Macro and Credit - Bracket creep

"Declining productivity and quality means your unit production costs stay high but you don't have as much to sell. Your workers don't want to be paid less, so to maintain profits, you increase your prices. That's inflation." - W. Edwards Deming

Watching with interest the latest US CPI posting its biggest gain in 11 months to 1.8% in a US economy plagued by "fixed income" (lack of wage growth) and "floating expenses" (healthcare and rents), when it came to selecting our title analogy we reminded ourselves of the term Bracket creep, particular following the landmark tax reform passed on Christmas Eve to replace the 30-year-old, complex U.S. tax system. Bracket creep describes the process by which inflation pushes wages and salaries into higher tax brackets, leading to a fiscal drag situation. Given most progressive tax systems are not adjusted for inflation, as wages and salaries rise in nominal terms under the influence of inflation they become more highly taxed, even though in real terms the value of the wages and salaries has not increased at all. The net effect overall is that in real terms taxes rise unless the tax rates or brackets are adjusted to compensate. That simple.

In this week's conversation, we would like to look at rising inflation expectations and what it entails from a US TIPs and other linkers perspective as well as what are Japanese friends are up to from an overall flow allocation.

Synopsis:

• Macro and Credit - The return of the inflationistas
• Final chart - The "Bid 'Em Up Bruce" stage is now

• Macro and Credit - The return of the inflationistas

While inflation has been the elusive piece of the puzzle for many of our dear central bankers around the world, the latest print of core US CPI is marking the return of the "inflationista". This obviously should be welcomed good news for the members of the FOMC, but be careful what they wish for. As we indicated back in June 2015 in our conversation "The Third Punic War", bear markets for US equities generally coincide with a significant tick up in core inflation. Also remember that in the headline CPI, rental prices represent 25% in the calculations and overall housing 42%. We will eagerly watch rental prices in the coming weeks and months. Back in 2008 in the US the Core inflation rate peaked in August 2008 at 2.54% before we had the "bear market" of 2008 as a reminder.

Yet as posited by Wells Fargo in their Economics Group from the 12th of January in their note entitled "CPI: Beyond the Headline, Inflation is Strengthening", consumer prices are it seems indeed edging up:

"Consumer price inflation edged up 0.1 percent in December despite a fall in gasoline prices. Reversing last month’s weakness, core inflation rose 0.3 percent and is up at a 2.5 percent pace over the past three months.

Gasoline Savings Going Elsewhere

Inflation cooled in December with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increasing 0.1 percent. That followed a 0.4 percent gain in November.

The tamer increase stemmed from a pullback in energy costs as gasoline prices fell 2.7 percent over the month. That overshadowed a modest rise in energy services (electricity and utility gas). It was not until late in the month that unusually low temperatures led to a jump in natural gas prices. Although not quite halfway through the month, spot prices for natural gas are up about 6 percent from their December average. Therefore, we suspect energy services could provide an even larger lift to headline inflation next month.

For December, food prices rose 0.2 percent. That marks the largest increase since July and suggests that more stable prices for food commodities and rising labor costs for food services workers may be reasserting some modest upward pressure on the sector.

Core Inflation Rebounds

Core inflation bounced back after a weaker-than-expected reading in November. Excluding food and energy, prices were up 0.3 percent. Core goods prices posted a rare increase and moved 0.2 percent higher.

Leaner auto inventories after last year’s natural disasters spurred demand to replace vehicles and slower production growth more generally has given some support to prices. After falling from February to September, new and used vehicle prices have risen the past three months, including the largest monthly gain in December in more than six years. A 1.0 percent jump in prescription drug prices also pushed core goods inflation higher. Stronger core inflation was also driven by services. Shelter costs advanced an above-trend 0.4 percent in December. Rent of primary residences and owned residence both rose more than in November, while lodging costs partially reversed last month’s drop. Costs for medical care services also rebounded after a sharp decline in physician services in November.

Getting Back to the Fed’s Target

Inflation has been the darkest cloud hanging over the Fed’s efforts to normalize policy. Over the past year, inflation has risen 2.1 percent, a touch lower than November’s 12-month change and noticeably below the pace set earlier in the year. Yet the recent trend looks stronger. Over the past three months headline inflation is up at a 2.6 percent annualized pace. Similarly, core inflation, which is up 1.8 percent on a year-ago basis, has risen at a 2.5 percent pace over the past three months. This should help to allay some FOMC members’ fears that inflation is stuck at undesirably low levels. We expect to see a noticeable pick up in the year-over-year change by this spring. Although that will stem in large part from base effects following weakness last year, the trend remains upward." - source Wells Fargo.

Back in October 2017 in our conversation "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?" we asked ourselves if indeed the game was turning and if we should switch camp from the "deflationista" towards the "inflationista" camp:

"Given China's most recent uptick in its PPI to 6.9%, we are indeed wondering if this is not a sign that we should change allegiance slightly towards the "inflationista" camp and start fearing somewhat the possibility of the return of the Big Bad Wolf aka inflation. We will be monitoring closely this latest China "inflation impulse". China's rising costs via exports could boosts inflation expectations in the US. These higher inflation expectations in the US would mean a steeper yield curve with a rise in long-duration yields overall and it would lead to higher rates volatility down the line. A bear market needs a wolf and this wolf would materialize in a return of inflation we think." - source Macronomics, October 2017 

As pointed out by Christopher Cole from Artemis Capital in his must read note "Volatility and the Alchemy of Risk - Reflexivity in the Shadows of Black Monday 1987",  the rise of the Big Bad Wolf aka inflation was what started a liquidity fire in credit that spread to equities before the 1987 volatility explosion described. But flow wise, as we have pointed out in numerous conversations, the money is flowing "uphill" where all the "fun" is namely the bond market, not "downhill" to the "real economy" so far. It seems the bond kings such Bill Gross and Jeff Gundlach as of late have picked up their side and are steering towards the "inflationista" camp whereas Dr Lacy Hunt, from is latest  quarterly note for Hoisington continues to sit tightly in the "deflationista" camp it seems. One might therefore wonder where we stand.

Also, in October 2015 in our conversation "Sympathetic detonation", we posited that US TIPS were of great interest from a diversification perspective given the US TIPS market is the one for which, on a historical basis, the correlation with other asset classes is least extreme. We argued at the time:

"US TIPS are more "compelling" than UK linkers and still are less positively correlated to nominal bonds for a very simple reason: their embedded "deflation floor" - source Macronomics, October 2015

We hinted a "put-call parity" strategy early 2014, eg long Gold/long US Treasuries as we argued in our conversation "The Departed", but that was because of the following:

"If the policy compass is spinning and there’s no way to predict how central banks will react, you don’t know whether to hedge for inflation or deflation, so you hedge for both. Buy put-call parity, if there is huge volatility in the policy responses of central banks, the option-value of both gold and bonds goes up."

Given it seems that US inflation expectations are moving upwards it seems, one could argue that the compass in the US has somewhat stopped spinning hence the move in US breakevens and TIPS, in conjunction with the continuous support for Gold Miners (yes we are still long and we have been adding...). 

We like US TIPS particularly if pundits started claiming inflation in the US is rearing its ugly head, particularly for the specific deflation floor embedded in US TIPS. It works both ways, so what's not to like about them in the current "reflationary" environment? 

At least with US TIPS you can side with the "inflationistas" camp while having downside protection should the "deflationista camp" of Dr Lacy Hunt wins the argument. We highly recommend our friend Kevin Muir aka The Macro Tourist post on a refresher on how breakeven works: "BREAKEVEN REFRESHER LESSON" for those not familiar with the concept. 

We would also like to add that if indeed the rise of inflation expectations is a global phenomenon, then our UK friends have an advantage with Gilt Linkers given they do not have an embedded deflation floor so, they should outperform US TIPS on a relative basis. 

Also, as all eyes are looking at the significant surge in oil prices in recent months as per our March 2016 conversation "Unobtainium":

"A very interesting 2015 paper by the Bank of Israel (Sussman, N and O Zohar 2015, “Oil prices, inflation expectations, and monetary policy”, Bank of Israel DP092015.) indicates that since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008, a 10% change in oil prices moves 5Y5Y expected inflation by nearly 0.1% in the US and 0.05% in the Euro area. Therefore, given the recent significant surge in oil prices, we do not think it is such a surprise to see a rise in inflation expectations in that context." - source Macronomics, March 2016

Whereas the rise in US inflation is raising some concerns relative to the US yield curve, we do not have such a sanguine approach of the "inflationistas" for the long end of the curve. We live in a world in which the public sector has never been so indebted (The world's global debt just reached $233 trillion in 3Q 2017). Demography is as well playing its part in rendering the US Yield curve "inelastic" therefore the volatility of the US yield curve is clearly in the front-end of the curve. We continue to witness a bear-flattening of the US Yield curve with the Japanese investment crowd and in particular Lifers continuing to be dip buyers. This is confirmed by Nomura from their JPY Flow Monitor report from the 12th of January entitled "Net buying continued but at a slower pace":

"Lifers sold foreign bonds, but seemed to maintain its recovery trend

Investment by life insurers, which are prominent medium- and long-term investors, remained lackluster. They were net sellers in November at JPY234bn and in December at JPY124bn ($1.1bn). Higher FX hedging costs for US bond investment may slow their foreign bond investment, but we do not believe that the recovery trend has ended, (see “US curve flattening and Japanese lifers”, 7 December 2017). Barring another resurgence of geopolitical risks, we believe there is a good possibility that lifers will resume their net buying at a high level due to pent-up demand. The recent rises in US and European yields should encourage them to consider foreign bond buying. Lifers’ FY17 investment plans show that the structural shift away from yen bonds and toward foreign bonds continues (see “JPY: Lifers upgrade EUR/JPY forecast”, 25 October 2017). Despite this, at JPY1834bn, lifers’ cumulative foreign bond investment from April through December 2017 is below the average since FY05 (JPY1959bn; Figure 3).

When it comes to unhedged investments, If USD/JPY trades below 112, this would trigger demand to buy USD on dips (sell JPY), in our view. Major lifers forecast USD/JPY in a core range of 109-115. According to major lifers’ H1 FY17 financial statements, their hedged ratio was 58.0% at end-September 2017, down slightly from end-March (60.2%), but this level was still high (see “JPY: Modest decline in lifers’ hedge ratio”, 24 November 2017). With the Fed raising rates, higher hedging costs should push lifers into reducing their hedged ratio (thus creating pressures pushing up USD/JPY). Lifers still have substantial room to unwind FX hedges, which should keep USD/JPY steady." - source Nomura

With government bond yields ratcheting up, this means more buying at some point FX unhedged from the Japanese investment crowd and still a strong demand for US credit given it is still a TINA trade (There Is No Alternative). When it comes to the on-going "bear-flattening" of the US yield curve, yes,  one could see a rebound with some tactical steepening in the 2s10s part of the curve as pointed out by Nomura in their FX and Rates Trade Ideas note from the 11th of January:

"In the US strategy outlook for 2018 (see link), we listed several reasons why we do not expect a full flattening of the US curve, or an inversion any time soon. It is inconsistent, in our view, for curves to pancake at this time given outright levels of rates are low (versus prior periods), global QE is fading, debt issuance is rising and the economy is growing. We expect these and other factors driving the US curve to result in sharp countertrend moves at times in 2018. We envision some bull and/or bear steepening factors ahead.

1. Bullish front-end factors: The front-end has quickly discounted the 2018 hiking path. US momentum looks solid but any sort of miss in US data could prompt a front-end rally. The front-end has also built up a sizable short base as seen in Figure 1.

2. Curve correlation factor: The curve versus the level of rates (Figure 2) is shifting quickly from the prior bull flattening/bear steepening regime.

Thus, those expecting the long end to outperform on any sort of risk-off (which is a common rationale we hear from investors long 10s plus) is misplaced, as 2s would now rally more in a risk-off.

3. Bearish long-end factors: As seen in Figure 3, one reason why the curve flattened in 2017 was 10-year rates were stuck in a range, while the Fed was hiking short-end rates.

This year will be unlike last year because Fed QT in ongoing, US tax reform passed (and deficits/debt loads are likely to expand) and global QE buying is slowing.

4. Curve momentum factor: We take the 3-month moving average of the curve as an indicator of momentum and take the rolling 1-week change to gauge its speed. As seen in Figure 4, the US curve momentum has hit its limit and is due for a rebound.

We recommend investors go short 10s on the curve (2s10s) and the broader butterfly in Q1 2018. For the 2s10s UST trade, our first steepening target would be half the flattening seen since November 2017 (roughly 15bp above current levels) before we re-assess." - source Nomura

While we might see indeed some rebound in the 2s10s part of the US yield curve, the continuation of the velocity in the "bear-flattening" of the US Yield curve which has started a while back is depending on renewed appetite from "Bondzilla" the NIRP monster "Made in Japan" we think.

But moving back to the attractiveness of US TIPS, we do think that, from an allocation perspective, they are of renewed interest. On that subject we read with interest another Nomura note, their Inflation Insights from the 11th of January entitled "Tip(s)-toeing into the US BEI pool":

"Avoid jumping but gradually wade into BEI waters

The macro case for adding long US inflation positions has strengthened with higher price pressure from the recovery in world trade, which has been a driver of higher commodity prices, especially for oil. These higher input costs coupled with what still remains a relatively accommodative global monetary stance (keeping real rates contained for now) is leading to wider TIPS breakevens inflation (BEI). Yet, this has been an orderly move and there are few relative value disruptions to take advantage of (i.e., cash/swap basis and curve disruption). A long US BEI position is therefore mostly a directional macro trade. 

We recommend investors stick with the macro trade, with limited risk and an oil hedge. We get long 5y breakeven rates at 1.95%, targeting 2.20% at the end of February (20bp net of negative carry) and pay for some oil price protection. We expect core inflation to strengthen in December. However, we would not hesitate to take losses if the December print meaningfully surprises to the downside. Globally we still prefer long euro BEIs.

US TIPS breakevens showed a strong performance into and out of year-end

The US 5-year breakeven inflation rate performed remarkably well into and out of yearend, increasing by about 15bp since mid-December 2017 (about 12bp net of the negative inflation carry). This is a solid performance that contrasts with the lack of movement between October and December. Inflation carry should remain negative in February, pushing forward breakeven rates higher at an increasing pace given the magnitude of the negative carry and the low number of days in the month (Figure 1).

The inflation carry profile therefore accentuates the skew to long breakeven positions into the CPI number on 12 January: a substantial positive surprise is needed for long positions to perform, while a small negative surprise would be enough to postpone long positions by a month. Note that our US economists’ forecasts for the December headline CPI are in line with both consensus and short-term inflation markets, although their forecast on core is higher (see US CPI Preview: A Potential Jump in Core).

Timing aside, the medium-term outlook for US TIPS BEIs appears favorable

As we highlighted in the TIPS section of Fixed Income Insights: 2018 Themes - US Strategy Outlook, “while valuation did not argue for a massive TIPS BEI long, the US may be the first place to benefit if the ‘reflation’ trade 2.0 is driven by Trump administration’s tax plans and fiscal stimulus”. Beyond the hurdle of short-term carry implications, various factors are forming a positive framework for US inflation valuations.

Global inflation is picking up and that should be supportive BEI wideners

The first positive technical stems from the behaviour of our Global Inflation Factor (GIF, a factor extracted from internationally-set prices such as commodity prices and manufacturing prices obtained from manufacturing surveys, which remain a large fraction of world trade). As the right chart in Figure 2 shows, global inflation picked up at the end of last year.

Furthermore the strong momentum on the price of manufacturing goods is further supported by the recent strength in energy and food commodity prices. Goods price momentum is particularly visible in Europe and is reflected in the right chart in Figure 2. The chart scaling shows this is why our favored long so far has been in euro inflation wideners. Yet, stronger momentum on commodity prices favors US TIPS breakevens, despite some discrepancy between wholesale and retail gasoline prices, probably due to margin changes after the weather-related disruptions of last year.

Valuations are balanced and not only driven by the hope of reflationary policy

The second factor supporting a long US inflation breakeven trade is a more balanced valuation framework/background. The left chart in Figure 2 shows this dynamic. In a reestimated version of a statistical model developed by Fed researchers (see IFDP notes, Dec.2016, "drivers of inflation compensation: evidence from inflation swaps in advanced economies", M.Rodriguez and E.Yoldas), the model is estimated over the 2008-2016 period, then projections are simulated since September 2016.

We find the large discrepancy that occurred between their model and actual inflation valuations that built up after the US Presidential election very informative. It validates our view at that time of some re-building of the specific inflation premium. Note that the risk premium captured by the model is generic and pertains to risk aversion, not inflation specific forces. Inflation valuations after October 2016 seem to have priced in too promptly the impact of expected reflationary policies, particularly on the fiscal side.

One year later, the US tax reform package has finally been voted on and passed. Yet, the fact that the discrepancy between the trajectory of breakevens and the fundamental factors (as implied by the model) is now small suggests there is room for upside that is motivated by expectations beyond just fiscal policy. We think the backdrop for US inflation is therefore much more balanced than was the case at end-2016 after the election.

The issue of timing and carry limits our exposure and enthusiasm

Investors should still scale into BEI wideners, as there are a few issues associated with an unconditional bullish stance on US inflation. We have already described the first issue in terms of seasonal carry not being ideal. There is also the issue of the near-term inflation profile which, according to both economists and markets, will not be very supportive.

As Figure 3 shows, year-on-year inflation is expected to fall between now and the end of Q1 2018, reaching a low of 1.8% in February 2018.

This year-on-year inflation downtrend should occur despite the robust core inflation rate forecast by our economics team at of 0.20% /month between December 2017 and December 2018, which is higher than average core inflation over the past two years. Some negative surprises on inflation are definitely not out of the question, although our economists see upside risks to the next core inflation print (see Economics Insights - US: December CPI Preview).

In February 2017, the 1-year inflation swap rate was about 2.35% and effective inflation over the period consistent with the swap rate was 2.13%, a 20bp shortfall mostly due to the unexpected fall in inflation (mostly from transitory factors but real drivers of inflation nonetheless) between February 2017 and June 2017. A quick glance back at forecasts back in February 2017 shows an underestimation of inflation by up to 60bp for some months. The reason for the underestimation is not yet fully apparent (see Special Report - Why Does the Fed Appear Insensitive to Soft Inflation Data?), and we have pointed to evidence of less-anchored inflation expectations in Inflation Insights - Reality check. The persistence of uncertainty on the inflation mechanism in the US, acknowledged by the Federal Reserve, suggests some caution is warranted on outright long US inflation stances.

Sharing between real and inflation components of yields

Keeping inflation anchored is a key condition for smooth monetary policy normalization. 

Any sort of increase in nominal interest rates that would be accompanied by falling inflation compensation would in fact entail a much tighter real stance via higher real rates pushing up overall yields. This would risk putting the economy on a very volatile path.

A key part of our analysis has been to favour inflation markets where the fostering of expectations was supported by low real yields, and this is why we have favored the euro market, where 2-year real rates are now close to their historical lows (Figure 4).

Short-term real rates in the US have increased much more rapidly which, by contrast, makes the increase in inflation valuations very dependent on economic optimism, not on policy accommodation. The stabilization in real yields suggests this element of vulnerability of the long US inflation trade is less acute now than a few weeks ago.

Still, it remains the case that the increase in inflation compensation is highly dependent upon a modest path in the recovery of real yields (see Inflation Insights - A tale of two modes).

Trade Idea: Scaling into long US 5-year TIPS breakevens

Oil prices are rising, valuations are balanced, the next CPI print is likely to surprise markets to the upside: there are many reasons to go long US inflation despite the negative seasonals.

The focus in the rally has been on cash instruments rather than derivatives, which is consistent with EPFR data showing strong inflows into TIPS ETF based funds. Also, in the latest BEI rally, the 5-year point has outperformed the 10-year point probably due to higher oil prices. Yet as during previous rallies, the 5-year breakeven rate relative to 3- year and 7-year has not outperformed, see Figure 5.

As a result, the case for relative value on the US inflation curve is limited, in our view.

The case for long US breakeven inflation exposure is therefore mostly a macro trade, with few elements of relative value selection that could “enhance” the trade. Longs need to fight less than ideal carry profiles, prospects of volatile oil prices and the Fed’s hiking path ahead. We cautiously go with the macro arguments by scaling into a long 5y TIPS breakeven trade with limited risk exposure (limited notional and some oil price hedges)." - source Nomura

Indeed it is a "macro" trade. We like these. We would also like to repeat what we have pointed out in our conversation "Hypomania" in February 2017 relative to rising oil prices given the relationship with recessionary pressure in the US. 

"As we pointed out as well in 2014, in our conversation "The Molotov Cocktail", past history has shown, what matters is the velocity of the increase in the oil prices, given that a price appreciation greater than 100% to the "Real Price of Oil" has been a leading indicator for every US recession over the past 40 years." - source Macronomics, February 2017.

As well there is a very important relationship between "gold" and "Tips" when it comes to their reaction to the velocity in rising inflation expectations as we indicated in last year's conversation:

"There is of course an explanation around this which was very clearly put forward by David Goldman in Asia Times on the 17th of February in his article "A mistery solved: Why real yields are falling despite higher growth":

"Economists often think of real yields as the “real interest rate,” or baseline rate of return, in a macroeconomic model. From this standpoint the low level of TIPS yields is a mystery: when economic growth is rising, the real interest rate should rise. The expected short-term interest rate has been rising as the Fed sets about normalizing rates, and the rising short-term rates affect real yields. The fall in TIPS yields in the face of Fed tightening and stronger growth presents a double challenge to the conventional wisdom.

The conventional way of looking at real yields ignores the way markets treat risk. Government debt (and particularly the government debt of the United States) is not just a gauge of economic activity, but a kind of insurance. If the world comes crashing down, you want to own safe assets. Investors hold Treasuries in their portfolios not just for the income, but as an insurance against disaster. And TIPS offer a double form of insurance: If economic crisis takes the form of a big rise in the inflation rate, TIPS investors will be paid a correspondingly higher amount of principal when their bond matures. That explains why TIPS yields sometimes are negative: investors will accept a negative rate of return at the present expected inflation rate in return for a hedge against an unexpected rise in the inflation rate.

The yield on TIPS has tracked the price of gold with a remarkable degree of precision during the past 10 years, as shown in the chart below. Gold tracks the 5-year TIPS yield with 85% accuracy. That’s because both gold and TIPS function as a hedge against unexpected inflation.

During the past year, for example, we observe that the relationship between gold and the 5-year TIPS yield has remained consistent, while the relationship between the expected short-term rate (as reflected in the price of federal funds futures for delivery a year ahead) has jumped around. There are lots of local relationships between federal funds futures and the TIPS yield, but the overall relationship is highly unstable." - source Asia Times - David Goldman

The rest of his article, is a must read we think. but if indeed there are rising inflation expectations, then it makes sense for real yields to continue to fall, which can be assimilated to the cost of the insurance for "unexpected outcomes" is rising. In the case for TIPS and Gold, the cost of insurance for the velocity in the change in inflation expectations is going up." - source Macronomics, February 2017

The recent surge in both US Tips, gold and gold miners are a consequence of the rapid surge in "inflation expectations" hence the interesting case for going both long gold/gold miners and US TIPS in that particular context we think, while there might also be a seasonal factor too it given we witnessed a similar situation in December 2016. There is a well continued weakness in the US dollar which is positive for Emerging Markets equities relative to US equities from an overweight allocation perspective. Right now risk assets continue to push higher, this in conjunction with rising inflation expectations should trigger a more hawkish change of narrative from central banks. As we pointed out in our final post of 2017, "Rician fading", once the tax deal was a done deal, US corporates with more clarity ahead could resume/start some M&A typical in the late stage of the credit cycle game in the first part of 2018.

• Final chart - The "Bid 'Em Up Bruce" stage is now

 As a tongue in cheek reference to the mighty Bruce Wasserstein aka "Bid 'Em Up Bruce",  the M&A legend, our final point of this conversation highlights another sign of late cycle behavior, namely corporate M&A. This final chart displays M&A in the corporate sector since 1999 relative to the credit cycle seen since 1999. It comes from Nomura Japan Navigator note from the 9th of January entitled "Equities move on factors other than yields and exchange rates":

Unlike the pattern over the past three years, 2018 began with substantial risk-on momentum. China’s short-term money rates stopped climbing, allaying market concerns, and commodities and EM equities gained upward momentum. The closing of positions out of concern that the year would start with the anomaly of a risk-off flow and the winding down of selling for a loss ahead of the implementation of US tax cuts also played a role, in our view. In addition, the passage of the US tax cut legislation provided an opportunity for investors and companies to resume investments once uncertainty had been dispelled. We view corporate mergers and acquisitions as a key engine of growth during the latter part of an economic recovery, and had been concerned about their lackluster pace despite the strong credit market in 2017 (Figure 2). This should pick up now.

At the start of the year, many economists and analysts set out the major themes for the year, regardless of their probability, and we expect corporate M&As to become a market theme, at least temporarily. This year, in our view, while the stock market will place more weight on the corporate sector’s capital investment and M&As, we think the rates and FX markets will focus on policy changes by central banks, with the start of monetary tightening by the BOJ and ECB clashing with the end of Fed rate hikes. We think this explains the disjointed movements across markets." - source Nomura

Is this cycle different when it comes to late cycle behavior such as heightened M&A activity? We do not think so, and it is a consequence as well of the "Bracket creep". Get your LBO screener ready folks...

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." -  Vladimir Lenin

Stay tuned! 

Macro and Credit - An Extraordinary Dislocation

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." -  Socrates

Watching with interest our barbell strategy (long gold/gold miners - long US long bonds) getting trounced, in conjunction with the infamous "flash crash" of the British pound, with terrible exports data coming from Asia as of late somewhat validating our fears expressed in our most recent post made us wander towards a cinematographic analogy for our chosen title this time around. "An Extraordinary Dislocation" is a short movie dating from 1901 by French illusionist and film director Georges Méliès famous for leading many technical and narrative developments in the earliest days of cinema. Georges Méliès was a prolific innovator in the use of special effects such our central bankers of today, popularizing such techniques as substitution splices, multiple exposures, time-lapse photography, dissolves, and hand-painted color. He was also the first filmmaker to use storyboards. Georges Méliès directed over 500 films between 1896 and 1913, ranging in length from one to forty minutes. In our case our title refers to a movie lasting a mere 2 minutes as per the linked provided above to the short movie "An Extraordinary Dislocation". In subject matter, these films are often similar to the magic theatre shows that Méliès had been doing, containing "tricks" and impossible events, such as objects disappearing or changing size such as the balance sheets of central banks. While most of his early special effects films were essentially devoid of plot, the special effects were used only to show what was possible (such as QE, TWIST, NIRP and other central banks tricks), rather than enhance the overall narrative or in the case of "The Cult of the Supreme Beings" aka central bankers, the overall situation of the global economy as a whole, slowly but surely falling when it comes to assessing the true global trade situation, particularly in Asia.

While one might wonder why we chose this particular short movie, we would like to provide some explanations before we move on to the nitty-gritty of our conversation. "An Extraordinary Dislocation" is probably the funniest of all mystical pictures yet produced by Georges Méliès. In this picture several body parts of a dancing clown float away from his body and come back again. In similar fashion as we have been warning in numerous conversations and in particular our February conversation "The disappearance of MS München" about the rising risk of large standard deviations moves thanks to rising cross-asset correlations due to central banks meddling with the most important allocation signal namely interest rates. The most recent "Extraordinary Dislocation" of the British pound is yet another reminder of the risk induced by repressed volatility. When it comes to dislocations and dancing clowns such as our central bankers of today, rest assured that many more extraordinary dislocations will continue to appear from nowhere such as "rogue waves" such as the recent sell-off in the British pound. While rogue waves have long been a fascination of ours as per our February musing, what "The Cult of the Supreme Beings" aka central bankers fail to grasp in their numerous "wealth effect" experiences is the Wicksellian Differential. 

Before we start our usual Macro and Credit musing we would like as a reminder to discuss Wicksell Differential and the credit cycle (linked to the leverage cycle). Wicksell argued in his 1898 book Interest and Prices that the equilibrium of a credit economy could be ascertained by comparing the money rate of interest to the natural rate of interest.  This simply equates to comparing the cost of capital with the return on capital. In economies where the natural rate is higher than the money rate, credit growth will drive a positive disequilibrium in an economy. When the natural rate of interest is lower than the money rate which is the case today (rising Libor), the demand for credit dries up (our CCC credit canary are being shut out of credit markets) leading to a negative disequilibrium and capital destruction eventually. In a credit based global macro world like ours, the Wicksellian Differential provides a better alternative estimation of disequilibrium than the more standard Taylor Rule approach of our central bankers. At the Bank for International Settlements since 1987, Claudio Borio and his colleague Philip Lowe wrote in 2002 a very interesting paper entitled “Asset prices, Financial and Monetary Stability: Exploring the Nexus”, BIS Working Papers, n. 114. In this paper the authors made some very important points that are worth reminding ourselves today:

"Widespread financial distress typically arises from the unwinding of financial imbalances that build up disguised by benign economic conditions […] Booms and busts in asset prices […] are just one of a richer set of symptoms […] Other common signs include rapid credit expansion, and, often, above-average capital accumulation" - source BIS

So when we hear Janet Yellen at the Fed saying the following:

 "Asset values aren’t out of line with historical norms." -Janet Yellen, 21st of September 2016

We reminded ourselves that Wicksell used just the housing sector to illustrate his theory. Excess lending dear Mrs Yellen, always lead to "overinvestment". Just because the Taylor Rule used by the Fed doesn't include asset prices, it doesn't mean in our book that asset values are not out of line of historical norms.

Why is the Wicksellian Differential so important when it comes to asset allocation? Either profits increase due to an increase in the return of capital and/or a fall in the cost of capital (buybacks funded by a credit binge). This is clearly reminded by Credit Capital Advisors' note from July 2012 entitled "Navigating the business cycle: A new approach to asset allocation":

"The calculation of the Wicksellian Differential is however an ex-post measure, so is unhelpful for investors to use as an investment trigger, hence an ex-ante model needs to be constructed based on the underlying drivers of growth in the Wicksellian Differential, which is of course leverage. However, an ever-increasing amount of leverage is clearly unsustainable and will cause expectations to shift at some point, resulting in a period of deleveraging and falling profits. As a result, an investment trigger can be set up based on the dynamic relationship between leverage ratios and the rate of profit, which requires constant recalibration as new data is made available.

The relationship between each leverage ratio and the rate of profit is unique and dynamic through time. For example, the slowdown and fall in the consumer leverage ratio caused the Wicksellian Differential to reverse between 1990 and 1992. Furthermore, during the tech bubble between 1996 and 1999, corporate leverage fell followed by consumer leverage, causing the rate of profit to fall. This highlights that there was no real basis for rising equity returns during the tech bubble as the rate of profit growth was falling. Thus the dotcom bubble ought to be seen as akin to John Law’s South Sea bubble, which was purely based on a rather large misconception. The extent of the credit bubble leading up to the recent financial crisis is highlighted by the substantial rise in consumer leverage, the rate of which began falling at the end of 2006, highlighting the downturn in the rate of profit growth in 2007, and thus a shift to bonds. Finally consumer leverage rose again in 2009, signaling a recovery in profits, although the recovery was short-lived. In 2011 the trend fell again, and the 2012 signal highlights a continuing slowdown in the underlying trend of profit growth. 

There are of course other factors that impact profits, such as significant changes in the general price level and in output per worker, as well as other known variables such as the tax rate; however, the most important driver with respect to the turning points is the realisation that a period of credit expansion has become unsustainable, leading to changing expectations." - source Credit Capital Advisors, July 2012

And of course dear readers, we have long been warning that the credit cycle was slowly but surely turning thanks to credit "overmedication". End of our Wicksellian Differential parenthesis.

In this week's conversation, while credit markets are still strongly technically driven thanks to central bank competing with credit investors, we would like to look at Japan's latest bending the curve experiment as well as rising inflation expectations leading to some pundits asking themselves about the potential return of the much dreaded "stagflation" word.

Synopsis:

• Macro and Credit - Can the Bank of Japan bend the yield curve?
• Macro and Credit  - Is reflation around the corner and leading to stagflation?
• Final chart: Balance sheets are out of sync with the economy

• Macro and Credit - Can the Bank of Japan bend the yield curve?

While following the latest market gyrations and various "sucker punches" delivered to the investing crowd, the latest "The Cult of the Supreme Beings" experiment coming from the Bank of Japan picked up our interest given the changes in policy target from quantity to interest rates, in their latest "reflationary/inflationary" attempt. On this subject we read with interest Bank of America Merrill Lynch Liquid Insight latest note from the 14th of October 2016 entitled "Will yield curve control work in Japan?":

"BoJ switches policy target from quantity to interest rates; what about prices?

At its September Monetary Policy Meeting (MPM), the BoJ carried out its comprehensive assessment and introduced QQE with yield curve control. The new policy consists of: (1) yield curve control, by which the BoJ will manipulate short- and long-term yields; and (2) an overshoot commitment, whereby the BoJ pledges to keep expanding the monetary base until CPI inflation exceeds and stays stably above 2% YoY. The sustainability of huge JGB purchase operations totaling ¥80tn annually caused some concern, and the risk that yields would decline without limit prompted the BoJ to switch its target from quantity to interest rates and thereby make purchase operations more flexible. On the price side, we see some evidence that inflation is trending downward again, such as the core CPI’s dip into year-on-year negative territory (Chart of the day).

The BoJ’s strengthened commitment to 2% inflation runs the risk of postponing the exit from monetary easing until even further in the future. In this note, we consider the BoJ’s new monetary policy, including the extent to which it can contribute to raising prices.

Yield curve control – the balancing act

The BoJ’s “yield curve control” means that a rate of -0.1% will be applied as the short-term rate to policy-rate balances in current accounts held at the BoJ. For the long-term rate, the BoJ will conduct long-term JGB purchase operations in such a way that the 10yr yield stays at about 0%. At the same time, the BoJ aims to maintain the pace of annual JGB purchase operations at the current ¥80tn while guiding interest rates, so doubts remain about the simultaneous use of yield curve control and quantity. The BoJ maintains that yield curve control is at the center of its new framework.

Indeed, as the 10yr yield approached -0.1%, the BoJ reduced purchase operations on 30 September. This reminded market participants that -0.1% was the yield’s lower limit. The purchasing cutback was small, but in light of the possibility that operations could be reduced again, the 10yr JGB will probably be seen as difficult to buy the next time its yield approaches -0.1%. Given the small size of the purchasing cutback, it might appear that tight supply-demand is likely to push the yield below -0.1% again, but the BoJ first indicated that the target yield level was 0% and then showed its intention by reducing purchase operations. If the 10yr yield approaches -0.1% again, market participants will likely start to expect another purchasing cutback. The BoJ has declared that it will control short- and long-term rates, so with the short-term rate set at -0.1%, it is difficult to envision the BoJ doing nothing if the 10yr yield sinks below that level. Therefore, the BoJ might be able to keep the 10yr yield at about 0% without reducing purchase operations very much.

The BoJ’s Summary of Opinions at the Monetary Policy Meeting (20-21 September), released on 30 September, says: “It is uncertain whether the pace of JGB purchases will slow down as intended and the sustainability of monetary easing consequently improve under yield curve control.” The goal of slowing JGB purchases is clearly mentioned, and the BoJ’s stance on “quantity” and “policy sustainability” does not appear to be settled. The BoJ is probably wary of reducing quantity only to see the yen strengthen or stocks weaken. Nevertheless, we believe it will gradually move in the direction of reducing quantity.

In any case, it would be difficult to hold the 10yr JGB yield down to 0% without purchase operations, but the BoJ itself will have to continue searching for the right amount of purchases to do the job. Even if the BoJ shifts entirely to an interest rate target, there is no guarantee that it can control the yield curve, so uncertainty would be high. The important point is how fast the BoJ can shift to an interest rate target. The BoJ for now seems to be targeting the shape of the yield curve at the time of the September MPM, so yield targets are 0% for the 10yr yield, 0.4% for the 20yr yield and 0.5% for the 30yr yield (Rates forecast: Attention on BoJ operations when yields decline).

Reflation credibility of the new framework

History shows that when prices and the economy overheat, rate hikes can be deployed to exert some control. But is it possible at normal times, in the absence of a financial or liquidity crisis, to boost prices by making monetary policy more accommodative? At this point in Japan, the effort is not going very well. In general, QE by purchasing T-Bills with 0% interest rates is not thought to be effective. Because highly liquid T-Bills with 0% interest rates have about the same value as cash, and exchanging one for the other has almost no economic effect. On the other hand, expanding the monetary base by purchasing long-term JGBs has a strong experimental aspect. Although long-term JGBs have low yields and high liquidity, they are not equivalent to cash. The BoJ introduced QQE in April 2013, and the yen’s sharp depreciation and rise of prices made the policy look effective. After three and a half years, however, inflation is heading downward again, while there was some impact from the decline in oil prices.
Since the beginning of the Abe administration at end-2012, it is true that the yen has weakened owing to a certain sense of inflation expectation. Another factor behind the yen’s depreciation is that the then Federal Reserve Board (FRB) Chairman Ben Bernanke mentioned tapering in May 2013, and tapering began in December of that year. From then until rate hikes actually began in December 2015, the US appeared to approve of some USD appreciation. In 2008 and later, amid the financial crisis that stemmed from the US subprime loan crisis and the Greek debt crisis, the FRB and the European Central Bank (ECB) implemented a variety of operations, including asset purchases. Their contribution to reducing risk premiums, raising asset prices and stabilizing the financial system helped to raise expectations of the BoJ’s QQE.

Immediately after QQE was deployed, prices steadily rose, owing in part to the weak yen effect, but the inflation trend turned downward with the decline of oil prices beginning in summer 2014. This was unfortunate for the BoJ, but even though the year-on-year decline in oil prices has shrunk considerably, inflation remains low (Chart 1).

Even the CPI inflation excluding energy prices is trending lower, suggesting that this may be the effect of the yen’s recent strength. Although the yen’s depreciation from 2013 did help to boost prices, that effect has peaked out because of the yen’s appreciation this year. The forex rate affects prices with a lag of six months to one year, so forex will be a price-lowering factor for the time being (Chart 2).

Based on the results of the September MPM, the possibility of JGB purchasing cutbacks gave rise to concern that the yen would strengthen further. Ironically, or perhaps fortunately, expectations of US rate hikes rose and this may have weakened the yen instead.

In the end, the major determinant of inflation will be the extent to which tighter labor market conditions push up wages. In 2014, when the weak yen and a consumption tax rate hike raised prices, wages did not see a commensurate rise, and as a result, consumption was sluggish. According to the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare’s Monthly Labor Survey, total cash earnings (nominal wages) climbed 1.2% YoY in July. However, scheduled cash earnings (basic wages, etc.) rose only 0.3%, while bonuses and other special payments boosted the overall figure. In August, total cash earnings declined 0.1%, their first downturn in three months, but scheduled cash earnings were up 0.5%. If the BoJ is aiming for 2% inflation, wage hikes are still insufficient, but the unemployment rate has declined to about 3% and companies facing labor shortages have started hiring more full-time workers, including permanent employees. Favorable changes like these are starting to be seen in the labor market (Chart 3).

The corporate sector’s retained earnings have hit a record high, while the labor share is declining, so there is plenty of room for improvement (Chart 4).

Price-lowering pressure from the strong yen will continue for a time, but we expect to see modest price rises over the medium to long term. However, is it possible for monetary easing to cause sustained inflation? We cannot give a definite answer, but let us consider this matter by looking back on the BoJ’s monetary policy and its ripple effect.

Effect of quantitative expansion

Under the BoJ’s QQE, asset prices rose strongly starting in 2013. Normally stock and JGB prices have a negative correlation with one another, but at that time they had a positive correlation and rose together (Chart 5).

That relation seems to have broken down since the start of this year, but for at least three years asset prices rose in a way not normally seen. The problem is that rising asset prices were not reflected in general prices. This was likely resulting from the fact that the BoJ expanded the monetary base at a rapid rate, but the expansion of money stock was limited (Chart 6).

To put it another way, even though the monetary base expanded, bank lending increased only slightly. Since 2000, Japan’s monetary environment has been accommodative, and bank deposits have continually increased, but bank lending has not. To cover the deposit-loan gap, domestic banks increased investment in JGBs (Chart 7). 

Therefore, even when the banks’ JGB holdings were exchanged for cash under QQE, the lending situation of banks did not greatly change. The asset composition of domestic banks shows that in the three years after QQE started, the share of bank assets in JGBs declined, while the share in cash increased by a similar percentage. Other asset classes did not change much (Chart 8).

Although the absolute amount of lending did increase, it mainly went into real estate-related projects. Lending growth to manufacturers for capital goods was limited. Even though the monetary base expanded, the amount of funds circulating in the real economy (money stock) did not change much, so the kinds of price increases seen in assets were not seen in general prices.

Effect of negative interest rates

At the January 2016 MPM, the BoJ applied a negative interest rate of -0.1% to a portion of current accounts held at the BoJ. It introduced a three-tiered structure for current accounts and other measures to avoid negative impact on banks, which until then had cooperated with QQE. In the JGB market, however, about three years of JGB purchase operations had tightened the supply-demand relationship, causing yields to decline sharply, the yield curve to flatten, and arousing concern about pressure on the earnings of financial institutions (Super long JGB supply-demand balance). In Europe, which introduced negative interest rates before Japan, the side effect of reduced bank margins was conspicuous, but it did not lead to much of an increase in lending to corporations, the intended benefit. With interest rates on deposits remaining positive, loan rates could only be lowered to a certain extent without eating up the margins. In particular, Japan has already experienced a long period of low interest rate policy, and interest rates on loans are already low, so further downside room is limited (Chart 9).

In Japan, with its high ratio of indirect financing, the effect on the real economy is only slight. Moreover Danish banks responded to the decline of bank margins by raising service charges on mortgages and other products. According to a 7 October Nikkei Shimbun article, Japanese banks are also considering higher service charges on mortgages. This will have a de facto monetary tightening effect. However, a low-interest rate environment is generally positive for corporate funding. Amid the limited decline of interest rates on loans, corporate bond issuance is picking up in Europe. In Japan, the corporate bond market did not expand, partly because Japanese companies have large reserves, but issuance did swell this summer (Japan Credit Monthly, September 2016). As the yield curve flattened, issuance increased at maturities over 10yr (Chart 10).

The wider variety of corporate funding alternatives can be described as a benefit, but the BoJ’s monetary policy change might also bring about a change in this trend. As the BoJ points out, the costs and benefits of policies must be watched.

Conclusion

With the April 2013 introduction of QQE, called a monetary “bazooka” at the time, the BoJ tried to work on people’s expectations and raise CPI inflation to 2% within two years, but the attempt failed (Looking back at three years of QQE). In the absence of any clear reason why expansion of the monetary base should lead to a higher inflation rate, the BoJ’s action was even called a social experiment. Monetary policy is a crucial means of stabilizing prices and the financial system. When the economy overheats, for example, it can be treated with a rate hike, and when liquidity dries up in a financial crisis, the central bank can supply liquidity. Although there were a number of different factors that make it difficult to blame the failure solely on the BoJ, it has proven very difficult to raise prices by monetary policy alone in normal times.

Liquidity is already adequate owing to Japan’s extended monetary easing. It is so adequate, in fact, that banks have trouble finding worthwhile investments for their funds. With the supply of even more funds beyond this point, the costs of this policy are starting to become more pronounced than the benefits. In early July, the 20yr JGB yield dipped into negative territory, a sign of low yields overall and a very flat curve. As the cost of funding foreign currency rose, the possibility arose that domestic investors would have nowhere to invest. “The lower the better” is not a phrase that applies to interest rates. Excessive monetary easing by the central bank can inadvertently rob the market of low-risk assets and heighten financial system risk. The G20 finance ministers and central bank governors have also expressed concern about the side effects of prolonged monetary easing and extremely low interest rates environment.

The increasingly easy monetary policy favored by nearly everyone until recently might now gradually change direction on a global basis. In future, a monetary policy that more closely matches the pace of real economy’s growth might be sought, as well as a policy that is more sustainable. On that point, we believe the BoJ’s switch from quantity to an interest rate target is effective, but it will raise new questions, what the appropriate shape of the yield curve is and whether that will lead to inflation." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

The same pattern in Europe and Japan is happening, namely that the new money flows downhill where the fun is: to the bond market. Bond speculators are having a field day and now credit speculators are joining the party with both hands even in Japan.

From our perspective, there are a couple of points we would like to make relative to Bank of America Merrill Lynch's comments. First of all we believe that the bending of the curve will be ineffective in triggering the much desired inflation the Bank of Japan is seeking given as we indicated before when commenting on the "Japanification of Europe, both Europe and Japan's deflationary headwinds are stemming from poor demographics. In terms of Wicksellian Differential and real estate and Japan, we note with interest that the prognosis for Japanese real estate is some more pain ahead as NIRP is translating into banks trying to recoup some profitability through higher mortgage rates as indicated by Bloomberg in their article from the 13th of October entitled "Tokyo Condo Prices May Fall 20%, Deutsche says":

"The Bank of Japan’s shift to controlling bond yields is driving up mortgage rates, prompting Deutsche Bank AG to predict Tokyo apartment prices may fall 20 percent or more by 2018.
The BOJ’s negative-rate policy was already hurting buyer sentiment, and its move to boost longer-term yields is a double-blow to the industry, according to Yoji Otani, a real estate analyst at Deutsche Bank in Tokyo. The 35-year fixed mortgage rate has climbed for two straight months after touching a record low of 0.9 percent in August, and sales of new condominiums in Tokyo this year have fallen to the lowest since the nation’s property bubble collapse in the early 1990s." - source Bloomberg

Second point, the impact on real estate prices and rising mortgages thanks to very aggressive monetary policies can be as well ascertained in Switzerland. Of course when it comes to "capital destruction" and Wicksellian Differential, you can rest assured that once prices go down in "bubbly" real estate markets, it leaves people in negative equity territory for an extended period of time. The most interesting comment from the Bloomberg article relative to Bank of America Merrill Lynch's conclusion where they think the Bank of Japan will be successful in "bending the yield curve" (which we don't think they will!) is as follows from Yoji Otani, a real estate analyst at Deutsche Bank in Tokyo:

"The one positive thing about negative rates was that it lowered borrowing costs, and now that is going to end," said Otani, who expects prices to fall 20 percent to 30 percent by the end of 2018. "The collapse of this silent bubble has begun."
"The BOJ is operating a negative-rate policy but it is trying to push up long-term yields, which totally lacks sense,” he said. “There’s a contradiction." - source Bloomberg

You can rest assured that this new NIRP trick is going to blow in the face of "The Cult of the Supreme Beings" aka central bankers members from the Bank of Japan and lead to some additional "Extraordinary Dislocation". As a reminder from our previous conversation where we quoted our April article "Shrugging Atlas" in which we discussed Japan and the kite string theory:

"That is the very difficult situation that lies with "easy policy", there is an easy way in, but no easy way out. So as goes the kite string theory, you can control a kite by pulling its string, but not pushing it. Once you reach the ZLB and implement NIRP on top of QE, it seems to us monetary policies become ineffective." - source Macronomics, April 2016

If indeed real estate turns "South" in Japan then banks will have to increase credit provisions which de facto will reduce credit availability and therefore credit impulse and economic growth. On top of that if indeed Japanese households fall into negative equity thanks to their real estate exposure then again, as a textbook Richard Koo explanation, these households will have no other choice but to reduce their spending and borrowing as they try to repair their balance sheet. Yet another potential for Richard Koo's Balance Sheet Recession theory playing out again in Japan we think.

As well as having a contradictory approach, the Bank of Japan has played the NIRP game given it's mostly has we have explained before a currency play, but then again, anchoring the 10 year Japanese Government Bond around the 0% threshold is conditional of USD/JPY evolution. Furthermore, the Bank of Japan is playing a very difficult balancing act. This is clearly indicated by Nomura in their Japan Navigator note number 691 from the 10th of October entitled "Diminishing room for JGB rates to fall further":

"Conditions for 10yr rates to become positive

We believe 10yr yields are unlikely to reach positive levels unless, as mentioned above, the BOJ allows the pace of its JGB purchases to fall further below its target of “about JPY80trn” in annual absorption, in which case the market would determine that the Bank is unlikely to ease further.
Once expectations of further BOJ easing fade, we believe negative 10yr JGB yields would no longer attract short-term long traders, but only purchases from investors looking to buy for holding until maturity. In this case, we believe 10yr rates would trade above levels that are determined by bank deposit rates and deposit insurance premiums. This is not included in our base case for FY16, but we believe this scenario may materialize in H1 FY17, as the BOJ’s JGB purchases would fall more substantially below its target.
If the BOJ continues buying JGBs at the current pace, it would absorb a net JPY75trn in FY16. However, if the current pace continues beyond end-FY16, it would absorb only a net JPY72trn in FY17, in which case the BOJ would have to either abandon its quantitative target or allow greater flexibility (adopting a proviso) from next spring, in our view.

At that point, if the Fed is discussing another hike (following a hike in December), we would expect the risk of a strong JPY to have declined, but otherwise the BOJ could cut rates further to alleviate investor concerns over QQE tapering." - source Nomura

It appears therefore that further reaction from the Bank of Japan is conditional on the Fed's action in December. What is a cause for concern in the footsteps of our previous conversation relating to our US dollar strengthening fears is that if indeed USD funding tightens further, then USD/JPY basis widens even more which means in effect that strong buyers such as lifers will continue their purchase of US bonds without any FX hedging due to the rising cost. This particular point is worth noting and was highlighted by UBS in their recent Global Credit Comment from the 12th of October entitled "What is the consensus view? And where could it be wrong?":

"UK/Europe:

Hedging FX exposure was brought up in a majority of client meetings, as widening basis swaps reduce the relative yield advantage of US credit. We found that clients are largely hedging FX exposure via short-dated swaps (3 months). But interestingly, a rising fraction noted they are no longer hedging as the costs become less economical. In continental Europe, where negative rate pressures are particularly severe, the rotation into anything with yield is driven largely by institutional pressures (rather than fundamental credit assessments). There are simply few other investment alternatives in a market structure where managers must invest incoming flows and coupon/maturity proceeds. A number of investors reported more recent interest in longer-dated US IG – and a majority of investors continue to report holding a long position in EU financials.

Among the bigger themes, UK and European clients were focused on the outlook for central bank policy, political fragmentation in Europe, the foreign demand for global credit, the state of the US credit cycle3 and US election outcomes. On risks ahead clients were quick to cite many of the known unknowns ahead: Brexit, the Italian Referendum, the December FOMC meeting and other core European elections next year. Based on our discussions, we believe the larger and more underpriced risk scenarios for European credit investors would include: 1) timing and pace of ECB tapering of CSPP, 2) rising systemic risks stemming from idiosyncratic stress among European banks, and 3) significant spread widening in US credit spreads. Note that none of these outcomes are our base case." - source UBS

Whereas there is indeed some clear sign of global US dollar shortage increasingly indicated by widening basis swaps, the yield differential still favor having US credit exposure, even long dated to Investment Grade as we feel more and more incline to look for quality rather than chasing yield in US High Yield given the late stage of the current credit cycle and significant build up in leverage with week CAPEX, poor EBITDA and rising defaults. The next US Senior Loan Office Surveys (SLOs) will be paramount for the technical bid in credit and in particular US High Yield to continue we think.

For our second point, we would like to steer towards reflationary expectations and the much commented fears of a return of "stagflation".

• Macro and Credit  - Is reflation around the corner and leading to stagflation?

Back in March 2016 in our conversation "Unobtainium" we pointed out that the time that US TIPS were more compelling than UK linkers thanks to their deflation floor, but given the very significant performance of UK linkers thanks to Brexit and the British pound de facto devaluation, we should have noted what the UK linkers market was telling us at the time, namely that further depreciation of the British pound was coming hence the rise of inflationary expectations and the significant performance of this asset class in particular during the month of August.

Our renewed interest in rising expectations can be tracked down from our comments from our March 2016 conversation:

"A very interesting 2015 paper by the Bank of Israel ( (Sussman, N and O Zohar 2015, “Oil prices, inflation expectations, and monetary policy”, Bank of Israel DP092015.) indicates that since the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008, a 10% change in oil prices moves 5Y5Y expected inflation by nearly 0.1% in the US and 0.05% in the Euro area. Therefore, given the recent significant surge in oil prices towards the $40 mark, we do not think it is such a surprise to see a rise in inflation expectations in that context. This latest rise in inflation expectations could after all be transitory as well as the sudden rise in oil prices, particularly in the light of the tight relationship between the US dollar and oil prices. We think that the latest dovish stance of the Fed all has to do with their concerns relating to the "velocity" of the US dollar and the "unintended consequences" a too rapid rise of the "Greenback" could have on Emerging Markets (EM)." - source Macronomics, March 2016

Many pundits have noticed the current reflationary trend particularly in the 10 year breakeven rate in the US over the past couple of weeks. This trend is as well highlighted in Bank of America Merrill Lynch's Securitization Weekly Overview entitled "Reflation takes flight" from the 7th of October:

"This week, we take note of the steady rise in the 10yr breakeven rate over the past few weeks, moving from 1.50% on September 20 to 1.66% as of Friday (October 6) morning, post-September payrolls. Using our breakeven inflation rate valuation framework, we consider what a 2% breakeven rate might mean for securitized products and competing sectors. We choose 2% since we think it is a reasonable target level to assume: in other words, although the Fed downplays the importance of market-based inflation expectations, we think it is likely an implicit target anyway.

Chart 1 and Chart 2 show two different longer term views of the 10yr breakeven inflation rate. We think they both tell us that the recent rise in the breakeven rate is very important and that the chances of continuing to move higher, possibly reaching 2% over the next 3-6 months, are good. At long last, central bank reflationary policies might actually be working.

Chart 1 shows that the recent rise in the breakeven rate has pushed the level through the upper end of the downward trend channel that has persisted since taper talk in 2013. Chart 2, which looks at 30-, 40-, and 50-week moving averages along with the weekly level, suggests that, in recent weeks, the trend may finally have shifted from downward to upward. The weekly reading has crossed through all the moving averages to the upside, and for now, the 30-week moving average is moving higher.

We’re as skeptical about the inflation risk as most, but the view in these charts tells us that, finally, the tide may have shifted in recent weeks towards higher inflation expectations. We’ll consider our breakeven valuation framework in a moment but first we consider what rising inflation expectations means for Fed rate hike potential.

Chart 3 compares the 10yr breakeven rate with the probability that there is at least one rate hike by December 2016; the probability currently stands at 64%.

In recent months, they have moved in similar directions, although not always at the exact same time. Over the past month, since September 2, the 10yr breakeven rate has risen by roughly 16 basis points, from 1.48% to 1.64%. If the same increase applies over the next two  months, bringing the breakeven inflation rate to 1.96%, we are confident the Fed would have hiked at least once by the December meeting (as BofAML economists expect); moreover, based on Chart 3, it also seems possible that the market probability of such a hike would be approaching 100%. In other words, the Fed would have reached a perfect position to hike: the market is fully expecting it, and would not react adversely to the hike.

It should be recognized that there is a chicken-and-egg situation here: if the rate hike probability jumped quickly to 100%, say over a day, the breakeven inflation rate would likely quickly reverse the recent rising trend; but if both gradually move higher, in line with the Fed’s gradualist approach, reaching the end state on both the rate hike and the inflation expectation becomes more achievable. The recent breakeven trend reversal to the upside, seen in Chart 1 and Chart 2, makes us believe the latter scenario is the higher probability scenario." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

The trajectory for inflation expectations and rising 10 year US breakevens in our book is clearly being driven by the change in oil prices, that simple. We have yet to meaningful wage inflation which would entice us to validate the recovery mantra of some sell-side pundits. Nonetheless wages are a backward looking indicator of inflation pressure.

Whereas the rise in US inflation has put indeed some pressure relative to the US yield curve, in effect pushing the US 10 year towards 1.80 % yield level, we do not have such a sanguine approach for the long end looking at the recent downward revision by the Atlanta Fed from their GDPNow latest forecast for 1.9 % on October 14th for the Third Quarter. We therefore believe we are once again approaching compelling levels for US long dated treasury and we will be monitoring the situation closely. As a reminder, when it comes to our contrarian stance in relation to our "long duration" fondness it is fairly simple to explain:

"Government bonds are always correlated to nominal GDP growth, regardless if you look at it using "old GDP data" or "new GDP data." So, if indeed GDP growth will continue to lag, then you should not expect yields to rise anytime soon making our US long bonds exposure still compelling regardless of what some sell-side pundits are telling you."

We hope, at some point, this will become "Common knowledge" and that some sell-side pundits will stop defying this simple yet compelling "Wicksellian" logic which in terms of allocation can prevent  "Extraordinary Dislocation" when eventually equities will correct.

When it comes to the stagflationary fears out there, they seem to us relatively premature given the impact rising oil prices have had on inflation expectations. What seems to us much more worrying from a potential bear market perspective is the velocity in the surge in oil prices which in the past have always preceded significant corrections in stock markets. As past history has shown, what matters is the velocity of the increase in the oil prices, given that a price appreciation greater than 100% to the "Real Price of Oil" has been a leading indicator for every US recession over the past 40 years. This, dear friends is based on facts, not conjecture.

Finally, for our final chart, and given we highlighted the importance of leverage when looking at Wicksellian Differential, we think it is important to note the growing divergence between corporate balance sheets with the economy as the credit cycle moves towards the last inning.

• Final chart: Balance sheets are out of sync with the economy

While much of the performance of US equities has been driven to a large extent by multiple expansion thanks to buybacks funded by cheap credit, it is worth noting that eventually, what matters in a credit cycle at a late stage is the level of leverage in the system from a Wicksellian perspective. In relation to this statement we would like to point towards Bank of America Merrill Lynch's chart from their Credit Market Strategist note from the 14th of October entitled "3Q=stabilizing, 4Q=improving fundamentals" where they show that corporate balance sheets are at much later stage in the cycle:

"Balance sheets are out of sync with the economy

As we have argued (see: Monthly HG Market Review: June ’16: Brexit and the decline in yields 01 July 2016 ). due to unprecedented monetary policy easing globally, in response to the challenges emerging from and financial crisis and sovereign crises, corporate balance sheets are at a much later stage in the cycle (Figure 17). 

This disconnect between the economic cycle and corporate balance sheets is highly unusual and perhaps never seen before. But these times are indeed highly unusual. As the economy moves through the last half of its cycle we thus expect that corporate balance sheets improve a bit over the coming years - although companies are not going to undergo a traditional deleveraging cycle. Then when the economy eventually goes into recession we should see the traditional spike in corporate leverage ratios driven by declining earnings." - source Bank of America Merrill Lynch

So dear Janet Yellen, if you think that asset values aren’t out of line with historical norms, balance sheets are and you can expect down the line "Extraordinary Dislocation" and very low recovery rates in the next downturn thanks to Wicksellian Differential rest assured.

"I believe in social dislocation and creative trouble." - Bayard Rustin, American leader in social movements for civil rights, socialism

Stay tuned !