Developed Countries

Highlights Chart 1Looking For Peak Credit Spreads   The sell-off in spread product continued through November, driven by that toxic combination of weakening global growth and tightening Fed policy. With spreads now looking more attractive, we have begun to search for catalysts that could throw the current sell-off into reverse. Chart 1 shows two catalysts that called the peak in credit spreads in early 2016: A move higher in the CRB Raw Industrials index – a sign of improving global demand – and a shift down in our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter – a sign of easier Fed policy. The recovery in the CRB index is so far only tentative, and despite Chairman Powell’s dovish tone last week, the Fed will need to see more credit market pain before hitting pause on the rate hike cycle. As such, we anticipate further spread widening during the next few months. On a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon, we continue to recommend a neutral allocation to spread product versus Treasuries and, given that the market is only priced for 44 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months, a below-benchmark portfolio duration stance. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Investment grade corporate bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 120 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -216 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 19 bps on the month and currently sits at 137 bps. Corporate bonds are no longer expensive. The 12-month breakeven spread for Baa-rated debt is almost back to its average historical level (Chart 2). However, as was noted in last week’s report and on the first page of this report, the combination of weakening global growth and Fed tightening makes further widening likely in the near term.1 Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview A period of outperformance will follow the current bout of spread widening once global growth re-accelerates and/or the Fed adopts a more dovish policy stance. Therefore, on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon we maintain a neutral allocation to corporate bonds. Pre-tax corporate profits grew 22% (annualized) in Q3 and a stunning 16% during the past year, well above the rate of corporate debt accumulation (bottom panel). But going forward, the stronger dollar and accelerating wages will cause profit growth to slow in the first half of 2019, triggering a renewed increase in gross leverage (panel 4). With that in mind, we continue to recommend that investors maintain an up-in-quality bias within a neutral allocation to corporate bonds. We prefer to pick-up extra spread by favoring the long-end of the credit curve.2 High-Yield: Neutral High-Yield underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 155 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +4 bps. The average index option-adjusted spread widened 47 bps on the month, and currently sits at 418 bps. Our measure of the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for default losses is currently 308 bps, nicely above its long-run average of 250 bps (Chart 3). In other words, if corporate defaults match the Moody’s baseline forecast during the next 12 months, high-yield bonds will return 308 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries, assuming no change in spreads. Factoring-in enough spread compression to bring the default-adjusted spread back to its historical average leads to an expected excess return of 534 bps. Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview For a different perspective on valuation, we can also calculate the default rate necessary for the High-Yield index to deliver 12-month excess returns in line with the historical average. As of today, this spread-implied default rate is 3.20%, well above the 2.26% default rate anticipated by Moody’s (panel 4). While the elevated spread-implied default rate is certainly a sign of improved value, our sense is that the actual default rate will end up closer to the spread-implied level than to the level expected by Moody’s. Job cut announcements – an excellent indicator of corporate defaults – have put in a clear bottom (bottom panel) and the third quarter Senior Loan Officer Survey showed a decline in C&I loan demand, often a precursor of tighter lending standards.3  Table 3ACorporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation*   Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* MBS: Neutral Mortgage-Backed Securities performed in line with the duration-equivalent Treasury index in November, keeping year-to-date excess returns steady at -43 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread was flat on the month. A basis point widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS) was offset by a basis point drop in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). Although very low mortgage refinancings have kept overall MBS spreads tight, the option-adjusted spread has widened in recent months, bringing some value back to the sector (Chart 4). Chart 4MBS Market Overview In last week’s report we ran a performance attribution on excess MBS returns for 2018.4 We found that interest rate volatility had been a drag on MBS returns early in the year, but the sector’s most recent underperformance was almost entirely due to OAS widening. Mortgage refinancing risk, typically the most important risk factor, contributed positively to excess returns throughout most of the year. With Fed rate hikes likely to keep refinancings low, and with mortgage lending standards still easing from restrictive levels (bottom panel), the macro back-drop remains very supportive for MBS spreads. We maintain a neutral allocation to the sector for now, but will likely upgrade when it comes time to further pare our allocation to corporate credit. Government-Related: Underweight The Government-Related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 33 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -50 bps. Sovereign debt underperformed the Treasury benchmark by 70 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -188 bps. Foreign Agencies underperformed by 68 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -128 bps. Local Authorities underperformed by 51 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +11 bps. Supranationals outperformed Treasuries by 5 bps, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +19 bps. Domestic Agency bonds underperformed by 4 bps, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +1 bp. Sovereign debt has underperformed this year, but spreads remain expensive compared to U.S. corporate credit and the dollar’s recent strength suggests that the sector will continue to struggle (Chart 5). Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview In a recent report we looked at USD-denominated Emerging Market Sovereign debt by country and found that only a few nations offer excess spread compared to equivalently-rated U.S. corporates.5 Those countries are Argentina, Turkey, Lebanon and Ukraine at the low-end of the credit spectrum and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE at the upper-end. We continue to view the Local Authority sector as very attractive. The sector offers similar value to Aa/A-rated corporate debt on a breakeven spread basis (bottom panel), and it is also dominated by taxable municipal securities that are insulated from weak foreign economic growth. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +99 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio fell 2% in November, and currently sits at 86% (Chart 6). This is about one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and only slightly above the average of 81% that was observed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Chart 6Municipal Market Overview In our research into the phases of the credit cycle, we often divide the cycle based on the slope of the yield curve. Since 1975, in the middle phase of the credit cycle when the 3/10 Treasury slope is between 0 bps and +50 bps (where it stands today) investment grade corporate bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of -11 bps. In contrast, municipal bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of +156 bps before adjusting for the tax advantage. We attribute this mid-cycle outperformance to the fact that state & local government balance sheet health tends to lag the health of the corporate sector. At present, our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory, consistent with an environment where ratings upgrades will outpace downgrades (bottom panel). Meanwhile, corporations are already deep into the releveraging process. Treasury Curve: Favor The 2-Year Bullet Over The 1/5 Barbell Treasury yields fell in November, led by the 5-10 year maturities. The 2/10 slope flattened 7 bps to end the month at 21 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 5 bps to end the month at 46 bps. In a recent report we demonstrated that the best place to position on the Treasury curve has shifted from the 5-7 year maturity point to the 2-year maturity point.6 Our sense is that the 2-year note offers the best combination of risk and reward of any point on the Treasury curve, both in absolute and duration-neutral terms. The 2/5 Treasury slope was 31 bps at the beginning of 2018, but has flattened all the way down to 4 bps over the course of this year. Factoring in the greater roll-down at the short-end of the curve, we find that the 2-year note would actually outperform the 5-year note in an unchanged yield curve scenario. This sort of carry advantage in the 2-year note is relatively rare, and tends to occur only when the yield curve is inverted. Attractive compensation at the front-end of the curve provides an opportunity for investors to buy the 2-year note and short a duration-matched 1/5 barbell. Our model shows that the 2 over 1/5 butterfly spread is priced for 18 bps of 1/5 flattening during the next six months (Chart 7). In other words, if the 1/5 slope steepens or flattens by less than 18 bps, our position long the 2-year and short the 1/5 will outperform.   Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview TIPS: Overweight TIPS underperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 54 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +21 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.97%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate fell 3 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.17%. Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates finally capitulated and have fallen sharply alongside the prices of oil and other commodities during the past two months. Breakevens continue to grapple with the competing forces of falling commodity prices on the one hand, and relatively strong U.S. inflation on the other. Eventually, the decisive factor in the TIPS market will be core U.S. inflation continuing to print close to the Fed’s 2% target. This will drive both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates back into a range between 2.3% and 2.5%, although the headwind from weak commodity prices could persist for a while longer. In a recent report we showed that the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate is very close to the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations Model (Chart 8).7 This model is based on a combination of long-run and short-run inflation measures and is premised on the idea that investors’ expectations take time to adjust to changing macro environments. In other words, the market will need to see core inflation print close to the Fed’s target for some time before deciding that it will remain there on a sustained basis.    Chart 8Inflation Compensation ABS: Neutral Asset-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 2 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +21 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS widened 4 bps on the month and now stands at 42 bps, 8 bps above its pre-crisis low. The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey for Q3 showed that average consumer credit lending standards eased for the first time since early 2016 (Chart 9). Consistent with a somewhat more supportive lending environment, the consumer credit delinquency rate has been roughly flat on a year-over-year basis. However, given the continued uptrend in household interest coverage, consumer credit delinquencies are biased higher (panel 4). Chart 9ABS Market Overview The excess return Bond Map on page 15 shows that consumer ABS offer greater expected returns than Domestic Agencies and Supranationals, though with a commensurate increase in risk. The Map also shows that Agency CMBS offer very similar return potential with much less risk. We maintain a neutral allocation to consumer ABS for now. As consumer credit delinquencies continue to rise, our next move will likely be a reduction to underweight. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 37 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +82 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS widened 7 bps on the month and currently sits at 80 bps (Chart 10). Chart 10CMBS Market Overview A typical negative environment for CMBS is characterized by tightening bank lending standards on commercial real estate loans as well as falling demand. The Fed’s Q3 Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that lending standards are close to unchanged and that demand deteriorated. All in all, a slightly negative macro picture for CMBS that will bear close monitoring in the coming quarters. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 9 basis points in November, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to +14 bps. The index option-adjusted spread widened 5 bps on the month and currently sits at 56 bps. The Bond Maps on page 15 show that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this sector continues to make sense. The BCA Bond Maps The following page presents excess return and total return Bond Maps that we use to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Maps employ volatility-adjusted breakeven spread/yield analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Maps do not impose any macroeconomic view. The Excess Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the excess return Bond Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps in excess of Treasuries. The Total Return Bond Map The horizontal axis of the total return Bond Map shows the number of days of average yield increase required for each sector to lose 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of yield increases and are therefore less likely to lose 5%. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average yield decline required for each sector to earn 5% in total return terms. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of yield decline and are therefore more likely to earn 5%. Chart 11Excess Return Bond Map (As Of November 30, 2018)   Chart 12Total Return Bond Map (As Of November 30, 2018)   Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation (As Of November 30, 2018)   Table 5Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) ​​​​​​​   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst JeremieP@bcaresearch.com​​​​​​​ Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Checklist For Peak Credit Spreads”, dated November 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “What Kind Of Correction Is This?”, dated October 30, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Checklist For Peak Credit Spreads”, dated November 27, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk”, dated October 9, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Sweet Spot On The Yield Curve”, dated November 13, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Underweight (High-Conviction) While the probability of a housing recession remains low, we are concerned that too much euphoria is already priced in the S&P home improvement retail (HIR) index, and there are high odds that next year HIR will suffer the same fate as homebuilders did this year (top panel). Thus, we are downgrading the S&P HIR index to underweight and adding it to the high-conviction underweight list for 2019. Fixed residential investment (FRI) as a percentage of GDP is up 50% from trough to the recent peak, whereas relative HIR performance is up 170% in the same time frame. Our worry is that optimistic sell side analysts’ relative profit forecasts will be hard to attain, let alone surpass as FRI is steadily sinking (second panel). Worrisomely, our HIR model has plunged on the back of the wholesale liquidation in lumber prices and rising interest rates (bottom panel). Lumber deflation will prove a profit headwind as building supply Big Box retailers make a set margin on wood products. Bottom Line: Rich valuations will be tough to maintain amidst weak FRI, lower lumber prices and higher interest rates. We downgraded to an underweight position on Monday and added the S&P HIR index to our high-conviction underweight list; please see Monday’s Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW.

Highlights So What? The U.S.-China tariff ceasefire is a net positive, but a final deal is by no means assured. Why? In the near term there may be a play on global risk assets, but beyond that we remain cautious. Global divergence remains the key theme, and China now has less reason to stimulate. What to watch for a final deal: Trump’s approval rating, China’s structural concessions, and geopolitical tensions. We recommend booking gains on our long DM / short EM trades. Go long EM oil producers on OPEC 2.0 cuts. Feature U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have agreed to a trade truce at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires. The deal includes: Tariff Ceasefire: A 90-day ceasefire – until March 1 – on hiking the second-round tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200bn of Chinese imports. Substantive Talks: The talks will center on structural changes to the Chinese economy, including forced tech transfer, IP theft, hacking, and non-tariff barriers. Vice-Premier Liu He, Xi Jinping’s key economics and trade advisor, may visit Washington in mid-December. Imports: China has agreed to import more goods to lower the U.S. trade deficit, including agricultural and capital goods. This harkens back to the failed May 20 “beef and Boeings” deal. As with the previous deal, there are no deadlines or quantities promised. Not included in the two-and-a-half-hour dinner between Trump and Xi was a substantive discussion on geopolitical tensions. While Chinese statements following the summit did reaffirm Chinese commitment to the U.S.-North Korean diplomacy, there was no broader agreement on tensions, particularly in the South China Sea. The U.S. has recently demanded that China demilitarize the area. Should investors “play” the summit? Tactically, there is an opportunity to play global risk assets in the near term. Cyclically and structurally, however, both economic fundamentals and the underlying trajectory of U.S.-China relations call for caution over the course of 2019. Will The Truce Hold? There are five reasons to doubt the sustainability of the truce: Trade imbalance: It is highly unlikely that the trade imbalance between China and the U.S. can be substantively altered over the course of 90 days. The U.S. economy is in “rude health,” the USD is strong, unemployment is low and pushing up wages, and the output gap is closed. These are the macroeconomic conditions normally associated with an elevated trade imbalance (Chart 1). Chart 1Trade Deficit To Rise Despite Tariffs Domestic politics: The just-concluded midterm election saw no opposition to President Trump on trade. The Democratic Party candidates campaigned against the president on a range of issues throughout the election season, but not on the issue of his aggressive China policy. Polling from the summer also shows that a majority of American voters consider trade with China unfair, unlike trade with other countries (Chart 2). As such, President Trump will have to produce a convincing deal in order to ensure that his base, and many Democrats, support the deal. Chart 2Americans Are Focused On China As Unfair Structural tensions: U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer issued a hawkish report ahead of the G20 summit concluding that China has not substantively changed any of the trade practices that initiated U.S. tariffs.1 The report was an update to the original investigation that launched the Section 301 tariffs against China. Lighthizer’s report therefore provides a road-map for what the U.S. will want to see over the course of 90 days. High-tech transfers: The Department of Commerce announced on November 19 a “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies.” This review will conclude on December 19 when the public comment period ends. In the report, the federal government lists biotech, AI, genetic computation, microprocessors, data analytics, quantum computing, logistics, 3D printing, robotics, hypersonic propulsion, advanced materials, and advanced surveillance as technologies with potential “dual-use” that may be critical to U.S. national security and thus might merit consideration for export control.2 As such, the U.S. may decide to impose export controls on technologies that China deems critical to accomplishing its “Made in China 2025” goals within the period of the 90 day talks. If those export controls were to include critical items – such as semiconductors, which are critical to China’s export-oriented manufacturing (Chart 3) – negotiations may become more complicated. Geopolitics: The trade truce did not contain any substantive resolution to ongoing strategic tensions between the U.S. and China. These tensions precede President Trump: we have detailed them in these pages since 2012.3 As such, the U.S. defense and intelligence community will have to be on board with any trade deal and that may suggest that Beijing will be asked to make geopolitical concessions over the course of the next 90 days. Chart 3China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand Despite the above, the trade truce is a meaningful and substantive move away from an open trade war. Yes, the U.S. will retain tariffs on $250bn Chinese imports, with China maintaining tariffs on $66bn of U.S. imports (Chart 4). No, the U.S. did not rule out a third round of tariffs covering the remaining $267 billion of Chinese imports, if things go awry. Nevertheless, the 90-day truce implies that the U.S. will not ratchet up the tensions for now. Chart 4U.S.-China Trade Hit By Tariffs The truce also allows China to make substantive changes to its domestic economic policies that may satisfy some of the structural concerns cited in the above U.S. Trade Representative report. The soundest basis for a durable deal lies in China recommitting to structural reforms: this would both be positive for China’s productivity and would assuage some of Washington’s underlying anxieties about China’s state-backed industrial policies. Significantly, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs now says that it will “gradually resolve the legitimate concerns of the U.S. in the process of advancing a new round of reform and opening up in China.” When would this new round of reform occur? The upcoming Central Economic Work Conference, and the 40th anniversary of Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, should be watched closely for new initiatives. Also, the new March 1 tariff deadline lines up with the calendar for China’s National People’s Congress (NPC). The NPC meets every year and is the occasion when any major new domestic reforms would need to be laid out. Thus, any Chinese compromises on structural issues could be rolled out as part of a more general reform agenda in March. This is important because the U.S. administration is determined to focus on implementation and not to let China delay resolution of differences through endless rounds of dialogue. As such, investors should watch the following issues over the course of the next three months in order to gauge the likelihood of a substantive deal that not only rules out new tariffs but also rolls back the existing ones: Polls: President Trump is focused on his 2020 reelection. As such, he will want to see political gains from the easing of pressure on China, both in the general populace and amongst his GOP base (Chart 5). A slump in the polls, or a threatening turn in the Mueller investigation, may justify a shift in the narrative come March-April and thus end the truce. Chart 5Trump’s Approval Will Affect Trade Talks Big ticket announcements: China is going to have to make big-ticket item purchases. A huge order of Boeing airplanes, a massive ramp-up in the purchase of agricultural products, a raft of direct investments in manufacturing in the heartland … these are the type of announcements that President Trump could use to sell a substantive deal to his base. Structural changes to the Chinese economy: China will have to prove that it is addressing the concerns outlined in the U.S. Trade Representative report. We suspect that Lighthizer issued the report ahead of the G20 summit so as to set the benchmark for what the U.S. wants to see from Beijing. It is a high benchmark as it includes: An end to cyber theft, hacking, and corporate espionage; Substantive, rather than merely “incremental,” improvements to U.S. market access, including increased ownership of ventures; Serious changes to state-subsidized industrial programs that utilize stolen technology, particularly the so-called “Strategic Emerging Industries” program and “Made in China 2025”; An end to China’s state-backed investment campaign in Silicon Valley. No new U.S. embargoes: The public comment period for the newly proposed U.S. export controls ends on December 19. That suggests that high-tech restrictions could emerge over the course of the first quarter of 2019. These could exacerbate tensions. No new geopolitical tensions: Geopolitical tensions, such as over human rights in Xinjiang or the militarization of the South China Sea, would obviously make a deal less likely.  Bottom Line: The trade truce could lead to a substantive trade deal between China and the U.S. However, many impediments remain. Investors have to answer three key questions: is the deal politically useful for President Trump ahead of the 2020 election? Does the deal resolve the concerns laid out in the U.S. Trade Representative’s Section 301 report? And will geopolitical and national security tensions ease? Since 2012, we have had a structurally bearish view of the Sino-American relationship. This view is based on long-term structural factors that we do not think can be resolved over the course of 90 days. That said, every structural view can have cyclical deviations. The question we now turn to is how to play such a cyclical deviation in terms of the markets. What Does The Truce Mean For The Markets? In our view, the trade war has been of secondary importance to global markets. Far more relevant to the BCA House View that DM assets will outperform EM has been our conclusion that U.S. and Chinese economies would experience policy divergence. The U.S. economy has been buoyed by pro-cyclical stimulus, whereas Chinese policymakers have created a macro-prudential framework that has impaired the country’s credit channel. This divergence has led to the outperformance of the U.S. economy over the rest of the world, leading to a substantive USD rally (Chart 6). Chart 6U.S. Outperformance Should Be Bullish USD While this view has worked out well in 2018, it appears to be fraying as the year comes to the end: Chart 7U.S. Growth Weakening? Fed dovishness: Our recent travels to Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the Midwest have revealed unease among investors regarding the health of the U.S. economy. Some recent data, such as the woeful core durable goods orders (Chart 7) and weak housing, have prompted calls for a more dovish Fed. On cue, Fed Chair Jay Powell delivered what was perceived as a dovish speech. BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, makes a strong case for why investors should fade the enthusiasm.4 Specifically, Peter thinks that investors are focusing too much on the unknown – the neutral rate – and not enough on the known – the budding inflationary pressures (Chart 8). Nonetheless, in the near-term, the narrative of a “Fed pause” may overwhelm the data. Chart 8Does The Fed Like It Hot? Chart 9Fiscal Policy Becomes More Proactive Chinese stimulus: Evidence of a broad-based, irrigation-style, credit stimulus is scant in China’s data. Nonetheless, many investors we have met on the road are latching on to higher local government bond issuance (Chart 9) and a positive M2 credit impulse (Chart 10). Moreover, Q1 almost always brings a boost in new lending in China. Our colleague Dhaval Joshi, BCA’s Chief European Strategist, has recently pointed out that the global credit impulse has hooked up, suggesting that EM underperformance is over (Chart 11).5 We do not think that China can turn the corner on a slumping economy without a substantive increase in its total social financing, which remains subdued both in growth terms and as a second derivative (Chart 12). However, we concede that the narrative may have shifted sufficiently in the near term to warrant some tactical caution on our cyclical House View. ​​​​​​​Chart 10China's M2 Turned Positive Chart 11An Up-Oscillation In Global Credit Growth Technically Favours EM Trade truce: Trade concerns have had a clear impact on the outperformance of U.S. equities relative to the rest of the world (Chart 13). As such, a trade truce may alter the narrative sufficiently in the near term to change the direction. In this report, we cite why we are cautious regarding the truce leading to a substantive deal. However, we are biased by our structural perspective that Sino-American tensions are unavoidable. The vast majority of our clients and global investors does not share this view. In fact, the trade war has caught the investment community by surprise. As such, we would argue that investors are biased towards a “win-win” scenario. Therefore, investors may not be cautious, but may in fact project a much higher probability of a final deal into their market decisions. Chart 12China's Total Credit Is Weak Chart 13U.S. Is Winning The Trade War Over the course of 2019, we do not think the global risk asset bullishness is sustainable. In fact, a reprieve rally now is going to make global growth resynchronization less likely and continued policy divergence more likely. Why? First, Chinese policymakers will have less of a reason to deploy an irrigation-style credit stimulus if fears of an accelerated trade war abate. Second, the Fed will have less of a reason to back off from its hiking trajectory if both the DXY rally and equity market volatility ease. That said, we are going to close our long DM / short EM trades for the time being. This includes: Our long DM equities / short EM equities, for a gain of 15.70%; Our long U.S. Dollar (DXY) index for a gain of 0.56%; Our long USD / Short EM currency basket for a loss of 0.76%; Our long JPY/GBP call, for a gain of 0.32%. Our hedge of being long China play index ought to outperform on a tactical horizon, so we are leaving it open despite its paltry return so far of 0.32%. Also, we are keeping our long Chinese equities ex. Tech / short EM equities trade, as Chinese assets should rally on the back of the truce. Note that, as outlined above, China’s tech sector is not out of the woods yet. Our decision to close these recommendations is to preserve profits, not change our investment stance. On a cyclical horizon, we remain skeptical that global risk assets will outperform DM, and U.S. assets in particular, over the course of 2019. In the end, we do not believe that a mere narrative shift will be sustainable, especially given the robustness of the U.S. labor market (Chart 14) and the tepidness of Chinese stimulus (Chart 15). Chart 14A Tight Labor Market Chart 15Compare Any Stimulus To Previous Efforts Finally, a word on oil prices. The G20 was crucial for the oil call, as well as the trade war, given that Saudi Arabia and Russia suggested that their OPEC 2.0 union would produce supply cuts at the upcoming Vienna meeting on December 6. This proves that fundamentals were more important than the narrative that Saudi leadership “owed” a favor to President Trump. In particular, the Saudis have fiscal constraints given their budget breakeven oil price is around $80-$85 per barrel. As such, we are reinitiating our long EM energy producers (ex-Russia) / short broad EM (ex-China) equity call. We are excluding Russia from the “long” due to lingering geopolitical concerns – sanctions and Ukraine – and China from the “short,” as we are now tactically bullish on China.   Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Office of the United States Trade Representative, “Update Concerning China’s Acts, Policies, And Practices Related To Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, And Innovation,” dated November 20, 2018, available at www.ustr.gov. 2      Please see The Federal Register, “Review of Controls for Certain Emerging Technologies,” dated November 19, 2018, available at www.federalregister.gov. 3      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?,” dated September 25, 2012, Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Searing Sun: Japan-China Conflict Heating Up,” dated January 25, 2013, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II,” dated November 6, 2015, and “The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?,” dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Shades Of 2015,” dated November 30, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5      Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “DM Versus EM, And Two European Psychodramas,” dated November 22, 2018, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.