Saturday 23 February 2019

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.

  • 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. (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 !

Tuesday 12 February 2019

Macro and Credit - Cryoseism

"Praise out of season, or tactlessly bestowed, can freeze the heart as much as blame." -  Pearl S. Buck
Watching with interest the weakening tone in February in credit markets following the stellar month of January, in conjunction with confirmation of a global slowdown, and with no resolution in sight between China and the United States in relation to their trade spat, and also with the weaker tone for financial conditions coming out of the quarterly Fed Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey (SLOOs), when it came to selecting our title analogy, given the lower than usual temperature experienced in various part of the world including ours, we decided to go for "Cryoseism". "Cryoseism" also known as an ice quake or a frost quake, is a seismic event that may be caused by a sudden cracking action in frozen soil or rock saturated with water or ice. As water drains into the ground (liquidity in asset markets), it may eventually freeze and expand under colder temperatures (global growth and trade deceleration), putting stress on its surroundings. This stress builds up until relieved explosively in the form of a cryoseism. Cryoseisms are often mistaken for minor intraplate earthquakes.  Initial indications may appear similar to those of an earthquake with tremors, vibrations, ground cracking and related noises such as thundering or booming sounds. Cryoseisms can, however, be distinguished from earthquakes through meteorological and geological conditions. Cryoseisms can have an intensity of up to VI on the Modified Mercalli Scale. Furthermore, cryoseisms often exhibit high intensity in a very localized area (such as leveraged loans) in the immediate proximity of the epicenter, as compared to the widespread effects of an earthquake. Due to lower-frequency vibrations of cryoseisms, some seismic monitoring stations may not record their occurrence. Although cryoseisms release less energy than most tectonic events, they can still cause damage or significant changes to an affected area. There are four main precursors for a frost quake cryoseism event to occur: (1) a region must be susceptible to cold air masses, (2) the ground must undergo saturation from thaw or liquid precipitation prior to an intruding cold air mass, (3) most frost quakes are associated with minor snow cover on the ground without a significant amount of snow to insulate the ground (i.e., less than 6 inches), and (4) a rapid temperature drop (global trade) from approximately freezing to near or below zero degrees Fahrenheit, which ordinarily occurred on a timescale of 16 to 48 hours.

In this week's conversation, we would like to look at what the latest Fed's quarterly Senior Loan Officer Opinion survey means for credit in general and high yield/high beta in particular. 

  • Macro and Credit - This recent rally is not on solid ground
  • Final chart - Credit pinball - Same player shoots again?

  • Macro and Credit - This recent rally is not on solid ground
In our most recent conversation, we pointed out to the cautious tone from investors, urging CFOs in the US to take the "deleveraging" route given the continuous rise of the cost of capital, which appears to be somewhat validated by the latest Fed Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey (SLOOs). The Fed’s latest SLOOs points towards tightening financial conditions: "demand for loans to businesses reportedly weakened."  But, we think we will probably have to wait until April/May for the next SLOOS to confirm (or not) the clear tightening of financial conditions. If confirmed, that would not bode well for the 2020 U.S. economic outlook so think about reducing high beta cyclicals. Also, the deterioration of financial conditions are indicative of a future rise in the default rate and will therefore weight on significantly on high beta and evidently US High Yield.

In our early January conversation "Respite", we pointed out to our 2018 call, namely that analyst estimates were way too optimistic when it comes to earnings for 2019. If indeed Europe is a clear case of Cryoseism, with so much liquidity injected and not very much to show for macro wise in terms of growth outlook making it a very bad grade for the confidence tricksters at the helm of the ECB vaunting in recent days the great success of QE, the savage earnings revision pace we have seen so far clearly show the recent rally is not on solid ground. On the subject of earnings revision we read with interest Morgan Stanley's take from their US Equity Strategy Weekly Warm Up from the 11th of February entitled "Earnings Recession Is Here":
"Earnings expectations for 2019 have fallen sharply, but consensus still embeds a material reacceleration in 2H19. History tells us to expect further downward revisions, higher volatility and a drag on prices. We lower our base case 2019 S&P 500 EPS growth forecast to 1%.
Our earnings recession call is playing out even faster than we expected. When we made our call for a greater than 50% chance of an earnings recession this year, we thought it might take a bit longer for the evidence to build. On the back of a large downward revisions cycle during 4Q earnings season, it's becoming more clear. Consensus numbers have already baked in no growth for 1H19 (1Q projected growth is actually negative) with a hockey stick assumed in 2H19 that brings the full year growth estimate to ~5%.
History says be skeptical of the inflection forecast. The projected y/y EPS growth in 4Q19 is ~9.5%. This compares to an average projected rate of growth of 1% over 1Q - 3Q19, an inflection of ~8.5%. Since the early 00s, we have seen this kind of inflection happen a few times, but these inflections were all related to 1) comping against negative or slower EPS growth or 2) tax cuts mechanically lifting the growth rate. Neither of those forces are at play this year. In fact, it's the opposite making the achievability of these estimates even more unlikely.
When consensus is embedding an inflection further out, downward revisions, some drag on price returns and higher volatility are all to be expected. We examined what tends to happen when consensus embeds a big jump in growth 4 quarters out compared to the next three quarters. We found that the numbers for all 4 quarters ahead tend to fall but the growth quarter tends to fall the most. If current estimates move in line with history, we could see a full year decline of ~3.5% in S&P earnings. There is a wide range of potential outcomes though, so today we only take our base case forecast down to 1% y/y growth. We also found that equity returns can still be positive in this environment, but they will likely be weaker than they otherwise would have been and the odds of outright price declines are substantially elevated. Whether prices move higher or lower, volatility tends to rise meaningfully., with average year ahead price volatility realizing ~5% more than the full period average.
Lowering our earnings forecast. On the back of this work, we lower our Base Case 2019 S&P 500 EPS growth forecast to 1% from 4.3%. While our earnings numbers are coming down, our bull, base, and bear case year end price targets remain unchanged as a lower rate environment provides support for year end target multiples. The bottom line--our base case year end target of 2750 is a lot less exciting than it was a month ago." - source Morgan Stanley
In their executive summary of their interesting note Morgan Stanley indicates the velocity in the earnings revisions as of late. This rapid move clearly shows that the euphoria seen in January where anything high beta rallied hard is not on solid ground. Debt-financed buybacks after all fell to 14% of the total among US companies at the end of last year, the lowest level since 2009 according to JP Morgan data. Buybacks since 2012 has been an important "pillar" in terms of support to US equities in recent years thanks to multiple expansion rest assured.

On top of that there are an increasing percentage of companies with negative earnings: S&P 500 - 7%; Nasdaq - 47%; Russell 3000 - 28%; Russell 2000 - 37%. For us, "high beta" is very "junky". If fundamentals are deteriorating such as global trade and global growth and earnings revisions are "savage" then regardless of central banks' u-turn, it isn't enough we think to provide the same support we saw in recent years and quarters. The cavalry was indeed late after the December massacre, but the overall macro picture ain't rosy.

Given the velocity in earnings revision/recession Morgan Stanley have drastically revised their outlook according to their note:
"Earnings Recession Is Here; Adjusted EPS Forecast Lower
With 4Q18 results season nearing completion we have been taking a closer look at 2019 guidance. Downward revisions have come even faster and steeper than we expected and the full year earnings growth number now sits just above 5% with a material upward acceleration projected in the 4th quarter of the year. At the start of a downward revisions cycle, history tells us not to count on that kind of upward inflection.
On the back of the recent downward revisions, we lower our earnings forecasts for 2019 as we think it is becoming increasingly clear we are in the midst of the earnings recession we called for in our year ahead outlook. Specifically, we are adjusting our 2019 EPS growth number down to 1% (from 4.25%) while noting that despite support from buyback accretion and a weaker dollar by year end, risks skew to the downside. We make minor changes to our 2020 growth assumptions and bull/bear case earnings estimates as well. Our revised forecasts are shown in Exhibit 1.

While our earnings numbers are coming down, our bull, base, and bear case price targets remain unchanged as a lower rate environment provides modest support for year end target multiples. With a more dovish Fed and our Interest Rate Strategy colleagues now projecting a year end 10Y UST yield of 2.45%, we revisit our Equity Risk Premium / 10Y yield matrix (Exhibit 2).

We highlight our target range of ~15 - 16.5x forward PE for the S&P. Our range below has a diagonal tilt as we believe lower yields will be accompanied by higher uncertainty on growth leading to a higher ERP while higher yields may reflect a more optimistic outlook on growth, allowing for ERP compression.
Don't Count on a 4Q19 Inflection in EPS Growth
We are increasingly convinced that consensus earnings expectations for 2019 have further to fall and that the optimistic uptick currently baked into 4Q19 estimates is unlikely to happen. A modest further decline in earnings will deliver the earnings recession we called for. Equity returns can still be positive in this environment, but they will likely be weaker than they otherwise would have been and the odds of outright price declines are substantially elevated. Whether prices move higher or lower, volatility will likely rise meaningfully. So in essence, we are still looking at a bumpy, range bound market at the index level and think investors should continue to try and take advantage of the swings in price in both directions.
The Market Needs a 4Q19 Growth Inflection To Support Full Year EPS Growth
In our year ahead outlook we argued that 2019 had a greater than 50% probability of seeing an earnings recession defined very simply as two consecutive quarters of negative y/y earnings growth. Following a steep downward revisions cycle over the last few months, consensus forecasts are quickly getting there. From the end of November, earnings growth expectation on the S&P fell from ~9% to their current level of around 5%. With an expectation of negative y/y growth in 1Q19 and very marginal growth in 2Q19, the mid-single digit full year number embeds a heavy ramp up of earnings growth in the back half of the year, and in 4Q19 in particular (Exhibit 3).

Importantly, since consensus bottom-up numbers are really just a reflection of company guidance this earnings slowdown could have real knock-on effects to corporate behavior like spending and hiring which then puts further pressure on growth.
Furthermore, company managements tend to be an optimistic group. As such, we're not surprised they are calling for a trough in 1Q. However, we would advise against taking too much comfort in these calls for a trough in 1Q19 of the down cycle from the same people who didn't see it coming in the first place. In addition to a trough in 1Q, consensus estimates are now forecasting a big second half inflection in growth.
Anything is possible, but we have little confidence in such an inflection given sharply falling top line growth and disappointing margins in the face of very difficult comparisons for the rest of this year
. If we accept that an earnings recession is here, the key questions are how deep will it be and how long will it last? Again, it's hard to know, but we can look to history for some context on how expectations for a large upward inflection in earnings usually play out." - source Morgan Stanley
Again, analysts going into 2019 have been way too optimistic when it comes to earnings. A usual trend but given the amount of liquidity injected into the system by central banks no wonder we are seeing growing risks of "cryoseism" in 2019. Volatility is firmly back.

As we stated before, where oil prices goes, so does US High Yield and in particular the CCC ratings bucket given its exposure to the Energy sector. No wonder Energy rallied strongly over the month of January:
- graph source Bank of America Merrill Lynch (click to enlarge)

In its January 2019 Senior Loan Officer Survey, the Fed said that a net positive percentage of domestic banks reported increasing the premiums charged on loans to large and middle-market firms. Historically, this tends to be a reliable signal of a pending recession. Both the supply and demand for household and business credit is either slowing or contracting. This is yet another "Cryoseism" sign that the epic high beta rally seen during the month of January is not on solid ground. So sure the rally in US High Yield has been very significant but, if indeed financial conditions continue to deteriorate, it doesn't bode well for the asset class down the line.

As we mentioned on numerous conversations, like any good behavioral psychologist we tend to focus more on flows than on stocks. We stated as well at the end of the year that for a rebound in credit markets, fund flows need to see some stabilization the latest dovish tilt from central banks globally have enabled such a bounce as indicated by Bank of America Merrill Lynch in their Follow The Flow report from the 8th of February entitled "Reaching for yield":
"Equities record first inflow, HY inflow surpass $1bn
Dovish central banks globally have instigated a risk assets rally. The reach for yield is back amid lower government bond yields. Inflows into high-yield funds have strengthened over the past weeks and equity funds recorded their first inflow in a while as light positioning has become a tailwind for the asset class.
Over the past week…
High grade funds flopped back to negative territory. Last week’s outflow reversed part of the inflow from week ago, ending a two week streak of inflows. However, the outflow was driven by one single fund and removing it would result into a $1.1bn inflow. High yield funds on the other hand continued to see stronger inflows w-o-w.
We note that last week’s inflow was the largest since September last year. Looking into the domicile breakdown, US-focused funds recorded the lion's share of the inflow, while Europe-focused funds recorded a more moderate inflow. Note that the inflows into global-focused funds were marginal.
Government bond funds recorded a decent inflow this week; the third in a row. Money Market funds recorded a strong inflow last week. All in all, Fixed Income funds recorded another inflow, though the pace has slowed down w-o-w.
For a change European equity funds recorded their first inflow after 21 consecutive weeks of outflows. Note that during this period total outflows reached $45bn.

Global EM debt funds continued to record inflows, the fifth weekly one. Note that last week’s inflow was the strongest since July 2016. Dovish Fed and lower dollar has become a tailwind for the asset class recently. Commodity funds recorded another inflow, the ninth in a row.
On the duration front, we find that the belly underperformed recording the vast majority of the outflow last week. Long-term and shot-term IG funds also recorded outflows last week, but to a lesser extent." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch
A dovish Fed in conjunction with lower rate volatility have led to Emerging Markets benefiting from the return of the "carry" trade.

Given that bad news has become good news again during the month of January, given the dovish tilt taken by most central banks, high beta has come back to the forefront thanks to the central banking cavalry. 2019 has clearly started on a very strong tone as indicated by Bank of America Merrill Lynch in their European Credit Strategist note from the 8th of February entitled "Play it again Sam":
"As the expression goes…it’s always darkest before dawn. Year-to-date, high-grade spreads have rallied 18bp and high-yield has tightened by 72bp in Europe. These are impressive moves. For the investment-grade market, 2019 is shaping up to be one of the best ever starts to a year outside of 2012 – a time when the ECB’s life-saving LTROs energised a huge rally across the market.
An epic central bank “blink”
In 2018, only 13% of assets across the globe posted positive total returns…and only 9% of assets managed to outperform US 3m Libor. Jump to 2019 and the picture couldn’t be different. As Chart 1 shows, 98% of assets across the globe have positive total returns so far this year (the second best outcome since 1990).

The clearest instigator for such a bullish reversal, in our view, is that central banks are now undergoing one epic reversal in their monetary policy stance. In 2019, the Fed has already pivoted to being on-hold, the ECB has moved the balance of risks to the downside, Australia has stopped hiking and India has delivered a surprise rate cut.
When the most important central bank in the world changes tack, others must follow…or risk unwanted currency appreciation. True to form, as Chart 2 shows, the number of global central bank rate cuts over the last 6m is now greater than the number of central bank rate hikes (although the picture is less dramatic when excluding Argentina).

And when central banks flip-flop, so do markets. With interest rate vol at record lows now in Europe, this means a green light for carry trades and a return of the thirst for yield.
Cash spreads can still squeeze…but watch out for March indigestion
In credit land, the Street looks particularly offside in this tightening move, reflective of low inventory levels. And with earnings blackout still in place, cash bonds could still squeeze tighter in the short term (especially non-financials). We think the real challenge for the credit market will emerge in March, given that supply is seasonally highest then (14% of yearly issuance). A €50bn+ month of supply, for instance, could herald a return of big new issue premiums and widening pressure on secondary spreads.
Hubris 101– it never ends well
We’ve seen this central bank movie too many times in the past, though, to forget that markets always overshoot amid a yield grab. And that’s exactly what we worry about this time. After all, 30yr Bund yields at 72bp, 5y5y Euro inflation swaps at 1.48% (the lowest since Nov ’16) and rising BTP spreads signal the market’s doubt over the efficacy of another dose of monetary support, in our view.
Our concern is that Euro credit spreads are now increasingly dislocated from European economic data, and at best are pricing-in a Euro Area recovery that may take longer to materialise than the consensus thinks.
Chart 3 shows that European high-yield spreads have closely tracked the Eurozone manufacturing PMI New Orders index over the last 20yrs (72% correlation of levels, since mid-98).

New Order indices are a more forward-looking, and relevant, indicator in our view. But note that this index is still falling and is now far below the 50 recessionary threshold (47.8). Yet, with the market having rallied strongly year-to-date, our regressions point to Euro high-grade spreads being roughly 20bp too tight, and Euro high-yield spreads a more concerning ~200bp too tight.
Credit spreads are likely discounting a revival in the Eurozone cycle. Our economists expect Euro Area data to begin rebounding as we approach 2H ‘19. But the point is we’re not there yet…and the data flow thus far – especially industrial production – suggests that the Euro Area rebound may, if anything, take longer to materialize.
As an open economy, the Eurozone needs a thriving global economy to grow strongly. Germany, in particular, is exposed to non-European export markets. And given how Germany is integrated into other European countries’ supply chains, German weakness means a broader spill-over to Eurozone growth. But the external environment has been very unfriendly to Germany of late. Chart 4 shows how non-Euro Area trade has faded, with trade wars and China’s slowdown being culprits.

Weaker non-EZ trade means less of a buffer for the Eurozone to counter rising political uncertainties.
That means Euro credit markets need to see two things pretty soon to justify today’s spreads: firstly a US-China trade “agreement”, and secondly signs that China’s stimulatory efforts are finally paying dividends (and supporting broader Asian growth).
  • While a US-China trade compromise is our base case, it’s not yet clear whether the US administration has moved on from their concerns over European car imports. On this front, investors should keep an eye on the US Department of Commerce’s Section 232 report on the national security threat of motor vehicle and auto part imports. Bad news here would weigh further on global trade volumes to the detriment of the Eurozone.
  • While China has engaged in a number of stimulatory measures lately (RRR cuts, tax cuts for small businesses and a perpetual bond-for-bill swap), credit growth dynamics have yet to materially rise. Chart 5 shows that the ratio of China Total Social Financing to China M2 remains subdued, for instance.

  • And importantly, while US and Euro credit markets have seen a material tightening in 2019, (high-grade) credit spreads in China remain elevated.
QE Infinity, and the real meaning of “pushing on a string”
The dovish leanings of policy makers this year have been manna for financial markets. For over a decade, central banks have been able to cajole asset prices higher with their repeated interventions. In fact, Chart 7 shows how effective the ECB has been since 2009 in propping up sentiment: growth in the ECB’s balance sheet has always been enough to counter spikes in European policy uncertainty.

But after ~$11tr. in central bank balance sheet growth since The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) (using the “big 4”), the limits of monetary policy are being reached. Central banks have much less capacity to effect economic change this time around. 
Chart 8, for instance, shows where interest rates would be if central banks repeated their post-Lehman easing cycle, from today.

Understandably, some of the numbers would be far out of the realms of possibility. Hungarian interest rates, for instance, would drop to -10%, Eurozone deposit rates would fall to -4% and US interest rates would be heavily in negative territory (-2.5%).
Moreover, as the expression “pushing on a string” reflects, successive rounds of stimulus over the last decade look to have produced incrementally less economic growth, we think.
In Chart 9, we show what has happened historically to (1) global GDP momentum; and (2) global debt-to-GDP levels, in periods when global central bank balance sheets have expanded notably. Since 2006, we find five such periods.

Since then, however, periods of central bank balance sheet expansion look to have produced a much weaker impulse to the global economy.
  • The second round of stimulus post-GFC (‘10/’11) was followed by a decline (-0.9%) in the OECD Lead Indicator, which was driven by strong deleveraging (-9pp in the global debt/GDP ratio),
  • And the short, but visible increase in global central bank balance sheets between late ’17 and early ’18 was not even enough to propel growth upwards: the OECD Global Lead Indicator fell by 0.3% over the following 12m.
In summary, we caution that markets should not get carried away by central banks’ newfound dovishness. After so much support already, and with $58tr. of global debt being added since the GFC, recreating the impact of past support now looks much tougher for central banks." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch
We agree with Bank of America Merrill Lynch, "carry on" but do not get "carried away". If financial conditions will gradually continue to tighten as per the latest SLOOs, there is more potential for "Cryoseism". No matter how much liquidity has been injected by central banks, the massive issuance in credit markets in recent years have led to the illusion of "liquidity". For this illusion, you just have to check the secondary market in credit markets to gauge its depth. The next quarterly SLOOs will be paramount as per our final chart below.

  • Final chart - Credit pinball - Same player shoots again?
Are we seeing yet another case à la second part of 2016 which saw a significant rally in credit markets and in particular in high beta US high yield thanks to the recovery in oil prices and a more dovish tone from central banks? One might wonder. Our final chart comes from Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Credit Market Strategist note from the 8th of February entitled "Happy New Year, welcome back" and displays the SLOOs versus US Investment Grade corporate spread. Is this a similar situation to the early recession fears of 2016 or is this time different? We wonder:
"Lather, rinse, repeat
Back in late 2015/early 2016 US recession fears were overblown as investors extrapolated from weak manufacturing data a high recession risk. This exact same scenario played out late 2018/very early 2019 as markets forgot that the manufacturing sector is only 17% of the US economy and the remainder is strong (see: Fool me once, fool me twice). Back then the Fed’s senior loan officer survey showed in response a shift toward tightening lending standards. The same thing is understandably happening this time as the survey period for the fresh Fed survey was the last half of December, which represented the height of recession fears (Figure 7). Like back in 2016, as recession fears are proven wrong, this will pass and banks will once again go through a period of loosening lending standards well before the next downturn. For banks the problem is a lack of loan demand, as the cost of debt has increased materially. Absent recession that means banks will soon be back to loosening standards and undercutting yields in the corporate bond market in order to gain business." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Earnings were decent but the outlook is deteriorating fast. Also financial conditions seems to be tightening, We have seen stabilization in fund flows but this rally is not on solid grounds particularly with weakening buy-backs as CFOs are urged to become more defensive by investors of their balance sheet. You have been warned. It is still capital preservation time. Carry on but don't get carried away...

"Sometimes the early bird gets the worm, but sometimes the early bird gets frozen to death." - Myron Scholes

Stay tuned ! 
View My Stats