Economy

Dear Client, In lieu of our weekly report next week, I will be hosting two webcasts with my colleague Arthur Budaghyan, Chief Emerging Market Strategist: Time To Buy EM/China? June 23, 2022 9:00 AM EDT (2:00 PM BST, 3:00 PM CEST) and June 24, 2022 9:00 AM HKT (11:00 AM AEST). We will discuss the implications of the global macro environment on EM economies and assets, and whether it is time to buy EM/Chinese equities. I look forward to answering any questions you might have. Kind regards, Jing Sima China Strategist Executive Summary Chinese Households Leverage Ratio Fell The Most Since The GFC China’s households may be entering a deleveraging mode.  The level of newly increased household medium- to long-term loans declined in two out of the first five months of this year. The household leverage ratio has also been falling. The deleveraging is driven by both cyclical and structural forces. Depressed economic growth, home prices as well as jobs and incomes, have all curbed borrowing. Structurally, China’s demographic shift and a decline in the working-age population will lead to a steady decrease in the demand for housing and mortgages. The experience in Japan and the US suggests that when households start deleveraging, the trend will likely progress into a decade-long cycle.  The household deleveraging cycle may lead to a structural downshift in real estate investment, consumption of durable goods and money supply in China. As an offset, interest rates in China will shift down. A low interest rate environment may be positive for China’s financial asset valuations. Bottom Line: Both cyclical and structural forces are prompting Chinese households to reduce debt. A prolonged deleveraging cycle will lead to a slump in the demand for housing and consumer durable goods. However, a deleveraging cycle, coupled with a decline in total population, may lead to a structurally lower interest rate environment, which may be positive for Chinese equity valuations in the long run. Feature China’s newly increased consumer medium- to long-term (ML) loans turned negative in February and April this year, the first negative readings since data collection started in 2007. The reading indicates that households are paying off more ML loans than borrowing (Chart 1).  Chart 1Chinese Household New ML Loans Dropped Below Zero Twice This Year In the near term, a slowing economy and uncertainties surrounding job and income prospects, coupled with stagnating housing prices, will curb households’ propensity to take on debt. In the longer term, China’s working-age population peaked in 2015 and its total population is set to decline beginning in 2025. This unfavorable demographic trend will drive down the demand for housing and ML loans. Japan's experience shows that when the working-age population falls along with the household leverage ratio, the growth in real estate investment, consumption of consumer durable goods and money supply M2 will structurally shift to a lower range. Although a weakening demographic profile and deleveraging households are negative factors for economic growth, interest rates in China will likely move down structurally. Lower borrowing costs will make corporate debt-servicing cheaper and increase corporate profitability, thus providing tailwinds to Chinese stocks and government bonds in the long run. An Inflection Point In Chinese Households’ Leverage? Chart 2Chinese Households Leverage Ratio Fell The Most Since The GFC Several signs suggest that Chinese household debt, after more than a decade of rapid expansion, may have reached an inflection point. Newly increased household ML loans, which are mostly mortgage debt, turned negative this year. Although household ML loans were slightly positive in May, the number was one of the weakest in the past 15 years. China’s household leverage ratio (measured by household debt versus disposable income) rolled over, the first such plunge since the 2008/09 Global Financial Crisis (Chart 2). Chinese households’ reluctance to take on debt reflects current dire economic conditions, which have been damaged by the pandemic and collapse in the housing market. Furthermore, structural forces, such as the nation’s unfavorable demographic shifts, will likely drive the ongoing cyclical deleveraging into a sustained secular trend. Related Report  Emerging Markets StrategyA Whiff Of Stagflation? The pandemic and frequent city lockdowns in the past two years in China have significantly reduced households’ income growth, which has increased debt repayment burdens on families. Even though the central bank and more than 100 cities in China recently slashed mortgage rates, the average cost of mortgage loans remains higher than income growth per capita.  In other words, the current mortgage rates in China are not low enough to reverse the downward trend in households’ ML loans (Chart 3). The investment appeal of real estate has also diminished. Prior to 2018, home prices often appreciated faster than the prevailing mortgage rates. Since late 2019, however, the rate of housing price appreciation in China’s 70 medium and large cities has been falling below the average interest rate on mortgage loans (Chart 4). Home price appreciation has stalled since the second half of last year, whereas mortgage rates are currently about 5.5%. As such, housing’s carry has become negative, discouraging investment purchases of residential properties. Chart 3Mortgage Rates Have Dropped But Still Higher Than Income Growth Chart 4Returns On Leveraged Property Investment Have Diminished In order for consumer ML loans to pick up strongly in the next 6 to 12 months, either the household income growth must significantly improve and/or mortgage rates will have to drop well below home price appreciation. Recent surveys suggest that both will probably not happen in the near term (Chart 5). Chart 5Chinese Households' Income And Investment Outlooks Are Dim Chart 6Demand For Housing Will Dwindle Along With Smaller Labor Force In a previous report we indicated that China’s falling birthrate and working-age population will lead to less demand for housing from a structural point of view. Home sales have fluctuated in a downward trend in the past five years along with a peak in the working-age population in 2015 (Chart 6). Moreover, the sharp deterioration in China’s birthrate will reduce the demand for housing even more significantly in the next 15-20 years. This unfavorable demographic trend will exert powerful downward pressures on the country’s household credit demand. Bottom Line: While the ongoing economic slowdown and housing market slump are curbing ML loans, China’s household loan demand may be entering a structural downturn due to the country’s demographic headwinds. The Economic Impact Of Household Deleveraging The experience in both Japan and the US suggests that when households begin to reduce their debt, the trend may spiral into a secular cycle that lasts up to a decade (Chart 7). A prolonged deleveraging cycle can push the growth in residential real estate investment, consumption of durable goods and money supply to much lower levels.  In Japan’s case, the household debt-to-income ratio rolled over in the late 1990s when the country’s working-age population peaked and began a nose-dive in the early 2000s.  The country’s growth in residential investment fell along with households’ debt reduction, from a 13% average annual rate (nominal) in the 1980s to about 3% in the 2000s (Chart 8). Chart 7Deleveraging Can Spiral Into A Decade##br## Long Cycle Chart 8Japan's Real Estate Investment Growth Slowed Along With Falling Household Leverage... Consumption growth, particularly in consumer durable goods, also dropped from more than 10% in the 1980s to around 0-2% in the late 1990s. It subsequently fell into a prolonged contraction in the 2000s when the household leverage ratio declined (Chart 9). Real estate credit is a major source for China’s money origination. Therefore, a lack of household loan demand will depress the country’s overall credit and money growth. Japan’s money supply grew by less than 4% in the 2000s in nominal terms, compared with a nearly 10% increase in the years prior to the household deleveraging cycle (Chart 10). Chart 9...So Did Demand For Consumer Durable Goods Chart 10Money Supply Growth Also Slowed Bottom Line: Without an imminent and significant improvement in the economy, household deleveraging can progress into a secular trend. A prolonged household deleveraging cycle will drive down the growth in residential property investment, consumption and money supply. Investment Conclusions The combination of declining household debt and total population will weigh on the demand for housing, consumption and investment growth, generating deflationary headwinds for China’s economy. Thus, China’s interest rate regime will likely follow Japan’s example and downshift structurally (Chart 11). A lower interest rate environment will at margin be positive for China’s financial asset valuations in the long run. Related Report  China Investment StrategyExpect A Much Weaker Economy In Q2 Weaker prices on capital will make corporate debt-servicing cheaper and increase corporate profitability. China will likely maintain a very accommodative fiscal policy in the next decade to offset less demand from households and to help implement industrial policies aimed at achieving self-sufficiency in technology and energy. Furthermore, Chinese households may bump up their savings while reducing debt. As returns on residential property investment diminish and yields on risk-free assets shift lower, Chinese households may be increasingly willing to invest in financial assets. This trend could provide tailwinds to Chinese equities in the long term (Chart 12). Chart 11Interest Rates In China Will Likely ##br##Structurally Downshift Chart 12Chinese Households May Shift Their Investment Preference From Properties To Financial Assets   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Strategic Themes Cyclical Recommendations

Executive Summary Bonds sold off dramatically in response to Friday’s surprisingly high CPI number. Markets are now pricing in a much more rapid increase in the fed funds rate, with some probability of a 75 bps move this week. We think a 75 bps rate hike at any one FOMC meeting is possible, but unlikely. Rather, we see the Fed continuing to hike by 50 bps per meeting until inflation shows signs of rolling over. The guts of the CPI report were less concerning than the headline figure, and it is still more likely than not that core CPI will trend down during the next 6-12 months. Contribution To Month-Over-Month Core CPI Bottom Line: Investors should maintain benchmark portfolio duration as it is unlikely that the Fed will deliver a more aggressive pace of tightening than what is already in the price. Investors should also underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries as a play on a hawkish Fed and moderating consumer prices. The May CPI Print Ensures An Ultra-Hawkish Fed  The “peak inflation” narrative took a blow last week when core CPI came in well above expectations for May. While the annual rate ticked down due to base effects, monthly core CPI saw its largest increase since last June (Chart 1). The bond market reacted to the news with an abrupt bear-flattening of the Treasury curve. The 2-year Treasury yield rose above 3% for this first time this cycle and the 10-year yield hit 3.27% on Monday morning (Chart 2). The 2-year/10-year Treasury slope flattened sharply, and it now sits at just 5 bps (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 1Strong Inflation In May Chart 2A Big Bear-Flattening With core inflation not showing any signs of slowing, the Fed will maintain its ultra-hawkish tone when it meets this week. While there’s an outside chance that the Fed will try to shock markets with a 75 basis point rate hike, we think it’s more likely that it will deliver the 50 basis point rate increase that Jay Powell teased at the last meeting while signaling that further 50 basis point rate increases are likely at both the July and September FOMC meetings. While inflation is not falling as quickly as either we or the Fed had previously anticipated, a look through the guts of the CPI report still leads to the conclusion that core inflation is more likely to fall than rise in the second half of this year. The main reason for this conclusion is that we aren’t seeing much evidence that inflation is transitioning from the goods sectors that were most heavily impacted by the pandemic to non-impacted service sectors. Rather, the main issue is that core goods inflation remains stubbornly high. Chart 3 shows the breakdown of core CPI into its three main components: (i) goods, (ii) shelter, and (iii) services excluding shelter. We can see that after only one month of decline in March, core goods prices accelerated to +0.69% in May, the largest monthly increase since January. The bulk of the May increase in goods inflation came from new and used cars (Chart 4), a sector where we should see price declines in the second half of this year now that motor vehicle production is ramping back up. Chart 3Contribution To Month-Over-Month Core CPI Chart 4Contribution To Month-Over-Month Core Goods CPI Turning to services, we observe a deceleration in May relative to April (Chart 3), and also notice that airfares continue to account for an outsized chunk of services inflation (Chart 5). Excluding airfares, core services inflation was just 0.36% in May. Chart 5Contribution To Month-Over-Month Core Services CPI (Excluding Shelter) Finally, we see that shelter CPI increased by 0.61% in May, up from 0.51% in April. Shelter is the most cyclical component of CPI and as such it tends to closely track the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate has been flat at 3.6% for three consecutive months and it is more likely to rise than fall going forward. Therefore, we don’t anticipate further acceleration in shelter inflation during the next 6-12 months. Monetary Policy & Investment Implications At the last FOMC meeting, Chair Powell went out of his way to guide market expectations toward 50 basis point rate hikes at both the June and July FOMC meetings. After which, Powell hinted that the Fed would re-assess the economic outlook and would likely continue to lift rates at each meeting in increments of either 50 bps or 25 bps, depending on the outlook for inflation. Powell clearly wanted to set a firm marker down for the pace of rate hikes so that Fed policy doesn’t “add uncertainty to what is already an extraordinarily uncertain time.”1 For this reason, we don’t expect the Fed to lift rates by more than 50 basis points at any single meeting. However, May’s elevated CPI number will likely cause Powell to tease an additional 50 basis point rate hike for September. After September, if inflation finally does soften, the Fed will likely downshift to a pace of 25 bps per meeting. Taking a look at market expectations, we see that fed funds futures are fully priced for a 50 bps rate hike this week and are even discounting a small chance of a 75 bps hike (Chart 6A). Meanwhile, the market is almost fully priced for 125 bps of tightening by the end of the July FOMC meeting, i.e., one 50 bps hike and one 75 bps hike (Chart 6B). Looking out to the September FOMC meeting, we see the market priced for 180 bps of cumulative tightening (Chart 6C). This is consistent with a little more than two 50 basis point rate increases and one 75 basis point rate increase at the next three FOMC meetings. Chart 6AJune FOMC Expectations Chart 6BJuly FOMC Expectations Chart 6CSeptember FOMC Expectations   Looking even further out, we find the market priced for the fed funds rate to hit 3.28% by the end of the year and to peak at 3.88% in June 2023 (Chart 7).2 Chart 7Rate Expectations Our own expectation is that the Fed will deliver three or four more 50 basis point rate increases this year, followed by a string of 25 basis point hikes. This will bring the fed funds rate up to a range of 2.75% to 3.25% by the end of 2022, slightly below what is currently priced in the yield curve. As for portfolio duration, we recommend keeping it close to benchmark for the time being. Many indicators – such as economic data surprises, the CRB Raw Industrials/Gold ratio and the relative performance of cyclical versus defensive equities – suggest that bond yields are too high.3 That said, with inflation surprising to the upside and the Fed in a hawkish frame of mind, it is not wise to bet too aggressively on bonds. We also reiterate our view that investors should underweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. It’s notable that long-maturity TIPS yields moved higher and that the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was close to unchanged on Friday, despite the surprisingly high CPI number. This tells us that the market is not pricing-in a scenario where the Fed is losing control of long-dated inflation expectations. Rather, the market is discounting a scenario where the Fed does what is necessary to bring inflation back down. Softish Or Volckerish? Chart 8The Everything Selloff Of course, the big question for financial markets is whether the Fed will be forced to cause a recession to bring inflation down, or whether it will achieve what Jay Powell called a “softish” landing.4 The Fed’s hoped for “softish landing” scenario is one where inflation recedes naturally as we gain further distance from the pandemic. This outcome would limit the speed at which the Fed is forced to lift rates and push back the expected start date of the next recession. Unfortunately, trends in financial markets suggest that investors are putting less faith in the softish landing scenario. Our BCA Counterpoint Strategy recently observed that stocks, bonds, industrial metals and gold have recently all sold off in concert (Chart 8).5 It is rare for all four of these assets to sell off at the same time, but they did in 1981 when Paul Volcker was in the midst of dramatically lifting rates to conquer inflation. If we truly are on the cusp of the Fed tightening the economy into recession, then it makes sense for all four of those assets to perform poorly. Bond yields rise because the Fed is hiking much more quickly than was previously anticipated. Stocks and industrial metals sell off because of an increase in recession fears. Finally, gold sells off because of rising expectations that the Fed will do what it takes to bring inflation back down. And it’s not just financial markets that are warning that the Fed will be forced to repeat Chairman Volcker’s aggressive tightening. Two influential macroeconomists, Larry Summers and Olivier Blanchard, recently put out papers suggesting that the Fed needs another Volcker moment.6 Summers’ paper (with two co-authors) notes that changes in how the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates shelter inflation make historical comparisons using CPI problematic. The authors estimate what core CPI would look like prior to 1983 if the current methodology had been employed and find that year-over-year core CPI peaked at 9.9% in 1980 well below the originally published figure of 13.6% and much closer to today’s 6% (Chart 9). The implication is that inflation is already almost as out of control now as it was in the early-1980s, and it will take a similar amount of monetary policy tightening to conquer it. In his paper, Olivier Blanchard makes a similar point by noting that the gap between the real fed funds rate and 12-month core CPI is as wide today as it was in 1975. The implication is that the Fed must play a similar amount of catch-up to bring inflation back down. Chart 9Properly Measured, Core CPI Was Much Lower In 1980 We think comparisons to the early-1980s are mistaken for three reasons. First, the Fed targets PCE inflation not CPI and PCE inflation does not suffer from the methodological inconsistencies that Summers et al identified. If we look at core PCE inflation, of which data only go to April, we see that 12-month core PCE inflation is currently 4.9% compared to a peak of 9.8% in 1980 (Chart 10). In other words, there is still a fair amount of distance between today’s PCE inflation and what was seen in the early 1980s. Chart 10The Fed Targets PCE Inflation Second, inflation was more broadly distributed in the 1970s/80s than it is today. At different points in the 1970s and early-1980s all three of the major components of core inflation – goods, shelter and services excluding shelter – were above 10% in year-over-year terms (Chart 11). Today, only core goods inflation has moved above 10% and year-over-year shelter and services ex. shelter inflation sit at 5.4% and 4.8%, respectively. Chart 11Inflation Is Less Broad-Based Than In The 1970s/80s Finally, wages had been accelerating rapidly for a full decade before inflation peaked in 1980 and this led to the emergence of a wage/price spiral (Chart 12). Firms increased prices to compensate for rising labor costs and then employees demanded further wage gains to compensate for rising consumer prices. Today, the evidence of a wage/price spiral is far less convincing. Wage growth has just recently moved above 5%, and we have seen recent indications that it is already starting to moderate.7  Typically, it takes a prolonged period of rapid wage growth for long-dated inflation expectations to rise and for a wage/price spiral to take hold. At present, we have seen only a modest move up in long-dated inflation expectations (Chart 13) and, as noted above, market-based measures of long-dated inflation expectations barely budged in response to last Friday’s inflation report. Chart 12No Wage/Price Spiral Yet Chart 13Inflation Expectations The bottom line is that inflation is still more likely to fall than rise during the next 6-12 months, and this will prevent the Fed from tightening more quickly than what is already priced in the yield curve. That said, while inflation is likely to dip, it will remain above the Fed’s 2% target and a recession will eventually be required to restore price stability. That recession, however, may not occur until late-2023 and it will likely be preceded by far less aggressive monetary tightening than what Paul Volcker delivered in the early-1980s.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1  For more details on the Fed’s forward guidance please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “On A Dovish Hike And A 3% Bond Yield”, dated May 10, 2022. 2 These numbers are as of last Friday’s close. 3 For details on these indicators please see US Bond Strategy Webcast, “Will The Fed Get Its Soft Landing?”, dated May 17, 2022. 4 https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20220504.pdf 5 Please see BCA Counterpoint Weekly Report, “Markets Echo 1981, When Stagflation Morphed Into Recession”, dated May 19, 2022. 6 Please see Bolhius, Cramer, Summers, “Comparing Past and Present Inflation”, June 2022. https://www.nber.org/papers/w30116. And also Blanchard, “Why I worry about inflation, interest rates, and unemployment”, March 2022. https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/why-i-worry-about-inflation-interest-rates-and-unemployment.  7 Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “The Case For A Soft Landing”, dated June 7, 2022. Recommended Portfolio Specification Other Recommendations Treasury Index Returns Spread Product Returns