Macro and Credit - Lethe

"Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it." - Mark Twain

Looking at the continuation of the rally seen in January, with markets being more oblivious to macro data given the return of the central banking support narrative, when it came to selecting our title analogy we decided to go for Greek mythology and the reference to the underground river of the underworld named "Lethe". The river of "Lethe" was one of the five rivers of the underworld of Hades. Also known as the Ameles potamos (river of unmindfulness), the Lethe flowed around the cave of Hypnos and through the Underworld, where all those who drank from it experienced complete forgetfulness. 

In similar fashion, every investors drinking again from the "river of liquidity" provided by central banks including the large infusion from China's PBOC are experiencing complete forgetfulness given the significant rise in anything high beta such as small caps in the US up 18%, Emerging Markets up 10% (EEM) and US high yield up by 6% (HYG) to name a few. In Classical Greek, the word lethe (λήθη) literally means "oblivion", "forgetfulness", or "concealment". It is related to the Greek word for "truth", aletheia (ἀλήθεια), which through the privative alpha literally means "un-forgetfulness" or "un-concealment". While the privative "alpha" might means "un-forgetfulness", the on-going rally is purely of one of "high beta" given the return of the "carry" trade thanks to low rate volatility and global central banking dovishness. 

In Greek mythology, the shades of the dead were required to drink the waters of the Lethe in order to forget their earthly life. In the Aeneid, Virgil (VI.703-751) writes that it is only when the dead have had their memories erased by the Lethe that they may be reincarnated. One might wonder given the global surge of zombie companies from China to Japan, including the United States and Europe, if indeed the central banking Lethe river will enable them to become reincarnated but we ramble again...

In this week's conversation, we would like to look at the state of the credit cycle through the lens of the much discussed auto loan sector in the US.

Synopsis:

• Macro and Credit - The road to oblivion?
• Final chart - It's not only central banks, buybacks got your back...

• Macro and Credit - The road to oblivion?

Given the definition of "oblivion" is a state in which you do not notice what is happening around you (very weak global macro data), usually because you are sleeping or very drunk (thanks to central banks being reluctant in removing the credit punch bowl), we wonder how long the return of "goldilocks" will last following the baby bear market we saw during the fourth quarter of 2018. 

Sure it’s  a great start  in 2019, yet, the slowdown we are seeing is real with US December retail sales down -1.2% against a consensus of +0.1%, or the fall in US manufacturing output with motor vehicles posting their biggest fall since 2009. As we pointed out in previous conversations, global growth has been slowing and Korea, being a good "proxy" for global trade, has seen recently unemployment surging to 4.4%.

No wonder given the on-going US versus China trade spat, and with global growth decelerating that China has decided to doubling down on leverage with its financial institutions making a record 3.3 trillion yuan of new loans, the most in any month back to at least 1992 when the data began. The slowdown in Chinese car sales as well has been significant. Passenger vehicle wholesales fell 17.7 percent year-on-year, the biggest drop since the market began to contract in the middle of last year, while retail sales had their eighth consecutive monthly decline, industry groups  reported this week.

No surprise the "D" for "Deflation" trade is back on. We are back to $11tln of bonds globally with a negative yield according to the WSJ. The rise has been significant according to David Rosenberg and is up 16% since October. So yes TINA (There Is No Alternative) is back on the menu and gold is as well rising in sympathy with everything else thanks to the "Lethe" river flowing again.

If retail sales are indeed weakening and delinquencies on US auto loans are rising and with existing home sales coming in well below expectations at a 4.94 million annual rate, then the Fed's latest FOMC dovish comments appears for some pundits warranted. The sustained rebound in oil prices has been supportive of US high yield in particular and high beta in general.

While investors took another bath into the central banking river of "Lethe", when it comes to credit in general and the US consumer in particular, we do see cracks forming up into the narrative as the credit cycle is gently but slowly turning as we argued last week looking at the next Fed's quarterly Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey (SLOOs) will be paramount. If some parts of Europe are stalling and in some instances falling into recession, when it comes to the US, we have a case of deceleration. After all "recessions" are "deflationary" in nature, and most central banks have been powerless in anchoring solidly inflation expectations. 

When it comes to the state of credit for US consumers given its important weight in US GDP, we read with interest the US PIRG report published on the 13th of February relating to auto loans and entitled "The Hidden Costs of Risky Auto Loans to Consumers and Our Communities":

"The loosening of auto credit after the Great Recession has contributed to rising indebtedness for cars, increased car ownership and reductions in transit use.

• Auto lending rebounded from the Great Recession in part because of low interest rates (fueled by the Federal Reserve Board’s policy of quantitative easing) and a perception by lenders that auto loans had held up better than mortgages during the financial crisis. As one hedge fund manager noted in a 2017 interview with The Financial Times, during the recession, “consumers tended to default on their house first, credit card second and car third.”
• A 2014 report by the Federal Reserve found that a consumer’s perception of interest rate trends had as strong an effect on the decision of when to buy a car as more expected factors like unemployment and income.
• Low-income borrowers are particularly sensitive to changes in loan maturity according to a 2007 study, suggesting that the longer loan terms of recent years may have been an important spur for the rapid rise in auto loans to low-income households.
• A 2018 study by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, tied the fall in transit ridership in Southern California to increased vehicle availability, possibly supported by cheap auto financing.

The rise in automobile debt since the Great Recession leaves millions of Americans financially vulnerable — especially in the event of an economic downturn.

• Americans are carrying car loans for longer periods of time. Of all auto loans issued in the first two quarters of 2017, 42 percent carried a term of six years or longer, compared to just 26 percent in 2009. Longer repayment terms increase the total cost of buying an automobile and extend the amount of time consumers spend “underwater” — owing more on their vehicles than they are worth.
• Many car buyers “roll over” the unpaid portion of a car loan into a loan on a new vehicle, increasing their financial vulnerability in the event of job loss or other crisis of household finances. At the end of 2017, almost a third of all traded-in vehicles carried negative equity, with these vehicles being underwater by an average of $5,100.
• The increase in higher-cost “subprime” loans has extended auto ownership to many households with low credit scores but has also left many of them deeply vulnerable to high interest rates and predatory practices. In 2016, lending to borrowers with subprime and deep subprime credit scores made up as much as 26 percent of all auto loans originated.
• Auto lenders — and especially subprime lenders — have engaged in a variety of predatory, abusive and discriminatory practices that enhance consumers’ vulnerability, including:

• Providing incomplete or confusing information about the terms of the loan, including interest rates.

• Making loans to people without the ability to repay.

• Discriminatory markups of loans that result in African-American and Hispanic borrowers paying more for auto loans.

• Pushing expensive “add-ons” such as insurance products, extended warranties and overpriced vehicle options, the cost of which is added to a consumer’s loan.

• Engaging in abusive collection and repossession tactics once a consumer’s loan has become past due.

- source US PIRG, February 2019

In similar fashion to the predatory practices leading to the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) and tied up to subprime loans we can find many similarities in auto lending. One could argue that the depreciation value of the collateral is even more rapid than for housing and probably less "senior" when it comes the recovery value potential. 

As we pointed out in October 2017 in our conversation "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?", credit cycles die because too much debt has been raised:

"When it comes to credit and in particular the credit cycle, the growth of private credit matters a lot. If indeed there are signs that the US consumer is getting "maxed out", then there is a chance the credit cycle will turn in earnest, because of too much debt being raised as well for the US consumer. But for now financial conditions are pretty loose. For the credit music to stop, a return of the Big Bad Wolf aka inflation would end the rally still going strong towards eleven in true Spinal Tap fashion." - Macronomics, October 2017 

This is why on this very blog we follow very closely financial conditions and the Fed's quarterly SLOOs as well a fund flows. 

Returning to US PIRG report we also think it is very important to look at what has been happening in the auto loans sector:

• "7% of auto loans are 3+ months delinquent . Auto loan delinquencies climbed to $9 billion in 2018. 
• Transportation is the second-leading expenditure for American households, behind only housing. Approximately one hour of the average American’s working day is spent earning the money needed to pay for the transportation that enables them to get to work in the first place.
• Americans owed $1.26 trillion on auto loans in the third quarter of 2018, an increase of 75 percent since the end of 2009.
• The amount of auto loans outstanding is equivalent to 5.5 percent of GDP — a higher level than at any time in history other than the period between the 2001 and 2007 recessions." - source US PIRG, February 2019

Given that the auto industry is notoriously cyclical,  and that the production of motor vehicles and parts dropped 8.8 percent in January, the steepest decline since May 2009 you might want to start paying attention, particularly when consumer spending is down 1.2% which is the biggest drop since 2009.

On the subject of the severity of rising delinquencies in the US auto loan sector, we read with interest Wells Fargo's Economics Group Weekly Economic and Financial Commentary from the 22nd of February:

"Canary in the Camry?

Seven million Americans are seriously delinquent on their auto loans, according to the New York Fed. The current number of borrowers 90 days behind on their auto loan payments vastly exceeds the maximum reached in the height of the last recession. With wage growth picking up and job growth still incredibly strong, is this a harbinger of widespread financial distress or something more benign?

Due to the centrality of cars to the economic and personal stability of so many, consumers typically prioritize auto loan payments over other liabilities—even mortgage or credit card debt. Thus, a growing number of consumers transitioning into delinquency on their auto loans can be an indicator of significant financial distress. Yet, this alarming number of delinquent borrowers is to a large extent simply a consequence of an increase in the magnitude of the auto loan market. Lenders originated a record $584 billion of auto loans in 2018, increasingly to prime borrowers, who still comprise a much larger share of outstanding debt than subprime borrowers. The portion of vehicle purchases financed by debt has remained stable, and the flow into serious delinquency in Q4 only reached 2.4%. Still, this marks a noticeable deterioration in performance—this is up from the 2012 cycle low of 1.5%, and is concentrated among the young and the subprime. While the headline of seven million may not indicate a systematic threat, it can offer clues into where financial hardship is the most acute." - source Wells Fargo

Could that be the reason for restaurant sales declining in four of the past five months and at a pace we haven't seen in the last 25 years? We wonder.

If credit quality in the US has been deteriorating particularly in Investment Grade credit with a large part of the market close to the high yield frontier in the BBB segment, in similar fashion when it comes with auto loans and as posited on numerous occasions on this very blog we do expect recovery rates to be much lower in the next downturn. On the subject of the trend for recovery rates for auto loans, we read with interest Bank of America Merrill Lynch ABS Weekly note from the 23rd of February entitled "Spreads stall heading into SFIG":

"Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc (CPSS or CPS) - sponsor of $2.3bn in subprime auto loan ABS; lender with an auto loan portfolio of $2.4bn

Management continues to believe competition is aggressive. CPSS implemented a new credit underwriting scorecard mid last year, which lead to better quality originations.

The company’s originations grew in 2018 relative to 2019, which led to 2% growth in the company’s managed portfolio. Management indicated that incremental originations in 4Q18 were driven by turndowns from banks and other lenders.

The thirty day delinquency rate for the company’s managed portfolio was 12.35% at the end of 4Q18, up 254bp YoY. The net charge off rate for the quarter was 7.19%, down 5bp YoY. Management attributed higher delinquencies to lower portfolio growth and denominator effect. Net losses for the full year were 7.74% compared to 7.68% in all of 2017. Recoveries declined 170bp YoY to 33%. Management said unemployment is the primary driver of performance, and the employment picture is strong today.

The company’s total blended cost for on-balance sheet ABS debt 4.25% in 4Q18 compared to 3.82% for the 4Q17. Management noted that EU risk retention impacted the company’s January ABS transaction." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

To repeat ourselves, credit cycles die because too much debt has been raised. Given the Fed has shown its weak hand as it is clearly "S&P500 dependent", the latest dovish tilt from the Fed will encourage more aggressive issuance as the competition is ratcheting up in the weakest segment of consumer lending. So all in all the "Lethe" liquidity river is flowing strong with many pundits oblivious to cracks forming into the credit narrative. We think that in the ongoing high beta rally, it is more and more important to play the capital preservation game, meaning one should start reducing in earnest the "illiquid stuff" such as the now "famous infamous" leveraged loans regardless of their recent "strong" performance.

For now, investors have dipped again into "Lethe" hence the return of the "goldilocks" narrative following a short bear market during the final quarter of 2018. Bad news have been good news again thanks to the dovish tone embraced by central banks globally but, we remain very cautious when it comes to equities given the velocity in revised earnings. In that context, playing defense by favoring credit markets, including Investment Grade appear to us more favorable as the rally in equities has been very significant and potentially overstretched as many pundits are placing their hope on a trade deal being made between China and the United States. Sure "goldilocks is back but we are cautious given the late stage of the credit cycle. On that point we agree with Morgan Stanley from their CIO Brief from the 21st of February:

"The Trouble with ‘Goldilocks’The Goldilocks narrative has reappeared: inflationary pressures have receded, giving central banks cause to pause on policy tightening; global growth is slowing, but not enough to be truly concerning; and investors are increasingly optimistic about US-China trade. However, we think that investors should be skeptical of the Goldilocks narrative, as fundamental data is weak and earnings are challenged.

We are not looking to add exposure, and have reduced some emerging market beta into strength. We remain short the broad USD and overweight international over US equities." - source Morgan Stanley.

A dovish Fed in that context make selected Emerging Markets still enticing, yet from an allocation perspective, dispersion for both equities and credit markets have been rising. So, you need to be much more discerning in 2019 when it comes to your stock/credit picking skills.

Though we are getting concerned for the damage inflicted to earnings in recent months on the back of the trade war narrative and deceleration in global growth, there is no doubt that central banks are back into play and it should not be ignored. Bank of America Merrill Lynch made some interesting comments in their "The Inquirer" note from the 18th of February entitled "Is Global Monetary Reflation here?":

"In the last week, it seems like global central banks have started a possible process of monetary easing, in line with our views (The Inquirer: Planet Earth to Policymakers: Please Reflate 31 December 2018). If so, this would be very positive for Asia/EM stocks.
In the US, Fed governor Lael Brainard raised the possibility of ending balance sheet contraction by year-end 2019, ahead of schedule; in Europe, the possibility of a TLTRO came from Commissioner Benoit Coeure, and China printed a massive January Total Social Financing number, RMB4,640bn from RMB1,590bn in Dec 2018, above market expectations of RMB3,300bn and the BofAML forecast of RMB3,500bn. Global monetary reflation is possibly on the way. As of now, we remain bullish. We expect the world's central banks to reflate monetary policy, a view we have held since late last year.
Paraphrasing Mike Tyson, everyone's got an investment strategy, until they get punched in the face by a shrinking Central Bank Balance Sheet. Monetary and liquidity analysis (different from "fund flows") was popular in financial markets three decades ago. We remember having a standalone research product in the mid-1990s called "Liquidity Analysis" replete with central bank balance sheets, commercial bank entrails, and the net supply and demand for equity. These days, eyes glaze over when we bring up base money growth, money multipliers, and monetary velocity. However, as the last decade has taught us, we should pay attention to this stuff. Our global strategist, Michael Hartnett, has maintained a consistent focus on liquidity and central bank balance sheets
as part of his toolkit.
1) We think the biggest risk to equities in Asia and EMs is the potential mismanagement and premature contraction of central bank balance sheets. Conversely, it is also the most lucrative opportunity. The correlation of EM equities with the major central banks balance sheets is 0.94 in the past three years. World equities have a similar correlation of 0.94 since 2009. Central bank balance sheets are the most important driver of stock prices, in our view, by lowering risk premia, and cutting off deflation risk. The rest is detail, in our view.

2) We think the Fed is the most flexible in course correcting - they have the alacrity of market strategists and change their minds if the facts change. Just last week, Fed Governor Lael Brainard suggested that the Fed balance sheet contraction should end by 2019, rather than 2020-21. A host of Fed governors changed their minds about rate hikes from December last year to early January. While being bearish the USD was consensus at our CIO conference on Jan 18, 2019, we think US Fed flexibility is an under-appreciated asset for the USD, which refuses to fall.

3) However, we worry that in Europe, Japan, and most importantly, China - a total of USD40tn in GDP, or half the world's total - a misreading of the secular decline in monetary velocity, and the general drop of money multipliers, will lead to lower nominal earnings growth, a return to deflationary dynamics, and asset market dislocations. EM/Asian equities tend not to like this scenario.

The world monetary base is shrinking, only the sixth time since 1980 - each prior episode resulted in massive losses in Asian/EM equities (1982: -31%, 1990: -14%, 1998: -28%, 2000: -32%, 2008: -54% for EMs). In all five cases, Asia was in recession.

Why should this time be different? The US Fed's projected balance sheet contraction of about USD40bn a month will likely reduce the US monetary base 13.8% this year (after contracting 10.7% last year), and the global real monetary base by 1.6%. After spending seven years telling us that the Fed B/S expansion was equivalent to rate cuts, we are now told that the opposite - B/S contraction is like "watching paint dry". Ostensibly, this comes from heroic assumptions of a rise in the US money multiplier, even a potential doubling in three years. The Lael Brainard "end-QT earlier" is helpfully walking back some of this prior aggressive QT fervor. And that’s a good thing -that’s the main impetus to growth in old, indebted and unequal societies.
4) Apart from China, which has control over its money multiplier through the high reserve requirement ratio, most large economies have seen falling money multipliers for the last two decades. Stopping QE - or slowing the QE-induced growth of the monetary base - will likely lead to a sharp drop in M2 growth (M2 is simply the monetary base multiplied by the money multiplier). Couple that with the secular drop in monetary velocity from the declining incremental productivity of debt, and slower nominal global GDP (and EPS) growth is highly likely. Rising indebtedness globally, demands a stronger money supply growth rate to maintain a desired level of economic (and earnings
growth). This is an identity, not a theory. This is increasingly true for China, with its 253% debt to GDP ratio. A lack of Chinese monetary stimulation is likely to impose more severe costs on growth there. The world's central bankers seemed oblivious to this until last week, and even now it is not clear where they stand. Welcome back to the secular stagnation debate. And the potential threat of a "too tight policy mistake".

Chair Ben Bernanke during his testimony about the Federal Reserve Board’s semiannual report on monetary policy said that he equated $150-200 billion of QE as being equivalent to a 25bps reduction in short term rates. So 600billion in QE2 was equivalent to a 75bps reduction.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?298238-1/monetary-policy-report (at 32 minute)

Fed Balance sheet contraction is NOT watching paint dry. Math question: If USD100bn of expansion was equivalent to a 14bp fall in the fed funds rate, a USD400bn contraction is equivalent to? (answer: a 56bp rise)" - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

It seems to us that Jerome Powell has finally done the math hence the "u-turn" as seen in the increasing use of "patience" in the most recent FOMC notes. This explains why investors have returned to becoming oblivious to the deteriorating macro picture given once again they have taken a dip into the "Lethe" river thanks to the rescue of central banks.

Another strong support as well to the "high beta" rally narrative and "risk-on" environment as per our final chart has been the return of stocks buybacks which have received some strong critics as of late from the US political "left" side.

• Final chart - It's not only central banks, buybacks got your back...

Since 2012, multiple expansion through share buybacks have provided a strong support to US equities. Not only Jerome Powell has made au-turn but he has also told markets that balance sheet contraction aka QT is ending sooner rather than later, in 2019 that is. Our final chart comes from Bank of America Merrill Lynch Equity Flow Trends note from the 19th of February entitled "Buybacks on pace for another record year" and shows that in similar fashion to 2018, the return of buybacks on top of the central banking "Lethe" river provides additional support to the "oblivious" crowd of investors jumping with both feet on the high-beta wagon:

"Buybacks remain strong in Tech and Financials, but have broadened out across other sectors YTD: notably, Staples and Materials buybacks are on track to handily exceed 2018 levels (Chart 1).

The current pace of buybacks would suggest a record year in these two sectors plus Financials and Utilities; Industrials and Discretionary buybacks, while below post -2009 records, are also set to eclipse last year’s levels." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

If "R" is for Recession and "L" is for Leveraged then "G" is for Gold. With the recent return of the river of unmindfulness, no wonder, the strong "bull" market has been "reincarnated" and the zombie companies can continue to "live" another day but we are ranting again...

"To err is human; to forgive, divine." - Alexander Pope, English poet

Stay tuned !

Macro and Credit - Iconic Memory

"There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception." - Aldous Huxley

Looking at the significant acceleration in the melt-up in the equities space in early 2018 on the back of decent macro data and earnings, with credit spreads going towards the 11 level on the credit amplifier in true Spinal Tap fashion, when it comes to selecting our first title analogy for the new year we decided to go for "Iconic memory". The development of iconic memory begins at birth and continues as development of the primary and secondary visual system occurs.  A small decrease in visual persistence occurs with age. Iconic memory is the visual sensory memory (SM) register pertaining to the visual domain and a fast-decaying store of visual information. It is a component of visual memory and is described as a very brief:

1. The duration of visible persistence is inversely related to stimulus duration. This means that the longer the physical stimulus is presented for, (QE 1, 2 and 3) the faster the visual image decays in memory.
2. The duration of visible persistence is inversely related to stimulus luminance. When the luminance, or brightness of a stimulus is increased, the duration of visible persistence decreases. Due to the involvement of the neural system, visible persistence is highly dependent on the physiology of the photoreceptors and activation of different cell types in the visual cortex. This visible representation is subject to masking effects whereby the presentation of interfering stimulus during, or immediately after stimulus offset interferes with one's ability to remember the stimulus

Information persistence represents the information about a stimulus that persists after its physical offset (Tapering). It is visual in nature, but not visible. The brief representation in iconic memory is thought to play a key role in the ability to detect change in a visual scene such as the continuation of the Fed's reduction of its balance sheet and its impact which has yet to be fully assimilated by many investors due to their "Iconic memory" we think. In similar fashion the "Iconic memory" of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) has led many retail investors including the US middle-class to continue to be scared out of the stock market and leading the top 10% of American households to now own 84% of all stocks. 

In this week's conversation, we would like to look at what allocations could benefit 2018 in the on-going "goldilocks" environment thanks to a very muted volatility overall but, the most important question, we think will be once again the direction of the US dollar. In terms of "allocation" we gave a small Christmas present in our last musing on the 17th of December when we hinted that we liked gold miners again because they had "cheapened" a lot. We continue to like the sector for 2018. 

Synopsis:

• Macro and Credit - The US Dollar New Year's hangover
• Final charts - Credit Conditions in early 2018? Take it "easy"

• Macro and Credit - The US Dollar New Year's hangover

While in early January last year we indicated our contrarian view to the long USD investing crowd and we also indicated that in the context of a weaker US Dollar one should rather be overweight Emerging Markets (EM) equities versus US equities. The US dollar index fell by around 10% in 2017 which does indeed validates our early contrarian stance of 2017 as per our conversation "The Woozle effect":

"It appears that from a "Mack the Knife" perspective, it will be rather binary, either we are right and the consensus is wrong thanks to the Woozle effect, or we are wrong and then there is much more acute pain coming for Emerging Markets, should the US dollar continue its stratospheric run. From a contrarian perspective we are willing to play on the outlier." - source Macronomics, January 2017

And as indicated from the table below from the blog "The Capitalist Spectator", playing the outlier namely being overweight EM versus Equities has rewarded the "contrarian crowd" handsomely in 2017:

- source The Capitalist Spectator

Could 2018 play out differently than 2017 when it comes to the US Dollar? We do not think so, yet no doubt we could see in the early stage of 2018 a technical bounce of the US dollar. But, for us, from our "Iconic memory" perspective, we still see a weakening of the US dollar from a medium term perspective. On that note we agree with Barclays take from their note from their Thought for the Week Ahead note from the 7th of January entitled "The perils of following the consensus":

"USD: Holiday hangover

The USD has lost ground versus practically all major G10 and EM currencies (except for the JPY and MXN) since mid-December. Price action suggests that FX markets had largely anticipated the announced tax bill. Our economists have taken a closer look at the final details and recently updated their forecasts (see US Economics Research: 2018-19 US Outlook: Tax cut-induced bounce in activity, 4 January 2018). The tax plan is likely to boost near-term growth prospects by about 0.5pp and push out any slowing in the economy into 2019. Above-trend growth and a tightening labor market imply an increase in inflation toward the Fed’s target, and we now look for four Fed hikes in 2018 and three in 2019, taking the target fed funds rate to 3.00-3.25%.

That said, we do not see a lasting effect of the tax plan in pushing potential growth and, hence, long-term rates higher. The expected temporary boost to growth would be driven, largely, by a one-time improvement in disposable income. With many of the changes to personal taxation expected to be phased out of the bill, we do not expect it to have a permanent effect. In addition, it is likely to have heterogeneous effects for consumers based on household situations and the type of income earned. On the investment side, business spending has tended to have low elasticity with respect to changes in the required rate of return on capital, and as such, we are skeptical that it can deliver a substantial increase, particularly given the maturity of the business cycle. Finally, the discussion of restrictive immigration and trade policies that are also on the administration’s agenda may work against delivering lasting productivity improvements.

We remain USD bears over the medium term on account of an overvalued exchange rate (13% versus BEER), compression in risk premium in the US as symbolized by a bear-flattening yield curve, and a global backdrop that remains positive both in terms of cyclical prospects (the US cycle looking more mature) and from a valuation perspective. We believe the market’s focus will shift from tax policy to other policy priorities in Washington. These include approving the budget, immigration (DACA, the border wall, etc.), healthcare (renewal of CHIP, paying for Obamacare subsidies, etc.), and trade policy (NAFTA, alongside Korea and China). The 19 January government shutdown deadline and the seventh round of NAFTA negotiations on 23-28 January should be on investors’ radar." - source Barclays

As per our final conversation for 2017, either you think we are in a bull flattening case or in a bear flattening case:

"In a Bear Flattener case thanks to the Fed's Rician fading, it is still TINA playing out for the Japanese investor crowd" - source Macronomics December 2017.

We argued in our previous conversation that Japanese investors (and global credit and overall allocation wise these guys matter a lot) tends to be dip buyers ensuring in effect a bear flattening of the US yield curve. In 2018 we will watch again very closely what "Bondzilla" the NIRP monster "Made in Japan" will do in terms of "allocation". It is a major support to US credit markets as well. We think monitoring what the Bank of Japan (BOJ) does in 2018 will be paramount. On that note we agree with Deutsche Bank's take from their Japan Fixed Income Weekly note from the 5th of January entitled "BOJ normalization could pose a tail risk to domestic and overseas rates":

"Global investors focusing on the BOJ?

We expect the BOJ to be a major focus of attention among global investors in 2018. We say this because any change in the BOJ's monetary policy stance could have significant ramifications for how Japanese investors approach foreign bonds.

For example, the January 2016 launch of BOJ NIRP and September 2016 institution of YCC each had an important impact on international bond investment flows. Japanese banks were net sellers of foreign bonds to the tune of around JPY1 trillion and life insurers were big net buyers (+JPY4.8 trillion) over the 34- month period between the April 2013 launch of QQE and the January 2016 launch of NIRP, but the subsequent eight-month period up until the September 2016 launch of YCC saw net purchases of JPY5.2 trillion by banks and JPY9.3 trillion by lifers. The obvious conclusion is that the introduction of BOJ NIRP played a major role in the decline in the 10y UST yield from above 1.9% to below 1.4% that was observed between January and July 2016.

Conversely, the eight-month period following the launch of BOJ YCC (October 2016~) saw banks sell off foreign bonds to the tune of JPY9 trillion while lifers cut back their net purchases to just JPY1.3 trillion. We attribute this to bear-steepening of the JGB curve under YCC leaving domestic players with less of  an incentive to invest in foreign bonds, with life insurers in particular probably becoming more willing to wait for overseas interest rates to move higher once they perceived that the risk of the JGB curve bull-flattening had diminished.

Banks began FY2017 by selling off foreign bonds to the tune of JPY5.6 trillion in April (the biggest monthly selloff on record), rebuilt their holdings somewhat through July, and then shifted back into selling mode, meaning that they have now sold more than they have bought since April 2013. Lifers have also remained slow to add to their positions. We attribute this to a flattening of the UST curve —with the 10y yield having ranged between 2.00% and 2.60% even as the Fed has proceeded with multiple rate hikes—reducing the relative appeal of USTs. The flipside is that we see ample potential for Japanese investors to shift into dip-buying mode in the event of overseas yield curves starting to face bear-steepening pressure.

The key question among overseas investors is whether BOJ easing will continue to serve as an anchor for global interest rates. Under the current easing framework, demand from yield-starved Japanese investors should help to prevent overseas long-term interest rates from rising more than modestly. Conversely, if domestic long-term interest rates rise as a consequence of the BOJ commencing "normalization" efforts, then overseas interest rates could rise sharply due to Japanese players seeing less of an incentive to invest abroad. The trajectory of overseas interest rates in 2018 and beyond could therefore depend in significant part on what the BOJ decides and does.

It would not be at all surprising for short- to medium-term JGB yields to move significantly higher if BOJ normalization starts to be seen as a realistic possibility given that (1) foreigners have been by far the most active traders in negative yield short- to medium-term JGBs and (2) BOJ normalization is liable to reduce the FX "hedge premium" available to foreigners (and hence the attractiveness of short- to medium-term JGBs) by causing (negative) USD/JPY basis swap spreads to tighten.

Foreigners' cumulative net purchases have totaled JPY23 trillion for Japanese long-term debt securities and JPY14 trillion for short-term debt securities since the April 2013 launch of QQE, with medium-term JGBs likely to have accounted for much of the former if purchases were indeed funded mostly via the basis swap  market. Up until 2016 net purchases tended to increase when basis swap spreads widened, with this positive correlation reflecting the ability of foreign investors to earn positive spreads over USD LIBOR. However, we would expect foreigners to start reducing their Japanese bond holdings if and when the BOJ commences normalization, in which case short- to medium-term JGB yields might face some quite strong upward pressure until the YCC framework (which will presumably remain in place at least initially) begins to exert its influence once again.

Much will ultimately depend on inflation, but we are wary of bear-steepening risk under the YCC framework

Our US economics team expects US inflation to quicken in 2018, supporting a total of four further Fed rate hikes and a rise in the 10y UST yield to around 3%. The JGB yield curve is liable to face at least some bear-steepening pressure under such a scenario. However, we do not expect Japanese inflation to establish a firm foothold at or above +1% and thus see little prospect of the BOJ actually commencing normalization this year. As such, we will be looking for Japanese investors to step up their purchases of foreign bonds if interest rates move higher, thereby acting as a counterbalance. Irrespective of how many times the Fed hikes, upside for JPY rates is likely to be limited so long as Japanese inflation remains sluggish, leaving foreign bonds as the best means of generating carry. We expect the JGB curve to face a certain amount of bear-steepening pressure in 1H 2018 if overseas interest rates do indeed rise, but bull-flattening pressure may then start to dominate if the Japanese economy loses momentum, domestic CPI inflation peaks out, and the BOJ persists with its YCC framework.

The most obvious risk scenario is that of the BOJ shifting into normalization mode, in which case interest rates could rise quite sharply both at home and abroad. Attention in the first quarter of 2018 is thus likely to be focusing largely on (1) whether domestic and overseas inflation accelerates and (2) whether the Fed hikes once again in March." - source Deutsche Bank

As we pointed out it is still TINA (There Is No Alternative) for the Japanese investing crowd therefore we believe the bear-flattening of the US yield curve will continue its "Iconic memory" movement in 2018.

But moving back to the US dollar and the New Year's hangover, we read with interest Nomura's take in their FX Insights note from the 4th of January entitled "Two factors hurting the dollar":

"As is often the case, markets move when it is least convenient. The dollar has tumbled since mid-December until now – a period when investors were more likely to be embroiled in family dramas and over-eating than to be trading FX markets. Dollar weakness has come despite the passing of US tax cuts, an associated upgrade to US growth expectations and a hawkish Fed. There are many medium-term factors that we think are weighing on the dollar, but in terms of short-term factors, two stand out:

1. The dollar typically falls after a hike. Markets are all about expectations and it was likely the expectation of the December Fed hike that was helping the dollar. The actual hike, then, would naturally reset those expectations and would lead to a “buy the rumour, sell the fact” dynamic in the dollar. Indeed, the dollar has followed a pattern of trading relatively well into Fed hikes, but selling off after (Figure 1).

This time appears to be no different.

2. Rising US inflation expectations could be hurting the dollar. Wednesday’s ISM report showed the prices paid component bouncing back from an earlier dip. Oil prices are marching higher. Importantly, US inflation expectations as priced by US rates markets have consistently risen since early December. The 10yr breakeven from the TIPS market breached 2% in recent days – the first time since early 2017, and the 5y5y inflation swap inflation breakeven has gone above 2.35%. The dollar does not always move with inflation expectations (notably during the” Trumpflation” phase), but typically it does (Figure 2).

Some of this co-movement could be the dollar influencing inflation expectations, but some could be inflation affecting the dollar (through PPP, real yields or “credibility”). Either way, inflation could be returning as a market factor.

Of course, the start of the year is a period when market liquidity is poor. Therefore, we need to be cautious in extrapolating too much from price action, but these two factors do warrant some attention." - source Nomura

It isn't a surprised to see inflation returning as a market factor. A surge in inflation expectations would indeed mark a return of volatility and would be negative for bond yields. If inflation expectations are rising, then again it would continue to be headwind we think on the US dollar. Morgan Stanley in an interesting FX Pulse note from the 4th of January 2018 entitled "New USD Lows in Store" make as well the case for a lower US dollar:

"The case for USD weakness. The USD has come back under selling pressure and the DXY is set to break its early September low. This renewed weakness has occurred despite continued positive US economic surprises (Exhibit 2).

However, we note that the strength of US performance should be taken in the context of the global economy. Global synchronized growth, which should eat into global capacity reserves, will in turn clear the way for a pick-up in investment. Investment requires funding, which augurs poorly for funding currencies.

USD is the world's dominant reserve and funding currency. In order for a currency to be considered a funding currency, it should meet two important criteria: expected funding costs should stay below anticipated returns on investment; and the availability of capital must be ample.

In other words, there needs to be a substantial supply of the currency to be lent out and institutions or individuals willing to lend it. By definition, a dominant reserve currency meets this criterion.

As the world's primary reserve currency, then, it is no surprise that the USD makes up the majority of cross-border foreign-currency lending (Exhibit 5).

Other currencies may temporarily fall into the funding currency category, such as JPY, EUR, and CHF, which have seen periods of significant outflows.

Funding qualifications. The use of QE by global central banks has altered the funding environment, with central banks absorbing outstanding sovereign bonds in exchange for base money. In the case of QE programs from the ECB and Riksbank, EUR- and SEK denominated sovereign bonds held by foreigners declined as a proportion of total bonds outstanding (Exhibit 6).

In comparison, the proportion of foreign holdings of US Treasuries held relatively stable despite the Fed conducting its QE operations.

However, the relative stability of foreign Treasury holdings masks an important underlying shift. While foreign private accounts reduced their Treasury holdings, the ownership by foreign central banks increased. Two factors explain this. First, the Fed's QE operations took place in a period when global currency reserves were rising (2009- 2013), so demand for Treasuries from reserve managers rose in tandem. Second, debt issuance by the US government during this period also increased, so as demand for Treasuries grew with the Fed entering the market, supply also expanded simultaneously.

US assets for sale. Importantly, US agency debt and higher-yielding corporate bonds did experience a significant uptick in foreign holdings. Unlike in Europe and Japan, where private fixed income assets are in relatively limited supply, the US bond market offers a high yielding alternative to sovereigns. This in part explains the increase in the US' net foreign liability position (Exhibit 7).

Private foreign investors selling their Treasury holdings to the Fed reinvested those funds into higher-yielding USD-denominated bonds.

Our key point here is that foreign holdings of USD-denominated debt have increased, while foreign holdings of European debt instruments have declined. A similar dynamic has taken place for equities, where foreign ownership of US equities has more than doubled, which contrasts with trends in the foreign ownership of European equities. An important implication is that, should US assets lose their relative attractiveness (e.g., widening credit spreads, declining equities), then there could be a substantial amount of foreign-held USD-denominated assets for sale. In comparison, the relatively smaller share of foreign-owned assets in Europe renders it more immune to a pullback in foreign sentiment. This is why an environment of rising global bond yields may see the USD lose further ground.

The increase in the US's net foreign liability position comes at a time of relative stability in the US current account, with the deficit fluctuating around 2.5% of GDP since 2009 (Exhibit 8).

However, inward US net foreign direct investment (as provided by the World Bank) has turned negative for the first time since 2006. The composition of US inflows has become narrower, which renders the USD more vulnerable to selling once US equity and credit markets turn lower.

The case for JPY strength. One could argue that foreign ownership within the JGB market has increased, too. The BoJ's QE operations resulted in a significant absorption of JGBs held by the Japanese banking system, which reached the lowest level since 2007 and is now lower than that held by foreign investors (Exhibit 9). 

Importantly, many of these foreign JGBs have been currency hedged - with the FX hedge offering additional income, as opposed to a cost. Indeed, with the widening of the USDJPY basis, the returns offered for asset swaps into Japanese fixed income have increased. These foreign purchases have helped keep JGB yields low, particularly as the majority of the currency-hedged return comes not from the yield on the JGB itself, but from the currency hedge, which renders these foreign investors fairly price-insensitive.
The cross-currency basis represents the cost difference between domestic and offshore FX. A wider basis, all else equal, suggests tight offshore liquidity conditions, while a narrower basis indicates that offshore liquidity is relatively more ample. At this point, the 1 year USDJPY cross-currency basis is trading at its tightest since the summer of 2017, reducing the relative attractiveness of foreign accounts holding FX-hedged JGB exposures (Exhibit 10).

The reduction in this exposure may have no initial FX impact given the FX-hedged nature of the investments. The second order effects, though, are important, as reduced exposures could lead to a potential steepening of the JGB curve. A steeper JGB curve raises the incentive for Japan-based investors to keep funds at home, instead of investing in higher yielding foreign securities. For more detail on our JPY framework and why we no longer view the JPY as a funding currency, see: JPY: Impact of Bank Lending.

The neutral rate matters. Despite the Fed hiking rates 5 times since 2015, the USD will remain the globe's best funding currency. Buoyant financial conditions suggest that the Fed's gradual pace of rate hikes has not yet overtaken the market's perceived neutral rate of interest. The continued easing of financial conditions and the strong growth environment, it can be argued, suggest that the Fed may be behind the curve. Moreover, with soon-to-be Chair Powell taking the reins of the Fed in February, President Dudley planning to retire in mid-2018, and the three vacancies on the Board, markets may begin to question whether the FOMC's reaction function is set to change.

Forget the textbook. Textbook analysis would suggest that the estimated $1.5 trillion deficit expansion as part of the recently-passed tax reform bill, coupled with the limited degree of economic slack, should lead to higher US rates and a stronger USD. However, real yields remain at low levels by historical standards.

One way to explain this dynamic is that markets believe that there has been a structural shift in the mix between growth and inflation. However, another explanation could be a perceived shift in the Fed's reaction function, justifying real yields staying low.

Accommodative Fedspeak. FOMC participants have generally eschewed aggressive policy tightening, remaining instead in favor of a gradual normalization which keeps financial conditions from tightening prematurely. Indeed, despite the 5 rate hikes so far this cycle, financial conditions are at their loosest level since 2014 (Exhibit 13).

The most recent FOMC minutes support this thesis. However, some have also supported a looser regulation approach, most notably soon-to-be Chair Powell, whose comments during his testimony suggested an openness to regulatory reform.

Combining easy monetary policy with financial deregulation suggests that the velocity of money is poised to rise, which bodes well for USD liquidity conditions remaining ample. Other major central banks such as the ECB and the BoJ are also likely to gradually normalize their policy stances. This speaks in favor of the EUR and JPY against the USD as these areas remain investment destinations.

Explaining real yields. What drives real yields? Traditional academic research has suggested that factors such as demand deficiency, demography and aging societies, inequality, and poor total factor productivity are important, and these may explain the current low real yield environment within the DM world.

A recent BIS study has enriched this debate by claiming that the above factors may explain the evolution of DM real yields over the past 30 years, but they fail to explain real yield behaviors in eras preceding the 1980s. Instead, they argue, changes in central bank regimes may have had a bigger impact on the broader evolution of real yields. The current low real yield environment began in the early 1980s when DM central banks began adopting inflation-targeting regimes.

The effects of inflation targeting. Inflation targeting has been successful by maintaining price stability and providing stable funding conditions in the DM and EM alike, which has been an important foundation for EMs to develop income and wealth. Another implication, though, may have been an increase in liquidity preference (increased demand for cash and cash-like instruments) within DM economies which may also explain demand deficiency and, implicity, weak DM investment. This is because low and stable inflation reduces the costs of saving - compared to higher and less stable inflation, which may incentivize consumers to invest in other financial assets or consume.

Creating higher inflation expectations may reduce this liquidity preference, pushing these funds into circulation within the economy. The combination of Fed policy accommodation and financial deregulation may be sufficient to do so. A weaker USD in the FX market would be the side effect.

Bringing China into the equation. Prices tend to fall when supply exceeds demand. DM investment-to-GDP ratios have come down within the post-Lehman environment. However, what investors often miss is that the global investment-to-GDP ratio has been rising since the early 1990s, driven in large part by China (which currently has a 40% investment-to-GDP ratio). Exhibit 17 shows the relationship between the US 10-year yield with the global investment-to-GDP ratio. Yields declined as investment rose relative to GDP.

The fact that much of the investment took place in China, which has closed and regulated capital and financial accounts, may have helped global bond yields to stay low via two key channels. First, China's investment boom had largely been funded by local savings, meaning that little foreign capital was needed (which would have drawn capital away from DM bond markets). High household savings and an accommodative PBoC provided the sufficient liquidity. Second, the emphasis on investment provided a source of latent deflationary pressure, pushing inflation risk premia lower. This, in turn, bolstered the demand for liquidity, as inflation risks were low and stable, and in turn supported subsequent demand weakness.

In general, it is fairly unusual within a historical context to see a domestic investment boom without foreign funding contributing to it. Typically, investment booms and current account deficits (where investment exceeds domestic savings) should go hand in hand. When this is not the case, then funding costs tend to decline. Another example has been Japan's investment boom in the 1980s, which turned Japan into a country of low inflation even before the 1990s and beyond.

The concentration of investment in China, where local liquidity was sufficient to finance it, meant that global demand for capital did not rise, which allowed yields to stay low. Should China's investment boom be replaced by investment in other jurisdictions with open capital accounts, prices may still face disinflationary headwinds, but funding pressures would rise. The Fed, then, has an incentive to counter these disinflationary headwinds by keeping policy accommodative.

Still bullish on EM: The bearish USD story has been seen across the emerging market spectrum too. As risk appetite remains strong, investors will likely focus on vol-adjusted carry again to capture excess return. As seen in Exhibit 18, most of the high-yielding EMFX offers such value and we are bullish on most of these currencies.

We believe that rising global growth momentum, improving EM fundamentals and reasonable valuation in EMFX will prompt new inflows into EM in 2018." - source Morgan Stanley

Whereas Morgan Stanley believes a steeper JGB curve raises the incentive for Japan-based investors to keep funds at home, instead of investing in higher yielding foreign securities, we do not think Japanese investors have much alternative at the moment so the TINA trade will still make them buyers of the dip as mentioned above in our conversation. While we do expect some short term pull-back and US dollar strength in the near term, we do think that from our Iconic memory perspective more weakness lies ahead for the US dollar and given the positive macro momentum, equities wise, we would continue chasing EM over US equities from an allocation perspective. When it comes to credit, it is still "carry on" as we move again towards that famous 11 on the credit amplifier in true Spinal Tap fashion, basically more of the same, though as we pointed out we expect debt-fueled M&A to be a big theme in 2018 which will no doubt deliver some "sucker punches" along the way to the Investment Grade investing crowd, so, as we repeated in various conversations, dust up your LBO screener in 2018.

Yes 2018 has started with a bang with relentless tightening and equities indices racing even higher, the goldilocks environment is still alive and kicking, even if there are some genuine geopolitical concerns on the background. It is still pretty much "carry on". In our final chart below, for those still rooting for US High Yield, financial conditions in early 2018 still remain plentiful. Apart from a surge in inflation expectations that would warrant a faster tightening by the Fed in 2018, we do not see at the moment the catalyst for a sell-off unless of course our Iconic memory is playing with our thought process but we ramble again...

• Final charts - Credit Conditions in early 2018? Take it "easy"

As we pointed out, the goldilocks environment continues to be supportive thanks to low volatility in various asset classes. Credit conditions remain a key support for sensitive credit such as US High Yield, yet we do think after the significant rally of low beta in 2017 including the CCC bucket, one should start switching from quantity (yield) towards quality (up the rating spectrum). After all the US yield curve continues to bear flatten thanks as well to its Japanese support. Our final charts come from CITI Monday Morning Musings from the 5th of January entitled "Five Charts to Start 2018" and display comforting credit conditions:

"Comforting Credit Conditions

Commercial & Industrial (C&I) lending standards are the key reasons for being comfortable with the upcoming trend in business activity. Figure 9, which is key, illustrates the long-term relationship between the two and Figure 10 provides additional underlying detail. Essentially, easy money lowers the cost of capital and allows corporations to fund hiring plans, capex and working capital needs with C&I credit conditions providing a nine-month lead getting us well into 4Q18. As we have shown in the past, industrial production is very closely correlated with changes in net income.

- source CITI

While the US dollar has started 2018 with a hangover, we do expect a short term rebound in the near future though we remain bearish in the medium term. Meanwhile, no doubt to us, the central banking narrative is changing and it isn't only the Fed which has been retreating from QE, the ECB and even the BOJ are paring as well. Though your Iconic memory might be still playing tricks, you have been warned, the level of the strike on the central banking put is fading we think.

"There is no truth. There is only perception." -  Gustave Flaubert

Stay tuned !