Economy

Dear Client, I had the pleasure of visiting clients in Seattle, Anchorage, and Juneau last week. In this week’s report, I address some of the questions that routinely came up during our meetings. Among other things, the topics discussed include our optimistic global growth outlook, waning dollar bullishness, implications of a more dovish Fed on the business cycle, and where we think equities are headed. Next week we will be publishing our Quarterly Strategy Outlook, which will provide a detailed discussion of our key global macro and investment views. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Feature Q: You have predicted that global growth will stabilize in the second quarter and then accelerate in the second half of the year. Are you seeing much evidence in support of this view? A: We are seeing signs of green shoots, but they are still fairly tentative. Current activity indicators appear to have stabilized (Chart 1). The global manufacturing PMI edged lower in February, but the services component increased. Consumer confidence has risen, although that may simply reflect the rebound in global equities. Chart 1Global Growth Appears To Have Stabilized The data on international trade has been quite soft. That said, the weekly Harpex shipping index, which measures global container shipping activity, has improved. The Baltic Dry Index has also shown some signs of bottoming (Chart 2). Chart 2Shipping Data Pointing To A Recent Pickup In Global Trade The diffusion index of our global leading economic indicator, which tracks the share of countries with rising LEIs, has also moved higher (Chart 3). It generally leads the global LEI. The fact that global financial conditions have eased significantly since the start of the year is also an encouraging sign. Chart 3The Uptick In The LEI Diffusion Index Suggests Global Growth Will Firm Up Q: What’s your take on the most recent Chinese economic data? A: It has been generally soft, but not abysmal. Manufacturing output continues to decelerate. Retail sales remain lackluster, with auto sales showing little evidence of improvement. Property prices are still rising, but floor space sold has begun to contract. Fixed-asset investment has held up so far this year. However, this is mainly due to a pickup in spending among state-owned companies. Both exports and imports contracted in February. In a rather unusual step, the government announced last week that exports increased by nearly 40% in the first nine days of March compared with the same period last year.1 Electricity production has also apparently rebounded. We would not place a huge weight on these statements, as the data probably has been skewed by the timing of the lunar new year, but it does seem that economic momentum may be starting to turn the corner. We are seeing signs of green shoots, but they are still fairly tentative. There is little doubt that the government is trying to jumpstart growth. Household and business taxes have been cut. The PBOC has reduced reserve requirements by 350 bps over the past year. Interbank rates have dropped. Despite the fact that the February credit data fell short of expectations, the six-month credit impulse has turned decisively higher. The Chinese credit impulse leads imports by about six-to-nine months (Chart 4). This bodes well for global trade in the second half of the year. Chart 4Global Trade Will Benefit From A Chinese Reflationary Impulse Q: Given that Chinese debt levels are already quite high, by how much more can they realistically increase? A: We do not expect credit growth to rise by as much as it did in 2009 or 2016. However, this is because the economy is in better shape, not because there is some intrinsic constraint to increasing debt from current levels. China’s elevated savings rate has kept interest rates well below trend nominal GDP growth, which is the key determinant of debt sustainability (Chart 5).2 As long as the government maintains an implicit guarantee on most local and corporate debt, as it is currently doing, default risk will remain minimal. Chart 5China's High Savings Rate Has Kept Interest Rates Well Below Trend Nominal GDP Growth In any case, given that debt now stands at 240% of GDP, a mere one percentage-point increase in credit growth would still produce a hefty 2.4% of GDP in credit stimulus. In this sense, China may be better off with a higher debt-to-GDP ratio since in steady state this will allow for a larger flow of credit-financed stimulus into the economy. Q: A revival in Chinese growth would presumably help Europe? A: Yes. Our conversations with clients revealed an ongoing negative bias towards Europe among investors (Chart 6). This is echoed in the latest BofA Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey which, for the first time in history, identified “short European equities” as the most crowded trade. Chart 6European Equities: Unloved And Unwanted We think that such deep pessimism about Europe is largely unwarranted. Faster global growth will help the European export sector later this year, while domestic demand will benefit from more accommodative fiscal policy and lower bond yields, especially in Italy. The ECB will not raise rates this year even if growth speeds up, but the market will probably price in a few more rate hikes in 2020 and beyond. This will allow for a modest re-steepening in the yield curves in core European bond markets, which should be positive for long-suffering bank profits. Political risk remains a concern. The Brexit saga has reached the farcical stage where: 1) The U.K. has voted to leave the EU; but 2) Parliament has voted to stay in the EU unless it reaches a satisfactory deal with Brussels; while 3) rejecting the only deal with Brussels that was on offer. Given that most British voters no longer want Brexit (Chart 7), we think that the government will kick the proverbial can down the road until a second referendum is announced or a “soft Brexit” deal is formulated. Either outcome would be welcomed by markets. Chart 7U.K.: In The Case Of A Do-Over, The Remain Side Would Likely Win Q: You seem less bullish on the U.S. dollar than you were last year? A: That is correct. As we discussed last week, the dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of global growth (Chart 8). If global growth strengthens later this year, the trade-weighted dollar will probably weaken. Chart 8The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Moreover, as this week’s FOMC meeting highlighted, the Fed’s reaction function has shifted in a more dovish direction. The median Fed dot now foresees no rate hikes this year and only one rate hike in 2020. In contrast, the December Summary of Economic Projections envisioned two rate hikes this year and one next year. The dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of global growth. In a far cry from his October “rates are far from neutral” comment, Jay Powell stressed during this week's post-FOMC meeting press conference that the fed funds rate is currently in the “broad range of estimates of neutral.” While we would not rule out the possibility that the FOMC will raise rates at some point later this year, we now expect a more gradual pace of rate tightening than we had earlier envisioned. Q: Does a more dovish Fed imply that the economic expansion has even further to run? A: Yes. Expansions tend to end when monetary policy turns restrictive. We had previously thought that this point could be reached in late-2020, but it is now starting to look as though it will occur later than that. Broadly speaking, we see the Fed tightening cycle unfolding in two stages. In the first stage, which is the one we are in today, the Fed will raise rates in baby steps in response to better-than-expected growth and falling unemployment. In the second stage, the Fed will hike rates more aggressively as inflation starts to accelerate. Risk assets will be able to digest the first stage, but not the second. The good news is that most of our favorite indicators are not yet pointing to a major inflationary upswing (Chart 9): Despite higher tariffs, consumer import price inflation has slowed; core intermediate producer price inflation has decelerated; the prices paid components of the ISM and regional Fed surveys have plunged; inflation surprise indices have rolled over; and both survey and market-based measures of inflation expectations remain below where they were last summer. In keeping with these developments, BCA’s propriety Inflation Pipeline Indicator has fallen to a two-and-a-half-year low. Chart 9No Signs Of An Imminent Major Inflationary Upswing In The U.S. ... Wage growth has accelerated, but productivity growth has increased by even more. Unit labor cost inflation has actually been coming down since the middle of last year. Unit labor costs lead core CPI inflation by about 12 months (Chart 10). This implies that consumer price inflation is unlikely to reach uncomfortably high levels at least until the second half of next year. Chart 10... And Decelerating Unit Labor Costs Will Dampen Inflationary Pressures For The Time Being Beyond then, the risks are high that inflation will move up as the economy continues to overheat. This could force the Fed to start raising rates aggressively late next year, a course of action that will push up the dollar and cause equities and spread product to sell off. The resulting tightening in financial conditions will probably plunge the U.S. and the rest of the world into recession in 2021. Q: So stay overweight stocks for now, but consider selling at some point next year? A: Correct. The MSCI All-Country World Index (ACWI) has risen by over 14% since we upgraded it in December after having moved to the sidelines six months earlier. Given this run-up, we are not as bullish now as we were at the start of the year. Most of our favorite indicators are not yet pointing to a major inflationary upswing. Nevertheless, the path of least resistance for equities remains to the upside. While the forward P/E ratio for the MSCI ACWI has returned to where it was last September, analyst earnings expectations are currently much more conservative: Bottom-up estimates foresee EPS rising by 4.1% in the U.S. and 5.3% in the rest of the world in 2019 (Chart 11). The combination of faster growth, easier financial conditions, and ongoing corporate buybacks implies some upside to those estimates. Chart 11Analyst Expectations Are Quite Muted Moreover, real yields have fallen over the past five months – the 10-year U.S. TIPS yield is 48 basis points below its Q4 average, for example. A simple dividend discount model would suggest that global equities are about 10%-to-15% cheaper than they were prior to last year’s autumn selloff. The path of least resistance for equities remains to the upside. Q: Aren’t you worried that rising labor costs will push down profit margins even if GDP growth accelerates? A: Not really. As noted above, productivity growth has picked up. Whether this is the start of a new trend remains to be seen, but at least for now, it is dampening unit labor costs. Historically, real unit labor costs – nominal unit labor costs divided by the corporate price deflator – have tracked economy-wide profit margins very closely (Chart 12). Chart 12Real U.S. Unit Labor Costs Historically Have Tracked Economy-Wide Profit Margins Very Closely In practice, it is very rare for earnings to contract outside of recessions (Chart 13). This is why recessions and equity bear markets generally overlap (Chart 14). With the next recession still two years away, it is too early to turn defensive. Indeed, as Table 1 shows, the second-to-last year of business-cycle expansions is often the most lucrative for stock market investors. Chart 13Earnings Rarely Contract Outside Of Recessions Chart 14Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Table 1Too Soon To Get Out Q: What do you recommend in terms of regional equity allocation? A: If global growth accelerates later this year and the dollar weakens, this will create an excellent environment for international stocks – EM and Europe in particular. Investors should prepare to overweight those regions at the expense of the United States (currency unhedged). Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Elaine Chan, “China spreading ‘positive news’ of strong export rebound in early March after February plunge,” South China Morning Post, March 11, 2019. 2      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights This report presents our framework for estimating Chinese capital outflows on a monthly basis, which investors can use as a real-time indicator to monitor the risk of another serious episode of capital flight. We also provide a monthly estimate of illicit capital outflow, which we find is negatively correlated with “on balance sheet” capital flows. This implies that Chinese residents alternate their use of the two channels in their attempt to move money out of the country. Our monitoring framework suggests that outflow pressure is more likely to ease than intensify if a trade deal is struck over the coming few weeks or months, especially given the rise in CNY-USD since early-November. However, we have identified a low-odds but high-impact scenario in which a shaky trade deal with the U.S. generates an unstable equilibrium that could ultimately escalate into a major Chinese capital outflow event. This could prove to be a highly destabilizing event for investors, and thus bears close monitoring. Feature Fears of a new round of capital outflow from China re-emerged in the second half of 2018 as USD-CNY approached 7, a psychologically important level for many investors (Chart 1). The last episode of significant capital outflows from China occurred in late-2015 following the PBOC’s devaluation of the RMB, and the sharp spike in volatility that resulted had a contagious effect for global financial markets. Chart 1A Near Miss Late Last Year In the very near term, the risk of a similar event appears to be low given the material trade talk-driven decline in USD-CNY that has occurred over the past five months. However, several news reports over the past year concerning the possible risk of another episode of capital flight underscore that China’s cross-border capital flow statistics are misunderstood by financial market participants. This raises the risk that investors either fail to anticipate a capital outflow event in the future or exaggerate the odds of one occurring. In this report we present our framework for estimating Chinese capital outflows on a monthly basis, which investors can use as a real-time indicator to monitor the risk of another serious episode of capital flight. We also adjust the typical measure of short-term capital flow derived from the quarterly balance of payments to account for cross-border RMB settlement, and present an estimate of illicit capital outflow that suggests Chinese residents alternate their use of legal and illegal channels in their attempt to move money out of the country. We then combine these three direct measures of capital flow with two indicators of expected RMB depreciation to further augment our monitoring efforts. We conclude by noting that while outflow pressure is more likely to ease than intensify if a trade deal is struck over the coming few weeks or months, we have identified a low-odds but high-impact scenario in which a shaky trade deal with the U.S. generates an unstable equilibrium that could ultimately escalate into a major Chinese capital outflow event. This scenario is not part of our base case outlook, but could prove to be a highly destabilizing event for investors and thus bears close monitoring. Defining Short-Term Capital Flow From The Balance Of Payments Table 1 presents China’s balance of payments (BOP) for the four quarters ending in Q3 2018, with all items shown on a net basis. The table is organized in a way that provides a helpful refresher on the formulation of the balance of payments, namely that the current account (“CA”, made up of the trade balance and primary & secondary income) plus the sum of the capital account (“KA”), the financial account (“FA”), and a balancing item (referred to as net errors & omissions, “NEO”) is equal to 0, when capital and financial outflows are recorded with a minus sign. Current account surpluses necessarily involve net financial outflows (i.e., investment); whereas current account deficits must be funded by financial inflows (i.e., borrowing). Table 1 highlights that what financial market participants typically refer to as “capital” flows are actually recorded in the financial account of the balance of payments. While derivatives are included in the table for the sake of completion, in practice they are usually quite small (as is the case for the actual “capital” account). Table 1China’s Balance Of Payments The bottom panel of Table 1 indicates that the balance of payments formula can be rearranged so that it represents how many market participants tend to define total and short-term capital outflows from a balance of payments perspective. As we will show in the next section of the report, this re-arrangement of the balance of payments formula is an essential element in building a more frequent proxy of short-term capital flow. We define short-term capital flow from the balance of payments as the combination of portfolio investment, other investment, and net errors & omissions. The bottom panel shows that by adding reserve assets (“RA”) to the current account (“CA”), the right hand side of the BOP equation becomes the sum of direct investment (“DI”), portfolio investment (“PI”), other investment “OI”, and net errors & omissions (“NEO”). Since direct investment tends not to be driven by short-term economic behavior and is normally not influenced by foreign exchange expectations or fluctuations, the formula can be further arranged to isolate short-term capital outflows on the right-hand side: Current Account + Changes in Reserve Assets + Direct Investment ≈ (Portfolio Investment + Other Investment + Net Errors & Omissions)*-1 Or using our line item notation, CA + RA + DI ≈ -PI - OI - NEO The formula above is expressed as an approximation rather than an identity simply because it excludes the capital account (“KA”) and financial derivatives (“FD”). As can be seen in Table 1, the net value of adding the four quarter rolling total of CA + RA + DI to PI + OI + NEO is US$ 3.3 billion; adding KA + FD (-0.35 and -2.95 billion US$, respectively) would result in a value of 0. Chart 2 shows this relationship visually; and highlights that both series are nearly identical. Chart 2Short-Term Capital Flow As Defined By The BOP Building A Better Proxy Of Short-Term Capital Flow The balance of payments approach is a useful starting point for measuring short-term capital flow, but it has two important drawbacks: Timeliness: Balance of payments data are reported in quarterly frequency, and often with a lag. This is inadequate for most investors, particularly when market participants are concerned that a crisis or crisis-like conditions may be emerging. This is the primary disadvantage of the BOP approach. Failure to account for cross-border RMB settlement: The balance of payments approach implicitly assumes that a current account surplus in China will automatically result in the importation of foreign exchange, but this assumption is no longer fully valid. Cross-border RMB settlement now accounts for part of China’s foreign trade settlement, reaching more than 30% during the 2015/2016 period. Compared with its peak level, RMB settlement as a share of total foreign trade has fallen over the past two years, but still accounts for 19% today (Chart 3). To more precisely gauge China’s capital outflows, cross-border RMB settlement should be removed from the current account surplus, because trade payments settled in RMB would not involve the receipt of foreign currency. This offsetting current account discrepancy would still show up in the balance of payments under net errors & omissions, but that would have the effect of distorting our definition of short-term capital flow. Chart 3Analysts Need To Adjust The Current Account For Cross-Border RMB Settlement Chart 4 illustrates the difference between our quarterly definition of short-term capital flow and the series adjusted for cross-border RMB settlement. The chart shows that the two series are quite similar for most of the past decade, with the notable exception of the 2015/2016 period. The adjusted series suggests that the intensity of China’s episode of capital flight did not peak in 2015, but rather late in 2016. This is consistent with domestic commentary at the time,1 and implies that the PBOC faced headwinds in their attempt to stem capital outflows that were even worse than has been generally acknowledged. Chart 4After Adjusting For Cross-Border Settlement, Outflow Intensity Only Peaked In Late-2016 Unfortunately for investors, dealing with the lack of timeliness in the release of China’s balance of payments statistics is a more challenging endeavor. This problem cannot be resolved with simple adjustments to the quarterly data, and instead requires the building of a proxy for short-term capital flow based on the BOP equation but using monthly statistics. Investors can proxy our adjusted quarterly balance of payments-based measure of short-term capital flow on a monthly basis. As we referenced above, the key to constructing a monthly capital flow estimate lies with the re-arrangement of the balance of payments equation such that short-term capital flow is expressed as being approximately equal to the sum of the current account, direct investment, and the change in reserve assets (when outflows of the latter two series are recorded as negative values). Table 2 highlights that high quality monthly series are available to act as proxies for these three balance of payments components, after accounting for cross-border RMB settlement and the following two additional adjustments: Table 2Components Of BCA’s Monthly China Capital Outflow Indicator Services Balance: The trade balance accounts for the vast majority of the current account of most countries, and this is also true in the case of China. An underappreciated fact about China’s trade balance is that it has shrunk considerably over the past several years, due to what is now a sizeable services deficit. Some market commentators who are aware of the services deficit point to it as evidence that China’s net importation of services is laying the groundwork for its “new economy” (via eventual import substitution), but the reality is that travel (i.e. net tourism spending) accounts for over 80% of it (Chart 5). For the purposes of our monthly capital flow proxy, a sizeable services deficit is a complication that must be accounted for, given that China’s monthly trade statistics (and most monthly trade data globally) represent the trade in goods, not the trade in services. Since most of the fluctuations in the trade balance occur due to net trade in goods, we include the history of the quarterly services balance in our monthly indicator as a structural variable, and extend the most recent quarterly value into the current quarter as a simplifying assumption. Currency Valuation Effect on Official Reserves: Foreign exchange reserves in the balance of payments are calculated by the historical cost method, whereas the highly followed monthly official foreign exchange reserve data released by the PBOC is measured using market value. Changes in its balance, in addition to genuine changes in foreign exchange reserve assets, also reflect revaluation effects caused by fluctuations in the foreign exchange market. To dampen these effects, we include foreign exchange reserves in our monthly capital flow proxy in SDR terms rather than in U.S. dollars, rebased to the value of the underlying U.S. dollar series as of December 2018. Chart 5Travel (i.e. Tourism) Accounts For The Majority Of China's Services Deficit Chart 6 presents our quarterly balance of payments-based capital flow measure (adjusted for cross-border capital flow) with our monthly proxy, based on the series shown in Table 2 and the adjustments noted above. Divergences between the series exist in level terms, but panel 2 shows that our monthly proxy does a good job capturing the trend in the quarterly series. The only major exception to this occurred at the beginning of 2016, when our monthly proxy fell sharply relative to the adjusted quarterly BOP version. Chart 6Our Monthly Proxy Captures The Trend In Quarterly Capital Flows This sharp decline is a bit of a mystery; it can be traced to the official reserves series, and either suggests that capital outflow was materially worse in Q4 2015 and Q1 2016 than officially recognized, or that China suffered outsized losses from the risky asset portion of its reserve portfolio during that period. However, the first explanation is at odds with the evidence noted earlier that the intensity of capital flight seems to have peaked in late-2016, and the second explanation is inconsistent with the history of financial market returns over the past decade. We noted in a February 2018 Special Report that risky U.S. assets (almost entirely stocks) accounted for as much as 9.5% of China’s foreign reserve assets in the summer of 2015,2 and it is true that U.S. equity returns were quite negative from December 2015 to February 2016. But this was certainly not the first and only period of extreme U.S. equity market volatility to occur since 2010, raising the question of why this sharp decline in official reserves only occurred in 2015/2016. Future research on the topic of Chinese capital flows will aim to reconcile the difference between our monthly proxy and our adjusted quarterly balance of payments series during this period, but for now we are confident that the former contributes meaningfully to our understanding of the latter, particularly on a rate of change basis. Import Over-Invoicing: A Third Measure Of Short-Term Capital Outflow Investors need to track both legal and illicit capital flows. Our first two measures of short-term capital flow were based on an attempt to track the legally allowable movement of funds out of China. However, illicit capital outflow is an acknowledged problem in China, which tends to occur through the practice of import over-invoicing.3 Chart 7 presents our estimate of import over-invoicing for China, based on a methodology articulated by Global Financial Integrity, a U.S. non-profit organization that provides analysis of illicit financial flows globally (see Appendix A). The chart highlights two important points: Chart 7Illicit Capital Outflows: Another Way That Money Leaves China Illicit outflows have increased significantly over the past 2 years following China’s capital control crackdown, particularly in Q3 2018 following the announcement of the second round of U.S. import tariffs against China. Panel 2 of Chart 7 illustrates that there is a negative correlation between “on balance sheet” capital flows and illicit capital outflows, implying that Chinese residents alternate their use of the two channels in their attempt to move money out of the country. This underscores the importance of monitoring both channels on an ongoing basis. Investment Conclusions Table 3 brings together the three measures of short-term capital flow that we have laid out above, as well as two indicators of expected RMB depreciation (Chart 8): net settlement of foreign exchange by Chinese banks (see Appendix B), and the 3-month moving average of the percent deviation of CNH-USD (offshore RMB) from CNY-USD (onshore RMB). Altogether, the series shown in Table 3 form the basis of our capital outflow monitoring efforts, and we plan on updating these series regularly to gauge whether outflow pressure is increasing. Table 3Dashboard For Monitoring Short-Term Capital Flows Chart 8Two Indicators Capturing Expectations Of Severe RMB Depreciation For now, only our measure of illicit capital outflow is flashing a warning sign, and the timing of the recent spike in the measure appears to be closely connected with the trade war with the U.S. This implies that outflow pressure is more likely to ease if a trade deal is struck over the coming few weeks, as we expect will occur. However, we noted in a March 6 joint Special Report with our Geopolitical Strategy service that a deal with only slight concessions from China may stand on shaky ground and that tariff rollbacks will be limited or non-existent.4 This would ensure elevated policy uncertainty in the aftermath of the agreement and would raise the probability of a relapse into another trade war ahead of the 2020 U.S. election. In this scenario we would be watching the indicators shown in Table 3 closely for signs that increasing pessimism about the long-term state of sino-U.S. relations is causing the capital outflow “dam” built by policymakers following the 2015/2016 episode to buckle. Our monitoring framework suggests that the odds of a major capital flight event are currently low. But a shaky trade deal with the U.S. could change that. It is not part of our base case outlook, but onshore concerns of a renewed trade war with the U.S. next year could theoretically become self-fulfilling, if another major episode of capital flight were to weaken the RMB in a way that could even remotely be construed as a violation of the yuan stability pact that will reportedly be part of any agreement between the U.S. and China. While this would in no way entail a purposeful devaluation by Chinese policymakers to boost trade competitiveness, it could nonetheless provide an excellent excuse for President Trump to reinstate damaging economic pressure on China in the midst of what is likely to be a highly competitive re-election campaign. This could, in turn, produce a feedback effect that magnifies the original desire to move capital out of China, and would likely prove to be a highly destabilizing event for global financial markets. Stay tuned!   Qingyun Xu, CFA, Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com     Appendix A Measuring Import Over-Invoicing In this report we use one of the two methodologies employed by Global Financial Integrity to measure import over-invoicing in China, which compares a country’s reported trade statistics with that of its global trade partners.5 Using the IMF’s Direction of Trade Statistics data, we deflate Chinese import data measured on a C.I.F. (cost insurance and freight) basis to an F.O.B. (free on board) basis using an assumed freight and insurance factor of 10%. Then, we use Hong Kong re-export data to adjust global exports to China for re-exported trade through Hong Kong. The formula is listed below: Chinese Import Over-invoicing = [(Chinese Imports From The World)/1.1] - Adjusted Global Exports To China   Appendix B The Onshore Market For Foreign Exchange A poorly understood fact about China’s capital/financial account regime is that a material amount of foreign exchange reserves are now held by enterprises and individuals. Most investors are familiar with China’s old foreign exchange settlement policy (established formally in 1993), which prohibited enterprises from retaining foreign currency. Exporters receiving foreign currency as payment for goods and services had to sell all foreign exchange receipts to designed banks, and purchase foreign exchange from these banks when needed to make payments to offshore suppliers. Thus, while this policy was in effect, the PBOC held all China’s foreign exchange reserves and official reserves equaled total reserves. However, since the early-2000s, this policy has been gradually withdrawn. Since its complete abolishment in 2012, foreign exchange retained by enterprises and residents has increased materially. Chart B1 shows the impact of these changes on the bank foreign exchange settlement and sale rates. The settlement rate represents enterprises’ sale of foreign exchange to banks as a share of their total foreign exchange receipts in a given month, while the sale rate represents banks’ sale of foreign exchange to enterprises as a share of enterprises’ total foreign exchange payments. The chart shows that the settlement rate has dramatically dropped since 2012 (from 70% to less than 50%). We can also see there were spikes in the settlement rate and sale rate in August 2015 (in contrary directions) when the PBOC devalued the RMB, implying that the demand for forex and presumably the expectation of further RMB depreciation was severe. Chart B1The Evolution Of China’s Domestic Foreign Exchange Market​​​​​​​   Given this, we view net FX settlement (enterprises’ sale of foreign exchange to banks minus banks’ sale of foreign exchange to enterprises) as a reasonable proxy of expected RMB depreciation, and have included it as part of our capital flow monitoring framework.         1 “China’s capital outflow is still intensifying”, Reuters China Finance and Economics Column, December 19, 2016. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, “Demystifying China’s Foreign Assets”, dated February 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Import over-invoicing occurs when an importer (in country A) attempts to evade capital controls by colluding with an exporting entity (in country B) to falsify the reported value of goods imported into country A from country B. The importer “overpays” for the goods in question and, usually through an intermediary, moves the surplus funds into the importer’s offshore account. Please see https://www.gfintegrity.org/issue/trade-misinvoicing/ for more information about the mechanics of and motivations behind trade misinvoicing. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, “China-U.S. Trade: A Structural Deal?”, dated March 6, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 “Illicit Financial Flows to and from 148 Developing Countries: 2006-2015”, Global Financial Integrity, January 2019. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Global Spread Product: The current low-volatility backdrop, triggered by more dovish central banks, will be maintained until there is more decisive evidence that global growth is rebounding. That will not occur until the latter half of 2019, thus keeping the window for corporate credit outperformance open for a few more months. Stay overweight global corporates versus governments, favoring the U.S. Canada: Much weaker-than-expected Canadian economic growth has surprised the Bank of Canada. Rate hikes are now off the table for at least the rest of 2019, and possibly longer. Upgrade Canadian government debt to neutral (3 out of 5) in global currency-hedged government bond portfolios. Feature Stick With A Tactical Overweight To Global Corporates We’ve dedicated our last few Weekly Reports to analyzing the outlook for government bond yields in the developed markets (DM), in light of the recent dovish shift in the policy stance of central banks. We concluded that yields had fully discounted a slower global growth backdrop, through lower inflation expectations and the pricing out of future interest rate hikes. Further declines in bond yields would require a deeper deceleration of activity than we are expecting, thus maintaining a below-benchmark medium-term duration stance is appropriate. That dovish shift by policymakers also took away a major roadblock for risk assets, namely the threat of a continued policy-induced rise in global yields at a time of slowing growth. The result has been sharp rallies in global equity and credit markets, with declining volatility (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekSlowing Growth Isn’t Always Bad For Risk Assets We upgraded global corporate debt, and downgraded global government bonds, on a tactical basis back on January 15 of this year.1 Since then, credit spreads have declined substantially across both DM and emerging markets (EM), most notably in Europe (Chart 2). Within our upgrade to overall global credit, we maintained a relative bias towards U.S. corporates versus non-U.S. equivalents, based on our expectation of relatively faster economic growth in the U.S. In our model bond portfolio, that meant moving U.S. corporates to an above-benchmark weighting, while reducing the size of the underweight in EM debt and only raising European credit to a neutral allocation. Looking at the performance of each of the major credit markets in excess return terms (versus duration-matched government bonds) since January 15, currency-hedged into U.S. dollars, there have not been huge differences between U.S. and non-U.S. returns. The exception is European high-yield which had an excess return of 4.4%, but only represents 0.8% of our custom benchmark index for our model portfolio (and where we are not underweight). Excess returns for investment grade and high-yield corporates in the U.S. have averaged 2.3%, compared to 2.2% for EM credit (averaging hard currency sovereign and corporate debt). We see the global “risk-on” dynamic continuing in next few months, fueled by benign monetary policies, thus we are sticking with our current overweight allocation to global corporates. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that the decision to upgrade overall global corporate debt versus government bonds has been far more important than adjusting any regional credit allocations. We see that global “risk-on” dynamic continuing in next few months, fueled by benign monetary policies, thus we are sticking with our current allocations to global corporates. Our cue to reverse our tactical overweight stance on corporates will come from the U.S. Any additional spread tightening and easing of overall financial conditions will keep U.S. economic growth above trend and eventually force the Fed to become more hawkish in the second half of 2019. This will turn global monetary policy from a tailwind for corporate credit to a headwind, justifying a downgrade of corporate allocations. In the meantime, we recommend continuing to earn carry in a policy-induced low volatility environment. Bottom Line: The current low-volatility backdrop, triggered by more dovish central banks, will be maintained until there is more decisive evidence that global growth is rebounding. That will not occur until the latter half of 2019, thus keeping the window for corporate credit outperformance open for a few more months. Stay overweight global corporates versus governments, favoring the U.S. Canada: Upgrade To Neutral Canadian government bonds have been clawing back much of the relative underperformance that occurred in 2017 and 2018 while the Bank of Canada (BoC) was delivering multiple rate hikes. The spread between the yields on the Bloomberg Barclays Canada Treasury index and the overall Global Treasury index has narrowed by -40bps since October 2018, after widening 69bps between May 2017 and October 2018 (Chart 3). Expressed as a relative return (duration-matched and currency-hedged into U.S. dollars), Canadian government debt has lagged the Global Treasury index by -232bps since May 2017. Chart 3Canadian Bonds No Longer Underperforming That underperformance was driven by the combination of a strong Canadian economy, accelerating inflation and tightening monetary policy. The year-over-year pace of real GDP growth reached 3.8% in mid-2017 and stayed above-trend for the following year. The unemployment rate fell to 5.8%, while core inflation accelerated back to the midpoint of the BoC’s 1-3% target band, alongside faster wage growth. The BoC – devotees of the Phillips Curve, like virtually every other DM central bank – took the message from the combination of tight labor markets and rising inflation and embarked on the long march away from a near-zero (0.5%) policy rate back in July 2017. Now, after 20 months and 125bps of rate hikes, Canada’s economy is weakening sharply. Real GDP only grew at a paltry 0.4% annualized pace in the 4th quarter of 2018, dragging the year-over-year pace to 1.6%. Inflation has followed suit, with headline CPI inflation falling from an early 2018 peak of 3% to 1.4% and the BOC’s median CPI index now growing at only a 1.8% pace. The most concerning part for the BoC is that the economy could be decelerating this rapidly with a policy rate of only 1.75%, which is well below the central bank’s estimated 2.5-3.5% range for the neutral rate. Our own BoC Monitor has rapidly fallen towards the zero line, indicating no pressure to either tighten or ease monetary policy (Chart 4). The more recent rapid decline in the BoC Monitor has been driven by the inflation-focused components of the indicator, while the growth-focused elements have been steadily drifting lower since that 2017 peak in real GDP growth. Chart 4Is The BoC Done, Well South Of Neutral? The BoC has been stunned by that shockingly weak Q4/2018 growth outturn. In the official policy statement released following the March 6 BoC meeting, the central bank’s Governing Council was forthright about how the growth uncertainty has put future rate hikes in question: “Governing Council judges that the outlook continues to warrant a policy interest rate that is below its neutral range. Given the mixed picture that the data present, it will take time to gauge the persistence of below-potential growth and the implications for the future inflation outlook. With increased uncertainty about the timing of future rate increases, Governing Council will be watching closely developments in household spending, oil markets and global trade policy.” Rising interest rates may be the big reason why growth has slowed so dramatically in Canada. The BoC’s economic projections for 2019 had already factored in some slowing global growth, as well a hit to business confidence and capital spending from global trade conflicts and last year’s decline in energy prices (a big deal for Canada’s huge oil industry). BoC officials, including Governor Stephen Poloz, have noted that a resolution of the U.S.-China trade tensions could therefore be a positive for the Canadian economy by removing a critical drag on Canadian business confidence and export demand. Yet when looking at the contribution to Canadian real GDP growth from the main components, there have been large drags on growth from consumer spending, capital spending and housing (Chart 5). That suggests that there is something more fundamental than just a series of external shocks at work here. Chart 5Broad-Based Weakness In Canadian Domestic Demand A look at the more interest-sensitive components of the Canadian economy suggests that rising interest rates may be a big reason why growth has slowed so dramatically. Consumer Durables Real consumer spending growth has plunged from a 4% pace in 2018 to 1.3% in Q4/2018, driven by a collapse in demand for consumer durables which contracted -1.2% year-over-year terms (Chart 6). Car sales plunged 7.5% on a year-over-year basis in Q4, suggesting that rising interest rates on auto loans may have been a major factor driving the weakness in durables spending. Softer incomes have also played a role, with wage growth rolling over even with the majority of evidence pointing to a very tight Canadian labor market that is getting even tighter (third panel). The fact that the drop was so focused on durables, however, suggests that higher interest rates were the more likely reason for the plunge in overall consumer spending. Chart 6Weak Canadian Consumption Concentrated In Durables Housing The overheated Canadian housing market has endured the double-whammy of rising mortgage interest rates and increasing macro-prudential changes to mortgage lending. House prices in the hottest Toronto and Vancouver markets – which should be most impacted by the changes in mortgage regulations – have stopped increasing, helping bring the growth in national house prices to only 1.9% (Chart 7). Yet the sharp deceleration of mortgage credit growth, alongside a contraction in housing starts and overall residential investment, suggests that higher mortgage rates could be the bigger driver of the housing weakness. Chart 7Some Long-Needed Cooling Of Canadian Housing The BoC has noted that it is difficult to disentangle the impact of regulatory changes in Canadian mortgages from that of rising interest rates. Yet the impact of higher mortgage rates on Canadian consumer spending power can be seen in the rising debt service ratio for Canadian households. As of Q4/2018, Canadians must now pay 14.5% of their household income to service their debts, an 0.53 percentage point increase over the past two years (Chart 8). For highly indebted Canadian households, who have mortgage debt equal to 107% of disposable income, even a modest pickup in mortgage rates can have a big impact on spending power through higher interest costs. Chart 8Leveraged Canadian Consumers Pinched By Higher Rates Does the fact that consumer spending has fallen so rapidly mean that the interest sensitivity of the Canadian economy is far greater than the BoC has assumed? If so, then the neutral range of 2.5-3.5% for the BoC policy rate may be too high, and the central bank could be closer to, if not already at, the end of its hiking cycle. The low level of the household savings rate – currently only 1.1%, a product of the housing bubble and the associated wealth effects on spending activity – makes Canadian consumers even more vulnerable to rate increases that diminish their spending power. For highly indebted Canadian households, even a modest pickup in mortgage rates can have a big impact on spending power through higher interest costs. Capital Spending Canadian companies have seen a steady decline in corporate profit growth over the past couple of years, decelerating from a 23% pace in 2017 to 2% late in 2018 on a top-down basis. Yet even allowing for that, the -8% contraction in year-over-year real non-residential investment spending in Q4/2018 is a shock. Particularly since the BoC’s Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that credit conditions have been easing, and our own Canadian Corporate Health Monitor is flashing that Canadian companies are in solid financial condition (Chart 9). Chart 9An Unusually Sharp Fall In Canadian Capex Business surveys from the BoC and the Conference Board did both show a sharp plunge in confidence and future sales expectations (bottom panel). This suggests that worries about global trade tensions and diminished trade activity may have weighed on Canadian business confidence and capital spending – especially coming alongside a big drop in oil prices as was seen last year, which hinders the ability of Canadian energy producers to ramp up investment. Canadian exports accelerated over the final half of 2018 while business confidence was falling. However, oil prices have now stabilized and, more importantly, Canadian exports accelerated over the final half of 2018 while business confidence was falling (Chart 10). That acceleration was seen for both energy and non-energy exports, but was also heavily concentrated in exports to China, which are now growing 24% on a year-over-year basis (a pace that is wildly at odds with the overall growth in Chinese imports, suggesting that Canadian exporters have increased their market share in China). Chart 10Should Canadian Companies Be Worried About Global Trade? Could higher corporate borrowing rates, rather than worries about plunging export demand, be the true reason why Canadian companies have so drastically cut back on capital spending? It is no surprise that the BoC has chosen to take a pause on its rate hiking cycle, given all those conflicting messages from the Canadian economic data. The growth slump could be related to global trade uncertainty, or regulatory changes in the housing market, or past declines in oil prices, or previous interest rate increases. Or all of the above. The BoC can also take some time before considering its next interest rate move given cooling inflation and wage growth (Chart 11). The central bank has reduced its estimate of the Canadian output gap to -0.5%, based off the downside surprises already seen in Canadian economic growth. A closed output gap, combined with accelerating inflation, was the main argument the BoC had been using to justify its interest rate increases over the past two years. Now, neither of those conditions is currently in place, and the BoC can take its time to assess the underlying trend of economic growth without having to worry about above-target inflation. Chart 11Slowing Inflation = More Dovish BoC The Governing Council next meets in April, when a new Monetary Policy Report and updated economic projections will be published. The 2019 growth and inflation forecasts will surely be downgraded, perhaps heavily as the European Central Bank just did in response to the sharp growth slowdown in Europe – which led to a new round of monetary easing measures. What will be more interesting from the point of view of Canadian bond investors will be the Bank’s assessment of the size of Canada’s output gap, the pace of trend growth and, perhaps, even the appropriate neutral range for the BoC policy rate. The lowering of any of those three elements would be supportive of Canadian bond yields staying lower for longer. We have maintained an underweight in Canadian government bonds since July 2017, based on our view that the BoC would follow in the Fed’s footsteps and attempt to normalize interest rates. A strong economy and rising inflation would allow them to do that. Now, both the Fed and BoC are on hold, with small probabilities of rate cuts now priced into Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curves (Chart 12). Chart 12BoC Now Less Likely To Follow The Fed Given the BCA view that Fed rate hikes will resume later this year on the back of a rebound in U.S. and global growth, we had been sticking with the bearish view on Canadian government bonds as well. Yet given the stunning drop in Canadian growth that startled the BoC, the odds now favor the BoC staying on hold for longer, even once the Fed begins to hike again. This would also provide additional easing of Canadian financial conditions through a soft Canadian dollar (bottom two panels). We are upgrading our recommended allocation to Canadian bonds to neutral(3 out of 5) this week from underweight (2 out of 5).  In light of this uncertainty over the BoC’s next move given the weak economy, the underlying rationale for our underweight Canada position is no longer applicable. Thus, we are upgrading our recommended allocation to Canadian bonds to neutral (3 out of 5) this week from underweight (2 out of 5). The excess return of Canadian government bonds versus the Global Treasury index since we went to underweight back in July 2017 was -0.83%, so our bearish recommendation did generate positive alpha. In our model bond portfolio, we are funding that additional Canadian allocation from a reduction of the overweight in Japanese government bonds. We are also closing our tactical trade of being long 10-year Canadian Real Return Bonds versus nominal 10-year government debt, at a loss as 10-year inflation breakevens are now 1.6%, or 16bps below the entry level on our trade (Chart 13). Chart 13Upgrade Canadian Government Bonds To Neutral We will contemplate any additional changes to our Canadian allocation after the releases of the latest BoC Business Outlook Survey and Senior Loan Officer Survey on April 15 and the new BoC Monetary Policy Report and economic projections at the April 24 monetary policy meeting. Bottom Line: Much weaker-than-expected Canadian economic growth has surprised the Bank of Canada. Rate hikes are now off the table for at least the rest of 2019, and possibly longer. Upgrade Canadian government debt to neutral (3 out of 5) in global currency-hedged government bond portfolios.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Enough With The Gloom: Upgrade Global Corporates On A Tactical Basis”, dated January 15th 2019, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights Corporate Default Rate: The trailing 12-month corporate default rate is too low according to our macro model. Further, the likely trajectories for corporate profit and debt growth suggest that the default rate is more likely to rise than fall during the next 12 months. We expect the corporate default rate to be above 3% during the next 12 months, higher than the Moody’s baseline forecast of 1.7%. Corporate Bond Valuation: Corporate bond investors are still adequately compensated for default risk, even under our more pessimistic scenario. However, some junk spread widening later this year is possible if market default rate expectations converge with our more pessimistic forecast. Investment Strategy: Corporate spreads have room to tighten in the near-term, due to accommodative Fed policy and a budding improvement in global growth. However, tighter Fed policy and a higher-than-expected corporate default rate could pressure spreads wider in the second half of 2019. We will be quick to back off our overweight corporate bond stance when our near-term spread targets are met. Feature Investors should remain overweight corporate bonds within U.S. fixed income portfolios, but be conscious that the window for outperformance may close quickly. While the Fed’s dovish turn and signs of global growth stabilization will allow spreads to tighten during the next few months, corporate default risk is rising in the background. This week’s report focuses on corporate default risk. We assess where the default rate is headed during the next 12 months and discuss the implications for investment strategy. Default Rate Near A Bottom Chart 1 shows that the trailing 12-month speculative grade default rate has been steadily falling since early 2017. However, it also shows that the fair value reading from our macro-driven default rate model has not fallen as much. The actual trailing 12-month default rate came in at 2.7% in February, the fair value reading from our model stands at a loftier 3.6%. Chart 1Corporate Default Rate Near A Bottom? Our default rate model is based on two factors, Commercial & Industrial bank lending standards and gross corporate leverage. The latter is defined as total nonfinancial corporate debt divided by pre-tax profits. With that in mind, our model provides a framework for assessing where the default rate is headed under different scenarios for corporate profit and debt growth. We consider each of these two factors in turn. Corporate Profit Growth Will Moderate Nonfinancial corporate pre-tax profits grew an astonishing 17% during the four quarters ending in Q3 2018, but all leading indicators point to deceleration in Q4 2018 and beyond. On the revenue side of the ledger, leading indicators are in universal agreement that growth is poised to slow (Chart 2): Chart 2Corporate Revenues Will Soften The ISM Manufacturing index has fallen to 54.2 from a recent peak above 60. The year-over-year growth rate in total business sales came in at 2% in December, down from a recent peak of 8.4%. The year-over-year growth rate in industrial production fell to 3.5% in February, from a September peak of 5.7%. The year-over-year growth rate in the U.S. Leading Economic Indicator is down to 3.2% as of January, from a September peak of 6.8%. Clearly, the global growth slowdown has migrated to the U.S. and the impact is being seen in the leading U.S. economic data. Some slowdown in corporate revenue growth is all but assured. All leading indicators point to deceleration in corporate profit growth in Q4 2018 and beyond. Corporate profit growth and investment spending are tightly linked in the sense that firms are more likely to take on new projects when they feel better about their future cash flow prospects. The upshot is that we can infer trends in corporate profits by looking at data on investment spending and firms’ investment plans. That data paint a similar picture of widespread deceleration (Chart 3): Chart 3Investment Indicators The year-over-year growth rate in core durable goods orders is down to 4% from a recent peak close to 9%. An average of firms’ capital spending plans as reported in regional Fed surveys remains elevated, but has declined markedly in recent months. Small business capital spending plans, as reported to the NFIB, have fallen sharply during the past few months. Periods of tightening lending standards coincide with decelerating corporate debt. Wage growth is another important driver of corporate profits. In particular, we can get a read on profit growth by looking at the difference between corporate selling prices and unit labor costs, aka our Profit Margin Proxy (Chart 4). Our Profit Margin Proxy remains at a high level because growth in unit labor costs has been tepid. Even though top-line wage growth has improved, this has been matched by an acceleration in productivity growth (Chart 4, bottom panel). The latter has kept unit labor costs low, even as nominal wages have risen. Chart 4Wage Growth A Drag On Profits Extremely tight labor markets will lead to a continued acceleration in wage growth during the next few quarters.1 Meanwhile, the prospect for continued rapid productivity growth is much more uncertain. It seems reasonable to expect that corporate profits will come under some downward pressure from rising unit labor costs during 2019. Finally, we can get a sense of the corporate profit outlook by looking at equity analyst net earnings revisions (Chart 5). Analyst earnings per share (EPS) upgrades outpaced downgrades for most of 2018, but that trend reversed sharply near the end of last year. Analysts are once again lowering EPS forecasts more often than they are raising them. Chart 5More EPS Downgrades Than Updgrades Debt Growth Should Also Slow Fortunately, some of the balance sheet impact from decelerating profits will likely be offset by slower debt growth during the next few quarters. Corporate debt growth has been robust and fairly stable since 2012, but C&I lending standards tightened slightly in the fourth quarter of last year. Typically, periods of tightening lending standards coincide with decelerating corporate debt (Chart 6). Chart 6Tighter Lending Standards Implies Slower Debt Growth Anecdotally, several high profile firms have recently taken steps to curtail debt growth. Most notably, General Electric just announced a major asset divestment to pay down debt, and the stock market rewarded them for doing so. If our default rate forecast turns out to be correct and the Moody’s forecast is eventually revised higher, it will likely coincide with some junk spread widening. More broadly, we observe that firms with low debt/asset ratios have been outperforming firms with high debt/asset ratios, a dynamic that tends to occur when lending standards are tightening and corporate debt growth is falling (Chart 7). Chart 7Low Leverage Firms Are Outperforming For a sense of scale, nonfinancial corporate debt grew 6.5% in the four quarters ending Q4 2018 and has averaged 6.3% since 2012. Some mild deceleration from these growth rates is likely during the next few quarters. Putting It All Together Table 1 shows that trailing 12-month profit growth of 17% and debt growth of 6.5% led to gross corporate leverage of 6.95, which translates to a fair value default rate of 3.6%. Table 1 also shows where the fair value default rate will head during the next 12 months based on different scenarios for profit and debt growth. Table 1Default Rate Scenarios For example, if profits grow by 5% and debt growth is between 0% and 8%, then the fair value default rate will be between 3.5% and 4.1% one year from now. This seems like a reasonable scenario based on our macro forecast. A scenario that would result in a default rate that is much higher than the current Moody’s baseline forecast of 1.7%. And One More Thing Though they are not included in our model, job cut announcements are a fairly reliable coincident indicator of corporate defaults. Recently, job cut announcements have clearly bottomed even as the default rate has continued to fall (Chart 8). This is a clear warning sign that the default rate might head higher in the coming months. Chart 8Warning Sign From Job Cuts Bottom Line: The trailing 12-month corporate default rate is too low according to our macro model. Further, the likely trajectories for corporate profit and debt growth suggest that the default rate is more likely to rise than fall during the next 12 months. We expect the corporate default rate to be above 3% during the next 12 months, higher than the Moody’s baseline forecast of 1.7%. It increasingly looks like the second half of 2019 will be more challenging for corporate credit. Are Investors Adequately Compensated For Default Risk? Forecasting the default rate is important, but it is only one side of the coin when it comes to corporate bond investing. The other relevant question is whether current spreads offer adequate compensation for expected defaults. At present, the average option-adjusted spread (OAS) on the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index is 388 bps. If we assume that defaults occur in line with the Moody’s baseline forecast during the next 12 months, then we would expect default losses of approximately 90 bps (assuming a 49% recovery rate).2 That translates to an excess junk spread of 298 bps, well above the historical average realized excess spread of 250 bps. In other words, investors should expect better than average excess junk returns if the Moody’s baseline default rate forecast turns out to be correct. However, our analysis suggests that the default will be significantly higher during the next 12 months. If we assume a 3.5% default rate, more in line with our macro forecast, and a slightly lower recovery rate of 45%, then the excess spread available in the high-yield index falls to 198 bps. This number is still positive, so unless there is significant spread widening investors should still earn a positive excess return versus Treasuries, but it is considerably below average historical levels. Another factor to consider is the historical correlation between junk spreads and the Moody’s baseline default rate forecast. We find that the average high-yield OAS has the strongest positive correlation with the 9-month forward Moody’s baseline default rate expectation (Chart 9). In other words, if our default rate forecast turns out to be correct and the Moody’s forecast is eventually revised higher, it will likely coincide with some junk spread widening. Chart 9Default Rate Revisions Will Lead To Wider Spreads Bottom Line: Corporate bond investors are still adequately compensated for default risk, even under our more pessimistic scenario. However, some junk spread widening later this year is possible if market default rate expectations converge with our more pessimistic forecast. Investment Strategy While this report has focused on detecting early warning signs of default risk, that is not the only thing that matters for corporate spreads. We continue to believe that spreads have room to tighten in the near-term, due to accommodative Fed policy and a budding improvement in global growth.3 The purpose of this report is to stress that our current overweight stance on corporate bonds is unlikely to last through to the end of the year. First, if spreads tighten during the next few months leading to an easing in overall financial conditions, then the Fed will probably turn more hawkish in the second half of 2019 and monetary policy will shift from being a tailwind for corporate credit to a headwind. This shift could occur at around the same time that corporate defaults start to exceed current expectations. As a matter of strategy, we have published spread targets for each corporate credit tier based on average spread levels seen during similar stages of past economic cycles (Charts 10A & 10B).4 We will be quick to move off our overweight stance once these spread targets are achieved. Note that Aaa spreads are already below target. We recommend that investors avoid Aaa-rated corporate bonds. Chart 10AInvestment Grade Spread Targets Chart 10BHigh-Yield Spread Targets While the current environment remains positive, it increasingly looks like the second half of 2019 will be more challenging for corporate credit. Stay tuned. Ryan Swift,  U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For further details on the amount of labor market slack in the economy please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 We forecast the recovery rate based on its inverse historical relationship with the default rate. A higher default rate implies a lower recovery rate, and vice-versa. 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Search For Aaa Spread”, dated March 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 For more details on our spread targets please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Portfolio Strategy As growth becomes scarce, investors flock to sectors that are slated to outgrow the broad market and shy away from the ones that are forecast to trail the SPX’s growth rate. This week we rank sectors and subsectors by EPS growth in our universe of coverage, and identify sweet and trouble spots. Fired up crack spreads, firming refining industry operating metrics, reaccelerating exports along with washed out technicals and compelling valuations, all signal that the time is ripe to buy into refining weakness. The cable industry’s demand headwinds are reflected in depressed relative valuations at a time when industry pricing power is trying to stage a comeback and a drifting lower greenback may also provide positive profit offsets. Stick with a benchmark allocation. Recent Changes Boost the S&P Oil & Gas Refining & Marketing index to overweight all the way from underweight today, locking in relative profits of 21%. Table 1 Feature Equities broke out last week and surpassed the upper band of their recent trading range, despite economic data releases that continued to surprise to the downside. Two weeks ago, we cautioned investors not to put cash to work as a tactical indigestion period loomed, with the SPX facing stiff resistance near the 2,800 level. In addition, we posited that most of the good news related to the U.S./China trade spat front was reflected in the S&P 500’s V-shaped recovery (top panel, Chart 1). In relative terms, the bottom panel of Chart 1 confirms that the easy money has already been made on the assumption of a positive resolution to the U.S./China trade dispute. Chart 1Trade Deal Priced In Going forward, the earnings juggernaut will have to remain in place in order for stocks to vault to fresh all-time highs, likely in the back half of the year. The Trump administration’s massive fiscal stimulus artificially fueled profit growth last year both by lowering the corporate tax rate and by encouraging overseas cash repatriation. The latter boosted share buybacks to an all-time record. Despite 24% EPS growth and $1tn in equity retirement, the SPX ended 2018 6% lower. Why? It became clear that EPS growth was headed lower. In order to gauge trend EPS growth we opt to use EBITDA, a cash flow proxy measure that strips out the direct impact of last year’s fiscal easing. Chart 2 clearly shows that trend growth took a step down following the positive base effects of the GFC-induced collapse and averaged close to 5%/annum from 2012 to 2014. Subsequently, the late-2015/early-2016 manufacturing recession sunk EBITDA into contraction, but the euphoria surrounding the newly elected President pushed trend EBITDA growth to near 10%/annum for two full years in 2017 and 2018. Chart 2Return To 5% Growth? Since the late-2018 peak, 12-month forward EBITDA growth continues to drift lower and is now hovering just shy of 3%. Our sense is that 5% organic profit growth is consistent with nominal GDP printing 4%-4.5% at this stage of the business cycle, signaling that a return to the 2012-2014 growth backdrop is likely later in the year. As a reminder, positive profit growth in calendar 2019 remains one of the three pillars underpinning stocks that we have highlighted since the beginning of this year. Stocks have come full circle recovering all of last December’s losses, but in order to make fresh all-time highs, profits will have to deliver. We deem that an earnings validation phase is transpiring and there are early signs that profit growth will trough sometime in the first half of the year. Not only has EBITDA breadth put in a bottom (Chart 2), but also economically hypersensitive indicators suggest that forward EBITDA growth will soon tick higher. Namely, the ISM manufacturing new orders component has perked up on a year-over-year basis. The trough in lumber futures momentum corroborates this message, as does the tick higher in the U.S. boom/bust indicator (Chart 3). Chart 3Growth Green-shoots Given the current macro backdrop and awaiting the profit validation, when growth becomes scarce investors flock to sectors that are outgrowing the broad market and shy away from ones that trail the SPX’s growth rate. Typically, in recessionary times that would equate to investors bidding up defensive sectors that command stable cash flow businesses and avoiding highly cyclical industries. But, BCA does not expect a recession in the coming year. Thus, in order to identify high growth sectors that should outperform during the current soft patch and growth laggards that should underperform, we compiled a table with the GICS1 sectors and all the subsectors we cover. First, we rank the GICS1 sectors and then within each sector we rank the subsectors, both times by absolute 12-month forward EPS growth using I/B/E/S/ data (see second columns, Table 2). We aim to reproduce this table once a quarter. Table 2Identifying S&P 500 Sector EPS Growth Leaders And Laggards The third columns in Table 2 show the sector growth rate relative to the SPX. The final columns in Table 2 highlight the trend in relative growth. In more detail, they compare the current relative growth rate to that of three months ago: a positive sign indicates an upgrade in analysts’ relative estimates and a negative sign a downgrade in analysts’ relative estimates. Industrials and financials (we are overweight both) are leading the pack outpacing the broad market by 410bps and 350bps, respectively, and enjoy a rising profit trend. On the flip side, energy (overweight) and real estate (underweight) trail the broad market by 490bps and 1480bps, respectively, and showcase a deteriorating EPS trend. With regard to energy, we first identified that analysts are really punishing this sector in the January 22 Weekly Report and the sector’s 2019 EPS contribution was and remains negative.1 Our overweight call will be offside if oil prices suffer a new setback, but our Commodity & Energy strategy service remains bullish on oil, implying relative EPS outperformance in 2019. Year-to-date, energy has bested the SPX by 170bps. This week, we make an energy sector subsurface tweak, and also update a communication services subgroup. Light My Fire Last summer we took refiners down to a below benchmark allocation as all of the good news was perfectly reflected in soaring relative share prices (top panel, Chart 4), at a time when cracks were forming. Now we are compelled to book gains of 21% and boost exposure all the way to overweight. Chart 4Crack Spreads Are On Fire Today, refiners paint a near exact opposite picture compared with last July. Relative share prices are no longer rising by 50%/annum. Instead, momentum has collapsed and is now contracting (middle panel, Chart 4). Sell-side analyst exuberance has turned into outright pessimism: refiners’ profits are expected to trail the broad market in the coming year. By comparison, last summer they were penciled in to beat the market by 30 percentage points (bottom panel, Chart 4). Granted M&A activity had also added fuel to the fire, but now all the hot air has come out of the refining industry, and then some. Refiners’ riches move in tandem with crack spreads. When refining margins widen, profits excel and vice versa. Now that refining margins are in a slingshot recovery, refining ills will turn into fortunes (bottom panel, Chart 4). Importantly, wide Brent-WTI spreads underpin crack spreads. Moreover, the crude oil versus refined product inventory backdrop currently reinforces a widening in refining margins. In absolute terms, gasoline stockpiles are being worked off (gasoline inventories shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 5) and grinding higher demand for refined petroleum products (top panel, Chart 5) will further tighten the industry’s inventory outlook. Chart 5Healthy Supply/Demand Backdrop One way domestic refiners are taking advantage of the still wide Brent-WTI differential is via the export markets. Net refined products exports are running at over 3mn barrels/day (bottom panel, Chart 6), and the softening greenback since November will further boost profits with a slight lag as U.S. refining exports will grab an even larger slice of the global pie (U.S. dollar shown inverted and advanced, middle panel, Chart 6). Chart 6U.S. Dollar Softness Is A Boon To Refining Profits On the valuation front, both the relative forward P/E and P/S have undershot their respective historical means and EPS breadth is as bad as it gets, offering investors an excellent entry point in the pure-play oil & gas refining industry (Chart 7). Chart 7Extreme Analyst Pessimism Reigns In sum, fired up crack spreads, firming refining industry operating metrics, reaccelerating exports along with washed out technicals and compelling valuations, all signal that the time is ripe to buy into refining weakness. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P oil & gas refining & marketing index to overweight all the way from a below benchmark allocation, crystalizing 21% in relative profits since last summer’s inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILR – PSX, MPC, VLO, HFC. Cable’s Down But Not Out Cable & satellite stocks had been in an uninterrupted run from the depths of the Great Recession until the peak in relative share prices in August 2017. Since then, cord cutting news and the proliferation of on demand streaming services have wreaked havoc on the industry and cable stocks have trailed the market by over 33% from peak to the most recent trough (top panel, Chart 8). Chart 8Cable Signals Are… This deteriorating demand backdrop more than offset the industry’s reaction function, which has been intra and inter-industry M&A. Now that the M&A dust has settled, what is next in store for the industry? We reckon that leading profit indicators are a mixed bag and we continue to recommend a benchmark allocation in this niche communications services subgroup. The top panel of Chart 8 shows that relative outlays on cable are on a slippery slope, and will continue to weigh heavily on relative share prices for the coming quarters. Nevertheless, the ISM services survey ticked higher recently and is on the cusp of making fresh recovery highs, unlike its sibling the ISM manufacturing survey. This is encouraging news for cable executives and suggests that demand for cable services may not be as moribund as the PCE release is projecting (second panel, Chart 9). Chart 9..A Mixed… While the cable demand backdrop is unclear, industry pricing power has managed to exit deflation. Cable selling prices have been positive for the better part of the past decade, but starting in late-2017 they collapsed by roughly 600bps relative to overall inflation. True, this deflationary impulse dented profit margins, but currently the industry’s selling prices – and to a much lesser extent profit margins – are in a V-shaped recovery mostly courtesy of base effects (middle & bottom panels, Chart 8). Absent a sustained hook up in cable demand, selling price inflation will prove fleeting and the recent margin expansion phase will also lose steam. Meanwhile, cable stocks and the U.S. dollar enjoy a positive correlation as most of the constituents’ earnings are derived domestically (Chart 10). The recent U.S. dollar softness will, at the margin, weigh on relative profits and thus relative share prices, especially if the Fed stays pat and refrains from raising rates for the rest of the year as the bond market currently expects. Chart 10…Bag Finally, earnings breadth continues to fall, but relative valuations are still well below the historical mean (third & bottom panels, Chart 9). Netting it all out, cable’s demand headwinds are well reflected in depressed relative valuations at a time when industry pricing power is trying to stage a comeback and a drifting lower greenback may both provide positive profit offsets. Bottom Line: Remain on the sidelines in the S&P cable & satellite index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CBST – CMCSA, CHTR, DISH.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting 2019 Earnings” dated January 22, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights We are asked nearly everywhere we go about the Fed’s independence, … : The Fed’s independence is an especially popular topic overseas, and it typically takes some persuasion to bring clients around to our view that it’s not at risk. … and Jay Powell shed some light on how the Fed intends to protect it: Since Bernanke, the Fed has fought back against criticism by attempting to open a window on its operations, and showing how they benefit all Americans. Powell’s Stanford speech and 60 Minutes appearance continued the transparency and charm offensive. The housing debate remains unresolved, but year-to-date activity has supported our sanguine outlook: Demand came back smartly following the decline in mortgage rates, and there is still no sign of overheating or oversupply on the horizon. Coincident indicators have a place, too: We do not include the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate in our recession indicator because it’s only a coincident indicator, but it does help to validate the leading indicators we follow. Feature BCA was established on our founder’s insight that tracking money flows through the banking system informs the future direction of the economy and financial markets. Monetary policy is of the utmost importance to BCA as a firm, and the fed funds rate cycle is a pillar of our U.S. Investment Strategy asset-allocation framework. That said, spending time parsing Fed speeches can be unavailing and tedious. Although we continually monitor comments from the Fed governors and regional bank presidents, we don’t often write about them. Since last summer, when the President first began expressing his displeasure with the Fed 140 characters at a time, we have been inundated with questions about the Fed’s independence, especially from overseas clients. We have noted repeatedly that conflicts between the White House and the Fed are nothing new. They are largely inevitable, and highlight the importance of insulating central banks from political pressure. A recent television interview and speech by Fed Chair Powell illustrated how the Fed hopes to safeguard its independence. The speech also sketched out some of the arguments supporting a potential re-interpretation of the Fed’s price stability mandate. If the Fed really were to pursue some sort of price-level targeting, the implications could be profound. TRIGGER ALERT: The following sections may promote cardiac distress among Austrian School devotees and other hard-money types. An Open, Friendly Fed Fed Chair Jerome Powell sat for an extended interview with venerable U.S. television news magazine 60 Minutes, broadcast in prime time Sunday March 10th. His comments carried no new information for Fed watchers, but appearances on 60 Minutes are not intended for Fed watchers, any more than Janet Yellen’s stop to watch community college students welding on her first official trip as Chair was. Powell appeared briefly alongside Yellen and Ben Bernanke in the 60 Minutes segment, and his appearance followed his predecessors’ public-relations game plan closely: defend the Fed’s independence, and explain the Fed’s role in managing the economy, so as to dispel some of the mystery about its mission and modus operandi. It was Bernanke who first sat for 60 Minutes, in 2009 and 2010, attempting to broadcast the Fed’s aims to the general public. Yellen extended the public outreach, as we noted in these pages five years ago, following her debut appearance:1 Not only did she make her first major outside appearance at a community development conference, she placed the plight of three locals grappling with unemployment and/or underemployment at the center of her remarks. She dined at a community-college training restaurant on the night before the speech, and went to another community college after delivering it, where she visited a shop floor and watched students weld. One could easily have mistaken her for a candidate for public office, given the photo ops and her dogged efforts to drive home the message that the labor market heads the Fed’s list of concerns. A New Take On Price Stability Powell’s 60 Minutes interviewer occasionally went out of his way to express skepticism about the Fed and its pre-crisis performance. A voiceover pointed to Powell’s academic record and Wall Street experience as signs of privilege, rather than evidence of aptitude or acumen. As Powell noted in a speech at Stanford University two days before the 60 Minutes interview aired, the current climate is one of “intense scrutiny and declining trust in public institutions” globally. Outwardly welcoming the scrutiny, and seeking to shore up the public’s trust, the Fed plans to hold a series of town-hall-style “Fed Listens” events around the country. The post-crisis Fed has tried to protect its independence by becoming more transparent. The Fed’s listening tour will be a part of its year-long review of monetary policy strategy, tools and communication practices, but we were most interested in Powell’s comments on strategy as it relates to the Fed’s price-stability mandate. Concerned that the secular decline in rates will regularly make the zero lower bound a binding policy constraint, the Fed is exploring the potential for some sort of price-level-targeting strategy. As a part of its review, it is asking, “Can the Federal Reserve best meet its statutory objectives with its existing monetary policy strategy, or should it consider strategies that aim to reverse past misses of the inflation objective?” When targeting the inflation rate, the Fed hasn’t much sweated inflation undershoots. Price-level targeting would represent a significant change from managing to the 2% annual inflation target on a non-cumulative basis. As shown in Chart 1, the Fed has executed its price-stability mandate by aiming for 2% annual inflation, as measured by the headline PCE price index. In theory, each year-over-year change is an independent event, considered without regard to prior overshoots or undershoots. The post-crisis shortfalls have no explicit bearing on the price-stability goal going forward, though perhaps they have made the Fed a little more inclined to wait until it sees the whites of inflation’s eyes before it removes accommodation in earnest. Chart 1Traditional Policy Has Been Directed At Keeping Prices From Rising Too Fast ... A price-level-targeting framework, on the other hand, would take its cues directly from past overshoots and undershoots. Whereas the Fed simply aimed at 2% every year in the old regime, under price-level targeting, it would be attempting to stay in continual contact with the 2% trend-growth line in Chart 2. Had price-level targeting been in place since the crisis began, the cumulative misses from 2008 on would eventually have to be made up. If the price-level target were to be reached by the end of this year, 2019 inflation would have to be 8.1%; by the end of next year, annualized inflation would have to be 5%; in five years, 3.2%; and in ten years, 2.6% (Table 1). Chart 2... Price-Level Targeting Seeks To Ensure They've Risen Enough Table 1Price-Level Targeting Higher inflation rates would presumably push Treasury bond volatility higher (Chart 3, top panel), along with the term premium (Chart 3, bottom panel). The increased uncertainty inherent in hitting a moving target would also help stoke interest-rate volatility, which would ripple out into the rest of financial markets. The Fed wouldn’t deliberately pursue a policy that stokes volatility unless it delivers other significant benefits. By boosting inflation expectations, price-level targeting could help stave off a deflationary mindset like the one that has crippled Japan since the bursting of its bubble three decades ago. More immediately, it could help combat the secular stagnation effects Larry Summers has been warning about for the last several years by making it easier for the Fed to reduce real rates. Chart 3Lower Inflation Has Helped Tamp Down Treasury Volatility And The Term Premium There is no sign that a change in the Fed’s monetary policy strategy, as it relates to price stability, is coming. The Fed performs a great deal of research and develops hypothetical game plans for a wide range of hypothetical economic outcomes. Discussions about price-level targeting are only conceptual for now, and the Fed will not necessarily adopt it. If price-level targeting were to become mainstream policy, it might better equip central banks with a tool for counteracting disinflationary impulses and could turn out to be marginally equity-friendly and bond-unfriendly. If it were to shift to a price-level-targeting framework, the Fed would be equally concerned about undershoots and overshoots. Housing Update We were unperturbed by the softness in the U.S. housing market when we published our housing Special Reports late last year. Three months into 2019, the data have supported our view, and we remain confident that the housing market does not represent the leading edge of an imminent downturn. We expect price-level targeting would increase financial-market volatility, at least when it’s first implemented. We highlighted in those Special Reports2 that the share of residential investment as a percentage of GDP has been steadily decreasing over the past 70 years, and is down to just 3% today. Although housing remains an important component of the U.S. economy and large fluctuations in the space will surely impact other segments of the economy, it is unlikely to exert a powerful drag. Home values also comprise a sizable portion of households’ net worth, and a decline in house prices will affect consumption patterns, but investors probably exaggerate the impacts. Housing now accounts for less than 15% of household equity – well below its 1980s and 2006 peaks – whereas pension entitlements and direct and indirect equity holdings account for 25% each. The rate at which mortgage rates change can exert a powerful impact on home sales and residential construction activity. 2018’s soft housing data was likely the byproduct of the yearlong rise in mortgage rates. Home sales and construction tend to decline in the six-month period after mortgage rates rise (Chart 4). Although higher mortgage rates took a toll on housing affordability last year, it remained at comfortable levels relative to history, and has already regained a good bit of ground now that the 30-year mortgage rate has declined by half a percentage point since its November peak. Mortgage applications have duly picked up since the end of last year. Chart 4Mortgage Rates Hurt Housing Last Year, But Are Poised To Help It This Year Most importantly for the overall economy, there is no evidence of construction excess. In contrast to the decade preceding the crisis, there is still plenty of room for new supply as housing starts still lag the pace of new household formations. New-home inventories have increased, but only back to their pre-housing boom range, and they amount to no more than a fraction of existing-home inventories, which are bumping around 30-year lows (Chart 5). The aggregate supply of homes for sale is not at all a matter for concern. Chart 5Housing Inventory Levels Are Low Bottom Line: The outlook for the housing market has improved since the end of the year. Homes remain affordable relative to history, and the aggregate inventory of homes for sale is the lowest it’s been since the mid-‘90s. The housing market still looks okay to us. Unemployment Is A Coincident Indicator We received a question from a client following last week’s review of our bond-upgrade and equity-downgrade checklists. Why do we include the three-month moving average of the unemployment rate in the equity checklist, but not our recession indicator? The simple answer is that the recession indicator is meant to be forward-looking.3 The unemployment measure has a sterling track record of coinciding with recessions, but it does not lead them (Chart 6). Chart 6A Coincident Indicator The three components of our recession indicator – an inverted yield curve, year-over-year contraction in the Leading Economic Indicator (LEI), and an above-equilibrium fed funds rate – have all consistently preceded recessions (Table 2). When combined into a single indicator, they’ve done so an average of just over six months before the onset of recessions, in line with the S&P 500’s average peak. The unemployment rate has been a coincident indicator, sending its signal an average of just under a month after recessions begin (Table 3). Table 2Lead Times For Indicator Components And Bear Markets Table 3Unemployment And Postwar Recessions The unemployment rate’s three-month moving average has a perfect record of coinciding with recessions, but indicators have to lead to be included in our recession alarm system. Tacking on an extra month to account for the lag in the data release, the unemployment rate alerts an investor to a recession two months after it’s begun. That’s too late to help sidestep the brunt of the S&P 500’s bear-market declines, so we leave it out of our recession indicator. Unemployment’s recession signal is nonetheless a good bit more timely than the NBER’s official recession declaration, which has come an average of eight months after the start of the last five recessions. The three-month moving average of the unemployment rate provides reliable confirmation that recessions have begun, and that has earned it a place in our equity checklist. Doug Peta, CFA   Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Jennifer Lacombe, Senior Analyst jenniferl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see the April 7, 2014 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Fed To America: We Care.” Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see the November 19, 2018 and December 3, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Reports, “Housing: Past, Present And (Near) Future,” and “Housing Seminar.” Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see the August 13, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report, “How Much Longer Can the Bull Market Last?” Available at usis.bcaresearch.com.