P Global Platts, “There have been 48 VLCCs booked for loading out of the USGC so far in 2019 – about five times the amount booked in the first two months of 2018 and a drastic difference to the two VLCCs that were booked during the same period in 2017.”9 Most of the growth in U.S. exports is coming from the shale-oil production boom, which is swelling the volume of light-sweet barrels in the Gulf. While increasing volumes of WTI are making their way into European wet markets, it is too early to call WTI delivered to the Houston refining market (WTI – Houston) a benchmark; it’s more of a reference price for now. All the same, the necessary and sufficient conditions are falling into place for WTI – Houston to become a global benchmark: It has consistent quality; diversity of buyers (refiners and trading companies), sellers (producers and traders), and speculators to provide hedging liquidity to physical-market participants; and, in due course, will have reliable shipping facilities, including ports capable of handling VLCCs and smaller vessels. This last condition is the critical limiting factor at present.10 We expect that, by the early 2020s, the necessary and sufficient conditions will be in place to allow WTI – Houston to become a global benchmark. By that time, we project the U.S. will be exporting in excess of 10mm b/d of crude and liquids, and refined products, with crude exports alone exceeding 5mm b/d by then. Currently, the U.S. exports slightly more than 8mm b/d of crude oil and products (Chart 2). The six largest importers of U.S. crudes are found in the Atlantic and Pacific basins (Charts 3A & 3B). Chart 2U.S. Will Expand Its Lead As Largest Crude and Products Exporter Chart 3AU.S. Exports To Atlantic ... Chart 3B... And Pacific Growing Bottom Line: We expect the Brent vs. WTI crude oil differential to narrow next year, as U.S. light-sweet crude oil exports expand and North Sea production stagnates. On the back of this, we are opening a long WTI vs. short Brent position in 2020. We expect this differential to average $3.25/bbl next year versus current market levels of $6.6/bbl. Canadian WCS Differentials Could Relapse The Western Canadian Select (WCS) differential to WTI YTD contracted to a discount of $10.50/bbl from an average discount of $26.3/bbl in 2018, as the Alberta government’s production curtailment took effect (Chart 4).11 This is allowing Alberta’s excess inventories to start declining, which was one of the primary motivations of the government’s action. Chart 4Government-mandated Production Cuts Reverse Inventory Builds in Alberta Not all the news out of Canada is good for producers, however. An unexpected delay in Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement and expansion puts future Canadian production growth in jeopardy. This will complicate the Alberta government’s plan to stabilize the sound discount to WTI, which is necessary to maintain investors’ confidence in the sector. In our previous analysis of the Canadian oil sector, we assumed the Line 3 replacement project would be completed in the fourth quarter of this year. This is now pushed back by at least 6 months, likely into 2H20.12 The replacement was expected to restore Line 3’s original takeaway capacity of 760k b/d from 390k b/d, and was a crucial input in our Canadian oil output forecasts. The reduction of the production curtailment to ~ 95k b/d in 2H19 previously announced by the Alberta government will not be sufficient to maintain the WCS transportation discount below $15/bbl (Chart 5). Thus, the government most likely will extend part of the ~ 325k b/d mandatory cuts into 2H19. A rollback of the curtailment policy to 95k b/d ahead of the Line 3 replacement would push the differential back above the crude-by-rail range – i.e., a $15-to-$22/bbl discount over the quality discount for heavy sour crude vs. the light-sweet. We expect a combination of production decreases and increased crude-by-rail transport, which will have to go to record levels, could help alleviate the negative pressure on the WCS-WTI discount (Chart 6). For instance, maintaining a 225k-barrel-per-day production curtailment from April to December 2019, combined with an increase in crude-by-rail transport to ~ 460k b/d by year-end would be enough to maintain the discount in our estimated crude-by-rail range (Chart 7).13 Heavy Crude Differentials Will Remain Tight The prolongation of Canadian crude bottlenecks will contribute to keeping heavy-sour vs. light-sweet price differentials tight. Altogether, our expectation of high compliance to the output cuts agreed by OPEC 2.0 countries, which primarily export heavy-sour crudes; larger-than-expected Venezuelan output declines in heavy-sour output; and continued takeaway capacity constraints in Canada will keep the price differentials between light-sweet and heavy-sour crudes tight. This can be seen in the Brent – Dubai spread, which at times, favors the heavy-sour crude streams (Chart 8). Chart 8Heavy-Sour Crude Differentials Tighten As Supply Contracts Bottom Line: The WCS differential vs. WTI is at risk of weakening once again, following the unexpected delay in Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement and expansion. The Alberta government will have to get more deeply involved to keep unconstrained production from hammering the differential once again. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “OPEC likely to defer output policy decision until June – sources,” published by uk.reuters.com, March 4, 2019. 2 Please see “Permian Majors Expand Downstream Processing,” published by Morningstar Commodities Research, February 11, 2019. 3 These data were sourced from the EIA’s Drilling Productivity Report for February 2019. 4 See fn 2 above. See also “Chevron, Exxon take turns wooing investors with shale boasts,” published by reuters.com March 5, 2019. 5 This estimate comes from ICE Brent Crude Oil, published by The Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), which runs the Brent futures market. 6 Please see “Viewpoint: North Sea benchmark changes looming” which was published by Argus Media on December 27, 2018. 7 Please see “US waterborne crude trade shifts toward Brent basis” published by Argus Media on February 15, 2019. 8 See, e.g., Carlyle Group’s recently announced involvement in such a venture. Carlyle expects its deep-water buildout to be done in late 2020. 9 Please see “In the LOOP: Record US crude exports boost VLCC tanker demand, rates,” published by S&P Global Platts on March 5, 2019. 10 Please see Liz Bossley’s article “There Can (Not) Be Only One,” beginning on p. 15 of the May 2018 issue of the Oxford Energy Forum – Oil Benchmarks – Issue 113, for a discussion of different oil-price benchmarks. 11 We discuss Canada’s take-away dilemma in our November 29, 2018, publication entitled “The Third Man At OPEC 2.0’s Meeting.” It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see “Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline replacement likely won’t be in service until second half of 2020,” published by The Globe and Mail on March 3, 2019. 13 The government intends to increase the production ceiling by 100k b/d by April 2019, this makes the mandatory cuts at 225k b/d from 325k b/d in January 2019. https://www.alberta.ca/protecting-value-resources.asp Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in Summary of Trades Closed in
Highlights Chart 1Track The CRB/Gold Ratio Earlier this year the Fed signaled a dovish policy shift in response to slowing global growth and tighter financial conditions. In large part due to the Fed’s move, financial conditions are now easing and the CRB Raw Industrials index – a timely proxy for global growth – is starting to perk up. But when will this improvement translate to higher Treasury yields? The CRB/gold ratio offers some clues. Gold moves higher when monetary policy eases. Then with a lag, that easier policy spurs stronger global growth and a rising CRB index. Eventually, that stronger growth puts rate hikes back on the table. A more hawkish Fed limits the upside in gold and sends Treasury yields higher. In fact, we find that the 10-year Treasury yield only starts to rise when the CRB index outpaces the gold price (Chart 1). The recent jump in the CRB index is a positive sign, but we shouldn’t expect Treasury yields to rise until the CRB/gold ratio heads higher. In the meantime, investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and initiate positive-carry yield curve trades (see page 10) to boost returns while we wait for the next upward adjustment in yields. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 59 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +243 bps. The Federal Reserve’s pause opens a window for corporate spreads to tighten during the next few months. We recommend overweight positions in corporate bonds for now, but will be quick to reduce exposure once spreads reach our near-term targets (Chart 2). Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview In last week’s report we published option-adjusted spread targets for each corporate credit tier.1 The targets are based on the median 12-month breakeven spreads during prior periods when the slope of the yield curve is quite flat but not yet inverted, what we call a Phase 2 environment.2 Currently, the Aa-rated spread of 59 bps is 3 bps above our target (panel 2). The A-rated spread of 91 bps is 6 bps above our target (panel 3). The Baa-rated spread of 156 bps is 28 bps above our target (panel 4). The Aaa-rated spread is already below our target. We advise investors to avoid the Aaa-rated credit tier. With profit growth poised to moderate during the next few quarters, it is unlikely that gross corporate leverage will continue to decline at its current pace (bottom panel). As such, we will be quick to reduce corporate bond exposure when spreads reach our targets. Renewed Fed hawkishness will be another headwind for corporate bonds in the second half of the year. High-Yield: Overweight High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 175 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +590 bps. In last week’s report we published near-term spread targets for each high-yield credit tier.3 The targets are based on the median 12-month breakeven spreads seen during periods when the yield curve is quite flat but not yet inverted, what we call a Phase 2 environment.4 At present, the Ba-rated option-adjusted spread is 224 bps, 37 bps above our target. The B-rated spread is 376 bps, 81 bps above our target. The Caa-rated spread is 780 bps, 208 bps above our target. Our default-adjusted spread is an alternative measure of high-yield valuation. It represents the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for expected default losses. It is currently 243 bps, very close to the historical average of 250 bps (Chart 3). In other words, if corporate defaults match the Moody’s baseline forecast during the next 12 months, high-yield bonds will return 243 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries, assuming no change in spreads. Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview The Moody’s baseline forecast calls for a default rate of 2.4% during the next 12 months. This appears a touch too optimistic, as our own macro model is calling for a default rate closer to 3.5%.5 In either case, junk bonds currently offer adequate compensation for default risk. MBS: Neutral Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +39 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread tightened 2 bps on the month, driven by a 5 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). The fall in option cost was partially offset by a 3 bps widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The recent drop in the 30-year mortgage rate led to a jump in mortgage refinancings from historically low levels, putting some temporary upward pressure on MBS spreads (Chart 4). However, the relatively tepid pace of new issuance during the past few years means that the existing MBS stock is not very exposed to refinancing risk, even if mortgage rates fall further. All in all, we view agency MBS as one of the safest spread products in the current macro environment. Chart 4MBS Market Overview The problem with MBS is that valuation remains unattractive. The index option-adjusted spread for conventional 30-year MBS is well below its average pre-crisis level (panel 3) and the sector offers less compensation than normal compared to corporate bonds (panel 4). We continue to recommend a neutral allocation to agency MBS. An upgrade will only be appropriate when value in the corporate sector is no longer attractive relative to expected default risk. Government-Related: Underweight The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 38 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +92 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 97 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +320 bps. Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 54 bps in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +86 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed by 44 bps in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +109 bps, while Domestic Agencies outperformed by 12 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +9 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 10 bps in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +13 bps. The USD-denominated sovereign debt of most countries continues to look expensive relative to equivalently-rated U.S. corporate credit. However, in a recent report we highlighted that Mexican sovereign debt is an exception (Chart 5).6 Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Not only is Mexican sovereign debt cheap relative to U.S. corporate credit, but our Emerging Markets Strategy service highlights that the Mexican peso is very cheap as measured by the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs.7 This is not surprising given that the peso has been relatively flat versus the dollar during the past two years, despite real interest rates being much higher in Mexico than in the U.S. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 85 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +92 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio fell 5% in February, and currently sits at 81% (Chart 6). This is more than one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and right at the average level that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Chart 6Municipal Market Overview In other words, municipal bonds on average are no longer cheap. Rather, they appear fairly valued compared to similar prior macro environments. But a pure focus on the average yield ratio across the curve hides an important distinction. The yield ratio for short maturities (2-year and 5-year) is very low relative to history, while the yield ratio for long maturities (10-year, 20-year and 30-year) remains quite cheap (panel 2). Investors should continue to focus on long-maturity municipal debt to add yield to U.S. bond portfolios. In our research into the phases of the credit cycle, we often divide the cycle based on the slope of the yield curve. Since 1983, in the middle phase of the credit cycle when the 3/10 Treasury slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps (where it stands today), investment grade corporate bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of +3 bps. In contrast, municipal bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of +64 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage).8 Given strong historical returns during the current phase of the cycle and the fact that our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory (bottom panel), we advocate an overweight allocation to municipal bonds. Treasury Curve: Favor 2/30 Barbell Over 7-Year Bullet Treasury yields rose in February, led by the long-end of the curve. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 3 bps on the month and currently sits at 21 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 57 bps. Our 12-month fed funds discounter remains below zero, meaning that the market is priced for rate cuts during the next year (Chart 7). We continue to view rate hikes as more likely than cuts on this time horizon, and therefore recommend yield curve trades that will profit from a move higher in our discounter. In prior research we found that the 5-year and 7-year Treasury maturities are most sensitive to changes in our discounter, so any trade where you sell the 5-year or 7-year bullet and buy a duration-matched barbell consisting of the long and short ends of the curve will provide the appropriate exposure.9 Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview An added benefit of implementing a barbell over bullet strategy in the current environment is that barbells currently offer higher yields than bullets, meaning that you earn positive carry as you wait for the market to price rate hikes back into the curve (bottom 2 panels).10 Not surprisingly, barbell strategies also look attractively valued on our yield curve models, the output of which is found in Appendix B. TIPS: Overweight TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 36 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +120 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 11 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.96%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 7 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.07%. Both rates remain below the 2.3% - 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed’s target. After last month’s increase, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently very close to the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations model (Chart 8).11 This model is based on a combination of backward-looking and forward-looking inflation measures and is premised on the idea that investors’ inflation expectations take time to adjust to changing macro environments. The current fair value reading from the model is 1.97%, but that fair value will trend steadily higher as long as core CPI inflation remains above 1.84%. The 1.84% threshold is the annualized trailing 10-year growth rate in core CPI, and it is the most important variable in the model. Chart 8Inflation Compensation On that note, core CPI has increased at an annual rate of 2.58% during the past four months, well above the necessary threshold. And while some forward-looking inflation measures have moderated, notably the ISM Prices Paid index (panel 3), this is largely a reaction to the recent drop in energy prices. A drop that should reverse as global growth improves in the coming months. ABS: Neutral Cut To Underweight Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 22 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +38 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS narrowed 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 31 bps, 3 bps below its pre-crisis low (Chart 9). Chart 9ABS Market Overview Our excess return Bond Map, shown in Appendix C on page 18, shows that Aaa-rated ABS offer a relatively poor risk/reward trade-off compared to other U.S. bond sectors. Aaa-rated auto loan ABS in particular offer greater risk and lower potential return than the Aggregate Plus index (the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate index plus high-yield). Tight spreads look even more unattractive when you consider that the delinquency rate for consumer credit is rising, and according to the uptrend in household interest expense, will continue to march higher in the coming quarters (panel 4). Lending standards are also tightening for both credit cards and auto loans, a dynamic that often coincides with a rising delinquency rate and wider ABS spreads (bottom panel). Given the recent spread tightening, we advise investors to reduce consumer ABS exposure in U.S. bond portfolios. Other sectors, such as Agency CMBS, offer a more attractive risk/reward trade-off within high-rated spread product. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 74 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +142 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 13 bps on the month and currently sits at 93 bps, below the average pre-crisis level but somewhat higher than the recent tights (Chart 10). Chart 10CMBS Market Overview The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that banks tightened lending standards on commercial real estate (CRE) loans in Q4 and witnessed falling demand (bottom 2 panels). This, coupled with decelerating CRE prices paints a relatively negative picture for non-agency CMBS. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Teasury index by 49 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +77 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 48 bps. The excess return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector continues to make sense. Appendix A - The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 2 basis points of rate cuts during the next 12 months. Given that we expect the Fed to deliver rate hikes in the second half of this year, we recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the change in the fed funds rate. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Appendix B - Butterfly Strategy Valuation The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of +55 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 55 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of February 28, 2019) Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of February 28, 2019) Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C - Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Map employs volatility-adjusted breakeven spread analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Map does not incorporate any macroeconomic view. The horizontal axis of the Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps of excess return. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting China’s Stimulus”, dated January 17, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Don’t Position For Curve Inversion”, dated January 22, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018 available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation
Highlights It was easy to upgrade equities to overweight at the beginning of the year, … : The fourth-quarter selloff had reduced the S&P 500’s forward four-quarter multiple to 13.6 at its trough, and we never shared the market’s fear that the Fed was one false move from triggering a recession. … but what should someone who sat out January’s and February’s moves do?: Is it worth buying stocks now, after they’ve risen 10% since our upgrade, and 18% since the Christmas Eve bottom? Wait, in our opinion, but it’s not an easy answer: We find it hard to believe that the S&P 500 is going to go straight back to its late-September highs, reversing the fourth-quarter swoon in a mirror-image first-quarter blast. Our best guess is that the bull market is not yet over, but we think its upside is limited: It’s hard to see a bear market materializing in the absence of a recession, and the Fed’s pause has likely pushed the next one out to the second half of 2020 at the earliest. The potential gains are not unlimited, however, and an inflation-wary Fed will eventually cut off the bull’s oxygen. Feature Take two dozen opinionated people with backgrounds in markets and economics and scatter them around a boardroom table. Introduce the day’s key global economic data releases, market activity, corporate news, and geopolitical developments as potential discussion topics. Have the moderator remain alert for points of contention and seek to intensify them at every opportunity. Add four or five months of the worst winter weather North America’s got to offer, this side of Winnipeg and International Falls, Minnesota, and stir. If only economists were more telegenic, or Canadians could credibly be as unpleasant as their neighbors to the south, that might be the elevator pitch for a can’t-miss reality show. Instead, it’s the recipe for BCA’s daily morning meetings, and not one of its hard-working participants is likely to be able to use it as a step on the path to celebrity riches. It is a path to getting better at analysis and reasoning, however, and an ideal forum for stress-testing economic or market hypotheses. It can also furnish research ideas, as it did for us last week. “Let’s say you have a client who missed the equity run-up in January and February. What would you recommend s/he do now?” one of our colleagues called out to us late in Tuesday’s session. Someone else jumped in before we could reply, the thread was lost, and the meeting broke up so everyone could get back to their own research priorities. Had we gotten to reply, we would have recommended that the client wait for a better entry point, and this week’s report is devoted to explaining why, in the simplest back-of-the-envelope terms. How Much Can S&P 500 Earnings Grow? When analyzing equities, we like to decompose them into their component parts: forward earnings and the multiple investors are willing to pay for them. In the hall of mirrors as described in Keynes’ newspaper-beauty-contest metaphor,1 what matters for our purposes in projecting S&P 500 earnings is less what will happen, or what our own earnings models might project will happen, than what the analyst consensus thinks will happen. The consensus estimate of calendar 2019 S&P 500 earnings per share (EPS) is currently $168.37, a modest 4% increase over calendar 2018 EPS. This is a conservative estimate, relative to history, given that S&P 500 operating EPS have grown at an average rate of 8% over the last 40 years (Chart 1). Chart 1Outside Of Recessions, Earnings Typically Grow It is also conservative given the pattern earnings estimates have followed across the five bull markets that have occurred in the 40 years since estimates began to be compiled. We have previously observed that equity bull markets tend to sprint to the finish line. On average, they begin by being blasted out of a cannon, sharply cool off in the second quintile, and build back up in the third and fourth quintiles, before retrenching ahead of a latter-stages surge (Chart 2). The earnings estimate pattern is jumpier. Forward estimates stumble out of the first-decile gate before rising at a double-digit rate over the rest of the first half, then slow sharply to the first decile’s pace in preparation for posting their most potent growth in the final decile (Chart 3). Disaggregating the individual bull markets’ performance shows that the overall last-decile performance is not the product of a couple of outlier readings. In all but the December ’87 – July ’90 bull market that ended with flatlining estimates, estimated forward four-quarter earnings growth in the final decile of the bull market comfortably exceeded mean growth across the full bull market (Chart 4). Chart 4Optimistic At The Very End Analysts’ 2019 estimates additionally look low because median corporate revenue growth ought to converge with nominal GDP growth over time. With 40 basis points of fiscal stimulus slated to be deployed in 2019, we expect the U.S. will have no trouble growing above its 2 – 2.25% trend. Assuming GDP growth at the top of that range, no change in profit margins, share buybacks to reduce outstanding share count by 2%, and 2% inflation, the S&P 500 should be able to grow EPS by 6.25%. The 2.25% difference between the consensus estimate and the back-of-the-envelope projection aligns with corporations’ desire to manage analyst expectations. If the S&P 500 can grow earnings at a rate of 6.25% this year, calendar 2019 EPS would come in at $172.13. The default estimate for the following year would be the mean of historical EPS gains, or about 9%. Applying a 2% lower-the-bar haircut, corporate management teams might guide to 7% growth in 2020. Grossing up our estimated calendar 2019 earnings by 7% yields projected calendar 2020 earnings of $184.17 (Table 1). Table 1Estimating Consensus Expectations For Calendar 2020 S&P 500 EPS What Multiple Might Investors Pay? Estimating a plausible forward multiple is more of a challenge than coming up with a reasonable consensus S&P 500 EPS estimate. Multiples, like all market prices, are dictated in large part by emotion, which often defies prediction. We can make some inferences from the 40-year history of forward multiples nonetheless. That history suggests that the current 16.5 multiple is elevated, but not worryingly so, as it is only a little more than half of a standard deviation above the mean (Chart 5). Chart 5Elevated, But Not Stretched Multiple movements have followed a pattern across the last five bull markets, but their moves are much more volatile than moves in forward estimates, which never decline in a bull market. Broadly, multiples explode higher at the start, plateau, and then retrace some of their initial gains (Chart 6). Their growth pattern inflects higher in the second half before peaking near the end of the bull market and rolling over into the finish. The broad pattern applies to all of the bull markets except the October ’02 – October ’07 bull, in which the multiple peaked in the third decile before sinking for much of the rest of the way. Chart 6Multiples Usually Follow A Well-Defined Pattern Aggregating the multiple moves by decile shows the pattern with more clarity (Chart 7). A burst of re-rating in the first decile signals the beginning of the bull market. The multiple goes on to retrench through the fourth decile and then expands at a double-digit annualized rate until it runs out of steam at the beginning of the final decile. The empirical takeaway is that investors shouldn’t look for much in the way of multiple expansion over the rest of the bull market, and we therefore apply a 16.5 multiple to our $184.17 estimate of forward four-quarter earnings a year from now, yielding an S&P 500 target of 3,040. Mapping A Course Using forward four-quarter earnings four quarters out to develop our price target shows that we do not expect the S&P 500 to surpass its late September highs anytime soon. We have marveled at the way the index has moved straight up since its Christmas Eve bottom, and have been waiting for it to reveal the top of a tradeable range. We thought 2,640, which had marked a triple-bottom in October and November’s turbulence, might present some resistance, and then perhaps 2,700, but the S&P went through both levels like a warm knife through butter (Chart 8). This week’s action suggests that 2,800 – which was a significant level throughout much of 2018 – just might mark the top for a little while. Chart 8Trying To Find The Top Of The Range Our recommendation to an investor who spent January and February underweight equities is therefore to wait. It’s also our recommendation to anyone seeking to add more exposure. As for investors seeking to reduce exposure, the action Friday as we were going to press seemed to suggest that the current levels around 2,800 are a good place to lighten up on equity holdings. If we’re wrong, an investor could buy out-of-the-money calls, which are not too onerously expensive now that the VIX is back below 15, though we almost always think the insurance offered by options is cost prohibitive for investors who are judged on a relative-return basis. Closing Thoughts We are devoted followers of long-term-oriented investors with long-term records of success who are willing to share aspects of their approach in print or in public appearances. We avidly read Warren Buffett’s annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders this week, and were delighted to discover a transcript of Charlie Munger’s Q-and-A session with shareholders at the privately-held Daily Journal Corporation’s annual meeting. Howard Marks has been a particular favorite of ours over the years, and this exercise provided confirmation of his view that bull markets end when conditions appear to be at their very best. In line with the Buffett view that investors should be fearful when others are greedy, Marks has argued that bull markets are done in by too much optimism. The tendency for earnings estimates to grow at their most rapid pace in the final stages of a bull market supports Marks’ position. It seems improbable on its face that corporate earnings would make their biggest move at the end of the cycle (Chart 3). The fact that the growth in actual operating earnings tends to peak well before the end of the business cycle (Chart 1) suggests that analysts – and the corporate management teams whose guidance provides the starting point for their earnings models – get lulled to complacency by the successes in the rear-view mirror. In that sense, it may be good for equities that expectations are so beaten down now. Perhaps this bull market will not end until managers, analysts and investors get at least a little bit euphoric. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, Keynes compared financial markets to a newspaper contest in which every contestant chooses the six most attractive people from a set of one hundred head shots. The winner is the contestant whose choices best align with the most attractive photos as selected by all of the entrants. Sophisticated contestants don’t bother with the faces they consider to be the most attractive, but with the faces that best align with conventional notions of attractiveness. “It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one’s judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects average opinion to be.”
Feature The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of February 28, 2019. The quant model increased allocations to Spain, Italy, Sweden and Germany at the expense of the U.S., the Netherlands and Switzerland. As such, now the model underweights the U.S., Japan, the U.K, France, Canada (downgraded from overweight) and Australia, while overweighting Germany, Spain, Italy, Switzerland and Sweden (upgraded from underweight), as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 18 bps in February, with a 54 bps of outperformance from the Level 2 model offset by a 9 bps of underperformance from Level 1. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 148 bps, with Level 2 outperforming by 267 bps and Level 1 outperforming by 29 bps. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model We are happy to reintroduce the GAA Equity Sector Selection model after we suspended it as of October 2018 following the GICS adjustments to global sector composition. As noted in our September 2018 Special Alert and October 2018 Quarterly, the most notable changes occurred in the new Communication Services sector (previously known as Telecommunication Services) and the Information Technology sector, whereas the Consumer Discretionary sector had various yet insubstantial movements in and out of the sector. Having received historical performance of the revised data, we have retested and adjusted various inputs in the model to match the cyclicality of the revised sectors. We were able to backtest the model to only June 2008 as this was the starting point of the revised data. Given the nature of firms that are now included in the global Communication Services sector, we revised our classification of this sector from a defensive to a cyclical. Hence, it will be positively impacted by the model’s growth component. Furthermore, we have introduced Real Estate as its own sector (following its removal from Financials in August 2016). Additionally, we have neutralized the impact of the liquidity component on the Real Estate sector; in other terms, we found no evidence that the Fed cycle affects this sector in any of its four phases. We also revised the valuations component by shortening the confirming signal of our technical indicator from a 12-month to a 6-month moving average. To properly assess the model’s adjusted performance, we have reset the “since going live date” to begin in March 2019. However, the historical backtested performance of the model will still be shown in Chart 4. Additionally, we show the old model’s performance vs. its benchmark (Table 3). Chart 4Overall Model Performance Given the above, and following our Monthly Update that was released yesterday, the model corroborates our slightly cyclical stance by overweighting Industrials and Materials (Table 4). Additionally, the model’s biggest underweight shift from last month was on Consumer Staples as the momentum indicator significantly deteriorated. The model is overweight Utilities due to positive inputs from its momentum and liquidity components. Table 3Old Model’s Performance Table 4Current Model Allocations For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model,” dated July 27, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com
Feature Recommendations Two Key Questions For Asset Allocators Stocks have rallied this year – MSCI ACWI is up 17% from its late December low – despite the fact that economic growth outside the U.S. has continued to deteriorate. The PMI in Germany has fallen to 47.6, in Japan to 48.5, and the average in Emerging Markets to 49.5 (Chart 1). Chart 1PMIs Ex-U.S. Still Falling U.S. growth remains robust, though recent data have showed some signs of weakness. The Citigroup Economic Surprise Index has fallen sharply, capex indicators have slipped, and December retail sales were terrible (Chart 2). The New York Fed NowCast for Q1 is now pointing at only 1.2% real GDP growth. Most of the slippage, however, was caused by the six-week government shutdown, and should be reversed in Q2. And the retail sales number appears “rogue”, perhaps caused by irregular data-collection methods during the shutdown, since other retail data do not support it (Chart 2, panel 3). The tightening of financial conditions in the last months of 2018 – which has now partly reversed – may have added to the slowdown (Chart 3). BCA’s view is that U.S. GDP growth is likely to come in well above 2% in 2019, slower than last year’s 2.9% but still above trend. Chart 2Should We Worry About U.S. Growth Too? Chart 3Financial Conditions Now Easing Our recommendation, therefore, is to continue to overweight equities (particularly U.S. equities), which should be supported by decent earnings growth (our top-down model points to 12% EPS growth for the S&P500 this year, compared to a bottom-up consensus forecast of only 5%), reasonable valuations, and sentiment that appears still to be damaged by the Q4 sell-off (Chart 4). Chart 4Environment Still Positive For U.S. Equities Two key questions will determine which asset allocation will be optimal this year. First, how long will the Fed stay “patient” and keep rates on hold? The futures market has almost completely priced out the possibility of any rate hikes in 2019, and even assigns a 15% probability of a cut (Chart 5). We still see upside risk to inflation, with core PCE likely to print above the Fed’s target of 2% by mid-year, partly because of the year-on-year base effect (in January 2018, monthly inflation was especially high), but also because underlying inflation pressures remain (Chart 6). Chart 5Is The Fed Really Going To Cut Rates? Chart 6Inflation Pressures Haven't Gone Away The market has misunderstood two of the Fed’s recent messages. Its mooted plan to end balance-sheet reduction by year-end is not intended as part of monetary policy. It is simply that bank excess reserves will have reached USD1-1.2 trillion, the level required to operate monetary policy using current tools, rather than those used before 2007 when reserves were zero (Chart 7). Second, recent discussions about changing the Fed’s inflation target from 2% a year to a price-level target will probably become effective only when the effective lower bound is hit in the next recession and, anyway, no decision will be taken until mid-2020. Chart 7Excess Reserves Will Be At Equilibrium Soon The market has taken this talk as dovish. We read recent comments by Fed Chairman Jay Powell to mean that if, by June, the economy is robust, risk assets are still rebounding, and inflation is ticking up, the Fed will continue to hike, maybe two or three times by year-end. This implies long-term bond yields will rise too. Equities may wobble initially but, as long as the Fed is hiking because growth is solid and not because of an inflation scare, this should not undermine the 12-month case for equity outperformance. The second key question is whether China has now abandoned its focus on deleveraging and switched to a 2016-style liquidity-driven stimulus. Certainly, the January total social financing number pointed in that direction, with new credit creation of almost 5 trillion RMB ($750 billion) and the first signs of an easing of restrictions on shadow banking (Chart 8). But the jury is still out on whether this is the massive reflation the market has been waiting for. Premier Li Keqiang criticized the increase, saying, “the increase in total social financing appears rather large…it may also bring new potential risks”. A PBOC official commented that the big increase was “due to seasonal factors” and emphasized that China was not embarking on “flood irrigation-style” stimulus. The recent more positive noises on the U.S./China trade war may also alleviate the pressure on China to stimulate. Chart 8First Signs Of Chinese Reflation? If and when Chinese growth does rebound, this will have major implications for asset allocation. It would signal a bottoming of the global cycle, which would favor stocks in Emerging Markets, Europe and Japan. It would push up commodity prices, and imply a weaker dollar. For now, we are not positioning ourselves like this, since global growth remains weak. Nonetheless, the first signs of a bottoming are appearing with, for example, the diffusion index of the global Leading Economic Index (which often leads the LEI itself) turning up (Chart 9). We may shift in this direction mid-year, and are now making some minor changes to our recommendations (see below) to hedge against this risk. But for the moment we prefer U.S. equities, expect further USD appreciation, and remain cautious on EM. Chart 9Is The LEI Close To Bottoming? Equities: We prefer U.S. equities given their better growth, reasonable valuations, and depressed sentiment (despite their outperformance year-to-date). But we are watching for an opportunity to increase our weighting in Europe, where growth still looks poor but may rebound in H2 due to fiscal stimulus, improving wage growth, a dovish turn by the ECB, and an eventual recovery in exports to China (Chart 10). We still see problems in EM, since earnings growth expectations need to be revised down further and stock prices have risen prematurely on expectations of a Chinese recovery (Chart 11). But we reduce the size of our underweight bet, to hedge against Chinese credit growth continuing to accelerate. We are also raising our recommendation for the industrials sector (with its large weight in capital goods companies dependent on exports to China) to overweight for the same reason. We fund this by cutting consumer staples to underweight. We also raise our weighting on the energy sector, given our positive view on oil prices (see below). This gives our sector weightings a slightly more cyclical tilt, in line with our macro view. Chart 10Some Good News In Europe Too Chart 11EM Has Further Downside Fixed Income: It has been a conundrum this year why equities have risen and credit spreads tightened significantly, but the 10-year Treasury yield remains stuck below 2.7%. One explanation is that inflation expectations have been dampened by the crude oil price and if, as we forecast, oil continues to recover, the inflation component of the yield will rise (Chart 12). U.S. yields have also been dragged down by weak growth in other developed markets, where bond yields have therefore fallen. The spread between U.S. and German and Japanese yields reached record high levels in late 2018 (Chart 13). The term premium also is deeply into negative territory because many investors remain highly bearish and have hedged this view by buying Treasuries. If our view of robust U.S. growth, rising inflation, and more Fed hikes is correct, we would see 10-year Treasury yields rising towards 3.5% over the next 12 months. Accordingly, we are underweight global government bonds. We raised credit to neutral last month, but continue to have some qualms about this asset class, and prefer equities as a way of taking exposure to further upside for risk assets. Besides high leverage among U.S. corporates, we are worried about the deterioration in the quality of the credit market, since duration has been extended, covenants weakened, and the average credit rating fallen (Chart 14). Chart 12Inflation Expectations Driven By Oil Chart 13U.S. Yields Pulled Down By Europe And Japan Chart 14Deterioration In Credit Market Fundamentals Currencies: We see some more upside in the U.S. dollar over the next few months, given U.S. growth and monetary policy relative to the euro area and Japan (Chart 15). This may reverse, however, if global cyclical growth rebounds in the second half. The dollar is particularly vulnerable if macro conditions change, since it looks around 10% overvalued relative to other major DM currencies, and speculative positions are predominantly long dollar (Chart 16). Chart 15Relative Rates Support USD Chart 16But Dollar Vulnerable To Macro Shifts Commodities: With demand likely to grow steadily this year, but supply under pressure because of production cuts by OPEC and Canada, lower U.S. shale oil output, and disruptions in Venezuela and elsewhere, our energy strategists see drawdowns in inventories throughout the year (Chart 17). They forecast Brent to average $75 a barrel during 2019 (compared to $66 now), with WTI $5 a barrel lower. Industrial commodities continue to be driven by China which means, given our view expressed above, that we may see further weakness short-term, with a possible rebound in H2 (Chart 18). Chart 17Oil Supply/Demand Is Tight Chart 18When Will Metal Prices Bottom? Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation