Style: Growth / Value
Highlights The latest “dot plot” from the Fed reaffirmed the FOMC’s intention to keep rates near zero for at least the next two years, despite evidence that the US economy will recover from the pandemic much faster than expected. The Fed’s reluctance to telegraph any rate hikes stems in part from its conviction that the neutral rate of interest has declined. A lower neutral rate implies that monetary policy may not be as accommodative as widely believed. Whereas Fed officials have argued that the neutral rate has fallen due to structural factors outside their control, critics insist that the Fed’s own actions have painted it into a corner. By cutting rates at every opportunity, so the argument goes, the Fed has inflated a massive asset bubble. Moreover, low rates have encouraged governments and the private sector to take on more debt. All this has locked the Fed into a low interest-rate trap: Any attempt to tighten monetary policy would cause asset prices to plunge and debt-servicing costs to rise. This would result in financial distress and rising unemployment – the exact two things the Fed wants to avoid. While we disagree with the view that easier monetary policy has made things worse, we do agree that elevated asset prices and high debt levels limit the Fed’s room for maneuver. In this week’s report, we contend that the low interest-rate trap will likely be resolved through an extended period of easy money, ultimately culminating in significantly higher inflation starting by the middle of this decade. Growth Dots Up, Rate Dots Not The FOMC released its latest Summary of Economic Projections (aka the “dot plot”) this week. As widely anticipated, the Fed upgraded its view on growth following the passage of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act. The Fed now expects real GDP to rise by 6.5% in the fourth quarter of 2021 from a year ago, up from its December 2020 estimate of 4.2%. The Fed also sees the unemployment rate falling to 4.5% by the fourth quarter of this year. Back in December, the Fed thought the unemployment rate would end this year at 5% (Chart 1). Chart 1The Fed Sees Faster Recovery, Same Rate Path Chart 2The Fed Has Been Lowering Its Estimate Of The Neutral Rate The Fed’s unemployment rate projection of 3.9% for 2022 is slightly below the “longer run” estimate of 4.0%. This suggests that the Fed believes the US will have reached full employment by the end of next year. Yet, despite the Fed’s sanguine view on the pace of the economic recovery, the median dot for the expected fed funds rate in 2023 remained at 0.1% (although seven members did pencil in a hike for that year, up from five last December). The median “longer run” dot stayed at 2.5%, with not a single Fed member putting in an estimate above 3%. The Fed regards this longer-run dot as its estimate of the neutral rate of interest – the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation. When the Fed introduced the “dots” back in early 2012, its estimate of the neutral rate stood at 4.3%. It has been trending lower ever since (Chart 2). Explanations For The Falling Neutral Rate What accounts for the steady decline in the Fed’s estimate of the neutral rate in recent years? Fed officials have generally argued that structural forces have dragged down the equilibrium interest rate for the economy. These forces include slower trend growth, an aging population, the shift to a capital-lite economy, high levels of overseas savings, and as we recently discussed, increased income inequality. There is another interpretation, however. Rather than casting the Fed as a helpless observer responding to structural forces beyond its control, some commentators have argued that the Fed’s own actions explain why rates are so chronically low today. By cutting interest rates at every opportunity, so the argument goes, the Fed has inflated a massive asset bubble, stretching from equities to commercial real estate to cryptocurrencies. Moreover, low rates have encouraged governments and the private sector to take on more debt. Chart 3The Correlation Between Swings In Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity All this has locked the Fed into a low interest-rate trap: Any attempt to tighten monetary policy would cause asset prices to plunge and debt-servicing costs to rise. This would result in financial distress and rising unemployment – the exact two things the Fed wants to avoid. The Fed Is Not The Culprit It is a provocative argument, but is the Fed really to blame? For the most part, the answer is “’no.” To see why, consider the counterfactual: Suppose the Fed did not cut rates. If rates had stayed elevated, the recovery in the cyclical sectors of the economy following the Global Financial Crisis would have been even slower. Housing, in particular, would have remained in the doldrums. Chart 3 shows that there is a strong correlation between housing activity and the 30-year mortgage rate. Lower home prices would have reduced spending via the wealth effect channel, while making it more difficult for banks to recapitalize their balance sheets. In addition, relatively high US rates would have put upward pressure on the dollar, leading to a larger trade deficit (Chart 4). All of this would have reduced aggregate demand. Chart 4The Dollar And The Trade Balance Chart 5Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening The share of national income flowing to workers tends to rise when the labor market tightens (Chart 5). A chronic shortfall in aggregate demand would have exacerbated income inequality. Since the poor spend more of every dollar of disposable income than the rich, this would have further dampened overall spending. The Fed has been like a doctor administering a life-saving medicine that comes with some notable side effects. These side effects include increased sensitivity of asset prices to changes in interest rates.1 They also include higher debt levels, at least in those sectors of the economy that had the ability to lever up in response to lower interest rates. Side Effect Triage How dangerous are these side effects? To the extent that today’s low policy rates stem from the fact that structural forces have depressed the neutral rate of interest, they are not especially dangerous at the moment. Yes, debt-servicing costs would balloon, and asset prices would tumble, if the Fed raised rates significantly. However, there’s no reason for the Fed to do that in a setting where the neutral rate is very low. The problem is that the neutral rate may rise over time. Baby boomers are leaving the labor force en masse. They accumulated a lot of wealth while working. According to the Federal Reserve, they currently own more than half of all US wealth (Chart 6). In fact, Americans over the age of 55 controlled 70% of household wealth as of the third quarter of 2020, up from 54% in 1989. As baby boomers retire, their consumption will no longer be backed by income. The resulting depletion of savings will push up the equilibrium rate of interest. Chart 6Baby Boomers Have Accumulated A Lot Of Wealth While US fiscal policy will tighten next year, it will remain highly pro-cyclical by historic standards. BCA’s geopolitical strategists expect Congress to pass a $4 trillion spending bill this fall focusing on infrastructure, health care, and clean energy. They anticipate that only half of the bill will be financed through higher taxes. Big budget deficits will drain private-sector savings. There Will Be Political Pressure To Keep Rates Low Debt is not a major problem for governments when the interest rate they pay is below the growth rate of the economy. As we have discussed before, when trend GDP growth exceeds the borrowing rate, the more debt a government carries, the more fiscal support it can provide without putting the debt-to-GDP ratio on a runaway trajectory. If interest rates were to rise meaningfully, however, what had previously been a virtuous fiscal circle would become a vicious one. Needless to say, governments would resist such an outcome. Faced with the prospect of having to reallocate tax revenue from social programs to bondholders, politicians would put political pressure on central banks to refrain from raising rates. Central banks would probably oblige, at least initially. By keeping interest rates below their equilibrium level, central banks could engineer higher inflation – something they have been striving to do for quite some time. Higher inflation, in turn, could pave the way for an exit from the low interest-rate trap. Rising prices would lift nominal GDP, thereby reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio. As inflation rose, real rates would fall. This would provide relief to overextended private-sector borrowers. Once enough debt had been inflated away, central banks could bring interest rates to their equilibrium level. In the end, bondholders would suffer while borrowers would prosper. This leads us to our key macroeconomic conclusion: Today’s low interest-rate trap will likely be resolved through an extended period of easy money, ultimately culminating in significantly higher inflation. Investment Implications Equities face some near-term risks stemming from the recent rise in bond yields. Nevertheless, as we have argued in past reports, stocks will shrug off their losses provided that bond yields do not rise to a level that chokes off economic growth. With the Fed still on hold, we do not expect that to happen anytime soon. As such, our best bet is that the Goldilocks environment for risk assets – where growth is strong, inflation is contained, and monetary policy is accommodative – will last another two years. Investors operating on a 12-month horizon should continue to favor stocks over bonds. Within the fixed-income category, investors should overweight spread product relative to safer government bonds. Value stocks will lead the equity market higher over the next 12 months. The pandemic benefited growth names, especially in the tech realm. The cessation of lockdown measures will favor value names. Not only is value still exceptionally cheap in relation to growth, but traditional value sectors such as banks and energy companies have seen stronger upward earnings revisions than tech stocks since the start of the year (Chart 7). Chart 7 Earnings Revisions And Valuations Favor Value Stocks (I) Chart 7Earnings Revisions And Valuations Favor Value Stocks (II) Recent upgrades to economic growth forecasts have favored the US, which could help the dollar in the near term. Nevertheless, we expect the greenback to fall modestly over a 12-month horizon. The US trade deficit has ballooned in recent quarters, while the dollar remains overvalued on a purchasing power parity basis (Chart 8). Despite improving US growth prospects, real yield differentials have not moved significantly in favor of the dollar (Chart 9). Chart 8The Dollar Is Expensive Based On Its PPP Fair Value And Growing Trade Deficit (I) Chart 8The Dollar Is Expensive Based On Its PPP Fair Value And Growing Trade Deficit (II) Chart 9Real Yield Differentials Have Not Moved Significantly In Favor Of The Dollar (I) Chart 9Real Yield Differentials Have Not Moved Significantly In Favor Of The Dollar (II) Moreover, the growth outlook outside the US should improve later this year as more countries ramp up their vaccination campaigns. US growth should also come down from its highs due to the expiration of various stimulus measures. Meanwhile, China will continue to stimulate its economy, albeit at a slower pace. Jing Sima, BCA’s chief China strategist, expects the rate of credit expansion to fall by only 2-to-3 percentage points in 2021. The general government deficit should remain broadly stable at 8% of GDP this year, ensuring adequate fiscal support for growth. A strong Chinese economy will bolster the RMB and other EM currencies. Looking further ahead, the cyclical bull market in stocks will end when inflation rises so high that central banks are forced to tighten monetary policy. While this is not a near-term risk, it is a major danger for the middle of the decade and beyond. As we discussed last week, inflation is often slow to rise in response to an overheated economy, but when it does rise, it can do so precipitously. Investors looking to hedge long-term inflation risk should reduce duration exposure in fixed-income portfolios while favoring inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds. In addition to gold, they should own some property. The best inflation hedge is simply to buy a nice house financed with a high loan-to-value fixed-rate mortgage. In a few decades you will still own the nice house, but the value of the mortgage will be greatly reduced in real terms. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For example, suppose the earnings yield is 4% – as it approximately is now for global equities – and the real bond yield is zero, implying an equity risk premium (ERP) of 4%. A one percentage-point increase in real bond yields would require that stock prices fall by 20% in order to keep the ERP unchanged (e.g., the earnings yield would have to rise from 4/100=4% to 4/80=5%). In contrast, if the earnings yield were initially 7% and the real bond yield were 3%, stock prices would need to fall by only 12.5%, taking the earnings yield from 7/100=7% to 7/87.5=8%. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Highlights The recent backup in bond yields could cause stocks to fall further in the near term. However, history suggests that as long as yields remain low in absolute terms, as they are now, equities will recover. Market angst that the Fed is about to turn more hawkish is unwarranted. Central banks around the world have both the tools and the inclination to keep bond yields from rising excessively. Despite the jump in bond yields, the forward earnings yield is 540 basis points above the real bond yield in the US. Outside the US, the forward earnings yield is 615 basis points above the real bond yield. In 2000, the earnings yield was below the real bond yield. Just as value stocks began to outperform growth stocks in mid-2000, the end of the pandemic will herald a similar period of value-oriented outperformance. Commodity producers and banks will lead the way. Some Parallels Between Today And 2000… Stock prices have buckled in recent weeks, raising concerns that global bourses are at risk of a major crash, just like they were in early 2000. There are certainly some notable similarities between 2000 and the present: In both cases, the preceding rise in stock prices was fueled by the Federal Reserve’s desire to prevent an exogenous shock from causing a major recession (Chart 1). Last year, the shock was the pandemic. In 1998, it was the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM). The Connecticut-based hedge fund imploded shortly after Russia defaulted on its debt, leading to a gut-wrenching 22% decline in the S&P 500. The brewing crisis prompted the Fed to cut rates by a total of 75 basis points. Spurred on by fears of Y2K, the Fed also injected vast amounts of liquidity into the financial system. Tech stocks led the market higher both in the late 1990s and last year. The NASDAQ Composite rose 68% between its intra-day low in October 1998 and March 2000. In 2020, the NASDAQ outperformed the S&P 500 by 24% and returned 44% overall. Chart 1The NASDAQ's 1999 Surge Followed The 1998 “Insurance Cuts” And Coincided With The Fed’s Balance-Sheet Expansion Chart 2Low-Priced Stocks Have Been The Winners In The First Quarter The speculative mania in the 1990s spread from large-cap tech stocks to small-cap companies. We saw the same pattern earlier this year, with prices and trading volumes exploding among smaller, low-priced stocks (Chart 2). As was the case in the late 1990s, retail investors – this time armed with “stimmy” checks and access to zero-commission trading accounts – plowed into the market. Chart 3Some Pockets Of Bullish Equity Sentiment Chart 4Some Pockets Of Bullish Equity Sentiment Bullish equity investor sentiment was rampant at the peak of the stock market in 2000. Although not quite to the same extent as back then, most measures of investor sentiment turned bullish prior to the recent selloff (Chart 3). Like most investors, analysts were wildly optimistic on stocks in the late 1990s (Chart 4). Long-term earnings growth projections are very optimistic today, a potentially ominous signal given that (unlike in the late 1990s), productivity growth is now more anemic. Rising stock prices in the late 1990s allowed corporate insiders to cash in their options, while enabling new companies to go public. Recently, we have seen a flurry of companies list their shares, in some cases through dubious SPAC vehicles (Chart 5). Valuations reached nosebleed levels in 2000. While the forward P/E ratio on the S&P 500 is somewhat below its 2000 peak, other valuation measures such as price-to-sales, Tobin’s Q, and enterprise value-to-EBITDA are above where they were in 2000 (Chart 6). Chart 5Renewed Interest In Listing Stocks Chart 6Stretched Valuations, Then And Now … But One Important Difference Despite the parallels between today and 2000, there is an important difference: The Federal Reserve. Having cut rates in 1998, the Fed reversed course in mid-1999, eventually taking the fed funds rate up to 6.5% in May 2000. The yield curve inverted in February of that year, shortly after the 10-year yield reached a high of 6.79%. Chart 7What Happens To Equities When Treasury Yields Rise? Bond yields have risen briskly over the past six months. However, they remain very low in absolute terms. While rising yields can produce a temporary stock market correction, they need to move into restrictive territory in order to trigger a recession and an accompanying bear market in equities. Chart 7 highlights some research that Garry Evans and BCA’s Global Asset Allocation team recently produced. It shows eight episodes since 1990 of a sharp rise in the 10-year Treasury yield. On every occasion (except in 1993-94, when the Fed unexpectedly raised rates in February 1994), equities performed strongly while rates were rising (Table 1). Today, the forward earnings yield on the S&P 500 is 540 basis points above the real yield. In 2000, the real bond yield was higher than the earnings yield (Chart 8). The gap between earnings yields and real bond yields is even greater outside the US, where valuations are generally more attractive. By the same token, the S&P 500 dividend yield was well below the bond yield in 2000. Today, they are roughly the same. Even if one were to pessimistically assume that US companies are unable to raise nominal dividend payments at all for the next decade, the S&P 500 would need to fall by 21% in real terms for equities to underperform bonds. Many other stock markets would have to decline by more than that (Chart 9). Table 1As Long As Bond Yields Don't Rise Into Restrictive Territory, Stocks Will Recover Chart 8Relative To Bonds, Stocks Are More Favorably Valued Now Than in 2000 Chart 9Stocks Would Need To Fall A Lot For Equities To Underperform Bonds Central Banks Will Lean Against Rising Bond Yields Stocks sold off earlier today on the perception that Jay Powell had failed to push back forcefully against the recent increase in bond yields. We think this angst is unwarranted. As Powell noted, most of the rise in bond yields reflected economic optimism. If yields were to continue rising in the absence of further economic improvements, the Fed would dial up the rhetoric, stressing its ability to buy bonds in unlimited quantities in order to support the economy. Despite all the fiscal stimulus, the unemployment rate remains elevated – perhaps as high as 10% according to some Fed measures. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio is four percentage points below where it was before the pandemic (Chart 10). Moreover, many stimulus measures will expire towards the end of the year. With the prospect of a “fiscal cliff” in 2022, we expect the Fed to want to tread carefully in withdrawing monetary support. What would really rattle investors is if long-term inflation expectations were to rise above the Fed’s comfort zone. However, considering the 5-year/5-year forward inflation breakevens are still below where they were in 2012-13, this is not an imminent risk (Chart 11). Chart 10The Fed Will Remain Accommodative To Aid The Labor Market Recovery Chart 11Inflation Expectations Have Recovered But Are Still Low Like the Fed, the ECB wants to keep financial conditions highly accommodative. On Tuesday, ECB Executive Board member Fabio Panetta, echoing comments made by other senior ECB officials, said that higher yields were “unwelcome and must be resisted.” He noted that “We are already seeing undesirable contagion from rising US yields into the euro area yield curve,” adding that the ECB “should not hesitate” to increase the pace of bond purchases. The ECB’s threat is credible. Already, its purchases have deviated significantly from its capital key, revealing Frankfurt’s willingness to act where and when it is needed. In the same spirit, the Reserve Bank of Australia boosted its government bond purchases earlier this week after the 10-year yield backed up from 0.7% last October to over 1.9% late last week. The RBA also reaffirmed its intent to maintain the current 3-year Yield Curve Control target at 0.1%, stating that “The Board will not increase the cash rate until actual inflation is sustainably within the 2-to-3 percent target range. For this to occur, wages growth will have to be materially higher than it is currently. This will require significant gains in employment and a return to a tight labour market. The Board does not expect these conditions to be met until 2024 at the earliest.” The RBA’s determination to keep bond yields down is noteworthy given that the neutral rate of interest is higher in Australia than in most other developed economies.1 If the RBA does not intend to raise rates for the next three years, it may take even longer for other central banks to take away the punch bowl. Will Value Stocks Begin To Outperform As They Did Starting In Mid-2000? There is another potential parallel with 2000 that is worth mentioning. This was the year that the outperformance of growth stocks came to a halt and value stocks began to shine. In fact, outside of the tech sector, the S&P 500 did not peak until May 2001 (Chart 12). Value continued to outperform right through to 2007. Since February 12th of this year, the price of the highly liquid Vanguard Growth ETF (VUG, market cap of $143 billion) has fallen by 8.9% while the price of the Vanguard Value ETF (VTV, market cap of $97 billion) has risen 0.5%. Despite the nascent outperformance of value names, they still remain relatively cheap. According to a simple valuation measure that combines price-to-earnings, price-to-book, and dividend yields, value stocks are more than three standard deviations cheap relative to growth stocks – a bigger valuation gap than seen at the height of the dotcom bubble (Chart 13). Chart 12The Non-Tech Portion Of The Stock Market Peaked More Than A Year After The Tech Bubble Burst Chart 13The Tech Bust Of 2000 Also Marked The Start Of A Multi-Year Outperformance By Value The Outlook For Commodity Stocks And Bank Shares Commodity producers are overrepresented in value indices. Strong global growth against a backdrop of tight supply should heat up the commodity complex over the next 12-to-18 months. Chart 14 shows that capital investment in the oil and gas sector has fallen by more than 50% since 2014. BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy service, led by Robert Ryan, expects crude oil demand to outstrip supply over the remainder of this year (Chart 15). Chart 14Oil + Gas Capex Collapses In COVID-19’s Wake Chart 15Crude Oil Demand To Outstrip Supply Over The Remainder Of This Year A physical deficit in the metals markets – particularly for copper and aluminum – should also persist this year (Charts 16A & 16B). While the boom in electric vehicle (EV) production represents a long-term threat to oil, it is manna from heaven for many metals. A battery-powered EV can contain more than 180 pounds of copper compared with 50 pounds for conventional autos. By 2030, the demand from EVs alone should amount to close to 4mm tonnes of copper per year, a big slug of demand in a market that consumes about 26mm tonnes per year. Chart 16ACopper Will Be In Physical Deficit... Chart 16B...As Will Aluminum Ongoing strong demand for metals from China should also buoy metals prices. While trend GDP growth in China has slowed, the economy is much bigger than it was in the 2000s. China’s annual aggregate consumption of metals is five times as high as it was back then. The incremental increase in China’s metal consumption, as measured by the volume of commodities consumed, is also double what it was 20 years ago (Chart 17). As we discussed in our report To Deleverage Its Economy, China Needs MORE Debt, the Chinese government has no choice but to continue to recycle persistently elevated household savings into commodity-intensive capital investment. This will ensure ample commodity demand from China for years to come. Chart 17China Keeps Buying More And More Commodities Chart 18Credit Growth Has Been Recovering Along with commodity producers, financials helped propel value indices during the 2000s. While credit growth is unlikely to revert to its pre-GFC days, it has been trending higher in both the US and Europe (Chart 18). Analysts are starting to take note of improving bank earnings prospects. EPS estimates for banks are rising more quickly than for tech companies on both sides of the Atlantic (Chart 19). Not only is the “E” in the P/E ratio for banks likely to rise, the ratio itself will increase. Currently, US and European banks are trading at 14 and 10-times forward earnings, respectively, a huge discount to the broad market in general, and tech stocks in particular (Chart 20). Chart 19EPS Estimates For Banks Are Rising More Quickly Than For Tech Companies (I) Chart 19EPS Estimates For Banks Are Rising More Quickly Than For Tech Companies (II) Chart 20Banks Are Cheap Bottom Line: Despite near-term uncertainty, investors should overweight stocks on a 12-month horizon, while pivoting away from last year’s winners (growth stocks) towards last year’s losers (value stocks). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 According to RBA’s estimates, the neutral rate of interest in Australia is at the high end of developed market estimates. Specifically, Australia’s R-star is higher than the average of the US and euro area R-stars and is slightly lower than the average of the Canadian and UK neutral rates. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Dear Client, In addition to this week’s abbreviated report, we are sending you a Special Report on Bitcoin. I don’t recommend you buy it. Best regards, Peter Berezin Highlights Real government bond yields have increased in recent weeks, which could put further downward pressure on equity prices in the near term. Nevertheless, we continue to advocate overweighting equities over a 12-month horizon. Historically, rising real yields have been most toxic for stocks when yields have increased in response to hawkish central bank rhetoric. This is manifestly not the case today. The Fed’s accommodative stance should limit any near-term upward pressure on the US dollar. Investors should favor cyclical and value-oriented stocks over defensive and growth-geared plays. Higher Real Yields: A Near-Term Risk For Stocks Chart 1Government Bond Yields Have Increased Since Bottoming Last Year Bond yields have jumped in recent weeks. After bottoming at 0.52% in August, the US 10-year Treasury yield has climbed to 1.54%, up from 0.93% at the beginning of the year. Government bond yields in the other major economies have also risen (Chart 1). While inflation expectations have bounced, the most recent increase in yields has been concentrated in the real component of bond yields (Chart 2). Optimism about a vaccine-led global growth recovery, reinforced by continued fiscal stimulus – especially in the US – has prompted investors to move forward their expectations of how soon and how high policy rates will rise (Chart 3). Chart 2AThe Real Component Has Fueled The Most Recent Rise In Bond Yields (I) Chart 2BThe Real Component Has Fueled The Most Recent Rise In Bond Yields (II) How menacing is the increase in bond yields to stock market investors? Chart 4 shows that there has been a close correlation between real yields and the forward P/E ratio at which the S&P 500 trades. The 5-year/5-year forward real yield, in particular, has moved up sharply, which could put further downward pressure on stocks in the near term. Chart 3Path Of Expected Policy Rates Being Revised Upwards Chart 4Rise In Real Rates Is A Headwind For Equity Valuations Nevertheless, we continue to advocate overweighting equities over a 12-month horizon. As we pointed out two weeks ago, rising real yields have historically been most toxic for stocks when yields have increased in response to hawkish central bank rhetoric. This is manifestly not the case today. In his testimony to Congress this week, Jay Powell downplayed inflation risks, stressing that the US economy was “a long way” from the Fed’s goals. He pledged to tread “carefully and patiently” and give “a lot of advance warning” before beginning the process of normalizing monetary policy. We expect the 10-year Treasury yield to stabilize in the 1.6%-to-1.7% range, still well below the level that would threaten the health of the economy. Favor Cyclical And Value-Oriented Stocks In A Weaker Dollar Environment The Fed’s accommodative stance should limit any near-term upward pressure on the US dollar. Whereas stocks are most sensitive to absolute changes in long-term real bond yields, the dollar is more sensitive to changes in short-term real rate differentials with US trading partners (Chart 5). Since the Fed is unlikely to tighten monetary policy anytime soon, US short-term real rates could fall further as inflation rises. Chart 5The Dollar Is Sensitive To Changes In Short-Term Real Rate Differentials Chart 6Cyclical Stocks Tend To Benefit The Most From Stronger Global Growth And A Weaker Dollar Cyclical stocks, which are overrepresented outside the US, tend to benefit the most from strengthening global growth and a weakening dollar (Chart 6). Value stocks also generally do well in a weak dollar-strong growth environment (Chart 7). Moreover, bank shares – which are concentrated in value indices – typically outperform when long-term bond yields are rising (Chart 8). Chart 7AA Weaker US Dollar And Stronger Global Growth Should Help Value Stocks (I) Chart 7BA Weaker US Dollar And Stronger Global Growth Should Help Value Stocks (II) Chart 8Bank Shares Typically Excel When Long-Term Bond Yields Are Rising In contrast, as relatively long-duration assets, growth stocks often struggle when bond yields go up. The same is true for more speculative plays such as cryptocurrencies. In this week’s Special Report, we discuss the fate of Bitcoin, arguing that investors should resist buying it. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Highlights Market-based geopolitical analysis is about identifying upside as well as downside risk. So far this year upside risks include vaccine efficacy, coordinated monetary and fiscal stimulus, China’s avoidance of over-tightening policy, and Europe’s stable political dynamics. Downside risks include vaccine rollout problems, excessive US stimulus, a Chinese policy mistake, and traditional geopolitical risks in the Taiwan Strait and Persian Gulf. Financial markets may see more turmoil in the near-term over rising bond yields and the dollar bounce. But the macro backdrop is still supportive for this year. We are initiating and reinitiating a handful of trades: EM currencies ex-Brazil/Turkey/Philippines, the BCA rare earth basket, DM-ex-US, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership markets, and global value plays. Feature Chart 1Bond Yield Spike Threatens Markets In Near Term Investors hear a lot about geopolitical risk but the implication is always “downside risk.” What about upside risks? Where are politics and geopolitics creating buying opportunities? So far this year, on the positive side, the US fiscal stimulus is overshooting, China is likely to avoid overtightening policy, and Europe’s political dynamics are positive. However, global equity markets are euphoric and much of the good news is priced in. On the negative side, the US stimulus is probably too large. The output gap will be more than closed by the Biden administration’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan yet the Democrats will likely pass a second major bill later this year with a similar amount of net spending, albeit over a longer period of time and including tax hikes. The countertrend bounce in the dollar and rising government bond yields threaten the US and global equity market with a near-term correction. The global stock-to-bond ratio has gone vertical (Chart 1). Meanwhile Biden faces immediate foreign policy tests in the Taiwan Strait and Persian Gulf. These two are traditional geopolitical risks that are once again underrated by investors. The near term is likely to be difficult for investors to navigate. Sentiment is ebullient and likely to suffer some disappointments. In this report we highlight a handful of geopolitical opportunities and offer some new investment recommendations to capitalize on them. Go Long Japan And Stay Long South Korea China’s stimulus and recovery matched by global stimulus and recovery have led to an explosive rise in industrial metals and other China-sensitive assets such as Swedish stocks and the Australian dollar that go into our “China Play Index” (Chart 2). Chart 2China Plays Looking Stretched (For Now) While a near-term pullback in these assets looks likely, tight global supplies will keep prices well-bid. Moreover long-term strategic investment plans by China and the EU to accelerate the technology race and renewable energy are now being joined by American investment plans, a cornerstone of Joe Biden’s emerging national policy program. We are long silver and would buy metals on the dips. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “new era” policies will be further entrenched at the March National People’s Congress with the fourteenth five-year plan for 2021-25 and Xi’s longer vision for 2035. These policies aim to guide the country through its economic transition from export-manufacturing to domestic demand. They fundamentally favor state-owned enterprises, which are an increasingly necessary tool for the state to control aggregate demand as potential GDP growth declines, while punishing large state-run commercial banks, which are required to serve quasi-fiscal functions and swallow the costs of the transition (Chart 3). Xi Jinping’s decision to promote “dual circulation,” which is fundamentally a turn away from Deng Xiaoping’s opening up and liberal reform to a more self-sufficient policy of import substitution and indigenous innovation, will clash with the Biden administration, which has already flagged China as the US’s “most serious competitor” and is simultaneously seeking to move its supply chains out of China for critical technological, defense, and health goods. Chart 3Xi Jinping Leans On The Banks To Save The SOEs Chinese political and geopolitical risks are almost entirely priced out of the market, according to our GeoRisk Indicator, leaving Chinese equities exposed to further downside (Chart 4). Hong Kong equities have traded in line with GeoRisk Indicator for China, which suggests that they also have downside as the market prices in a rising risk premium due to the US’s attempt to galvanize its allies in a great circumvention of China’s economy in the name of democracy versus autocracy. Chart 4China/HK Political Risk Priced Out Of Market China has hinted that it will curtail rare earth element exports to the US if the US goes forward with a technological blockade. Biden’s approach, however, is more defensive rather than offensive – focusing on building up domestic and allied semiconductor and supply chain capacity rather than de-sourcing China. President Trump’s restrictions can be rolled back for US designed or manufactured tech goods that are outdated or strictly commercial. Biden will draw the line against American parts going into the People’s Liberation Army. Biden has a chance in March to ease the Commerce Department’s rules implementing Trump’s strictures on Chinese software apps in US markets as a gesture of engagement. Supply constraints and shortages cannot be solved quickly in either semiconductors or rare earths. But both China and the US can circumvent export controls by importing through third parties. The problem for China is that it is easier for the US to start pulling rare earths from the ground than it is for China to make a great leap forward in semiconductor production. Given the US’s reawakening to the need for a domestic industrial policy, strategic public investments, and secure supply chains, we are reinitiating our long rare earth trade, using the BCA rare earth basket, which features producers based outside of China (Chart 5). The renminbi is starting to rolling over, having reached near to the ceiling that it touched in 2017 after Trump’s arrival. There are various factors that drive the currency and there are good macro reasons for the currency to have appreciated in 2016-17 and 2020-21 due to strong government fiscal and monetary reflation. Nevertheless the People’s Bank allowed the currency to appreciate extensively at the beginning of both Trump’s and Biden’s terms and the currency’s momentum is slowing as it nears the 2017 ceiling. We are reluctant to believe the renminbi will go higher as China will not want to overtighten domestic policy but will want to build some leverage against Biden for the forthcoming strategic and economic dialogues. For mainland-dedicated investors we recommend holding Chinese bonds but for international investors we would highlight the likelihood that the renminbi has peaked and geopolitical risk will escalate. There is no substantial change on geopolitical risk in the Taiwan Strait since we wrote about it recently. A full-scale war is a low-probability risk. Much more likely is a diplomatic crisis – a showdown between the US and China over Taiwan’s ability to export tech to the mainland and the level of American support for Taiwan – and potentially a testing of Biden’s will on the cybersecurity, economic security, or maritime security of Taiwan. While it would make sense to stay long emerging markets excluding Taiwan, there is not an attractive profile for staying long emerging markets excluding all of Greater China. Therefore investors who are forced to choose should overweight China relative to Taiwan (Chart 6). Chart 5Rare Earth Miners Outside China Can Go Higher Market forces have only begun to register the fact that Taiwan is the epicenter of geopolitical risk in the twenty-first century. The bottleneck for semiconductors and Taiwan’s role as middleman in the trade war have supported Taiwanese stocks. It will take a long time for China, the US, and Europe to develop alternative suppliers for chips. But geopolitical pressures will occasionally spike and when they do Taiwanese equities will plunge (Chart 7). Chart 6EM Investors Need Either China Or Taiwan ... Taiwan Most At Risk South Korean geopolitical risk is also beneath the radar, though stocks have corrected recently and emerging market investors should generally favor Korea, especially over Taiwan. The first risk to Korea is that the US will apply more pressure on Seoul to join allied supply chains and exclude shipments of sensitive goods to China. The second risk is that North Korea – which Biden is deliberately ignoring in his opening speeches – will demand America’s attention through a new series of provocations that will have to be rebuked with credible threats of military force. Chart 7Markets Starting To Price Taiwan Strait Geopolitical Risk Chart 8South Korea Favored In EM But Still Faces Risks Over Chips, The North Chart 9Don't Worry About Japan's Revolving Door The North Korean risk is usually very fleeting for financial markets. The tech risk is more serious but the Biden administration is not seeking to force South Korea to stop trading with China, at least not yet. The US would need to launch a robust, multi-year diplomatic effort to strong-arm its allies and partners into enforcing a chip and tech ban on China. Such an effort would generate a lot of light and heat – shuttle diplomacy, leaks to the press, and public disagreements and posturing. Until this starts to occur, US export controls will be a concern but not an existential threat to South Korea (Chart 8). Japan is the geopolitical winner in Asia Pacific. Japan is militarily secure, has a mutual defense treaty with the US, and stands to benefit from the recovery in global trade and growth. Japan is a beneficiary of a US-driven tech shift away from excess dependency on China and is heavily invested in Southeast Asia, which stands to pick up manufacturing share. Higher bond yields and inflation expectations will detract from growth stocks more than value stocks, and value stocks have a larger market-cap weight in European and Japanese equity markets. Japanese politics are not a significant risk despite a looming election. While Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga is unpopular and likely to revive the long tradition of a “revolving door” of short-lived prime ministers, and while the Liberal Democratic Party will lose the super-majorities it held under Shinzo Abe, nevertheless the party remains dominant and the national policy consensus is behind Abe’s platform of pro-growth reforms, coordinated dovish monetary and fiscal policy, and greater openness to trade and immigration (Chart 9). Favor EU And UK Over Russia And Eastern Europe Russian geopolitical risk appears to be rolling over according to our indicator but we disagree with the market’s assessment and expect it to escalate again soon (Chart 10). Not only will Russian social unrest continue to escalate but also the Biden administration will put greater pressure on Russia that will keep foreign investors wary. Chart 10Russia Geopolitical Risk Will Not Roll Over While geopolitics thus poses a risk to Russian equities – which are fairly well correlated (inversely) with our GeoRisk indicator – nevertheless they are already cheap and stand to benefit from the rise in global commodity prices and liquidity. Russia is also easing fiscal policy to try to quiet domestic unrest. The pound and the euro today are higher against the ruble than at any time since the invasion of Ukraine. It is possible that Russia will opt for outward aggressiveness amidst domestic discontent, a weak and relapsing approval rating for Vladimir Putin and his government, and the Biden administration’s avowed intention to prioritize democracy promotion, including in Ukraine and Belarus (Chart 11). The ruble will fall on US punitive actions but ultimately there is limited downside, at least as long as the commodity upcycle continues. Chart 11Ruble Can Fall But Probably Not Far Biden stated in his second major foreign policy speech, “we will not hesitate to raise the cost on Russia.” There are two areas where the Biden administration could surprise financial markets: pipelines and Russian bonds. Biden could suddenly adopt a hard line on the Nordstream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany, preventing it from completion. This would require Biden to ask the Germans to put their money where their mouths are when it comes to trans-Atlantic solidarity. Biden is keen to restore relations with Germany, and is halting the withdrawal of US troops from there, but pressuring Germany on Russia is possible given that it lies in the US interest and Biden has vowed to push back against Russia’s aggressive regional actions and interference in American affairs. The US imposed sanctions on Russian “Eurobonds” under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (CBW Act) in the wake of Russia’s poisoning of secret agent Sergei Skripal in the UK in 2018. Non-ruble bank loans and non-ruble-denominated Russian bonds in primary markets were penalized, which at the time accounted for about 23% of Russian sovereign bonds. This left ruble-denominated sovereign bonds to be sold along with non-ruble bonds in secondary markets. The Biden administration views Russia’s poisoning of opposition leader Alexei Navalny as a similar infraction and will likely retaliate. The Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act is not yet law but passed through a Senate committee vote in 2019 and proposed to halt most purchases of Russian sovereign debt and broaden sanctions on energy projects and Kremlin officials. Biden is also eager to retaliate for the large SolarWinds hack that Russia is accused of conducting throughout 2020. Cybersecurity stocks are an obvious geopolitical trade in contemporary times. Authoritarian nations have benefited from the use of cyber attacks, disinformation, and other asymmetric warfare tactics. The US has shown that it does not have the appetite to fight small wars, like over Ukraine or the South China Sea, whereas the US remains untested on the question of major wars. This incentivize incremental aggression and actions with plausible deniability like cyber. Therefore the huge run-up in cyber stocks is well-supported and will continue. The world’s growing dependency on technology during the pandemic lockdowns heightened the need for cybersecurity measures but the COVID winners are giving way to COVID losers as the pandemic subsides and normal economic activity resumes. Traditional defense stocks stand to benefit relative to cyber stocks as the secular trend of struggle among the Great Powers continues (Chart 12). Specifically a new cycle of territorial competition will revive military tensions as commodity prices rise. Chart 12Back To Work' Trade: Long Defense Versus Cyber By contrast with Russia, western Europe is a prime beneficiary of the current environment. Like Japan, Europe is an industrial, trade-surplus economy that benefits from global trade and growth. It benefits as the geopolitical middleman between the US and its rivals, China and Russia, especially as long as the Biden administration pursues consultation and multilateralism and hesitates to force the Europeans into confrontational postures against these powers. Chart 13Political Risk Still Subsiding In Continental Europe Meanwhile Russia and especially China need to court Europe now that the Biden administration is using diplomacy to try to galvanize a western bloc. China looks to substitute European goods for American goods and open up its market to European investors to reduce European complaints of protectionism. European domestic politics will become more interesting over the coming year, with German and French elections, but the risks are low. The rise of a centrist coalition in Italy under Mario Draghi highlights how overstated European political risk really is. In the Netherlands, Mark Rutte’s center-right party is expected to remain in power in March elections based on opinion polling, despite serious corruption scandals and COVID blowback. In Germany, Angela Merkel’s center-right party is also favored, and yet an upset would energize financial markets because it would result in a more fiscally accommodative and pro-EU policy (Chart 13). The takeaway is that there is limit to how far emerging European countries can outperform developed Europe, given the immediate geopolitical risk emanating from Russia that can spill over into eastern Europe (Chart 14). Developed European stocks are at peak levels, comparable to the period of Ukraine’s election, but Ukraine is about to heat up again as a battleground between Russia and the West, as will other peripheral states. Chart 14Favor DM Europe Over EM Europe Chart 15GBP: Watch For Scottish Risk Revival In May Finally, in the UK, the pound continues to surge in the wake of the settlement of a post-Brexit trade deal, notwithstanding lingering disagreements over vaccines, financial services, and other technicalities. British equities are a value play that can make up lost ground from the tumultuous Brexit years. There is potentially one more episode of instability, however, arising from the unfinished business in Scotland, where the Scottish National Party wants to convert any victory in parliamentary elections in May into a second push for a referendum on national independence. At the moment public opinion polls suggest that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s achievement of an EU trade deal has taken the wind out of the sails of the independence movement but only the election will tell whether this political risk will continue to fall in the near term (Chart 15). Hence the pound’s rally could be curtailed in the near term but unless Scottish opinion changes direction the pound and UK domestic-oriented stocks will perform well. Short EM Strongmen Throughout the emerging world the rise of the “Misery Index” – unemployment combined with inflation – poses a persistent danger of social and political instability that will rise, not fall, in the coming years. The aftermath of the COVID crisis will be rocky once stimulus measures wane. South Africa, Turkey, and Brazil look the worst on these measures but India and Russia are also vulnerable (Chart 16). Brazilian geopolitical risk under the turbulent administration of President Jair Bolsonaro has returned to the 2015-16 peaks witnessed during the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff amid the harsh recession of the middle of the last decade. Brazilian equities are nearing a triple bottom, which could present a buying opportunity but not before the current political crisis over fiscal policy exacts a toll on the currency and stock market (Chart 17). Chart 16EM Political Risk Will Bring Bad Surprises Chart 17Brazil Risk Hits Impeachment Peaks On Bolso Fiscal Populism Bolsonaro’s signature pension reform was an unpopular measure whose benefits were devastated by the pandemic. The return to fiscal largesse in the face of the crisis boosted Bolsonaro’s support and convinced him to abandon the pretense of austere reformer in favor of traditional Brazilian fiscal populist as the 2022 election approaches. His attempt to violate the country’s fiscal rule – a constitutional provision passed in December 2016 that imposes a 20-year cap on public spending growth – that limits budget deficits is precipitating a shakeup within the ruling coalition. Our Emerging Market Strategists believe the Central Bank of Brazil will hike interest rates to offset the inflationary impact of breaking the fiscal cap but that the hikes will likely fall short, prompting a bond selloff and renewed fears of a public debt crisis. The country’s political crisis will escalate in the lead up to elections, not unlike what occurred in the US, raising the odds of other negative political surprises. Chart 18Reinitiate Long Mexico / Short Brazil While Latin America as a whole is a shambles, the global cyclical upturn and shift in American policy creates investment opportunities – particularly for Mexico, at least within the region. Investors should continue to prefer Mexican equities over Brazilian given Mexico’s fundamentally more stable economic policy backdrop and its proximity to the American economy, which will be supercharged with stimulus and eager to find ways to use its new trade deal with Mexico to diversify its manufacturing suppliers away from China (Chart 18). In addition to Brazil, Turkey and the Philippines are also markets where “strongman leaders” and populism have undercut economic orthodoxy and currency stability. A basket of emerging market currencies that excludes these three witnessed a major bottom in 2014-16, when Turkish and Brazilian political instability erupted and when President Rodrigo Duterte stormed the stage in the Philippines. These three currencies look to continue underperforming given that political dynamics will worsen ahead of elections in 2022 (possibly 2023 for Turkey) (Chart 19). Chart 19Keep Shorting The Strongmen Investment Takeaways We closed out some “risk-on” trades at the end of January – admittedly too soon – and since then have hedged our pro-cyclical strategic portfolio with safe-haven assets, while continuing to add risk-on trades where appropriate. The Biden administration still faces one or more major foreign policy tests that can prove disruptive, particularly to Taiwanese, Chinese, Russian, and Saudi stocks. Biden’s foreign policy doctrine will be established in the crucible of experience but his preferences are known to favor diplomacy, democracy over autocracy, and to pursue alliances as a means of diversifying supply chains away from China. We will therefore look favorably upon the members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and recommend investors reinitiate the long CPTPP equities basket. These countries, which include emerging markets with decent governance as well as Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada all stand to benefit from the global upswing and US foreign policy (Chart 20). Chart 20Reinitiate Long Trans-Pacific Partnership Chart 21Reinitiate Long Global Value Over Growth The Biden administration will likely try to rejoin the CPTPP but even if it fails to do so it will privilege relations with these countries as it strives to counter China and Russia. The UK, South Korea, Thailand and others could join the CPTPP over time – though an attempt to recruit Taiwan would exacerbate the geopolitical risks highlighted above centered on Taiwan. The dollar is perking up, adding a near-term headwind to global equities, but the cyclical trend for the dollar is still down due to extreme monetary and fiscal dovishness. Tactically, go long Mexican equities over Brazilian equities. From a strategic point of view we still favor value stocks over growth stocks and recommend investors reinitiate this global trade (Chart 21). Strategically, wait to overweight UK stocks in a global portfolio until the result of the May local elections is known and the risk of Scottish independence can be reassessed. Strategically, favor developed Europe over emerging Europe stocks as a result of Russian geopolitical risks that are set to escalate. Strategically go long global defense stocks versus cyber security stocks as a geopolitical “back to work” trade for a time when economic activity resumes and resource-oriented territorial, kinetic, military risks reawaken. Strategically, favor EM currencies other than Brazil, Turkey, and the Philippines to minimize exposure to economic populism, poor macro fundamentals, and election risk. Strategically, go long the BCA Rare Earths Basket to capture persistent US-China tensions under Biden and the search for alternatives to China. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com We Read (And Liked) … Supply-Side Structural Reform Supply-Side Structural Reform, a compilation of Chinese economic and policy research, discusses several aspects of Chinese economic reform as it is practiced under the Xi Jinping administration, spanning the meaning and importance of supply-side structural reform in China as well as five major tasks.1 The book consists of contributions by Chinese scholars, financial analysts, and opinion makers in 2015, so we have learned a lot since it was published, even as it sheds light on Beijing’s interpretation of reform. 2015 was a year of financial turmoil that saw a dramatic setback for China’s 2013 liberal reform blueprint. It also saw the launch of a new round of reforms under the thirteenth Five Year Plan (2016-20), which aimed to push China further down the transition from export-manufacturing to domestic and consumer-led growth. Beijing’s renewed reform push in 2017, which included a now infamous “deleveraging campaign,” ultimately led to a global slowdown in 2018-19 that was fatefully exacerbated by the trade war with the United States – only to be eclipsed by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Built on fundamental economic theory and the social background of China, the book’s authors examine the impact of supply-side reform on the Chinese financial sector, industrial sector, and macroeconomic development. The comprehensive analysis covers short-term, mid-term and long-term effects. From the perspective of economic theory, there is consensus that China's supply-side structural reform framework did not forsake government support for the demand side of the economy, nor was it synonymous with traditional, liberal supply-side economics in the Western world. In contrast to Say’s Law, Reaganomics, and the UK’s Thatcherite privatization reforms, China's supply-side reform was concentrated on five tasks specific to its contemporary situation: cutting excessive industrial capacity, de-stocking, deleveraging, cutting corporate costs, and improving various structural “weaknesses.” The motives behind the new framework were to enhance the mobility and efficiency of productive factors, eliminate excess capacity, and balance effective supply with effective demand. Basically, if China cannot improve efficiencies, capital will be misallocated, corporations will operate at a loss, and the economy’s potential will worsen over the long run. The debt buildup will accelerate and productivity will suffer. Regarding implementation, the book sets forth several related policies, including deepening the reform of land use and the household registration (hukou) system, and accelerating urbanization, which are effective measures to increase the liquidity of productive factors. Others promote the transformation from a factor-driven economy to efficiency and innovation-driven economy, including improving the property rights system, transferring corporate and local government debt to the central government, and encouraging investment in human capital and in technological innovation. The book also analyzes and predicts the potential costs of reform on the economy in the short and long term. In the short run, authors generally anticipated that deleveraging and cutting excessive industrial capacity would put more pressure on the government’s fiscal budget. The rise in the unemployment rate, cases of bankruptcy, and the negative sentiment of investors would slow China’s economic growth. In the medium and long run, this structural reform was seen as necessary for a sustainable medium-speed economic growth, leading to more positive expectations for households and corporates. The improved efficiency in capital allocation would provide investors with more confidence in the Chinese economy and asset market. Authors argued that overall credit risk was still controllable in near-term, as the corresponding policies such as tax reduction and urbanization would boost private investment and consumption in the short run. These policies increased demand in the labor market and created working positions to counteract adverse impacts. Employment in industries where excessive capacity was most severe only accounted for about 3% of total urban employment in 2013. Regarding the rise in credit risk during de-capacity, the asset quality of banks had improved since the 1990s and the level of bad debt was said to be within a controllable range, given government support. Moreover, in the long run, the merger and reorganization of enterprises would increase the efficient supply and have a positive effect on economic innovation-driven transformation. We know from experience that much of the optimism about reform would confront harsh realities in the 2016-21 period. The reforms proceeded in a halting fashion as the US trade war interrupted their implementation, prompting the government to resort to traditional stimulus measures in mid-2018, only to be followed by another massive fiscal-and-credit splurge in 2020 in the face of the pandemic. Yet investors could be surprised to find that the Politburo meeting on April 17, 2020 proclaimed that China would continue to focus on supply-side structural reform even amid efforts to normalize the economy and maintain epidemic prevention and control. Leaders also pledged to maintain the supply-side reform while emphasizing demand-side management during annual Central Economic Work Conference in December 2020. In other words, Xi administration’s policy preferences remain set, and compromises forced by exogenous events will soon give way to renewed reform initiatives. This is a risk to the global reflation trade in 2021-22. There has not been a total abandonment of supply-side reform. The main idea of demand-side reform – shifts in the way China’s government stimulates the economy – is to fully tap the potential of the domestic market and call for an expansion of consumption and effective investment. Combined with the new concept of “dual circulation,” which emphasizes domestic production and supply chains (effectively import substitution), the current demand-side reforms fall in line with the supply-side goal of building a more independent and controllable supply chain and produce higher technology products. These combined efforts will provide “New China” sectors with more policy support, less regulatory constraint, and lead to better economic and financial market performance. Despite the fluctuations in domestic growth and the pressure from external demand, China will maintain the focus on reform in its long-term planning. The fundamental motivation is to enhance efficiency and innovation that is essential for China’s productivity and competitiveness in the future. Thus, investors should not become complacent over the vast wave of fiscal and credit stimulus that is peaking today as we go to press. Instead they should recognize that China’s leaders are committed to restructuring. This means that the economic upside of stimulus has a cap on it– a cap that will eventually be put in place by policymakers, if not by China’s lower capacity for debt itself. It would be a colossal policy mistake for China to overtighten monetary and fiscal policy in 2021 but any government attempts to tighten, the financial market will become vulnerable. A final thought: it is unclear whether there is potential for an improvement in China’s foreign relations contained in this conclusion. What the western world is demanding is for China to rebalance its economy, open up its markets, cut back on the pace of technological acquisition, reduce government subsidies for state-owned companies, and conform better to US and EU trade rules. There is zero chance that China will provide all of these things. But its own reform program calls for greater intellectual property protections, greater competition in non-strategic sectors (which the US and EU should be able to access under recent trade deals), and targeted stimulus for sustainable energy, where the US and EU see trade and investment opportunities. Thus there is a basis for an improvement in cooperation. What remains to be seen is how protectionist dual circulation will be in practice and how aggressively the US will pursue international enforcement of technological restrictions on China under the Biden administration. Jingnan Liu Research Associate JingnanL@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Yifu L, et al. Supply-Side Structural Reform (Beijing: Democracy & Construction Publishing House, 2016). 351 pages. Appendix: GeoRisk Indicator China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Section III: Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights The general public and the financial markets have unrealistic hopes for what a Covid vaccine can achieve. The Covid vaccine will not be like the ‘one and done’ measles vaccine, but more like the ‘frequent jab’ seasonal flu vaccine. Underweight the so-called ‘economy reopening’ plays, particularly basic resources. The so-called ‘pandemic plays’ still have a lot of structural upside. As such, long-term investors should avoid value, and stick with growth. Stay structurally overweight healthcare, as governments will realise that the smart strategy is to add capacity to their healthcare systems. Stay structurally overweight healthcare-heavy DM versus resource-heavy EM. Fractal trade: Short KRW/USD. Feature Chart of the WeekThe UK Healthcare System Reached Its Limit At 60 Thousand Daily Covid Infections The general public and financial markets have high hopes that a vaccine can banish Covid forever, just like the vaccine for measles gives us lifelong immunity against the disease. Unfortunately, these hopes are unrealistic (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Reopening' Plays Are Due A Reversal The latest evidence suggests that the Covid vaccine will not be like the ‘one and done’ measles vaccine. It will be more like the seasonal flu vaccine, requiring regular refreshing. As if to prove this point, Moderna announced this week that it will trial a new Covid vaccine to tackle variants of the virus. Vaccines Against RNA Viruses Are Not Highly Effective Measles, the flu, and Covid are all diseases caused by ‘RNA viruses’ in contrast to, say, smallpox which is caused by a ‘DNA virus.’ One of defining characteristics of RNA versus DNA is its inferior proofreading ability during replication. As a result, RNA viruses have very high mutation rates. This means there are very few effective vaccinations against them. As the Journal of Immunology Research puts it:1 “No vaccine or specific treatment is available for many of these RNA viruses and some of the available vaccines and treatments are not highly effective.” Measles is an exception. While the flu virus mutates constantly and requires a yearly jab, a two-dose vaccine against measles during childhood confers lifelong immunity. This is because the measles virus is ‘antigenically monotypic.’ In plain English, the proteins that the measles virus uses to infect a cell cannot mutate even slightly without breaking. Meaning that any mutation to the virus destroys its ability to infect. Hence, the measles virus cannot evade the ‘one and done’ childhood vaccine. Is the Covid virus antigenically monotypic? No, we now know that the Covid virus can mutate and still infect, because we have already seen three region-specific mutations – the Brazilian variant, the UK variant, and the South African variant. The next question is, can any of these mutations evade the current vaccinations? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. As researchers at the South Africa National Institute for Communicable Diseases point out:2 “SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2 (the South African variant), a novel lineage of the coronavirus causing COVID-19, contains multiple mutations within two immunodominant domains of the spike protein… This lineage exhibits complete escape from three classes of therapeutically relevant monoclonal antibodies… and may foreshadow reduced efficacy of current spike-based vaccines.” (Figure I-1) Figure 1Vaccines Against RNA Viruses Are Not Highly EffectiveBut if the current spike-based vaccines have only limited efficacy, why aren’t the vaccine manufacturers and policymakers warning us? The answer is that they are, but in coded form. Moderna’s decision to trial a new vaccine is a coded warning that its current vaccine might have only limited efficacy against emerging variants. Meanwhile, the UK health minister, Matt Hancock recently warned: “If we vaccinated the population, and then you got in a new variant that evaded the vaccine, then we’d be back to square one.” These warnings are coded because anything more blatant would undermine the mass vaccination programs that governments have spent a lot of blood, sweat, and tears (and money) to initiate. Furthermore, when the healthcare system is at breaking point, a vaccine that provides limited efficacy is better than no vaccine at all. In fact, whether the current vaccines are effective or not against the South African variant is moot. The much bigger point is that, just like the flu virus, the Covid virus will continue to mutate. And the mutations of the virus that get around the population’s immunity are more likely to spread and become the new dominant strains. If the current mutations cannot evade the vaccinations, then a future mutation eventually will. It’s just a matter of time. The immunity from the Covid vaccine will be short-lived. Hence, the evidence strongly suggests that the immunity from the Covid vaccine will be short-lived. How To Contain Covid Unlike smallpox and the measles, a mass vaccination program for Covid is unlikely to banish the disease. Instead, like the flu, vaccination will only contain the disease before it re-emerges in a new guise within a year or, worse, six months. In this regard, the Australia/New Zealand strategy of sealing national borders is not a strategy. It just buys time to form a strategy. No advanced open economy can shut its borders for ever. Meanwhile, a strategy to implement an all-seeing government track and trace system seems to be successful in China. However, it would be impossible to implement in liberal democracies, where the public would not accept the government watching your every move. In which case, can we just adopt the same strategy for Covid as we use for the seasonal flu – offer vaccinations to the most medically vulnerable once or twice a year? In theory, yes. But in practice, this strategy would overwhelm our healthcare systems. This we know because a bad flu season, by itself, was already pushing some healthcare systems to the limit. So how would this strategy cope with Covid, which creates conservatively five times as many casualties? Understand that the key metric is not the mortality rate, but the morbidity (severe illness) rate. Or more specifically, the morbidity rate versus the healthcare system’s intensive care unit (ICU) capacity (Chart I-3). Death requires very little medical intervention and resource, whereas severe illness requires massive medical intervention and resource. Moreover, when the severe illness is a respiratory illness, it leaves the sufferer struggling to breathe and needing critical care. No civilized society can deny critical care to somebody who is struggling to breathe (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Critical Care Capacity Is Limited Chart I-4Healthcare Systems Are Running Out Of Capacity Let’s optimistically assume that the Covid morbidity rate is around 1 percent. So, if a hundred thousand people get infected, one thousand will need an ICU. If the average stay in an ICU is three days, this equals 3000 ICU days. But in the UK, there are only around 10 ICUs per a hundred thousand people. This means that the UK can tolerate only 333 new daily infections in a hundred thousand people before the ICU capacity is breached. Now assume that only 1 out of 4 Covid infections is officially recorded because of asymptomatic/mild infection or reluctance to get tested. This would equate to 83 recorded daily infections per hundred thousand people, or 56 thousand per the whole UK population. Interestingly, the empirical evidence supports our assumptions. When recorded daily infections in the UK recently breached 60 thousand, the healthcare system approached its capacity. At this point, the UK healthcare system was on the brink of turning way those that needed urgent care, such as cancer patients. Luckily, UK daily Covid infections have eased, but crucially, this is only because of a national lockdown (Chart of the Week). So yes, we can adopt the same strategy for Covid as for the seasonal flu – offer vaccinations to the most medically vulnerable once or twice a year. But it will only work with some form of additional restrictions, dialled up and down based on the capacity utilisation of the healthcare system. This leads to two important takeaways, one short-term and one long-term. The short-term takeaway is that varying degrees of social distancing and restrictions to movement will be around for much longer than the general public and financial markets expect. Varying degrees of social distancing and restrictions to movement will be around for a long time. The long-term takeaway is that the best strategy to liberate the people and the economy is to add lots of capacity to healthcare systems. The pandemic has taught us that investing in healthcare will increase our long-term freedoms, wellbeing, and wealth. The Investment Conclusions 1. The so-called ‘economy reopening’ plays are due a reversal. In particular, the strong recent outperformance of the basic resources sector will unwind. 2. The extended period of social distancing and restrictions to movements will solidify a more remote way of working, shopping, and interacting. Hence, the so-called ‘pandemic plays’ still have a lot of structural upside. As such, long-term investors should avoid value, and stick with growth (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Long-Term Investors Should Avoid Value, Stick With Growth 3. As governments realise that the smart strategy is to add capacity to their healthcare systems, it will give a strong tailwind to healthcare stocks. Stay structurally overweight healthcare. 4. It follows that healthcare-heavy developed markets (DM) will outperform resource-heavy emerging markets (EM). Stay structurally overweight DM versus EM (Chart I-6). Chart I-6DM Versus EM = Healthcare Versus Resources Fractal Trading System* Fractal analysis suggests that the Korean won has reached an intermediate top versus the US dollar. This is implied by both the 130-day and 65-day fractal structures. Accordingly, the recommended trade is short KRW/USD, setting a profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2.5 percent. The rolling 12-month win ratio now stands at 56 percent. Chart I-7KRW/USD When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Journal of Immunology Research, Volume 2018: Immune Responses to RNA Viruses, by Elias A. Said 2 Source: National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) of the National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS), Johannesburg, South Africa SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2 escapes neutralization by South African COVID-19 donor plasma (biorxiv.org) Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Our baseline view is that inflation will increase only modestly over the next few years before accelerating in the middle of the decade. Nevertheless, the risks are skewed towards an earlier and sharper increase in inflation in the US and, to a lesser extent, in the other major economies. The first round of stimulus left US households with $1.5 trillion in excess savings, equivalent to 10% of annual consumption. The stimulus deal Congress reached in December and President Biden’s proposed package would inject an additional $300 billion per month into the economy through the end of September. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the monthly output gap is $80 billion. The true number may be even lower since the CBO’s estimate does not take into account the temporary disruption to the supply side of the economy from the pandemic or the potential disincentive to work from unusually generous unemployment benefits. In and of itself, inflation is not necessarily bad for stocks. Inflation is only bad for stocks when it triggers monetary policy tightening. The bar for the Fed to raise rates is still very high, which suggests that equities will weather a temporary burst of inflation. Nevertheless, investors should hedge against the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside. This calls for reducing duration in fixed-income portfolios to below-benchmark levels, favoring inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds, and owning more real assets such as gold and farmland. Investors should also favor value stocks over growth stocks. Commodity producers are overrepresented in value indices, while banks will benefit from steeper yield curves. The Austerians Give Up In his 2011 State Of The Union Address, President Obama declared that “Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.” And so the government did. According to calculations by the Brookings Institution, tighter fiscal policy subtracted about 1.2 percentage points from annual GDP growth between 2011 and 2014 (Chart 1). Chart 1US Fiscal Easing Gave Way To Fiscal Drag Soon After The Great Recession The US was not alone. As Chart 2 illustrates, most advanced economies tightened fiscal policy not long after the Great Recession officially ended. In the case of countries such as Italy and Spain, the tightening came in response to market duress. In other cases such as those involving Germany and the UK, the tightening occurred against the backdrop of fairly low borrowing costs. Chart 2Fiscal Austerity Was The Favored Post-GFC Policy Prescription After the pandemic struck, most governments were quick to loosen fiscal policy again (Chart 3). However, unlike ten years ago, calls for reducing the flow of red ink have been a lot more muted this time around. Chart 3Fiscal Policy In 2020: Governments Eased Significantly In Response To The Unfolding Crisis Back in 2010, the OECD – the go-to source for conventional thinking on all economic matters – opined that “monetary policy must be normalized” and that “exit from exceptional fiscal support must start now, or by 2011 at the latest.” Today, the OECD admits that it made a “mistake” in pushing for austerity so soon after the recession ended. “The first lesson is to make sure governments are not tightening in the one to two years following the trough of GDP” explained Laurence Boone, the OECD’s current chief economist, to the FT earlier this month. The OECD’s change of heart partly reflects political reality – assistance for businesses and workers who lost income due to lockdowns is more palatable than bailouts for banks and for homeowners who took on more debt than they could afford. Yet, there is an important economic dimension to the policy pivot as well. The huge spike in bond yields that many pundits predicted a decade ago never materialized. Despite soaring debt levels, real bond yields in the US and most other economies are near record lows (Chart 4). Even the Italian 10-year yield stands at a mere 0.68% now that the ECB has effectively promised to backstop European governments. Chart 4Governments Enjoy Low Borrowing Costs The Bondholder Who Cried Wolf Chart 5Generous Government Transfers Boosted Household Savings After many false alarms, could the inflationistas get the last laugh in 2021? The idea is not entirely far-fetched. Consider the case of the US. Chart 5 shows that US households are sitting on $1.5 trillion of excess savings – equivalent to 10% of annual consumption. The amount of dry powder US households have at their disposal will only get larger. Taken together, the stimulus deal Congress reached in December and President Biden’s proposed fiscal package would inject an average of $300 billion per month into the economy through the end of September. Republicans and centrist Democrats in the Senate may force Biden to winnow down his stimulus plans to something closer to $1 trillion. Nevertheless, this still would provide about $200 billion in incremental monthly support. Official estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office last summer imply that the monthly output gap – the difference between what the economy is capable of producing and what it actually is producing – is currently only $80 billion. In fact, the true output gap may be even lower than this. First, GDP has recovered more rapidly than the CBO had projected. Second, official estimates of the output gap do not control for the fact that part of the economy’s productive capacity – certain retail establishments, hotels, airlines, etc. – has been rendered either fully or partly inoperative due to the pandemic. Third, official estimates also do not account for the fact that generous jobless benefits may have made some workers less eager to find work, thus temporarily raising the natural rate of unemployment. Inflation: Movin’ On Up If the demand for goods and services exceeds supply, prices are likely to go up. How much will they rise? In the near term, inflation is certain to increase from very low levels, if only due to base effects. As my colleague Ryan Swift has noted, both core PCE and core CPI inflation will soon spike above 2% on an annualized basis even if consumer prices rise by a meager 0.15% per month, as the deflationary March and April 2020 data points fall out of the rolling 12-month average (Chart 6). Looking beyond the next few months, the trajectory for inflation will depend on the degree to which the economy overheats. In some categories, there is already evidence of excess demand. US core goods inflation is running at 1.6%, the highest level since 2012. The ISM manufacturing Prices Paid index points to further upside for goods inflation. Soaring commodity prices tell a similar tale (Chart 7). Chart 6Base Effects Will Push Inflation Higher Chart 7Further Upside For Goods Inflation And Commodity Prices While services inflation has been more downbeat, that could change as the labor market tightens (Chart 8). Housing inflation is also set to bottom. The National Multifamily Housing Council’s Apartment Market Tightness Index remains in contractionary territory. However, the closely-linked Sales Volume Index recently jumped to the highest level in nine years (Chart 9). Sales volume led the Market Tightness Index coming out of the last recession. If that happens again, shelter inflation should creep up. Chart 8A Pickup In Services Inflation Is Awaiting A Tighter Labor Market Chart 9Shelter Inflation Could Bottom Soon A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? Like most macroeconomic phenomena, inflation is subject to feedback loops. If households expect prices to increase initially but then fall back down once the stimulus has lapsed, they may defer some of their spending until prices return to normal. This could prevent prices from rising in the first place. In contrast, if households expect prices to rise and then keep rising, they may try to expedite their purchases. This would supercharge spending. One can see that there is a self-fulfilling process at work. If households expect prices to remain broadly stable, then they will remain broadly stable. If households expect prices to rise a lot, then they will rise a lot. Imagine last year’s Great Toilet Paper Shortage but on an economy-wide scale. A similar self-fulfilling process works at the firm level. If firms expect prices to rise only briefly, they will try to run down their inventories as quickly as possible to take advantage of temporarily high profit margins. The additional supply will limit any increase in prices. In contrast, if firms expect selling prices to keep rising, they may hoard inventory to take advantage of future higher prices. Likewise, firms may be reluctant to raise wages in response to a temporary overheating of the economy for fear that this would lock in a higher cost structure. In contrast, firms would be more willing to raise wages if they thought that prices would keep rising. Hence, the expectation of rising inflation could trigger a price-wage spiral. Lifting The Anchor The inflationary scenario described above could play out if long-term inflation expectations become unmoored. Central banks have invested a lot of effort in trying to anchor inflation expectations at around 2%. To the extent that they have fallen short of their goal, it is because prices have risen less than desired (Chart 10). Chart 10Central Banks Have Missed Their Inflation Targets To remedy the shortfall in inflation, the Fed has pledged to allow inflation to rise above 2% for a few years, with the aim of bringing the price level back to its long-term target trend. The risk is that such an inflation overshoot happens sooner and is more pronounced than policymakers desire. Christina Romer, the former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration, famously wrote a paper entitled “It Takes A Regime Shift.” Using the example of Roosevelt’s decision to take the US off the gold standard in 1933, she argued that major monetary policy decisions could permanently jolt inflation expectations. It is too early to say whether the Fed’s new inflation-targeting framework will go down in history as a “regime shift.” What one can say with more confidence is that the rollout of this framework is coming at a tumultuous time. Policymakers and business leaders routinely talk about the “The Great Reset” – the notion that the pandemic provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shift policy in a new, rather curious, direction. Central bankers better hope that inflation expectations are not reset too much. Investment Implications Our baseline view is that inflation will increase only modestly over the next few years before accelerating in the middle of the decade. Nevertheless, as highlighted in this week’s report, the risks are skewed towards an earlier and sharper increase in inflation in the US and, to a lesser extent, in the other major economies. The spectre of higher inflation is unsettling to many investors. However, in and of itself, inflation is not necessarily bad for stocks. Inflation is only bad for stocks when it triggers monetary policy tightening. In the absence of rate hikes, rising inflation would push real rates lower. This would be quite good for stocks, as the experience of the past nine months demonstrates (Chart 11). As noted above, the bar for the Fed to withdraw monetary support is fairly high. This suggests that rising inflation is unlikely to derail the bull market in stocks. Of course, if both actual inflation and inflation expectations were to jump too much, the Fed would have to intervene. With that in mind, investors should position their portfolios to withstand rising inflation. This calls for reducing duration in fixed-income portfolios to below-benchmark levels, favoring inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds, and owning more real assets such as gold and farmland. Chart 11Lower Real Yields Have Lifted Equity Prices Chart 12Bank Stocks Tend To Outperform When Inflation Expectations And Bond Yields Are Rising Investors should also favor value stocks over growth stocks. Commodity producers are overrepresented in value indices, and would benefit from rising inflation. Banks are also overrepresented in value indices. Chart 12 shows that banks tend to outperform when inflation expectations and long-term bond yields are rising. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations This table provides trade recommendations that may not be adequately represented in the matrix on the preceding page. Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Highlights Even though bonds have cheapened relative to stocks, the equity risk premium remains elevated. The end of the pandemic and supportive fiscal and monetary policies should buoy economic activity in the second half of the year, lifting corporate earnings in the process. Some critics charge that low interest rates and QE have exacerbated wealth and income inequality. The evidence suggests the opposite: Rising inequality since the early 1980s has depressed aggregate demand, forcing central banks to loosen monetary policy. The tide of inequality may be turning, however. Ongoing fiscal and monetary stimulus, increasingly aggressive income distribution policies, heightened anti-trust enforcement, and waning globalization could all shift the balance of power from capital back to labor. Investors should overweight global equities for now but prepare for a more stagflationary environment later this decade. Market Overview We continue to favor global equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon. While bonds have cheapened relative to stocks, the global equity risk premium is still quite wide by historic standards (Chart 1). The distribution of vaccines over the coming months should pave the way for a strong rebound in economic activity in the second half of 2021. This will lift corporate earnings. The macro policy mix will also remain supportive. Thanks to the combination of increased fiscal transfers and subdued spending last year, US households have accumulated $1.5 trillion in savings – equivalent to 10% of annual consumption – over and above the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 2). Chart 1Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Chart 2Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending US household balance sheets are set to improve further. Congress passed a $900 billion stimulus bill in December, which provides direct support to households, unemployed workers, and small businesses. On Thursday, President-elect Joe Biden unveiled an additional $1.9 trillion relief package. Biden’s plan calls for making direct payments of $1400 to most Americans, bringing the total to $2000 after the $600 in direct payments in December’s deal is included. President Trump had earlier called for stimulus payments of $2000 per person, a number the Democrats quickly seized on. Biden’s plan would also extend emergency unemployment benefits to the end of September, boost funding for schools, raise the child tax credit, and increase spending on Covid testing and the vaccine rollout. Unlike the December deal, it would also provide $350 billion in assistance to state and local governments. We expect at least $1 trillion of Biden’s proposal to be enacted into law. A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you are talking big money. Admittedly, taxes are also likely to rise. During the election campaign, Joe Biden pledged to lift the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%, bringing it halfway back to the 35% rate that prevailed in 2017. He also promised to introduce a minimum 15% tax on the income that companies report in their financial statements to shareholders, raise taxes on overseas profits, and boost payroll taxes on households with annual earnings in excess of $400,000. If carried out, these measures would reduce S&P 500 earnings-per-share by 9%-to-10%. Given the slim majority that Democrats maintain in the Senate, it is unlikely that taxes will rise as much as Joe Biden’s tax plan calls for. Nevertheless, a tax hit to EPS of around 5% starting in 2022 looks probable. On the positive side, the additional spending will goose the economy, so that the net effect of the tax increase on corporate profits should be fairly small. Meanwhile, monetary policy will remain exceptionally accommodative. The Fed is unlikely to hike rates until late 2023 or early 2024. It will take even longer for policy rates to rise in the other major economies. Our bond strategists think that the Fed will start tapering QE only about six months before the first rate hike. Hence, for the time being, ongoing bond buying will limit the upside to yields. We see the US 10-year Treasury yield rising to 1.5% by the end of this year, only modestly higher than market expectations of 1.36%. Rising Inequality: The Dark Side Of QE? Chart 3Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies One often-heard objection to QE is that it has exacerbated inequality by pushing up equity prices without doing much to help the real economy. Some even contend that QE has hurt the middle class by depriving savers of a critical source of interest income. It is certainly true that inequality has risen sharply over the past 40 years, especially in the US (Chart 3). It is also true that the bulk of equity wealth is held by the very rich. According to Fed data, the wealthiest top 1% own half of all stocks (Chart 4). However, QE has pushed up not only equity prices. Falling bond yields have also pushed up home prices. Unlike stocks, housing wealth is broadly held across the population. Moreover, monetary policy operates through other channels. Lower interest rates tend to weaken a country’s currency, boosting competitiveness in the process. Lower rates also encourage investment. Again, real estate figures heavily here. Chart 5 shows that there is a very strong correlation between mortgage yields and housing starts. And while lower interest rates do penalize savers, the middle class is not the main victim. Interest receipts represent a much larger share of total income for ultra-wealthy individuals than for everyone else (Chart 6). Chart 4The Rich Hold The Bulk Of Equities Chart 5Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Chart 6Interest Represents A Bigger Share Of Overall Income At The Top Of The Income Distribution Far from exacerbating income inequality, a recent IMF research paper argued that easier monetary policy may dampen inequality by boosting employment and wage growth. Chart 7 shows that labor’s share of GDP has tended to rise whenever the labor market tightened. Chart 7Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Inequality Paved The Way To QE Chart 8The Rich Save More Than The Poor Rather than QE exacerbating inequality, a more plausible story is that rising inequality led to QE. The rich tend to save more than the poor (Chart 8). Consistent with estimates by the IMF, we find that the shift in income towards the rich has depressed US aggregate demand by about 3% of GDP since the late 1970s (Chart 9). A standard Taylor Rule equation suggests that real interest rates would need to be 1.5-to-3 percentage points lower to offset a 3% loss in demand.1 That’s a lot! Thus, not only have the rich benefited directly from receiving a bigger share of the economic pie, they have also benefited indirectly from the fact that falling interest rates have pushed up the value of their assets. Chart 9Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s For a while, lower rates allowed poorer households to take on more debt, thus masking the impact of rising income inequality on consumption. However, after the housing bubble burst, households were forced to retrench and start living within their means. The resulting collapse in spending pushed interest rates towards zero and forced the Fed to undertake one QE program after another. It Is Not About Education Many of the popular explanations for rising inequality have focused on the widening gap between well-educated and less well-educated workers. While there is evidence that the demand for skilled workers increased in the 1980s and 1990s, Beaudry, Green, and Sand have shown that it has declined since then. Together with a rising supply of college-educated workers, softer demand for skilled workers compressed the so-called “skill premium.” So why has inequality increased? One can get a sense of the answer by looking at Chart 10. It shows that almost all the increase in US real incomes has occurred not just near the top of the income distribution, but at the very very top – people in the highest 0.1% of income earners. These are not university professors. These are hedge fund managers and corporate chieftains, with a sprinkling of celebrities (Chart 11). Chart 10The (Really) Rich Got Richer Chart 11Who Are The Top Income Earners? Superstars In his seminal paper entitled “The Economics of Superstars,” Sherwin Rosen argued that technological trends have facilitated the rise of winner-take-all markets. The classic example is that of stage actors. A century ago, tens of thousands of actors could eke out a living performing at the local theater. Today, a small number of superstars dominate the entertainment industry, while countless others work odd jobs, waiting in vain for their chance for stardom. A similar argument applies to professional athletes. The applicability of the superstar model to other classes of workers is more debatable. How much of the income of star hedge fund managers reflects their unique skills and how much of it reflects a “heads I win, tails you lose” approach to investing client money? Similarly, do CEOs get paid what they do because there is no one else who can do the same job with less pay? Or is it because CEOs can effectively set their own compensation, subject to an “outrage constraint” from shareholders and the broader public — a constraint that has loosened in recent decades due to rising stock prices and a shift in public attention away from class issues towards the debilitating distraction of identity politics? The Rise Of Monopoly Capitalism Where the superstar model may be more relevant is at the firm level. Standard economics textbooks treat profit as a return on capital. This implies that when the after-tax rate of return on capital goes up, firms should respond by increasing investment spending in order to further boost profits. In practice, this has not occurred. For example, the Trump Administration promised that corporate tax cuts would produce an investment boom. Yet, outside of the energy sector – which benefited from an unrelated recovery in crude oil prices – US corporate capex grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 12). Why did the textbook economic relationship between investment and the rate of return on capital break down? The answer is that the textbook approach ignores what has become an increasingly important source of corporate profits: monopoly power. Chart 12No Evidence That Trump Corporate Tax Cuts Boosted Investment Chart 13A Winner-Take-All Economy A recent study by Grullon, Larkin, and Michaely finds that market concentration has increased in 75% of all US industries since 1997. Furman and Orszag have shown that the dispersion in the rate of return on capital across firms has widened sharply since the early 1990s. In the last year of their analysis, firms at the 90th percentile of profitability had a rate of return on capital that was five times higher than the median firm, a massive increase from the historic average of two times (Chart 13). The rise of monopoly power has been most evident in the tech sector. Over the past 25 years, rising tech profit margins have contributed more to tech share outperformance than rising sales (Chart 14). Chart 14Decomposing Tech Outperformance Tech companies are particularly susceptible to network effects: The more people who use a particular tech platform, the more attractive it is for others to use it. Facebook is a classic example. Tech companies also benefit significantly from scale economies. Once a piece of software has been written, creating additional copies costs almost nothing. Even in the hardware realm, the marginal cost of producing an additional chip is tiny compared to the fixed cost of designing it. All of this creates a winner-take-all environment where success begets further success. Monopolies And The Neutral Rate Unlike firms in a perfectly competitive industry, monopolistic firms have to contend with the fact that higher output tends to depress selling prices, thus leading to lower profit margins. As such, rising market power may simultaneously increase profits while reducing investment spending. This may be deflationary in two ways: First, lower investment will reduce aggregate demand. Second, greater market power will shift income towards wealthy owners of capital, who tend to save more than regular workers. An increase in savings relative to investment, in turn, will depress the neutral rate of interest. An Inflection Point For Inequality? After rising for the past four decades, inequality may be set to decline. Central banks are keen to allow economies to overheat. A feedback loop could emerge where overheated economies push up labor’s share of income, leading to more spending and even higher wages. Fiscal policy is likely to amplify this feedback loop. As we discussed last week, loose monetary policy is allowing governments to pursue expansionary fiscal policies. Fiscal stimulus raises the neutral rate of interest, making it easier for central banks to keep policy rates below their equilibrium level. Government policy is also moving in a more redistributive direction. Tax rates on high-income earnings will rise over the next few years, which will support new spending initiatives. Minimum wages are also heading higher. It is worth noting that Florida voters, despite handing the state to President Trump in November, voted 61%-to-39% to raise the state minimum wage from $8.56 an hour to $15 by 2026. Joe Biden also reaffirmed today his pledge to hike the federal minimum wage to $15 from its current level of $7.25. In addition, there is bipartisan support for strengthening anti-trust policies. On the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren has stated that “Today’s big tech companies have too much power – too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy.” Increasingly, Republicans agree with this sentiment. According to a Pew Research study conducted last June, more than half of conservative Republicans favor increasing government regulation of tech companies (Chart 15). This number has probably gone up following last week’s coordinated effort by the largest tech companies to banish Parler, a Twitter-style app popular with conservatives, from the internet. Chart 15Conservatives Favor Increased Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies Meanwhile, globalization is on the back foot. After rising significantly, the ratio of global trade-to-output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 16). As competition from foreign workers abates, working-class wages in advanced economies could rise. Chart 16Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Long-Term Investment Implications What is good for Main Street is usually good for Wall Street. For the past 70 years, the S&P 500 has generally moved in sync with the ISM manufacturing index (Chart 17). The same pattern holds globally. Chart 18 shows that the stock-to-bond ratio has correlated closely with the global manufacturing PMI. Chart 17Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Cyclical fluctuations can disguise important structural trends, however. US productivity has doubled since 1980, but real median wages have increased by only 20% (Chart 19). The bulk of productivity gains have flowed to upper-income earners and owners of capital. Hence, corporate profits rose, while inflation and interest rates declined. Chart 18Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Chart 19Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity If we are approaching an inflection point for inequality, we may also be approaching an inflection point for profit margins and bond yields. To be sure, with unemployment still elevated, wage growth and inflation are not about to take off anytime soon. However, investors should prepare for a more inflationary – and ultimately, stagflationary – environment in the second half of the decade. This calls for reducing duration risk in fixed-income portfolios, favoring TIPS over nominal bonds, and owning inflation hedges such as gold and farmland. It also calls for maintaining a bias towards value over growth stocks, as the former usually outperform when inflation and commodity prices are on the upswing (Chart 20). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Chart 20Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing Footnotes 1 One can specify different parameters to weight the inflation and capacity utilization segments of a Taylor rule equation so that they are equally-weighted, meaning there is a coefficient of 0.5 on the gap between the year-over-year percent change in headline PCE and the Fed's 2% target and a coefficient of 0.5 on the output gap term. Previous Fed Chair and incoming Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen preferred an alternative specification where there was a coefficient of 1 on the output gap term so that the equation is as follows: RT= 2 + PT + 0.5(PT- 2) + 1.0YT, where R is the federal funds rate; P is headline PCE as expressed as a year-over-year percent change; and Y is the output gap (as approximated using the unemployment gap and Okun's law). For further discussion, please see Janet L. Yellen, "The Economic Outlook and Monetary Policy," April 11, 2012. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores