BCA Indicators/Model
Highlights Duration & The Fed: With market rate expectations still not as elevated as the Fed's projections, the outlook for Treasury price return during the next 12 months is poor. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance. Duration & The CBO: The scope for further upward revisions to potential GDP growth forecasts is limited. This will cap the market's expected equilibrium fed funds rate and ultimately the pace of Fed rate hikes. The Bond Map: This week we introduce a framework for quickly comparing the risk/reward tradeoff on offer from each U.S. bond sector. Feature If we had to choose a fundamental first principle of bond investing, it would be that investors should determine what change in the short-term interest rate is currently priced into the market and then decide whether the central bank will move the interest rate by more or less than what is discounted. Using a 12-month investment horizon, Chart 1 shows that the difference between market expectations for the change in the federal funds rate and the actual change in the federal funds rate closely tracks the price return from the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index.1 It also shows that the market has underestimated the Fed's hawkishness since early 2016, leading to a negative price return for Treasuries. This stands in stark contrast to earlier in the recovery when the market consistently anticipated more rate hikes than were ultimately delivered (Chart 2). Chart 1The Fundamental Question Chart 2Investors Have Been Surprised By Fed With all that in mind, in this week's report we consider whether the Fed will continue to deliver hawkish surprises during the next 12 months. Or whether market expectations have finally caught up with reality. The Near-Term Rate Hike Outlook The first step in our "back to basics" bond analysis is to assess what rate hike outlook is currently priced into the yield curve. Using overnight index swap (OIS) forwards, we calculate that the market expects the federal funds rate to be 68 basis points higher in one year's time. Alternatively, we can calculate that the market expects a federal funds rate of 2.23% by the end of this year, 2.63% by the end of 2019, and 2.69% by the end of 2020 (Chart 3). The federal funds rate is currently 1.69%. Adopting the 12-month time horizon used in Chart 1, we can say that the market expects 2-3 rate hikes between now and next April. This is slightly below the Fed's current projections. As of the March FOMC meeting, 12 out of 15 FOMC participants anticipated delivering either 2 or 3 more rate hikes before the end of the year. With another 2-3 hikes anticipated in 2019, it is clear that the FOMC is somewhat more hawkish than the market. But even with a more hawkish outlook than the market, the FOMC still expects core inflation to modestly overshoot its 2% target during the next two years (Chart 4). We view this as a reasonable expectation. While core PCE inflation increased at a year-over-year pace of only 1.6% through February, we showed last week that base effects will cause it to jump sharply in March.2 A month-over-month increase of 0.1% in March translates to a year-over-year growth rate of 1.85%. A month-over-month increase of 0.2% translates to a year-over-year growth rate of 1.95%. As long as the economic recovery is sustained it is not far-fetched to expect that inflation will reach the Fed's target before the end of the year. Chart 3Market Versus Fed Dots Chart 4Fed Projects An Inflation Overshoot Once inflation reaches (or exceeds) the Fed's 2% target, it will necessitate a change in communication from the central bank. Specifically, with the Fed's inflation goal having been achieved, it would be inappropriate for it to maintain an "accommodative" monetary policy. The Fed discussed this eventuality for the first time at the March FOMC meeting, as evidenced by this passage from the minutes: Some participants suggested that, at some point, it might become necessary to revise statement language to acknowledge that, in pursuit of the Committee's statutory mandate and consistent with the median of participants' policy rate projections in the SEP, monetary policy eventually would likely gradually move from an accommodative stance to being a neutral or restraining factor for economic activity.3 The bottom line is that with inflation quickly approaching the 2% target, the Fed is unlikely to deviate from its gradual pace of rate hikes. With market rate expectations still not as elevated as the Fed's projections, the outlook for Treasury price return during the next 12 months is poor. Maintain a below-benchmark duration stance. The Importance Of The Equilibrium Fed Funds Rate Chart 5Potential GDP Growth ##br##Revisions Are Cyclical Another factor that will govern the cyclical outlook for Fed rate hikes is the equilibrium level of the federal funds rate. That is, the level of interest rates that is consistent with neither an accommodative nor a restrictive policy stance. The level that is expected to keep inflation more or less stable. From the most recent Summary of Economic Projections we know that most FOMC members think that the equilibrium fed funds rate is in the vicinity of 3%, while the bottom panel of Chart 3 shows that market prices embed a somewhat lower forecast. The importance of the equilibrium rate is that if it turns out to be higher than the market expects, then the central bank will be forced to deliver more rate hikes than are anticipated, leading to negative bond price returns, as shown in Chart 1. But how do we judge the appropriate level of the equilibrium fed funds rate? One way is to recognize that the equilibrium fed funds rate is theoretically linked to the rate of potential GDP growth. In fact, we observe that market expectations for the equilibrium fed funds rate - as measured by the 5-year/5-year forward OIS rate - closely track the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) forecast for potential GDP growth during the next 5 years (Chart 5). Notice that the increase in the 5-year/5-year OIS rate since mid-2016 coincides with upward revisions to the CBO's potential GDP growth projections. Chart 6Determinants Of The Growth##br## Of Real Potential GDP This brings up another important point. Because potential GDP growth is not easily measurable, it is often revised higher during periods when GDP growth strengthens and lower during periods of weaker growth (Chart 5, bottom 2 panels). This raises the possibility of further upward revisions if GDP growth remains strong. We certainly wouldn't rule out that possibility, but we also view the scope for further upward revisions to potential GDP growth as fairly limited. Chart 6 shows the breakdown of the CBO's potential GDP growth forecast between its two components: The size of the labor force Labor force productivity The CBO currently projects potential GDP growth of 2% (annualized) for the next 5 years, split between 0.6% annual growth in the size of the labor force and 1.4% annual growth in labor force productivity. Since projections for the size of the labor force are largely driven by slow-moving demographic factors, they are less subject to revision than are projections for the more nebulous productivity component. But with the CBO already embedding a forecast of 1.4% for annual productivity growth, how much higher can we reasonably expect it to be revised? The current forecast is already consistent with the productivity growth that was realized during the 2002-07 period. Any further upward revisions would cause productivity growth to approach the 2% level that was realized during the I.T. revolution of the 1990s. That seems overly optimistic. Bottom Line: The scope for further upward revisions to potential GDP growth forecasts is limited. This will cap the market's expected equilibrium fed funds rate and ultimately the pace of Fed rate hikes. A Quick Note On The Tactical House View Yesterday morning, BCA strategists decided to downgrade our tactical (0-3 month) view on global equities from overweight to neutral, while simultaneously upgrading the tactical view on global bonds from underweight to neutral.4 All cyclical (6-12 month) views remain unchanged. The two main reasons for the tactical shift are the moderation in global growth, which was flagged in this publication last week, and the long list of potential geopolitical risks that could roil markets in May and June.5 Of course any flare-up of geopolitical risk would lead to a near-term spread widening and a flight-to-quality into Treasury bonds. But while investors should certainly be aware of the near-term risks, we are not altering our cyclical portfolio recommendations. Unanticipated inflation remains the number one risk for bond markets. A re-anchoring of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate will apply 17 bps to 27 bps of upward pressure to the nominal 10-year Treasury yield, and we are likewise inclined to wait for inflation expectations to re-normalize before positioning for any sustained widening in corporate spreads. Navigating The Bond Map This week we introduce a new framework for judging the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. bond market. We dub this framework the Bond Map, as it gives us a quick glimpse of how different sectors stack up against one another. In this section we describe how the Bond Map is created, and we will introduce further applications of the Bond Map in the coming weeks. The Total Return Bond Map Chart 7 presents our Total Return Bond Map. The vertical axis of the Map represents the potential reward available in each sector. Specifically, the numbers on the vertical axis correspond to the number of days of average yield decline that are required for each sector to earn a total return of 5% over a 12-month period. For example, it would take 10 days of average yield decline for the Treasury index to deliver a 5% return, it would only take 4 days for the investment grade Corporate index to deliver the same return. Therefore, unsurprisingly, the potential for reward is greater in the investment grade corporate bond index than in the Treasury index. To calculate the number of days to earn 5%, we start with the following formula that relates the total returns for the index to its average yield, duration and convexity. Total Return = Yield - Duration * (Change in yield) + 0.5*Convexity*(Change in yield)2 We set the total return threshold to 5% and use 1-year trailing yield volatility as an estimate for the squared change in yields. This allows us to calculate the change in yields required for the index to return 5%. Lastly, we adjust the change in yields by the yield volatility of each index. Starting in 2000, we look at a sample consisting only of days when the average yield of the index declined, and we calculate the average magnitude of the yield decline on those days. We then divide the yield change required to gain 5% by the average magnitude of the daily yield decline. The result is a measure of the probability of earning a 5% return that should be roughly comparable between different bond sectors. The horizontal axis is the mirror image of the vertical axis. It is the number of days of average yield increase required for the index to lose 5%. This is calculated using the same process described above, except we use a total return target of -5% and calculate average daily yield changes using only days when yields increase. Once again, the result is a measure of the probability of losing 5% that is roughly comparable between different sectors. One way to interpret the Total Return Bond Map is to split it into quadrants centered on the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index. Sectors that plot in the upper-right quadrant are exciting sectors that provide a high probability of earning 5% but also a high probability of losing 5%. Conversely, sectors in the bottom-left quadrant are the boring sectors that provide a low probability of losses, but also a low probability of gains. More interesting are those sectors that plot in the upper-left and bottom-right quadrants. Those sectors in the upper-left (High-Yield bonds and Municipal bonds adjusted for the top marginal tax rate) provide both a higher probability of gains and a lower probability of losses than the Aggregate. Conversely, those sectors in the bottom-right quadrant (Treasuries) provide both a lower probability of gains and a higher probability of losses. One counterintuitive result that springs from the Total Return Bond Map is that the High-Yield index appears less risky than the Treasury index. But upon closer inspection the reason for this appears obvious. The average yield on the junk index needs to rise by approximately 250 bps for the index to lose 5%. Because of its lower carry buffer, the average Treasury index yield needs to rise by only about half as much. At the same time, while the volatility of junk yields is higher than the volatility of Treasury yields, it is not twice as high and therefore does not fully offset the yield advantage in high-yield bonds. The main reason for this is the negative correlation between Treasury yields and high-yield spreads. Usually when Treasury yields are rising, high yield spreads are tightening, and vice-versa. This moderates the volatility in junk yields. To see how the sectors in the Total Return Bond Map move around over time, Chart 8 presents what the Total Return Bond Map looked like on January 1, 2010. We see that high-yield bonds looked even more attractive in early 2010, as did 30-year conventional MBS and Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS. Chart 7Total Return Bond Map (As Of April 12, 2018) Chart 8Total Return Bond Map (As Of January 1, 2010) The Excess Return Bond Map Chart 9 presents the same Bond Map as above, except now we consider excess returns relative to duration-matched Treasuries rather than total returns for each index. We also set our excess return threshold for gains and losses at +/- 100 bps, rather than the 5% we used for total returns. All other calculations remain the same, except that we use spreads and spread volatilities as our inputs rather than yields. Chart 9 shows that the investment grade corporate, local authority and foreign agency sectors look most attractive in excess return space. While no sectors plot in the bottom-right "avoid" quadrant relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate. Chart 10 once again shows the same Bond Map as of January 1, 2010, and once again the attractiveness of Aaa-rated non-Agency CMBS is apparent. Meanwhile, conventional 30-year MBS looked unattractive in excess return space in early 2010. In the Excess Return Bond Map, you will notice that some sectors actually have a negative number of days of spread tightening required to earn +100 bps. This simply means that spreads could actually widen somewhat and, because of the large carry buffer, the sector would still produce excess returns of +100 bps. Bottom Line: This week we introduced a framework for quickly comparing the risk/reward tradeoff on offer from each U.S. bond sector. While this framework does not impose a macro view, it does seem to provide a good starting point for assessing relative risk-adjusted value in U.S. bonds. We will continue to refine the approach and search for applications in the coming weeks. Chart 9Excess Return Bond Map (As Of April 12, 2018) Chart 10Excess Return Bond Map (As Of January 1, 2010) Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Market expectations are calculated from the overnight index swap curve. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Review", dated April 10, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 SEP = Summary of Economic Projections 4 A summary of all BCA house views can be accessed here: www.bcaresearch.com/trades/ 5 For details on the trend in global growth please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Risk Review", dated April 10, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. For details on potential geopolitical risks during the next few months please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Expect Volatility ... Of Volatility", dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification
Highlights Q1 Performance Breakdown: The GFIS recommended model bond portfolio returned -0.55% (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the first quarter of 2018, underperforming the custom benchmark index by -11bps. The overweight to U.S. corporate bonds was the main drag on performance. Stress Test & Scenario Analysis: We introduce a simple framework to conduct scenario analysis and stress testing of the model bond portfolio. Our conclusion is that some shifting in our corporate bond allocations - reducing exposure to U.S. investment grade, increasing exposure to euro area and emerging market corporates - can actually help eliminate expected losses in scenarios that run counter to our base case. Feature This week, we present our regular quarterly report on the performance of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) model bond portfolio. As a reminder to existing readers (and for new clients), the portfolio is a part of our service that is a departure from the usual BCA macro analysis of global fixed income markets. The model portfolio is how we communicate our opinion on the relative attractiveness between government bond and spread product sectors, by applying actual percentage weightings to each of our recommendations within a fully invested hypothetical bond portfolio. This framework also gives us a vehicle to discuss many of the typical bond portfolio management issues that our clients face on a daily basis. In that vein, we are introducing a new element to our framework in this report - estimating future portfolio performance using scenario analysis, and conducting stress testing of outcomes that are contrary to our base case expectations for global bond markets. Q1/2018 Model Portfolio Performance Breakdown: An Unexpected Hit From U.S. Corporates Chart of the WeekShifting Correlations Hurt##BR##The Model Portfolio In Q1 The surge in global market volatility in the first quarter of the year weighed on the returns for the GFIS model bond portfolio. The portfolio had a total return of -0.55% (hedged into U.S. dollars), which lagged that of our custom benchmark index by -11bps.1 The quarter started out on a good note, with the portfolio outperforming by +12bps in January, as gains from our below-benchmark duration stance offset some underperformance from our overweight on global spread product. The story changed in early February, however, as the U.S. wage inflation "scare" and the associated VIX spike resulted in wider U.S. corporate bond spreads. This counteracted the gains on the government bond side of the portfolio as bond yields continued to climb. After yields peaked in mid-February, the portfolio gave back much of the outperformance from duration, with no recovery of the early February losses from spread product (Chart of the Week). In terms of the breakdown between the government bond and spread product allocations in our model portfolio, the former generated +9bps of outperformance versus our custom benchmark index while the latter underperformed by -19bps (Table 1). The bar charts showing the total and relative returns for each individual government bond market and spread product sector are presented in Charts 2 and 3. The main individual sectors of the portfolio that drove the excess returns were the following: Biggest outperformers Underweight U.S. Treasuries (+16bps) Underweight emerging market (EM) U.S. dollar (USD) denominated corporate debt (+5bps) Overweight Japanese government bonds (JGBs) with maturities of ten years or less (+4bps) Underweight EM USD-denominated sovereign debt (+2bps) Biggest underperformers Overweight U.S. investment grade (IG) Financials (-14bps) Overweight U.S. IG Industrials (-8bps) Underweight JGBs with maturities beyond ten years (-8bps) Overweight U.S. Ba-rated high-yield (HY) corporates (-4bps) Table 1GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1-2018 Overall Return Attribution Chart 2GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1-2018 Government Bond Performance Attribution By Country Chart 3GFIS Model Bond Portfolio Q1-2018 Spread Product Performance Attribution By Sector The hits from the overweight positions in U.S. corporate debt were the most surprising, given that the U.S. economy and corporate profits are still expanding at a solid pace. That would typically keep corporate credit spreads well-behaved, especially when U.S. Treasury yields are rising or stable as was the case in the first quarter. Yet volatility has spiked and stayed elevated in response to heightened uncertainty over slowing global growth momentum, rising U.S. inflation and worries about future U.S. trade policy. Investors have demanded moderately higher credit risk premiums in the U.S. as a result, to the detriment of U.S. corporate bond performance. This can be seen in Chart 4, which presents the returns of the individual countries and spread product sectors in the GFIS model bond portfolio. The returns are hedged into U.S. dollars (we do not take active currency risk in this portfolio) and also adjusted to reflect duration differences between each country/sector and the overall custom benchmark index for the model portfolio. We have also color coded the bars in each chart to reflect our recommended investment stance for each market.2 On this "apples-for-apples" basis, U.S. IG corporates were the worst performing fixed income market in the first quarter of 2018. Chart 4Ranking The Winners & Losers From The Model Portfolio In Q1 Looking ahead, we see no need yet to get out of our recommended overweight in global spread product or underweight in global government bond exposure (Chart 5). While there are some signs of slowing growth momentum in major economies (euro area, China), a deeper slowdown is not being heralded by leading economic indicators, which continue to rise. Much of the global economy continues to operate at or beyond full employment, which will continue to put moderate upward pressure on inflation rates. This will force central banks to maintain a relatively hawkish bias, despite more elevated financial market volatility. The most likely outcomes are still more bearish for government bonds than for corporate credit. Chart 5We're Sticking With Our##BR##Spread Product Overweight Having said that - the higher volatility environment does argue for some reduction in the size of the spread product overweight in the model portfolio. Especially after we consider some scenario analysis on returns, as we discuss in the next section. Bottom Line: The GFIS recommended model bond portfolio returned -0.55% (hedged into U.S. dollars) in the first quarter of 2018, underperforming the custom benchmark index by -11bps. The overweight to U.S. corporate bonds was the main drag on performance, thanks to the more elevated level of market volatility and spread widening during the quarter. Stress Tests & Scenario Analysis A common analytical tool used by professional fund managers is to perform "stress tests" on their portfolios. This is done to estimate the size of potential losses that could occur after major market moves, typically those that went against current positioning in a portfolio. Those estimates are critical to the effective risk management of a portfolio. As part of the ongoing development of the infrastructure for our model bond portfolio framework, we are introducing scenario analysis and stress testing of our current recommended allocations. The goal is to determine the magnitude of potential returns that could be expected under our base case and alternative scenarios. This is meant to complement the main risk management tool that we added last year, a "risk budget" based on the tracking error (i.e. volatility difference) of the portfolio versus our custom benchmark.3 We have deliberately been targeting a modest tracking error for our model portfolio, given the historical richness (low yields, tight spreads) of so many parts of the global bond universe. Yet our estimate of the GFIS model bond portfolio's tracking error has fallen even below the low end of the 40-60bp range that we have been targeting (Chart 6).4 Chart 6Lower Tracking Error Through Higher##BR##Corporate Bond Volatility This appears to be due to an odd development. The model bond portfolio's volatility was running below that of its benchmark index over the past year, but with the increase in the return volatility of U.S. IG corporate debt - the biggest overweight within spread product - the portfolio's volatility has been converging to that of the benchmark from below, hence lowering the tracking error. In other words, being overweight U.S. IG was a portfolio diversifier last year, but that is no longer the case. This obviously highlights some of the limitations of using tracking error as the sole risk management tool for a bond portfolio. Shifting cross-asset correlations and volatilities can wreak havoc on any "guesstimate" of a portfolio's underlying risk. A more simple solution is to conduct scenario analysis of expected returns, then shock the analysis for changes in the underlying assumptions. The key is having a reasonable framework for estimating returns for various asset classes. For our purposes in the model portfolio, we are using a simple approach to forecast the expected returns. We use a factor-based framework that models changes in global bond yields as a function of changes in the following four variables: the U.S. dollar, the price of oil, the fed funds rate and the VIX index. We show the regression results of our factor-based modeling of yield changes for each spread sector in our model bond portfolio in Table 2A. We ran the regressions for different time horizons, but we decided on using the post-crisis period since 2009 in all cases. We also attempted to model the yield changes of government bonds using those same four factors, but the R-squareds for all those regressions were far too low to make them useful. We instead used a simple approach of calculating the beta since 2009 of changes in individual bond yields to changes in U.S. Treasury yields for each corresponding maturity bucket. We present those yield betas in Table 2B. Table 2AFactor Regressions Used To Estimate Spread Product Yield Changes Table 2BEstimated Government Bond Yield Betas To U.S. Treasuries With these tools, we can forecast returns for each bond sector under different scenarios. We can then use those forecasts to predict the expected return for our model bond portfolio under those same scenarios. In Tables 3A & 3B. We show three differing scenarios, with all the following changes occurring over a one-year horizon: Table 3AScenario Analysis For The GFIS Model Portfolio Table 3BU.S. Treasury Yield Assumptions For The Scenario Analysis Our Base Case: the Fed delivers another 75bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises by 5%, oil prices rise by 20% (the non-consensus view of BCA's commodity strategists), the VIX index stays unchanged at current elevated levels and there is a modest bear steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. A Very Hawkish Fed: the Fed delivers 150bps of rate hikes, the U.S. dollar rises by 10%, oil prices fall by 10%, the VIX index increases by ten points from current levels and there is a sharp bear flattening of the U.S. Treasury curve. Chart 7U.S. IG Corporates Have A##BR##High Yield Beta (a.k.a. Duration) A Very Dovish Fed: the Fed only hikes rates by 25bps, the U.S. dollar falls by 5%, oil prices fall by 5%, the VIX index increases by five points from current levels and there is a modest bull steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve. In Table 3A, we also show the expected yield changes generated by our regressions for each spread product sector and the yield betas to U.S. Treasuries for each government bond market. This produces expected returns for the GFIS model bond portfolio, which are shown in the top part of the table. In our base case, the portfolio is expected to outperform the benchmark by +42bps, but underperform by nearly equivalent amounts in both alternative scenarios. In the bottom part of the table, we show expected returns where we reduce our large overweight to U.S. IG corporates. The latter has a high sensitivity to rising global government bond yields compared to some of our other significant overweights like Japanese government debt and U.S. high-yield (Chart 7). We then take that reduced U.S. IG weighting and increase the exposure to euro area and EM corporate bonds. This adjusted portfolio results in higher excess returns not only in our base case (now +78bps) but even in the "very hawkish Fed" scenario (now +8bps). The "very dovish Fed" scenario produces a similar loss in this scenario (now -37bps), but that is to be expected since this includes a fall in global bond yields that would hurt our current underweight duration stance (Chart 8). Importantly, this adjusted portfolio would not alter the positive carry of the model portfolio (i.e. the portfolio yield remains at 16bps above that of the custom benchmark index, Chart 9) Chart 8Flattening Yield Curves##BR##Have Also Hurt Returns Chart 9Some Help From##BR##Positive Carry Based on this scenario analysis, we are going to implement the changes in the bottom half of Table 3A. We are cutting our overweight to U.S. IG corporates in half (which still leaves us overweight), raising euro area IG and HY corporate exposure to neutral and reducing the size of our EM corporate underweight. The changes to the model portfolio can be found on Page 14. These changes will reduce our exposure to a sector that not only has become riskier, but which also looks relatively expensive to U.S. high-yield (Chart 10) and which has been underperforming euro area (Chart 11) and EM equivalents (Chart 12). Chart 10U.S. IG Looks More##BR##Expensive Than U.S. HY Chart 11An Unexpected Underperformance##BR##Of U.S. IG vs. European Corporates Chart 12An Unexpected Underperformance##BR##Of U.S. IG Vs. Versus EM Corporates Bottom Line: We introduce a simple framework to conduct scenario analysis and stress testing of the model bond portfolio. Our conclusion is that some shifting in our corporate bond allocations - reducing exposure to U.S. investment grade, increasing exposure to euro area and emerging market corporates - can actually help eliminate expected losses in scenarios that run counter to our base case. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 The GFIS model bond portfolio custom benchmark index is the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Index, but with allocations to global high-yield corporate debt replacing very high quality spread product (i.e. AA-rated). We believe this to be more indicative of the typical internal benchmark used by global multi-sector fixed income managers. 2 For Italy & Spain, the bars have two colors since the portfolio weights were changed in mid-February, when we upgraded Italian debt to neutral at the expense of a reduction in Spanish government bond exposure. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Adding A Risk Management Framework To Our Model Bond Portfolio", dated June 20th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 In general, we aim to target a tracking error no greater than 100bps. We think this is reasonable for a portfolio where currency exposure is fully hedged and less than 5% of the portfolio benchmark is in bonds with ratings below investment grade. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights Key Portfolio Highlights Our portfolio positioning remains firmly behind cyclicals over defensives, driven principally by our key 2018 investment themes: synchronized global capex growth (Chart 1A) and higher interest rates on the back of a pickup in inflation (Chart 1B). The positioning has been lifted by synchronized global growth and a soft U.S. dollar (Chart 1C), while the key risk to our portfolio of a hard landing in China looks to be mitigated (Chart 1D). A return of volatility, spurred on by Fed tightening (Chart 1E), caused an SPX pullback in February, and while the market pushed through that rough patch, it has since been replaced with fears of a trade war, exacerbated by musical chairs in the Trump administration (Chart 1F). Our buy-the-dip strategy remains appropriate on a cyclical time horizon (Chart 1G), given a dearth of evidence of a recession in the next year. SPX forward EPS estimates still show near-20% increases this calendar year (corroborated by our EPS growth model, Chart 1H) which should underpin outsized equity returns in the absence of a major valuation rerating. Still, the return of volatility warrants a review of our macro, valuation and technical indicators. The best combination in our review is S&P financials (Overweight) with an elevated and accelerating cyclical macro indicator (CMI), fed by both of our key capex growth and rising interest rate themes, combined with a modest undervaluation. The worst combination is S&P telecom services (Underweight, high-conviction), whose CMI recently touched a 30-year low as sector deflation hit acute levels. Valuations make the sector look cheap, but every indication is that telecoms are a value trap. Chart 1AGlobal Trade Is Rising... Chart 1B...But So Too Is Inflation Chart 1CA Weaker Dollar Is A Boon To Growth Chart 1DSoft Landing In China Seems Likely Chart 1EThe Return Of Vol May Spoil The Party... Chart 1F...And Policy Uncertainty Doesnt Help Chart 1GBuy The Dip Has Worked Out Nicely Chart 1HHeed The Message From A Booming EPS Model Feature S&P Financials (Overweight) Our financials cyclical macro indicator (CMI, Chart 2) has climbed to new cyclical highs with significant upward momentum, driven by broad improvement in virtually all of its underlying components. More than any other variable, rising yields and the accompanying higher price of credit are a boon to financials. Higher interest rates is one of BCA's key themes for 2018 and an ongoing selloff in the bond market bodes well for profits in the heavyweight banks sub-index and should deliver the next up leg in bank stocks performance (top panel, Chart 3). Another of BCA's key themes for 2018 is a global capex upcycle; higher demand for capital goods should drive outsized capital formation in the year to come. Our U.S. commercial banks loans and leases model echoes this positive outlook, pointing to the best loan growth of the past 30 years (middle panel, Chart 3). Lastly, a low unemployment rate drives both expanding consumer credit and much better credit quality. At present, the unemployment rate is testing all-time lows, sending an unambiguously positive message for financials profitability (bottom panel, Chart 3). Despite the much-improved cyclical outlook and a revival of overall animal spirits, our valuation indicator (VI) suggests that financials are modestly undervalued. At this point in the cycle, we would expect a modest overvaluation; the implication is that financials should be a core portfolio overweight. Our technical indicator (TI) has approached overbought levels several times over the course of this bull market, though history suggests it can stay at elevated levels for a considerable time. Chart 2S&P Financials (Overweight) Chart 3RS1 Rising Yields Are A Boon To Financials Earnings S&P Industrials (Overweight) Our industrials CMI (Chart 4) has gone vertical and is very near its all-time high. A combination of a supportive currency, a recovery in commodity prices and synchronized global growth are responsible for the rise. A falling U.S. dollar and capital goods producers' top line growth acceleration have historically moved hand-in-hand as this group is one of the most international of the S&P 500. The trade-weighted U.S. dollar has fallen by more than 10% from its most recent peak at the end of 2016 which suggests U.S. industrials should have a leg up in sales for the year to come (top panel, Chart 5). The slide in the U.S. dollar is coming at an opportune time; global growth is remarkably synchronized (and remains a key BCA theme for 2018) and has proven an excellent harbinger of industrials margins (bottom panel, Chart 5). Overall, an expanding top line and widening margins imply solid relative EPS gains. Our valuation gauge is near the neutral zone, where it has been for much of the past 3 years as the market has failed to capture the sector's outlook strength. Our TI echoes the neutral message, having unwound a significant overbought position at the beginning of last year. Chart 4S&P Industrials (Overweight) Chart 5Global Euphoria Should Lift Industrials S&P Energy (Overweight) Our energy CMI (Chart 6) has maintained its upward trajectory after bouncing off all-time lows last year. Importantly, the relative share performance does not yet reflect the drastically improved cyclical conditions, underpinning our overweight recommendation. Falling oil inventories and rising prices (top and second panel, Chart 7) combined with solid gains in domestic production underlie the CMI recovery. Our key themes for 2018 of a global capex expansion and synchronized global growth should be the most important drivers for energy stocks this year. With respect to the former, the capex intentions from the Dallas Fed survey hit their highest level in a decade, which usually presages domestic oil patch expansion and energy stock outperformance (third panel, Chart 7) With respect to global growth, emerging markets/Chinese demand is the swing determinant of overall oil demand, and non-OECD demand has been moving higher for most of the past year (bottom panel, Chart 7). Our VI has retreated far into undervalued territory, a result of the aforementioned failure of stocks to react to the enticing macro outlook. The TI too is in deeply oversold levels, suggesting that an oversold bounce could soon occur at a time when valuations are so appealing. Chart 6S&P Energy (Overweight) Chart 7Energy Share Prices Have Trailed Oils Recovery S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) Our consumer staples CMI (Chart 8) has turned up recently, following a two year decline. Strong employment gains and positive retail sales are the key pillars underlying the modest recovery. The euphoric consumer continues to push our consumer staples EPS model higher, now pointing to the best earnings growth of the past 5 years (middle panel, Chart 9). Overall industry exports are expanding at a healthy clip as a consequence of a softening U.S. dollar and robust European and rebounding emerging markets demand. Deflating raw food commodity prices are offsetting rising energy and labor input costs, heralding a sideways move to margins. Sell side analysts are also currently penciling in a lateral profit margin move (bottom panel, Chart 9). Investors have been vehemently avoiding staples stocks during the board market's uninterrupted run up, and have put our positioning offside. However, in the context of our cyclical over defensive portfolio bent we refrain from putting all our eggs in one basket, and prefer to keep consumer staples as our sole defensive sector overweight. Further, our VI is waving a green flag as consumer staples are now nearly two standard deviations below their 30-year mean valuation. Technical conditions too are completely washed out, signaling widespread bearishness, which is positive from a contrary perspective. Chart 8S&P Consumer Staples (Overweight) Chart 9Robust Consumer Confidence Bodes Well S&P Utilities (Neutral) Our utilities CMI (Chart 10) has spent the last decade in a long-term downtrend, albeit one with periodic countertrend moves. The key underlying factors are natural gas prices and relative spending on utilities, both of which have been retreating since 2008 (middle panel, Chart 11). Encouragingly, the sector's wage bill has slowed from punitively high levels, though pricing power has followed it down, implying muted margin changes (bottom panel, Chart 11). Like other defensive sectors, utilities have underperformed cyclical sectors in the last year; utilities equities trade as fixed income proxies, and a rising interest rate environment is punitive. As a result of the underperformance and relatively constant earnings, valuations have collapsed to the neutral zone. We reacted by booking solid gains and upgrading to a benchmark allocation earlier this year; synchronized global growth and higher interest rates are headwinds for this niche defensive sector and prevent us from lifting positions further. Our TI has fallen steeply over the past year and is now closing in on two standard deviations below the 30-year average. Chart 10S&P Utilities (Neutral) Chart 11Pricing Is Falling But Margins Look Neutral S&P Real Estate (Neutral) Our real estate CMI (Chart 12) has been in decline since its most recent peak at the end of 2016. This is confirmed by a darkened outlook for REITs; rents have crested while the vacancy rate found its nadir in 2016, suggesting further rent weakness on the horizon (top panel, Chart 13). Further, bankers appear less willing to extend commercial real estate credit, despite recent stability in underlying prices; declines in credit availability will directly impact REIT valuations (bottom panel, Chart 13). Our VI is consistent with BCA's Treasury bond indicator (not shown), indicating that both are at fair value. Our TI is starting to firm from extremely oversold levels, a positive indication for both 12- and 24-month relative performance. Chart 12S&P Real Estate (Neutral) Chart 13Peaking Rents and Tight Credit Are Headwinds S&P Materials (Neutral) Our materials CMI (Chart 14) has maintained its downward trajectory, largely due to the ongoing Fed tightening cycle. The heavyweight chemicals component of the materials index typically sees earnings (and hence stock prices) underperform as rates are moving higher (top panel, Chart 15). BCA's view remains that a sizable selloff in the bond markets is the most likely scenario in 2018, representing a substantial headwind to sector performance. Still, the news is not all negative. Exceptionally strong global demand growth has revitalized chemicals prices (bottom panel, Chart 15). Combined with the industry's relatively newfound restraint, capacity has not overextended and the resulting productivity gains bode well for earnings growth. Despite the improving outlook, valuations have been retreating for much of the past year and our VI has fallen back to the neutral zone. Our TI has been hovering near the neutral line for the past year, though a recent hook downward indicates a loss of momentum and downside relative performance risks. Chart 14S&P Materials (Neutral) Chart 15Rising Rates Are Offset By Improving Demand S&P Consumer Discretionary (Underweight) Our consumer discretionary CMI (Chart 16) has fallen back after reaching highs earlier in 2017, though remains elevated relative to the long term trend. Rising interest rates (top panel, Chart 17) are more than offsetting higher home prices and real wage growth, both have which have recently stalled. This rising short-term interest rate backdrop is not conducive to owning the extremely interest rate-sensitive equities that fall into the S&P consumer discretionary index. Both the household financial obligation ratio and household debt service payments have bottomed and are actually increasing. A higher interest rate backdrop will sustain the upward pressure on both and likely weigh on consumer discretionary relative share prices (third and bottom panels, Chart 17). This underpins our recent downgrade to a below benchmark allocation. Elevated valuations support our negative thesis as our valuation indicator has been rising recently out of the neutral zone. Our TI has fully recovered from oversold levels, and is now well into overbought territory, though historically this indicator has been excessively volatile. Chart 16S&P Consumer Discretionary (Underweight) Chart 17Higher Borrowing Costs Bode Ill For Consumer Discretionary S&P Health Care (Underweight) Our health care CMI (Chart 18) rolled over last year and has been treading water at these lower levels, driven by weak fundamentals in the key pharmaceuticals sector. Poor pricing power, a soft spending backdrop and a depreciating U.S. dollar have been pressuring the sector and keeping a tight lid on the CMI (top and second panels, Chart 19). Other non-pharma indicators are mixed as lower healthcare consumer spending is offset by a tick up in overall pricing power. Relative valuations have fallen deep into undervalued territory and are approaching one standard deviation below the 25 year average. Our TI too has reversed course and is well into oversold territory. However, the message from our health care earnings model is that sector earnings will continue to decelerate; this environment in not conducive for a sector re-rating (bottom panel, Chart 19). Chart 18S&P Health Care (Underweight) Chart 19Pharma Pricing Power Continues To Collapse S&P Telecommunication Services (Underweight) Our telecom services CMI (Chart 20), after moving sideways for much of the past decade, has recently fallen to a new 30-year low. Extreme deflation continues to reign in the beleaguered sector as relative consumer outlays on telecom services have nosedived (top panel, Chart 21) which is broadly matched by melting selling prices (middle panel, Chart 21) as demand contracts. This is reflected in our S&P telecom services revenue growth model, which remains deep in contractionary territory (bottom panel, Chart 21). The sector remains chronically cheap, exacerbated by the recent sell-off, and is currently as cheap as it has ever been. Still, given the brutal operating environment, we think such valuations have created a value trap. Our Technical Indicator has sunk but, like the VI, cycles deep in the sell zone have not proven reliable indicators that a relative bounce is in the offing. We recently downgraded the sector to underweight and added it to our high-conviction underweight list based on the factors noted above.1 Chart 20S&P Telecommunication Services (Underweight) Chart 21Telecom Services Remain A Value Trap S&P Technology (Underweight, Upgrade Alert) The technology CMI (Chart 22) has been falling for the past three years, driven by ongoing relative pricing power declines and new order weakness. However, the sector has proven resilient, at least until recently, as a handful of stocks (the FANGs, excluding the consumer discretionary components) and the red-hot semiconductor group have provided support. Still, market euphoria aside, tech stocks thrive in a disinflationary/deflationary environment and suffer during inflationary periods; inflation is gradually rising after a prolonged disinflationary period (bottom panel, Chart 23). Valuations, while still in the neutral zone, have reached their highest level in a decade. This may prove risky should inflation mount faster than expected; a de-rating phase in technology would likely follow. Our TI is extremely overbought, though it has been at this high level for several years. Chart 22S&P Technology (Underweight, Upgrade ALert) Chart 23Inflation Is No Friend To Tech Size Indicator (Neutral Small Vs. Large Caps) Our size CMI (Chart 24) has fallen back to the boom/bust line. Keep in mind that this CMI is not designed as a directional trend predictor, but rather as a buy/sell oscillator; the current message is neutral. Small company business optimism is near modern highs, as pricing and consumption vigor push domestic revenues higher (top panel, Chart 25). A smaller government footprint, i.e. fewer regulatory hurdles, and tax relief will disproportionately benefit SMEs. Earlier this year, we downgraded our recommendation on small caps vs. large caps to a neutral allocation, based on a deterioration in small cap margins and too-high leverage.2 Recent NFIB surveys would suggest this move was prescient; firms reporting planned labor compensation increases have steadied near a two decade high, while price increases are trailing far behind (middle panel, Chart 25). With "quality of labor" having overtaken "taxes" as the single most important problem facing businesses, labor compensation growth seems likely to continue moving up at an elevated pace and small cap margins should likely continue to trail large cap peers (bottom panel, Chart 25). Valuations have improved and small caps are relatively undervalued, though our TI echoes a neutral message. Chart 24Size Indicator (Neutral Small Vs. Large Caps) Chart 25Small Businesses Remain Exceptionally Confident Chris Bowes, Associate Editor chrisb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Manic-Depressive?" dated February 12, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Too Good To Be True?" dated January 22, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.
Highlights In this Weekly Report, we present our semi-annual chartbook of the BCA Central Bank Monitors. When the chartbook was last published in September 2017, the main message was that less accommodative monetary policy was required in the developed economies. This was largely driven by solid global growth and diminishing economic slack visible in measures like falling unemployment rates and rising capacity utilization. Since then, there have been multiple rate hikes in the U.S., single rate increases in Canada and the U.K., and a slowing of the pace of central bank asset purchases in the euro area and Japan. No other central banks have made any moves, however, with inflation still struggling to return to policymaker targets in most countries. A new element that central banks are dealing with is the increased financial market volatility seen in 2018. Yet the BCA Central Bank Monitors continue to point to a need for tighter monetary policy in all countries (Chart of the Week). This means policymakers are unlikely to "come to the rescue" of less stable financial markets through more dovish (and bond bullish) policy without evidence that slower global growth was leading to an easing of cyclical inflation pressures. Chart of the WeekGreater Divergences Between Our Central Bank Monitors Now Versus 2016/17 Feature An Overview Of The BCA Central Bank Monitors Chart 2The Cyclical Backdrop Remains Bond Bearish The BCA Central Bank Monitors are composite indicators designed to measure the cyclical growth and inflation pressures that can influence future monetary policy decisions. The economic data series used to construct the Monitors are not the same for every country, but the list of indicators generally measure the same things (i.e. manufacturing cycles, domestic demand strength, commodity prices, labor market conditions, exchange rates, etc). The data series are standardized and combined to form the Monitors. Readings above the zero line for each Monitor indicate pressures for central banks to raise interest rates, and vice versa. Through the nexus between growth, inflation, and market expectations of future interest rate changes, the Monitors do exhibit broad correlations to government bond yields in the Developed Markets (Chart 2). Currently, the Monitors are above the zero line for all countries for which we have built the indicator. This implies that the conditions are not yet present to expect a period of declining global bond yields driven by more dovish central banks. Yet differences in the trajectories of the Monitors have opened up. The BoE, RBA and RBNZ Monitors have fallen well off their peaks, while the Fed, ECB, BoC and even the BoJ Monitors are all still at or close to recent highs. In each BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook, we include a new chart for each country that we have not shown previously. In this edition, we show the Monitors plotted against our 12-Month Discounters, which measure the expected change in interest rates over the following year taken from OIS curves. Fed Monitor: Market Turbulence Not Yet Enough To Change Fed Plans Our Fed Monitor remains in the "tight money required" zone, signalling that cyclical pressures are still pointing toward additional Fed rate hikes (Chart 3A). FOMC officials are now expressing strong conviction that the Fed's growth and inflation forecasts for 2018 will be realized, and even upgraded those projections last month. That increased confidence comes amid signs that core inflation is finally moving higher after last year's surprising slump (Chart 3B). Chart 3AU.S.: Fed Monitor Chart 3BNo Spare Capacity In The U.S. The growth and inflation subcomponents of the Fed Monitor have both accelerated since our last Central Bank Monitor Chartbook was published last September. In particular, the inflation subcomponent is on the cusp of breaching the zero line for the first time since 2011 (Chart 3C). The Fed Monitor (unlike the other Central Bank Monitors) includes a Financial Conditions component that is rolling over from very elevated (i.e. supportive) levels. Chart 3CSteady Pressure On The Fed To Tighten, But More From Growth Than Inflation The sharp sell-off in U.S. equity markets seen since early February is a development that would typically give the Fed pause on the need to tighten monetary policy further. Yet there are no real signs - yet - that any slowing of U.S. growth is in the cards for the next few quarters. Leading indicators are still climbing, employment growth has been accelerating in recent months, and both consumer and business confidence remain around multi-year highs. The Fed is likely to deliver on its projection of an additional 50bps of rate hikes in 2018, which is already discounted in money markets (Chart 3D). Additional increases beyond that in 2019 are still likely to occur, barring any signs that the current financial market volatility is altering the current rising trends in growth and inflation. Chart 3DThe Fed Will Continue To Hike In 2018 & 2019 BoE Monitor: Diminishing Pressures To Hike The Bank of England (BoE) Monitor is drifting lower, but remains in the "tighter money required" zone as it has since late 2015 (Chart 4A). Despite that persistent signal, the BoE has raised the base rate only once over that period - in November of last year. On the surface, inflation pressures remain strong. The U.K. unemployment rate is well below NAIRU with an output gap that is now estimated to be closed (Chart 4B). Yet realized inflation has peaked, largely because the British pound is now up 9% off the post-Brexit 2016 lows. Rapid declines in pipeline price pressures (PPI, imported goods price inflation) point to additional slowing of CPI inflation in the next several months. Chart 4AU.K.: BoE Monitor Chart 4BTight Capacity In The U.K. Meanwhile, the economic picture looks mixed. Leading economic indicators have rolled over, as have cyclical measures like the manufacturing PMI and industrial production. Yet at the same time, recent readings on both consumer and business confidence have shown modest improvement. Looking at the breakdown of our BoE Monitor, both the growth and inflation sub-components of the indicator are now falling (Chart 4C). Given the decelerating path of leading economic indicators, and with the currency-fueled rise in U.K. inflation now starting to reverse, we think the BoE will be hard pressed to deliver more than the 41bps of rate hikes over the next year currently discounted in U.K. money markets (Chart 4D). Chart 4CGrowth & Inflation Components Of The BoE Monitor Are Slowing Chart 4DThe BoE Will Not Deliver More Hikes In 2018 Than Currently Discounted We continue to recommend an overweight stance on Gilts, which continue to trade as a "defensive" lower-beta alternative to U.S. Treasuries and core European debt, within dedicated global government bond portfolios. ECB Monitor: Tapering? Yes. Rate Hikes? No. Our European Central Bank (ECB) Monitor has been grinding higher over the past couple of years and broke sustainably above zero in July 2017 (Chart 5A). The broad-based cyclical economic upturn in the euro area has continued to absorb spare capacity, with the unemployment rate for the entire region now down to 8.6%, right at the OECD's NAIRU estimate (Chart 5B). Chart 5AEuro Area: ECB Monitor Chart 5BEuro Area Economy Now At Full Capacity Despite strong growth, headline (1.1%) and core (1.0%) inflation remain well below the ECB's target of "just below" 2%. This lack of upward momentum flies in the face of the inflation subcomponent of our ECB Monitor, which has been steadily moving higher for the past three years (Chart 5C). Chart 5CRising Pressure On ECB To Tighten Monetary Conditions The ECB remains on track to deliver some of the monetary tightening that our ECB Monitor is calling for later this year, but it will not be through interest rate hikes (Chart 5D). ECB officials have made it clear that a tapering of asset purchases will take place when the current program ends this September. However, it will take more evidence that inflation will sustainably return to the ECB's target before rate hikes will commence. Chart 5DECB Will Deal With Tightening Pressures First By Tapering Asset Purchases The recent softening of cyclical euro area economic data like manufacturing PMIs, combined with underwhelming inflation prints, justifies the ECB's cautiousness on rates. Although leading economic indicators are still pointing to another year of above-trend growth in 2018. The likelihood of a taper later this year leads us to recommend a moderate underweight stance on core European government bonds, but with a neutral stance on Peripheral European debt which benefits from an expanding economy. BoJ Monitor: Still Far Too Soon To Expect Any Policy Changes The Bank of Japan (BoJ) Monitor has inched into the "tighter money required" zone for the first time since 2007 (Chart 6A), thanks largely to a robust economy. Yet while growth has been enjoying strong momentum, inflation remains stuck below the BoJ's 2% target - even with record low unemployment and a positive output gap (Chart 6B). Chart 6AJapan: BoJ Monitor Chart 6BJapanese Inflation Still Too Low Japanese businesses remain reluctant to boost wages despite robust profitability and a tight labor market. This makes it difficult for the BoJ to hit the 2% inflation target even using extreme policy tools like negative interest rates and asset purchases. Yet even these policies are approaching limits. Liquidity in the Japanese government bond (JGB) market is severely impaired with the BoJ now owning nearly one-half of all outstanding JGBs. This is the main reason why the BoJ shifted from targeting a 0% yield on the 10-year JGB back in September 2016, aiming to target the price of bonds purchased instead of the quantity. With both the inflation and growth components of our BoJ Monitor are now above the zero line (Chart 6C), a case could be made for the BoJ to consider raising its yield target on the 10-year JGB. In our view, any shift in the BoJ yield curve target will only happen if the yen is much weaker (the 115-120 range), core inflation and wage growth both hit at least 1.5%, and global bond yields hit new cyclical highs (i.e. the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield approaching 3.5%). Chart 6CGrowth & Inflation Pressures Have Picked Up In Japan We continue to recommend an overweight stance on Japan, as the BoJ remains a long way from signaling to the markets that interest rate expectations must begin to rise (Chart 6D). Chart 6DThe BoJ Will Not Signal Any Change In Policy In 2018 BoC Monitor: Still Following The Fed The Bank of Canada (BoC) Monitor has stayed above the zero line since the beginning of 2017 (Chart 7A). The BoC has hiked rates three times since last summer, with Canada's robust growth justifying the tightening of monetary policy. Real GDP expanded by 3% in 2017, enough to push Canada's output gap into positive territory and drive the unemployment rate (5.8%) to below NAIRU (6.5%). As a result, both headline and core inflation are now back to the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target range (Chart 7B). Chart 7ACanada: BoC Monitor Chart 7BNo Spare Capacity In The Canadian Economy Growth has cooled a bit recently, though, most notably in consumer spending and housing data. In addition, the inflation component of the BoC Monitor has slowed and is diverging from the rising growth component (Chart 7C). These developments may be a sign that previous BoC hikes are starting to have an impact, although overall GDP growth remains well above trend and leading economic indicators are not slowing. Chart 7CA Divergence In The Growth & Inflation Components Of The BoC Monitor Looking ahead, the Trump administration's rising protectionist rhetoric is a potential threat to both Canada's economy and the value of the Canadian dollar. However, Canada was exempted from the recent tariffs imposed on U.S. steel and aluminum imports, suggesting that Trump may only seek a renegotiation, rather than a tearing up, of NAFTA. We continue to recommend an underweight stance on Canadian government bonds. Only 51bps of rate hikes are discounted over the rest of 2018 (Chart 7D), a pace that can be surpassed if the BoC follows its typical behavior of following the policy lead of the U.S. Fed, which is still expected to deliver 2-3 more rate hikes this year. Chart 7DThe BoC Will Continue Its Hiking Cycle This Year RBA Monitor: Lagging Behind While our Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Monitor remains in "tighter policy required" territory, it has pulled back considerably over the past four months and is now near the zero line (Chart 8A). This move suggests that there is no imminent need to adjust monetary policy, given tepid inflation pressures. Despite the recent surge in employment growth, labor markets still have plenty of slack. Part time employment as a percentage of total employment and the underemployment rate are both near all-time highs. Wage growth is weak and a substantial recovery is unlikely given that real GDP growth slowed in Q4 and the output gap is still wide (Chart 8B). Chart 8AAustralia: RBA Monitor Chart 8BAustralian Inflation Remains Subdued Looking ahead, consumption is at risk. Real wage growth has been nonexistent, so households have supported their spending by reducing savings. However, the rate of increase for house prices has slowed and prices in Sydney actually declined in Q4. If overall house prices were to decline going forward, then the lack of a wealth effect boost would force already massively-indebted consumers to reverse the savings downtrend and cut spending. Both headline and underlying inflation remain below the RBA's target range of 2-3%, with policymakers expecting underlying inflation to reach 2% only in June of 2019 with just a gradual improvement in labor markets. The inflation component of our RBA Monitor has already declined significantly on the back of collapsing iron ore prices, softening survey-based inflation measures and cooling house prices (Chart 8C). Chart 8CThe Inflation Component Of The RBA Monitor Has Plunged As such, we maintain our overweight position on Australian government debt, as the RBA will not even deliver the one 25bp rate hike in 2018 currently discounted by markets (Chart 8D). Chart 8DThe RBA Will Not Deliver The Discounted Rate Hikes In 2018 RBNZ Monitor: No Inflation, No Rate Hikes Our Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) Monitor, which was the most elevated of all our Central Bank Monitors in last September's update, has plunged sharply since then (Chart 9A). Inflation remains stubbornly below the midpoint of the RBNZ's 1-3% target range, even with a tight labor market and no spare capacity in the New Zealand economy (Chart 9B). Chart 9ANew Zealand: RBNZ Monitor Chart 9BNZ At Full Employment, But Inflation Peaking Both the growth and inflation sub-components have fallen sharply, with the inflation measure now down below the zero line (Chart 9C). A firmer New Zealand dollar, the flipside of the weaker U.S. dollar, has played a large role in dampening traded goods price inflation. Chart 9CStrong NZ Inflation Pressures, But Growth May Be Peaking The February RBNZ Monetary Policy Report expressed an optimistic view on growth supported by elevated terms of trade, population growth, fiscal stimulus and low interest rates. Headline CPI inflation, however, is not projected to rise back to 2% level until 2020. Unsurprisingly, the RBNZ is signaling no change in policy rates until then, even with the central bank projecting the New Zealand dollar to weaken in the next couple of years. We have been recommending long positions in New Zealand government debt versus other developed market debt since last May. New Zealand bonds have outperformed strongly over that period, as markets have priced in no change in rates from RBNZ (Chart 9D) unlike other countries where rate hikes were repriced and, in some cases, delivered. With the RBNZ on hold for at least this year and likely much of 2019, we our staying long New Zealand government bonds. Chart 9DRBNZ Will Stay On Hold In 2018 Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Patrick@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
Highlights Continue to underweight the most cyclical sectors - Banks, Basic Materials, and Energy. As predicted, global growth is losing steam. This implies that the Eurostoxx50 will struggle to outperform the S&P500. Continue with a currency pecking order of "yen first, euro second, pound third, dollar fourth." The sell-off in bonds is due a retracement, or at least a respite. Stock markets' rich valuations are contingent on low bond yields. Feature The views in this report do not necessarily align with the BCA House View Matrix. Chart I-2Cyclicals Were Underperforming##br## Long Before The Trade Skirmishes Stock markets have experienced turbulence this year, and it would be very simple to blame the first skirmishes of a global trade war. It would also be simplistic. The sharp underperformance of cyclical stocks started in January, well before any inkling of the Trump tariffs (Chart I-2). The trade skirmishes have merely accelerated a process that was already underway. In this week's report, we make sense of the market turbulence from three broad perspectives: the global economic mini-cycle; market technicals; and valuation. The Economic Mini-Cycle Has Likely Turned Down When bond yields rise, interest rate sensitive sectors in the economy feel a headwind, but this headwind is felt with a delay. Similarly, when bond yields decline, interest rate sensitive sectors feel a tailwind, but the tailwind is felt with a delay. This delay occurs because credit supply lags credit demand by several months. But if credit supply lags demand, an economic theory called the Cobweb Theorem1 points out that both the quantity of credit supplied and its price (the bond yield) must undergo 'mini-cycle' oscillations. The theory is supported by compelling empirical evidence (Chart I-3). Furthermore, as the quantity of credit supplied is a marginal driver of economic activity, economic activity will also experience the same mini-cycle oscillations (Chart I-4). Chart I-3Compelling Evidence For Mini-Cycles In##br## Credit Supply And The Bond Yield... Chart I-4...And ##br##Economic Activity These mini-cycles are remarkably regular with half-cycle lengths averaging around eight months. Their regularity creates predictability. And as most investors are unaware of these cycles, the next turn is not discounted in financial market prices - providing a compelling investment opportunity for those who do recognise the predictability. Mini half-cycles average eight months, and the latest mini-upswing started last April. Hence, on January 4 we predicted that "contrary to what the consensus is expecting, global growth will lose steam in the first half of 2018." The predicted deceleration is precisely what we are now witnessing, and we expect this to continue through the summer months. From an equity sector perspective, the relative performance of the most cyclical sectors - Banks, Basic Materials, and Energy - very closely tracks the regular mini-cycles in global growth. In a mini-downswing these cyclical sectors always underperform (Chart of the week). Accordingly, continue to underweight these sectors through the summer months. Chart of the weekCyclicals Always Underperform In An Economic Mini-Downswing For the time being, this implies that the Eurostoxx50 will struggle to outperform the S&P500 - because euro area bourses have an outsize exposure to the most cyclical sectors. From a currency perspective, the stark asymmetry of central bank 'degrees of freedom' favours the euro and the yen over the dollar. In essence, as the ECB and BoJ are at the realistic limit of ultra-loose policy, long-term expectations for their policy rates possess an asymmetry: they cannot go significantly lower, but they can go significantly higher. In contrast, long-term expectations for the Fed policy rate possess full symmetry: they can go either way, lower or higher. Hence, on January 18 we advised a currency pecking order of "yen first, euro second, pound third, dollar fourth." This currency pecking order has also worked perfectly this year, and we expect it to continue working through the summer months. Cyclical Sectors Had Bullish Groupthink Groupthink in any investment is a warning sign that the investment's trend is approaching exhaustion, because the liquidity that has fuelled the trend is about to evaporate. Liquidity is plentiful when market participants disagree with each other. Consider a stock whose price is rising strongly: a momentum trader wants to buy it, while a value investor wants to sell it. Hence, the market participants trade with each other with plentiful liquidity. Liquidity starts to evaporate when too many market participants agree with each other. Instead of dispassionately investing on the basis of value, value investors get sucked into chasing a price trend, and their buy orders fuel the trend. But when all the value investors have become momentum traders, the trend reaches a tipping point. If a value investor suddenly reverts to type and puts in a sell order, he will find that there are no buyers left. Liquidity has evaporated and finding new liquidity might require a substantial reversal in the price to attract a buy order from an ultra-long-term deep value investor. As regular readers know, our proprietary fractal analysis measures whether groupthink in a specific investment has become excessive, signalling the end of its price trend. Furthermore, using a 130-day groupthink indicator (fractal dimension), the fractal framework provides a powerful and independent reinforcement of our mini-cycle framework. This is because 130 (business) days broadly aligns with the mini half-cycle length. Fractal analysis reinforces our decision to underweight cyclical sectors, because it shows excessive (bullish) 130-day groupthink in these economically sensitive sectors (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Excessive Bullish Groupthink In Cyclical Sectors It also shows excessive (bearish) 130-day groupthink in government bonds, suggesting that the sell-off in bonds is due a retracement, or at least a respite (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Excessive Bearish Groupthink In Government Bonds Rich Valuations Are Contingent On Low Bond Yields On price to sales, world equities are as richly valued as they were at the peak of the dot com boom in 2000. The observation is important because price to sales has proved to be a near-perfect predictor of future 10-year returns. It shows that in 2010, world equities were priced to generate 8% a year compared with 4% a year available from global bonds. Today, richer valuations mean that both world equities and global bonds are priced to generate a paltry 2% a year (Chart I-7). Chart I-7World Equities As Richly Valued As At The Peak Of The Dot Com Boom Nevertheless, this makes perfect sense, because when bond yields are at 2%, bonds and equities are equally risky as each other. It follows that they must offer the same return as each other. One of the biggest errors in finance is to define an investment's risk in terms of its (root mean squared) volatility. This is incorrect because nobody fears sharp gains, they only fear sharp losses. Consider an investment whose price goes up sharply one day and then sideways the next day ad infinitum. The investment has a very high volatility, but it has no risk. You can never lose money, you can only make money. This leads us to the correct definition of risk, as defined by Professor Daniel Kahneman. He proved that investors are not concerned about volatility per se, they are concerned about the ratio of potential short-term losses versus short-term gains, a measure known as 'negative skew'. The important point is that at low bond yields, bond returns start to exhibit negative skew. Intuitively, this is because the lower bound to yields forces an unattractive asymmetry on bond returns: prices can fall a lot, but they cannot rise a lot. Specifically, at a bond yield of 2%, theoretical and empirical evidence shows that bonds and equities possess the same negative skew (Chart I-8). And as the two asset classes are equally risky, they must offer the same return, 2% (Chart I-9). Chart I-8At A 2% Bond Yield, 10-Year Bonds##br## Have The Same Negative Skew As Equities... Chart I-9...So At A 2% Bond Yield, ##br##Equities Must Also Offer A 2% Return Therefore, equities find themselves in a precarious equilibrium. Rich valuations are justified if bond yields remain at low levels or fall, but rich valuations become increasingly hard to justify if bond yields march higher. Seen through this lens, the rise in bond yields at the start of the year is one important reason why equities have experienced a turbulent 2018 so far. What lies ahead? The combination of our economic mini-cycle, market technicals and valuation perspectives suggests that the equity sector and currency trends established since the start of the year should persist into the summer. As for equities in aggregate, the greatest structural threat would arise if bond yields gapped upwards. But for the time being, this is not our expectation. Happy Easter! Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report 'The Cobweb Theory And Market Cycles' published on January 11 2018 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model Given the Easter holidays, there are no new trades this week. But we are pleased to report that our long global utilities versus market trade achieved its 3.5% profit target and is now closed. Out of our four open trades, three are in profit with the short nickel / long lead trade already up sharply in its first week. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 * 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 Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights Portfolio Strategy Synchronized global growth, a soft U.S. dollar, our resurgent Boom/Bust Indicator and avoidance of a Chinese economic hard landing, are all signaling that it still pays to overweight cyclicals at the expense of defensives. Economically hyper-sensitive transports also benefit from synchronous global growth and capex. We expect a rerating phase in the coming months. Within transports, we reiterate our overweight stance in the key railroads sub-index as enticing macro tailwinds along with firming operating metrics underscore that profits will exit deflation in calendar 2018. Recent Changes There are no portfolio changes this week. Table 1 Feature The S&P 500 continued to consolidate last week, still digesting the early February tremor. Policy uncertainty is slowly returning and sustained Administration reshufflings are becoming slightly unnerving (bottom panel, Chart 1). Nevertheless, the dual themes of synchronized global growth and budding evidence of coordinated tightening in global monetary policy, i.e. rising interest rate backdrop, continue to dominate and remain intact. Importantly in the U.S., the latest non-farm payrolls (NFP) report was a goldilocks one. Month-over-month NFPs surpassed the 300K hurdle for the first time since late-2014, on an as-reported-basis, while wage inflation settled back down. The middle panel of Chart 2 shows that both in the 1980s and 1990s expansions, NFPs were growing briskly, easily clearing the 300K mark. The 2000s was the "jobless recovery" expansion and likely the exception to the rule. In all three business cycle expansions wage growth touched the 4%/annum rate before the recession hit. The yield curve slope also supports this empirical evidence, forecasting that wage inflation will likely attain 4%/annum before this cycle ends (wages shown inverted, Chart 3). Chart 1Watch Policy Uncertainty Chart 2Goldilocks NFP Report... Chart 3...But Wage Growth Pickup Looms One key element in the current cycle is that the government is easing fiscal policy to the point where both NFPs and wages will likely surge in the coming months as the fiscal thrust gains steam, likely extending the business cycle. This is an inherently inflationary environment, especially when the economy is at full employment and the Fed in slow and steady tightening mode. Last autumn, we showed that the SPX performs well in times of easy fiscal and tight money iterations, rising on average 16.7% with these episodes, lasting on average 16 months (Table 2).1 The latest flagship BCA monthly publication forecasts that the current fiscal impulse will last at least until year-end 2019, contributing positively to real GDP growth. Thus, if history at least rhymes, SPX returns will be positive and likely significant for the next couple of years (Chart 4). With regard to the composition of the equity market's return, we reiterate our view - backed by empirical evidence - that EPS will do the heavy lifting whereas the forward P/E multiple will continue to drift sideways to lower.2 Not only will rising fiscal deficits cause the Fed to remain vigilant and continue to raise interest rates and weigh on the equity market multiple (Chart 5), but also heightened volatility will likely suppress the forward P/E multiple. Table 2SPX Returns During Periods Of Loose##br## Fiscal And Tight Monetary Policy Chart 4Stimulative Fiscal Policy##br## Extends The Business Cycle... Chart 5...But Weighs On ##br##The Multiple This week we revisit our cyclical versus defensive portfolio bent and update the key transportation overweight view. Cyclicals Thrive When Global Growth Is Alive And Well... While retaliatory tariff wars are dominating the media headlines, global growth is still resilient. Our view remains that the odds of a generalized trade war engulfing the globe are low, and in that light we reiterate our cyclical over defensive portfolio positioning, in place since early October.3 Global growth is firing on all cylinders. Our Global Trade Indicator is probing levels last hit in 2008, underscoring that cyclicals will continue to have the upper hand versus defensives (Chart 6). Synonymous with global growth is the softness in the U.S. dollar. In fact, the two are in a self-feeding loop where synchronized global growth pushes the greenback lower, which in turn fuels further global output growth. Tack on the rising likelihood that the trade-weighted dollar has crested from a structural perspective, according to the 16-year peak-to-peak cycle4 (Chart 7) and the news is great for cyclicals versus defensives (Chart 8). Chart 6Global Trade Is Alright Chart 7Dollar The Great Reflator... Chart 8...Is A Boon For Cyclicals Vs. Defensives Related to the greenback's likely secular peak is the booming commodity complex, as the two are nearly perfectly inversely correlated. Commodity exposure is running very high in the deep cyclical sectors and thus any sustained commodity price inflation gains will continue to underpin the cyclicals/defensives share price ratio. BCA's Boom/Bust Indicator (BBI) corroborates this upbeat message for cyclicals versus defensives. The BBI is on the verge of hitting an all-time high and, while this could serve as a contrary signal, there are high odds of a breakout in the coming months if synchronized global growth stays intact as BCA expects, rekindling cyclicals/defensives share prices (Chart 9). Finally, if China avoids a hard landing, and barring an EM accident, the cyclicals/defensives ratio will remain upbeat. Chart 10 shows that China's LEI is recovering smartly from the late-2015/early-2016 manufacturing recession trough, and the roaring Chinese stock market - the ultimate leading indicator - confirms that the path of least resistance for the U.S. cyclicals/defensive share price ratio is higher still. Chart 9Boom/Bust indicator Is Flashing Green Chart 10China Is Also Stealthily Firming Bottom Line: Stick with a cyclical over defensive portfolio bent. ...As Do Transports, Thus... Transportation stocks have taken a breather recently on the back of escalating global trade war fears. But, we are looking through this soft-patch and reiterate our barbell portfolio approach: overweight the global growth-levered railroads and air freight & logistics stocks at the expense of airlines that are bogged down by rising capacity and deflating airfare prices (Chart 11). Leading indicators of transportation activity are all flashing green. Transportation relative share prices and manufacturing export expectations are joined at the hip, and the current message is to expect a reacceleration in the former (top panel, Chart 12). Similarly, capital expenditures, one of the key themes we are exploring this year, are as good as they can be according to the regional Fed surveys, and signal that transportation profits will rev up in the coming months (middle panel, Chart 12). The possibility of an infrastructure bill becoming law later this year or in 2019 would also represent a tailwind for transportation EPS. Not only is U.S. trade activity humming, but also global trade remains on a solid footing. The global manufacturing PMI is resilient and sustaining recent gains, suggesting that global export volumes will resume their ascent. This global manufacturing euphoria is welcome news for extremely economically sensitive transportation profits (Chart 13). All of this heralds an enticing transportation services end-demand outlook. In fact, industry pricing power is gaining steam of late and confirms that relative EPS will continue to expand (Chart 12). Under such a backdrop, a rerating phase looms in still depressed relative valuations (bottom panel, Chart 13). Chart 11Stick With Transports Exposure Chart 12Domestic... Chart 13...And Global Growth/Capex Beneficiary ...Stay On Board The Rails Railroad stocks have worked off the overbought conditions prevalent all of last year, and momentum is now back at zero. In addition, forward EPS have spiked, eliminating the valuation premium and now the rails are trading on par with the SPX on a forward P/E basis (Chart 14). The track is now clear and more gains are in store for relative share prices in the coming quarters. Despite trade war jitters, we are looking through the recent turbulence. If the synchronized global growth phase endures, as we expect, then rail profits will remain on track. In fact, BCA's measure of global industrial production (hard economic data) is confirming the euphoric message from the global manufacturing PMI (soft economic data) and suggests that rails profits will overwhelm (Chart 15). Our S&P rails profit model also corroborates this positive global trade message and forecasts that rail profit deflation will end in 2018 (bottom panel, Chart 15). Beyond these macro tailwinds, operating industry metrics also point to a profit resurgence this year. Importantly, our rails profit margin proxy (pricing power versus employment additions) has recently reaccelerated both because selling prices are expanding at a healthy clip and due to labor restraint (second panel, Chart 15). Demand for rail hauling remains upbeat and our rail diffusion indicator has surged to a level last seen in 2009, signaling that there is a broad based firming in rail carload shipments (second panel, Chart 16). Chart 14Unwound Both Overbought Conditions And Overvaluation Chart 15EPS On Track To Outperform Chart 16Intermodal Resilience The significant intermodal segment that comprises roughly half of all shipments is on the cusp of a breakout. The retail sales-to-inventories ratio is probing multi-year highs on the back of the increase in the consumer confidence impulse and both are harbingers of a reacceleration in intermodal shipments (Chart 16). Coal is another significant category that takes up just under a fifth of rail carload volumes and bears close attention. While natural gas prices have fallen near the lower part of the trading range in place since mid-2016 and momentum is back at neutral, any spike in nat gas prices will boost the allure of coal as a competing fuel for energy generation (middle panel, Chart 17). Keep in mind that coal usage is highly correlated with electricity demand and the industrial business cycle, and the current ISM manufacturing survey message is upbeat for coal demand. Tack on the whittling down in coal inventories at utilities and there is scope for a tick up in coal demand (third panel, Chart 18). Finally, the export relief valve has reopened for coal with the aid of the depreciating U.S. dollar, and momentum in net exports has soared to all-time highs, even surpassing the mid-1982 peak (bottom panel, Chart 18). Chart 17Key Coal Shipments Underpin Selling Prices Chart 18Upbeat Leading Indicators Of Coal Demand All of this suggests that coal shipments will make a comeback later in 2018, and continue to underpin industry pricing power, which in turn boost rail profit prospects (bottom panel, Chart 17). Bottom Line: Continue to overweight the broad S&P transportation index, and especially the heavyweight S&P railroads sub-index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5RAIL - UNP, CSX, NSC, KSU. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Easy Fiscal Offset Tighter Monetary Policy?" dated October 9, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "EPS And 'Nothing Else Matters'," dated December 18, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Top 5 Reasons To Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives," dated October 16, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Euro's Tricky Spot," dated February 2, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth. Stay neutral small over large caps (downgrade alert).
Highlights We re-examine our Yield and Protector portfolios to find out which assets will hold up best if there is a material correction. Our tactical view on gold is neutral, but the risk in gold prices will remain skewed to the upside this year. Are tariffs on aluminum and steel the start of a trade spat or a trade war? Feature Fears of a trade war and a hawkish tone from Fed Chair Jay Powell at his first Humphrey Hawkins testimony to Congress pushed the U.S. equity market lower last week. The ten-year Treasury yield barely budged however, buffeted by a more hawkish Fed on one side and a trade-induced slowdown in global growth on the other. The dollar was modestly higher last week, but oil and gold prices moved lower. The S&P 500's 4% loss in February was the worst single month since October 2016 and worst February since 2009. Both investment-grade and high-yield credit spreads widened last week, and have yet to return to their late January lows. Moreover, at 22, the VIX remained elevated relative to start of the year, consistent with our view that markets have entered a more volatile, late-cycle phase. With the 2.8% run-up in the S&P 500 since the February 8 low, investors are less concerned that the early February pullback in risk assets was a signal that the equity bull market is over and a recession is right around the corner. Nonetheless, some clients with a more strategic outlook are considering paring back risk now. Others want to know how to protect gains while still participating in the bullish tone for the market BCA expects in the next 12 months. Our Yield and Protector portfolios might provide a way for investors to protect against the downside while still participating in the S&P 500. Preparing For A Pullback BCA recommends investors stay overweight on equities and U.S. spread product, but expects that positions should be moved to neutral later this year and then to underweight sometime in 2019.1 Long-term investors should already consider paring back their exposures to both asset classes given that valuations are stretched. We have periodically recommended that a variety of investments be added as portfolio "insurance" to help guard against a material correction in equities. We recently highlighted two forms of insurance: our Yield and Protector Portfolios. We introduced the Yield Portfolio in October 20142 and first discussed the Protector Portfolio in October 2015.3 This week, we revisit the issue by comparing both portfolios with a more common form of insurance: shifting from cyclical to defensive stocks within an equity allocation. The Yield Portfolio (YP) emphasizes "high quality carry", along with some protection via TIPS (25% of the Portfolio), if inflation begins to surprise on the upside after investors are conditioned to expect only deflation shocks. The YP performs well in an environment of slow nominal growth, no recession and gradual interest-rate hikes. On the other hand, the Protector Portfolio (PP) is designed to provide insulation against both deflationary (gold and trade-weighted dollar) and inflationary (TIPS) tail risks. Therefore, the PP may underperform risk assets for a time if tail risks keep receding. Still, it has done well during the equity rally and conservative investors should consider adopting it. As discussed in the section below, our tactical view on gold is neutral, but the BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy notes that the risk in gold prices will remain skewed to the upside this year. Charts 1, 2, and 3 show a breakdown of the relative performance of S&P 500 defensives along with our Yield and Protector Portfolios. Panels 2 and 3 of Charts 1, 2 and 3 present the rolling one-year beta and alpha of each strategy versus the S&P 500. Alpha is presented as the difference between the actual year-over-year excess return of the portfolio (versus short-term Treasury bills) and what would have been expected given the portfolio's beta. This measure is also referred to as "Jensen's alpha." Chart 1S&P 500 Defensives##BR##A Modestly Low Beta Option Chart 2A Lower Beta##BR##Than Defensives Chart 3A Beta Near Zero,##BR##And Positive Alpha Based on the historical beta of the three portfolios versus the S&P 500, defensive stocks are the most correlated with the overall equity market. Our PP had a negative correlation to the broad market until earlier this year, when it turned slightly positive. BCA's YP is somewhere in between, with a positive but relatively low beta. This is consistent with the equity composition of the three portfolios (shown in Table 1). Note that our protector portfolio is composed entirely of non-equity assets. Table 1A Breakdown Of Three##BR##Portfolio Insurance Options After accounting for their lower betas, all three portfolios have outperformed the S&P in risk-adjusted terms since the onset of the global economic recovery. However, the three portfolios have experienced a relative decline versus the S&P 500 since Trump's election. This has occurred due to passive rather than active underperformance. In other words, they have underperformed because they failed to keep up with the S&P 500 rather than because of losses in absolute terms. We draw two important conclusions from Charts 1, 2 and 3 for U.S. multi-asset investors. First, the lower beta of our YP and PP compared with S&P defensives means that the former represent a better insurance against a sell-off in the equity market rather than the latter. Secondly, the persistently positive volatility-adjusted returns for our insurance portfolios highlights an investor preference for these assets in the past few years. However, since late 2017 when investors began to significantly upgrade the prospects for global growth and U.S. corporate profits, all three portfolios struggled to outperform the S&P 500 on a risk-adjusted basis. BCA's forecast implies that these portfolios may continue to struggle in the next year or so. For now, our investment bias towards equities over government bonds makes us less inclined to favor a low beta position within a balanced portfolio. Our analysis suggests that clients who anticipate the need for portfolio insurance in the coming year should back our YP and PP over a defensive-sector allocation. We would likely extend this recommendation to all clients if there is any material progression towards the sell-off triggers identified in the Bank Credit Analyst's February 2018 publication.4 Bottom Line: Investors seeking protection against a potential equity market sell-off should look to our Yield and Protector Portfolios over defensive-sector positioning. We do not currently recommend these portfolios for all clients, but we may do so if our key sell-off triggers are breached. Gold Bugged Our tactical view on gold is neutral, but the BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy notes that the risk in gold prices will remain skewed to the upside this year. The yellow metal is supported by increasing inflation and inflation expectations, heightened geopolitical risks and greater volatility in equity markets.5 However, the higher inflation and inflation expectations will be countered by Fed rate hikes, which will boost the U.S. dollar and lift real rates in our base case. Strategically, we expect that gold will provide a good hedge against any downturn in equities when the bull market turns bear in 2H19. Chart 4 shows that the price of gold in real terms is still very expensive. On a nominal basis, gold is at the top end of a trading channel initiated in early 2012 (Chart 5). There has been a significant gap between the model value and the actual price of gold for the past four years. The real price of gold remains elevated, although inflation has been well contained. Chart 4Model Suggests Gold Is Overvalued Chart 5Testing Top End Of A Downward Channel However, the macro environment BCA envisions for 2018 is also supportive for gold (Table 2). Gold tends to perform well when oil prices rise and as the 2/10 Treasury curve steepens. Moreover, gold prices tend to go up when the U.S. economy benefits from fiscal thrust and tax cuts. Furthermore, the soundings on the February ISM manufacturing index support higher gold prices. When the headline index is above 60 as it was in February (60.8), gold climbs by an average of 31%. Even 12 months after ISM is above 60, gold returns are over 20%. The elevated level of ISM new orders (64.2) and price (74.2) indices in February also suggest solid increases for gold. Finally, gold prices climb in the late stages of an economic expansion, such as the current one that began in 2009.6 Even so, our 6 to 12-month view on gold is that it will take its cues from Fed policy and policy expectations. The Fed is not behind the curve on inflation, and inflation expectations and measured inflation remain low. Our CPI and PCE models (Chart 6) show only a modest acceleration in inflation by year-end, which will be sufficient to keep the Fed on track this year as it continues to shrink its balance sheet and boost rates four times. Thus, there is no pressing need to hold gold as a hedge against inflation in the next year. Nonetheless, for those investors too concerned about a pullback that turns into a correction or a bear market, we note that gold has a 33% weight in our Protector Portfolio. Table 2Favorable Macro Backdrop For Gold Chart 6BCA's Inflation Models Show Only##BR##Modest Acceleration Through Year-End Bottom Line: Gold is expensive in real terms relative to a set of fundamentals that have explained its real price since 1970. However, it may have a better value on a strategic basis or as part of a portfolio designed to protect against falling equity prices. Moreover, our macro backdrop forecast for the next 12 months supports higher gold prices. Keep gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Trade Off BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team has long argued that two sources of geopolitical risk this year are China's trade surplus and Trump's position on trade relations with China, Canada and Mexico. Specifically, the view is that weak poll numbers may lead Trump to trigger trade disputes with important trading partners such as China, Mexico and Canada. However, our geopolitical analysts also point out that investors should not confuse a trade spat with a trade war. There are very few legal or constitutional constraints on Trump over trade issues (Table 3). It will be his decision whether to adopt sweeping tariffs (trade war) as opposed to a more targeted approach (trade spat). Clearly, the former is more disruptive and raises more uncertainty, so this is the key distinction to keep in mind. Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush (II) and Obama all imposed temporary tariffs on items (including steel and aluminum, and including by citing national security concerns) without triggering a trade war. Late last week, Trump indicated that he would announce tariffs on steel and aluminum this week. He implied that he would go for a broad-based approach of penalizing all steel and aluminum imports, which points toward the more aggressive approach. But the details (whether he exempts U.S. allies and partners or narrows the scope of goods) will not be certain until he issues his official proclamation. Table 3Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade Steel and aluminum get the headlines, but account for only a small share of U.S. trade and GDP7 (Chart 7). BCA is more concerned about the Administration's stance on more deeper issues, like the WTO, NAFTA, or (in China's case) intellectual property and state-owned enterprises.8 The issues here are harder to quantify, have few precedents, and have more structural and ideological issues which are at stake. The U.S. has a massive trade surplus in services and in intellectual property,9 so a prolonged disruption would pose a serious threat to the U.S. economy, at least in the short term. Trump's decision on intellectual property trade with China is due on August 12, but could occur earlier. BCA's stance on U.S.-China relations is bearish in the long run.10 We place high odds on an eventual trade war, but the timing is a tougher call. Investors should not view China's proportional retaliation on an item-by-item basis as the start of a trade war. BCA's view is that China's leadership will try to offer reforms and investment opportunities to pacify Trump. However, there is a risk either that China offers no reforms (in which case Xi Jinping's rampant Communism exacerbates trade conflicts) or that Trump may introduce broad sweeping measures that give China no choice but to respond in kind, leading to a trade war. Our Geopolitical Strategy service notes that the probability of Trump abrogating NAFTA is as high as 50%. The seventh round of NAFTA talks concludes this week; an eighth round is scheduled for late March. Negotiations could drag on right to the Mexican election on July 1, but if they are not looking more optimistic by this spring then the risk of the U.S. (or Mexico) walking away will rise. The U.S. economy has been largely unaffected by NAFTA and would likely experience no disruption if Trump abrogated the deal and began negotiations on bilateral trade agreements with Canada and Mexico (Chart 8). Chart 7Steel And Aluminum In Perspective Chart 8U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Bottom Line: Elevated trade tensions with China,11 Canada and Mexico are near-term risks to global growth. From now through April could be a decisive time for the Trump Administration with China and NAFTA. We are bearish on U.S.-China relations in the long term. If Trump abandons NAFTA, the implications for the U.S. economy would be muted, although U.S. inflation may push higher. Such a decision would also send a clear signal to other key U.S. allies. However, if Trump stands by NAFTA, then it signals that he has sided with the establishment on trade. This would be bullish for risk assets and would lower geopolitical risk premia. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Next Recession: Later But Deeper," published February 23, 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Ice Storm", published October 20, 2014. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Tenuous Relief Rally", published on October 12, 2015. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, February 2018. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Gold Still Shines Despite Threat Of Higher Inflation", published February 1, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Late Cycle View", published October 16, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Aluminum Deficit Set To Ease", published March 1, 2018. Available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "America Is Roaring Back", published January 31, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Can The Service Sector Save The Day?", published June 5, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin", published January 18, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China", published February 28, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com.
The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of February 28, 2018. After the large upgrade in January, the model has furthered upgraded the U.S. to a small overweight of 3.3 percentage points from neutral in January. This change is mainly financed by a reduction in the large overweight in the Netherlands. Directionally, the model is becoming more defensive in the sense that the sizes of large bets have shrunk two months in a row, as shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the overall model underperformed its benchmark by 55 bps in February, largely driven by the Level 2 model which underperformed by 131 bps. The large underweight in Japan hurt the performance the most because in USD terms Japan was the best performer thanks to the strength of JPY versus USD. Since going live in January 2016, the overall model has outperformed the benchmark by 102 bps, largely from the allocation among the 11 non-U.S. countries, which has outperformed its benchmark by 345 bps. The Level 1 model has performed on par with the MSCI benchmark. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29, 2016 Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model." http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of February 28, 2018. Table 3Allocations Table 4Performance Since Going Live Chart 4Overall Model Performance The model has turned negative on cyclical sectors by sending negative signals from the growth component. Additionally, the recent correction in equity markets has also created unfavorable momentum signals. From being overweight on cyclical sectors by 10%, the model has now turned underweight by 1.3%. However, energy stocks have seen their overweight increase by 3% on the back of favorable valuations. The biggest change was an upgrade to overweight for the utilities sector on the back of the weaker growth outlook and not so negative momentum. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com