BCA Indicators/Model
While copper prices remain comfortably within the $2.90 to $3.30/lb range they've occupied this year, the rising threat of a Sino - U.S. trade war spilling into the global trading system, along with slowing credit and monetary stimulus in China, will continue to roil copper markets. Refined copper prices - like most commodities - are highly sensitive to the level of world copper demand and EM imports, particularly out of Asia, which are closely tied to income. EM income growth is expected to remain strong; however, a global trade war, or a significant slowing in trade that reduces investment in EM markets and stymies income growth will be bearish for copper prices. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Going into tomorrow's OPEC 2.0 meeting in Vienna, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia apparently were divided on how much crude oil production needed to be restored to the market. Increases of as little as 300k to 600k b/d and as much as 1.5mm b/d are flying around the market in the lead-up to the meeting.1 Meanwhile, China threatened to impose tariffs on oil imports from the U.S. if President Trump goes ahead with additional tariffs. The increased Sino - American acrimony on trade issues raises the likelihood China will significantly increase oil imports from Iran, in our estimation, which will exacerbate tensions even further. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper treatment and refining charges (TC/RCs) soared at the end of last week following the closure of India's largest smelter. The Metal Bulletin TC/RC index went to an average of $85/MT at the end of last week, up from $82.25/MT. The pricing service also reported China's primary copper-smelting capacity is lower in June due to environmental constraints. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices dropped below $1,300/oz following the FOMC meeting last week, as Fed officials - e.g., Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan - nodded toward a fourth rate hike this year, even though his base case remained at three. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grains and beans are down as much as 10% in the past week, on the back of additional tariffs announced by the Trump administration - 10% on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. The new tariffs were a retaliatory move by the administration, and represent an escalation of tit-for-tat measures by both sides. Feature Chart of the WeekMajor Drivers of Copper Prices Still Supportive Rising EM incomes and expanding world trade volumes, particularly EM imports, have supported base metals prices for the past two years. This was partly aided by expansionary fiscal and monetary policy in China, the world's largest base-metals market, in 2016, which reversed overly restrictive monetary and fiscal policy in the two years prior. For the most part, these supportive underpinnings are still in place for EM commodity growth over the next two years (Chart of the Week). However, their stability increasingly is being threatened by rising Sino - American trade tensions, and the limited room for credit and fiscal expansion in China.2 Global Copper Demand And Trade In its most recent update of global growth, the World Bank is expecting the rate of growth globally to level off this year and next. However, the Bank expects income growth in EM and developing economies - the growth engines of commodity demand - to go from 4.3% last year to 4.5% this year, and 4.7% next year. EM growth will be dominated by South Asia (Chart 2).3 EM GDP growth is of particular importance to commodity markets, since this constitutes the bulk of commodity demand growth generally, particularly in base metals and oil. For the largest EM economies, the income elasticity of demand for copper is 0.70, meaning a 1% increase in income leads to a 0.70% increase in copper consumption. The Bank notes, "The seven largest emerging markets (EM7) accounted for almost all the increase in global consumption of metals, and two-thirds of the increase in energy consumption" over the past 20 years.4 In what the Bank refers to as Low Income Countries (LICs) - a grouping of smaller economies loaded with commodity producers - GDP is expected to grow 6% p.a. on average over the 2018 - 2020 period. Chart 2World Bank Expects Solid EM Growth EM GDP growth fuels copper demand. Since 2000, a 1% increase in global copper consumption ex-China translates into an almost 2% increase in high-grade refined copper prices, based on results of our modeling. When we replace ex-China demand with China, we see a 1% increase in China's consumption translates into a 0.75% increase in high-grade copper prices over the 2000 - 2018 interval. China's growth is expected to slow going forward, in the wake of a managed slowdown, and due to the fact that, as its economy evolves, more of its growth will come from services and consumer demand, which are less commodity intensive. GDP growth also fuels trade, and vice versa. The Bank estimates the income elasticity of trade averaged 1.5% from 2000 - 07, and 1.2% from 2010 - 17, meaning a 1% increase in income has led to a roughly 1.4% growth in trade over this period. In our modeling, we've found a 1% increase in EM trade volumes translates into a 1.3% increase in high-grade copper prices, an elasticity in line with post-GFC trade growth. The other key variable in our modeling is the broad trade-weighted USD, which remains a highly important variable for copper prices. In both our global copper-demand and EM import volume models for copper prices, the level of the USD is an important explanatory variable - a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWIB translates into ~ 3% decrease (increase) in copper prices since 2000 in our estimates.5 Tight Credit Conditions In China Can Weigh On Copper ... We've been expecting China's managed slowdown in 2H18 to be offset by strong global demand, which, all else equal, would keep copper demand fairly stable.6 While we still do not expect a hard landing in China, the slowdown we've been expecting is showing up in weaker industrial production prints, disappointing retail sales in May, and most significantly, regulatory and liquidity tightening weighing on money and credit. Chinese demand makes up ~ 50% of global metal consumption, these markets would be especially vulnerable in the case of a significant slowdown. The fear of a more serious slump is founded on tighter financial conditions restricting capital spending, and GDP growth. Granger causality tests to determine the direction of causation between Chinese monetary variables and copper prices point to causality running from de-trended levels of all four measures of money and credit to copper prices (Table 1).7 Table 1Chinese Credit And Copper Prices: Evidence Of Causality Furthermore, y/y changes in copper prices are more highly correlated with monetary variables expressed in terms of de-trended levels, than with those same variables expressed as y/y growth rates, or impulses (Chart 3). Across the four credit and money measures, this expression yields an average correlation coefficient of 0.56, compared with 0.38 and 0.37 when expressed as y/y growth rates and impulses as a percent of GDP, respectively. Our modeling also indicates that it generally takes two to three quarters for the full effect of a change in China's credit conditions to be transmitted to copper markets. When we restrict the sample size to the period from 2010 to now we get similar results to our longer intervals (Chart 4). However monetary variables are more highly correlated with copper prices in the shorter sample. Chart 3Chinese Credit Leads Copper Prices By 3 Quarters... Chart 4...A Slightly Longer Lead Time Since 2010 Correlations in the period since 2010 average 0.61, 0.57, and 0.45 for the de-trended levels, y/y growth rates, and impulses, respectively. This can be put down to the fact that China's role as a demand market for copper has been steadily growing over this period. Given that between 2000 and 2017, China's share of global copper demand swelled from 12% to 50%, it is only natural that the impact of its domestic economy on global copper prices also increased (Chart 5). Furthermore, the time lag between Chinese monetary variables and copper markets in the more recent sample increased slightly, with money and credit variables leading prices by 9-10 months, compared to 6-8 months in the full sample. Chart 5China's Growing Role In Copper Markets Bottom Line: De-trended Chinese money and credit variables statistically cause, and are correlated with, y/y changes in copper prices. While these relationships have generally strengthened with China's growing role in the demand side of global copper markets, rolling correlations highlight that there are also extended periods of weak correlations, suggesting fundamental factors can overwhelm the impact of China's credit environment on global copper markets, as has been the case for the past two years. ...But Other Factors Can Take Over In estimating the effect of China's money and credit conditions on copper markets, we find that the relationship can be dominated by supply - demand fundamentals, and overall global macro conditions. More specifically, we find that in periods where DM equity markets outperform EM equity markets, the coefficients in our models with y/y copper prices as the dependent variable are on average 13% lower than the full sample period (Chart 6). Similarly, in periods where EM outperforms DM, the models' credit coefficients are on average 15% higher than the full sample period.8 Our modeling indicates the pre-2005 period as well as the post-2015 intervals as periods during which strong copper demand from growing DM economies weakened the long-term relationship between Chinese money and credit variables and copper prices. Given our expectation that DM demand will remain supportive, this will, to some extent, offset the negative implications of the deteriorating credit environment in China on copper demand and prices. Similarly, in periods characterized by backwardated copper markets, the magnitude of the impact of Chinese money and credit variables on copper prices is on average 35% lower than the full sample (Chart 7). On the other hand, when the copper market is in contango, the magnitude of the impact of Chinese financial variables is on average 13% higher than the full sample period. This highlights the importance of physical fundamentals, and the fact that in cases where they deviate from the direction of the Chinese credit environment - such as during a supply shock - the physical fundamentals weaken historical correlation relationships. Chart 6Credit-Copper Relationship Weakens When DM Outperforms EM ... Chart 7... And When Markets Are Backwardated To rank the top explanatory financial variables in terms of their effect on the evolution of copper prices, we estimated regression models with monetary variables, along with the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar, and world excluding China copper demand as independent variables (Table 2). Table 2USD Usually Dominates Copper's Evolution The results, which can be interpreted as the y/y percentage point (pp) change in copper prices from a one y/y pp increase in each of the three explanatory variables, indicate that Chinese credit has a similar effect as a one y/y pp increase in world excluding China copper demand, a not-unexpected result, given the rest of the world accounts for 50% of demand. On the other hand, the USD has an outsized effect on the copper market. In our modeling, we've found that, in general, a one pp increase (decrease) in the broad trade-weighted USD translates into a one pp change in copper prices, using y/y models.9 Will Copper Vs. USD Correlations Return To Equilibrium? Our House view calls for a stronger USD going forward. Despite our expectation that DM demand will remain supportive, absent supply-side shocks, a stronger USD along with deteriorating credit conditions in China will weigh on copper prices.10 Ongoing trade disputes will only further bear down on the copper market. Stronger EM GDP growth and the associated increase in copper consumption and trade volumes will offset the strong-USD effects, but a trade war would undermine this support. A caveat to this conclusion is that while credit growth has been generally restrained, the Chinese government - fearful that its policy measures to date are spiraling out of control - may partially reverse its efforts and attempt some easing.11 Bottom Line: The impact of Chinese credit conditions on copper prices is weakened in periods where DM stock prices outperform EM, and when the copper forward curve is backwardated. In terms of the relative magnitude of the effect of China's credit conditions, we find that it has a similar sized effect as the rest of the world's copper demand on the red metal's price, while the USD has a relatively larger effect. This implies that a stronger USD, coupled with tighter financial conditions in China, will compete with expanding EM GDPs and trade growth going forward. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we've coined for the oil producer coalition lead by KSA and Russia. In November 2016, the coalition agreed to remove 1.8mm b/d of production. We estimate actual production cuts amount to 1.2mm b/d, while as much a 1.5mm b/d of production has been lost to depletion and a lack of maintenance drilling (e.g., infill and other forms of enhanced oil recovery). 2 Our colleague Peter Berezin, writing in this week's Global Investment Strategy, noting slowing industrial production, retail sales and fixed-asset investment, observes, China's "policy response has been fairly muted." Further, unlike 2015, when China stimulated its economy and lifted EM generally, this go-round, there is less room to maneuver owing to high debt levels and overcapacity. Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global risk Assets To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "The Role of Major Emerging Markets in Global Commodity Demand" in the Bank's Global Economic Prospects, June 2018, beginning on p. 61. 4 The Bank's EM7 are Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Russian Federation, and Turkey. They account for ~ 25% of global GDP, and some 60% of global metals consumption. The income elasticities of aluminum and zinc demand for this group are 0.80 and 0.30, respectively. Please see Table SF1.1 on p. 70 of the Bank's June report. 5 The R2 statistic measuring the goodness of fit between actual copper prices and the modeled prices is 94% for the copper-consumption model, and 96% for the EM trade model over the 2000 - 2018 interval. The USD TWIB was used as an explanatory variable in both models. 6 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "China's Managed Slowdown Will Dampen Base Metals Demand," dated March 29, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Given that in levels, the money and credit variables display a deterministic upward trend, we removed the trend from the data in order to isolate the fluctuations around this trend. This de-trended series is what is significant to copper demand, and thus the evolution of copper prices. 8 We use a threshold OLS model to estimate the y/y model coefficients. The average change in the value of the coefficient is based on the coefficients in the models' outputs of the four money and credit measures. 9 The R2 statistics measuring the goodness of fit between actual y/y changes and those estimated in our models were ~63% in all four models. 10 We discussed this at length last week in BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Correlations Vs. USD Weaken," dated June 14, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 11 Some preliminary signs of potential easing include (1) the PBOC's most recent monetary policy decision in which it did not follow the US Fed's interest rate decision by hiking rates, as it generally does, and (2) a reduction in the reserve requirement ratio. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Insert table images here Trades Closed in
Highlights Fed: The Fed will not automatically slow the pace of rate hikes as the funds rate approaches current estimates of its neutral level. Rather, estimates of that neutral level will be revised depending on the outlook for the economy. For the time being investors should continue to expect a rate hike pace of 25 bps per quarter. Credit Cycle: For the time being both our monetary and credit quality indicators recommend an overweight allocation to corporate bonds. Inflation expectations are not yet anchored around the Fed's target, and gross leverage is trending sideways. Both of these measures will likely send a more negative signal later this year, and we will reduce exposure to corporate credit at that time. Emerging Market Debt: Despite the recent weakness in emerging market currencies, U.S. corporate credit still looks more attractive than USD-denominated emerging market sovereign debt. At the country level, only Russian debt warrants an overweight allocation relative to U.S. corporates. Feature The Federal Reserve meets this week and will deliver the second rate hike of the year, bringing the target range for the federal funds rate up to 1.75% - 2%. With that hike already fully discounted, investors will be more concerned with parsing the post-meeting statement, Summary of Economic Projections, and Chairman Powell's press conference for clues about the future path of rates. We expect only minor changes to the statement, though the Committee could decide to tweak its promise that "the federal funds rate is likely to remain, for some time, below levels that are expected to prevail in the longer run". Such a change would simply acknowledge that if gradual rate hikes continue, then the federal funds will move close to most estimates of its neutral (or equilibrium) level within the next 12 months. This touches on an important question for bond investors. Would the Fed actually start to slow the pace of rate hikes once the funds rate reaches its estimated neutral level? Or will it need to see some evidence of decelerating economic growth before slowing the pace of rate hikes below its current 25 bps per quarter pace? Chart 1 shows why this question is important. The shaded boxes in that chart outline a "gradual" rate hike path of 25 bps per quarter. The Fed has been lifting rates at this pace since late 2016. The "x" markings denote the median expected fed funds rate from the Fed's Survey of Primary Dealers, and the "F" markings denote the Fed's own median projections. Notice that there are two "F"s shown at the end of 2018. This is because an equal number of FOMC participants (6) expect a fed funds rate of 2% - 2.25% as expect one of 2.25% - 2.5%. We expect the median will coalesce around the 2.25% to 2.5% range by the end of tomorrow's meeting. Chart 1The Outlook For Rate Hikes Notice in Chart 1 that both primary dealers and the Fed expect to deviate from the quarterly rate hike pace around the middle of next year. This would be consistent with the pace of hikes starting to slow as the fed funds rate approaches its currently anticipated neutral level near 3%. But how confident is the Fed in its estimate of that neutral rate? We would argue that its confidence should be quite low. We are not alone in this assessment. In one of Janet Yellen's final speeches as Fed Chair she warned against placing too much confidence in estimates of the neutral rate.1 [T]he neutral rate changes over time as a result of the interaction of many forces, including demographics, productivity growth, fiscal policy, and the strength of global demand, so its value at any point in time cannot be estimated or projected with much precision. We expect that the current FOMC will heed this warning, and if there are no signs of economic deterioration by the middle of next year, then the Fed will continue to hike rates at a pace of 25 bps per quarter and estimates of the neutral rate will be revised higher. We examined what could potentially make the Fed deviate from its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace, by hiking either more quickly or more slowly, in a recent report.2 Crucially, Chart 1 shows that not only is the market priced for the Fed to slow its pace of rate hikes as we reach the middle of next year, it is also priced for a slower pace of rate hikes than is expected by the Fed or the primary dealers. This divergence means that below-benchmark portfolio duration continues to make sense on a 6-12 month horizon. Bottom Line: The Fed will not automatically slow the pace of rate hikes as the funds rate approaches current estimates of its neutral level. Rather, estimates of that neutral level will be revised depending on the outlook for the economy. For the time being investors should continue to expect a rate hike pace of 25 bps per quarter. A Quick Update On Our Tactical Long Position On May 22 we advised clients with a short-term (0-3 month) horizon to position for lower U.S. bond yields in the near term.3 This call was premised on two catalysts. First, bond market positioning had become excessively net short. That picture now looks more mixed (Chart 2). Net speculative positions in 10-year Treasury futures remain deep in "net short" territory and the Marketvane survey of bond sentiment is still "bearish", but the JP Morgan Duration Surveys for both "all clients" and active clients" have moved somewhat closer to neutral. The second catalyst was that our auto-regressive model pointed to strong odds of a negative reading from the U.S. Economic Surprise Index during the next month (Chart 3). This remains the case, but the reading from our model has moved much closer to the zero line. Chart 2Positioning Now Closer To Neutral Chart 3Surprise Index Still Low Taken together, our two indicators no longer send a resounding "buy bonds" signal. But given the deeply net short Treasury futures positioning and the low level of the surprise index, we are inclined to maintain our tactical buy recommendation for another week. We will re-assess again next week based on trends in the surprise index and the positioning data. The Fed & The Credit Cycle The Powell Fed has so far not been kind to credit spreads. Since February our index of financial conditions has tightened considerably, driven by a combination of falling equity prices, wider quality spreads and a stronger dollar (Chart 4). Yet, the Fed seems relatively unconcerned and is broadly expected to lift rates this week. All in all, the Powell Fed seems less concerned with responding to tighter financial conditions than was the Yellen Fed. Chart 4How Much Pain Can The Fed Take? There is some truth to this observation, though we think the difference has more to do with recent trends in inflation than with any change in approach between the two Fed Chairs. As inflation pressures mount, the Fed is marginally less concerned with responding to weakness in financial markets and marginally more concerned with preventing an inflation overshoot. This is why we will reduce our allocation to corporate bonds once our monetary indicators tell us that inflation expectations are well anchored around the Fed's target. Monetary Indicators Long maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are the primary indicators we are monitoring in this regard. When both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, that will be consistent with past periods of well-anchored inflation expectations and we will start reducing exposure to corporate credit (Chart 5). But we should not rely solely on one indicator. It is conceivable that the financial crisis ushered in a structural shift (possibly due to stricter banking regulations) and that the level of TIPS breakevens consistent with well-anchored inflation expectations is now slightly lower.4 For this reason we also pay attention to the St. Louis Fed's Price Pressures Measure (Chart 5, bottom panel). This model is designed to output the percent chance that inflation will exceed 2.5% during the next 12 months, and we have found that corporate bond excess returns decline significantly when it exceeds 15%.5 It currently sits at 13%. Finally, it's also a good idea to pay attention to core PCE inflation itself. The year-over-year rate of change in core PCE inflation jumped sharply in recent months, but it has not yet returned to the Fed's 2% target (Chart 6). It is therefore still reasonable to expect that inflation expectations are not consistent with target inflation. It is likely that many investors still have doubts about whether inflation will recover to the Fed's target. Chart 5Credit Cycle: Monetary Indicators Chart 6The Fed's Inflation Model Those doubts would probably fade if the year-over-year rate of change in core PCE inflation actually rose to 2% and stayed there for several months. At that point we would have to conclude that inflation expectations are well anchored, whatever the level of TIPS breakeven rates. Incidentally, the recent bounce in core inflation brought it back in line with the reading from Janet Yellen's Phillips Curve model that she presented in a speech from 2015.6 In the context of this model, a continued decline in the unemployment rate will pressure inflation slowly higher, meaning that we expect to receive a signal from our monetary indicators sometime this year. We will pare exposure to corporate bonds at that time. It will be very interesting to hear from Chair Yellen herself when she visits the BCA Conference in September, and we hope to gain insight not only about her inflation forecast but also about how the Fed thinks about its responsiveness to financial markets, and most importantly, about how the Fed is likely to manage the tightening cycle as the funds rate approaches its estimate of neutral. Credit Quality Indicators Outside of Fed policy and the inflation outlook, we are also closely monitoring the relationship between profit growth and debt growth for the nonfinancial corporate sector. Leverage rises whenever debt growth exceeds profit growth and rising leverage tends to coincide with widening credit spreads (Chart 7). Nonfinancial corporate debt grew at an annualized rate of 4.4% in the first quarter, while pre-tax profits actually contracted at an annualized rate of 5.7%. As a result, our measure of gross leverage ticked higher from 6.9 to 7.1. More broadly, profits grew 5.8% in the four quarters ending in Q1 2018, only slightly faster than the 5.2% increase in corporate debt. This does not provide much of a buffer, and it will not take much to send profit growth below debt growth on a sustained basis. In fact, we expect that if labor compensation costs continue to accelerate we will see leverage start to rise more meaningfully in the second half of this year. Our overall Corporate Health Monitor improved noticeably in the first quarter (Chart 8). But this large move will almost certainly reverse in Q2. The improvement was concentrated in the components of the Monitor that use after-tax cash flows, and as such they were influenced by the sharp decline in the corporate tax rate. Profit margins, for example, increased from 25.8% to 26.4% on an after-tax basis in Q1 (Chart 8, panel 2), but would have fallen to 25.5% if the effective corporate tax rate had remained the same as in 2017 Q4. As the effective corporate tax rate levels-off around its new lower level (Chart 8, bottom panel), last quarter's improvement in the Corporate Health Monitor will start to unwind. Chart 7Leverage Is Poised To Head Higher Chart 8Tax Cuts Helped Balance Sheets In Q1 Bottom Line: For the time being both our monetary and credit quality indicators recommend an overweight allocation to corporate bonds. Inflation expectations are not yet anchored around the Fed's target, and gross leverage is trending sideways. Both of these measures will likely send a more negative signal later this year, and we will reduce exposure to corporate credit at that time. Still No Opportunity In Emerging Market Debt We pointed out in a recent report that a persistent divergence between U.S. and non-U.S. economic growth was the most likely catalyst that could cause the Fed to slow its pace of rate hikes.7 A divergence between strong U.S. growth and weaker growth in the rest of the world puts upward pressure on the U.S. dollar, and this is a particular problem for many emerging markets that carry large balances of U.S. dollar denominated debt. Our Emerging Markets Strategy service published a Special Report last week that explains in detail this particular problem faced by emerging markets and shows which countries face the most pressing debt concerns.8 For U.S. fixed income investors another important question is whether the recent strength in the U.S. dollar, and weakness in emerging market currencies, has resulted in an opportunity to shift out of U.S. corporate credit and into USD-denominated emerging market sovereign debt. On that note, Chart 9 shows that the average option-adjusted spread for the Baa-rated U.S. Corporate bond index recently dipped below the average spread for the investment grade USD Emerging Market (EM) Sovereign index. However, we think it is still too soon to move into emerging market debt. After adjusting for differences in duration and spread volatility between the two indexes, we come up with a measure of "Months-To-Breakeven". This indicator shows the number of months of spread widening required for each index to lose money relative to U.S. Treasuries. By this measure, U.S. Corporate bonds still look attractive compared to investment grade EM Sovereigns. At the country level, Chart 10 shows the 12-month breakeven spread for the USD-denominated sovereign debt of several major EM countries. It also shows each country's foreign funding requirement, a measure of the foreign capital inflows required in the next 12 months for each country to cover any shortfall in current account transactions and service its foreign currency debt. Chart 9EM Sovereigns Are Still Expensive Chart 10USD-Denominated Emerging Market Debt: Risk/Reward At The Country Level For the Baa-rated countries, Colombia, Mexico and Indonesia all offer spreads similar to what can be found in the Baa-rated U.S. Corporate bond market. The Philippines looks quite expensive, but Russia looks cheap compared to U.S. Corporates and has one of the lowest foreign funding requirements of any EM country. In High-Yield space, Turkey is fairly priced relative to Ba-rated U.S. junk, while Brazil and South Africa both look expensive. Argentina also looks expensive relative to B-rated U.S. junk. Bottom Line: Despite the recent weakness in emerging market currencies, U.S. corporate credit still looks more attractive than USD-denominated emerging market sovereign debt. At the country level, only Russian debt warrants an overweight allocation relative to U.S. corporates. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20170926a.htm 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Breaking Points", dated May 29, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Pulling Back And Looking Ahead", dated May 22, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 We explored some possible reasons for such a shift in the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Breakevens Ever Recover?", dated April 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Rally Extended", dated June 27, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Breaking Points", dated May 29, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "A Primer On EM External Debt", dated June 7, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of May 31, 2018. No significant changes in the model's allocation this month, as shown in Table 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model underperformed its benchmark by 111 bps in May, largely driven by Level 2 model which underperformed by 300 bps. The model's largest overweight, Italy, turned out to be the worst performer in May as a result of Italian politics, an event that is difficult for a quantitative model to capture. Level 1 model outperformed by only 7 bps in May. Consequently, since going live, the outperformance of the Level 2 model, which allocates funds among 11 non-U.S. countries, has reduced to 52 bps, while the overall model has performed in line with the MSCI World benchmark. Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model," dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of May 31, 2018. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live The largest shift was a move from underweight to overweight in the materials sector, driven by improving momentum. On the other hand, the overweight in energy was reduced by 1.7 percentage points. The aggregate model now has a small overweight on cyclicals versus defensives, although this is entirely in commodity-related cyclicals. The only other overweight sector is utilities, which saw a small decrease in its weight in the model. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," dated July 27, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com.
Dear Clients, Please note that next week's report will be a joint effort with our geopolitical team, focused on North Korea. The report will be sent to you two days later than usual, on Friday June 8. Best regards, Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports Highlights Most episodes of negative relative Chinese equity performance this year have been driven by global stock market selloffs or related to the trade dispute with the U.S. Since Chinese ex-tech stocks have continued to outperform their global peers during this period, we recommend against downgrading China for now, barring hard evidence of a pernicious global slowdown or that severe protectionist action from the U.S. will indeed occur. Our list of charts to watch over the coming months highlights, among several other important points, that monetary conditions are not overly restrictive and that financial conditions are not tightening sharply. This is in spite of a recent clustering in corporate bond defaults that has concerned some investors. Besides broad-based stimulus in response to an impactful trade shock, a sustained pickup in housing construction remains the most plausible catalyst for an acceleration in domestic demand. For now tepid sales volume casts doubt on this scenario, but investors should continue to watch Chinese housing market dynamics closely. Feature There have been several developments affecting Chinese and global stock markets over the past two weeks. On the trade front, Secretary Mnuchin's statement on May 20 that the U.S. would be "putting the trade war" with China on hold was greeted by a material pushback from Congressional Republicans, particularly the administration's plan to ease previously announced sanctions on ZTE Group. The administration's trade rhetoric has since become more hawkish, as evidenced by yesterday's statement from the White House that referenced specific dates for the imposition of tariffs and the announcement of new restrictions on Chinese investment. This uptick in tough language sets the scene for Secretary Ross' Beijing visit this weekend to continue negotiations. More recently, a political crisis in Italy has caused euro area periphery bond yields to rise sharply, roiling global financial markets. The Italian President's rejection of Paolo Savona as proposed finance minister by the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) and Euroskeptic Lega has led to the installation of a caretaker government until the fall, when new elections are set to take place. The sharp tightening in financial conditions for Italy and Spain over the past week has exacerbated concerns about a potential growth slowdown in Europe, and has fed a relative selloff in emerging market equities that began in late-March. Despite the recent turmoil, our recommendation to investors is to avoid making any major changes to their allocation to Chinese ex-tech stocks within a global portfolio. Unless presented with hard evidence that the slowdown in the global economy is more than a simple deceleration from an above-trend pace, or that protectionist action from the U.S. will occur in a severe fashion, Table 1 suggests that investors should stay overweight Chinese ex-tech stocks (with a short leash). The table highlights that most episodes of negative relative Chinese ex-stock performance since the beginning of the year been driven by global stock market selloffs or related to the trade dispute with the U.S., despite the ongoing slowdown in China's industrial sector that we have repeatedly flagged. Since Chinese ex-tech stocks have continued to outperform their global peers during this period, our interpretation is that investors are well aware of the deceleration in China's economy, but do not yet regard it as a material threat to ex-tech equity prices. Table 1YTD Weakness In Chinese Stock Prices Has Been Driven By Global Events Clearly, however, this assessment on the part of global investors can change, underscoring that the situation in China merits continual re-assessment. With the goal of providing investors with a toolkit to continually monitor the state of the Chinese economy and the resulting implications for related financial asset prices, this week's report presents a list of 11 charts "to watch" across five categories of analysis. In our view these charts span key potential inflection points for the economic and profit outlook, and will serve as an important basis for us to update our view on China over the months ahead. Monetary & Fiscal Policy Chart 1: The Policy Rate Versus Borrowing Rates Chart 1Borrowing/Policy Rate Divergence Should Not Last,##br## But Is Worth Monitoring An interesting divergence has occurred lately between the 3-month interbank repo rate (currently the de-facto policy rate) and both corporate bond yields and the average lending rate. While the repo rate fell non-trivially after it became apparent in late-March that the PBOC would extend the deadline for the implementation of new regulatory standards for asset management products, corporate bond yields have recently risen sharply and China's weighted-average lending rate ticked higher in Q1. As we highlighted in last week's Special Report, the recent clustering of corporate bond defaults does not (for now) appear to be a source of systemic risk. First, by our estimation, the recent defaults cited above account for only 0.09% of outstanding corporate bonds. Second, the latest PBOC monetary report changed the tone from emphasizing "deleveraging" to "stabilizing leverage and restructuring", which shows that regulators are as concerned about the stability of the economy as they are about reducing excessive debts. But the possibility remains that the ongoing crackdown on China's shadow banking sector will cause some degree of persistence in the recent divergence between the interbank market and actual borrowing rates, implying that investors should continue to watch Chart 1 over the months for signs of materially tighter financial conditions. Chart 2: The Correlation Between Sovereign Risk And The Repo Rate We noted in a February Special Report that investors could use the rolling 1-year correlation between the 3-month interbank repo rate and the relative sovereign CDS spread between China and Germany as a gauge of whether Chinese monetary policy has become too restrictive for its economy.1 Despite the fact that actual sovereign credit risk in China is extremely low, Chart 2 shows that the relative CDS spread has acted as a good bellwether for growth conditions in the Chinese economy. It shows that the correlation between this spread and the 3-month interbank repo rate was initially positive in late-2016 (representing concern on the part of investors that monetary policy is restrictive), but has since come back down into negative territory. Interestingly, the correlation was consistently positive from mid-2011 to mid-2014, when average lending rates averaged 7% or higher and the benchmark lending rate exceeded the IMF's Taylor Rule estimate by about 1%.2 For now the correlation remains negative (as it was when we published our February report), meaning that it currently supports our earlier conclusion that monetary conditions are not overly restrictive and that financial conditions more generally are not tightening sharply (despite the recent rise in corporate bond yields). Chart 2No Sign Yet That Monetary Policy Is Overly Restrictive Chart 3Watch For Signs Of Fiscal Stimulus Chart 3: The Fiscal Spending Impulse Chart 3 presents the Chinese government's budgetary expenditure as an "impulse", calculated as expenditure over the past year as a percent of nominal GDP. Panel 2 shows the year-over-year change in the impulse. When compared with a similar measure for private sector credit, cyclical fluctuations in China's government spending impulse are relatively small. For this reason, BCA's China Investment Strategy service has not strongly emphasized fiscal spending as a major driver of China's business cycle. However, we also noted in a recent report that fiscal stimulus stands out as one of the "least bad" options available to policymakers to combat a negative export shock from U.S. protectionism, were one to occur.3 The potential for broader stimulus from Chinese authorities in response to an impactful trade shock raises the interesting possibility of another economic mini cycle in China, since the economy accelerated meaningfully in response to the last episode of material fiscal & monetary easing. As such, investors should closely watch over the coming months for signs that fiscal spending is accelerating, particularly if combined with potential signs of easing monetary policy. External Demand Chart 4: Global Demand And Chinese Export Growth Chart 4For Now, Resilient Exports ##br##Are Supporting China's Economy We have noted in several recent reports that a resilient export sector remains the most favorable pillar of Chinese growth. Besides the clear risk to Chinese trade from U.S. protectionism, two other factors have the potential to negatively impact the trend in export growth. The first (and most important) of these risks is a reduction in global demand, which some investors have recently been concerned about given the decline in global manufacturing PMIs. However, Chart 4 highlights that our global PMI diffusion indicator has done an excellent job of leading the global PMI over the past few years, and has barely registered a decline over the past few months. From our perspective, the odds are good that the recent deceleration in the PMI has been caused by sudden caution (even in developed countries) over the Trump administration's protectionist actions, and does not reflect a material or long-lasting slowdown in the global economy. But we will be closely watching the PMI releases over the coming months to rule out a more painful slowdown in global demand. Importantly, we have also highlighted that stronger exports may actually presage a further slowdown in China's industrial sector if it emboldens policymakers to intensify their reform efforts over the coming year. We argued in our May 2 Weekly Report that China's reform pain threshold is positively correlated with global growth momentum,4 meaning that the external sector of China's economy may have less potential to counter weakness in the industrial sector than many investors believe. In this regard, extreme export readings (to the up and downside) should be regarded by investors as a potentially problematic development. Chart 5: The Competitiveness Impact Of A Rising RMB Chart 5 highlights the second non-protectionist risk to Chinese export growth, namely the significant appreciation in the RMB that has occurred since mid-2017. The chart shows the percentile rank of three different trade-weighted RMB indexes since 2014, and highlights that all three are between their 70th & 80th percentiles (with our BCA Export-Weighted RMB index having risen the most). Importantly, the 2015-high shown in Chart 5 represents the strongest point for the currency in over two decades, suggesting that further currency strength may exacerbate the significant deceleration in export prices that has already occurred. Chart 5A Surging RMB Could Undercut Competitiveness Housing Chart 6: Housing Sales Versus Starts We have presented a variation of Chart 6 several times over the past few months, but it is important enough that it deserves to be continually monitored by investors over the coming year. Chart 6 tells the story of China's housing market from the perspective of an investor who is primarily interested in the sector because of its implications for growth. The chart highlights that residential floor space started, our best proxy for the real contribution to growth from residential investment, has fallen significantly relative to sales since 2012-2014. This appears to have occurred because of a significant build up in housing inventories, which has since reversed materially (even though the level remains elevated). To us, this suggests that the gap between housing sales and construction that has persisted for the past several years may finally be over, suggesting that the latter may pick up durably if sales trend higher. For now sales volume remains tepid, but this will be a key chart for investors to watch over the coming year given our view that housing is a core pillar of China's business cycle. The Industrial Sector Chart 7: The BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator And Its Components Chart 7 presents our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index (LKI), which we developed in a November Special Report.5 There are six components of the indicator, all of which are related to changing monetary/financial conditions, and the growth in money and credit. Chart 6Housing Construction Could Accelerate##br## If Sales Pick Up Chart 7A Downtrend In Our LKI Leading Indicator, ##br##Within A Wide Component Range The indicator is at the core of our view, and we have been presenting monthly updates of the series in our regular reports since late last year. However, Chart 7 looks at the indicator from a different perspective, by showing it within a range that identifies the weakest and strongest components at any given point in time. Two points are noteworthy from the chart: While the overall LKI indicator has been trending down since early-2017, there is currently a wide range between the components. This gap is in stark contrast to the very narrow range that prevailed from 2014-2015, when the economy slowed considerably. This could mean that some of the components of the indicator are unduly weak, which in turn could imply that the severity of the slowdown in China's industrial sector will be less intense than the overall indicator would otherwise suggest. At least one component provided a lead on the subsequent direction of the overall indicator from late-2011 to late-2012, the last time that a significant gap existed between the components. This is in contrast to the situation today, in that all of the components are currently in a downtrend (albeit with differing paces as well as magnitudes). The key point for investors from Chart 7 is that all of the components of our indicator are moving in the same direction, which suggests with high conviction that China's economy is slowing. However, the wide range among the components suggests that indicator's message about the intensity of the slowdown is less uniform than it has been in the past, meaning that investors should be sensitive to a sustained pickup in the top end of the range. Equity Market Signals Chart 8: The Beta Of Our BCA China Sector Alpha Portfolio Chart 8 revisits a unique insight that we presented in our May 16 Weekly Report.6 The chart shows the rolling 1-year beta of our BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio versus the investable benchmark alongside China's performance versus global stocks, and suggests that the former may reliably lead the latter. While we noted in the report that drawing market-wide inferences from the beta characteristics of risk-adjusted performers is a not a conventional approach, finance theory is supportive of the idea. If investors are seeking to maximize their risk-adjusted returns and are engaging in tactical allocation across sectors, then it is entirely possible that beta-adjusted sector returns reflect the risk-on/risk-off expectations of market participants. For the purposes of China-related investment strategy over the coming year, our emphasis on Chart 8 will increase markedly if we see a sharp decline in the beta of our Sector Alpha Portfolio. As we noted in our May 16 report, the model is for now sending a curiously bullish signal, which we see as partial validation of our view that investors should have a high threshold to cut exposure to China within a global equity portfolio. Chart 8Watch For A Decline In The Beta Of ##br##Our Sector Alpha Portfolio Chart 9Decelerating Earnings Growth Could##br## Undermine Investor Sentiment Chart 9: Ex-Tech Earnings Versus The Li Keqiang Index We noted above that predicting the Li Keqiang index (LKI) is at the core of our view, and Chart 9 highlights why. The chart shows that a model based on the LKI closely fits the year-over-year growth rate of Chinese investable ex-tech earnings and, crucially, provides a lead. While the chart does not suggest that an outright contraction in ex-tech earnings is in the cards over the coming year, it does show that earnings growth is about to peak. This is potentially problematic, and warrants close attention, for two reasons: First, our leading indicator for the LKI suggests that it will decelerate further over the coming year, which could push our earnings growth estimate towards or below zero. Second, the peak in earnings growth could dampen investor sentiment towards Chinese ex-tech stocks, especially since bottom up analyst estimates for 12-months forward earnings growth have recently moved higher and are currently above what is predicted by our model. Chart 10: The Alpha Of Chinese Banks By now, the narrative surrounding Chinese banks is well known among global investors. The enormous leveraging of China's non-financial corporate sector is viewed by many as a clear sign of capital misallocation, meaning that a (potentially material) portion of the loan book of Chinese banks will have to be written off as bad debt. The ultimate scope of the bad debt problem in China is far from clear, but these longstanding concerns about loan quality suggest that Chinese bank stocks are likely to materially underperform their global peers if China's shadow banking crackdown begins to pose a significant threat to growth via restrictions on the provision of credit to the real economy. As such, we recommend that investors monitor Chart 10 over the coming year, which shows the rolling 1-year alpha significance for Chinese banks vs their global peers. While the rolling 1-year alpha of small banks has become less positive over the past few weeks, it remains in positive territory, similar to that of investable bank stocks. So, for now, this indicator supports our earlier conclusion that recent divergence between the interbank market and actual borrowing rates highlighted in Chart 1 is not heralding a material tightening in Chinese financial conditions. Chart 10Investors Should Monitor Chinese Bank Alpha ##br##For Significant Declines Chart 11No Technical Breakdown (Yet) In Ex-Tech Relative Performance Chart 11: The Technical Performance Of Ex-Tech Stocks BCA's approach to forecasting financial markets rests far more on top-down macroeconomic assessments than it does on technical analysis. However, technical indicators do contain important information, particularly when our top-down macro approach signals that a change in trend may be imminent. In this regard, technical indicators can provide valuable opportunities to enter or exit a position. To the extent that the technical profile of Chinese ex-tech stocks is informative in the current environment, Chart 11 shows that it is telling investors to stay invested despite the myriad risks to the economic outlook. This message is consistent with that of Table 1, namely that the negative performance of Chinese ex-tech stocks has been in response to global rather than idiosyncratic, China-specific risk. From our perspective, a technical breakdown in relative Chinese ex-tech stock performance in response to China-specific news would serve as a strong basis for a downgrade within a global equity portfolio, and we will be monitoring closely for such a development over the coming weeks and months. Stay tuned! Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy", dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Monetary Tightening In China: How Much Is Too Much?" dated January 18, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Question That Won't Go Away", dated April 18, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: A Low-Conviction Overweight", dated May 2, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle", dated November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Three Pillars Of China's Economy", dated May 16, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights 0 To 3 Months: Extended net short positioning and the recent moderation in economic data suggest that Treasury yields are ripe for a near-term pullback. Investors who are able should consider tactically buying bonds on a 0-3 month horizon, but with a tight stop loss. 6 to 12 Months: We recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon, consistent with our Two Stage Bond Bear Market framework. While the credit cycle is in its late stages, it is still too soon to reduce exposure to corporate bonds. We will pare exposure to corporate bonds once our TIPS breakeven inflation targets are met. Total Return Forecasts: Our simple framework for estimating total bond returns reveals that risk/reward arguments clearly favor below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 12-month horizon. Feature Chart 1Two Milestones The U.S. bond market reached one noteworthy milestone last week and is quickly closing in on another. The first milestone is that the 10-year Treasury yield decisively broke through the 3% level that had defined its most recent peak (Chart 1). The second milestone is that the market is now close to fully pricing-in the likely near-term path for Fed rate hikes. We noted in a recent report that the Fed's "gradual" rate hike path is quite clearly defined as one 25 basis point rate hike per quarter.1 This equates to 100 bps on our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter, which currently sits at 91 bps, just below this key level (Chart 1, bottom panel). We continue to see upside in Treasury yields on a cyclical horizon. Though tactically, the likelihood of a near-term pullback in yields has increased greatly during the past few days. In this week's report we outline the case for a near-term (0-3 month) pullback in Treasury yields, but also look ahead by introducing a simple framework investors can use to make total return forecasts for all different U.S. bond sectors. The Case For A Near-Term Pullback In addition to the fact that the market is closer to fully discounting the likely near-term path of rate hikes than it has been for some time, there are two other reasons to expect a near-term, temporary pullback in yields. The first is that the below-benchmark duration trade has become the consensus position in the market (Chart 2). Net speculative short positions in 10-year Treasury futures have rarely been greater, and since the financial crisis large net short positions have correlated quite strongly with a decline in the 10-year yield during the subsequent three months. Similarly, positions reported in the JP Morgan Duration Survey are firmly in "net short" territory for both the "all clients" and "active clients" surveys. The Marketvane survey of bond sentiment has also turned bearish for only the fourth time since 2010. Each of the other three times has coincided with a near-term drop in yields. Chart 2Bond Market Looks Oversold But positioning alone would not be enough to convince us that yields might decline in the near-term. Investors also need a catalyst. An excuse to take profits on large net short positions that have been working well. That catalyst is typically a period of worse-than-expected economic data. To judge the trend in economic data relative to expectations we turn to the Economic Surprise Index. Chart 3Economic Surprise Index In a report from last year we demonstrated that if the Economic Surprise Index ends a month below (above) the zero line, it is very likely that Treasury yields fell (rose) during that month.2 Also, we know that the surprise index is mean reverting by its very nature. A long period of positive (negative) data surprises will certainly be followed an upward (downward) revision to investors' economic expectations. Eventually expectations become so elevated (depressed) that they become impossible to surpass (disappoint). The index will then start to mean revert. In that same report from last year we also introduced a simple auto-regressive model of the surprise index, designed to capture its average speed of mean reversion. Based on that model, which is purely a function of the index's own lags, we would expect the surprise index to dip slightly into negative territory in one month's time (Chart 3). Though given the large amount of uncertainty in the model, a fairer assessment would be that it is no longer a given that the surprise index will remain above the zero line in the near-term. Bottom Line: Extended net short positioning and the recent moderation in economic data suggest that Treasury yields are ripe for a near-term pullback. Investors who are able should consider tactically buying bonds on a 0-3 month horizon, but with a tight stop loss. Less nimble investors are better off riding out any potential near-term volatility and maintaining below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon. The Cyclical Picture Is Unchanged On a 6-12 month investment horizon, we are sticking with the playbook of our Two-Stage Bond Bear Market.3 The first stage is characterized by the re-anchoring of inflation expectations, and here, long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are still slightly below our target range of 2.3% to 2.5% (Chart 4). We also think bond investors should maintain an overweight allocation to spread product, though the time to trim exposure is approaching. Because the Fed's support for credit markets will weaken as inflation pressures mount, we will start reducing exposure to spread product once both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates are within our target 2.3% to 2.5% band. The intuition that the credit cycle is long in the tooth is further supported by the fact that the 2/10 Treasury curve is close to 50 bps (Chart 4, bottom panel). In a recent report we showed that while corporate bond excess returns relative to Treasuries usually remain positive until the yield curve inverts, they decline dramatically once the slope dips below 50 bps.4 Valuation also remains tight in the corporate bond market. While investment grade corporate bond spreads have widened in recent months, the junk spread is still close to its post-crisis low, as is the differential between the junk and investment grade spread (Chart 5). Chart 4Inflation Compensation Chart 5Flirting With The Lows The recent widening of investment grade corporate spreads appears to simply reflect a reversion to more reasonable valuation levels, after they had been extremely expensive at the start of the year. Chart 6 shows the 12-month breakeven spread for each investment grade credit tier. We look at the breakeven spread - defined as the spread widening required to lose money versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon - in order to adjust for the changing duration of the index over time. Chart 6 also shows the breakeven spread as a percentile rank relative to history. In other words, it shows the percentage of time that the breakeven spread has been lower in the past. Notice that earlier in the year investment grade corporate spreads had been approaching all-time expensive levels. They are now closer to the 25th percentile, much more in line with similar spreads for the High-Yield credit tiers (Chart 7). Chart 6Investment Grade Breakeven Spreads Chart 7High-Yield Breakeven Spreads There is no longer a risk-adjusted opportunity in high-yield corporate bonds relative to investment grade. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 6-12 month horizon, consistent with our Two Stage Bond Bear Market framework. While the credit cycle is in its late stages, it is still too soon to reduce exposure to corporate bonds. We will pare exposure to corporate bonds once our TIPS breakeven inflation targets are met. A Simple Framework For Forecasting Total Returns In a recent report we observed that, using a 12-month investment horizon, the difference between market expectations for the change in the federal funds rate and the actual change in the federal funds rate closely tracks the price return from the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index.5 With that in mind, this week we extend that analysis to develop a simple framework for forecasting bond total returns. The framework relies on the fact that the "12-month rate hike surprise" described above is correlated with the 12-month change in Treasury yields. The Appendix to this report shows the historical correlation between the 12-month rate hike surprise and the 12-month change in several different par-coupon Treasury yields. Unsurprisingly, the correlation is very strong for short maturity yields, and gradually weakens as we move further out the curve. This is important because it means that the total return forecasts we generate from this exercise will be more accurate for bond sectors with low duration than for those with high duration. Table 1 shows the total return forecasts we generated for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index and for several of its maturity buckets. The results are presented in such a way that readers can impose their own forecasts for the number of Fed rate hikes that will occur during the next 12 months, and then map that forecast to a reasonable expectation for Treasury total returns. Table 1Treasury Index Total Return Forecasts For example, in a scenario where the Fed lifts rates four times (100 bps) during the next year, given current market pricing the rate hike surprise will be modestly negative.6 Using the historical correlations shown in the Appendix, we map that rate hike surprise to changes in the par-coupon Treasury curve and then use the duration and convexity attributes of each individual index to determine how that shift in the Treasury curve will impact index returns. In the scenario described above we would expect the Treasury Master Index to return +2.13% during the next year. While this is a slightly positive number, it is close enough to zero that it does not provide much insulation from changes in long-dated yields that are unrelated to the near-term path for rate hikes. Further, in the four rate hike scenario, investors moving from the Treasury Master Index to the 1-3 year index need only sacrifice 12 bps of expected return to reduce their duration risk by a factor of three. Such a risk/reward trade-off clearly favors a below-benchmark duration stance on a 12-month investment horizon. Table 2 repeats the same exercise but for the major spread sectors of the U.S. bond market. To estimate spread sector total returns we need to forecast both the shift in the Treasury curve and whether spreads will widen, tighten or remain constant. Specifically, we assume that spreads either widen or tighten by the standard deviation of annual spread changes for each index, calculated using a post-crisis interval. Table 2Spread Product Total Return Forecasts The results show that, in a four rate hike scenario, we should expect 12-month investment grade corporate bond total returns of approximately 3.4%, assuming also that spreads stay flat. In a scenario where the average index spread widens by 42 bps, we should expect total returns of only 1%. Bottom Line: Our simple framework for estimating total bond returns reveals that risk/reward arguments clearly favor below-benchmark portfolio duration on a 12-month horizon. Spread product returns should continue to beat Treasuries for the time being, but the window for outperformance is starting to close. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix Chart 8Change In 1-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br## Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 9Change In 2-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br## Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 10Change In 3-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 11Change In 5-Year Yield Vs.12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 12Change In 7-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 13Change In 10-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br##Fed Funds Rate Surprise Chart 14Change In 30-Year Yield Vs. 12-Month ##br## Fed Funds Rate Surprise 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Coming To Grips With Gradualism", dated May 8, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "How Much Higher For Yields?", dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets For Corporate Debt", dated April 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Back To Basics", dated April 17, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 The 12-month rate hike surprise is defined as the 12-month Fed Funds Discounter less the actual change in the fed funds rate during the following 12 months. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights An examination of the three pillars of China's economy provides an unambiguous signal that a slowdown is underway. This would normally warrant, at most, a neutral allocation to Chinese stocks, but several factors argue against cutting exposure for now. Stay overweight, but with a short leash. Recent changes in the BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio's recommended allocation have validated two of our recent investment recommendations. In addition, the model is providing a curiously bullish signal about the relative performance of Chinese vs global stocks that heightens our reluctance to reduce Chinese equity exposure. Our China Reform Monitor signals that investors do not view the current pace of structural reforms as being overly burdensome for the economy. In addition, while Chinese policymakers have made some significant gains in improving China's air quality over the past 18 months, these changes have mostly occurred from a near-hazardous starting point (suggesting that more progress will be needed). As such, we recommend that investors stick with our long ESG leaders / short investable benchmark trade over the coming year. Feature Global investor sentiment improved modestly on Monday, in response to statements from President Trump indicating a possible détente between the U.S. and China on the issue of trade. In particular, Mr. Trump signaled a willingness to assist ZTE, a Chinese telecommunications equipment maker, whose operations would have been enormously impacted by the U.S. Commerce Department's decision last month to ban American companies from selling to the firm. In the view of our Geopolitical Strategy Service, announcements like these should be viewed as marginally positive developments within the context of a serious downtrend in U.S./China relations. Investors appear to be eager to respond to positive news about waning U.S. protectionism, but the reality is that several important decisions related to the U.S.' section 301 probe have yet to be announced.1 As we noted in last week's Special Report,2 this underscores that the near-term risks to China from the external sector are clearly to the downside. Abstracting from the day-to-day assessment of the trade picture, we have emphasized that other core elements of the China outlook have deteriorated. As we present below, an aggregate view of the three pillars of China's economy continues to argue for a (contained) slowdown, with protectionism acting as a downside risk to an already sober economic outlook. Extremely cheap valuation and the high-beta nature of Chinese ex-tech stocks continue to justify an overweight stance versus global equities, but we recommend that investors keep Chinese stocks on downgrade watch for the remainder of Q2 as the risks to the Chinese economy warrant an ongoing assessment of what is currently a finely balanced equity allocation decision. Assessing The Three Pillars Chart 1 presents our stylized framework for analyzing China's economy. It highlights that China's business cycle is largely driven by three "pillars": industrial activity, the housing market, and trade. While the services sector, the Chinese consumer, and/or the technology sector are of interesting secular relevance, generally-speaking China's business cycle continues to be subject to its "old" growth model centered on investment and exports. Chart 1The Three Pillars Of China's Business Cycle Industrial Activity: We took an empirical approach to predicting China's industrial sector activity in our November 30 Special Report,3 and tested the ability of 40 different macro data series to lead the Li Keqiang index (LKI). While the LKI is closely followed and somewhat cliché, we have focused on it because of its strong correlation with ex-tech earnings and import growth. The results of our November report pointed to the success of monetary condition indexes, money supply, and credit measures to reliably predict the LKI since China's real GDP growth peaked in 2010. We constructed our BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator based on these measures, and we have frequently highlighted over the past few months that the indicator is pointing to a continued deceleration in China's industrial activity (Chart 2). Housing: We noted in our November report that housing market data also correlates with the LKI, albeit less well than the components of our Leading Indicator. One important observation about China's housing market that we highlighted in our February 8 Weekly Report is that residential floor space sold appears to have reliably led floor space started (a proxy for real residential investment) since 2010 (Chart 3). Over the past 6-8 months, however, floor space started appears to have diverged from the trend in floor space sold, which may have been caused by a non-trivial reduction in housing inventories over the past few years.4 Nonetheless, we also noted that the level of inventories remains quite elevated, suggesting that the uptrend in floor space started is unlikely to continue without a renewed uptrend in sales volume. In our view, this conclusion implies that the housing outlook over the coming 6-12 months is neutral, at best. Chart 2China's Industrial Sector ##br##Will Continue To Slow Chart 3Resi Sales Volume Does Not Point To ##br##A Sustained Pickup In Construction Trade: The third pillar of China's economy is the external sector, which remains important even though net exports have fallen quite significantly in terms of contribution to China's growth. We noted in our April 18 Weekly Report that there is a strongly positive relationship between the annual change in contribution to growth from China's net exports and subsequent gross capital formation, highlighting that external demand provides an important multiplier effect for Chinese activity. For now, nominal export growth (in CNY terms) remains at the high end of its 5-year range, reflecting the strength of the global economy. But three significant risks remain to the export outlook: 1) the clear and present danger of U.S. import tariffs, 2) the possibility that Chinese policymakers may accelerate their reform efforts to take advantage of the "window of opportunity" provided by robust global demand,4 and 3) the very substantial rise in the export-weighted RMB (Chart 4), which is fast approaching its 2015 high. As a final point on trade, Chart 5 highlights that the recent divergence between the LKI and nominal import growth is resolved when examining the latter in CNY terms. The chart suggests that while export growth has been buoyed by a strong global economy, China's contribution to the global growth impulse is diminishing. The very tight link demonstrated in Chart 5 also suggests that industrial activity is the most important pillar to watch among the three noted above, which means that Chart 2 argues for a negative export outlook for China's major trading partners. Chart 4A Non-Trivial Deterioration ##br##In Competitiveness Chart 5The Rise In CNYUSD Is Flattering ##br##Imports Measured In Dollars Our assessment of the three pillars of China's economy points to a conclusion that we have highlighted frequently in our recent reports: China's industrial sector is slowing, and there are downside risks to the export outlook. The character of the slowdown does not suggest that a major shock to the global economy is likely to emanate from China over the coming 6-12 months, but the outlook is more consistent with a reduction than an expansion in China's contribution to global growth. Under normal circumstances, at best this would warrant a neutral asset allocation outlook to China-related financial assets. Chart 6The Uptrend In Relative Chinese ##br##Ex-Tech Performance Is Intact However, we have also argued that the relatively attractive valuation and the technical profile of Chinese equities suggests that investors should have a high threshold for reducing their exposure to China within a global equity portfolio. Chart 6 highlights that Chinese ex-tech share prices continue to demonstrate resilient performance versus their global peers, despite the ongoing slowdown in China's economy. In addition, as we will note below, our BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio is providing a curiously bullish signal about the relative performance of Chinese stocks, which heightens our reluctance to cut exposure. Bottom Line: An examination of the three pillars of China's economy provides an unambiguous signal that a slowdown is underway. This would normally warrant, at most, a neutral allocation to Chinese stocks, but several factors argue against cutting exposure for now. Stay overweight, but with a short leash. Reading The Tea Leaves From Our Sector Alpha Portfolio We introduced our BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio in a January Special Report, in part to demonstrate that the concept of alpha persistence (i.e. alpha that is persistently positive or negative) has material implications for portfolio returns. In particular, we noted that the portfolio's strategy of allocating to China's investable equity sectors based on the significance of alpha has resulted in over 200bps of long-term outperformance versus the investable benchmark, without taking on any additional risk (Table 1). Table 1An Alpha-Based Sector Model Has Historically Outperformed China's Investable Stock Market Table 2 presents the portfolio's current allocation, relative to the current benchmark weights for each sector as well as the portfolio's sectoral allocation when we published our January report. Two observations are noteworthy: The model recommends an overweight allocation to resources; consumer staples; health care; utilities; and real estate, at the expense of industrials; consumer discretionary; financials; technology; and telecom services. These positions are largely in-line with the model's recommendations in January, except for a non-trivial increase in exposure to energy and financials, and a significant reduction in technology and consumer discretionary. The portfolio's reduced exposure to technology and consumer discretionary stocks validate two recent investment recommendations from BCA's China Investment Strategy team: we recommended a long consumer staples / short consumer discretionary trade on November 16,5 and we recommend that investors retain cyclical exposure to investable Chinese stocks while neutralizing exposure to the tech sector on February 15.6 Table 2Our Sector Alpha Portfolio Has Validated Two Of Our Recent Recommendations Chart 7 highlights another interesting insight from the model, by presenting the beta of the portfolio relative to the investable benchmark alongside the benchmark's performance versus global stocks. First, the chart underscores the limited systemic risk of the portfolio, as the portfolio's beta rarely deviates materially from 1. But more importantly, it appears that the portfolio's beta versus the investable benchmark is somewhat correlated with (and leads) China's performance versus global stocks: Chart 7A Curiously Bullish Signal From ##br##Our Sector Alpha Portfolio Prior to the global financial crisis, the portfolio's beta was above 1 and rising, until early-2007 (preceding the peak in relative performance by about a year). Following the crisis, the portfolio beta steadily declined until late-2014/early-2015, interrupted only by a brief rise back above 1 from 2009-2010. Chinese stock prices steadily underperformed global equities during this period. The portfolio beta rose back to 1 in mid-2015, and stayed flat until early last year. Chinese stocks technically underperformed global stocks during this period, but by a much more modest amount than what occurred on average from 2009 to 2014. In this case, the rise in the portfolio beta in 2015 appeared to correctly signal that a sharply underweight stance towards Chinese stocks was no longer warranted. Finally, the portfolio beta surged rapidly higher last year, in line with a material rise in the relative performance of Chinese stocks. It has fallen modestly since January, but remains at one of the highest levels seen over the past 15 years. Drawing pro-cyclical inferences from the beta characteristics of risk-adjusted performers is a novel approach for BCA's China Investment Strategy service, and for now we regard the results of Chart 7 as a curious signal that warrants further examination. Still, this bullish sign is consistent with the general resilience of Chinese stocks that we have observed over the past several months, which continues to argue in favor of a high threshold to cut exposure to China within a global equity portfolio. Bottom Line: Recent changes in the BCA China Investable Sector Alpha Portfolio's recommended allocation have validated two of our recent investment recommendations. In addition, the model is providing a curiously bullish signal about the relative performance of Chinese vs global stocks that heightens our reluctance to reduce Chinese equity exposure. An Update On The "Reform Trade" We noted in the aftermath of last November's Communist Party Congress that China was likely to step up its reform efforts in 2018, and make meaningful efforts to: Pare back heavy-polluting industry Hasten the transition of China's economy to "consumer-led" growth7 Halt leveraging in the corporate/financial sector Eliminate corruption and graft As a result of this outlook, we highlighted that the pace of renewed structural reforms would be a key theme to watch this year, in order to ensure that the pursuit of these policies would not unintentionally cause a repeat of the significant slowdown in the economy that occurred in 2014/2015. We presented our framework for monitoring this risk in our November 16 Weekly Report, which was to track an index that we called the BCA China Reform Monitor. The monitor is calculated as an equally-weighted average of four "winner" sectors that outperformed the investable benchmark in the month following the Party Congress relative to an equally-weighted average of the remaining seven sectors. We argued that significant underperformance of "loser" sectors could be a sign that reform intensity has become too burdensome for the economy (and thus a material headwind ex-tech equity performance), and highlighted that we would be watching for signs that our monitor was rising largely due to outright declines in the denominator. Using this framework, Chart 8 suggests that structural reform efforts are ongoing but that investors do not view the current pace of these reforms as overly burdensome for the economy. In particular, panel 2 highlights that recent movements in our Reform Monitor have been driven by fairly steady outperformance of the "winner" sectors, with "loser" sectors simply trending sideways. While it is possible that Chinese policymakers will intensify their efforts to reform the economy over the coming 6-12 months,4 for now our China Reform Monitor continues to support an overweight stance towards Chinese ex-tech stocks vs their global peers. However, given the message of our Reform Monitor, it is somewhat surprising that another of our reform-themed trades has fared so poorly over the past three months. Chart 9 presents the performance of our long investable environmental, social and governance (ESG) leaders / short investable benchmark trade, which was up approximately 4% since inception in late-January but is now down 1.4%. The basis of this trade was to overweight stocks that are best positioned to deliver "sustainable" growth, which we argued would fare well in a reform environment. Does the underperformance of this trade suggest that the reform theme is unlikely to be investment-relevant over the coming year? Chart 8Structural Reforms Not Viewed As ##br##Economically Restrictive By Investors Chart 9ESG Leaders Should Fare Quite ##br##Well In A Reform Environment In our view, the answer is no. First, while the MSCI ESG leaders index maintains roughly similar sector weights as the investable benchmark (which limits the beta risk of the trade), Table 3 highlights that differences do exist. These modest differences in sector allocation do appear to be impacting performance (Chart 10), in particular the underweight allocation to energy stocks (which are outperforming) and the overweight allocation to technology (which has sold off since mid-March). Table 3Sector Allocation Has Impacted The Recent Performance Of China's ESG Leaders Chart 10Sector Allocation Impacting Recent ##br##Performance Of ESG Leaders Second, while China made significant gains last year in improving air quality in several major population centers (such as Beijing and Shanghai), these improvements have mostly occurred from a near-hazardous starting point and have simply rendered China's air to be less unhealthy. Even in Beijing, Chart 11 highlights that PM2.5 readings have started to increase again, from a level that only briefly reached "good" quality. In addition, Chart 12 highlights that some of the improvement in air quality last year occurred, at least in part, because China shifted polluting activity from one province to another. This implies that Chinese policymakers will continue to wrestle with improving the country's air quality for some time to come, which in our view continues to favor ESG leaders over the coming year and beyond. Chart 11Some Significant Recent Gains In Air ##br##Quality, But Part Of An Ongoing Battle Chart 12Air Quality Gains In Some Provinces, At The Expense Of Others Bottom Line: Our China Reform Monitor signals that investors do not view the current pace of structural reforms as being overly burdensome for the economy. In addition, while Chinese policymakers have made some significant gains in improving China's air quality over the past 18 months, these changes have mostly occurred from a near-hazardous starting point (suggesting that more progress will be needed). As such, we recommend that investors stick with our long ESG leaders / short investable benchmark trade over the coming year. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Inside The Beltway," dated May 2, 2018, available on gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report "China's "Red Line" In The Trade Talks," dated May 9, 2018, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle," dated November 30, 2017, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China: A Low-Conviction Overweight," dated May 2, 2018, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Messages From The Market, Post-Party Congress," dated November 16, 2017, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "After The Selloff: A View From China," dated February 15, 2018, available on cis.bcaresearch.com 7 Investors should note that BCA's China Investment Strategy service has long been skeptical of calls to shift China's economy to a consumption-driven growth model, because it significantly raises the odds that the country will not be able to escape the middle income trap. For example, please see Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "On A Higher Note", dated October 5, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations