Developed Countries
Feature Happy Thanksgiving to all our U.S. clients. We wish you the best the holiday has to offer, as you share blessings with friends and family. In this holiday-shortened week, we are publishing a joint report with our colleagues at BCA's Energy Sector Strategy (NRG) service. We succinctly examine the pros and cons of the debate over whether OPEC will or will not agree to and uphold a *real* production cut, as it has promised, at its much-anticipated meeting on November 30. Disagreement on the likely outcome of the meeting runs high. In late September, OPEC announced an agreement in principle to cut oil production at the formal November meeting to a level of 32.5-33.0 MMb/d. This would represent a 500,000-750,000 b/d reduction from August production levels, and an 830,000-1,330,000 b/d reduction from the IEA's latest OPEC production estimate for October of 33.83 MMb/d. In addition, non-OPEC behemoth Russia has signaled a potential willingness to contribute its own production freeze or cut to the agreement in an effort to support higher oil prices. Chart 1With A 1 MMb/d Cut, ##br##Draws Would Be Greater There are compelling arguments to be made both supporting the likelihood of a production cut as well as for being skeptical that such an agreement will be reached and adhered to. Even within BCA, there is disagreement. This service, the Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES), which sets the BCA house view on oil prices, pegs the odds at greater than 50% that there will be a meaningful cut of 1 MMb/d+, anchored by large cut pledges from OPEC's leader, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and Russia. The NRG team, dissents; they think it is more likely that no deal is reached, and if a deal is announced, it will not be adhered to. Regardless of whether there is an announced agreement to cut production or not, both CES and NRG expect KSA's production to decline by 400,000-500,000 b/d between August and December according to KSA's normal seasonal management of production levels; we would not include this expected seasonal reduction in the calculation of a *real* cut. In our analysis on Chart 1, we include a *real* cut of 1MMB/d below the normal seasonality of KSA's production, which lasts for six months. In H2 2017, we assume the cut is dissolved and the market also receives an extra 200,000 b/d of price-incentivized production from the U.S. shales. How To Bet On A Cut, The Out-Of-Consensus Call Chart 2Without A Cut,##br## Inventories Still Will Be Drawn In 2017 CES's view for a cut (established November 3) was significantly out-of-consensus until recent chatter from OPEC increased the perception that an agreement could be reached. Still, there remains significant doubt a freeze or cut can be accomplished. Without a cut, NRG and CES share a constructive outlook for oil markets heading towards steepening deficits during 2017 (Chart 2). Note: BCA's estimates show a tighter oil market than the EIA's estimates: Our Q3 2016 production estimates are lower than the EIA's by ~300,000 b/d due to differences in our assessments in Brazilian, Russian and Chinese production; our Q3 2016 consumption estimate is higher than the EIA due to our higher assessment of U.S. summer-time demand (the EIA has consistently underestimated U.S. demand over the past few years). A production cut coupled with a natural tightening in the market brought about by the price-induced supply destruction over the past 18 months would make 2017 inventory draws even greater, lifting oil prices higher, and providing even greater upward support to our favorite investment recommendations (Chart 1). Below we outline the investment recommendations that would benefit from an OPEC cut, spanning individual equities, ETFs, and commodity calls: Direct Commodity Investment: CES recommends two pair trades on oil contracts and call options. Long February 2017 $50/bbl Brent Calls vs. short February 2017 $55/bbl Brent Calls to play the spike in oil prices that would come from a successful OPEC cut, which was recommended November 3 and was up 50.41% as of Tuesday's close. Long August 2017 WTI contract vs. short November 2017 WTI contract to play an expected flattening of the forward curve, which also was recommended November 3 and it up 48.61% as of Tuesday's close. Oil Producers: NRG recommends overweight-rated Permian oil producers EOG, PXD, FANG and PE, which will be leaders in expanding production into an improving oil price market. Service Companies: NRG recommends overweight-rated completion-oriented services companies HAL, SLB and SLCA, which will benefit most from increased U.S. shale spending. Equity-Backed ETFs: NRG recommends overweight-rated ETFs XLE, FRAK, and OIH as vehicles that provide more diversified investment exposure to higher oil prices and oilfield service activity than individual equities. Oil-Backed ETF. Tactically buying the U.S. Oil Fund ETF (USO) would provide good direct exposure to a quick oil price surge. However, USO should not be held as a longer-term investment because the inherent cost of continually rolling contracts consistently erodes USO's value versus the equity-backed ETFs XLE and OIH. This longer-term underperformance informs NRG's underweight rating on USO. Risks To Our Views: Oil and natural gas prices that differ materially from our forecasts, possibly due to slower-than-expected global economic growth and/or greater than expected supply growth. Poor operational execution and/or changes to regulatory restrictions could negatively impact the financial and stock performance of our recommendations. A week ahead of the OPEC meeting, in the wake of recently recovering production in Libya and Nigeria, and amid campaigning by Iran and Iraq to be excluded from participation in the cuts, it is impossible to know for certain how the complicated politics of OPEC and Russia will play out. Below we outline the competing objectives and risks that will be in play. Case Against A Cut Undeniably, a cut in production, particularly a coordinated cut where several countries share the burden of restricting production, would raise oil prices and enhance 2017 oil export revenues for all OPEC producers. However, that near-term benefit for pricing and revenue has been obvious for the past two years, and yet neither KSA nor Russia has been willing to cut production, feeling the potential to lose longer-term market share outweighed the immediate revenue benefits of a cut. The hazard of a price-increasing production cut, is that the higher oil price would essentially subsidize non-OPEC competitors with higher cash flows, and would simultaneously bolster the confidence of capital markets that OPEC will support prices at a floor of $50, reducing the risk of future investments. These two effects would jointly encourage increased capital investment into establishing new production, especially by the fast-acting U.S. shale producers, whose rampant investment and production growth from 2010-2015 was, by far, the leading contributor to the 2015-2016 oversupply of oil. Encouraging a resurgence of drilling and production would certainly lead to faster production growth from the U.S. shales in 2017-2018, allowing those producers to grow market share under the umbrella of OPEC's production sacrifices that created the higher prices. OPEC has just endured a lot of economic pain through the oil price decline. The economic purpose of this pain was to starve global producers of operational cash flow and dissuade the inflow of new capital, thus choking off the reinvestment required to continue to grow oil production. By and large, this goal has been achieved, with U.S. shale producers slashing capital expenditures by 65% from 2014 to 2016, and the International Oil Companies (IOCs) cutting capital expenditures by 40% over the same period. As a result, after the substantial surge in global oil production in 2014-2015 that created the current over-supply, the capital starvation caused by low oil prices will result in essentially no global production growth in either 2017 or 2018, allowing for demand growth to erode the oversupply of production during 2016, and to eat into the overstocked inventories of crude during 2017-2018. KSA has created fear and uncertainty throughout global producers and capital markets by steadfastly refusing to use its production-management powers to support a floor under oil prices. We are skeptical that KSA will ultimately agree to reverse this strategy, by now establishing a price floor. Such a reversal would undermine the profound market-share message KSA has delivered to competitors (at the cost of great financial pain), and weaken its perceived resolve to allow oil prices to be set by the market. As such, the NRG team believes KSA will not agree to cut production beyond the already-expected seasonal reduction in production, and that this position will scuttle September's tacit agreement to cut production at the official meeting next week. Such a scenario would be fairly similar to how KSA undermined the production-freeze discussions in Doha in April, by insisting other OPEC members - Iran, in particular - share in the production limitations in order to engender KSA's support; a condition that other members were unwilling to accept. The Case For A Cut The case to expect a cut agreement acknowledges that such a cut would subsidize competitors and diminish the impression of KSA's resolve and/or ability to out-last competitors through an oil price down-cycle. The case for a cut concludes that the benefits of higher 2017 oil prices simply outweigh these market share and reputational costs. The benefits that OPEC and Russia would receive are: Critical Need For Higher Revenue. If KSA and Russia each cut 2017 production by 500,000 below current expectations, and oil prices jumped $10/bbl as a result, KSA's 2017 oil export revenues would increase by close to $17.5 billion, and Russia's would increase by almost $8.25 billion. If the financial pain endured by these countries is substantially greater than NRG has estimated, this near-term revenue lift could be more critical than we appreciate, overwhelming the reputational and longer-term market-share losses resulting from the reversal of policy. Borrowing capacity for each country also would increase, as a result of higher revenues. With both states seeking to tap international debt and equity markets, this increased revenue would increase their borrowing capacity. Higher Value For Asset Sales. KSA is preparing to IPO Saudi Aramco. Bolstering the spirits of capital markets with higher oil prices would be expected to increase the proceeds received from this equity sale, increase the market value of the company, reduce debt-service costs, and improve access to debt markets, which KSA and Saudi Aramco are both likely to tap more frequently in the future as the country tries to diversify the economy away from oil. Similarly, two weeks ago, Russia signed a decree to sell a 19.5% stake in Rosneft by the end of 2016. An immediate oil price strengthening and messaging that KSA and Russia would support a pricing floor would inflate the value of this sale, given the high correlation between Brent crude oil prices and Rosneft's equity price. Production Stability Not As Strong As It Seems. Russia's production levels in 2016 have been surprisingly strong, exceeding our expectations. The collapse of the Russian Ruble has allowed for continued internal investment despite the substantial reduction to dollar-denominated oil revenues. Still, it is likely that Russian producers are pulling very hard on their fields, over-producing the optimal level in an effort to scratch out higher revenues. Such over-production is not sustainable ad infinitum, and Russia may know that its fields need a rest in 2017 anyhow, so a 4-5% production cut is ultimately not much of a sacrifice. Make Room For Libya & Nigeria. Both Libya and Nigeria are trying to overcome substantial civil obstacles to allow production to increase back towards oilfield capabilities. If these problems were solved, we estimate Libya could increase production by 400,000-600,000 b/d while Nigeria could add 200,000-300,000 b/d. If KSA, OPEC, and Russia believe these countries will be able to re-establish shut-in production, they may conclude a production cut is necessary to make room for the growth, and to keep prices from collapsing. Entrenching U.S. Shale As The Marginal Barrel: If KSA and Russia can agree to a 1 MMb/d cut, U.S. shale-oil producers would be the first to take advantage of expected higher prices, given the fast-response nature of this production. This actually would work to the advantage of KSA and Russia and other low-cost producers in and outside OPEC, by firmly entrenching U.S. shale oil as the marginal barrel for the world market. On the global cost curve, shale sits in the middle some $30 to $40/bbl above KSA and Russia, which means that, as long as the global market is pricing to shale economics at the margin, these mega-producers earn economic rents on their production. In order to retain those rents, KSA and Russia will have to find a way to keep shale on the margin - i.e., regulate their production so that prices do not rise too quickly and encourage more expensive output to come on line. For KSA and Russia, it is better to climb the shale cost curve than to encourage the next tranche of production - such as Canadian oil sands - to come on to the market too quickly, or to further incentivize electric vehicles and conservation with run-away price increases, with too-sharp a production cut. Allowing prices to trade through a $65 - $75/bbl range or higher would no doubt produce a short-term revenue jump for cash-strapped producers - particularly those OPEC members outside the GCC. But it also would make most of the U.S. shales economic to develop, and incentivize other "lumpy," expensive production that does not turn off quickly once it is developed (e.g., oil sands and deepwater). This ultimately would crash prices over the longer term, making it difficult for the industry to attract capital. This is not an ideal outcome for KSA's planned IPO of Aramco, or Russia's sale of 19.5% of Rosneft, or their investors. Global Reinvestment Needs To Be Re-Stimulated. Stimulating non-OPEC reinvestment with higher oil prices and increased price-floor confidence may actually be needed in the not-too-distant future. IOCs have barely started to show the negative production ramifications of their 40% cuts to capex; cuts which will grow deeper in 2018. We expect these production declines to show up increasingly over the next four years, and there is not much the IOCs can do to stop it, since their mega-project investments generally require 3-5 years from the time that spending decisions are made until first oil is produced. With such huge cuts to future expenditures, and enormous amounts of debt incurred by the IOCs to pay for the completion of legacy mega-projects that will need to be repaid ($130B in debt added in the past two years), OPEC could see a looming shortage of oil developing later this decade if IOC-sponsored offshore production falls into steep declines, as we think is likely. To orchestrate a softer landing, to prevent oil prices from spiking too high due to a shortage of production, to head-off an acceleration in the pursuit of alternative fuels and/or the recessionary impact of an oil price spike, KSA may actually want to accelerate the re-start of global investment. Bottom Line: There are strongly credible and well-reasoned arguments that support the expectations for a successful establishment of a production cut from OPEC and Russia, as well as to doubt that such an agreement will be achieved (and adhered to) amid the political and economic competition between OPEC members and against non-OPEC producers. A successful agreement to cut production in excess of 1 MMb/d, as CES believes is likely, would be the more out-of-consensus call, with substantially bullish implications for oil prices and for our oil-levered investment strategy and stock recommendations. Even without a production cut, the NRG service remains strongly constructive on the investment strengths of high-quality Permian oil producers and the completion-oriented service companies that will benefit from increased U.S. shale spending. If a production cut is achieved, our investment cases become even stronger, as the U.S. shale producers and service companies would be the greatest beneficiaries of an upward step-change in oil prices. Matt Conlan, Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com SOFTS Dairy: Moderate Upside In 2017H1 Dairy prices may have another 5%-10% upside over next three to six months, based on tightening supply in the global dairy market. China will become more important in the global dairy market. The country's dairy imports will continue heading north. Downside risks include elevated global dairy product inventory, a supply boost from major exporters, and a continuing strengthening dollar. We have been cautiously bullish on global dairy market since last October.1 Since then, the Global Dairy Trade (GDT) All-Products Price Index, which is widely used as a benchmark price for the market, has rallied over 50% in the past seven months off its November - March lows (Chart 3, panel 1). Chart 3Dairy: Tactically Bullish Now the question is: will the rally continue? A review of what had happened in 2015 and so far this year may be a good start of our analysis. A Terrible 2015 The GDT index tumbled to the lowest level on record in early August 2015. A sharply drop in Chinese dairy imports; the Russian import ban on dairy products; robust supply growth across major dairy producing countries; and the EU's decision to scrap its production quotas created a perfect storm for the global dairy market last year - resulting in an extremely oversupplied market, stock builds and depressed dairy prices (Chart 3, panels 2, 3 and 4). An Improving 2016 Fundamentals have improved since April, as major dairy exporting countries responded to low dairy prices, while Chinese dairy imports revived. Fonterra, the world's biggest dairy exporter, and Murray Goulburn, Australian's biggest dairy company, both announced retrospective price cuts in April to dairy farmers in New Zealand and Australia, which hit both countries' dairy industries hard. Many farmers exited the dairy business, given their production costs were well above farm-gate milk prices. As a result, dairy farmers In New Zealand have cut the national dairy cow herd size by 3.3% yoy in 2015 and then a further 1.5% in 2016, based on USDA data. In Australia, dairy farmers have sent more cows into slaughterhouse as well. According to Dairy Australia, in the past 12 months to August 2016, 109,102 head were sold, an increase of 33% on the previous year. New Zealand and Australia are the world's largest and the fourth largest dairy exporters, respectively. In June, one month before the start of the new season (July 2016 to June 2017), farm-gate milk prices set by major dairy processors in Australia were still much lower than most dairy farmers' production costs, further damaging the country's dairy production outlook for the 2016/17 season. In July, August and September, Australian milk production fell sharply for three consecutive months, with a yoy contraction of 10.3%, 9.3%, and 10.2%, respectively. In July, the European Commission funded a €150 million program to pay farmers to cut their milk production. At the same time, the region also intervened with a stock purchase program and a private-storage aid scheme to help remove excess supply from the market. The EU region is the world's second biggest exporter. Its production increase due to the removal of its quota system was one main reason for last year's price drop. The recent supportive policy has worked well - the region's milk volumes decreased in September for the third consecutive month. In the meantime, Chinese dairy imports have rebounded 9.7% yoy for the first nine months of this year, a significant improvement from last year's 44.4% contraction over the same period. China is the world biggest dairy importer, accounting for 51% of global fluid milk imports, and 40% of dry, whole-milk powder imports (Chart 4, panel 1). Chart 4China Needs More Dairy Imports In comparison, the number of Chinese cow herds only accounts for 6% of global total cows for milk production, which is clearly far from meeting its domestic demand (Chart 4, panel 2). Early this year the country loosened up the "one-child" policy, and now allows "two-kids" in a family, starting this year. This will increase the country's baby formula's demand. The country's dairy product intake per capita is still far below Asian peers like Japan and Korea. Growing family wealth and increasing demand for healthy dairy food will continue boosting the dairy consumption in China. Due to the limited pasture land in the country for raising cows, we expect China's dairy imports will continue heading north. What about the price outlook in the remainder of 2016 and 2017? Most of the positive factors aforementioned are still in place. In the near term, we do not see significant supply increase. Despite the 61% price rally in the GDT price index over the past seven months, most of the price increase still has not passed to farm-gate milk prices in major producing countries (except New Zealand). Hence, for the remainder of 2016 and 2017H1, we expect prices will be prone to the upside. Pullbacks are always possible. But overall we still expect another 5% to 10% upside over next three to six months for the GDT price index. Beyond 2017H1, the price outlook is less clear. If prices either go sideways or up, milk production in major producing countries should eventually recover. For now, we hold a neutral view for dairy prices in 2017H2. Downside Risks Chart 5Downside Risks First, global dairy stockpiles are much higher than previous years (Chart 5, panel 1). According to the European Commission, at the end of September, around 428 thousand metric tons (kt) of skimmed-milk powder (SMP) was in public intervention stocks, while another 73 kt SMP was in private storage. In addition, there also is about 90 kt butter and 19 kt cheese stored privately. As the EU still is aiming to cut milk production to boost dairy prices, we believe the odds of an unexpected release from storage in a fast and massive manner is low. The release will likely be gradual. Second, much of New Zealand's milk production is dependent on weather conditions, which have improved from mid-August. Moreover, Fonterra increased its farm-gate milk price to $6 per kgMS (kilogram milk solid) from $5.25 per kgMS last week, which was the third increase over the past four months. Since August, farm-gate milk price in New Zealand has already been up 41% and well above the country's production cost. A combination of both factors may boost the country's milk production more than the market expected. In this case, prices could decline in 2017H1. Third, if the U.S. dollar continues strengthening versus the RMB and other major exporters' currencies, this will tend to discourage purchases from China and encourage sales from New Zealand, the EU and Australia, which will be negative to dairy prices (Chart 5, panel 2). We will monitor these risks closely. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report for softs section "Oil Markets Pricing In $20/Bbl Downside," dated October 1, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Investment Views And Themes Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices And Plays Reference Table Closed Trades
Highlights Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the FTSE100 reduces to: will the euro weaken against the pound? Stay neutral in the Eurostoxx600 versus the FTSE100. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the Nikkei225 reduces to: will the euro weaken against the yen? Overweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the Nikkei 225. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the S&P500 reduces to: will European Banks outperform U.S. Technology? Underweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. Feature 2016 is the year of the political shock. But for investors, some things have stayed faithfully the same. Chart of the WeekEurostoxx Vs. Nikkei Reduces To: Will Euro/Yen Weaken? Last week's report From Berlin Wall To Mexican Wall explained how the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 ushered in a great era of globalization - an era in which goods, services, capital and people have moved around the world more and more freely. Chart I-2The Globalization Of Stock Markets For investors, one major upshot is that the world's biggest companies have also become more and more globalized. The leading European stock market indexes - Eurostoxx600, FTSE100, DAX30, CAC40 and many other national indexes - are now just a collection of multinational companies with a global footprint. The same applies to major indexes outside Europe, such as the Nikkei225 and S&P500. Before the era of globalization, many companies had little exposure to economies outside their country or region of domicile. Unsurprisingly, in the 1980s, a German bank share price was more correlated with the rest of the German stock market than it was with a U.S. bank share price. But today, a large proportion of sales and profits are sourced globally. The German bank share price is now more correlated with the U.S. bank share price than it is with the rest of the German stock market! (Chart I-2) This begs the question: if Brexit and President-elect Trump are ushering in a great era of anti-globalization, will the major indexes become parochial once again? The answer is perhaps, but it will be a slow process - even assuming that the anti-globalization rhetoric does fully materialize. Sometimes, Stock Market Allocation Reduces To A Currency View For the time being, one obvious distinction between the major indexes will remain instrumental in driving performance differences. The Eurostoxx600 is denominated in euros, the FTSE100 in pounds, the Nikkei225 in yen, and the S&P500 in dollars. However, the constituent companies' sales and profits are denominated in a mixture of major global currencies, or in dollars. So all else being equal, if the local currency weakens - in other words, if other global currencies strengthen versus the local currency - then index profits will rise in local currency terms. Meaning the index value must go up. And if the local currency strengthens, the index value must go down. Simplistic as it sounds, some important asset allocation decisions just reduce to a bi-lateral currency view. Chart I-3 clearly shows that Eurostoxx600 versus FTSE100 relative performance reduces to a simple question: will the euro weaken against the pound? If so, the Eurostoxx600 will outperform the FTSE100. And vice-versa. Clearly, the outlook for euro/pound has been an important question this year, and will be an equally important question next year. Chart I-3Eurostoxx Vs. FTSE Reduces To: Will Euro/Pound Weaken? Likewise, the Chart of the Week clearly shows that Eurostoxx600 versus Nikkei225 relative performance reduces to a similar simple question: will the euro weaken against the yen? If so, the Eurostoxx600 will outperform the Nikkei225. And vice-versa. Sometimes, Stock Market Allocation Reduces To A Sector View But in the case of the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500, relative performance does not reduce to the direction of euro/dollar. Since mid-2014, the euro has weakened substantially versus the dollar, yet the Eurostoxx600 has underperformed the S&P500. This is because another factor drives this relative performance pair (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4Eurostoxx Vs. S&P500 Does Not ##br##Depend On Euro/Dollar... Chart I-5...Eurostoxx Vs. S&P500 Does Depend ##br##On Banks Vs. Technology Although major indexes are a collection of multinational companies, it doesn't follow that the sector exposures of these indexes will be the same. Comparing the Eurostoxx600 with the S&P500, the Eurostoxx600 has a marked overexposure to Banks and an especially marked underexposure to Technology (Table I-1). Table I-1Eurostoxx Vs. S&P500 = Overweight##br## Banks, Underweight Technology Banks comprise 13% of the Eurostoxx600 market capitalization but only 6% of the S&P500. On the flipside, Technology comprises just 4% of the Eurostoxx600 market capitalization but a very substantial 21% of the S&P500. To repeat, multinational company share prices today are more correlated with their global sector than with their domestic stock market of listing. Recently, this has been true even for U.S. Banks - which amazingly have shown a higher correlation with European Banks than with the rest of the U.S. stock market. It follows that when two indexes are distinguished by large sector skews, these sector skews will drive relative performance. Our Special Reports Picking Countries The Right Way 1 Parts 1, 2 and 3 showed that this is the case for most head to head stock market comparisons within Europe. It is also the case for the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. Put simply, for the Eurostoxx600 to outperform the S&P500 on a sustained basis, Banks must outperform Technology on a sustained basis. Or to be more precise, European Banks must outperform U.S. Technology (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Eurostoxx Vs. S&P500 Reduces To: Will European Banks Outperform U.S. Technology? Applying Reductionism To The Eurostoxx600 We can now apply investment reductionism to position the Eurostoxx600 against three other major indexes: the FTSE100, the Nikkei225 and the S&P500. 1. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the FTSE100 reduces to: will the euro weaken against the pound? For the foreseeable future, the euro/pound exchange rate hinges on the perceived severity of Brexit. In this regard, there is unlikely to be meaningful new information until the U.K. Supreme Court delivers its verdict on the legal process that the U.K. government must follow. The verdict is due in January. So for the time being, it is appropriate to stay neutral in the Eurostoxx600 versus the FTSE100. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the Nikkei225 reduces to: will the euro weaken against the yen? 2. The euro/yen exchange rate hinges on ECB/BoJ relative monetary policy. Given that the BoJ made its bold policy move a few months ago, the focus now is on whether the ECB will continue with QE beyond March 2017. Chart I-7European Banks Do Not Offer An Especially##br## Large Discount To U.S. Technology The minutes of the ECB's most recent policy meeting provide some clues. On the one hand, the central bank cautioned on the unintended consequences of extended QE: "The possible side effects of the low interest rate environment and the range of non-standard measures in place on the longer-term intermediation capacity of banks and other financial institutions had to be further examined" On the other hand, the ECB emphasised: "(QE) was set to run... in any case until the ECB saw a sustained adjustment in the path of inflation consistent with its inflation aim... underlying inflation, however, continued to lack clear signs of a convincing upward trend." On this basis, it seems that the ECB will extend its QE program beyond March 2017, as well as give a strong commitment to keep policy rates anchored. But the recent underperformance of the Eurostoxx600 versus Nikkei225 has discounted a sizable strengthening of euro/yen. It is appropriate to lean against this and overweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the Nikkei225. Eurostoxx600 outperformance versus the S&P500 reduces to: will European Banks outperform U.S. Technology? Again, the minutes of the ECB's most recent policy meeting perfectly summarized the environment for European banks: "Ongoing structural challenges to banks' balance sheets, notably arising from still high levels of non-performing loans (NPLs) in parts of the euro area banking sector, in conjunction with regulatory challenges (BRRD), and the weakness in profitability were seen to pose a risk to the transmission of monetary policy and a further recovery in credit dynamics" Or as we recently put it,2 European bank investors are fighting three long-term headwinds: BRRD, NPLs and NIRP. Yet on a price to forward earnings multiple, European Banks do not offer an especially large discount to U.S. Technology (Chart I-7). Therefore, investment reductionism says it is appropriate to underweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the three European Investment Strategy Special Reports 'Picking 5 European Countries The Right Way' November 13, 2014, 'Picking Countries The Right Way: Part 2' March 26, 2015 and 'Picking Countries The Right Way: Part 3' November 12, 2015, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "All Roads Lead To Banks", dated October 6, 2016, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* The recent sharp moves in markets offer another opportunity for a long plantinum / short palladium pair-trade. A similar opportunity on October 6 successfully signaled a 13% countertrend move. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-8 * 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 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions 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 ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Investors are betting that Trump's expansionary agenda will not be torpedoed by his less market-friendly policies such as trade protectionism. We have some sympathy for this view, but believe that investors should remain cautious on risk assets until we receive more clarity on the sequencing of Trump's wish list and how aggressively he will pursue fiscal expansionism relative to trade and immigration reform. We doubt that Trump's fiscal and regulatory plan will place the U.S. economy on a permanently higher growth plane. Many of the growth headwinds that existed in the U.S. before the election remain in place. We expect that Trump will find most common ground with Congress on the fiscal side. It will be difficult, politically, for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform. We expect a meaningful fiscal stimulus package to be passed in the U.S. that will boost growth temporarily. We cannot rule out a trade war that more than offsets the fiscal impulse. Nonetheless, Trump's desire for growth means that he may tread carefully on protectionism. A window may open next year that will favor risk assets for a period of time. A temporary U.S. growth acceleration in late-2017/early 2018 would lift the equity and corporate bond boats. Our bias is to upgrade risk assets to overweight, but poor value means that the risk/reward tradeoff is underwhelming until we get more visibility on the new Administration's policy intentions. In the meantime, remain at benchmark in equities, overweight the dollar and below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. The bond selloff is likely to pause until there is more concrete evidence that Congress will accept tax cuts and infrastructure spending, but global yields eventually have more upside potential. Value and relative monetary policies favor the Japanese and European stock markets versus the U.S., at least in local currencies. We are less bearish on high-yield bonds in relative terms, although we are still slightly below-benchmark. Feature Initial fears that a Trump victory would be apocalyptic for the economy and financial markets quickly morphed into an equity celebration on hopes that the Republican sweep would usher in policies that will shift American growth into high gear. Major U.S. stock indexes have broken above recent trading ranges, despite the surge in the dollar and the devastation in bond markets. Investors are betting that Trump's expansionary policies will not be torpedoed by his less market-friendly policies such as trade protectionism. We have some sympathy for this view, but believe that investors should remain cautious on risk assets until we receive more clarity on the sequencing of Trump's wish list and how aggressively he will pursue fiscal expansionism relative to trade and immigration reform. In the meantime, investors should remain long the dollar and short duration within bond portfolios, although a near-term correction of recent market action appears likely. Our geopolitical strategists argued through the entire campaign that Trump had a better chance of winning than the consensus believed because he was riding a voter preference wave that is moving left. Trump campaigned as an unorthodox Republican, appealing to white, blue collar voters by blaming globalization for their job losses and low wages, and by refusing to accept Republican (GOP) orthodoxy on fiscal austerity or entitlement spending. Chart I-1Big Government Is Only ##br##A Problem For The Opposition The polarization of U.S. voters and comparisons with the U.K. Brexit vote are well trodden themes that we won't rehash here. The important point is that the GOP now holds both the White House and Congress. The investment implications hinge critically on how friendly Congress is to Trump's policy prescriptions. Many pundits argue that House and Senate Republican's will block Trump's ambitious tax cut and infrastructure spending plan because it would blow out the budget deficit. The reality is more complex. It will be difficult politically for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform; it would be seen as thwarting the will of the people. Our post-election Special Report pointed out that, over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items.1 Moreover, the GOP is less fiscally conservative than is widely believed. Fiscal trends under the Bush and Reagan administrations highlighted that Republicans do not always keep spending in check (Chart I-1). The key pillars of Trump's campaign were renegotiating trade deals, immigration reform, increased infrastructure and defense spending, tax cuts, protecting entitlements, repealing Obamacare and reducing regulations. However, there is a big difference between election promises and what can actually be delivered. It is early going, but our first Special Report, beginning on page 19, presents a Q&A from our geopolitical team on what we know in terms of political constraints and possible outcomes in the coming year. Common Ground On Fiscal Policy We expect that Trump will find most common ground with Congress on the fiscal side. Infrastructure spending has bipartisan support, as highlighted by last year's highway funding bill. Democratic senators and House Republicans have promised to work with the new President on infrastructure spending. Trump is likely to offer tax reform in exchange for his infrastructure plan. Trump wants to cut the top marginal corporate tax rate (from 39.6% to 33%), repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, and slash the corporate tax rate (from 35% to 15%). His plan also includes increased standard deduction limits and a full expensing of business capital spending. The Tax Policy Center estimates that Trump's tax plan alone would increase federal debt by $6.2 trillion over the next ten years (excluding additional interest).2 An extra $1 trillion in infrastructure outlays over the next decade, together with a growing defense budget, could add another $100-$200 billion to total federal spending per year. The problem, of course, is that few sources of new revenue have been suggested to cover the costs of these policy changes. The Tax Policy Center's scoring of the Trump plan implies a jump in the U.S. debt/GDP ratio from 77% today to 106% in 2026. Other studies claim that the budget damage will be far less than this because government revenues will boom along with the economy. We doubt that will be the case. The outlook for U.S. trade policy is even more nebulous. Trump has threatened to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and potentially place tariffs of 35% and 45%, respectively, on imports from Mexico and China (among other protectionist measures). He has even threatened to take the U.S. out of the WTO.3 These threats are no more than posturing ahead of negotiations, but Trump needs to show his base of support that he is working to "make America great again". Protectionism will probably generate more pushback from Republicans in the House and Senate than Trump's fiscal measures. The Economic Implications Of Trumponomics Table I-1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers In terms of the overall economic impact, there are many moving parts and it is unclear how much the Trump Administration will push fiscal stimulus versus trade protectionism. As discussed in the Special Report, it is possible that the tax cuts will be implemented as quickly as the second quarter of 2017, while infrastructure spending could begin ramping up in the second half of the year. However, we cannot rule out a lengthy bargaining process that would delay the economic stimulus into 2018. We doubt that Trump will get everything on his wish list. Moreover, the multiplier effects of tax cuts, which will benefit the upper-income classes the most, are smaller than for direct government spending (Table I-1). Nevertheless, even if he gets one quarter of what he is seeking, it could be enough to boost aggregate demand growth by up to 1% per year over a two year period. In terms of trade, Trump will undoubtedly kill the TPP immediately following his inauguration to show he means business. The President also has the power to implement tariffs without Congressional consent. It is unclear whether he can also cancel NAFTA unilaterally, but at a minimum he can impose higher tariffs and trade restrictions on Canada and Mexico. Nonetheless, comments from his advisors suggest that president-elect Trump wants stronger growth above all else. This means that he may tread carefully to avoid the negative growth effects of a trade war. Some high-profile studies of the impact of the Trump economic plan paint a grim picture. The Peterson Institute points out that "withdrawal from the WTO would lead to the unraveling of all tariff negotiations and the reversion of rates to the MFN level of a preexisting agreement, conceivably all the way back to the Smoot-Hawley rates that were in effect in 1934." Another Peterson study reported the results of a simulation of the impact of returning to the Smoot-Hawley tariff levels, using a large general equilibrium global model.4 They find that U.S. real GDP would contract by about 7½%, or roughly $1 trillion. Thus, a "doomsday trade scenario" is possible, but it seems inconceivable that Trump would withdraw from the WTO given his desire for growth. More likely, he will settle for higher tariffs placed on Mexico and China. Such tariffs would undermine U.S. growth on their own, but we believe that some recent studies discussed in the press overstate the negative impact of these tariffs. Back-of-the-envelope estimates suggest that the tariff increases would reduce U.S. real GDP by roughly 1.2%, including retaliation by Mexico and China in the form of higher tariffs on U.S. exports (see Box I-1 for more details). The negative shock would likely be stretched over a couple of years.5 Box 1 Importantly, not all of any tariff increase would be "passed-through" to U.S. businesses and households. Studies show that, historically, the pass-through of tariff increases into U.S. prices was actually quite low, at about 0.5. A large portion of previous tariff hikes have been absorbed by foreign producers as they endeavored to protect market share. This means that a 35% tariff on Mexican imports would result in a roughly 17½% rise in import prices from Mexico. A 45% tariff on Chinese goods would result in a 22½% rise in import prices from China. Moreover, the import price elasticity of U.S. demand, or the sensitivity of U.S. demand to a change in the price of imported goods, is estimated to be about 1. That is, a 22½% rise in import prices from China leads to a 22½% drop in import volumes from that country. Roughly one-half of the drop in imports is replaced by purchases from other countries and one-half from U.S. sources. This so-called "expenditure switching" effect actually boosts U.S. real GDP on its own. Of course, this lift is more than offset by the fact that households and businesses suffer a loss of purchasing power due to higher import prices. Chinese and Mexican imports represent 2.7% and 1.7%, respectively, of U.S. GDP. With these figures and the elasticities discussed above, we can calculate a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the impact of the Trump tariffs. The expenditure switching effect would boost U.S. real GDP by about 0.4%. This is offset by the purchasing power effect of -0.7% (including a multiplier of 1.5), leaving a net loss of only 0.3%. Of course, China and Mexico will retaliate by imposing higher tariffs on U.S. exports. This has a larger negative impact on the U.S. because American export volumes decline and there is no offsetting expenditure-switching effect. We estimate that retaliation with equal tariffs on U.S. exports would reduce U.S. GDP by about 1% using reasonable elasticities. Adding it all up, the proposed Trump tariffs on China and Mexico would result in a roughly 1.2% hit to U.S. real GDP. This could overstate the negative shock to the extent that the tariff revenues are spent by the U.S. government.6 Moreover, some studies of the Trump agenda assume that business spending would wither under a stronger dollar, waning business confidence and higher interest rates. We are not so pessimistic. The threat of punitive measures is likely to dissuade some U.S. companies from moving production abroad. Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. On the flipside, the fear of losing access to the U.S. market might persuade some foreign companies to relocate production to the United States. Such worries were a key reason why Japanese automobile companies began to invest in new U.S. production capacity starting in the 1980s. Moreover, U.S. corporate capital spending has been lackluster since the Great Recession due to "offshoring". Higher tariffs would promote "onshoring", helping to lift capital spending within the U.S. economy. We are not arguing that trade protectionism will be good for the U.S. economy. We are merely pointing out that there are positive offsets to the negative aspects of protectionism, and that many studies are overly pessimistic on the impact on growth. That said, all bets are off if Trump does the unthinkable and cancels NAFTA outright and/or takes the U.S. out of the WTO. The Fed's Reaction The economic and financial market dynamics over the next couple of years depend importantly on how the Fed responds to the Trump policy mix. We are not worried about central bank independence or Janet Yellen's future. Donald Trump has, at various times, both praised and attacked the Fed Chair and current monetary policy settings. A review of the Fed may happen at some point, but we assert that an investigation will not be a priority early in Trump's mandate. Some have raised concerns that Trump could stack the FOMC with hawks when he fills the openings next year. More likely, he will opt for doves because he will not want a hawkish Fed prematurely shutting down the expansion. The studies that warn of a major U.S. recession under Trump's policies assume that the Fed tightens aggressively as fiscal stimulus lifts the economy's growth rate. For example, the Moodys' report assumes that the fed funds rate rises to 6½% by 2018!7 No wonder Moodys' foresees a downturn that is longer than the Great Recession. No doubt, it would have been better if fiscal stimulus arrived years ago when there was a substantial amount of economic slack. With the economy close to full employment today, aggressive government pump-priming could set the U.S. up for a typical end to the business cycle; overheating followed by a Fed-induced recession. Indeed, many investors are wondering if the U.S. is overdue for a recession anyway. The current expansion phase is indeed looking long-in-the-tooth by historical standards. However, the old adage is apt: "expansions don't die of old age, they are murdered by the Fed". In Charts I-2A, Chart I-2B and Chart I-2C, we split the U.S. post-1950 economic cycles into three sets based on the length of the expansion phase: short (about 2 years), medium (4-6 years) and long (8-10 years). What distinguishes short from the medium and long expansions is the speed by which the most cyclical parts of the economy accelerate, and the time it takes for the unemployment rate to reach a full employment level. Long expansion phases were characterized by a drawn-out rise in the cyclical parts of the economy and a slow return to full employment in the labor market, similar to what has occurred since the Great Recession (Chart I-2C). Chart I-2ALong Chart I-2BMedium Expansions Chart I-2CA Short Expansion Of course, the Fed did not begin to tighten policy immediately upon reaching full employment in the past. The Fed began hiking rates an average of 13 months after reaching full employment in the short cycles, 30 months for medium cycles, and more than 60 months in the "slow burn" expansions (Table I-2). Even if we exclude the 1960s expansion, when the Fed delayed for too long and fell behind the inflation curve, the Fed has waited an average of 45 months before lifting rates in the other long expansions (beginning in 1982 and 1991). The longer delay compared to the shorter expansions reflected the slow pace at which inflationary pressures accumulated. During these periods, inflation-adjusted earnings-per-share (EPS) expanded by an average of 25% and the real value of the S&P 500 index increased by 28%. Table I-1U.S. Expansions Can Last Long After Full Employment Is Reached The lesson is that risk assets can still perform well for a long time after the economy reaches full employment. Admittedly, however, equity valuation is more stretched today than was the case at similar points in past long cycles. Before the U.S. election, the current expansion appeared to be heading for a similar long, drawn-out conclusion. Inflationary pressures are beginning to emerge, but only slowly, and from a low starting point. Moreover, evidence suggests that the Phillips curve8 is quite flat at low levels of inflation. This implies that the Fed has plenty of time to normalize interest rates because inflation is unlikely to surge. However, a sea change in trade and fiscal policy could change the calculus. To the extent that fiscal stimulus is front-loaded relative to trade protection, and that any trade restrictions add to inflation, Trump's policy agenda could force the Fed to normalize rates more quickly. The FOMC Will Wait And See Chart I-3Inflation Expectations Moving To Target Yellen's congressional testimony in November revealed that the Fed is not yet preparing for a more aggressive tightening cycle. There was nothing to suggest that the Fed is revising its economic forecasts following the election. Similarly, the Fed is not making any upward revisions to its estimate of the long-run neutral rate, which remains "quite low by historical standards." The implication is that the Fed will raise rates in December, but it will keep its "dot" forecast unchanged. The FOMC is prudently awaiting the details of the fiscal package before changing its economic and interest rate projections. We doubt that the Fed will be aggressive in offsetting the fiscal stimulus. We have argued in the past that the consensus on the FOMC would not follow the Bank of Japan and officially target a temporary overshoot of the 2% inflation target. Nonetheless, most Fed officials would not be upset if, with hindsight, they tighten too slowly and inflation overshoots modestly. The inflation target is supposed to be symmetric, which means that 2% is not meant to be a hard ceiling. Moreover, the Fed will be extremely cautious about tightening monetary policy until TIPS breakevens are more firmly anchored around pre-crisis levels. Market-based measures of inflation compensation have surged in the past few weeks, but remain below levels that are consistent with the Fed hitting its 2% PCE inflation target (Chart I-3).9 Investors should continue to hold inflation protection in the bond market. A window may open sometime in 2017 in which improving economic growth is met with a cautious Fed. In this environment, we would expect the Treasury curve to bear-steepen and risk assets to outperform. The window will likely close once inflation moves up and inflation expectations converge at a level consistent with the 2% target. Bond Strategy The implications of Trump's policy agenda are clearly bond bearish, although yields have shifted a long way in a short time. The gap between market rate expectations and the Fed's median expected path has narrowed considerably, both at the long-end and short-end of the curve (Chart I-4). The 5-year/5-year forward overnight index swap rate is now 2.1%, only 82 bps below the Fed's median estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. The U.S. 10-year yield has already converged with two measures of fair value, although yields remain well below fair value in the other major countries according to estimates of nominal potential output growth (Charts I-5 and I-6). The fact that the gap between the Fed's dots and market expectations has almost closed, means that a lot of bond-bearish news has been discounted in the U.S. We would not be surprised to see a partial retracement of the recent bond selloff. Investors will want to see concrete plans for substantial fiscal stimulus before the next leg of the bond bear market takes place. Speculators may wish to take profits on short bond plays, but investors with a 6-12 month horizon should remain short of duration benchmarks. Chart I-4Market Expectations Converging With Dots Chart I-5Bond Fair Value Method (I) Chart I-6Bond Fair Value Method (II) On a long-term horizon, the Trump agenda reinforces our view that the secular bull market in bonds is over. Larry Summers' Secular Stagnation thesis will be challenged and investors will come to question the need for ultra-low real interest rates in the U.S. well into the next decade. A blowout in the U.S. budget deficit will temper the excess global savings story to some extent. Tax cuts, infrastructure spending, full expensing of capital goods and reduced regulation may also boost the long-run potential growth rate in the U.S. All of this suggests that equilibrium interest rates and bond yields will shift higher. Nonetheless, poor demographic trends and other impediments to both the supply- and demand-sides of the U.S. and global economies have not disappeared. The ECB is likely to extend its bond purchase program beyond next March, while the Bank of Japan has capped the 10-year JGB yield at close to zero, both of which should limit the amount by which yields in the other developed markets can rise. We could even see global yields fall back to near previous lows if the Fed winds up tightening too aggressively and sparks the next recession. Is Trump Bullish For Stocks? Chart I-7Equity Market Breakouts Developed country stock markets cheered the U.S. election outcome, presumably betting that the positives will outweigh the negatives. The main indexes in the U.S. and Japan have broken out of their trading ranges (Chart I-7). Bourses in Europe have also moved higher, but have not yet broken out. On the plus side, deregulation and stronger growth are bullish for U.S. corporate profits. Trump's proposal for a major corporate tax cut is another positive for equities, although the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is already at multi-decade lows. Cutting the marginal rate will thus not affect the effective rate much for large corporations. Any lowering of the marginal rate will benefit small and medium enterprises, as well as domestically-oriented S&P 500 corporations. On the negative side, dollar strength will be a headwind given that about a third of S&P 500 earnings are sourced from abroad. This raises the question of which factor will dominate profit growth over the next year; better economic growth or dollar strength? Table I-3 presents a matrix of different scenarios for the dollar and economic growth applied to our U.S. EPS model. Our base-case assumptions, implemented before the election, generated 5-6% earnings growth in 2017. We assumed that real and nominal GDP growth would be on par with the conservative IMF forecast. The bullish case assumes that real GDP growth is about a percentage point stronger, with modestly higher inflation. The opposite is assumed in the bear case. These three cases are combined with various scenarios for the dollar. The key point of Table I-3 is that the growth assumptions dominate the dollar effects. If growth is significantly stronger than the base case, then it would require a massive dollar adjustment to offset the positive impact on earnings. For example, our EPS estimate rises from 5-6% in the base case to almost 13% in the strong growth scenario, even if the dollar appreciates by 5%.10 The elephant in the room is the prospect of a trade war. Anti-globalization polices are negative for equities generally, although the boost for domestically-oriented firms provides some offset. As we argued above, higher tariffs on Mexico and China alone would not fully counteract a major fiscal push next year, especially if the trade impediments are implemented with a lag. Nonetheless, a broader anti-trade initiative that draws retaliation from many of America's trading partners cannot be ruled out. This is the main reason why we remain tactically cautious on equities. Table I-3U.S. Earnings Scenarios Country Equity Allocation In common currency terms, the U.S. equity market has a lot going for it relative to Japan and Europe. There will be spillovers from stronger U.S. growth to other countries, but the U.S. will benefit the most from Trump's fiscal stimulus plan. Continuing policy divergence will prop up the dollar, boosting returns in common-currency terms. The dollar has appreciated by about 4% in trade-weighted terms since we first predicted a 10% rise, suggesting that there is another 6% to go. Chart I-8Eurozone Still Has Lots Of Slack However, it is a tougher call in local currency terms. Monetary policy will remain highly accommodative in both Japan and Europe. As we highlighted in last month's Overview, we still expect Japan to implement a major fiscal stimulus plan. In the context of the Bank of Japan's fixing of the 10-year yield, government spending will amount to a helicopter drop policy that could generate a substantial yen depreciation. The central bank will continue to hold the yield curve down even when growth picks up, to drive real yields lower via rising inflation expectations. In the Eurozone, the ECB is likely to extend its asset purchase program beyond next March because it cannot credibly argue that inflation is on track to meet the target on any reasonable timetable. While the Eurozone economy has been growing well above trend this year, the fact that wage growth is languishing highlights that significant labor market slack persists (Chart I-8). Easy-money policies in Europe and Japan will be bullish for stocks in both markets in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. Stocks are also cheaper in Japan and the Eurozone. Earlier this year, we presented a methodology for valuing Eurozone stocks relative to the U.S. from a top-down perspective. The methodology accounted for different sector weightings and the fact that European stocks generally trade at a discount to the U.S. This month's second Special Report, beginning on page 27, applies the same methodology to Japanese/U.S. relative valuation. Combining seven relative valuation measures into a single composite metric, we find that both the Eurozone and Japanese equity markets are about one standard deviation cheap relative to the U.S. (Chart I-9). History shows that investors would have made substantial (currency hedged) excess returns if they had favored Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. on a six-month or longer investment horizon whenever our composite valuation index reached one standard deviation on the cheap side. Our recommended (hedged) overweight in Europe and Japan has not worked out yet, as tepid global growth has instead flattered the lower-beta U.S. market. That tide should turn, however, if the rise in global bond yields reflects a credibly reflationary growth pulse in the U.S. A stronger dollar would redistribute some of that growth to other countries. Chart I-10 shows that higher beta markets like Europe and Japan can outperform the U.S. when bond yields rise. The financial sectors in both Europe and Japan, so punished relative to the broad market as a result of deleveraging and negative interest rates, would then be poised to outperform as well. Chart I-9Equity Valuation Chart I-10U.S. Equities ##br##Underperform When Yields Rise Investment Conclusions: Hopes are running high that fiscal stimulus and a more business-friendly regulatory framework will stir animal spirits, rekindle business investment and lift the U.S. economy out of its growth funk. The violent reaction in financial markets to the election has probably gone too far in discounting a transformative policy change. We doubt that Trump's fiscal and regulatory agenda will place the U.S. economy on a permanently higher growth plane. Many of the growth headwinds that existed in the U.S. before the election remain in place, such as: the end of the Debt Supercycle; deteriorating demographics; elevated corporate leverage; and nose-bleed levels of government debt. A lot of good (policy) news is already discounted in equity prices, implying that the market is vulnerable to policy or economic disappointments. That said, a window may open next year that would favor risk assets for a period of time. A temporary growth acceleration in late-2017/early 2018 would lift the equity and corporate bond boats. Markets will front-run the growth pulse (some of it is admittedly already discounted). Our bias is therefore to upgrade these asset classes, but poor value means that the risk/reward tradeoff is underwhelming until we get more visibility on the new administration's policy intentions. Until there is more clarity, remain at benchmark in equities, overweight the dollar and below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. EM assets appear to us like a lose-lose proposition. A trade war would obviously be disastrous for this asset class. But EM also loses if U.S. protectionism takes a back seat to growth initiatives to the extent that this results in a stronger dollar. EM risk assets have never escaped periods of dollar strength unscathed. The possibility of RMB depreciation versus the U.S. dollar adds to EM vulnerability. Our other investment recommendations include the following: avoid peripheral European government bonds within European bond portfolios due to Italian referendum risk; avoid U.S. municipal bonds, as tax cuts would devalue the tax advantage of muni debt; remain overweight inflation-linked bonds versus conventional issues within government bond portfolios, as inflation expectations have more upside potential; we are marginally less bearish on high-yield bonds since better growth will temper defaults. We also see less near-term risk of a Fed-driven volatility event. Nonetheless, concerns about corporate health still justify a slight underweight relative to Treasurys in the U.S. Overweight investment-grade corporates in Europe versus European governments due to ongoing ECB support; overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. in currency-hedged terms. within the U.S. equity market, remain overweight small caps since Trump's corporate tax reform will benefit small firms disproportionately. Dollar strength also favors small versus large caps. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst November 24, 2016 Next Report: December 20, 2016 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Outcomes and Investment Implications," November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Jim Nunns, Len Burman, Ben Page, Jeff Rohaly, and Joe Rosenberg, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016. 3 World Trade Organization. 4 Scott Bradford, Paul Grieco and Gary Clyde Hufbauer, "The Payoff to America from Global Integration," Peterson Institute for International Economics. 5 These calculations capture the demand-side effects of the tariffs. There will also be supply-side effects, in terms of reduced productivity, but this will be relatively small and affect the economy largely over the medium term. 6 The elasticities and methodology for these calculations are based on the report; "Trump's Tariffs: A Dissent," J.W. Mason, November 2016. 7 "The Macroeconomic Consequences of Mr.Trump's Economic Policies," Moody's Analytics, June 2016. 8 The short-term tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. 9 Inflation breakeven rates have historically exceeded 2% because of the presence of risk premia. 10 The impact of dollar appreciation on profits shown in Table 3 may seem too low to some readers given that S&P 500 companies derive a third of their earnings from abroad. However, some of these earnings are hedged, while dollar strength will benefit the earnings of domestically-oriented U.S. companies. II. A Q&A On Political Dynamics In Washington In this Special Report, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service answers some key questions posed by clients surrounding the incoming Trump administration. The situation could evolve quickly in the coming months, but these answers convey our preliminary thoughts. What support will President-elect Trump's infrastructure plans have from Republicans in Congress? The support for infrastructure spending can be gauged by popular opinion and the bipartisan highway funding bill passed by Congress late last year. The $305 billion bill to fund roads, bridges and rail lines received support from both parties (83-16 vote in the Senate and 359-65 vote in the House). The dissenting votes included fiscal conservatives and Tea Party/Freedom Caucus members. And yet many of their voters supported Trump, whose victory shows the political winds shifting against "austerity." Moreover, new presidents normally receive support from their party on major initiatives early in their term. Democratic Senators and House Representatives have suggested they may work with Trump on infrastructure spending, most notably Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer and even Nancy Pelosi. This could mark an instance of bipartisanship in the context of still-growing polarization. The 2018 mid-term elections will be difficult for the Democrats, with 10 Democratic senators facing elections in states which Donald Trump won, including key "Rust Belt" swing states where the infrastructure argument is appealing (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio). Thus, there are political incentives for Democrats to cooperate with the White House on infrastructure. Trump owes his victory to swing voters who favor infrastructure. As we discuss below, he may give the GOP Congress some concessions (for instance, on tax reform) in exchange for cooperation on infrastructure spending. How many votes would he need to get an infrastructure bill passed in Congress? Trump will likely get the votes. He needs 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate, assuming his infrastructure plan is not so partisan (or so entwined with partisan measures like his tax cuts) as to draw a Senate filibuster. The GOP has 239 seats in the House and at least 51 in the Senate (Louisiana could make it 52). One way of overcoming any Democratic filibuster in the Senate is by "Reconciliation," a process for speeding up bills affecting revenues and expenditures. Under this process, which requires the prior passage of a budget resolution, a simple majority in the Senate is enough to allow a reconciliation bill to pass. The process can be used for passing tax cuts as well, after procedural changes in 2011 and 2015. If passed, what is the earliest we could expect more spending? Congress passed President Obama's $763 billion stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), in February 2009, the month after he was sworn in. About 20% of the investment outlays went out the door by the end of fiscal 2009 and 40% by the end of fiscal 2010.1 Today, infrastructure outlays are less urgent, as the country is not in the mouth of a financial crisis, but the roll-out could be expedited by the administration. Trump's plan calls for building infrastructure through public-private partnerships, which could involve longer negotiation periods but also faster completion once started. Trump's team claims they can accelerate the spending process by cutting red tape. What is a 'best guess' on the final amount of deficit-financed infrastructure spending? Trump is currently committed to $550 billion in new infrastructure investment, down from initial suggestions of $1 trillion over a decade. A detailed plan has not been released, however. Trump's campaign promised to induce infrastructure spending via public-private partnerships, with tax credits for private investors. The plan was said to be "deficit neutral" based on assumptions about revenue recuperated from taxing the labor that works on the projects and the profits of companies involved, taxed at Trump's proposed 15% corporate tax rate.2 The government tax credit would have amounted to 13.7% of the total investment. Earlier proposals can easily be revised or scrapped. Already, Trump has reversed his earlier opposition to Hillary Clinton's proposal of setting up an infrastructure bank, potentially financed by repatriated earnings of U.S. corporations. His potential Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, raised the possibility on November 16. Who are key players in this process and what are their backgrounds? The aforementioned leading Democrats could become key players, if they prove willing to work with Trump on infrastructure. Comments by Paul Ryan and the Congressional GOP should be monitored, as infrastructure spending was not a major part of their policy platform, called "A Better Way," released in June of this year.3 The only infrastructure that Ryan mentioned in the GOP policy paper was energy infrastructure. Not the "roads, bridges, railways, tunnels, sea ports, and airports" that President-elect Trump has promised repeatedly, in addition to energy. Asked during the Washington Ideas Forum in September whether he supports infrastructure spending, Ryan said it is not part of the GOP's proposal. Other notable personalities to watch: Wilbur Ross, an American investor and potential Commerce Secretary pick, was one of the authors of Trump's original, public-private infrastructure plan. Peter Navarro, UC-Irvine business professor and another economic advisor, co-authored that proposal. Also watch: Steven Mnuchin, Finance Chairman of the Trump campaign and former Goldman Sachs partner, and potential Treasury Secretary pick. Stephen Moore, a member of Trump's economic advisory team and the chief economist for the Heritage Foundation. John Paulson, President of Paulson & Co. Also watch fiscal hawks such as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who has recently softened on infrastructure spending, saying it could be "a priority" and "a bipartisan issue." Representative David Brat of Virginia, another ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus member, who has softened on infrastructure. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, and Representative Bill Flores, Chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, could also send signals. Chairman of the House Committee on ways and Means, Kevin Brady, has already admitted that some tax receipts from repatriated corporate earnings may go to infrastructure. Would deficit spending on infrastructure revive problems with the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling legislation is technically separate from the budget process. It is the statuary threshold on the level of government debt. It currently stands at $20.1 trillion. Congress voted last fall to "suspend" the debt ceiling until March of 2017. This means it will come due right around the time that negotiations over the fiscal 2018 budget resolution take place. But debt ceiling negotiating tactics are unlikely to recur in Trump's first year with his own party in control of Congress. Trump and the GOP could vote to "suspend" the debt ceiling indefinitely. Or, the GOP could set the debt ceiling limit so high that it no longer matters in the near term. Where do the GOP and Trump disagree on tax reform? Tax reform is a major GOP demand in recent years; it was also a focus, albeit less central, in Trump's campaign. Both want to flatten the personal income tax structure from 7 brackets to 3 brackets, with 12%, 25%, and 33% tax rates. Trump revised his initial tax plan, which called for 10%, 20%, and 25% rates, late in his campaign to be more compatible with the GOP. In terms of corporate taxes, President-elect Trump proposes a 15% rate for all businesses, with partnerships eligible to pay the 15% rate instead of being taxed under a higher personal income tax rate. By contrast, the GOP has called for a 20% corporate tax rate and a 25% rate for partnerships. How difficult is it to simplify the tax code? It is certainly not easy, but it can be done in 2017 given that the GOP controls both the White House and Congress. GOP leaders claim that a proposal will go public early in the year and a vote will occur within 2017. GOP leaders want a comprehensive law, including income and corporate tax reform, but there are rumors of splitting the two. Income tax reform may take longer to pass because it is more complex. There has not been comprehensive tax reform in the U.S. since Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The Republicans obtained lower tax rates in exchange for a broadening of the base that the Democrats favored. It would be difficult to strike a similar deal next year, given that Republicans seek to slash taxes on corporations and top earners, and Democrats are staunchly opposed. There is likely to be some horse trading between Trump and the GOP. The GOP may use tax reform as the price of their support for Trump's infrastructure investment. Alternatively, Trump could hold out his Supreme Court appointments in exchange for GOP acquiescence on taxes and infrastructure. He could, for example, threaten to appoint centrist justices if the GOP does not play ball on other matters. What are the obstacles and timeline to a repatriation tax on overseas corporate earnings? An estimated $2.5-$3 trillion in corporate earnings are currently held "offshore," which means that taxes on this income is deferred until it is repatriated to the U.S. There is growing bipartisan support for a deemed repatriation tax. This means a one-off tax imposed on all overseas income not previously taxed. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Trump, and GOP representatives have all presented proposals to tap this source of tax revenue. For that reason there are various avenues through which it could be legislated. Trump put forth a plan to tax un-repatriated earnings at a 10% rate for cash (4% for non-cash earnings), with the liability payable over a 10-year period. As mentioned, this could be combined with his infrastructure plan as a way to finance an infrastructure bank or encourage the same corporations to invest in infrastructure development via tax breaks. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's repatriation plan would raise $147.8 billion in revenue over 2016-2026. Overall, this is a paltry sum of $14 billion per year. In a similar vein, President Obama's plan called for a 14% rate on repatriated earnings and was projected to raise $240 billion. The GOP offers a different plan from Trump. The party supports a repatriation tax at an 8.75% rate, payable over eight years. The GOP's plan would raise an estimated $138.3 billion during the same period. The GOP proposes to overhaul the entire U.S. corporate taxation system, while Trump does not. The GOP would change it from the worldwide system (i.e. the same corporate tax rate for U.S. corporations on profits everywhere), to a more typical destination-based system, in which U.S. corporations would be exempt from U.S. taxes on profits earned overseas. The latter would reduce the incentive for offshoring and tax inversions, that is, moving head offices outside of the U.S. to take advantage of lower tax rates. The 2004 tax holiday was a disappointment. Findings from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, NBER, Congressional Research Service, and others, indicate that the repatriated earnings did not significantly improve long-term fiscal deficits, boost employment, or increase domestic investment. Will Trump accuse China of "currency manipulation" on his first day in office as promised? It seems likely that Trump will follow through with his pledge of naming China a "currency manipulator." The question is whether he does so through the existing, formal Treasury Department review process or whether he would bypass that system and take independent action as the executive. Adhering to the formal process would show that Trump wants to keep tensions contained even as he draws a tougher line on economic relations with China. The "currency manipulation" charge is a mostly symbolic act that does not automatically initiate punitive measures. The move will not be unprecedented, as the U.S. labeled China a manipulator from 1992-1994. The label requires bilateral negotiations and could lead to Treasury recommending that Congress, or Trump, take punitive measures. The 2015 update to the law specifies what trade remedies Treasury might suggest, but the remedies are not particularly frightful. The options might prevent the U.S. government from supporting some private investment in China, cut China out of U.S. government procurement contracts, or cut China out of trade deals. The latter point, however, will be overshadowed by Trump's withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a net gain for China since that strategic trade initiative had excluded China from the beginning. The real risk - higher than ever before, but still low probability - is that Trump could act unilaterally to impose tariffs or import quotas under a host of existing trade laws (1917, 1962, 1974, 1977) which give him extensive leeway. Some of these would be temporary, but others allow him to do virtually whatever he wants, especially if he declares a state of emergency or invokes wartime necessity (his lawyers could use any existing overseas conflict for this purpose).4 Presidents have been unscrupulous about such rationalizations in the past. Congress and the courts would not be able to stop Trump for the first year or two if he proceeded independently by executive decree. WTO rulings would take 18 months. China would not wait to retaliate, leading to a trade conflict of some sort. Would Congressional Republicans support punitive measures against China? How would China respond? There are two possibilities. First, Trump is free to set his own executive timeline if his administration makes a special case and he acts through executive directives. Second, Trump could proceed under the Treasury Department's existing timeline. An investigation would be launched in the April Treasury report, leading to negotiations with China. If there is no satisfactory outcome of the negotiations, then the October Treasury Report could label China as a currency manipulator. Under the 2015 law, there would be a necessary one-year waiting period before punitive measures are implemented. But again, Trump could override that. China would cause a diplomatic uproar; it would level similar accusations at the U.S. of distortionary trade policies. China would likely respond unilaterally as well as go to the WTO to claim that the U.S. has abrogated the purpose of the agreement, giving it an additional path to retaliate within international law. China's unilateral sanctions could target U.S. high-quality imports, services, or production chains. Or China could sell U.S. government debt in an attempt to retaliate, though it is not clear what the net effect of that would be. However, China would suffer worse in an all-out trade war. Xi Jinping has been very pragmatic about maintaining stability, like previous Chinese presidents since Deng. He is tougher than usual, but as long as Trump proposes credible negotiations, rather than staging a full frontal assault, Xi would likely attempt to strike a deal, perhaps cutting pro-export policies while promising faster structural rebalancing, to avoid a full-blown confrontation. We have seen with Russia that authoritarian leaders can use external threats and economic sanctions as a way to rally the population "around the flag." Trump's campaign threats, combined with other macro-economic trends, pose the risk that over the next four years China could face intensified American economic pressure and internal economic instability simultaneously. That would be a volatile mix for U.S.-China relations and global stability. But, once in office, it remains to be seen how Trump will conduct relations with China. Most likely, the currency manipulation accusation will cause a period of harsh words and gestures that dies down relatively quickly. The two powers will proceed to negotiations over a "new" economic relationship, highlighting the time-tried ability of the U.S. and China to remain engaged and "manage" their differences. Nevertheless, any shot across the bow will point to Sino-American distrust that is already growing over the long run. That distrust is signaled by Trump's success in key swing states by pitching protectionism, specifically against China. Will Trump's border enforcement policies add to fiscal stimulus? Yes, it would add marginally to the fiscal thrust that we expect from other infrastructure and defense spending. How will Trump approach the deportation of illegal immigrants? Trump will probably maintain Obama's stance on illegal immigration and deportation. Obama has deported around 2.5 million illegals between 2009 and 2015, the most of any president. These are mostly deportable illegals and non-citizens with criminal convictions. Trump stated in an interview on 60 Minutes that he plans to deport 2 to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The execution of this order will be swift as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has already exhibited this capacity under Obama. It is difficult to gage the economic impact of deportation. A study done by the University of Southern California found that undocumented immigrants are paid 10% lower than natives with similar skills in California.5 About half of farm workers and a quarter of construction workers are undocumented immigrants. If this source of cheap labor is removed, the cost for business in these sectors will increase. Are there other policy areas where you see a significant divergence between Congressional Republicans and Trump? Trump and the GOP establishment obviously have an awkward relationship that is only beginning to heal. Both sides are making progress in bridging the gap, but on trade protectionism, infrastructure, immigration, entitlement spending, and foreign policy Trump will continue to sit uneasily with Republican orthodoxy. This will give rise to a range of disagreements, separate from those listed above, of which we note only two here that have caught our attention during the post-election transition. How to deal with Putin: Trump has received renewed criticism from Sen. John McCain over a possible thaw in relations with Russia. This could affect the sanctions on Russia imposed by the U.S. and EU after the intervention in Ukraine in 2014, as well as broader Russia-NATO relations. H1B Visa: Trump is in favor of expanding H1B1 visas and allowing the "best" immigrants to stay in the U.S. once they complete their university education. But his White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has vilified the GOP for doing this. Thus there could be disagreement between the GOP and Trump's team on the issue of highly skilled immigrants. The BCA Geopolitical Team 1 Please see the White House, "The Economic Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Five Years Later," in the "2014 Economic Report of the President," available at www.whitehouse.gov. 2 Please see "Trump Versus Clinton On Infrastructure," October 27, 2016, available at peternavarro.com. 3 Please see Paul Ryan, "A Better Way For Tax Reform," available at abetterway.speaker.gov. 4 Please see Marcus Noland et al, "Assessing Trade Agendas In The US Presidential Campaign," Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-6, dated September 2016, available at piie.com. 5 Please see Manuel Pastor et al, "The Economic Benefits Of Immigrant Authorization In California," Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, dated January 2010, available at dornsife.usc.edu. III. Japanese Equities: Good Value Or Value Trap? Japanese stocks have experienced a long stretch of underperformance versus the U.S. since the early 90's. The deflationary macro backdrop and poor corporate profitability are the main underlying factors, although there are many others. More recently, some corporate fundamentals have shifted in favor of Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., but investors remain skeptical, sending Japanese valuations to near all time lows in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. In this Special Report, we take a top-down approach to determine whether Japanese stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for persistent differences in underlying profit fundamentals. Our mechanical and fundamental valuation indicators provide an impressive historical track record of "buy" and "sell" signals when the metrics reach extreme levels. The story is corroborated at the sector level. The implication is that there is plenty of "kindling" to drive a reversal in Japanese stock relative performance, but it needs a spark. We believe the catalyst could be a major fiscal push that would be like a "helicopter drop" under the current monetary regime. Unfortunately, the timing is uncertain. A major fiscal package may not occur until the spring. Japanese equities have been a perennial underperformer versus the U.S. for almost three decades, in both local- and common-currency terms (Chart III-1). There was a ray of light in the early years of Abenomics, when the aggressive three-arrow approach appeared to be finally lifting the Japanese economy out of Secular Stagnation. Yen weakness contributed to a surge in earnings-per-share (EPS) in absolute terms and relative to both the U.S. and world. Equity multiples also rose between 2012 and 2015. Unfortunately, Abe's honeymoon with equity markets has since faded. Yen strength, collapsing inflation expectations and weakening business confidence have caused investors to question the upside potential for Japanese corporate top-line growth (Chart III-2). EPS have fallen by 11% percent this year in absolute local currency terms, and are down by 10.7% versus the U.S. In turn, Japanese equities have dropped from the mid-2015 peak (Chart III-3). The decline in Japanese multiples this year is in marked contrast to a rise in the U.S. Chart III-1Japanese Equities ##br##Have Underperformed Chart III-2A Challenging ##br##Macro Backdrop Chart III-3Japanese EPS Growth ##br##Has Been Strong Until 2016 Japanese equities currently appear very cheap to the U.S. market based on standard valuation measures (Chart III-4). However, these ratios are always lower in Japan, except for price-to-forward earnings. Japanese companies generally have a much higher interest coverage ratio compared to Corporate America. Nonetheless, they tend come up short in terms of profitability. Operating margins in the U.S. have typically been double that of Japan (Chart III-5A). Japan's return-on-equity (RoE) has been dismal because of low levels of corporate leverage and loads of low-yielding cash sitting on balance sheets (Chart III-6). Table III-1 shows that Japan has a much larger sector weighting in consumer discretionary and a much lower weighting intechnology. Still, the story does not change much when we adjust financial ratios for differences in sector weights between the two markets (Chart III-5B). Chart III-4Japan Is Always Cheaper Chart III-5A...Adjusted For Common Sector Weights Chart III-5BJapanese Vs. U.S. Fundamentals... Chart III-6RoE Is Consistently Lower In Japan Table III-1Japanese Vs. U.S. Sector Weights The lower level of RoE by itself justifies a price discount on Japanese equities. But by how much? Are Japanese stocks still cheap once they are adjusted for structurally depressed profitability relative to the U.S.? This report assesses relative valuation, employing the same methodology used in our previous work on Eurozone equity valuation.1 While many cultural nuances make direct comparison of the Japanese market difficult, investment decisions are made within the scope of the available set of alternatives. With Japanese equity valuations at the lowest levels in recent history, the key question is whether this represents an opportunity to load up, or an example of a "value trap". We conclude that valuation justifies an overweight in Japanese equities (currency hedged), although the fiscal stimulus required to unlock the value may not arrive until February. Mechanical Approach We excluded the financial sector from our market valuation work since analysts use different fundamental statistics to judge profitability and value compared to non-financial companies. We also recalculated all of the Japanese aggregates using U.S. weights in order to avoid the problem that differing sector weights could bias measures of relative value for the overall market. The mechanical approach adjusts the valuation measures by subtracting the 5-year moving average (m.a.) from both markets. For example, the calculation for the price-to-sales ratio (P/S) is: VG = (US P/S - 5-year m.a.) - (EMU P/S - 5-year m.a.) Then we divided the Valuation Gap (VG) by the 5-year moving standard deviation of the VG. This provides a valuation indicator that is mean-reverting and fluctuates roughly between -2 and +2 standard deviations: Valuation Indicator = VG/(5-year moving standard deviation of VG) The same methodology is applied to the other valuation measures shown in Charts III-7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and III-8A, 8B, 8C. This approach suggests that the U.S. market is trading expensive to Japan in all seven cases except for the Shiller P/E. Japan is around 1-sigma cheap on most of the other valuation measures, with forward P/E the highest at almost 2 standard deviations. Chart III-7AMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7BMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7CMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7DMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-8AMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) Chart III-8BMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) Chart III-8CMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) The underlying logic is that using a longer-term moving average should remove the structurally lower bias in Japanese valuations. Standardizing relative valuations in such a way should provide extreme valuation signals that can be used to gauge major trading opportunities. One potential pitfall of using a 5-year moving average to discount the structurally lower valuation of Japanese equities versus U.S. is that it fails to capture an extended period of either over- or under-valuation. For example, the U.S. may enter a bubble phase that does not occur in Japan. The 5-year moving average would move higher over time, eventually giving the false signal that the U.S. is back to fair value if the bubble persists. This is a fair criticism, although the track record of these valuation metrics shows that extended bubbles have not been a large source of false signals. Valuation By Sector We applied the same methodology at the sector level. Due to space constraints, we cannot present the 70 charts covering the seven relative valuation metrics across the 10 sectors. However, we present the latest reading for the 70 indicators in Table III-2, which reveals whether the U.S. is expensive (e) or cheap (c) versus Europe. A blank entry means that relative valuation is in the range of fair value. Table III-2Story Holds At The Sector Level The sector valuation indicators corroborate the message from the aggregate valuation analysis; over 60% of valuation metrics suggest that the U.S. is at least modestly expensive versus Japanese stocks. The U.S. is cheap in only 13% of the cases, with 26% at fair value. Value measures that most consistently place U.S. sectors in expensive territory are P/CF, P/B and EV/EBITDA. The U.S. sectors that are most consistently identified as expensive are financials, consumer discretionary, industrials, utilities, tech and basic materials. U.S. healthcare received a fairly consistent "cheap" rating while U.S. telecoms were consistently "cheap" or "fair" across all valuation measures. Predictive Value? Having a standardized tool of relative valuation is well and good but multiple divergence between regions is only useful if it translates into excess returns. Valuation is generally a poor timing tool but proves to be useful in predicting returns over a longer investment horizon. Theoretically, forward relative returns between Japanese and U.S. equities should be positively correlated with the size of the gap in their relative valuation metrics. In order to test the efficacy of the mechanical valuation indicator we calculated forward relative returns at points of extreme valuation divergences (in local currency). The trading rule is set such that, when the mechanical indicator reaches positive one or two standard deviations, we short the more expensive U.S. market and go long Japanese equities. Conversely, the opposite investment stance is taken for value readings of negative one and two standard deviations. Forward returns are calculated on 3, 6, 12, and 24 month horizons. Overall, the indicators performed well when the valuation gap between U.S. and Japanese multiples reached (+/-) 1 and 2 standard deviations from the long-term mean. Valuation measures exhibiting the highest returns were P/CF and forward P/E. For brevity, we present only these two measures in Table III-3. At two standard deviation extremes, the mechanical indicator produced a two-year forward return of 84% and 44% for P/CF and forward P/E, respectively. Table III-3 also presents the indicator's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. For P/CF, the batting average is between 50-60% for a 1 standard deviation valuation reading and mostly 100% for 2 standard deviations. The batting average for the forward P/E ranges from 53-92% for 1 standard deviation, and 83-100% for 2 standard deviations. Table III-3Select Mechanical Indictor Returns And Batting Averages Presently, all of the indicators are at or above the zero line signaling that the U.S. market is overvalued versus Japan. The valuation metric sending the strongest signal of U.S. overvaluation has interestingly been one of the better predictors of positive excess returns; the forward P/E mechanical indicator has just recently touched the +2 standard deviation level. Given the information provided by our back tested results above, investors are poised to enjoy strong positive returns by overweighting Japanese equities versus their U.S. peers. Fundamental Approach Chart III-9Japan Has A Lower Cost Of Debt Japanese companies trade at a discount relative to their U.S. peers due to more volatile Japanese profit fundamentals and a structurally depressed RoE. To compensate for structural differences in fundamentals we regressed U.S./Japanese value gaps on spreads in underlying financial statistics such as earnings-per-share growth, the interest coverage ratio, free-cash-flow growth, operating margins, and forward earnings-per-share growth. A dummy variable was used to exclude the "tech bubble" years in the late 90's to early 00's since the surge in tech stocks had an outsized effect on overall relative valuations, distorting the true underlying trend. The fundamental approach used in our previous Special Report comparing the U.S. and Eurozone did not work as well as hoped and we had an inkling that an analysis of Japan versus the U.S. might yield similar results. Once again we were underwhelmed by the results, although some valuation measures did produce decent outcomes. These included P/S, P/B, and P/CF. Unfortunately, fundamental models for EV/EBITDA, P/E and forward P/E either had low explanatory power or had coefficients with the wrong sign. The financial variable that appears most frequently as being significant in our fundamental models is the interest coverage ratio. Japanese firms have experienced a massive reduction in net debt post-GFC, while those in the U.S. have been taking advantage of lower rates to issue debt and perform share buybacks. Weak aggregate demand has dissuaded Japanese corporations from performing any sort of intensive capital expenditure programs and they have therefore been using free cash flow to build up cash reserves on their balance sheet and pay down debt. Not to mention, the more dramatic decrease in borrowing rates for Japanese firms has reduced their interest burden vis-à-vis U.S. corporates (Chart III-9). Chart III-10 presents the modeled fair values along with the corresponding valuation indicator. The U.S. market is expensive compared to Japan for all three models, with the most extreme cases being P/S and P/CF. Chart III-10AFundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10BFundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10CFundamental Valuation Indicators While the fundamental approach gave results that are less than spectacular, they still corroborate the message given by the mechanical approach. Japanese equities are undervalued compared to their U.S. peers and are reaching extreme levels, even after adjusting for structural trends in the underlying financials. Chart III-11Combined Fundamental Indicator Returns The next step is to verify the predictive power of our fundamental models. We analyzed forward returns implementing the same methodology used for the mechanical indicators. A (+/-) 1 standard deviation threshold was used as an investment signal to either overweight Japanese equities versus the U.S., if positive, or take the opposite stance if negative. Chart III-11 shows the returns categorized by time horizon and the number of valuation measures flashing a positive investment signal. The results were mixed; strong positive returns occurred when only one or two measures displayed valuation extremes, but excess returns were less than spectacular during periods when all three metrics provided the same signal. This is counter-intuitive, but when analyzing Chart III-10 it becomes apparent that the periods where all three indicators simultaneously entered extreme territory are concentrated in the last two years of history when U.S. market returns have trounced Japan. For periods during which our indicator flashed one or two positive signals, mostly before the past two years, returns were in line with those achieved by the mechanical indicators. Table III-4 shows the probability of success for the combined fundamental approach. Overall it has a batting average lower than that of the mechanical approach, with 60-89% for one signal and 70-86% for two signals. The batting average was generally poor when there were three signals for the reason discussed above.2 Since the beginning of 2015, all three indicators have been signaling that Japanese stocks are extremely cheap versus the U.S. Indeed, relative valuation continues to stretch as U.S. equity prices rise versus Japan, bucking the recent relative shifts in balance sheet fundamentals that favor the Japanese market. Table III-4Combined Fundamental Indicator Batting Averages Conclusion We are pleased with the results of the mechanical approach. The majority of valuation measures show that investors will make positive returns by overweighting and underweighting Japanese equities versus the U.S. when relative valuation reaches extreme levels. The consistency of these excess returns highlights that the indicators add value to global equity investors. We had hoped that a fundamentals based approach to valuation would have worked better. Conceptually, it would be more intellectually gratifying for company financials to better explain excess returns compared to technical measures. In a liquidity-driven world, this may be too much to ask. Although our fundamental models did not pan out perfectly, they still provided support for our underlying thesis that Japanese equities offer excellent value relative to the U.S. market. These models highlight that Japanese balance sheet and income statement trends favor this equity market versus the U.S. at the moment. Investors have been ignoring the fundamentals, frowning on Japanese equities in absolute terms and, especially, relative to the U.S. The sour view on Japan likely reflects disappointment in Abenomics. This includes not only fears that Abenomics is failing to lift the economy out of the liquidity trap, but also fading hopes for changes in corporate governance that would force firms to make better use of their cash hoards to the benefit of shareholders. All the valuation metrics presented above say that it is a good time to overweight Japan versus the U.S. in local currency terms. Of course, so much depends on policy these days. Our valuation metrics highlight that there is plenty of "kindling" in place for a reversal in relative performance given the right spark. As discussed in the Overview section, the catalyst could be a major fiscal stimulus package. When combined with a yield curve that is fixed by the Bank of Japan, it would amount to a "helicopter drop". Such a policy would drive up inflation expectations, push down real borrowing rates and dampen the yen. This self-reinforcing virtuous circle would be quite positive for growth in real and nominal terms, lifting the outlook for corporate profit growth and sparking a substantial re-rating of Japanese stocks. The timing is admittedly uncertain. A smaller fiscal package could be implemented as part of a third supplementary budget before year-end. A major fiscal push is most likely to occur only in February, when the next full budget is announced. Still, rock-bottom valuations make Japan an attractive market for longer-term investors, although the currency risk must be hedged. Michael Commisso Research Analyst 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Except for the 24-month column, which shows a 100% batting average. However, this can be ignored. There was only a single episode of three positive signals that occurred more than 24 months ago, allowing a 24-month return calculation.
After a semiconductor-driven, M&A related relative performance surge, the S&P technology sector has stumbled in recent weeks. The sell-off bears some similarities with the taper-tantrum period in 2013. Then, bond yields soared as the Fed floated trial balloons about tapering QE. As a long duration sector, technology bore the brunt of the backlash from a higher discount rate. Tech stocks did not trough until yields peaked. Moreover, in that period, BCA's Capital Spending Indicator had firmed while tech stocks were being sold off, signaling that corporate sector tech demand would soon improve. A recovery in tech new order confirmed that the sales outlook had brightened. Now, the capital spending outlook remains shaky, and tech new order growth is nil. Meanwhile, tech pricing power has nosedived. Deflation pressures are likely to intensify as the U.S. dollar appreciates. The bottom line is that there is no rush to lift underweight tech sector allocations.
Highlights Sweden Yield Curve: The drivers behind our Sweden 5-year/10-year curve flattener trade - a Riksbank stance that appeared too dovish, a cautious global risk landscape and the strength of Sweden's economic expansion - have become less compelling. We advocate closing that trade, at a profit of +84bps. Swedish Rates: The Riksbank rate liftoff will start earlier than priced in the market. We recommend entering a new trade, paying the 18-month Sweden Overnight Index Swap rate. NZ Rates: New Zealand's inflation will surprise to the upside in 2017 and put upward pressure on short-term interest rates. To position for this, pay 12-month rates on the New Zealand Overnight Index Swap curve. Korea vs. Japan: The rationale behind our recommended trade favoring 5-year Korean government debt versus 5-year Japanese government bonds has changed. We are closing the trade at a profit of +260bps. Feature The surprising U.S. election victory of President-elect Trump, on a policy platform that is both reflationary and protectionist, has shaken up the global macro landscape. The shock has been even more acute for small, open and export-oriented economies like Sweden, New Zealand and Korea. This triggers a necessary re-assessment of our positions. In this Weekly Report, we revisit three previously recommended trades included in our "Overlay Trades Portfolio" that are most exposed to the changing global backdrop. Sweden: Closing Our Flattener Trade... Last year, we were of the view that the Riksbank would shift to a more hawkish policy stance during 2016.1 Fast forward to today, and this has not panned out as we expected with the Riksbank persistently sticking with its dovish bias. We are no longer comfortable facing the stiff resolve of the Riksbank and, therefore, we are closing our recommended Swedish 5-year/10-year yield curve flattener trade (Chart 1). Chart 1Closing Our Sweden Flattener Chart 2The Dovish Rhetoric Is Paying Off The message has been clear - Sweden's central bank will stay accommodative as long as it takes to get inflation back on a sustainable upward trajectory. In a unified fashion, the most senior Riksbank officials have communicated the following: 2 Monetary policy is set to escape low inflation as fast as possible. Currency intervention to weaken the Krona cannot be ruled out. There is no problem in extending the Riksbank's asset purchase program, since it has worked well so far in keeping government bond yields at accommodative levels and helping depress the Krona. The exchange rate is now notably weaker throughout the entire Riksbank forecast period than previously assumed, but this has not been sufficient to counteract the lower underlying inflationary pressures in Sweden.3 In a nutshell, the Riksbank wants to bring about higher inflation through a depreciation of the currency. The strategy has started to work of late (Chart 2). A very accommodative monetary policy, combined with rising inflation pressures from a cheapening Krona, now points to a prolonged period of low real policy rates that will keep the Swedish yield curve under steepening pressure. Aside from the monetary policy rhetoric, the global political landscape is no longer favorable for a yield curve flattening trade either, even in Sweden. In June, when Brexit surprised the planet, our Sweden flattener trade performed well, as global uncertainty spiked and a risk-off environment supported lower longer-term bond yields. Donald Trump's upset election earlier this month had the exact opposite effect, however, triggering a massive curve steepening in most bond markets, including Sweden (Chart 3).4 Going forward, if the effects of Trump's proposed policies - such as a decent fiscal impulse and protectionist trade measures - linger, as we expect, a Swedish flattener will likely underperform. Global bond markets will continue to be heavily influenced by a steepening U.S. Treasury curve. Moreover, our optimism on Swedish growth has dimmed recently, with certain parts of the economy slowing down. At the business level, weakening new orders data signal lower industrial production growth ahead. In addition, exporter order books have rolled over, resulting in a build-up of inventories (Chart 4). Chart 3Same Populism, Different Outcome Chart 4Dimming Optimism In turn, Swedish households are feeling the pinch. Slower wages and employment growth are reducing consumption. Growth in retail sales and car registrations has decelerated and private bankruptcies have started to rise (Chart 5). Since household consumption is a vital part of Sweden's economy, the recent robust expansion will moderate in the next few quarters. Consequently, the gap between the Riksbank's dovish monetary stance and the economic backdrop can no longer be deemed unsustainable, as we have described it in the past. This reality has been well depicted in the latest Riksbank Monetary Policy Report (MPR), where 2016 GDP growth is now forecasted to be only 1.8%. This seems reasonable considering the decline in actual demand - observable through the slowing growth of Swedish imports - and the Riksbank's own forward-looking economic activity index (Chart 6). The Riksbank is now projecting only a modest growth rebound to 2.5% in 2017, but this implies a meaningful reacceleration in growth to an above-trend pace later on in the year. Chart 5Swedish Households: Feeling The Pinch Chart 6Swedish GDP Growth Will Slow Further Bottom Line: The drivers behind our Sweden 5-year/10-year curve flattener trade - a Riksbank stance that appeared too dovish, a cautious global risk landscape and the strength of Sweden's economic expansion - have become less compelling. We advocate closing that trade, at a profit of +84bps. ...And Placing A New Bet On Rising Swedish Inflation Currently, the Swedish Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve is expecting monetary policy stability in the first half of next year, pricing in only a 10% probability of a rate cut and a mere 2% chance of a rate hike by July 2017. Of the two, a rate hike is most likely, in our view, given the growing risks of upside inflation surprises stemming from a weaker Krona and rising energy prices. With such a low probability of a hike currently priced into the curve, the risk/reward potential for a trade is compelling. Today, we enter into a new position: paying 18-month Swedish OIS rates (Chart 7). Chart 7Pay 18-Month Sweden OIS Rates Chart 8Energy Prices Are Crucial For Swedish Inflation In the Riksbank's October MPR, the first rate increase was pushed forward from the second quarter of 2017 to the first quarter of 2018.5 At that point, the central bank's forecast becomes slightly lower than the interest rate expectation now priced in the OIS market. Even with our more sober view of the Swedish economy, the next rate hike is now expected to occur too far into the future. It will likely happen beforehand as upside surprises on inflation will force the Riksbank to begin tightening sooner than planned. Sweden's inflation path is mainly influenced by two factors: the Krona and energy prices. If the Krona's weakness accelerates and energy prices resume their uptrend, inflation will jump. In turn, if inflation reaches its target earlier, the central bank will start normalizing rates sooner than expected. Chart 9Can Sweden Still Overheat? As stated above, the Riksbank members' dovish rhetoric has been successful in pushing the Krona lower. Much to our astonishment, they seem ready to continue moving in that direction, despite the potential negative spillovers. The bubbly Swedish housing market - fueled by low interest rates and lacking the macro-prudential measures to stop its expansion - does not appear to be a major concern of the Riskbank for the time being. In addition to the exchange rate, the path of energy prices is crucial for inflation; it represents the bulk of the deflationary pressure over the last few years (Chart 8). Although this situation has changed recently, with a positive contribution to inflation in the last four months, energy prices will need to appreciate again to keep consumer price advances on track. This is likely to happen. Our Commodity strategists believe that the markets are understating the odds of Brent exceeding $50/bbl by the end of this year, given their expectation that Saudi Arabia and Russia will announce production cuts of 500k b/d each at the OPEC meeting scheduled for November 30th in Vienna.6 If such meaningful production cuts come to fruition, energy prices will rise and add to Sweden's inflationary pressure. Moreover, the bigger structural picture in Sweden remains very inflationary, despite the short term cyclical weakness stated earlier. GDP, employment and hours worked are all expanding faster than the Riksbank's assessment of the long-run trend growth rates. Plus, according to the Economic Tendency Survey, companies are reporting labor shortages in all major business sectors.7 In sum, with resource utilization already stretched, keeping real interest rates low for longer can only prolong the steadfast Swedish credit expansion, potentially overheating the economy and creating additional inflation surprises (Chart 9). This will set the stage for an eventual shift by the Riksbank to a more hawkish posture. Bottom Line: The Riksbank rate liftoff will start earlier than priced in the market. We recommend entering a new trade, paying the 18-month Sweden Overnight Index Swap rate. New Zealand: Inflation To Re-Surface Here, As Well Chart 10Global Output Gaps Have Narrowed On November 9th, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) cut its overnight rate to 1.75% and signaled that it would probably be on hold for the foreseeable future. From here, things could go both ways; another rate cut is not inconceivable in 2017. Yet the market is expecting a stable rate backdrop, pricing in only a 5% chance of a rate cut and a 6% probability of a rate hike by June 2017. Such an "undecided" market is not surprising. On one hand, inflation remains below target. On the other hand, the economy has been humming along with no signs of any major slowdown on the horizon. In our view, monetary policy risks are tilted towards rate hikes. Similar to Sweden's case, inflation has the potential to surprise on the upside in 2017. Several factors have contributed to the current stubbornly low inflation environment. However, going forward, those forces will abate and push inflation and, eventually, short term interest rates higher. 1.A more inflationary global backdrop New Zealand's low inflation problem comes from the tradable components. Simply put, because of the global deflationary environment of the last few years, and because of the Kiwi's strength, New Zealand has imported lower prices from abroad. But this phenomenon will move in the other direction going forward. The global inflationary backdrop has slowly changed. As noted by our Chief Global Investment Strategist, Peter Berezin, spare capacity within the developed economies has shrunk substantially over the last few years (Chart 10).8 Unemployment rates are lower than the non-accelerating inflation rates of unemployment (NAIRU) in most major countries, with the exception of France and Italy. Looking ahead, the current cyclical upswing in global growth, coming at a time of narrowing output gaps and increasing supply-side constraints, will put upward pressure on global inflation. This will eventually trigger a rise in New Zealand's import price inflation, although the impact might not be felt in the very short term. 2.A continued boost from China Closer to home for New Zealand, China's backdrop has become less deflationary. As we pointed out in a recent Special Report, China has turned into a cyclical tailwind for the global economy, putting upward pressure on inflation and bond yields in the near-term.9 Our "GFIS China Check List", composed of our favored indicators, highlights that China is in the expansionary phase of its economic cycle (Table 1). Table 1The GFIS China Checklist Most striking is that Chinese final goods producer prices have turned positive. This could prove to be a major development for New Zealand tradable goods prices, if it lasts; the correlation between Chinese PPI inflation and the tradable goods contribution to New Zealand's headline CPI has historically been elevated (Chart 11). 3.A weaker kiwi dollar Donald Trump's U.S. election victory could help raise New Zealand inflation through the exchange rate. If his ambitious fiscal plan and protectionist inclinations gain traction, the Fed might have to raise rates more aggressively than expected, putting upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. Under such a scenario, the Kiwi will re-price lower, potentially reversing the prior dampening effect on import prices from a strengthening currency. This would relieve policymakers on the RBNZ, who have consistently pointed to the currency's strength as the main reason inflation has missed the target (Chart 12). Chart 11China: A New Tailwind For Prices Chart 12The Kiwi Is Problematic 4.A stronger dairy sector Over the past couple of years, the Achilles heel for New Zealand has been its dairy sector, with plunging prices eroding confidence throughout the economy. Fortunately, this bad predicament is about to change as well. The exogenous factors depressing dairy prices are abating and prices are surging anew (Chart 13). The Global Dairy Trade price index has advanced in seven out of the last eight dairy auctions.10 If this impulse is prolonged, both New Zealand's export prices and domestic wages will begin to reflate. 5.A reversal of migration inflows The massive flow of migration into New Zealand since 2013 has been the main factor capping wage growth by increasing the supply of labor (Chart 14). The bulk of this inflow has been composed of young workers, aged between 15 & 29 years old.11 It is unclear if this migration will become permanent or prove to be transitory. Chart 13NZ Dairy Prices Have Rebounded Chart 14NZ Inward Migration To Stabilize... Much of this inflow can be explained by the weakness in the Australian economy, which has triggered migration back into New Zealand from those who left for work in Australia. As such, if the Aussie economy improves, the migration flow could conceivably reverse, at least to some extent. As a result, the domestic supply of workers would recede and the invisible ceiling on New Zealand wages would progressively disappear. This scenario is highly plausible. The latest surge in Australia's terms of trade could be an early signal of a commodity sector revival. Much of this is due to China's growth upturn this year. However, the wave of optimism towards a potential fiscal stimulus in the U.S. - especially through longer-term infrastructure projects - is a possible boost to demand that could support higher global commodity prices higher over the next few years.12 If this proves correct, New Zealand migration towards Australia could be renewed, shrinking the domestic pool of skilled labor, and pushing wages higher (Chart 15). An unwind of these disinflationary forces would coincide with improving cyclical growth prospects. A mix of strong credit growth, decent construction sector activity and robust corporate earnings should support job creation and wages in the short term (Chart 16). In this environment, consumption will accelerate. Since the output gap is already closed, faster spending will cause inflationary pressures to build (Chart 17). Chart 15...If Australian Mining Revives Chart 16An Inflationary Backdrop Chart 17Inflation Surprises Ahead Traders can benefit from a turnaround in New Zealand inflation prospects by playing the Overnight Index Swap market. Since April 12th of this year, we have recommended payer positions in 6-month New Zealand Overnight Index Swap (OIS) rates.13 This trade has not worked as planned, due to the stubbornly low trend of New Zealand inflation, and today we are closing that trade recommendation at a loss of -30bps. The market is currently pricing in a 23% chance of a rate hike by the September 28, 2017 RBNZ meeting. Due to the inflation risks cited above, the probability should be higher than that, in our view. As such, we are entering a 12-month OIS payer. This trade offers modest downside risk versus for a decent potential gain, i.e. a risk/reward ratio of about 3:1. Bottom Line: New Zealand's inflation will surprise to the upside in 2017 and put upward pressure on short-term interest rates. To position for this, pay 12-month rates on the New Zealand Overnight Index Swap curve. Closing Our Japan/Korea Relative Value Trade This week, we are unwinding our Japan/Korea relative value trade, where we were long 5-year Korean government bonds versus 5-year Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) on a currency-unhedged basis. While the currency leg did allow for a profitable trade, the Korea/Japan yield differential widened by +52bps. Several unpredictable events have negatively impacted Korean bonds since the trade was initiated. Chart 18Political Scandal = Higher Risk Premium Chart 19Trump: Catastrophic For Korean Bonds Too First, a scandal surrounding the Korean president, a.k.a. Choi-Gate, has erupted. As more details of the affair have been revealed, the president's approval rating has plunged - standing now at 5% - and the Government has become dysfunctional (Chart 18). In the near future, the geopolitical risks surrounding Korean assets should remain elevated as the prosecutors will continue the process of investigating the president and her associates; the risk premium on Korean bond yields might increase further. Chart 20The Korea 5-Year Bond Model Second, Trump's victory has been catastrophic for bond markets across the globe, including those related to open and export-oriented economies linked to the emerging markets, like Korea (Chart 19). Yet the impact on JGBs has been more contained since the Bank of Japan (BoJ) moved to a yield curve targeting framework back in September. The BoJ surprised many by adopting that policy of anchoring longer-term JGB yields. This has substantially reduced the volatility of JGBs, even during the recent backup in global yields. In turn, this has lowered the payoff potential of shorting JGBs, both in absolute terms and versus Korean bonds. Finally, the appeal of our Korea vs Japan trade has decreased from a valuation perspective. A simple model that we have developed for the Korean 5-year government bond yield now points towards rising yields in 2017 (Chart 20).14 With all of these factors now working against our trade, we are choosing to close it out. The trade has generated a profit from the currency exposure, which we decided not to hedge. However, when events move against the original reasons for putting on a trade, the prudent strategy is to unwind that position and look for other opportunities. Bottom Line: The rationale behind our recommended trade favoring 5-year Korean government debt versus 5-year Japanese government bonds has changed. We are closing the trade at a profit of +260bps. Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Riksbank: Close To An Inflection Point", dated September 22, 2015, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Source: Bloomberg Finance L.P. NSN OG2NHA6JIJUO GO. NSN OGD9GRSYF01S GO. NSN OGFQO26S972O GO 3 http://www.riksbank.se/Documents/Protokoll/Penningpolitiskt/2016/pro_penningpolitiskt_161026_eng.pdf 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications", dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 5 For details, please see http://www.riksbank.se/en/Press-and-published/Published-from-the-Riksbank/Monetary-policy/Monetary-Policy-Report/ 6 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Raising The Odds Of A KSA-Russia Oil-Production Cut", dated November 3, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 7 Private services, retail trade, construction and manufacturing 8 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Slack Around The World", dated November 4, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "How To Assess The 'China Factor' For Global Bonds", dated November 8, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 10 https://www.globaldairytrade.info/en/product-results/ 11 For details, please see "Understanding low inflation in New Zealand", Dr, John McDermott, October 11, 2016 available at http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/news/2016/10/understanding-low-inflation-in-new-zealand 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications", dated November 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 13 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "New Zealand: More Than Just Dairy", dated April 12, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 14 This model is based upon a regression of Korean yields on U.S. 5-year treasury yield, Korean Trade-weighted currency, Brent crude price in USD, and Korea's headline CPI. Forecasts are based on financial market futures data and the ministry of finance's inflation forecast. Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
While we only recently went overweight in early-September, a much shorter time horizon than our desired cyclical calls, we are concerned that the index has front run an improvement in global trade that may be slow to materialize. Our upgrade was predicated on a tightening in inventories relative to GDP, which boosts the need for just-in-time air freight services, as well as a pickup in emerging markets activity. However, our confidence in the latter has been shaken. Air freight stocks are a reflation play, and a surging U.S. dollar is a threat to global liquidity. Global revenue ton miles have already crested after a muted rebound (second panel). The IFO export expectations index continues to sink, a warning for relative forward earnings estimates. Moreover, protectionist/anti-globalization sentiment may heat up, representing a further risk to global trade. We are booking profits of 6% and reducing positions in this globally-exposed group back to neutral. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG: S5AIRF - UPS, FDX, CHRW, EXPD.
The previous Insight showed that the industrial sector share price spike was in danger of a reversal. The S&P electrical equipment and components index looks equally vulnerable. Hefty short positions likely played a large role in powering the spike, and we are uncomfortable with paying a premium valuation for a dubious earnings outlook, particularly given the sector's brutal long-term track record during U.S. dollar bull markets (the currency is shown inverted, top panel). From a cyclical perspective, new orders for electric equipment are sensitive to EM currency movements. The current message is that new orders are likely to languish. Relief is not imminent from domestic sources. Real investment spending on electrical equipment is contracting at a steep rate. That is consistent with the trend in overall construction spending. Ergo, the productivity contraction is likely to persist. Downshift to underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG: S5ELCO - AME AYI EMR ETN ROK.