Financial Markets
Looking Beyond The Next Few Months The next couple of months could remain tricky for equity markets. But, with economic growth set to remain above trend for another year or so and central banks cautious about the pace of monetary tightening, we continue to expect risk assets to outperform over the 12-month horizon. To begin, our short-term concerns. Global growth has clearly slowed in recent months, with Q1 U.S. GDP growth coming in at 2.3%, well below the 2.9% in Q4; global PMIs have also come down from their recent peaks, led by the euro zone and Japan (Chart 1). Inflation has begun to spook investors, with a sharp pick-up in core U.S. inflation, including a rise to 1.9% YoY in the core PCE inflation measure that the Fed watches most closely (Chart 2). Geopolitics will dominate the headlines over the next six weeks, with the waiver on Iran sanctions expiring on May 12, the end of the 60-day consultation for U.S. tariffs on China on May 21, the possible imposition of tariffs on $50 billion of Chinese goods starting on June 4, and likely developments with North Korea and NAFTA. Recommended Allocation Chart 1Global Growth Has Slowed Chart 2...And Inflation Picked Up Investors inclined to make short-term tactical shifts might, therefore, want to reduce risk over the next one to three months. For most clients of the Global Asset Allocation service with a longer perspective, however, we continue to recommend an overweight on equities and other risk assets. In the U.S., in particular, fiscal stimulus will, according to IMF estimates, boost GDP growth by 0.8 percentage points this year and 0.9 percentage points next (Chart 3). U.S. corporate earnings should grow by almost 20% this year and around 12% next and, while this is already in analysts' forecasts, it is hard to imagine equity markets struggling against such a strong backdrop. Not one of the recession/bear market warning signals we are watching (inverted yield curve, rising credit spreads, Fed policy in restrictive territory, significant decline in PMIs, peak in cyclical spending) is yet flashing. Neither do we see any signs that higher interest rates or expensive energy prices are slowing growth. Lead indicators of capex have come off a little, but still point to robust growth (Chart 4). The housing market tends to be the most vulnerable to rising rates and the average rate on a 30-year U.S. fixed mortgage has risen to 4.5% (from 3.7% at the start of the year and a low of 3.3% in late 2016). But housing data still look strong, with a continued rise in house prices and mortgage applications steady (Chart 5). Perhaps the sector most vulnerable to rising U.S. rates in this cycle is emerging markets, where borrowers have grown foreign-currency debt to $3.2 trillion, according to the BIS - one reason for our longstanding caution on EM assets (Chart 6). With crude oil rising to $75 a barrel, U.S. retail gasoline prices now average $2.80 a gallon, up from below $2 in 2016, and transportation companies are complaining of rising costs. But, historically, oil prices have needed to rise by 100% YoY before they triggered recession (Chart 7). Chart 3U.S. Stimulus Will Boost The Economy Chart 4Capex Remains Robust Chart 5No Signs Of Higher Rates Hurting Housing Chart 6Could EM Be Most Affected By Higher Rates? Chart 7Oil Hasn't Risen Enough To Cause Recession Eventually, however, strong growth, especially in the U.S., will become a headwind for risk assets. There is still some slack in the labor market, with another 500,000 people likely to return to work eventually (Chart 8). When that happens, perhaps early next year, the currently sluggish wage growth will begin to accelerate. Fiscal stimulus is likely to prove inflationary, since it is unprecedented for a government to stimulate the economy so aggressively when it is already close to full capacity (Chart 9). These factors will push inflation expectations back to their equilibrium level, and the market will then need to adjust to the Fed accelerating the pace of rate hikes to choke off inflation, which will push up real bond yields (Chart 10). Chart 8Still 500,000 Who Could Return To Work Chart 9Stimulus Unprecedented In Such A Strong Economy Chart 10Eventually Real Rates Will Need To Rise When that starts to happen - perhaps late this year or early next year - the yield curve will invert, and investors will start to price in the next recession. That will be the time to turn defensive, but it is still too early now. Fixed Income: Markets are currently pricing only a 50% probability of three more Fed hikes this year, and only two hikes next year. As markets start to anticipate further tightening, long rates are also likely to rise (Chart 11). We see 10-year U.S. Treasury yields at 3.3-3.5% by year-end, and so recommend an overweight in TIPs and a short duration position. The ECB is unlikely to need to rush rate hikes, however, given the slack in the euro zone (Chart 12), and so the spread between U.S. and core euro yields should widen further. Corporate credit spreads are unlikely to contract further but, as long as growth continues, we see U.S. high-yield bonds, in particular, providing attractive returns within the fixed-income bucket. Our bond strategists find that between the 2/10 yield curve crossing below 50 BP and its inverting, high-yield debt has since 1980 given an annualized 368 BP of excess return.1 Chart 11Fed Expectations Drive Long Rates Chart 12Still Plenty Of Slack In The Euro Zone Equities: Our preference remains for developed equities over emerging, and for more cyclical, higher-beta markets such as euro zone and Japan. The risk of a stronger yen over the coming months is a concern for Japanese equities in local currency terms but, as our recommendations are expressed in U.S. dollars, the currency effect cancels out, and so we keep our overweight for now. At this stage of the cycle our preference is for value stocks (especially financials) over growth stocks (especially IT): value/growth usually performs in line with cyclicals/defensives, but the relationship has moved out of sync in the past year or so (Chart 13), mostly because of the performance of internet stocks, whose premium valuation makes them very vulnerable to any bad news. Currencies: A widening of interest-rate differentials between the U.S. and euro zone is likely to push down the euro against the U.S. dollar over the next few months, especially given how crowded the long-euro trade has become. The vulnerability of EM currencies to rising U.S. rates has been seen in the past few weeks, with sharp falls in currencies such as the Turkish lira, Brazilian real, and Russian ruble. We expect this to continue. Overall, we expect a moderate appreciation of the trade-weighted U.S. dollar over the next 12 months. Commodities: The crude oil price continues to rise in line with our forecasts, and we expect to see Brent crude above $80 a barrel before the end of the year. The price next year will depend on whether the OPEC agreement is extended, and how much U.S. shale oil production reacts to the higher price. On the assumption of a moderate increase in supply from both OPEC and the U.S., the crude price is likely to fall back moderately in 2019. We see the long-term equilibrium crude price in the $55-65 range, the level where global supply can be increased enough to satisfy around 1.5% annual growth in demand. We remain more cautious on industrial commodities, and see the first signs coming through of a slowdown in China, which will dent demand (Chart 14). Chart 13Value Stocks Look Attractive Chart 14Signs Of China Slowing Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt," dated 24 April, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation
Highlights Bond Bear Market: TIPS breakeven inflation rates are still below target, and this gives us high conviction that Treasury yields will increase on a cyclical horizon. If we assume that the equilibrium fed funds rate is approximately 3%, then the cyclical peak for the 10-year Treasury yield will likely occur between 3.35% and 3.52%. Interest Sensitive Spending: The robust performance of the cyclical sectors of the economy suggests that monetary policy remains accommodative. When growth in these interest rate-sensitive sectors starts to slow it will be a good signal that we are approaching the cyclical peak in Treasury yields. Bond Yields & Gold: A breakout to a significantly higher gold price could signal that the equilibrium fed funds rate needs to be revised up, suggesting a much higher cyclical peak for Treasury yields. Feature Chart 1The Bear Is Back After a brief pause in March, the cyclical bond bear market has resumed. The 10-year Treasury yield even briefly broke above 3% last week, with its 27 basis point rise off the early-April lows evenly split between the compensation for inflation protection and the 10-year real yield (Chart 1). To mark the occasion of the 10-year Treasury yield breaking above 3% for the first time since early 2014, this week we update our roadmap for the Two-Stage Cyclical Bond Bear Market, which we first outlined in late February.1 Specifically, we consider the questions of where the 10-year Treasury yield might be by the end of this year, and where it might ultimately peak for the cycle. On the second question we think bond investors can glean important information from trends in the price of gold. Tracking The Two-Stage Bear Market In our report from February we described how the cyclical Treasury bear market will proceed in two stages. The first stage is characterized by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations. Stage 1: The Re-Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently sit at 2.17% and 2.25%, respectively. Historically, when core inflation is well anchored around the Fed's target, both of those breakeven rates have traded in a range between 2.3% and 2.5% (Chart 2). This means that nominal Treasury yields still have room to rise as the market prices in a more realistic outlook for inflation. That could happen sooner rather than later. Core PCE inflation increased 0.15% in March, causing the 12-month rate of change to jump from 1.57% to 1.88% (Chart 2, bottom panel). Meanwhile, the annualized 3-month and 6-month rates of change remain well above the Fed's 2% target. Looking further out, we see inflationary pressures continuing to build in the U.S. economy. The employment data now clearly show very little slack in the labor market, and this appears to be finally filtering through to wages. The Employment Cost Index for Wages & Salaries rose 0.9% in the first quarter, its largest quarterly increase since 2007. The year-over-year growth rate in the index moved up to 2.7%, from 2.6% in Q4, and is right in line with its predicted value based on the prime age employment-to-population ratio (Chart 3).2 Chart 2Stage 1 Almost Complete Chart 3Faster Wage Growth Ahead As long as TIPS breakeven inflation rates remain below our target range we have high conviction that Treasury yields will increase, driven by a re-anchoring of inflation expectations. Once our TIPS breakeven target is met, the cyclical bond bear market will transition to stage two. Stage 2: The Terminal Fed Funds Rate After inflation expectations are re-anchored around the Fed's target, the most important question for bond investors becomes: How high will the Fed need to lift the policy rate to keep inflation from moving well above target? Or alternatively: What is the terminal (or peak) fed funds rate for this cycle (see Box)? Box: The Terminal Fed Funds Rate & The Equilibrium Fed Funds Rate Please note that in this report we refer to two separate, though related, concepts. We define the terminal fed funds rate as the peak fed funds rate for the business cycle. We also define the equilibrium fed funds rate as the fed funds rate that is consistent with neither an accommodative nor a restrictive monetary policy. The terminal fed funds rate is almost certainly higher than the equilibrium fed funds rate because monetary policy will likely turn restrictive before the end of the economic cycle. Chart 4Treasury Yield Models We can show why this question is so important using a simple model of Treasury yields based on expectations for changes in the fed funds rate and the MOVE index of implied rate volatility. The latter is a proxy for the term premium embedded in Treasury yields (Chart 4). For example, if we assume that the equilibrium fed funds rate - the rate consistent with neither accommodative nor restrictive monetary policy - is approximately 3%, and that by the end of this year the yield curve will price in a return to neutral monetary policy by the end of 2019. That would be consistent with a 10-year Treasury yield between 3.03% and 3.19% by the end of this year, assuming also that the MOVE index ranges between its current level and its historical low. This result can be seen in Table 1 by looking at the rows consistent with three rate hikes in 2018 and a 12-month discounter of 75 bps by year end. We could also assume that the equilibrium fed funds rate is 3%, but that the market will start to price in a restrictive monetary policy by the end of 2019 - i.e. a fed funds rate above its equilibrium level. That result would be consistent with a 10-year Treasury yield between 3.35% and 3.52% by the end of this year, once again assuming that the MOVE index ranges between its current level and its historical low. The bottom line is that with TIPS breakeven inflation rates still below target, we have high conviction that yields will increase on a cyclical horizon. Beyond that, if we assume that a 3% fed funds rate is roughly consistent with a neutral monetary policy stance, then we should expect the cyclical peak in the 10-year Treasury yield to be in a range between 3.35% and 3.52%. Tracking The Equilibrium Fed Funds Rate Using Nominal GDP And Gold It's worth pointing out that both examples in the prior section assumed that the MOVE index will either stay flat or decline. The reason for that assumption is that both examples assume a relatively low equilibrium fed funds rate of 3%. In other words, both examples assume that monetary policy will turn restrictive once the fed funds rate moves above 3%, causing economic growth to slow. If that assumption proves to be correct, and with the 10-year Treasury yield already close to 3%, the yield curve will undoubtedly flatten as the fed funds rate is raised. A flatter yield curve is highly correlated with lower implied rate volatility. In order for implied rate volatility to move meaningfully higher, and for us to see a much higher 10-year Treasury yield (as is shown in the bottom third of Table 1), the market will need to start discounting a higher equilibrium fed funds rate. Put differently, investors would have to believe that the fed funds rate necessary to slow economic growth and inflation is much higher than 3%. It is only in that scenario that the cyclical peak for the 10-year Treasury yield will significantly exceed the 3.35% to 3.52% range posited in the prior section. Table 1Treasury Yield Projections Under Different Scenarios But how can we decide whether or not the equilibrium fed funds rate is higher than 3%? One imperfect way is to simply track economic growth and look for signs that it is about to slow. Cyclical Nominal GDP Growth Chart 5 shows that one good signal of a recession is when nominal GDP growth falls below the fed funds rate. While this is a fairly reliable recession indicator, it is not always a good method for determining when monetary policy turns restrictive. For example, prior to the last recession nominal GDP growth started to wane when it was still far above the level of the fed funds rate. If we had been waiting for the fed funds rate to exceed nominal GDP growth we would have missed the inflection point toward slower growth. The method worked better prior to the 1990 recession when the fed funds rate was lifted above the pace of nominal GDP growth while the latter was still accelerating. That configuration gave a much clearer real-time signal of restrictive monetary policy. Chart 5Cyclical Spending Suggests That Monetary Policy Remains Accommodative A more refined version of this approach is to track only the cyclical sectors of the economy - those sectors that are most sensitive to interest rates. Growth in those sectors - consumer spending on durable goods, residential investment and nonresidential investment for equipment and software - tends to deteriorate prior to major downturns in overall nominal GDP (Chart 5, bottom panel). This method gives us a slightly earlier warning that monetary policy has turned restrictive. On that note, we observe that while cyclical spending as a percent of overall GDP is still in an uptrend, its rate of increase has declined during the past few quarters (Chart 6). This is mostly due to somewhat weaker consumer spending on durables. But we doubt that cyclical spending is in danger of rolling over any time soon. Chart 7 shows that the fundamentals underpinning the key cyclical sectors of the economy remain robust: Consumer sentiment is elevated compared to history, and income growth has started to move higher (Chart 7, top panel). The latter will be helped along by recently enacted tax cuts during the next few months. New orders for core durable goods already display solid growth, and survey indicators give no signal of imminent deterioration (Chart 7, panel 2). On residential investment, homebuilder confidence is near historical highs (Chart 7, panel 3), while mortgage purchase applications so far seem immune from the effects of higher interest rates (Chart 7, bottom panel). Chart 6Cyclical Spending Still Rising... Chart 7...And Fundamentals Remain Sound At the moment, this analysis tells us that monetary policy is probably still accommodative. Once the cyclical sectors of the economy start to slow, that will give us a signal that monetary policy is restrictive and that we are probably near the cyclical peak in Treasury yields. Inflation, Uncertainty And The Price Of Gold But is there another method we can use to track the equilibrium fed funds rate and the stance of monetary policy in real time? We think there is, and it relates to investors' perceptions of inflationary pressures in the economy. First, we recognize that when inflationary pressures are higher, the equilibrium fed funds rate is also higher. In other words, the Fed needs to lift rates further before monetary policy becomes restrictive and inflation starts to flag. This intuition is confirmed by the historical relationship between long-run inflation forecasts and the short-term interest rate (Chart 8). More interestingly, we also observe that uncertainty about the long-run inflation forecast is positively related to implied interest rate volatility, the slope of the yield curve and the price of gold (Chart 9). Once again, this is intuitive. If investors are more uncertain about the long-run inflation outlook they will demand a greater risk premium to bear inflation risk in the long-run, thus driving long-dated bond yields higher. Chart 8Inflation Forecasts &##br## Interest Rates Chart 9Inflation Uncertainty Drives##br## The Term Premium The gold price is positively correlated with inflation uncertainty because gold is in many ways the "anti-Fed" asset. Since it is perceived to be a long-run store of value, investors will bid up the gold price whenever there is a heightened risk that the Fed might "fall behind the curve" allowing inflation to overshoot its target. Conversely, the gold price tends to fall when the perception is that the Fed is "ahead of the curve" and is maintaining an overly restrictive monetary policy. Chart 10Gold Has Led The Fed This is why bond investors would be wise to heed the signal from gold. A sharply rising gold price signals that the fed funds rate is running further below its equilibrium level. This could occur because the Fed is cutting rates to levels that the market deems too low. Or, it could occur because the market now believes that the equilibrium fed funds rate is higher. A sharply falling gold price gives the exact opposite signal. It tells us that either the Fed is lifting the funds rate too far above equilibrium, or that the market is revising down its assessment of the equilibrium rate. This chain of events played out before our eyes during the past few years. The gold price started to fall sharply in early 2013, and continued its decline until late 2015 (Chart 10). A signal that investors were discounting a more restrictive monetary policy stance during that timeframe. But the Fed was not lifting rates during that period. In fact, with hindsight it now seems obvious that the gold price was falling because the market was revising down its assessment of the equilibrium fed funds rate. Investors should also note that the falling gold price signaled a lower equilibrium fed funds rate well before the Fed started to revise down its median forecast for the interest rate that is expected to prevail in the "longer run".3 Tracking the price of gold would have given us a much timelier signal than waiting for the Fed. Chart 10 also shows that the gold price has rebounded since early 2016, but has been confined to a trading range during the past few months. Not coincidentally, this rebound has coincided with the Fed ceasing the downward revisions to its estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. Going forward, we think that bond investors would be wise to closely track the price of gold. A significant move higher in the gold price would be a strong signal that the Fed is not tightening policy quickly enough to contain inflationary pressures. In other words, it would signal that the equilibrium fed funds rate should be revised higher. This would drive up implied interest rate volatility, apply steepening pressure to the yield curve, and lead to a higher end-of-cycle target for the 10-year Treasury yield. Bottom Line: The robust performance of the cyclical sectors of the economy suggests that monetary policy remains accommodative. When growth in these interest rate-sensitive sectors starts to slow it will be a good signal that we are approaching the cyclical peak in Treasury yields. Bond investors should also track the price of gold. A breakout to a significantly higher gold price could signal that the equilibrium fed funds rate needs to be revised up, suggesting a much higher cyclical peak for Treasury yields. 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, 208, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 In a recent report we showed that nonfarm payrolls need to increase by 110k or more per month to drive the prime age employment-to-population rate higher, leading to faster wage growth. For further details please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Review", dated April 10, 018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 The Fed's projection of the interest rate expected to prevail in the "longer run" is essentially its estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Reviving global machinery end-demand alongside a global capex upcycle, are the key pillars of our high-conviction overweight call in the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck index. The current macro backdrop is unforgiving for defensive insurance stocks. Leading indicators of pricing power warn that softening prices coupled with expanding headcount will weigh on insurance profits in the coming quarters. Recent Changes There are no changes to our portfolio this week. Table 1 Feature Equities moved laterally last week and continued to consolidate the early-February tremor, unimpressed by better than expected profit growth across the board. The SPX has been oscillating in a 10% range over the past three months and has been a trader's (and bank's) paradise. There are high odds that this trading range will stay in place and the market will churn until the summer before breaking out (Chart 1). Chart 1Breakout Looming? Nevertheless, the anemic equity market response to solid earnings is slightly unnerving. Soft EPS guidance and perky input cost inflation are two thorny issues revealed this earnings season. With that in mind, we have identified three key brewing equity market headwinds: EPS growth deceleration toward 10%. Rising interest rates. U.S. dollar reflex rebound. Chart 2Monitoring The Correlation 20% profit growth is this cycle's peak rate, and we have been flagging in recent research1 that, beneath the surface, investors are slowly starting to revise expectations lower toward the 10% growth projection for calendar 2019 EPS. Simultaneously, interest rates continue their ascent and may cause some consternation in stocks. Not only does a higher discount rate weigh on valuations, but also the Fed's tightening cycle will eventually slam the brakes on the economy, with housing and the consumer feeling the higher interest rate knock-on effects most intensely. As we highlighted recently,2 we are closely monitoring the correlation between stocks and the 10-year Treasury yield and looking out for a collapse into negative territory to signal an economic (and market) choke point (Chart 2). Finally, recent ECB and BoJ chatter of easy monetary policies for as far as the eye can see, may have put a floor on the greenback, at least temporarily, with the Fed going it alone and lifting the fed funds rate into 2019 and beyond. While all three headwinds suggest that the market may have trouble breaking out of its funk in the next few months, on a cyclical 9-12 month horizon we remain upbeat on equity return prospects. Any U.S. dollar advance is likely a bear market rally and will take time to filter negatively through to earnings. Rising interest rates are also a consequence of higher economic growth which is a positive, i.e. real rates are rising alongside inflation expectations. And, if the SPX attains 10% EPS growth in 2019 as we expect, that is an above trend EPS growth rate and twice as high as nominal GDP growth, an impressive feat at this stage of the cycle. This week we are updating our SPX target to 3,200. We first came up with our SPX end-of-cycle target last July using three different methods:3 a traditional dividend discount model (DDM), EPS and multiple sensitivity analysis and forward equilibrium equity risk premium (ERP) analysis. As a reminder, this 3,200 SPX level is a peak number before the next recession hits and Table 2 summarizes our updated results (if you would like to receive the excel spreadsheet with the three models so you can tweak our inputs/assumptions please click here). In our DDM, our discount rate assumptions remain intact and very conservative. We use an up-to-date annual dividend per share number and back out dividends in U.S. dollars via the updated SPX divisor and make a conservative assumption of no buybacks in the coming years. The recession-related 10% dividend cut has moved to 2020, in line with BCA's view. Finally, we rolled over our estimates to 2023 resulting in a roughly 3,200 SPX peak value estimate. Our EPS and multiple sensitivity analysis starting point is $191 EPS in 2020 (this is in line with the sell-side bottom up estimate according to IBES data) and a 16.5 multiple. That equates to an SPX ending value of near 3200. Table 2SPX Target Using Three Different Methods With regard to the ERP analysis (Chart 3), our forward ERP equilibrium remains at 200bps. 2020 EPS come in at $191, and we also pencil in 100bps selloff in the bond market, resulting in an SPX 3,200 estimate. Chart 3ERP Has Room To Fall This week we are updating a high-conviction overweight call in a deep cyclical index, and reiterate a below benchmark allocation in a financials sub-index. The CAT Is Roaring, Is The Market Listening? Early last October we upgraded the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck (CMHT) index to overweight, and two months later we added it to the high-conviction overweight call list. On January 29th, right after the broad market hit its all-time highs, we managed to book impressive 10% relative gains as we introduced a risk management tool and instituted trailing stops to the high-conviction calls that cleared the 10% relative return mark. Subsequently, we reinstated the S&P CMHT index to the high-conviction overweight call list, at a deflated price point, as our constructive cyclical backdrop never wavered. Currently, our thesis remains intact: reviving global machinery end-demand alongside a global capex upcycle are a harbinger of sustained profit outperformance. While some leading indicators of global growth have recently crested, global output will remain brisk and above trend. When global growth is expanding, machinery demand typically demonstrates its high beta characteristics. Our global machinery exports proxy is firing on all cylinders rising to multi-year highs and sell side analysts have taken notice: S&P CMHT net earnings revisions are as good as they get (bottom panel, Chart 4). Encouragingly, the softening dollar suggests that U.S. exports have the upper hand and are grabbing market share. BCA's global machinery new orders proxy corroborates the trade data and underscores that machinery profits will overwhelm (middle panel, Chart 4). Dissecting global machinery demand is revealing. Importantly, previously moribund Chinese loan demand has reversed course and is now gaining traction. Tack on the recent steep fall in interest rates and factors are falling into place for a durable pick up in Chinese machinery consumption. Indeed, hypersensitive Chinese excavator sales continue to expand at a breakneck pace (Chart 5). Elsewhere in Asia, highly-cyclical Japanese machine tool orders likewise defy gravity vaulting to fresh all-time highs (Chart 5). The commodity complex also confirms the enticing global machinery end-demand backdrop. The broad commodity index in general and crude oil prices in particular have been reaccelerating of late. The energy space is a key end-customer for the machinery industry and $75/bbl global oil prices have reignited a fresh drilling cycle (Chart 6). Chart 4Global Machinery End-Demand Is Upbeat... Chart 5...And Asia Is Leading The Pack Chart 6Commodities Give The All Clear Sign Even the U.S. machinery demand backdrop is vibrant. The V-shaped recovery in U.S. machinery order books remains intact. Fiscal easing is reviving animal spirits and CEOs are voting with their feet: overall capital outlays are rising at a healthy clip, positively contributing to GDP growth, with machinery fixed capital formation growth recently clearing the 20%/annum hurdle (Chart 7). Capex intentions according to the regional Fed surveys are also holding near recent cyclical highs, and were Congress to pass an infrastructure bill that would be an additional boon to machinery top and bottom line growth (Chart 7). On the domestic operating front, machinery factories are humming and given that capacity is contracting, the industry is regaining its pricing power footing (Chart 8). The upshot is that this high-operating leverage industry should continue to enjoy outsized profit gains. Chart 7Even U.S. Machinery Demand Is Firming Chart 8Operating Metrics Flashing Green Nevertheless, there are two key risks to our otherwise bullish machinery thesis that we are closely monitoring. First, input costs are on the rise both in terms of labor and raw commodities (bottom panel, Chart 9). If the industry fails to pass this input cost inflation down the supply chain, then a margin squeeze is likely. Second, and most importantly, a hard landing in China would put our constructive machinery view offside, but we assign low odds to a gap down in Chinese economic activity (middle panel, Chart 9). Finally, given the recent consolidation phase, the S&P CMHT index has a valuation cushion as per the neutral reading in our relative valuation indicator. Similarly overbought conditions have been worked out and our technical indicator is also hovering near the neutral zone offering a compelling entry point to commit fresh capital (Chart 10). Chart 9Two Risks To Bullish View Chart 10Compelling Entry Point Bottom Line: We reiterate our high-conviction overweight call in the S&P construction machinery & heavy truck index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CSTF - CAT, CMI, PCAR. Insurance Expiry Notice While we continue to recommend a core portfolio overweight in the S&P financials index via the banks (high-conviction), asset managers and investment banks sub-indexes, the S&P insurance index remains our sole underweight. Unlike its financials brethren, the insurance industry is defensive rather than cyclical and thrives when the economy is slowing. Fairly stable, recurring and, most of the time, predictable revenue streams are sought after attributes when economic growth is scarce. Currently, the U.S. and global economies are expanding above trend, the global capex upcycle is running at full steam and CEOs and consumers alike exude confidence. Under such a backdrop, investors have historically avoided insurance equities. Chart 11 drives this point home. Over the past four decades the greenback and relative share prices have been positively correlated. The U.S. dollar peaked in December 2016 and since then it has been goosing global output, and simultaneously weighing on insurance stocks. Similarly, a rising 10-year Treasury yield reflecting improving economic growth also anchors insurance stocks (10-year Treasury yield shown inverted, Chart 12). While higher interest rates are positive for investment portfolio income, they also imply mark-to-market losses on bond portfolios. Higher interest rates also incent insurers to underwrite at a faster pace with more lenient standards, which is often a precursor to increased competition and diminishing pricing power, eventually sapping profits. Chart 11Insurance Is Defensive Chart 12Higher Yields Hurt More Than Help On the pricing front, there seems to be a bifurcated market. Auto insurance pricing is hardening, but home insurance is moving in the opposite direction (Chart 13). The slingshot recovery in auto loans versus residential real estate loans partially explains the big delta in pricing as subprime auto loans excesses have, at the margin, boosted new and used vehicle sales. This is not sustainable and there are high odds that this extra demand will level off in the coming months as the subprime auto credit screws inevitably tighten, eventually dampening car insurance prices. Worrisomely, the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer Survey revealed that not only is demand for auto loans waning, but also bankers are no longer willing extenders of auto related credit. Taken together, momentum in housing and auto sales is nil, warning that insurance top line growth will trail the broad market (Chart 14). Unsurprisingly, relative consumer outlays on insurance remain moribund, and a far cry from the previous cyclical peak, warning that it is premature to expect a valuation re-rating (second panel, Chart 15). Chart 13Margin Trouble? Chart 14Softening Demand Chart 15Insurance Indicator Message: Shy Away With regard to input costs, insurance labor additions continue unabated, trumping overall non-farm payrolls and the broad financial services industry since the GFC trough. Our insurance wage bill proxy is closing in on 4%/annum (bottom panel, Chart 13), warning that a margin squeeze looms. Our Insurance Indicator does an excellent job encapsulating all of these different signals and has recently taken a turn for the worse (third panel, Chart 15), underscoring that the path of least resistance is lower for relative share prices in the coming months. Bottom Line: We reiterate our underweight stance in the S&P insurance index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5INSU - AIG, CB, MET, MMC, PRU, TRV, AFL, AON, ALL, PGR, WLTW, HIG, PFG, L, CINF, LNC, XL, AJG, UNM, TMK, AIZ, RE, BHF. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Bumpier Ride," dated March 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Reflective Or Restrictive?" dated March 12, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "SPX 3,000?" dated July 10, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Stay neutral small over large caps (downgrade alert)
Highlights Global equities are poised for a "blow-off" rally over the next 12-to-18 months. Long-term return prospects, however, are poor. The final innings of the 1991-2001 economic expansion saw a violent rotation in favor of value stocks and euro area equities. We expect history to repeat itself. After sagging by as much as 7% in the second half of 1998 and going nowhere in 1999, the dollar rose by 13% between January 2000 and February 2002. The greenback today is similarly ripe for a second wind. The correlation between the dollar and oil prices was fairly weak in the late 1990s. The correlation is likely to weaken again now that U.S. crude imports have fallen by about 70% from their 2006 highs thanks to the shale boom. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield peaked at 6.79% in January 2000. Thus far, there is scant evidence that the recent increase in bond yields is having a major effect on either U.S. capital spending or housing demand. This suggests yields can go higher before they enter restrictive territory. Feature Learning From The Past The theme of this year's BCA annual Investment Conference - which will be held in Toronto in September and will feature a keynote address by Janet L. Yellen - is, appropriately enough, entitled "Investing In A Late-Cycle Economy."1 In the spirit of our conference, this week's report looks back at the market environment at the tail end of the 1991-2001 expansion in order to distill some lessons for today. The mid-to-late 1990s was a tale of contrasts. The U.S. was thriving, spurred on by accelerating productivity growth, falling inflation, and a massive corporate capex boom. Southern Europe was also doing well, aided by falling interest rates and optimism about the coming introduction of the euro. On the flipside, Germany - dubbed by many pundits at the time as the sick man of Europe - was still coping with the hangover from reunification. Japan was mired in deflation. Emerging markets were melting down, starting with the Mexican peso crisis in late 1994, followed by the Asian crisis, and finally the Russian default. In the financial world, the following points are worth highlighting (Chart 1): Chart 1AFinancial Markets In The Late 1990s (I) Chart 1BFinancial Markets In The Late 1990s (II) Russia's default and the implosion of Long-term Capital Management (LTCM) led to a gut-wrenching 22% decline in the S&P 500 in the late summer and early fall of 1998. This was followed by a colossal 68% blow-off rally over the subsequent 18 months. The collapse of LTCM marked the low point for EM assets for the cycle. The combination of cheap currencies, rising commodity prices, and a newfound resolve to enact structural reforms paved the way for a major EM boom over the following decade. The VIX and credit spreads trended upwards during the late 1990s, even as U.S. stocks climbed higher. Rising equity volatility and wider spreads were partly a reaction to problems abroad. However, they also reflected the deterioration in U.S. corporate health and heightened fears that stock market valuations had reached unsustainable levels. The U.S. stock market peaked in March 2000. However, that was only because the tech bubble burst. Outside of the technology sector, the S&P 500 actually increased by 9.2% between March 2000 and May 2001. Value stocks finally began to outperform growth stocks in 2000, joining small caps, which had begun to outperform a year earlier. European equities also surged towards the end of the bull market, outpacing the U.S. by 34% in local-currency terms and 21% in dollar terms between July 1999 and March 2000. The strong U.S. economy during the late 1990s ushered in a prolonged period of dollar appreciation that lasted until February 2002. That said, the greenback did not rise in a straight line. The dollar fell by as much as 7% in the second half of 1998 as the Fed cut rates in response to the LTCM crisis. It went sideways in 1999 before resuming its upward trend in early 2000. The correlation between the dollar and oil prices was much weaker in the 1990s compared to the first 15 years of the new millennium. After falling from a high of 6.98% in April 1997 to 4.16% in October 1998, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield rose to 6.79% in January 2000. The Fed would keep raising rates until May of that year. The recession began in March 2001. Now And Then Just as in the tail end of the 1990s expansion, the global economy is doing reasonably well these days. Growth has cooled over the past few months, but should remain comfortably above trend for the remainder of the year. After struggling in 2014-16, Emerging Markets are on the mend, thanks in part to the rebound in commodity prices. During the 1990s cycle, the U.S. was the first major economy to reach full employment. The same is true today. The headline unemployment rate has fallen to 4.1%, just shy of the 2000 low of 3.8%. The share of the working-age population out of the labor market but wanting a job is back to pre-recession levels. The same goes for the share of unemployed workers who have quit - rather than lost - their jobs (Chart 2). One key difference concerns fiscal policy. The U.S. federal budget was in great shape in 2000. The same cannot be said today. Chart 3 shows that the fiscal deficit currently stands at 3.5% of GDP. The deficit is on track to deteriorate to 4.9% of GDP in 2021 even if growth remains strong. Federal government debt held by the public is also set to rise to 83.1% of GDP in 2021, up from 33.6% of GDP in 2000. Unlike in the past, the U.S. government will have less scope to ease fiscal policy when the next recession rolls around. Chart 2An Economy At Full Employment Chart 3The U.S. Budget Deficit Is Set To Widen Even If The Unemployment Rate Continues To Decline Further Upside For Global Bond Yields Deleveraging headwinds, excess spare capacity, slow potential GDP growth, and chronically low inflation have all conspired to keep a lid on global bond yields. That is starting to change. Credit growth has accelerated, while output gaps have shrunk. The structural outlook for productivity growth is weaker than it was in the 1990s, but a cyclical pickup is likely given the recent recovery in capital spending. Chart 4 shows that there is a reasonably strong correlation between business capex and productivity growth. On the inflation side, the 3-month annualized change in U.S. core CPI and core PCE has reached 2.9% and 2.8%, respectively. The prices paid component of the ISM manufacturing index hit a seven-year high in March. The New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge has zoomed to 3.1% (Chart 5). The market has been slow to price in the prospect of higher U.S. inflation (Chart 6). The TIPS 10-year breakeven rate is still roughly 20 bps below where it traded in the pre-recession period, even though the unemployment rate is lower now than at any point during that cycle. As long-term inflation expectations reset higher, bond yields will rise. Higher inflation expectations will also push up the term premium, which remains in negative territory. Chart 4Pickup In Capex Brightens ##br##The Cyclical Productivity Outlook Chart 5Inflation##br## Is Coming... Chart 6...Which Could Take ##br##Bond Yields Higher The upward pressure on yields could be amplified if the market revises up its assessment of the terminal real rate. Perhaps in a nod to what is to come, the Fed revised its terminal fed funds projection from 2.8% to 2.9% in the March 2018 Summary of Economic Projections. However, this is still well below the median estimate of 4.3% shown in the inaugural dot plot in January 2012. The U.S. Economy Is Not Yet Succumbing To Higher Rates For now, there is little evidence that higher rates are having a major negative effect on the economy. Business capital spending has decelerated recently, but that appears to be a global phenomenon. Capex has weakened even more in Japan, where yields have barely moved. In any case, the slowdown in U.S. investment spending has been fairly modest. Core capital goods orders disappointed in March, but are still up 7% year-over-year. Likewise, while our capex intention survey indicator has ticked lower, it remains well above its historic average. And despite elevated corporate debt levels, high-yield credit spreads are subdued and banks continue to ease lending standards for commercial and industrial loans (Chart 7). In the household realm, delinquency rates are rising and lending standards are tightening for auto and credit card loans. However, this has more to do with excessively strong lending growth over the preceding few years than with higher interest rates. Particularly in the case of credit card lending, even large movements in the fed funds rate tend to translate into only modest percent changes in debt service payments because of the large spreads that lenders charge on unsecured loans. The financial obligation ratio - a measure of the debt service burden for the average household - is rising but is still close to the lowest levels in three decades. Mortgage debt, which accounts for about two-thirds of all household credit, is near a 16-year low as a share of disposable income (Chart 8). As Ed Leamer perceptively argued in his 2007 Jackson Hole address entitled "Housing Is The Business Cycle," housing is the main avenue by which monetary policy affects the real economy.2 Similar to business capital spending, while the housing data has leveled off to some extent, it still looks pretty good: Building permits and housing starts continue to rise. New and existing home sales rebounded in March. Home prices have accelerated. The S&P/Case Shiller Home Price Index saw its strongest month-over-month gain in February since 2005. The MBA Mortgage Applications Purchase Index is up 11% year-over-year. The percentage of households looking to buy a home in the next six months is at a cycle high. Homebuilder sentiment has dipped slightly, but it remains at rock-solid levels (Chart 9). Chart 7Capital Spending ##br##Still Quite Robust Chart 8Household Debt Load And Financial Obligations##br## Are At Pre-Housing Bubble Levels Chart 9The Housing Sector##br## Is Doing Fine Fixed-Income: Hedged Or Unhedged? Bond positioning is quite short, so a temporary dip in yields is probable. However, investors should expect bond yields to rise more than is currently discounted over the next 12 months. BCA's fixed income strategists favor cyclically underweighting the U.S., Canada, and core Europe, while overweighting Australia, the U.K., and Japan in currency-hedged terms. Table 1 shows that the hedged yield on U.S. 10-year Treasurys is only 20 bps in EUR terms, and 38 bps in yen terms. Table 1Global Bond Yields: Hedged And Unhedged The low level of hedged U.S. yields today means that Treasurys are unlikely to enjoy the same inflows as in the past from overseas investors. This could push yields higher than they otherwise would go. To gain the significant yield advantage that U.S. government debt now commands, investors would need to go long Treasurys on a currency-unhedged basis. For long-term investors, this is a tantalizing investment. The current spread between 30-year Treasurys and German bunds stands at 192 bps. The euro would have to appreciate to 2.15 against the dollar for buy-and-hold investors to lose money by going long Treasurys relative to bunds.3 Such an overshoot of the euro is unlikely to occur, especially since the structural problems haunting Europe are no less daunting than those facing the United States. A Pop In The Dollar? Admittedly, the near-term success of a strategy that buys Treasurys, currency-unhedged, will hinge on what happens to the dollar. As occurred at the turn of the millennium, the dollar could find a bid as the Fed is forced to raise rates more aggressively than the market is pricing in. In this regard, large-scale U.S. fiscal stimulus, while arguably bearish for the dollar over the long haul, could be bullish for the dollar in the near term. My colleague Jennifer Lacombe has observed that flows into U.S.-listed European equity ETFs, such as those offered by iShares (EZU) and Vanguard (VGK), have reliably led the euro-dollar exchange rate by about six months (Chart 10).4 Recent outflows from these funds augur poorly for the euro. Rising hedging costs could also prompt more investors to buy U.S. fixed-income assets currency-unhedged, which would raise the demand for dollars (Chart 11).5 Chart 10ETF Flows Point To Lower EUR/USD Chart 11The Dollar Could Bounce The Oil-Dollar Correlation May Be Weakening Investors are accustomed to thinking that the dollar tends to be inversely correlated with oil prices. That relationship has not always been in place. Brent bottomed at just over $9/bbl in December 1998. Crude prices tripled over the subsequent 20 months. The broad trade-weighted dollar actually rose by 5% over that period. The dollar has strengthened by 2.8% since hitting a low on September 8, 2017, while Brent has gained 37% over this period. This breakdown in the dollar-oil correlation harkens back to late 2016: Brent rose by 26% between the U.S. presidential election and the end of that year. The dollar appreciated by 4% during those months. We are not ready to abandon the view that a stronger dollar is generally bad news for oil prices. However, the relationship between the two variables seems to be fading. Chart 12 shows that the two-year rolling correlation coefficient of monthly returns for Brent crude and the broad trade-weighted dollar has weakened in recent years. Chart 12The Negative Dollar-Oil Correlation Has Weakened This is not too surprising. Thanks to the shale boom, U.S. oil imports have fallen by about 70% since 2006 (Chart 13). This has made the U.S. trade balance less sensitive to changes in oil prices. The recent surge in oil prices has also been strengthened by OPEC 2.0's decision to reduce the supply of crude hitting the market, ongoing turmoil in Venezuela, and the possibility that Iranian sanctions could take 0.3-0.8 million barrels a day off the market. A reduction in oil supply is bad for global growth at the margin. However, weaker global growth is good for the dollar (Chart 14). OPEC's production cuts also increase the scope for U.S. shale producers to gain global market share over the long haul, which should help the greenback. As such, while a modestly strong dollar over the remainder of the year will be a headwind for oil, it may not be a strong enough impediment to prevent Brent from rising another $6/bbl to reach $80/bbl, as per our commodity team's projections. Chart 13U.S. Oil Imports ##br##Have Collapsed Chart 14Slowing Global Growth Tends##br## To Be Bullish For The Dollar The Outlook For Equities Following the script of the late 1990s, stock market volatility has risen this year, as investors have begun to fret about the durability of the nine year-old equity bull market. Valuations are not as extreme as they were in 2000, but they are far from cheap. The Shiller P/E for U.S. stocks stands at 31, consistent with total nominal returns of only 4% over the next decade (Chart 15). On a price-to-sales basis, U.S. stocks have surpassed their 2000 peak (Chart 16). Such a rich multiple to sales can be justified if profit margins stay elevated, but that is far from a sure thing. Yes, the composition of the stock market has shifted towards sectors such as technology, which have traditionally enjoyed high margins. The explosion of winner-take-all markets has also allowed the most successful companies to dominate the stock market indices, while second-tier companies get pushed to the sidelines (Chart 17). Chart 15Long-Term Investors, Take Note Chart 16U.S. Stocks Are Pricey Chart 17Only The Best Nevertheless, there continues to be a strong relationship between economy-wide profits and the ratio of selling prices-to-unit labor costs (Chart 18). The latest data suggest that U.S. wage growth has picked up in the first quarter (Table 2). Low-skilled workers, whose wages tend to be better correlated with economic slack than those of high-skilled workers, are finally seeing sizable gains. Chart 18U.S. Profit Margins Could Resume Mean-Reverting... Table 2...If Wage Growth Continues Accelerating Even if productivity growth accelerates, unit labor costs are likely to rise faster than prices, pushing profit margins for many companies lower. Bottom-up analysts expect annual EPS growth to average more than 15% over the next five years, a level of optimism not seen since 1998 (Chart 19). The bar for positive surprises on the earnings front is getting increasingly high. Go For Value Historically, stocks tend not to peak until about six months before the start of a recession. Given our expectation that the next recession will occur in 2020, global equities could still enjoy a blow-off rally after the current shakeout exhausts itself. But when the music stops, the stock market is heading for a mighty fall. Given today's lofty valuations and the uncertainty about the precise timing of the next recession, we would certainly not fault long-term investors for taking some money off the table. For those who feel compelled to stay fully invested, our advice is to shift allocations towards cheaper alternatives. Value stocks have massively underperformed growth stocks for the past 11 years (Chart 20). Today, value trades at a greater-than-normal discount to growth. Earnings revisions are moving in favor of value names. Just like at the turn of the millennium, it may be value's turn to shine. Chart 19The Bar For Positive Earnings Surprises Has Risen Chart 20Value Stocks: An Attractive Proposition Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 For more information about our Investment Conference, please click here or contact your account manager. 2 Edward E. Leamer, "Housing Is The Business Cycle," Proceedings, Economic Policy Symposium, Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, (2007). 3 To arrive at this number, we multiply the current exchange rate by the degree to which EUR/USD would have to strengthen, on average, every year for the next 30 years in order to nullify the carry advantage of holding Treasurys over bunds. Thus, 1.217*(1.0192)^30=2.15. Granted, investors expect inflation to be about 45 bps lower in the euro area than in the U.S. over the next three decades. However, this would only lift the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) value of EUR/USD from its current level of 1.32 to 1.51. This would still leave the euro 42% overvalued. 4 Please see Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Do ETF Flows Lead Currencies?" dated April 18, 2018. 5 When a foreign investor buys U.S. bonds currency-hedged, this entails two transactions. First, the investor must purchase the bond, and second, the investor must sell the dollar forward (which is similar to shorting it). The former transaction increases the demand for dollars, while the latter increases the supply of dollars. Thus, as far as the value of the dollar is concerned, it is a wash. In contrast, if foreign investors buy bonds currency-unhedged, there is no offsetting increase in the supply of dollars, and hence the dollar will tend to strengthen. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights Chart of the WeekCrude Oil Prices Align With##BR##Supply-Demand Fundamentals Hedge funds are backing up the truck to get long oil in their portfolios, putting on record or near-record positions in everything from crude oil to gasoline, as global markets tighten and OPEC 2.0 leaders hint they are comfortable with prices that are higher for longer.1 When speculators significantly increase their positions in the market - on the long or the short side - market participants, policymakers and the general public typically begin to wonder whether prices are being artificially distorted by this activity. Our research into the effects of speculation in oil markets is not raising alarm bells at present. If anything, our fundamental models indicate prices are clearing the market in line with supply, demand and inventories (Chart of the Week). We remain overweight oil, and would use sell-offs to add to existing length, including energy-heavy commodity index exposure. Energy: Overweight. Oil markets remain on edge ahead of the May 12 deadline for U.S. President Trump to extend waivers on Iranian export sanctions. If waivers are extended, markets could sell off. Base Metals: Neutral. Aluminum prices fell ~ 10% earlier in the week on news the U.S. would extend the period during which American customers of Rusal had to comply with sanctions against Oleg Deripaska, the company's principal shareholder. U.S. officials also suggested they would lift the sanctions if Deripaska relinquished control over Rusal. Precious Metals: Neutral. Our tactical long position in spot silver established a week ago is down 3.1%, along with gold. A stronger USD weighed on both markets. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Chinese importers of U.S. sorghum petitioned their government to waive the 179% deposit required by Chinese customs for cargoes on the water, according to Reuters.2 The news service also reported soybean trade between the U.S. and China has ground to a halt. Feature Hedge funds are taking their oil exposure to record or near-record highs in crude oil and refined products markets. A tally of positioning by Reuters to the week ended April 20, 2018, shows specs took net oil and products positions to 1.41 billion barrels across CME Group's crude and products futures markets and those of the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) (Chart 2).3 The reasons cited for the marked increase in speculative positioning in the oil markets have featured in our research since OPEC 2.0's formation in November 2016. These include: Restraint and erosion on the supply side. Production discipline by OPEC and non-OPEC producers has limited supply growth (Chart 3): We estimate crude oil production this year at 99.70mm b/d vs. our March estimate of 100.20mm b/d. Accelerated deterioration of Venezuelan supply has helped constrain global production growth; Chart 2Spec Open Interest Surges Chart 3OPEC 2.0 Discipline Restrains Supply Continued expansion of global demand (Chart 4). In our modeling, consumption growth for this year will be 1.70mm b/d, bringing demand to 100.30mm b/d in 2018. We expect growth for next year of 1.70mm b/d, which will take consumption to 102.00mm b/d; Together, these major fundamental drivers have combined to drain OECD commercial inventories by 395mm barrels from their peak of 3.1 billion barrels in July, 2016 (Chart 5). Chart 4Global Growth Supports Demand Chart 5OECD Inventories Will Continue Drawing As we noted last week, our price forecasts for Brent and WTI crude oil are unchanged at $74 and $70/bbl this year, and $67 and $64/bbl, respectively, next year. We expect OPEC 2.0 to provide forward guidance on its production for 2019, after member states agree on an organizational structure that institutionalizes it as a permanent production-management coalition. As we cautioned last week, this likely will cause us to revise our price forecast for 2019 upward.4 Measuring Speculative Influence In Oil Markets Oil speculators occupy a unique place in the academic literature, and the public's imagination. In the literature, academics largely see them either as bit players in the evolution of oil prices, or as traders who, by their activity, push price to levels far beyond anything justified by the fundamentals, particularly when commodity prices are rising.5 When that commodity is crude oil, and its chief refined product, gasoline - commodities with highly visible prices consumers can track continuously - everyone has an opinion. Not unsurprisingly, the media and politicians join this chorus of recrimination in rising markets, and vilify speculators as well.6 This is hardly surprising. Speculative influence over commodity prices - and the motives of speculators - has been debated for centuries.7 Chart 6Speculative Intensity (Working's T) Vs. Price In the modern era, Holbrook Working, the great Stanford ag economist, developed a speculative intensity index in 1960 to measure the effect of commodity market speculation.8 Working's T Index shows how much speculative positioning exceeds the net demand for hedging from commercial participants in the market.9 Excessive speculation - spec positioning in excess of hedging demand by commercial interests - could be read into index values above 1.0. However, the U.S. CFTC notes values of Working's T at or below 1.15 do not provide sufficient liquidity to support hedging, even though "there is an excess of speculation, technically speaking."10 We plotted Working's T for Brent and WTI futures, and find speculative positioning has ranged between 1.10 and 1.60 (Chart 6). Speculative intensity was trending upward from 2000 - 2014, and then trended lower. Since January 2018, it has averaged 1.4. We would note this latter period encompasses the OPEC market-share war launched in November 2014, and the formation of OPEC 2.0 in November 2016. This was an especially difficult market for hedge funds and speculators generally, particularly last year, when many funds were forced to shutter their operations. Over the past three years, markets have had to adjust to a production free-for-all arising from OPEC's market-share war, which was followed by a supply shock induced by OPEC 2.0, when it agreed to remove 1.80mm b/d of oil production from the market.11 Given this backdrop, it is not surprising to see speculative intensity in oil markets falling, as our chart indicates. Specs And Prices Our research shows the evolution of oil prices is dominated by fundamentals - supply, demand, inventory and broad trade-weighted USD being the dominant fundamentals - and not by spec positioning.12 In forthcoming research, we will dig deeper into this, and also look at the evolution of price volatility in the oil markets. Our analysis using Working's T indicates speculators provide sufficient liquidity to hedgers in the Brent and WTI futures markets, suggesting they are fulfilling the role posited by the IEA in its 2012 medium-term analysis: "Speculators should not be viewed as adversarial agents. Rather, they are essential participants for the proper functioning of commodity derivatives markets by providing the necessary liquidity, thereby reducing market volatility."13 Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/non-OPEC producer coalition lead by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, which pledged to remove 1.80mm b/d of production from the market. 2 Please see "China's sorghum importers ask government to drop tariff for cargoes en route," published by uk.reuters.com April 24, 2018, and "After sorghum spat, U.S. - China trade fears halt soybean imports," published April 25, 2018. 3 Please see "Commentary: Hedge fund oil bulls on the rampage as bears vanish," published by uk.reuters.com on April 23, 2018. 4 For our most recent assessment of supply-demand fundamentals, please see "Tighter Balances Make Oil Price Excursions To $80/bbl Likely," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy April 19, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5 Bookending this research are Hamilton, James D. (2009), "Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007 - 08," published by the Brookings Institution re fundamentals dominating the evolution of oil prices, and, at the other end, Singleton, Kenneth (2011), "Investor Flows and the 2008 Boom/Bust in Oil Prices," available at SSRN. 6 Please see the International Energy Agency's "Oil: Medium-Term Market Report 2012," for a discussion on speculation beginning on p. 21. 7 See, for example, the discussion of how Thales of Miletus in modern-day Turkey monopolized the olive-press market, and how another unnamed individual in Sicily cornered the iron market, in the Politics of Aristotle, a Greek philosopher of the 4th century BCE (at 1259a in Politics). 8 Working was a pioneer in the analysis of prices and agricultural trading markets. Please see Working, Holbrook (1960), "Speculation on Hedging Markets," Stanford University Food Research Institute Studies 1: 185-220. 9 We use the specification of Working's T found in Adjemian, M. K., V. G. Bruno, M. A. Robe, and J. Wallen. "What Drives Volatility Expectations in Grain Markets?" Proceedings of the NCCC-134 Conference on Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management (pp. 18, 19). Working's T is calculated as with SS = Speculative Short Open Interest, SL = Speculative Long Open Interest, HL = Hedge Long Open Interest, and HS = Hedge Short Open Interest. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) notes, "Working's T-index is silent on the direction of speculation (long versus short). Instead, the amount of speculation is gauged relative to what is needed to balance hedging positions. Because it is directionless Working's T-index is only tested as a causal variable for market volatility." Please see Irwin, S. H. and D. R. Sanders (2010), "The Impact of Index and Swap Funds on Commodity Futures Markets: Preliminary Results", OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers, No. 27. 10 Please see Irwin and Sanders (2010), p. 5. 11 We discuss the extremely difficult trading environment confronted by hedge funds and others over the past two years in our Special Report titled "Key Themes For Energy Markets in 2018," which was published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy December 7, 2017. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 12 Granger-causality tests on Brent and WTI prices between 2010 and now - the post-GFC era - show the level of prices leads spec position levels in these markets. 13 Please see (p. 22) of the IEA's 2012 Medium-term Market Report cited 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
Highlights Our base case outlook is unchanged. We do not see a recession in the U.S. before 2020, and the U.S. equity market could reward investors with high single-digit total returns this year and next. Nonetheless, the cycle is well advanced and, given current valuations, the long-term outlook for returns in the major asset classes is far less appealing. The risk/reward balance is unfavorable. Investors should therefore separate strategy from forecast. U.S. unemployment is very low and we are beginning to see hints of late-cycle inflation dynamics. Core inflation could soon be at the Fed's 2% target, which means that the FOMC will have to consider becoming outright restrictive in order to slow growth and raise the unemployment rate. The risks facing equities, EM assets and spread product will escalate at that point. The advanced stage in the cycle and our bias for capital preservation requires us to heed the recent warnings from our growth indicators and 'exit' timing checklist. The geopolitical calendar is also stacked with risk for markets over the next month at least. The implication is that we are tactically trimming risk asset exposure to benchmark. We expect to shift back to overweight once our indicators improve and/or the geopolitical tensions fade. This month we provide total return estimates for the major U.S. asset classes under our base case outlook and two alternative scenarios. We place the odds at 50% for the base case, 20% for the optimistic scenario and 30% for a recession in 2019. We also review the U.S. fiscal outlook, which is clearly unsustainable over the long-term. While we do not see a dollar crisis anytime soon, the prospect of large and sustained federal budget deficits supports the view that the dollar will continue on a long-term downtrend (although it is likely to buck the trend in the coming months). It also supports our view that the multi-decade Treasury bull market is over. U.S. consumers will not be particularly sensitive to rising borrowing rates, although there are pockets of excessive borrowing that will no doubt result in a spike in defaults in selected sectors when the next economic downturn arrives. Feature It was the summer of 2009. Risk assets were bombed out, investor sentiment was deeply depressed, business leaders were shell-shocked, the Fed was easing and some 'green shoots' of recovery were emerging. Plentiful economic slack also meant that there was a long potential runway for the economy and earnings to grow. Given that backdrop, it was appropriate to begin rebuilding risk portfolios and ride out any additional turbulence in the markets. Today's situation is almost the mirror image. The economic expansion is well advanced, there is little slack, the Fed is tightening, risk assets are expensive, and investor equity sentiment is frothy. The long-term outlook for returns in the major asset classes is underwhelming to say the least. Table I-1 updates the long-run return expectations we published in the 2018 BCA Outlook. Some technical adjustments make the numbers look a little better but, still, a balanced portfolio will deliver average returns over the long-term of only 3.8% and 1.8% in nominal and real terms, respectively. Table I-110-Year Asset Return Projections For stocks, the expected returns are poor by historical standards because we assume a mean-reversion in multiples and a decline in the profit share of total income. These assumptions may turn out to be too pessimistic if there is no redistribution of income shares from the corporate sector back to labor and/or P-E ratios remain at historically high levels. Equities obviously would do better than our estimates in this case, but the point is that it is very hard to see returns in risk assets anywhere close to their 1982-2017 average over the long haul. On a two-year horizon, our base case outlook still sees decent equity returns. Nonetheless, the risk/reward balance has become quite unfavorable because the cycle is so advanced. It is therefore prudent to focus on capital preservation and be quicker to trim risk exposure when the outlook becomes cloudier. Losing Sleep Investors have cheered some easing in the perceived risk of a trade war in recent weeks. Nonetheless, a number of items have made us more nervous about the near term. First, our Equity Scorecard has dropped to one, well below the critical value of three that is consistent with positive equity returns historically (Chart I-1). Table I-2 updates our Exit Checklist of items that we believe are important for the equity allocation call. Five of the nine are now giving a 'sell' signal, pointing to at least a technical correction. Chart I-1Our Equity Scorecard Turned Negative Table I-2Exit Checklist For Risk Assets Moreover, we highlighted last month that global growth appears to be peaking (Chart I-2). Our Global Leading Economic Indicator is still bullish, but its diffusion index has plunged below zero. The Global ZEW index and our Boom/Bust indicator have fallen sharply and the global PMI index ticked down (albeit, from a high level). Industrial production in the major economies has eased. Korean and Taiwanese exports, which are a barometer of global industrial activity, have decelerated as well. Chart I-2Economic Indicators Have Softened While we expect global growth to remain at an above-trend pace for at least the next year, the peaking in some coincident and leading indicators is worrying nonetheless. Other items to keep investors up at night include the following: Loss Of Fed Put: With inflation likely to reach the Fed's target in the next couple of months, and policymakers worried about froth in markets, the FOMC will be less predisposed to ease at the first hint of economic softness (see below). Inflation Surge: There is a lot of uncertainty around estimates of the level of the unemployment rate that is consistent with rising wage and price pressures. Inflation could suddenly jump if unemployment is far below this critical level, leading to a blood bath in the bond market that would reverberate through all other assets. The fact that long-term inflation breakevens have surged along with the 10-year Treasury yield in the past couple of weeks is an ominous sign for risk assets. Neutral Rate: We agree with the Fed that the neutral fed funds rate is rising, but nobody knows exactly where it is at the moment. If the neutral rate is lower than the Fed believes, then the economy could suddenly stall as actual rates rise above the neutral level. Trade War: President Trump's popularity among Republican voters is rising, which gives him the ability to weather turbulence in the stock market while he 'gets tough' on trade. The fact that U.S. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin will visit China is a hopeful sign. Nonetheless, we do not believe that we have seen peak pessimism on trade because the President needs to placate his supporters in the mid-west that are in favor of protectionism. The summer months could be volatile as market confusion grows amidst a plethora of upcoming event risks.1 Iran: This year's premier geopolitical risk is the potential for renewed U.S.-Iran tensions. Ahead of the all-important May 12 deadline - when the White House will decide whether to end the current waiver of economic sanctions against Iran - President Trump has staffed his cabinet with two hawks (Bolton and Pompeo). Meanwhile, tensions in Syria are building with the potential for U.S. and Iranian forces to be directly implicated in a skirmish. Russia: Tensions between the West and Russia are also building again. Stroke Of Pen Risk: There is a rising probability that the current administration decides to up the regulatory pressure on Amazon. Other technology companies like Facebook and Google also face "stroke of pen" risks. On a positive note, first quarter earnings season is off to a good start in the U.S. Earnings have surprised to the upside by a wide margin, which is impressive given that analysts bumped up their Q1 assessments in 10 of 11 sectors between the start of 2018 and the beginning of the Q1 reporting season. Analysts' estimates typically move lower as a quarter unfolds, which has the effect of lowering the bar for results to beat expectations. That said, a lot of good news is already discounted in the U.S. market. Chart I-3 highlights that bottom-up analysts' expected annual average EPS growth for the S&P 500 over the next five years has shot up to more than 15%, a level not seen since 1998! This is excessive even considering that the estimates include the impact of the tax cuts. History teaches that investors should be wary during periods of earnings euphoria. Chart I-3Five-Year Bottom-Up EPS Growth Estimates Are Impossibly High Given these risks, market pricing and our checklist, we adjusted the tactical (3-month) House View recommendation on risk assets to benchmark in April. We see this shift as tactical, and expect to move back to overweight once our growth indicators bottom and the geopolitical situation calms down a little. Our base case outlook remains constructive for risk assets on a cyclical (6-12 month) view. Three Scenarios This month we consider two alternative scenarios to our base case outlook and provide estimates of how several key asset classes would perform between now and the end of 2019: Base Case: U.S. real GDP growth accelerates to 3.3% year-over-year by the end of 2018 on the back of fiscal stimulus and improving animal spirits in the corporate sector. Growth is expected to decelerate in 2019, but remain above trend. Profit margins are squeezed marginally by rising wage pressure. The recession we expect to occur in 2020 is beyond the horizon of this exercise. Optimistic Case: The multiplier effects of the fiscal stimulus could be larger than we are assuming if consumers decide to spend most of the tax windfall, and the corporate sector cranks up capital spending due to accelerated depreciation, the tax savings and repatriated overseas funds. We assume that real GDP growth is about a half percentage point higher than the base case in both 2018 and 2019. This is only modestly stronger than the base case because, given that the economy is already at full employment, the supply side of the economy will constrain growth. Even more margin pressure partially offsets stronger top line growth for corporations. Pessimistic Case: The fiscal multiplier effects turn out to be smaller than expected, compounded by the growth-sapping impact of a tariff war and a spike in oil prices due to tensions in the Middle East. The corporate and consumer sectors are more sensitive to rising interest rates than we thought (see below for more discussion of U.S. consumer vulnerabilities). Growth begins to slow toward the end of 2018, culminating in a recession in the second half of 2019. Margins are squeezed initially, but then rise as labor market slack opens up next year. This is more than offset, however, by declining corporate revenues. Chart I-4 presents the implications for S&P 500 EPS growth in the three scenarios, according to our top-down model. Four-quarter trailing profit growth comes in at a respectable 15% and 8½%, respectively, in 2018 and 2019 in our base case. The optimistic scenario would see impressive profit growth of 20% and 13%. Trailing EPS expands by 9% this year in the pessimistic case, but contracts by about the same amount next year. Chart I-4Three Scenarios For S&P 500 EPS Growth In order to use these EPS forecasts to estimate expected S&P 500 returns, we made assumptions regarding an appropriate 12-month forward P/E ratio (Table I-3). We also translated our trailing EPS forecasts into 12-month forward estimates based on historical cyclical patterns. The 12-month forward P/E ratio is 17 as we go to press (based on Standard and Poors figures). We assume the ratio is flat this year in the base case, before edging lower in 2019 due to rising interest rates. The forward P/E is assumed to edge up in the optimistic case in 2019, but then falls back in 2019 as rates rise. In the recession scenario, we conservatively assume that this ratio falls to 15 by the end of this year, and to 13 by the end of 2019. We incorporate a 2% dividend yield in all scenarios. Over the next two years, the S&P 500 delivers an 8% annual average return in our baseline, and 13% in the optimistic case. As would be expected, investors suffer painful losses of 13% this year and roughly 20% next year in the case of recession, as the drop in multiples magnifies the earnings contraction. Table I-4 presents total return estimates for the 10-year Treasury under the three scenarios. The bond will provide an average return of close to zero in our base case. It suffers heavy losses in 2018 if growth turns out to be stronger than we expect, because a faster acceleration in inflation would spark a sharp upward revision to the path of short-term rates. Long-term inflation expectations would rise as well. The 10-year yield finishes 2019 at 3.5% in the base case, and at 3.75% in the optimistic growth scenario. In contrast, total returns are hefty in the recession case as the 10-year yield drops back below 2%. Table I-3S&P 500 Return Scenarios Table I-410-year Treasury Return Scenarios We believe the risk/reward profile is less attractive for corporate bonds than it is for equities (Table I-5). Strong profit growth in the base and optimistic cases is positive for corporates, but this is offset by deteriorating financial ratios as interest rates rise in the context of high leverage ratios. We expect investment-grade (IG) spreads to widen modestly even in the base case, providing a small negative excess return. We see spreads moving sideways at best in our optimistic scenario, giving investors a small positive excess return of about 100 basis points. In the case of a recession, we could see the option-adjusted spread of the Barclay's IG index surging from 105 basis points today to 250 basis points. Excess returns would obviously be quite negative. Table I-5U.S. Investment Grade Corporate Bonds All of these projected returns are only meant to be suggestive because they depend importantly on several key assumptions. Still, we wanted to provide readers with a sense of the risks for returns around our base case outlook. We place the odds at 50% for the base case, 20% for the optimistic scenario and 30% for a recession. U.S. Fiscal Policy: Good And Bad News The probabilities attached to the baseline and optimistic scenarios are supported by the U.S. fiscal stimulus that is in the pipeline. The IMF estimates that the tax cuts and spending increases will provide a fiscal thrust of 0.8% in 2018 and 0.9% in 2019, not far from the estimates we presented last month (Chart I-5).2 This represents a powerful tailwind for growth for the next two years. We must turn to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections to gauge the longer-term implications. On a positive note, the CBO revised up its estimate of the economy's long-run potential growth rate on account of the supply-side benefits of lower taxes and the immediate expensing of capital outlays. Faster growth over the long run, on its own, reduces the projected cumulative budget deficit over the 2018-2027 period by $1 trillion. However, this positive impact is swamped by the direct effect on the budget of the tax breaks and increased spending. The CBO estimates that the net effect of the fiscal adjustments will be a $1.7 trillion increase in the cumulative budget deficit over the next decade, relative to the previous baseline (Chart I-6). The annual deficit is projected to surpass $1 trillion in 2020, and peak as a share of GDP at 5.4% in 2022. Federal government debt held by the private sector will rise from 76% this year to 96% in 2028 in this scenario. Chart I-5U.S. Fiscal Stimulus Will Support Growth Chart I-6U.S. Federal Budget: A Lot More Red Ink The deficit situation begins to look better after 2020 because a raft of "temporary provisions" are assumed to sunset as per current law, including some of the personal tax cuts and deductions included in the 2017 tax package. As is usually the case, the vast majority of these provisions are likely to be extended. The CBO performed an alternative scenario in which they extend the temporary provisions and grow the spending caps at the rate of inflation after 2020. In this more realistic scenario, the deficit reaches 6% of GDP by 2022 and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio hits almost 110% of GDP in 2028. This is not a pretty picture and investors are wondering what it means for government bond yields and the dollar. We noted in the March 2018 Bank Credit Analyst that academic studies published before 2007 suggested that every percentage point rise in the government's debt-to-GDP ratio added roughly three basis points to the equilibrium level of bond yields. If this is correct, then a rise in the U.S. ratio of 25 percentage points over the next decade would lift the equilibrium long-term bond yields by 75 basis points. This estimated impact on yields should not be thought of as a default risk premium because there is no reason to default when the Fed can simply print money in the event of a funding crisis. Rather, a worsening fiscal situation could show up in higher long-term inflation expectations if investors were to lose confidence in the Fed's inflation target. Higher real yields could also come about through the 'crowding out' effect; since growth is limited in the long run by the supply side of the economy, a larger government sector means that some private sector demand needs to be crowded out via higher real interest rates. Deficits And The Dollar We discussed the potential debt fallout for the U.S. dollar from an economic perspective in the April 2018 Special Report. While the fiscal stimulus means that the U.S. twin deficits are set to worsen, the situation is not so dire that the U.S. dollar is about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns regarding U.S. debt sustainability among international investors. The U.S. is not close to the point where investors will begin to seriously question America's ability to service its debt. Nonetheless, with President Donald Trump's overt calls for American geopolitical retrenchment from global commitments, investors have asked whether the end of the dollar as the global reserve currency is nigh. This month's Special Report beginning on page 22 examines this issue. There is no evidence at the moment that the U.S. dollar is losing any market share and we do not foresee any sudden shifts away from the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency. However, cracks are beginning to form, especially with regard to the RMB. We also believe that the euro is likely to benefit from a structural tailwind as global reserve managers increase the share of the euro in their reserves. A trade war would accelerate the diversification away from the dollar. Chart I-7Economic Slack: U.S./Eurozone Comparison The conclusions of this month's Special Report support those of last month's analysis; the dollar will continue on its long-term downtrend, although there is still room for a counter-trend rally this year. We do not see much upside against the yen in the near term, but we expect some of the euro's recent strength to be unwound. A debate is raging within the halls of the European Central Bank regarding the amount of Europe's economic slack. On this we side with President Draghi, who believes that there is still plenty of excess capacity in the labor market. The Eurozone's unemployment rate has reached the level of full employment as estimated by the OECD. However, Chart I-7 shows various measures of hidden unemployment, including discouraged workers and those that have been out of work for more than a year. In all cases, the Eurozone appears to be behind the U.S. in terms of getting back to full employment. This, along with the recent softening in some of the Eurozone's economic data, will keep the ECB wedded to low interest rates even as it terminates the asset purchase program this autumn. Long-dated forward rate differentials are beginning to move back in favor of the dollar relative to the Euro. Dollar strength will also be at the expense of most of the EM currencies. The Long-Term Consequences Of Government Debt While it is somewhat comforting that the U.S. twin-deficits are unlikely to spark financial panic in the short- to medium term, the U.S. and global debt situations are not without consequences. The latest IMF Fiscal Monitor again sounded the alarm over global debt levels, especially government paper. The Fund argues that debt sustainability becomes increasingly questionable once the general government debt/GDP ratio breaches 85%. The IMF points out that more than one-third of advanced economies had debt above 85% in 2017, three times more countries than in 2000. And this does not include the implicit liabilities linked to pension and health care spending. The good news is that the IMF expects that most of the major economies will see a reduction in their general government debt/GDP ratios between 2017 and 2023. The big exception is the U.S., where the average deficit is expected to far exceed the other major countries (Charts I-8A and I-8B). The U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit is projected to be almost 7% of GDP in 2019! Including all levels of government, the IMF estimates that the U.S. debt/GDP ratio will rise by about nine percentage points, to almost 117%, between 2017 and 2023. Chart I-8AIMF Projections (I) Chart I-8BIMF Projections (II) U.S. fiscal trends are clearly unsustainable in the long-term. Taxes will have to rise or entitlement programs will have to be slashed at some point. The question is whether Congress administers the required medicine willingly, or is forced to do so by rioting markets. We do not believe that the dollar's 'day of reckoning' will happen anytime soon, but growing angst over the U.S. fiscal outlook supports our view that the multi-decade Treasury bull market is over. In the near term, the main threat to the global bond market is a mini 'inflation scare' in the U.S. Fed Will Soon Reach 2% Goal Chart I-9Inflation May Soon Reach The Fed's Target The 10-year Treasury yield is testing the 3% support level as we go to press. In part, upward pressure on yields likely reflects some calming of tensions regarding global trade and the news that the U.S. will hold face-to-face discussions with North Korea. Moreover, long-term inflation expectations have been rising in most of the major countries. Investors appear to be waking up to how strong U.S. inflation has been in recent months, driven in part by an unwinding of base effects that temporarily depressed the annual inflation rate. U.S. core CPI inflation has already quickened from 1.8% in February to 2.1% in March (Chart I-9). This acceleration will also play out in the core PCE deflator, the Fed's preferred inflation metric. Even if the core PCE deflator rises only 0.1% month-over-month in March, year-over-year core PCE inflation will increase to 1.85%. This would be above Bloomberg and Fed estimates for the end of the year. If the core PCE deflator rises 0.2% m/m in March - a reading more consistent with recent trends - then year-over-year core PCE inflation will almost reach the Fed's 2% target. The FOMC will not be alarmed even if inflation appears set to overshoot the 2% target. Nonetheless, Fed officials will be forced to adjust the communication language because they can no longer argue that "accommodative" monetary policy is still appropriate. In other words, policymakers will have to openly admit that policy will have to become outright restrictive. The Fed's "dot plot" could then be revised higher. The policy risks facing equities, EM assets and spread product will escalate once it becomes clear that the FOMC is actively targeting slower economic growth and a higher unemployment rate. As for Treasurys, the surge in the 10-year yield to 3% has been quick and we would not be surprised to see another consolidation period. Eventually, however, we expect the yield to reach 3.5% before the bear phase is over. How Vulnerable Are U.S. Households? The ultimate peak in U.S. yields will depend importantly on the economy's sensitivity to rising borrowing costs. Our research on excessive borrowing in recent months has focussed on the U.S. corporate sector. Next month we will review corporate vulnerabilities in the Eurozone. But what about U.S. consumers? Overall debt as a ratio to GDP or personal income has fallen back to pre-housing bubble levels, underscoring that the household sector has deleveraged impressively (Chart I-10). Household net worth has surpassed the pre-Lehman peak and our "wealth effect" proxy suggests that the rise in asset prices and recovery in home values provide a strong tailwind for spending (Chart I-11). The proxy likely overstates the size of the tailwind due to the lack of cash-out refinancing. Chart I-10U.S. Consumers Have Deleveraged Chart I-11'Wealth Effect' Is A Tailwind The financial obligation ratio (FOR) - a measure of the debt service burden for the average household - is rising but is still close to the lowest levels in three decades (Chart I-12). Chart I-13 shows a broader measure of the burden that households face when paying for essentials; interest payments, food, medical care and energy. These are all expenses that are difficult to trim. Spending on essentials has increased over the past couple of years to a little under 42% of disposable income due to rising interest rates and a continuing uptrend in out-of-pocket medical care costs. However, the ratio is below the post-1980 average level and has only risen back to levels that existed in 2011/12. From this perspective, it is difficult to believe that rising gasoline prices will dominate the benefits of the tax cuts on household spending. Chart I-12Past The Peak Of U.S. Consumer Credit Quality Chart I-13Spending On Essentials Is Not Onerous The labor market is clearly supportive for consumer spending. Wage growth has been disappointing so far in this recover, and real personal disposable income has slowed over the past year. Nonetheless, the economy continues to produce new jobs at an impressive pace, unemployment claims are close to all-time lows, and households are feeling confident about their future income and job prospects. Some market pundits have pointed to the falling household savings rate as a warning sign that consumers are 'tapped out' (Chart I-14). We are less concerned. The savings rate tends to decline during economic expansions and rises almost exclusively during recessions. All else equal, one could make the case that U.S. households should save more over their lifetimes. Nonetheless, a falling savings rate is consistent with strong, not weak, economic activity. That said, some signs have emerged that not all consumer lending in recent years has been prudent. Bank and finance company loan delinquency rates are rising, especially for credit cards and autos (Chart I-15). While the FOR is still low, it is rising and it tends to lead bank loan delinquency rates (Chart I-12). These trends usually occur just prior to a recession. Chart I-14Savings Rate Falls During Expansions Chart I-15Some Signs Of Excessive Lending There has also been an alarming surge in credit card charge-off rates, which have reached recession levels among banks that are outside of the top 100 (Chart I-15, top panel). Anecdotal evidence suggests that large banks offered lush cash rewards and points to attract higher-quality customers. Smaller banks could not compete on cash rewards, and instead had to loosen credit requirements for card issuance. The deterioration in the credit-quality composition of these banks' loan portfolios helps to explain why delinquencies have increased despite a robust labor market. The Fed's senior loan officer survey shows that expected delinquencies and charge-offs are rising even among large banks. One risk is that, while overall credit growth has been weak in this expansion, it has been concentrated in lower-income households. However, the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances does not flag a huge problem. Various measures of credit quality have not deteriorated for lower income households since 2007 (latest year available; Chart I-16). Chart I-16Credit Quality For Lower ##br##Income U.S. Households The bottom line is that there are pockets of excessive borrowing that will no doubt result in a spike in defaults in selected sectors when the next economic downturn arrives. Nonetheless, the backdrop for consumer health has not deteriorated to the point where the U.S. household sector will be ultra-sensitive to higher interest rates on a broad scale. Investment Conclusions Our base case outlook is unchanged this month. We do not see a recession in the U.S. before 2020, and the U.S. equity market could reward investors with high single-digit total returns this year and next. Nonetheless, one must separate strategy from forecast at this point in the cycle. U.S. unemployment is very low and we are beginning to see hints of late-cycle inflation dynamics. Core inflation could soon be at the Fed's 2% target, while rising energy and base metal prices add to the broader inflationary backdrop. Strong global oil demand growth and the OPEC/Russia production cuts are draining global oil inventories and supporting prices. Sanctions against Iran and/or Venezuela that further restrict supply could easily send oil prices to more than US$80/bbl this year. Investors should remain overweight energy plays. The implication is that the Fed may have to tighten into outright restrictive territory. The advanced stage in the cycle and our bias for capital preservation requires us to heed the warnings from our indicators and timing checklist. The geopolitical calendar is also stacked with risk for markets over the next month at least. Thus, we are tactically trimming risk asset exposure to benchmark until our indicators improve and/or geopolitical tensions fade. Investors should also be more cautious in their equity sector allocation for the very near term. We continue to favor Eurozone stocks over the U.S. (currency hedged), since the threat from monetary tightening is greater in the latter market and we expect the dollar to appreciate. We are neutral on the Nikkei because the risk of a rising yen offsets currently-strong EPS growth momentum. Stay short duration within global bond portfolios, and remain underweight the U.S., Canada and core Europe (currency hedged). Overweight Australia and the U.K. The Aussie economy will continue to underperform, and the U.K. economy will not allow the Bank of England to hike rates as much as is currently discounted. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst April 26, 2018 Next Report: May 31, 2018 1 For a list of these events, see Table 2 in the BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Expect Volatility... Of Volatility," dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 The fiscal thrust is the change in the cyclically-adjusted budget balance as a share of GDP. It is a measure of the initial impetus to real GDP growth, but the actual impact on growth depends on fiscal "multipliers". II. Is King Dollar Facing Regicide? This month's Special Report is a joint effort by BCA's Geopolitical and Foreign Exchange strategists, along with contributing editors Mehul Daya and Neels Heyneke (Strategists at Nedbank CIB Research). It is a companion piece to last month's Special Report, in which I discussed the short- and long-term outlook for the U.S. dollar from a purely economic perspective. This month's analysis takes a geopolitical perspective, focusing on the possibility that the U.S. dollar will lose its reserve currency status and weaken over the long term. I trust that you will find the Report as insightful as I did. Mark McClellan Reserve currencies are built on a geopolitical and macroeconomic foundation. For the U.S. Dollar, these foundations remain in place, but cracks are emerging. Relative decline in American power, combined with a loss of confidence in the "Washington Consensus" at home, are eroding the geopolitical foundations. Meanwhile, threats to globalization, a slower pace of petrodollar recycling, and stresses in the Eurodollar system are eroding the macroeconomic foundations. The Renminbi is not an alternative to King Dollar, but the euro remains a potential challenger in the coming interregnum years that will see the world transition from American hegemony... to something else. In the long run, we envision a multipolar currency regime to emerge alongside a multipolar geopolitical world order. In this report, BCA's Geopolitical and Foreign Exchange strategies join efforts with contributing editors Mehul Daya and Neels Heyneke (Strategists at Nedbank CIB Research) to examine the conditions necessary for the decline of a reserve currency. Specifically, we seek to answer the question of whether the U.S. dollar is at the precipice of such a decline. With President Donald Trump's overt calls for American geopolitical retrenchment from global commitments, investors have asked whether the end of the dollar as the global reserve currency is nigh. After all, King Dollar has fallen by 9.7% since President Trump's inauguration on January 20, while alternatives of dubious value, such as a slew of cryptocurrencies, have seen a rally of epic proportions (Chart II-1). Professor Barry Eichengreen, a world-renowned international economics historian,1 has recently penned an insightful paper proposing a link between the robustness of military alliances and currency reserve status.2 According to the analysis, reserve currency status reflects both economic fundamentals - safety, liquidity, network effects, and economic conditions - and geopolitical fundamentals. In the case of close U.S. military allies, such as South Korea and Japan, the choice of the dollar as store of value is explained far more by the geopolitical links to the U.S., rather than the importance of the dollar for their economies. The authors warn that if the U.S. "withdraws from the world," the impact could be as large as an 80 basis points rise in the U.S. long-term interest rate. Intriguingly, some of what Professor Eichengreen posits could happen has already happened. For example, the share of foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries by military allies has already declined by a whopping 25% (Chart II-2). And yet the demand for King Dollar assets was immediately picked up by non-military allies, proving the resiliency of greenback's status as the reserve currency. Chart II-1Is Trump Guilty Of Regicide? Chart II-2Geopolitics Is Not Driving ##br##Demand For Treasuries When it comes to global currency reserves, the U.S. dollar continues to command 63%, roughly the same level it has commanded since 2000 (Chart II-3). Interestingly, alternatives remain roughly the same as in the past, with little real movement (Chart II-4). The Chinese renminbi remains largely ignored as a global reserve currency and its use across markets and geographies appears to have declined since the imposition of full capital controls in October 2015 (Chart II-5). Chart II-3Dollar Remains King Chart II-4The Euro Is The Only Serious Competitor To King Dollar... Chart II-5...The Renminbi Is Not However, some cracks in the foundation are emerging. A recent IMF paper, penned by Camilo E. Tovar and Tania Mohd Nor,3 uses currency co-movements to determine which national currencies belong to a particular reserve currency bloc.4 Their work shows that the international monetary system has already transitioned from a bi-polar system - consisting of the greenback and the euro - to a multipolar one that includes the CNY (Chart II-6). However, the CNY's influence does not extend beyond the BRICS and is scant in East Asia, the geographical region that China already dominates in trade (Chart II-7), albeit not yet geopolitically (Map II-1). Chart II-6Renminbi Does Command A Large Currency 'Bloc'... Chart II-7...But Despite China's Dominance Of East Asia... Map II-1...Renminbi's 'Bloc' Is Not In Asia! Our conclusion is that the geopolitical and economic tailwinds behind the greenback's status as a global reserve currency are shifting into headwinds. This process, as we describe below, could increase the risk of a global dollar liquidity shortage, buoying the greenback in the short term. In the long term, however, a transition into a multipolar currency arrangement could rebalance some of the imbalances created by the collapse of the Bretton Woods System and is not necessarily to be feared. The Geopolitical Fundamentals Of A Reserve Currency Nothing lasts forever and the U.S. dollar will one day join a long list of former reserve currencies that includes the Ancient Greek drachma, the Roman aureus, the Byzantium solidus, the Florentine florin, the Dutch gulden, the Spanish dollar, and the pound sterling. All of the political entities that produced these reserve currencies have several factors in common. They were the geopolitical hegemons of their era, capable of controlling the most important trade routes, projecting both hard and soft power outside of their borders, and maintaining a stable economy that underpinned the purchasing power of their currency. Table II-1 illustrates several factors that we believe encapsulate the necessary conditions for a dominant international currency. Table II-1Insights From History: What Makes A Reserve Currency? Geopolitical Power As Eichengreen posits, geopolitical fundamentals are essential for reserve currency status. Military power is necessary in order to defend one's national and commercial interests abroad, compel foreign powers to yield to those interests, and protect allies in exchange for their acquiescence to the hegemonic status quo. An important modern world example of such "gunboat diplomacy" was the 1974 agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.5 In exchange for dumping their petro-dollars into U.S. debt, Riyadh received an American commitment to keep the Saudi Kingdom safe from all threats, both regional (Iran) and global (the Soviet Union). It also received special permission to keep its purchases of U.S. Treasuries secret. Chart II-8The Exorbitant Privilege In One Chart As with all the empires surveyed in Table II-1, allies and vassal states were forced to use the hegemon's currency in their trade and investment transactions as a way of paying for the security blanket. To this day, there is no better way to explain the "exorbitant privilege" that the dollar commands. Chart II-8 illustrates that the U.S. enjoys positive net income despite a massively negative net international investment position. It is true that the U.S.'s foreign assets are skewed toward foreign direct investment and equities, investments that have higher rates of returns than the fixed-income liabilities the U.S. owes to the rest of the world. But the U.S.'s positive net income balance has been exacerbated by the willingness of foreigners to invest their assets into the U.S. for little compensation, something illustrated by the fact that between 1971 and 2007, the ex-post U.S. term premium has been toward the lower end of the G10. Additionally, as foreigners are also willing holders of U.S. physical cash, the U.S. government has been able to finance part of its budget deficit with instruments carrying no interest payments. This is what economists refer to as seigniorage, a subsidy to the U.S. government equivalent to around 0.2% of GDP per annum (or roughly $39.5 bn in 2017). In essence, American allies are paying for American hegemony through their investments in U.S. dollar assets, and this lets the U.S. live above its means. But ultimately, the quid pro quo is perhaps as much geopolitical as economic. There is one, non-negligible, cost for U.S. policymakers. The greenback tends to appreciate during periods of global economic stress due to its reserve currency status.6 This means that each time the U.S. needs a weak dollar to reflate its economy, the dollar moves in the opposite direction, adding deflationary pressures to an already weak domestic economy. Compared to the benefits, which offer the U.S. a steady-stream of seigniorage income and low-cost financing, the cost of reserve currency status is acceptable. Chart II-9U.S. Naval Strength Still Supreme... Economic Power Aside from brute force, an empire is built on commercial and trade links. There are two reasons for this. First, trade allows the empire to acquire raw materials to fuel its economy and technological advancement. Second, it also gives the "periphery" a role to play in the empire, a stake in the world system underpinned by the hegemonic core. This creates an entire layer of society in the periphery - the elites enriched by and entrenched in the Empire - with existential interest in the status quo. For the past five centuries, commercial dominance has been underpinned by naval dominance. As the Ottoman Empire and the Ming Dynasty closed off the overland routes in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Europeans used technological innovation to avoid the off-limits Eurasian landmass and establish alternative - and exclusively naval - routes to commodities and new markets. This has propelled a succession of largely naval empires: Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French, British, and finally American. Several land-based powers tried to break through the nautical noose - Ottoman Turks, Sweden, Hapsburg Austria, Germany, and the Soviet Union - but were defeated by the superiority of naval-based power. Dominance of the seas allows the hegemonic core to unite disparate and far-flung regions through commerce and to call upon vast resources in case of a global conflict. Meanwhile, the hegemon can deny that commerce and those resources to land-locked challengers. This is how the British defeated Napoleon and how the U.S. and its allies won World War I and II. The U.S. remains the supreme naval power (Chart II-9). While China is building up its ability to push back against the U.S. navy in its regional seas (East and South China Seas), it will be decades before it is close to being able to project power across the world's oceans. While the former is necessary for becoming a regional hegemon, the latter is necessary for China to offer non-contiguous allies an alternative to American hegemony. Bottom Line: The foundation of a global reserve currency status is geopolitical fundamentals. The U.S. remains well-endowed in both. American Hegemony - From Tailwinds To Headwinds Chart II-10...But Overall Hegemony Is In Decline The U.S. is already facing a relative geopolitical decline due to the rise of major emerging markets like China (Chart II-10). This theme underpins BCA Geopolitical Strategy's view that the world has already transitioned from American hegemony to a multipolar arrangement.7 In absolute terms, the U.S. still retains the hard and soft power variables that have supported the USD's global reserve status and will continue to do so for the next decade (which is the maximum investment horizon of the vast majority of our clients). However, there are three imminent threats to the status quo that may accentuate global multipolarity: Populism: The global hegemon could decide to withdraw from distant entanglements and institutional arrangements. In the U.S., an isolationist narrative has emerged suggesting that America's status as the consumer and mercenary of last resort is unsustainable (Chart II-11). President Obama was elected on the promise of withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan; his administration also struck a major deal with Iran to reduce American exposure to the Middle East. Donald Trump won the presidency on an even more isolationist platform and he and several of his advisors have voiced such a view over the past 15 months. The appeal of isolationism could resurface as it is a potent political elixir based on a much deeper rejection of globalization among the American public than the policy establishment realized (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Trump Is Rebelling Against The Post-Cold War System Chart II-12Americans Are Rebelling Against The 'Washington Consensus' Return of the land-based empire: While the U.S. remains the preeminent naval power, its leadership in military prowess could be wasted through a suboptimal grand strategy. The U.S. has two geopolitical imperatives: dominate the world's oceans and ensure the disunity of the Eurasian landmass.8 Eurasia has sufficient natural resources (Russia), population (China), wealth (Europe), and geographical buffer from naval powers (the seas surrounding it) to become self-sufficient. Hence any great power that managed to dominate Eurasia would have no need for a navy as it would become a superpower by default. Why would America's European allies abandon their U.S. security blanket for an alliance with Russia and China? First, stranger shifts in alliance structure have occurred in the past.9 Second, because a mix of U.S. mercantilism and isolationism could push Europe into making independent geopolitical arrangements with its Eurasian peers, even if these arrangements were informal. The advent of the cyber realm: Finally, the advent of the Internet as a new realm of great power competition reduces the relative utility of hard power, such as a navy. Great empires of the past struggled when confronted with new arenas of conflict such as air and submarine. New technologies and new arenas can yield advantages in traditional battlefields. Today, the U.S. must compete for hegemony in space and cyber-space with China, Russia, and other rivals. In these mediums, the U.S. does not have as great of a head start as it has in naval competition. Bottom Line: The U.S. remains the preeminent global power. However, its status as a hegemon is in relative decline. Domestic populism, suboptimal grand strategy, and the advent of cyber and outer-space warfare could all accelerate this decline on the margin. The Economic Fundamentals Of U.S. Dollar Reserve Status One unique aspect of the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency is that it is a fiat currency, i.e. paper money limited in supply only by policy. Throughout human history, most dominant currency reserves were based on commodities that were rare or difficult to acquire, like silver or gold.10 When the U.S. dollar was decoupled from gold prices in 1971, it became the only recent example of a global reserve currency backed by nothing but faith (the pound was for most of its period of dominance backed by gold). Money serves three functions in the economy. It is a means of payment, a unit of account, and a store of value. The last comes into jeopardy when the reserve currency has to supply the world with more and more liquidity, also known as the "Triffin dilemma". By definition, as the global reserve currency, the USD has to be plentiful enough for the global economy and financial system to function adequately. The U.S. government must constantly supply dollars to this end. Chart II-13 illustrates the timeline of global dollar liquidity, which we define as the total U.S. monetary base in circulation (U.S. monetary base plus holdings of U.S. Treasury securities held in custody for foreign officials and international accounts). The world has seen an ever-expanding U.S. dollar monetary base since 1988. Only during periods where the price of money (i.e. the Federal funds rate) has increased, has the money creation process slowed. Now that the expansion of the global USD monetary base is slowing, overall dollar liquidity is as important as the price, if not more (Chart II-14). Chart II-13Global Dollar Liquidity... Chart II-14...Drives Global Asset Prices The constant increase of dollar liquidity has made the greenback the "lubricant" of today's global financial system. There are three major forces at work beneath this condition: Recycling of petrodollars into the global financial system; Globalization and the build-up of - mainly USD-denominated - FX reserves; Deregulation of the Eurodollar system.11 Petrodollars Commodity exporters, mainly oil producers, sell their products in exchange for U.S. dollars. In addition, most Middle Eastern producers recycle their profits into U.S. dollars due to the liquidity and depth of U.S. capital markets. By 1980, the majority of oil producers were trading in U.S. dollars and were similarly investing their surpluses into the U.S. financial system in the form of U.S. government debt securities. The growth in petrodollars has allowed the world's dollar monetary base to grow substantially. This was both enabled by direct issuance of U.S. debt securities funded by petrodollar purchases and also through the Eurodollar system whereby banks outside the U.S. held large deposits of surplus dollar earnings from Middle East oil producers. Globalization The contemporary wave of globalization began in the mid-1980s, when it became evident that the Soviet Union was in midst of a deep economic malaise. This prompted the new Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to launch perestroika ("restructuring") in 1985, throwing in the proverbial towel in the contest between a statist planned economy and a free market one. Alongside the rise in global trade, financial globalization rose at a very rapid pace as cross-border capital flows more than doubled as a percentage of global GDP from 1990 onward. In the U.S., the economic boom of the 1990s was the longest expansion in history, with growth averaging 4% during the period. The U.S. trade deficit ballooned, providing the world with large amounts of dollar liquidity in the process. The flipside of the massive current account deficit was the accumulation of FX reserves in Europe and Asia, largely denominated in U.S. dollars. These insensitive buyers of U.S. debt indirectly financed the U.S. trade deficit, and also indirectly fuelled the debt super cycle and asset inflation as the "savings glut" compressed the world's risk-free rate and term premium. In other words, financial globalization combined with excess international savings morphed into a global quid pro quo. The world economy needed liquidity to finance growth and capital investment. In a system where the greenback stood at the base of any liquidity build up, this meant that the world needed dollars to finance its development. The world was thus willing to finance the U.S. current account deficit at little cost. The Eurodollar System The Eurodollar system was originally a payment system introduced after World War II as a result of the Marshal Plan. Because global trade was dominated by the U.S. - the only country that retained the capacity to produce industrial goods - foreigners had to be able to access U.S. dollars where they were domiciled in order to buy capital goods. The U.S. current account deficit played a role in growing that Eurodollar market. While a lot of the dollars supplied to the rest of the world through the U.S. current account deficit ended up going back to the U.S. via its large capital account surplus, a significant portion remained in offshore jurisdictions, providing an important fuel for the Eurodollar markets. In fact, more than two-thirds of U.S.-dollar claims in the Eurodollar market can be traced back to U.S. entities. After this original impetus, the Eurodollar market grew by leaps and bounds amid a number of regulatory advantages introduced in the 1980s. These changes in regulations not only deepened the participation of European and Japanese banks in the offshore markets, it also allowed U.S. banks to shift capital to Europe, harvesting a lower cost of capital in the process.12 The next growth phase in the Eurodollar system came with the evolution of shadow banking, in which credit was created off balance sheet by lending out collateral more than once, thus enabling banks to obtain higher gearing. This process is known as "re-hypothecation." In the U.S. there was a limit to which banks were allowed to gear collateral, which was not the case in Europe. Hence, to take advantage of this regulatory leniency, global banks grew further through the offshore market, causing an additional expansion in the Eurodollar market.13 Ultimately, this implies that over the past 30 years, the growth of the Eurodollar system has mainly been a consequence of the architecture of the international financial system. Headwinds To Dollar Liquidity The forces contributing to the extraordinary growth in dollar liquidity have begun to fade. In brief: Protectionism and populism: A slowdown in global trade has occurred for a number of structural, non-geopolitical reasons, especially if one controls for the recovery of energy prices (Chart II-15).14 This slowdown implies a slower accumulation of international FX reserves and a reduction of the "savings glut." If protectionism were to compound the effects - by shrinking the U.S. trade deficit - the result for global dollar liquidity would be negative. The consequence would be a certain degree of "quantitative tightening" of global dollar liquidity. Energy prices: Despite the recovery in energy prices, oil producers continue to struggle to rein in their budget deficits. Deficits blew out during the high-spending era buoyed by high oil prices (Chart II-16). Today, oil producing countries have less oil revenues to spend on the Treasury market, as their cash is needed at home. Meanwhile, the U.S. is slowly moving towards partial energy independence, further shrinking its trade deficit. Chart II-15Global Trade Growth Has Moderated Chart II-16Petrodollars Are Scarce Eurodollar system: The monetary "plumbing" has become clogged since 2014 after the Fed stopped growing its balance sheet and sweeping Basel III bank regulations took effect. The cost of acquiring U.S. dollars in Eurodollar markets currently stands at a premium. This extra cost cannot be arbitraged away due to the restrictive capital rules imposed under Basel III, which have raised the cost of capital for banks. This can be seen in the persistent widening of USD cross-currency basis-swap spreads and more recently, in the rise of the Libor-OIS spread (Chart II-17). The introduction of interest on excess reserves by the Federal Reserve is further draining dollars from the Eurodollar system. The velocity of dollar usage in international markets is unlikely to return to the pace experienced from 1995 to 2008, when the shadow banking system grew rapidly. To complicate matters, dollar-denominated debt issued outside of the U.S. by non-U.S. entities such as banks, governments, and non-financial corporations has grown substantially. This could exacerbate the scramble for dollars in case of a global shortage. For example, the stock of outstanding dollar debt issued by foreign nonfinancial corporations currently stands at US$10 trillion (Chart II-18). Chart II-17Mounting Stress In The Eurodollar System Chart II-18Foreign Dollar Debt Is At $10 Trillion Why is the Eurodollar system so important? Today is the first time in the world's history that this much debt has been accumulated in the global reserve currency outside of the country that issues that currency. The Eurodollar system is thus a key source of liquidity for global borrowers. It is also necessary to ensure that these borrowers can access U.S. dollars when the time comes to repay their USD-denominated obligations. The U.S. trade deficit is effectively the source of the growth of the monetary base in the Eurodollar system, and the stock of dollar-denominated debt issued by non-U.S. entities is the world's broad money supply. With the money multiplier in the offshore USD markets having fallen in response to the regulatory tightening that followed the Great Financial Crisis, broad USD money supply in the Eurodollar system will be hyper sensitive to any decline in the U.S. current account deficit. Less global imbalances would therefore result in a further increase in USD funding costs in the international system, and potentially into a stronger U.S. dollar as well, making this dollar debt very expensive to repay. This raises the likelihood of a massive short-squeeze in favour of the U.S. dollar, challenging the current downward trajectory in the U.S. dollar, at least in the short term. Another consequence of a higher cost of sourcing U.S. dollars in the Eurodollar market tends to be rising FX volatility (Chart II-19). An increase in FX volatility should represent a potent headwinds for carry trades. This, in turn, will hurt liquidity conditions in EM economies. Hence, EM growth may be another casualty of problems in the Eurodollar system. Chart II-19Eurodollar Stress Produces FX Volatility Thus, the risks associated with U.S. protectionism go well beyond the risks to global trade. If severe enough, protectionism can threaten the plumbing system of the global economy. Bottom Line: The global economy has been supplied with dollar-based liquidity through the Eurodollar market. At the base of this edifice stands the U.S. trade-deficit, which was then magnified by the issuance of U.S. dollar-denominated debt by non-U.S. entities. This system is becoming increasingly tenuous as Basel III regulations have increased the cost of capital for global money-center banks, resulting in a downward force on the money multiplier in the offshore dollar funding system. In this environment, the risk to the system created by protectionism rises. If Trump and his administration can indeed scale back the size of the U.S. trade deficit, not only will the growth of the U.S. dollar monetary base be broken, but since the monetary multiplier of the Eurodollar system is also impaired, the capacity of the system to provide the dollars needed to fund all the liabilities it has created will decline. This could result in a serious rise in dollar funding costs as well as a tightening of global liquidity that will hurt global growth and result in a dollar short squeeze. This implied precarious situation raises one obvious question: Could we see the emergence of another reserve asset to complement the dollar, alleviating global liquidity risk? If Something Cannot Go On Forever, It Will Stop A global shortage of dollars is not imminent but could result from the forces described above. Even so, it is unlikely that the U.S. dollar faces any sudden end to its role as the leading global reserve currency. However, the world is unlikely to abide by a system that limits its growth potential either. The demise of the Bretton Woods system is important to keep in mind. The Bretton Woods system tied the supply of global liquidity to the supply of U.S. dollars. Initially this was not a problem as the U.S. ran a trade surplus. But it became a significant issue when the rest of the world began to question the U.S. commitment to honouring the $35/oz price commitment amidst domestic profligacy and money printing. Ultimately, the system broke down for this very reason. The strength of the global economy, along with the size of the U.S. current account deficit, was creating too many offshore dollars. Either the global money supply had to shrink, or gold had to be revalued against the dollar. The unpegging of the dollar from gold effectively resulted in the latter. However, the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement that replaced the gold standard with a dollar standard retained the dollar's hegemony. There was simply no alternative at the time. Today, it is unlikely that the global economy will stand idle in the face of a potentially sharp tightening of global liquidity conditions. We posit that this rising dollar funding costs will be the most important factor to decrease the importance of the dollar in the global financial system. Since the demand for the USD as a reserve currency is linked to its use as a liability by banks and financial systems outside of the U.S., if the USD gets downgraded as a source of financing by global banks, the demand for the greenback in global reserves will decline.15 As the share of dollars in foreign reserve coffers decreases, the dollar will likely depreciate over time as it will stop benefiting from the return-inelastic demand from reserve managers. Profit-motivated private investors will demand higher expected returns on dollar assets in order to finance the U.S. current account deficit. Despite this important negative, the dollar will still be the most important reserve asset in the world for many decades. After all, the decline of the pound as the global reserve asset in the interwar period was a gradual affair. Nonetheless, the share of reserves concentrated in USD assets as well as the share of international liabilities issued in USD will decrease, potentially a lot quicker than is thought possible. Chart II-20Reserve Currency Status ##br##Can Diminish Quickly For example, Eichengreen has shown that the pound sterling's share of non-gold global currency reserves fell from 63% in 1899 to 48% in 1913, just 14 years later (Chart II-20). It is instructive that this pre-World War I era coincides with today's multipolar geopolitical context. It similarly featured the decline of a status quo power (the U.K.) and the emergence of a rising challenger (the German Empire). What are the alternatives to the dollar? Obviously, the euro will have a role in this play. The euro today only represents 20% of global reserve assets, and considering the size of the Euro Area economy as well as the depth of its capital markets, the euro's place in global reserves has room to increase. In fact, the share of euros in global reserves is 15% smaller than that of the combined continental European national currencies in 1990 (see Chart II-4 on page 25). The CNY can also expect to see its share of international reserves increase. While China does not have the same capital-market depth as the Euro Area, it is gaining wider currency. The One Belt One Road project is causing many international projects to be financed in CNY and China's economic and military heft is still growing fairly rapidly. Nevertheless, China's closed capital account continues to weigh against the CNY's position. As Chart II-21 illustrates, there is a relationship between a country's share of international global payments and inward foreign investment. Essentially, investors want to know that they can do something (buy and sell goods and services) with the currency that they use to settle their payments. In particular, they want to know that they can use the currency in the economy that issues it. As long as it keeps its capital account closed, China will fail to transform the CNY into a reserve currency. Chart II-21A Reserve Currency With A Closed Capital Account? Forget About It! This means that for at least the next five years, the renminbi's internationalization will be limited. If U.S. protectionism is severe enough, China's economic transition is less likely to be orderly and capital account liberalization could be delayed further. In terms of investment implications, this suggests that for the coming decade, the euro is likely to benefit from a structural tailwind as global reserve managers increase their share of euro reserves. The key metric that investors should follow to gauge whether or not the euro is becoming a more important source of global liquidity is not just the share of euros in global reserves, but also the amount of foreign-currency debt issued in euros by non-euro area entities in the international markets. In all likelihood, before the world transitions toward a unit of account other than the USD, tensions will grow severe, as they did in the late 1960s. It is hard to know when these tensions will become evident. This past winter, the USD basis-swap spread began to widen along with the Libor-OIS spread, but while the Libor-OIS spread remains wide, basis-swap spreads have normalized. Nonetheless, by the end of this cycle, we would expect a liquidity event to cause stress in global carry trades and EM assets. It is important that investors keep a close eye on basis-swap and Libor-OIS spreads to gauge this risk (Chart II-22). Chart II-22Are We Nearing A Global Liquidity Event? Additionally, the more protectionist the U.S. becomes, the larger the diversification away from the dollar by both global reserve managers and international bond issuers could become. This is because of two reasons: First, if the U.S. actually manages to pare down its trade deficit, this will accentuate the decline in the supply of base money in the international system. Second, rising trade protectionism out of the White House gives the world the impression that economic mismanagement is taking hold of the U.S., raising the spectre of stagflation. Finally, the next global reserve asset does not have to be a currency. After all, for millennia, that role was fulfilled by commodities such as gold, silver, or copper. Thus, another asset may emerge to fill this gap. At this point in time it is not clear which asset this may be. Bottom Line: A severe liquidity-tightening caused by a scarcity of U.S. dollars would create market tumult around the world. We worry that such a risk is growing. However, it is hard to envision the global economy falling to its knees. Instead, the global system will likely do what it has done many times before: evolve. This evolution will most likely result in new tools being used to increase the global monetary base. At the current juncture, our best bet is that it will be the euro, which will hurt the USD's exchange rate at the margin on a secular basis. This brings up the very important question of whether the euro is politically viable. We have turned to this question many times over the past seven years. Our high conviction view is still that the euro will survive over the foreseeable time horizon.16 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Mehul Daya Consulting Editor Neels Heyneke Consulting Editor 1 And an erstwhile member of BCA's Research Advisory Board. 2 Please see Eichengreen, Barry et al, "Mars or Mercury? The Geopolitics of International Currency Choice," dated December 2017, available at nber.org. 3 Please see Tovar, Camillo and Tania Mohd Nor, 2018 "Reserve Currency Blocks: A Changing International Monetary System?," IMF Working Paper WP/18/20, Washington D.C. 4 The authors are essentially examining the extent to which national currencies are anchored to a particular reserve currency. 5 Please see David Shapiro, The Hidden Hand Of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling And International Markets, New York: Columbia University Press. Also, Andrea Wong, "The Untold Story Behind Saudi Arabia's 41-Year Secret Debt," The Independent, dated June 1, 2016, available at independent.co.uk. 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Stairway To (Safe) Haven: Investing In Times Of Crisis," dated August 25, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trump Doctrine," February 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Entente cordiale being particularly shocking at the time it was formalized in 1904. Other examples of ideologically heterodox alliances include the USSR's alliance first with Nazi Germany and then with Democratic America during World War II; the notorious alliance of Catholic France with Muslim Turks against its Christian neighbors throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; or Greek alliances with the Carthaginians against Rome in the third century BC. 10 Another exception to this rule was the Yuan Dynasty, established by Mongol ruler Kublai Khan, which issued fiat money made from mulberry bark. In fact, the mulberry trees in the courtyard at the Bank of England serve as a reminder of the origins of fiat money. 11 Eurodollar system simply refers to U.S. dollars that are outside the U.S. 12 Firstly, the absence of Regulation Q in offshore markets meant that regulatory arbitrage was possible, i.e. there was no ceiling imposed on interest rates on deposits at non-U.S. banks. Then, in the late 1990s, the Eurodollar system had another jump start with the amendment to Regulation D, which meant that non-U.S. banks were exempted from reserve requirements. 13 European banks specifically, but also U.S. banks with European branches, were aggressive buyers/funders of exotic derivatives products, such as CDO, MBS, SIVS. Most of these activities were off-balance sheet and took place in the Eurodollar system because a number of regulatory arbitrages existed. This is one of the main reasons that the Federal Reserve's bailout programs were largely focused towards foreign banks. The Fed's swap lines were heavily used by foreign central banks in order to clean up the operations of their own financial institutions. 14 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Why Has Global Trade Slowed?," dated January 29, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 15 Shah, Nihar, "Foreign Dollar Reserves and Financial Stability," December 2015, Harvard University. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011; "No Apocalypse Now?," dated October 31, 2011; "The Draghi 'Bait And Switch," dated January 9, 2013; "Europe: The Euro And (Geo)politics," dated February 11, 2015; "Greece After The Euro: A Land Of Milk And Honey?," dated January 20, 2016; "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?," dated July 13, 2016; "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017. III. Indicators And Reference Charts A key divergence has emerged between the U.S. corporate earnings data and our equity-related indicators. The divergence supports our tactical cautiousness on risk assets. Forward earnings have soared on the back of the U.S. tax cuts and upgrades to the growth outlook. Earnings are beating expectations by a wide margin so far in the Q1 earnings season, which is reflected in very elevated levels for the net revisions ratio and net earnings surprises. However, the S&P 500 has failed to gain any altitude on the back of the positive earnings news, in part because bond yields have jumped. Our Monetary Indicator moved further into bearish territory, and our Equity Technical indicator is below its 9-month moving average and is threatening to break below the zero line (which would be another negative signal). Valuation has improved marginally, but is still stretched, according to our Composite Valuation Indicator. Our Speculation Indicator does not suggest that market frothiness has waned at all, although sentiment has fallen back to neutral level. It is also worrying that our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay indicator took a sharp turn for the worse in April. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. U.S. flows have clearly turned negative for equities, although flows into European and Japanese markets are holding up for now. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks flashed a 'sell' signal in April. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. As for bonds, oversold conditions have emerged but valuation has not yet reached one standard deviation, the threshold for undervaluation. This suggests that there is more upside potential for Treasury yields. The U.S. dollar broke out of its recent tight trading range to the upside in April, although this has only resulted in an unwinding of oversold conditions according to our Composite Technical Indicator. The dollar is expensive on a PPP basis, but we still expect the dollar to rally near term. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst
Highlights Corporate Bonds & The Yield Curve: Corporate bond excess returns fall sharply once the yield curve flattens to below 50 basis points, though they typically remain positive until the yield curve inverts. Interestingly, excess returns for equities relative to Treasuries exhibit the opposite pattern. Corporate Bonds & Leverage: The outlook for top-line corporate revenue growth is strong, but employee compensation costs will also rise this year. We are doubtful that corporate profit growth will keep pace with debt growth for the remainder of year, meaning that leverage is likely to rise. Rising leverage will be a signal to reduce exposure to corporate bonds. Bond Map: We perform a back-test to assess the effectiveness of the Bond Map framework for sector allocation that was introduced in last week's report. Feature It's been a while, but last week's bond market performance was reminiscent of an old fashioned risk-on phase. The 10-year Treasury yield reached its highest level since early 2014, causing a temporary halt in the yield curve's flattening trend. Spread product also responded to investor optimism, and returns from the investment grade corporate bond index now lag the duration-equivalent Treasury index by only 52 basis points year-to-date, up from a mid-March trough of -94 bps (Chart 1). High-Yield index returns also rebounded, and that index is now outpacing Treasuries by +150 bps so far this year. Chart 1Corporate Credit: Annual Excess Returns But for corporate bond investors, now is not the time for complacency. Out of the criteria we use to signal turns in the credit cycle, we are progressively checking more and more off our list.1 Spreads are already tight relative to history and corporate debt levels are already high. That much has been true for some time. Next up, we await a more restrictive monetary policy and a more severe slow-down in corporate profit growth to below the pace of corporate debt growth. Both of those conditions also need to be met before corporate defaults start to occur and spreads start to widen materially. In this week's report we consider each of those two conditions in turn, noting the triggers that will need to be hit for us to downgrade our current overweight allocation to corporate bonds. Condition 1: Restrictive Monetary Policy Chart 2Monetary Policy Not Yet Restrictive On the monetary policy front, we expect that monetary conditions will turn restrictive in the not-to-distant future (Chart 2). For the time being, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are still below levels that are consistent with the Fed achieving its 2% inflation target. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 2.17% and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is 2.24%. But once both of those rates reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, they will be consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations and the Fed will have one less reason to stay cautious. We will start paring exposure to corporate bonds once both the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate and the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate cross above the 2.3% threshold. The re-anchoring of inflation expectations will also impart further upside to nominal Treasury yields, and we therefore maintain our below-benchmark duration stance and continue to follow the road-map laid out in our February report detailing the two-stage Treasury bear market.2 Another traditional signal of restrictive monetary policy is a flat or inverted yield curve (Chart 2, panel 2). Intuitively, a very flat yield curve tells us that the market expects very few (if any) Fed rate hikes in the future. An inverted yield curve tells us that the market actually anticipates rate cuts. While the yield curve is not yet close to inverting, it is approaching levels that are consistent with much lower (and often negative) excess returns for both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds, as is discussed below. A third indicator of the stance of monetary policy is simply the spread between the real federal funds rate and an estimate of its equilibrium level - the level consistent with neither an accommodative nor a restrictive policy stance (Chart 2, bottom panel). While the fact that the real fed funds rate is currently quite close to the popular Laubach-Williams estimate of its equilibrium level certainly reinforces our view that policy is almost restrictive, the large degree of uncertainty inherent in this sort of estimate leads us to prefer the market signals from the slope of the yield curve and TIPS breakeven inflation rates when forming an investment strategy. The Yield Curve And Corporate Bond Returns To assess the importance of the yield curve as a predictor of turns in the credit cycle, we split each cycle going back to the mid-1970s into regimes based on the yield curve slope. We then calculate excess returns during each phase for both investment grade and high-yield corporate bonds, as well as the stock-to-bond total return ratio. We use the 3/10 yield curve slope instead of the more often quoted 2/10 slope because it allows for the inclusion of more historical data. This decision did not materially impact the results of our analysis. Chart 3 shows how we divided each cycle into three phases: Chart 3Corporate Bond Performance And The Yield Curve Phase 1 runs from the end of the previous NBER-defined recession until the slope crosses below 50 bps. Phase 2 runs from the time that the slope crosses below 50 bps until it crosses below zero. Phase 3 runs from the time that the yield curve first inverts to the start of the next recession. Notice that we do not include recessionary periods in our analysis, usually the periods with the worst excess corporate bond returns. The results of our analysis are shown in Table 1, and the first obvious result is that corporate bond excess returns are much higher in Phase 1 than in Phase 2, although Phase 2 returns are usually still positive.3 Negative excess returns occur more often than not in Phase 3, after the yield curve has inverted. Table 1Risk Asset Performance In Different Yield Curve Regimes The biggest exception to the above observations is that Phase 2 High-Yield returns actually exceeded Phase 1 High-Yield returns in the 2001-07 cycle. In our view, this exception results from the fact that corporate profit growth was well above corporate debt growth in 2005, and did not really decline until 2007, shortly after the yield curve inverted. In contrast, Phase 2 returns were exceptionally weak in the prolonged period between 1994 and 2000. In this instance, corporate profit growth actually fell below corporate debt growth in 1998, well before the yield curve inverted in 2000. This reinforces that both the stance of monetary policy and the trend in corporate leverage matter for corporate bond returns. The latter is discussed in the next section of this report. Another interesting result shown in Table 1 is that the pattern of stock market excess returns over Treasuries is the mirror image of the pattern in corporate bond excess returns. The stock market tends to perform better in Phase 2 than in Phase 1, and often even performs well in Phase 3 after the yield curve has inverted. This means that multi-asset investors should consider paring exposure to corporate bonds relative to Treasuries before they think of reducing exposure to the stock market. Bottom Line: Restrictive monetary policy is one condition that must be met before we reduce exposure to corporate bonds in our recommended portfolio. The first indication of this will likely be the re-anchoring of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates in a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. We will start paring exposure to corporate bonds when that occurs. The slope of the yield curve is already at levels that are consistent with very low excess returns. Though we demonstrate that an inverted yield curve is historically linked to even lower returns. Conviction that the yield curve is about to invert will be another trigger to further reduce corporate bond exposure in the future. Condition 2: Rising Leverage The second condition that will cause us to take even more credit risk off the table is when gross leverage for the nonfinancial corporate sector - calculated as total debt over pre-tax profits - enters an uptrend. Chart 4 shows that periods of spread widening almost always coincide with rising gross leverage, or put differently, periods when the rate of debt growth exceeds the rate of profit growth. Profit growth has kept pace with debt growth during the past few quarters, causing leverage to flatten-off and allowing corporate spreads to narrow. Going forward, the outlook for top-line corporate revenue growth (a.k.a. net value added) remains favorable, owing to an ISM index that is well above the 50 boom/bust line and still climbing (Chart 5). But on the expense side of the ledger, employee compensation - the largest expense for the corporate sector - is also poised to increase in the months ahead. Unit labor costs jumped sharply in the fourth quarter of 2017 (Chart 5, panel 2), and with the unemployment rate at 4.1% and the economy still adding jobs at a robust pace - nonfarm payrolls have increased by an average of +211k during the past six months - a further acceleration in employee compensation is likely this year. Chart 4Corporate Leverage Has Flattened Off Chart 5Wage Growth Will Hamper Profits The key question then becomes whether corporations will be able to offset rising compensation costs by lifting prices. This remains uncertain, but early indications are not favorable. Our Profit Margin Proxy - the growth in the corporate sector's implicit selling price deflator relative to the growth in unit labor costs - does an excellent job tracking pre-tax profits (Chart 5, bottom panel). At the moment, this indicator signals that profit growth will moderate in the coming quarters. Bottom Line: The outlook for top-line corporate revenue growth is strong, but employee compensation costs will also rise this year. We are doubtful that corporate profit growth will keep pace with debt growth for the remainder of year. A decline in the rate of profit growth to below the rate of corporate debt growth will be another signal to reduce exposure to corporate bonds. The Bond Map Back-Test Last week we introduced the BCA Bond Map, a graphical depiction of the current risk/reward trade-off on offer from the different sectors of the U.S. bond market.4 To summarize, in our excess return Bond Map we plot the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps of excess return on the vertical axis, and the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus Treasuries on the horizontal axis (Chart 6). The diagram is then split into four quadrants based on the location of the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate index, which we have modified to also include junk bonds. The upper-left quadrant, which we label "Best Bets", contains those sectors that offer less risk and greater excess return potential than the benchmark. The upper-right quadrant, which we label "Exciting", contains those sectors that offer higher risk than the benchmark but also higher potential returns. The bottom-left ("Boring") quadrant contains those sectors with low risk of losses but also low probability of gains, and the bottom-right ("Avoid") quadrant contains those sectors with higher risk than the benchmark and lower expected returns. As can be seen in Chart 6, the current excess return Bond Map shows that Local Authorities, Foreign Agencies and investment grade corporate bonds offer the best combination of risk and expected return. No sectors currently plot in the "Avoid" quadrant. Chart 6Excess Return Bond Map (As Of April 20, 2018) This week, we publish the results of a back-test of the real time performance of our Bond Map. To do this we produced the Bond Map at the beginning of each calendar year starting in 2006 and then calculated average excess returns for each quadrant. For example, if three sectors were in the "Best Bets" quadrant at the beginning of the year, we calculated 12-month excess returns for each sector and then averaged them together to get an excess return for "Best Bets" sectors that year.5 Table 2 shows the average and standard deviation of calendar year excess returns for each quadrant, using a sample that spans from 2006-2017. As would be expected, the "Exciting" quadrant displays the highest average excess return, but also the highest standard deviation. Conversely, the "Boring" quadrant delivers the lowest average return and the lowest risk. The performance of the "Best Bets" quadrant is somewhere in between, delivering a greater average return than the "Boring" quadrant with less risk than the "Exciting" quadrant. Although the Sharpe Ratio for the "Best Bets" quadrant turns out to be worse than the Sharpe ratio for both the "Exciting" and "Boring" quadrants. This provides some support for the investment strategy of favoring either the "Exciting" or "Boring" quadrants depending on your assessment of the macro environment. The "Avoid" quadrant actually delivered negative excess returns on average, with elevated risk. Table 2Excess Return Bond Map Track Record (2006-2017) For comparison we also show the average and standard deviation of excess returns for the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate index, augmented with High-Yield. The benchmark delivered excess returns only slightly greater than the "Boring" quadrant, with significantly more risk. The total return version of the Bond Map is shown in Chart 7. This is identical to the excess return Bond Map, except it shows the number of days of average increase/decrease in yields for each sector to lose/earn 5% total return. We perform the identical back-test as with the excess return map, and display the results in Table 3. Chart 7Total Return Bond Map (As Of April 20, 2018) Table 3Total Return Bond Map Track Record (2006-2017) Here we see the interesting result that the average total returns are higher in the "Best Bets" quadrant than in the "Exciting" quadrant, but strangely the "Best Bets" quadrant also delivered greater volatility. The "Boring" quadrant delivered the best Sharpe Ratio, while the "Avoid" sector delivered both lower average returns and greater volatility than the "Boring" quadrant. For comparison, the average total returns for the Aggregate index (plus High-Yield) were lower than the total returns from any of the four quadrants, but also with less volatility. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 We define the "turn" in the credit cycle as when corporate defaults start to occur and corporate spreads enter a sustained widening phase. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Two-Stage Bear Market In Bonds", dated February 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For the Phase 1 period in Cycle 2 we use an interval of June 1983 to July 1988 because High-Yield excess returns are only available starting in June 1983. In reality, the Phase 1 period should have started when the prior recession ended in December 1982. Using the correct interval (starting in December 1982) investment grade corporate bond excess returns are +131 bps and the stock-to-bond ratio returns are +5.19%, both annualized. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Back To Basics", dated April 17, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 We started our back-test sample in 2006 even though our sector data goes back to 2000. Because our bond map relies on historical estimates of spread/yield volatility, we wanted a sample of at least five years of data before starting the test. With each passing year more back-data is incorporated into our spread/yield volatility estimates, which should improve the Bond Map's accuracy over time. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification