- •Will 2019 be another difficult year for EM?
- •When will EM equities begin a decent rally; what support is required?
- •Is there a case for local-currency debt over hard-currency debt?
- •Positives to rely on; developments to be warned of
- •Key messages
- •Signposts and triggers for change
- •Pictures that tell the story
- •Overview of EM asset calls
- •EM growth challenges return
- •Late cycle is not kind to EM, but no blow-ups this time
- •Equities: Cheapening as expected, amid tighter liquidity
- •Box 1: What do asset, product and labour markets tell us about the stage of the economic cycle?
- •Box 1: What do asset, product and labour markets tell us about the stage of the economic cycle? (continued)
- •Chinese equities better placed than many in EM
- •Currencies: Better total returns
- •Box 2: How far are we from capitulation in EM equities?
- •Box 3: How can investors overcome EM's weakest link – currencies?
- •Top trades for 2019
- •1. Long China A-shares vs EM ex China, Long USDCNY
- •2. Long MSCI EM Value vs MSCI EM Growth
- •3. Long 10y Indian government bonds vs MSCI India
- •5. Long G3 currencies vs KRW
- •6. Long CZK vs ZAR
- •7. Long 10y Russia OFZ, long RUBCAD
- •8. Long NTN-F 2025, Long BRLCOP
- •9. Receive 2Y Mexico TIIE rates
- •China (too) makes difficult choices now
- •Box 4: Can a more globally accepted CNY help fund a potential deficit in China?
- •Box 5: How sensitive are global assets to a weaker CNY?
- •Box 5: How sensitive are global assets to a weaker CNY? (Continued)
- •Equities: Probing what is cheap and why
- •The 'where and how' of EM being cheap – taking a lens to EM multiples
- •The consensus and reality on earnings
- •Our bottom-up numbers agree with the top-down
- •Understanding the size, sector and country reads
- •Box 6: Can Indian equities find their groove?
- •Can the consumption story recover?
- •Temporary liquidity squeeze or credit shock?
- •Box 6: Can Indian equities find their groove? (continued)
- •Have valuations adjusted enough for a re-examination?
- •Growth or Value?
- •Leading indicators suggest Growth heavyweights, consumer and tech, will remain under pressure for now
- •Box 7: Semiconductors: Where next for the fading 'Memory Supernova'?
- •A different size and nature of stimulus from China
- •Currencies: A shift in pressure points
- •That unravelled fast
- •Box 8: What reforms can we expect from Brazil?
- •Box 9: What is the collateral damage from China's inclusion in global indices?
- •A narrowing growth gap against DM still, but for different reasons
- •Can external balances, carry and valuation help EMFX withstand the relative growth challenges?
- •Box 10: Why is EM growth not benefitting from stronger US growth?
- •We find few currencies to be cheap enough to withstand further pressure.
- •The CNY will remain a source of volatility
- •Main risks to our views
- •Local rates: Buffered by term premia & real rates
- •Another challenging year ahead, but past worst
- •Has value been re-built?
- •Which markets are rich, and which are cheap?
- •Which local rates are sensitive to FX and credit?
- •Box 11: Which EM debt market is most vulnerable to slower portfolio flows?
- •Box 12: What will ECB and BoJ normalisation mean for EM assets?
- •Box 12: What will ECB and BoJ normalisation mean for EM assets? (continued)
- •Monetary policy expectations: what’s mispriced?
- •Curve shapes – where’s the alpha?
- •Box 13: Where is term premium in EM local currency debt?
- •Putting everything together
- •Credit: Help from more realistic risk premia
- •No large step adjustment due in EM credit
- •A modest widening amid weak growth is the base case
- •CNY volatility will mean greater pressure on EM corporates
- •Box 15: Will onshore defaults continue in China?
- •Political calendar
- •Performance of 2018 top trades
- •UBS FX & macroeconomic forecasts
- •Valuation Method and Risk Statement
vk.com/id446425943
Credit: Help from more realistic risk premia
Global Macro Strategy 19 November 2018 |
82 |
vk.com/id446425943
Briefing
•
•
•
•
EM credits closed 2018 with better risk premia on country-specific issues and weaker- than-expected growth; we see no large step correction in 2019.
EM sovereign health and MBS scores do not suggest we are close to a crisis. South Africa, Turkey, Mexico and sub-Saharan Africa seem at risk, while Indonesia, Russia and Brazil should fare better. We expect a modest spread widening of 20-30bp.
CNY volatility, redemption and rising onshore defaults (spill-over effect to offshore spread) put more pressure on EM corporates, which should see spreads widen 30-50bp.
EM Asian HY valuations are wide relative to US HY. Chinese HY properties’ cheapened valuations offer a more balanced risk profile.
At 96bp, the YTD widening in EM sovereign credit spreads is the highest since 2013. To a degree, this cheapening of the asset class has been optical: weakness in just four countries, Venezuela, Argentina, Turkey and Lebanon, has explained 35% of the YTD widening in EMBI GD (Figure 169). Nonetheless, together with weaker-than-expected growth, the widening in EM spreads has been more pronounced than we expected, especially in the context of spreads remaining tight in Europe and the US. Despite the recent widening of US HY, the gap between EMBI GD and a similarly rated US spreads aggregate is now at the 96th percentile of its post-crisis distribution (Figure 170).
EM spreads moved wider at a speed similar to 2013, but from a higher level
Figure 169: EM spread percentile by country |
Figure 170: EMBI GD spread vs similarly rated US spread |
100% |
|
|
|
5y percentile of top-20 countries by weight |
|
|
550 |
|
Spread between EM and US (rhs) |
|
||||
90% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
EMBI GD spread |
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US spread (rating matched to EM) |
|
|||||
80% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
500 |
|
96%ile |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
450 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
74%ile |
20% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
23%ile |
Mexico |
Turkey |
China |
SouthAfrica Argentina Ecuador Chile Colombia Philippines Russia Peru Malaysia Indonesia |
Brazil |
Panama |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Lebanon |
200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
Source: Datastream, UBS |
Source: Datastream, Bloomberg, UBS. Note: US spreads are aggregate based on |
|
50% IG and 50 & HY |
No large step adjustment due in EM credit
It is very likely that in 2018 there has already been a repricing of risk premium in the weakest EM credits such as Argentina and Turkey. Politics, as always, can still bring new challenges, but based on current redemption schedules (Figure 173), it is difficult to see the catalyst for another step adjustment. For a deeper view on whether it is time to buy Argentina, see Box 14.
Most countries in EM do not have a balance sheet problem; those that do, have seen their prices adjust
Global Macro Strategy 19 November 2018 |
83 |
vk.com/id446425943
Box 14: Is it time to buy after the rough ride in Argentina?
Tighter financial conditions globally, rising risk aversion towards EM, and domestic policy mistakes led to a drying out of financing, sending the peso into free-fall and pushing inflation higher for Argentina in 2018. By May, authorities had no choice but to seek IMF help. Argentina has since negotiated two iterations of a three-year stand-by agreement, recently augmented to USD57bn, 90% of which is scheduled to be disbursed within the next 12 months.
The agreement with the IMF has two key pillars. First, it puts an end to fiscal gradualism, demanding that this year's expected 2.6% of GDP primary deficit be turned into a 1% of GDP surplus by 2020. To achieve this, the authorities will cut public investment, reduce utility subsidies, maintain some distortionary taxes, and tax exporting sectors more heavily (Figure 171). The second pillar is a monetary straight-jacket: zero monetary growth in nominal terms through July 2019. Given that inflation is expected to end 2018 at 47%, and that the central bank is reducing its stock of Lebac liabilities (not all of which are being turned into Leliqs held by the banks), this constitutes a monumental monetary contraction in real terms, one that will keep interest rates high (currently at 68% on seven-day Leliqs) and that will be relaxed only if the peso appreciates and tests the bottom of wide, pre-established, FX bands.
We think the Macri administration will hit the interim target of a 0% of GDP primary balance in 2019, but the commitment of the incoming government in 2020 (President Macri will face re-election in October) is more questionable, particularly given that it will have little in the way of IMF disbursements to look forward to at that point. Using these assumptions, the government projects that it will not need to issue USD debt aside from the short-term maturity LETES until 2020, for which it assumes a 50% roll-over for USD-denominated and 100% for ARS-denominated.
Our analysis (Figure 172) shows that meeting the fiscal target in 2019 (0 deficit) combined with close to a 60% roll-over for short-term private debt in USD and local currency would be enough to cover the financing needs of the government until the end of the Macri administration. However, the market will follow closely whether the government is complying with the fiscal target in an election year, and the sustainability of the monetary and exchange rate plan in an environment of higher financing costs, to assess short-term debt sustainability. Medium-term credit spreads will be subject to the market's perception of the outcome of the 2019 election, and the adherence of whoever wins to the current adjustment plan and the SBA with the IMF. The expected recession in 2018-19 could weigh on the current administration's ability to retain power. We expect to see an increase in uncertainty in this regard as the political campaign heats up by the second quarter of the year.
In short, the front-loading from the IMF serves the purpose of a co-ordination mechanism that induces private investors to roll over a higher proportion of their short-term Argentinean credit exposure and decreasing liquidity risks, but political factors will heavily influence whether the country faces another high-stress episode in the next couple of years.
Figure 171: Primary deficit proposed adjustment from 2018 to 2019 (% of GDP)
|
3.5 |
0.3 |
|
|
Operatingcosts |
currentOther expenditure |
revenueAdditional |
|
|
3.0 |
|
|
|
||||||
2.6 |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rightsExportsrevenue |
|
|
assistanceSocial |
spendingCapital |
subsidyEconomic |
|
|
|
|||
2.0 |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
-0.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
-0.5 |
|
|
|
Deficit |
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
|
-0.2 |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
-0.2 |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-0.2 |
2019 |
0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
0.0 -1.1
Source: Bloomberg, UBS
Figure 172: Debt sustainability requires meeting fiscal targets and high rollover rates for short-term debt (USD bn)
Source: Ministerio de Hacienda, UBS estimates
Armando Armenta and Rafael De La Fuente
Global Macro Strategy 19 November 2018 |
84 |
vk.com/id446425943
Figure 173: Hard currency securities and loans due to mature next three years (USD bn)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
Debt to gross |
Country of risk |
Financials |
Energy |
Materials |
Industrials |
Utilities |
Government |
Others |
Total |
Reserves |
reserves |
Total |
422 |
146 |
103 |
63 |
46 |
281 |
149 |
1210 |
5833 |
|
China |
233 |
29 |
28 |
31 |
14 |
25 |
54 |
413 |
3177 |
13% |
Russia |
18 |
32 |
22 |
4 |
0 |
9 |
3 |
88 |
459 |
19% |
South Korea |
11 |
1 |
5 |
8 |
6 |
42 |
8 |
82 |
403 |
20% |
Turkey |
38 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
21 |
12 |
79 |
85 |
93% |
Argentina |
3 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
67 |
2 |
78 |
54 |
144% |
India |
30 |
15 |
9 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
14 |
77 |
401 |
19% |
Brazil |
18 |
11 |
11 |
3 |
4 |
8 |
15 |
70 |
380 |
18% |
Mexico |
5 |
20 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
12 |
16 |
64 |
174 |
37% |
Indonesia |
10 |
10 |
7 |
2 |
4 |
20 |
6 |
58 |
115 |
50% |
Poland |
10 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
26 |
1 |
41 |
113 |
37% |
South Africa |
10 |
0 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
6 |
7 |
32 |
50 |
63% |
Malaysia |
7 |
8 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
26 |
103 |
25% |
Chile |
6 |
2 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
20 |
37 |
53% |
Kazakhstan |
12 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
30 |
56% |
Hungary |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
16 |
28 |
57% |
Philippines |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
6 |
2 |
15 |
75 |
20% |
Egypt |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
11 |
0 |
14 |
45 |
31% |
Colombia |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
13 |
48 |
28% |
Peru |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
8 |
58 |
13% |
Source: Bloomberg, UBS. Red boxes indicate top-16 country-sectors with highest maturity as a percentage of country reserves
A modest widening amid weak growth is the base case
Nonetheless, there will be no escape in the context of weaker EM growth, which always brings pressure on fiscal positions, which have already been slowly deteriorating (Figure 174), limiting capital inflows. External metrics are likely to deteriorate incrementally, and more quickly, if EM economies begin to lose FX reserves at a time of tighter policy from the Fed and ECB.
Figure 174: EM public debt and DM public debt (% of |
Figure 175: UBS EM Macro Balance Sheet Risk Score |
GDP) |
|
110 |
% of GDP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
Score; 0=lowest risk / 20=highest risk |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
DM |
|
EM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
Peak 11.74 as of Apr-99 |
Leverage |
External |
Fiscal |
Institutional risk |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trough 8.61 as of Jan-07 |
Today: 10.22 |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
00 |
02 |
04 |
06 |
08 |
10 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
20 |
22 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1999 |
2001 |
2003 |
2005 |
2007 |
2009 |
2011 |
2013 |
2015 |
2017 |
||
Source: IMF, UBS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: |
Haver, UBS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our Macro Balance Sheet Risk Score (Figure 175) forms the core of our EM credit valuation framework. It comprises a weighted average score of four indices: a) leverage risk (25%), b) external risk (40%), c) fiscal risk (20% weight), and d) institutional risk (15%). We think of the first three indices as a proxy of ability to pay, and of institutional risk as a proxy of willingness to pay. (For more details see
EM Navigator: Quantifying Macro Risk - Healing or Drifting?) Under current weak conditions, we expect our MBS score to drift higher by 0.2–0.4 points towards a level of 10.5–10.6, still well away from crisis level readings of 12. If growth does not improve from 2019, crisis level readings could emerge in three to four years.
We quantify macro risk in EM credit based on our Macro Balance Sheet Risk Score, which suggests a worsening credit profile for EM, but not a crisis
Global Macro Strategy 19 November 2018 |
85 |
vk.com/id446425943
However, this assumes linear relationships, and things can move quicker in the real world.
Figure 176: EMBI GD fair value framework*
|
|
EM Growth (EMBI-weighted, %y/y) |
|
||
|
|
1.7% |
2.7% |
3.7% |
|
|
|
(Current) |
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20% down |
393 |
371 |
349 |
|
Commodity |
Current |
376 |
353 |
331 |
|
price moves |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20% up |
361 |
339 |
317 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source: Haver, Bloomberg, UBS *Keeping global risk premium index at 0. Based on two regression models 1) EMBI spreads regressed on MBS, log of commodity price index (75% oil and 25% BCOMIN) and global risk premium for period since Jan 2003; and 2) MBS change (y/y) regressed on EM growth (EMBI-weighted).
Taking a neutral view of global risk appetite, and commodity prices, this worsening in Macro Balance Risk Score is consistent with spreads widening modestly by 20– 30bp next year (Figure 176) compared with 96bp YTD. Along with a slight drift wider in US rates, this still makes for a total return of about 4.1% in EM hardcurrency sovereign debt. In total return terms, this is less than what we are expecting in local-currency debt. However, based on our belief that a weaker USD and GBI EM stability is likely to be back-loaded in 2019, we go into 2019 with a modest preference for hardover local-currency debt.
Our MBS risk score points to a further widening of 20–30bp in EMBI GD spreads in 2019; total returns should be close to 4%
Figure 177: YTD change in EMBI GD spreads by rating buckets
Figure 178: EMBI GD spreads relative to US corporate spreads
350 |
|
|
|
180 |
EMBI GD Spreads relative to US |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
159.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
250 |
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
Composite:117.4 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
200 |
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
64.7 |
|
|
66.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18.9 |
(B)EM AR LE EL NI EG IR (BB)EM TR ZA DR SE CR BZ (BBB)EM RO IN MX ID RU HU UR PN PE PH CO KZ (A)EM CN MY CL PD LI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
0 |
10 |
20 |
30 |
40 |
50 |
60 |
70 |
80 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
B |
|
BB |
|
|
BBB |
|
A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B(+/-) |
BB(+/-) |
BBB (+/-) |
A(+/-) |
|
|
|
|
Weight in EMBI GD(%) |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Source: Datastream, UBS |
|
|
|
Source: Datastream, Bloomberg, UBS |
|
|
|
|
|
In 2018, the B rating segment widened the most in both absolute (Figure 177) and relative (to US corporates) terms (Figure 178). In 2019, we expect a slight widening here, but also a drift wider in the BB and BBB credits. By country, we think South Africa, Turkey, Mexico and sub-Saharan Africa are most at risk, especially if commodity prices are weaker than we currently anticipate. Amid weaker China growth, we expect a widening in hitherto stable Asian credits too. Indonesia, Russia and Brazil should perform better, relatively speaking (Figure 179).
Global Macro Strategy 19 November 2018 |
86 |