Developed Countries

Underweight In yesterday's Daily Insight, we highlighted our neutral barbell portfolio in tech, staying overweight secular growth defensive tech sub-sectors (namely S&P software and S&P tech hardware, storage & peripherals, both of which are high-conviction overweights) and underweight the hyper-cyclical chip and chip equipment stocks. With respect to the latter, we think the macro environment has deteriorated. Three factors underpin our negative view on semi equipment's growth prospects and there is no light at the end of the tunnel yet. Bitcoin's (and other cryptocurrencies) collapse is dealing a blow, at the margin, to demand for semi equipment (second panel). Taiwan's financials statement-reported data on IT capex and national data on overall Taiwanese capital outlays corroborates this downbeat demand backdrop (third panel). Finally, the drubbing in EM currencies is sapping purchasing power from the consumer and also warns that things will get worse for U.S. semi equipment stocks before they get better (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Continue to avoid the S&P semis and S&P semi equipment indexes; see Monday's Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG: S5SECO - INTC, NVDA, QCOM, TXN, AVGO, MU, ADI, AMD, MCHP, XLNX, SWKS, QRVO, and BLBG: S5SEEQ - AMAT, LRCX, KLAC, respectively.

Highlights So What? President Trump is treating the midterm election as a hurdle. Once cleared, he will restart "Maximum Pressure" policy towards China and Iran that will induce market volatility. The outcome of the election, however, has only a marginal investment relevance. Why? A Democrat-held Congress will not have the votes to overturn President Trump's signature economic policies: tax cuts, deregulation, and stimulus. Removal from power requires 67 votes in the Senate, out of the reach for Democrats. President Trump will pursue aggressive foreign and trade policies, regardless of the midterm outcome. As such, the midterm outcome is a non-diagnostic variable. Also... Rising stroke-of-pen risk, combined with President Trump's unorthodox foreign and trade policies, will likely intensify following the midterm election. Therefore, it is difficult to "buy on (midterm-related) dips," despite our call that the election does not matter. Feature Should investors care about the upcoming midterm election? The answer is yes, but marginally. A gridlocked Congress, our most likely outcome, is historically less positive for equities than an electoral outcome that results in a unified executive and legislature (Chart 1). The reality, however, is that economic and monetary variables are overwhelmingly more important for investors than politics.1 Table 1 illustrates the impact of four factors on monthly S&P 500 price returns. The first two columns demonstrate the effect on returns of recessions and tightening monetary policy, respectively, whereas the last two columns measure the effects of gridlock and reduced uncertainty in the 12-months following presidential and midterm elections.2 The table presents the beta of a simple regression based on dummy variables for each of the four components (t-statistics are shown in parentheses). Chart 1A Unified Congress Is A Boon For Stocks Table 1A Divided Government Is Marginally Negative For Stocks As expected, the macro context has a much larger impact on stock returns than politically driven effects. The impact of political gridlock is shown to be negative regardless of the timeframe, but only just. Could 2018 be different? Given the extraordinary level of polarization - captured in Chart 2 by the difference in presidential approval by party identification - this time could, indeed, be different. But, we do not think it will be. As we discussed last week,3 Democrats in Congress would not be able to impact the three crucial pillars of the Trump Reflation Trade: De-regulatory agenda: The executive branch is in charge of the deregulatory agenda, which investors should note kindled corporate animal spirits on day 1 of the Trump presidency (Chart 3). Chart 2Presidential Approval Variance Signals Peak Polarization Chart 3Trump's Mere Election Stoked Animal Spirits Tax cuts: Without 67 votes in the Senate, the Democrats cannot overturn a presidential veto that is certain to be used on any tax-hikes as long as President Trump is in power. They won't even get to the 60 votes necessarily to invoke cloture and thus avoid a Republican filibuster on tax, immigration, or other policy reforms. Fiscal policy: We see no chance of the Democratic Party becoming the party of fiscal discipline ahead of the 2020 election. Voters are not demanding budget discipline, despite the obvious rise in budget deficits (Chart 4), so why would the Democratic Party nail itself to the fiscal conservative cross over the next two years? What of the impeachment risk? There is no empirical evidence that impeachment proceedings have any impact on U.S. equity markets.4 And we would fade any concerns that an impeachment push would cause President Trump to seek relevancy abroad with aggressive foreign and trade policies because we expect him to do so regardless of the midterm outcome! Nonetheless, we do think that investors are in for a mild surprise this November (Chart 5). First, the data suggests that Democrats will have a wave election. In fact, we are raising our probability of a Democratic House victory to 70%, largely in line with current expectations. Second, we are also raising our call on the Senate to a "too-close-to-call." Essentially, we think that the Democratic Party may be able to pick up a Senate seat, which would be an extraordinary outcome given that they are defending 26 seats out of the 35 in contention.5 While such an electoral surprise may not have immediate investment implications in 2018 and 2019, it could have implications beyond 2020. The Senate electoral math significantly changes in 2020, with Republicans currently set to defend 21 seats out of 33 in contention (a number that could grow due to retirements). A Democratic sweep of U.S. institutions in 2020 could significantly alter the long-term earnings outlook in the U.S., especially if America's center-left party swings further to the left by then. Such an outcome would put an end to the two-decade long divergence in profits and wages as share of the total economy (Chart 6). But more on that at a later point. In this report, we focus on the upcoming election itself. Chart 4Voter Fiscal Preferences Are Not Fixed Chart 5Our Senate Call Is Out Of Consensus Chart 6What Is Not Sustainable Will Stop Midterm Election: The Twenty Charts To Watch History is stacked against the Republican Party. Chart 7 shows that the president's party has lost, on average, 24 seats since the 1950 midterm election. Only Clinton in 1998 - at the top of an epic bull market and with an approval rating of 66% (!) - and Bush Jr. in 2002 - following a once-in-a-generation terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland - managed to eke out positive gains. Even in those Goldilocks conditions, Clinton's Democrats only picked up a paltry five seats in the House (none in the Senate), while Bush's GOP gained two Senate and eight House seats. Chart 7Midterm Elections Normally Spell Doom For The President's Party Polls suggest that this time will not be different. Both the congressional generic ballot (Chart 8) and President Trump's popularity - at just 39% - (Chart 9) are signaling a wave election for the Democrats. Chart 8Polling Gives Dems The Advantage Chart 9President Trump Is A Drag On The GOP... But what about the roaring economy? Astonishingly, economic performance has a negative correlation with electoral outcomes in congressional elections (Chart 10)! This data point is so counterintuitive that it must be wrong. At the very least, history suggests that there is no clear relationship between the economy and congressional returns. Chart 10...Whereas The Economy Is Unlikely To Provide A Tailwind The economy only matters when things are going wrong. Current polls, in other words, are already pricing in a solid economic context, with the Democratic lead over the Republicans having narrowed from double-digits since the economy began roaring in January (Chart 11). At this point, however, it is highly unlikely that two more months of solid economic performance will have much of an effect on voter preferences. In fact, the importance of the economy, jobs, and budget deficits to voters has been declining since 2014 (Chart 12). Chart 11The Economy Is Already Baked In The (Polling) Cake Chart 12Voters Care Less About Economic Issues In addition, investors should remember that voter experience of the economic recovery is highly polarized. During Obama's presidency, Republican voter consumer sentiment and expectations were at recession levels. Magically, on November 8, 2016, both Republicans and Democrats changed their sentiment (Chart 13). Independent voters are, unsurprisingly, somewhere in the middle. Chart 13Voters Cannot Agree On Economic Performance Anyway Primary election turnouts are confirming that the economy is not the primary driver of voter enthusiasm. Democrats have seen 8.9 million more voters vote in the 2018 primaries, compared to the 2014 midterm election. Meanwhile, GOP voters - who are presumably more enthused about the economy - have only seen a pickup of 3.8 million new primary voters. The pattern of primary voting is similar to the one in 2010, when the Tea Party revolt energized the Republican base in opposition to President Obama. In 2010, Republicans increased primary turnout in 186 congressional districts compared to the 2006 election. Satisfied with President Obama's win in 2008, Democrats only increased the primary turnout in 35 districts. As a result, the GOP picked up 63 House seats and gained control of the lower chamber of Congress. This time around, the numbers foreshadow a similar wave, but in favor of the left. Democrats have seen their turnout increase in 123 electoral districts, compared to the 2014 election. This includes 20 of the most competitive races this year. Republicans, meanwhile, have seen an increase in enthusiasm in only 19 congressional districts this year. The death knell for Republicans in the House of Representatives, in our view, will be the abnormally large number of retirements (Chart 14). Incumbency has a powerful effect in congressional races. On average, incumbents easily win over 90% of their races for the House (Chart 15). Chart 14Double More GOP Retirements This Year Chart 15Incumbents Normally Carry The Day The average margin of victory for the Republican representatives not running for re-election in the 42 electoral districts in 2016 was 28.3%6 (Table 2). This sounds like too high of a hurdle for Democrats to leap over. However, that is precisely what Democratic candidates have done in the House and Senate special elections in 2017 and 2018. The average GOP lead in those races is down from 29.2% in 2016 to just 8.5% today, a 20.7% swing (Table 3). This math explains why the Cook Political Report, the premier U.S. election forecasting consultancy, sees the number of competitive Republican-held seats more than doubling in 2018 (Chart 16), whereas the number of competitive Democratic-held seats has collapsed. Table 2Republicans Not Seeking Re-Election In 2018 Table 3Non-Incumbent Republicans Lost 20% Advantage In Special Elections Our Senate model is similarly flashing red for the Republican Party. Despite an overwhelming structural advantage in the 2018 cohort - having to only defend nine seats - our model is predicting that the Democrats will hold all their Senate seats and pick up one (in Nevada) (Chart 17). Chart 16Number Of GOP Seats At Risk Has More Than Doubled! Chart 17Our Senate Model Is Generous To The Democrats We modeled the individual Senate races by combining the state and national economic and political variables with the latest available opinion polling.7 We only focused on the races that we believe are currently competitive and we may change the mix as new information becomes available. The results of our "beta" model, expressed as a margin of victory by the Republican candidate (GOP total vote minus Democrat total vote), show that the Democrats have a surprisingly decent chance of picking up the Senate. Highly concerning for President Trump and the GOP is that the Democratic Senate candidates have a healthy lead in three out of the four contested Midwest races (Chart 18), suggesting that Trump's crossover appeal to blue-collar voters is not working when he is not the candidate (or perhaps, even more alarming for the GOP, when Hillary Clinton is not his opponent). The only tight Midwest election is in Indiana, where Democratic incumbent Joe Donnelly's lead is within the margin of error. Another concern for the Republicans is that the Democrats have largely fielded centrist candidates in the House and Senate races. For example, former Tennessee Governor (2003-2011), Phil Bredesen, is a conservative Democrat currently leading in the polls against his Republican opponent. Democratic candidates for election in Republican-held Arizona and Nevada are similarly centrists and thus competitive (Chart 19). Furthermore, in the 42 seats where Republicans are fielding non-incumbents, our research suggests that Democrats only fielded 14 left-wing/progressive candidates.8 Despite the media's focus on left-wing/progressive candidates - such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the Bronx or Ayanna Pressley in Boston - the vast majority of Democratic candidates in the non-coastal U.S. have been centrists. This means that GOP candidates will have very few "lay-ups" in November. Putting it all together, we would give Democrats a 70% chance of picking up the necessary 23 seats to take over the House. In the Senate, the next two months will determine the outlook for GOP candidates. Investors should fade the message from the current polling - and thus our model - as voters have paid very little attention to local races before Labor Day. However, if the current trajectory in the congressional generic poll and Trump's popularity holds until November, the likelihood of a GOP hold in the Senate will fall. For President Trump, a result where he loses the House and the Senate would be a political disaster. Should investors prepare for the volatility of impeachment in that case? The midterm election is a non-diagnostic variable. The Senate requires 67 votes to convict the president and thus remove him from power. A 50 +1 majority will not help Democrats get to that level any more than a 50 -1 minority would. They will need Republican Senators to join them in the impeachment endeavor. For that to happen, Republican voters will have to lose confidence in President Trump in droves, as they once did in President Nixon. As Chart 20 clearly illustrates, we are nowhere near that point today. Chart 18The Midwest: Is The Trump Magic Gone? Chart 19The Sun-Belt: No Place To Hide For The GOP? Chart 20Trump Is Not Nixon (Yet) Investment Implications: Much Ado About Nothing Putting it all together, this year's midterm election has a good chance of dominating the news flow by producing a shocking electoral surprise. In the immediacy of an outcome that hands the control of the entire Congress to the fired-up Democrats, it would be smart to bet on a brief risk asset pullback. However, the Democrats will not be able to unravel any of President Trump's main economic policies. In fact, investors may be presented with higher odds of an infrastructure plan and even of an immigration deal, if President Trump faces reality and comes to the middle ground on some of his demands (as President Clinton did after his disastrous 1994 midterm election). As for impeachment and the risk of President Trump "seeking relevancy abroad," our high conviction view is that he will continue pursuing unorthodox foreign and trade policies regardless of the midterm outcome. The just-announced 10% tariff on $200 billion of Chinese imports confirms our alarmist view on trade tensions. In fact, President Trump has explicitly threatened an increase of the tariff rate to 25% by the end of the year in order to put more pressure on Beijing. The increase in the tariff rate would be a significant escalation in the trade war, one that we do not expect Chinese policymakers to simply roll over and accept. Meanwhile, the U.S. embargo on Iranian oil exports will officially begin on November 4, just two days before the midterm election date. This is not a coincidence, but a product of White House design. We expect President Trump to turn the screws on Iranian exports in ways that President Obama did not.9 Given the potential impact on domestic gasoline prices, the White House has decided to coincide the pressure on Tehran with the end of the election season. The midterm election, therefore, is important only in terms of timing. Once it is out of the way, President Trump will refocus on his "maximum pressure" tactic, which he believes (and we agree) led to a breakthrough in North Korea policy. Unfortunately for the markets, we do not expect that the maximum pressure tactic will work as smoothly with Iran and China.10 The final risk to markets is the creeping "stroke of pen" risk from potential regulation of technology enterprises. Joseph Simons, the Trump appointed new chair of the Federal Trade Commission, recently said that "the broad antitrust consensus that has existed... for about 25 years is being challenged... the U.S. economy has grown more concentrated and less competitive."11 His comments have dovetailed the threat to FAANG stocks that exists from a shift in U.S. anti-trust enforcement, one that would take the anti-trust practice away from the consumer-friendly approach of the "Chicago School."12 Chart 21FAANG Stocks + Microsoft Have Dramatically Outperformed... Table 4...Generating 50% Of The 2018 S&P 500 Return! This is a big risk for the ongoing bull market as the reason why the S&P 500 has performed well is due to the performance of a few (enormous) technology stocks that have seen both earnings and valuation multiples expand amid one of the longest economic growth phases in history (Chart 21 and Table 4). And yet the one thing that a plurality of Democrats and Republicans seem to agree with is that major tech companies should be regulated (Chart 22). Privacy advocates - who tend to lean left or libertarian - and conservatives, who feel that their commentators are being silenced by Silicon Valley, could form a classic "bootleggers and abolitionists" coalition against the FAANGs post midterm election. In fact, it is the one thing that Trump, and his supporters may (Chart 23), have in common with a potentially left-leaning Congress. Chart 22Majority Of Americans Want Tech Regulated Chart 23Conservatives Distrust Tech Companies How should investors play the midterm election? It is tough to say. We do not think the Democrats' takeover of Congress will be a catalyst for the markets. However, there are a slew of concerning geopolitical developments that will accelerate post-election, some specifically because President Trump will become more aggressive following the electoral hurdle. As such, we would be cautious. While it may serve investors well to "buy on dips" related to the fear of a "Socialist" takeover of Congress, it will be difficult to disassociate such hysteria from genuinely bearish narratives emanating from the Middle East, with trade policy, or stroke of pen risks looming over FAANG stocks. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Associate ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Party On The QE2," dated November 8, 2010, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We include the last factor in the regression because it could be that the market responds positively in the post-election period, irrespective of the election outcome, simply because political uncertainty is diminished. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit," dated September 12, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 We are counting Senators Angus King (Maine) and Bernie Sanders (Vermont) as "Democrats" in this tally as they both caucus with the Democratic Party and generally vote very much in line with their left-leaning peers. 6 Excludes Pennsylvania due to redistricting in early 2018, and OK-01, as the candidate ran unopposed. 7 The state variables include the annual percent change in personal income, the annual change in the Philadelphia Fed Coincident index, and incumbency. The national variables include presidential approval ratings, a variable indicating whether the last presidential election was close, and the annual percent change in real GDP, CPI, industrial production, and the DXY. We add to this mix of national and state data the latest opinion polling by state race and the generic congressional ballot. 8 This number is largely our judgement call based on the statements from the Democratic primary winners. However, the fact that there is no unified progressive movement - akin to the 2010 Tea Party revolution - confirms our view. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Are You Ready For 'Maximum Pressure?'," dated May 16, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see Diane Bartz, "Trump's antitrust enforcer considers shifting up a gear," dated September 13, 2018, available at reuters.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?" dated August 1, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

  Neutral The stratospheric rise of tech profits, particularly in the past two years, have done most of the heavy lifting in pulling the S&P 500's profit margin ever higher, pushing the index itself to new all-time highs last month. The implication is that in order for the broad market to suffer a severe blow, tech has to take a hit, and vice versa. On the EPS front, our profit growth model has recently ticked higher from an already extended level, signaling that the profit outlook remains bright (second panel). The news on the operating front is equally encouraging. The San Francisco Fed's tech pulse index - an index of coincident indicators of technology sector activity - is reaccelerating (third panel). Such positivity is offset by the acknowledgment of three material risks. First, the tech sector garners 60% of its revenues from abroad and thus the appreciating U.S. dollar is a significant profit headwind (bottom panel). Second, a rising U.S. inflation backdrop along with the related looming selloff in the bond market should knock the wind out of the tech sector's sails. Third, leading indicators of emerging Asian demand are souring rapidly and were the trade war to re-escalate, EM economic data would retrench further. Bottom Line: We prefer to remain on the sidelines in the S&P information technology sector and sustain a barbell portfolio within the sector. Please see this week's Weekly Report for more details.    

Highlights Duration: The Fed is unlikely to slow its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace until there is sufficient evidence pointing to a slow-down in economic growth. Maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios. Yield Curve: The yield curve will remain near its current level and await confirmation from rising wage growth. The 2-year maturity point is becoming more attractive, and it will soon be time to switch our yield curve positioning from favoring the 5-year/7-year part of the curve to the 2-year. Economy: The global growth data improved somewhat during the past month, but weak foreign growth remains the greatest risk to the U.S. recovery and the Fed's 25 bps per quarter rate hike cycle. Feature Treasury yields increased last week. The 10-year is once again flirting with 3% and the market now discounts four 25 basis point rate hikes by the end of 2019. This time last week it was only priced for three (Chart 1). Chart 110-Year Testing 3% Last week's bearish price action occurred despite core inflation and retail sales both printing well below expectations. But the market saw through the economic data and instead took its cue from a speech given by Fed Governor Lael Brainard.1 A speech that was rightly interpreted as hawkish. We view last week's speech as important because Governor Brainard effectively refuted two arguments that the Fed could use to justify a slower pace for rate hikes in the coming months. Brainard's message to markets is that if any investor still expects the Fed to rely on one of those excuses, they should think again. Getting Close To Neutral One potential reason for the Fed to slow its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace is that current FOMC estimates place the longer-run neutral fed funds rate between 2.8% and 3.5%.2 This means that four more rate hikes would be sufficient for monetary policy to move from accommodative to neutral. If those neutral rate estimates turn out to be correct, then the Fed might be justified in halting its rate hike cycle this time next year. The problem, as we have pointed out in several prior reports, is that the error bars around such neutral rate estimates are very wide. So wide that we think the FOMC will pay them little attention and focus instead on trends in the actual economy and financial markets.3 Governor Brainard attacks the issue from a different angle, but arrives at the same conclusion. Brainard's framework draws a distinction between the short-run neutral rate - which is allowed to fluctuate in response to changes in the economy - and the long-run neutral rate - which is the neutral rate that prevails "after transitory forces reflecting headwinds or tailwinds have played out." In practice, this distinction means that if the economy proves resilient to a rising fed funds rate, we should conclude that the short-run neutral rate is moving higher. This would mean that higher interest rates are required before monetary policy turns restrictive. If economic tailwinds are strong enough, the short-run neutral rate could even move above the long-run rate. This framework leads to the same investment strategy we have suggested in many prior reports. Investors should ignore neutral rate estimates altogether, and focus instead on monitoring the economy and financial markets for signals that monetary policy is turning restrictive. Some potential signals we have suggested in the past include:4 When year-over-year nominal GDP growth is below the fed funds rate When cyclical spending slows as a percentage of overall GDP When the Treasury curve inverts When the gold price breaks dramatically lower Governor Brainard's speech pointed to one more indicator that we should add to our list: evidence of tightening from indicators of overall financial conditions. The strong relationship between financial conditions and future economic growth is well documented, meaning that Fed rate hikes will only exert a drag on growth if they translate into tighter overall financial conditions. Charts 2, 3 and 4 show how this played out during the past three Fed tightening cycles. Chart 2 shows that financial conditions tightened immediately after the Fed first raised rates in March 1997. They continued to tighten until the Fed stopped hiking in mid-2000. In contrast, Chart 3 shows that financial conditions did not tighten immediately when the Fed first lifted rates in June 2004, but that they eventually tightened as the Fed persisted with hikes. Chart 4 shows how financial conditions have evolved in the current cycle. Broadly speaking, overall financial conditions appear easier now than when the rate hike cycle began in December 2015. In other words, Fed rate hikes have so far not translated into tighter financial conditions. In Brainard's framework this can only mean that the short-run neutral rate has been rising alongside the fed funds rate. This suggests that more rate hikes are required to tighten overall financial conditions and slow growth. Chart 2Financial Conditions: 1990s Chart 3Financial Conditions: 2000s Chart 4Financial Conditions: Present Day Inflation Is Well Contained A second reason why many have suggested that the Fed could slow its pace of rate hikes is that inflation remains well contained near the Fed's target, and the risk of a meaningful overshoot appears low. At 2.19%, year-over-year core CPI inflation is consistent with the Fed's target. However, our Base Effects Indicator suggests it will decelerate during the next six months (Chart 5). Our core PCE Base Effects Indicator sends a similar message, as we showed in a recent report.5 But Brainard suggested that the Fed should broaden its scope beyond a simple inflation target. Specifically, she observed that: The past few times unemployment fell to levels as low as those projected over the next year, signs of overheating showed up in financial-sector imbalances rather than in accelerating inflation. The Federal Reserve's assessment suggests that financial vulnerabilities are building[.] As evidence that financial vulnerabilities are rising, Brainard pointed to low corporate bond spreads, rising corporate debt levels and easing underwriting standards (Chart 6). This would appear to make the case for further rate hikes even if inflation remains well contained near the Fed's target. Chart 5Inflation Will Stay Close To Target Chart 6Brainard Looks Beyond Inflation Bottom Line: The Fed is unlikely to slow its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace until there is sufficient evidence pointing to a slow-down in economic growth. Maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios. Treasury Curve: Considering The 2-Year As we pointed out last week, the Treasury curve has already discounted a significant acceleration in wage growth (Chart 7).6 This is fairly common cyclical behavior. In each of the past two cycles the Treasury curve has flattened sharply and then leveled-off at a low level as wages accelerated. We expect we have now reached this latter stage. The 2/10 slope will stay near its current level for a time, awaiting confirmation from wage growth. Chart 7Waiting For Wages In our view, the more interesting yield curve trend is that the spread between the 2-year yield and the fed funds rate has widened to above the 2/10 slope (Chart 7, panel 2). Periods where the fed funds/2-year slope exceeds the 2-year/10-year slope are rare, and tend to be quickly followed by fed funds/2-year flattening. The attractiveness of the 2-year note is confirmed by our butterfly spread models. We model different butterfly spread (bullet over duration-matched barbell) combinations relative to the slope between the two legs of the barbell.7 Our models show that the 2-year bullet is consistently cheap relative to different barbell combinations, and in fact cheaper than all other bullet maturities (Table 1). Table 1Butterfly Strategy Valuation At present, we recommend a yield curve position that is long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell. We will continue to hold this position for the time being because, while the 2-year note appears cheaper than the 7-year, we think the 2-year has room to cheapen even further. As mentioned at the beginning of this report, the Treasury market is priced for just barely four rate hikes between now and the end of 2019. The 2-year yield has further upside as more rate hikes get priced in. The upside in the 7-year yield is more limited. Bottom Line: The yield curve will remain near its current level and await confirmation from rising wage growth. The 2-year maturity point is becoming more attractive, and it will soon be time to switch our yield curve positioning from favoring the 5-year/7-year part of the curve to the 2-year. Global Growth Update Governor Brainard's speech shot down two arguments for why the Fed might turn more dovish, but this certainly does not rule out the Fed slowing its pace of rate hikes if economic growth starts to weaken. In past reports we noted that the Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) excluding the U.S. is below zero (Chart 8). Since 1993, every time the Global ex. U.S. LEI has fallen below zero, the U.S. LEI has eventually followed. It is conceivable, and perhaps even likely, that the same dynamic will play out again. However, the most recent data on global growth have been somewhat more optimistic. While the Global Manufacturing PMI (excluding the U.S.) has been trending lower, it remains at healthy levels compared to recent history (Chart 8, panel 2). Further, our Global PMI Diffusion index perked up in August, and now shows that 86% of the 36 countries in our sample have PMIs above the 50 boom/bust line (Chart 8, panel 3). The Global LEI also ticked higher in July, and its diffusion index increased, though it remains below 50% (Chart 8, bottom panel). While the monthly LEI and PMI data have improved, indicators of investor sentiment derived from both surveys and financial market prices remain downtrodden. The Global ZEW survey of investor sentiment, the performance of cyclical equity sectors versus defensives and our Boom/Bust Indicator all suggest that U.S. bond yields are too high for the global growth environment (Chart 9). Chart 8Slight Improvement In Global Growth Chart 9High Frequency Global Growth Indicators It's difficult to say how this will all play out, but our sense is that there remains a strong chance that weak foreign growth will eventually drag the U.S. lower. This will cause the Fed to pause its rate hike cycle for a time. However, given the uncertainty surrounding this outcome and the fact that the market is already priced for only two rate hikes in the remainder of 2018 and two more in all of 2019, we view the balance of risks as still consistent with below-benchmark portfolio duration. Bottom Line: The global growth data improved somewhat during the past month, but weak foreign growth remains the greatest risk to the U.S. recovery and the Fed's 25 bps per quarter rate hike cycle. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20180912a.htm 2 Governor Brainard defines the neutral fed funds rate as: "the level of the federal funds rate that keeps output growing around its potential rate in an environment of full employment and stable inflation." 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Powell Doctrine Emerges", dated September 4, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Tracking The Two-Stage Treasury Bear", dated August 14, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Powell Doctrine Emerges", dated September 4, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Playing Catch-Up", dated September 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification