Financial Markets
Highlights President Trump has little to do with the ongoing EM selloff; The macro backdrop is the real culprit behind Turkey's woes, particularly the strong dollar... ... Which is a product of global policy divergence, with the U.S. stimulating while China pursues growth-constraining reforms; Chinese stimulus is important to watch, as it could change the game, but we do not expect China to save EM as it did in 2015; Turkey's troubles are a product of its late-stage populist cycle and will not end with Trump's magnanimity; The positive spin on the EM bloodbath is that it may force the Fed to slow its rate hikes, prolonging the business cycle. Feature Chart 1EM: Bloodbath Markets are selling off in Turkey and the wider EM economies (Chart 1), with the financial media focusing on the actions taken by the U.S. President Donald Trump in the escalating diplomatic spat between the two countries. Investors should be very clear what it means to ascribe the ongoing selloff to President Trump's aggressive posture with Ankara in particular and trade in general. If President Trump started EM's troubles with his tweets, he can then end them with another late-night missive. This is not our view. Turkey is enveloped in a deep morass of populism and weak fundamentals since at least 2013. What is worse, the ongoing selloff is likely going to ensnare at least the other fragile EM economies and potentially take down EM as an asset class. In this Report, we recount the pernicious macro backdrop - both geopolitical and economic - that EM economies face today. We then focus on Turkey itself and show that President Trump has little to do with the current selloff. The Bloodbath Is Afoot, Again Every financial bubble, and every financial bust, begins with a compelling story grounded in solid fundamentals. The now by-gone EM "Goldilocks Era" (2001-2011) was primarily driven by exogenous factors: a generational debt-fueled consumption binge in DM; an investment-fueled double-digit growth rate in China that kicked off a structural commodity bull market; and the unleashing of pent-up EM consumption/credit demand (Chart 2).1 These EM tailwinds petered out by 2011. Subsequently, China and EM economies entered a major downtrend that culminated in a massive commodity rout that began in 2014. But before the bloodbath could motivate policymakers to initiate painful structural reforms, Chinese policymakers stimulated in earnest. In the second half of 2015, Beijing became unnerved and injected enormous amount of credit and fiscal stimulus into the mainland economy (Chart 3). The intervention, however, did not change the pernicious fundamentals driving EM economies but merely caused "a mid-cycle recovery, or hiatus, in an unfinished downtrend," as our EM strategists have recently pointed out (Chart 4).2 Chart 2Goldilocks Era##BR##Is Over For EM Chart 3Is China About To Cause Another##BR##EM Mid-Cycle Recovery? Take Brazil, for example. Instead of using the 2014-2015 generational downturn to double-down on painful fiscal and pension reforms, the country's politicians declared President Dilma Rousseff to be the root-cause of all evil that befell the nation, impeached her in April 2016, and then proceeded to unceremoniously punt all painful reforms until after this year's election (if ever). They were enabled to do so by the "mid-cycle recovery" spurred by Chinese stimulus. In other words, Brazil's policymakers did nothing to actually deserve the recovery in asset prices but got one anyway. The country now will experience "faceoff time" with the markets, with no public support for painful reforms (Chart 5) and hardly an orthodox candidate in sight ahead of the October general election.3 Chart 4Where Are China/EM In The Cycle? Chart 5Brazil's Population Is Not Open To Fiscal Austerity Could Brazilian and Turkish policymakers be in luck, as Chinese policymakers have blinked again?4 Our assessment is that the coming stimulus will not be as stimulative as in 2015. First, President Xi's monetary and fiscal policy, since coming into office in 2012, has been biased towards tightening (Chart 6). Second, Chinese leverage has plateaued (Chart 7). In fact, "debt servicing" is now the third-fastest category of fiscal spending growth since Xi came to power (Table 1). Third, the July 31 Politburo statement pledged to make fiscal policy "more proactive" and "supportive," but also reaffirmed the commitment to continue the campaign against systemic risk. Chart 6Xi Jinping Caps##BR##Government Spending And Credit Chart 7The Rise And Plateau##BR##Of Macro Leverage Whether China's mid-year stimulus will be globally stimulative is now the question for global investors. The key data to watch out of China will be August credit numbers, to be released September 9th through 15th. Is President Trump not to be blamed at all for the EM selloff? What about the trade war against China? If anything, tariffs against China have caused Beijing to "blink" and implement some stimulative measures this summer. If one must find fault in U.S. policy, it is the double dose of fiscal stimulus that has endangered EM economies. A key theme for BCA's Geopolitical Strategy this year has been the idea that global policy divergence would replace the global growth convergence.5 Populist economic stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China would imperil growth in the latter and accelerate it in the former, forming a bullish environment for the U.S. dollar (Chart 8). Table 1Total Government Spending Preferences (Under Leader's General Control) Chart 8U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD As such, the White House is partly responsible for the EM selloff, but not in any way that can be changed with a tweet or a handshake. Furthermore, we do not see the upcoming U.S. midterm election as somehow capable of altering the global growth dynamics.6 It is highly unlikely that Democrats will seek to spend less, and they cannot raise taxes under Trump. Bottom Line: EM economies have never adjusted to the end of their Goldilocks era. A surge in global liquidity pushed investors further down the risk-curve, propping up EM assets despite poor macro fundamentals. China's massive 2015-2016 stimulus arrested the bear market, giving investors a perception that EM economies had recovered. This mid-cycle hiatus, however, has now been overtaken by the global policy divergence between Washington and Beijing, which is bullish USD. President Trump's trade tariffs and aggressive pressure on Turkey do not help. However, they are merely the catalyst, not the cause, of the selloff. As such, investors should not "buy" EM on a resolution of China-U.S. trade tensions or of the Washington-Ankara diplomatic dispute. Contagion Risk BCA's Emerging Market Strategy is clear: in all episodes of a major EM selloff, the de-coupling between different regions proved to be unsustainable, and the markets that showed initial resilience eventually re-coupled to the downside (Chart 9).7 One reason to expect contagion risk among all EM markets is that the primary export market for China and other East Asian exporters are other EM economies, particularly the commodity producers (Chart 10). As such, it is highly unlikely that East Asian EM economies will be able to avoid a downturn. In fact, leading indicators of exports and manufacturing, such as Korea's manufacturing shipments-to-inventory ratio and Taiwan's semiconductor shipments-to-inventory ratio herald further deceleration in their respective export sectors (Chart 11). Chart 9Asian And Latin American Equities:##BR##Unsustainable Divergences Chart 10EM Trades##BR##With EM Chart 11Asia Export##BR##Slowdown Is Afoot In respect of foreign funding requirements of EM economies, our EM strategists have pointed out that there is a substantive amount of foreign currency debt coming due in 2018 (Table 2), with majority EM economies facing much higher foreign debt burdens than in 1996 (Table 3).8 Investors should not, however, rely merely on debt as percent of GDP ratios for their vulnerability assessment. For example, Malaysia's private sector FX debt load stands at 63.7% of GDP, the second highest level after Turkey. But relative to total exports (a source of revenue for its indebted corporates) and FX reserves (which the central bank can use to plug the gap in the balance of payments), Malaysia actually scores fairly well. Table 2EM: Short-Term (Due In 2018) FX Debt Table 3EM Private Sector FX Debt: 1996 Versus Today Chart 12 shows the most vulnerable EM economies in terms of foreign currency private sector debt exposure relative to FX reserves and total exports. Unsurprisingly, Turkey stands as the most vulnerable economy, along with Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, and Colombia. Chart 12BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy Has Already Pinned Turkey As The Most Vulnerable EM Economy Will the EM selloff eventually ensnare DM economies as well, particularly the U.S.? We think yes. The drawdown in EM will bid up safe-haven assets like the U.S. dollar. The dollar can be thought of as America's second central bank, along with the Fed. If both the greenback and the Fed are tightening monetary conditions, eventually the U.S. economy will feel the burn. As such, it is dangerous to dismiss the ongoing crisis in Turkey as a merely localized problem that could, at its worst, spread to other EM economies. In 1997, Thailand played a similar role to that of Turkey. The Fed tightened rates in early 1997 and largely remained aloof of the developing East Asia crisis that eventually spread to Brazil and Russia, ignoring the tumult abroad until September 1998 when it finally cut rates three times. Fed policy easing at the end of 1998 ushered in the stock market overshoot and dot-com bubble, whose burst caused the end of the economic cycle. The same playbook may be occurring today. The Fed, motivated by the strong U.S. economy and fears of being too close to the zero-bound ahead of the next recession, is proceeding apace with its tightening cycle. It is likely to ignore troubles in the rest of the world until the USD overshoots or U.S. equities are impacted directly. At that point, perhaps later this year or early next year, the Fed will back off from tightening, ushering the one last overshoot phase ahead of the recession in 2020 - or beyond. Bottom Line: Research by BCA's EM strategists shows that EM contagion is almost never contained in just a few vulnerable economies. For investors who have to remain invested in EM economies, we would recommend that they go long Chinese equities relative to EM, given that Beijing policymakers are stimulating the economy to ensure that Chinese growth is stabilized. While this will be positive for China, it is likely to fall short of the 2015 stimulus that also stimulated non-China EM. An alternative play is to go long energy producers vs. the rest of EM - given our fundamentally bullish oil view combined with rising geopolitical risks regarding sanctions against Iran.9 We eventually expect EM risks to spur an appreciation in the USD that the Fed has to lean against by either pausing its tightening cycle, or eventually reversing it as it did in the 1997-1998 scenario. This decision will usher in the final blow-off stage in U.S. equities that investors will not want to miss. What About Turkey? Chart 13Turkey: Volatile Politics, Volatile Stocks In 2013, we called Turkey a "canary in the EM coal mine" arguing that its historically volatile financial markets would mean-revert as domestic politics became turbulent (Chart 13).10 Turkey is a deeply divided society equally split between the secularist cities, which are primarily located on the Mediterranean (Istanbul, Izmir, Bursa, Adana, etc.), and the religiously conservative Anatolian interior. This split dates back to the founding of the modern Turkish Republic in the post-World War I era (and in truth, even before that). The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), a religiously conservative but initially pro-free-market party, managed to appeal to the conservative Anatolia while neutering the most powerful secularist institution in Turkey, its military. Investors hailed AKP's dominance because it reduced political volatility and initially promised both pro-market policies and even accession to the EU. However, the AKP has struggled to win more than 50% of the popular vote in a slew of elections and referendums since coming to power (Chart 14), a fact that belies its supposed iron-grip hold on Turkish politics since it came to power in 2002. The vulnerability behind AKP's hold on office has largely motivated President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's attempt to consolidate political power. While we disagree with the consensus view that Erdogan's constitutional changes have turned Turkey into a dictatorship, some of his actions do suggest a deep fear of losing power.11 Populist leadership is characterized by a strategy of "giving people what they want" so that the policymakers in charge remain in office. Erdogan's perpetually slim hold on power has motivated several populist policy decisions that have stretched Turkey's macro fundamentals. First, Turkey's central bank has essentially been conducting quantitative easing since 2013 via net liquidity injections into the banking system (Chart 15). Notably, these injections began at the same time as the May 2013 Gezi Park protests, which saw a huge outpouring of anti-government sentiment across Turkey's large cities. Essentially, politics has been motivating Ankara's monetary policy over the past five years. Chart 14AKP's Stranglehold On Power Is Overstated Chart 15Turkey's Populist Policies Began##BR##With Gezi Park Protests Second, Turkey's current account balance has suffered under the weight of rising energy costs, with no attempt to improve the fiscal balance (Chart 16). The government has done little in terms of structural reforms or fiscal austerity, instead President Erdogan has continued to challenge central bank independence on interest rates, despite a clear sign that the country is experiencing a genuine inflationary breakout (Chart 17). Chart 16Populism Means No Austerity Is In Sight Chart 17Genuine Inflation Breakout Overall, Turkey is a classic example of how populism in a highly divided and polarized country can get out of control. Foreign investors have long assumed that Erdogan's populism was benign, if not even positive, given the presumably ample political capital at the president's disposal. However, with every election or referendum, the government did not double-down on pro-market structural reforms. Instead, the pressure on the central bank only increased while Turkey's expensive and extravagant geopolitical adventures in neighboring Syria accelerated. In this pernicious macro context, it has not taken much to knock Turkey's assets off balance. President Trump's threats to expand sanctions to Turkish trade are largely irrelevant, given that the vast majority of Turkey's exports and FDI sources are non-American (Chart 18). However, given past behavior - such as after the shadowy Gülen "plot" to take over power or the 2016 coup d'état - markets are by now conditioned to expect that Turkish policymakers will double-down on populist policies in the face of renewed pressure. Chart 18Turkey-U.S. Relationship Is Not Economic What of Turkey's membership in NATO? Should investors fear broader geopolitical instability due to the domestic crisis? No. Ankara has used its membership in NATO, and particularly the U.S. reliance on its Incirlik air base in southern Turkey, as levers in previous negotiations and diplomatic spats with Europe and the U.S. If Ankara were to renege on its commitments to the Western military alliance, it would likely face a united front from Europe and the U.S. As such, we would expect Turkey neither to threaten exit from NATO, which it has not done in the past, nor even to threaten U.S. operations in Incirlik, which Erdogan's government has threatened before. The most likely outcome of the ongoing diplomatic spat, in fact, would be to see Ankara give in to U.S. demands, given the accelerating financial and economic crisis. Such an outcome, however, will not arrest the downturn. Turkey's economy and assets are fundamentally under pressure due to the realization by investors that this year's main macro theme is not the resynchronized global growth recovery, but rather the global policy divergence between the U.S. and China, which has appreciated the U.S. dollar. No amount of kowtowing by Ankara will change this macro trend. Bottom Line: The list of Turkish policy sins is long. Erdogan's reign has been characterized by deep polarization and populism, leading to suboptimal policy choices since at least 2013. The latest U.S.-Turkey spat is therefore merely one of many problems plaguing the country. As such, its resolution will not be a buying opportunity for investors. Investment Implications Our main investment theme in 2018 was that the global policy divergence between the U.S. and China - emblematized by fiscal stimulus in the U.S. and structural reforms in China - would end the global growth resynchronization. As the U.S. economy outperformed the rest of the world, the U.S. greenback would appreciate, imperiling EM economies. The best cognitive roadmap for today is the late 1990s, when the U.S. economy continued to grow apace as the rest of the world suffered from an EM crisis. The problems eventually washed onto American shores in the form of a stronger dollar, forcing the Fed to back off from tightening in mid-1998. Policy easing then led to the overshoot phase in U.S. equities in 1999. Investors should prepare for a similar roadmap by being long DXY relative to EM currencies, long DM equities (particularly U.S.) relative to EM equities, and tactically cautious on all global risk assets. Strategically, however, it makes sense to remain overweight equities as a Fed capitulation would be a boon for risk assets. If the current selloff in EM gets worse, we would expect that the Fed would again back off from tightening as it did in 1998, ushering in a blow-off stage in equities ahead of the next recession. Once the dollar peaks and EM assets bottom, U.S. equities will become the laggard, with global cyclicals outperforming. A secondary conclusion is that President Trump's trade rhetoric in general, and aggressive policies towards Turkey in particular, are merely a catalyst for the selloff. As such, if President Trump changes his mind, we would fade any rally in EM assets. The fundamental policy decisions that have led to the greenback rally have already been taken in 2017 and early 2018. The profligate tax cuts and the two-year stimulative appropriations bill, combined with Chinese policymakers' focus on controlling financial leverage, are the seeds of the current EM imbroglio. Finally, a small bit of housekeeping. We are booking gains on our long Malaysian ringgit / short Turkish lira trade for a gain of 51.2% since May. We are also closing our speculative long Russian equities relative to EM trade for a loss of -0.9% as a result of the persistent headwind from U.S. sanctions. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Coming Bloodbath In Emerging Markets," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Understanding The EM/China Cycles," dated July 19, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Special Report, "Brazil: Faceoff Time," dated July 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: How Stimulating Is The Stimulus?" dated August 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, and Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Trump Fail The Midterm?" dated April 18, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Sustained Decoupling, Or Domino Effect?" dated June 14, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "A Primer On EM External Debt," dated June 7, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated July 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Turkey: Canary In The EM Coal Mine?" in "The Coming Political Recapitalization Rally," dated June 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Turkey: Deceitful Stability," in "EM: The Beginning Of The End," dated April 19, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Duration: The market is only priced for a fed funds rate of 2.83% by the end of 2019. This is well below the range of 3.25% to 3.5% that will prevail if the Fed sticks to its current 25 basis points per quarter rate hike pace. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. The Neutral Rate: Our indicators of the neutral (or equilibrium) fed funds rate are sending conflicting signals. The economic data suggest that the neutral rate might be above 3%, but this is contradicted by weakness in the price of gold. TIPS: Long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain slightly below target levels, but appear to be increasingly taking their cues from the realized inflation data rather than swings in global growth and commodity prices. Remain overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Feature In February we published a report that outlined how we expect the cyclical bear market in bonds to evolve. Essentially, we view the bear market as consisting of two stages.1 The first stage is characterized by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations and the second stage deals with determining the neutral (or equilibrium) federal funds rate. In this week's report we track how the two-stage Treasury bear market has progressed since February and consider the implications for portfolio strategy. The First Stage Is Nearly Complete Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are slightly higher than when we published our February report, but they are still not at levels we would consider "well anchored". We showed in our February report that prior periods when core inflation was close to the Fed's 2% target coincided with both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. At present, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 2.10% and the 5-year/5-year forward is 2.19%. As long as TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below the 2.3% - 2.5% target range, nominal Treasury yields have further cyclical upside due to the re-anchoring of inflation expectations. This re-anchoring will play out as the core inflation data are released and investors come to realize that inflation is no longer consistently undershooting the Fed's target. When that re-anchoring occurs and both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward breakevens cross above 2.3%, the first stage of the bond bear market will be complete. One recent development is that TIPS breakevens have risen even as commodity prices have declined (Chart 1). In fact, while breakevens are somewhat higher than when we published our February report, commodity prices - as measured by the CRB Raw Industrials index - are lower. While this shift in correlation is so far only tentative, it could signal that TIPS investors are increasingly influenced by the actual core inflation data and not swings in the global growth outlook. We would not be surprised to see this correlation continue to weaken going forward, especially considering that core inflation looks more and more consistent with the Fed's 2% target. Core CPI for July came in at 2.33% on both a trailing 12-month and 3-month basis, annualized (Chart 2). This is more or less consistent with the pre-crisis period when the Fed's preferred PCE inflation measure was close to the 2% target. Alternative measures of CPI send a similar message (Chart 2, panel 2) and our diffusion index shows that more individual items have accelerated in price than have decelerated in each of the past three months (Chart 2, bottom panel). Taken together, the signals point to further near-term price acceleration. Chart 1Inflation Date Sinking In Chart 2Inflation Picking Up Steam Digging deeper, we see that the outlook for higher inflation pervades each of the main components of core CPI (Chart 3). The reading from our shelter inflation model has stabilized, core goods inflation continues to track non-oil import prices higher, and the rebound in core services inflation is consistent with rising wage growth. Eventually, we would expect the strengthening dollar to exert a drag on import prices (Chart 4), but it will be some time before this is reflected in the CPI data. Another important development is that, after appearing to have turned a corner in 2016, the residential vacancy rate has dipped back down (Chart 4, bottom panel). Such a low vacancy rate will continue to support strong shelter inflation. Chart 3The Components Of Core CPI Chart 4A Headwind And A Tailwind For Inflation Bottom Line: Long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain slightly below target levels, but appear to be increasingly taking their cues from the realized inflation data rather than swings in global growth and commodity prices. Nominal Treasury yields have further upside at least until both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. We also continue to recommend an overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal Treasury securities. We will remove this recommendation when breakeven rates reach our target range and stage one of the bond bear market is complete. Stage 2 Update: Conflicting Evidence On The Neutral Rate Once inflation expectations are well-anchored at levels consistent with the Fed's target, the cyclical bond bear market will transition into its second stage. How much further Treasury yields rise during this stage will depend on how high the Fed is able to lift interest rates before the economy starts to slow. In other words, the cyclical peak in Treasury yields will be determined by the neutral (or equilibrium) fed funds rate - the level of interest rates where monetary policy is neither accommodative nor restrictive, and which is also consistent with stable inflation near the Fed's 2% target. Unfortunately, the neutral rate can only be known with certainty in hindsight. But in a recent report we presented three factors that investors can track in real time that have forewarned of the shift from accommodative to restrictive monetary policy in the past.2 We review the recent trends in each of these signals below. Signal 1: Nominal GDP Growth Vs The Fed Funds Rate Chart 5The Message From Nominal GDP Growth A fed funds rate that is above the year-over-year growth rate in nominal GDP is typically a signal (though often a lagging one) that monetary policy has turned restrictive (Chart 5). An intuition that is confirmed by the fact that the spread between nominal GDP growth and the fed funds rate correlates positively with the slope of the yield curve. But while the flattening yield curve has caused some to worry that the Fed is tightening too quickly, the message from nominal GDP growth is that monetary policy is actually becoming more accommodative (Chart 5, bottom panel). If the Fed continues to lift rates at its current pace of 25 basis points per quarter, the fed funds rate will be between 3.25% and 3.5% by the end of 2019. Nominal GDP would have to decelerate fairly substantially from its current 5.4% growth rate to signal restrictive monetary policy by then. Signal 2: Cyclical Spending Another indicator that has historically coincided with restrictive monetary policy and the cyclical peak in bond yields is when growth in the most interest-rate sensitive sectors of the economy (aka the cyclical sectors) slows as a proportion of overall growth (Chart 6). This is especially true for consumer spending on durable goods. Not only is it well below pre-crisis levels as a percent of GDP, but recent data revisions revealed that the personal savings rate is much higher than previously thought. The savings rate looks especially elevated relative to household wealth, which leaves room for spending to accelerate as it falls to more normal levels (Chart 7). Extremely high consumer confidence supports the view that the savings rate will decline (Chart 7, panel 2), and despite recent increases in interest rates and the price of gasoline, consumer spending on essentials is not yet excessive relative to income (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 6Signal 2: Cyclical Spending Chart 7The Outlook For Consumer Spending Cyclical spending - which includes consumer spending on durable goods, residential investment and nonresidential investment in equipment & software - is currently rising only slowly as a proportion of GDP, but it remains well below average historical levels. This suggests that further catch-up is likely. Much like consumer spending, residential investment also has a lot of room to play catch-up relative to pre-crisis levels (Chart 6, panel 3). However, growth in residential investment has waned in recent months (Chart 8). The slowdown is likely the result of the housing market coming to grips with higher mortgage rates. But while higher rates have definitely impaired affordability, housing remains quite cheap compared to history (Chart 8, panel 2). A further support for housing is that homebuilders are extraordinarily confident in the outlook (Chart 8, panel 3). This is for good reason. The outstanding housing supply is historically low and continues to contract relative to demand as increases in building permits fail to keep pace with household formation (Chart 8, bottom panel). Unlike consumer spending on durables and residential investment, nonresidential investment in equipment & software is roughly consistent with its average historical level as a proportion of GDP (Chart 6, bottom panel). But so far leading indicators are not pointing to a slowdown. On the contrary, surveys of new orders, capital expenditure plans and CEO confidence suggest that investment growth will stay strong for the next few quarters (Chart 9). At some point, given its higher level relative to GDP, investment could be the cyclical sector that first shows some evidence of weakness. But so far this is not the case. Chart 8The Outlook For Residential Investment Chart 9The Outlook For Non-Residential Investment Signal 3: Gold Chart 10Signal 3: Gold The final signal of restrictive monetary policy we consider is the price of gold. The widely accepted perception of gold as a long-run store of value makes it the ideal "anti-central bank" asset. In other words, gold tends to perform well when monetary policy is perceived to be turning more accommodative relative to its neutral level, and it tends to sell off when policy is perceived to be turning restrictive. Gold is also a useful addition to our suite of indicators because it is a price that is set in financial markets. Compared to our other two indicators which are based on economic data, financial market indicators can provide more of a leading signal. The trade-off, however, is that false signals are far more frequent. Most interestingly, we observe that fluctuations in the price of gold have preceded revisions to the Fed's estimate of the neutral fed funds rate in the post-crisis period (Chart 10). This seems entirely logical. The falling gold price in 2014/15 suggested that the market viewed Fed policy as becoming increasingly restrictive, but market expectations for the near-term path of rate hikes were roughly flat during this period (Chart 10, bottom panel). The only explanation is that investors were revising down their estimates of the neutral fed funds rate during this time, resulting in a de-facto policy tightening. Similarly, around the same time that gold put in a bottom in early 2016, neutral rate estimates from both investors and the Fed started to level-off around the 3% level, where they remain today. Going forward, the implication is that if gold were to break out of its trading range to the upside, it would send a strong signal that the Fed is perceived to be falling behind the curve. Such a price movement would make upward revisions to the neutral fed funds rate, and a higher cyclical peak in Treasury yields, more likely. Conversely, if gold continues its recent slide, it could signal that policy is turning restrictive more quickly than many expect. Bottom Line: Trends in our neutral rate indicators since February are sending conflicting signals. The economic data - nominal GDP growth and cyclical spending - have improved and suggest that we should think about a neutral fed funds rate above the current market consensus of 3%. On the other hand, the weakness in the price of gold suggests that investors view monetary policy as becoming increasingly restrictive. Investment Strategy How best to square these conflicting signals when formulating a portfolio strategy? For the time being we strongly advise investors to maintain below-benchmark duration on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. For one thing, the bond bear market remains in its first stage and the market is still not fully convinced that inflation will re-anchor itself around the Fed's 2% target. This alone argues for maintaining below-benchmark duration and an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, at least until long-dated TIPS breakevens reach our target range. Beyond that, while the true neutral fed funds rate remains uncertain, the market is only priced for a fed funds rate of 2.83% by the end of 2019. This is well below the range of 3.25% to 3.5% that will prevail if the Fed sticks to its current 25 basis points per quarter rate hike pace, and is consistent with a neutral rate that is well below 3% (Chart 11). Chart 11The Market Not Buying Into The Fed's Current Rate Hike Pace In other words, current market pricing tilts the risk/reward trade-off firmly in favor of below-benchmark duration, but we will keep a close eye on our neutral rate signals in the coming quarters to see if a more consistent message emerges. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Seasonal capacity restrictions in China during the winter heating months - when pollution from steel mills is particularly high - and continued efforts to limit particulate emissions in major cities will drive steel prices higher. The steel rebar market in China is backwardated, indicating physical markets are tight; inventories have been falling since mid-March. We expect prices to remain elevated going into the winter months, when capacity restrictions kick in. Ongoing capacity reductions in steelmaking will favor higher-grade iron ores, which will widen price differentials versus lower-grade ores. We are recommending a long China rebar futures on the SHFE in 1Q19 vs short 62% Fe iron ore futures on the Dalian DCE in 1Q19 at tonight's close, based on our research. Energy: Overweight. Loadings of Iranian crude are expected to be curtailed beginning this month, as the November 4 deadline for the imposition of U.S. secondary sanctions kick in. Our base case calls for the loss of 500k b/d of exports from Iran; our ensemble forecast includes an estimate of 1mm b/d. Base Metals: Neutral. BHP asked the Chilean government to intervene in the strike called by unions at its Escondida mine. Union officials delayed strike action while talks are being held. Negotiators have until August 14 to reach an agreement. Reuters reported Chile's copper production was up 12.3% y/y in 1H18 to 2.83mm MT.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. U.S. sanctions on trading gold and precious metals with Iran went into effect earlier this week. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Chinese imports of U.S. soybeans could fall 10mm MT over the next year, if pig and chicken farmers switch to lower-protein feed and substitutes like sunflower seeds, and boost local production of the legume, state-run news service Xinhua reported.2 The USDA expects U.S. exports of 55.52mm MT of soybeans in the 2018 - 19 crop year, down 1.22mm MT from last year. Feature Steel prices have performed exceptionally since the beginning of 2Q18, seemingly oblivious to Sino - U.S. trade tensions, a stronger USD, and risks to China's economy roiling other metal markets (Chart of the Week). The MySteel Composite Index we use to track steel prices is up 7% since the beginning of April. With demand growth leveling off, steel's price dynamics highlight the continued relevance of the market's supply-side developments. Most notably, Beijing's battle for blue skies: Winter capacity curbs, and, to a lesser extent, ongoing efforts to retire older, highly polluting capacity will keep prices elevated over the next 9 months. Winter Curbs: China's New Normal As we highlighted in our April 12 weekly, despite the much-ballyhooed reductions in China's steel capacity over the 2017 - 18 winter months, markets in China and globally remained relatively well supplied over the winter.3 However, several key changes this year suggest the impact of these measures will intensify this time around, keeping producers constrained in their ability to ramp up production of the metal. For one, the data suggest strong production levels amid the anti-pollution curbs last winter were a result of an increase in output from regions unaffected by the capacity restrictions (Chart 2). This went a long way in muting the impact of the restrictions in the heavily industrialized Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region of northern China. Chart of the WeekSteel Oblivious To Pessimism Chart 22017/18 Winter Cuts: A Net Non-Event This year's curbs will broaden the regions targeted by anti-pollution restrictions. The campaign will encompass 83 cities, up from last year's 28, thereby reducing the potential production ramp up from regions not covered by these measures (Chart 3). This coming winter's closures will cover regions where producers traditionally account for 68% of China's steel output (Chart 4). Chart 3Second Annual Winter Capacity ##br##Restrictions Will Broaden Coverage... Chart 4...And##br## Impact The anti-pollution campaign is one of the three battles prioritized in Xi Jinping's plan for the coming years. These curbs will be implemented during the October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019 heating season, extending the duration from last year's mid-November to Mid-March period. Because the minimal effect observed per last year's closures was due to specifying too narrow a range of plants and regions, not to non-compliance, we expect the measures announced for this coming winter to be fully implemented. These measures come amid already-tight market conditions. The steel rebar market in China is in backwardation - meaning a physical shortage is pushing up prompt prices relative to those further out the curve. Inventories have been falling since mid-March, reflecting supply-demand dynamics in other steel product markets. Thus, we expect prices to remain elevated going into the winter months. Capacity Impacts Are Difficult To Gauge Opaqueness and discretionary authority in the new rules clouds the outlook on how anti-pollution reforms will impact the steel market. This makes it difficult to estimate their impact with precision. This time around, China's State Council announced that curbs will be implemented in a more scientific and targeted approach, ensuring maximum efficiency to attain the targets. This means the constraints this year will depend on emissions in each region, which will be set at the discretion of local authorities.4 For example, steel mills in six key cities including Tianjin, Shijiazhuang, Tangshan, Handan, Xingtai and Anyang will be asked to keep capacity below 50% this winter, while producers in the rest of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region will keep production running at less than 70% of capacity. Furthermore, a draft plan by the city of Changzhou - which planned to implement the curbs beginning August 3 - suggests production curbs may vary by company, depending on operational situations and emission levels.5 These restrictions are applied to capacity, rather than production. Without up-to-date and accurate information on crude steel-making capacity across the different regions, it is extremely difficult to accurately quantify the impact. Specifics of the plans are up to the discretion of local authorities. Thus, these restrictions can be applied to different stages in the steel-making process (Diagram 1), impacting furnaces, pig iron or sintering plants. In some cases, the output curbs are not only restricted to the winter heating months. Several regions have been implementing curbs throughout the year on an as-needed basis. The cities of Tangshan and Changzhou are two such examples, implementing restrictions during the summer months as well. Furthermore, all industrial plants in the city of Xuzhou remain shut. High profit margins at steel mills may incentivize the shuttered illegal furnaces to restart. The industry ministry acknowledges this threat, and claims it will carry out checks on these producers to ensure they do not come back online. Diagram 1Steelmaking Production Process: Restrictions Can Be Applied To Different Stages Without full knowledge of these details, quantifying the impact of these restrictions is a challenge. Morgan Stanley estimates the impact of these curbs on steel output to be 78mm MT during the winter period by assuming capacity utilization is restricted to 50% in the key cities, while the rest of the areas cut capacity by 30%. The estimated production loss from these restrictions accounts for 9% of China's 2017 crude steel output.6 China's Ongoing Capacity-Reduction Reforms Most of the planned permanent capacity shutdowns have already taken place. Of the targeted 150mm MT of cuts between 2016 and 2020, 115mm MT have already taken place over the past two years. Furthermore, 1H17 witnessed the closure of all illegal induction furnaces producing sub-par quality steel, estimated to account for 140mm MT of crude steel capacity (Table 1).7 Table 1De-Capacity Reforms Still Ongoing We expect the magnitude of cutbacks to slow considerably. Even though the industry ministry issued a statement in February that it plans to meet steel capacity reduction targets this year - two years ahead of schedule. Furthermore, mills face restrictions on new steel capacity. China's State Council announced it intends to prevent new steel capacity additions in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, Guangdong province, and Yangtze River Delta regions, and a cap set at 200mm MT in Hebei by 2020. The capacity replacement plan, which allows a maximum of 0.8 MT of new capacity for each MT of eliminated capacity, will ensure capacity does not grow going forward. In fact, not all mills are eligible to take advantage of the replacement policy. Among others, now-shuttered induction furnace capacity, as well as producers that previously benefited from cash and policy support will not meet the requirements for this program. Steel And Iron Ore Prices Will Not Reconverge As a result of China's reform policies in the steel industry, iron ore prices have diverged from steel. Reduced steel production lowers demand for raw materials, including iron ore. This is reflected in falling Chinese iron ore imports amid contracting production (Chart 5). Chart 5Weak Demand For Iron Ore Chart 6EAF Penetration In China: Still Some Catching Up To Do China's reform and anti-pollution campaigns have had serious consequences on iron ore markets. For starters, China is encouraging the adoption of electric arc furnaces (EAF), rather than additional new blast furnaces.8 While the latter primarily uses iron ore, the former uses scrap steel. EAF penetration in China's steel industry significantly lags the rest of the world (Chart 6). This means that even if the capacity-replacement program allows eliminated furnaces to be replaced with newer, more up-to-date capacity, this will not spur demand for iron ore. Instead, we expect to see higher scrap steel prices (Chart 7). Furthermore, as we first highlighted in our January report, China's anti-pollution campaign coupled with high steel profit margins has incentivized the use of higher grade iron ore and iron ore pellets, widening the price spread between high- and low- grade ores (Chart 8).9 Chart 7EAFs Support Scrap Steel Demand Chart 8IO Grade Premiums Will Remain Elevated While high-grade ores are more expensive, they emit less pollution in the steelmaking process. Similarly, unlike fines, pellets which are direct charge feedstock, are not required to undergo the highly polluting sintering stage and can be fed directly into the furnace. China's Steel Dynamics Overshadow Global Markets The ongoing supply-side reforms in China are overshadowing events in other markets. Globally, steel is expected to remain in physical deficit this year (Chart 9). This is largely on the back of an increase in world ex-China demand, and the decline in Chinese supply, despite expectations of weaker Chinese demand, and increased supply from the rest of the world (Table 2). Chart 9Physical Steel Deficit Will Persist... Table 2...Despite Weaker Chinese Demand And Stronger RoW Supply These figures do not consider the impact of the ongoing Sino - U.S. trade dispute, which could evolve into a full-blown trade war, weighing on EM incomes and demand. In such a scenario, global demand for steel would take a hit, potentially shifting global markets into surplus. In theory, trade barriers on U.S. steel imports could lead to weaker domestic supply for American users and at the same time, leave more of the metal for use by the rest of the world. The net effect of that would be a higher price for American steel relative to the rest of the world. However, since May, 20,000 requests for steel tariff exemptions have been filed in the U.S., of which the Commerce Department has denied 639. To the extent that American steel users are able to obtain tariff exemptions, the impact of the barriers on global steel markets will be muted. Bottom Line: We expect China's steel market to tighten as we go into the winter season, during which capacity cuts will be broadened to 82 cities, from last year's 28. This will keep steel prices elevated. At the same time, we expect prices of 62% Fe material and lower iron ore grades to weaken, as appetite for the steelmaking raw material contracts during these months. Mills still running in the mid-November to mid-March period will have a preference for higher-grade ores and pellets, keeping premiums on these grades elevated. Barring a significant demand-side shock, expect more upside to steel prices and downside to iron ore prices over the coming 9 months. Based on our research, we are recommending a long China rebar futures on the SHFE in 1Q19 vs. short 62% Fe iron ore futures on the Dalian DCE in 1Q19 at tonight's close. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "BHP asks for government mediation in talks at Chile's Escondida," published August 6, 2018, by uk.reuters.com. 2 Please see "Economic Watch: China can cut soybean imports in 2018 by over 10 mln tonnes," published August 5, 2018, by xinhuanet.com. 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Chinese Steel, Aluminum Markets Well Supplied Despite Winter Capacity Cuts," dated April 12, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Chinese steel output cuts to vary from mill to mill next winter," dated July 21, 2018, available at reuters.com. 5 The restrictions will not only apply to the city's steel mills, but also to copper smelters, chemical makers as well as cement producers. Please see "China's Changzhou plans to enforce output curbs in steel, chemical plants," dated July 30, 2018, available at reuters.com. 6 Please see "Shanghai steel resumes rise, coke rallies as China eyes winter curbs," dated August 2, 2018, available at reuters.com. 7 Low-quality steel produced by induction furnaces, also referred to as ditiaogang, is made by melting scrap steel using induction heat, preventing sufficient control over the quality of the steel. Platts estimates ditiaogang production in 2016 to be 30-50mm MT. As we explain in our September 7, 2017 Weekly Report titled "Slow-Down In China's Reflation Will Temper Steel, Iron Ore In 2018," given that ditiaogang is illegal, these closures are not reflected in official steel production figures. Thus the closures of these mills have no impact on actual steel production, but instead raise the capacity utilization rates for Chinese steel producers. 8 China launched a carbon trading system in January 2018, which penalizes blast furnace operators with higher environmental taxes relative to EAF processes. 9 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "China's Environmental Reforms Drive Steel & Iron Ore," dated January 11, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017
Highlights Chart 1Yield Curve Suggests GDP Growth Has Peaked Last month we learned that the U.S. economy grew 4.1% in the second quarter, the fastest pace since 2014. The gap between year-over-year nominal GDP growth and the fed funds rate - a reliable recession indicator - also widened considerably (Chart 1). However, our sense is that this might be as good as it gets for the U.S. economy. With fewer unemployed workers than job openings and businesses reporting difficulties finding qualified labor, strong demand will increasingly translate into higher prices rather than more output. Higher interest rates and a stronger dollar will also start to weigh on demand as the Fed responds to rising inflation. For bond investors, it is still too soon to position for slower growth by increasing portfolio duration. Markets are priced for only 83 basis points of Fed tightening during the next 12 months, below the current "gradual" pace of +25 bps per quarter. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and a neutral allocation to spread product. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 133 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -50 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 14 bps on the month, and currently sits at 109 bps. Corporate bonds remain expensive with 12-month breakeven spreads for both the A and Baa credit tiers near their 25th percentiles since 1989 (Chart 2). Further, with inflation now close to the Fed's target, monetary policy will provide much less support for corporate bond returns going forward. These are two main reasons why we downgraded our cyclical corporate bond exposure to neutral near the end of June.1 Recent revisions to the U.S. National Accounts reveal that gross nonfinancial corporate leverage declined in Q4 2017 and Q1 2018, though from an elevated starting point (panel 4). While strong Q2 2018 profit growth should lead to a further decline when the second quarter data are reported in September, the downtrend in leverage will probably not last through the second half of the year. A rising wage bill and stronger dollar will soon drag profit growth below the rate of debt growth. At that point, leverage will rise. Historically, rising gross leverage correlates with rising corporate defaults and widening corporate bond spreads. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for the second quarter was released yesterday, and it showed that banks continue to ease standards on commercial & industrial loans (bottom panel). Rising corporate defaults tend to coincide with tightening lending standards (Table 3). Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* High-Yield: Neutral Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 128 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +205 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread tightened 27 bps on the month, and currently sits at 334 bps. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for expected default losses is currently 213 bps, below its long-run mean of 247 bps (Chart 3). This tells us that if default losses during the next 12 months are in line with our expectations, we should expect excess high-yield returns of 213 bps over duration-matched Treasuries, assuming also that there are no capital gains/losses from spread tightening/widening. However, we showed in a recent report that the default loss expectations embedded in our calculation are extremely low relative to history (panel 4).2 Our assumption, derived from the Moody's baseline default rate forecast and our own forecast of the recovery rate, calls for default losses of 1.2% during the next 12 months. The only historical period to show significantly lower default losses was 2007, a time when corporate balance sheets were in much better shape than today. While most indicators suggest that default losses will in fact remain low for the next 12 months, historical context clearly demonstrates that the risks are to the upside. It will be critically important to track real-time indicators of the default rate such as job cut announcements, which declined last month but remain above 2017 lows (bottom panel), for signals about whether current default forecasts are overly optimistic. MBS: Neutral Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 20 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -4 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility MBS spread tightened 3 bps on the month, driven by a 2 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) and a 1 bp tightening of the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The excess return Bond Map shows that MBS offer a relatively poor risk/reward trade-off, particularly compared to Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS, High-Yield and Sovereigns. However, our Bond Map analysis does not account for the macro environment, which remains very favorable for the sector. In a recent report we showed that the two main factors that influence MBS spreads are mortgage refinancing activity and residential mortgage bank lending standards.3 Refi activity is tepid (Chart 4) and will likely stay that way for the foreseeable future. Only 5.8% of the par value of the Conventional 30-year MBS index carries a coupon above the current mortgage rate, and even a drop in the mortgage rate to below 4% (from its current 4.6%) would only increase the refinanceable percentage to 38%. As for lending standards, yesterday's second quarter Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that they continue to ease (bottom panel), though banks also reported that they remain at the tighter end of the range since 2005. The still-tight level of lending standards suggests that further gradual easing is likely going forward. That will keep downward pressure on MBS spreads. Government-Related: Underweight Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +2 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 179 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -35 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed by 24 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to -22 bps. Local Authorities outperformed by 33 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +61 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 6 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +13 bps. Domestic Agency bonds broke even with duration-matched Treasuries in July, keeping year-to-date excess returns steady at -1 bp. The strengthening U.S. dollar is a clear negative for hard currency Sovereign debt (Chart 5) and valuation relative to U.S. corporates remains negative (panel 2). Maintain an underweight allocation to Sovereigns. In contrast, the Foreign Agency and Local Authority sectors continue to offer a favorable risk/reward trade-off compared to other fixed income sectors (please see the Bond Maps on page 15). Maintain overweight allocations to both sectors. The Bond Maps also show that while the Supranational and Domestic Agency sectors are very low risk, expected returns are feeble. Both sectors should be avoided. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 66 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +187 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio fell 3% in July to reach 83% (Chart 6). This is more than one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and only slightly higher than the average of 81% that was observed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. The total return Bond Map shows that municipal bonds still offer an attractive risk/reward profile for investors who are exposed to the top marginal tax rate. For investors who cannot benefit from the tax exemption there are better alternatives - notably Supranationals, Domestic Agency bonds and Agency CMBS. While value is dissipating, the near-term technical picture remains positive. Fund inflows are strong (panel 2) and visible supply is low (panel 3). Fundamentally, revisions to the GDP data reveal that state & local government net borrowing has been fairly flat in recent years, and in fact probably increased in the second quarter (bottom panel). At least so far, ratings downgrades have not risen alongside higher net borrowing, but this will be crucial to monitor during the next few quarters. Stay tuned. Treasury Curve: Buy The 5/30 Barbell Versus The 10-Year Bullet Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve's bear flattening trend continued in July. The 2/10 Treasury slope flattened 4 bps and the 5/30 slope flattened 2 bps, as yields moved higher. Despite the curve flattening, our position long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell returned +8 bps on the month and is now up +30 bps since inception.4 The trade's outperformance is due to the extreme undervaluation of the 7-year bullet versus the 1/20 barbell. As of today, the bullet still plots 12 bps cheap on our model (Chart 7), which translates to an expected 42 bps of 1/20 flattening during the next six months. We view that much flattening as unlikely.5 Table 4 of this report shows that curve steepeners are also cheap at the front-end of the curve, particularly the 2-year bullet over the 1/5 and 1/7 barbells. Meanwhile, barbells are more fairly valued relative to bullets at the long-end of the curve. The 5/30 and 7/30 barbells look particularly attractive relative to the 10-year bullet. We recommend adding a position long the 5/30 barbell and short the 10-year bullet. The 5/30 barbell is close to fairly valued on our model (panel 4), which implies that the 5/10/30 butterfly spread is priced for relatively little change in the 5/30 slope during the next six months. This trade should perform well in the modest curve flattening environment we anticipate, and it provides a partial hedge to our 1/7/20 trade that is geared toward curve steepening. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of August 3, 2018) TIPS: Overweight Chart 8Inflation Compensation TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 10 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +139 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate increased 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 2.12%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate increased 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.24% (Chart 8). Both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below the 2.3% to 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. We expect breakevens will return to that target range as investors become increasingly convinced that the risk of deflation has faded. Consistent inflation prints at or above the Fed's 2% target will be the deciding factor that eventually leads to this upward re-rating of inflation expectations. In that regard, core PCE inflation was relatively weak in June, growing only 0.11% month-over-month. That pace is somewhat below the monthly pace of 0.17% that is necessary to sustain 2% annualized inflation (panel 4). Nevertheless, 12-month core PCE inflation at 1.9% is only just below the Fed's target, and the 6-month rate of change is above 2% on an annualized basis. These readings are confirmed by the Dallas Fed's trimmed mean PCE inflation measure (bottom panel). Maintain an overweight allocation to TIPS relative to nominal Treasury securities for now. We will reduce exposure to TIPS once both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward breakeven rates reach our target range of 2.3% to 2.5%. ABS: Neutral Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 11 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +9 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS narrowed 5 bps on the month and now stands at 38 bps, only 11 bps above its pre-crisis low. The Bond Maps show that consumer ABS continue to offer relatively attractive return potential compared to other low-risk spread products. However, we maintain only a neutral allocation to this space because credit quality trends have started to move against the sector. Despite the large upward revision to the personal savings rate that accompanied the second quarter GDP report, the multi-year uptrend in the household interest coverage ratio remains intact (Chart 9). This will eventually translate into more frequent consumer credit delinquencies, and indeed, the consumer credit delinquency rate appears to have put in a bottom. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for Q2 was released yesterday and it showed that average consumer credit lending standards tightened for the ninth consecutive quarter (bottom panel). Credit card lending standards tightened for the fifth consecutive quarter, while auto loan standards eased after having tightened in each of the prior eight quarters. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +98 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 5 bps on the month and currently sits at 71 bps (Chart 10). In a recent report we showed that the macro picture for CMBS is decidedly mixed.6 A typical negative environment for CMBS is characterized by tightening bank lending standards for commercial real estate loans and falling demand. Yesterday's Q2 Senior Loan Officer Survey reported that both lending standards and demand for nonresidential real estate loans were very close to unchanged (bottom two panels). Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 24 basis points in July, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +31 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 5 bps on the month and currently sits at 47 bps. The Bond Maps show that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector continues to make sense. The BCA Bond Maps The following page presents excess return and total return Bond Maps that we use to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Maps employ volatility-adjusted breakeven spread/yield analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Maps do not impose any macroeconomic view. The Excess Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the excess return Bond Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps in excess of Treasuries. The Total Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the total return Bond Map shows the number of days of average yield increase required for each sector to lose 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of yield increases and are therefore less likely to lose 5%. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average yield decline required for each sector to earn 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of yield decline and are therefore more likely to earn 5%. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of August 3, 2018) Chart 12Total Return Bond Map (As Of August 3, 2018) Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Go To Neutral On Spread Product", dated June 26, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync", dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem", dated July 17, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Rigidly Defined Areas Of Doubt And Uncertainty", dated June 19, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Balance Sheet Problem", dated July 17, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)
Highlights U.S. Investment Strategy is getting back to basics: We follow last week's report outlining our stance on interest rates with a review of the credit cycle and its current position. The credit cycle is not just about borrowers: Lender willingness is inversely related to loan performance over a five-year horizon, but it amplifies near-term performance swings. Our bond strategists use three broad indicators to track the credit cycle...: Valuation, monetary conditions and credit quality all offer insight into corporate bond performance. ... and we also consider the fed funds rate cycle: The way that lenders interact with the monetary policy backdrop is discouraging for the course of human evolution, but it follows a well-defined pattern that helps demarcate the credit cycle. The cycle is in its latter stages, and investors should be in the process of dialing down credit exposures: Our bond strategists downgraded spread product to neutral in mid-June, and we won't return to overweight until the next recession is well underway. Feature U.S. Investment Strategy is meant to provide analyses and forecasts of financial markets and the economy for the purpose of helping our clients make asset-allocation decisions. This report continues our focus on going back to the basics of meeting that mandate. Next week's Special Report will present a simple indicator for anticipating the onset of a recession and the end of the equity bull market. After Labor Day, we will publish a Special Report updating, and expanding upon, our work on the fed funds rate cycle. By the unofficial end of the summer, then, we will have outlined our positions on rates, credit, the business cycle, and the state of monetary policy. That will provide us with a framework for evaluating incoming data and engaging in an ongoing investment-focused dialogue. It will also hopefully put us in position to identify the first set of major cyclical inflection points since 2007-8 in a timely fashion. 2019 is shaping up as a pivotal year for asset allocation, and we look forward to navigating it alongside our clients. Lenders Never Learn, Part I: Lending Standards Investors typically think of the credit cycle exclusively in terms of borrower performance. After all, cycle peaks and troughs are defined by default-rate troughs and peaks. There are two parties to every loan, though, and a narrow focus on debtors precludes a full understanding of the landscape. The credit cycle encompasses lender willingness as well as borrower performance. Bad loans are made in good times, just as surely as good loans are made in bad times. Skepticism and gloom carry the day in a recession and its immediate aftermath, and the loans that manage to get made early in the credit cycle are tightly underwritten, insulated with a margin of safety that would warm Benjamin Graham's heart. As the cycle stretches on, however, lenders forget about the trauma of the last downturn and focus more on market share than standards. The fact that standards impact performance with a lag much longer than the annual bonus cycle obscures their importance and helps them persist. Like the rest of us, loan officers and their managers learn best when they receive immediate feedback that clearly results from their decisions. Over the three-decade history of the Federal Reserve's senior loan officer survey the last three cycles, however, it appears that lending standards impact loan performance with as much as a five-year lag. The Chart Of The Week shows the net percentage of loan officers tightening standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans to large and mid-sized companies, inverted and advanced by 20 quarters. Easy standards line up with peak defaults, and tight standards align with default troughs. Chart of the WeekLending Standards Are Negatively Correlated With Intermediate-Term Loan Performance ... The lag between loan approval and loan performance is far too long to reinforce learning, however. Over the course of five years, factors that could not have been foreseen at origination may well end up precipitating a default. Lenders' response to that long-term uncertainty may help explain the positive short-term correlation (Chart 2). Partially goaded by pro-cyclical loan-loss reserve standards, lenders react to surging default rates by getting more conservative, nudging default rates higher in a feedback loop that plants the seeds for strong intermediate-term performance. Chart 2... But They March In Lockstep With Loan Performance In The Near Term Bottom Line: 2014's cyclical bottom in standards suggests that rising default rates will not peak until late 2019 or 2020. Increased near-term lender caution will reinforce the upward move. Tracking The Credit Cycle: Default Rates When the economy is expanding, borrowers in the aggregate find it easier to service their debts, just as recessions make debt service more onerous. The pro-cyclicality of inflation, which eases debt burdens, helps reinforce the relationship. There is more to tracking the credit cycle than tracking the business cycle, however. While defaults have peaked within five months after the end of the last three recessions, default-rate troughs have varied wildly, occurring anywhere from six years before the recession to the month it began (Chart 3). Our credit strategists try to identify the point at which defaults begin to take off by tracking lending standards, monetary conditions, and credit quality. None of these factors suggests that default rates can make new lows. The loan officer survey could improve, but tight spreads leave almost no room for the bond market to become more receptive (Chart 4). Monetary conditions are steadily becoming less accommodative, helped along by the rate-hike/dollar-strength loop (Chart 5). Our bond strategists expect that credit quality will weaken as soon as upward wage pressure snuffs out pre-tax corporate profits'1 ability to keep up with double-digit debt growth. It's hard to say just when default rates will begin to erode total returns in a meaningful way, but our bond strategists are of a mind that risk is rapidly catching up with reward. Chart 3The Business Cycle Reliably Calls Peaks,##BR##But It's No Help With Troughs Chart 4Little Room##BR##For Improvement Chart 5Tightening,##BR##But Not Yet Tight Tracking The Credit Cycle: Corporate Spreads Chart 6Spreads Aren't Ready To Blow Out Yet High-yield data only exist for the last two spread-widening episodes, but what they lack in quantity they make up for in consistency. Heading into both the dot-com bust and the financial crisis, spreads did not widen in earnest (Chart 6, top panel) until the Fed had completed its tightening cycle (Chart 6, second panel), BCA's proprietary Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) began to deteriorate (Chart 6, third panel), and lenders tightened their standards (Chart 6, bottom panel). That template suggests that spreads are not poised to blow out anytime soon, as we expect the Fed will not be finished tightening before the end of 2019 (or later), and lenders are still actively easing their standards for commercial borrowers. As noted above, we expect that deterioration in the CHM will pick up again, once runaway profit growth ceases to paper over surging leverage. All in all, our bond strategists do not think it is anywhere near time to panic. As with defaults, they think it is still too soon to expect the beginning of sustained spread widening. On balance, however, the indicators suggest that return expectations should be modest, and limited to coupon yields. It is too late to buy bonds with the expectation of realizing capital gains, and prudent return projections should pencil in some minor capital losses. Lenders Never Learn, Part II: The Fed Funds Rate Cycle The fed funds rate cycle has been a U.S. Investment Strategy pillar, informing many of our views on cycles and asset markets. We will publish a Special Report delving into it more fully the first week of September, but a quick summary is sufficient to illustrate its relevance to the credit cycle. We divide the fed funds rate cycle into four phases based on whether the Fed is hiking rates or cutting them, and whether or not the fed funds exceeds our estimate of the equilibrium rate. Per our stylized representation of the cycle (Chart 7), we are currently in Phase I (the Fed is hiking, but policy remains accommodative) and are likely to remain there until the second half of 2019, when we expect that policy will turn restrictive, ushering in Phase II. While we have found that the level of the fed funds rate trumps its direction when it comes to explaining equity and bond returns, loan growth is more sensitive to the direction of rates. Banks expand their loan books more rapidly when the Fed is tightening than they do when it's easing. The effect is most pronounced for C&I loans, which grow five times faster during rake-hiking campaigns than they do during rate-cutting campaigns (Table 1). The conclusion may seem counter-intuitive on its face, but one must remember that the Fed is charged with leaning against the cycle: it tightens when times are good to keep them from becoming too good, and its eases when times are bad to get the economy back on its feet. Chart 7The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Table 1An Example Of What Not To Do Lenders who take a countercyclical tack operate with the policy wind at their back. Those who follow the cycle are actually fighting the Fed. Most lenders short-sightedly follow the crowd aping the cycle, basing future projections on the most recent data samples and hewing to career incentives that encourage herding. Bankers who load up on loans when the cycle is demonstrably old and approaching its peak make two errors: they ignore a well-established cyclical pattern (tightening leads recessions, which lead defaults and higher losses given default), and they deploy capital when it's widely available in the marketplace, but husband it when it's scarce. Bottom Line: Banks reinforce the credit cycle by avidly deploying capital when conditions are about to take a turn for the worse, and withholding it when they're about to get better. We recommend investors reject their example, and limit their exposure to spread product. Investment Implications If our view that the Fed is going to hike rates more than the consensus expects is correct, all bonds will have to contend with a persistent headwind. Thanks to positive carry, and high-yield bonds' structurally shorter duration, spread product will be less vulnerable than Treasuries. Our bond strategists are nonetheless lukewarm on the risk-reward offered by investment-grade and high-yield bonds. The cycle is clearly in its latter stages and spreads are historically tight. We remain constructive on both the business cycle and the monetary policy cycle, and we are not yet ready to throw in the towel on the equity bull market. Although our equity take is more sanguine than the BCA consensus, our optimism does not extend to the credit cycle, which has clearly passed its peak. While neither modest spread widening nor a mild pickup in defaults is likely to wipe out all of spread product's excess returns, we do not expect that they will be large enough to merit more than benchmark weighting in balanced portfolios. Our sister Global ETF Strategy service's model portfolios hold benchmark spread-product positions (while underweighting Treasuries, maintaining below-benchmark duration across all bond categories, and overweighting cash) and that is the way we intend to be positioned in the small basket of ETFs we will recommend once we've completed our review of the most impactful macro drivers. A Note On Payrolls Friday's Goldilocks employment situation report for July reinforced our views on the economy and rates, but it was mixed enough to have satisfied anyone's preconceived notions. July's net payroll gains fell shy of the consensus expectation, but revisions to May and June pushed the 3-month moving average of net gains to over 224,000, slightly above expectations. Neither hours worked nor average hourly earnings set off any alarm bells, but the "hidden" unemployment rate slid 30 basis points to 7.5%, the lowest level since May 2001. We see the seeds of future inflation pressures in the continued absorption of slack, and believe that the Fed does as well. We continue to expect four hikes this year and next, two more than the money market is currently discounting. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Annualized profit growth calculated with data from the BEA's National Income and Profit Accounts.
Highlights Global QE has made bonds as risky as equities. Thereby, global QE has forced investors to accept identically depressed returns from equities and from bonds, requiring equity and other risk-asset valuations to surge. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if global bond yields remain at current levels or fall. The bad news is that risk-asset valuations will become dangerously unstable if global bond yields march much higher. The 'rule of 4' for equity/bond allocation: sum the three 10-year yields - the German bund, the U.S. T-bond, and the JGB. Above 3.5 means a neutral stance in equities... ... Above 4 means it's time to go underweight equities and overweight bonds. Feature Chart of the WeekAt Higher Bond Yields, The Correlation With Equity Prices Has Flipped From Positive To Negative The end is nigh for QE. The ECB will exit its asset purchase program at the end of the year. In doing so, it will mark the end of an epoch which began in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, a ten year period in which at least one of the world's major central banks has been buying a defined quantity of assets every month (Chart I-2). Approaching the end of the epoch, it is fitting to ask: how did the global QE stimulant work, and what will be the withdrawal symptoms? Chart I-2The End Is Nigh For QE As far back as 2011, in a provocative report titled QE And Riots we predicted that: "QE... will exacerbate already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it" Events in the subsequent seven years have fully vindicated our prediction. Simply put, QE has front-loaded asset returns which would ordinarily have accrued in the distant future to the here and now - in the form of sharply higher capital values. So if you were invested in the financial markets or most housing markets, congratulations, you have received a bonanza; if you weren't, bad luck, there's not much left for you (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return To understand why, we need to delve deeper into behavioural economics. QE: Why The Stimulant Was So Powerful Central banks admit that there is a lower bound for interest rates below which there would be an exodus of bank deposits. Once policy rates hit the lower bound, central banks can unleash a 'plan B': a commitment to keep policy rates at this lower bound for an extended period. QE is simply a powerful signalling tool for this commitment. As ECB Chief Economist Peter Praet explains: "There is a signalling channel inherent in asset purchases, which reinforces the credibility of forward guidance on policy rates. This credibility of promises to follow a certain course for policy rates in the future is enhanced by the asset purchases, as these asset purchases are a concrete demonstration of our desire (to keep policy rates at the lower bound)" The credible commitment to keep policy rates near the lower bound for an extended period depresses bond yields towards the lower bound too (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Credible Commitment To Keep Policy Rates##br## Low Pulls Down Bond Yields Now comes the part of the story that is not well understood, even by central bankers, because it derives from recent breakthroughs in behavioural economics. When bond yields approach the lower bound, the asymmetry in their future direction makes bonds very risky investments. The short-term potential for capital appreciation - nominal or real - vanishes, while the potential for vicious losses increases dramatically (Chart I-5). The technical term for this unattractive asymmetry is negative skew. Years of research in behavioural economics has led Nobel Laureate Professor Daniel Kahneman to conclude: negative skew is the measure that best encapsulates our perception of an investment's risk. Chart I-5Bonds Become Much Riskier ##br## At Low Bond Yields Professor Kahneman's work reveals a profound truth: global QE has made bonds as risky as equities (Chart I-6). The ramification is that equities and other risk-assets no longer need to lure investors with an excess return over bond returns. QE has forced investors to accept identically depressed returns from equities and from bonds, requiring equity and other risk-asset valuations to surge.1 Chart I-6Global QE Has Made Bonds ##br##As Risky As Equities One counterargument we hear is that bonds offer investors a diversification benefit and, because of this, investors will still accept a lower return from bonds. But this argument is flawed. Just as bonds are a diversifier for equity investors, equities are a diversifier for bond investors. Indeed in recent years, equities have protected bond investors during vicious sell-offs in the bond market such as after Trump's shock victory in 2016. So we could equally argue that equities require the lower return. In fact, with the same negative skew and symmetrical diversification properties, both assets must offer the same prospective return. The breakthroughs in behavioural economics provide some good news and some bad news. The good news is that record high valuations of risk-assets are fully justified if bond yields remain at current levels or fall. The bad news is that risk-asset valuations will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher (Chart I-7). Chart I-7At Low Bond Yields The Required Return On ##br##Equities Plunges, So Equity Valuations Surge Financial Markets Dwarf The World Economy One common misunderstanding about QE is that it has been the bond purchasing itself that has held down bond yields. This seems a natural assumption because we connect the act of buying with higher prices (lower yields). Moreover, the $10 trillion of bonds that the 'big four' central banks have bought is not far short of the size of the euro area economy. But let's put this into context. The global bond market exceeds $100 trillion. Long-term bank loans amount to something similar. In this $217 trillion2 global fixed income market, $10 trillion of QE is peanuts. To reiterate, QE's impact came not from the $10 trillion of central bank purchases in itself, but from the signal that interest rates would remain at the lower bound for a long time, mathematically requiring bond yields to approach the lower bound too;3 and from the consequent equalization of negative skew on bonds and risk-assets, mathematically requiring an exponential rerating of all risk-asset valuations (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Equities Are Now Priced To Generate A Measly Long-Term Return Now note that the combination of equities and correlated risk-assets such as corporate and EM debt is worth around $160 trillion, and real estate is worth $220 trillion. World GDP is worth much less, around $80 trillion. So if returns from these richly valued risk-assets were reallocated from the here and now back to the distant future, through lower capital values today, there would be a very real risk that current spending could take a dive. Supporting this broad thesis, central bank measures of 'financial conditions easiness' are just tracking the level of the stock market (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Financial Conditions Are Just##br## Tracking The Stock Market The 'Rule Of 4' For Equities And Bonds On February 1 this year, we advised that the big threat to risk-asset valuations "comes from the global 10-year bond yield rising to 2% - broadly equivalent to the German 10-year bund yield rising to 1% or the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield rising to 3%." This advice has proved to be remarkably prescient. Whenever bond yields have been at the lower end of recent ranges, the correlation with equities has been positive, meaning equities have risen in tandem with bond yields. But whenever bond yields have moved to the upper end of recent ranges, the correlation has abruptly flipped to negative, meaning equities have fallen as bond yields have risen (Chart of the Week). While many strategists and commentators are fixated on the risks from trade wars and/or the global economy, our non-consensus call is that the biggest threat to risk-assets comes from rich valuations which will become dangerously unstable if bond yields march much higher. In this regard the bond yield that matters is the global bond yield. Previously we defined this in terms of the German 10-year bund yield and the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield. But today for completeness, we would like to add another important component: the Japanese 10-year government bond yield. The global bond yield is a weighted average of the three components. But for a useful rule of thumb, just sum the three 10-year yields - the German bund, the U.S. T-bond, and the JGB. A sum above 3.5 means a neutral stance to equities. A sum above 4 - which broadly equates to the global yield rising above 2% - means it's time to go underweight equities and overweight bonds. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Consider what happens to valuations when bond yields decline from 4% to 2%. At a 4% bond yield, equities possess significantly more negative skew than 10-year bonds. So investors will demand a comparatively higher return from equities, let’s say 8% a year. Whereas, at a 2% bond yield, equities and 10-year bonds possess the same negative skew. So investors will demand the same return from equities as they can get from bonds, 2% a year. At the lower bond yield, the bond must deliver 2% a year less for ten years compared to previously, meaning its price must rise by 22%. But equities must deliver 6% a year less for ten years, so the equity market must surge by 80%. 2 Source: The Institute of International Finance (IIF) https://www.iif.com/publication/global-debt-monitor/global-debt-monitor-june-2017 3 In contrast, if the market feared bond purchases would cause inflation and thereby imply a higher path of interest rates, QE would push up bond yields! Fractal Trading Model* This week we note that the underperformance of emerging market versus developed market equities is technically stretched and ripe for at least a brief countertrend reversal. The 65-day trade is long EM versus DM with a profit target of 2.5% and a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights The eye of the storm is passing over the oil market. OPEC 2.0's recent production increase will temporarily halt the sharp decline in OECD commercial oil inventories, allowing stocks of crude oil and refined products in member states to level off ahead of the sharp drawdowns we expect next year (Chart of the Week).1 This will keep the front of Brent's forward curve in a modest contango going into 4Q18, and suppress short-term price volatility. Thereafter, reduced OPEC 2.0 output post-U.S. midterm elections, and lower Iranian and Venezuelan exports will force OECD inventories to resume drawing sharply, backwardating Brent's forward curve and raising oil price volatility (Chart 2).2 Chart of the WeekOECD Inventories Rebuild Slightly,##BR##Then Resume Falling Next Year Chart 2Brent, WTI Implied Volatility Vs. Curve Shape:##BR##Implied Vol Is Higher At Storage Extremes Chart 3Physical Oil Deficit Returns##BR##To Oil Market Next Year Highlights Energy: Overweight. The U.S. EIA revised its estimate of OPEC spare capacity down slightly for this year - to 1.7mm b/d from 1.8mm b/d. Spare capacity for next year was raised to 1.3mm b/d from just over 1mm b/d previously. At ~1.5% of global consumption this year and next, spare capacity is chronically low. Base Metals: Neutral. Chinese policymakers could sanction new infrastructure spending and easier credit to counter slower growth related to trade tensions, Reuters reported.3 Precious Metals: Neutral. We were stopped out of our tactical long silver position with a 10% loss. Ags/Softs: Underweight. There is more evidence that U.S. ags are finding new markets. EU imports of U.S. soybeans almost quadrupled in recent weeks. This comes amid the June plunge in prices and a thawing in trade tensions, following talks between EU Commission President Juncker and President Trump late last week.4 Feature The oil market sits in the eye of a pricing storm we expect to hit later this year. Following highly vocal - and twitter-textual - jawboning by U.S. President Donald Trump, OPEC's Gulf Arab producers lifted production in June and again in July.5 Reuters survey data indicate the OPEC Cartel (including new member Congo) lifted production by 70k b/d in July, bringing output to its highest level this year (32.64mm b/d).6 KSA boosted its output to 10.6mm b/d in June, up from less than 10mm b/d in the January - May period. This likely was a combination of higher production and inventory draws. OPEC's compliance level fell to 111% of the 1.2mm b/d of cuts agreed in November 2016, versus compliance levels exceeding 150% earlier this year. This is attributed to sharp declines in Venezuela's output, sporadic losses from Libya and Nigeria, and ongoing declines in non-Gulf OPEC states. We expect Russia, the putative co-head of the OPEC 2.0 coalition, will increase production by 200k b/d in 2H18 (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Global Oil Market Will Tighten Again Post-U.S. mid-term elections in November - just when the U.S. sanctions are re-imposed against Iranian crude exports - we expect OPEC 2.0 to dial back production increases made at the behest of President Trump. Continued declines in non-Gulf OPEC output, led by ongoing and deep losses in Venezuelan output, and random unplanned production outages also will contribute to a tightening on the supply side going into 2019. Rising geopolitical tensions in the Gulf will keep markets on edge, with a predisposition to push higher. This supply-side tightness will once again come up against strong global oil demand, which we estimate will grow at a 1.7mm b/d rate this year and next. We are not expecting a repeat of the evolution of prices observed following OPEC 2.0's January 2017 agreement, which cut production to reverse the massive accumulation of inventories brought about by the original cartel's market-share war launched in November 2014. This evolution is depicted in the price-decomposition model for Brent shown in Chart 4. We segmented the fundamental price drivers - i.e. demand, supply and inventories - into distinct factors, and estimated an econometric model that allows us to track whether the evolution of prices is consistent with our expectations for these factors. Chart 4Factor Decomposition For Brent Prices Our modeling indicates the 2014 - 15 decline in oil prices was driven by a not-often-seen combination of every single factor, with our OPEC Supply-and-Inventory factor accounting for the largest negative contribution to the evolution of prices during this period. Since 2017, our factor model shows Brent prices have been supported by two factors acting simultaneously together: (1) the strong compliance of OPEC 2.0 members to the coalition's production-cutting agreement, which reduced the OPEC Supply-and-Inventory factor's role, and (2) the pickup in global oil demand, particularly in EM economies, which pushed our Global Demand factor up. These effects were partly counterbalanced by the rise in our Non-OPEC Supply factor, which became the largest negative contributor to price movements, driven by strong U.S. shale production growth. Return Of Backwardation Will Spur Volatility Our ensemble forecasts for Brent in 2H18 and 2019 are $70 and $75/bbl, with WTI expected to trade $6/bbl below these levels (Chart 5). The supply-side tightening we expect, coupled with continued demand growth, will once again lead to sharp draws in OECD inventories beginning in 4Q18 and continuing into 2019, as seen in the Chart of the Week. This will steepen the backwardations in the Brent and WTI forward curves (Chart 6). Chart 5BCA Brent And##BR##WTI Forecasts Chart 6Backwardation Will Return##BR##To Brent's Forward Curve Our research shows that as the slope of the Brent and WTI forward curves steepen - i.e., backwardations become more positive in percentage terms (or contangoes become more negative) - the implied volatility of options written on these crude oil futures increases, as can be seen in Chart 2.7 All else equal, higher volatility makes options written on these crude futures more valuable. Higher Vol ... Higher Prices ... In the different scenarios we use to produce our ensemble forecast, we view the balance of risks to be on the upside. This can be seen in the different paths our scenarios cover over the next year and a half, which include physical and geopolitical variables affecting price expectations (Chart 7).8 Chart 7Higher Volatility = Wider Expected Price Range Our base case assumes the supply and demand estimates shown in Table 1, which include the loss of 500k b/d due to the re-imposition of U.S. sanctions against Iran. However, we also model the loss of 1mm b/d of Iranian exports. Furthermore, we account for the loss of ~ 800k b/d of Venezuelan exports in the event that country collapses and nothing but the 250k b/d of output required to produce refined products for the local market remains online. Lastly, we account for the Permian transportation bottlenecks preventing all of the crude produced in the Basin from getting to refiners or to export markets. In this week's publication, we also include an estimate of the 95% confidence interval derived from Brent and WTI options' implied volatilities, so that our scenarios can be placed in the context of market-derived assessments of the range in which prices will trade. ... Lower Prices ... ? In modeling these risks, we also must account for downside price risks. Most prominent among these is a resolution of the long-simmering U.S. - Iran conflict, which, from time to time, results in physical confrontation. This is an outcome markets were forced to consider earlier this week when President Trump offered to meet Iranian President Rouhani without any preconditions. Among other things, Trump suggested he would have interest in working on a nuclear-arms deal to replace the one negotiated under President Obama's watch, which he scuppered in May. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo walked this remark back later. We believe the odds of such a meeting are extremely low. The odds such meeting would lead to a resolution of animosities - or at least a working understanding between the two sides - are even lower. Even so, investors need to account for this tail risk, which, if realized could take $5 to $10/bbl out of the current oil price structure. That is, until KSA and Russia muster the OPEC 2.0 member states to again reduce production to keep prices at levels that work best for their economies. Bottom Line: Our modeling and the forecasts point to higher prices and a steepening of the backwardation in Brent and WTI forward curves. This will lead to an increase in implied volatilities for options written on these crude oil futures. For this reason, we suggest investors remain long call spreads further out the Brent forward curve in 2019, which can be found in the Strategic Recommendations table on page 10 of this publication. That said, downside risks have emerged, even if, at present, the likelihood of a diplomatic breakthrough that triggers them is remote. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. At the end of June, the coalition's member states agreed to increase production, which we estimate will raise its output ~ 275k b/d in 2H18 (vs. 1H18). We expect a physical deficit of ~ 430k b/d in 1H19 (vs 1H18, Chart 3). 2 "Contango" and "backwardation" are terms of art in commodity markets. In oil trading, when prompt-delivery crude is priced below deferred-delivery material markets are in contango; vice versa for backwardation. 3 Please see "Exclusive: China eyes infrastructure boost to cushion growth as trade war escalates - sources," published by uk.reuters.com July 27, 2018. 4 We discussed this possibility under Option 1 in our July 26, 2018, Commodity & Energy Strategy lead article entitled "Policy Uncertainty Could Trump Ag Fundamentals." It is published by BCA Research, and is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see our Special Report entitled "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," published jointly July 19, 2018, by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see "OPEC July oil output hits 2018 peak, but outages weigh: Reuters survey," published July 30, 2018, by uk.reuters.com. 7 Chart 2 shows the V-shaped mapping of implied volatility as a function of the slope of the forward curve - , i.e., the difference between the 1st- and 12th-nearby futures divided by the 1st -nearby future (to get the number in %) - against the at-the-money Implied Volatilities of 3rd-nearby Brent and WTI options (also in %). Our findings extend results published in Kogan et al (2009), who show realized volatilities calculated using historical settlements of crude oil futures have a similar V-shaped mapping with the slope of crude oil futures conditioned on 6th- vs. 3rd-nearby futures returns (in %). Please see Kogan, L., Livdan, D., & Yaron, A. (2009). "Oil Futures Prices in a Production Economy With Investment Constraints." The Journal of Finance, 64 (3), 1345-1375. Strictly speaking, volatility is the standard deviation of percent returns, usually measured on a per annum basis. Realized volatility uses futures prices to calculate returns and standard deviations; options' implied volatility is a parameter of an option-pricing model that is solved for once an option's premium, or price, is known (i.e., clears the market). This makes implied volatility a forward-looking market-cleared parameter, provided market participants agree the model used to calculate its value. Research shows implied volatilities do a better job of forecasting actual volatility than historical volatilities constructed using futures prices. See Ryan, Bob and Tancred Lidderdale (2009). "Energy Price Volatility and Forecast Uncertainty." U.S. Energy Information Administration. 8 We do not try to model a closure of the Strait of Hormuz or its prices implications. We do, however, consider this in our Special Report published July 19, 2018, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," referenced above. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017
Feature GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of July 31, 2018. The quant model lifted its U.S. allocation to be in line with the benchmark weight at the expense of Spain. No major changes in other country weights, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model outperformed its benchmark by 59 bps in July, largely driven by Level 2 model which outperformed its benchmark by 146 bps. Level 1 model slightly unperformed its MSCI world benchmark by 5 bps in July. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed its benchmarks by 132 bps, driven by the Level 2 outperformance of 375 bps offset by the 2 bps of Level 1 underperformance. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model," dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Mode (Chart 4) is updated as of July 31, 2018. Following the developments on the trade front and increasing worries of a growth slowdown, the model continues to maintain a defensive bias with an aggregate overweight of 5.8% relative to cyclical sectors. The relative tilts within cyclicals and defensives remain the same as the previous month. However, both discretionary and financials are going through unfavorable technical and momentum indicators. Energy remains the only resource based sector with an overweight, primarily driven by attractive long-term valuations. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," dated July 27, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Senior Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com