Our 2017 Outlook on U.S. Treasuries: 2.25% on the 10-Year

Last year at around this time, we published our 2016 outlook on the 10-year Treasury yield (“Our 2016 Outlook on U.S. Treasuries: 2.5% on the 10-Year“). To recall, we model our 10-year Treasury yield expectations with the following “building blocks” model:

10-year Treasury Yield = expected 10-year U.S. inflation + expected U.S. real GDP growth + global central bank purchases (including U.S. QE) + geopolitical premium

Note that the current “arbitrage” between the German & Japanese 10-year (typically done with a “dirty hedge” by hedge funds) with the U.S. 10-year is being taken into account in the above model, to the extent that ECB and BOJ purchases are driving such hedge fund “arbitrage” activity.

The reasoning behind our 2016 outlook of 2.5% (the 10-year is trading at 2.54% as of this writing) included: 1) higher U.S. inflation driven by the combination of a tightening U.S. job market, rising U.S. housing prices, and higher healthcare costs, and 2) the peaking of certain deflationary effects around the world, e.g. Chinese CPI was no longer declining while fears surrounding a larger-than-expected Chinese yuan devaluation would turn out to be unfounded.

Figure 1 below shows our timing calls on the U.S. 10-year from June 2015 to the present (note the prices of the 10-year Treasury rise as yields decline).

10yeartreasury2016

For 2017, I am targeting a 2.25% rate on the U.S. 10-year yield. The target is slightly out-of-consensus (Goldman, Morgan Stanley, and PIMCO are all expecting the 10-year to rise to 2.75% or above). The outlook, however, is very uncertain and I am again looking for significant (tradeable) volatility on the 10-year in 2017; by and large, however, I believe the factors that will drive the 10-year yield lower slightly outweigh the bearish factors on the 10-year:

  • As of this writing, speculative longs on the U.S 10-year futures are–with the exception of early 2005–at their highest level since the collection of COT records beginning in 1992. From a contrarian standpoint, this should provide some short-term support for the 10-year (in turn resulting in lower yields);
  • Much of the recent up-move in the U.S. 10-year yield occurred after the U.S. presidential election as investors speculated on a combination of higher growth and higher inflation, driven by the promise of: U.S. corporate & personal income tax cuts, a promised $1 trillion infrastructure spending package by President-elect Trump, potential repeal of the ACA and Dodd-Frank along with a myriad other U.S. “regulatory burdens.” As a reminder, however, this is all conjecture at this point. The Republicans are likely to pass their promised corporate & income tax cuts and to repeal the ACA through the reconciliation process (this is needed to avoid a Senate filibuster by the Democrats). However, such tax cuts passed through the reconciliation process needs to be revenue-neutral. Even with the potential to use “dynamic scoring” (where it is assumed lower taxes will result in higher GDP growth in order to offset some of the tax revenue lost), a significant part of the promised tax cuts will likely be scaled back in order to meet fiscal budget targets. E.g. The much discussed 15% or 20% statutory corporate income tax rate will likely be revised to 25%;
  • In the long-run, the U.S. economy is still limited by the combination of slowing population growth (the current 0.77% annual population growth rate is the lowest since the 1930s), older (and less productive) demographics, and a potential stall in immigration–the latter of which has historically benefited the U.S. disproportionately (immigrants are twice as likely to be entrepreneurs than native-born Americans). Another historic tailwind for the U.S. economy actually peaked in 1999: women participation in the labor force has trended down since 2009.

Unless productivity growth jumps over the next several years (not likely; the “fracking revolution” was the last enabler of U.S. productivity growth), the U.S. economy is likely to stall at 2% real GDP growth, especially given the recent 14-year high in the U.S. dollar index–which will serve to encourage import growth and restrict export growth. Note this outlook assumes that the long-term U.S. inflation outlook remains “well-anchored” at 2.0%–should the U.S. Congress adopt a more populist outlook (i.e. higher fiscal spending that is likely to be monetized by the Fed in the next recession), then the 10-year could easily surpass 3.0% sometime in 2017.

The Fed Paves the Way for Running a “High-Pressure Economy” (Along with Higher Inflation)

Since the beginning of last year (see my February 4, 2015 commentary “U.S. Inflationary Pressures Remain Muted” and my March 1, 2016 Forbes commentary “Why Federal Reserve Tightening Is Still A Distant Event“), I have consistently asserted that the Fed’s ultimate tightening schedule would be slower than expected–from both the perspective of the Fed’s original intentions, as well as those of the fed funds futures market. Indeed, the most consistent theme since the beginning of the 2008-09 global financial crisis has been this: The tepid recovery in global financial conditions and global economic growth has consistently forced the Fed to ease more than expected; and since the “tapering” of the Fed’s quantitative easing policy at the end of 2013, to tighten less than expected. E.g. the October 2008 Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey of America’s top economists predicted the fed funds rate to rebound to 4.0% by late 2010. Subsequent forecasts were similarly early.

According to the CME Fed Watch, the probability of a 25 bps Fed rate hike on December 14 is now over 70%. I expect the December 14 hike to occur as the Fed has been prepping the market for one 25 bps hike for months; however–similar to what I asserted last year–I do not believe this rate hike will signal the beginning of a new rate hike cycle. Rather, the timing of the Fed’s third rate hike will again be data-dependent (more on that below). Fed funds futures currently peg the Fed’s third rate hike to not occur until more than a year from now, i,e. at the December 13, 2017 FOMC meeting. This is the most likely timing for the third rate hike, for the following reasons:

1. U.S. households remain in “deleveraging” mode. Haunted by the 2008-09 global financial crisis, record amounts of student loans outstanding (currently at $1.3 trillion), and a shorter runway to retirement age and lower income prospects, U.S. consumer spending growth since the bottom of the 2008-09 global financial crisis has been relatively tepid (see Figure 1 below), despite ongoing improvements in the U.S. labor market;

Fig1PCE.png

2. The developed world & China are still mired by deflationary pressures. While the Fed had not been shy about hiking rates ahead of other central banks in previous tightening cycles, the fact that all of the world’s major central banks–with the exception of the Fed–are still in major easing cycles means the Fed has no choice but to halt after its December 14, 2016 hike. Even the Bank of England–which was expected to be the first major central bank to hike rates–was forced to reverse its stance and renew its quantitative easing policy as UK policymakers succumbs to the rise of populism. In a world still mired by deflationary pressures, the U.S. could easily succumb to another deflationary cycle if the Fed prematurely adopts a hawkish stance;

3. The Fed is no longer in denial and finally recognizes the uniqueness of the 2008-09 deleveraging cycle that is still with us today. In a June 3, 2016 speech (titled “Reflections on the Current Monetary Policy Environment“), Chicago Fed President Charles Evans asserted why this isn’t a normal recovery cycle and because of that, argued why the Fed should foster a “high-pressure” economy (characterized by a tight labor market and sustained inflation above 2%) in order to ward off downside risks in both economic growth and inflation. Quoting President Evans: “I view risk-management issues to be of great importance today. As I noted earlier, I still see the risks as weighted to the downside for both my growth and inflation outlooks … So I still judge that risk-management arguments continue to favor providing more accommodation than usual to deliver an extra boost to aggregate demand … One can advance risk-management arguments further and come up with a reasonable case for holding off increasing the funds rate for much longer, namely, until core inflation actually gets to 2 percent on a sustainable basis.

President Evans’ speech was followed by similar dovish sentiment expressed by Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo in a September 9, 2016 CNBC interview, Fed Governor Lael Brainard in a September 12, 2016 speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, as well as the September 2016 FOMC minutes. Finally, Fed Chair Janet Yellen explored the potential benefits of running a “high-pressure economy” after a deep recession in her October 14, 2016 speech at a recent conference sponsored by the Boston Fed. Quoting Chair Yellen:

If we assume that hysteresis is in fact present to some degree after deep recessions, the natural next question is to ask whether it might be possible to reverse these adverse supply-side effects by temporarily running a “high-pressure economy,” with robust aggregate demand and a tight labor market. One can certainly identify plausible ways in which this might occur. Increased business sales would almost certainly raise the productive capacity of the economy by encouraging additional capital spending, especially if accompanied by reduced uncertainty about future prospects. In addition, a tight labor market might draw in potential workers who would otherwise sit on the sidelines and encourage job-to-job transitions that could also lead to more-efficient–and, hence, more-productive–job matches. Finally, albeit more speculatively, strong demand could potentially yield significant productivity gains by, among other things, prompting higher levels of research and development spending and increasing the incentives to start new, innovative businesses.

Bottom line: The Fed continues to back off from committing to an official tightening schedule. After the December 14, 2016 rate hike, probability suggests the next rate hike to not occur until the December 13, 2017 FOMC meeting. Until the year-over-year PCE core rate rises to and maintains a rate of 2.0% or over, the Fed will not recommit to a new rate hike cycle. This also paves the way for higher U.S. inflation; as such, clients should continue to underweight U.S. long-duration Treasuries and overweight gold.

EU-Wide Stress Test Results Adding to Systemic Risk

As professional investors, we have been trained by the markets, the CFA Institute, and business school professors early on to avoid certain kinds of investments. Examples include scams such as Florida swampland (if it is too good to be true, it usually is) and obsolete businesses such as U.S. textile mills (by far Warren Buffett’s worst investment in his storied career) or newspapers & magazines whose revenues are still dependent on print advertising.

As I previously pointed out, Italian banks, along with systemically-important Deutsche Bank, have the distinction of fitting into both categories. Deutsche Bank’s core investment banking & trading businesses are obsolete in the post-crisis, capital-constrained world (think Basel III, Basel IV, Solvency II, and IFRS9), and yet Deutsche’s leadership remains in denial. Meanwhile–as I pointed out in two earlier blog posts (“Strengthening the Global Banking System’s Weakest Link” published on April 12, 2016 & “Italy’s NPLs Still the Global Banking System’s Weakest Link” published on July 7, 2016)–Italian policymakers have for years refused to reform or even acknowledge the growing NPL problem within the Italian banking system. It wasn’t until this year that investors finally forced Italian policymakers and banks to act; more than 7 months into the year, they have yet to provide a stronger or more comprehensive solution that will likely involve a combination of (hugely dilutive) capital raises, offloading NPLs to foreign investors, along with some kind of “bail-in” steps for the Italian bank with the worst balance sheet, i.e. Banca Monte dei Paschi di Seana (BMPS).

The publication of the 2016 EU-Wide Stress Test last Friday was intended to alleviate solvency concerns and to halt the vicious cycle of declining European bank stock prices that began early this year. 51 large European banks holding 70% of all European banking assets were covered. These banks were domiciled in the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. Banks in two of the Euro Zone’s most troubled economies, i.e. Greece and Portugal, were not included in the stress test.

Key macroeconomic assumptions/projections of the 2016 stress test (see Figure 1 below) were similar in severity relative to those in the 2014 stress test. E.g. the 2014 stress test assesses a 3-year cumulative real GDP “shock” of -7.0% in the Euro Area, vs. a 3-year cumulative -7.1% shock in the 2016 stress test, as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Key Macroeconomic Assumptions/Projections of the 2016 EBA Stress Test
eba2016stresstestassumptions

The 2016 stress test, however, did refine its overall framework by adding two explicit assumptions relative to the 2014 stress test: 1) explicit bottom-up treatment of FX-related trading losses to entities in central and eastern Europe in the event of EM currency depreciation, and 2) cumulative losses of 71 billion euros driven by the concept of “conduct risk,” with 15 of the 51 banks tested having a conduct risk liability of more than one billion euros.

On the surface, the results of the 2016 stress test were relatively benign. The 51 banks in the sample had a weighted average fully loaded CET1 capital ratio of 12.6% as of year-end 2015. This starting point was 150 bps above that for the 2014 and 400 bps over that for the 2011 stress test. Since December 2013, the fully loaded CET1 capital for the 51 banks sampled has increased by 180 billion euros. Under the “adverse scenario,” the 2016 stress test estimates a decline of 340 bps in the weighted average CET1 ratio to 9.2% by the end of 2018, driven mostly by projected credit losses, conduct losses, and losses stemming from counter-party risks. More importantly–out of the 51 banks sampled–only 10 banks finished with a fully loaded CET1 capital ratio of less than 8.0% by year-end 2018 (post any mitigation measures enacted after year-end 2015). They are: BMPS (-2.44%), Allied Irish Banks (4.31%), Raiffeise-Landesbanken-Holding (6.12%), Bank of Ireland (6.15%), UniCredit (7.10%), Barclays (7.30%), Commerzbank (7.42%), SocGen (7.50%), Deutsche Bank (7.80%), and Criteria Caixa (7.81%). Figure 2 below shows the EBA’s projected fully loaded CET1 capital ratios as of year-end 2018 on a bank-by-bank basis:

Figure 2: Fully Loaded CET1 Ratios at Year-End 2018 Under the EBA’s Adverse Scenario
(source: Goldman Sachs, EBA)
CET1 Ratios

Unfortunately, as I have asserted in my weekly global macro newsletters and my last two blog entries on the Italian banking system, what investors are looking for is not a “rubber stamp” approval by bank regulators on the integrity of European banks’ balance sheets or a halfhearted fund-raising effort by BMPS, but a strong, decisive, and system-wide capital-raising effort with government backing, along with a multi-year reform plan to rebuild the sustainability of long-term profits currently being impeded by: 1) prevalence of negative interest rates across much of the Euro-wide yield curve, 2) slow structural growth rates, especially within countries such as Italy, Portugal, and Greece, and 3) obsolete business models where certain business operations (e.g. trading) are being quickly replaced by hedge funds and fintech companies.

Over the last two trading days, European banks’ stock prices (ETF ticker EUFN) have fallen by nearly 3%. In particular, BMPS is down by 13%, UniCredit by 15%, Barclays by 5%, and Deutsche Bank by 7%. Major criticisms of the framework/results of the EBA’s 2016 stress test have been as follows:

  1. Banks in the region’s two most NPL-challenged countries, Greece and Portugal, were not included in the stress test;
  2. Under the BMPS rescue plan conceived last Friday, the bank will securitize its entire bad loan portfolio (face value of 27.7 billion euros) at a price of 33 cents on the euro. A securitization at this price is below investors’ expectations; this means if other Italian banks are forced to take similar haircuts on their NPLs, their capital ratio position would be less than what the 2016 stress test currently implies, thus requiring a more substantial (and dilutive) capital raise on the part of Italian banks;
  3. The stress test did not include the impact of regulations that are likely to be implemented over the next several years. Known collectively as “Basel 4,” KPMG estimates that these would lead to an extra 350 billion euros of capital requirements for the world’s largest 100 banks.

Bottom line: The publication of the EBA’s 2016 stress test results have failed to quell investors’ concerns of a systemic meltdown of the Italian banking system. Moreover, a successful recapitalization of BMPS is far from assured, as its capital raise is contingent on the sale of its 27.7 billion euro NPL portfolio, the latter of which will likely result in a larger-than-expected haircut on the Italian-wide 360 billion euros of NPLs. Continue to underweight European financials, especially Deutsche Bank and Italian banks in general.

Leading Indicators Suggest Further Upside in Global Risk Asset Prices

Note: I know many of you reading this are either overweight cash or net short U.S. equities. Please don’t shoot the messenger: I am not personally biased to the upside – I am merely channeling what my models are telling me, and they are telling me to stay bullish.

In my January 31, 2016 newsletter, I switched from a generally neutral to a bullish position on global risk assets. Specifically:

  • For U.S. equities, I switched from a “slightly bullish” to a “bullish” position (after switching from a “neutral” to a “slightly bullish” stance on the evening of January 7th);
  • For international developed equities, a shift from “neutral” to “bullish”;
  • For emerging market equities, a shift from “neutral” to “slightly bullish”; and
  • For global REITs, a shift from “neutral” to “bullish.”

My bullish tilt on global risk assets at the time was primarily based on the following reasons:

  1. A severely oversold condition in U.S. equities, with several of my technical indicators hitting oversold levels similar to where they were during the September 1981, October 1987, October 1990, and September 1998 bottoms;
  2. Significant support coming from both my primary and secondary domestic liquidity indicators, such as the relative steepness of the U.S. yield curve, the Fed’s renewed easing bias in the aftermath of the December 16, 2015 rate hike, and a sustained +7.5% to +8.0% growth in U.S. commercial bank lending;
  3. Tremendous bearish sentiment among second-tier and retail investors (which is bullish from a contrarian standpoint), including a spike in NYSE short interest, a spike in the AUM of Rydex’s bear funds, and several (second-tier) bank analysts making absurd price level predictions on oil and global risk assets (e.g. Standard Chartered’s call for $10 oil and RBS’ “advice” to clients to “sell everything”).

In a subsequent blog post on February 10, 2016 (“Leading Indicators Suggest a Stabilization in Global Risk Asset Prices“), I followed up on my bullish January 31st prognostications with one more bullish indicator; i.e. the strengthening readings of our proprietary CBGDI (“CB Capital Global Diffusion Index”) indicator which “suggests–at the very least–a stabilization, if not an immediate rally, in both global equity and oil prices.

I have previously discussed the construction and implication of the CBGDI’s readings in many of our weekly newsletters and blog entries. The last two times I discussed the CBGDI in this blog was on May 15, 2015 (“Leading Indicators Suggest Lower U.S. Treasury Rates“) and on February 10, 2016 (“Leading Indicators Suggest a Stabilization in Global Risk Asset Prices“).

To recap, the CBGDI is a global leading indicator which we construct by aggregating and equal-weighting the OECD-constructed leading indicators for 29 major countries, including non-OECD members such as China, Brazil, Turkey, India, Indonesia, and Russia. Moreover, the CBGDI has historically led the MSCI All-Country World Index and WTI crude oil prices since November 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. Historically, the rate of change (i.e. the 2nd derivative) of the CBGDI has led WTI crude oil prices by three months with an R-squared of 30%; and has led or correlated with the MSCI All-Country World Index, with an R-squared of over 40% (which is expected as local stock prices is typically a component of the OECD leading indicators).

The latest reading of the CBGDI has continued to improve upon the readings which we discussed several months ago (see Figure 1 below)–just 10 days after we turned bullish on global risk assets. Both the 1st and the 2nd derivatives of the CBGDI have continued to climb and are still in (slight) uptrends, suggesting a stabilization and in some cases, a re-acceleration (e.g. the economies of South Korea, New Zealand, Spain, and India) in global economic activity. So don’t shoot the messenger–but it appears that the rally in global risk assets coming out of the late-January-to-early-February bottom still has more room to run.

CBGDIMay2016

U.S. Consumer Spending Yet to Overheat: Fed to Pause

According to the CME Fed Watch, the chance of a Fed rate hike this Wednesday is virtually zero. The reasons for the Fed to “stand pat” have been well recited but here they are again: 1) ongoing, elevated global systemic/slowdown risks due to the recent decline in global financial stocks, a Chinese economic slowdown, and chronically low oil prices resulting in fears of higher corporate defaults, 2) despite a recent pick-up in the U.S. core inflation rate (the 12-month change in the January core CPI is at 2.2%), the Fed’s preferred measure of core inflation, i.e. the 12-month change in the core PCE, remains tolerable at 1.7%, and 3) Since the late 1990s, the world’s developed economies have mostly grappled (unsuccessfully) with the specter of deflation; e.g. over the last 3 years, the Bank of Japan expanded its monetary base by 173%, and yet, the country is still struggling to achieve its target inflation rate of 2% (Japan’s January core CPI was flat year-over-year). As such, the Fed should err on the side of caution and back off from its recent rate hike campaign.

As of today, the CME Fed Watch is suggesting 50/50 odds of a 25 basis point rate hike at the Fed’s June 15 meeting. Historically, the Fed has only hiked when the odds rise to more than 60/40, and I believe this is the case here. Many things could change from now to June 15; however, given: 1) lingering fears over a Chinese slowdown and the loss of Chinese FOREX reserves, and 2) the fact that core PCE readings have not yet registered a +2.0% reading (I need the year-over-year change in the core PCE to sustain a level of over +2.0% for many months before I am convinced that inflation is a problem), I remain of the opinion that the next rate hike will mostly likely occur at the FOMC’s September 21 meeting.

Finally–despite an ongoing rise in U.S. employment levels (see Figure 1 below)–both U.S. wage growth (see Figure 2 below) and consumer spending growth (See Figure 3 below) remain anemic. Note that both U.S. wage growth and consumer spending growth do not “turn on a dime”; this means that–until or unless we witness a sustained rise in both U.S. wage and consumer spending growth–the Fed should err on the side of caution and back off on its rate hike campaign. At the earliest, this will mean a 25 basis point hike at the FOMC’s September 21 meeting.

USemployment

Figure 2: Nominal Wage Growth Remains Below Target Despite Year-end 2015 Push

 

nominalwagegrowth

PCEgrowth

Leading Indicators Suggest a Stabilization in Global Risk Asset Prices

Even as the vast majority of analysts stayed bullish on the global economy and global risk assets early last year, I began to turn bearish for a variety of reasons, including: 1) global liquidity, as measured by the amount of US$ circulating freely in the global financial system, continued to weaken, 2) valuations in U.S. equities were at the 95th percentile of all readings dating back to the late 1970s, as measured on a P/B and P/E basis, 3) U.S. corporate profit margins were already at 50-year highs, while U.S. corporate profits as a percentage of U.S. GDP was at a high not seen since 1929, 4) U.S. corporate earnings growth, ex. energy, were beginning to decelerate, and 5) our proprietary leading indicator, the CB Capital Global Diffusion Index (“CBGDI”) was indicating a global economic slowdown, as well as a pullback in global equity and oil prices.

I have previously discussed the construction and implication of the CBGDI’s latest readings in many of our weekly newsletters, and last discussed it in this blog on May 15, 2015 (“Leading Indicators Suggest Lower U.S. Treasury Rates“). Specifically, the CBGDI is a global leading indicator which we construct by aggregating and equal-weighting the OECD leading indicators for 29 major countries, including non-OECD members such as China, Brazil, Turkey, India, Indonesia, and Russia. The CBGDI has also historically led the MSCI All-Country World Index and WTI crude oil prices since November 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. Historically, the rate of change (i.e. the 2nd derivative) of the CBGDI has led WTI crude oil prices by three months with an R-squared of 30%, while leading the MSCI All-Country World Index slightly, with an R-squared of over 40% (naturally as stock prices is typically one component of the OECD leading indicators).

In my May 15, 2015 blog entry, I also stated:

Our own studies suggest the global economy has been slowing down significantly since the 2nd half of last year [i.e. 2014]; more importantly, the negative momentum has not abated much … the 2nd derivative of the CBGDI has gotten weaker. It also extended its decline below the 1st derivative, which in the past has led to a slowdown or even a major downturn in the global economy, including a downturn in global asset prices.”

The rest is history, as they say.

Recent readings of the CBGDI, however, paint a much brighter picture. Firstly, both the 1st and 2nd derivatives of the CBGDI have stabilized and are now increasing. Secondly, both global equity prices (i.e. the MSCI All-Country World Index) and oil prices have declined to levels that are indicative of a more severe slowdown than the CBGDI readings imply (see Figure 1 below). To me, the latest readings of the CBGDI suggests–at the very least–a stabilization, if not an immediate rally, in both global equity and oil prices.

CBGDIDecember2015

 

 

Our 2016 Outlook on U.S. Treasuries: 2.5% on the 10-Year

In our June 28 global macro newsletter (please email me for a copy), I upgraded our outlook on U.S. Treasuries when the 10-year Treasury yield closed at 2.49%. We believed the 10-year was too high given the ongoing deflationary pressures stemming from the European sovereign debt crisis, the Chinese economic slowdown, and lower commodity prices. I subsequently downgraded U.S. Treasuries in our August 30 newsletter–when the 10-year Treasury yield closed at 2.19% (after dipping to as low as 2.00% during the August 24 global equity market correction)–as I believed global deflationary pressures were in the process of peaking. At the time, I noted that: 1) Chinese disposable income was still growing at high single-digits, 2) the Chinese CPI for the monthly of July sat at 1.6% year-over-year, and 3) fears over a further, deeper-than-expected devaluation of the Chinese yuan against the US$ was unfounded, as Chinese policymakers still have political incentive to support the country’s currency, along with the firepower to do so (as of today, China’s FOREX reserves stands at $3.43 trillion, while its November 2015 trade surplus is still near a record high at $54 billion). This means any further deflationary pressures from the Chinese economy were dissipating.

Combined with the Greek government’s 11th hour deal with the European Commission (i.e. Germany and France), fears over a more catastrophic financial market dislocation was adverted. This means that U.S. Treasury yields should rise further in the coming months. In our August 30 newsletter, I slapped a target yield of 2.50% for the 10-year Treasury over the next six months.

10yeartreasury

For 2016, I am reiterating our 2.50% yield target for the 10-year Treasury. We model our 10-year Treasury yield expectations with the following “building blocks” model:

10-year Treasury Yield = expected 10-year U.S. inflation + expected U.S. real GDP growth + global central bank purchases (including U.S. QE) + geopolitical premium

While both energy and base metal prices have either broken or are approaching their December 2008-March 2009 lows, I am of the opinion that U.S. inflation will be higher next year as the combination of a tighter U.S. job market, rising U.S. housing prices, and higher healthcare costs overwhelm the deflationary effects of lower commodity prices on the U.S. consumer economy (of which the CPI is based on).

As the markets price in higher U.S. inflation and a more hawkish Fed policy next year, I expect the 10-year Treasury yield to rise to 2.5% sometime in the next several months. For now, I remain bearish on U.S. Treasuries, but may shift to a more bullish stance should: 1) the Chinese economic slowdown runs deeper-than-expected, 2) the U.S. stock market continues to weaken, or 3) the Fed adopts a more dovish-than-expected bias post the December 16 FOMC meeting.

The Re-leveraging of Corporate America – Part II

We last discussed the increasing leverage in U.S. corporate balance sheets in our April 1, 2015 commentary (“The Re-leveraging of Corporate America and the U.S. Stock Market“), when we asserted that the combination of historically high U.S. stock market valuations, extremely high participation in the U.S. stock market by hedge fund managers (from a contrarian standpoint), and near-record high corporate leverage makes the U.S. stock market highly vulnerable to a major correction over the next several months.

At the time, we noted that U.S. corporate debt issuance averaged $650 billion a year during the 2012-2014 time frame, or 40% higher than the 2009-2011 period. Moreover, U.S. corporate debt issuance was on track to hit a record high in 2015, buoyed by the ongoing surge in M&A activity, sponsor-backed IPOs (companies tend to be highly leveraged upon a private equity sponsor exit), along with record share buybacks and the pressure to increase dividends. At the time, we noted that U.S. corporate debt issuance was on track to hit $1 trillion this year.

Since April 1, U.S. corporate debt issuance has continued to increase, although the pace has slowed down since concerns about the Greek debt crisis and the Chinese economic slowdown materialized this summer. Moreover–with energy and metals prices still underperforming–high-yield issuance has slowed down dramatically, although investment-grade issuance has continued to plough ahead. Nonetheless, U.S. corporate issuance has already set a record high this year, with nearly $800 billion of debt issued on a YTD basis (as of last Friday). At the current rate, U.S. corporate debt issuance could still hit $900 billion this year given the still-substantial pipeline of debt issuance driven by the recent frenzy of M&A activity.

Figure 1: U.S. Corporate Debt Issuance at Record Highs ($ billions)

uscorporatedebtissuanceNov2015

Moreover, U.S. net cash levels–that of Apple notwithstanding–have been crumbling under ever-increasing dividend yields, corporate buybacks, and M&A activity. Figure 2 below shows the substantial increase of debt/EBITDA ratios in Goldman’s universe coverage–especially since 2011–while companies with positive net cash levels are down by about one-third in the same time frame.

Figure 2: Rising Corporate Leverage While Cash Levels Continue to Decline

uscorporateleveragevscashDespite the August correction, we believe U.S. stocks remain overvalued. Combined with increasing and near-record high corporate leverage levels, this leaves U.S. stocks in a highly vulnerable position. With the Fed poised to begin a new rate hike cycle at the December 16 FOMC meeting , we believe there is a strong likelihood of a more substantial (15%-20%) correction in the S&P 500 from peak to trough sometime in 2016.

Why China Will Not Cut Rates Any Further This Year

In response to a slowing property market, lower consumer spending growth, and a slowing global economy, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) has cut its one-year policy rate five times and its reserve requirement ratio three times over the last 12 months. Last November, the PBOC’s one-year policy rate sat at 6.00%–today, it is at 4.60%. Moreover, the PBOC’s cut in its reserve requirement ratio–from 20.0% to 18.0% since February–has released more than $400 billion in additional liquidity/lending capacity for the Chinese financial system.

I believe Chinese policymakers will maintain an easing bias over the next 6-12 months given the following:

  1. As I discussed a couple of years ago, a confluence of factors–including China’s debt build-up since the 2008-09 global financial crisis, slowing population growth, as well as natural limits to an export- and CAPEX-driven growth model–means China’s real GDP growth will slow to the 5%-8% range over the next several years. Consensus suggests that China’s real GDP growth will be lower than the official target of 7% this year. Given China’s significant debt build-up since the 2008-09 global financial crisis, policymakers will need to do more to lower lending costs and to encourage further lending as global economic growth continues to slow;
  2. Most of the debt build-up in China’s economy over the last 7 years has occurred within the country’s corporate sector–with real estate developers incurring much of the leverage. In other words, both real estate prices and investments are the most systemically important components of the Chinese economy. While real estate prices and sales in Tier 1 cities have been strong this year, those of Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities have not yet stabilized. This means policymakers will maintain an easing bias unless Chinese real estate sales and prices recover on a broader basis;
  3. Chinese credit growth in August met expectations, but demand for new loans did not. Real borrowing rates for the Chinese manufacturing sector is actually rising due to overcapacity issues and deteriorating balance sheets (China’s factory activity just hit its lowest level since March 2009). No doubt Chinese policymakers will strive to lower lending costs to the embattled manufacturing sector as the latter accounts for about one-third of the country’s GDP and employs 15% of all workers. This will be accompanied by a concerted effort to ease China’s manufacturing/industrial overcapacity issues through more infrastructure investments both domestically and in China’s neighboring countries (encouraged by loans through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, for example).

I contend, however, that the PBOC is done with cutting its one-year policy rate for this year, as Chinese policymakers are dealing with a more pressing issue: stabilizing the Chinese currency, the yuan, against the US$ in the midst of recent capital outflows (Goldman Sachs estimates that China’s August capital outflows totaled $178 billion). Simply put–by definition–a country cannot prop up its currency exchange rate while easing monetary policy and maintaining a relatively open capital account at the same time. With the PBOC putting all its resources into defending the yuan while capital outflows continue, it will be self-defeating if the PBOC cuts its policy rate at the same time. The PBOC’s current lack of monetary policy flexibility is the main reason why Chinese policymakers are trying to find ways to stem capital outflows.

Rather than easing monetary policy, Chinese policymakers are utilizing other means to directly increase economic growth, such as: 1) Cutting minimum down payment requirements for first-time home buyers from 30% to 25%, 2) Approving new subway projects in Beijing, Tianjin, and Shenzhen worth a total of $73 billion over the next six years, and 3) Cutting sales taxes on automobile purchases from 10% to 5%, effective to the end of 2016. I expect the PBOC to regain its monetary policy flexibility by early next year, as the combination of record-high trade surpluses and still-low external debt should allow China to renew its policy of accumulating FOREX reserves yet again.

The U.S. Needs to Rejuvenate the Global Supercomputing Race

Technology, along with increasing access to cheap energy, is the lifeblood of a growing, modern economy. As we discussed in our December 2, 2012 article (“The Global Productivity Riddle and the Supercomputing Race“), fully 85% of productivity growth in the 20th century could be attributed to technological progress, as well as increasing accessibility/sharing of cheap energy sources due to innovations in oil and natural gas hydraulic fracturing, ultra-deep water drilling, solar panel productivity, and the commercialization of Generation III+ nuclear power plants and deployment of smart power grids.

Perhaps the most cited example where the combined effects of technological and human capital investments have had the most economic impact is the extreme decline in computing and communication costs. Moore’s Law, the ability of computer engineers to double the amount of computing power in any given space every 2 years, has been in effect since the invention of the transistor in the late 1940s. Parallel to this has been the rise of the supercomputing industry. Started by Seymour Cray at Control Data Corporation in the 1960s, the supercomputing industry has played a paramount role in advancing the sciences, most recently in computationally intensive fields such as weather forecasting, oil and gas exploration, human genome sequencing, molecular modeling, and physical simulations with the purpose of designing more aerodynamic aircrafts or better conducting materials. No doubt, breakthroughs in more efficient supercomputing technologies and processes is integral to the ongoing growth in our living standards in the 21st century.

Unfortunately, advances in both the U.S. and global supercomputing industry has lagged in the last several years. Every six months, a list of the world’s top 500 most powerful supercomputers is published. The latest list was compiled in June 2015; aside from providing the most up-to-date supercomputing statistics, the semi-annual list also publishes the historical progress of global supercomputing power, each country’s share of global supercomputing power, as well as a reasonable accurate projection of what lies ahead. Figure 1 below is a log chart summarizing the progression of the top 500 list from its inception in 1993.

Figure 1: Historical Performance of the World’s Top 500 Supercomputers

top500progressAs shown in Figure 1 above, both the sum of the world’s top 500 computing power, as well as the #1 ranked supercomputer, has remained relatively stagnant over the last several years. Just three years ago, there was serious discussion of the commercialization of an “exaflop” supercomputer (i.e. a supercomputer capable of 1 x 10^18 calculations per second) by the 2018-2019 time frame. Today, the world’s top computer scientists are targeting a more distant time frame of 2023.

From the U.S. perspective, the slowdown in the advent of the supercomputing industry is even more worrying. Not only has innovation slowed down at the global level, but the U.S. share of global supercomputing power has been declining as well. Three years ago, the U.S. housed 55% of the world’s top 500 supercomputing power; Japan was second, with 12% of the world’s supercomputing power. Rounding out the top five were China (8%), Germany (6%), and France (5%). Today, the U.S. houses only 46% of the world’s supercomputing power, with countries such as the UK, India, Korea, and Russia gaining ground.

Figure 2: Supercomputing Power Distributed by Country

top500countryshare

Bottom line: Since the invention of the transistor in the late 1940s and the advent of the supercomputing industry in the 1960s, the U.S. has always led the supercomputing industry in terms of innovation and sheer computing power. With countries such as China and India further industrializing and developing their computer science/engineering expertise (mostly with government funding), U.S. policymakers must encourage and provide more resources to stay ahead of the supercomputing race. To that end, President Obama’s most recent executive order calling for the creation of a National Strategic Computing Initiative–with the goal of building an “exascale” supercomputer–is a step in the right direction. At this point, however, whether the industry can deploy an energy-efficient exascale supercomputer by the less ambitious 2023 time frame is still an open question.