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.

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

Strengthening the Global Banking System’s Weakest Link

As I discussed in my most recent newsletter (please email me to request a copy) and in my February 19, 2016 Forbes column (“Shares Of Global Banks Are Too Cheap To Ignore“), I remain constructive on shares of U.S. financial companies, despite (or even because of) their recent underperformance. More specifically, I asserted that much of the current fears (e.g. impact of rising energy-related defaults and ongoing litigation costs & financial penalties related to conduct leading up to the 2008-09 global financial crisis) surrounding U.S. and global financial stocks are overblown.

I also asserted that share prices of global financial companies in 2016 will mostly be driven by the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy, as a significant portion of U.S. banks’ revenues is driven by “net interest income,” i.e. the traditional role of banks’ borrowing short and lending long. In Wells Fargo’s case, net interest income makes up more than 50% of the firm’s revenue. If the Fed embarks on a renewed hiking campaign and the U.S. yield curve flattens, then U.S. banks’ margins will be hit, which in turn will depress their share prices.

Fortunately, the U.S. yield curve is still very far away from flattening. E.g. As of this writing, the spread between the 10- and the 1-year Treasury rate stands at 1.27%. Just as important, the CME Fed Watch indicator does not suggest a rate hike until the FOMC’s December 21, 2016 meeting at the earliest. Moreover–despite the recent underperformance of U.S./global financial stocks–credit risk for the global financial sector remains relatively and historically low; in fact, as computed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, the implied credit risk within the global financial sector is actually the lowest out of all ten major S&P global sectors.

As financial history and the experience of the 2008-09 global financial crisis have demonstrated, however, the global financial system is only as strong as its weakest links; and it is these “weakest links” that investors have recently focused on. More specifically, the slow pace of general and banking reforms within the Euro Zone, particularly the relatively high level of nonperforming loans in the Italian banking sector, is raising the specter of counter-party risks and resulting in a flight of capital away from Italian/European financial stocks (e.g. UniCredit is down 37% YTD, Intesa down 26%, and Banco Popolare down 38%), and to a lesser extent, U.S. financial stocks.

Figure 1: Italian Banks Have Relatively High NPL Ratios (as of June 2015)

europenpls

The Italian banking system is saddled with about 360 billion euros of NPLs, making up about one-third of the Euro Zone’s total NPLs (although 50% of it has already been provisioned). With Italian banking stocks down nearly 20% YTD (and down 25% over the last 12 months), Italian policymakers are now being forced to act to shore up the country’s bank balance sheets through sales of NPLs, equity raises, and accelerating the write-off of NPLs. An effort in January to encourage sales of NPLs by providing government-backed guarantees gained little traction (and unfortunately attracted investors’ attention to Italian banks’ NPL problem), as Italian policymakers could not agree on how the plan would be implemented, especially in light of European rules that explicitly ban state aid to failing companies.

So far this week, Italian policymakers–working in conjunction with banks, pension funds, and insurers–have drawn up plans for a 5 billion euro bailout fund (dubbed “Atlante”) to purchase NPLs and/or to inject capital into ailing banks. Investors’ initial responses have ranged from skeptical to condescending, given the relatively small size of the fund and the lack of details surrounding its implementation. Bottom line: Italian/European policymakers, in conjunction with the private sector, will need to work harder to create a more comprehensive and workable solution to reduce NPLs in the Italian banking system. Until this happens, the current rally in U.S./global financial stocks from their early February lows will remain precarious.

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

 

 

Three Key Policies to a Successful “Make In India” Initiative

Launched by the Narendra Modi-led government last September, the “Make In India” initiative is a long-term, top-down driven policy to transform India into a global manufacturing hub. The 25 economic sectors targeted by the Indian government for export-led development were those determined to possess global trade comparative advantages or significant potential for innovation and job creation. Some of these sectors include: automobiles, aviation, biotechnology, chemicals, defense, electrical machinery, food processing, media & entertainment, pharmaceuticals, railways, renewable energy, and textiles & garments.

In my recent weekly newsletters–and in my March 4, 2015 Forbes column (“Modi’s Budget Boosts Bullish Outlook for Indian Stocks“)–I have chronicled and discussed the recent re-acceleration of India’s economic growth due to a combination of government reform efforts and the decline in oil prices, the latter of which provided an immediate 3%-3.5% boost to India’s annual GDP. Since August last year, I have asserted that India’s economic growth rate would surpass that of China; this year, I expect India’s GDP to grow at about 8%–higher than China’s expected GDP growth rate which I expect to come in at 7% or below.

Recent economic data–such as April’s industrial production year-over-year growth of 4.1% (surpassing consensus by more than 200 bps) and May’s benign CPI reading of 5.0%–suggests that my Indian economic outlook is on track. With the Reserve Bank of India’s policy repo rate still at 7.25%, there remains significant room for the Indian central bank to ease monetary policy in order to maintain the country’s high growth rates, as long as the CPI reading stays below 6.0%.

I maintain that India’s long-term growth trajectory remains intact; I expect the size of India’s economy to double by the end of 2020–to $4 trillion or more–and for the earnings of the MSCI India equity index to more than double in the same time frame. In the past, I have discussed several reform policies and trends that would act as secular tailwinds for the India economy, including: 1) a concerted crackdown of cronyism and corruption and raising foreign direct investment caps from 26% to 49% in the insurance and defense industries–both of which would heavily encourage more FDI inflows into India, 2) a renewed focus on infrastructure investments–including a nationwide 4G network–as well as much-needed land reforms to encourage further industrialization, 3) rising confidence in the leadership of the Reserve Bank of India as Governor Rajan asserted the central bank’s independence with an inflation-targeting framework that was recently codified into law, and 4) India’s uniquely young and educated workforce.

I consider the “Make in India” initiative to be a major policy focus that is essential to India’s long-term economic development. Unlike China’s “growth at all costs” policy from 1978 to 2008–i.e. a 19th century style command-and-control network of various centralized systems of production–while taking advantage of low-cost labor and lax environmental regulations, India is encouraging the production of higher value-added goods through a more decentralized approach of empowering decision-makers at the corporate level. At the same time, India’s labor laws have historically offered a high degree of protection for workers. To a major extent, India’s historical rejection of the 19th century style of command-and-control capitalism has limited the country’s industrialization and consequently, its export sector of manufactured goods. Of course, over the last 25 years, India’s exports have increased both as a share of GDP and world exports–but this was mostly driven by increases in the exports of services and primary products & resources (i.e. rice, cotton, diamonds, iron ore, etc. )–as opposed to the exports of medium- and high-tech manufactured goods.

Figure 1: India – Exports of Goods and Services, 1991-2013 (source: IMF)

Indiaexports

Since 1991, total Indian exports as a share of Indian GDP rose from around 8% to almost 25% in 2013; while Indian exports as a share of world exports tripled from around 0.5% to 1.7% during the same time frame. Of note, however, is the rapid increase in Indian service exports in just the recent decade. From 2000-2013, Indian services exports as a share of world services exports have tripled to over 3.0%.

Growth in Indian services exports has been rapid; indeed, it has surpassed that of other EM countries by a wide margin (see Figure 2 below). Indian services now make up 35% of all of the country’s exports, which is even higher than the average in advanced economies.

Figure 2: Growth in Services Exports – India and EM Countries, 2000-2012 (source: IMF)

EMserviceexports

The vast majority of fast-growing EM economies over the last several decades relied on industrialization and subsequent growth of manufacturing exports (both absolute and relative to total exports) to jump-start their economies. In 2013, for example, China’s manufacturing exports accounted for 90% of total exports, double the share during 1980-85. The share of Indian manufacturing exports as a share of total exports, however, has actually declined over the last 15 years, due to India’s over-reliance on growth driven by the services and primary goods & resources industries. Within the goods sector, the share of manufacturing has declined over the last decade as well (see Figure 3 below).

Figure 3: Composition of Goods Exports for Selected EM Countries, 2000-04 vs. 2007-11

indiangoodsexports

To jump-start the “Make In India” initiative to turn India into a global manufacturing hub, I believe the following three key policies need to be adopted–either at the public- or private-sector level.

  1. Build human capital and liberalize the Indian labor market: Consensus suggests that the Indian manufacturing sector faces an existential problem when it comes to labor: despite a young, educated labor force, there is a shortage of qualified labor for the sector, as those who are qualified do not want to work in manufacturing. One way to entice workers into the industry is to focus on medium-tech or high-tech goods requiring innovation in an effort to boost the technological capacity of India and to raise manufacturing wages. Labor law reforms, along with a policy to integrate manufacturers into the education ecosystem, are also necessary in order to boost the competitiveness of the Indian manufacturing sector in the global markets;
  2. Investing in export- and manufacturing-related infrastructure: IMF studies have shown that bottlenecks among the energy, mining, transportation, and storage sectors have inhibited India from taking advantage of the devaluation of the Indian rupee over the last several years. Land reforms is also part of the economic agenda, as regulations have historically prevented or limited the rise of industries in urban areas, where most skilled labor is located;
  3. Trade reforms to expand trade in the long-run: Historically, the Indian government has utilized trade policy as a tool to address short-term objectives such as limiting inflation or minimizing the volatility in commodity prices. Such incoherent policies included export taxes, minimum export prices, and ad hoc adjustments to import duties. The World Trade Organization noted that in its last review, minimum export prices for onions, sugar, and potato were changed in order to control the domestic supply of vegetables. Such policies increase uncertainty for both exporters and importers – major trade reforms are thus needed to provide a long-term boost to Indian manufacturing exports.

Our Leading Indicators Still Suggest Lower Asset Prices

In our March 12, 2015 commentary (“The Weakening of the CB Capital Global Diffusion Index Suggests Lower Asset Prices“), we discussed the shortcomings of Goldman Sachs’ Global Leading Indicator (GLI) based on its over-reliance on various components such as the Baltic Dry Index and commodity prices & currencies (specifically, the AU$ and the CA$). To Goldman’s credit, the firm has been highly transparent and vocal over the last several months about the distortions created by an oversupply of dry bulk shipping capacity and an impending wall of additional supply of industrial metals, such as copper and iron ore.

Goldman Sachs thus recognized that the GLI’s downturn in December last year (by that time, the bear market in oil and metals prices were well under way) was providing misleading cyclical signals of the global economy, with the exception of certain economies such as Australia, Canada, Brazil, and Russia. Indeed, our own studies suggest that global economic growth was still on par to hit 3.5% in 2015–with U.S. economic growth hitting 3.0%–while energy-importing countries such as India would actually experience an acceleration to 7%-8% GDP growth.

That being said, Goldman’s GLI remains highly instructive. Since December, other components of the GLI have begun to exhibit weakness that is consistent with a contraction of the global economy. Components exhibiting significant weakness include global industrial survey data (PMI), as well as new orders to inventory data (NOIN). Countries exhibiting significant weakness include the U.S., China, Norway, Japan, Turkey, and surprisingly, India. Meanwhile, Germany, France, and Italy are experiencing industrial production growth–likely due to the declining euro and record-low borrowing rates.

In a nutshell, our latest studies are now finally confirming Goldman’s GLI readings (a high probability of a global economic contraction). In our March 12 commentary, we asserted that global asset prices (especially equity prices) are poised to experience a +10% correction, given the weakness in the readings of the CB Capital Global Diffusion Index (the CBGDI).

The CBGDI is constructed differently in that we aggregate and equal-weight the OECD leading indicators for 30 major countries, including non-OECD (but globally significant) members such as China, Brazil, Turkey, India, Indonesia, and Russia. The OECD’s Composite Leading Indicators possess a better statistical track record as a leading indicator of global asset prices and economic growth. Instead of relying on the prices of commodities or commodity currencies, the OECD meticulously constructs a Composite Leading Indicator for each country that it monitors by quantifying country-specific components including: 1) housing permits issued, 2) orders & inventory turnover, 3) stock prices, 4) interest rates & interest rate spreads, 5) changes in manufacturing employment, 6) consumer confidence, 7) monetary aggregates, 8) retail sales, 9) industrial & manufacturing production, and 10) passenger car registrations, among others. Each of the OECD’s country-specific leading indicator is fully customized depending on the particular factors driving a country’s economic growth.

The CBGDI has historically led or tracked 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). Since we last discussed the CBGDI on March 12, 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. Figure 1 below is a monthly chart showing the year-over-year % change in the CBGDI, along with the rate of change (2nd derivative) of the CBGDI, versus the year-over-year % change in WTI crude oil prices and the MSCI All-Country World Index from January 1994 to April 2015. All four indicators are smoothed on a three-month moving average basis:

OECDleadingindicators

With the 2nd derivative of the CBGDI declining further from last month’s reading, we believe the global economy is very vulnerable to a major slowdown, especially given the threat of a Fed rate hike later this year. We believe two or more Fed rate hikes this year will be counter-productive, as it will reduce U.S. dollar/global liquidity even as many Emerging Markets economies are struggling with lower commodity prices and declining foreign exchange reserves. We also remain cautious on global asset prices; we will mostly sit on the sidelines (or selectively hedge our long positions with short positions on the market) until one of the following occurs: 1) global liquidity increases, 2) the 2nd derivative of the CBGDI begins to turn up again, or 3) global risk asset or equity prices decline by +10% from current levels.

We will look to selectively purchase energy-based (i.e. oil, natural gas and even coal) assets given the historical divergence of the CBGDI and WTI crude oil/natural gas prices. We continue to believe that U.S. shale oil production is topping out as we speak. Should the WTI crude oil spot price retest or penetrate its recent low of $44-$45 a barrel (or if the U.S. Henry Hub spot price declines below $2.50/MMBtu), there will be significant opportunities on the long side in oil-, gas-, and even coal-based assets.

The Re-leveraging of Corporate America and the U.S. Stock Market

The U.S. stock market as of the end of 1Q 2015 is overvalued, overbought, and overleveraged. As we discussed in our weekly newsletters over the last couple of months, the S&P 500 is trading at its highest NTM (next 12 months) P/E and P/B ratios since early 2001, just prior to the bursting of the bubble in U.S. technology stocks. Note that today’s record P/E ratios are being accompanied by the highest corporate profit margins in modern history, which in turn are supported by ultra-low borrowing rates and a highly accommodative environment for corporate borrowing.

On the demand side for stocks, we also know that global hedge fund managers are now holding the largest amount of long positions in U.S. stocks (56% net long as of year-end 2014) since records have been kept. With the global hedge fund industry now managing $2 trillion in assets, we believe it is a mature industry–as such, we believe the positions of hedge fund managers could be utilized as a contrarian indicator. In addition, note that no major U.S. indices (e.g. Dow Industrials or the S&P 500) have experienced a 10%+ correction since Fall 2011. Coupled these with the immense leverage on U.S. corporate balance sheets–as well as the U.S. stock market–this means that U.S. stocks are now highly vulnerable to a major correction over the next several months.

According to Goldman Sachs, U.S. corporate debt issuance averaged $650 billion a year during the 2012-2014 time frame, or 40% higher than the 2009-2011 period. U.S. corporate debt issuance is on track to hit a record high this year, supported by the ongoing rise in M&A activity, sponsor-backed IPOs (companies tend to be highly leveraged upon a PE exit), and share buybacks and increasing dividends. In fact–at the current pace–U.S. corporate debt issuance will hit $1 trillion this year (see figure 1 below). Over the last 12 months, member companies in the Russell 1000 spent more on share buybacks and paying dividends than they collectively generated in free cash flow. Across Goldman’s coverage, corporate debt is up 80% since 2007, while leverage (net debt / EBITDA)–excluding the period during the financial crisis–is near a decade-high.

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

uscorporatedebtissuance

We believe the combination of high valuations, extreme investors’ complacency, and near-record high corporate leverage leaves U.S. stocks in a highly vulnerable position. The situation is especially pressing considering: 1) the high likelihood for the Fed to raise rates by 25 basis points by the September 16-17 FOMC meeting, and 2) the increase in financial market volatility over the last six months.

Finally, investors should note that U.S. margin debt outstanding just hit a record high as of the end of February. Our studies and real-time experience indicate significant correlation between U.S. margin debt outstanding and other leverage indicators (including ones that may not be obvious, such as the amount of leverage utilized by hedge funds through the OTC derivatives market), as well as major peaks and troughs in the U.S. stock market. Since the last major correction in Fall 2011, U.S. margin debt outstanding has increased by 69%–from $298 billion to $505 billion–to a record high. In other words, both corporate America and the U.S. stock market have “re-leveraged.” With the Fed no longer in easing mode–coupled with extreme investors’ complacency and increasing financial market volatility–we believe U.S. stocks could easily correct by 10%+ over the next several months.

margindebt0215

The Weakening of the CB Capital Global Diffusion Index Suggests Lower Asset Prices

The Economist just published an article discussing the Baltic Dry Index (“BDI”) and its lack of usefulness as a global leading economic indicator. We know Goldman Sachs constructs its global leading economic indicator with the Baltic Dry Index as one of its components. To its credit, Goldman discloses this and quantifies the impact of the BDI (along with each of its other components) on a monthly basis. Over the last decade, the BDI has become increasingly volatile–first, due to the rapid industrialization of China; then the subsequent over-building of ships just as the 2008-2009 global financial crisis led to a drop in global trade.

Today, the BDI sits at an all-time low; it is down by 65% in the last 13 weeks alone. This is the major reason why we do not include the BDI as one of our leading indicators on the global economy; it is very difficult to strip out the BDI’s volatility due to fluctuations in shipping utilization, as well as idiosyncratic events such as port or iron ore mine disruptions. We prefer to utilize leading indicators that are less dependent on fluctuations in shipping utilization or commodity supply. This is why we like the OECD Composite Leading Indicators, which we incorporate into our CB Capital Global Diffusion Index (“CBGDI”).

The OECD’s Composite Leading Indicators, unlike those compiled by others, are much less dependent on commodity prices or exchanges rates of commodity currencies, i.e. the Australian dollar, the Brazilian real, the Canadian dollar, and the New Zealand dollar. Instead, the OECD meticulously constructs a Composite Leading Indicator for each country that it monitors by quantifying country-specific components including: 1) housing permits issued, 2) orders & inventory turnover, 3) stock prices, 4) interest rates & interest rate spreads, 5) changes in manufacturing employment, 6) consumer confidence, 7) monetary aggregates, 8) retail sales, 9) industrial & manufacturing production, and 10) passenger car registrations, among others. Each country-specific leading indicator is fully customized depending on the particular factors driving the country’s growth.

To recap, the CBGDI is constructed by aggregating and equal-weighting (on a 3-month moving average basis) the OECD leading indicators for 30 major countries, including non-OECD members such as China, Brazil, Turkey, India, Indonesia, and Russia. The CBGDI has historically led or tracked the MSCI All-Country World Index and WTI crude oil prices since the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989. 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 tracking or leading the MSCI All-Country World Index sightly, with an R-squared of over 40% (naturally as stock prices is typically one component of the OECD leading indicators).

We first introduced our CB Capital Global Diffusion Index (“CBGDI”) in our March 17, 2013 commentary (“The Message of the CB Capital Global Diffusion Index: A Bottom in WTI Crude Oil Prices“), when WTI crude oil traded at $93 a barrel. Based on the strength in the CBGDI at the time, we asserted that WTI crude oil prices have bottomed, and that WTI crude oil is a “buy” on any further price weakness. Over the next six months, the WTI crude oil spot price would rise to over $106 a barrel.

We last discussed the action of our CBGDI in our November 19, 2014 commentary (“The CB Capital Global Diffusion Index Says Higher Oil Prices in 2015“). At the time, we mentioned that–due to the strength in the CBGDI–WTI crude oil prices will likely rise in 2015. We obviously were early on that call as: 1) OPEC subsequently refused to cut production leading to the “Valentine’s Day Massacre” in global oil prices, and 2) the supply of U.S. shale oil continued to rise despite lower prices (a trend that is now ending).

Even though both the 1st and 2nd derivatives of the CBGDI are still positive, they are beginning to flash ‘caution’ signals. For example, the 2nd derivative of the CBGDI just declined below its 1st derivative–which in the past has led to a slowdown or even a major downturn in the global economy (as well as global asset prices). Note the following monthly chart shows the year-over-year % change in the CBGDI and the rate of change (the 2nd derivative) of the CBGDI, versus the year-over-year % change in WTI crude oil prices and the MSCI All-Country World Index from January 1994 to March 2015. All four indicators are smoothed on a three-month moving average basis:

OECDJanuary2015Despite the recent weakness of the CBGDI, however, the historic divergence between the CBGDI and WTI crude oil prices suggest that the latter is bottoming. The case for higher crude oil prices is compounded by the fact that U.S. shale oil production growth is now stagnating (which we discussed in our recent weekly newsletters, and just confirmed by the Energy Information Administration). Should the WTI crude oil spot price retest or penetrate its recent low of $44-$45 a barrel, there will be significant opportunities on the long side of the commodity.

With the CBGDI expected to weaken further this year, we also do not believe the Fed should hike rates anytime soon (even a one-time 25 basis point hike)–especially given the recent strength in the U.S. dollar. A Fed rate hike will be counter-productive as it will simply reduce U.S. dollar/global liquidity at a time of global risk-aversion and reduced economic activity. We thus remain cautious; we will mostly sit on the sidelines until one of the following occurs: 1) global liquidity increases, 2) the CBGDI begins to turn up again, or 3) global asset prices correct by more than 10% from current levels.