Economy
Highlights Our top five geopolitical “Black Swans” are risks that the market is seriously underpricing. With the “phase one” trade deal signed, Chinese policy could become less accommodative, resulting in a negative economic surprise. The trade deal may fall victim to domestic politics, raising the risk of a US-China military skirmish. A Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention or a Democratic takeover of the White House could trigger social unrest and violence in the US. A pickup in the flow of migrants to Europe would fundamentally undermine political stability there. Russia’s weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest, risking an escalation beyond the point of containment. Feature Over the past four years, we have started off the year with our top five geopolitical “Black Swans.” These are low-probability events whose market impact would be significant enough to matter for global investors. Unlike the great Byron Wien’s perennial list of market surprises, we do not assign these events a “better than 50% likelihood of happening.” We offer risks that the market is seriously underpricing by assigning them only single-digit probabilities when we think the reality is closer to 10%-15%, a level at which a risk premium ought to be assigned. Some of our risks below are so obscure that it is not clear how exactly to price them. We exclude issues that are fairly probable, such as flare-ups in Indo-Pakistani conflict. The two major risks of the year – discussed in our annual outlook – are that either US President Donald Trump or Chinese President Xi Jinping overreaches in a major way. But what would truly surprise the market would be a policy-induced relapse in Chinese growth or a direct military clash between the two great powers. That is how we begin. Other risks stem from domestic affairs in the US, Europe, and Russia. Black Swan 1: China’s Financial Crisis Begins The risk of Xi Jinping’s concentration of power in his own person is that individuals can easily make mistakes, especially if unchecked by advisors or institutions. Lower officials will fear correcting or admonishing an all-powerful leader. Inconvenient information may not be relayed up the hierarchy. Such behavior was rampant in Chairman Mao Zedong’s time, leading to famine among other ills. Insofar as President Xi’s cult of personality successfully imitates Mao’s, it will be subject to similar errors. If President Xi overreaches and makes a policy mistake this year, it could occur in economic policy or other policies. We begin with economic policy, as we have charted the risks of Xi’s crackdown on the financial system since early 2017 (Chart 1). Chart 1A Crackdown On Financial Risk Could Cause China's Economy To Derail Chart 2Easing Of Trade Tensions May Re-Incentivize Tighter Policy This year is supposed to be the third and final year of Xi Jinping’s “three battles” against systemic risk, pollution, and poverty. The first battle actually focuses on financial risk, i.e. China’s money and credit bubble. The regime has compromised on this goal since mid-2018, allowing monetary easing to stabilize the economy amid the trade war. But with a “phase one” trade deal having been signed, there is an underrated risk that economic policy will return to its prior setting, i.e. become less accommodative (Chart 2). When Xi launched the “deleveraging campaign” in 2017, we posited that the authorities would be willing to tolerate an annual GDP growth rate below 6%. This would not only cull excesses in the economy but also demonstrate that the administration means business when it says that China must prioritize quality rather than quantity of growth. While Chinese authorities are most likely targeting “around 6%” in 2020, it is entirely possible that the authorities will allow an undershoot in the 5.5%-5.9% range. They will argue that the GDP target for 2020 has already been met on a compound growth rate basis (Chart 3), as astute clients have pointed out. They may see less need for stimulus than the market expects. Chart 3Chinese Authorities Might Tolerate A Growth Undershoot In 2020 Similarly, while urban disposable income is ostensibly lagging its target of doubling 2010 levels by 2020, China’s 13th Five Year Plan, which concludes in 2020, conspicuously avoided treating urban and rural income targets separately. Chart 4Lower Impetus For Economic Support Due To Improvements In National Income? Chart 5Has China's Stimulus Peaked? If the authorities focus only on general disposable income, then they are on track to meet their target (Chart 4). This would reduce the impetus for greater economic support. There are already tentative signs that Chinese authorities are “satisfied” with the amount of stimulus they have injected: some indicators of money and credit have already peaked (Chart 5). The crackdown on shadow banking has eased, but informal lending is still contracting. The regime is still pushing reforms that shake up state-owned enterprises. The Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. An added headwind for the Chinese economy stems from the currency. The currency should track interest rate differentials. Beijing’s incremental monetary stimulus, in the form of cuts to bank reserve requirement ratios (RRRs), should also push the renminbi down over time (Chart 6). However, an essential aspect of any trade deal with the Trump administration is the need to demonstrate that China is not competitively devaluing. Hence the CNY-USD could overshoot in the first half of the year. This is positive for global exports to China, but it tightens Chinese financial conditions at home. A stronger than otherwise justified renminbi would add to any negative economic surprises from less accommodative monetary and fiscal policy. Conventional wisdom says China will stimulate the economy ahead of two major political events: the centenary of the Communist Party in 2021 and the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022. The former is a highly symbolic anniversary, as Xi has reasserted the supremacy of the party in all things, while the latter is more significant for policy, as it is a leadership reshuffle that will usher in the sixth generation of China’s political elite. But conventional wisdom may be wrong – the Xi administration may aim only for stability, not acceleration, in the economy. It would make sense to save dry powder for the next US or global recession. The obvious implication is that China’s economic rebound may lose steam as early as H2 – but the black swan risk is that negative surprises could cause a vicious spiral inside of China. This is a country with massive financial and economic imbalances, a declining potential growth profile, and persistent political obstacles to growth both at home and abroad. Corporate defaults have spiked sharply. While the default rate is lower than elsewhere, the market may be sniffing out a bigger problem as it charges a much higher premium for onshore Chinese bonds (Chart 7). Chart 6CNY-USD Overshoot Would Tighten Chinese Financial Conditions Chart 7Is China's Bond Market Sniffing Out A Problem? Bottom Line: Our view is that China’s authorities will remain accommodative in 2020 in order to ensure that growth bottoms and the labor market continues to improve. But Beijing has compromised its domestic economic discipline since 2018 in order to fight trade war. The risk now, with a “phase one” deal in hand, is that Xi Jinping returns to his three-year battle plan and underestimates the downward pressures on the economy. The result would be a huge negative surprise for the Chinese and global economy in 2020. Black Swan 2: The US And China Go To War In 2013, we predicted that US-China conflict was “more likely than you think.” This was not just an argument for trade conflict or general enmity that raises the temperature in the Asia-Pacific region – we included military conflict. Chart 8Americans' Attitudes Toward China Plunged … At the time, the notion that a Sino-American armed conflict was the world’s greatest geopolitical threat seemed ludicrous to many of our clients. We published this analysis in October of that year, months after the Islamic State “Soldier’s Harvest” offensive into Iraq. Trying to direct investors to the budding rivalry between American and Chinese naval forces in the South China Sea amidst the Islamic State hysteria was challenging, to say the least. The suggestion that an accidental skirmish between the US and China could descend into a full-blown conflict involved a stretch of the imagination because China was not yet perceived by the American public as a major threat. In 2014, only 19%of the US public saw China as the “greatest threat to the US in the future.” This came between Russia, at 23%, and Iran, at 16%. Today, China and Russia share the top spot with 24%. Furthermore, the share of Americans with an unfavorable view of China has increased from 52% to 60% in the six intervening years (Chart 8). The level of enmity expressed by the US public toward China is still lower than that toward the Soviet Union at the onset of the Cold War in the 1950s (Chart 9). However, the trajectory of distrust is clearly mounting. We expect this trend to continue: anti-China sentiment is one of the few sources of bipartisan agreement remaining in Washington, DC (Chart 10). Chinese sentiment toward the United States has also darkened dramatically. The geopolitical rivalry is deepening for structural reasons: as China advances in size and sophistication, it seeks to alter the regional status quo in its favor, while the US grows fearful and seeks to contain China. Chart 9… But Not Yet To War-Inducing Levels Chart 10Distrust Of China Is Bipartisan Chart 11Newfound American Concern For China’s Repression One example of rising enmity is the US public’s newfound concern for China’s domestic policies and human rights, specifically Beijing’s treatment of its Uyghur minority in Xinjiang. A Google Trends analysis of the term “Uyghur” or “Uyghur camps” shows a dramatic rise in mentions since Q2 of 2018, around the same time the trade war ramped up in a major way (Chart 11). While startling revelations of re-education camps in Xinjiang emerged in recent years, the reality is that Beijing has used heavy-handed tactics against both militant groups and the wider Uyghur minority since at least 2008 – and much earlier than that. As such, the surge of interest by the general American public and legislators – culminating in the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019 – is a product of the renewed strategic tension between the two countries. The “phase one” trade deal risks falling victim to domestic politics due to greater public engagement in foreign policy. The same can be said for Hong Kong: the US did not pass a Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in 2014, during the first round of mass protests, which prompted Beijing to take heavy-handed legal, legislative, and censorship actions. It passed the bill in 2019, after the climate in Washington had changed. Why does this matter for investors? There are two general risks that come with a greater public engagement in foreign policy. First, the “phase one” trade deal between China and the US could fall victim to domestic politics. This deal envisions a large step up in Sino-American economic cooperation. But if China is to import around $200 billion of additional US goods and services over the next two years – an almost inconceivable figure – the US and China will have to tamp down on public vitriol. This is notably the case if the Democratic Party takes over the White House, given its likely greater focus on liberal concerns such as human rights. And yet the latest bills became law under President Trump and a Republican Senate, and we fully expect a second Trump term to involve a re-escalation of trade tensions to ensure compliance with phase one and to try to gain greater structural concessions in phase two. Second, mounting nationalist sentiment will make it more difficult for US and Chinese policymakers to reduce tensions following a potential future military skirmish, accidental or otherwise. While our scenario of a military conflict in 2013 was cogent, the public backlash in the United States was probably manageable.1 Today we can no longer guarantee that this is the case. China has greater control over the domestic narrative and public discourse, but the rise of the middle class and the government’s efforts to rebuild support for the single-party regime have combined to create an increase in nationalism. Thus it is also more difficult for Chinese policymakers to contain the popular backlash if conflict erupts. In short, the probability of a quick tamping down of public enmity is actively being reduced as American public vilification of China is closing the gap with China’s burgeoning nationalism at an alarming pace. Chart 12Tsai Ing-Wen Enjoys A Greater Mandate On Higher Turnout … Another of our black swan risks – Taiwan island – is inextricably bound up in this dangerous US-China dynamic. To be clear, Washington will tread carefully, as a conflict over Taiwan could become a major war. Nevertheless Taiwan’s election, as we expected, has injected new vitality into this already underrated geopolitical risk. It is not only that a high-turnout election (Chart 12) gave President Tsai Ing-wen a greater mandate (Chart 13), or that her Democratic Progressive Party retained its legislative majority (Chart 14). It is not only that the trigger for this resounding victory was the revolt in Hong Kong and the Taiwanese people’s rejection of the “one country, two systems” formula for Taiwan. It is also that Tsai followed up with a repudiation of the mainland by declaring, “We don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state. We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China, Taiwan.” Chart 13… Popular Support … Chart 14… And A Legislative Majority This statement is not a minor rhetorical flourish but will be received as a major provocation in Beijing: the crystallization of a long-brewing clash between Beijing and Taipei. Additional punitive economic measures against Taiwan are now guaranteed. Saber-rattling could easily ignite in the coming year and beyond. Taiwan is the epicenter of the US-China strategic conflict. First, Beijing cannot compromise on its security or its political legitimacy and considers the “one China principle” to be inviolable. Second, the US maintains defense relations with Taiwan (and is in the process of delivering on a relatively large new package of arms). Third, the US’s true willingness to fight a war on Taiwan’s behalf is in doubt, which means that deterrence has eroded and there is greater room for miscalculation. Bottom Line: A US-China military skirmish has been our biggest black swan risk since we began writing the BCA Geopolitical Strategy. The difference between then and now, however, is that the American public is actually paying attention. Political ideology – the question of democracy and human rights – is clearly merging with trade, security, and other differences to provoke Americans of all stripes. This makes any skirmish more than just a temporary risk-off event, as it could lead to a string of incidents or even protracted military conflict. Black Swan 3: Social Unrest Erupts In America There are numerous lessons that one can learn from the ongoing unrest in Hong Kong, but perhaps the most cogent one is that Millennials and Generation Z are not as docile and feckless as their elders think. Images of university students and even teenagers throwing flying kicks and Molotov cocktails while clad in black body armor have shocked the world. Perhaps all those violent video games did have a lasting impact on the youth! What is surprising is that so few commentators have made the cognitive leap from the ultra-first world streets of Hong Kong to other developed economies. Perhaps what is clouding analysts’ minds is the idiosyncratic nature of the dispute in Hong Kong, the “one China” angle. However, Hong Kong youth are confronted with similar socio-economic challenges that their peers in other advanced economies face: overpriced real estate and a bifurcated service-sector labor market with few mid-tier jobs that pay a decent wage. In the US, Millennials and Gen Z are also facing challenges unique to the US. First, their debt burden is much more toxic than that of the older cohorts, given that it is made up of student loans and credit card debt (Chart 15). Second, they find themselves at odds – demographically and ideologically – with the older cohorts (Chart 16). Chart 15Younger American Cohorts Plagued By Toxic Debt Chart 16Younger And Older Cohorts At Odds Demographically The adage that the youth are apolitical and do not turn out to vote may have ended thanks to President Trump. The 2018 midterm election, which the Democratic Party successfully turned into a referendum on the president, saw the youth (18-29) turnout nearly double from 20% to 36% (the 30-44 year-old cohort also saw a jump in turnout from 35.6% to 48.8%). The election saw one of the highest turnouts in recent memory, with a 53.4% figure, just two points off the 2016 general election figure (Chart 17). Chart 17Massive Turnout To The 2016 Referendum On Trump Despite the high turnout in 2018, the-most-definitely-not-Millennial Vice President Joe Biden continues to lead the Democratic Party in the polls. Chart 18Biden Unpopular Among Young American Voters Chart 19Bookies Pulled Down "Uncle Joe's" Odds, Capturing Democratic Party Zeitgeist His probability of winning the nomination is not overwhelming, but it is the highest of any contender. In recent polls, Biden comes third place in Millennial/Gen-Z vote preferences (Chart 18). Yet he is hardly out of contention, especially for the 30-44 year-old cohort. The view that “Uncle Joe” does not fit the Democratic Party zeitgeist has become so entrenched in the Democratic Party narrative that it became conventional wisdom last year, pulling oddsmakers and betting markets away from the clear frontrunner (Chart 19). As such, a Biden victory at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on July 13-16 may come as an affront to the left-wing activists who will surely descend on the convention. This will particularly be the case if Biden wins despite the progressive candidates amassing a majority of overall delegates, which is possible judging by the combined progressive vote share in current polling (Chart 20). He would arrive in Milwaukee without clearing the 1990 delegate count required to win on the first ballot. On the second ballot, his presidency would then receive a boost from “superdelegates” and those progressives who are unwilling to “rock the boat,” i.e. unify against an establishment candidate with the largest share of votes. This is also how Mayor Michael Bloomberg could pull off a surprise win. Chart 20Progressives Come Closest To Victory Such a “brokered” – or contested – convention has not occurred since 1952. However, several Democratic Party conventions came close, including 1968, 1972, and 1984. The 1968 one in Chicago was notable for considerable violence and unrest. Even if the Milwaukee Democratic Party convention does not produce unrest, it could sow the seeds for unrest later in the year. First, a breakout Biden performance in the primaries is unlikely. As such, he will likely need to pledge a shift to the left at the convention, including by accepting a progressive vice-presidential candidate. Second, an actual progressive may win the primary. Chart 21Zealots In Both Parties Perceive Each Other As A National Threat It is likely that either of the two options would be seen as an existential threat to many of Trump’s loyal supporters across the United States. President Trump’s rhetoric often paints the scenario of a Democratic takeover of the White House in apocalyptic terms. And data suggests that the zealots in both parties perceive each other as a “threat to the nation’s wellbeing” (Chart 21). The American Civil War in the nineteenth century began with the election of a president. This is not just because Abraham Lincoln was a particularly reviled figure in the South, but because the states that ultimately formed the Confederacy saw in his election the demographic writing-on-the-wall. The election was an expression of a general will that, from that point onwards, was irreversible. Given demographic trends in the US today, it is possible that many would see in Trump’s loss a similar fait accompli. If one perceives progressive Democrats as an existential threat to the US constitution, rebellion is the obvious and rational response. There is a risk of rebellion from Trump’s most ardent supporters if he loses the White House. Bottom Line: Year 2020 may be a particularly violent one for the US. First, left wing activists may be shocked and angered to learn that Joe Biden (or Bloomberg) is the nominee of the Democratic Party come July. With so much hype behind the progressive candidates throughout the campaign, Biden’s nomination could be seen as an affront to what was supposed to be “the big year” for left-wing candidates. Second, investors have to start thinking about what happens if Biden – or a progressive candidate – goes on to defeat President Trump in the general election. While liberal America took Trump’s election badly, it has demographics – and thus time – on its side. Trump’s most ardent supporters may conclude that his defeat means the end of America as they know it. Black Swan 4: Europe’s Migration Crisis Restarts Chart 22Decline In Illegal Immigration Dampened European Populism It is a testament to Europe’s resilience that we do not have a Black Swan scenario based on an election or a political crisis set on the continent in 2020. Support for the common currency and the EU as a whole has rebounded to its highest since 2013. Even early elections in Germany and Italy are unlikely to produce geopolitical risk. The populists in the former are in no danger of outperforming whereas the populists in the latter barely deserve the designation. But what if one of the reasons for the surge in populism – unchecked illegal immigration – were to return in 2020? The data suggests that the risk of migrant flows has massively subsided. From its peak of over a million arrivals in 2015, the data shows that only 125,472 migrants crossed into Europe via land and sea routes in the Mediterranean last year (Chart 22). Why? There are five reasons that we believe have checked the flow of migrants: Supply: The civil wars in Syria, Iraq, and Libya have largely subsided. Heterogenous regions, cities, and neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed and internal boundaries have largely ossified. It is unlikely that any future conflict will produce massive outflows of refugees as the displacement has already taken place. These countries are now largely divided into armed, ethnically homogenous, camps. Enforcement: The EU has stepped up border enforcement since 2015, pouring resources into the land border with Turkey and naval patrols across the Mediterranean. Individual member states – particularly Italy and Hungary – have also stepped up border enforcement policy. While most EU member states have publicly chided both for “draconian” policies, there is no impetus to force Rome and Budapest to change policy. Libyan Imbroglio: Conflict in Libya has flared up in 2019 with military warlord Khalifa Haftar looking to wrest control from the UN-backed Government of National Accord led by Fayez al-Serraj. The Islamic State has regrouped in the country as well. Ironically, the conflict is helping stem the flow of migrants as African migrants from sub-Saharan countries dare not cross into Libya as they did in 2015 when there was a brief lull in fighting. Turkish benevolence: Ankara is quick to point out that it is the only thing standing between Europe and a massive deluge of migrants. Turkey is said to host somewhere between two and four million refugees from various conflicts in the Middle East. Fear of the crossing: If crossing the Mediterranean was easy, Europe would have experienced a massive influx of migrants throughout the twentieth century. Not only is it not easy, it is costly and quite deadly, with thousands lost each year. Furthermore, most migrants are not welcomed when they arrive to Europe, many are held in terrible conditions in holding camps in Italy and Greece. Over time, migrants who made it into Europe have reported these dangers and conditions, reducing the overall demand for illegal migration. We do not foresee these five factors changing, at least not all at once. However, there are several reasons to worry about the flow of migrants in 2020. US-Iran tensions have sparked outright military action, while unrest is flaring up across Iran’s sphere of influence. Going forward, Iran could destabilize Iraq or fuel Shia unrest against US-backed regimes. Second, Afghanistan has been the source of most migrants to Europe via sea and land Mediterranean routes – 19.2%. The conflict in the country continues and may flare up with President Trump’s decision to formally withdraw most US troops from the country in 2020. Third, a break in fighting in Libya may encourage sub-Saharan migrants to revisit routes to Europe. Migrants from Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, and the Democratic Republic of Congo make up over 10% of migrants to Europe. Finally, Turkish relationship with the West could break up further in 2020, causing Ankara to ship migrants northward. We highly doubt that President Erdogan will risk such a break, given that 50% of Turkish exports go to Europe. A European embargo on Turkish exports – which would be a highly likely response to such an act – would crush the already decimated Turkish economy. Bottom Line: While we do not see a return to the 2015 level of migration in 2020, we flag this risk because it would fundamentally undermine political stability in Europe. Black Swan 5: Russia Faces A “Peasant Revolt” Our fifth and final black swan risk for the year stems from Russia. This risk may seem obvious, since the US election creates a dynamic that revives the inherent conflict in US-Russian relations. Russia could seek to accomplish foreign policy objectives – interfering in US elections, punishing regional adversaries. The Trump administration may be friendly toward Russia but Trump is unlikely to veto any sanctions passed by the House and Senate in an election year, should an occasion for new sanctions arise. Conversely Russia could anticipate greater US pressure if the Democrats win in November. Yet it is Russia’s domestic affairs that represent the real underrated risk. Putin’s fourth term as president has been characterized by increased focus on domestic political control and stability as opposed to foreign adventurism. The creation of a special National Guard in 2016, reporting directly to Putin and responsible for quelling domestic unrest, symbolizes the shift in focus. So too does Russia’s adherence to the OPEC 2.0 regime of production control to keep oil prices above their budget breakeven level. Meanwhile Putin’s courting of Europe for the Nordstream II pipeline, and his slight peacemaking efforts with Ukraine, has suggested a slightly more restrained international posture. Chart 23Sluggish Wage Growth Threatens Russian Stability Strategically it makes little sense for Russia to court negative attention at a time when the US and Europe are at odds over trade and the Middle East, the US is preoccupied with China and Iran, and Russia itself faces mounting domestic problems. The domestic problems are long in coming. The central bank has maintained a stringent monetary policy for the better part of the decade. Despite cutting interest rates recently, monetary and credit conditions are still tight, hurting domestic demand. Moscow has also imposed fiscal austerity, namely by cutting back on state pensions and hiking the value added tax. Real wage growth is weak (Chart 23), retail sales are falling, and domestic demand looks to weaken further, as Andrija Vesic of BCA Emerging Markets Strategy observes in a recent Special Report. The effect of Russia’s policy austerity has been a drop in public approval of the administration (Chart 24). Protests erupted in 2019 but were largely drowned out by the larger and more globally significant protests in Hong Kong. These were met by police suppression that has not removed their underlying cause. Putin’s first major decision of the new year was to reshuffle the government, entailing Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev’s transfer to a new post and the appointment of a new cabinet. This move reveals the need to show some accountability to reduce popular pressure. While Moscow now has room to cut interest rates and ease fiscal policy, it is behind the curve and the weak economy will add fuel to domestic unrest. Meanwhile Putin’s efforts to alter the Russian constitution so he can stay in power beyond current term limits, effectively becoming emperor for life, like Xi Jinping, should not be dismissed merely because they are expected. They reflect a need to take advantage of Putin’s popular standing to consolidate domestic political power at a time when the ruling United Russia party and the federal government face discontent. They also ensure that strategic conflict with the United States will take on an ideological dimension. Chart 24Austerity Weighed On The Administration's Popularity In Russia Chart 25Russian Political Risk Is Unsustainably Low Russia's recent cabinet shakeup is positive from the point of view of economic reform. And the country's monetary and fiscal room provide a basis for remaining overweight equities within EM, as our Emerging Markets Strategy recommends. However, Russian equities have rallied hard and the political risk is understated. Bottom Line: It is never easy predicting Putin’s next international move. Our market-based indicators of Russian political risk have hit multi-year lows, but both the domestic and international context suggest that these lows will not be sustained (Chart 25). A new bout of risk can emanate from Putin, or from changes in Washington, or from the Russian people themselves. What would take the world by surprise would be domestic unrest on a larger scale than Russia can easily suppress through the police force. Housekeeping We are closing our long European Union / short Chinese equities strategic trade with a 1.61% loss since inception on May 10, 2019. Dhaval Joshi of BCA’s European Investment Strategy downgraded the Eurostoxx 50 to underweight versus the S&P 500 and the Nikkei 225 this week. He makes the point that the Euro Area bond yield 6-month impulse hit 100 bps – a critical technical level – and will be a strong headwind to growth. We will look to reopen this trade at a later date when the euphoria over the “phase one” trade deal subsides, as we still favor European equities and DM bourses over EM. We will reinstitute our long Brent crude H2 2020 versus H2 2021 tactical position, which was stopped out on January 9, 2020. We remain bullish on oil fundamentals and expect Middle East instability to add a political risk premium. China's stimulus and the oil view also give reason for us to reinitiate our long Malaysian equities relative to EM as a tactical position. The Malaysian ringgit will benefit as oil prices move higher, helping Malaysian companies make payments on their large pile of dollar-denominated debt and improving household purchasing power. Higher oil prices also correlate with higher equity prices, while China's stimulus and the US trade ceasefire will push the US dollar lower and help trade revive in the region. Marko Papic Consulting Editor marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Observe how little attention the public paid to US-China saber-rattling around China’s announcement of an Air Defense Identification Zone in the East China Sea that year.
Highlights The World Bank lowered its growth forecast for EM economies – the growth engine for commodity demand – to 4.1% from 4.6% for 2020, which still will outpace last year’s rate of 3.5%. Our high-conviction call remains intact: The combination of expansionary monetary and fiscal policy will support commodity demand growth this year in excess of last year’s paltry rate. The Bank highlights policy uncertainty as a key risk, cautioning renewed trade tensions could derail the already-fragile global economy. The other side of this coin is: Lower policy uncertainty – particularly in the US – would provide a significant boost to global growth. This is in line with our long-standing assessment of the global economy. We continue to expect a revival in industrial commodity demand, particularly for oil and base metals, where we remain long. We see risk to the upside, if demand expands sooner or stronger than what the Bank – and the market – are pricing in. Feature We see upside risks arising from demand recovering sooner and stronger than markets are currently pricing. The title of the World Bank’s January 2020 Global Economic Prospects – Slow Growth, Policy Challenges – summarizes our maintained view for commodity markets this year. However, the Bank stresses downside risks to markets arising from policy uncertainty, whereas we see upside risks arising from demand recovering sooner and stronger than markets are currently pricing. In its current report, the Bank revised its 2020 real GDP growth estimates for EM economies to 4.1% p.a. from 4.6% p.a. previously. This still represents a rebound in growth vs. last year’s paltry 3.5% p.a. growth estimate. Still, growth will not approach the 6.2% rate seen in the 2005 – 2009 period, or the 5.7% rate seen in 2010 – 2014. The Bank’s forecast is a key input to our global commodity demand assessment, particularly for EM economies. The Bank’s view in its current report is consistent with our view that economic growth globally will accelerate modestly this year, fueled by accommodative monetary policies globally for the better part of last year (Chart of the Week). We continue to expect a modest increase in fiscal stimulus in major economies this year, particularly in the US, China and Germany. Chart of the WeekGlobal Monetary Accommodation Will Lift Manufacturing Our proprietary indicators – Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index, Global Commodity Factor (GCF), and EM Import Volume Model (EMIV) – continue to signal industrial growth will be lifting as global policy stimulus kicks in (Chart 2).1 Chart 2BCA Research Prop Indicators Continue To Signal Higher Growth This pick-up will become apparent in manufacturing and EM trade data over the course of 1H20. This pick-up will become apparent in manufacturing and EM trade data over the course of 1H20 – most global trade is in manufactured goods, which is important for EM economies (Chart 3). This will translate to higher demand for industrial commodities – mainly base metals and oil (Chart 4). Industrial-commodity demand also will get a boost at the margin from the phase-one trade deal signed in Washington, DC, this week, which reduced tariffs the US and China imposed on each others’ imports. Chart 3Global PMIs Will Recover In 2020 Chart 4Stronger Manufacturing Lifts Demand For Industrial Commodities It is important to note that supply is tightening for these industrial commodities. OPEC 2.0’s production discipline, coupled with reduced growth in US shale-oil output due to capital constraints, and tighter copper and aluminum supplies – will continue to leave these markets open to short-term price spikes should demand recover sooner and stronger than expected.2 Policy Uncertainty Continues To Hinder Growth The World Bank’s growth estimate for EM economies remains low vs. its historical average. The World Bank’s growth estimate for EM economies remains low vs. its historical average (Chart 5, top panel). The effect of elevated Global Economic Policy Uncertainty (GEPU) continues to plague EM economies. It has extracted a heavy toll on EM commodity exporters via a strong USD (Chart 5, top panel). This weaker GDP growth for EM generally over the 2015 – 2019 period reflects the market-share war launched by OPEC in late 2014, which saw global benchmark oil prices fall from more than $110/bbl in 1H14 to close to $25/bbl by January 2016, and the deleterious effects caused by safe-haven demand for the USD, which is partly driven by global policy uncertainty.3 Reduced policy uncertainty – particularly in the US – would go a long way to restoring EM economic growth, as the bottom panel of Chart 5 demonstrates: According to the World Bank’s calculations, a 10% reduction in US policy uncertainty would add 0.6% to EM investment growth. This would lift growth closer to its long-term average rate of 5.4% for 2000 – 2019 from the Bank’s currently projected rate of 4.3% for 2020 – 2022. Chart 5Lower Uncertainty Would Boost Growth Bottom Line: The World Bank’s and our forecasts both point to a modest pick-up in EM growth this year, which will lift industrial-commodity demand. While the Bank continues to flag risks to this recovery arising from renewed policy uncertainty – e.g., the resumption of the Sino-US tariff increases – we continue to see risks to the upside in our short term outlook, particularly if demand revives sooner and stronger than markets currently are pricing in. Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight. OPEC crude production is estimated at 29.55mm b/d in December 2019, down 100k b/d from November levels, according to Platts. Iraq appears to be converging to quota and is expected to fully comply this month, according to Saudi Arabia officials.4 This implies a 180k b/d reduction in supply vs. November, assisting Saudi Arabia in its long attempt at balancing the oil market. Downside risks to Iraqi supply are mounting as continued internal discontent and ongoing tensions with the US – the Iraqi Parliament demand the US withdraw its troops from Iran – draws attention to the vulnerability of the country’s oil output. Base Metals: Neutral LME copper inventories stand at 130k MT, the lowest level since March 2018. (Chart 6). Tuesday, China reported a 9% month-to-month increase in copper imports. The most active copper future on the LMEX was up 1.5% at market close. Chinese iron-ore imports rose 11.8% to 101.3mm MT in December, the highest level in more than two years. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold prices remain above $1,550/oz, reflecting residual geopolitical tensions in the wake of the assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the former commander of Iran’s elite Quds force. Our gold models suggest prices are ~ $120/oz above a model based on US real rates and the broad trade-weighted dollar. This highlights gold’s ability to hedge against geopolitical tensions (Chart 7). We are moving our stop to $1,500/oz from $1,450/oz at tonight’s close. Chart 6LME Copper Stocks Resume Drawing Chart 7Gold Proves Its Worth As A Portfolio Hedge Ags/Softs: Underweight Expectations of a US-China trade deal are boosting demand for soybeans. China’s soybean imports jumped to a 19-month high of 9.54mm tons in December, a 67% year-on-year increase, as trade tensions recede. The USDA’s WASDE report on Friday showed yield increases more than offset a decline in area harvested for both corn and soybeans. For corn, the increase in production was not enough to keep up with the rise in use, mainly driven by higher feed, yet the average price for the 2019/20 season was unchanged at $9.00/bu. Higher feed usage levels drove U.S. wheat ending stocks below expectations. CBOT March Wheat futures were up 6.25 cents/bu on Tuesday. Footnotes 1 Our Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index uses trade data, FX rates, manufacturing data, and Chinese industrial activity statistics to gauge current global industrial activity. These statistics are highly correlated with trade-related activity, which, since most of this involve trade in manufactured goods, is important to global industrial activity. The Global Commodity Factor (GCF) uses principal component analysis to distill the primary driver of 28 different real commodity prices. The EM Import Volume Model (EMIV) model tracks EM import volumes which are reported with a two-month lag by the CPB in the Netherlands, which we update to current time using FX rates for trade-sensitive currencies, commodity prices and interest rates variables. We are also following shipping indexes, which are highly correlated with global trade volumes. 2 Please see On OPEC 2.0’s Agenda In Vienna: More Production Cuts, Longer Deal, published December 5, and Godot … Trade Deal … Wait For It … Base Metals Are Primed For A Rally, published November 28, 2019 for additional discussion. NB: We will be updating our global oil supply-demand balances and price forecasts next week. 3 This remains a major theme in our analysis, and one of the key risks we highlighted going into 2020. This policy uncertainty is transmitted to commodity markets globally via FX markets – as policy uncertainty rises, the broad trade-weighted USD for goods (TWIBG), our preferred benchmark, rises, as can be seen in the middle panel of Chart 5. We have shown that safe-haven demand strengthens the TWIBG index maintained by the Fed, which elevates the local-currency cost of commodities – most of which price and are invoiced in USD – which reduces demand at the margin; it also lowers the local-currency cost of production for commodities ex-US, which, at the margin, incentivizes supply. Please see 2020 Key Views: Policy Uncertainty Continues To Drive Commodity Markets, which we published December 19, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Saudi energy minister: We want sustainable oil prices published January 13, 2020 by reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q4 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2019 Summary of Closed Trades
The Sino-US “phase-one” trade deal was signed yesterday to much fanfare. The scale of the promised Chinese imports of US products and services is large, requiring $200bn-worth of additional Chinese purchases of US exports relative to 2017 over the coming two…
In December, the US ISM Manufacturing survey fell to 47.2, prompting questions about the expected recovery in the global industrial sector. The recent results from the January Empire State and Philadelphia Fed manufacturing surveys indicate that the…
Highlights 2019 Performance Breakdown: Our recommended model bond portfolio underperformed the custom benchmark index by -38bps for all of 2019. Winners & Losers: The underperformance of our model bond portfolio in 2019 was concentrated in the government bond side of the portfolio (-103bps), a result of below-benchmark duration positioning and underweights to US Treasuries and Italian government bonds. On the other side was a solid outperformance from spread product allocations (+65bps), mostly driven by an overweight to US high-yield corporate bonds. Q4/2019 Performance: The year ended strongly, however, as the portfolio outperformed by +28bps in Q4, split equally between government bonds and spread product. Scenario Analysis For The Next Six Months: We are targeting a moderately aggressive level of overall portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration exposure alongside meaningful overweight allocations to global corporate credit. In our base case scenario, global growth will continue to recover supported by accommodative monetary policies, thus opening a window for another year of global corporates outperforming sovereign bonds in 2020. Feature Last week, we published the Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio strategy for the coming year, in which we translated our 2020 global fixed income Key Views into recommended investment positioning for the next 6-12 months.1 In this week’s report, take a final look back to review the performance of the model portfolio for both the fourth quarter of 2019 and the entire calendar year. We also present our updated scenario analysis, and return projections, for the portfolio over the next six months, incorporating the new recommended allocations introduced last week. As a reminder to existing readers (and to new clients), the model portfolio is a part of our service that complements the usual macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors. This is done by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. 2019 Performance: A Short Summary Of A Long Year Chart of the Week2019 Performance: Credit Good, Duration Bad, But A Solid Q4 The 2019 performance of the model portfolio can be summarized by duration dominating credit. Government bond yields rapidly fell in the first three quarters of the year due to weakening global growth and growing political uncertainty, to the detriment of our below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration. At the same time, global credit markets performed strongly in 2019, even as risk-free government bond yields plunged, which benefited our overweight stance on global spread product. The 2019 performance of the model portfolio can be summarized by duration dominating credit. All in all, the overall portfolio return in 2019 was +7.9% (hedged into USD), underperforming our custom benchmark index by -38bps (Chart of the Week).2 That underperformance was more pronounced before the strong rebound in global bond yields witnessed at the beginning of the fourth quarter, at which point the portfolio was underperforming the custom benchmark by -68bps (Table 1). Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2019 Overall Return Attribution Looking at the breakdown of underperformance in 2019, our recommended positioning on government bonds (duration and country allocation) dragged the overall performance by -104bps, while our credit tilts (by country and broadly defined credit sectors) provided a partial offset, contributing +65bps. The details of the full year 2019 performance can be found in the Appendix on pages 14-16. In terms of specifics, the biggest sources of underperformance were underweights in US Treasuries (-66bps) and Italian government bonds (-28bps). Those positions, however, were used to “fund” corporate bond overweights in US investment grade (+28bps) and US high-yield (+46bps), as well as euro area corporate debt (+6bps) – allocations that performed well and helped offset the underperformance in US and Italian sovereign debt. More generally across the government bond portion of the portfolio, the drag on returns was concentrated in the 10+ year maturity buckets. This was a consequence of combining our below-benchmark duration stance with a curve-steepening bias that was hurt severely by the bullish flattening of global yield curves in the first three quarters of the year. The drag on returns from curve positioning was particularly acute in Japan and France, where the 10+ year maturity buckets underperformed by -27bps and -13bps, respectively. On a more positive note with regards to country selection, three of our favorite overweights for 2020 – Germany (+10bps), Australia (+7bps) and the UK (+5bps) – all outperformed versus the model portfolio benchmark. Q4/2019 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: Winning On Both Sides The GFIS model bond portfolio performed well at the end of 2019, as fixed income markets began to discount stabilizing global growth and reduced central bank easing expectations. The total return for the GFIS model portfolio (hedged into US dollars) in Q4/2019 was only +0.1%, but this managed to outperform the custom benchmark index by a solid +28bps. The GFIS model bond portfolio performed well at the end of 2019, as fixed income markets began to discount stabilizing global growth and reduced central bank easing expectations. In terms of the specific breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +14bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter outperformed by +15bps. The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2019 Government Bond Performance Attribution Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q4/2019 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector The most significant movers were: Biggest outperformers Underweight US government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (+8bps) Overweight US Ba-rated high-yield corporates (+5bps) Overweight US B-rated high-yield corporates (+5bps) Underweight Italian government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (+4bps) Underweight German government bonds with maturity beyond 10+ years (+3bps) Biggest underperformers Underweight US government bonds with maturity of 1-3 years (-2bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (-2bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-1bp) Overweight UK government bonds with maturity of 5-7 years (-1bp) Underweight German government bonds with maturity of 7-10 years (-1bp) Chart 4 presents the ranked benchmark index returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio for Q4/2019. The returns are hedged into US dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and are adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color-coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market during Q4/2019 (red for underweight, green for overweight, gray for neutral).3 Ideally, we would look to see more green bars on the left side of the chart where market returns are highest, and more red bars on the right side of the chart were returns are lowest. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Bond Portfolio In Q4/2019 Global spread product dominates the left half of the chart. EM corporates and EM sovereigns denominated in US dollars turned to be the best performers in Q4, followed by US and European corporate bonds. This was a boon for our model portfolio performance, given our overweight stances on global corporate bonds. This was due to credit spread narrowing, supported by accommodative monetary policy and fading fears of slower global growth. On the other hand, the right side of Chart 4 is predominantly occupied by government bonds. The worst performers in Q4 were German, New Zealand and UK governments bonds – three markets where we have been overweight, although we did take profits on our long-held bullish view on New Zealand in mid-November.4 Bottom Line: Our recommended model bond portfolio outperformed the custom benchmark index during the fourth quarter of the year. The outperformance came both from the government and spread product sides of the portfolio, driven by a smaller exposure to the long-ends of government bond yield curves and our recommended overweight position on US high-yield corporate bonds. Future Drivers Of Portfolio Returns Chart 5Overall Portfolio Allocation: Significantly Overweight Credit Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by three main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias, our overweight stance on corporate debt versus global government bonds, and last week’s upgrade of EM USD-denominated sovereigns and corporates to overweight. In terms of specific weightings in the GFIS model bond portfolio, we now have a more pronounced bias favoring global spread product over government debt, with a relative overweight of fifteen percentage points versus the benchmark index (Chart 5). We also remain modestly below-benchmark on duration, with an overall exposure equal to 0.5 years short of the benchmark (Chart 6). While we do not expect a major surge in bond yields this year, global yield curves discount inflation expectations that are too low and monetary policy easing in 2020 that is unlikely to be delivered (especially in the US). With global growth showing signs of bottoming out, and leading indicators pointing to continued improvement in the next 6-12 months, the risk/reward bias is tilted in favor of global yields moving higher, justifying reduced duration exposure. Looking ahead, the performance of the model bond portfolio will be driven by three main factors: our below-benchmark duration bias, our overweight stance on corporate debt versus global government bonds, and last week’s upgrade of EM USD-denominated sovereigns and corporates to overweight. Chart 6Overall Portfolio Duration: Moderately Below Benchmark Chart 7Portfolio Yield: Significant Positive Carry From Credit Chart 8Portfolio Risk Budget Usage: Moderately Aggressive To better position the model bond portfolio to this backdrop of slowly rising global yields, we adjusted our government bond country allocations last week in favor of lower-beta markets such as Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Australia and the UK, while maintaining underweight positions in higher-beta markets such as the US, Canada and Italy.5 Our decision to upgrade global credit exposure helps boost the yield of our model portfolio to around 3%, or +43bps in excess of the benchmark index yield (Chart 7). Further, these changes represent an increase in the usage of the “risk budget” of our model bond portfolio, which is now running a tracking error (or excess volatility versus that of the benchmark) of 73bps (Chart 8). This is slightly higher than the 58bps prior to last week’s changes, but is still below the maximum allowable tracking error of 100bps that we have imposed on the model portfolio since its inception. More importantly, this is consistent with our view that investors should maintain a “moderately aggressive” level of risk in fixed income portfolios in 2020. Scenario Analysis & Return Forecasts To help provide some insight as to the potential excess returns from our model bond portfolio tilts, we use a framework for estimating total returns for all government bond markets and spread product sectors, based on common risk factors. For credit, returns are estimated as a function of changes in the US dollar, the Fed funds rate, oil prices and market volatility as proxied by the VIX index (Table 2A). For government bonds, non-US yield changes are estimated using historical betas to changes in US Treasury yields (Table 2B). We take yield forecasts for US Treasuries that are translated to shifts in non-US yields using these yield betas.6 Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To US Treasuries In Tables 3A and 3B, we present our three main scenarios for the next six months, defined by changes in the risk factors, and the expected performance of the model bond portfolio in each case. The scenarios, described below, all revolve around our expectation that the most important drivers of future market returns will continue to be the momentum of global growth and the path of US monetary policy. Base Case (Global Growth Recovery): The Fed stays on hold, the US dollar weakens by -2%, oil prices rise by +10%, the VIX hovers around 13, and there is a bear-steepening of the UST curve. This is a scenario where global growth keeps recovering, alongside a US dollar which slightly weakens. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +90bps in this case. Global Growth Accelerates: The Fed stays on hold, the US dollar weakens by -5%, oil prices rise by +15%, the VIX declines to 10, and there is a more pronounced bear-steepening of the UST curve. Under this scenario, the pickup in global growth is faster than anticipated, causing the US dollar to weaken substantially as global capital flows move into more growth-sensitive markets outside the US. Both of these forces support EM economies and support oil prices. The model bond portfolio is expected to beat the benchmark index by +125bps in this case. Global Growth Upturn Fails: The Fed cuts rates by -25bps, the US dollar appreciates by +3%, oil prices fall by -20%, the VIX rises to 25; there is a parallel shift down in the UST curve. This is a scenario where global growth merely stabilizes at weak levels but fails to rebound. The Fed finds itself delivering one more rate cut in order to support the US economy. Meantime, the US dollar appreciates as capital flows out of growth-sensitive regions into the safe-haven greenback, particularly as global recession fears result in increased financial market volatility. The model portfolio will underperform the benchmark by -38bps in this scenario. Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Bond Portfolio For The Next Six Months Table 3BUS Treasury Yield Assumptions For The 6-Month Forward Scenario Analysis The scenario inputs for the four main risk factors (the fed funds rate, the price of oil, the US dollar and the VIX index) are shown visually in Chart 9, while the US Treasury yield scenarios are in Chart 10. Chart 9Risk Factor Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Chart 10US Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis In terms of our conviction level among the main drivers of the model portfolio returns – duration allocation (across yield curves and countries) and asset allocation (credit versus government bonds) – we are confident that global growth is much more likely to rebound than decelerate further over the course of 2020. This will allow our increased spread product allocation to be the main driver of the portfolio returns. Thus, the overall expected excess return of our model bond portfolio over the benchmark is positive, given that the scenario analysis produces positive excess returns in the Base Case and “Global Growth Accelerates” outcomes. We are confident that global growth is much more likely to rebound than decelerate further over the course of 2020. This will allow our increased spread product allocation to be the main driver of the portfolio returns. Bottom Line: We are targeting a moderately aggressive level of overall portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration exposure alongside meaningful overweight allocations to global corporate credit. In our base case scenario, global growth will continue to recover supported by accommodative global monetary policy, thus opening a window for another year of global corporates outperforming sovereign bonds in 2020. Jeremie Peloso Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Our Model Bond Portfolio Strategy For 2020: Selectively Aggressive”, dated January 7, 2020, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. 2 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 3 Note that sectors where we made changes to our recommended weightings during Q4/2019 will have multiple colors in the respective bars in Chart 4. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “When In Doubt, Trust The Leading Indicators”, dated November 19, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 We are defining “beta” here in terms of yield beta, or the sensitivity to changes in an individual country's bond yield to changes the overall level of global bond yields. 6 We are making a change in the betas used in our scenario analysis this week, using trailing 3-year yield betas to US Treasuries in place of the longer-term post-crisis yield betas that were measured over a full 10 years. Appendix Appendix Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2019 Overall Return Attribution Appendix Chart 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2019 Government Bond Performance Attribution Appendix Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Full Year 2019 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
The US economy is less vulnerable to spikes in oil prices than in the past. US oil output reached as high as 12.9 mm b/d in 2019, allowing the country to become a net exporter of oil for the first time in history. Any increase in oil prices would incentivize…
Highlights Duration: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. TIPS: We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. High-Yield: Investors should add (or increase) exposure to the high-yield energy sector, within an overweight allocation to junk bonds. Junk energy spreads are attractive, and exposure to the sector will mitigate the impact of a potential oil supply shock. Feature Only a month ago, investors were becoming more optimistic about a global growth rebound and the US/China phase 1 trade deal was pushing political risk into the background. Both of those factors caused the 10-year Treasury yield to rise throughout December, hitting an intra-day Christmas Eve peak of 1.95% (Chart 1). But since then, softer global PMI data and the US/Iranian military conflict brought global growth concerns and political risk back to the fore, breaking the uptrend in yields. Chart 1Bond Bear On Pause Global growth and political uncertainty are two of the five macro factors that we identify as important for US bond yields.1 And despite the recent setback, we think both factors will push yields higher in the coming months. Global Growth We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index are the three global growth indicators that correlate most strongly with US bond yields. One reason for the recent pullback in yields is the disappointing December data from the Global and US Manufacturing PMIs. The ISM Manufacturing PMI moved deeper into recessionary territory. The Global Manufacturing PMI had been in a clear uptrend since mid-2019, but fell back to 50.1 in December, from 50.3 the month before (Chart 2). The US and Chinese PMIs also declined in December, though they remain well above the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 2, panels 3 & 4). The Eurozone and Japanese PMIs, meanwhile, are still in the doldrums (Chart 2, panels 2 & 5). More worrying than the small tick down in Global PMI is the US ISM Manufacturing PMI moving deeper into recessionary territory, from 48.1 to 47.2. However, we have good reason to think that stronger data are just around the corner (Chart 3). Chart 2Global PMI Ticks Down Chart 3ISM Manufacturing Index Will Rebound First, the difference between the new orders and inventories components of the ISM index often leads the overall index at turning points, 2016 being a prime example (Chart 3, top panel). Much like in 2016, a gap is opening up between new orders-less-inventories and the overall ISM. Second, the non-manufacturing ISM index remains strong despite the weakness in manufacturing (Chart 3, panel 2). With no contagion to the service sector of the economy, we’d expect manufacturing to pick back up. Third, the ISM Manufacturing index has diverged sharply from the Markit Manufacturing PMI, with the Markit index printing well above the ISM (Chart 3, panel 3).2 The ISM index has been more volatile than the Markit index in recent years, and should trend toward the Markit index over time. Fourth, regional Fed manufacturing surveys have generally been stronger than the ISM during the past few months. A simple regression model of the ISM index based on data from regional Fed surveys suggests that the ISM index should be at 49.7 today, instead of 47.2 (Chart 3, bottom panel). Finally, unlike the PMI surveys, the CRB Raw Industrials index has increased quite sharply in recent weeks (Chart 4). We should note that it is not the CRB index itself but rather the ratio between the CRB index and gold that tracks bond yields most closely, and this ratio has actually declined lately due to the strength in gold. Nonetheless, a sustained turnaround in the CRB index would mark a big change from 2019 and would send a strong bond-bearish signal. Chart 4CRB Sends A Bond-Bearish Signal Political Uncertainty The second factor that sent bond yields lower during the past few weeks was the military conflict between the US and Iran. Tensions appear to have de-escalated for now, and we would expect any flight-to-quality flows to unwind during the next few weeks.3 But while we see policy uncertainty easing in the near-term, sending bond yields higher, we reiterate our view that US political uncertainty is the number one risk factor that could derail the 2020 bear market in bonds.4 Specifically, we see two looming US political risks. The first relates to President Trump’s re-election odds. For now, Trump’s approval rating is in line with past incumbent presidents that have won re-election (Chart 5). But if his approval doesn’t keep pace in the coming months, he will try to do something to change his fortunes. That could mean re-igniting the trade war with China, or once again ramping up tensions with Iran. A Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren victory would send a flight-to-quality into bonds. The second risk is that one of the progressive candidates – Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren – secures the Democratic nomination for president. Right now, both trail Joe Biden in the polls and betting markets (Chart 6), but things could change rapidly as the primary results come in during the next few months. The stock market would certainly sell off if an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders presidency seems likely, sending a flight to quality into bonds.5 Chart 5Trump’s Approval Rating Must Rise Chart 6Democratic Nomination Betting Odds Bottom Line: Despite recent setbacks, global growth looks set to improve and policy uncertainty set to ease during the next couple of months. Both will conspire to push bond yields higher. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. US political risks could flare again around mid-year, sending yields lower. Playing An Oil Supply Shock In US Bond Markets US/Iranian military tensions are easing for now, but could flare again in the future. For that reason, it’s worth considering how US bond markets would respond in the event of a conflict between the US and Iran that removed a significant amount of the world’s oil supply from the market, causing the oil price to spike. The first implication is that US bond yields would fall. Even though it’s tempting to say that the inflationary impact of higher oil prices would push yields up, this effect would not dominate the flight-to-quality into US bonds that would result from the increase in political uncertainty. Case in point, Chart 1 shows that, while the inflation component of yields was stable as tensions flared during the past few weeks, it didn’t come close to offsetting the drop in the 10-year real yield. Beyond the impact on Treasury yields, there are two other segments of the US bond market that would be materially impacted by an oil supply shock: the TIPS breakeven inflation curve and corporate bond spreads. Buy TIPS Breakeven Curve Flatteners Table 1CPI Swap Curve Sensitivity To Oil When considering the impact of an oil supply shock on TIPS breakeven inflation rates, we first look at how the cost of inflation protection is influenced by changes in the oil price. Table 1 shows the sensitivity of weekly changes in different CPI swap rates to a $1 increase in the price of Brent crude oil. We use CPI swap rates instead of TIPS breakeven inflation rates because data are available for a wider maturity spectrum. Our analysis applies equally to the TIPS breakeven inflation curve. Two conclusions are apparent from Table 1. First, the entire CPI swap curve is positively correlated with the oil price, a higher oil price moves CPI swap rates higher and vice-versa. Second, the sensitivity of CPI swap rates to the oil price is greater at the short-end of the curve than at the long-end. This is fairly intuitive given that higher oil prices are inflationary in the short-term but could be deflationary in the long-run if they hamper economic growth. Chart 7Coefficients Stable Over Time Chart 7 shows that our two main conclusions are not dependent on the chosen time horizon. The 2-year CPI swap rate is positively correlated with the oil price for our entire sample period, as is the 10-year rate except for a brief window in 2014. The 2-year rate’s sensitivity is also consistently higher than the 10-year’s. Based on this analysis, we can suggest two good ways to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock that sends prices higher: Buy inflation protection, either in the CPI swaps market or by going long TIPS versus duration-equivalent nominal Treasuries. Buy CPI swap curve (or TIPS breakeven inflation curve) flatteners.6 But we can introduce one more wrinkle to our analysis. Oil prices can rise because of stronger demand or because a shock suddenly removes supply from the market. It’s possible that the cost of inflation protection behaves differently in each case. Fortunately, the New York Fed has made an attempt to distinguish between those two scenarios. In its weekly Oil Price Dynamics Report, the Fed decomposes Brent oil price changes into demand-driven changes and supply-driven changes.7 It does this by looking at how other financial assets respond to oil price changes each week. Chart 8 shows the cumulative change in the Brent oil price since 2010, along with the New York Fed’s supply and demand factors. According to the Fed, demand has pressured the oil price higher since 2010, but this has been more than offset by greater supply. Chart 8Supply & Demand Oil Price Decomposition Using the New York Fed’s supply and demand series, we look at how CPI swap rates respond to higher oil prices in three different scenarios. First, we identify 252 weeks when demand and supply both contributed to higher oil prices. Second, we identify 95 weeks when higher oil prices were driven solely by demand. Finally, and most pertinently, we identify 92 weeks when higher oil prices were driven only by supply (Table 2). Table 2Weekly Change In CPI Swap Rate When Brent Oil Price Increases Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios are consistent with our results from Table 1. CPI swap rates across the entire curve move higher more than half the time, with greater increases at the short-end of the curve. However, the scenario we are most interested in is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario. Presumably, a military conflict with Iran that took oil supply off the market would lead to less supply and also a decrease in global demand. Results for this scenario are more mixed. The 1-year CPI swap rate still rises 60% of the time, but rates further out the curve are somewhat more likely to fall. With this in mind, CPI swap curve or TIPS breakeven curve flatteners look like the best way to hedge against an oil supply shock, better than an outright long position in inflation protection. This is good news, since we have previously argued that owning TIPS breakeven curve flatteners is a good idea even without an oil supply shock.8 Corporate bond excess returns respond positively to changes in the oil price. We recommend that investors enter TIPS breakeven curve flatteners, both because short-term inflation expectations will respond more quickly than long-term expectations to stronger realized inflation data and to hedge against the risk of an oil supply shock. Buy Energy Junk Bonds Table 3Corporate Bond Sensitivity To Oil Corporate bonds are the second segment of the US fixed income market that could be materially impacted by an oil supply shock, particularly bonds in the energy sector. To assess the potential value of corporate bonds as a hedge, we repeat the above analysis but use weekly corporate bond excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries instead of CPI swap rates. Table 3 shows that investment grade and high-yield corporate bond returns both respond positively to changes in the oil price. Further, we see that energy bonds are more sensitive to the oil price, outperforming the overall index when the oil price rises, and vice-versa. Chart 9 shows that, while oil price sensitivities vary considerably over time, they are almost always positive. Also, energy sector sensitivity has been consistently above that of the benchmark index since 2014. Chart 9Betas Mostly Positive Going one step further, we once again use the New York Fed’s supply and demand decomposition to identify weeks when supply and/or demand was responsible for higher oil prices. Because we have more historical data for corporate bonds than for CPI swaps, this time we identify 340 weeks when both supply and demand drove the oil price higher, 123 weeks when only demand drove it higher and 142 weeks when only supply was responsible for the higher oil price (Table 4). Table 4Weekly Corporate Bond Excess Returns (BPs) When Brent Oil Price Increases Results for the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ and ‘Demand Driven’ scenarios show that higher oil prices boost excess returns to both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds more than half the time. Energy bonds also tend to outperform their respective benchmark indexes in the ‘Demand & Supply Driven’ scenario, but perform roughly in-line with the benchmark in the ‘Demand Driven’ scenario. But once again, it is the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario that we are most interested in. Here, we see that an oil supply disruption that leads to higher oil prices also leads to lower corporate bond excess returns. This is true for both the investment grade and high-yield indexes and for energy bonds in both rating categories. However, we also note that high-yield energy debt significantly outperforms the overall junk index during these “risk off” periods. In contrast, investment grade energy debt is not a clear outperformer. Chart 10HY Energy Spreads Are Very Attractive These results line up with our intuition. When oil prices are driven higher by demand it could simply be a sign of strong economic growth and not any specific trend related to the energy sector. As such, we’d expect all corporate bonds to perform well in those scenarios, but wouldn’t necessarily expect energy debt to outperform. However, supply disruptions in the Middle East directly benefit US shale oil players, whose debt is principally found in the high-yield energy sector. The investment grade energy sector is less exposed to the US shale space, and its documented outperformance in the ‘Supply Driven’ scenario is weaker as a result. We already recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield bonds and a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. Within that overweight allocation to high-yield bonds, we recommend shifting some exposure toward the energy sector for two reasons. First, high-yield energy was severely beaten-down last year and is ripe for a rebound if global economic growth recovers, as we expect (Chart 10). Second, our analysis suggests that an allocation to energy will help mitigate losses in the event of a renewed flaring of US/Iranian tensions that removes oil supply from the market. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors initiate TIPS breakeven curve flatteners (or CPI swap curve flatteners) and add exposure to the high-yield energy sector. Both positions look attractive on their own terms, but will also help hedge the risk of an oil supply disruption if US/Iranian tensions flare back up in the months ahead. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The others are: the output gap, the US dollar and sentiment. For more details please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 The Markit index is used in the construction of the Global PMI shown in Chart 2, 3 For more details on the politics behind the US/Iran conflict please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “A Reprieve Amid The Bull Market In Iran Tensions”, dated January 8, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Elizabeth Warren And The Markets”, dated September 13, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 In the TIPS market, an example of a breakeven curve flattener would be to buy 2-year TIPS and short the 2-year nominal Treasury note, while also buying the 10-year nominal Treasury note and shorting the 10-year TIPS. 7 https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/oil_price_dynamics_report 8 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Position For Modest Curve Steepening”, dated October 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Gold bullion is on the move again, and falling real yields, a soft economic backdrop, a depreciating US dollar and resurgent geopolitical uncertainty, all argue for reintroducing a modest portfolio hedge by overweighting the global gold mining index. Washed out technicals, depressed valuations, the turn in our EPS growth model, rising industry capex and bottoming EM-related financial market data, all signal that it no longer pays to be bearish materials stocks. Augment exposure to neutral. Recent Changes Boost global gold miners to overweight via the long GDX/short ACWI exchange traded funds, today. Book gains and lift the S&P materials sector to neutral, today. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature “There is nothing so disturbing to one's well-being and judgment as to see a friend get rich.” - Charles P. Kindleberger “The bubble involves the purchase of an asset, usually real estate or a security, not because of the rate of return on the investment but in anticipation that the asset or security can be sold to someone else at an even higher price; the term the ‘greater fool’ has been used to suggest the last buyer was always counting on finding someone else to whom the stock or the condo apartment or the baseball cards could be sold.” - Charles P. Kindleberger Equities broke out to fresh all-time highs in the second week of the year, shrugging off the flare up in geopolitical risk. It seems that nothing can derail this juggernaut and the following narrative is now prevalent: Bad news is actually good for equities because the Fed will step in and do more QE and cut interest rates anew. Good news is great because the Fed will not hike interest rates as the economy is chugging along. No news is good news as money has to flow somewhere and equities are the default answer. Kindleberger’s quotes above are instructive. To put the recent advance in perspective, the SPX is up 425 points uninterruptedly since early October – when the Fed commenced ramping up its Treasury purchases – and it is, at a minimum, headed for a much needed breather. Contrary to popular belief, a handful of tech stocks explain this recent meteoric rise rather than a broad-based advance (Chart 1). Currently, the top five stocks in the S&P 500 (AAPL, MSFT, GOOGL, AMZN & FB) comprise over 18% of its market cap, even higher than the late-1999/early-2000 concentration (top panel, Chart 1). On January 9, 2020, AAPL’s $30bn one day market cap increase was larger than the bottom 300 stocks’ market cap in the S&P 500 and is another anecdote that drives this return concentration point home. Chart 1Teflon Tech Stocks As a reminder, we are neutral the broad tech sector and overweight the largest subgroup, the S&P software index, thus participating in this euphoric rise in stocks that has been defying earnings fundamentals. Granted, such phenomena are prevalent late cycle. While this can go on for a bit longer, it is clearly unsustainable and represents a big risk especially given the proliferation of passive funds. Tack on rising geopolitical risks and the odds of a sharp drawdown increase significantly. Before we proceed to our SPX EPS analysis, however, it is worth noting some disappointing economic data. The decade low in the ISM manufacturing, the deceleration in non-farm payroll growth, the grinding higher in the 4-week average of unemployment insurance claims, the contraction in C&I loans, the sustained pessimism in CEO confidence and the down hook in average hourly earnings all warn that macro headwinds abound despite the looming signing of the “phase one” US/China trade deal (Chart 2). All of the rise in the SPX last year was due to multiple expansion. Now, in order for the SPX to continue rallying, profits will have to do the heavy lifting. However, our analysis shows that the market is fully priced and earnings will have to hit escape velocity in order for equities to grow into their pricey valuations (Chart 3). Chart 2Underwhelming Chart 3Lofty Valuations Currently, our SPX EPS growth model has no pulse. This four-factor macro model is regression based (out of sample since January 2014) and continues to forecast a contraction into mid-year (Chart 4). Chart 4No EPS Pulse Table 2 summarizes three EPS scenarios analysis, along with a forward P/E multiple and SPX forecast. Table 2Three Scenarios This week we are re-instituting a small portfolio hedge, which lifts a niche deep cyclical sector to neutral from previously underweight. Step 1: We plugged into the model our base, worse and best case estimates of these four variables into mid-year, and we got as output the model’s estimate of EPS growth for end-2020 with a range of -1% to 10% (one important assumption is that the historical correlation of the movement of these variables holds steady). Step 2: Then, we applied these growth rates to the IBES 2019 EPS forecast of $162/share and arrived at our end-2020 three scenarios EPS level estimates with a range of $160/share to $178/share. Step 3: We then assigned probabilities to those three outcomes resulting in an EPS forecast of $169/share. Step 4: In order to get an SPX expected value we needed to assign a forward P/E multiple to our EPS estimate. Thus, we introduced our base, worse and best case forward P/Es (with an equal probability of occurrence) and multiplied them with our $169/share weighted EPS forecast in order to arrive at the SPX 3,049 expected value for end-2020 (please refer to the Appendix below for additional details of our analysis and click here if you would like to request the excel file and insert your own estimates and probabilities). Chart 5 depicts the results of our analysis. Chart 5Projections Currently, sell-side analysts expect 10% profit growth in calendar 2020, a tall order in our view, and the SPX appears 8% overvalued according to our analysis. However, a potential break in historical correlations where the ISM recovers, the bond market sells off fearing an inflationary spurt pushing interest rates higher yet P/E multiples continue to expand indiscriminately, could sustain the melt-up phase in stocks in general and mega cap tech stocks in particular. While the macro data cannot fall indefinitely and a natural trough will occur sometime in the first half of the year, we doubt that a V-shaped recovery is imminent. Our base case is a stabilization of macro data equating to roughly 5% EPS growth for this year as noted above, with risks clearly titled to the downside. Under such a backdrop, perceptive equities will have to, at least, mildly deflate to this EPS reality. This week we are re-instituting a small portfolio hedge, which lifts a niche deep cyclical sector to neutral from previously underweight. In Gold We Trust While the SPX has been on an impressive run, it has failed to outshine gold bullion that has been on a tear lately. The bottom panel of Chart 6 shows that gold could be sniffing out a couple of Fed interest rate cuts, warning that the economic backdrop remains frail. This gold move is compelling us to reintroduce a modest portfolio hedge and today we recommend augmenting exposure to global gold miners to overweight. Chart 6What Is Gold Sniffing Out? Global gold miners have a lot going for them. Rising global policy uncertainty plays to their strength as investors seek the refuge of safe haven assets especially when geopolitical risks flare up (top panel, Chart 7). If our FX strategists hit the bull’s eye and the greenback loses steam this year,1 then gold related equities should outperform given the inverse correlation most commodities, including bullion, enjoy with the US dollar (bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Solid Backdrop Importantly, real US bond yields have taken a beating recently underpinning gold prices and gold mining equities. This is significant, as bullion yields nothing and gold miners next to nothing so from an opportunity cost perspective it pays to hold a zero yielding asset when competing yields fall and vice versa (second panel, Chart 7). Worrisomely, this fall in real US yields is de facto pushing global real yields lower, which might indicate that investors worry that the global economy has more downside. In fact, economists’ estimates for GDP growth (as compiled by Bloomberg, third panel, Chart 7) continue to decelerate globally, and they forecast below-trend real output growth in the US for 2020. Global manufacturing also reflects this soft economic backdrop. While the global manufacturing PMI is trying to trough – it ticked down last month and is just a hair above the boom/bust line – both its momentum and diffusion are weak, heralding a catch up phase in global gold miners (PMI momentum shown inverted, Chart 8). Chart 8Global Economy Not Out Of The Woods Yet Boost global gold miners to an above benchmark allocation via the long GDX/short ACWI exchange traded funds. From a gold positioning perspective, on all three fronts we monitor (gold ETF holdings, gold net speculative positions and bullish consensus on gold) we see green lights (Chart 9). Even global gold miners’ extremely overbought positions have now been worked out according to our Technical Indicator (TI). Following the parabolic bull run from May to September last year, our TI is now drifting to the neutral zone. Relative valuations have also corrected offering investors a compelling entry point (Chart 10). Chart 9Enticing Sentiment Chart 10Compelling Entry Levels In sum, gold bullion is on the move again and falling real yields, a soft economic backdrop, a depreciating US dollar and resurgent geopolitical uncertainty, all argue for reintroducing a modest portfolio hedge by overweighting the global gold mining index. Bottom Line: Boost global gold miners to an above benchmark allocation via the long GDX/short ACWI exchange traded funds. Lift Materials To Neutral While materials stocks have broken down recently, our fresh gold miners overweight lifts the broad materials sector from previously underweight to currently neutral (Chart 11). Not only have relative share prices given way, but also breadth is weak as measured both by the percentage of groups with a positive year-over-year momentum and by the number of groups trading above their 40-week moving average (Chart 12). Moreover, relative valuations are downbeat (second panel, Chart 12), with relative P/S and P/B cratering. Chart 11Breakdown On the profit front, earnings breadth fell below neutral recently and net earnings revisions have collapsed. Wall Street analysts are even forecasting a dire relative revenue backdrop for the coming twelve months (Chart 13). Chart 12Washout Chart 13Extreme Pessimism Reigns While the sell-side has all but given up on this niche deep cyclical sector, we are going against the grain and posit that it no longer pays to be bearish materials stocks. First, our materials sector profit growth model has troughed and signals that a turnaround in EPS growth is underway and should gain steam this year (second panel, Chart 14). Keep in mind that this niche deep cyclical sector has borne the brunt of the Sino/American trade war and the recent de-escalation can serve as a catalyst for an earnings-led recovery (trade policy uncertainty shown inverted, Chart 11). Book relative gains of 5% since inception and lift the S&P materials sector to a benchmark allocation. Second, this industry is not at a standstill. Contrary to the overall economy, materials executives are investing in new projects as financial market reported materials sector capex clearly shows (third & bottom panels, Chart 14). These investments should bear fruit in coming quarters and translate into higher top line growth, something that is not at all discounted in bombed out relative sales growth expectations (bottom panel, Chart 13). Finally, there is tentative evidence that the EMs in general and China in particular are at least stabilizing. Not only are their manufacturing PMIs above the boom/bust line (not shown), but also financial market data suggest that the selling in materials stocks is nearing exhaustion. JP Morgan’s EM currency index is ticking higher, the CRB metals index is showing some signs of life and EM equities have been outperforming their global peers (Chart 15). Chart 14EPS Model Trough, Rising Capex… Chart 15…And Firming Financial Market Data Signal It No Longer Pays To Be Bearish Netting it all out, washed out technicals, depressed valuations, the turn in our EPS growth model, rising industry capex and bottoming EM-related financial market data all signal that it no longer pays to be bearish materials stocks. Bottom Line: Book relative gains of 5% since inception and lift the S&P materials sector to a benchmark allocation. Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com Appendix Appendix 1 Appendix 2 footnotes 1 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “On Oil, Growth And The Dollar” dated January 10, 2020, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)
A number of green shoots are emerging in Asia. December data point to a budding recovery in Asia’s business cycle: manufacturing PMIs rose in December in Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. The measure was flattish in China and slightly down in Japan. Korean…