Policy
We first highlighted that investors were turning a blind eye to (geo)political risks on June 8, and failure to pass a new fiscal package before the election will continue to weigh on the economy and on stocks risking a further 10% drawdown near the SPX 3000 level. Figure 1The Fiscal Policy Loop The Fed is now “out of the loop” i.e. a bystander on the sidelines, gently moving the foot off the accelerator as we illustrated on Monday. The FOMC’s, at the margin, less dovish monetary policy setting exerts enormous pressure on fiscal authorities to act as fiscal policy takes center stage. Our sense is that we have entered a Fiscal Policy Loop (FPL) where stalemate in Congress will cause a classic BCA riot point that in turn will force politicians’ hand to act in order to avoid a meltdown, and set in motion the next stage of the FPL (Figure 1). Keep in mind that the 2020s have ignited a paradigm shift from the Washington Consensus to the Buenos Aires Consensus1 and this is episode one of the FPL, more are sure to follow. This is eerily reminiscent of the October 2008 and October 2018 fiscal policy and monetary policy mistakes, respectively, that resulted in a market riot. Similar to today, markets were down 10% and on a precipice and the policy errors pushed them off the cliff leading to another 10% gap down in a heartbeat. Bottom Line: The odds of a fiscal policy mistake are rising quickly and risk an equity market riot point. We remain cautious on the short-term prospects of the equity market and recommend investors keep their powder dry as a better entry point will likely materialize in the coming months. Footnotes 1 The Washington Consensus – a catchall term for fiscal prudence, laissez-faire economics, free trade, and unfettered capital flows – is being replaced by economic populism, by a Buenos Aires Consensus. Buenos Aires Consensus is our catchall term for everything that is opposite of the Washington Consensus: less globalization, fiscal stimulus as far as the eyes can see, erosion of central bank independence, and a dirigiste (as opposed to laissez-faire) approach to economics that seeks to protect “state champions,” stifles innovation, and ultimately curbs productivity growth.
Highlights Senate Republicans would be suicidal not to agree to a fiscal relief bill before the election. Democrats are still offering a $2.2 trillion package. Grassroots Republican voters will forgive Republicans for blowing out the budget deficit but they will never forgive them for throwing away control of the White House and Senate. Nevertheless financial markets face more downside until a deal is reached. We are booking gains on several of our tactical risk-off trades but will hold our strategic risk-on trades, as we are still constructive over a 12-month period. Turkey is stepping back from its foreign adventurism in the face of constraints. Our GeoRisk Indicator for Turkey has rolled over. Feature Financial markets continue to sell off in the face of a range of risks, including new threats of COVID-19 restrictions in Europe, an increase in daily new cases of the disease in the United States (Chart 1), and the US Congress’s problems passing a new round of fiscal relief. Chart 1Increase In COVID-19 Cases Among Factors Weighing On Markets Chart 2Congress Will Pass Stimulus ~$2-$2.5 Trillion Since May, when the Democrats passed the $3.4 trillion HEROES Act, we have maintained that “stimulus hiccups” would roil the market. However, we also argued that Congress would eventually pass a new package – probably in the range of $2-$2.5 trillion (Chart 2).1 The latter part of this view remains to be seen and has come under pressure from investors who fear that Congress could fail to produce a bill entirely. We are sticking with our guns. GOP senators will recognize that they face sweeping election losses; House Democrats will not be able to reverse course and deprive households of badly needed assistance. However, stock investors might sell more between now and the final deal, which must be done by around October 9 so that lawmakers can go back to their home states to campaign for the November 3 election. Moreover the fiscal deal might not come in time to save the Republicans’ re-election bid in the White House and Senate, which raises further downside risk due to the Democratic agenda of re-regulation and tax hikes. And the election’s aftershocks could also be market-negative. For example, President Trump could also escalate the conflict with China, whether as the “comeback kid” or as a lame duck. Therefore this week we are booking some gains. We will not recommend a tactical risk-on position until our fiscal view is confirmed and we can reassess. US Fiscal Stimulus Is Coming Chart 3Republicans Highly Unlikely To Win House Of Representatives Why would Democrats agree to a stimulus bill given that it could help President Trump and the Republicans get re-elected? Democrats are afraid to deprive households of relief amid a crisis merely to spite the president and score election points. Around 28-43 of Democrats in the House of Representatives face re-election in districts that are competitive or could become competitive. Republicans need a net gain of 20 seats to retake the House (Chart 3). If Democrats offer to cooperate yet Republican senators balk, then the latter will take the blame for any failed deal and ensuing financial turmoil. The experience of other fiscal cliffs bears this out. The debt ceiling crises of 2011 and 2013 and the government shutdowns of 2013 and 2018-19 all suggest that net presidential and congressional approval ratings suffer when partisanship prevents compromise on major fiscal issues (Charts 4A and 4B). This is a risk for the ruling GOP. All Democrats have to do is remain open to compromise. Net presidential and congressional approval ratings suffer when partisanship prevents compromise on major fiscal issues – a risk for the ruling GOP. Chart 4AFiscal Failures Pose A Risk To Ruling GOP Chart 4BFiscal Failures Pose A Risk To Ruling GOP Confirming this reasoning, Democrats joined with Republicans this week to pass a continuing resolution to maintain government spending levels through December 11, thus avoiding a government shutdown. Clearly the two parties can still cooperate despite record levels of partisanship. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ruled out using government shutdown as a weapon to hurt the Republicans, fearing it would backfire. And just last week vulnerable House members pressured Pelosi into stating that the House will remain in session in October until a fiscal relief bill is passed. Democrats remain committed to their current plan – solidifying their grip on the House and demonstrating that they can govern, and that government can do more for households, by passing bills. This is still the strategy even if the risk is that these bills give Trump a marginal benefit. The Democratic demand is for a very large fiscal package – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is today offering $2.2 trillion, a compromise from the initial $3.4 trillion bill (Table 1). A smaller bill is harder to negotiate because it would cut the House Democrats’ spending priorities for their constituents, including around $1 trillion in state and local government aid, while still giving Trump a bounce in opinion polls for boosting pandemic relief. This is unacceptable – and this is how a policy mistake could happen. Table 1What A Fiscal Compromise Will Look Like Chart 5Senate Republicans Face A Hotly Contested Election Chart 6Republican Senators' Hung Up On Future Deficit Concerns Senate Republicans face a hotly contested election – with 23 of them up for re-election versus only 12 Democrats. However, 30 of them are not up for re-election this year (Chart 5). These senators fear the eventual return of deficit concerns among the Republican base so they are bargaining to limit emergency spending (Chart 6). Until they can be cajoled by their fellow senators and the White House, they pose a risk to the passage of new stimulus. But this risk is overrated. Ultimately Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans will capitulate. It is political suicide if they do not. The GOP will lose control of the Senate and the White House if premature fiscal tightening sparks a bloody September-October selloff just ahead of the election (Charts 7Aand 7B). Chart 7AStocks Sell, Bonds Rally … When Congress Goes Off Fiscal Cliff Chart 7BStocks Sell, Bonds Rally … When Congress Goes Off Fiscal Cliff Chart 8Trump Compares Poorly To Other Presidents Re-Elected Amid Recession Only three out of six presidents in modern times have been re-elected when a recession struck during the election year yet ended prior to the fall campaign. These were William McKinley in 1900, Teddy Roosevelt in 1904, and Calvin Coolidge in 1924.2 Trump faces the same scenario, but financial markets are signaling that Trump is not faring as well as these three predecessors (Chart 8). The Senate races are all on a knife’s edge (Chart 9). American politics are highly nationalized – partisan identification overrides regional concerns. President Trump has also personalized his political party, making the election a referendum on himself (Chart 10). These trends suggest the Senate will fall to the party that wins the White House. Chart 9The Senate Races Are All On A Knife’s Edge Consumer confidence is weak and bodes ill for the incumbent president and party (Chart 11). Chart 10Trump Has Personalized Partisan Politics Chart 11Consumer Confidence Bodes Ill For Trump And GOP A failure to provide stimulus will ensure that sentiment worsens for the rest of the campaign and overshadows some underlying material improvements that are the Republicans’ only saving grace. Wage growth is recovering in line with the V-shape recovery in blue and purple states, including purple states that voted for Trump (Chart 12). The manufacturing rebound – and a surge in loans – is creating the conditions for the “Blue Wall” of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin to re-elect President Trump (Chart 13). A fiscal failure will blot out this positive news. Chart 12Fiscal Failure Would Blot Out Economic Improvements Chart 13Blue Wall' Could Re-Elect Trump On Economic Improvement Republicans’ standing offer is for a $1.3 trillion bill. The bipartisan “Problem Solver’s Caucus” has separately proposed a $1.5 trillion package that could be converted. McConnell has shown he can muster his troops by producing 52 Republican votes on a skinny relief bill on September 10. The Senate will go on recess on Friday, October 9 and the House is committed to staying until a bill is done. Negotiations cannot drag on much longer than that, however, because lawmakers need to go back to their home states and districts to campaign for the election. The equity selloff suggests policymakers will need to respond sooner anyway. Is there a way for Trump to bypass Congress and provide stimulus unilaterally? Chart 14Gridlock In 2020-22 Is Possible Under Trump Or Biden Trump is only too happy to run against a “do-nothing Congress,” which is how Harry Truman pulled off his surprise victory in 1948. He could use executive orders to redirect federal funds that have already been appropriated. However, he has already provided stimulus by decree – delaying payroll tax collections and calling on states to provide unemployment insurance – and yet the market has sold off anyway. That is because these measures are half-baked – they lack the size and the force of an act of Congress. They require coordination with states and firms, which face uncertainty over the legality of the measures and have little incentive to make sacrifices for an administration that may not last more than a few months. In short, if Trump tries to stimulate by decree, it is an election gimmick that will not satisfy market participants who need to look beyond the next 39 days to the critical question of whether US fiscal authorities understand the needs of the economy and can coordinate effectively. Congressional failure will cast a pall over the outlook given that there is still a fair chance the election could produce gridlock for the 2020-22 period, under Trump or Biden (Chart 14). Bottom Line: Financial markets face more downside until Senate Republicans capitulate to Pelosi’s demand of a bill around $2-$2.5 trillion. We think they will, but that is not an argument for getting long now – Republicans could capitulate too late to save the market from a deeper selloff. Investors should book profits now and buy when the deal is clinched. What About The Supreme Court? The Supreme Court battle over the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg may increase the risk of miscalculation in the stimulus negotiations, but not by much. Subjectively we would upgrade that risk from 25% to 33%. Republicans will fill the vacant seat before the election. So far they have the votes – even if Senator Mitt Romney changes his mind, there is still a one-seat buffer. However, a win on the high court has a mixed impact on financial markets. It may increase the odds of a Democratic Party sweep, which is initially a net negative for equities. But House Democrats will become less inclined to compromise on the size of the fiscal bill that we expect. They will say “take it or leave it” on the $2.2 trillion offer. The lowest we can see Democrats passing is $1.9 trillion. If the GOP fails to budge, the equity selloff will be aggravated by the implication that Democrats will win a clean sweep and thus gain the power to raise corporate and capital gains taxes next year. We have put 55%-60% odds on a clean sweep, but the market stands at 49%, so there is room for the market to adjust (Chart 15). As for the Supreme Court itself, a Republican nomination is legitimate regardless of the election timing, though the decision to go forward this close to the election reveals extreme levels of polarization. The Republican pick could energize the Democrats in the election, as occurred with the nomination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh just ahead of the 2018 midterms. A Democratic overreaction could mobilize conservatives, but this will be moot if the stock market collapses. If the presidential election is contested or disputed, Trump’s court nominee pick could cast the decisive vote, although, once nominated, a justice may not rule in accordance with his or her nominator’s wishes. The Supreme Court battle raises the risk of stimulus miscalculation to 33%. In a period of “peak polarization,” one should expect the Supreme Court battle to escalate further from here (Chart 16). Democrats are likely to remove the filibuster if they win the Senate. This would theoretically enable them to create four new seats on the court, which they could then fill with liberal judges. Franklin Roosevelt attempted to pack the court in 1937 when it got in the way of the New Deal and his plan only narrowly failed due to the unexpected death of a key ally in the Senate. Chart 15A Democratic Sweep Would Aggravate The Equity Selloff Chart 16Supreme Court Battle Will Escalate Amid Extreme Polarization Not only might the court decide the election outcome, but future controversial legislation could live or die by the court’s vote, as occurred with Obamacare in 2012 (Chart 17). In the event that Democrats achieve a clean sweep, the conservative court will be their only obstacle and they will possess the means to remove it. Chart 17Supreme Court Battle Will Prove Market Relevant In Event Of Democratic Sweep Bottom Line: Earlier we saw a 25% chance that stimulus would fail – now we give it a 33% chance. However, the size of the stimulus is now even more likely to fall within the $2-$2.5 trillion range we have signaled in previous reports. The Supreme Court will become a major factor in domestic economic policy uncertainty if Democrats win a clean sweep of government. Turkey Hits Constraints In East Med – For Now … Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s foreign policy assertiveness has once again put Turkey in conflict with NATO allies. Tensions escalated last month after Greece signed a maritime boundary deal with Egypt that Athens said nullified last November’s Libya-Turkey agreement (Map 1). Map 1Turkey Testing Maritime Borders In the East Med In response, Turkey issued a navigational warning (which was renewed thrice) and dispatched its seismic research vessel, the Oruc Reis, to explore for hydrocarbons in disputed areas of the Eastern Mediterranean between Greece and Cyprus. In shows of force, Turkey and Greece both deployed their navies to the area last month, raising the risk of an armed confrontation.3 The motivation for Erdogan’s hard power tactics is multi-pronged. Chart 18Erdogan’s Foreign Adventurism Reflects Domestic Weakness On a domestic level, Erdogan’s East Med excursions are an attempt to rally domestic support, where he and his party have lost ground (Chart 18). Given that popular opinion in Turkey indicates that the majority see the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as a “kin country” and that they do not expect Turkey to be accepted into the EU, Ankara’s East Med strategy is likely to find support. On an international level, Turkey is flexing its muscles against the West. Erdogan has inserted Turkish forces into conflicts in Syria and Libya, confronting NATO allies there, and authorized the provocative purchase of the Russian S400 missile defense system at the expense of membership in the US F-35 program. The East Med gambit is another challenge to the West by testing EU unity. Specifically Erdogan is demonstrating that Turkey is willing to use military force to reject any unilateral attempts by foreign powers to impose maritime borders on Turkey – for instance through the EU’s Seville map.4 By demonstrating maritime strength, Turkey hopes to twist the EU’s arm into agreeing to a more favorable maritime partition plan in the East Med. As such the conflict is part of Turkey’s “Blue Homeland” strategy to expand its sphere of influence and secure energy supplies.5 Turkey is extremely vulnerable as a geopolitical actor because it depends on imports for three-quarters of its energy needs.6 With energy accounting for 20% of its import bill, these imports are weighing on the current account balance (Chart 19). Turkey’s exclusion from regional gas agreements has thus been a blow to its self-sufficiency goals. Meanwhile Greece, Italy, Egypt, Israel, Cyprus, and Jordan have recently formalized their cooperation through the Cairo-based East Mediterranean Gas Organization. Turkish agitation in the East Mediterranean is an attempt to prevent others from exploiting gas resources there so long as its demands remain unmet. Erdogan’s retreat demonstrates Turkey’s constraints in its challenge to the EU. While the EU has yet to impose sanctions or penalties, Erdogan has now backtracked. Oruc Reis returned to Antalya on September 13, despite official statements that it would continue its mission. Turkish and Greek military officials have been meeting at NATO headquarters. And following talks with French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and EU President Charles Michel, Erdogan’s office announced on September 22 that Turkey and Greece were prepared to resume talks. The postponement of the European Council’s special meeting to discuss Turkish sanctions to October 1-2 plays to Turkey’s favor by giving more time for talks. Chart 19Turkey's Energy Dependence A Geopolitical Vulnerability Erdogan’s retreat demonstrates Turkey’s constraints in its challenge to the EU. The possibility of damaging sanctions was too much at a time of economic vulnerability. Given Turkey’s dependence on the EU for export earnings and FDI inflows, the impact of sanctions on Turkey’s economy cannot be overstated (Chart 20). Chart 20EU Sanctions Could Destroy Turkey's Economy Turkey is also facing constraints diplomatically as two of its regional rivals – the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel – have agreed to normalize relations and strengthen ties under the US-mediated Abraham Accords (Table 2). The UAE already dispatched F-16s to Crete to participate in joint training exercises in a show of support to Greece. Table 2The Abraham Accords Unify Turkey’s Regional Rivals Details about the potential sanctions have not been released. However, EU Minister of Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell has indicated that penalties could be levied not only on individuals, but also on assets, ships, and Turkish access to European ports and supplies. This could include banks financing energy exploration or even entire business sectors, such as the energy industry. Moreover, the EU could play other damaging cards such as halting EU accession talks, or limiting its customs union with Turkey, which Ankara hopes to modernize. Chart 21EU Needs Turkey’s Cooperation To Stem Flow Of Migrants It is also in Europe’s interest to de-escalate the conflict. Sanctions on Turkey could accelerate Ankara’s re-orientation towards Russia and possibly China, expediting its transition to a hostile regional actor. In addition, Turkey has not shied away from using the 2016 migration deal, whereby Turkey has become the gatekeeper of Middle Eastern migrants fleeing to Europe, as a bargaining chip (Chart 21). Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu outright stated that Turkey will respond to EU sanctions by reneging on the deal, which could result in an influx of refugees into the EU and new challenges for Europe’s political establishment. Erdogan’s retreat is also likely a response to pressure from Washington. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lent some support to Greece and Cyprus during his September 12 visit to Cyprus. While the US has distanced itself from recent developments in the East Med, leaving German Chancellor Angela Merkel to play the role of mediator, a deterioration in Ankara’s relations with NATO allies could accelerate Turkey’s de-coupling from the West. Some within Washington are already calling for a relocation of the US strategic Incirlik air base to Greek islands. Erdogan’s retreat from a hawkish stance is in line with similar behavior elsewhere. For instance, despite having taken delivery of all parts and completed all necessary tests, Turkey has yet to activate its Russian S-400 missile defense system. It is wary of US sanctions. Similarly, Ankara has paused its Libyan offensive toward the eastern oil crescent in face of the risk of an outright military confrontation with Egypt. In each case, Erdogan appears to be at least temporarily recognizing the limits to his foreign adventurism. Nevertheless, the recent de-escalation does not mark the end of the conflict. Rather it demonstrates that both sides have hit constraints and are pausing for a breather. Chart 22Erdogan's Tactical Retreat Will Pull Down Turkish Risk The tactical retreat will provide some relief for the lira, which hit all-time lows against the dollar and euro, and thus pull down our Turkey GeoRisk indicator (Chart 22). But it does not guarantee that the Turkish risk premium will stay low. Talks between Greece and Turkey are unlikely to result in substantial breakthroughs. Instead the conflict will resurface – perhaps when Turkey is in a stronger economic position at home and the EU is distracted elsewhere, whether with internal political issues or conflicts with Russia, the UK, or any second-term Trump administration. Bottom Line: The recent de-escalation of East Med tensions does not mark the end of a bull market in Turkey-EU tensions. These tensions arise from geopolitical multipolarity – Turkey’s ability to act independently in foreign policy without facing an overwhelming, unified US-EU response. However, Turkey’s vulnerability to European economic sanctions shows that it faces real constraints. A major attempt to flout these constraints is a sell signal for the lira, as European sanctions could then become a reality. We remain negative on the lira, but will book gains on our short trade. Investment Takeaways We are booking gains on some of our tactical risk-off trades, given that we ultimately expect the US Congress to approve a new fiscal package. We are closing our long VIX December 2020 / short VIX January 2021 trade, which captured concerns about a contested election in the United States, for a gain of 4%. Volatility will still rise and a contested election is still possible, but the fiscal risk has gone up, COVID-19 cases have gone up, and Trump’s polling comeback has softened. The 4% gain does not include leverage or contract size. We were paid to put on the trade and now will be paid to exit it, so we are booking gains (Chart 23). Chart 23Book Gains On Bet On Near Term Volatility We are closing our short “EM Strongman Basket” of Turkish, Brazilian, and Philippine currencies for a gain of 4.5%. The trade has performed well but Turkey is not only recognizing its constraints abroad but also recognizing constraints at home by raising interest rates to defend the lira. In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro’s approval rating has surged and our GeoRisk indicator has topped out. The latest readings on our GeoRisk Indicators provide confirmation of our major themes, views, and trades. The charts of each country’s indicator can be found in the Appendix. Short China, Long China Plays: Geopolitical risk continues on the uptrend that began with Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power and has not abated with the Phase One trade deal. Policymakers will remain entirely accommodative on fiscal and quasi-fiscal (credit) policy in the wake of this year’s recession. New financial regulations do not herald a return of the deleveraging campaign in any way comparable to 2017-18. The October Politburo meeting on the economy could conceivably sound a hawkish note, which could conveniently undermine sentiment ahead of the US election, but if this occurs then we would not expect follow-through. China plays and commodity plays should benefit, such as the Australian dollar, iron ore prices, and Brazilian and Swedish equities. Yet we remain short the renminbi, which has recently flagged after a fierce rally. Trump is negative for the RMB and Biden will ultimately be tough on China, contrary to the market consensus. Short Taiwan: US-China strategic relations have collapsed over the course of the year but financial markets have ignored it due to COVID-19 and stimulus. The only thing keeping US-China relations on an even keel is the Trump-Xi gentleman’s agreement, which expires on November 3 regardless of the election outcome. While outright military conflict over Taiwan cannot be ruled out, Beijing is much more likely to impose economic sanctions prior to any attempt to take the island by force. This has been our base case since 2016. Our GeoRisk indicator is just starting to price this risk so it remains highly underrated from the perspective of the Taiwanese dollar and equities. We are short and there is still time to put on shorts. Long South Korea: The rise in Korean geopolitical risk since the faltering of US-North Korean diplomacy in 2019 has peaked and fallen back, as expected. Pyongyang has not substantively tested President Trump during the election year and we still do not think he will – though a showdown would mark an October surprise that could boost Trump’s approval rating. South Korean political risk should continue falling and we are long Korean equities. Short Russia: Russian geopolitical risk has exploded upward, as we expected. We have been bearish on the Russian ruble and local currency bonds, though we should note that this differs from our Emerging Markets Strategy view based on macro fundamentals. Our reasoning predates the escalation of tensions with the EU over Belarus, but Belarus highlights the negative dynamic: Vladimir Putin in his fourth term is concerned about domestic social and political stability, and this concern is especially heightened after the global pandemic and recession. Therefore he has little ability to tolerate unrest in the former Soviet sphere. Moreover, he has a window of opportunity when the US administration is distracted, and not unfriendly, whereas that will change if the Democrats take over. If Democrats win, they will not try another diplomatic “reset” with Russia; they believe engagement has failed and want revenge for Putin’s undermining the Obama administration and 2016 election interference. The Nordstream 2 pipeline and Russian local currency bonds are at risk of new sanctions. The Democrats will also increase their efforts at cyber warfare and psychological warfare to counter Russia’s use of such measures. If Trump wins, the upside for Russia is limited as Trump’s personal preferences have repeatedly lost to the US political and military establishment when it comes to Russia. The US has remained vigilant against Russian threats and has increased support for countering Russia in eastern Europe and Ukraine. Chart 24Russia Is At Risk of US Sanctions In Belarus, President Lukashenko has been sworn in as president again, and he will not step down unless Russia and its allies orchestrate a replacement who is friendly toward Russian interests. Russia will not allow a pro-EU, pro-NATO government by any stretch of the imagination. The likeliest outcome is that Russia demonstrates its security and military superiority in a limited way, while the US and Europe respond with sanctions but not with military force. There is no appetite for the US or EU to engage in hot war with Russia over Belarus, which they have little hope of re-engineering in the Western image. We are short Russian currency and local bonds on the risk of sanctions stemming from either the US election cycle or the Belarus confrontation or both. We note that local currency bonds are not pricing in the risks that our geopolitical risk indicators are pricing (Chart 24). Long Europe: Our European geopolitical risk indicators show that the EU remains a haven of political stability in an unstable time. European integration is accelerating in the context of security threats from Russia, the potential for sustained economic conflict with the US (if Trump is re-elected), and economic competition with an increasingly authoritarian and mercantilist China. Europe’s latent strengths, when acting in unison, are brought out by the report on Turkey above. However, the 35% chance that the UK fails to reach a trade deal at the end of this year will still push our European risk indicators up in the near term. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com We Read (And Liked) … Geopolitical Alpha: An Investment Framework For Predicting The Future What better way to revive the hallowed tradition of BCA Geopolitical Strategy book reviews than to give clients a sneak preview of our founder Marko Papic’s literary debut, Geopolitical Alpha: An Investment Framework for Predicting the Future?7 Long-time readers will know much of this book – it is the distillation of a decade of Marko’s work at BCA Research and, more recently, Clocktower Group. Here is the story of European integration – perhaps Marko’s greatest call, from back in 2011. Here is the story of multipolarity and investing. Here is the apex of globalization. Here is the decline of laissez-faire and the rise of dirigisme. Here is the end of Chimerica. Attendees of the BCA Research Academy will also recognize much in Marko’s formal exposition of his method. The categories of material constraints that bind policymakers. The practical application of the median voter theorem. The psychological lessons from Richards Heuer and Lee Ross. The occasional dash of game theory – and the workingman’s critique of it. The core teaching is the same: “Preferences are optional and subject to constraints, whereas constraints are neither optional nor subject to preferences.” There is also much that is new, notably Marko’s analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is bound to generate controversy for classifying the whole episode as an example of mass hysteria comparable to the Salem witch trials, but which is as well-researched and well-argued as any section in the book. I was fortunate to learn the geopolitical method with Marko under the guidance of George Friedman, Peter Zeihan, Roger Baker, Fred Burton, Scott Stewart, and other colleagues at Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting, Inc.) in Austin, Texas from the era of the Iraq troop surge, the Russian invasion of Georgia, and the Lehman Brothers collapse. We both owe a lot to these teachers: the history of geopolitics, intelligence analysis, open source monitoring, net assessments, and, of course, forecasting. What Marko did was to take this armory of geopolitical analysis – which we both can testify is best taught in practice, not universities – and to put it to use in the financial context, where political analysis was long treated as optional and anecdotal despite the manifest and growing need for a rigorous framework. A hard-nosed analyst will never cease to be amazed by the gaps that emerge between the consensus view on Wall Street and a careful, disciplined net assessment of a nation or political movement. By the same token, the investor, trader, or economist will never cease to be amazed by the political analyst’s inability to grasp the concept of “already priced in” or “the second derivative.” What needed to be done was to master the art of macro investing and geopolitics. Marko took this upon himself. It was audacious and it provoked a lot of skepticism from the dismal scientists and the political scientists alike. But Geopolitical Alpha, the concept and the book, is the consequence – and we are now all the better for it. Marko is fundamentally a post-modern thinker. His methodological hero is Karl Marx for the development of materialist dialectic, the back-and-forth debate between economic forces that humans internalize in the form of competing ideologies. His foil is the humanist and republican, Niccolo Machiavelli – not for his amoral approach, but for prizing the virtue of the prince in the face of outrageous fortune. Human agency is Marko’s favorite punching bag – he excels at identifying the ways in which individuals will be frustrated despite their best efforts by the cold, insensitive walls of reality around them. If there is a critique of Marko’s book, then, it is that he gives short shrift to the classical liberal tradition – or as I like to think of it, the balance-of-power tradition. The idea that hegemony, or unipolarity, leads to a stable social and political environment conducive to peace and prosperity has a lot going for it. But it also partakes of an older tradition of thought that envisions a single, central political order as necessarily the most stable and predictable – a tradition that can be ascribed to Plato as well as Marx. You can see the positive implication for financial markets. But what if this tradition is only occasionally right – what if it too is subject to historical cycles? If that is the case, then the Beijing consensus is a mirage – and the US’s reversion to a blue-water strategy (not only under President Trump, but also under a future President Biden, according to his campaign agenda) does not necessarily herald the “end [of] American dominance on the world stage.” The classical tradition behind the Greco-Roman, British, and American constitutional systems, including their naval strategies, envisioned a multipolar order that was somewhat less stable but more durable, and this tradition has proven immensely beneficial for the creation of technology and wealth. Of course, Marko is very much alive to this tradition and, despite his critique of the ancients, shows himself to be highly sensitive to the interplay of virtue and fortune. Throughout the work, the analytical style can be characterized as restless energy in the service of cool, chess-playing logic. Marko is generous with his knowledge, merciless in drawing conclusions, and outrageously funny in delivery. He attacks the questions that matter most to investors and that experts too often leave shrouded in finely wrought uncertainty. He also shows himself to be a superb writer as well as strategist, interspersing his methodological training sessions with vivid anecdotes of a lifelong intellectual journey from a shattered Yugoslavia to the heights of finance. The bits of memoir are often the best, such as the intro to Chapter Six on geopolitics. To paraphrase a great author, Marko writes because he has a story to tell, not because he has to tell a story. The tale of the mysterious consulting firm Papic and Parsley will do a great public service by teaching readers precisely how skeptical of mainstream news journalism they should be. It isn’t enough to say that we read Geopolitical Alpha and liked it – the sole criterion for a review in this column. Rather, the book and its author are the reason this column exists. And Geopolitical Alpha is now the locus classicus of market-relevant geopolitical analysis. Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 We favored the upper side of the range, first $2.5 trillion, and subsequently something closer to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s demand of $2.2 trillion. We have speculated that Republicans may get her to settle at $1.9 trillion. 2 Two of these cases were unique in that a vice president took over from a president who died and then won re-election – unlike Trump’s scenario. 3 On August 12 a Greek Navy frigate collided with a Turkish vessel guiding the Oruc Reis. Athens called the incident an accident while Ankara referred to it as a provocation. 4 The so-called Seville Map was prepared at the request of the European Union by researchers at the University of Seville, attempts to clarify the exclusive economic zones of Turkey and Greece in the Aegean Sea. The US announced on September 21 that it does not consider the Seville map to have any legal significance. 5 The Blue Homeland or Mavi Vatan doctrine announced in 2006 intends to secure Turkish control of maritime areas surrounding its coast (Mediterranean Sea, Aegean Sea, and Black Sea) in order to secure energy supplies and support Turkey’s economic growth. 6 Erdogan’s claim that gas from the recently discovered Sakarya gas field would reach consumers by 2023 is likely overly optimistic and unrealistic. The drilling costs and commercial viability of the field are yet to be determined. Thus, the find does not impact dynamics in the East Med. 7 New Jersey: Wiley, 2021. 286 pages. Section II: GeoRisk Indicators China Russia UK Germany France Italy Canada Spain Taiwan Korea Turkey Brazil Section III: Geopolitical Calendar
BCA Research's China Investment Strategy service analysis concludes that the extremely accommodative phase of monetary conditions has ended. Authorities will begin tightening policy by the middle of next year. The rising policy rate in the past couple months…
Highlights The rising policy rate in the past couple months has been driven by a liquidity crunch, which is expected to ease in Q4. Government bond yields, which have been trending upwards since May, will also take a breather. The extremely accommodative phase of monetary conditions has ended. Monetary policy will be tightened, possibly by the middle of next year. We expect the yield curve to move broadly sideways in Q4 and into early 2021. As early as Q2 next year, a rebound in rate hike expectations will cause the curve to flatten. We remain overweight on Chinese stocks over the next six to nine months. Beyond that, a more restrictive monetary policy and less buoyant economic outlook may warrant a trimming of positions in Chinese stocks. Feature Chinese government bond yields have rebounded sharply since bottoming in late April; 10-year yields have climbed by 62 basis points to 3.1% as we go to press. Given that the 3-month SHIBOR (the PBoC’s de facto policy rate) has gone up by 128 basis points from its nadir in April, the higher bond yields reflect policy-driven liquidity tightening. The economy’s quick turnaround following the reopening of business activities has prompted the authorities to normalize the monetary stance (Chart 1). China recently made more interbank liquidity injections to slow the speed of policy rate normalization. We think it is the right move. China’s economic recovery is still at an early stage and may not withstand a rapid tightening in monetary policy. Furthermore, the chances are low that the 3-month SHIBOR will rise above its pre-COVID-19 level of 3% in this calendar year. Yields on short-duration government bonds will have little room to move higher in 2020. China’s 10-year government bond yield may even drop slightly when geopolitical tensions between the US and China heat up as the US election nears. Chart 1Policy Rate Normalization Started In May Chart 2Rate Normalization Will Resume In 2021 As China’s economic recovery is expected to continue accelerating into the first half of 2021, interest rates will also resume their climb (Chart 2). Our base case view is that the first rate hike, which will lift the policy rate above its pre-COVID-19 level, will happen as early as Q2 next year but no later than mid-2021. This means that the cyclical bear market in the bond market will continue. A Temporary Easing In Q4… In our report published on February 19, we argued that the rally in Chinese government bonds in early 2020 would be short lived rather than a cyclical (6-12 month) play.1 Furthermore, a journey back to the pre-outbreak monetary stance would start as early as Q2 this year. Notably, Chinese policymakers have pivoted to normalize monetary policy from an ultra-loose stance linked to COVID-19. In our view, the speed of the rebound in the policy rate has run ahead of the economic recovery. In other words, the policy stance tightened before inflation expectations turned more optimistic (Chart 3). Retail sales growth barely turned positive in August from a year ago, core inflation has dropped to its lowest level since the Global Financial Crisis and producer prices are still contracting on an annual basis (Chart 4). Chart 3Policy Stance Tightened Before Inflation Moved Higher In the past two weeks, the PBoC has injected liquidity more frequently through open market operations, an indication that policymakers may be trying to slow the pace of tightening (Chart 5). Maintaining nominal GDP growth above 4% this year is politically imperative for the Communist Party to achieve its employment growth objective.2 This overarching goal will likely hold back the PBoC from easing off the gas too abruptly. Chart 4The Economy Is Still Growing Below The Trend Growth Liquidity conditions will continue to improve into Q4, moderating the rise in the 3-month SHIBOR. The liquidity crunch in the banking system since May was created by a massive government bond issuance and curbing of high-yield structured deposits. Government bond issuance has reached its peak this year and bond quotas will plummet in Q4, which will help ease liquidity shortages in the banking sector (Chart 6). In turn, demand for interbank liquidity should moderate as banks have fewer bond purchasing obligations, giving the 3-month SHIBOR some breathing room with or without the PBoC’s intervention. Chart 5The PBoC May Be Trying To Slow The Pace Of Its Rate Normalization A pause in the policy rate hike will limit any upside risks for yields on short-duration government bonds. Yields on 10-year bonds may even drop if tensions between the US and China escalate leading up to the November US election, and/or additional significant pandemic waves affect the global economy. Chart 6Liquidity Conditions Should Ease In Q4 Bottom Line: It is unlikely that China’s policy rate and the long-duration government bond yield will end the year above their pre-COVID-19 levels. …Followed By Decisive Rate Hikes In 2H21 There are good and rising odds that Chinese authorities will fully switch to a tightening mode in 2021. Barring any domestic resurgence in COVID-19 that could trigger lockdowns, the PBoC may resume policy rate hikes as early as Q2, and no later than mid-2021. Our reasoning is as follows: Chart 7The PBoC Has Been Consistent With Policy Reaction In Previous Recoveries Consistent policy reaction in previous recoveries. Our April 23 report showed how the PBoC has been consistent in normalizing its monetary policy following each of the past three economic and credit cycles.3 The central bank raised interest rates on average nine months following a bottom in the business cycle. The tightening of interest rates occurred even after the prolonged economic downturn and deep deflationary cycle in 2015/16. The structurally slowing rate of China’s economic growth since 2011 has not prevented the PBoC from cyclically raising its policy rate (Chart 7). When the output gap is closed in 1H21, the PBoC will gain enough confidence to push for higher interest rates. Property market is strong. The property market has been heating up on the back of falling bank lending rates, despite policymakers’ efforts to curb both property lending and purchases. New home sales surged by 40% in August, the highest year-over-year growth since the last housing boom in 2016. In particular, demand for the first- and second-tier cities have rebounded sharply (Chart 8). This trend will likely prompt policymakers to enact stronger and earlier policy responses by tightening the medium lending facility (MLF) rate, an anchor for the mortgage lending rate. The labor market is recovering. The employment sub-indexes in the official PMIs of late point to an improvement in both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors (Chart 9). Additionally, by the end of June, the number of returned migrant workers reached 96% of last year’s level. At this rate, the labor market should return to its pre-COVID-19 level by early next year. Chart 8Property Market Is Heating Up Chart 9The Labor Market Is Recovering Inflation will probably accelerate next year. We expect the recovery in the labor market to drive up both wage income and core CPI next year. Higher oil and industrial metals prices should also lift producer prices (Chart 10). Higher interest rates may not be counterproductive to policymakers’ support for SMEs. This is due to the authorities’ “window guidance”, mandating banks to reduce the spread between the loan prime rate (LPR) and bank lending rates. As seen in the past five months, although the policy rate has been rising, average bank lending rates have fallen (Chart 11). Policymakers will likely continue hiking policy rate to curb financial and property market speculations, but at the same time still able to guide bank lending rates lower and target their support for SMEs. Chart 10Inflation Will Likely Accelerate Along With Economic Growth In 1H21 Chart 11Bank Lending Rates Have Been Trending Down Despite Rising Policy Rate Bottom Line: Odds are rising that the PBoC will continue to hike interest rates (short and medium-term) by the middle of next year. In turn, the rebound in Chinese government bond yields will resume early next year in the expectation of better economic conditions and policy tightening. Investment Conclusions The upward momentum in both the short and long-end of the yield curve will likely abate from now till year-end (Chart 12, top panel). As early as Q2 next year, however, a rebound in rate hike expectations will cause the curve to flatten. Historically, the yield curve has always moved in lockstep with the 3-month SHIBOR with a perfect reverse correlation (Chart 12, bottom panel). Given the extremely dovish stance among central banks (the Fed in particular), the upside in rate hikes by PBoC will be capped. We expect a less than 30bps rise in long-term bond yields. Tighter monetary policy is bullish for the RMB. Nonetheless, the risk-return profile of taking a direct bet on the RMB is not attractive in either direction. The CNY has appreciated against the USD by 5% since bottoming in May, and we doubt that there will be a meaningful upside in the RMB against the dollar leading up to the US election. Meanwhile, widening interest-rate differentials have further reduced the odds of any significant CNY/USD depreciation (Chart 13). Chart 12A Rebound In Rate Hike Expectations In 1H21 Will Flatten The Yield Curve Chart 13Limited Upside For The RMB Against USD And On Trade-Weighted Basis In this vein, the CNY/USD exchange rate will be dominated by broader dollar performance. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the PBoC will tolerate sharp, trade-weighted currency appreciations. A declining USD will also limit the upside in the trade-weighted RMB. The RMB may be less reflationary to businesses in China, but it will not become outright deflationary for the time being (Chart 13, middle and bottom panels). In terms of equities, we maintain our positive cyclical view on China's growth outlook. The PBoC will maintain its tightening bias, but this should not lead to major growth disappointments. We continue to expect Chinese domestic and investable equities to outperform in both absolute and relative terms, at least for the next six to nine months. Beyond the next six months, however, a more restrictive monetary policy should bring China’s economy closer to its trend growth in 2H21. Sectors such as technology and real estate, which benefit the most from easy liquidity conditions and strong economic growth, will be negatively and disproportionally impacted. Given their heavy weight in China’s investable equity market, we will probably trim our positions in investable stocks by the middle of next year. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Don’t Chase China’s Bond Yields Lower", dated February 19, 2020, available at cis.bcareseach.com. 2 Please see BCA Research China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Taking The Pulse Of The People’s Congress", dated May 28, 2020, available at cis.bcareseach.com. 3 Please see BCA Research China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Questions Following The Coronacrisis", dated April 23, 2020, available at cis.bcareseach.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
Highlights Bank credit 6-month impulses are plunging, and the pandemic is resurging. Maintain an overweight to growth defensives (technology and healthcare). In the short term, profits will be more resilient in a resurgent pandemic. In the long term, profits are well set to grow in an increasingly online, decentralised, remote-working, health-conscious world. The European stock market’s massive underweighting to growth defensives will weigh on its relative performance. Go underweight China economy plays. Fractal trade: Fractal analysis confirms that basic resources are vulnerable to a reversal. Within value cyclicals, tactically overweight financials versus basic resources. Feature Chart of the WeekThe Greatest Ever Monetary Stimulus Is Over... For Now Monetary stimulus, as measured by the increase in banks’ six-month credit flows, reached an all-time high during the summer months. But now, the greatest ever monetary stimulus is fading (Chart of the Week). In the US and China, the increase in banks’ six-month credit flows peaked at $700 billion and $800 billion respectively during May. In the euro area, the increase peaked at over $1 trillion during July. The combination constituted the greatest ever global monetary stimulus, trumping even the stimulus that followed the 2008 financial crisis (Charts I-2 - I-4). Chart I-2US Monetary Stimulus Is Fading Chart I-3China Monetary Stimulus Is Fading Chart I-4Euro Area Monetary Stimulus To Fade However, the increase in six-month credit flows has recently slumped to around $200 billion in both the US and China. The euro area has yet to update its data beyond July, but we expect it to fade too. The upshot is that the greatest ever monetary stimulus is over… for now. Bond Yields Are No Longer Stimulating Our preferred metric for assessing the transmission of monetary stimulus on an economy is the increase in the banks’ six-month credit flows. In turn, this depends on the six-month deceleration in the bond yield – meaning, the bond yield decline in the most recent six months must be greater than the decline in the previous six months. At first glance, this seems counterintuitive. Why focus on the bond yield’s deceleration rather than its plain vanilla decline? Box 1 explains how it follows from a fundamental accounting identity of GDP statistics. Box 1 Why The Bond Yield’s Deceleration Matters GDP is a flow statistic. It measures the flow of goods and services produced in a period. Hence, the GDP flow receives a contribution from the bank credit flow in that period. In turn, the bank credit flow is established by the decline in the bond yield (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Decline In The Bond Yield Establishes The Bank Credit Flow It follows that GDP growth receives a contribution from bank credit flow growth. Which, in turn, receives a contribution from the bond yield deceleration. In other words, the bond yield decline in the most recent period must be greater than the decline in the previous period. Finally, our preferred period is six months because it empirically equals the time to fully spend a bank credit flow. A quarter is too short: a year is much too long. Admittedly, during this year’s pandemic recession and rebound, the link between monetary stimulus and the real economy has weakened. Fiscal stimulus has played a more important role. Even when it comes to bank credit, much of the recent increase was not due to new loans. It was due to firms tapping pre-arranged credit lines, which they used to reinforce cash buffers, rather than to spend. Nevertheless, some impact of monetary stimulus will reach the real economy. This means that while this year’s earlier deceleration of bond yields was good news for the economy, the more recent acceleration of bond yields is bad news (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Recent Acceleration Of Bond Yields Is Bad News Tactically Underweight China Plays Through the summer months, 10-year bond yields flipped from sharp six-month decelerations to sharp accelerations. But the reversals were much more extreme in China and the US than in the euro area. Seen in this light, it is hardly surprising that the increase in six-month bank credit flows has already slumped in China and the US, and could soon turn negative. If so, they would be a contractionary force on the economy. One tactical investment conclusion is to underweight China economy plays. Specifically, with China’s bank credit six-month impulse in freefall, the 40 percent outperformance of basic resources versus financials is vulnerable to a sharp reversal (Chart I-7). This is also confirmed by fractal analysis (see later section). Chart I-7With China's Bank Credit 6-Month Impulse In Freefall, Basic Resources Are Vulnerable Stay underweight cyclicals. But within cyclicals, tactically overweight financials versus basic resources. A Resurgent Pandemic Will Force People Back Into Their Shells A resurgence of the pandemic will create a further headwind to the economy, irrespective of whether governments impose fresh lockdowns or not. This is because most of us have an instinct for self-preservation as well as protecting our loved ones. In response to a resurgent pandemic, we will go back into our shells. Shunning public transport, shopping, and other crowded places, some might even think twice about letting their children go to school. But if this cautious behaviour is voluntary, then why do governments need to impose lockdowns? The answer is that while the majority behaves responsibly, a minority behaves irresponsibly. In the pandemic, this is critical because less than 10 percent of infected people are responsible for creating 90 percent of all Covid-19 infections. If this tiny minority of so-called ‘super-spreaders’ is left unchecked, then the pandemic will let rip. At first glance, it appears that the lockdown is causing the recession. In fact, this is a classic confusion between correlation and causation. The true cause of the recession is the pandemic, which forces people into their shells. But to the extent that severity of the lockdown correlates with the severity of the pandemic, many people confuse the correlated lockdown with the underlying cause, the pandemic. The ultimate proof comes from Scandinavia. Sweden imposed no lockdown, while its neighbour Denmark imposed the most extreme lockdown in Europe. If it was the lockdown that caused the recession, then the economy of no-lockdown Sweden should have fared much better than that of lockdown Denmark. In fact, the two Scandinavian economies suffered identical 9 percent recessions (Chart I-8). Chart I-8No-Lockdown Sweden Suffered An Identical Recession To Lockdown-Denmark Focus On Sectors That Can Thrive In The New World Tactically we have recommended an underweight to stocks versus bonds since July 9, and this tactical position is broadly flat. Stick with it for now.1 A crucial question is: can bond yields go significantly lower? It is a crucial question because it was the collapse in bond yields earlier this year that saved the aggregate stock market. As long-duration bond yields plunged by 1 percent, the forward earnings yield of long-duration technology and healthcare stocks also plunged by 1 percent (Chart I-9). This surge in the valuation of the growth defensive sectors compensated for the collapsed profits of the value cyclical sectors – banks, basic resources, and oil and gas (Chart I-10). A resurgent pandemic combined with the end of the greatest ever monetary stimulus means that this playbook may get a rerun in the coming months. Chart I-9The Collapsed Bond Yield Explains The Collapsed Earnings Yield (Surging Valuation) Of Tech And Healthcare Chart I-10Tech And Healthcare Saved The Aggregate Stock Market The worry is that, from current levels, long-duration bond yields will struggle to plunge by another 1 percent and provide the same boost to valuations that they did in the first wave of the pandemic. In which case, the outlook for stocks and sectors will hinge more on their profits. On this basis, we still favour the growth defensives – which we define as technology and healthcare – both for the short term and the long term. In the short term, their profits will be more resilient in a resurgent pandemic. In the long term, their profits are well set to grow in an increasingly online, decentralised, remote-working, health-conscious world. One unfortunate consequence is that the European stock market’s massive underweighting to the growth defensives sectors will weigh on its relative performance, both in the short term and in the long term. Fractal Trading System* Supporting the fundamental analysis in the main body of this report, fractal analysis confirms that basic resources are vulnerable to a reversal versus financials. Hence, this week’s recommended trade is to go long financials versus basic resources. One way of implementing this is: long XLF, short XLB. Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 3.5 percent. In other trades, long ZAR/CLP reached the end of its holding period flat, and is now closed. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 58 percent. 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. * 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. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Expressed as short DAX versus 10-year T-bond. Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations 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 - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Monetary Policy: The Fed will keep rates at the zero bound at least until inflation is above 2% and it will maintain an accommodative policy stance until long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates move above 2.3%. Remain overweight spread product versus Treasuries and stay in nominal yield curve steepeners. Bond Yields & The Dollar: US dollar weakness will be bearish for bonds during the next 6-12 months. As long as the global economic recovery is maintained, the dollar will weaken further and bond yields have room to rise. EM Sovereigns: Remain underweight USD-denominated EM Sovereigns in a US bond portfolio, with the exception of Mexico. Economy: August’s poor retail sales figures strengthen our conviction that further fiscal stimulus is required to sustain the economic recovery. Our base case outlook is that Congress will deliver that stimulus in the coming weeks, and that yields will be higher in 6-12 months. But the risk of no deal is too great to ignore. Keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for now. Fed Adopts Explicit Forward Guidance, But Leaves Many Questions Unanswered Chart 1Fed And Markets Agree: No Rate Hike Until 2024 Following last month’s adoption of an average inflation targeting regime, the next logical step was for the Fed to translate its new policy framework into more explicit forward rate guidance.1 The Fed took that step at last week’s FOMC meeting by adding the following language to its post-meeting statement: The Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to ¼ percent and expects it will be appropriate to maintain this target range until labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee’s assessments of maximum employment and inflation has risen to 2 percent and is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time.2 Chart 2A Long Way From 2% The new guidance says that the funds rate will not rise off the zero bound until three criteria are met: The labor market must be at “maximum employment” Inflation must be at or above 2% Inflation must be “on track to moderately exceed 2%” Notice that the criteria of “maximum employment” and inflation that “moderately exceeds 2%” are quite vague. In fact, Fed Chair Powell stated in his post-meeting press conference that “maximum employment” refers to a range of different labor market indicators, not just the unemployment rate. He also refused to provide more detail on how much of an inflation overshoot would qualify as “moderate”. This means that, practically, the only actionable information that the Fed gave investors is the promise that the funds rate won’t rise at least until inflation is at or above 2%. This is important info that can be easily visualized on a chart (Chart 2). We can plainly see that core inflation has a long way to go before it reaches the Fed’s target, and also that the Fed will not be making the same hawkish policy mistake it made in 2015, when it lifted rates with year-over-year core PCE inflation at 1.2%. Monetary policy will remain accommodative and supportive for risk assets until TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to well-anchored levels. For their part, FOMC participants don’t expect inflation to reach the 2% target for quite a while. The median participant doesn’t see core inflation reaching 2% until sometime in 2023, and only 4 out of 17 participants expect to lift rates before 2024. This is consistent with market pricing. The overnight index swap curve doesn’t price-in a full 25 basis point rate hike until September 2024 (Chart 1). Investment Implications We know that the Fed wants inflation to overshoot 2% for some period of time. Now, based on last week’s new guidance, we also know that no rate hikes will occur until inflation is above 2%. However, we still don’t know how much or how long of an inflation overshoot the Fed is targeting. For this reason, we think investors would be wise to keep in mind that the goal of the Fed’s new framework is to ensure that inflation expectations return to well-anchored levels. Our sense is that “well anchored” can be defined as a range of 2.3% to 2.5% for long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates (Chart 3). Chart 3Inflation Expectations: The Fed's Real Target We see monetary policy staying accommodative and supportive for risk assets until TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach those levels. This argues for maintaining an overweight 6-12 month allocation to spread product versus Treasuries. This also argues for staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, and for positioning in nominal yield curve steepeners. The Fed will maintain its firm grip on the front-end of the curve for a long time yet, but the market will eventually start to price-in liftoff at the long end. A Weaker Dollar Will Be Bearish For Bonds, Bullish For EM Sovereign Spreads The broad trade-weighted US dollar is 8% off its 2020 peak, and the BCA house view is that the dollar will weaken further during the next 12 months. This section explores what that will mean for Treasury yields and for USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign debt. The Dollar And Treasury Yields Bond yields and the dollar are intimately related, but the relationship is more complex than a simple coincident correlation. We like to think of the relationship as a feedback loop between the exchange rate, bond yields and global economic growth (Chart 4). Chart 4The Dollar/Bond Feedback Loop Since the dollar is currently falling, let’s start at the left-hand side of the feedback loop shown in Chart 4. The dollar’s current weakness is both a reflection of improving global economic growth and a catalyst for even stronger global economic growth. It is reflective because, compared to the rest of the world, the US is a large and stable economy. Firms and investors will respond to a positive global growth environment by sending capital overseas in search of higher returns. This puts downward pressure on the dollar. Dollar weakness also boosts global economic growth by making US dollars cheaper to acquire in global markets. This is particularly important for emerging markets, where a weaker dollar gives policymakers leeway to boost domestic growth via easier monetary and fiscal policies, without sacrificing the purchasing power of their currencies. Higher yielding countries tend to have less economic slack than low yielders. Moving to the top of the loop, stronger global economic growth (aka global reflation) will obviously impart upward pressure to bond yields. What’s less obvious is that US yields will rise by more than yields in the rest of the world. Chart 5 shows 3-year trailing yield betas for several major developed bond markets. Notice that the highest-yielding countries (US and Canada) also have the highest yield betas. This means that their yields rise the most when global bond yields are rising and fall the most when global bond yields are falling. This pattern holds because higher yielding countries tend to have less economic slack than low yielders. In other words, the high yielders will be quicker to price-in eventual monetary tightening when global growth is on the upswing. The high yielders also have more room to fall when growth ebbs. Chart 5High Yielding Bond Markets Are The Most Cyclical Initially, global reflation sends US bond yields higher. But eventually, US yields will become too high relative to the rest of the world. At that point, the US dollar will respond to wide interest rate differentials and start to appreciate. This dollar appreciation will eventually lead to slower economic growth (“global deflation”), which will cause bond yields to decline. Finally, just as US bond yields rise more than non-US yields during the global growth upswing, they also fall more during the downswing. Eventually, the tightening rate differentials lead to US dollar depreciation and the cycle repeats. Where are we situated in the cycle right now? As of today, we contend that rate differentials between the US and the rest of the world have fallen a lot, and we are at the stage of the loop where the dollar is weakening in response (Chart 6). This means that dollar weakness has further to run, and we should expect that it will eventually lead to global reflation and higher US bond yields. In fact, Chart 7 shows that sentiment toward the dollar has already soured considerably, and that increasingly bearish dollar sentiment has a habit of leading to higher bond yields. Chart 6Rate Differentials Signal More Downside For Dollar Chart 7Bearish Dollar Sentiment Leads To Higher Bond Yields Eventually, US yields will rise too much compared to the rest of the world and the dollar’s depreciation will stop. But for now, dollar weakness is bearish for bonds. The Dollar And USD-Denominated EM Sovereign Spreads USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereigns are an obvious sector that benefits from a weaker US dollar. Since the debt is denominated in US dollars but the country collects tax revenues in its local currency, any dollar weakness makes the issuer’s debt easier to service, and presumably leads to tighter sovereign spreads. Most of the dollar’s weakness this year has come against other developed market currencies, not against EMs. Despite this relationship, we are reluctant to advocate an overweight allocation to EM Sovereigns. First, most of the dollar’s weakness this year has come against other developed market currencies, not against EMs (Chart 8). Chart 8EM Currencies Have Lagged Second, an environment of US dollar depreciation and global reflation is also a good environment for US corporate bonds and, with a couple exceptions, US corporate spreads are more attractive than EM Sovereign spreads. The vertical axis of Chart 9 shows the spread differential between the USD-denominated bonds of several EMs relative to a position in US corporate bonds with identical duration and credit rating. After differences in duration and credit rating are considered, only Turkey, Colombia, South Africa, Mexico and Russia offer a spread advantage over US corporate credit. The horizontal axis of Chart 9 shows each country’s export coverage of its foreign debt obligations. Greater coverage should make that country’s currency less vulnerable to depreciation, and vice-versa. In our view, the Turkish, Colombian and South African currencies are simply too risky. But Mexico and Russia present more interesting opportunities. Chart 9EM Sovereign Spread Over US Credit Versus Currency Vulnerability We recommend an overweight allocation to Mexican Sovereigns because they offer a spread advantage relative to US corporates, and because the currency has been on an appreciating trend versus the dollar that still has further to run to get back to pre-COVID levels (Chart 8, panel 3). Despite the small spread pick-up, we would avoid Russian Sovereigns, at least until after the US election. The Ruble has been depreciating versus the dollar since mid-year (Chart 8, bottom panel) and a Democratic sweep in November will likely lead to the imposition of fresh US sanctions on Russia.3 Bottom Line: Remain underweight USD-denominated EM Sovereigns in a US bond portfolio. Despite the outlook for US dollar weakness, US corporate bonds offer more value and will deliver better returns. Mexican debt is the sole exception. Mexican spreads are attractive and the peso has room to appreciate. Economic Update: Signs Of Weakness In Consumer Spending Chart 10A Warning From Retail Sales In last week’s report, we warned that without a fresh round of fiscal stimulus, the 12-month outlook for US consumer spending is dire.4 Then, last Wednesday, we received August’s retail sales figures – the first month of spending data since the expiry of the CARES act’s income support provisions – and learned that spending contracted on the month, after having rebounded sharply in May, June and July when the CARES act was in full force (Chart 10). There had been some hope that US consumers might be able to compensate for the lack of income by deploying some of the savings they had built up in the spring, thus keeping spending at decent levels for at least a few months. But August’s weak retail sales report challenges that narrative, as does the fact that consumer sentiment surveys have not improved very much since April (Chart 10, panel 3). Still low consumer sentiment suggests that households remain cautious and that they will be reluctant to spend with the same abandon they showed prior to COVID. We also note that, while weekly initial jobless claims continue to fall, the pace of improvement has significantly tapered off during the past few weeks and initial claims are still coming in about 4 times higher than they were last year (Chart 10, bottom panel). Bottom Line: While significant strides have been made, the US economy is not out of the woods. Our base case view is that Congress will deliver sufficient household income support in the coming weeks, allowing the economic recovery to continue. But the risk that they won’t is too great to ignore. Keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for now, and position for higher yields on a 6-12 month horizon via less risky duration-neutral yield curve steepeners. Appendix A: Buy What The Fed Is Buying The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 1Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For a more detailed examination of the Fed’s new average inflation targeting regime please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/monetary20200916a1.pdf 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy / Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “US-Russia: No Reverse Kissinger (Yet)”, dated July 3, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Stimulus Needed”, dated September 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Feature In last week’s US Bond Strategy report, we presented the results of a scenario analysis on consumer spending.1 The goal of that analysis was to assess how much additional federal government income support is required to achieve consumer spending growth targets that won’t disappoint markets. The calculations regarding the amount of additional stimulus required to hit different spending targets are correct. However, a typo in our code (in fact, a missing letter “c”) caused us to specify the wrong targets. Last week, we targeted -3% 12-month over 12-month consumer spending growth for the period between March 2020 and February 2021. The rationale being that -3% was the worst spending growth seen during the 2008 Great Recession and would likely be the minimum that markets could tolerate this time around. As shown in the second panel of Chart 1, this number should have been -1.9%. Chart 1Consumer Spending Driven By Income & The Savings Rate We also considered spending growth targets for the 12-month period between August 2020 and July 2021. Last week we set our target range for that period at between 2% and 6%, the growth rates seen during the recovery years that followed the Great Recession. That range should have been set at 2.5% to 5%. We present revised results from our scenario analysis in Table 1 and Table 2. These tables are identical to the ones presented last week, except that they now have the correct consumer spending targets. Table 1Without More Stimulus COVID's Impact On Consumer Spending Will Be Worse Than The GFC Table 2At Least $600 Billion More Government Income Support Is Needed Our conclusion remains similar, though our corrected numbers suggest that more income support from the federal government will be required to hit reasonable spending targets. Last week, we concluded that extra income support on the order of $500 - $800 billion is the minimum that will be required. Our corrected numbers suggest that more stimulus will be necessary, on the order of $600 billion to $1 trillion. Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Stimulus Needed”, dated September 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com
Highlights Consumers are the beating heart of the US economy, … : By showering cash on the newly unemployed, and issuing checks to more than half of all taxpayers, the CARES Act arrested April’s free fall in consumption and helped households meet their financial obligations. … and if they’re waylaid by the pandemic, only a forceful fiscal response stands in the way of reduced future growth: Bankruptcies and widespread displacement of workers would turn a nasty cyclical shock into lower trend growth. How big does the next round need to be?: Applying a framework developed by our US Bond Strategy colleagues, we estimate that consumption growth will get back to trend if Congress provides $800 billion of aid to households through the first half of next year. Is it likely something that size can get through Capitol Hill?: Assistance for reeling states is a potential sticking point, but we continue to believe that a major aid package will pass. If it doesn’t, the election outcome will loom large over the 2021 outlook. Feature Over BCA’s 70-plus years, our research teams have developed hundreds if not thousands of proprietary indicators to project where financial markets and the major economies are headed. They are central to our process and we are continuously engaged in trying to improve them. Sometimes, though, it helps to take a step back and look at the landscape from the broadest and simplest perspective. When we do, we remind ourselves of what we have come to think of as macroeconomics’ fundamental lesson: My spending is your income and your spending is my income. Consumption isn't just four times as large as each of the other two main components of US GDP, it also exerts a gravitational pull on them. The truth of this simple formulation is especially easy to see in the United States, where consumption accounts for two-thirds of GDP (investment and government spending each contribute one-sixth, ignoring net exports’ modest drag). The US economy would shrivel if household spending were to fall sharply, and the second-order effects on investment and government receipts would prolong the agony. The former is a function of consumption; businesses only invest once it’s clear that demand has overtaken existing capacity or will soon do so. Reduced consumption would pressure employment and profits, squeezing federal revenues that are almost entirely composed of individual income taxes, payroll taxes and corporate income taxes (Chart 1). Transfers from the federal government account for one-third of the states’ total revenues (Chart 2); since most of them are forbidden to run budget deficits, they would face immediate cutbacks if the flows from Washington were to slow. Chart 1Consumption Exerts An Outsized Impact On Federal ... Chart 2... And State Government Revenues Plugging The Gap Recognizing that a wobbling consumer has the potential to topple several economic dominos, Congress undertook extraordinary measures to keep a vicious short-term shock from impairing growth into the intermediate and long term.1 The CARES Act included provisions to support ailing industries and small businesses, but its efforts at shoring up vulnerable households have been the most effective by far. Direct payments of $1,200 to every adult and $500 to every child in households earning less than $99,000 ($198,000 for married filing jointly taxpayers) and weekly $600 supplemental unemployment benefits helped push personal income well above February’s pre-pandemic level (Chart 3). Chart 3The CARES Act Gave Lower-Income Households An Enormous Boost With income rising, especially for those at the lower end of the income distribution, households were able to stay current on their rent (Table 1), their mortgage and all their other obligations (Table 2). They were even able to pay down their credit card balances, an unusual occurrence at the start of a recession (Chart 4). Residential landlords and personal lenders breathed a sigh of relief, along with the entities that have lent to them, though they must be wondering how their obligors will fare now that the CARES Act’s supplemental unemployment benefit has expired. Households built up $325 billion of savings from March through July, which helped tide them over in August and is presumably doing so in September, but we expect that cracks may be beginning to show and that they will emerge in force in October if another round of aid is not forthcoming. Emergency CARES Act fiscal transfers were so large that they more than offset the drag from declining compensation as employees were laid off or worked less than full time during the lockdowns. Table 1September Slowdown? Table 2Credit Performance Across Personal Loan Categories Was Solid Through July Chart 4Strapped Households Usually Run Up Their Credit Card Balances When Recessions Hit How Much Will It Take? Deficit spending is a charged issue, especially among those at the upper end of the income distribution who will ultimately be taxed to repay the debt to fund today’s deficits. However, we agree with the mainstream economic consensus that issuing another two or three trillion dollars of debt at negative real yields is preferable to suffering the hysteresis effects of an uncontained surge of bankruptcies. From a short-term perspective, vigorous fiscal support is the only thing that can preserve the seeming dichotomy between the real economy’s struggles and the equity and credit markets’ bliss.2 The key practical question is how big the next round needs to be to allow policymakers to extend the bridge over the gap opened by the pandemic. Our US Bond Strategy colleagues addressed that question head on last week.3 They proceeded from the assumption that a certain minimum level of consumer spending growth is necessary to meet market participants’ generally sanguine recovery expectations. They then focused on how household income (what comes in) and the savings rate (how much is held back) might evolve under pessimistic and optimistic scenarios and a base-case scenario that splits the difference between the two. Their estimates of required support from a new round of fiscal transfers are simply the difference between the spending that would occur without the transfers and the minimum required spending. Looking at the 12-month moving average of consumer spending to smooth out single-month swings, and comparing it to its year-ago level (a 12-month-over-12-month basis), we map out three nominal growth targets for the August 2020 to July 2021 period: 3%, 4% and 5%, consistent with the range that prevailed once the economy found its footing after the global financial crisis (Chart 5). Instead of performing the analysis under all three of our colleagues’ scenarios, we simply use the split-the-difference base case that has household income ex-CARES Act transfers (Chart 6, top panel) and the savings rate (Chart 6, bottom panel) returning to their pre-pandemic level by September 2021. Chart 5Outside Of Recessions, Consumer Spending Growth Typically Occupies A Tight Range Chart 6Recovery Scenarios For Consumption's Drivers The results are shown in Table 3. The 4% nominal rate of consumption matches the economy’s trend growth since the GFC (2-to-2.25% real plus 1.75-to-2% inflation), 3% allows for a sluggish recovery in which the virus only slowly loosens its grip and 5% covers the possibility of a burst of above-trend growth that might follow a better-than-expected virus outcome. We project that households will require an average of $70-to-94 billion of monthly income support to grow 12-month-on-12-month consumption by 3-to-5%. A repeat round of stimulus checks would chip in $23 billion, leaving supplemental unemployment insurance benefits and the extension of benefits to workers that would not otherwise be covered by their state unemployment insurance program to pick up much of the rest of the $50-to-70 billion tab. Once those programs were fully up and running in May, June and July, they distributed an average of $92 billion per month ($77 billion supplemental benefits and $15 billion expanded eligibility). Those numbers suggest that unemployment-related transfers amounting to 55-to-75% of the CARES Act transfers would suffice, which is encouraging because the Senate and the White House now view its $600 weekly supplement as too generous. The unemployment rate has fallen since the spring, however, with fewer households in line to receive payments, so lawmakers will have to devise other ways to get money into the hands of consumers. Given that states and municipalities face an acute cash crunch and Democrats have insisted on addressing it, there is a good chance that states will receive a healthy allocation and some of the state funds will eventually find their way to households. Table 3Another Round, Please The bottom line for investors assessing the adequacy of a stimulus bill is that we think it should allocate at least $800 billion to support household income. A bill in the mid-to-high $1 trillion range that would split the difference between Republican and Democratic proposals should suffice and it would leave ample room for desperately needed support for state and local governments. Public transit systems like the gasping New York city subway, which suffered ridership declines of as much as 80-90% at the height of the lockdown while incurring significant new cleaning costs, may otherwise have to impose draconian service cutbacks that undermine their local economies’ efforts to reopen. The Fundamental Theorem Of Microeconomics At the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, Introductory Microeconomics is called Price Theory to keep the central lesson of the course in every student’s mind: people respond to incentives. We have come to think of this as the fundamental rule of microeconomics. It is the foundation of public policy’s attempts to shape behavior: If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it. When mulling the prospects for the passage of a significant new aid bill, we begin and end with a consideration of the key players’ incentives. The Democrats want a bill to demonstrate that government can be the solution and to push back against the anti-government narrative that has taken root over the last 40 years. The administration should be doing its utmost to obtain a robust spending package since recessions have reliably sunk incumbent presidents’ re-election prospects. Republican senators, even those who are not up for election this year, should want a bill because control of the Senate is likely to go to the party that wins the White House and individual senators’ power and influence are magnified when they are in the majority. Despite months of posturing and foot-dragging, we second our geopolitical strategists’ view that an aid package aligning with all the major players’ interests will pass soon. Investment Implications Much of our constructive take on markets and the economy proceeds from our view that another significant round of fiscal aid is forthcoming. If it is not, we would revisit our bullish 12-month asset allocation recommendations and we would close out our overweight on the SIFI banks’ stocks. An assumption that humankind will find a way to tame COVID-19 on a timetable in line with market expectations is also embedded in our 12-month equity overweight. If a second wave of infections takes hold, the mortality rate moves significantly higher and treatment and/or vaccine progress unexpectedly reverses, our recommendations will get more cautious. If it is in the interests of all of Washington's key players to pass a bill, there's an awfully good chance that bill will get passed. Although those in the know have lately become more optimistic that the first installment(s) of an effective vaccine(s) will become available in the next two quarters (Chart 7), such an outcome is not assured. A client asked us last week what would ensue if a vaccine is not available until the third or fourth quarter of 2021. As we talked through it with her, we could not escape the idea that the election could be hugely consequential for markets if the lack of a vaccine coincides with a failure to pass a stimulus package before the election, or with a stimulus package that does not extend beyond the end of March. Chart 7Rising Odds Of A Vaccine Within The Next Six Months If the next round of stimulus is not passed before the election, or if it is set to expire two or three quarters before an effective vaccine will be available in sufficient quantities to turn the public health tide, fiscal policy would become the single most important driver of the near-term market and economic outlook, given our view that the Fed has already done nearly all it can do. Congress would then take center stage, with the White House playing a secondary role based on its veto power and the influence of the bully pulpit. In that case, we would expect equity and credit markets to fare much better under a Blue Wave outcome in which the Democrats sweep the election than they would in any outcome that leaves Republicans in control of the Senate. Think of it like this: if the economy needed fiscal aid to counter six-to-twelve more months of pandemic disruptions two years before Congress again had to face voters, would you rather appeal to Pelosi, Schumer and Biden, champing at the bit to demonstrate how government can alleviate suffering, or Mitch McConnell, itching to teach profligate cities and states a lesson? Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Fed leaped into the breach as well, but we have already discussed its efforts in detail. This report focuses on fiscal policy. 2 Please see the September 18, 2020 BCA Research Special Report, "The US Economy vs. The Stock Market: Is There A Disconnect?" available at www.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see the September 15, 2020 US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Stimulus Needed," available at usb.bcaresearch.com.
Dear Client, We will be working on our Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook next week, which will be published on Tuesday, September 29th. We will also be hosting a webcast on Thursday, October 1st at 10:00 AM EDT (3:00 PM BST, 4:00 PM CEST, 10:00 PM HKT) where we will discuss the outlook. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Investors should favor global equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon. However, stocks remain technically overbought in the short term and vulnerable to a further correction. Investors are not fully appreciating the degree to which fiscal policy has already tightened in the US. While we ultimately expect a deal to be reached, it may take a stock market sell-off to force Republican leaders to accede to Democratic demands for more spending. US monetary policy will stay accommodative for at least the next two years, a view that this week’s FOMC meeting further validated. Investors should pivot into cheaper areas of the stock market – in particular, deep cyclicals and financials, non-US stocks, and value stocks. Value stocks are especially appealing, as they are now trading at the biggest discount on record relative to growth stocks. The “pandemic trade” will give way to the “reopening trade.” The latter will benefit value stocks. In addition, stronger global growth, ongoing Chinese stimulus, a weaker US dollar, and modestly steeper yield curves all favor value indices. Value investors who want to accentuate their returns should pay special attention to smaller value companies outside the US. Market Commentary Chart 1Drastic Drop In Weekly Unemployment Insurance Payments We continue to favor global equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon. However, stocks remain technically overbought in the short term despite correcting modestly over the past few weeks. Tech stocks rallied hard into September. Aggressive buying of out-of-the-money call options helped fuel the rally. While some big institutional players such as Softbank have reportedly scaled back their positions, many retail investors remain unfazed. The triple leveraged long Nasdaq 100 ETF, TQQQ, experienced the largest weekly inflow on record in September. In addition to being technically stretched, equities face near-term risks from the impasse in the US Congress over a new stimulus bill. Investors are not fully appreciating the degree to which fiscal policy has already tightened in the US. Chart 1 shows that weekly unemployment payments have fallen by $15 billon since the end of July, representing a drop of more than 50%. At an annualized rate, this amounts to 3.7% of GDP in fiscal tightening. On top of that, the funds in the small business Paycheck Protection Program have run out, while many state and local governments face a severe cash crunch. BCA’s geopolitical strategists expect a fiscal deal to be reached over the next few weeks. The fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that Congress will stay in session until both sides agree on an aid package is good news in that regard. Nevertheless, given all the acrimony in Washington in the run up to the November election, there is still a non-negligible chance that a deal falls through. Why, then, are we still bullish on stocks on a 12-month horizon? Partly it is because voters want more stimulus, which means that fiscal policy is likely to be loosened again, even if this does come after the election. It is also because the pandemic seems to be receding. While the number of new cases is rising again in the EU and some other regions, fatality rates remain much lower than during the first wave. Progress also continues to be made on developing a viable vaccine. According to The Good Judgment Project, about 60% of “superforecasters” expect a mass-distributed vaccine to be available by Q1 of 2021, up from 45% just four weeks ago. Only 2% expect there to be no vaccine available by April 2022, down from over 50% in May (Chart 2). Chart 2High Odds Of A Vaccine Within 6-To-12 Months Lastly, monetary policy remains exceptionally accommodative. The Fed this week formally incorporated its new flexible average inflation targeting strategy into its post-meeting statement. The FOMC promised to keep rates at rock-bottom levels until the economy has reached “maximum employment” and inflation “is on track to moderately exceed two percent for some time.” The dot plot indicated that the vast majority of FOMC members did not expect rates to rise until at least the end of 2023. As Chart 3 shows, the global equity risk premium remains quite elevated. This favors stocks over bonds. Not all stocks are equally attractive, however. Four weeks ago, in a report titled “The Return of Nasdog,” we made the case that investors should pivot away from growth stocks towards value stocks. The report generated quite a bit of interest from readers. Below, we review and elaborate on some of the issues raised in a Q&A format. Q: Being long value stocks relative to growth stocks has been a widowmaker trade for more than a decade. Why do you think we have reached an inflection point? A: Value stocks are cheaper now compared to growth stocks than at any point in history – even cheaper than at the height of the dotcom bubble (Chart 4). Chart 3Global Equity Risk Premium Remains Quite Elevated Chart 4Value Stocks Are Extremely Cheap Relative To Growth Stocks Admittedly, valuations are not a good timing tool. One needs a catalyst to unlock those valuations. Good news on the virus front may end up being such a catalyst. The “pandemic trade” benefited tech stocks, which are overrepresented in growth indices. It also favored health care stocks, which are similarly overrepresented in growth indices, at least globally (Table 1). The “reopening trade” will support companies such as banks, hotels, and transports that were crushed by lockdown measures and which are overrepresented in value indices. Table 1Breaking Down Growth And Value By Sector Chart 5 shows that retail sales at physical stores are rebounding, while online sales growth is coming down from highly elevated levels. Bank of America estimates that US e-commerce penetration doubled in just a few short months earlier this year. Some “reversion to the trend” is likely, even if that trend does favor online stores over the long haul. Meanwhile, PC shipments soared during the pandemic as companies and workers rushed out to buy computer gear to allow them to work from home (Chart 6). To the extent that this caused some spending to be brought forward, it could create an air pocket in tech demand over the next few quarters. Chart 5Are Brick-And-Mortar Retailers Coming Back To Life? Chart 6The Pandemic Has Caused Global Server And PC Shipments To Surge Q: How are investors positioned towards value versus growth? A: According to the September BofA Global Fund Manager Survey, tech and pharma were the two sectors with the largest reported overweights. Thus, there is significant scope for money to shift out of these sectors. Q: What about the overall macro environment underpinning growth and value? A: While the relationship is far from perfect, value stocks tend to outperform growth stocks when the US dollar is weakening (Chart 7). Recall that growth stocks did very well during the late 1990s, a period of dollar strength. In contrast, value stocks outperformed between 2001 and 2007, a period during which the dollar was generally on the back foot. As we have spelled out in past reports, we expect the dollar to weaken over the next 12 months, which should benefit value stocks. Value stocks also tend to do best when global growth is accelerating (Chart 8). Provided that governments maintain adequate levels of fiscal support and a vaccine becomes available by early next year, global GDP should bounce back swiftly. Chart 7Value Stocks Tend To Outperform Growth Stocks When The US Dollar Is Weakening Chart 8Value Stocks Also Tend To Do Best When Global Growth Is Accelerating Q: Won’t lower real bond yields favor growth stocks? A: By definition, growth companies generate more of their earnings further in the future than value companies. As such, a decline in real yields will tend to increase the present value of cash flows more for growth companies than for value companies. We do not expect real yields to rise significantly over the next two years. However, given that real yields are already deeply negative in almost all countries, they probably will not fall either. Q: You seem to be making the cyclical case for the outperformance of value stocks. But what about the secular case? It appears to me that the stronger earnings growth displayed by growth stocks will ultimately translate into higher long-term returns. A: Historically, that has not been the case. As Chart 9 and Table 2 illustrate, value stocks have outperformed growth stocks by a wide margin over the past century. In particular, small cap value has clobbered small cap growth. Chart 9Value Stocks Have Outperformed Growth Stocks By A Wide Margin Over The Past Century Table 2Small Caps Vis-A-Vis Large Caps: Comparison of Total Returns How did value stocks manage to triumph over growth stocks if, as you say, growth stocks usually experience faster earnings growth? The answer has to do with what is priced in and what is not. If everyone expects a company’s earnings to grow next year, this will already be reflected in its share price. It is only unanticipated earnings growth that should move share prices. For the most part, both analysts and investors have tended to overextrapolate near-term earnings growth. As we discussed in a special report titled “Quant-Based Approaches To Stock Selection And Market Timing,” while analysts are generally able to predict which companies will display superior earnings growth over the next one-to-two years, they systemically overestimate earnings growth on longer-term horizons (Chart 10). As a result, investors tend to overpay for growth, causing growth stocks to lag value stocks. Chart 10A Mug’s Game Q: That may have been true historically, but it seems that more recently, investors have been guilty of underpaying for growth. A: Yes and no. If one looks at the period between 2007 and 2017, the superior performance of growth stocks was broadly matched by their superior earnings growth. As a result, relative P/E ratios did not change much. Since 2017, however, the P/E ratio for growth indices has soared relative to value indices (Chart 11). Chart 11AThe Outperformance Of Growth Stocks Over The Past Three Years Has Been Turbocharged By A Rapid P/E Multiple Expansion Chart 11BThe Outperformance Of Growth Stocks Over The Past Three Years Has Been Turbocharged By A Rapid P/E Multiple Expansion Q: What has happened since 2017 that has caused growth stocks to become so much more expensive? A: FANG, FAANG, FANGMAN, whatever acronym you want to use, it was mainly a story about investors becoming infatuated with mega cap tech stocks. After seeing these companies beat earnings estimates quarter after quarter, investors decided that they deserve to trade at much higher valuation multiples. Q: What about other tech companies? A: For the most part, they were left in the dust. Our proprietary Equity Analyzer system allows us to sort companies based on all types of fundamental and technical factors. Chart 12 shows that “value tech” companies trading in the bottom quartile of price-to-earnings, price-to-operating cash flow, price-to-free cash flow, price-to-book, and price-to-sales have gotten completely clobbered by “growth tech” companies trading in the top quartile of these valuation metrics. Chart 12Value Tech Versus Growth Tech Interestingly, the opposite pattern was true among financials: “Value financials” – financials that trade cheaply based on the valuation measures listed above – have outperformed “growth financials.” The net result is a bit surprising: Since “value tech” underperformed the average tech stock, while “value financials” outperformed the average financial stock, the average “value tech” stock has delivered a return over the past decade that was almost identical to the average “value financial” stock. Chart 13There Was No Money To Be Made By Shifting Value Exposure From Financials To Tech In Recent Years Q: This seems to suggest that value managers would not have made any money by shifting exposure from financials to tech? A: Correct. Consider the iShares MSCI USA Value Factor ETF (ticker: VLUE). It is structured to have the same sector weights as the overall US market. It currently has 27% of its assets in technology and 10% in financials. Compare that to the Vanguard Value Index Fund ETF Shares (ticker: VTV). It has 10% of its assets in technology and 19% in financials. As Chart 13shows, VTV has actually outperformed VLUE over the past five years. Year to date, VTV is down 10%, while VLUE is down 15%. Q: While value managers would not have made money by shifting capital from financials to tech, I presume the same thing could not be said for growth managers. A: You can say that again. “Growth tech” outperformed the average tech stock, while “growth financials” underperformed the average financial stock. Thus, shifting money from “growth financials” to “growth tech” would have supercharged returns. Q: This still leaves open the question of why mega cap stocks were able to grow earnings so rapidly? A: Two explanations come to mind. First, tech companies often gain from so-called network effects: The more people there are who use a particular tech platform, the more attractive it is for others to use it. Second, tech companies benefit from scale economies. Once a piece of software has been written, creating additional copies costs nothing. Even in the hardware realm, the marginal cost of producing an additional chip is tiny compared to the fixed cost of designing it. All of this creates a winner-take-all environment where success begets further success. Q: It seems this process could go on indefinitely? A: Not indefinitely. No company can control more than 100% of its market. There is also a limit to how big the overall market can get. Close to three-quarters of US households already have an Amazon Prime account. Slightly over half have a Netflix account. Nearly 70% have a Facebook account. Google commands 92% of the internet search market. Together, sites owned by Google and Facebook generate about 60% of all online advertising revenue. Q: These companies have plenty of cash. Can’t they try to enter new types of businesses if they want to keep growing? A: They can try, but there is no guarantee they will succeed. Kodak was one of the pioneers in digital photography. However, it could never really reinvent itself and ended up fading into oblivion. Moreover, while first-mover advantage is a powerful force, it is not invincible. At one point during the dotcom bubble, Palm’s market capitalization was over six times greater than Apple’s. The Blackberry superseded the PalmPilot; the iPhone, in turn, superseded the Blackberry. History suggests that many of today’s technological leaders will end up as laggards. Q: And I suppose government policy could also turn less friendly towards tech? A: That is a definite risk. Republicans have been cheap dates for tech companies. Republican politicians have showered tech companies with tax cuts and allowed them to exploit a variety of loopholes in the tax code. They also kept tech regulation to a minimum. All this happened despite the fact that many tech leaders have publicly panned conservative viewpoints, while tech company employees have rewarded Democratic politicians with the lion’s share of campaign donations (Chart 14). Chart 14Tech Company Employees Donate Heavily Towards Democrats Going forward, Republicans are likely to sour on big tech. According to a recent Pew Research study, more than half of conservative Republicans favor increasing government regulation of tech companies (Chart 15). Tucker Carlson, a leading indicator for where the Republican party is heading, has frequently lambasted tech companies on his highly popular television show. Chart 15Conservatives Favor Increased Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies For their part, the Democrats are moving to the left. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a leading indicator for the Democratic party, has voiced her support for Senator Elizabeth Warren’s calls to break up big tech. She has also accused Amazon of paying starvation wages, adding that "If Jeff Bezos wants to be a good person, he'd turn Amazon into a worker cooperative." Q: The political climate for tech companies may be souring. But couldn’t one say the same thing about banks and energy companies, which are overrepresented in value indices? A: One difference is that tech companies trade at premium valuations, while banks and energy companies trade near book value (Chart 16). Another difference is that banks have already felt the wrath of regulators. Thanks to Dodd-Frank and pending Basel III regulations, banks today function more like utilities than like the casinos of yesteryear. While private credit growth is unlikely to return to its pre-GFC pace, banks will still profit from a revival in global growth and increasing consolidation within their industry. Stronger global growth should also allow for modestly higher nominal bond yields and somewhat steeper yield curves. This will benefit bank shares (Chart 17). Chart 16Tech Firms Trade At Premium Valuations Chart 17Modestly Higher Bond Yields Will Benefit Bank Shares As far as energy stocks are concerned, again, we need to benchmark our views to what the market expects. Oil is not going back above $100 per barrel anytime soon, but it does not need to for energy stocks to go up. Bob Ryan, BCA’s chief commodity strategist, sees Brent averaging $65/bbl in 2021, $19 above what is currently priced in forward markets. Q: What about materials and industrial stocks? They are also overrepresented in value indices. A: Both materials and industrials tend to outperform the broader market when global growth accelerates (Chart 18). To the extent we expect global growth to rise, this is good news for these two sectors. They also trade at attractive valuations. Q: How does China figure into this value/growth debate? A: As we saw during the 2001-2007 period, strong Chinese demand for commodities and industrial goods benefits value indices. Even though trend Chinese GDP growth has decelerated over the past decade, the Chinese economy is five-times as large as it was back then. In absolute terms, Chinese consumption of most metals continues to increase (Chart 19). Chart 18Materials And Industrials Usually Outperform When Growth Accelerates Chart 19Chinese Consumption Of Most Metals Continues To Rise Chart 20 shows that Chinese GDP would need to grow by about 6% per year over the next decade to keep output-per-worker on track to converge with, say, South Korea by the middle of the century. Thus, Chinese demand for natural resources and machinery is unlikely to weaken anytime soon. Chart 20China Still Has Some Catching Up To Do Q: Let’s wrap up. What final tips would you give investors who want to pivot towards value? A: There are a number of ETFs that track value indices. We expect them to outperform the broad indices over the coming years. For investors who want even higher returns, a selective approach would help. Distinguishing between value stocks and value traps is not easy. True value stocks have often congregated in the shadows of the market, where there is limited analyst coverage and thin institutional ownership. The small-cap sector offers more opportunities for finding such mispriced stocks. Hence, it is not surprising that historically, the value premium has been greater in the small cap realm. The same is true for emerging markets and smaller developed economies (Chart 21).1 Thus, investors who want to accentuate their returns should pay special attention to smaller value companies outside the US. Chart 21AHistorically, The Value Premium Has Been Greater In The Small Cap Realm In Emerging Markets And Smaller Developed Economies Chart 21BHistorically, The Value Premium Has Been Greater In The Small Cap Realm In Emerging Markets And Smaller Developed Economies Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Value? Growth? It Really Depends!” dated September 19, 2019. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Current MacroQuant Model Scores