Federal Reserve

What will yield-curve control mean for equities?

Equities 7 minutes to read

Peter Garnry

Head of Equity Strategy

Summary:  Yield-curve control has mixed results when it comes to equities. Japan's YCC policy since September 2016 has not been a success judging from real GDP growth and for Japanese equities which have underperformed global equities. The period 1942-1951 when the Fed had a YCC policy in place suggests a more positive picture for equities against inflation hinting that YCC can work as a crisis tool. However, the key risk related to YCC is inflation risk as our study of inflation and equity returns suggest inflation growth of 4% or higher leads to bad real rate returns for equities.


History tends to repeats itself and the FOMC Minutes have indicated that the Fed is considering yield-curve control which was last used in the 1940s. In the case the Fed hints of yield-curve control (YCC) going the same way as the Bank of Japan (BOJ) introducing YCC in September 2016 and recently Reserve Bank of Australia in March 2020 what would likely be the effect on equities.

In the recent case of BOJ the evidence suggest as a mild positive effect on Japanese equities in local currency relative to global equities. Japanese equities outperform global equities in local currency by 12% from September 2016 to November 2017. Since then Japanese equities have underperformed by 18% and Japan’s real GDP growth is slightly lower after YCC was introduced compared to the four years leading up to its introduction. One potential reason for YCC’s lackluster performance in Japan could be related to fiscal tightening in the years after 2016 relative to the period before YCC reducing public impulse into the economy.

The evidence from the US experiment with YCC in the period 1942-1951 seems much better. US equities deliver a 5.6% annualized real rate return with the years 1946-1949 of high post-war inflation being negative for equities. The period suggests that equities can thrive in a high inflationary and high debt period under YCC but investors should keep in mind that this period only represents one independent sample and that economy has changed much since the 1940s. The reaction in Japanese equities in the year following Japan’s introduction of YCC suggest that we got see a boost to US sentiment on equities from the introduction of YCC in the US.

Which sectors will benefit from YCC? The cap on long-term interest rates will also cap banks’ profitability through an upper bound on net interest margin. However, to the extend that YCC creates growth this will grow loan books and thus market values of banks. Our view is that financials should be avoided in this environment but that growth companies with a large part of their value coming from the future should be overweight as YCC creates a low discount factor for future cash flows. Highly leveraged companies and capital intensive industries such as auto, airliners, steel, real estate, shipping, construction etc. should also outperform in this environment as YCC will set financing rates artificially low.

Inflation is the danger for equities

YCC combined with aggressive US government deficits could suddenly create inflation which history suggests has a tendency to be a wild beast when it escapes its normal ringfencing. Higher inflationary pressures will not immediately become negative for equities as our analysis from May 2019 of equities and inflation over 105 years suggest. A mild positive inflation shock has historically been associated with positive real returns in equities. It’s actually a large deflationary shock that has been associated with negative real returns. Equities have historically delivered negative real return when inflation has sustained its growth rate above 4%. This is the real danger for equities.

How likely is it that the Fed will introduce YCC? The Fed introduced YCC in March 1942 to stabilize the bond market amid rising inflation expectations due to enormous US war deficits. This time around deflationary forces seem to be more dominant than inflationary forces due to the demand destruction from COVID-19 lockdowns around the world. Fixing the long-term yields will mostly lead to lower monthly purchases of bonds and thus lower growth of the Fed’s balance sheet while sending a signal to the Treasury to stimulate the economy through government deficits without worrying about stability in the bond market. YCC will most likely come and already this year as it’s naturally crisis tool but also an important tool to create inflation and thus dig the world out of its debt mountain. But whether it will be announced tomorrow at the FOMC meeting is more uncertain. Given the current market pricing it’s most likely that the Fed will keep this tool in the box and utilize it if the market destabilizes over the coming months.

The history of US yield-curve control

During World War II concerns over US budget deficits and inflation put upward pressure on long-term interest rates. In an attempt to stabilize the bond market the Fed capped long-term yields at 2.5% and Treasury bills at 0.375%. This operation effectively helped the US government monetize its war efforts. There are two ways to do this. Either the central bank simply buys a pre-determined amount of bonds every months (quantitative easing or QE) or it can introduce YCC which set a yield target which effectively means unlimited purchases of bonds. The findings from BOJ’s operation since September 2016 is that the quarterly bond purchases actually fell after YCC was introduced compared to the QE period from 2013-2016.

US inflation was in 1947 so high that the Fed had to raise the short-term interest rates to dampen inflation pressures but chose to keep the long-term yield cap. However, in 1951 the Fed had to abandon this target as well also called the “Accord” ending the crisis policy during the war and post-war years. Nominal growth was significantly above the long-term interest rates and thus created a tailwind for reducing US public debt to GDP. In 1953 the Fed adopted its price stability policy combined with controlling the short-term interest rates through its bills only policy. In the years that followed public debt to GDP declined and bottomed out during the 1970s.

Disclaimer

The Saxo Bank Group entities each provide execution-only service and access to Analysis permitting a person to view and/or use content available on or via the website. This content is not intended to and does not change or expand on the execution-only service. Such access and use are at all times subject to (i) The Terms of Use; (ii) Full Disclaimer; (iii) The Risk Warning; (iv) the Rules of Engagement and (v) Notices applying to Saxo News & Research and/or its content in addition (where relevant) to the terms governing the use of hyperlinks on the website of a member of the Saxo Bank Group by which access to Saxo News & Research is gained. Such content is therefore provided as no more than information. In particular no advice is intended to be provided or to be relied on as provided nor endorsed by any Saxo Bank Group entity; nor is it to be construed as solicitation or an incentive provided to subscribe for or sell or purchase any financial instrument. All trading or investments you make must be pursuant to your own unprompted and informed self-directed decision. As such no Saxo Bank Group entity will have or be liable for any losses that you may sustain as a result of any investment decision made in reliance on information which is available on Saxo News & Research or as a result of the use of the Saxo News & Research. Orders given and trades effected are deemed intended to be given or effected for the account of the customer with the Saxo Bank Group entity operating in the jurisdiction in which the customer resides and/or with whom the customer opened and maintains his/her trading account. Saxo News & Research does not contain (and should not be construed as containing) financial, investment, tax or trading advice or advice of any sort offered, recommended or endorsed by Saxo Bank Group and should not be construed as a record of our trading prices, or as an offer, incentive or solicitation for the subscription, sale or purchase in any financial instrument. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, would be considered as a marketing communication under relevant laws.

Please read our disclaimers:
- Notification on Non-Independent Investment Research (https://www.home.saxo/legal/niird/notification)
- Full disclaimer (https://www.home.saxo/en-gb/legal/disclaimer/saxo-disclaimer)

Trade Responsibly
All trading carries risk. To help you understand the risks involved we have put together a series of Key Information Documents (KIDs) highlighting the risks and rewards related to each product. Read more
Additional Key Information Documents are available in our trading platform.

Saxo Markets is a registered Trading Name of Saxo Capital Markets Ltd (‘SCML’). SCML is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, Firm Reference Number 551422. Registered address: 26th Floor, 40 Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London E14 5DA. Company number 7413871.

This website, including the information and materials contained in it, are not directed at, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in the United States, Belgium or any other jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to applicable law or regulation.

It is important that you understand that with investments, your capital is at risk. Past performance is not a guide to future performance. It is your responsibility to ensure that you make an informed decision about whether or not to invest with us. If you are still unsure if investing is right for you, please seek independent advice. Saxo Markets assumes no liability for any loss sustained from trading in accordance with a recommendation.

Apple, iPad and iPhone are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. App Store is a service mark of Apple Inc. Android is a trademark of Google Inc.