Fixed Income
Highlights The euro is cheap. To cease being cheap, EUR/USD needs to approach 1.35. Euro area bonds are expensive. To cease being expensive, the yield spread between the euro area and U.S. long bond needs to compress from -135 bps to -40 bps. Never pick mainstream stock markets on the basis of seeming cheapness. Sector effects, step changes in sector valuations and currency effects make relative valuations very difficult to interpret. Always pick mainstream stock markets on the basis of the sector and currency biases you wish to express. Overweight Denmark's OMX and Ireland's ISEQ on a 6-9 month horizon. Feature A very common question we get asked is: are European investments attractively priced compared to those elsewhere in the world? To which the current answers are: yes for the euro currency; no for euro area government bonds; and highly unlikely for the aggregate European stock market. That said, we can still identify individual European stock markets that are well placed to outperform major equity indexes, including the S&P500, over the coming 6-9 months. Chart of the WeekWhen Healthcare Outperforms, Denmark's OMX Outperforms The S&P 500 The Euro Is Cheap... Says The ECB We can confidently claim that the euro is cheap because the ECB's own indicators say so.1 According to the ECB, the euro needs to appreciate at least 7% to cancel the euro area's over-competitiveness versus its top 19 trading partners. In terms of EUR/USD this translates to 1.32. Admittedly, 1.32 encapsulates a spectrum of fair values for the individual euro area economies: 1.45 for Germany; around 1.30 for France, Spain and Netherlands; and around 1.20 for Italy (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Euro Needs To Appreciate 7% To Cancel The Euro Area's Over-Competitiveness The ECB indicators also assume that the euro began its life close to fair value. This seems plausible. Twenty years ago, the euro area's constituent economies were broadly in internal balance and had a lot in common. Remarkably, Germany and Italy scored identically on total debt as a share of GDP as well as on exports as a share of GDP. Furthermore, euro area trade was in external balance, and the bloc's real competitiveness versus its major trading partners was exactly in line with its long-term average. After its birth, the euro first became extremely undervalued in the dot com bubble, then extremely overvalued in the global credit boom, and most recently, extremely undervalued again. Seen in this bigger picture, the euro's current ascent is just a recovery from an extreme undervaluation, an argument that even Mario Draghi made at the last ECB press conference: "Movements in the exchange rate, to the extent that it is justified by the strengthening of the economy, is part of nature." At what level would EUR/USD cease to be cheap? Based on the average of the ECB's three competitiveness indicators, EUR/USD needs to approach 1.35. Euro Area Bonds Are Expensive The yield spread between the euro area and U.S. long bond stands at an extreme -135 bps.2 This compares with an average -40 bps through the twenty year life of the euro - indicating that euro area government bonds are very expensive relative to U.S. T-bonds. Over the completion of this cycle, this yield spread is highly likely to compress to its long-term average of -40 bps, given that the yield spread just tracks relative real GDP per head - which is itself mean-reverting (Chart I-3). Interestingly, the euro area versus U.S. annual inflation differential has also averaged -40 bps (Chart I-4), so the real interest rate differential has averaged zero. This means that the so-called 'neutral' (or mid-cycle) real interest rates in the euro area and the U.S. have been identical through the past twenty years. Growth in real GDP per head has also been identical (Chart I-5). Chart I-3Euro Area-U.S.: Average Interest ##br##Rate Differential = -40bps Chart I-4Euro Area-U.S.: Average Inflation ##br##Differential = -40bps Chart I-5The Euro Area And U.S. Have Generated##br## Identical Growth Per Head The past twenty years provide a good template for what the future holds, at least in relative terms if not in absolute terms. This is because 1999-2018 captures multiple manias and crises, some centred in Europe, some in the U.S. With no difference in neutral real rates over the past two decades, is there any reason to expect the future neutral rate to be meaningfully lower in the euro area compared to the U.S.? Our starting assumption has to be no. This assumption would be at risk if the existential threat to the euro resurfaced. Looking at the political calendar, the immediate concern might be the Italian election on March 4. Specifically, the anti-establishment Five Star Movement and Northern League could poll well enough to hold some sway in the next government and ruffle the markets. However, while both the Five Star Movement and Northern League have agendas that are unashamedly disruptive, anti-establishment and anti-austerity, neither party is standing on an anti-euro platform. Unless there is a major change in emphasis, the Italian election should not pose an existential threat to the euro. Our central expectation is that the euro area versus U.S. yield spread has the scope to compress substantially from its current -135 bps. In other words, euro area government bonds are very expensive relative to U.S. T-bonds. Never Pick Stock Markets On The Basis Of Seeming Cheapness Compared with currencies and bonds, stock markets are much less connected with their domestic economies. Mainstream stock markets are eclectic collections of multinational companies, with each stock market possessing its own unique fingerprint of sector and industry skews. Therefore, a head-to-head comparison of European stock market valuations either with each other or with non-European stock markets is a meaningless and potentially dangerous exercise. Two sectors with vastly different structural growth prospects - say, Financials and Personal Products (Chart I-6) - must necessarily trade on vastly different valuations. So the sector with the lower valuation is not necessarily the cheaper sector. By extension, a stock market with a lower valuation because of its sector fingerprint is not necessarily a cheaper stock market. Chart I-6Two Sectors With Vastly Different Growth Prospects Will Trade On Vastly Different Valuations Some people suggest comparing a valuation with its own history, and assessing how many 'standard deviations' it is above or below its norm. The problem with this standard deviation approach is that it assumes 'stationarity' - meaning, no step changes in a sector's valuation through time. Unfortunately, sector valuations can and do undergo major step changes when they enter a vastly different economic climate. For example, the structural outlook for bank profits undergoes a step change when a debt super-cycle ends. Therefore, comparing a bank valuation after a debt super-cycle with the valuation during a debt super-cycle is like comparing an apple with an orange. Another issue for stock markets that contain multinational companies is the so-called 'currency translation effect'. A multinational company will intentionally diversify its sales and profits across multiple major currencies - say, euros, dollars and yen - but of course its primary stock market listing will be in just one currency - say, euros. So when the other currencies weaken versus the euro, the company's profit growth (quoted in its home currency of euros) will necessarily weaken too. If investors anticipate this effect - because they see that the euro is structurally cheap today - they might downgrade the stock market's profit growth expectations. Thereby, they will also downgrade the stock market's valuation. Pulling together these complexities of sector effects, step changes in sector valuations and currency effects, we offer some very strong advice: picking stock markets on the basis of relative valuation is a wrong and very dangerous way to invest. The correct and safe way to invest is to pick stock markets on the basis of the sector and currency biases you wish to express (Chart I-7). This brings us to one of the major advantages of investing in Europe. The plethora of stock markets - each with their own unique fingerprint of sector and industry skews - means that there are always European bourses worth overweighting, whatever your economic outlook. Right now, two of our sector recommendations are to overweight Healthcare and to underweight Energy. Please review our report Beware The Great Moderation 2.0 for the underlying thesis, which we will not repeat here.3 If these sector recommendations pan out as we expect, Denmark's OMX is highly likely to outperform the S&P500 given the OMX's substantial overweighting to Healthcare (Chart of the Week). Likewise, Ireland's ISEQ is highly likely to outperform the S&P500 given the ISEQ's substantial underweighting to Energy via its large exposure to budget airline Ryanair (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Eurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 Is Just 3 Banks Vs.##br## 3 Tech Stocks! Chart I-8When Energy Underperforms, Ireland's ##br##ISEQ Outperforms The S&P 500 Overweight Denmark's OMX And Ireland's ISEQ. A final salutary observation illustrates the importance of the sector approach to picking stock markets. As a result of favourable sector biases - overweight Healthcare, underweight Energy - a 50:50 combination of Denmark and Ireland has kept pace with the S&P500 over the past 20 years, while the Eurostoxx50 has been left a very long way behind (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Sector Biases Helped Denmark's OMX And Ireland's ISEQ, But Hindered The Eurostoxx 50 Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Available at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats. The ECB calculates three Harmonised Competitiveness Indicators for the euro area versus its top 19 trading partners based on unit labour costs (ULCs), GDP deflators, and consumer price indices (CPIs), with the latest readings referring to Q3 2017 for ULCs and GDP deflators and January 2018 for CPIs. Updating these for the euro's move to February 20 2018, the three indicators suggest that the trade-weighted euro is still undervalued by 7%, 12% and 7% respectively. 2 Calculated from the over 10-year government bond yield: euro area average, weighted by sovereign issue size, less U.S. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'Beware The Great Moderation 2.0' published on February 1, 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* This week our fractal model has produced a very interesting finding. The 130-day fractal dimension for the U.S. 10-year T-bond is approaching a level which has consistently signalled a technical inflection point. This suggests that the recent sell-off in bonds might be close to running its course. We are not putting on a countertrend position yet, but expect to do so within the next few weeks. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights The call on EM local bonds boils down to the outlook for EM exchange rates. Forthcoming EM currency depreciation will halt the rally in local bonds. EM currencies positively correlate with commodities prices but not with domestic real interest rates. Widening U.S. twin deficits are not a reason to be long EM currencies. There has historically been no consistent relationship between the U.S. exchange rate and America's twin deficits in general, or its fiscal balance, in particular. For investors who have to be invested in EM domestic bonds, our recommended overweights are Russia, Argentina, Poland, the Czech Republic, Korea, India and Thailand. Feature The stampede into EM local currency bonds has persisted even amid recent jitters in global equity markets. Notably, surging U.S./DM bond yields have failed to cause a spike in EM local yields, despite past positive correlations (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Will EM Domestic Bond Yields Continue Defying Rising U.S. Treasury Yields? The main reason is the resilience of EM currencies. The latter have not sold off even during the recent correction in global share prices. In high-yielding EM domestic bond markets, total returns are substantially affected by exchange rates. Not only do U.S. dollar total returns on local bonds suffer when EM currencies depreciate, but also weaker EM exchange rates cause spikes in domestic bond yields (Chart I-2). Consequently, the call on EM local bonds, especially in high-yielding markets, boils down to the outlook for EM exchange rates. Chart I-2EM Currencies Drive EM Local Yields We are negative on EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar and the euro. The basis for our view is two-fold: Strong growth in the U.S. and higher U.S. bond yields should be supportive of the greenback vis-à-vis EM currencies; the same applies to euro area growth and the euro against EM exchange rates; Weaker growth in China should weigh on commodities prices and, in turn, on EM currencies. So far, this view has not played out. In fact, negative sentiment on the U.S. dollar has recently been amplified by concerns about America's widening fiscal and current account deficits. In fact, one might argue that EM local bonds stand to benefit from the potential widening in U.S. twin deficits and the flight out of the U.S. dollar. We address the issue of U.S. twin deficits first. Twin Deficits And The U.S. Dollar... The recent narrative that the dollar typically depreciates during periods of widening twin deficits is not supported by historical evidence. We are not suggesting that twin deficits lead to currency appreciation. Our argument is that twin deficits have historically coincided with both appreciation and depreciation of the U.S. dollar. Chart I-3 exhibits the relationship between the U.S. dollar and the fiscal and current account balances. It appears that there is no consistent relationship between the fiscal and current account balances and the exchange rate. Chart I-3No Stable Relationship Between U.S. Twin Deficits And Dollar To produce a quantitative measure of the twin deficits, we sum up both the fiscal and current account balances. Chart I-4 demonstrates the relationship between the latter measure and the trade-weighted U.S. dollar. This analysis encompasses the entire history of the floating U.S. dollar since 1971. Chart I-4Combination Of U.S. Twin Deficits And Real Bond Yields Better Explain Dollar The vertical lines denote the tax cuts under former U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and 1986, and under former U.S. President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003. As can be seen from Chart I-4, there is no stable relationship between the twin deficits and the greenback. In the 1970s, there was no consistent relationship at all; In the first half of the 1980s, the twin deficits widened substantially, but the dollar rallied dramatically. The tailwind behind the rally was tightening monetary policy and rising/high real U.S. interest rates; From 1985 through 1993, there was no consistent relationship between America's twin deficits and the currency; From 1994 until 2001, the greenback appreciated as the twin deficits narrowed, particularly the fiscal deficit; From 2001 through 2011, the dollar was in a bear market as the twin deficits expanded; From 2011 until 2016, the shrinking-to-stable twin deficits were accompanied by a U.S. dollar rally. Bottom Line: We infer from these charts that there has historically been no stable relationship between the U.S. exchange rate and America's twin deficits in general, or its fiscal balance, in particular. ... And A Missing Variable: Interest Rates Twin deficits are often associated with rising inflation. In fact, a widening current account deficit can mask hidden price pressures. In particular, an economy that over-consumes - consumes more than it produces - can satisfy its demand via imports without exerting pressure on the economy's domestic productive capacity. Booming imports will lead to a widening trade deficit rather than higher consumer price inflation. Hence, in an open economy, over-consumption can lead to a widening current account deficit, rather than rising inflation. A currency is likely to plunge amid widening twin deficits if the central bank is behind the inflation curve. In such a case, the low real interest rates would undermine the value of the exchange rate. If the central bank, however, embarks on monetary tightening that is adequate, the currency can in fact strengthen amid growing twin deficits. In this scenario, rising real interest rates would support the currency. With respect to the U.S. dollar today, its future trajectory depends on the Fed, and the market's perception of its policy stance. If the market discerns that the Fed is behind the curve, the greenback will plummet. By contrast, if the market reckons that the Fed policy response is appropriate, and U.S. real interest rates are sufficiently high/rising, the dollar could in fact appreciate amid widening twin deficits. Specifically, the U.S. dollar was in a major bull market in the early 1980s, with Reagan's tax cuts in 1981 and the ensuing widening of the country's twin deficits doing little to thwart the dollar bull market (Chart I-4). In turn, the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 were followed by a major dollar bear market. The main culprit between these two and other episodes was probably real interest rates. U.S. real interest rates/bond yields rose between 1981 and 1985, generating an enormous dollar rally. In the decade of the 2000s, by contrast, U.S. real interest rates fell and that coincided with a major bear market in the greenback (Chart I-4). Overall, the combination of U.S. twin deficits and real bond yields together, help better explain U.S. dollar dynamics than twin deficits alone. We agree that America's twin deficits will widen materially. That said, odds are that the Fed commits to further rate hikes and that U.S. bond yields continue to rise. In fact, not only are U.S. inflation breakeven yields climbing, but TIPS (real) yields have also spiked significantly. Rising real yields, which in our opinion have more upside, should support the U.S. dollar. As a final point, if the Fed falls behind the curve and the dollar continues to tumble, the markets could begin to fear a material rise in U.S. inflationary pressures. That scenario would actually resemble market dynamics that prevailed before the 1987 stock market crash. Although this is a negative scenario for the U.S. currency and is, by default, bullish for EM exchange rates and their local bonds, this is not ultimately an optimistic scenario for global risk assets. Bottom Line: Twin deficits are not solely sufficient to produce a currency bear market. Twin deficits accompanied by a central bank that is behind the inflation curve - i.e., combined with low/falling real interest rates - are what generate sufficient conditions for currency depreciation. EM Currencies And Commodities Many EM exchange rates - such as those in Latin America, as well as South African, Russian, Malaysian and Indonesian currencies - are primarily driven by commodities prices. Not surprisingly, the underlying currency index of the EM local bond benchmark index (the JPM GBI index) - which excludes China, India, Korea and Taiwan - positively correlates with commodities prices (Chart I-5). Hence, getting commodities prices right is of paramount importance to the majority of high-yielding EM local bonds. We have the following observations: First, investors' net long positions in both oil and copper are extremely elevated (Chart I-6). The last datapoint is as of February 16. Any rebound in the U.S. dollar or mounting concerns about China's growth could produce a meaningful drop in commodities prices as investors rush to close their long positions. Second, we maintain that China's intake of commodities is bound to decelerate, as decelerating credit growth and local governments' budget constraints lead to curtailment of infrastructure and property investment (Chart I-7). Chart I-5EM Currencies Positively Correlate ##br##With Commodities Prices Chart I-6Investors Are Very Long##br## Copper And Oil Chart I-7Slowdown In ##br##China's Capex Strong growth in the U.S. and EU will not offset the decline in China's intake of raw materials (excluding oil). China accounts for 50% of global demand for industrial metals. America's consumption of industrial metals is about 6-7 times smaller. For crude oil, China's share of global consumption is 14% compared with 20% and 15% for the U.S. and EU, respectively. We do not expect outright contraction in China's crude imports or consumption. The point is that when financial markets begin to price in weaker mainland growth or the U.S. dollar rebounds, oil prices will retreat as investors reduce their record high net long positions. Finally, even though EM twin deficits have ameliorated in recent years, they remain wide (Chart I-8). In turn, the majority of these countries have been financing their deficits by volatile foreign portfolio flows, as FDIs into EM remain largely depressed. If commodities prices relapse and EM currencies depreciate, there will be a period of reversal in foreign portfolio inflows into EM. While EM real local bonds yields are reasonably high, they are unlikely to prevent outflows if the U.S. dollar rallies. In the past, neither high absolute EM real yields nor their wide spreads over U.S. TIPS prevented EM currency depreciation (Chart I-9). Chart I-8AEM Twin Deficits Have Ameliorated ##br##But Are Still Wide Chart I-8BEM Twin Deficits Have Ameliorated ##br##But Are Still Wide Chart I-9EM Local Real Yields Do Not ##br##Drive Their Currencies EM Local Bonds: Country Allocation Strategy Chart I-10 attempts to identify pockets of value in EM domestic bonds. It exhibits the sum of current account and fiscal balances on the X axis, and domestic bond yields deflated by headline inflation on the Y axis. Chart I-10Identifying Pockets Of Value In EM Domestic Bonds Markets in the upper-right corner should be favored as they offer high real yields and maintain healthy fiscal and current account balances. Bond markets in the lower-left corner should be underweighted. They have low inflation-adjusted yields and large current account and fiscal deficits. Based on these metrics as well as fundamental analysis, our recommended country allocation for EM domestic bond portfolios has been and remains: Overweights: Russia, Argentina, Poland, the Czech Republic, Korea, India and Thailand. Neutral: Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Hungary, Chile and Colombia. Underweights: Turkey, South Africa and Malaysia. The below elaborates on Brazil, Russia and South Africa. Russia Fiscal and monetary policies are extremely tight. While they are curtailing the economic recovery, they are very friendly for creditors. Interest rates deflated by both headline and core consumer price inflation are at their highest on record, government spending is lackluster, and the new fiscal rule has replenished the country's foreign currency reserves (Chart I-11). Besides, the government's budget assumption for oil prices is very conservative - in the low-$40s per barrel for this year and 2019. Commercial banks have been increasing provisions, even though the NPL ratio is falling. In fact, Russia is well advanced in terms of both corporate and household deleveraging as well as banking system adjustment. On the whole, having experienced two large recessions in the past 10 years and having pursued extremely orthodox fiscal and monetary policies, Russian markets have become much more insulated from negative external shocks than many of their peers. In brief, Russian financial markets have become low-beta markets,1 and they will outperform their EM peers in a selloff even if oil prices slide. Brazil Brazilian local bonds offer the highest inflation-adjusted yields. However, unlike Russia, Brazil has untenable public debt dynamics, and its politics remain a wild card. The public debt-to-GDP ratio is 16% in Russia and 80% in Brazil. The fiscal deficit in Brazil stands at a whopping 8% of GDP, and interest payments on public debt are equal to 6% of GDP. Without major fiscal reforms, Brazil's public debt will continue to surge and will likely reach almost 100% of GDP by the end of 2020. High real interest rates are not only holding back the recovery but are also making public debt dynamics unsustainable. Chart I-12 illustrates that nominal GDP growth is well below local government bond yields. Chart I-11Continue Favoring ##br##Russian Local Bonds Chart I-12Brazil: Borrowing Costs Are Dreadful ##br##For Public Debt Dynamics Brazil needs either much higher nominal growth or major fiscal tightening to stem the surge in the public debt-to-GDP ratio. The necessary fiscal reforms - social security restructuring or primary budget surpluses - are not politically feasible right now. Meanwhile, materially higher nominal growth can be achieved only if interest rates are brought down quickly and drastically and the currency is devalued meaningfully. Hence, the primary risk to Brazilian local bonds is the exchange rate. The currency is at risk from potentially lower commodities prices on the external side, and continuous public debt deterioration, debt monetization or drastic interest rate cuts on the domestic side. Remarkably, Chart I-13 demonstrates that historically real interest rates in Brazil do not explain fluctuations in the real. The currency, rather, positively correlates with commodities prices (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Brazil: No Relationship Between##br## Real Yields And Currency Chart I-14The Brazilian Real And ##br##Commodities Prices It is possible that policymakers find an optimal balance between these adjustment paths, and financial markets continue to rally. However, with the current government lacking any political capital and great uncertainty surrounding the October presidential elections; the outlook is very risky, We recommend a neutral allocation to Brazilian local bonds for EM domestic bond portfolios. South Africa The South African rand and fixed-income markets have surged in the wake of Cyril Ramaphosa's win of the ANC leadership elections and his taking over of the presidency from Jacob Zuma. This has been devastating to our short rand and underweight local bonds positions. Chart I-15The South African Rand And Metals Prices There is no doubt that President Ramaphosa will adopt some market-friendly policies. This will constitute a major change from Zuma's handling of the economy in the past nine years. Yet the outlook for the rand is also contingent on global markets. If commodities prices do not relapse and EM risk assets generally perform well, the rand will continue strengthening, and local bond yields will decline further. However, if metals prices begin to drop and EM currencies sell off, it will be hard for the South African currency to rally further (Chart I-15). While we acknowledge the potential for positive political announcements and actions from the new political leadership, the main drivers of the rand, in our opinion, remain the trends in the U.S. dollar and commodities prices. Some investors might be tempted to compare South Africa to Brazil in terms of political headwinds turning into tailwinds. From a political vantage point, it is a fair comparison. Nevertheless, investors should put Brazil's rally into perspective. If commodities prices did not rise in 2016-2017, the Brazilian real would not have rallied. In brief, external tailwinds are as - if not more - important for EM high-yielding currencies than domestic political developments. Positive political developments are magnified amid a benign external backdrop. Conversely, in a negative external environment, positive political transformations can have limited impact on the direction of financial markets. To reflect the potential for a positive political change and forthcoming orthodox macro policies, we are closing our bet on yield curve steepening in South Africa. This position was stipulated by unorthodox macro policies of the previous government. This trade has been flat since its initiation on June 28, 2017. Weighing pros and cons, we are reluctant to upgrade the South African rand and its fixed-income market at the moment because of our negative view on metals prices and EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar. Investment Conclusions The broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar is at record oversold levels (Chart I-16). Given the forthcoming U.S. fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely lift its dots and the greenback will rebound. This is bearish for EM currencies, especially if China's growth slows and commodities prices roll over, as we expect. EM exchange rate depreciation will halt the rally in local bonds, especially in high-yielding markets. Foreign holdings of EM local bonds are elevated (Table I-1). Hence, risks of unwinding of some positions are not trivial. Chart I-16The U.S. Dollar Is Due For A Rally Table I-1Foreign Ownership Of EM Local Bonds Is High Nevertheless, as we have argued in the past, EM local bonds offer great diversification benefits to all type of portfolios, as their correlations with many asset classes are low. For domestic bond investors who have to be invested, our recommended overweights are Russia, Argentina, Poland, the Czech Republic, Korea, India and Thailand. As to the sovereign and corporate credit markets, asset allocators should compare these with U.S. corporate credit. Consistent with our negative view on EM currencies and equities vis-à-vis their U.S. counterparts, we recommend favoring U.S. corporates versus EM sovereign and corporate credit. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Russia: Entering A Lower-Beta Paradigm," dated March 8, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights Stage 1: The first stage of the bond bear market is being driven by a re-anchoring of inflation expectations. This stage will be complete when both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target range of 2.3% to 2.5%. Stage 2: How high Treasury yields rise in Stage 2 of the bond bear market will be determined by expectations for the terminal fed funds rate. Assuming a 3% terminal rate, we would expect the 10-year Treasury yield to peak somewhere between 3.08% and 3.59%. Risks: If our model suggests that economic surprises are likely to turn negative at a time when we also see extended net short bond positioning, then that would likely present an opportunity to tactically increase portfolio duration even though the cyclical bond bear market would remain intact. The risk of a growth slowdown emanating from China or other emerging markets also bears monitoring. Feature Some degree of calm returned to financial markets last week. The S&P 500 bounced back above 2700 and the VIX fell back below 20. Corporate bond spreads also tightened somewhat - the average High-Yield index spread tightened from 369 bps to 341 bps and the investment grade spread tightened from 95 bps to 93 bps - but the factors we are monitoring to determine the end of the credit cycle continue to send warning signs (Chart 1). We view the recent turmoil as markets adjusting to a Fed that must now become less responsive to financial conditions because inflationary pressures are mounting. As we discussed in last week's report, this dynamic is best explained using our Fed Policy Loop.1 It follows from our Fed Policy Loop analysis that we should track measures of inflation and inflation expectations and start taking credit risk off the table as these indicators rise. In that regard, neither TIPS breakeven inflation rates nor commodity prices - an indicator of pipeline inflation pressure - corrected much in the past few weeks (Chart 1, bottom panel). This suggests that the end of the credit cycle is approaching. We reiterate our view that it will soon be time to scale back the credit risk in our recommended portfolio. We will likely begin this process once both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. We discuss the intuition behind this target range in the section titled "A Fair Value For TIPS Breakevens" below. Currently, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate sits at 2.09% and the 5-year/5-year forward rate is 2.18%. Unlike credit spreads, the sell-off in Treasuries did not abate at all last week. Volatility also returned to the rates market, coinciding with a steeper yield curve (Chart 2). We are not nearly as anxious to increase the duration of our recommended portfolio as we are to scale back on credit risk, and believe that Treasury yields still have considerable cyclical upside. Chart 1No Correction In Breakevens Chart 2No Correction In Bond Yields In this week's report we discuss how we see the Treasury bear market proceeding in two stages, and also start the process of thinking about how high the 10-year Treasury yield can get before the next recession hits. We also highlight several near-term risks that could temporarily derail the cyclical bond bear market. The Two-Stage Treasury Bear Market. Stage 1: Re-Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations For some time it has been our view that the economic recovery is unlikely to end before inflation returns to the Fed's 2% target. This is simply because when inflation is very low the Fed has an incentive to keep policy accommodative, and restrictive monetary policy is typically a pre-condition for recession. It therefore struck us as odd that as recently as June 2017 the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was only 1.66%, well below levels consistent with the Fed's target. It was as though the market expected that inflation would never move higher no matter how long the Fed maintained an easy policy stance. That notion always seemed far-fetched, and this is why the first stage of the cyclical bond bear market was always likely to be driven by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations. This is the stage we are in currently, and indeed it is almost complete. We will deem that inflation expectations have become re-anchored (and the first stage of the cyclical bond bear market is complete) when both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target range of 2.3% to 2.5%. This means that, assuming unchanged real yields, the nominal 10-year Treasury yield has another 21 bps to 41 bps of upside in Stage 1. A Fair Value For TIPS Breakevens To arrive at our fair value target for the inflation compensation embedded in the 10-year Treasury yield, we looked back to the last period when inflation was well-anchored around the Fed's 2% target. This occurred between July 2004 and June 2008. We note that during this timeframe the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate spent 56% of its time between 2.3% and 2.5%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate spent 73% of its time in that range (Chart 3).2 The 2.3% to 2.5% range therefore seems like a good starting point, but we must also consider whether something has changed since the mid-2000s that might lead to a different fair value range today. One possible difference would be if the spread between CPI and PCE inflation changed significantly. The Fed targets 2% PCE inflation, but TIPS are linked to CPI inflation. CPI inflation was somewhat higher than PCE inflation in the mid-2000s, and this is one reason why TIPS breakevens were somewhat higher than 2% throughout that period. At present, we observe that the spread between CPI and PCE inflation is only slightly above where it was in the mid-2000s (Chart 4), and note that it will probably trend lower in the coming months. Chart 3TIPS Breakevens When Inflation Is ##br##Anchored (July 2004 to June 2008) Chart 4CPI Versus ##br##PCE The two biggest reasons for divergences between PCE and CPI inflation are: The different treatment of medical care inflation in the two indexes. CPI includes only out-of-pocket medical care expenses. PCE includes spending by the government on a person's behalf. The greater weight of shelter in CPI. Lately, the difference in medical care inflation between the two indexes has narrowed considerably and our models suggest that shelter inflation will continue to moderate in the months ahead (Chart 4, bottom 2 panels). This suggests that the spread between CPI and PCE inflation will continue to tighten. If the spread were to fall much below its average level from the mid-2000s, then we would revise our target range for TIPS breakevens down accordingly. The second reason why the fair value range for TIPS breakevens might be different than it was in the mid-2000s is if the inflation risk premium has undergone a structural shift. The compensation for inflation priced into bond yields can be split into (i) an expectation for future inflation and (ii) a risk premium to compensate investors for the uncertainty in that expectation. Other factors, such as changes in the post-crisis regulatory environment that impact the attractiveness of TIPS as an investment vehicle, could also potentially cause a structural shift in the inflation risk premium. We addressed this possibility in a report last year, but so far we see no conclusive evidence that such a structural shift has occurred.3 Indeed, the fact that breakevens have risen back close to their pre-crisis range in recent months suggests that the inflation risk premium is probably not structurally lower. Bottom Line: The first stage of the bond bear market is being driven by a re-anchoring of inflation expectations. This stage will be complete when both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target range of 2.3% to 2.5%. The nominal 10-year Treasury yield has another 21 bps to 41 bps of upside before this phase of the bear market is complete. The Two-Stage Treasury Bear Market. Stage 2: Fed Rate Hikes & The Terminal Rate Debate Once inflation expectations are re-anchored the cyclical bond bear market will shift into Stage 2. With no further upside in the cost of inflation protection the emphasis in this stage will be on the path of real yields. The main question will be: How high will the Fed have to lift the real interest rate to contain inflationary pressures? Or alternatively: What is the terminal fed funds rate in this cycle? The answers to the above questions will ultimately determine how high the real 10-year Treasury yield can rise, and provide us with an end-of-cycle target for the nominal 10-year yield. Anchoring Around The Fed's Projections Chart 5Stage 2 Is All About The Terminal Rate At the moment, most FOMC participants estimate the terminal fed funds rate to be in the range of 2.75% to 3%. This may or may not be proven correct, but at least for now the market is likely to anchor around that expectation. In other words, the only way we will find out if that projection is too low is if the fed funds rate is lifted close to the 2.75% to 3% range but inflation continues to rise and economic growth shows no signs of slowing. With the fed funds rate still at 1.42%, we are at least four rate hikes away from that range. This means that any potential upward revisions to the Fed's terminal rate projections are more likely a story for late-2018 or early-2019. Notice in Chart 5 that the Fed has responded to falling inflation by lowering its median projected terminal fed funds rate, but has been more hesitant to increase its projection in response to rising inflation. This means the Fed could wait until inflation is much closer to its target before making any significant upward revisions to its terminal rate projection. The market would likely react more quickly than the Fed, but not by much. Notice that the decline in the 5-year/5-year forward overnight index swap rate was more or less coincident with the downward revisions to the Fed's projected terminal rate between 2014 and 2016 (Chart 5, bottom panel). Our view is that the market will anchor around the Fed's terminal rate projections for at least the next six months. With that in mind, we can make some back-of-the-envelope calculations for how high the 10-year Treasury yield will get before the end of the cycle. To do this we consider that the nominal 10-year yield consists of four components: Inflation expectations Inflation risk premium Real rate expectations Real risk premium Our target range of 2.3% to 2.5% for the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate encompasses both the inflation expectations and inflation risk premium components. If we then assume a terminal fed funds rate of 3%, we get a real rate expectation of 1% (we subtract the Fed's 2% inflation target). This means that even if we assume no real risk premium, we get a conservative estimate for the end-of-cycle level of the nominal 10-year Treasury yield of 3.3% to 3.5%. Turning To The Models As a check on our back-of-the-envelope calculations we created simple fair value models for both the 2-year and 10-year Treasury yields (Chart 6). Both models have three independent variables: The fed funds rate Our 12-month fed funds discounter (to capture expectations for future changes in the fed funds rate) The MOVE index of implied interest rate volatility (as a proxy for the term premium) These models allow us to input various scenarios for the expected path of rate hikes and implied volatility, and then come up with appropriate fair value targets for the 10-year and 2-year Treasury yields. The results from various scenarios are shown in Table 1. Chart 6Treasury Yield Models Table 1End-Of-Cycle Treasury Yield Projections Under Different Scenarios For example, let's assume that the terminal fed funds rate is 3%. Let's also assume that the Fed delivers four rate hikes this year and the market moves to expect another two rate hikes in 2019. That would mean the market is pricing-in a fed funds rate of 2.92% by the end of 2019 - very close to a 3% terminal rate assumption. If we further assume that implied rate volatility stays flat at its current level, then our model gives us a target of 3.59% for the 10-year Treasury yield. This would seem like a reasonable end-of-cycle target for the 10-year Treasury yield in an environment with a 3% terminal fed funds rate. Table 1 also demonstrates the importance of interest rate volatility. If we assume the exact same scenario for rate hikes but also allow the MOVE index to return to its recent lows, then our end-of-cycle target for the 10-year Treasury yield falls to 3.08%. Conversely, if we allow the MOVE index to rise to its historical average, the target for the 10-year yield rises to 4.25%. As we discussed in last week's report, interest rate volatility is more likely to fall than rise between now and the end of the cycle.4 This is due to the strong correlation between interest rate volatility and the slope of the yield curve. As the Fed tightens and the curve flattens, implied volatility tends to decline. In fact, because of its strong correlation with the slope of the yield curve, any scenario where implied rate volatility increases significantly would coincide with an environment where the terminal fed funds rate is being revised higher. If 3% turns out to be a reasonable estimate for the terminal fed funds rate, then implied rate volatility is much more likely to fall than rise. All in all, if we assume that the fed funds rate will only return to 3% before the next recession, then we should expect the 10-year Treasury yield to eventually settle into a range between 3.08% and 3.59% by the end of the second stage of the cyclical bond bear market. We plan to explore whether 3% is a reasonable expectation for the terminal fed funds rate in future reports. Bottom Line: How high Treasury yields rise in Stage 2 of the bond bear market will be determined by how expectations for the terminal fed funds rate evolve. If, for now, we assume that the Fed's 3% terminal rate projection is roughly correct, then the 10-year Treasury yield will peak somewhere between 3.08% and 3.59%. Three Risks To The Bond Bear Market It is important to point out that the two-stage cyclical bond bear market described above may not play out un-interrupted. In this section we highlight three potential risks that could cause us to, at least temporarily, increase the duration of our recommended portfolio. Risk 1: Positioning One risk that could flare up in the near-term is that short positioning in the Treasury market has ramped up significantly in recent weeks. Since the financial crisis, net short positions in 10-year Treasury futures have often coincided with a lower 10-year Treasury yield three months later (Chart 7). Similarly, we have also seen positioning in oil futures become extremely net long (Chart 7, bottom panel). In a recent report we analyzed the strong correlation between oil prices and TIPS breakeven inflation rates and concluded that the correlation would likely persist throughout Stage 1 of the bond bear market.5 A significant relapse in oil prices would very likely filter through to lower bond yields. Chart 7Risk 1 = Positioning Risk 2: Unrealistic Expectations Much like how consensus is forming around short bond positions, consensus economic expectations are also being revised higher. This is what happens when the economic data surprise positively for a significant period of time. Expectations eventually ratchet up and then become too optimistic for the data to surpass. It is this dynamic that causes the Economic Surprise Index to be mean reverting (Chart 8). In previous reports we have shown that months with negative data surprises tend to coincide with falling Treasury yields, and vice-versa.6 While negative data surprises are not an imminent risk - a simple auto-regressive model of the Economic Surprise Index shows we should expect an index reading of +15 in one month's time - the surprise index will eventually move below zero and this will likely coincide with at least some pull-back in bond yields. Risk 3: Global Growth Slowdown A third risk to the cyclical bond bear market is that we see a relapse in global growth that derails the economic recovery before Treasury yields reach our target range. At the moment our 2-factor Treasury model - based on Global Manufacturing PMI and bullish sentiment toward the dollar - still posits a fair value 10-year Treasury yield of 3.01% (Chart 9), but a significant growth scare emanating from outside the U.S. would cause both the Global PMI to fall and bullish sentiment toward the dollar to rise. Both of those factors are bullish for U.S. bonds. Chart 8Risk 2 = Economic Surprises Chart 9Risk 3 = China/EM Slowdown For now there is no strong signal that global growth is about to slow, but some trends in China and other emerging markets bear monitoring. Our Foreign Exchange strategists' Carry Canary Indicator tracks the performance of EM / JPY carry trades.7 These trades go short the Japanese Yen and long an emerging market currency with a high interest rate (Brazilian Real, Russian Ruble or South African Rand), and as such they are highly geared to a positive global growth back-drop. Historically, a deterioration in the performance of these carry trades has often coincided with a slowdown in global growth and we notice that the outperformance of these trades has moderated in recent weeks (Chart 9, panel 2). Further, we have also seen some coincident and leading indicators of Chinese economic activity start to roll over (Chart 9, bottom 2 panels). The slowdown appears relatively benign for now but could eventually morph into a significant global event. This could occur if the growth deterioration accelerates and infects the Global PMI, or if Chinese policymakers react too strongly to slowing growth and engineer a sharp depreciation of the currency (as in August 2015). The latter scenario would impart increased bullish sentiment to the U.S. dollar and cause U.S. bond yields to fall. Both risks seem low at the moment, but are still worth monitoring during the next few months. Bottom Line: If our model suggests that economic surprises are likely to turn negative at a time when we also see extended net short bond positioning, then that would likely present an opportunity to tactically increase portfolio duration even though the cyclical bond bear market would remain intact. The risk of a growth slowdown emanating from China or other emerging markets also bears monitoring. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The MOVE", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Percentages calculated using daily values. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Breakevens Ever Recover?", dated April 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "On The MOVE", dated February 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "It's Still All About Inflation", dated January 16, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert: EM/JPY Carry Trades", dated December 1, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights The ascent in Treasury yields is likely to flatten out over the coming months, now that rate expectations have almost converged to the Fed dots. This should provide some near-term support for stocks. The structural outlook for bonds remains quite bearish, however. Exploding budget deficits, a retreat from globalization, and the withdrawal of well-paid baby boomers from the labor force will all combine to push up inflation. As inflation increases, the positive correlation between bond yields and stock prices will break down. This will cause bond term premia to rise, pushing yields even higher. Investors should use any bond rally as an opportunity to reduce duration risk. They should also look to scale back exposure to equities later this year in advance of a recession starting in late-2019 or 2020. Feature More Than A Technical Correction Global equities moved higher this week following last week's drubbing. We noted in our February 6th report that the correction was amplified by technical factors.1 Rising volatility led to a wave of forced selling in so-called risk parity funds. These funds automatically adjust their exposure to stocks based on how volatile they are. When volatility spiked, the funds started selling stocks. This pushed down equity prices, causing volatility to rise further, which led to even more forced selling. The good news is that the losses suffered by investors in these funds have had little effect on the underlying health of the financial system. This is a major difference from 2008, when delinquent mortgages led to huge losses for banks and other highly levered institutions. The equity selloff has also made stocks more attractive. Even after this week's rebound, the S&P 500 trades at a forward P/E of 18 - roughly where it stood in early 2017 and not much higher than it was in 2015 (Chart 1). Chart 1A Healthy Valuation Reset If that were all there was to the story, one could breathe a sigh of relief. Unfortunately, there is more to it than that. When a building collapses during an earthquake, does one blame mother nature or the company that built it? Sometimes the answer is both. The stock market had been ripe for a correction for a long time. Why did it happen last week? The answer, at least in part, is that the foundation on which the equity bull market was built - the presumption that monetary policy would stay easy for as far as the eye could see - began to crumble. The timing is too conspicuous to ignore. Stocks began to swoon just as the payrolls report revealed that average hourly earnings had surprised on the upside. Investors began to fret that the remaining runway for low inflation was not as long as they had supposed. Bond Yields Should Level Off In The Near Term... Are investors correct to be concerned? As we argue in detail below, over the long term, the answer is definitely yes. Over the next 12 months, however, the picture is much more nuanced. Actual inflation remains fairly tame. Even after this week's higher-than-expected CPI print, core CPI excluding shelter is up by only 0.8% year-over-year. Moreover, despite their recent climb, global bond yields are still quite low in absolute terms. The yield on the JP Morgan global bond index stands at 1.7%, close to half of what it was in 2011 (Chart 2). Chart 2AYields Are Still Low By Historic Standards (I) Chart 2BYields Are Still Low By Historic Standards (II) Chart 3Market Pricing Has Almost ##br##Caught Up To The Fed's Dots Market expectations now place the fed funds rate at the level implied by the dots for end-2018 and only slightly below the dots for end-2019 (Chart 3). Expectations for the first ECB rate hike in the second half of 2019 have also converged with what the central bank is targeting. The nearly two rate hikes for the Bank of England that are priced in this year may, if anything, be too aggressive. The latest Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey revealed that investors cut bond allocations to the lowest level in the 20-year history of the report. All of this raises the odds that the rise in global bond yields will level off, and perhaps even temporarily reverse. This should give some support to stocks. ... But The Long-Term Direction For Yields Is Up While bond yields are due for a pause, the long-term trend remains firmly to the upside. BCA declared "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" on July 5, 2016.2 As luck would have it, this was the same day that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%. We argued at the time that both cyclical and structural forces would conspire to put in a bottom for yields. Since then, the global economy has continued to grow at an above-trend pace. This has caused output gaps to shrink in every major economy (Chart 4). The U.S. has now reached full employment. Wage growth tends to accelerate once the unemployment rate falls below NAIRU (Chart 5). Faster wage growth will give households the wherewithal to spend more. With little spare capacity left, this will fuel inflation. Chart 4Output Gaps Have##br## Shrunk In Advanced Economies Chart 5U.S. Wage Growth Set##br## To Accelerate Further The shift from fiscal austerity to largesse across much of the world is adding to the inflationary pressures. The Trump tax cuts are starting to look like chump change compared to the massive amount of spending coming down the pike. The Senate agreed last week to raise the caps on spending by $153 billion in FY2018 and an additional $143 billion in FY2019. This does not even include the $80 billion that has already been allocated to disaster relief, the still-to-be-negotiated sum for infrastructure spending, or up to $25 billion in additional annual spending that our Geopolitical Strategy team estimates would result if "earmarks" are reinstated (Chart 6).3 Chart 6Let The Good Times Roll Meanwhile, Japan is on track to ease fiscal policy this year.4 In Germany, the Grand Coalition deal was only concluded after Chancellor Angela Merkel conceded to demands for more spending on everything from education to public investment on technology and defense. Globalization, which historically has been a highly deflationary force, is on the back foot. Global trade nearly doubled as a share of GDP from the early 1980s to 2008, but has been stagnant ever since (Chart 7). Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and he may very well pull it out of NAFTA. Opposition towards open-border immigration policies is rising. More Mexicans left the U.S. over the past eight years than entered it. On the demographic front, the three decade-long increase in the global ratio of workers-to-consumers has finally reversed (Chart 8). As baby boomers leave the labor force, the amount of GDP they produce will plummet. However, their spending on goods and services will continue to rise once health care expenditures are included in the tally. The combination of more consumption and less production is inflationary. Against a backdrop of slow potential GDP growth, policymakers will welcome rising inflation as the only viable tool left to deflate away high debt levels. Chart 7Global Trade Has Crested Chart 8Peak In The Ratio Of Workers-To-Consumers Productivity Stuck In The Slow Lane Faster productivity growth could help stave off this outcome. Unfortunately, so far, a sustained productivity revival is more of a dream than a reality. Chart 9 shows that G7 productivity has been rising at a disappointingly slow pace since the mid-2000s. Optimists like to tout the impact of robotics and the "Amazon effect". However, as my colleague Mark McClellan discussed in a series of reports, neither factor is quantitatively all that important.5 In the case of the Amazon effect, profit margins in the retail sector are close to record highs (Chart 10). This calls into doubt claims that online shopping has undermined businesses' pricing power. Recent productivity growth in the U.S. distribution sector has actually been slower than in the 1990s, a decade that produced large productivity gains from the displacement of "mom and pop" stores with "big box" retailers such as Walmart and Costco. Chart 9G7 Productivity: Not What It Used To Be Chart 10Retail Sector Profit Margins Near Record Highs Meanwhile, student test scores across the OECD have declined over the past decade (Chart 11). The accumulation of human capital has been the single most important driver of rising living standards over the past few centuries.6 This tailwind is now dissipating at an alarmingly fast pace. Chart 11AThe Contribution To Growth From ##br##Rising Human Capital Is Falling Chart 11BStudent Test Scores Are ##br##Declining In Many Countries Will The Stock-Bond Correlation Flip? As inflation becomes a greater concern over the coming years, the bond term premium will rise. Chart 12 shows that the term premium has often been negative in the recent past. This means that investors have been willing to accept a discount on holding long-term bonds relative to what they would get by rolling over short-term bills. Chart 12The Term Premium Has Been Negative Over The Past Three Years It is not surprising that this has been the case. Since the late 1990s, Treasury prices have tended to go up when the stock market sells off (Chart 13). This has made owning bonds a good hedge against bad economic news. Chart 13Bond Prices Have Tended To Rise When Equity Prices Fall Since The Late 1990s The last few weeks have seen a reversal of this pattern. Since January 26, the 10-year yield has risen by 25 basis points while the S&P 500 has fallen by 4.9%. When economies are operating at full capacity, anything that adds to aggregate demand will lead to higher inflation rather than faster growth. The latter is good for stocks because it means stronger earnings. The former is bad for stocks if it leads to a more rapid pace of rate hikes. As bond yields temporarily level off, the positive correlation between yields and equity prices should return. However, this may simply prove to be the last hurrah for this relationship. Over the long haul, bonds and equities will become more alike in the sense that they will prosper or suffer at the same time. The equity risk premium will shrink not because equities will be revalued upwards but because bonds will be revalued downwards. The runoff of the Fed's balance sheet and a slower pace of central bank bond purchases elsewhere will only compound the damage to bonds. Investment Conclusions Global bond yields are on a structural upward trajectory, however the progression will be a choppy one. The rapid rise in bond yields will flatten out, but the 10-year Treasury yield will nevertheless finish the year at about 3.25% - around 25 basis points above the forwards. Yields will continue to rise into next year. The resulting tightening in financial conditions will cause the U.S. economy to slow, ultimately setting the stage for a recession in late-2019 or 2020. The next downturn will see inflation and bond yields dip again. However, they will do so from higher levels than today. As in the 1970s, bond yields and inflation will trend higher over the coming years, reaching "higher highs" and "higher lows" with every passing business cycle (Chart 14). Investors should use any bond rally as an opportunity to reduce duration risk. They should also look to scale back exposure to equities later this year. A structurally high path for inflation is not good for the dollar. However, the coming stagflationary era will not be unique to the U.S. Many other countries actually have higher debt levels and weaker growth prospects than the U.S. More relevant to the current environment, the increasingly popular narrative that attributes the dollar's ongoing decline in 2018 to heightened fears of large budget deficits does not really mesh with what is happening to real rates. Real yields have actually surged since the start of the year (Chart 15). In this respect, today's landscape looks a bit like the early 1980s, a period when massive tax cuts and increased defense expenditures led to rising real yields and a stronger dollar. Chart 14A Template For The Next Decade? Chart 15Real Yields Have Surged Since The Start Of The Year Momentum is a powerful force in currency markets. This is particularly true for the dollar, which scores higher than all other currencies on our Foreign Exchange Strategy team's "momentum factor"7 (Chart 16). Today, the trend is definitely not the dollar's friend. Nevertheless, the fundamentals may be shifting in favor of the greenback. EUR/USD has decisively decoupled from the 30-year Treasury/bund spread (Chart 17). If the relationship had held, the cross would be trading at 1.12, rather than today's level of 1.25. The latest BofA Merrill Lynch survey reported "short USD" as one of the most crowded trades among fund managers. Going long the dollar could be a successful non-consensus trade for the next few months. Chart 16USD Is A ##br##Momentum Winner Chart 17EUR/USD Has Diverged From##br## Interest Rate Spreads This Year Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Return Of Vol," dated February 6, 2018. 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016; and Strategy Outlook, "Third Quarter 2016: End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 9, 2016. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan: Kuroda Or No Kuroda, Reflation Ahead," dated February 7, 2018. 5 Please see BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated August 31, 2017; and Special Report, "The Impact Of Robots On Inflation," dated January 25, 2018. 6 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?" dated May 31, 2017; and BCA The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Taking Off The Rose-Colored Glasses: Education And Growth In The 21st Century," dated February 24, 2011. 7 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets," dated December 8, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights The best recession indicators are not flashing red, but volatility is rising as the end of the cycle approaches; U.S. fiscal policy is surprising to the upside, as we expected; The next recession will usher in an inflationary political paradigm shift, with wealth transferred from Baby Boomers to Millennials; Expect a new U.K. election ahead of March 2019, but do not expect a second referendum unless popular opinion swings decisively against Brexit; Stay short U.S. 10-year Treasuries versus German bunds; short Fed Funds Dec 2018 futures; and initiate a short GBP/USD trade. Feature February has been tough for global markets, with the S&P 500 falling by 5.9% since the beginning of the month. Several clients have pointed out that the market may be sniffing out a recession and that the "buy the dip" strategy is therefore no longer applicable. It is true that markets and recessions go together (Chart 1), but it is not clear from the data that the equity market alone predicts recessions correctly. Chart 1Bear Markets & Recessions: Unclear Which One Leads The Other BCA's House View is that a recession is likely at the end of 2019.1 This view is in no small part based on our political analysis.2 President Trump ran on a populist electoral platform and populist policymakers globally have a successful track record of delivering higher nominal GDP growth than their non-populist counterparts (Chart 2). We assume that the Powell Fed will respond to such higher growth and inflation prospects no differently from the Yellen Fed and that it will restrict monetary policy to an extent that will usher in a mild recession by the end of next year. Chart 2Populists Deliver (Nominal) GDP Growth Of course, predicting recessions is extraordinarily difficult. Being six months early or late would still be an achievement, but the implications for the equity market would likely be considerably different. If our "late 2019" call is actually an "early 2019" recession, then equity markets may indeed be at or near their cyclical peaks. A "buy on dips" strategy may work for the next quarter or so, but superior returns over the course of the year may be achieved with a bearish strategy. To help guide clients through the uncertainty, our colleague Doug Peta, chief strategist of BCA's Global ETF Strategy, has recently updated BCA's methodology for identifying the inflection points that usher in a recession.3 In our 70-year history as an investment research house, we have picked up two definitive truths: valuation and technical indicators cannot call a recession. So what can? We encourage clients to pick up a copy of Doug's analysis.4 The report highlights the three BCA Research recession indicators: the orientation of the yield curve, the year-over-year change in the leading economic indicator (LEI),5 and the monetary policy backdrop. Charts 3, 4, and 5 show how successful the three indicators are in calling recessions. In our 50-year sample period, the yield curve has successfully called all seven recessions with just one false positive. However, it tends to be overly eager, preceding the onset of a recession by an average of nearly twelve months. When we combine the yield curve indicator with the LEI, the false positives go away. Chart 3The Yield Curve Has Called Seven Of The Last Eight Recessions... Chart 4... And So Has The Leading Economic Indicator To confirm the recession signal and make it more robust, we also consider the monetary policy backdrop. Over the nearly 60 years for which BCA's equilibrium fed funds rate model has calculated an estimate of the equilibrium policy rate, every recession has occurred when the fed funds rate exceeded our estimate of equilibrium. In other words, recessions only occur when monetary policy settings are restrictive. Today, none of the indicators are even close to pointing to a recession, with the LEI at a cyclical peak. However, the yield curve and monetary policy are directionally moving towards the end of the cycle. Taken together, they suggest that the only controversy about our late 2019 recession call is that it is so early. So why the market volatility? Because wage growth in the U.S. has begun to pick up in earnest (Chart 6), revealing that BCA's concerns about inflation may at last be coming true. Investors, after more than a year of rationalizing weak inflation by means of dubious concepts (Amazon, AI, robots, etc.), may be reassessing their forecasts in real time, causing market turbulence. Chart 5Tight Policy Is A Necessary,##br## If Not Sufficient, Recession Ingredient Chart 6Wages Picking##br## Up In Earnest There is of course a political explanation as well. Our colleague Peter Berezin correctly called the end of the 35-year bond bull market on July 5, 2016.6 The timing of the call - mere days after the U.K. EU membership referendum - was not a coincidence. As Peter mused at the time, "the post-Brexit shock running through policy circles leads to a further easing in fiscal and monetary policy." He was not speaking about the U.K. alone, but in global terms. Indeed, the populists have begun to deliver. Ever since President Trump's election, we have cautioned clients not to doubt the White House's populist credentials.7 After a surge in bond bearishness immediately following the election, investors lost faith in the populist narrative due to the failure of Congress to pass any significant legislation, as if Congress has ever been a nimble institution under previous presidents. But investors are beginning to realize that their collective political analysis was extremely wrong. Not only have profligate tax cuts been passed, as we controversially expected throughout 2017, but Congress is now on the brink of a monumental two-year appropriations bill that will add nearly 1% of GDP worth of fiscal thrust in 2018 higher than what the IMF expected for the U.S. (Chart 7). In addition, Congress has set in motion the process to re-authorize the use of "earmarks" - i.e. legislative tags that direct funding to special interests in representatives' home districts (Chart 8).8 Chart 72018 Fiscal Thrust Was Unexpected Chart 8Here Comes Pork! By our back-of-the-envelope accounting, Congress is about to authorize just shy of $400bn in extra spending over the next two years.9 If earmarks are allowed back into the legislative process, we could see up to another $50bn in spending. An infrastructure deal, which now also looks likely given that the Democrats have realized that their "resistance"/ "outrage" strategy does not work against the Trump White House, could add significantly to that total. We are already positioned for these political developments through two fixed-income recommendations. We are short U.S. 10-year Treasuries vs. German Bunds, a recommendation that has returned 27.7 bps since September 2017. In addition, we are short the Fed Funds December 2018 futures, a recommendation that has returned 43.17 bps since the same initiation date. In addition, we went long the U.S. dollar index (DXY) on January 31, right before the stock market correction and precisely when the greenback appeared to bottom. Should investors prepare for runaway inflation this cycle? Is it time to load up on gold? We do not think so. The fiscal impulse from the two-year budget deal will become negative in 2020. The capex incentives from the tax cut plan are also front-loaded. The paradigm-shifting impact on inflation will require a policy paradigm shift. And we expect such a shift only after the next recession. To put it bluntly, U.S. voters elected a TV game show host due to angst at a time when unemployment stood at 4.6% (the rate on November 2016). Who will they elect with unemployment rising to 6% in the aftermath of the next recession, or God forbid if that next recession is worse than we think it will be? Policymakers are unlikely to sit around and wait for an answer to that question. Extraordinary measures will be taken to prevent the median voter from lashing out against the system when the next recession hits. Inflation, which is a redistributive mechanism, will be employed to transfer wealth from savers (mainly well-to-do retirees) to consumers (their children). In large part, this will be a generational wealth transfer between Baby Boomers (or at least those with some savings) and their Millennial children. Given that Millennials have become the largest voting bloc in the U.S. as of the 2016 election, this will be a populist policy with firm backing in the electorate. The next recession will therefore usher in the inflationary era of the next decade, regardless of how painful the actual recession is. In the meantime, we recommend that clients with a 9-to-12 month horizon continue to "buy on dips," given that a recession is not on the horizon. However, with the U.S. 10-year yield approaching 3%, China moderately slowing down (with considerable risk to the downside), and the U.S. dollar slide arrested, we think that the outperformance of EM equities is over. Brexit: We Can't Work It Out10 The EU agreed on January 29 to its negotiation guidelines for the temporary transition period after the U.K. officially leaves the bloc in March 2019.11 The British press predictably balked at the conditions - the term "vassal state" has been liberally bandied about - which in our view included absolutely nothing out of the expected. The EU conditions for the transition period are not the fundamental problem. Rather, the problem is that the "Vote Leave" campaign was never honest with its promises. Boris Johnson, the most prominent supporter of Brexit ahead of the vote and now the foreign minister in Prime Minister Theresa May's cabinet, famously quipped after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market."12 The problem with that promise, however, was that it was predicated on using London's "superior negotiating position" vis-à-vis the EU in order to force the Europeans to redefine what membership in the Common Market means. As we pointed out in our net assessment ahead of the Brexit referendum, the problem with exiting the EU but remaining in the Common Market is that the issue of sovereignty is not resolved (Diagram 1).13 As such, Johnson and other Brexit supporters argued that they could change the relationship by forcing the EU to change how the Common Market works. Diagram 1Common Market Membership Is Illogical Except for one problem: the U.K.'s negotiating position is not, never was, nor ever will be, superior. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of how trade works can understand this. For example, the U.K. is a significant market for Germany, at 6% of German exports (right in line with the 6% of total EU exports that go to the U.K.). However, the EU is a far greater destination for British exports, with 47% of all exports going to the bloc.14 As we expected, the EU has surprised the conventional wisdom by remaining united in the face of negotiations. And as we also predicted, the Tories are now completely divided.15 PM May will attempt to hammer out an internal deal on how to approach the transition deal. But her political capital is so drained by the disastrous early election results that there is practically no way that she can produce a set of negotiating guidelines that will not be pilloried in the press. As such, we expect a new election to take place in the U.K. ahead of March 2019, perhaps sooner. We do not see how May's negotiating position will satisfy all wings of the Conservative Party. In addition, we see no scenario by which the ultimate exit deal with the EU gets enough votes in Westminster. Investors betting on that election replacing a second Brexit referendum would be wrong. A Jeremy Corbyn-led, Labour government will only turn against Brexit once the polls definitively turn against it. This has not yet happened, as the gap between supporters and opponents of Brexit in the polls, while widening in favor of opponents, remains within a margin of error (Chart 9). As such, Corbyn would scrap the Tory-led negotiations with the EU and ask Brussels for even more time - and thus more market uncertainty! - in order to produce a Labour-led Brexit deal.16 In order for the probability of Brexit to definitively decline, the polls have to show that "Bregret" or "Bremorse" is setting in. Without a move in the polls, U.K. politicians will continue to pursue Brexit, no matter how flawed their tactics may be. Policymakers are ultimately not the price makers but the price takers. On the issue of Brexit, the U.K. median voter is only slightly miffed regarding the outcome. Current polls suggest that Labour could win the next election, albeit needing to rule with a coalition (Chart 10). This would prolong the uncertainty facing the economy. Not only is Corbyn the most left-leaning politician in a major European economy since François Mitterand, but also his coalition would likely include the Scottish National Party and potentially the Liberal Democrats. Keeping all their priorities aligned could be even more difficult than the balancing act PM May is performing between soft-Brexiters, hard-Brexiters, and the Democratic Unionist Party. Chart 9Bremorse: Rising, But Not Definitive Chart 10Anti-Brexit Forces On The Rise Meanwhile, on the economic front, the situation is not much better. Our colleague Rob Robis, BCA's chief bond strategist, recently penned a critical assessment of the U.K. economy.17 As Rob pointed out, the OECD leading economic indicator is decelerating steadily and pointing to a real GDP growth rate below 2% in 2018 (Chart 11). The biggest factors that will weigh on growth will be a sluggish consumer and softer capex. Household consumer growth has been slowing since early 2017, driven by diminishing consumer confidence (Chart 12, top panel). High realized inflation, which has sapped the purchasing power of U.K. workers who have not seen matching increases in wages, is weighing on confidence (third panel). Consumers were able to maintain a decent pace of spending during a period of stagnant real income growth by drawing on savings, but that looks to be tapped out now with the saving rate down to a 19-year low of 5.5% (bottom panel). Chart 11U.K. Growth Set To Slow Chart 12The U.K. Consumer Looks Tapped Out Making matters worse, U.K. consumers are not seeing much of a wealth effect from the housing market. The January 2018 readings of the year-over-year growth rate of U.K. house prices from the Halifax and Nationwide indexes came in at 1.9% and 3.1% respectively (Chart 13). In addition, the net balance of national house price expectations from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has steadily declined since mid-2016 and now sits just above zero (i.e. equal number of respondents expecting higher prices and falling prices). The same indicator for London was a staggering -47% in January 2018. Apparently, foreigners are no longer interested in a Brexit discount. Our global bond team goes on to point out that political uncertainty is also weighing on U.K. business investment spending. Capital expenditure growth slowed to 4.3% year-over-year in nominal terms in Q3 2017 and is even lower in real terms (Chart 14). Chart 13No Wealth Effect ##br## From Housing Chart 14Brexit Gloom Trumps ##br##Export Boom For U.K. Companies Putting all of this together, neither our global bond team nor our foreign exchange team expect the Bank of England to raise interest rates, despite the market pricing in 36 bps of rate hikes over the next twelve months. As Chart 15 illustrates, inflation across a broad swath of components is likely to slow sharply in the coming months as the trade-weighted pound has stopped depreciating. Thus, the pass-through from a lower exchange rate is beginning to dissipate.18 In the long-term, we understand why investors are itching to bet on Brexit never happening. But to get from here to there, the market will have to riot. And that means more downside to U.K. assets. Chart 15U.K. Inflation:##br## Less Pass-Through From The Pound Chart 16GBP:##br## Stuck In A Rut Bottom Line: BCA's FX strategist, Mathieu Savary, has pointed out that the trade-weighted pound is testing the upper bound of its post-Brexit trading range (Chart 16). As our FX and bond teams show in their respective research, the economics currently at play make it unlikely that the pound will be able to punch above the ceiling of this range. Our political assessment adds to this view. In fact, we expect that the coming political uncertainty, including an early election prior to March 2019, is likely to take the pound back to the floor of its trading range. As such, we are recommending that clients short cable, GBP/USD. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, and "2018 Outlook - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017, available at bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Special Report, "Timing The Next Equity Bear Market," dated January 24, 2014, and "Timing Equity Bear Markets," dated April 6, 2011, available at bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "A Guide To Spotting And Weathering Bear Markets," dated August 16, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com. 5 The ten components of leading economic index for the U.S. include: 1. Average weekly hours, manufacturing; 2. Average weekly initial claims for unemployment insurance; 3. Manufacturers' new orders, consumer goods and materials; 4. ISM® Index of New Orders; 5. Manufacturers' new orders, nondefense capital goods excluding aircraft orders; 6. Building permits, new private housing units; 7. Stock prices, 500 common stocks; 8. Leading Credit Index TM; 9. Interest rate spread, 10-year Treasury bonds less federal funds; and 10. Index of consumer expectations. Source: The Conference Board. 6 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, and "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 We are referring to the Senate deal struck last week to authorize additional military spending ($80bn in FY2018 and $85bn in FY2019) and discretionary spending ($63bn in FY2018 and $68bn in FY2019), as well as to provide disaster relief in the amount of $45bn for both fiscal years. 10 Life is very short, and there's no time ... For fussing and fighting, my friend ... 11 Please see European Council, "Brexit: Council (Article 50) adopts negotiating directives on the transition period," dated January 29, 2018, available at consilium.europa.eu. 12 Please see "UK will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 This is not a coincidence. The whole point of the EU is that it is the world's richest consumer market. As such, it has massive negotiating leverage with all trade partners. As a side note, this throws into doubt the logic that the U.K. can get better trade deals by leaving the bloc. The first test of that premise will be its negotiations with the EU itself. 15 Please see BCA Special Report, "Break Glass To Brexit: A Fact Sheet," dated June 17, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 16 Investors should remember that Westminster voted decisively 319 to 23 to reject the Liberal Democrats' amendment seeking a referendum on the final Brexit agreement. Only nine Labour MPs voted in favor of the amendment after Jeremy Corbyn instructed his party to abstain. 17 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "A Melt-Up In Equities AND Bond Yields?" dated January 23, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Euro's Tricky Spot," dated February 2, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Spread Product: TIPS breakeven inflation rates are holding firm despite the correction in equity markets. Remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries for now, but be prepared to reduce exposure once long-maturity TIPS breakevens reach our target range of 2.4% to 2.5%. Volatility: While implied interest rate volatility could increase further in the near-term, its upside will be limited by a flattening yield curve in the second half of this year. Municipal Bonds: After-tax muni yields are near the high-end of their historical ranges relative to investment grade corporate bonds. MBS: The option-adjusted spread offered by a conventional 30-year Agency MBS is tight relative to its own history, but appears quite attractive relative to an investment grade corporate bond. Feature Chart 1Corporate Spreads Are Stoic The stock market is down and volatility is up dramatically. At least so far the pass through to credit spreads has been relatively mild (Chart 1), but this does not make us more optimistic. Rather, our sense is that last week's market action is yet another sign that we are approaching the end of the credit cycle. Same Loop, Different Day Last week's equity sell off is best viewed through the lens of the Fed Policy Loop that we introduced in 2015 (Chart 2).1 The Fed Policy Loop is a framework for understanding the interplay between monetary policy and risk assets. Its recent dynamics can be summarized as follows: The perception of easy Fed policy fuels the outperformance of risk assets, and seven months of falling inflation between last January and August kept that perception in place for all of 2017. The end result is that financial conditions eased dramatically - stock prices soared and credit spreads tightened. But easing financial conditions also sow the seeds of their own destruction. Easier financial conditions eventually beget stronger growth and stronger growth eventually begets higher inflation (Chart 3). Last week the market finally caught a whiff of inflation and started to price-in a more hawkish Fed reaction function. Chart 2The Fed Policy Loop Chart 3Financial Conditions Lead Growth And Growth Leads Inflation On a positive note, the Loop framework also tells us that the Fed will eventually ease policy in response to tighter financial conditions and this will allow the risk-on rally to resume. While this is undoubtedly true, the Fed's breaking point is also a lot higher when inflationary pressures are more pronounced. This is why we have repeatedly stressed that our cyclical call on spread product hinges on the path of long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates.2 Chart 4No Correction Here Last year, when the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate was down around 1.6% - well below the 2.4% to 2.5% range that is consistent with inflation anchored around the Fed's target - the market understood that the Fed's tolerance for tighter financial conditions was quite low. This made it very difficult for risk assets to sell off meaningfully. But now, with the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate at 2.05% and the 5-year/5-year forward breakeven rate at 2.27%, the Fed can clearly tolerate more market pain. The bad news from a cyclical perspective is that, despite the equity correction, the market's assessment of inflationary pressure in the economy has barely budged. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are holding firm, as are the prices of crude oil and other commodities - prices that tend to correlate with TIPS breakeven rates (Chart 4).3 In other words, last week's correction didn't give our overweight spread product position any further room to run. While it may take a few more sessions, our sense is that the market and the Fed will hash out a new equilibrium in the near-term and that the true bear market in risk assets won't occur until inflationary pressures are even more pronounced. We continue to look for a range of 2.4% to 2.5% on long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates before we scale back our cyclical overweight exposure to spread product. The inflation data take on extra significance between now and then, as each incoming report will help confirm or deny the message priced into TIPS breakevens. Every weak inflation print buys the credit cycle more time, every strong print hastens its demise. Next up: tomorrow morning's CPI. Don't Fear Rising Rate Vol The return of volatility was the other big story last week. The VIX index of implied equity volatility was as low as 9 in early January, but stood at 33 as of last Friday's market close. With rising inflation starting to weaken the "Fed put" in risk assets we think it is unlikely that equity volatility will return to its previous cycle lows.4 But what about the volatility in rates markets? The MOVE index of implied interest rate volatility also jumped last week, and its path going forward is of critical importance for Treasury yields. Chart 5 shows that the Kim & Wright estimate of the term premium embedded in the 10-year Treasury yield is highly correlated with the MOVE index, while the expectations component implied by that term premium is the mirror image of the fed funds rate. It follows that a surge in rate volatility would lead to much higher Treasury yields, particularly if the Fed continues to hike. However, it would be quite unusual for the MOVE index to increase significantly while the Fed is lifting rates. To see this we can simply observe the tight correlation between the MOVE index and the slope of the yield curve (Chart 6). The crucial question then becomes: Does the slope of the yield curve drive volatility or does volatility drive the slope of the curve? Chart 5Volatility And The Term Premium Chart 6Volatility And The Yield Curve Like most things in economics, the answer is a little bit of both. Chart 7Forecasters In Agreement It is relatively straightforward to see why higher rate volatility might lead to a steeper yield curve. To the extent that the slope of the yield curve reflects a term premium to compensate investors for the extra price risk in a long-dated bond, then investors should demand greater compensation to bear that extra risk when rate volatility is elevated. But that analysis ignores the other reason why the yield curve might be steep. Namely, the yield curve might be steep because the market expects the Fed to hike rates substantially. It would seem logical to expect that investors would be more uncertain about a forecast that calls for many rate hikes than they would be about a forecast that calls for only a few rate hikes. It therefore follows that an environment where the market expects a large change in the fed funds would also be an environment of elevated rate volatility. The two-way causation between rate volatility and the slope of the yield curve is reinforced by the fact that both trends also correlate with forecaster uncertainty about the macro environment. Chart 7 shows that the dispersion of individual forecasts for the 3-month T-bill rate and GDP growth correlate with both the MOVE volatility index and the slope of the yield curve. At the moment, disagreement amongst professional forecasters remains low relative to history. All in all, our sense is that once long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target fair value range of 2.4% to 2.5% they are unlikely to move much higher. Fed hawkishness will ramp up considerably and the yield curve will be much more likely to flatten. This means that while implied interest rate volatility could increase further in the near-term, its upside will be limited by a flattening yield curve in the second half of this year. We are not overly concerned about a huge spike in rate volatility leading to a blow-out in bonds. Two Attractive Ways To De-Risk As stated in the first section of this report, the higher that TIPS breakeven inflation rates rise the closer we get to calling the end of the credit cycle. If current trends continue, then it is likely we will begin to de-risk the spread product side of our recommended portfolio in the not-too-distant future. With that in mind, we have identified two lower risk spread sectors that are starting to look attractive. 1) Municipal Bonds Like all spread sectors, at first blush municipal bonds appear quite expensive relative to Treasuries. Chart 8 shows Aaa-rated municipal bond yields, adjusted for the top marginal tax rate, relative to equivalent-maturity Treasury yields. The message is quite clear. Municipal bonds offer far less excess compensation relative to Treasuries than has been typical in the past. However, the valuation picture changes completely when we consider municipal bonds versus investment grade corporates. Chart 9 once again shows Aaa-rated municipal bond yields, adjusted for the top marginal tax rate, but this time relative to equivalent-duration corporate bonds. We do not attempt to match credit quality in Chart 9, so Aaa-rated municipal bonds are being compared to the corporate bond index which has an average credit rating of A3/Baa1. Chart 8Munis Expensive Versus Treasuries Chart 9Munis Cheap Versus Corporates Chart 9 shows that after-tax muni yields are near the high-end of their historical ranges relative to investment grade corporate bonds. In fact, a 10-year Aaa-rated municipal bond currently offers only 13 bps less yield than an equivalent duration A3/Baa1-rated corporate bond. In addition, whenever the after-tax yield on a 10-year Aaa-rated municipal bond has exceeded the yield on a 10-year corporate bond in the past, it has been a fairly good signal that investment grade corporates are too expensive and due for a correction. Not only did municipal bonds look more attractive than corporates before the crisis in 2007, but also before corporates sold off in 2011 and 2014 (Chart 9, bottom panel). Agency MBS Chart 10An Opportunity In MBS? As with munis, the option-adjusted spread (OAS) offered by a conventional 30-year Agency MBS is tight relative to its own history, but appears quite attractive relative to investment grade corporate bonds (Chart 10). Further, in a rising rate environment the risk of a large increase in mortgage refinancings is low and this should keep MBS spreads well contained. The biggest potential risk for MBS spreads is that a large spike in Treasury yields causes MBS duration to extend, and sparks a spread widening. In our report from two weeks ago we introduced a model for excess MBS returns in an attempt to quantify what sort of increase in Treasury yields would be necessary to make duration extension a meaningful risk for MBS.5 We modeled monthly excess returns for conventional 30-year MBS relative to duration-matched Treasuries using the following equation: Formula The monthly change in Treasury yields enters the equation with a positive sign because it proxies for refinancing risk. Higher yields lead to lower refis, and lower refis lead to MBS outperformance. The squared change in yields enters the equation with a negative sign because it proxies for extension risk. If yields rise too much during the month, then MBS duration will extend and the sector will underperform. Chart 11Refi Risk Is Low From that equation we calculated that, holding the change in OAS flat, it would take a monthly increase in yields of at least 72 bps to lead to negative monthly excess returns. However, in January this appeared not to work very well. The duration-matched Treasury yield in our equation increased only 38 bps in January and the OAS was virtually flat, but MBS still managed to underperform Treasuries by 16 bps on the month. Upon further investigation, the reason our model failed in January is that mortgage refinancings actually increased on the month even though Treasury yields rose (Chart 11). This behavior is unusual and we would not expect it to persist going forward. However, we also made one modification to our model that we expect will lead to more accurate results on a real-time basis. Specifically, we removed the intercept term from the prior model and replaced it with a 1-month lag of the average index OAS. The rationale is that since the intercept term is in the equation to capture the carry return in an MBS trade, we should use a more accurate measure of MBS carry rather than relying on the regression to calculate the historical carry. Our new equation is as follows: Formula Chart 12 Interestingly, using our new equation we find that the monthly increase in Treasury yields required to spark MBS underperformance is now a function of the current average OAS of the MBS index. This would seem to make sense. If the carry buffer is higher, then it should take a greater duration extension for capital losses to overcome the carry and lead to negative excess returns. The relationship between the required monthly increase in yields and the index OAS is illustrated in Chart 12. At the current average index OAS of 31 bps, our equation suggests that a monthly increase in Treasury yields of 58 bps or higher is required for extension risk to become meaningful. Bottom Line: Both municipal bonds and Agency MBS are starting to look attractive relative to investment grade corporate bonds. We stand ready to upgrade these sectors at the expense of investment grade corporate bonds when the time comes to de-risk our spread product portfolio. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Caught In A Loop", dated September 29, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Most Important Chart In Finance", dated January 30, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 For further details on the correlation between TIPS breakevens and commodity prices please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "It's Still All About Inflation", dated January 16, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "The Return Of Vol", dated February 6, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Most Important Chart In Finance", dated January 30, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights The spike in volatility last week led to a sharp correction in equities. However, the bull market in equities is not over yet. The Fed's response to the selloff will be critical. Policymakers will closely monitor financial conditions. The most overvalued assets are at greatest risk during a selloff. Feature Financial markets did not give new Fed Chair Jay Powell a warm welcome last week. Volatility spiked, and risk assets fell sharply. Nonetheless, BCA's view is that strong economic growth and stout earnings growth will keep the bull market intact. The selloff is reminiscent of the 7% drop in the S&P 500 in May of 2006.1 Back in the spring of 2006, then Chairman Ben Bernanke had just taken the helm at the Federal Reserve. Global growth was strong, the U.S. dollar was selling off and global share prices were surging and overbought. From May through June 2006, markets sold off because of the then-prevailing narrative that Chairman Bernanke would be too dovish, allowing U.S. inflation to get out of hand. U.S. bond yields spiked, inflicting particular damage on EM assets. The February 2018 may not play out exactly like May 2006. That said, there are enough similarities to draw parallels. Global growth is robust and inflationary pressures are accumulating. Bond yields are rising, and the greenback is selling off. A new Fed Chairman just took over the reins, and there are growing odds that U.S. inflation will soon begin to rise, justifying more Fed rate hikes. The Fed's response to the tighter financial conditions will be crucial. The May 2006 selloff turned out to be just a correction in a bull market that lasted another 18 months. Still, investors today are also concerned about what to sell first as the end of the expansion draws closer. A Shake Up BCA strategists believe that the market turmoil since last week reflects a technical correction from overbought and over complacent levels, but the cyclical bull run is not yet over.2 Nonetheless, investors should note that the bull market is entering its late stages. The low inflation and low volatility era is ending as the U.S. economy begins to face late-cycle, supply-side constraints, especially in the labor market. Therefore, the equity advance will be associated with higher volatility than in the past few years. Chart 1 shows that the VIX soared by roughly four times more on February 5 than expected, based on the decline in equity prices. This suggests that the spike in volatility caused the stock market plunge, rather than the other way around. The relatively muted reaction in the past few days of other risk gauges, such as junk bonds, EM stocks, and gold prices, is consistent with this thesis. Chart 1Last Monday's VIX Spike Was Abnormally Large Importantly, the implosion of volatility funds is unlikely to reverberate across the global financial system in the same way as it did during the 2007-2009 financial crisis. The mortgage crisis a decade ago was so toxic that the losses were concentrated in the books of highly leveraged financial institutions. However, that does not appear to be the current case with volatility funds. The cyclical underpinnings for the bull market in equities is intact. The odds of a recession remain low (Chart 2). Corporate earnings continue to come in above expectations, aided by a wave of share buybacks linked to the U.S. Tax Cut and Jobs Act (Chart 3). Global economic growth remains upbeat as well. Chart 2Odds Of A Recession##BR##Remain Low Chart 3Buybacks, Surging Capex##BR##Raising The Bar For 2018 EPS Growth Chart 4U.S. Equities And Vol##BR##Climbed Through The 1990s This does not mean that everything will be smooth sailing. Last week's selloff marked an inflection point in the low-volatility world that has prevailed in the past few years. The VIX Humpty-Dumpty has been irrevocably broken. Volatility will stay elevated relative to what investors have come to anticipate. As the experience of the 1990s shows, stocks can still climb when volatility trends higher (Chart 4), but this is going to make for a more challenging investment environment. Bottom Line: Rising volatility does not mean the end of the bull market or the economic expansion. Bear markets outside of recessions are rare, and our view remains that the odds of a recession this year or next remain low. Moreover, the additional dose of fiscal stimulus passed by Congress late last week may extend the expansion into 2020. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds.3 The Policy Response The Fed's reaction to this new regime will be critical. The 7.2% drop in equities last week occurred on Jay Powell's first as Chairman of the Fed. Chart 5 shows that it is not unusual for the equity markets to be in turmoil in the early months of a new Fed Chair's tenure. BCA expects that Powell and his FOMC colleagues will adopt Janet Yellen's gradual approach to raising rates this year. Nonetheless, the January readings on average hourly earnings suggest that supply-side constraints are beginning to bite. The runway for low inflation and easy monetary policy may not be as long as some had hoped. Just like Yellen, Jay Powell will seek a consensus among his colleagues. The composition of the FOMC will probably shift in a more hawkish direction, but the evolution will be slow. In the meantime, the recommendations of career Fed staff will represent an important and often underappreciated source of continuity. Last week, several Fed speakers reinforced that the central bank will continue to monitor incoming economic and financial data, and react accordingly. The stock market rout has led to some tightening in financial conditions, but FCIs in the U.S. remain more expansionary than they were six months ago (Chart 6). As a result, U.S. economic growth is poised to accelerate even more in the first half of the year (Chart 7). This will push the unemployment rate further below NAIRU and ultimately force up wage and price inflation. Chart 5New Fed Chairs##BR##And The Equity Market Chart 6Decline In Equity Market##BR##Tightened Financial Conditions However, at 2.1% on February 8, the 10-year TIPS breakeven yield was still below the 2.4 to 2.5% range where markets need to worry about the Fed falling behind the curve (Chart 8). A shift above 2.4% would be consistent with the Fed's 2% target for the PCE measure of inflation. This would signal that the FOMC will have to boost the pace of rate hikes and aggressively slow economic growth. We expect the Fed to tighten four times in 2018. We will likely take some money off the table if core inflation rises, even if it is still below 2%, when the TIPS breakeven reaches 2.4%. Chart 7Lagged Effect Of Easier##BR##Monetary Conditions Will Boost Growth Chart 8Breaking Down##BR##The Rise In Yields A sustained move above 3% on the nominal 10-year Treasury yield will require a more durable increase in inflation. Ultimately, we think core inflation will move4 above 2%, forcing the Fed to lift interest rates into restrictive territory. However, this probably will be a story for 2019 rather than 2018. Stocks tend to peak about six months before the start of a recession (Table 1). If the next recession occurs in late 2019, as we forecast, the equity bull market could last a while longer. The additional fiscal impulse from the spending bill passed by Congress last week may extend the expansion into early 2020. A modest overweight on global risk assets is warranted for now, but investors should consider reducing their risk exposure later this year. Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Bottom Line: The Fed and the market are now in agreement on rate hikes in 2018. BCA's U.S. Bond Strategists' stance is that the 2/10 curve will flatten from here, as the upside in long maturity yields will be limited once the TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target fair value range of 2.4-2.5%. Nonetheless, at that point, the nominal 10-year yield5 is likely to be between 3.0 and 3.25%. Stay underweight duration for now. Where Do We Go From Here? Clients have asked our view on the appropriate order in which to reduce risk assets. One way to approach the question is to compare valuation across asset classes. Presumably, the most over-valued ones are at greatest risk, and thus profits should be taken here first. It is difficult to compare valuation across asset classes. Should one use fitted values from models or simple deviations from moving averages? Over what time span? We include multiple measures because there is no widely accepted approach. More than one time period was used in some cases to capture regime changes. Table 2 provides our best approximation for nine asset classes. The approaches range from sophisticated methods6 developed over many years (i.e. our equity valuation indicators), to regression analysis on the fundamentals (i.e. oil), to simple deviations from a time trend (i.e. real raw industrial commodity prices and gold). Table 2Valuation Levels For Major Asset Classes We averaged the valuation readings where there were multiple estimates for a single asset class. The results are shown in Chart 9. Chart 9Valuation Levels For Major Asset Classes By far, U.S. equities stand out as the most expensive at 1.8 standard deviations above fair value. Gold, raw industrials and EM equities are next at one standard deviation overvalued. EM sovereign bond spreads follow at 0.7, tracked closely by U.S. Treasuries (real yield levels) and investment-grade corporate (IG) bonds (expressed as a spread). High-yield (HY) is only about 0.3 sigma expensive, based on default-adjusted spreads over the Treasury curve. That said, both IG and HY are very expensive in absolute terms based on the fact that government bonds are pricey. Oil is sitting very close to fair value, despite the rapid price run up in the past couple of months. This makes oil exposure doubly attractive because the fundamentals point to higher prices when the underlying asset is not expensive. Historical analysis around equity market zeniths provides an alternative approach to the sequencing question. Table 3 presents the number of days that various asset classes peaked before or after the past major five tops in the S&P 500. A negative number indicates that the asset class peaked before U.S. equities, and a positive number means that it peaked after. Table 3Asset Class Leads & Lags Vs. Peak In S&P 500 Unfortunately, there is no consistent pattern observed for EM equities, raw industrials, U.S. cyclical stocks, tech stocks or small-cap versus large-cap relative returns. Sometimes they reached their zenith before the S&P 500, and sometimes after. The EM sovereign bond excess return index peaked about 130 days in advance of the 1998 and 2007 U.S. equity market tops, although we only have three episodes to analyze due to data limitations. Oil is a mixed bag. A peak in the price of gold led the equity market in four out of five episodes, but the lead time was long and variable. The U.S. corporate bond market offers the most consistent lead/lag relationship. Both investment- and speculative-grade excess returns relative to government bonds peaked in advance of U.S. stocks in four of the five episodes. High-yield excess returns provided the most lead time, peaking on average 154 days in advance. Excess returns to high-yield were a better signal than total returns. This leading relationship is one reason why we plan to trim exposure to corporate bonds within our bond portfolio before we scale back on equities. Base metal prices will be hit particularly hard if the 2019 U.S. recession spills over as expected to the EM economies. We may downgrade base metals from neutral to underweight around the time that we downgrade equities, but much depends on the evolution of China's economy in the coming months. Oil is a different story. OPEC 2.0 will likely cut back on supply in the face of an economic downturn, which will help keep prices elevated.7 Therefore, we may not trim energy exposure this year. In terms of equities, our recommended portfolio is still overweight cyclicals for now. Our themes of a synchronized global capex boom, rising bond yield, and firm oil price means we will stay overweight in the industrials, energy and financial sectors. Utilities and homebuilders are underweight. Tech is part of the cyclical sector, but poor valuation keeps us underweight. Our U.S. Equity Strategists have already started a gradual shift away from cyclicals toward defensives. This transition will continue in the coming months as we reduce risk. We will also shift small caps to neutral on earnings disappointments and elevated debt levels.8 Bottom Line: The economic expansion is not over, but investors are already wondering what to sell first as the next peak in equities nears. Market participants should look to trim credit exposure before scaling back on equities, and BCAs' U.S. Equity Strategy service is already scaling back on cyclicals and reduced small caps to neutral from overweight last month. At under $60/ barrel WTI, oil is 5% below our Commodity & Energy Strategy's target of $63/bbl. Moreover, global inventories will continue to draw on the back of OPEC supply restraint as shale production growth alone will not satisfy stronger global demand driven by stronger global economic growth. If prices hit the low $70 range, supply restraint and demand growth will ebb, capping incremental upside. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Insight "Buy The Dip," published February 8, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Special Report "The Return Of Vol," published February 6, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Watching Five Risks," published January 24, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy PAS "Warning Signals," published February 6, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy PAS "Warning Signals," published February 6, 2018. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, published January 25, 2018. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "OPEC 2.0 Vs. The Fed," published February 8, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Too Good To Be True?," published January 22, 2018. Available at uses.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights Persistent QE, ZIRP and NIRP have severely distorted the valuation relationship between equities and bonds on a global scale. Hence, the risk is that financial market distortions will infect the economy, not the other way round. A global mini-downturn in the first half of 2018 is now all but guaranteed. High conviction equity sector recommendation: underweight the major cyclical equity sectors: specifically, Banks, Materials and Energy; but overweight Airlines. High conviction currency recommendation: yen first; euro second; pound third; dollar fourth. Feature Stock markets ascend by walking up the stairs, but they descend by jumping out of the window. Unfortunately, investors often misinterpret the low volatility of a market ascent as a sign that equity risk has diminished. In fact, the low volatility just tells us that walking up the stairs is a slow and dull process (Chart I-2). It tells us nothing about equity risk. Chart of the WeekA Global Mini-Downturn In H1 2018 Is Now All But Guaranteed Chart I-2Stock Markets Climb Up The Stairs, And Then Jump Out Of The Window The risk of equities, as we have just seen, is that they do periodically jump out of the window. Meaning that equities have the potential to suffer much more intense short-term losses than short-term gains. This ratio of potential losses to potential gains is technically known as negative skew. For a reminder why equity returns have this unattractive asymmetry, please revisit our Special Report 'Negative Skew': A Ticking Time-Bomb.1 That said, equity returns always possess negative skew, so there is nothing new about stock markets jumping out of the window, as they have this week. Persistent QE, ZIRP And NIRP Have Created A Severe Financial Distortion The much bigger story is that persistent QE, ZIRP and NIRP2 have imparted negative skew on bond returns too. Central banks accept that there is a 'lower bound' for policy interest rates - perhaps slightly negative - below which there would be an exodus of bank deposits. The limit also marks the lower bound for bond yields. Approaching this lower bound for yields, bond prices have diminishing upside with increasing downside (Chart I-3). So at low bond yields, mathematics necessarily forces bond markets also to walk up the stairs and then jump out of the window (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-3Approaching The Lower Bound For Yields, Bond Prices ##br##Have Diminishing Upside With Increasing Downside Chart I-4In A Low Yield Era, Bond Markets ##br##Also Climb Up The Stairs... Chart I-5... And Then Jump Out ##br##Of The Window As the risk of owning 10-year bonds has increased to become 'equity-like', it has removed the requirement for an excess return, a risk premium, on equities. In other words, persistently ultra-accommodative monetary policy has diminished the prospective 10-year annual return on global equities to become 'bond-like', collapsing from 9% in 2012 to 1.5% today - exactly the same rate of return that is now offered by the global 10-year bond (Chart I-6). In effect, persistent QE, ZIRP and NIRP have severely distorted the valuation relationship between equities and bonds. Chart I-6Equities' Prospective Returns##br## Have Become 'Bond-Like' However, as we explained last week in Beware The Great Moderation 2.0,3 the nose-bleed valuation of the world stock market is justified only as long as bond yields stays low. Above a 2% yield, the payoffs offered by bonds gradually lose their negative skew and thereby become less risky than those offered by equities. So equities must once again compensate by offering an excess prospective return, necessitating a derating of today's elevated valuations. Specifically, we wrote that the big threat to equity valuations "comes from the global 10-year bond yield rising to 2% - broadly equivalent to the German 10-year bund yield rising to 1% or the U.S. 10-year T-bond yield rising to 3%." To which one client responded "markets do not respect round numbers... if the trigger-point is 3%, then you must act well before that." Wise words indeed. The U.S. 10-year T-bond yield got as far as 2.88% before triggering a reversal in equity valuations. Financial Distortions Threaten The Real Economy Chart I-7Financial Conditions 'Easiness' Is Just ##br##Tracking The Stock Market Many people naturally assume that the economy drives the financial markets. This may be true some of the time, or even most of the time. But in the last three downturns, the causality ran the other way round - financial market distortions dragged down the economy. The bursting of the dot com bubble triggered the downturn in 2001; the large-scale mispricing of U.S. mortgages caused the Great Recession in 2008; and the explosive widening of euro area sovereign credit spreads resulted in the euro area recession in 2011. Which begs the question: is there a financial distortion or mispricing that could once again drag down the economy? The answer is an emphatic yes. To repeat, six years of persistent QE, ZIRP and NIRP have severely distorted the valuation relationship between equities and bonds on a global scale, compressing the prospective 10-year annual return on world equities from 9% to 1.5%.4 Thereby, equity returns which would have accrued in the future have been brought forward to the here and now in the form of elevated capital values. But if higher bond yields correct the severely distorted valuation relationship between equities and bonds, the effect will be to move these returns from the present back to the future, depressing capital values today. Now note that while world GDP is worth around $80 trillion, the combination of equities and correlated risk-assets such as corporate and EM debt is worth double that, around $160 trillion, and real estate is worth $220 trillion. If returns from these richly valued asset-classes are redistributed from the present back to the future, through lower capital values today, there is a very real risk that current spending could take a hit. Supporting this broad thesis, central bank measures of 'financial conditions easiness' just track tick for tick the level of the stock market (Chart I-7). What To Do Now The upturn in bond yields which started last summer threatens to impact activity through two separate channels. As just discussed, the first is the financial market channel via a setback to global risk-asset capital values. The second is the bank credit channel. Changes in the bond yield very clearly and reliably lead changes in credit flows, the credit impulse, by 6 months. Therefore, the rise in bond yields is only now starting to pull down the credit impulse - and thereby the global activity mini-cycle, which is the all-important driver of mainstream European investments. It follows that a global mini-downturn in the first half of 2018 is now all but guaranteed (Chart of the Week). And that the higher that bond yields go from here, the more marked this mini-downturn will be. This reinforces two high conviction investment recommendations. First, it is now appropriate to underweight cyclical equity sectors: specifically, Banks, Materials and Energy. Against this, the one cyclical sector to upgrade to overweight is Airlines, given the sector's negative correlation with the oil price. Second, the payoff profile for exchange rates is just tracking expected long-term interest rate differentials (Chart I-8). This means that when the expected interest rate is close to the lower bound, the currency possesses a highly attractive payoff profile called positive skew. In essence, for any central bank already at the realistic limit of ultra-loose policy - such as the BoJ and ECB - the direction of policy rate expectations cannot go significantly lower. Conversely, tightening expectations for the Federal Reserve are approaching a magnitude that threatens either risk-asset prices and/or economic growth. So these expectations cannot go significantly higher (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Exchange Rates Are Tracking Long-Term ##br## Interest Rate Differentials Chart I-9Expected Interest Rates In The Euro Area And ##br##U.S. Will Converge One Way Or The Other On this basis, we reiterate our high conviction pecking order for currencies in 2018. Yen first; euro second; pound third; dollar fourth. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'Negative Skew: A Ticking Time-Bomb', July 27 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Quantitative Easing, Zero Interest Rate Policy and Negative Interest Rate Policy. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, 'Beware The Great Moderation 2.0', February 1 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 4 This 1.5% forecast comes from regressing the world equity market to GDP multiple through 1998-2008 with subsequent 10-year returns, observing a very tight relationship, and then using the same relationship on current world equity market cap to GDP. Fractal Trading Model* This week's recommended trade is to go long utilities versus the market. The profit target is 3.5% outperformance with a symmetrical stop-loss. It was an excellent week for our other trades with short palladium hitting its 6% profit target, while underweight Japanese energy and long USD/ZAR are both in comfortable profit. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations