Developed Countries

Our sister BCA Geopolitical Strategy Service has introduced a Presidential Election Model that uses political and economic variables to predict the Electoral College vote on the state-by-state level. The model would have predicted the past five elections correctly on an out-of-sample basis, and even the controversial win of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. As of the latest available data, the model predicts that the Republicans will lose Michigan and Wisconsin (critical victories in 2016). Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire become borderline or “toss-up” states: the probability of a Republican win in these states is 48.77%, 50.17%, and 46.90%, respectively. Even the smallest change in our model inputs can shift these states to either party. According to the model, President Trump is also at the lowest level of approval and weakest state-by-state economy that he can afford. If one of these factors stabilizes below today’s level, Trump will lose his reelection bid. Bottom Line: Quantitative modeling, entirely independent of our qualitative assessment, suggests that Trump is favored to win the 2020 election. However, he is skating on very thin ice with regard to key cyclical variables such as state-level economic performance and popular approval rating.

Highlights Global growth will rebound in 2020, led by the US and China, putting upward pressure on global bond yields. Maintain below-benchmark overall duration exposure. Central banks will stay dovish until policy reflation has clearly turned into inflation, limiting how high bond yields can climb in 2020 but sowing the seeds for a far more bond-bearish backdrop in 2021. Expect mild bear-steepening pressure on global yield curves, led by rising inflation expectations. Accommodative monetary policy and faster growth will delay the peak in the aging global credit cycle. Stay overweight global corporate debt versus sovereign bonds. Returns on global fixed income will be far lower in 2020 than in 2019, given rich valuation starting points. Country and sector selection will be more important in driving fixed income outperformance. For sovereign bonds, favor countries where yields are less sensitive to change in overall global yields; for credit, favor sectors with lower interest rate durations and lower spread volatility. Feature BCA Research’s Outlook 2020 report, outlining the main investment themes for next year from the collective mind of our strategists, was sent to all clients in late November.1 In this report, we discuss the broad implications of those themes for the direction of global fixed income markets in 2020. In a follow-up report to be published in the first week of the new year, we will translate those themes into specific recommended allocations and weightings within our model bond portfolio framework. A Summary Of The 2020 Outlook Chart 1Expect A Cyclical Rise In Global Yields In 2020 The main conclusions from the Outlook 2020 report were cyclically bullish looking out over the next twelve months, but more cautious beyond that. The downturn in global growth seen in 2019 is projected to end in response to several headwinds that have become tailwinds: a small wave of Chinese stimulus and reflation; more stimulative global monetary policies; the substantial easing of global financial conditions as risk assets have rallied worldwide; a fading drag on global manufacturing from inventory destocking; both China (weak growth) and the US (the 2020 US election) have good reasons to de-escalate the trade war in 2020. This backdrop should push global bond yields moderately higher in 2020, while maintaining a backdrop that is once again favorable for risk assets on a relative basis versus government debt (Chart 1). A critical element to this story is the supportive monetary policy backdrop. Central banks worldwide, led by interest rate cuts from the US Federal Reserve and a resumption of asset purchases from the European Central Bank (ECB), are now running more stimulative policies in response to this year’s global manufacturing slump and elevated level of political uncertainty. Policymakers will maintain accommodative monetary policy through 2020 to try and bring depressed inflation expectations back up to central bank targets. This will create a “sweet spot” for global risk assets, with improving economic growth and accommodative monetary policy. A repeat of the spectacular total return numbers seen across the majority of asset classes in 2019 is unlikely, but global equity and credit markets should solidly outperform government bonds. Yet all that monetary stimulus does not come without a price. Policymakers will maintain accommodative monetary policy through 2020 to try and bring depressed inflation expectations back up to central bank targets. This will create a “sweet spot” for global risk assets, with improving economic growth and accommodative monetary policy.  A revival of inflationary pressures in 2021 will force central banks to raise rates much more aggressively. Combined with a China that remains wary of promoting excess leverage, this will drive the current prolonged global business cycle expansion to its recessionary endgame, taking equity and credit markets down with it. This will eventually trigger a new decline in global bond yields as policymakers shift back to easing mode, but from much higher levels than today. Our Four Main Key Views For Global Fixed Income Markets In 2020 The following are the main implications for global fixed income investment strategy based off the conclusions from the 2020 BCA Outlook: Key View #1: Maintain below-benchmark overall duration exposure. The pickup in global growth that we expect in 2020 has its roots in two locations: China and the US. For China, policymakers are keenly aware that the current growth slowdown cannot continue, as it has already pushed nominal GDP growth below 8% (Chart 2). For an economy as highly leveraged as China, slowing nominal growth is lethal and must be avoided to prevent a surge in private sector defaults and rising unemployment. Already, China has delivered significant policy stimulus in 2019: the reserve requirement ratio has been cut by 400bps; taxes have been cut by 2.8% of GDP; capital spending at state-owned enterprises has increased; the currency has depreciated; and, more recently, monetary policy has been eased via traditional interest rate cuts. These measures have eased our index of Chinese monetary conditions and triggered a surge in the China credit impulse, which leads Chinese import growth (i.e. China’s most direct impact on the global economy) by nine months. There are signs that Chinese growth is already bottoming out, as evidenced by the recent pickup in the China manufacturing PMI. Expect more signs of improvement in the first half of 2020. The BCA global leading economic indicator (LEI) has been rising since January of this year, and the global LEI diffusion index is signaling that the upturn will continue in 2020 (Chart 3). With global financial conditions at highly stimulative levels thanks to the robust performance of risk assets in 2019, the backdrop is already conducive to faster global growth. BCA’s geopolitical strategists are of the view that a “détente” in the US-China trade war is still the most likely base case scenario, which would go a long way in reducing the growth-inhibiting effects of elevated uncertainty (bottom panel). Chart 2A Boost To Global Growth From China In 2020 Chart 3Lower Uncertainty + Easy Financial Conditions = Faster Growth As for the US, the lagged impact of the Fed’s 75bps of rate cuts this year has boosted domestic liquidity conditions in a pro-growth fashion. The BCA US Financial Liquidity Indicator, which leads not only US growth but also leads the BCA global LEI and commodity prices by 18 months, is already signaling that US economic momentum is set to bottom out in early 2020 (Chart 4). This signal is in addition to the leading properties of US financial conditions (middle panel), which suggests a reacceleration of real GDP growth back above trend is about to unfold. Chinese policy reflation has typically been a good leading indicator for US capex and is heralding a rebound in investment spending (bottom panel). The pickup in global growth would also help revive the dormant euro zone economy, which has been hit hard though plunging export demand and overall weakness in the manufacturing sector. The entire slump in euro area real GDP growth since the start of 2018 can be attributed to plunging net exports, while domestic demand has held steady (Chart 5). The increase in the China credit impulse and our global LEI diffusion index – both leading indicators of euro area export growth – are signaling that euro area export demand is already in the process of bottoming out (bottom two panels) and should gain momentum in the first half of 2020. Chart 4US Growth Is Poised To Accelerate Chart 5The Drag On European Growth From Trade Will Soon End This better growth backdrop will put moderate upward pressure on global bond yields in 2020. This better growth backdrop will put moderate upward pressure on global bond yields in 2020. Key View #2: Expect mild bear-steepening pressure on global yield curves, led by rising inflation expectations. While we expect bond yields to drift higher in the next 6-12 months, the upside will be capped with central banks likely to stay dovish until policy reflation has clearly turned into higher inflation. Interest rate markets will not begin to price in expectations of tighter monetary policy without evidence of actual inflation picking up. The Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan and other central banks have all stated publicly that they will maintain current accommodative policy settings until realized inflation has sustainably returned to target levels, typically around 2%. This would be a major change in the modus operandi of these policymakers, who have typically signaled rate hikes based simply on forecasts of higher inflation. The implication is that interest rate markets will not begin to price in expectations of tighter monetary policy without evidence of actual inflation picking up (Chart 6). Chart 6Central Banks Will Stay Dovish Until Inflation Sustainably Accelerates A critical ingredient for global inflation to begin moving higher again is a softer US dollar (USD). The year-over-year growth rate of the trade-weighted USD is correlated to global export price inflation and commodity price inflation, more generally (Chart 7). The typical drivers of the USD are all pointing in a more bearish direction: Chart 7The USD Is Critical For Global Reflation Chart 8Global Real Yields & Inflation Expectations Will Drift Higher In 2020 the Fed has cut interest rates multiple times since the summer and is expanding its balance sheet via repo operations and treasury bill purchases; global (non-US) growth is bottoming out, and capital tends to flow out of the USD into more cyclical currencies in Europe and EM when global growth is accelerating; elevated policy uncertainty, which tends to attract inflows into the safety of the USD, is starting to diminish. The combination of improving global growth and a softer USD would normally be enough to generate a significant increase in global bond yields. Yet we do not expect the sort of move higher in the real component of bond yields signaled by our global LEI diffusion index in 2020 (Chart 8, top panel). While real yields should move higher alongside faster growth, if there is no expected tightening of monetary policy as well, the move in real yields will be more limited. The grind higher in global bond yields that we expect in 2020 will come first through faster inflation expectations and, much later in the year, higher real bond yields when central bankers (starting with the Fed) begin to signal a need to turn more hawkish. The grind higher in global bond yields that we expect in 2020 will come first through faster inflation expectations and, much later in the year, higher real bond yields when central bankers (starting with the Fed) begin to signal a need to turn more hawkish. This suggests that inflation-linked bonds should perform reasonably well in countries where inflation is likely to accelerate the fastest, like the US. Faster inflation expectations will also result in some bear-steepening of global government bond yield curves in the first half of 2020 (Chart 9). There is very little curve steepening discounted in bond forward rates in the developed markets – a consequence of the general flatness of yield curves – which suggests that yield curve steepening trades could prove to be profitable in 2020. Chart 9Expect A Mild Bear-Steepening Of Global Yield Curves Chart 10The Fed Has Dis-Inverted The Treasury Curve In the case of the US, the Fed’s recent easing actions have pushed short-term interest rates below longer-term Treasury yields, removing the yield curve inversion that sparked recession fears among investors during the summer of 2019 (Chart 10). With the Fed likely to sit on its hands for most of next year, even as US growth and inflation are likely to improve, this will put additional bear-steepening pressure on the US Treasury curve. In Europe, bond markets have already discounted a very significant impact from the ECB restarting its Asset Purchase Program, which only began last month. Investment grade corporate bond spreads, as well as Italy-Germany government bond spreads, have narrowed substantially despite a weak euro area economy (Chart 11, bottom panel). Meanwhile, the term premium on 10-year German bunds is back to the deeply negative levels middle panel) seen when the ECB was expanding its balance sheet at a 30-40% pace, rather than the 5% pace implied by the current announced pace of purchases of 20 billion euros per month (top panel). This potentially leaves longer-term European yields exposed to the same bear-steepening pressures seen in other bond markets, even within the context of a renewed ECB bond-buying program. Chart 11European Bonds Already Discount A Very Dovish ECB Chart 12The Wild Card For Bonds Markets In 2020: Fiscal Policy A potentially big wild card for global bond markets next year will be fiscal policy, which can also exacerbate yield curve steepening pressures. Any sign of a push toward more government spending, particularly in Europe where there has been such reluctance to open the fiscal taps, would result in a sharper upward move in global bond yields than we are expecting. This is not because of a supply effect related to more government bond issuance that would require higher yields to attract buyers. It is because fiscal stimulus (Chart 12) would push growth to an even faster pace that would bring forward the date when inflation returns to policymaker targets and tighter monetary policy could commence. This would follow a similar path to the curve steepening dynamics described earlier, with a fiscal boost to growth pushing up longer-term inflation expectations before starting to push up short-term interest rate expectations. Key View #3: Stay overweight global corporate debt versus sovereign bonds. Investors should expect another year of corporate bond outperformance versus sovereign debt in the developed economies. The combination of faster global growth, somewhat higher inflation and accommodative monetary policies laid out in the BCA Outlook 2020 report will delay the peak in the aging global credit cycle. This means investors should expect another year of corporate bond outperformance versus sovereign debt in the developed economies. Low borrowing rates are already helping to extend the credit cycle by making it easier for highly indebted borrowers to service their debts. This can be seen in the US, where interest coverage ratios (using top-down data for the non-financial corporate sector) remain above the levels that have preceded previous recessions (Chart 13). Low borrowing rates are also helping indebted borrowers in Europe, particularly in Italy and Spain where the banking system is now far less exposed to non-performing loans than during the peak years of the 2011-12 European Debt Crisis (Chart 14). Chart 13Low Rates Helping Extend The US Credit Cycle Chart 14Low Rates Helping Ease Stress In European Banks Declining Non-Performing Loans Are A Positive For The European Periphery Chart 15A Cyclically Positive Backdrop For Global Corporates According to our checklist of indicators to watch for an end of the corporate credit cycle in the US – tight monetary policy, deteriorating corporate sector financial health, and tightening bank lending standards – only corporate financial health is flashing a warning signal according to our Corporate Health Monitor as we discussed in a recent report.2 In fact, our global Corporate Health Monitor is rolling over – a trend that should continue as growth improves in 2020 – which should support global corporate bond outperformance versus government debt next year (Chart 15). Key View #4: Returns on global fixed income will be far lower in 2020 than in 2019. Country and sector selection will be more important in driving fixed income outperformance in 2020. The start of 2020 looks far different in terms of fixed income valuations compared to the beginning of 2019. For example, the 10yr US Treasury yield started the year at 2.72% and is now 1.83%, while the 10yr German bund yield started this year at 0.24% and is now MINUS-0.31%. These lower yields reflect the slower pace of global economic growth and monetary policy easing delivered by the Fed and ECB. Yet at the same time, corporate credit spreads have narrowed in both the US (the high-yield index OAS is down from 526bps to 360bps) and the euro area (the investment grade index OAS is down from 152bps to 100bps). These massive rallies in global bond markets this year resulted in both lower government bond yields and tighter credit spreads - even with slower global growth that would normally be a trigger for wider spreads/higher risk premiums. Looking at the current valuation of government bond yields in the major developed markets from a long-run perspective, it is difficult to make the case that it is attractive. Medium-term real bond yields remain well below potential GDP growth rates, a consequence of central banks keeping policy rates well below neutral levels suggested by measures like the Taylor Rule (Chart 16). Chart 16Global Government Bonds Are Expensive Without the initial starting point of cheap valuations, fixed income return expectations for 2020 should be tempered. This means that rather than loading up on maximum duration risk and/or credit risk to capture big yield and spread moves, bond investors should be more selective in country, maturity and credit exposure to generate outperformance in 2020. Chart 17Favor Lower-Beta Government Bond Markets In 2020 For government bonds, that means focusing country exposures on lower-beta markets where yields are less correlated to moves in the overall level of global bond yields. Our preferred way to measure this is to look at the beta of monthly yield changes for the benchmark 10-year government yields of the major developed market countries to the overall Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index yield for the 7-10 year maturity bucket, over a rolling three-year window. We define a “high-beta” bond market as having a yield beta of 1.25 or higher, and a “low-beta” bond market as having a yield beta of 0.75 or lower. Under that definition, global bond investors should underweight higher-beta Canada, the US and Italy, and overweight low-beta Japan and Spain (Chart 17). Bond markets with betas between 1.25 and 0.75 (Germany, Australia, Sweden, the UK) can also be considered on their own fundamental merits. Of that list, we see Germany and Australia having a better chance of outperforming the UK and Sweden, given the greater odds that the Bank of England or Riksbank could signal a need to hike rates in 2020 compared to the ECB or Reserve Bank of Australia. Chart 18Stay Overweight Global Spread Product In 2020, But Be Selective For spread product, that means focusing exposure on sectors that are less risky, either defined by interest rate duration or spread volatility (i.e. spread duration). With credit spreads remaining near the low end of long-run historical ranges for nearly all major markets (Chart 18), it is hard to find examples of spread product being cheap in absolute terms. On a risk-adjusted basis, however, negatively-convex spread product like US and euro area high-yield debt and US agency MBS actually look more interesting in the rising yield environment we expect in 2020, since the interest rate durations of those fixed income sectors fell as bond yields declined in 2019. Thus, we recommend owning high-yield corporates over higher-duration investment grade corporates in the US and euro area, while also favoring US agency MBS over higher-quality credit tiers of US investment grade corporate credit.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2020: Heading Into The End Game”, dated November 22, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “The Lowdown On Low-Rated High-Yield”, dated November 27, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights Below-Benchmark Duration In 2020 H1. Improving global growth and the de-escalation of US/China trade tensions will put upward pressure on bond yields in the first half of 2020, making below-benchmark portfolio duration appropriate. US political risks could re-assert themselves as we head into 2020 H2, leading to a risk-off environment that causes bond yields to fall. We will likely recommend increasing portfolio duration in mid-2020 if the political situation plays out as we expect, or if the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield and 12-month Fed Funds Discounter reach our targets. Barbell Your Treasury Portfolio. The 2/10 Treasury slope will steepen modestly in the coming months, but will remain in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps in 2020. Any steepening will be concentrated in the real yield curve. The TIPS breakeven inflation curve is likely to flatten. Our valuation models suggest that a barbelled Treasury portfolio is the best way to position for this environment. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet and buying a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year note and 30-year bond. Overweight Spread Product. Low inflation expectations will keep the Fed on hold in 2020. This accommodative monetary environment will keep defaults low and credit spreads tight. Spread product will outperform Treasuries in duration-matched terms. Favor High-Yield Versus Investment Grade. Appropriate valuation measures show that high-yield corporate spreads are very attractive in the current environment, while investment grade corporate spreads are tight compared to our fair value estimates. Overweight Mortgage-Backed Securities. Agency MBS look attractive compared to investment grade corporate bonds, especially in risk-adjusted terms. The risk of a refinancing surge in 2020 is minimal and mortgage lending standards are more likely to ease than tighten. MBS spreads have room to tighten in 2020. Overweight TIPS Versus Nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates are well below our target range of 2.3%-2.5%. It will take some time, and likely an overshoot of the Fed’s 2% inflation target, for them to reach that range as expectations adapt only slowly to rising core inflation. But even if they don’t make it back to target, breakevens should still grind higher as the economy recovers in 2020. Feature BCA published its 2020 Outlook on November 22. That report lays out the main macroeconomic themes that our strategists see driving markets next year. This Special Report explains how investors can profit from those themes in US fixed income markets. Specifically, we offer six key US fixed income views for 2020. This report is limited to the six key investment views listed on page 1, and only discusses Fed policy in the context of how it influences those views. Next week we will publish a more comprehensive “Fed In 2020” report that will delve into our outlook for the Fed next year. Outlook Summary First, a brief summary of the main economic views presented in BCA’s 2020 outlook:1 The global manufacturing downturn that persisted throughout 2019 is quickly coming to an end. The following factors will cause global growth to rebound in early 2020: China eased economic policy significantly in 2019. Policymakers cut the reserve requirement ratio by 400 basis points, cut taxes by 2.8% of GDP, increased issuance of local government bonds to finance public infrastructure projects, and boosted capex at state-owned enterprises. The Fed cut rates by 75 bps, and other central banks also eased monetary policy in 2019. The global inventory purge that magnified the industrial sector’s pain in 2019 is exhausted. Both the US and China have incentives to de-escalate the trade war in the first half of 2020. Investors should remain invested in risk assets to take advantage of this favorable global macro environment. But 2020 is likely to be the last year of risk asset outperformance. Today’s accommodative monetary policy will revive inflationary pressures in 2021, and central banks will then be forced to lift rates much more aggressively. China will also continue to resist excess leverage. Neither the business cycle nor the equity bull market will withstand those final assaults in 2021. Key View #1: Below-Benchmark Duration In 2020 H1 Improving global growth and the de-escalation of US/China trade tensions will put upward pressure on bond yields in the first half of 2020, making below-benchmark portfolio duration appropriate. US political risks could re-assert themselves as we head into 2020 H2, leading to a risk-off environment that causes bond yields to fall. We will likely recommend increasing portfolio duration in mid-2020 if the political situation plays out as we expect, or if the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield and 12-month Fed Funds Discounter reach our targets. In prior research we identified the five macroeconomic factors that determine trends in US bond yields.2 They are: (i) global growth, (ii) the output gap, (iii) the US dollar, (iv) policy uncertainty and (v) sentiment. On global growth, the three measures that correlate most strongly with the 10-year Treasury yield are the Global Manufacturing PMI, the US ISM Manufacturing PMI and the CRB Raw Industrials index. As mentioned above, we expect all three of these indicators to move higher in the first half of 2020, but so far we have seen only tentative signs of a rebound. The Global PMI is back above 50 after bottoming at 49.3 in July, but the US ISM remains in contractionary territory and the CRB Raw Industrials index is in a downtrend (Chart 1). All three of these indicators will have to increase for our call to play out. The global manufacturing downturn that persisted throughout 2019 is quickly coming to an end. The same amount of economic growth is more inflationary when the output gap is small than when it is wide. For this reason, we also need some sense of the output gap to make a call on Treasury yields. We have found wage growth to be a useful indicator of the output gap, as evidenced by its strong correlation with the fed funds rate (Chart 2). As long as recession is avoided, strong wage growth will make it difficult for the Fed to aggressively cut rates. The upshot is that Treasury yields will not re-visit their mid-2016 lows until the next recession hits and wage pressures wane. For now, all leading wage growth indicators continue to point up (Chart 2, bottom 2 panels). Chart 1Factor 1: Global Growth Chart 2Factor 2: The Output Gap   The US dollar is the third important macro factor we consider. A strengthening dollar signals that US yields are de-coupling too far from yields in the rest of the world, making them more likely to fall back down. Conversely, an uptrend in US bond yields is likely to last longer in an environment of dollar weakness. The trade-weighted dollar has been rangebound during the past few months and bullish sentiment toward the dollar has declined significantly (Chart 3). This suggests that US yields have room to move higher. However, we will watch the dollar closely as bond yields rise in 2020 H1. A rapidly appreciating dollar would make us more inclined to fade any increase in US bond yields. The fourth factor we consider is policy uncertainty. It’s no secret that US Treasury securities benefit from flight to safety flows in times of heightened political stress. The tight correlation between the 10-year Treasury yield and the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty index demonstrates this nicely (Chart 4). In fact, it is now clear that uncertainty about the US/China trade war caused US yields to reach lower levels this year than was implied by the economic fundamentals alone. Chart 3Factor 3: The US Dollar Chart 4Factor 4: Policy Uncertainty   We see trade tensions continuing to die down as we head into the New Year. President Trump faces an election in November 2020, and he no doubt realizes that an incumbent President with a strong economy has a good chance of winning re-election. He therefore has a strong incentive to support economic growth. However, by the second half of next year, we see two potential political risks that could flare, causing bond yields to fall. First, if Trump finds himself behind in the polls by mid-summer, then he may change his strategy and re-escalate tensions with China or some other foreign policy target. Second, if one of the progressive candidates – Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders – secures the Democratic nomination, stocks will likely sell off, precipitating a flight-to-quality into US bonds. All in all, we see the ebbing of policy uncertainty in the first half of 2020 helping to push bond yields higher. But risks could flare again in the 2020 H2, sending yields back down. Chart 5Factor 5: Sentiment The final factor we consider when forecasting bond yields is sentiment, and we find the Economic Surprise Index to be the most useful sentiment measure. Chart 5 shows that positive data surprises tend to coincide with rising Treasury yields and vice-versa. We also know that long periods of positive data surprises are more likely to be followed by disappointments, and vice-versa. Though the Surprise Index’s message can change quickly, it is currently close to neutral, sending no strong signal for bond yields. Considering our five macro factors together, we conclude that a rebound in global growth and waning political uncertainty will send bond yields higher in the first half of 2020. Investors should keep portfolio duration low in this environment. We may recommend increasing portfolio duration as we approach mid-year if political uncertainty looks set to rise, or if the dollar is appreciating strongly, or if yields reach the targets outlined below. Yield Target #1: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Our Golden Rule of Bond Investing asserts that you should keep portfolio duration low if you expect the Fed to be more hawkish than market expectations, and high if you expect the Fed to be more dovish.3 At present, the overnight index swap (OIS) curve is priced for 22 basis points of rate cuts over the next 12 months. While economic growth is poised to improve in 2020, the Fed is in no rush to tighten monetary policy with inflation expectations still low. We therefore expect the fed funds rate to stay flat next year. With the market still priced for cuts, this forecast implies that we should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration, at least until our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter – the change in the fed funds rate priced into the OIS curve for the next 12 months – rises to zero or above. A rebound in global growth and waning political uncertainty will send bond yields higher in the first half of 2020. Investors should keep portfolio duration low in this environment. Table 1 uses our Golden Rule framework to forecast Treasury index returns in different monetary policy scenarios. Our base case of a flat fed funds rate is consistent with Treasury index total returns of +0.67% to +0.88% in 2020, and excess returns versus cash of between -0.91% and -0.70%. The Appendix at the end of this report discusses how our Golden Rule framework performed in 2019 and in years past. Table 1Treasury Return Projections Yield Target #2: Long-Run Fed Funds Rate Expectations Chart 6Target 2.25% To 2.5% A second catalyst for increasing portfolio duration would be if the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield converged with estimates of the longer-run neutral fed funds rate. Once recessionary risks move to the backburner, it would be logical for long-dated forward rates to converge to levels that are consistent with market expectations for the long-run neutral fed funds rate. Indeed, this is precisely what happened in 2014 and 2017/18, the last two periods of strong global growth (Chart 6). At present, the Fed’s median long-run neutral rate estimate is 2.5%. The New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants estimates a range of 2.19% to 2.50% and its Survey of Primary Dealers estimates a range of 2.25% to 2.56%. A 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield in the range of 2.25% to 2.5% would be a second catalyst for us to increase recommended portfolio duration. For Treasury yields to move sustainably above 2.5% in this cycle, it will be necessary for investors to revise their long-run neutral rate estimates higher. This could very well occur, but probably not within the next six months. Nonetheless, investors should pay close attention to the price of gold and the US housing market for signals that neutral rate estimates might undergo upward revisions. The gold price tends to rise when investors view monetary policy as becoming increasingly accommodative. This can occur because the Fed is cutting rates while neutral rate estimates are unchanged, or because neutral rate estimates are rising and the fed funds rate is unchanged. Chart 7 shows that a drop in the gold price foreshadowed downward revisions to the neutral rate in 2013. A further breakout in gold in 2020 could signal that the neutral rate needs to be revised higher again. The housing market will also provide important clues about the neutral fed funds rate. Last year, housing activity slowed considerably once the 30-year mortgage rate rose about 4% (Chart 8). Activity bounced back this year after rates fell, but it will be important to see what happens to housing once the mortgage rate rises back to 4% and above. If an above-4% mortgage rate leads to another downdraft in housing, it would send a strong signal that current neutral rate estimates are roughly correct. However, if housing activity continues to improve with a mortgage rate above 4%, it would suggest that upward neutral rate revisions are required. Chart 7Gold Leads The Neutral Rate... Chart 8...And So Does Housing   There is at least one good reason to think that housing activity might not slow once the mortgage rate rises above 4%. There is currently an excess of supply at the upper-end of the housing market, and a lack of supply at the low-end. This has resulted in price deceleration for new homes, as homebuilders shift construction to the lower-end of the market where demand is stronger (Chart 8, bottom panel). This supply side re-adjustment could make the housing market more resilient to higher mortgage rates in 2020. Key View #2: Barbell Your Treasury Portfolio The 2/10 Treasury slope will steepen modestly in the coming months, but will remain in a range between 0 bps and 50 bps in 2020. Any steepening will be concentrated in the real yield curve. The TIPS breakeven inflation curve is likely to flatten. Our valuation models suggest that a barbelled Treasury portfolio is the best way to position for this environment. Specifically, we recommend shorting the 5-year bullet and buying a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year note and 30-year bond. In thinking about how the slope of the Treasury curve will respond as global growth improves in 2020, it’s useful to look at what happened in two recent episodes of strengthening global growth – 2012/13 and 2016/17. Charts 9A, 9B and 9C illustrate how the 2/10 slope responded in those periods, and show the breakdown between changes in the real and inflation components of yields. The actual slope changes are provided in Table 2. In 2012/13, the 2/10 slope steepened dramatically as global growth rebounded, with almost all of the steepening coming from the real yield curve. It’s not difficult to understand why. The economic outlook was improving, but the Fed was still two years away from lifting interest rates. As such, the Fed’s dovish forward guidance kept a firm lid on short-maturity yields even as long-dated yields rose. In contrast, we can look at the 2016/17 episode. The 2/10 slope steepened somewhat early in the 2016/17 global growth recovery, but ended up 45 bps flatter by the time that the Global PMI peaked. This time, both the real and inflation components contributed to curve flattening. The key difference in this episode was that the Fed was quick to turn more hawkish as growth improved. It lifted the funds rate four times, and short-dated yields rose more quickly than those at the long-end. If housing activity continues to improve with a mortgage rate above 4%, it would suggest that upward neutral rate revisions are required. What can be applied from these two episodes to today? One thing that’s clear is that the Fed will not be as quick to tighten policy as it was in 2016/17. As will be discussed in more detail in next week’s report, the Fed wants to keep policy accommodative until inflation expectations are firmly re-anchored around its target. We think the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate needs to rise from its current 1.8% to above 2.3% before that goal is met. However, it’s also conceivable that inflationary pressures will emerge as soon as late-2020, necessitating rate hikes in 2021. If that’s the case, then short-dated yields will sniff that out in advance, imparting some flattening pressure to the curve. All in all, we’re looking for modest curve steepening in the first half of 2020. But with the Fed not completely out of the picture – as was the case in 2012/13 – the 2/10 slope will not rise above 50 bps. We would also recommend positioning for curve steepening via real yields. The cost of 2-year inflation protection is currently below the cost of 10-year inflation protection (Chart 9C), but will probably lead the 10-year higher as inflation expectations slowly adapt to the incoming data. We recommend TIPS breakeven curve flatteners. Chart 9ANominal 2/10 Slope Chart 9BReal 2/10 Slope Chart 9CInflation Compensation: 2/10 Slope Table 22/10 Slope Changes During Two Recent Global Growth Upturns Interestingly, we also do not recommend the typical 2/10 steepening trade of going long the 5-year bullet against a duration-matched 2/10 barbell. This is because the 2/5/10 butterfly already discounts a huge amount of 2/10 steepening. The 5-year bullet appears 6 bps expensive on our model, meaning that the 2/10 slope needs to steepen by 26 bps during the next six months for a long 5-year, short 2/10 trade to profit (Chart 10).4 Chart 102/5/10 Butterfly Valuation Model Against this valuation backdrop, we recommend owning a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year note and the 30-year bond, while shorting the 5-year note. This heavily barbelled Treasury allocation adds positive carry to a bond portfolio, and will earn positive returns as long as the 5/30 slope steepens by less than 61 bps during the next six months.5 Further, recent correlations suggest that the 5-year yield will rise by more than either the 2-year or 30-year yields if the market starts to price-in fewer Fed rate cuts, as we expect. Table 3 shows that there has been a positive correlation between changes in the 2/5 Treasury slope and our 12-month discounter during the past six months, and a negative correlation between our discounter and the 5/30 slope. Table 3Correlation Of Monthly Changes In 12-Month Discounter With Monthly Changes In Treasury Curve Slopes Key View #3: Overweight Spread Product Low inflation expectations will keep the Fed on hold in 2020. This accommodative monetary environment will keep defaults low and credit spreads tight. Spread product will outperform Treasuries in duration-matched terms. In last year’s Key Views report, we presented a method for splitting the economic cycle into three phases based on the slope of the yield curve.6 We observed that spread product excess returns versus Treasuries tend to be highest in Phase 1 of the cycle, when the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope is above 50 bps. Spread product excess returns tend to be low, but still positive, in Phase 2 of the cycle when the slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps, and only turn negative in Phase 3 after the 3-year/10-year slope inverts. By our criteria, we remained in Phase 2 of the cycle throughout all of 2019 and spread product did in fact deliver small, but positive, excess returns relative to Treasuries. We expect to remain in Phase 2 throughout most (if not all) of 2020, and therefore advise investors to maintain overweight allocations to spread product versus duration-matched Treasuries. We are looking for modest curve steepening in the first half of 2020. The principal rationale for our call is that accommodative Fed policy will keep the yield curve positively sloped in 2020. It will also give banks the confidence to continue extending credit. And as long as lending standards are sufficiently easy, defaults will remain low and spreads will stay tight. Yes, there are some early indications that we might be transitioning into a Phase 3 environment, an environment that would merit a more defensive stance. For one thing, some parts of the Treasury curve inverted in August, though the specific measure we use in our credit cycle analysis – the monthly average of daily closes of the 3-year/10-year Treasury slope – remained above zero (Chart 11). Also, commercial & industrial (C&I) lending standards tightened in the third quarter. Chart 11Still In Phase 2 However, we expect both of these warning signs to dissipate in the near future. The yield curve has already re-steepened, and while loan officers indicated that they had tightened overall standards on C&I loans in Q3, they continued to loosen the terms on those loans (Chart 11, panel 3). But most importantly, we continue to observe inflation expectations that are far below the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 11, bottom panel). As long as this is the case, the Fed will do its best to keep interest rates low and monetary conditions accommodative. In that environment, the yield curve should stay upward sloping and banks will keep the credit taps open. Phase 2 will stay in place and spread product will outperform Treasuries. The poor health of nonfinancial corporate balance sheets is another risk to our positive spread product view. We track corporate balance sheet health using both aggregate top-down data from the US Financial Accounts (Chart 12A) and by looking at the median firm in our own bottom-up sample of high-yield issuers (Chart 12B). In both cases, we see that debt-to-profit and debt-to-asset ratios are elevated, indicating that firms are carrying a lot of debt on their balance sheets relative to history. However, both samples also show that interest coverage ratios are strong. Solid interest coverage is the result of low interest rates and the Fed’s accommodative monetary policy. It tells us that defaults won’t occur until inflation expectations rise and the Fed turns more restrictive. That may not happen until 2021. Chart 12ACorporate Health: Top-Down Chart 12BCorporate Health: Bottom-Up   The downside is that an extended period of accommodative monetary policy and few defaults means that firms will continue to build up debt and whittle away the equity cushion in corporate capital structures. The end result will be greater losses during the next default cycle. Our Preferred Spread Sectors Within US spread product, we recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield corporate bonds to take advantage of the favorable macro environment. Within investment grade sectors, we advise only a neutral allocation to corporate bonds (see Key View #4), but recommend overweighting Agency Mortgage-Backed Securities (see Key View #5), Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities, Local Authority and Foreign Agency debt. Chart 13 shows a snapshot of the risk/reward trade-off between investment grade spread products. The vertical axis displays the option-adjusted spread as a simple proxy for 12-month expected excess returns. The horizontal axis displays our own risk measure called the Risk Of Losing 100 bps.7 This measure calculates the spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps or more versus duration-matched Treasuries, then adjusts for each sector’s historical spread volatility. Chart 13Excess Return Bond Map: Main Investment Grade Sectors Chart 13 imposes no macro view, but it does reveal that Foreign Agency debt offers an attractive expected return for its level of risk. Agency CMBS and Agency MBS also offer attractive expected returns for their respective risk levels. USD-denominated Sovereign bonds offer high expected returns, but are also the riskiest of the sectors in Chart 13. We recommend an underweight allocation to USD-denominated Sovereigns with the exception of Mexican and Saudi Arabian bonds, which look attractive on a risk/reward basis. Chart 14 replicates Chart 13 but with the USD-denominated Sovereign bonds of different countries. Only Mexico and Saudi Arabia stand out as being attractively priced. Chart 14Excess Return Bond Map: USD-Denominated EM Sovereigns Chart 15Favor Long-Maturity Munis We also maintain a positive outlook on Municipal bonds, particularly at the long-end of the Aaa-rated curve. Municipal / Treasury yield ratios look attractive compared to history, especially at long maturities (Chart 15). While many state and local governments face long-run problems related to underfunded pensions, these issues won’t be exposed until revenue growth falters in the next downturn. For now, state & local government balance sheets are healthy enough to keep muni upgrades outpacing downgrades (Chart 15, bottom 2 panels). Key View #4: Favor High-Yield Over Investment Grade Appropriate valuation measures show that high-yield corporate spreads are very attractive in the current environment, while investment grade corporate spreads are tight compared to our fair value estimates. We noted above that, despite the favorable macro environment for spread product, we recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield corporate bonds but only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. The reason for the disparity is valuation. Our preferred valuation measure is the 12-month breakeven spread. This is the spread widening required for the sector to lose money versus Treasuries on a 12-month horizon. This measure is superior to the simple index option-adjusted spread because it controls for time-varying index duration. We also re-calculate the investment grade and high-yield bond indexes so that they have constant distribution between the different credit tiers over time. Charts 16A and 16Bshow 12-month breakeven spreads for our re-constituted investment grade and high-yield indexes as percentile ranks versus history. The investment grade spread has been tighter only 11% of the time since 1995, while the high-yield spread has been tighter 67% of the time. Chart 16AIG Valuation Chart 16BHY Valuation   From our analysis of the three phases of the cycle, we also know that spreads tend to tighter in Phase 2 of the cycle than in Phases 1 or 3. Since we are currently in Phase 2, we would expect spreads to be near the bottom of their historical distributions. With this knowledge, we derive spread targets for each corporate credit tier based on the median breakeven spreads witnessed in prior Phase 2 periods. We then use current index duration to calculate option-adjusted spread targets for each credit tier and the overall investment grade and high-yield indexes (Charts 17A and 17B). Notice that all investment grade spreads are below their Phase 2 targets, while high-yield spreads are well above. Chart 17AIG Spread Targets Chart 17BHY Spread Targets   We also observe that Caa-rated spreads are extremely cheap relative to target, and have been widening rapidly. We are more inclined to view this as an opportunity to buy Caa-rated bonds than as a warning sign for overall corporate bond performance, as we discussed in a recent report.8 Key View #5: Overweight Mortgage-Backed Securities Agency MBS look attractive compared to investment grade corporate bonds, especially in risk-adjusted terms. The risk of a refinancing surge in 2020 is minimal and mortgage lending standards are more likely to ease than tighten. MBS spreads have room to tighten in 2020. We noted above that Agency MBS offer an attractive trade-off between risk and expected return. Specifically, Chart 13 shows that MBS offer expected returns that are similar to Aa and Aaa corporates, but with less risk of losing 100 bps versus Treasuries. For further evidence of the attractiveness of MBS spreads, we note that while the zero-volatility spread for conventional 30-year Agency MBS is not all that elevated compared to history, it is being held down by very low expected prepayment losses (aka option costs) (Chart 18). The OAS, the best proxy for MBS expected return, stands at 48 bps. This is reasonably elevated compared to history and very close to the spread offered by Aa-rated corporate bonds. Past periods when the MBS OAS was close to the Aa-rated corporate bond spread were followed by MBS outperformance (Chart 18, bottom panel). We recommend an overweight allocation to high-yield corporate bonds but only a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. The reason for the disparity is valuation. We noted that expected prepayment losses are low, and this is for good reason. Mortgage refinancing activity will remain depressed throughout 2020. First, with the Fed likely to go on hold for 2020 and then lift rates in 2021, the mortgage rate is more likely to rise than fall. Higher mortgage rates will keep refis down. Second, most homeowners have already had multiple opportunities to refinance their mortgages during the past few years, as evidenced by the fact that the MBA Refinance Index didn’t rise that much in 2019, even as the mortgage rate declined 106 bps (Chart 19). Chart 18MBS Spreads Chart 19Refi Risk Is Minimal   Tightening bank lending standards for residential mortgages can also lead to wider MBS spreads, but lending standards are more likely to ease than tighten in 2020. FICO scores for approved mortgages have not come down at all since the financial crisis (Chart 19, panel 3), and loan officers consistently claim that lending standards are tighter than the average since 2005 (Chart 19, bottom panel). With standards already so tight, modest easing is more likely than rapid tightening. Key View #6: Overweight TIPS Versus Nominal Treasuries TIPS breakeven inflation rates are well below our target range of 2.3%-2.5%. It will take some time, and likely an overshoot of the Fed’s 2% inflation target, for them to reach that range as expectations adapt only slowly to rising core inflation. But even if they don’t make it back to target, breakevens should still grind higher as the economy recovers in 2020. Our target range for both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates remains 2.3%-2.5%. But it could take quite some time for that target to be met. The reason is that inflation expectations adapt only slowly to changes in the actual inflation data. We explained this dynamic in a report from last year, and also created a fair value model for the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate based on long-run trends in the actual inflation data.9 At present, our Adaptive Expectations Model pegs fair value for the 10-year breakeven rate at 1.9%, 20 bps above the current level of 1.7%, but well short of our end-of-cycle 2.3%-2.5% target (Chart 20). We could see the 10-year breakeven reaching 1.9% in the coming months as global growth recovers, but it will take a more sustained uptrend in the actual inflation data to move higher than that. A more sustained uptrend in actual inflation could take some time to develop. This year’s increase in core CPI inflation has been concentrated in the core goods component (Chart 21). This component of core inflation tracks import prices with a lag, and it is very likely to fall back down in 2020. Any sustained breakout in core inflation will require more strength from the core services (ex. Shelter and medical care) component (Chart 21, panel 3), something that hasn’t happened yet this cycle. Chart 20Adaptive Expectations Model Chart 21The Components Of Core CPI   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Appendix: The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing Our Golden Rule of Bond Investing says that we should determine what change in the fed funds rate is priced into the overnight index swap curve for the next 12 months, and then decide whether the Fed will deliver a hawkish or dovish surprise relative to that expectation. We contend that if the Fed delivers a hawkish surprise, then a below-benchmark portfolio duration positioning will pay off. Conversely, if the Fed delivers a dovish surprise, then an above-benchmark portfolio duration positioning will profit. Chart A1 shows how the Golden Rule has performed in every calendar year going back to 1990. We include year-to-date performance for 2019. In 30 years of historical data, our Golden Rule performed well in 22. It provided the wrong recommendation in 8 years, though 3 of those years were during the zero-lower-bound period between 2009 and 2015 when 12-month rate expectations were essentially pinned at zero.10 At the beginning of this year, the market was priced for 7 bps of rate cuts in 2019. The funds rate actually fell by 84 bps, leading to a dovish surprise of 77 bps. Based on a historical regression, we would expect a dovish surprise of 77 bps to coincide with a Treasury index yield that falls by 52 bps. In actuality, the index yield fell by 81 bps, more than our Golden Rule predicted. Chart A2 shows how close changes in the Treasury index yield have been to our Golden Rule’s prediction in each of the past 30 years. This regression between the change in Treasury index yield and the monetary policy surprise is the main source of error in our Treasury return forecasts. Based on our expected -52 bps index yield change, we would have expected the Treasury index to deliver 5.9% of total return in 2019 and to outperform cash by 3.4%. In actuality, the index earned 7.9% of total return and outperformed cash by 5.6%. Charts A3 and A4 show how index total and excess returns have performed relative to our Golden Rule’s expectations in each of the past 30 years. Chart A1The Golden Rule’s Track Record Chart A2Treasury Index Yield Changes Versus Fed Funds Surprises Chart A3Treasury Index Total Returns Versus The Golden Rule’s Predictions Chart A4Treasury Index Excess Returns Versus The Golden Rule’s Predictions   Footnotes 1    Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2020: Heading Into The End Game”, dated November 22, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4   For more details on our butterfly spread valuation models please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5   The 2/5/30 valuation model is not shown in this report. Please see US Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Mixed Messages”, dated December 3, 2019, for a recent update of all our yield curve models. 6   Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For US Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7   For further details on how this measure is calculated please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Perspective On Risk And Reward”, dated October 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8   Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Sign Or Buying Opportunity?”, dated November 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9   For further details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10  We say the Golden Rule “worked” if a dovish surprise coincided with positive Treasury index excess returns versus cash, or if a hawkish surprise coincided with negative Treasury excess returns versus cash.

Special Report

Highlights US politics are the chief source of global geopolitical risk over the coming year – and likely beyond. President Trump’s reelection remains our base case – the sitting president rarely loses if the economy is expanding. Yet the risk of a Democratic victory is high – Trump’s low approval rating, impending impeachment trial, and various policy troubles threaten his reelection bid. Trump’s tactics and the Democrats’ turn to the progressive left pose threats to BCA Research’s cyclically bullish house equity view. Feature If a time-traveler had accosted you in the fall of 2014 and told you that Donald Trump, the host of the reality TV show The Apprentice, would be the next American president, would you have believed him? What if the time-traveler had gone on to say that President Trump’s unconventional behavior would get him into hot water and that in 2020 he would become the first president in US history to be impeached and removed from office? Granting the premise, the second proposition is easier to imagine. And yet Trump is highly unlikely to be removed from office. He is in fact favored to be reelected. Just as his victory in 2016 proved more likely than the consensus held at the time, so his reelection in 2020 is more likely than the consensus holds today. The reason comes down to political constraints. First, the bar for removal in the Senate is very high. Second, it is easier for a sitting president to get reelected than it is for the opposition to convince voters to start over with something entirely different. Especially if the economy is in decent shape. In what follows we present our quantitative 2020 election model and our qualitative, constraints-based analysis of the election and likely market responses. Trump's fate is only one factor. But US politics is the chief source of market-relevant global political risk over the next 12-24 months. Not A Lame Duck (Yet) After a harrowing year in which global manufacturing slumped due to China’s tight credit policy and Trump’s trade war, the probability of a US recession is now – tentatively – subsiding (Chart 1). This is good news for Trump, whose presidency is hanging by a thread. Chart 1Recession Averted? Or Trump's Death Knell? Chart 2Bookies Expect A Democrat Victory Betting markets like PredictIt.org suggest that Democrats are slightly more likely than Republicans to win the White House next November (Chart 2). The narrow spread is appropriate given that the balance of evidence is fairly even. However, if there is to be a tilt, it should go the opposite way, i.e. toward Republicans as the incumbent party. The history of US elections since 1860 shows a strong tendency for the incumbent party to hold the White House when the sitting president is running at the head of the ticket. This is especially true when there has not been a recession during the president’s four-year term. It is even true when the ruling party has lost seats in preceding congressional elections, as occurred in 2018 and as is often the case (Chart 3). Other than recession, the biggest exception to the sitting president’s victory – especially in modern times – is when a major scandal has occurred, as with Gerald Ford in 1976. This is clearly relevant to today. In these rare cases the incumbent president’s and incumbent party’s historic reelection rates are both 50/50. The implication of Chart 3 is that Trump’s odds, from a historical point of view, are slightly above 50%. Of course, history does not afford an example of a first-term president being impeached, acquitted, and running for election again.1 Yet this is the most likely outcome today, as there is not an overwhelming popular demand to remove Trump from office. Despite the revelations and public hearings in the impeachment inquiry so far, support for removal stands at 47%, while opposition to removal stands at 45% (Chart 4). In other words, there is no majority in favor of removal, but only a narrow plurality. Removal – nullifying an election result – requires more. Chart 3History Says Trump More Likely To Win Than Not Chart 4No Consensus On Removal From Office The spread is conspicuously close to the 46%-to-48% popular vote spread for Trump and Hillary Clinton, respectively, in 2016. The impeachment is not a tsunami of public opposition to the administration. It is a bare-knuckle power struggle: Trump tried to have his top rival investigated and tarred with corruption allegations, the Democrats are retaliating by trying to remove Trump prior to the election. Support for removal will fluctuate, but it will take more than 47% of the population to generate a 67-vote supermajority against Trump in a Republican-held Senate. Republican senators would be taking a grave risk in voting against their base when they have the option of deferring to voters in just 11 months’ time. Both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were in their second terms when Congress began moving articles of impeachment: the public had no other recourse in the event that they committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Trump is in his first term and is due for the public’s verdict shortly. Nixon resigned when it became clear that grassroots Republicans had lost faith in him and the Senate would not acquit. Trump’s political base has not yet lost faith – his approval among Republicans is still 90%, higher than the average of Republican presidents and at the high end of his term in office (Chart 5). When it comes to the final vote, some Republican senators may defect, but it would take 20 to remove Trump from office. This will require a Nixon-like hemorrhage of support. Remarkably Trump’s general approval rating has not been affected by the impeachment inquiry (Chart 6). His approval rating is still comparable to President Barack Obama’s rating at this stage in his first term (as well as Ronald Reagan’s). While Trump is highly unlikely to break above 50%, he is emphatically not a lame duck … at least not yet. Presidential approval tends to rise as the opposition nomination is settled and the election approaches. If Trump’s approval revives to the 46% of the popular vote he won in 2016, then he remains competitive in the swing states where the election will be fought and won. Chart 5Trump’s Political Base Geared Up For Battle Chart 6A Precarious Approval Rating What about the Republicans’ heavy losses in the midterm elections and special elections since 2016? Haven’t national voting trends already condemned Trump and the Republicans to a loss in 2020? Not necessarily. Democrats lost elections more dramatically in 2009-11 than Republicans lost in 2017-19 – both in voter support and turnout (Table 1) – and yet President Obama secured the victory in 2012. Presidential elections are a different beast. Table 1Democrats Suffered More Post-2008 Than Republicans Post-2016 … Yet Obama Won Reelection Chart 7GOP Governorships At Low End Of Rising Trend The same goes for Republican losses in recent gubernatorial races. In Kentucky the incumbent governor was a Republican and lost; in Louisiana the incumbent governor was a Democrat and won. The catch is that the number of Republican governors was extremely elevated prior to 2018. Recent losses have merely brought the Republicans back to the bottom of their upward channel as a share of the nation’s 50 governors (Chart 7). Thus while the interim elections are a warning sign to Trump and the GOP, they are not a death knell – as long as the economy rebounds and President Trump’s approval rises as the election approaches. Bottom Line: Trump is not a lame duck yet. His administration is embattled and the impeachment process could permanently damage his standing. But so far his general approval rating and the specific impeachment polling suggest that he will stay in office and remain competitive in the 2020 race. If the election were today he would almost surely lose, but a lot can change in 12 months. If the economy avoids recession, then investors should take reelection as their base case. Cyclical Constraints Will Prevail A recession is the surest way to render a president a lame duck. It does not have to be a technical recession. The contraction in the manufacturing sector – and corresponding cutbacks in lending in the manufacturing-heavy and electorally vital Midwest – are extremely threatening to a president who promised to revive manufacturing and trade (Chart 8). Incumbency, economic growth, failed impeachment, and partial policy victory are enough to win the key swing states. Having declared that “trade wars are good and easy to win,” President Trump will not be able to hide from a deeper slowdown in the industrial heartland. State-level wage growth is positive, but swing states, particularly Trump swing states, are seeing a sharp drop-off from the highs prior to the trade war (Chart 9). The solution is the trade ceasefire being pursued with China. Trump is now in the position of the Federal Reserve Chairman: he can no longer afford to hike (tariff) rates, and the equity market may force him to cut, as long as he can reasonably hope to improve the economy. If the economy is lost, the trade war is back on. Chart 8An Urgent Need For A Trade Ceasefire Chart 9Trump Swing States Took A Hit From The Trade War Chart 10Buttigieg And Warren More Favorable Than Others Are incumbency, economic growth, failed impeachment, and partial policy victories enough to get Trump over the line in the key swing states?2 Subjectively, we think so. The Democrats have to win all of the states they won in 2016 plus Michigan and Florida (or two other states in place of Florida, such as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania). President Trump can afford to lose Michigan and one other state (but not Florida). This assessment has little to do with the Democratic presidential nominee – as yet unknown – and everything to do with whether the incumbent president or party has been fundamentally discredited. Democratic candidates like Senator Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg are generally more competitive than consensus holds. Warren, for instance, is one of the few candidates in recent elections who has a net positive favorability rating (Chart 10). But her favorability is not enough to overturn a sitting president – that will most likely require a shock that renders the status quo intolerable. The cyclical constraints on Trump and his opponents are thus clear. What of the structural constraints? Trump’s 2016 victory is often attributed to long-running structural trends in the US such as deindustrialization, immigration, and racial attitudes. The Democrats’ “blue wall” in the Rust Belt crumbled because Trump courted the working-class voter there and/or stoked racial anxieties. The implication, however, is that Trump still has an advantage in these swing states. Older voters and especially white voters have drifted toward Republicans for several years – the trend was interrupted only by the Great Recession, which saw a surge in Democratic support that has now subsided (Chart 11). Chart 11Old And White People Drifting To GOP Over Time ... Excepting The Great Recession While the white share of the swing states is falling over time, that trend is not sufficient to prevent Trump from winning the Electoral College in the year 2020. Instead the rapidly changing racial and ethnic composition of society should be seen as motivating the attitudes that Trump exploits. Trump’s electoral strategy of maximizing white turnout and support for the Republican Party, which we dubbed “White Hype” in 2016, is still the only way for him to achieve a popular vote victory in 2020, and hence the clearest pathway for him to achieve an Electoral College victory (Chart 12). Needless to say, tensions and controversies over race and immigration will swell in the coming year. Chart 12Electoral College Scenarios Show Trump Win Still Possible Chart 13Swing State Turnout Follows Unemployment By the same token, demographic change means that the Democrats can theoretically win by performing no better than they did in 2016 in terms of voter turnout and support rates (see the “Status Quo” scenario in Chart 12). This is a low hurdle for Democrats – suggesting once again that the election will be extremely close, that Trump can win only through the Electoral College (not the popular vote), and that the election outcome will ultimately swing on the cyclical factors outlined above, particularly the state of the economy. A final word about voter turnout. The greatest electoral risk to President Trump is an increase in voter turnout among traditionally low turnout groups that heavily favor the Democratic Party, such as young people and minorities. Given the surge in turnout for the 2018 midterm elections, and the extremely controversial and heated environment surrounding Trump’s presidency, there is considerable reason to suspect that 2020 will be a high-turnout election. Other things being equal, this would likely penalize Trump’s reelection prospects. However, it is important to recognize that voter turnout in swing states is fairly well correlated with the unemployment rate (Chart 13). Depending on the state, surges in turnout occurred in 1992, in the wake of recession; 2004, in the wake of recession, terrorism and war; and 2008, in the wake of the great financial crisis. The exception is Pennsylvania, where a surge in white voter turnout helped Trump pull off a surprise win in the state. Turnout is the hardest political variable to predict, so it is not clear whether Trump’s scandals and impeachment will do the trick. But an increase in the unemployment rate would virtually destroy Trump’s bid, being negatively correlated with presidential approval and positively correlated with voter turnout. Bottom Line: Trump’s executive powers give him the potential to achieve some additional policy victories that could boost his approval rating – namely a trade ceasefire with China that simultaneously improves the economic outlook. Meanwhile structural factors such as demographics do not forbid Trump from winning the Electoral College – on the contrary, aging and the decline in the white share of the population mean that Trump’s electoral strategy could succeed again in 2020, but will be much harder to pull off after 2020. Introducing … BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy 2020 US Presidential Election Model The BCA Geopolitical Strategy Presidential Election Model is a state-by-state model that uses political and economic variables to predict the Electoral College vote. What differentiates our model from that of others is that it attempts to predict the probability of the incumbent party winning the Electoral College votes in each of the 50 states. The model would have predicted the past five elections correctly on an out-of-sample basis, even the controversial win of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. Why do we predict the electoral vote rather than the popular vote? First, the winner of the presidential election is determined by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Second, in recent history, two candidates who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016) won the election. It is possible that we will see a similar result in 2020, given President Trump’s low national popularity yet distinctive policy pitch for the Midwestern states (e.g. economic patriotism, hardline on immigration). With only minor exceptions, electoral votes are allocated based on a winner-take-all process, as opposed to proportionately to the popular vote. Hence the best way to forecast the presidential election winner is to predict the probability of winning each state, i.e. receiving all the electoral votes assigned to each state.3 Due to the data availability of our input variables, our sample size includes nine elections (1984 to 2016) across 50 states, making for a total of 450 observations. We designed the model to be as succinct as possible. It includes four explanatory variables: A weighted average of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia State Leading Index, from the beginning of the previous presidential term until September of the election year. The state leading indexes predict the 6-month growth rate of the state coincident indexes, which include nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing by production workers, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average).4 Chart 14Voters Make Up Their Minds Ahead Of Time We use a weighted average of all the monthly forecasts in the presidential term preceding an election, where later months are weighted more heavily than earlier months. Our sample includes 6-month growth rates up to and including September of the election year, which means it includes a rough forecast of the direction of the state’s economy in Q1 of the new president’s term. Since we weigh recent months more heavily, our model assigns more importance to forward-looking factors. It is sufficient to end our calculations of the average state leading indexes in September of the election year. First, the October data comes out in early November, just days before the election, which would be an insufficient lead-time for our final forecast. Second, most voters make their decision at least one month in advance of the election and last-minute changes in economic forecasts will likely not influence their decision (Chart 14). The incumbent party’s margin of victory in the previous presidential election in each state. This is measured as the incumbent party vote share minus the non-incumbent party vote share. Simply put, if the incumbent party failed to secure a solid win in a given state in the previous election, the probability of securing a solid win in the current election is much smaller. Average national approval level of the incumbent president in July of the election year. We tested the correlation between presidential approval in every month leading up to the election versus the election outcome and found that July approval levels have the second-highest correlation with the popular vote and Electoral College vote (Chart 15). Average October approval levels have slightly higher correlation with election outcomes, but not sufficiently so to sacrifice three months of lead-time. A “time for change” variable. This is a categorical variable indicating whether the incumbent party has been in the White House for one or more terms. Academic literature shows that a party that has occupied the White House for two terms or more is much less likely to win an election than a party that is running for a second term.5 Chart 15Voters Mostly Decided By July The output of our model is the probability of an incumbent win in each state. There are two ways of aggregating these probabilities to produce a national-level outcome: Allocate the number of Electoral College votes won by the incumbent proportionally to their probability of victory in each state, and then sum them up across all states. This method would smooth out potential errors in our forecast. The Republican Party is expected to win with 279 Electoral College votes in 2020. Assume a probability threshold of 50%: any state with an incumbent win that is at least 50% likely is fully assigned to the incumbent. While this method could significantly sway our forecast towards one of the parties because of small changes in probability, it is closer to the political reality. Even the smallest majority in a given state will (usually) result in the winning candidate getting all of the state’s Electoral College votes. We therefore adopt this method in our aggregation.6 Our model performs well in back tests: it correctly predicted every election in in-sample tests and every election from 2000 to 2016 in out-of-sample tests (Chart 16). Chart 16BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Election Model: Back Tests Accurate Chart 17 shows our initial 2020 prediction. Overall, the Republican Party is expected to win 279 Electoral College votes, a 25-vote decrease from its 2016 result. Chart 17Trump Narrowly Slated To Win 2020 With 279 Electoral College Votes As of the latest available data, our model predicts that the Republicans will lose Michigan and Wisconsin (critical victories in 2016). Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire become borderline or “toss-up” states: the probability of a Republican win in these states is 48.77%, 50.17%, and 46.90%, respectively. Even the smallest change in our inputs can shift these states to either party. The two inputs that can affect our forecast are the state leading index and President Trump’s approval level, since the other two inputs – the time for change variable and last election’s margin of victory – are fixed. Table 2 shows the predicted Electoral College votes for the Republican Party for various scenarios of these two variables. According to the model, President Trump is currently at the lowest level of approval and weakest state-by-state economy that he can afford. If one of these factors stabilizes below today’s level, Trump will lose his reelection bid. Table 2Small Decline In State Economies Could Ruin Trump’s 2020 Bid In the worst-case scenario for Trump – if his approval and the state leading indexes drop to the lowest levels they have touched in Trump’s presidency – the Republican Party will only manage to secure 230 Electoral College votes. The opposite, optimistic scenario would see them winning with 329 votes. An interesting takeaway from our model is that it captures the increase in American political polarization that has been widely observed by scholars. The 2020 forecast shows that many states will be won or lost by the incumbent party with extreme certainty (0% or 100%). Results of in-sample predictions show that this trend has been increasing since 1992 (Chart 18, top panel), which is also in line with our own measure of polarization (Chart 18, bottom panel). Since the results are based on in-sample estimations, the coefficients remain constant, so the differences in the results can be attributed to the underlying data. The impression of ever-intensifying polarization in the US is correct. What does this mean for Trump? He cannot be written off simply because he has a relatively low approval rating. Structural political factors that propelled him to the White House are still in place. His approval and the economy must deteriorate to change this base case. The chief risk to our model is the accuracy and interpretation of presidential approval polling. While polling data always has a margin of error, it is possible that approval polling is underestimating Trump’s support, particularly on the state level, as was witnessed in 2016 (Chart 19). Chart 18Rising Polarization – It’s Empirical Chart 19State-Level Polling Still A Risk We have a high degree of confidence in professional pollsters, who have also made improvements since 2016.   But asking Americans whether they “approve” of the unorthodox Trump may be a different proposition than in the past, disguising voting intentions to some degree. By choosing the level of Trump’s approval in our model (see Appendix), we are guarding against overstating his support and not allowing much room for any dampening effects or self-censorship, which is thus a risk to our model. Bottom Line: Quantitative modeling, entirely independent of our qualitative assessment, suggests that Trump is favored to win the 2020 election. However, he is skating on very thin ice with regard to key cyclical variables such as state-level economic performance and popular approval rating. If his approval level suffers from a slowing economy, or scandal and impeachment, then he will lose the critical toss-up states and the White House. Investment Conclusions In this report we have outlined a case where President Trump, despite his extreme unorthodoxy in general, and acute vulnerability at this moment in time, is still the most likely winner of the 2020 election. Elections are a Bayesian process in which investors should establish a clear prior, or starting place, and update their probabilities according to reliable data streams. This report establishes our prior and our key data streams. So what? Does it matter if Trump is reelected? Is it relevant to investors? From a bird’s eye view, Trump has made a few decisions that clearly distinguish his term in office from that of previous presidents. First, Trump replaced Janet Yellen with Jerome Powell at the Federal Reserve. It is debatable whether or how this affected the normalization of monetary policy. What is clear is that Trump made a change at the helm while pushing through highly stimulative fiscal policy. Fed hikes contributed to a rise in bond yields and an increase in market volatility, and the Fed was ultimately forced to adjust. Trump has vociferously criticized the Fed and demanded ever-lower rates. Second, by embracing sweeping Republican tax reform, Trump initiated pro-cyclical fiscal stimulus that widened the US’s monetary and economic divergence from the rest of the world, while exacerbating the US’s long-term fiscal woes. Third, by adopting protectionist trade policy to confront China’s mercantilism, Trump rattled global sentiment and contributed to a manufacturing recession. As long as our view remains correct, investors will have a base case that is cyclically bullish. Of these three macro developments, the only one that the election could substantially change is trade policy – and yet the Democrats are also taking a more hawkish approach to China. On the fiscal front, the Democrats will raise taxes, but they will not impose austerity – instead they propose large expansions of entitlements that the populace increasingly demands. Populist social spending combined with geopolitical struggle with China ensures that the deficit/GDP ratio will go up regardless of the party in power. From a market point of view, the historical record suggests that presidential elections – specifically elections that lead to gridlock between the White House and Congress, since we do not expect the Democrats to lose the House of Representatives – usually see a rising US stock market beforehand and a higher degree of volatility afterwards (Chart 20). Relative to developed market equities, US stocks typically underperform, and only resume their rise in the second half of the following year (i.e. 2021). Comparing Trump to other first-term presidents, it is clear that his “pluto-populism” (populism plus tax cuts for the rich) has exerted a reflationary effect on the equity market (Chart 21). As long as the data show that he has a fair chance of reelection, investors will have a base case that is cyclically bullish, despite the volatility to come from the Democrats’ taxation and regulation proposals. Chart 20Equity Outcomes Surrounding US Presidential Votes Chart 21Trump A Reason To Be Bullish What is most striking about Trump’s presidency is the low real total return on US Treasuries. This is despite his aggressive foreign and trade policy, which has motivated safe-haven flows into Treasuries this year (Chart 22). The bottom line is that the output gap is closed, the labor market is tight, and fiscal policy is expansive, putting upward pressure on yields. Given that Trump needs to cultivate a China ceasefire and economic improvement for reelection, this trend should continue until the next recession looms. Chart 22Trump Marks End Of Bull Market In Bonds The risk, however, is that Trump’s precarious China negotiations fall through, or that his scandals cause a permanent downshift in his approval rating, rendering him a lame duck. Not only would this free him of the election constraint that currently forces him to pursue pro-market policies, but it would also make a Democratic victory more likely. The Democratic nomination, meanwhile, could easily produce a progressive populist in the figure of Elizabeth Warren, who is still a frontrunner in the Democratic nomination. A bear market could develop quite easily if a normal equity market correction, which improves the odds of a Democratic victory becomes entangled in expectations that Warren is set to win the nomination. If the opposition can summon enough votes to unseat an incumbent president, chances are that the circumstances will include a “blue wave” that also sees the Democrats take the Senate. This would institute another sweeping change to American policy, this time in a direction that is unfriendly to corporate profits. As the probability of such a scenario rises, the equity market will have to discount it. Expectations of a Trump victory will spur the market upward – but investors should be wary. If this very long bull market has continued all the way to November 3, 2020, and President Trump is confirmed in office, the positive stock market reaction will likely provide an excellent time for booking profits and reducing risk. In a second term, Trump will be unshackled from his electoral constraints – very much unlike a first-term Democrat. This would free him to pursue his trade wars with fewer inhibitions – against China but also likely against Europe. A continuation of the trade war has important impacts across the full slate of global assets, as outlined in Chart 23, which depicts the movement of assets on days in which US equities reacted negatively to trade war developments. Chart 23A Trump Second Term Means Trade War With Fewer Constraints With 11 months to go, we are a world away from the election. The party nomination process, or third-party candidates, could overturn all expectations. But if there is one certainty, it is that polarization and political risk will rise in the coming 12-24 months. The losing side of the population will have deep heartburn. A crisis of legitimacy could easily haunt the next administration. There could be hanging chads, vote recounts, faithless electors, or contested results. The outcome of the election could turn upon unprecedented developments in the Electoral College, Supreme Court, or even in cyberspace. If the Democrats win, redistribution will amplify partisanship. If Trump wins, inequality will rise. There is no easy way forward for the United States.   Matt Gertken Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ekaterina Shtrevensky Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Appendix 1: The Approval Question: Level Or Change? Chart 24Trump’s Historically Low Approval Rating The chief risk to our model is the interpretation of the presidential approval rating and its impact on the election. President Trump’s approval rating is notoriously low compared to the average president (Chart 24). While many authors use approval rating (or popularity) in their models, some argue that it is not the approval level, but the change in approval leading up to the election that matters.7 Consider the following: if President Trump’s approval increases from today’s level of 43% by 5%, he would be at the same level of approval as the average president if their approval were to drop by 5%. A model based on approval level would place these two presidents equally, while a model based on the change in approval would favor Trump. So which one is correct? We compare the incumbent’s popular vote in post-WWII elections with four different “variations” of incumbent president approval: the average level in July of the election year (as in our model); the deviation of the average October level from the election-year average, the change during the last two years of the term; and the range throughout the entire term. Directionally, the results are as expected. Level and change in approval are positively correlated with the popular vote, while a less stable approval (higher range) is negatively correlated (Chart 25A). We also find that approval level has the best fit with the election outcome, followed by the change in approval in the two years leading up to the election. However, if we restrict the sample size to the range of elections used in our model, 1984 to 2016, we find that the change in approval has a much better fit than the level (Chart 25B). In other words, in modern elections the presidential candidate’s momentum matters more in the final outcome. Chart 25AHigh, Rising, And Stable Approval Ratings … Chart 25B… Help Presidents Win Elections We tested each variation of approval as an input in our model instead of the July approval level. Table 3 summarizes the results. Trump wins in all four versions. Table 3All Measures Of Approval Favor Trump In 2020 Our current model penalizes Trump the most, while the model based on approval range favors him. This makes sense, given that President Trump’s approval is relatively low but very stable (Chart 26). Chart 26Trump Approval Very Low … And Very Stable We will continue to use approval level in our model to generate updated predictions, given that this measure has the best long-term historical fit with the election outcome. However, given that President Trump is performing relatively well on these other measures of approval, there is upside risk to his 2020 performance. Appendix 2: A Word About The Probit Model Table 4 presents the regression coefficients of our model. Since this is a probit model, the coefficients cannot be directly interpreted as they would in an ordinary regression. The coefficients in a probit regression model measure the change in the Z-score associated to each independent variable for a one-unit change in that variable. Table 4BCA 2020 US Presidential Election Model Statistics The sign of the coefficient corresponds to the direction of change in probability. So increases in the state leading index, presidential approval, or the incumbent’s margin of victory in the last election increase the probability of the incumbent winning a state. Of course, the latter variable is fixed and will not change until the election. At the same time, having occupied the White House for two terms or more decreases the probability of an incumbent win. But this is not the case in the current election. Footnotes 1 Andrew Johnson, the first to be impeached, did not run in 1868; Ulysses Grant bowed out after two terms in 1876, amid the “Great Barbecue” scandal; Warren Harding died before the election of 1924, amid the infamous “Teapot Dome” scandal; Harry Truman stepped down amid scandal after two terms in 1952; Richard Nixon resigned before the election of 1976; Bill Clinton was impeached and hit the two-term limit before the election of 2000. For these examples, and the electoral impact of great scandals in general, please see Allan J. Lichtman, Predicting The Next Presidency: The Keys To The White House 2016 (Rowman and Littlefield, 2016). 2 Trump’s policy record contains one major legislative victory, the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, along with a number of works in progress. The Republicans’ failed attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) exacted an opportunity cost: it deprived Trump and the GOP Congress of time needed to legislate a southern border wall, while mobilizing the opposition for all subsequent elections. As for other policies, the renegotiation of NAFTA is only a partial success as the USMCA has not been ratified. The promised infrastructure package will become a campaign pledge for the second term. We expect some kind of North Korea deal. 3 To this end, we use a probit model, where the dependent variable is stated as 1 = incumbent party won all Electoral College votes in this state, or 0 = incumbent party did not win any Electoral College votes in this state. This model allows us to measure the probability that a state with certain characteristics will fall into one of these two categories. 4 “The leading index for each state predicts the six-month growth rate of the state’s coincident index. In addition to the coincident index, the models include other variables that lead the economy: state-level housing permits (1 to 4 units), state initial unemployment insurance claims, delivery times from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) manufacturing survey, and the interest rate spread between the 10-year Treasury bond and the 3-month Treasury bill.” See the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, www.philadelphiafed.org. 5 Alan I. Abramowitz, “Forecasting the 2008 Presidential Election with the Time-for-Change Model,” Political Science and Politics, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Oct., 2008), pp. 691-695. 6 We also assume that the Democrats always win the District of Columbia. 7 Please see Michael S. Lewis-Beck, Charles Tien, “Forecasting presidential elections: When to change the model,” International Journal of Forecasting, Volume 24, Issue 2, April–June 2008, Pages 227-236, and Mark Zandi, Dan White, Bernard Yaros, “2020 Presidential Election Model,” Moody’s Analytics, September 2019.

Highlights Our take on the key macro drivers of financial markets is quite similar to last year’s, … : Monetary policy is still accommodative; lenders are ready, willing and able; and the expansion remains intact. ... because the Fed and other central banks have reset the monetary policy clock, … : At this time last year, we projected that the Fed would be on the cusp of tightening monetary policy enough to induce a recession by the middle of 2020. Three rate cuts later, we now expect that policy won’t become restrictive until 2021. … pushing the inflection points investors care about further out into the future: The next recession won’t begin before monetary policy settings are tight, and stocks won’t peak until about six months before the recession starts. We are keeping close tabs on the trade negotiations and potential election outcomes, but we expect that 2020 will be another rewarding year for riskier assets: The equity bull market is likely to last for all of next year, and spread product will keep cranking out excess returns over Treasuries and cash for a while longer, too. Overweight equities and spread product. Feature Mr. and Ms. X made their annual visit to BCA last month, giving us an opportunity to gather our thoughts for 2020, while reviewing how our calls turned out in 2019. Both BCA and US Investment Strategy got the asset allocation conclusion right – overweight equities and spread product, while underweighting Treasuries – but the Fed did the opposite of what we expected heading into 2019, putting us on the wrong side of the Treasury duration call for most of the year. We still think investors are overly complacent about the potential for future inflation, but we concede that the future remains further off than we initially expected. Monetary policy settings got more accommodative nearly everywhere in the world in 2019, ... Our Outlook 2020 theme, as detailed in the year-end edition of The Bank Credit Analyst, is Heading into the End Game,1 and it is clear that the expansion is in its latter stages. We do not think that the end of the expansion, the equity bull market, or credit’s extended stretch of positive excess returns is at hand, however. The full-employment/low-inflation sweet spot is still in place, and the Fed has no plans to get in the expansion’s way, even if inflation begins to gain some traction. Its biggest policy priority is trying to get inflation expectations back to the 2.3 – 2.5% range consistent with its inflation target. Chart 1Globalization Hits A Wall Central banks around the world followed the Fed’s lead this year, cutting their policy rates in an attempt to shield their economies from potentially worsening trade tensions. Though no central banker would say it out loud, joining the rate-cutting parade also helped to defend against currency appreciation, as no one wants a strong currency when growth is in such short supply. The upshot is that global central banks are deliberately promoting reflation. That’s a supportive policy backdrop for risk assets, and while it may well lead to a bigger hangover down the road, it will ramp up the party now. Exogenous challenges remain. Trade tensions are a thorn in businesses’, consumers’ and investors’ sides. Even if US-China tensions die down, a belligerent US administration appears bent on using tariffs and other trade barriers as a cudgel to force concessions from other nations. The trade tailwind that boosted economic growth and investment returns across the last two decades has been stilled (Chart 1). Saber rattling by the US, or mischief from the usual rogue-state and non-state suspects, could also keep markets on edge. The looming election could give investors heartburn, and clients around the world remain anxious about the prospects of a Warren administration. Exogenous risks abound, but it is not our base case that a critical mass will coalesce to disrupt our view that generous-to-indulgent monetary policy settings will delay the day of reckoning, and keep the bull market going all the way through the coming year. As The Cycles Turn From our perspective, the practice of investment strategy is properly founded on the study of cycles. The key cycles – the business cycle, the credit cycle, and the monetary policy cycle – determine how receptive the macroeconomic backdrop is for taking investment risk. Investments made when the backdrop supports risk taking have a much better likelihood of generating excess returns over Treasuries and cash than investments made against an unfriendly macro backdrop. We therefore start every investment decision with an assessment of the key cycles. Determining whether the economy is expanding or contracting may seem like an academic debate with little practical application when the official business cycle arbiters don’t even determine the beginning and ending dates of recessions until well after the fact.2 Equity bear markets reliably coincide with recessions, however, and over the last 50 years, they have begun an average of six months before their onset (Chart 2). An investor who recognizes that a recession is at hand has a good chance of outperforming his/her competitors as long as s/he aggressively adjusts portfolio allocations in line with that recognition. Chart 2Bear Markets Rarely Occur Outside Of Recessions, ... Our key view, then, is that the start of the next recession is at least 18 to 24 months away. Tight monetary policy is a necessary, albeit not sufficient, condition for a recession (Chart 3), and we consider the Fed’s current monetary policy settings to be easy, especially after this year’s three rate cuts. A recession can’t begin until the Fed reverses those three cuts and, per our estimate of the equilibrium rate, tacks on at least three additional hikes. Tightening along those lines is decidedly not on the Fed’s 2020 agenda. Chart 3... And Recessions Only Occur When Monetary Conditions Are Tight Our recession judgment compels us to be overweight equities. Even if the next recession begins exactly halfway through 2021, history suggests that 2020 returns will be robust. Over the last 50 years, the S&P 500 has peaked an average of six months before the start of a recession, and returns heading into the peak have been quite strong, especially in the last four expansions (Table 1). Those results are consistent with bull markets’ tendency to sprint to the finish line (Chart 4). Table 1Stocks Don't Quit Until A Recession Is Near Chart 4Bull Markets End In Stampedes The Fed Funds Rate Cycle We estimate that the equilibrium fed funds rate is currently around 3¼%, and project it will approach 3½% by the end of next year. If we are correct that the Fed’s main policy aim is to prod inflation expectations higher, it follows that it will remain on hold at 1.75% well into 2020. A desire to avoid even the appearance of meddling in the election may well keep the FOMC sidelined until its November and December meetings. The implication is that monetary policy will have no chance to cross into restrictive territory before the first half of 2021. The bottom line for investors is that the day when the economy and markets will have to confront tight monetary conditions has been indefinitely postponed. The Fed has effectively deferred the inflections in the business cycle and the equity market to some point beyond 2020. A longer stretch of accommodation would also continue to fuel the equity bull market, as Phases I and IV of the fed funds rate cycle, in which the fed funds rate is below our estimate of equilibrium (Chart 5), have been equities’ historical sweet spot. Over the last 60 years, the S&P 500 has accrued all of its real returns when policy was easy (Table 2), while Treasuries have shined when it’s tight (Table 3). Chart 5The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Table 2Equities Love Easy Policy, … Table 3… When They Leave Treasuries Far Behind The Credit Cycle Our 30,000-foot view of the credit cycle is based on the banking mantra that bad loans are made in good times. When an expansion has been going on for a while, loan officers focus more on maintaining market share than lending standards, while managers of credit funds attract more assets, pushing them to find a home for their new inflows. Banks and bond managers are thereby pro-cyclical at the margin, keeping the good times going by lending to increasingly marginal borrowers and/or relaxing the terms on which they will lend. (They’re conversely stingy when real-time conditions are bad.) Lenders’ lagging/coincident focus keeps lending standards and borrower performance closely aligned in real time (Chart 6). Chart 6Standards Are Coincident In Real Time, ... Standards are a contrarian indicator over longer periods, though, because shoddily underwritten loans eventually show their true colors. We find a solid fit between corporate bond default rates and lending standards in the preceding 20 quarters (Chart 7). Lending standards tightened slightly in 2015, but were still quite easy in an absolute sense. A majority of banks tightened standards in 2016 amidst the oil rout, which could point to marginally better 2020-21 performance, but post-2010 standards have hardly been stringent. Chart 7... And Leading Over Five-Year Periods The stock of outstanding loans and bonds is therefore vulnerable. The relaxation of corporate bond covenants so soon after the financial crisis has not escaped the notice of bearish investors and reporters. It is not enough for an investor to identify a vulnerability, however; s/he also has to identify the catalyst that is going to cause a rupture. The challenge is that ultra-accommodative monetary policy delays the formation of negative catalysts. To the utter torment of an observer with an attraction to the Austrian School of Economics’ survival-of-the-fittest ethic, it is not at all easy to default in a ZIRP/NIRP world. The stock of $12 trillion of bonds with negative nominal yields (down from August’s $17 trillion peak) has ginned up a fervent search for yield among large institutional investor constituencies that have to meet a fixed distribution schedule, like life insurers and pension funds. These income-starved investors help explain why nearly any borrower, no matter how sketchy, can draw a crowd of would-be lenders simply by offering an incremental 50 or 75 basis points of yield. Borrowers default when no one is willing to roll over their maturing obligations; they get even more leveraged when lenders are climbing over each other to lend to them. It is also hard to default when central banks are deliberately pursuing reflation. Inflation makes debt service easier, and central banks are all-in for reflation as a means to bolster inflation expectations, defend against further trade tensions, and to ensure currency strength doesn’t undermine exports. The credit cycle is well advanced, and the Austrians may be at least partially vindicated when the ensuing selloff is worse than it would otherwise have been for having been delayed, but it looks to us like it has more room to run. The rapture remains out of reach for Austrian School devotees, who slot between Tantalus and New York Knicks fans on the cosmic persecution scale. Bonds We remain bearish on Treasuries and reiterate our below-benchmark duration recommendation, though we recognize that the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to rise beyond the 2.25-2.5% range in the next year. There’s only one more rate cut to price out of the OIS curve, and neither inflation expectations nor the term premium will return to normal levels quickly. The intermediate- and long-term outlook for the Federal budget is grim, given the size of the deficit while unemployment is at a 50-year low (Chart 8), but Dick Cheney will maintain the upper hand over deficit hawks for 2020 and several years beyond. We do think investors are complacent about inflation’s eventual return, though, and continue to advocate for TIPS over nominal Treasuries. It is tough to default in a ZIRP/NIRP world, when several institutional investor constituencies have a voracious appetite for yield. Chart 8The Budget Outlook Is Grim Chart 9IG Spreads Are Wafer Thin Our benign near-term view of the credit cycle makes us comfortable continuing to overweight spread product, subject to our US Bond Strategy colleagues’ preferences. They are only neutral on investment-grade corporates, given their scant duration-adjusted spread over Treasuries (Chart 9). They recommend overweighting high-yield corporate bonds instead, given that high-yield spreads still offer ample positive carry. They also recommend agency mortgage-backed securities as a high-quality alternative to investment-grade corporates, noting that their low duration (three years versus nearly eight for corporates) offers better protection against rising rates. Equities With monetary policy still accommodative, and the expansion still intact, the cyclical backdrop is equity-friendly. If we’re correct that policy won’t turn restrictive until early to mid-2021 at the earliest, the bull market should be able to continue through all of 2020. We do not foresee a return to double-digit earnings growth, but the upward turn in leading indicators across a wide swath of countries outside of the US suggests that a revival in the rest of the world could help S&P 500 constituents grow earnings by mid-single digits, via a pickup in non-US demand and some softening in the dollar. Net share retirements could even nudge earnings growth into the high single digits. If earnings multiples hold up (they’ve expanded at a 5.5% annual rate in Phase IV of the fed funds rate cycle, and don’t typically contract until Phase II), S&P 500 total returns could reach the high single digits, easily putting them ahead of prospective Treasury returns. Multiple expansion isn’t required to support an overweight equities recommendation, but we would not be at all surprised if it occurred. Bull markets often get silly as they sprint to the finish line, and it would be unusual if some froth didn’t bubble up before this bull market, the longest of the postwar era, calls it quits. The Dollar We expect the dollar to weaken against other major currencies in 2020. As the rest of the world finds its footing and begins to accelerate, the growth differential between the US and other major economies will narrow. The dollar will attract less safe-haven flows as the rest of the world’s major economies escape stall speed. Though we expect the countercyclical dollar will rally again when the next recession hits, weakening in 2020 is consistent with our constructive global growth view. Putting It All Together We are sanguine about the US economy, which continued to trundle along at a trend pace in 2019 despite a series of headwinds. It withstood 4Q18’s sharp equity selloff and bond-spread blowout that tightened financial conditions and made corporate and investor confidence wobble. It withstood the 35-day federal government shutdown that lasted nearly all of January. It kept marching forward despite the trade war with China, and it overcame, at least for now, the angst over the inverted yield curve. If the economy continued to expand at roughly its trend pace despite those obstacles, it may not really have needed 25-basis-point rate cuts in July, September and October. The thread connecting our macro views and investment recommendations is the idea that monetary policy settings are highly accommodative and are likely to stay that way until the 2020 election. We expect that risk assets will outperform against an accommodating monetary backdrop. The naysayers are as likely to be confounded by central banks in 2020 as they have been throughout the entire ZIRP/NIRP era. The scolds scouring the data to try to find signs of excesses, and the Chicken Littles who have been frightened by clickbait headlines and strategists deliberately pursuing pessimistic outlier strategies, get one thing right. The market selloffs when the equity and credit bull markets end will be worse than they would have been if the Fed and other central banks were not deliberately attempting to reflate their economies. But their timing is likely to be as bad now as it has been all throughout 2019 (and for the entire post-crisis period for card-carrying, sandwich-board-wearing Austrians). You can’t fight the Fed, much less the ECB, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of England, the Swiss National Bank, the Reserve Banks of Australia and New Zealand, and a broad swath of all of the rest of the world’s central banks.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the December 2019 Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2020: Heading Into The End Game,” available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2 The NBER’s Business Cycle Dating Committee announced in December 2008 that the last recession began in December 2007. It announced in September 2010 that it had ended in June 2009.

Highlights The key risk to a dollar bearish view is a US-led rebound in global growth. This would allow the Federal Reserve to tighten monetary conditions much faster than other central banks, supporting the dollar in the process. Watch the performance of cyclicals versus defensives and non-US markets versus the S&P 500 as important barometers for this risk. Feature We were on the road last week, visiting clients in South Africa. The biggest preoccupation was what could put a dollar bearish view offside, especially vis-à-vis the rand. Many understand that the dollar is a countercyclical currency and tends to depreciate when global growth is rebounding. Yet there was still a good amount of trepidation on the totality of this argument. The dollar has been in a bull market since 2011, but there have been a couple of growth cycles during that period. One of our last meetings was in the beautiful city of Stellenbosch, a university town lined with majestic landscapes and rooted deep in South African history. A multi-asset fund manager had just met with two FX strategists before meeting with us. One of them was a dollar bull, and the other a bear. We could sense from his demeanor that indecisiveness was not part his ‘modus operandi,’ and he definitely wanted some clarity from our meeting. What transpired was an honest conversation on currencies, especially vis-à-vis our bearish dollar view. The conversation embodied the sentiment we had been getting from most other fund managers, which is that the view on the dollar is highly polarized. As we went through a swathe of charts, I noted his insightful questions, many of which drilled to the core of where the view could go wrong. Is The Dollar That Countercyclical? The observation that the dollar is a countercyclical currency rests on two pillars. The first is that the US economy is driven more by services than manufacturing. As such, when global growth is rebounding, more cyclical economies benefit most from this growth dividend, and as such, capital tends to gravitate to their respective economies. This is aptly illustrated by the fact that whenever global cyclical sectors (higher concentration outside the US) are outperforming defensive ones, the dollar is in a bear market (Chart I-1). In the US, a wider fiscal deficit tends to be partly financed by new money creation.  More importantly, the Fed tends to be the lender of last resort to the global economy, not least because the US dollar remains a reserve currency. In times of crises, the authorities pursue macroeconomic policies that tend to weaken the dollar, such as lowering rates and/or running a wider fiscal deficit. In the US, a wider fiscal deficit tends to be partly financed by new money creation. Part of the feedback loop in this mechanism is that it leads to a flow of greenbacks outside US borders. This eases offshore rates while greasing the international money supply chain (Chart I-2). Chart I-1The Dollar Tends To Weaken When Cyclicals Are Outperforming Chart I-2An Increasing Supply##br## Of Dollars Where can this view go wrong? If the Fed’s mandate is vis-à-vis the domestic US economy rather than maintaining international financial stability, then the biggest risk to a bearish dollar view is one in which global growth rebounds (or decelerates), but the US economy holds up well, allowing the Fed to pursue a relatively tighter monetary stance. This week, we got the US Markit and ISM PMIs, and the gaping wedge between the two is the highest since the 2015 manufacturing recession. Given sampling differences, where the Markit PMI surveys more domestically oriented firms, it is fair to assume it is also a barometer of US domestic growth relative to global output. Put another way, whenever the US services PMI is outperforming its manufacturing component, the dollar tends to appreciate (Chart I-3). If global growth rebounds but the US is leading the rebound (the Fed has been one of the most dovish central banks after all), the dollar can continue to rally. Our view is that this remains a tail risk. The slowdown in the global economy has been driven by the manufacturing sector, so it is fair to assume that this is the part of the economy that is ripe for mean reversion. Not to mention, cyclical swings in most economies tend to be driven by manufacturing and exports rather than services. Meanwhile, on the services front, the US economy appears to be rolling over relative to global. Even relative to China, the US appears to remain victim to the repercussions of the trade war (Chart I-4). This divergence is likely to keep the Fed on the sidelines, at least relative to other central banks. Meanwhile, on the political spectrum, our geopolitical strategists  observe that historically, it has been extremely rare for the Fed to raise interest rates a few months ahead of an election cycle. Chart I-3The Risk To A Bearish Dollar View Chart I-4Conflicting Messages A source of support for this view arises from the German bund versus US Treasury spread. In short, it is a battle of manufacturing versus services. Ever since the European debt crisis, the velocity of money in the euro area has collapsed relative to that of the US. In the financial world, relative long bond yields have followed suit in tight correlation (Chart I-5). If this reverses, it will be a key sign that the neutral rate of interest in the Eurozone is rising relative to that of the US, albeit from a low starting point. The message from bond markets is that such a shift is already taking place. Chart I-5R-Star For The Euro Area Could Move Higher There have been two powerful disinflationary forces for the velocity of money in the US. The first is the lagged effect from the Fed’s tightening policies in 2018. This is especially important given that the fed funds rate was eerily close to the neutral rate of interest, providing little incentive for firms to borrow and invest. Inflation is a lagging indicator, and it will take a sustained rise in economic vigor to lift US inflation expectations. This will not be a story for 2020 (Chart I-6A). Second, the recent rise in the dollar and fall in commodity prices is likely to continue to anchor US inflation expectations downward (Chart I-6B). This should keep the Fed on the sidelines. Chart I-6AVelocity Of Money Versus Inflation Chart I-6BVelocity Of Money Versus Inflation Bottom Line: The key risk to a bearish dollar view is a US-led global growth rebound, allowing the Fed to adopt a much more hawkish stance relative to other central banks. This would be an environment in which US inflation would also surprise to the upside. So far, the move in bond markets suggests this remains a tail risk (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Stalemate Equity (And Bond) Capital Flows The nascent upturn in a few growth indicators is also coinciding with a positive signal from financial variables. Global cyclical stocks have started to outperform defensives, and the traditional negative correlation with the dollar appears to be holding (previously referenced Chart I-1). Correspondingly, flows into more cyclical ETF markets are accelerating. These are usually a small portion of overall FX flows, but the information coefficient is directionally quite good. The key risk to a bearish dollar view is a US-led global growth rebound, allowing the Fed to adopt a much more hawkish stance relative to other central banks. The S&P 500 has been the best performing market for a few years now, so a crucial part of the dollar call lies in international equity markets outperforming the US. Markets such as the Swedish OMX, the Swiss Market Index and the TSX, among others, have broken out – indices with large international exposure and which are very much tied to the global cycle. Such market breakouts also tend to correspond with a weaker dollar, especially when the return on capital appears marginally higher outside the US. In a nutshell, the performance of more cyclical currencies will require confirmation of a breakout in their relative equity market performance. This applies to both the South African rand and other emerging and developed market currencies (Chart I-8A and Chart I-8B). The catalyst will have to be rising relative returns on the capital outside the US, but the starting point is also extremely attractive valuations. Chart I-8ACapital Flows And Exchange Rates Chart I-8BCapital Flows And Exchange Rates Over a shorter horizon, sentiment might drive stock market performance, but valuations matter a lot for the longer term. Chart I-9A shows the composite valuation indicator for the US relative to other developed markets. The message is quite clear: Any investor deploying fresh capital into the US today is doing so with the prospect of much lower longer-term returns, at least compared to the euro area and Japan. With inflows into US assets having rolled over, this will likely remain a source of concern for longer-term investors. This is compounded by the fact that expectations for the US technology sector going forward are likely to be hampered by regulatory concerns and lofty valuations. For South African investors, structural reforms will be needed for much more juicy long-term equity returns, beyond a terms-of-trade benefit (Chart I-9B). Chart I-9AReturns To US Equities Look Dire Chart I-9BReturns To US Equities Look Dire On the fixed-income front, international investors may still find US bond markets attractive in an absolute sense due to higher interest rate spreads. However, the currency risk is just too big a potential blindside to bear. Markets with the potential for currency appreciation such as Australia, Canada, Norway or even Sweden might be better bets. Flow data also highlight just how precarious it is to be long US dollars. As of September, overall flows into the US Treasury market have been negative, which may have contributed to the bottom in bond yields. Net foreign purchases by private investors are still positive, but the momentum in these flows is clearly rolling over. This is more than offset by official net outflows that are running at $350 billion (Chart I-10). As interest rate differentials have started moving against the US, so has foreign investor appetite for Treasury bonds. Chart I-10A Growing Dearth Of Treasury Buyers Bottom Line: Flows into US assets are rapidly dwindling. This may be partly because as the S&P 500 makes new highs amid lofty valuations, long-term investors are slowly realizing that future expected returns will pale in historical comparison. Given that being long Treasurys and the dollar remains a consensus trade, international investors run the risk of being potentially blindsided by a sharp drop in the dollar. Rebuy NOK/SEK We were stopped out of our long NOK/SEK position last week. We are reinstating this trade as relative fundamentals, especially from an interest rate perspective, still favor the cross. We are reinstating long NOK/SEK as relative fundamentals, especially from an interest rate perspective, still favor the cross. We remain oil bulls on the back of a pickup in global demand and OPEC production discipline. This should lead to the outperformance of energy stocks, benefiting inflows into Norway (Chart I-11). Chart I-11No Near-Term Replacement For Oil Chart I-12Interest Rates Favor NOK/SEK Interest rate differentials continue to favor NOK over SEK. The Riksbank will probably – at the margin – be more hawkish than the Norges Bank in an attempt to exit negative interest rates, but the carry will remain wide (Chart I-12). Meanwhile, Norway mainland GDP growth continues to outpace that of Sweden (Chart I-13). Finally, the cross has approached an important technical level, with our intermediate-term indicator signaling oversold conditions. Should the NOK/SEK pattern of higher lows and higher highs in place since the 2015 bottom persist, we should be on the cusp of a powerful rally (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Growth Favors NOK/SEK Chart I-14Rebuy NOK/SEK   Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the US have been positive: The ISM and Markit data are sending conflicting signals: the Markit manufacturing PMI edged up to 52.6, while the ISM number dipped towards 48.1 in November. On the services front, the Markit PMI was unchanged at 51.6, while the ISM PMI fell to 53.9. ADP employment recorded an increase of 67K jobs in November, well below expectations. The jobs report on Friday will be especially important. The trade deficit narrowed by $4 billion to $47.2 billion in October. The DXY index fell by 0.9% this week. Incoming data have been consistent with our base case view that global growth has bottomed and will rebound in 2020. Along with a manufacturing sector recovery, pro-cyclical, or higher-beta currencies are poised to outperform the US dollar. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 Signposts For A Reversal In The Dollar Bull Market - November 1, 201 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area signal a tentative recovery: Preliminary headline and core inflation both rebounded to 1% and 1.3% year-on-year, respectively in November. The Markit manufacturing PMI increased to 46.9 in November. The Services PMI also edged up to 51.9. Retail sales grew by 1.4% year-on-year in October, lower than the 2.7% yearly growth from the previous month. GDP growth was unchanged at 1.2% year-on-year in Q3. EUR/USD appreciated by 0.6% this week. The recent rebound in both inflation and PMI has brightened the outlook for the euro area and boosted investor confidence. Our Global Investment Strategy upgraded euro area equities to overweight recently. We continue to remain positive on the euro against the US dollar. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been positive: Construction orders soared by 6.4% year-on-year in October. Manufacturing PMI increased to 48.9 from 48.6 in November. Consistently, the services PMI also increased to 50.3. Vehicle sales fell by 14.6% year-on-year in November. This series is extremely volatile, especially given the front-loading of purchases ahead of the consumption tax hike. USD/JPY fell by 0.8% this week. Sluggish growth in Asia, together with the consumption tax hike have weighed on the Japanese economy through 2019. However, the Japanese yen remained resilient due to its safe-haven nature. The Abe government has revealed a sizeable fiscal stimulus, but the potential impact on the economy is still being digested. At the margin, fiscal stimulus reduces the scope for the BoJ to adopt more experimental monetary policies, which is bullish the yen. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Signposts For A Reversal In The Dollar Bull Market - November 1, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the UK have been upbeat: On the PMI front, both Markit manufacturing and services PMIs increased to 48.9 and 49.3, respectively in November. The construction PMI also rebounded to 45.3 from 44.2. Consumer credit increased by £1.3 billion in October. The British pound has appreciated by nearly 2% against the US dollar this week, making it the best performing G10 currency over the past few weeks. Our Geopolitical strategists believe that the UK election will not reintroduce a no-deal Brexit risk, either in the short-term or long-term. This is positive for the UK economy overall, and bullish for the British pound especially given it is still trading well below its long-term real effective exchange rate. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdon: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been robust: GDP growth soared to 1.7% from 1.4% year-on-year in Q3. On the PMI front, both AiG manufacturing and services PMIs fell to 48.1 and 53.7, respectively in November. The Commonwealth manufacturing PMI was little changed at 49.9, while the services PMI increased to 49.7.   The current account balance increased to 7.9 billion from 4.7 billion in Q3. AUD/USD increased by 0.8% this week. On Monday, the RBA kept interest rates unchanged at 0.75%. Governor Lowe implied that after 3 rate cuts this year, the current low cash rate is already boosting Australian asset prices and household spending. Combined with government spending and a growing population, this should help underpin the Australian economy and the Aussie dollar in the long run. We remain overweight the Aussie dollar. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 There was scant data from New Zealand this week: Terms-of-trade increased by 1.9% quarter-on-quarter in Q3. NZD/USD increased by 1.7% this week. As a small open economy, New Zealand should benefit once global growth stabilizes. Moreover, rising terms-of-trade, mainly in dairy and meat prices, are lifting New Zealand exports and the trade balance this year. We remain positive on the kiwi against the US dollar. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Place A Limit Sell On DXY At 100 - November 15, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 201 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been mixed: Annualized GDP increased by 1.3% quarter-on-quarter in Q3, well below the 3.5% quarterly growth in the second quarter. The Markit manufacturing PMI slightly increased to 51.4 in November. The Ivey PMI also soared to 60 from 48.2 on a seasonally-adjusted basis in November. Imports slightly increased to C$51 billion in October. Exports also increased to C$49.9 billion. The trade deficit, as a result, narrowed to C$1.1 billion. USD/CAD fell by 1% this week. On Wednesday, the BoC held interest rates unchanged at 1.75%. A catalyst was probably early signs of a global growth recovery. The BoC is one of the few central banks that haven't eased monetary policy this year amid the trade war and a manufacturing sector slowdown. Going forward, we are positive on energy prices, and believe that the loonie is primed for a breakout. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 Signposts For A Reversal In The Dollar Bull Market - November 1, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been soft: The KOF leading indicator fell to 93 from 94.8 in November. Real retail sales increased by 0.7% year-on-year in October, from 1.6% the previous month. Headline inflation increased from -0.3% to -0.1% year-on-year in November. The Swiss franc increased by 1.2% against the US dollar this week, amid broad dollar weakness. Inflation has been negative for a second consecutive month in November, and a strong franc does not offer any help. While we remain positive on the Swiss franc, the biggest risk to an appreciating franc is intervention from the central bank. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Notes On The SNB - October 4, 2019 What To Do About The Swiss Franc? - May 17, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been negative: Retail sales fell by 0.8% month-on-month in October. The current account surplus narrowed by NOK 2.6 billion to NOK 23.9 billion in Q3. The Norwegian krone increased by 0.8% this week against the US dollar, supported by rising oil prices and a brightened outlook for global growth. The EIA reported a decrease of crude oil stocks by 4.9 million barrels for the week ended November 29th. Combined with a revival in oil demand, this is bullish for the oil prices and the Norwegian krone. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Making Money With Petrocurrencies - November 8, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been mostly positive: GDP increased by 1.6% year-on-year in Q3, an improvement from 1% the previous quarter. The manufacturing PMI fell to 45.4 from 46 in November. This was in contrast to other euro area countries. The current account surplus improved to SEK 69 billion from SEK 37 billion in Q3. USD/SEK decreased by 1% this week. Typically, a weak krona helps the manufacturing sector by a lag of about 12 months. Moreover, the weak krona is also improving balance of payments dynamics in Sweden. Going forward, we remain bullish on the Swedish krona, and are playing krona strength via the New Zealand dollar. Report Links: Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor - November 29, 2019 Where To Next For The US Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades