Economy

Highlights Trump is now clearly retreating from policies that harm the economy and reduce his reelection chances. Geopolitical risks are abating for the first time since May – a boon for financial markets amid global policy stimulus. The U.S. and China are containing tensions in the short term – though we remain skeptical about a final trade agreement. The U.S. election cycle is a rising source of political risk even as global risks fall – but Warren is not a reason to turn cyclically bearish. Book gains on our long spot gold trade. Feature President Trump is staging a tactical retreat from his “maximum pressure” foreign and trade policies. As a late-cycle president with an election looming, his decision to escalate conflicts with China and Iran in May revealed a voracious risk appetite. This “war president” mentality – the idea that Trump would reconnect with his political base ahead of 2020 at the risk of undermining his own economy – led us to recommend a defensive position over the course of the summer, even though we remained cyclically bullish. Now with Trump’s backpedaling this tactical narrative is starting to turn. The shift adds policy support to the recent up-tick in critical risk-on indicators (Chart 1). While U.S.-China fears have played a much greater role than Brexit in the political tailwind behind global government bond yields (Chart 2), the collapse of Boris Johnson’s no-deal gambit is also helping geopolitical risk to abate. Chart 1Risk-On Indicators Flash Green Chart 2China Political Risk To Ease (Brexit Is Nice Too) Unfortunately, it is too soon to sound the all-clear: The U.S. election cycle still warrants caution. As we highlighted in July, the rise of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, particularly firebrand Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, is causing jitters in the marketplace. Warren is on the cusp of displacing Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders as the second-place candidate behind former Vice President Joe Biden. Biden remains the frontrunner – which helps to support a constructive cyclical view – but the progressives have a tailwind and his status could change. Moreover, the entire primary process and U.S. election cycle will engender policy uncertainty and “black swan” risks. Trump’s pivot could come too late to save the bull market. There are still significant risks to our House View that equities will be higher in a year’s time. If a bear market and recession become a foregone conclusion, then Trump will have to return to a war footing. This means escalating the conflict with China or confronting Iran in a desperate bid to get voters to rally around the flag. This is a substantial political risk given that the odds of a recession are elevated and rising. Despite these risks, it is significant for the global macro view that President Trump is making a last ditch effort to save the business cycle while it can still be saved. This supports BCA’s House View that investors should maintain a cyclical risk-on orientation. How Do We Know Trump Is In Retreat? Here are the critical signs that Trump is downgrading his administration’s level of aggression after another summer of “fire and fury”: The U.S. and China are now officially easing tensions. Trump has delayed the October 1 tariff hike (from 25% to 30% on $250 billion worth of goods), while China has issued waivers for tariffs and promised to increase purchases of U.S. farm goods in advance of talks. Talks are resuming with the principal negotiators set to meet face-to-face after China’s National Day celebration on October 1. Critically, the two sides are reportedly picking up the nearly completed draft text of a trade agreement that was abandoned in May when divisions over compliance and tariffs resulted in a breakdown. Trump and Xi Jinping have an occasion to meet in Santiago, Chile in November, which is the best time for a signing if the talks progress well. Trump fired his hawkish National Security Adviser, John Bolton. Bolton was a supporter of the president’s “maximum pressure” foreign policy toward rivals, including China as well as Iran and North Korea. Oil prices dropped on the expectation that U.S. relations with Iran could improve, easing oil sanctions and increasing supply (Chart 3). But ultimately the signal is bullish for oil. The real significance is not Bolton himself but rather that Trump is changing tack to reduce geopolitical risks to economic growth. Whoever replaces Bolton is far less likely to be an uber-hawk (Bolton had cornered that market). A trade deal with Japan has been agreed in principle and may be signed in late September. U.S. relations with Europe are marginally improving. Trump even sent Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on a trip to discuss a diplomatic “reset” with the EU’s new crop of leaders set to take power in November and December. These improvements are tentative. Trump still explicitly rejects the idea that he should court Europe to apply unified pressure on China. But his administration has agreed to a beef export deal with the EU and, as long as China talks are ongoing, he is unlikely to slap tariffs on European cars. This decision will likely be postponed beyond November 14. All of the above confirms that Trump is focused on reelection. But how can we be sure this less-hawkish policy turn will last longer than five minutes? Rising unemployment is the most deadly leading indicator of a president’s approval rating. Economic data is alarming for a sitting president. Following a drop in business sentiment and investment, consumer sentiment is now suffering (Chart 4). Manufacturing – the sector Trump was ostensibly elected to defend – has slipped into outright contraction and loans and leases are shrinking in the electorally vital Midwestern states (Chart 5). Chart 3Bolton Bolting Is Bullish For Brent Chart 4A Reason For Trump To De-Escalate Fortunately for Trump, the job market is showing signs of resilience, with initial unemployment claims dropping hard (Chart 6). Chart 5Another Reason For Trump To De-Escalate Chart 6Good News For Trump Chart 7U.S. Consumer Should Prevent Recession BCA does not expect a recession within the next 12 months. The American consumer remains buoyant and median family incomes are strong (Chart 7). Nevertheless, Trump cannot assume anything. The proliferation of the “R” word has a negative psychological effect on businesses and consumers that could create a negative feedback loop. It also raises the risk of an equity selloff that tightens financial conditions and exacerbates the slowdown (Chart 8). Trump’s Democratic opponents and much of the news media will amplify negative economic news. Chart 8Trump Needs To Change The Topic While Trump cares about the stock market, his election ultimately rests on voters, not investors. Even if recession is avoided, a rising unemployment rate would be the most deadly leading indicator of a sitting president’s approval rating (Charts 9A & 9B). It is a far more telling variable than income growth or gasoline prices, for example. Chart 9APresidential Approval... Chart 9B...Follows Unemployment As Charts 9A & 9B demonstrate, unemployment and presidential approval are not always tightly correlated. Rather, for all recent presidents, the direction of unemployment ultimately prevailed over the approval rating by the time of the election – it pulled approval up or down in the final lap of the term in office. Moreover Trump, a bull-market president, is one of the cases where the approval rating is indeed tightly correlated with unemployment, as with Bill Clinton. And he is particularly vulnerable because his approval is historically weak and the unemployment rate can hardly fall much further from today. Granting that Trump is now going to adopt a more pro-market foreign and trade policy orientation, the next question is: what will that entail? Bottom Line: Trump’s tactical policy retreat is materializing which means that geopolitical risk stemming from U.S. foreign and trade policy is declining on the margin. While Trump is unpredictable, his sensitivity to the drop in his polling and weakening economy shows he wants to be reelected. Hence policy will have to moderate. Bolton Bolts – Geopolitical Risks Abate Trump’s ousting of his National Security Adviser Bolton is an important sign of the less-hawkish shift in administration policy. The ouster itself is not surprising in the least. Trump ran for office on a relatively isolationist foreign policy of non-intervention, withdrawal from long-running wars, and eschewing regime change and foreign quagmires to focus on America’s commercial interests. By contrast Bolton is perhaps the Republican Party’s most outspoken war hawk – a neo-conservative of the Bush era who advocated regime change in North Korea and Iran. This position was always at odds with Trump’s eagerness to negotiate and strike deals with the world’s dictators in the name of trade and riches rather than war and expenses.1 Chart 10Will Xi Sell Pyongyang For Washington? The immediate implication is that the U.S. and Iran will reduce tensions. We will address this topic at length next week, but the gist is that Trump is much more likely to relax sanctions and hold a summit with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani now than before. This is in keeping with our view that the China trade war is a far greater geopolitical risk than the U.S.-Iran tensions post-withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear pact. However, Bolton’s firing is bullish for oil prices. Iran may still stage low-level provocations that threaten supply, but Saudi Arabia has also appointed a new energy minister in preparation for an OPEC 2.0 strategy that aims to bolster prices in the advance of the initial public offering of Aramco.2 At the same time, Trump’s softening foreign policy stance portends an improvement to the global economy. Nowhere is this clearer than with North Korea and China. Kim Jong Un has explicitly demanded Bolton’s replacement to get talks back on track – Trump has now met this demand. North Korea has also been an integral component of the U.S.-China negotiations throughout Trump’s administration. If Trump’s diplomacy succeeds with North Korea, markets will rightly conclude that U.S.-China tensions are falling. China has an interest in denuclearizing the peninsula, which ultimately entails getting rid of U.S. troops, so it has shown it can comply with U.S. sanctions (Chart 10). A third Trump-Kim summit that results in a nuclear deal of any kind would be a concrete policy win for Trump and a strategic win for China.   The North Korean threat itself is not market-relevant – war risk peaked in 2017 (Chart 11). But an official agreement would provide an “off-ramp” for U.S.-China trade tensions. It would boost trade talks enough to improve global sentiment, and it could even increase the chances that the two countries conclude a deal involving tariff rollback. A Trump-Kim agreement would provide an “off-ramp” for U.S.-China trade tensions. Bolton’s ouster could also smooth U.S.-China tensions over Taiwan – he was an outspoken hawk on this front as well. His presence encouraged fears in Beijing that the Trump administration was planning a significant upgrade in Taiwan relations. These apprehensions were already high from the moment Trump accepted President Tsai Ing-wen’s congratulations on his election in 2016. It remains to be seen whether Trump will delay an $8 billion arms sale that will be the biggest since 1992 (Chart 12) – China has threatened to sanction U.S. defense firms if it goes ahead. But postponement is more likely now than before. This would help along the trade talks. Chart 11North Korea: 'Off-Ramp' For US-China Tensions Chart 12Will Trump Sell Taipei For Beijing? The direction of Taiwan in the near term partly depends on the direction of Hong Kong. Bolton likely advised a hard line in defense of the mass pro-democracy protests, which Trump was inclined to neglect for the sake of the trade talks with Beijing. Unless a mainland intervention and bloody security crackdown occurs – which is still a risk, and would make it politically impossible to conclude a trade deal with China – Trump will probably continue to sideline this Special Administrative Region. The jury is still out on whether protests will escalate after China’s National Day celebration, but Bolton’s absence and Hong Kong’s concessions to the protesters (which are backed by Beijing) are both positive signs. All of these factors suggest that the odds of a U.S.-China trade deal by November 2020 should rise. But is that really the case? For now we are maintaining our view that the odds are 40% by November 2020, though the risks are to the upside. Chart 13Trump Can Partially Offset China Tariffs While Trump and Xi can certainly make an executive decision to agree to a deal – any deal – we maintain our high-conviction view that it will lack durability due to uncertainties regarding compliance on China’s side and faithfulness on Trump’s side. And a shallow deal may be politically untenable if markets and the economy rebound. Crucially, neither China’s economic data nor U.S. financial conditions are forcing either side to capitulate entirely. Trump’s policy retreat entails the removal of trade risks from Canada, Mexico, and Japan first and foremost, and likely the European Union. This will offer some consolation to markets even though the small increase in U.S. exports in the near-term will not offset the sharp drop in exports to China (Chart 13). Combined with a de-escalation and containment of tensions with China, and worldwide monetary and fiscal stimulus, markets will face a substantial policy improvement. This will actually reduce the incentive for a final trade deal. If financial and economic pressure intensify and the U.S. heads toward a technical correction or bear market, Trump will need to capitulate. This will require significant tariff rollback. At that point, Xi Jinping will have the opportunity to agree to a short-term deal based on China’s current concessions and nothing more (Table 1). This would demonstrate to the whole world that it does not pay to coerce China: China operates on mutual respect and win-win agreements. This would be acceptable to Xi Jinping since it would at least buy some time until the inevitable second round of the strategic conflict in 2021. But we are not at full capitulation yet. Table 1China’s Offers Thus Far In The Trade War Bottom Line: Trump’s policy retreat includes the ouster of Bolton, which deescalates geopolitical risk on several fronts. Nevertheless, none of these risks – Iran, China, North Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan – is fundamentally resolved. A U.S.-China trade agreement is not even necessary if the two political leaders are sufficiently supported by positive global macro developments. We continue to believe North Korea will lead to Trump diplomatic successes. De-escalation could lead to a breakthrough in trade talks pointing toward a deal, but it could also simply create an “off ramp” for the U.S. and China to contain tensions without having to capitulate on the trade front. Warren Still Warrants Caution While geopolitical risk has some room to abate, domestic political risk in the U.S. will pick up the slack. The entire American election cycle will trouble the markets over the coming 12 months – particularly due to the high chances of significant social unrest. Yet the greatest risks are frontloaded in the form of the Democratic Primary contest. This is because Warren will continue to do well in the early primary debates and therefore could soon morph into the biggest market risk of the entire election cycle. To be clear, her position as the frontrunner in the online betting markets is not validated by the national or state-level opinion polling. Biden remains dominant (Chart 14). If he stays firm above a 30% support rate, with double-digit leads over his nearest competitors in a range of important states, his chances of winning will rise over time and market uncertainty will fall. Chart 14Biden Still The Frontrunner In Democratic Primary While Biden’s election would be market-negative on the margin due to the outlook for tax hikes and re-regulation, Trump’s reelection is not as market-positive as some may believe since he will be unbridled in his second term and more capable of pursuing his aggressive protectionism. Ultimately, the choice between Trump and Biden is a choice between two candidates whose policies and flaws are well known and relatively digestible by markets. If Warren or Sanders come close to the Oval Office, the equity market will go through a re-rating. On the contrary, if Warren surpasses Sanders and takes the lead, uncertainty will skyrocket regardless of Trump’s advantages in the general election. This is not unlikely, as the leftward lurch within the party continues to propel the progressive candidates upward in the contest (Chart 15). If Warren or Sanders are seen as coming within one step from the Oval Office, the equity market will have to go through a re-rating. These progressive populists are proposing an onslaught of laws and regulations against banks, health insurers, oil and gas drillers, and the tech oligopoly. The agenda is inherently negative for corporate earnings in these sectors, as Peter Berezin of BCA’s Global Investment Strategy shows in a recent report.3 Chart 15Progressive Consolidation Would Increase Market Angst Chart 16Stocks Will Start To Trade On Polls Health stocks are clearly reacting to Warren’s surge in the online betting markets (Chart 16), so any convergence of the polling of real voters to these probabilities will cause a reckoning in this sector as well as in other sectors she has targeted, like financials, technology, and energy. The saving grace for now – a reason we remain cyclically bullish – is that Biden has not yet broken down in the polling. He is the least market-negative of the top three candidates, yet the most electable from the point of view of the swing state polling and electoral-college calculus. Warren is the most market-negative yet least electable of the top three. She must decisively surpass Sanders in order to create lasting volatility. Yet this will be hard to do because his electoral-college path to the presidency is clearer than Warren’s, judging by head-to-head polls with Trump, and he has the machinery and motivation to slog through the primary race for a long time – which undercuts both him and Warren versus Biden. Warren and Sanders are also less likely to lead the Democrats to victory in the senate even if they take the White House due to their lack of appeal in key senate races like Arizona and Georgia. Without a majority in the senate, their radical policy agenda will have to be left at the door. Investment Implications We are booking gains on our long spot gold trade at 16% since initiation. The thesis remains sound and we will reinitiate when appropriate.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Bolton’s tenure with Trump began with an incredible faux pas in which he advocated “the Libyan model” for the administration’s North Korean policy – prompting Trump to overrule him and reject that model. No comment could have been more inappropriate for a president trying to build trust with Kim Jong Un to sign a denuclearization deal. Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was killed by enemy militias in Libya after NATO warplanes bombed his convoy – NATO’s intervention occurred despite Gaddafi’s having abandoned his nuclear weapon program in the wake of the September 1, 2001 attacks to avoid conflict with the U.S. and its allies. 2 See BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Ignore The KSA-Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash,” September 8, 016, ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 See BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Elizabeth Warren And The Markets,” September 1, 2019, gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Growth & Yields: The massive bond rally of 2019 is in its dying days - the sharp downward momentum of global bond yields is fading, just as leading economic indicators are starting to move higher. Data Surprises & Yields: The risk of a snapback in yields is growing in countries where there are more positive economic data surprises but where yields remain depressed – like the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Duration Strategy: We still recommend investors to stick to a neutral (at benchmark) stance on overall portfolio duration in the near term (0-3 months). Markets will need more than just one or two positive data points to be convinced that global growth is rebounding, and U.S.-China trade tensions remain a lingering concern. On a cyclical horizon (6-12 months), however, once it is clear that we’ve entered into a new global manufacturing up-cycle, global yields will rise more sustainably, justifying reduced duration exposure. Feature Chart of the WeekA Potential Bottoming Of Growth & Yields Is The Great Global Bond Rally of 2019 finally running out of gas? Government bond yields in the major developed economies have stabilized and are now starting to drift a bit higher. Benchmark 10-year yields are all up by healthy amounts from the inter-day lows reached on September 3rd (U.S. +18bps, Germany +17bps, U.K. +24bps, Canada +24bps). Yields remain well below intermediate term trend measures like the 200-day moving average, however, suggesting that these rebounds may only be corrective in nature and not yet the start of a more sustained cyclical move higher. Reliable economic data like our global manufacturing PMI are still falling and remain at levels suggesting weakening global growth. Yet on a rate-of-change basis, the pace of the decline in the PMI is fading, indicating that the worst of the downturn is likely behind us. A bottoming of the downward momentum of the PMI typically coincides with fading downward momentum in bond yields (Chart of the Week), which suggests that, at a minimum, bond yields are unlikely to fall below the recent lows. A similar signal is given by our global leading economic indicator (LEI), which has clearly bottomed and is now starting to drift higher. We shifted to a tactically neutral stance on global duration exposure back in early August, based on our near-term concerns that the ratcheting up of U.S.-China trade tensions through new tariffs would further raise economic uncertainty and heighten the demand for safe assets like government bonds – especially given the decline in global manufacturing activity. Last week’s announcement that U.S.-China trade talks would resume in early October was a positive step towards a potential de-escalation of trade tensions, which did help provide a pro-risk lift to global bond yields (at least for one day). For now, however, we are staying with a near-term neutral view on duration until we see more concrete signs of progress from the October 5 U.S.-China trade meetings in D.C. The heightened political drama in the U.K. is another reason to be cautious, with the October 31 Brexit deadline – and potentially a U.K. election before then – fast approaching (NOTE: we will be publishing a joint Special Report on the U.K. with our colleagues at Foreign Exchange Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy on September 20). More fundamentally, we will look to reduce our recommended duration exposure back to below-benchmark once global manufacturing data (i.e. U.S. ISM, Markit PMIs) and economic sentiment data (i.e. global ZEW, German IFO) stabilize – an outcome that grows increasingly likely given the signs of improvement we are seeing in the global LEI. Finding The Biggest Disagreements Between Economic Data & Bond Yields One time-tested way to identify a potential cyclical market top or bottom, for any asset class and not just bonds, is to look for divergences in prices from fundamentals. For example, when bond yields continue to fall despite signs that economic data are starting to improve (or, at least, when there is less data underperforming expectations). We can see such a divergence today when looking at bond yields versus data surprise indices. The most visible divergences between better data surprises and low bond yields are in the U.S., Australia, Canada and New Zealand. In Charts 2 & 3, we show the 26-week change in the benchmark 10-year government bond yield (in basis points) versus the widely followed Citigroup Economic Data Surprise Indices for the U.S., euro area, Japan, the U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Sweden The broad relationship is that yields fall faster when data is weaker than expected, and vice versa. The relationship is stronger in some countries like the U.S. and the U.K., and very weak in Japan, but we can still look for divergences between yield changes and data surprises for signs of bond yields deviating from economic growth. Chart 2Data Surprises Diverging From Yields In The U.S. … Chart 3… And In "The Dollar Bloc" The most visible such divergences are in the U.S., Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand; in those countries, more data releases have been surprising to the upside versus consensus forecasts of late, yet bond yields have been falling at a very rapid rate. In the euro area, the U.K. and Sweden, data has been disappointing versus expectations, justifying the rapid move down in bond yields in those countries purely from an economic growth perspective. For all countries shown, interest rate markets are now priced for aggressive monetary easing. Our 12-month discounters, based on pricing from Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves, all show that money markets expect central banks to ease policy over the next year. Our discounters remain highly correlated to the level of government bond yields (Charts 4 & 5), which means that the biggest risk to the Great Global Bond Rally of 2019 is that policymakers do not deliver the full amount of easing discounted by markets. Chart 4Bond Yields Are Vulnerable To A Rebound … Chart 5… Given Overly Dovish Policy Expectations That risk looks greatest in countries where there is both a divergence between improving data surprises and low bond yields AND a significant amount of interest rate cuts priced into the OIS curve – like the U.S. (98bps of cuts discounted), Australia (42bps), Canada (32bps) and New Zealand (33bps). Japan (13bps), the euro area (22bps) and Sweden (4bps) are all cases where central bank policy rates (and bond yields) are negative but where additional rate cuts are still discounted. Data continues to disappoint to the downside in the euro area and Sweden, however, suggesting that bond yields there are less at risk of a corrective snapback. A similar argument applies in the U.K. (25bps), where there is not a divergence between weak data and falling Gilt yields. Given the weak correlation between data surprises and changes in bond yields in Japan – an unsurprising outcome given the Bank of Japan’s outright manipulation of JGB yields – we find it difficult to make any conclusions on the next move in yields based solely on an analysis of Japanese data surprises. That risk of higher bond yields is greatest in countries where data surprises are diverging from bond yields AND a significant amount of interest rate cuts are discounted. Bottom Line: The massive bond rally of 2019 is in its dying days - the sharp downward momentum of global bond yields is fading, just as leading economic indicators are starting to move higher. The risk of a snapback in yields is growing in countries where there are more positive economic data surprises but where yields remain depressed – like the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Increasingly Schizophrenic Nature Of Global Central Banks The dovish turn of global monetary policy in 2019 has been fairly limited in terms of the size of cuts, but broad in terms of the number of countries that have delivered cuts. Our Global Monetary Easing Indicator (GMEI), which measures the percentage of central banks (out of a list of 29) that have cut policy rates from three months earlier, is a simple way to measure the “breadth” of the global monetary policy cycle. In Chart 6, we compare the GMEI (shown on an inverted scale) to our global LEI. Historically, the GMEI has peaked around three months after the global LEI troughs. Afterward, facing prospects of improving growth, central banks gradually took their feet off the gas pedal, with the GMEI moving to zero as the global LEI continued to climb. Chart 6Introducing Our Global Monetary Easing Indicator The ups and downs of central banker actions have become more complicated since 2008. After the financial crisis, policymakers had to keep rates at or near the zero lower bound. For the Fed looking over at its Japanese counterpart, the prospect of keeping rates too low for too long, and thereby eventually losing the ability to stimulate the economy through rate cuts in the next downturn, was a fearful one. At the same time, creating overly easy financial conditions and indirectly causing the next asset bubble was another concern for policymakers in the aftermath of the financial crisis. After 2016, central bank behavior became particularly misguided. This “bi-polar” policy environment clearly caused a change in the reaction function of global central banks. Post-crisis, they have been slower to react to signs of global weakness. In 2016, for example, the GMEI peaked a full six months after the trough in the LEI – a longer reaction time compared to previous cycles. Even when they did react, however, it was at a lower intensity, with smaller easings by fewer banks, compared to previous cycles After 2016, however, central bank behavior became particularly misguided. The subsequent monetary tightening was clearly too abrupt. Investor sentiment and expectations of global growth, captured by our GFIS duration indicator (Chart 7), were on their way down while global central banks were all too eager to stop easing, ignoring the data showing signs of global weakness – especially from China. Chart 7Central Banks Are Zigging When They Should Be Zagging By June 2018, none of the central banks included in the GMEI were easing, despite the global LEI having peaked six months earlier. In September 2018, despite facing persistent global weakness – the global manufacturing PMI had fallen from its peak of 54.4 nine months earlier to 52.1 and the global LEI was already in negative territory indicating more weakness to come – only a meagre 3% of central banks had begun stimulating. The Fed exemplified this complacency with its rate hike in December 2018 and its refusal to clearly pivot in a dovish direction until three months later. When they ultimately delivered a rate cut in late July of this year, it was clear they had waited too long. Chart 8How Will Dovish Policymakers Respond To Improving Growth? Globally, the overall policy response was non-existent all the way until May 2019, when central banks finally got with the program and scrambled to ease. Now, with the Fed having cut rates and facing the possibility of further rate cuts (possibly hastened by the Tweeter-in-Chief), global central bankers will not want to be left behind, lest they suffer unwanted currency strength and forgo export competitiveness. However, they might be once again misreading the data and the global easing cycle might be much closer to its end than its beginning. BCA’s Chief Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, has noted that global manufacturing cycles average three years from peak to peak. As the last growth cycle began in late spring of 2017, this means that we are likely at the bottom of the current cycle and therefore, global growth should start to pick up soon. This message is reinforced by our Global LEI diffusion index (Chart 8), which indicates that the Global LEI has put in a bottom and will continue climbing higher in the coming months. The easing of global financial conditions, and the lagged impact of China’s policy stimulus measures from earlier in 2019, corroborate the message from the global LEI. With bonds as overbought as they are today, we expect yields to rebound once investors realize that the sky is not really falling. A pick up in the global LEI, in turn, suggests that the global PMI will follow and should soon move higher, with a lead time of six months based on past cycles (as we show in the bottom panel of Chart 1). Another reliable leading growth indicator, the level of high-yield corporate bond spreads, is also signaling a rebound in both the U.S. and euro area economies over the next few quarters (Chart 9). Chart 9High-Yield Spreads Are A Leading Economic Indicator Global bond yields, meanwhile, seem stuck between a rock and a hard place. As shown in Chart 10, yields move with expectations of future growth. Bond investors are sensitive to declines in expectations of future growth, captured by the global LEI, as this necessitates central bank intervention in the future to lower short-term rates, thus bringing down the expectations component of long-term yields. At the same time, a slowdown in growth in the present increases the safe-haven demand for bonds which again drives down yields. Chart 10Potential Triggers For Higher Bond Yields   Although the global is ticking back up, global policy uncertainty (Chart 10, middle panel) is near all-time highs due to the U.S.-China trade war. In such an environment, investors will naturally flock to the safety of bonds. In previous reports, we have shown how similar the current backdrop is to the 2015/2016 episode, when nervous bond investors were less likely to be forward-looking and needed to see firm evidence of a pickup in global growth before they started to push up yields on a sustained basis. Given the increasing likelihood that global central banks will not be able to fully deliver the amount of aggressive easing discounted by markets because of a more stable growth backdrop, any lessening of trade tensions – a growing possibility with U.S. President Donald Trump gearing up for the 2020 election – should allow calmer heads to once again prevail as global economic momentum improves and policy uncertainty wanes. With bonds as overbought as they are today, we expect yields to rebound once investors realize that the sky is not really falling. It remains to be seen how policymakers respond to that outcome. Given recent history, however, we fear that central bankers could end up turning more hawkish once again faster than markets expect, which would set the stage for a more sustainable rise in global bond yields in 2020. Bottom Line: We still recommend that investors stick to a neutral benchmark overall portfolio duration stance in the near term (0-3 months). Markets will need more than just one or two positive data points to be convinced that global growth is rebounding. On a cyclical horizon, once it is clear that we’ve entered into a new global manufacturing up-cycle, global yields are likely to rise. As Trump reaches for a deal ahead of the 2020 election, the decline in global policy uncertainty will contribute to a more bond-bearish environment.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Shakti Sharma, Research Associate shaktis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns