Inflation
Highlights Long-term investors should place up to 5 percent of their assets in cryptocurrencies. As the drawdown risk of owning cryptocurrencies converges with that of owning gold, the cryptocurrency asset-class can reasonably displace gold to take half of the $12 trillion anti-fiat investment market… … with BTC, ETH, and the others taking a third of this half – $2 trillion – each. This means that BTC would double to $120,000, while ETH would quadruple to $17,000. Some embryonic blockchain tokens could do even better. In this list of potentials, we would put Solana, Cardano, XRP, and Polkadot. Underweight gold relative to the other precious metals. As cryptocurrencies eat more of gold’s lunch, gold is set to become a pale shadow of its former self. Fractal analysis: Coffee and Cameco. Feature Chart of the WeekCryptos Are Eating Gold's Lunch... And There's Plenty More To Eat If you’re wondering just how the market value of cryptocurrencies has surged to $2.5 trillion today from $0.5 trillion barely eighteen months ago, there’s a simple answer. Cryptocurrencies have eaten gold’s lunch – displacing almost $2 trillion from the investment value of the yellow metal. And that’s just so far… Given that the investment value of gold still stands at $9.5 trillion, there is plenty more of gold’s lunch that cryptocurrencies can eat (Chart of the Week). As Mark Twain might put it, rumours of crypto’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. When cryptocurrency prices corrected by 50 percent in May this year, the obituary writers got busy. For the 419th time. But since their birth in 2007, every time that they have ‘died’, cryptocurrencies have proved their detractors wrong, with prices quickly resurrecting and reaching new highs. We expect this pattern to continue (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Rumours Of Crypto's Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated Cryptocurrencies And Blockchains Are Joined At The Hip To understand the investment case for cryptocurrencies, it is important to realise that the success of a cryptocurrency and the success of its blockchain are inextricably linked. Yet what confuses this matter is that for the best known cryptocurrency of all – Bitcoin – the relationship between the cryptocurrency and its blockchain is ‘back-to-front’. Bitcoin is first and foremost a cryptocurrency BTC, which is secured (against double-spending) by its blockchain network. Meaning that BTC is the main act, and the Bitcoin blockchain is the supporting act. However, for most other cryptocurrencies, the opposite is true. The blockchain is the main act, and the cryptocurrency is the supporting act. For example, Ethereum is first and foremost a blockchain network – a decentralised intermediator of services such as smart-contracts or bond-issuance through decentralised finance (DeFi). Note that over $5 billion of bonds have already been issued on Ethereum and other blockchains, including by the European Investment Bank, the World Bank, and the Bank of China. The users of the Ethereum intermediation services pay the users of Ethereum that validate them in its cryptocurrency, ETH. Crucially, this ability to exchange ETH (and other cryptocurrencies) for intermediation services on the associated blockchain gives the cryptocurrency an economic utility. This economic utility means that the cryptocurrencies of successful blockchain networks can be thought of as ‘digital gold’. Gold derives its utility from its physical attributes – beauty, wear-ability, and electrical conductivity. Whereas, the cryptocurrencies of successful blockchains derive their utility from their means of exchange for the useful intermediation services that the blockchains provide. Furthermore, just as governments and central banks cannot determine the supply of gold, neither can they determine the supply of successful cryptocurrencies. This last point is important because most of the current value of gold comes not from its beauty, wear-ability, and electrical conductivity, but from its investment value as a hedge against the debasement of fiat money. The immediate investment case for cryptocurrencies is that they are set to displace much of this investment value from gold (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Cryptocurrencies Are Displacing Gold's Investment Value Cryptocurrencies Are Displacing Gold As The Anti-Fiat Hedge. Gold is scarce, but we can quantify its scarcity. Geology tells us that, in the earth’s crust, gold is 15 times as scarce as silver. And chemistry tells us that gold sits directly beneath silver in group 11 of the periodic table, meaning that the chemistry to extract gold and silver from their ores is essentially the same. Therefore, based on the geology and chemistry of the precious metals, gold should trade at around 15 times the price of silver. And 15 times the price of silver is precisely where gold did trade for centuries, and broadly where it traded in 1970. Yet by the mid-1970s the gold-to-silver ratio had breached 45, and by the late-1980s it had breached 75, where it stands today (Chart I-4). Why? Chart I-4Gold’s Massive Premium Versus Its Geological And Chemical Fundamentals Comes From Its Investment Value (As A Hedge Against The Debasement Of Fiat Money) The gold-to-silver ratio surged because, in 1971, the Bretton Woods ‘pseudo gold standard’ collapsed and the world economy moved to a fiat monetary system. Lest there is any doubt, a similar surge happened forty years earlier in 1931 when the original gold standard collapsed, before being reconstructed at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944. From these two surges, we can deduce that the premium in gold’s value versus its geological and chemical fundamentals constitutes its insurance policy value against the debasement of fiat money. Some people counter that only a small proportion of gold is owned as an explicit investment, and a large proportion is owned for its beauty and status. Yet this has been the case for millennia, and through most of this history gold-to-silver has traded in line with its geological and chemical fundamentals. Given that the gold price surges post-1931 and post-1971 coincided almost precisely with the introduction of fiat money, it is gold’s insurance policy value against the debasement of fiat money that is setting most of its current value. Based on the gold-to-silver ratio of 75 versus the geological and chemical fundamental value of 15, we can deduce that around four-fifths of gold’s $12 trillion above ground market value, or $9.5 trillion, comes from its insurance policy value. Add to that the current $2.5 trillion value of cryptocurrencies, and we can estimate that the total ‘anti-fiat’ investment market is worth $12 trillion. Of which, gold comprises around 80 percent, and cryptocurrencies around 20 percent. But to repeat, cryptocurrencies can eat much more of gold’s lunch (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Cryptocurrencies Can Eat Much More Of Gold's Lunch The Investment Implications: Bitcoin To $120,000, Ethereum To $17,000 We estimate that absent the displacement of investment value into cryptocurrencies since mid-2020, gold would now be trading at an all-time high of $2150 instead of at $1800. But given that there is much more of gold’s lunch for cryptocurrencies to eat, gold is set to become a pale shadow of its former self. Investors should underweight gold relative to the other precious metals. One pushback we get is that governments will ultimately issue a blanket ban on cryptocurrencies. But our pushback to the pushback is that it is a contradiction to be pro-blockchain and the anti- the ‘joined at the hip’ cryptocurrency which secures and validates the transactions on that blockchain. To resolve this contradiction, governments will try and regulate, rather than ban, cryptocurrencies. Another obvious question is: if Bitcoin is ‘back-to-front’ with its underlying blockchain having less utility and versatility than Ethereum and most other cryptocurrencies, should we still own BTC? The answer is yes, for two reasons. First, in time, the Bitcoin blockchain is likely to become more versatile; second, there will be some investors who hold out for the very long-term possibility that a cryptocurrency does displace fiat money. In which case, BTC would be the prime candidate. As the drawdown risk of owning cryptocurrencies converges with that of owning gold (Chart I-6), the cryptocurrency asset-class can reasonably displace gold to take half of the $12 trillion anti-fiat investment market, with BTC, ETH, and the others taking a third of this half – $2 trillion – each. Although BTC would become a smaller slice of the pie, the pie would be much bigger. From current market values, this means that BTC would double to $120,000. Chart I-6Cryptocurrency Corrections Are Becoming Less Extreme But the real action would be in the other cryptocurrencies. ETH would quadruple to $17,000, while some embryonic blockchain tokens could do even better. In this list of potentials, we would put Solana, Cardano, XRP, and Polkadot. In conclusion, we expect the cryptocurrency asset-class to continue its strong structural uptrend, punctuated by short sharp corrections. As such, long-term investors should place up to 5 percent of their assets in cryptocurrencies. Coffee Is Too Expensive In this week’s fractal analysis, we make two observations: First, for those who want a second bite at the cherry for shorting the uranium meme theme, the spectacular rally in the Canadian stock Cameco offers a good opportunity – given its very fragile 260-day fractal structure, which has successfully signalled five previous turning-points (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Cameco Is Overbought Second, within the soft commodities, the spectacular rally in coffee combined with the recent sell-off in cocoa has stretched the relative pricing of the two softs to a 10-year extreme, as well as a very fragile 260-day fractal structure (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Coffee Is Too Expensive Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to short coffee versus cocoa, setting a profit-target and symmetrical stop-loss at 30 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Dear Client, There will be no report next week as we will be working on our Quarterly Strategy Outlook, which will be published the following week. In the meantime, please keep an eye out for BCA Research’s Annual Outlook, featuring long-time BCA client Mr. X, who visits towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. Best regards, Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Highlights Inflation in the US, and to a lesser extent, in other major economies, will follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory of higher highs and higher lows. While inflation will fall in the first half of next year as goods prices stabilize, an overheated labor market will cause inflation to re-accelerate into 2023. The Fed will be slow to respond to high inflation, implying that monetary policy will remain accommodative next year. This should help propel stocks to new highs. Chinese stimulus will offset much of the drag from a weaker domestic property market. The dollar is a high momentum currency, so we wouldn’t bet against the greenback in the near term. Nevertheless, with “long dollar” now a consensus trade, we would position for a weaker dollar over a 12-month horizon. A depreciating dollar next year should help non-US equities, especially beleaguered emerging market stocks. The dollar will strengthen anew in 2023, as the Fed is forced to turn more hawkish, and global equities begin to buckle. From Ice To Fire In past reports, we have contended that inflation in the US, and to a lesser extent, in other major economies, would follow a “two steps up, one step down” trajectory of higher highs and higher lows. We are currently near the top of those two steps. The pandemic ushered in a major re-allocation of spending from services to goods (Chart 1). US inflation should dip over the next 6-to-9 months as the demand for goods decelerates and supply-chain disruptions abate. Chart 1The Pandemic Caused A Major Shift In Spending From Services To Goods CHart 2Those With Low Paid Jobs Are Enjoying Stronger Wage Gains The respite from inflation will not last long, however. The labor market is heating up. So far, most of the wage growth has been at the bottom end of the income distribution (Chart 2). Wage growth will broaden over the course of 2022, setting the scene for a price-wage spiral in 2023. We doubt that either fiscal or monetary policy will tighten fast enough to prevent such a spiral from emerging. As a result, US inflation will surprise meaningfully on the upside. Our view has no shortage of detractors. In this week’s report, we address the main counterarguments in a Q&A format: Q: What makes you think that service spending will rebound fast enough to offset the drag from weaker goods consumption? Chart 3Inventory Restocking Could Be A Source Of Growth Next Year A: There is still a lot of pent-up demand for goods. Try calling any auto dealership. You will hear the same thing: “We have nothing in stock now, but if you put in an order today, you might get a vehicle in 3-to-6 months.” Thus, durable goods sales are unlikely to weaken quickly. And with inventories near record low levels, firms will need to produce more than they sell (Chart 3). Inventory restocking will support GDP growth. As for services, real spending in the US grew by 7.9% in the third quarter, an impressive feat considering that this coincided with the Delta-variant wave. Service growth will stay strong in the fourth quarter. The ISM non-manufacturing index jumped to a record high of 66.7 in October, up from 61.9 in September. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model is tracking real PCE growth of 9.2% in Q4. Goldman’s Current Activity Indicator has hooked up (Chart 4). Q: Aren’t you worried that spending on services might stall next year? A: Not really. Chart 5 shows the percentage change in real spending for various types of services from January 2020 to September 2021, the last month of available data. The greatest decline in spending occurred in those sectors that were most directly affected by the pandemic. Notably, spending on movie theaters, amusement parks, and live entertainment in September was still down 46% on a seasonally-adjusted basis compared to last January. Hotel spending was down 22%. Spending on public transport was down 26%. Only spending on restaurants was back to normal. The number of Covid cases has once again started to trend higher in the US, so that path to normalization will take time (Chart 6). Nevertheless, with vaccination rates still edging up and new antiviral drugs set to hit the market, it is reasonable to assume that many of the hardest-hit service categories will recover next year. Q: What about medical services? Some have speculated that the shift to telemedicine will require much lower spending down the road. A: It is true that spending on outpatient services in September was $43 billon below pre-pandemic levels. However, over two-fifths of that shortfall was in dental services, which are not amenable to telemedicine. Spending on dental services was down 16% from its January 2020 levels, compared to 6% for physician services. A more plausible theory is that many people are still worried about venturing to the doctor’s or dentist’s office. In addition, a lot of elective procedures were canceled or postponed due to the pandemic. Clearing that backlog will lift medical spending next year. Chart 7The Flow Of Savings Has Fallen Back To Pre-Pandemic Levels But The Stock Of Accumulated Savings Remains High In any case, the cost of a telemedicine appointment is typically no different from an in-person one. And, to the extent that telemedicine does become more widespread, this could encourage more people to seek medical assistance. Lastly, even if spending on certain services does not fully recover after the pandemic, this will probably simply result in a permanent increase in spending on goods. The only way that overall consumer spending will falter is if the savings rate rises, which seems unlikely to us. Q: Why do you say that? The savings rate has been very high throughout the pandemic. A: The savings rate did spike during the pandemic, but that was mainly because fewer services were available, and because households were getting transfer payments from the government. Now that these payments have ended, the savings rate has dropped to 7.5%, roughly where it was prior to the pandemic. There is good reason to think the savings rate will keep falling next year. Households are sitting on $2.3 trillion in excess savings, most of which reside in bank deposits (Chart 7). As they run down those savings, consumption will rise in relation to income. The household deleveraging cycle is over. After initially plunging during the pandemic, credit card balances are rising (Chart 8). Banks are eager to make consumer loans (Chart 9). Household net worth has risen by over 100% of GDP since the start of the pandemic (Chart 10). As we discussed three weeks ago, the wealth effect alone could boost annual consumer spending by up to 4% of GDP. Chart 8APost-GFC Deleveraging Has Ended And People Are Swiping Credit Cards Again Following The Pandemic Scare Chart 8BPost-GFC Deleveraging Has Ended And People Are Swiping Credit Cards Again Following The Pandemic Scare Chart 9Banks Are Easing Credit Standards For Consumer Loans Chart 10A Record Rise In Household Net Worth Q: Household wealth could fall as the Fed starts tapering and eventually raising rates. Wouldn’t that cool the economy? A: The taper is a fait accompli, and markets are already pricing in rate hikes starting in the second half of next year. If the Fed were to signal its intention to raise rates more quickly than what has been priced in, then home prices and stocks could certainly weaken. We do not think the Fed will pivot in a more hawkish direction before the end of next year, however. The Fed’s estimate of the neutral rate is only 2.5%, a big step down from its estimate of 4.25% in 2012. The market’s view is broadly in line with the Fed’s (Chart 11). Despite the upward move in realized inflation, long-term inflation expectations remain in check – expected inflation 5-to-10 years out in the University of Michigan survey has increased from 2.3% in late 2019 to 2.9%, bringing it back to where it was between 2010 and 2015. The 5-year/ 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is near the bottom end of the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 12). Chart 11The Fed And Investors Still Believe In Secular Stagnation Chart 12Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Not Yet A Concern For The Fed Q: What about fiscal policy? Isn’t it set to tighten sharply next year? A: The US budget deficit will decline next year. However, this will happen against the backdrop of strong private demand growth. Moreover, budget deficits are likely to remain elevated in the post-pandemic period. This week, President Biden signed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill into law, containing $550 billion in new spending. BCA’s geopolitical strategists expect Congress to pass a $1.5-to-$2 trillion social spending bill using the reconciliation process. All in all, the IMF foresees the US cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit averaging 4.9% of GDP between 2022 and 2026, compared to 2.0% of GDP between 2014 and 2019 (Chart 13). Chart 14While Overall Consumption Has Recovered, Business Spending and Direct Government Expenditures Remain Below Trend It should also be noted that government spending on goods and services has been quite weak over the past two years (Chart 14). The budget deficit surged because transfer payments exploded. Unlike direct government spending, which is set to accelerate over the next few years, households saved a large share of transfer payments. Thus, the fiscal multiplier will increase next year, even as the budget deficit shrinks. Q: We have focused a lot on demand, but what about supply? There are over 4 million fewer Americans employed today than before the pandemic and yet the job openings rate is near a record high. Chart 15Despite A Notable Decline, There Are Still A Lot Of People Avoiding Work Because Of Worries About Contracting Or Transmitting Covid A: Some people who left the workforce will regain employment. According to the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, there are still 2.5 million people not working because they are afraid of catching or transmitting the virus (Chart 15). That said, some workers may remain sidelined for a while longer. The very same survey also revealed that about 8 million of the 100 million workers currently subject to vaccine mandates say that “they will definitely not get the vaccine.” In addition, about 3.6 million workers have retired since the start of the pandemic, about 1.2 million more than one would have expected based on pre-existing demographic trends. Most of these retirees will not work again. Lifestyle choices may keep others from seeking employment. Female labor participation has declined much more during the pandemic and than it did during the Great Recession (Chart 16). While many mothers will re-enter the labor force now that schools have reopened, some may simply choose to stay at home. The bottom line is that the pandemic has reduced labor supply at a time when labor demand remains very strong. This is likely to exacerbate the labor shortage. Q: Any chance that higher productivity will offset some of the damage to the supply side of the economy from decreased labor participation? A: US labor productivity did increase sharply during the initial stages of the pandemic. However, that appears to have been largely driven by composition effects in which low-skilled, poorly-paid service workers lost their jobs. As these low-skilled workers have returned to the labor force, productivity growth has dropped. The absolute level of productivity declined by 5.0% at an annualized rate in the third quarter, leading to an 8.3% increase in labor costs. It is telling that productivity growth has been extremely weak outside the US (Chart 17). This gives weight to the view that the pandemic-induced changes in business practices have not contributed to higher productivity, at least so far. It is also noteworthy that a recent study of 10,000 skilled professionals at a major IT company revealed that work-from-home policies decreased productivity by 8%-to-19%, mainly because people ended up working longer. Increased investment spending should eventually boost productivity. Core capital goods orders, which lead corporate capex, are up 18% since the start of the pandemic (Chart 18). However, the near-term impact of increased investment spending will be to boost aggregate demand, stoking inflation in the process. Chart 18US Capex Should Pick Up Q: We have spoken a lot about the US, but the world’s second biggest economy, China, is facing a massive deflationary shock from the implosion of its real estate market. Could that deflationary impulse potentially cancel out the inflationary impulse from an overheated US economy? A: You are quite correct that inflation has risen the most in the US. While inflation has picked up in Europe, this mainly reflects base effects (Chart 19). Inflation in China has fallen since the start of the pandemic despite booming exports. There are striking demographic parallels between China today and Japan in the early 1990s. The bursting of Japan’s property bubble corresponded with a peak in the country’s working-age population (Chart 20). China’s working-age population has also peaked and is set to decline by more than 40% over the remainder of the century. Chart 19The US Stands Out As The Inflation Leader Chart 20Demographic Parallels Between China And Japan That said, there are important differences between the two nations. In 1990, Japan was a rich economy; output-per-hour was nearly 70% of US levels. China is still a middle-income economy; output-per-hour is only 20% of US levels (Chart 21). China has the ability to outgrow some of its problems in a way that Japan did not. In addition, Chinese policymakers have learned from some of Japan’s mistakes. They have been trying to curb the economy’s dependence on property development; real estate development investment has fallen from 12% of GDP in 2014 to less than 10% of GDP (Chart 22). China is still building too many new homes, but unlike Japan in the 1990s, the government is likely to pursue stimulus measures to compensate for a shrinking property sector. This should keep the economy from entering a deflationary slump. Chart 22Real Estate Investment Has Peaked In China Q: Let’s bring this back to markets. What is the main investment takeaway from your view? A: The main takeaway is that investors should remain bullish on stocks and other risk assets for the next 12 months but be prepared to turn more cautious in 2023. The neutral rate of interest in the US is higher than generally assumed. This means that monetary policy is currently more accommodative than widely believed, which is good for stocks. Unfortunately, it also means that a policy error is likely: The Fed will keep rates too low for too long, causing the economy to overheat. Chart 23Bank Stocks Tend To Outperform When Yields Rise This overheating will not be evident over the next six months. As we noted at the outset of this report, the US economy is currently at the top of the proverbial two steps in our projected “two steps up, one step down” trajectory for inflation. The cresting in durable goods inflation will provide a temporary respite from inflationary worries, even as the underlying long-term driver of higher inflation – an increasingly tight labor market – gains traction. Strong consumer demand and persistent labor shortages will incentivize companies to invest in new capacity and automate production. This will benefit industrial stocks and select tech names. Rising bond yields will also boost bank shares (Chart 23). A country’s current account balance is simply the difference between what it saves and what it invests. With savings on the downswing and investment on the upswing, the US will find it increasingly difficult to finance its burgeoning trade deficit. The US dollar is a high momentum currency, so we wouldn’t necessarily bet against the greenback in the near term (Chart 24). Nevertheless, with “long dollar” now a consensus trade, we would position for a weaker dollar over a 12-month horizon (Chart 25). Chart 25Long Dollar Is A Crowded Trade Chart 26A Depreciating Dollar Next Year Should Help Non-US Equities A depreciating dollar next year should help non-US equities, especially beleaguered emerging markets (Chart 26). The dollar will strengthen anew in 2023, as the Fed is forced to turn more hawkish, and global equities begin to buckle. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist pberezin@bcaresearch.com Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores
Highlights There is a high risk of a global demand shortfall in 2022. This is because consumer demand for services will remain well below its pre-pandemic trend… …while the recent booming demand for goods is crashing back to earth. Stay overweight 30-year T-bonds. In the equity market, underweight the ‘reflation’ sectors: specifically, underweight banks and basic resources. Stay overweight animal care. Overweight the interactive entertainment sector (look out for a Special Report on this sector coming out very soon). Fractal analysis: Overweight gas distribution. Feature Chart of the WeekSpending On Services In The US Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend. Will It Catch Up In 2022? With inflation surging, you would be forgiven for thinking that global demand is red-hot. Sadly, global demand is not red-hot. Two years after the pandemic began, the lynchpin of demand – consumer spending on services – remains far below its pre-pandemic trend. For example, US consumer spending on services is around $420 billion, or 5 percent, below where it should be (Chart I-1). A similar story holds true in the UK and France (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Spending On Services Is Still Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend In The UK... Chart I-3...And France Still, overall US consumer spending is on trend. Just. But only thanks to an unprecedented largesse of fiscal and monetary stimulus. Begging the question, what will happen when the stimulus ends? If overall stimulated spending is just on trend while spending on services is in deficit, it means that spending on goods is in a mirror-image $420 billion surplus. Which, given the smaller share of spending on goods, equates to 8 percent above where it should be. One misconception is that the surplus in goods spending is concentrated in durables. While this was true six months ago, two-thirds of the current surplus is in nondurables, dominated by clothing and shoes, food and drink at home, and games, toys and hobbies (Chart I-4). Chart I-4US Overspend On Durables Is Now $140 Bn, While Overspend On Nondurables Is $280 Bn Looking ahead, if the demand for goods crashes back to earth, as seems to be happening now, then the demand for services will have to catch up to its pre-pandemic trend. Otherwise there will be a deficit in aggregate demand. So, the crucial question for 2022 is, will services spending catch up to its pre-pandemic trend? Services Spending Will Remain Well Below Its Pre-Pandemic Trend Many people believe that the deficit in US services spending is due to the underspend in bars, restaurants, and hotels. In fact, this is another misconception. The underspending on ‘food services and accommodations’ is now a negligible $30 billion out of the $420 billion deficit. In which case, where is the deficit? Surprisingly, the biggest component is a $160 billion underspend on health care (Chart I-5). In particular, the spending on ‘outpatient physician services’ levelled off a year ago well below its pre-pandemic level (Chart I-6). A plausible explanation is that many doctor’s appointments have shifted to online, requiring much lower spending. The result is that health care consumption has slowed its convergence to the pre-pandemic trend, implying that a deficit could be persistent. Chart I-5US Underspend On Health Care ##br##Is $160 Bn Chart I-6US Spending On Physician Services Is Far Below The Pre-Pandemic Trend A second major component of the deficit is a $110 billion underspend on recreation services, as consumers have shunned the large or dense crowds in amusement parks, sports centres, spectator sports, and theatres. Some of this shunning of crowds will be long-lasting (Chart I-7). Chart I-7US Underspend On Recreation Services Is $110 Bn A third major component of the deficit is a $60 billion underspend on public transportation, as people have likewise shunned the personal proximity required in mass transit systems and aeroplanes. Some of this shunning of transport that requires personal proximity will also be long-lasting (Chart I-8). Chart I-8US Underspend On Public Transportation Is $60 Bn Worryingly, the recent spending on both recreation services and public transportation has stopped converging with the pre-pandemic trend. Admittedly, this might be a blip due to the delta wave of the pandemic, and spending could re-accelerate once this wave subsides. On the other hand, it would be prudent to assume that the delta wave was not the last wave of the pandemic and that further waves could arrive in 2022. Pulling all of this together, large parts of services spending will remain persistently below their pre-pandemic trend. Eventually, new and innovative types of services will plug this deficit, but this will take time. Therefore, we conservatively estimate that, at the end of 2022, US consumer spending on services will still be below its pre-pandemic trend by at least $200 billion, or 2.5 percent. Other major economies, like the UK and France, will suffer similar deficits. Goods Spending Will Crash Back To Earth Let’s now switch to the other side of the ledger, and assess to what extent the underspend in services can be countered by an overspend in goods. Spending on durables is already crashing back to earth. A surplus of $500 billion in March has collapsed to $140 billion now, and we fully expect it to fall back to zero. The reason is that durables, by their very definition, provide long-duration utility. Meaning that there are only so many cars, smartphones, and gadgets that any person can own. But what about the current $280 billion surplus on nondurables – can that be sustained? The biggest component of the nondurables surplus is a $85 billion, or 20 percent, overspend on clothes and shoes. Some of this overspend is justified by a wardrobe transition to the post-pandemic way of working and living. But clothes and shoes, though classified as nondurable, are in fact quite durable. Meaning that once the wardrobe transition is complete, we do not expect people to spend 20 percent more on clothes and shoes than they did before the pandemic (Chart I-9). Chart I-9US Overspend On Clothes And Shoes Is $85 Bn A second major component of the nondurables surplus is a $75 billion, or 7 percent, overspend on food and beverages at home. To a large extent, this has been a displacement of the underspending on eating and drinking out. But given that this underspend on eating and drinking out has almost normalised, we expect the overspend on eating and drinking at home to fade (Chart I-10). Chart I-10US Overspend On Food And Drink At Home Is $75 Bn A third major component of the nondurables surplus is a $45 billion, or 16 percent, overspend on recreational items: games, toys, hobbies, and pets and pet products (Chart I-11 and Chart I-12). To a large extent, this has been a displacement of the underspend on recreation services involving crowds, which will last. Hence, we expect the nondurable surplus on recreational items also to last, to the benefit of the animal care sector and the interactive (electronic) entertainment sector. Chart I-11US Overspend On Games, Toys, And Hobbies Is $45 Bn Chart I-12Spending On Pets Is ##br##Booming Pulling all of this together, we expect the $140 billion surplus on durables to disappear fully, and the $280 billion surplus on nondurables to fade to well below $200 billion. Therefore, given that the deficit on services is likely to be above $200 billion, there is a high risk of a consumer demand deficit in 2022. Four Investment Conclusions The ultra-long end of the bond market is figuring out that without sustained above-trend demand, you cannot get sustained inflation. And to repeat, if demand is barely on trend after an unprecedented largesse of fiscal and monetary stimulus, then what will happen when the stimulus ends? All of which leads to four investment conclusions: Stay overweight 30-year T-bonds. In the equity market, underweight the ‘reflation’ sectors: specifically, underweight banks and basic resources. Stay overweight animal care. Overweight the interactive entertainment sector (look out for a Special Report on this sector coming out very soon). Gas Distribution Is Oversold Finally, one of the paradoxes of skyrocketing natural gas prices is that it has badly hurt the gas distributors which, for the most part, have not been able to pass on the higher prices in full to end users. The resulting margin squeeze has caused a sharp recent underperformance, which is now fragile on its 65-day/130-day composite fractal structure (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Gas Distribution Is Oversold Given this fractal fragility combined with the recent correction in natural gas prices, a recommended trade would be to overweight global gas distribution versus banks, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 5 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart I-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart I-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
In lieu of next week’s report, I will be presenting the quarterly Counterpoint webcast titled ‘Where Is The Groupthink Wrong? (Part 2)’. I do hope you can join. Highlights If a continued surge in the oil price – or other commodity or goods prices – started driving up the 30-year T-bond yield, the markets and the economy would feel the pain. We reiterate that the pain point at which the Fed would be forced to volte-face is only around 30 bps away on the 30-year T-bond, equal to a yield of around 2.4-2.5 percent. That would be a great buying opportunity for bonds. Given the proximity of this pain point, it is too late to short bonds, or for equity investors to rotate into value and cyclical equity sectors. That tactical opportunity has almost played out. On a 6-month and longer horizon, equity investors should prefer long-duration defensive sectors such as healthcare. Chinese long-duration bond yields are on a structural downtrend. Fractal analysis: The Korean won is oversold. Feature Many people have noticed the suspicious proximity of oil price surges to subsequent economic downturns – most recently, the 1999-2000 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2000-01 downturn, and the 2007-2008 trebling of crude and the subsequent 2008-09 global recession. Begging the question, should we be concerned about the trebling of the crude oil price since March 2020? Of course, we know that the root cause of both the 2000-01 downturn and the 2008-09 recession was not the oil price surge that preceded them. As their names make crystal clear, the 2001-01 downturn was the dot com bust and the 2008-09 recession was the global financial crisis. And yet, and yet… while the oil price surge was not the culprit, it was certainly the accessory to both murders, by driving up the bond yield and tipping an already fragile market and economy over the brink. Today, could oil become the accessory to another murder? (Chart I-1) Chart I-1AOil Was The Accessory To The Murder In 2008... Chart I-1B...Could It Become The Accessory To Another Murder? Oil Is The Accessory To Many Murders Turn the clock back to the 1970s, and it might seem more straightforward that the recession of 1974 was the direct result of the oil shock that preceded it. Yet even in this case, we can argue that oil was the accessory, rather than the true culprit of that murder. It is correct that the specific timing, magnitude, and nature of OPEC supply cutbacks were closely related to geopolitical events – especially the US support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli war of October 1973. Yet as neat and popular as this explanation is, it ignores a bigger economic story: the collapse in August 1971 of the Bretton Woods ‘pseudo gold standard’, which severed the fixed link between the US dollar and quantities of commodities. To maintain the real value of oil, the OPEC countries were raising the price of crude oil well before October 1973. Meaning that while geopolitical events may have influenced the precise timing and magnitude of price hikes, OPEC countries were just ‘staying even’ with the collapsing real value of the US dollar, in which oil was priced. Seen in this light, the true culprit of the recession was the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, and the oil price surge through 1973-74 was just the accessory to the murder (Chart I-2). Chart I-2In 1973-74, OPEC Was Just 'Staying Even' With A Collapsing Real Value Of The Dollar A quarter of a century later in 1999, the oil price again trebled within a short time span – and by the turn of the millennium, the ensuing inflationary fears had pushed up the 10-year T-bond yield from 4.5 percent to almost 7 percent (Chart I-3). With stocks already looking expensive versus bonds, it was this increase in the bond yield – rather than a decline in the equity earnings yield – that inflated the equity bubble to its bursting point in early 2000 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3In 1999, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... Chart I-4...Making Expensive Equities Even More Expensive To repeat, for the broader equity market, the last stage of the bubble was not so much that stocks became more expensive in absolute terms (the earnings yield was just moving sideways). Rather, stock valuations worsened markedly relative to sharply higher bond yields. Seen in this light, the oil price surge through 1999 was once again the accessory to the murder. Eight years later in 2007-08, the oil price once again trebled with Brent crude reaching an all-time high of $146 per barrel in July 2008. Again, the inflationary fears forced the 10-year T-bond yield to increase, from 3.25 percent to 4.25 percent during the early summer of 2008 (Chart I-5) – even though the Federal Reserve was slashing the Fed funds rate in the face of an escalating financial crisis (Chart I-6). Chart I-5In 2008, As Oil Surged, So Did The Bond Yield... Chart I-6...Even Though The Fed Was Slashing Rates In The Face Of A Financial Crisis Suffice to say, driving up bond yields in the summer of 2008 – in the face of the Fed’s aggressive rate cuts and a global financial system teetering on the brink – was not the smartest thing that the bond market could do. On the other hand, neither could it override its Pavlovian fears of the oil price trebling. Seen in this light, the oil price surge through 2007-08 was once again the accessory to the murder. Inflationary Fears May Once Again Lead To Murder Fast forward to today, and the danger of the recent trebling of the oil price comes not from the oil price per se. Instead, just as in 2000 and 2008, the danger comes from its potential to drive up bond yields, which can tip more systemically important economic and financial fragilities over the brink. One such fragility is the extreme sensitivity of highly-valued growth stocks to the 30-year T-bond yield, as explained in The Fed’s ‘Pain Point’ Is Only 30 Basis Points Away. On this note, one encouragement is that while shorter duration yields have risen sharply through October, the much more important 30-year T-bond yield has just gone sideways. A much bigger systemic fragility lies in the $300 trillion global real estate market, as explained in The Real Risk Is Real Estate (Part 2). Specifically, the global real estate market has undergone an unprecedented ten-year boom in which prices have doubled in every corner of the world. Over the same period, rents have risen by just 30 percent, which has depressed the global rental yield to an all-time low of 2.5 percent. Structurally depressed rental yields are justified by structurally depressed 30-year bond yields. Therefore, any sustained rise in 30-year bond yields risks undermining the foundations of the $300 trillion global real estate market (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Structurally Depressed Rental Yields Are Justified By Structurally Depressed 30-Year Bond Yields Nowhere is this truer than in China, where prime real estate yields in the major cities are at a paltry 1 percent. In this context, the recent woes of real estate developer Evergrande are just the ‘canary in the coalmine’ warning of an extremely fragile Chinese real estate sector. This will put downward pressure on China’s long-duration bond yields. As my colleague, BCA China strategist, Jing Sima, points out, “Chinese long-duration bond yields are on a structural downtrend…yields are likely to move structurally to a lower bound.” But it is not just in China. Real estate is at record high valuations everywhere and contingent on no major rise in long-duration bond yields. In the US, there is a tight relationship between the (inverted) 30-year bond yield and mortgage applications for home purchase (Chart I-8), and a tight relationship between mortgage applications for home purchase and building permits (Chart I-9). Thereby, higher bond yields threaten not only real estate prices. They also threaten the act of building itself, an important swing factor in economic activity. Chart I-8The Bond Yield Drives Mortgage Applications... Chart I-9...And Mortgage Applications Drive Building Permits To repeat, focus on the 30-year T-bond yield – as this is the most significant driver for both growth stock valuations, and for real estate valuations and activity. To repeat also, the 30-year T-bond yield has been generally well-behaved over the past few months. But if a continued surge in the oil price – or other commodity or goods prices – started driving up the 30-year T-bond yield, the markets and the economy would feel pain. And at some point, this pain would force the Fed to volte-face. We reiterate that this pain point is only around 30 bps away, equal to a yield on 30-year T-bond of around 2.4-2.5 percent – a level that would be a great buying opportunity for bonds. Given the proximity of this pain point, it is too late to short bonds or for equity investors to rotate into value and cyclical equity sectors. That tactical opportunity has almost played out. On a 6-month and longer horizon, equity investors should prefer long-duration defensive sectors such as healthcare. The Korean Won Is Oversold Finally, in this week’s fractal analysis, we note that the Korean won is oversold – specifically versus the Chinese yuan on the 130-day fractal structure of that cross (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Korean Won Is Oversold Given that previous instances of such fragility have reliably indicated trend changes, this week’s recommended trade is long KRW/CNY, setting the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2 percent. Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Highlights The current burst of inflation in developed economies is due to a (negative) supply shock rather than a (positive) demand shock. Consumer complaints of “poor buying conditions” mean that higher prices will cause demand destruction. Hence, it is extremely dangerous for central banks to respond with the signalling of tighter policy that leads to higher bond yields. The upper limit to the 10-year T-bond yield is no higher than 1.8 percent. Hence, this yield level would be a good cyclical entry point into both stocks and bonds. Continue to underweight consumer discretionary versus the market, given the very tight connection between weaker spending on durables and the underperformance of the goods dominated consumer discretionary sector. Commodities whose prices have not yet corrected are at much greater risk than those whose prices have corrected. Hence a new cyclical recommendation is to go underweight tin versus iron ore. Fractal analysis: Netflix versus Activision Blizzard, and AUD/NZD. Feature Chart of the Week"Buying Conditions Are Poor" The current burst of inflation in developed economies is due to a (negative) supply shock rather than a (positive) demand shock. Getting this diagnosis right is crucial, because responding to supply shock generated inflation with tighter monetary policy is extremely dangerous. Responding to supply shock generated inflation with tighter monetary policy is extremely dangerous. The current burst of inflation cannot be due to a demand shock. If it was, aggregate demand would be surging. But it is not. For example, in the US, both consumer spending and income lie precisely on their pre-pandemic trend (Chart I-2). Furthermore, consumers are complaining that high prices for household durables, homes, and cars have caused “the poorest buying conditions in decades”, according to the University of Michigan’s latest consumer sentiment survey. If a positive demand shock was boosting incomes relative to prices, consumers would not be making this complaint. Given that they are making this complaint, there is the real risk of demand destruction. Meanwhile, employment remains far below its pre-pandemic trend. For example, in the US, by about 8 million jobs (Chart I-3). How can demand be on trend, but employment so far below trend? As an economic identity, the answer is that productivity has surged. Yet this should come as no surprise, because after recessions, productivity always surges. Chart I-2Demand Is On Trend... Chart I-3...But Employment Is Well Below Trend After Recessions, Productivity Always Surges As we explained in What The Olympics Teaches Us About Productivity Growth, productivity growth comes from better biology (which improves both our physical and intellectual capacity), better technology, and finding better ways to do the same thing. Of these three drivers, the first two are continuous processes but the third, finding better ways to do the same thing, is a step function whose up-steps come after disruptive changes in the economy such as recessions (Chart I-4). Chart I-4After Recessions, Productivity Always Surges To do things better, a recession is the necessary catalyst for the wholesale adoption of an existing technology. For example, the mass manufacturing of autos already existed well before the Great Depression, but the Depression catalysed its wholesale adoption. Likewise, word processors existed well before the dot com bust, but the 2000 recession finally killed the office typing pool. In the same way, the technology for remote meetings and online shopping has been around for years, but the pandemic has catalysed its wholesale adoption. Of course, it is sub-optimal to meet people remotely or shop online all the time. But it is also sub-optimal to do these things in-person all the time. The most productive way is some hybrid of remote and in-person, which will differ for each person. The pandemic has given us the opportunity to find this personally optimal hybrid, and thereby to boost our productivity. The current boost to productivity could be larger than those after previous recessions because the pandemic has reshaped the entire economy. The current boost to productivity could be larger than those after previous recessions because the pandemic has forced us all to challenge our best practices. This is different from previous post-recession periods where transformations were focussed in one sector. For example, the 80s recession reshaped manufacturing, the dot com bust changed the technology sector, and the 2008 recession transformed the financial sector. By comparison, the current transformation is reshaping the entire economy. Yet, if productivity is booming, why has inflation spiked? The answer is that we have experienced a massive and unprecedented (negative) supply shock. It’s A Supply Shock, Not A Demand Shock To repeat, there has been no positive shock in aggregate demand. Yet there has been a massive shock in the distribution of this demand. Pandemic restrictions on socialising, interacting, and movement meant that leisure, hospitality, in-person shopping, and travel services were unavailable. As spending on services slumped, consumers shifted their firepower to items that could be enjoyed within the pandemic’s confines; namely, durable goods (Chart I-5). Chart I-5A Massive Displacement In The Distribution Of Demand Led To Supply Shocks The problem is that modern supply chains have few, if any, built-in redundancies. They are always working ‘just in time’ and cannot cope with any surge in demand. To make matters worse, the type of goods in high demand also shifted: for example, from electronic goods during full lockdown – to cars when lockdowns eased, and people required local mobility. These shifting spikes in demand stressed and indeed snapped fragile supply chains, resulting in skyrocketing prices for durables. To assess the contribution to overall inflation, we need to gauge the deviation from the pre-pandemic trend. Relative to where they would have been, prices are higher by 0.5 percent for services, 1 percent for non- durables, but by a staggering 10 percent for durables. It follows that most of the current burst of inflation is due to the supply shock for durables (Chart of the Week). But now, consumer complaints that “buying conditions are poor” imply that high prices risk demand destruction as people wait for better conditions (lower prices) to make non-essential purchases. In any case, as we learn to live with the pandemic, the shock in the distribution of demand is easing. Meaning that the abnormally high spending on durable goods has a long way to fall. Furthermore, supply bottlenecks always clear as output responds with a lag. This risks unleashing a flood of supply just as higher prices have destroyed demand. Add to this mix a slowdown, or worse a slump, in China’s real estate and construction sector as we highlighted last week in The Real Risk Is Real Estate (Part 2). And the irony is that, for many global sectors, there could be a demand shock after all but it would be a negative demand shock. Three Investment Recommendations As consumers’ current complaints of poor buying conditions testify, the higher prices that come from a supply shock eventually lead to demand destruction. Hence, it is extremely dangerous for central banks to respond with tighter policy, including the signalling of tighter policy that leads to higher bond yields. The higher bond yields will, with a lag, choke demand just as the supply bottlenecks ease and unleash a flood of supply. Resulting in a deflationary shock for the economy, stock market, and commodities (Chart I-6). Chart I-6When Supply Shocks Ease, Prices Slump On this basis, we are making three investment recommendations: The upper limit to the 10-year T-bond is no higher than 1.8 percent, as we detailed in Stocks, Not The Economy, Will Set The Upper Limit To Bond Yields. Hence, this yield level would be a good cyclical entry point into both stocks and bonds. Continue to underweight consumer discretionary plays versus the market, given the very tight connection between spending on durables and the relative performance of the goods dominated consumer discretionary plays in the stock market. As supply shocks always ultimately ease, those commodities whose prices have not yet corrected are at much greater risk than those commodities whose prices have corrected. Specifically, the price of industrial metals such as tin are at their most stretched versus iron ore in a decade (Chart I-7). Moreover, this fragility is confirmed by fractal analysis (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-7Tin Is Very Stretched Versus Iron Ore Chart I-8Tin Is Fragile Chart I-9Tin Versus Iron Ore Is Fragile Hence, as a new cyclical recommendation, go underweight tin versus iron ore. Netflix Versus Activision Blizzard, And AUD/NZD Are Susceptible To Reversal In pure entertainment plays, the strong outperformance of Netflix versus Activision Blizzard has been fuelled by the delta wave of the virus, which helped Netflix, combined with the Chinese crackdown on gaming companies, which weighed down the whole gaming sector including Activision. The gaming company was also hit by a discrimination lawsuit, which it has now settled. Fractal analysis suggests that this strong outperformance is now fragile. Accordingly, the recommended trade is to short Netflix versus Activision Blizzard, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 10 percent (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Netflix Versus Activision Blizzard Is Susceptible To Reversal Meanwhile, in foreign exchange, the recent sell-off in AUD/NZD has reached fragility on the 130-day dimension which has reliably signalled previous reversal points (Chart I-11). Hence, the recommended trade is long AUD/NZD, setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2 percent. Chart I-11AUD/NZD Is Likely To Rebound Dhaval Joshi Chief Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Fractal Trades 6-Month Recommendations Structural And Thematic Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Euro Area Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Europe Ex Euro Area Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Asia Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields ##br##- Other Developed Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Dear Client, I will be on vacation next week. In lieu of our regular report, we will be sending you a Special Report written by my colleagues Chester Ntonifor, BCA Research’s Chief Foreign Exchange Strategist, and Matt Gertken, Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Their report discusses the threat to the dollar’s reserve status over the next decade. This week, Matt published a timely report entitled “Afghanistan? Watch Iran And China,” examining the global macro significance of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. I trust you will find both reports insightful. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Over the next 12 months, US inflation will decline fast enough to allow the Federal Reserve to maintain its accommodative monetary stance, but not as fast as investors are expecting. A number of structural forces were becoming inflationary even before the pandemic began. The pandemic will only buttress the tide. Even if the virus is eventually vanquished, the pandemic could prop up inflation by permanently reducing labor supply, hastening the retreat from globalization, and keeping fiscal policy looser than it otherwise would have been. Fixed-income investors should maintain a short duration stance. We expect the US 10-year Treasury yield to rebound to about 1.8% by early next year. Long-term bond yields in the other major economies will also rise, although not as much as in the US. In and of itself, higher inflation is not necessarily bad for equities. What makes higher inflation toxic for stocks is when it forces central banks to raise rates to punitive levels. Fortunately, such an outcome is still a few years away, justifying an overweight equity position for now. Upside Risks To Inflation In our July 23rd report, we argued that investors were asking the wrong question about inflation. Rather than asking whether higher inflation is transitory, they should be asking whether inflation will decline faster or slower than what the market is discounting. Chart 1Investors Expect Inflation To Fall Rapidly From Current Levels Chart 1 shows that investors expect inflation to fall rapidly from current levels and to remain subdued thereafter. The widely followed 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate currently stands at 2.12%, below the Fed’s comfort zone of 2.3%-to-2.5% (Chart 2).1 Chart 2Below-Target Inflation Expectations And A Low R* Have Restrained Bond Yields Downbeat long-term inflation expectations and the market’s perception that the neutral rate of interest is very low are the two main reasons why bond yields are so depressed. QE programs have also dampened yields, although not nearly as much as widely believed. Chart 3Outside Of A Few Pandemic-Related Sectors, The CPI Has Yet To Return To Trend In our report, we contended that US inflation would come down fast enough over the next few quarters to allow the Federal Reserve to maintain its accommodative monetary stance, but not as fast as investors are expecting. On the one hand, the evidence clearly shows that most of the recent increase in US inflation has been driven by just a few pandemic-related sectors (Chart 3). On the other hand, high levels of excess household savings, the need for firms to expand capacity and rebuild inventories, and continued policy support will boost output and prices. The Long-Term Inflationary Consequences Of The Pandemic We also argued that a variety of structural forces, including the exodus of baby boomers from the labor market, a retreat from globalization, and increasing social unrest, would drive up inflation over the long haul. A key question is how the pandemic will shape these structural forces going forward. As we discuss below, there are three main overlapping channels through which the pandemic could have a lasting impact on inflation: Labor market scarring: Even if the virus is eventually vanquished, the pandemic could still permanently reduce the labor supply. Widespread worker shortages would fuel inflation. Deglobalization: Globalization has historically been a deflationary force. The pandemic could accelerate the retreat from globalization by prompting firms to bring more production back home, while exacerbating geopolitical tensions. Fiscal policy: Big budget deficits could persist in the post-pandemic period. Debt-saddled governments may turn to inflation to erode their debt burdens. Let us assess these three channels in turn. Channel #1: Labor Market Scarring Despite July’s blockbuster employment report, there are still nearly 4% fewer Americans employed than was the case in January 2020. Yet, US businesses are struggling to hire workers (Chart 4). Nationwide, the job openings rate stands at a record 6.5%, up from 4.5% on the eve of the pandemic (Chart 5). Chart 4US Companies Are Facing A Labor Shortage Chart 5There Are Plenty Of Jobs Available Generous unemployment benefits, less immigration, and the reluctance of many workers to expose themselves to the virus have all helped to reduce labor supply. A marked shift in the composition of spending has increased the demand for workers in some sectors while reducing demand in other sectors (Chart 6). Since labor is not perfectly fungible across sectors, this has caused overall unemployment to rise. Chart 6Which Sectors Have Gained And Which Have Lost Jobs Since The Pandemic? Looking out, labor supply should increase as emergency unemployment benefits expire, immigration picks up, and more people are vaccinated. The mismatch of workers across sectors should also diminish as goods and services spending rebalances. Nevertheless, there is considerable uncertainty over how quickly all this will happen. According to Indeed, an online job posting site, unemployed workers cited having a “financial cushion” as the most popular reason for not looking for a job in July (Chart 7). Given that American households are sitting on $2.4 trillion in excess savings, it may take some time for this cushion to deflate (Chart 8). Chart 7Americans Are Not Desperate To Find Work Chart 8A Lot Of Excess Savings Chart 9No Jab, No Job Wider vaccine mandates could also impact labor market participation. A host of major companies, ranging from Google to Citigroup, are requiring their employees to be inoculated before returning to the office (Chart 9). The Pentagon has laid out a plan endorsed by President Biden obliging members of the military to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Earlier this week, the Las Vegas Raiders became the first NFL team to require fans to produce proof of vaccination to gain entry to home games. On the one hand, vaccine mandates could encourage more people to get the jab, which should help curb the pandemic and boost employment in the service sector. While the numbers have improved in recent weeks, only 57% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 64 are fully vaccinated (Chart 10). On the other hand, some people might opt for unemployment over a vaccine. According to a recent YouGov poll, about half of all unvaccinated Americans believe that the government is using COVID-19 vaccines to microchip the population (Chart 11). The threat of losing one’s job is unlikely to sway many of them. Chart 10Many Workers Remain Unvaccinated Chart 11One In Five Americans Believes The US Government Is Using The Covid-19 Vaccine To Microchip The Population Pandemic-induced shifts in work-life preferences could also reduce labor supply. According to Ipsos, a polling firm, most employees would prefer to work remotely at least part of the time, with 25% indicating they do not want to return to their workplace at all (Chart 12). The same poll found that 30% of workers would consider looking for another job if their employer required them to work away from home full time (Chart 13). Chart 12Let’s Chat Around The Water Cooler On Tuesdays And Wednesdays Chart 13What Is The Opposite Of A “One Size Fits All” Work Environment? Chart 14Number Of Retired People Jumped During The Pandemic If remote working boosted productivity, as some have claimed, this would not be such a bad thing. However, it is far from clear that this is the case. A recent University of Chicago study of 10,000 skilled professionals from an Asian IT company revealed that work-from-home policies decreased productivity by 8%-to-19%. Early retirement has also reduced labor supply. The share of retirees in the US population rose by 1.3 percentage points between February 2020 and July 2021, with most of the increase occurring early in the pandemic (Chart 14). Based on pre-pandemic demographic trends, the retirement rate should have risen by only 0.5 percentage points over this period. The good news, as discussed in a recent study by the Kansas City Fed, is that most of the increase in the retirement rate was driven by fewer people transitioning from retirement back into employment. The share of people transitioning from employment to retirement did not change much (Chart 15). This led the authors to conclude that “More retirees may rejoin the workforce as health risks fade, but the retirement share is unlikely to return to a normal level for some time.” Chart 15Increased Retirees: A Closer Look Bottom Line: Labor supply will recover as the pandemic recedes. Nevertheless, the available pool of workers will likely be lower in the post-pandemic period than it would have otherwise been. A shortage of workers will prop up wage growth, helping to fuel inflation. Channel #2: Deglobalization Globalization was on the back foot even before the pandemic began. Having steadily increased between 1991 and 2008, the ratio of global trade-to-output was basically flat during the 2010s (Chart 16). Ironically, the pandemic has revived global trade by shifting the composition of spending away from non-tradable services towards tradable goods. This shift in spending is the key reason why shipping costs have soared in recent months (Chart 17). Chart 16Globalization Plateaued Over A Decade Ago Chart 17Shipping Costs Have Soared In Recent Months The rebound in trade will not endure. Already, we are seeing companies moving production back home to establish greater control over their supply chains. The pandemic has exacerbated geopolitical tensions between China and the US. Recriminations about how the pandemic began and what China could have done to stop it will not go away anytime soon. Trade bloomed during Pax Britannica, when Great Britain ruled the waves, and then again during Pax Americana, when the US controlled the commanding heights. As BCA’s geopolitical team has long stressed, the shift to a multi-polar world is likely to restrain globalization.2 Historically, globalization has been a deflationary force. Trade has allowed countries such as the US that consistently run current account deficits to satiate excess demand for goods with imports, thereby forestalling inflation. Trade has also raised productivity by allowing countries to specialize in those areas in which they have a comparative advantage, while providing a mechanism to diffuse technological know-how around the world. Standard trade theory predicts that less-skilled workers in developed economies will suffer a relative decline in wages in response to rising trade with developing countries. A number of studies have documented that this is precisely what happened after China entered the global trading system.3 Poor workers tend to spend more of their paychecks than either rich workers or the owners of capital. To the extent that deglobalization shifts the balance of economic power back towards blue-collar workers in advanced economies, this will raise overall aggregate demand. Against the backdrop of muted productivity growth, inflation could increase as a consequence. Bottom Line: Globalization is deflationary, while deglobalization is inflationary. The pandemic is likely to reinforce the trend towards deglobalization. Channel #3: Fiscal Policy There was once a time when governments trembled in fear of the bond vigilantes. Those days are long gone. After briefly rising to 4% in June 2009, the US 10-year Treasury yield trended lower over the subsequent decade, even though unemployment fell and government debt rose. The pandemic sent the bond vigilantes scurrying for cover. Negative real yields allowed governments to run budget deficits of previously unimagined proportions during the pandemic. Budget deficits will decline over the next few years, but the aversion to deficit spending will not return. Not anytime soon at least. The IMF expects the cyclically-adjusted primary budget deficit in advanced economies to average 2.6% of GDP between 2022 and 2026, up from 1% of GDP in the 2014-19 period (Chart 18). Even that is probably too conservative, since the IMF’s projections do not include pending legislation such as President Biden’s $550 billion infrastructure package and $3.5 trillion reconciliation budget bill. Chart 18Fiscal Policy: Tighter But Not Tight If the growth rate of the economy exceeds the interest rate on government debt, then governments with high debt-to-GDP ratios could run larger budget deficits than governments with low ratios, while still achieving a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time.4 The problem is that these same governments would face an exponential increase in debt-servicing costs if interest rates were to rise above the growth rate of the economy. This is not a risk for any major developed economy at the moment but could become an issue as spare capacity recedes. At that point, central banks could face political pressure to keep rates low, even if their economies are overheating. The result could be higher inflation. Higher inflation, in turn, would boost nominal GDP growth, putting downward pressure on debt-to-GDP ratios. Bottom Line: While budget deficits will come down over the next few years, governments in developed economies will still maintain looser fiscal policies than before the pandemic. High debt levels could incentivize policymakers to permit higher inflation. Investment Conclusions US inflation will decline over the next 12 months, but not as quickly as markets are discounting. A number of structural forces were becoming inflationary even before the pandemic began. The pandemic will only reinforce the inflationary tide. Fixed-income investors should maintain a short duration stance. We expect the US 10-year Treasury yield to rebound to about 1.8% by early next year as the Delta variant wave fades. Long-term bond yields in the other major economies will also rise, although not as much as in the US. In and of itself, higher inflation is not necessarily bad for equities. What makes higher inflation toxic for stocks is when it forces central banks to raise rates to punitive levels. Fortunately, such an outcome is still a few years away, justifying an overweight equity position for now. The second quarter earnings season was a strong one. Back on July 2nd, analysts expected S&P 500 companies to generate about $45 in EPS in Q2. In the end, they generated at least $52. Analysts expect earnings to decline in absolute terms in Q3 and remain below Q2 levels until the second quarter of next year, when they are projected to grow by a meagre 3.5% year-over-year (Table 1). Table 1US Earnings Estimates Have Upside Earnings estimates usually drift lower over time (Chart 19). BCA’s US equity strategists think there is scope for earnings estimates for the second half of this year to rise materially from current levels. This should support US stocks. Along the same lines, above-trend global growth and attractive valuations should buoy stock markets outside the US. Chart 19Analysts Have Been Revising Up Earnings Estimates This Year Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Federal Reserve targets an average inflation rate of 2% for the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index. The TIPS breakeven is based on the CPI index. Due to compositional differences between the two indices, CPI inflation has historically averaged 30-to-50 basis points higher than PCE inflation. This is why the Fed effectively targets a CPI inflation rate of about 2.3%-to-2.5%. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report “Hypo-Globalization (A GeoRisk Update),” dated July 30, 2021; and Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here,” dated November 12, 2014. 3 For example, economists Katharine Abraham and Melissa Kearney have estimated that increased competition from Chinese imports cost the US economy 2.65 million jobs between 1999 and 2016, almost double the 1.4 million jobs lost to automation. Similarly, David Autor and his colleagues found that increased trade with China has led to large job losses for blue-collar workers in the US manufacturing sector. 4 The steady-state debt-to-GDP ratio can be expressed as p/(r-g), where r is the interest rate, g is trend GDP growth, and p is the primary (i.e., non-interest) budget balance. Thus, for example, if the government wanted to achieve a stable debt-to-GDP ratio of 50% and r-g is -2%, it would need to run a primary budget deficit of 0.5*0.02=1% of GDP. However, if the government targeted a stable debt-to-GDP ratio of 200%, it could run a primary budget deficit of 2*0.02=4% of GDP. See Box 1 in our February 22, 2019 report for a derivation of this debt sustainability equation. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores