Global

Highlights Currency markets continue to fight a tug-of-war between deteriorating global growth and easing global financial conditions. Such an environment is typically fertile ground for a dollar bull market, yet the trade-weighted dollar is up only 2.3% this year. The lack of more-pronounced strength in the greenback suggests that other powerful underlying forces are preventing the dollar from gapping higher. The breakdown in the bond-to-gold ratio is an important distress signal for dollar bulls. As both political and economic uncertainty remain elevated, likely winners in the interim remain safe-haven currencies such as the yen and the Swiss franc. For the remainder of the year, portfolio managers should focus on relative value trades at the crosses, rather than outright dollar bets. Stand aside on the pound for now. Aggressive investors can place a buy stop at 1.25 and sell stop at 1.20. The Riksbank’s hawkish surprise was a welcome development for the krona. Remain long SEK/NZD. The SEK might be the best-performing G10 currency over the next five years. Feature Yearly performance is an important benchmark for most portfolio managers. As most CIOs return to their desks from a summer break, they will be looking at a few barometers to help them navigate the rest of 2019. On the currency front, here is what the report card looks like so far: The dollar has been a strong currency, but the magnitude of the increase has been underwhelming, given market developments. The Federal Reserve’s trade-weighted dollar is up only 2.3% this year. In contrast, the yen is up 3.6% and the Canadian dollar 2.3%. Meanwhile, the best shorts have been the Swedish krona (down 9.7%) and the kiwi. Through the lens of the currency market, the dollar has been in a run-of-the-mill bull market, rather than in a panic buying frenzy (Chart I-1). Chart I-1A Report Card On Currency Performance Gold has broken out in every major currency. This carries a lot of weight because it has occurred amid dollar strength, a historical rarity. Importantly, the breakout culminates the seven-or-so-year pattern where gold was stable versus many major currencies (Chart I-2). We are no technical analysts, but ever since gold peaked in 2011, all subsequent rallies have seen diminishing amplitude, which by definition were bull traps. This appeared to have changed since 2015-2016, which could be a signal that the dollar bull market is nearing an end. Commodities have been a mixed bag. Precious metals have surged alongside gold. Despite the recent correction, oil is still up 13.8% for the year. Meanwhile, natural gas is in a bear market. Among metals, nickel has surged 70%, while Doctor Copper is down 5.1%. The only semblance of agreement is among soft commodities, which have been mostly deflating (Chart I-3). In short, there has been no coherent theme for commodity currencies. All the talk of a Sino-U.S. trade war, Chinese A-shares are up 18.7% for the year. This more than makes up for any CNY depreciation.  Equities have performed well across the board, mostly up double digits. The only notable laggards have been in Asia, specifically Japan, Hong Kong and Korea. That said, of all the talk of a Sino-U.S. trade war, Chinese A-shares are up 18.7% for the year. This more than makes up for any CNY depreciation. This also suggests that capital flows into equities have not been a major driver of currencies this year. Chart I-2Gold Has Been The Ultimate Currency Chart I-3Commodities Are A Mixed Bag Yields have collapsed, with higher-beta markets seeing bigger drops. Differentials have mostly moved against the dollar in recent weeks as the U.S. 10-year yield plays catch-up to the downside. One important question is that with Swiss 10-year yields now at -0.96% and German yields at -0.67%, is there a theoretical floor to how low bond yields can fall (Chart I-4)? Chart I-4Yields Have Melted Heading back to his office, the CIO is now pondering how to deploy fresh capital. On one hand, the typical narrative that we have been operating in the quadrant of a deflationary bust, given the trade war, manufacturing recession, political unrest and rapidly rising probability of recession is not clearly visible in financial data. This would have been historically dollar bullish, and negative for other asset classes. However, the plunge in bond yields begs the question of whether this is a prelude to worse things to come. A more sanguine assessment is that we might be at a crossroads of sorts. If economic data continues to deteriorate due to much larger endogenous factors, a defensive strategy is clearly warranted. One way to tell will be an emerging divergence between our leading indicators and actual underlying data. On the flip side, any specter of positive news could light a fire under sectors, currencies and countries that have borne the brunt of the slowdown. Time is of the essence, and strategy will be dependent on horizons. A review of the leading indicators for the major economic blocks is in order. Are We At The Cusp Of A Recession? Centripetal systems tend to stay in equilibrium, while centrifugal forces can explode in spectacular fashion. In the currency world, this means that the tug of war between deteriorating global growth and easing liquidity conditions cannot last forever. Either the dollar breakout morphs into a panic buying frenzy or proves to be a bull trap. Are we at the cusp of a bottom in global growth, or approaching a riot point? Let us start with the economic front: U.S.: Plunging U.S. bond yields have historically been bullish for growth. More importantly, the recent decline in the ISM Manufacturing Index is approaching 2008 recessionary levels. Either easing in financial conditions revive the index, or the decoupling persists for a while longer. The tone on the political front appears reconciliatory, which means September and October data will be critical. In 2008, the divergence between deteriorating economic conditions and falling yields was an important signpost for a riot point (Chart I-5). Eurozone: The Swedish manufacturing PMI ticked up to 52.4 in August. Most importantly, the new orders-to-inventories ratio is suggesting that the German (and European) manufacturing recession is reversing (Chart I-6). For all the debate about whether China is stimulating enough or not, the beauty about this indicator is that there are no Chinese variables in it (the euro zone and Sweden export a lot of goods and services to China). Any surge higher in this indicator will categorically conclude the euro zone manufacturing recession is over, lighting a fire under the euro in the process. Whatever the number is, if it can stabilize Chinese growth, a powerful deflationary force that dictated markets in 2018-2019 will dissipate.  China: Chinese bond yields have melted alongside global yields. This is reflationary, given the liberalization in the bond market over the past few years. Policy makers are currently discussing the quota for next year’s fiscal spending. Whatever the number is, if it can stabilize Chinese growth, a powerful deflationary force that dictated markets in 2018-2019 will dissipate. Chart I-5Is U.S. Manufacturing Close ##br##To A Bottom? Chart I-6Is Eurozone Manufacturing Close To A Bottom? Discussions among industry specialists suggest some anecdotal evidence that many manufacturers have been engaged in re-routing channels and parallel manufacturing chains to avoid the U.S.-China tariffs. This is welcome news, since global exports and global trade are still in a downtrend. A key barometer to watch on whether the global slowdown is infecting domestic demand will be Chinese imports (Chart I-7). So far, the message is that traditional correlations have not yet broken down. As a contrarian, this is positive. Manufacturing slowdowns have tended to last 18 months peak-to-trough, the final months of which are characterized by fatigue and capitulation. However, unless major imbalances exist (our contention is that so far they do not), mid-cycle slowdowns sow the seeds of their own recovery via accumulated savings and pent-up demand. In the currency world, the dollar has tended to be an excellent counter-cyclical barometer. On the dollar, the bond-to-gold ratio is breaking down, in contrast to the rise in the DXY. This is not a sustainable divergence (Chart I-8). The last time the bond-to-gold ratio diverged from the DXY was in 2017, and that proved extremely short-lived. As global growth rebounded and U.S. repatriation flows eased, dollar support was quickly toppled over. Chart I-7Chinese Imports Could Soon Rebound Chart I-8Mind The Gap Ever since the end of the Bretton Woods agreement broke the gold/dollar anchor in the early 1970s, bullion has stood as a viable threat to dollar liabilities, capturing the ebbs and flows of investor confidence in the greenback tick-for-tick. While U.S. yields remain attractive, portfolio outflows and a deteriorating balance-of-payments backdrop will keep longer-term investors on the sidelines. Chart I-9Dollar Bulls Need A More Hawkish Fed Capital tends to gravitate towards higher returns, and the U.S. tax break in 2017 was a one-off that is now ebbing. Meanwhile, despite wanting to resist the appearance of influence from President Trump, the Fed realises that the neutral rate of interest in the U.S. is now below its target rate, which should keep them on an easing path. A dovish Fed has historically been bearish for the dollar (Chart I-9). Bottom Line: In terms of strategy, heightened uncertainty can keep the greenback bid in the coming weeks, but we will be sellers on strength. Our favorite plays remain the Swedish krona, the Norwegian krone, and, for insurance purposes, the Japanese yen. Outright dollar shorts await confirmation from more economic data. What To Do About CAD? The Bank of Canada (BoC) decided to stay on hold at its latest policy meeting. This was highly anticipated, but the silver lining is that the BoC might later reflect on this move as a policy mistake, given the arms race by other central banks to ease policy. The three most important variables for the Canadian economy are a:) what is happening to the U.S. economy, b:) what is happening to crude oil prices and c:) what is happening to consumer leverage and the housing market. On all three fronts, there has been scant good news in recent weeks. Heightened uncertainty can keep the greenback bid in the coming weeks, but we will be sellers on strength.  The Nanos Investor Confidence Index suggests Canadian GDP might be at the cusp of a slowdown after an excellent run of a few quarters (Chart I-10). One of the key drivers for the CAD/USD exchange rate is interest rate differentials with the U.S., and the compression in rates could run further (Chart I-11). Unless the BoC adopts a looser monetary stance, a rising exchange rate is likely to tighten financial conditions. Rising energy prices will be a tailwind, but the Western Canadian Select discount, and persistent infrastructure problems are headwinds. As such, we think domestic conditions will continue to knock down whatever benefit comes from rising oil prices. Chart I-10Canadian Data Has##br## Been Firm Chart I-11A Firm Exchange Rate Could Tighten Financial Conditions On the consumer side, real retail sales are deflating at the worst pace since the financial crisis, but consumer confidence remains elevated given the robust labor market data (Chart I-12). However, if house prices continue to roll over, confidence is likely to crater (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Canada: Consumer Spending Is Weak Chart I-13Canada: The Housing Market Is Softening On the corporate side of the equation, the latest Canadian Business Outlook Survey suggests there has been no meaningful revival in capital spending. This is a big headwind, since Canada finances itself externally rather than via domestic savings. For external investors, the large stock of debt in the Canadian private sector and overvaluation in the housing market are likely to continue leading to equity outflows (from bank shares) on a rate-of-change basis (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Foreign Investors Are Fleeing Canadian Securities Technically, the USD/CAD failed to break below the upward sloping trend line drawn from its 2012 lows, and the series of lower highs since the 2016 peak is forcing the cross into the apex of a tight wedge. The next resistance zone on the downside is the 1.30-1.32 level. Our bias is that this zone will prove to be formidable resistance. We continue to recommend investors short the CAD, mainly via the euro. Housekeeping We were stopped out of our short XAU/JPY position amid fervent buying in gold. Even though we are gold bulls, the rationale behind the trade was that the ratio of the two safe havens was at a speculative extreme. We will stand aside for now and look to re-establish the position in the near future. The Risksbank left rates on hold this week. This was welcome news for our long SEK/NZD position. The weakness in the SEK this year was expected given the surge in summer volatility, but the magnitude of the fall took us by surprise. In general, as soon as President Trump ramped up the trade-war rhetoric and China started devaluing the RMB, the environment became precarious for all pro-cyclical currencies. In terms of strategy going forward, the SEK probably has some additional downside, but not a lot. It is currently the cheapest currency in the G10. Should the Riksbank be actively trying to weaken the currency ahead of ECB policy stimulus this month, the final announcement, depending on what it entails, might be the bottom for the SEK and top for the EUR/SEK. Finally, as the Brexit drama unfolds, the outlook for the pound is highly binary. Aggressive investors can place a buy stop at 1.25 and a sell stop at 1.20. Anything in between should be regarded as noise.    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 U.S. have been firm: PCE deflator nudged up from 1.3% to 1.4% year-on-year in July. Core PCE was unchanged at 1.6% year-on-year. Michigan consumer sentiment index fell from 92.1 to 89.8 in August. Trade deficit narrowed marginally by $1.5 billion to $54 billion in July. Notably, the trade deficit with China increased by 9.4% to $32.8 billion in July. Initial jobless claims was little changed at 217 thousand for the past week. Unit labor cost increased by 2.6% in Q2. Nonfarm productivity remained unchanged at 2.3%. Factory orders increased by 1.4% month-on-month in July. More importantly on the PMI front, Markit manufacturing PMI was down from 50.4 in July to 50.3 in August. ISM manufacturing PMI deteriorated to 49.1 in August, while ISM non-manufacturing PMI increased to 56.4, up from the previous 53.7 and well above estimates. DXY index fell by 0.5% this week. The recent worries about a near-term recession since the 10/2 yield curve inverted last month has been supporting the dollar, together with possible additional tariffs against China and the Chinese yuan devaluation. Going forward, we believe the dollar strength will ebb, given fading interest rate differentials. Report Links: Has The Currency Landscape Shifted? - August 16, 2019 USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Focusing On the Trees But Missing The Forest - August 2, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been firm: Unemployment rate was unchanged at 7.5% in July. Both headline and core preliminary inflation were unchanged at 1% and 0.9% year-on-year respectively in August. PPI fell from 0.7% to 0.2% year-on-year in July. On the PMI front, Markit composite PMI was little changed at 51.9 in August. Manufacturing component was unchanged at 47, while services component nudged up slightly to 53.5. Retail sales growth fell from upwardly-revised 2.8% to 2.2% year-on-year in July, still better than the estimated 2%. EUR/USD appreciated by 0.5% this week. While the manufacturing sector across Europe remain depressed, the services sector seems to be alive and well. The ECB monetary policy meeting next Thursday will be key for the path of the euro. Report Links: Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 EUR/USD And The Neutral Rate Of Interest - June 14, 2019 Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been mixed: Housing starts fell by 4.1% year-on-year in July. Construction orders increased by 26.9% year-on-year in July, a positive shift from 4.2% contraction in the previous month. Capital spending growth slowed to 1.9% in Q2. Manufacturing PMI fell slightly to 49.3 in August, while services PMI jumped from 51.8 to 53.3. USD/JPY increased by 0.5% this week. The consumption tax hike in Japan is scheduled for October 1. The tax rate will rise from 8% to 10%, with possible exemption on several goods such as food and non-alcoholic beverages, which could be a drag on domestic spending. That being said, we continue to favor the Japanese yen due to the risk of a recession amid the escalating global trade war. Report Links: Has The Currency Landscape Shifted? - August 16, 2019 Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. continued to deteriorate: Nationwide house price index was unchanged in August. Markit composite PMI fell to 50.2 in August: Manufacturing component slowed to 47.4; Construction PMI fell to 45; Services component decreased to 50.6. Retail sales contracted by 0.5% year-on-year in August. GBP/USD increased by 1.2% this week. Brexit remains the biggest driver behind the pound. British PM Boris Johnson’s brother resigned this week, citing tension between “family loyalty” and “national interest”. Our Geopolitical Strategy upgraded a no-deal Brexit probability to about 33%, maintaining that it is not the base case since nobody wants an imminent recession. From a valuation perspective, the pound is quite cheap and currently trading far below its fair value. Report Links: Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Take Out Some Insurance - May 3, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been mixed: Building approvals keep contracting by 28.5% year-on-year in July. Australian Industry Group (AiG) manufacturing index increased to 53.1 in August. The services index soared to 51.4 in August from a previous reading of 43.9. Current account balance shifted to A$5.9 billion in Q2, the first surplus since 1975. Retail sales contracted by 0.1% month-on-month in July. GDP growth slowed down to 1.4% year-on-year in Q2, the lowest rate in over a decade. Exports and imports both grew by 1% and 3% month-on-month respectively. Trade surplus narrowed marginally to A$7.3 million. AUD/USD increased by 1.4% this week. While Q2 GDP growth rate continued to soften, the current account and PMI data are showing tentative signs of a recovery. On Monday, the RBA kept interest rates unchanged at 1%. In the press release, the Bank acknowledged that low income growth and falling house prices limited household consumption in the first half of the year. Going forward, the tax cuts, infrastructure spending, housing market stabilization, and a healthy resources sector should all support the Australian economy, and put a floor under the Aussie dollar. Report Links: A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns- April 19, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been negative: Consumer confidence improved slightly to 118.2 in August. Building permits continued to contract by 1.3% month-on-month in July. Terms of trade increased to 1.6% in Q2. NZD/USD increased by 1.2% this week. In a Bloomberg interview earlier this week, the New Zealand finance minister Grant Robertson expressed his confidence on the fundamentals of the domestic economy, especially the low unemployment rate and sound wage growth. The largest downside risk remains the global trade and manufacturing slowdown. As a small open economy, New Zealand is ultimately vulnerable to exogenous factors, especially those related to its large trading partners including U.S., China, and Australia. On the policy side, the finance minister believes that there is “still room to move” in terms of monetary policy. Report Links: USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been mostly negative: Annualized Q2 GDP growth jumped from 0.5% to 3.7% quarter-on-quarter, well above estimates. Bloomberg Nanos confidence fell slightly from 57 to 56.4. Markit manufacturing PMI fell to 49.1 in August, right after a small rebound in July to 50.2.  Trade deficit widened to C$1.12 billion in July. USD/CAD fell by 0.5% this week. On Wednesday, BoC held its interest rate unchanged at 1.75%, as widely expected. In its monetary policy statement, the BoC sounded cautiously dovish, and expects economic activity to slow in the second half of the year amid global growth worries. The strong Q2 rebound was mostly driven by cyclical energy production and robust export growth, which could be temporary given the current market volatility. The rate cut probability next month is currently at 40%. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been positive: KOF leading indicator was unchanged at 97 in August. Real retail sales grew by 1.4% year-on-year in July, up from the previous 0.7%. Manufacturing PMI increased to 47.2 in August, up from 44.7 in the previous month. Headline inflation remained muted at 0.3% year-on-year in July. GDP yearly growth slowed to 0.2% in Q2, from a downwardly-revised 1% in Q1. USD/CHF fell by 0.2% this week. We remain positive on the Swiss franc. The global economic slowdown and increasing worries about a near-term recession remain tailwind for the safe-haven franc.  Report Links: What To Do About The Swiss Franc? - May 17, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway have been mostly negative: Retail sales increased by 0.9% year-on-year in July. Current account surplus plunged by 60% from NOK 73.1 billion to NOK 30.6 billion in Q2, the lowest since Q4 2017. USD/NOK fell by 1.3% this week. The rebound in oil prices this week has supported petrocurrencies. On the supply side, the production discipline is likely to be maintained. On the demand side, fiscal stimulus globally should revive overall demand. A potential weaker USD should also support oil prices in the second half of the year, which will be bullish for the Norwegian krone. Report Links: Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Currency Complacency Amid A Global Dovish Shift - April 26, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been mixed: Manufacturing PMI increased slightly to 52.4 in August, from 52 in the previous month. Current account surplus narrowed from SEK 63 billion to SEK 37 billion in Q2. Industrial production increased by 3.2% year-on-year in July. Manufacturing new orders increased by 0.4% in July compared with last month. However, on a year-on-year basis, it fell by 2.2%. The Swedish krona rallied this week, appreciating by 1.4% against USD. The Riksbank held its interest rate unchanged at -0.25% this Thursday, and stated that they still plan to raise interest rates this year or early next, but at a slower pace than the previous forecast. Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

As the summer holidays become a memory, central banks globally are mobilizing to fight mounting recession risks. More than 30 at last count are busily easing financial conditions to boost growth (Chart of the Week). Going into 4Q19, this monetary stimulus – coupled with fiscal stimulus globally – should allow growth ex-U.S. to revive, which will weaken the USD. This will be bullish for commodity demand in general, oil in particular. Fundamentally, the supply side of the oil market is in good shape. Production discipline by OPEC 2.0 will be maintained, while members of the coalition iterate on the level of output required to keep the rate of growth on the supply side below that of consumption.1 Capital discipline is being forced on U.S. shale-oil operators by markets. This will restrain their output growth rates to levels markets can absorb without inducing unintended inventory accumulation. A ceasefire in the Sino-U.S. trade war also could brighten short-term demand prospects and revive global trade volumes. This would indicate a recovery in manufacturing, given the heavy weight of manufactured goods in trade flows, and also in the the low-sulfur marine fuel markets. Going into 4Q19 and 1Q20, these supply-demand fundamentals will tighten markets, and force crude oil and refined product inventories lower. This will push Brent crude oil prices to our forecast levels of $66 and $75/bbl on average this year and next, with WTI trading $6.50 and $4/bbl under that. In addition, it would further backwardate crude oil forward curves. Chart of the WeekFinancial Conditions Continue Easing Among the risks to this view: Too-weak monetary/fiscal stimulus, leading to a failure to revive demand and stave off recession; a breakdown in OPEC 2.0’s production discipline; an expansion of the Sino-U.S. trade war; a disorderly Brexit; and, critically, a stubbornly strong USD, which raises the risk of direct intervention in FX markets by the U.S. central bank. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Saudi Aramco’s board of directors apparently has ruled out a listing of its IPO in New York, owing to legal risk in the U.S., according to Reuters news service.2 Riyadh and London reportedly are favored by board members. The Kingdom’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly has the final say. Base Metals: Neutral. The nickel rally likely corrects over the short term, after a vertical shot that lifted the metal ~56.2% between early June and this week. This was partly fueled by speculation over commentary from an Indonesian official in July reinforcing the country’s stated goal of banning raw ore exports by 2022. Indonesia is the largest nickel ore producer in the world.3 Precious Metals: Neutral. Our tactical long platinum position is up 3.9% since it was recommended last week. We continue to expect platinum will draft in gold’s wake, benefiting from safe-haven demand for precious metals generally. Fundamentally, the risk of power outages in South Africa, which produces ~67% of the world’s platinum, remains high this month, putting platinum-group metal production at risk there. Technically, the metal held long-term support at $785/oz this year – a level that goes back to the Global Financial Crisis lows – and has since rallied ~ 18%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Chinese tariffs on U.S. soybean imports went up 5% to a total of 30% September 1, coinciding with the imposition of additional tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese imports. Feature USD strength remains a headwind to stronger EM growth, which is keeping oil demand growth in check (Chart 2).4 Indeed, in local-currency terms, oil prices remain closer to their 2014 highs, when Brent and WTI were trading above $100/bbl (Chart 3). The persistently strong USD is one reason we lowered our oil-demand forecast four times this year, which puts it at 1.2mm b/d for 2019. Chart 2USD Strength Hinders Oil Demand Growth Chart 3USD Strength Keeps Local-Currency Costs High The slowdown in global oil demand began in 2H18 and picked up speed in 1H19. We believe this largely was the result of a global tightening in financial conditions – apparent in the Chart of the Week – led by the Fed, which, with near-singular determination, raised its policy rate four times last year. Fed policy kept USD-denominated assets well bid, but, equally importantly, it raised the costs of commodities and all goods and services invoiced in USD globally in local-currency terms. This reduced aggregate demand ex-U.S. as households’ and firms’ discretionary incomes fell.5 Commodity demand also was derailed by the extended de-leveraging campaign by Chinese policymakers, which ran from 2017-18 and succeeded in its goal of bringing down the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio and the growth rate of leverage. Central Banks Scramble To Revive Growth The Treasury may be forced to up the ante and directly intervene in FX markets to weaken the dollar. To reverse the tightening of monetary conditions worldwide, central banks this year started moving to more accommodative monetary-policy settings, which we expect will continue to support looser financial conditions around the globe. In addition, fiscal stimulus either is being deployed or readied in key EM economies like China and India, which, together, account for 36% of the 53.5mm b/d of EM oil consumption we estimate for 2019. These policy responses should revive GDP growth – particularly in EM economies – and, all else equal, oil demand in the process going into 4Q19. The performance of our leading indicators support this expectation (Chart 4). That said, with so many systematically important central banks weakening their currencies, the USD could remain strong in relative terms.6 If the dollar remains a safe-haven asset in uncertain markets, while serving as the world’s reserve/invoicing/funding currency, weakening the USD during a period of high financial stress could be difficult. In that case, the Treasury may be forced to up the ante and directly intervene in FX markets to weaken the dollar. Chart 4Global LEIs Bottomed And Are Moving Up   Managing Financial Conditions In A Trade War We do not expect the Sino-U.S. trade war to be resolved. National security, foreign policy and technology positions that have been advanced by both sides appear impossible to walk back (e.g., protecting 5G networks from spying, and safeguarding intellectual property). This suggests the Sino-U.S. relationship is in the early stages of a Cold War, which could go hot in the short run.7 Still, a short-term agreement or ceasefire this year or next is still possible. The basis for such a shift would be President Trump staging a retreat to try to clinch a deal and improve the economy prior to his re-election campaign. China might accept a temporary reprieve. This would allow both sides to retreat to re-group for the almost-certain renewed trade tension that will mark the Sino-U.S. relationship going forward. Over the short run, a ceasefire could brighten demand prospects and revive global trade volumes. This would be supportive of crude oil and refined-products markets, particularly the low-sulfur marine fuel market, which, on January 1, will be bound by IMO 2020 standards.8 In the medium to longer-run, however, neither the U.S. nor China will cede ground if it strengthens the hand of the other, particularly regarding national security and technology, which will continue to be the key concern for all national security issues. This complicates fiscal and monetary policy for both sides going forward, along with trade relationships for each. We do not believe either side has these issues sorted, and likely will need time and space to develop policies for the medium- and longer-term. It also means each side’s respective allies will have to make hard choices in deciding whose camp they will migrate toward. These considerations cloud the outlook for the medium- to long-term oil markets. We will be exploring them in greater depth in forthcoming Commodity & Energy Strategy reports. Investment Implications We remain broadly long in our exposure to oil markets, expecting the fundamentals outlined above to tighten supply, strengthen demand and draw down inventories. Given this view, we remain long WTI flat price, and long 4Q19 Brent futures vs. short 4Q20 Brent futures, expecting a steeper backwardation. We also remain long the S&P GSCI commodity index, given its relatively heavy exposure to energy markets. Bottom Line: Supply-demand fundamentals, coupled with a favorable fiscal and monetary backdrop, indicate oil prices will move higher from current levels toward our forecasts of $75/bbl and $71/bbl next year for Brent and WTI, respectively. This view is not without risk – chiefly around the Sino-U.S. trade war, and the risk that an expansion of tensions would stunt global demand for oil significantly. We continue to follow this closely.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. It was formed in 2016 to manage production and reduce oil inventory levels globally. For a complete summary of our supply-demand expectations for this year and next, please see the August 22, 2019 Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "USD Strength Slows Oil Demand Growth; 2020 Brent Forecast Remains At $75/bbl". 2      Please see Exclusive: Saudi Aramco board sees too many risks for New York IPO - sources, published by reuters.com August 30, 2019. 3      Please see Nickel price forecast revised up as speculative rally boosts tight market — report, published by mining.com August 29, 2019. 4      We have shown in previous research EM income growth accounts for most of the growth in oil demand globally. This year, for example, we expect EM demand growth to account for 87% of 2019’s 1.2mm b/d growth in oil consumption. Next year, EM is expected to account for 79% of the 1.5mm b/d of growth we expect. For this reason, oil prices – and base metals prices – are a good barometer of the of EM income growth. 5      Maurice Obstfeld noted at the Fed’s June 2019 Conference on Monetary Policy Strategy, Tools, and Communication Practices (A Fed Listens Event) that the USD is not only the world’s reserve currency, it also is the dominant invoicing and funding currency. “… the dollar’s invoice-currency role affects the international price mechanism by influencing how U.S. monetary policy will move real exchange rates, inflation, and export competitiveness throughout the world. … (The) dollar’s funding currency role mediates the transmission of U.S. monetary policy to global financing conditions. “Through both mechanisms, U.S. monetary policy has an outsized impact on global economic activity – consistent with the evidence on unconventional policy spillovers. … The Federal Reserve, more than other central banks, should therefore consider spillbacks from the global economy as a relevant transmission mechanism for its policies.” Prof. Obstfeld’s paper can be downloaded at the Fed website, Global Dimensions of U.S. Monetary Policy. 6      In the August 26, 2019, issue of BCA Research’s U.S. Investment Strategy, our colleague Doug Peta, chief U.S. investment strategist, notes, “No central bank wants a stronger currency while confronting a demand deficiency aggravated by trade tensions and a global manufacturing slowdown. The New York Times Business section put the prevailing policy winds into living color in a nearly full-page, four-column graphic spotlighting the 32 central banks that have cut their policy rate so far this year.” For further discussion, please see Market Messages, published August 26, 2019, by BCA Research’s U.S. Investment Strategy. It is available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7      Our geopolitical strategists make the odds of a trade agreement 40%, perhaps a bit higher. Please see Big Trouble In Greater China, published August 23, 2019, by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy, for an excellent discussion of the fraught Sino-U.S. relationship. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8      We expect global shipping-fuels market to tighten as UN-mandated fuel standards kick in next year. This will keep ship fuels, specifically Gasoil and ULSFO, and other distillate prices – e.g., diesel and jet fuel – elevated relative to other refined products like gasoline. This will boost demand for lighter, sweeter crudes – particularly Brent and similar grades – that allow refiners to raise distillate yields, as they scramble to meet higher demand for low-sulfur ship-fuel next year. For more information on IMO 2020, please see IMO 2020: The Greening Of The Ship-Fuel Market, published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 28, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Special Report

Feature BCA Research (aka The Bank Credit Analyst) published its first report in 1949, a remarkable 70 years ago. This probably makes us the longest-running independent investment research firm in the world. As we age, it is normal to occasionally reflect on how the world has changed over the course of our lives. It is an interesting exercise in the case of BCA. We need to start with a little history. The Bank Credit Analyst began life as a small-circulation newsletter produced by Hamilton Bolton, a Montreal-based money manager. He had been sending out investment commentary to his clients for some time and was encouraged to start catering to a wider audience. Bolton was a visionary because he was one of the few market analysts at that time to understand the importance of money and credit in driving economic and market cycles. In those days, banks were the dominant financial intermediary, so an analysis of flows through the banking system provided accurate and leading signals about economic and market trends. That is why he named his new service “The Bank Credit Analyst”. Bolton developed a series of monetary-based indicators that allowed him to make some great market calls. He passed away in 1967, but his valuable contribution to financial research was acknowledged in 1987 when the CFA Institute posthumously awarded him the prestigious “Outstanding Contribution to Investment Research Award”.1 Hamilton Bolton was a product of his times in that his worldview was influenced heavily by having lived through the Great Depression. Like many of his generation, he had a strong aversion to excessive debt growth, and was highly sensitive to any buildup of financial imbalances that could tip the economy back into a severe downturn. In fact, widespread fears of renewed depression did not really fade until the late 1950s. That psychology helps explain why policymakers were complicit in allowing inflation to take hold in the 1960s because there is a common tendency to fight the last war. As long as depression/deflation is seen as the primary threat, then there will be complacency about inflation risks. Does This Sound Familiar? Let’s look at some of the conditions that existed in 1949, when The Bank Credit Analyst started publication. The U.S. long-term Treasury yield had been capped at 2.5% since April 1942. At the request of the Treasury Department, the Fed had given up control of the money supply by buying whatever bonds were needed to keep yields below 2.5%, in order to support the financing of war-inflated budget deficits. The level of federal debt was down from its wartime peak of 106% of GDP, but was still at a historically high 77.5%. The European and Japanese economies were in a complete mess, having been devastated during the war. As already noted, fears of renewed deflation and depression were prevalent. Inflation was tame with the U.S. personal consumption deflator declining by 0.8% in 1949 and rising by only 1.2% in 1950. There was considerable geopolitical upheaval. Most notably, the Cold War intensified as Russia extended its control over East Europe and other countries. Mao Zedong founded the People’s Republic of China in October 1949 after his communist forces defeated the Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai-shek. There were serious border clashes between North and South Korea in August 1949, a prelude to the North’s invasion in June 1950. It does not require a huge stretch of the imagination to see some parallels with the current environment. We currently are having (or have had): Massive central bank purchases of government debt (i.e. quantitative easing) and the explicit pegging of bond yields by the Bank of Japan. A huge increase in government debt levels, albeit not because of war-related spending. In a remarkable coincidence, U.S. federal debt reached 77.8% of GDP in fiscal 2018, almost exactly the same level as in 1949. The European and Japanese economies are moribund. However, unlike in 1949, this reflects structural forces, not war-related devastation. There are widespread fears about the long-run economic growth outlook, well captured by the secular stagnation thesis, promoted by Larry Summers. Central bankers are concerned that inflation is too low. Geopolitical concerns abound. These include U.S.-China tensions, Brexit, Korea (again), rising populism and Russia’s more aggressive stance on the world stage. In the end, the fears of 70 years ago that the world might slip back into depression proved unfounded. The 1950s and 1960s, for the most part, turned out to be golden decades for consumers, businesses and equity investors. Unfortunately, this does not mean that we can look forward to a repeat experience in the decades ahead, because we must now turn to the major differences between the present and the past. The Past Worked Out Just Fine The conditions for an economic boom in the 1950s and 1960s could hardly have been better. The U.S. armed forces employed more than 12 million men and women at the end of WWII, 7.6 million of whom were stationed overseas. After the war, these people were desperate to get back to a normal life, with civilian jobs, marriage and children. The inevitable result was a population boom and a surge in growth as pent-up demand for housing and consumer goods was unleashed. It was all aided by the 1944 G.I. Bill that provided low-cost mortgages and many other benefits. The improvement in economic growth boosted government tax receipts and, coupled with a drop in defense spending, this kept fiscal finances in check. During the 1950s and 1960s, the federal deficit averaged less than 1% of GDP and debt had fallen to less than 30% of GDP by 1969. This occurred despite a surge in federal infrastructure spending, helped by the Federal Highway Act of 1956 that authorized the construction of an interstate highway system. Meanwhile, the economy did not appear to be impeded by tax rates that were far above current levels. The reconstruction of the European economies was a monumental task that was beyond the financing capabilities of those shattered countries. However, between 1948 and 1951, the U.S. European Recovery Program (The Marshall Plan) transferred $100 billion in 2018 dollars to aid the recovery effort and this helped Europe get back on its feet. There also was a huge amount of U.S. aid to support the rebuilding of Japan. Economic growth in Japan averaged almost 9% a year in the 1950s and more than 10% in the 1960s. In Germany, the comparable figures were 7.7% and 4.2%. The growth of the world economy also was boosted by steady reductions in tariffs during the 1950s and 60s. The most notable was the Kennedy Round of 1964-67 that achieved a 38% weighted average drop in tariffs. Protectionism was in strong retreat in the decades after WWII. Finally, a word on the markets. At the end of 1949, the S&P 500 was trading at seven times trailing earnings while the dividend yield was at 6¾%. The market’s earnings yield of 14% compared to a 2.2% yield on 30-year Treasuries. In other words, stocks were incredibly cheap. Moreover, when the 1951 Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord ended the bond peg, yields inevitably rose steadily over the subsequent years, making bonds a poor investment. In the 1950s, U.S. equities delivered real compound returns of 16.6% a year compared to -3.3% for 30-year bonds. In the 1960s, the annualized real returns were a still-respectable 5.3% for stocks and -1.4% for bonds. In sum, the two decades after the launch of the BCA were a very favorable time and it was largely due to a very depressed starting point. However, the current environment is very different to that of 70 years ago. It’s a Different Picture Now Perhaps the most important difference with the past is the demographic outlook. In contrast to the post-WWII baby boom, the U.S. and most other developed economies face bleak population dynamics. Almost all developed economies – and many emerging ones – have seen the birth rate drop below replacement levels with the result that population growth has slowed dramatically. In many cases, populations are in actual decline – especially in the important working-age segment. That deprives economic growth of its main driver. The annual potential growth of U.S. real GDP averaged 4% in the 1950s and 4.3% in the 1960s. Potential growth in the next decade will average only 1.8% a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). And it will be even lower in Europe and Japan. As far as pent-up demand is concerned, the picture also is very different. While the consumer industry works hard to develop new must-have goods and services, the reality is that demand is satiated for a lot of products. For example, in 2017, there were 259 million registered private and commercial autos and trucks in the U.S. compared to only 225 million licensed drivers. In 1950, the number of licensed drivers (62 million) far exceeded the number of registered vehicles (48 million). And it is hard to believe that the ownership penetration of most consumer durables has much upside. Turning to government finances, the current environment of bloated deficits and debt significantly constrains the room for fiscal stimulus. Yes, there is constant talk of the need for more infrastructure spending, but this has proven very difficult to implement without offsetting cuts in other spending or measures to boost revenues. The U.S. is saddled with unprecedented peacetime fiscal deficits and the CBO projects that federal debt will approach 100% of GDP within ten years, even without factoring in another recession. The comparison between the free trade era of the 1950s and 60s and the current situation speaks for itself. It is unclear at this stage just how far the move toward protectionism will go, but one thing seems clear. The rush toward globalization that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union and the entry of China into the global trading system is in retreat. This shows up not only in rising tariffs, but also in declining cross-border direct investment flows and increased antipathy to large-scale international migration. The irony is that the developed world needs more immigration to offset the weak growth in resident populations. What about the markets? The stock market certainly is not cheap, the way it was 70 years ago, with the S&P 500 trading at more than 18 times trailing operating earnings. Low interest rates are providing support, but future returns are likely to be in low single figures in a world where economic growth is moderate and there is little scope for profit margins and/or multiples to expand. Prospects for bonds do look somewhat similar to the situation in the early 1950s. Then, there was only one way for yields to go once the Fed’s peg ended. Today, yields will only fall sustainably if the economy sinks into a protracted downturn. We will get another recession in the next few years and yields could certainly hit new lows at that point. But the resulting policy response – both fiscal and monetary – seems almost certain to lead to higher inflation down the road. That would not bode well for the bond outlook, as was the case between the second half of the 1960s and the early 1980s. Concluding Thoughts Hamilton Bolton was fortunate to launch his new investment service ahead of a powerful economic revival and an almost two-decade bull market in stocks. He did not live long enough to witness the inflation upturn and volatile economic environment of the 1970s and 1980s, but BCA’s monetary focus allowed it to prosper during that period. Under the leadership of Tony Boeckh, the company’s then owner and Editor-in-Chief, BCA was strident in warning investors about the buildup of inflationary pressures and the dangers this posed for markets. During this time, BCA also developed the concept of the Debt Supercycle which helped investors understand the complex forces driving policy and the economic/market cycles. If Bolton was alive today, he would be horrified at the state of the world. He would not be able to understand how investors could be so complacent in the face of record government deficits and debt and by what he would regard as the reckless behavior of central banks. At the same time, he would be able to identify with the renewed focus on weak growth and deflation risks. The bottom line is that he would be advising investors to be extremely cautious. Investors currently are semi-obsessed with the timing of the next recession as that would be the signal to significantly downgrade risk assets. The official BCA stance is that a recession is not imminent and this creates a window for stocks to outperform. This matters for those investors who need to be concerned with relative performance. It is painful to sit on the sidelines if markets keep rising and you underperform your peers. However, for those more concerned with absolute performance, and that was true of most investors in Bolton’s time, the upside potential currently seems unattractive relative to the downside risks. Unfortunately, economists have a poor track record of forecasting recessions and bear markets thus often come as a complete surprise. Yes, low interest rates provide a floor under stocks, with the dividend yield comfortably above the 10-year Treasury yield. But rates are low for a reason: the economy and thus corporate earnings face major downside risks. Against this background, I would tend to side with what I imagine Bolton would say: this is a time to focus on capital preservation rather than taking risks to maximize returns. Let me try to end on a more positive note. As noted earlier, the long-term outlook turned out much better than Bolton probably anticipated 70 years ago. What could make that true this time around? Some things cannot be changed, at least over the next decade: adverse demographic trends, high ownership of consumer goods, and high levels of government debt. Geopolitical developments could go either way – for the better or worse – so I will make no predictions there. The one savior would be a marked revival in productivity because, ultimately, that is the only real source of rising living standards. Technology is changing rapidly and there are lots of exciting innovations. But to make a significant and lasting difference it will require more than developments such as autonomous vehicles or 3-D printing. We will need a new General Purpose Technology (GPT) that has a profound impact on the way economies and societies are structured. Previous examples include the steam engine, electricity and of course the internet. Perhaps Artificial Intelligence will do the trick, but that does not seem likely to be a near-term cure. Chart 1Then (1949) And Now (2019) In closing, we can be sure of one thing. The world changed in ways Hamilton Bolton could not have conceived and that also will be true for us today. BCA will endeavor to evolve with the times as it has done over the past 70 years and we look forward to keep helping our clients prosper in a complex and ever-changing world. 1949 – A Very Momentous Year Hamilton Bolton launches The Bank Credit Analyst The Peoples Republic of China, the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) are founded Indonesia gains independence from the Netherlands The civil war in Greece ends NATO is established The Geneva Convention is agreed The Soviet Union detonates its first atomic bomb Apartheid becomes official policy in South Africa Alfred Jones creates the first hedge fund The first non-stop circumnavigation of the world by an aircraft occurs The first commercial jet airliner, the De Havilland Comet, has its maiden flight EDSAC – the first practicable stored-program computer runs its first program at Cambridge University Products introduced that year included Lego, the 45 rpm record, the first Porsche car and the Xerox photocopier. George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 is published People born include Ivana Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, Benjamin Netanyahu, Meryl Streep and Bruce Springsteen 2019 – Not So Much Chaotic politics in the U.K., Italy and many other countries Trade wars   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Previously known as the Nicholas Molodovsky Award  

Feature In investment, there are times when your view and your strategy should not be the same. Our view remains that the global economy is likely to avoid recession over the next 18 months, that the Fed will cut rates once or twice more as an “insurance” but not enter a full easing cycle, that global bond yields will rise, and that risk assets will outperform over the next 12 months. But the risks to that view have increased, and so we want to bolster the hedge against our view being wrong. We don’t see Recommended Allocation Chart 1GAA Portfolio Volatility Relative To Benchmark government bonds as an attractive hedge at this level of yield, and so are moving to a “barbell” strategy, with overweights in equities and cash, and an underweight in fixed income. This lowers the volatility of our recommended portfolio to close to that of the benchmark (Chart 1). First, the good news. Although the manufacturing sector globally continues to deteriorate, with many PMIs falling to below 50, services and consumption remain robust almost everywhere (Chart 2). With central banks easing monetary policy, and in some countries (Italy, the U.S., the U.K., maybe even Germany) governments loosening fiscal policy, financial conditions are improving, which will eventually support growth (Chart 3). Intra-cyclical manufacturing downturns typically last around 18 months, and this one is close to its sell-by date (Chart 4). Chart 2Manufacturing Weak, Services Fine So what has changed? First, manufacturing has continued to decline for longer than we expected. In the early summer, there were signs of a bottoming in Europe, but these are no longer evident. The diffusion index of the global manufacturing PMI (i.e. the percentage of countries with a rising versus falling PMI), which typically leads the PMI by six months, suggests the PMI has further to fall (Chart 5). Chart 3Easing Financial Conditions Will Help Chart 4Close To The Bottom?   Chart 5Further Downside For PMIs? Chart 6China's Reluctant Monetary Stimulus   The most likely cause of this is that China has been more reluctant to ramp up monetary stimulus than we expected. It has eased fiscal policy, but monetary policy has been tentative: despite a moderate increase in credit creation this year, M3 money supply growth has barely accelerated (Chart 6). This has been enough to stabilize Chinese growth, but has been insufficient to give the sort of boost to global growth that China provided in 2016. There are two reasons for China’s reluctance to stimulate. The authorities seemingly continue to prioritize debt deleveraging and clamping down on shadow banking. And, also, maybe they do not want to give a boost to the global economy that would help the U.S. avoid recession and increase the probability of President Trump’s being reelected. China has been more reluctant to ramp up monetary stimulus than we expected. The Trade War is an increasing risk. BCA’s geopolitical strategists continue to assign a 40% probability to a resolution by year-end,1 but it is becoming harder to see how (or, indeed, why) President Xi would offer concessions to the U.S. that would lead to a deal. Ultimately, if Chinese growth slows significantly and U.S. stocks fall sharply, China will boost monetary stimulus and President Trump will push for even a superficial trade agreement. But things will need to get worse first. Meanwhile, the rise in global political uncertainty – and the mercurial nature of Trump’s foreign and trade policies – are a risk for markets (Chart 7). Chart 7Global Political Risks Rising Chart 8Consumers (Mostly) Remain Confident   We are also concerned about how long consumption can remain robust in this environment. So far, consumer confidence has remained resilient in the U.S., though it has dipped a little in Europe and Japan (Chart 8). But, if corporate profits remain weak, companies will start to delay hiring decisions and begin to lay off workers. This would be the transmission mechanism for the manufacturing slowdown to spread into the broader economy. So far, fortunately, there are few signs it is happening: German unemployment is at a record low, and U.S. initial claims continue to run at or below last year’s level (Chart 9). Chart 9No Signs Of Weakening Labor Market Table 1GAA Recession Checklist     In the recession checklist we have published for the past two or more years, we are starting to have to tick off more warning signs (Table 1 and Chart 10). Chart 10Some Worrying Signs Chart 11Risk Of Recession No Longer Negligible   For example, the yield curve has inverted both for the 3-month/10 year and 2-year/10-year. Although the yield curve has been an almost infallible predictor of recession in the past 70 years, there are some reasons to argue that it may not be as good this time: for example, central bank purchases have artificially pulled down long-term rates. But inversion is probably a self-fulfilling prophesy. For example, in a recent Fed Senior Bank Loan Officers Survey, 40% of banks said they would tighten credit standards simply because of a moderate inversion of the yield curve. Formal models of recession 12 months ahead that incorporate the yield curve slope, put recession risk now at about 25% (Chart 11).   Chart 1218 Months Of Ups And Downs Given all this, we think it is appropriate to take some risk off. As far back as February 2018, we argued that “investors primarily concerned with capital preservation might look to dial down risk or hedge exposure now”.2 Given the ups and down of markets in the past 18 months, we suspect that those risk-averse investors would not have been unhappy with that advice (Chart 12), although they would also have missed some nice equity rallies over that time, if they had been nimble enough to time entry and exit points. Since a majority of the subscribers to this service are rather conservative, we are now extending that advice to all clients. On a 12-month time horizon, we raise cash to overweight. We are also reducing somewhat both our equity overweight and bond underweight. In this period of increased uncertainty, a portfolio closer than usual to benchmark makes sense. (BCA’s House View is a little more bullish, remaining neutral on cash and overweight equities on the 12-month horizon). Fixed Income: Absent recession, we see little room for rates to fall further. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield (now 1.5%) should stay above its July 2016 historic low of 1.37%. The Fed is unlikely to cut rates by 100 basis points over the next 12 months, as futures imply. We would expect only two 25 bp rate cuts: in September and either October or December. Yields are likely eventually to move up over the next 12 months (particularly given that inflation continues to trend higher). But they may not move much for a while, and so we move from underweight to neutral on duration for now. Eventually, we see investors understanding that government bonds are no longer an attractive hedge at current yields. Even if German 10-year yields fell to -1.2% (probably around the lowest possible), one-year total return would only be 5% (Table 2). The U.S. looks a little better, though. One could imagine the yield falling to zero in the next recession, which would give a return of 16%. On credit, we remain neutral: it represents a low-beta play on equities. So far this year, both investment-grade and high-yield bonds have eked out a small positive excess return (Chart 13). Table 2Not Much Room For Positive Returns Chart 13Credit Returns Have Not Been Bad Chart 14Downside For Cyclicals?   Equities: To offset our overweight on equities, we continue with a low-beta country/regional tilt. We recommend an overweight on the U.S., and underweight on Emerging Markets. The key for upside to U.S. equities remains earnings. Analysts have a pessimistic forecast of only 2.5% EPS growth in 2019 for the S&P500. A rough proxy for earnings growth (nominal GDP growth of 4.5%, wage growth of 3.5% leading to some margin expansion, 2% buybacks) points to EPS growth of around 7-8%. Q3 earnings (where analysts forecast -2% year-on-year) are likely to surprise on the upside, as did Q1 and Q2, though the strong dollar and weak overseas growth are risks. In our next Quarterly, to be published on October 1, we may make some adjustments to further dial down risk, for example in our equity sector recommendations, which currently have a slight cyclical tilt. The relative performance of cyclicals has started to wobble, and the message from bond markets is that cyclicals have further to fall in relative terms (Chart 14). Investors will come to understand that government bonds are no longer an attractive hedge at current yields. Currencies: The trade-weighted dollar has broadly moved sideways in the past year (Chart 15), weakening against the yen, but strengthening against the euro and EM currencies. We remain neutral on the dollar. It will continue to be pulled by two opposing forces: weak global growth is a positive, but the Fed has more room to cut rates than the rest of the world and so interest rate differentials will shift against the dollar. The renminbi is likely to continue to weaken, as the Chinese use currency policy as the least painful offset against U.S. tariffs. The latest  set of tariffs suggests that the CNY needs to fall to around 7.5-7.6 to the USD to offset their impact but, if Trump implements all the tariffs he has threatened, it could fall as far as 8.0 (Chart 16). This would pull other EM currencies down further. GBP will continue to be buffeted by Brexit scenarios. A no-deal Brexit could bring it down to 1.00 against the USD, whereas Remain or a very soft Brexit would take it back to PPP, 1.43. The current level is a probability weighted average of the two. Chart 15Dollar Has Moved Broadly Sideways Chart 16CNY Could Fall Much Further     Commodities: The oil price has been hurt by a slowing of demand in developed economies (Chart 17). Supply, however, remains tight, and our energy strategists have cut their forecast for Brent this year only modestly to an average of $66 a barrel (from an earlier forecast of $70, and from a current spot price of $60).3 Industrial commodities continue to struggle because of China’s slowdown (Chart 18) and are unlikely to recover until China’s stimulus is beefed up. Gold remains a good insurance for investors worried about geopolitical risk, recession, and inflation.   Chart 17EM Oil Demand Has Been Weak   Chart 18Industrial Commodities Hurt By China       Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com 1      Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly, “Big Trouble In Greater China,” dated August 23, 2019, available at gps.bcareseach.com 2      Please see Global Asset Allocation, “GAA Monthly Portfolio Update,” dated February 1, 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy, “USD Strength Slows Oil Demand Growth; 2020 Brent Forecast Remains At $75/bbl,” dated August 22, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation