Economy

Special Report

Highlights So What? Optimism over a U.S.-China trade deal is becoming excessive. Why? Presidents Trump and Xi appear to want a deal but their late March summit is not yet finalized. Several news reports supporting the bullish consensus are overrated. The odds of a “grand compromise” that entails China implementing U.S. structural demands are 10%. The odds of trade war escalation are 30%. China’s policy stimulus is a better reason than trade talks to become more constructive on Chinese and China-sensitive risk assets. Feature The Chinese equity market is rallying enthusiastically as the annual “Two Sessions” legislative meeting convenes (Chart 1). The basis for the rally is evidence of greater policy support for the economy along with a general belief that the U.S. and China are close to concluding a trade deal, possibly at a fourth summit between President Donald Trump and Xi Jinping that may be held in late March. The NPC session will build on the optimism with Premier Li Keqiang’s promise of more “forceful” policy support and the passage of a new foreign investment law that promises fair treatment to foreign companies. Chart 1Positive Trade Signals, But Market Getting Ahead Of Itself Our view is that the trade signals are broadly positive – implying a 70% chance that tariffs will either remain frozen or decrease in the scenario analysis below – but that the market is getting ahead of itself both in terms of the likelihood of a “structural deal” and in terms of the positive market impact from any deal. The market impact will depend on the depth of the concessions that China offers the United States. If the concessions are significant, President Donald Trump will be able to roll back tariffs to a considerable extent – trade policy uncertainty will fall, China’s economic outlook will improve, and Trump’s reelection odds (and hence U.S. economic policy continuity) could increase marginally. If China’s concessions are slight, tariff rollbacks will be limited or non-existent and the deal will stand on shaky ground, ensuring elevated policy uncertainty in the aftermath of the agreement and raising the probability of a relapse into trade war ahead of the 2020 election. Trump may feel he has to prove his protectionist credentials anew against a trade critic in the general election. Will the outcome be positive enough to surprise Chinese and global markets that have already discounted a lot of positive news? From where we sit, this is unlikely. More likely, investors will be underwhelmed by a lack of resolution or the shallowness of a deal. The risk to this view is the aforementioned structural deal that involves substantial Chinese concessions combined with a major reduction in U.S. tariffs and sanctions. But even in this case investors will face additional trade uncertainty relating to the U.S. Section 232 investigation into auto imports, on which Trump must decide by May 18, underscoring the point that trade alone is not a firm basis for bullish investment recommendations over the course of H1 2019. The continued strength of the U.S. economy and China’s policy stimulus provide a more realistic basis for global risk assets to rally over the 6-12 month horizon. Presidential Momentum For A Trade Deal We remain pessimistic about U.S.-China relations in general and the prospects for a structural trade deal in particular. This is reflected in our subjective trade-deal probabilities, which hold that an additional extension is as likely as a final deal this month and that the risk of a relapse into trade war remains elevated at 30% (Table 1). Table 1Updated Trade War Probabilities Fundamentally, our pessimism stems from our view that the U.S. and China are locked in the early chapters of an epic struggle for supremacy in Asia Pacific that will reduce their ability to engage cooperatively (Chart 2). Chart 2China, U.S. In Geopolitical Power Struggle Critically, the economic impact of a trade war is not prohibitive for either country. China is not as reliant on exports as it once was. In addition, neither the U.S. nor China is too reliant on trade with the other to make a trade war unthinkable, as was the case with Canada and Mexico (Chart 3). Chart 3Economic Impact Of A Trade War Is Not Prohibitive China is economically vulnerable but is politically centralized, as symbolized by Xi Jinping’s aggressive purge of the Communist Party on the basis of corruption (Chart 4). The ruling party can and will accept the worst international economic outcomes since 1989-91, if it believes this is necessary for regime survival. Chart 4Regime Survival is Paramount Meanwhile the U.S. is economically insulated and performing relatively well (Chart 5), and is not politically divided on the question of China. A bipartisan, hawkish consensus has developed that will be discussed below. Just as we argued correctly that this trade war would occur, so too we believe it has a fair chance of reigniting. This could be due to policy miscalculation, unforeseen events, or the likelihood that Trump will face heat from the left-wing ahead of the election if he gives China as easy of a deal as he gave to Canada. Chart 5The U.S. Economy Is Strong But Softening... Nevertheless we accept that there is top-level momentum in favor of a deal for the time being, and this comes from both Presidents Trump and Xi. In China, delaying tactics are the standard way of coping with an angry Washington, as the perception in Beijing is that economic and technological advancement give it greater leverage over time. Moreover, the economy is weakening on several fronts, private sector sentiment is bearish, and the easing of fiscal and monetary policy is of unclear effectiveness (Chart 6). These are all reasons for Xi to seek at least a temporary reprieve. Chart 6...While the Chinese Economy Is Weak But Stimulating In the United States, Trump faces a difficult election campaign due to his relatively low job approval with voters (Chart 7). His polling has recently improved with the settlement of the FY2019 budget and avoidance of a second government shutdown, and this is despite his controversial decision to press forward unilaterally on southern border security. But he will be running for office late in the business cycle and is vulnerable to an equity bear market and recession. This explains why he has shown risk aversion since October on market-relevant issues ranging from NAFTA, Iran, and China. A trade deal with China offers the possibility not only of satisfying a campaign promise (renegotiating the terrible trade deals of the past) but also of a substantial boost to investor sentiment and key parts of the U.S. economy via Chinese cash. Thus it is reasonable to assess that Trump and Xi can satisfy their political preference for a deal in the short run. If Xi does not gratify Trump’s campaign platform as a great deal-maker, he will give impetus to Trump to form a grand protectionist coalition. Such a coalition could eventually succeed in constricting China’s technological development, as exemplified by the U.S.’s campaign against Chinese telecoms equipment maker Huawei. Fundamentally, China still depends on the West for the computer chips that are essential building blocks for its manufacturing sector (Chart 8). However, while this is a reason for Xi to play ball, it is far from clear that Xi will rapidly implement deep structural changes demanded by the United States. Xi has good reason to fear that Trump will continue the tech war on national security grounds despite any trade deal. Plus, either Trump or a Democratic president could take new punitive trade measures after 2020, given the underlying strategic struggle. For these reasons China is likely to slow-walk any structural concessions. We recognize that our 35% probability that trade talks will be extended cannot last forever. Assuming that Trump and Xi confirm the time and place of a fourth summit, the probability of some kind of deal will rise toward 70%. We doubt very much that Trump and Xi will attend such a summit without a high degree of confidence in the outcome, unlike the Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi, which suffered from inadequate preparation. Yet even if the probability of a deal rises to 70%, we still think there would remain a 30% chance of either an unexpected extension or a disastrous breakdown in negotiations – and we are not yet at that 70% mark. Bottom Line: Until a Trump-Xi summit is finalized in the context of continued progress in trade negotiations, we maintain our pessimistic probabilities for the trade negotiations, with a 30% chance of total collapse and a 35% chance of a further extension of talks beyond March. Remain Vigilant On The Trade Talks It is debatable whether momentum in favor of a U.S.-China trade deal has increased over the past two weeks as much as the news flow suggests. First, Trump’s extension of the tariff deadline – which he originally envisioned as a pause for a month “or less” – could just as easily lead to additional extensions rather than a quick resolution. This will be clear if a Trump-Xi summit does not materialize in late March. A logical time for the two to meet would be at the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan on June 28-29, which would prolong the trade policy uncertainty for nearly four months from today. Second, reports suggest that China, like the EU, is demanding that all Trump’s tariffs be removed as part of any trade deal. If true, this demand is more likely to result in a failure to make a deal than a total tariff rollback. The reason is that the U.S. needs to retain the ability to adjust Section 301 tariffs based on China’s actual degree of implementation of any commitments it makes to reduce forced technology transfers, economic espionage, and intellectual property theft. Several of these commitments are enshrined in the new foreign investment law that would pass through China’s legislature over the next two weeks (Table 2), but the U.S. will want to ensure that the law is actually implemented. Table 2New Foreign Investment Law Would Be A Positive For U.S.-China Negotiations If the U.S. rolls back all Section 301 tariffs it will lose a convenient legal standing from which to dial the tariffs back up if necessary. It is more likely that part or all of the 10% tariff on $200 billion worth of goods will be rolled back (our short-term trade deal scenario with 25% odds) than that the entire Section 301 tariffs will be rolled back (our best-case trade deal scenario with a 10% probability). The degree of rollback will be a critical indicator of the durability of any deal, as it will make a material difference for China’s export-manufacturing outlook (Chart 9). Thus far, China’s economy has counterintuitively benefited from the trade war due to tariff front-running. Chart 9The Degree Of Tariff Rollback Matters Third, the disagreements between President Trump and his hawkish lead negotiator, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, are likely overstated in their ability to increase the odds of finalizing a deal. There are two arguments for the view that Trump is losing faith in Lighthizer. The first is that he blames Lighthizer’s tough tactics for the equity market selloff. This may not be valid given that stocks continued to sell off after Trump sided with the trade doves and agreed to a trade truce with Xi Jinping. In December the S&P 500 suffered the worst monthly performance since February 2009 and the worst December performance since 1931. The second argument is more substantial and comes from Trump’s public interchange with Lighthizer over the use and value of memorandums of understanding (MOUs). The interchange was awkward and suggests that tensions exist between Trump and his top negotiator.1 However, the episode may have an important implication. Whatever the reason for the disagreement, Lighthizer gained the assent of two Chinese negotiators – Vice Premier Liu He and U.S. ambassador Cui Tiankai – in his declaration, on camera, that the term MOU would be dropped in preference for the term “trade agreement.” The result is that while the deal is still not going to be a “Free Trade Agreement” that requires legislative ratification, the language of the final document will be if anything more, not less, binding. This episode cannot possibly accelerate a final deal. It is hard to believe that Lighthizer is not secretly happy with the result of his dust-up with the president. It is well known – and frequently complained about by Lighthizer and other Trump administration officials – that China has very active diplomacy and makes many international agreements that are more nominal than real in their results. As a simple example, China typically agrees to a larger value of outbound investment than is ultimately realized (Chart 10). In fact, Lighthizer is at the forefront of the administration’s repeated and explicit aim to pin China down to better implementation and enforcement of any agreement. Indeed, in both of Lighthizer’s reports on the Section 301 investigation that motivate the tariffs, he refers to a well-known September 2015 commitment, between President Xi and former U.S. President Barack Obama, not to conduct cyber-espionage against each other’s countries. Lighthizer shares the view of the broader U.S. political establishment that China only temporarily enforced this commitment and later ramped up its hacking to steal trade secrets.2 Chart 10China Known For Overpromising Fourth, Trump’s failure to conclude a peace and denuclearization deal with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi, Vietnam does not increase the odds of a U.S.-China deal – it is either neutral or negative for U.S.-China talks. Whether intentional or not, the summit reminded the Chinese that Trump’s “art of the deal” requires the willingness to walk away from a bad deal. As mentioned, we view the odds of Trump walking away from a China deal at 30%. But the deeper problem is that Trump expects China’s assistance with North Korea as a condition of the trade deal. Whenever Trump thinks that China is not providing enough assistance, he threatens to walk away from talks with Kim. This occurred in May 2018 and has apparently occurred again. The failure of the summit is a failure of U.S.-China diplomacy in the sense that China could not or would not convince Kim Jong Un to offer more concrete steps toward denuclearization. This reflects negatively on the trade talks if it reflects anything at all. Bottom Line: Aside from the presidential momentum behind a trade deal, none of the recent news reports or leaks form a basis for upgrading the probability of a final agreement in late March. Will It Be A “Structural Deal”? Lighthizer is not isolated in driving a hard bargain with China: he enjoys the support of both parties in the U.S. Congress. At his recent testimony on U.S.-China trade to the House Ways and Means Committee, bipartisanship was a key theme. Democrats as well as Republicans voiced support for Lighthizer as the top negotiator due to his strict stance on China’s trade practices, while Lighthizer himself praised both Trump and Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for being skeptical about China’s trade practices as far back as 2001. The takeaway is that Trump needs deep concessions from China – what the top Democrat on the committee called “a structural deal” – in order to defend any trade deal against domestic critics and skeptical voters on the campaign trail in 2020. In other words, there is unanimity in Congress, as there was in May 2018, that Trump should not sacrifice his leverage for a deal limited to Boeings and soybeans but should instead obtain victories on core disagreements: national security, foreign exchange rates, market access, and intellectual property. The MOUs – now “agreements” – that are reportedly being drafted address these core disagreements. Therefore signs of progress in producing final drafts should be seen as evidence that the odds of a final deal are improving: Forced tech transfers: Raising equity caps for foreign investment in key sectors is a headline way to reduce the leverage that Chinese companies have used to extract technology (Table 3). There are other arbitrary licensing and permitting practices that could also be curtailed. Table 3Foreign Investment Equity Caps Intellectual property: China’s purchases of U.S. intellectual property are conspicuously small, especially when considering that China is not yet an innovation giant in terms of international IP licensing receipts relative to the amount that it pays out.3 If the U.S.’s IP trade balance with China were equivalent to its balance with South Korea, it would result in a $36.7 billion improvement in the U.S. balance (Chart 11). Services: China is a major growing market for U.S. service exports but Washington frequently complains about denial of market access, for instance in financial and legal services. Services exports also underscore the above point about intellectual property (Chart 12). Foreign exchange: The U.S. is asking China not to maintain a more market-oriented currency but rather to promote a stronger currency relative to the dollar, perhaps referring to the yuan’s undervaluation according to purchasing power parity (Chart 13). It is impossible for Trump to accept a deal that does not include some text on the currency since he has hammered the issue of Chinese currency manipulation on the campaign trail and is trying to talk down the greenback. South Korea agreed to a currency annex and Japan is likely to do the same, and that makes it even less feasible for China to get off the hook. Non-tariff barriers: The U.S. has a long roster of complaints about China’s trade practices, including subsidies to state-owned companies, dumping, and inadequate health, environmental, and labor standards. Changing these practices will raise the costs of production in China. Changes to non-tariff barriers can also increase American market access in a way that goes beyond the simultaneous demands for lower tariffs on U.S. imports (Chart 14). Chart 13China Not Off The Hook On Currency Manipulation If China pledges improvements on these issues then it could justify substantial tariff rollback, perhaps the entire 10% tariff on $200 billion. This scenario, the best version of our 25% trade deal scenario, would comprise a positive surprise for markets in the current environment. It still could fall short of a grand bargain justifying a total tariff rollback, unless implementation is swift and decisive, which is highly improbable. A lesser but still market-positive surprise would be an American agreement to reduce pressure on Huawei (comparable to the deal reached in May 2018 on that other besieged Chinese tech company, ZTE). Still less positive outcomes would be a partial reduction in the tariff rate or an American agreement to expand or expedite exemptions to existing tariffs. The last would indicate relatively low expectations about the depth of China’s concessions. Bottom Line: Until the actual details of any Chinese structural concessions and American tariff relief are known, the durability of any U.S.-China trade deal cannot be assessed. This warrants at best cautious optimism regarding the trade talks: the two sides are working on draft texts about the right things. Investors will not be positively surprised by an agreement that does not include structural concessions of the nature above as well as substantial American tariff rollback, which is needed to verify American confidence in China’s commitments. Investment Implications The outcomes that are currently available to investors leave substantial room for prolonged trade policy uncertainty (Chart 15). Any further extension of trade talks means that uncertainty will persist at current levels. A deal that includes limited structural concessions means that uncertainty will ease but remain elevated relative to pre-2018 levels, due to the persistent threat of Section 301 tariffs that the U.S. will wield in order to secure Chinese concessions. A failure of negotiations means a dramatic escalation in uncertainty; this is our 30% risk due to the geopolitical and technological struggle underway. We allot only a 10% chance to a grand bargain that includes deep structural reforms and full tariff rollback. Chart 15Trade Uncertainty Will Persist As a final consideration, investors should be aware that the better the U.S.-China trade deal, the higher the probability that Trump imposes tariffs on auto and auto part imports pursuant to the Section 232 investigation into the impact of these imports on national security, which concluded February 17. The Commerce Department’s recommendations are still unknown but it is not a stretch to imagine that the administration has discovered a national security threat. However, this determination alone does not require Trump to impose tariffs. If he is to impose, he has until May 18 to do so. The full value of U.S. auto and auto parts imports is larger than the value of Chinese imports that currently fall under Trump’s tariffs. It is very unlikely that the U.S. will match this size of tariffs against the EU (Chart 16). Certainly it will not do so if the U.S.-China conflict remains unresolved, since it seems a stretch to believe the equity market can sustain both trade wars at the same time. The Trump administration has already found that the China tariffs without negotiations were disruptive to the U.S. equity market and economy, and the U.S. has told the European Union and Japan that it will not impose tariffs as long as negotiations are underway. To do so would be practically to foreclose the possibility of a trade agreement prior to the 2020 election, at least in the case of the EU. Thus it is only after any U.S.-China deal that the risk of EU impositions rises. We take the view that Japan is likely to conclude an agreement with the Trump administration quickly, possibly even before the China deal but almost certainly shortly afterwards. Trump administration officials will also likely intervene on behalf of South Korea due to the strategic need to stay on the same page regarding North Korea, which itself led to the successful renegotiation of the two countries’ existing trade agreement last year (which included autos but did not explicitly exempt Korea from Section 232 auto tariffs). This leaves the EU, which is quarreling with the U.S. over a range of issues: trade, Iran, Russia, China, Brexit, Syria, etc. Our base case is that the U.S. will not impose sweeping Section 232 tariffs on the EU due to the negative impact this would have on the U.S. auto industry, which is rooted in the electorally critical Midwest; the aforementioned risk to the equity market and economy; and the fact that neither the U.S. public, nor Congress, nor the corporate lobby are supportive of a trade war with Europe. Tariffs would also harm the Trump administration’s broader attempt to galvanize Western countries against the strategic challenge of China, Russia, and Iran. Nevertheless, the risk of such sweeping tariffs is non-trivial because Trump does not face legal constraints in imposing them – he can act unilaterally, just as he did with the early Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, which broadly remain in force. A negative trade shock to the EU at a time of economic weakness may not overwhelm the positive trade impact of a U.S.-China deal in the context of China’s policy stimulus, but it would take the shine off of any risk-on exuberance following a China deal. In the end, China’s risk assets are likely to continue benefiting from domestic policy stimulus plus the 70% likelihood that tariffs will not go up. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy remains cyclically positive Chinese stocks relative to emerging market stocks over a 12-month horizon given China’s more robust stimulus measures and the above trade view. We are shifting our long China Play Index to a trade as opposed to a portfolio hedge. We are also long copper. We would anticipate that the trend for CNY-USD will be flat to up as long as negotiations proceed in a positive manner. BCA’s China Investment Strategy is tactically positive Chinese stocks relative to the global MSCI benchmark on the same basis, but is awaiting more evidence of a stabilization in the earnings outlook before recommending that investors shift to an outright overweight over the cyclical horizon. Still, our China team placed Chinese stocks on upgrade watch in their February 27 Weekly Report, signaling that the next change in recommended allocation is likely to be higher rather than lower.4   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com     Footnote 1 News reports had indicated that Lighthizer and his Chinese counterparts were negotiating six MOUs – on forced tech transfer and cyber theft, intellectual property rights, services, currency, agriculture, and non-tariff barriers to trade – in pursuit of the March 1 deadline. When asked about the time horizon of the MOUs at a public press conference with the Chinese trade delegation in the White House, President Trump said that MOUs were not the same as a “final, binding contract” that he wanted as an outcome of the talks. Lighthizer spoke up in defense of MOUs, leading the president to publicly disagree with him. Lighthizer then declared that the term “MOU” would no longer be used and instead the two sides would use the term “trade agreement.” 2 This was the same summit at which Xi Jinping declared in the Rose Garden that China had no intention to militarize the South China Sea – an even more frequently cited example of divergence between China’s official rhetoric and policy actions on matters of strategic consequence. 3 Please see Scott Kennedy, “The Fat Tech Dragon: Benchmarking China’s Innovation Drive,” CSIS, August 2017, available at www.csis.org. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Dealing With A (Largely) False Narrative,” dated February 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights European Growth: Europe’s economy is slowing, while core inflation remains subdued. The ECB must now contemplate the need for a monetary policy ease so soon after ending its bond buying program. Likely ECB Options: The ECB will likely have no choice but to initiate a new round of LTROs – likely to be announced in either April or May – to prevent an unwanted tightening of credit conditions at a time of slowing economic growth. Fixed Income Implications: Stay below-benchmark on euro area duration, with inflation expectations likely to rebound alongside a more dovish ECB and rising global oil prices. Stay underweight Italian government bonds and neutral overall euro area corporate credit exposure, however, until there are more decisive signs that growth is stabilizing. Feature Back in December, the European Central Bank (ECB) - confident that the euro zone economy was healthy enough to allow the slow process of policy normalization to begin - ended its Asset Purchase Program and signaled that rate hikes could commence as soon as late 2019. Just two months later, the central bank is faced with an unexpectedly persistent and broad-based growth slump. Markets now expect no change in short-term interest rates until well into 2020. By most conventional measures, the ECB is running a very accommodative monetary stance, with a €4.7 trillion balance sheet and negative interest rates (both in nominal and inflation-adjusted terms). On a rate-of-change basis, however, policy has become incrementally less stimulative, with the balance sheet no longer expanding and real interest rates unchanged from levels of a year ago (Chart 1). An additional potential tightening of liquidity conditions is on the horizon with the ECB’s long-term funding operations for euro zone banks (LTROs and TLTROs) set to begin rolling off next year. Chart 1The ECB Needs To Ease Policy Somehow Our ECB Monitor indicates that fresh monetary easing will soon be required if the current downtrend in growth persists. Given the persistent fragilities within the European banking system, not only in Italy but increasingly in core countries like Germany, a combination of slowing economic momentum and tightening monetary liquidity is a potentially toxic brew. Weaker growth raises the specter of a rise in non-performing loans held by banks that also have significant sovereign debt exposures (the so-called “Doom Loop”). In this Special Report, we consider the policy options that the ECB could realistically deliver in the coming months - given the state of the economy, inflation and banking system – with the associated investment implications for European fixed income markets. Our conclusion: the ECB will be forced to take a dovish turn as an insurance policy against tighter credit conditions and weak growth. Eurozone Economy: Broad-Based Mediocrity The ECB has categorized the current downturn, which has pushed real GDP growth in the Eurozone to a below-trend pace of 1.7% and triggered a technical recession in Italy, as simply the product of a bunch of idiosyncratic country-specific shocks (a cut in Germany auto production due to changing emissions standards, Italy-EU fiscal policy debates that raised the cost of capital in Italy, and political unrest in France damaging consumer spending). The biggest shock, however, has been exogenous. Trade policy uncertainty and a weakening Chinese economy have both been a major drag on growth for euro zone countries that rely heavily on exports, in general, and Chinese import demand, in particular. The “one-off shocks” narrative is incorrect because the slowdown has been broad-based. The majority of countries within the euro zone are suffering slowing GDP growth, falling leading economic indicators and decelerating headline inflation, according to our diffusion indices for each (Chart 2). The previous three times such a synchronized slowdown unfolded (2001, 2009 and 2012), the ECB responded with a full-blown rate cutting cycle. Inflation trends today, however, make it a bit more difficult for the ECB to consider any such possible shift in a more dovish direction. Chart 2ECB Typically Eases After A Broad-Based Economic Downturn The overall unemployment rate for the region is 7.8%, well below the OECD’s estimate of the full employment NAIRU1 rate. In contrast to our diffusion indicators for the economy, the majority of euro area countries (83%) have unemployment rates lower than NAIRU (Chart 3). The previous two times labor markets were so tight in the euro area, wage inflation reached 4%, core inflation climbed beyond 2.5% and the ECB pushed policy interest rates to between 4-5%. Today, a large majority of countries are witnessing faster wage growth and core inflation, but the overall level of both is still relatively low (2.5% and 1%, respectively). Chart 3ECB Policy Is Already Very Easy So from the point of view of the state of overall growth and inflation, the ECB is in a difficult position. Euro area growth has slowed, but not by enough to ease the nascent inflation pressures in labor markets. The story gets more complex when looking at growth and inflation at the individual country level. For the four largest economies in the region – Germany, France, Italy and Spain – the latter two remain a source of concern. Unemployment in both Spain and Italy remains in double-digits, with headline and core inflation rates at 1% or lower (Chart 4). Italy’s manufacturing PMI is now at 47.6 and Spain’s is now at 49.9, both below the 50 level indicating an expanding economy. Chart 4Italy & Spain Are Becoming An Issue (Again) Credit growth exhibits a similar pattern. Total bank lending is contracting on a year-over-year basis in Italy (-4.3%) and Spain (-2.1%), while still growing at a positive, albeit decelerating, rate in Germany (+1.5%) and France (+5.3%). The most recent ECB Bank Lending Survey for the fourth quarter of 2018 showed that lending standards were becoming more stringent in Italy and Spain than in Germany or France (Chart 5). In Italy, where the growth downturn has been deeper and borrowing costs have gone up due to the Italian populist government’s repudiation of EU deficit limits, banks are actually tightening lending standards. Chart 5Credit Conditions Tightening At The Margin The last thing the ECB wants to see now is a sustained credit contraction in the large economies where growth and banking systems are the most fragile – most notably, Italy. Bottom Line: Europe’s economy is slowing, while core inflation remains subdued. Weakness is more pronounced in the Peripheral countries compared to the Core, especially Italy. The ECB must now contemplate the need for a monetary policy ease so soon after ending its bond buying program. Italy’s Banks Are Still A Huge Headache For The ECB European banks have struggled to generate acceptable profits in recent years against a backdrop of sluggish economic growth, negative interest rates and increased regulatory capital requirements. Bank equity values remain near post-2008 crisis lows, with Italian bank stocks severely underperforming their competitors within the euro zone (Chart 6). Credit spreads for Italian banks are also far more elevated than those of their euro area peers, a reflection of the higher yields and wider spreads on Italian government bonds (which, given Italy’s BBB sovereign credit rating, means that the floor on Italian yields and credit spreads is higher than those of other euro zone countries with better credit ratings). Chart 6Italy's Fiscal Problems Impacting The Banks Even given the economic fragility in Italy, Italian banks remain reasonably well-capitalized. According to the data from the European Banking Authority (EBA), Italian banks have a Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio of 13.8%, well above the minimum levels required by Basel III bank regulations and close to the overall euro area CET1 ratio of 14.7% (Chart 7). The problem for Italian banks, however, remains the high level of non-performing loans (NPLs). EBA data shows that Italian banks have an NPL ratio of 9.4%, nearly three times the total euro area NPL ratio of 3.4%. While this is a substantial improvement from the near-20% NPL ratio seen after the 2011 European debt crisis, the absolute level of NPLs remains high. The other major risk for Italian banks is their large holdings of Italian sovereign bonds, which raises the risk of mark-to-market losses hitting the banks’ capital position as government bond yields rise (i.e. the “Doom Loop”). The ECB’s bond purchases have helped to reduce the share of Italian sovereign debt held by Italy’s banks from 25% to around 19% over the past five years (Chart 8). Yet with Italy’s sovereign credit rating now BBB – on the cusp of junk – Italian bank balance sheets remain heavily exposed to sovereign debt risk. The ECB has tried to mitigate the impact of its extraordinary monetary stimulus on the profitability of Europe’s banks by offering longer-term loans (against acceptable collateral) at low interest rates. These programs, known as Long-Term Refinancing Operations (LTROs), have mostly been used by banks in Italy and Spain, which have taken up a combined 56% of all outstanding LTROs (Chart 9). Chart 956% Of ECB LTROs Have Gone To Italy & Spain The most recent LTRO operation launched in 2016 was a Targeted LTRO (TLTRO) that tied the extension of ECB funding directly to the amount of new loans made by any bank that received the funding. Those TLTROs were offered at the ECB’s Marginal Deposit Rate of -0.4%, effectively providing a 40bps subsidy for new bank lending. The impact on loan growth from the TLTROs was far greater in Italy and Spain, where the share of total bank lending funded by LTROs in each country is now 10% compared to 4% for all euro area bank loans (Chart 10). Chart 10LTROs Funding 10% Of Bank Lending In Italy & Spain The TLTROs extended in 2016 had a maturity of four years, which means that the loans will begin to mature next year.2 If the ECB lets these operations expire without any offering of a new program, then banks that have used that cheap liquidity will be faced with one of two choices: replace that funding with bank debt at much higher market interest rates, or reduce the size of their loan books (i.e. delever their balance sheets). For Italy’s banks, replacing all of that cheap TLTRO funding with expensive bank debt is highly unlikely. According to the Bank of Italy’s latest Financial Stability Report, bank debt represents as large a share of overall Italy bank funding as the TLTROs (around 10%), but the growth rate of that debt has been contracting at a -15% to -20% rate over the past couple of years (Table 1).3 This is how rising Italian sovereign bond yields translate into higher bank debt yields and market funding costs, restricting lending activity. Table 1Italian Banks Have Slashed Expensive Debt Market Funding Already, Italian banks have been cutting back on lending to the most risky borrowers, according to Bank of Italy data (Chart 11). The growth rates of loans deemed “risky” and “vulnerable” contracted at a faster pace in 2018 than during 2015-17, while loans extended to “solvent” and “safe” borrowers grew more quickly in 2018 than the prior three years. These trends are likely to continue with credit standards now being tightened by Italian banks according to the ECB Bank Lending Survey. An additional factor for the banks to consider is the upcoming implementation of the Basel III regulatory requirement that banks must maintain a minimum amount of funding with a maturity greater than one year (the Net Stable Funding Ratio, or NSFR). Even though the current round of TLTROs do not begin to expire until June 2020, they will turn into “short-term” funding as of June of this year when it comes to banks calculating their NSFR. That ratio is not yet binding, but banks will likely seek to plan ahead for their long-term funding and will seek guidance from the ECB. So the ECB is now faced with the prospect of letting the TLTROs begin to expire next year, placing 4% of total euro area bank lending and 10% of Italian and Spanish bank lending at risk. Given the current fragile state of growth in the euro area, especially in Italy, the central bank would be taking a huge gamble by risking an even deeper downturn through banks shrinking their loan books. The easiest way to prevent that outcome – more LTROs. Bottom Line: The ECB will likely have no choice but to initiate a new round of LTROs – likely to be announced in April or May - to prevent an unwanted tightening of credit conditions amid slowing economic growth. The ECB’s Likely Next Move? New LTROs With More Dovish Forward Guidance The ECB Governing Council meets this week. There will be a new set of economic projections prepared for this meeting, and the ECB has typically chosen to make changes to its monetary policies alongside shifts in its economic forecasts. ECB President Mario Draghi has already noted that the growth risks in the euro zone are now tilted to the downside. Even noted monetary hawks like German Bundesbank President Jans Weidmann and Dutch Central Bank President Klaas Knot – both candidates to replace Draghi when his term expires in October – have toned down their calls for monetary tightening given the weak growth in their own economies. We expect the ECB to follow a dovish script at the March ECB meeting, along these lines: Downgrade the ECB’s growth forecasts Delay the date when inflation is projected to return back to 2% target Extend forward guidance on the first rate hike out to “mid-2020 or later” (which only validates current market pricing) A pessimistic assessment of the outlook for bank lending based on elevated bank funding costs impairing the transmission of ECB’s “highly accommodative” monetary policy A discussion about the need for a new LTRO program to replace the ones that start expiring in 2020 Step 4 in that script could be delayed until the April or May ECB meetings, to allow for more time to see how the economic data unfolds. Almost all of the current downturn in real GDP growth can be attributed to the plunge in net exports – the contribution to growth from domestic demand has been stable over the past year (Chart 12). Thus, the ECB will likely want to see if the current indications of a U.S.-China trade deal, combined with more stimulus from China’s policymakers, puts a floor under the downturn in euro area trade activity. Chart 12ECB Growth Forecasts Require A Rebound In Exports Step 5 in our March ECB meeting script can also be delayed to April or May, but the ECB is not likely to wait longer than that and run the risk of letting the current slowing of euro area credit growth turn into a full-blown contraction due to the end of cheap funding (Chart 13). Chart 13Tightening Lending Standards: Trigger For A New LTRO? There has also been some speculation that the ECB could satisfy both the hawks and doves on the Governing Council by announcing a hike in the ECB Overnight Deposit rate at the same time as a new LTRO program. The Overnight Deposit rate represents the floor of the ECB’s policy interest rate corridor, with the Marginal Lending rate representing the ceiling and the Main Refinancing rate acting as the midpoint of the corridor. Yet with the ECB maintaining such a large balance sheet, with €1.2 trillion in excess reserves, the effective short-term interest rate (1-week EONIA) has traded near the Overnight Deposit Rate floor. Thus, lifting only the Overnight Deposit Rate, which is -0.4% and has been blamed for damaging the earnings of euro area banks, would effectively be the same as a traditional hike in the ECB’s main interest rate tool, the Main Refinancing Rate (Chart 14). Chart 14The ECB Cannot Bottom Line: Offering a new LTRO, but perhaps for only a shorter time period than the expiring TLTROs (i.e. two years instead of four), seems to be the best solution for the ECB. This will prevent a potential liquidity-driven bank credit crunch in the most vulnerable parts of the European economy – Italy and Spain. Fixed Income Investment Implications Of Our ECB View 1. Duration: the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield had fallen as low as 0.09% in the most recent global bond rally, largely driven by a collapse in inflation expectations. The ECB’s likely dovish guidance on rate hikes will prevent any meaningful rise in real Bund yields. Inflation expectations, however, do have a lot more upside if BCA’s bullish oil forecast is realized – especially so if the ECB also takes a more dovish turn (Chart 15). Stay below-benchmark on euro zone duration, and stay long inflation-linked instruments like CPI swaps. Chart 15Stay Below-Benchmark On European Duration Exposure 2. Italian Sovereign Debt: A new LTRO program, combined with more dovish forward guidance, should help prevent the current Italian growth downturn from intensifying. However, a weak economy will sustain pressure on Italian sovereign spreads. Stay underweight for now, but look to upgrade when growth stabilizes (Chart 16). Chart 16Stay Cautious On Euro Area Spread Product Until Growth Bottoms 3. Euro Area Corporates: A more dovish ECB will help stabilize corporate credit spreads in the euro area, but like Italian sovereign debt, signs of more stable growth are required before spreads can meaningfully compress. Stay neutral for now.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. 2 The loans were offered in four allotments in June 2016, September 2016, December 2016 and March 2017. Hence, the loans will mature in June 2020, September 2020, December 2020 and March 2021. 3 The November 2018 Bank of Italy Financial Stability Report can be found here: https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/rapporto-stabilita/2018-2/index.html Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Feature Recommendations Two Key Questions For Asset Allocators Stocks have rallied this year – MSCI ACWI is up 17% from its late December low – despite the fact that economic growth outside the U.S. has continued to deteriorate. The PMI in Germany has fallen to 47.6, in Japan to 48.5, and the average in Emerging Markets to 49.5 (Chart 1). Chart 1PMIs Ex-U.S. Still Falling U.S. growth remains robust, though recent data have showed some signs of weakness. The Citigroup Economic Surprise Index has fallen sharply, capex indicators have slipped, and December retail sales were terrible (Chart 2). The New York Fed NowCast for Q1 is now pointing at only 1.2% real GDP growth. Most of the slippage, however, was caused by the six-week government shutdown, and should be reversed in Q2. And the retail sales number appears “rogue”, perhaps caused by irregular data-collection methods during the shutdown, since other retail data do not support it (Chart 2, panel 3). The tightening of financial conditions in the last months of 2018 – which has now partly reversed – may have added to the slowdown (Chart 3). BCA’s view is that U.S. GDP growth is likely to come in well above 2% in 2019, slower than last year’s 2.9% but still above trend. Chart 2Should We Worry About U.S. Growth Too? Chart 3Financial Conditions Now Easing Our recommendation, therefore, is to continue to overweight equities (particularly U.S. equities), which should be supported by decent earnings growth (our top-down model points to 12% EPS growth for the S&P500 this year, compared to a bottom-up consensus forecast of only 5%), reasonable valuations, and sentiment that appears still to be damaged by the Q4 sell-off (Chart 4). Chart 4Environment Still Positive For U.S. Equities Two key questions will determine which asset allocation will be optimal this year. First, how long will the Fed stay “patient” and keep rates on hold? The futures market has almost completely priced out the possibility of any rate hikes in 2019, and even assigns a 15% probability of a cut (Chart 5). We still see upside risk to inflation, with core PCE likely to print above the Fed’s target of 2% by mid-year, partly because of the year-on-year base effect (in January 2018, monthly inflation was especially high), but also because underlying inflation pressures remain (Chart 6). Chart 5Is The Fed Really Going To Cut Rates? Chart 6Inflation Pressures Haven't Gone Away The market has misunderstood two of the Fed’s recent messages. Its mooted plan to end balance-sheet reduction by year-end is not intended as part of monetary policy. It is simply that bank excess reserves will have reached USD1-1.2 trillion, the level required to operate monetary policy using current tools, rather than those used before 2007 when reserves were zero (Chart 7). Second, recent discussions about changing the Fed’s inflation target from 2% a year to a price-level target will probably become effective only when the effective lower bound is hit in the next recession and, anyway, no decision will be taken until mid-2020. Chart 7Excess Reserves Will Be At Equilibrium Soon The market has taken this talk as dovish. We read recent comments by Fed Chairman Jay Powell to mean that if, by June, the economy is robust, risk assets are still rebounding, and inflation is ticking up, the Fed will continue to hike, maybe two or three times by year-end. This implies long-term bond yields will rise too. Equities may wobble initially but, as long as the Fed is hiking because growth is solid and not because of an inflation scare, this should not undermine the 12-month case for equity outperformance. The second key question is whether China has now abandoned its focus on deleveraging and switched to a 2016-style liquidity-driven stimulus. Certainly, the January total social financing number pointed in that direction, with new credit creation of almost 5 trillion RMB ($750 billion) and the first signs of an easing of restrictions on shadow banking (Chart 8). But the jury is still out on whether this is the massive reflation the market has been waiting for. Premier Li Keqiang criticized the increase, saying, “the increase in total social financing appears rather large…it may also bring new potential risks”. A PBOC official commented that the big increase was “due to seasonal factors” and emphasized that China was not embarking on “flood irrigation-style” stimulus. The recent more positive noises on the U.S./China trade war may also alleviate the pressure on China to stimulate. Chart 8First Signs Of Chinese Reflation? If and when Chinese growth does rebound, this will have major implications for asset allocation. It would signal a bottoming of the global cycle, which would favor stocks in Emerging Markets, Europe and Japan. It would push up commodity prices, and imply a weaker dollar. For now, we are not positioning ourselves like this, since global growth remains weak. Nonetheless, the first signs of a bottoming are appearing with, for example, the diffusion index of the global Leading Economic Index (which often leads the LEI itself) turning up (Chart 9). We may shift in this direction mid-year, and are now making some minor changes to our recommendations (see below) to hedge against this risk. But for the moment we prefer U.S. equities, expect further USD appreciation, and remain cautious on EM. Chart 9Is The LEI Close To Bottoming? Equities: We prefer U.S. equities given their better growth, reasonable valuations, and depressed sentiment (despite their outperformance year-to-date). But we are watching for an opportunity to increase our weighting in Europe, where growth still looks poor but may rebound in H2 due to fiscal stimulus, improving wage growth, a dovish turn by the ECB, and an eventual recovery in exports to China (Chart 10). We still see problems in EM, since earnings growth expectations need to be revised down further and stock prices have risen prematurely on expectations of a Chinese recovery (Chart 11). But we reduce the size of our underweight bet, to hedge against Chinese credit growth continuing to accelerate. We are also raising our recommendation for the industrials sector (with its large weight in capital goods companies dependent on exports to China) to overweight for the same reason.  We fund this by cutting consumer staples to underweight. We also raise our weighting on the energy sector, given our positive view on oil prices (see below). This gives our sector weightings a slightly more cyclical tilt, in line with our macro view. Chart 10Some Good News In Europe Too Chart 11EM Has Further Downside Fixed Income: It has been a conundrum this year why equities have risen and credit spreads tightened significantly, but the 10-year Treasury yield remains stuck below 2.7%. One explanation is that inflation expectations have been dampened by the crude oil price and if, as we forecast, oil continues to recover, the inflation component of the yield will rise (Chart 12). U.S. yields have also been dragged down by weak growth in other developed markets, where bond yields have therefore fallen. The spread between U.S. and German and Japanese yields reached record high levels in late 2018 (Chart 13). The term premium also is deeply into negative territory because many investors remain highly bearish and have hedged this view by buying Treasuries. If our view of robust U.S. growth, rising inflation, and more Fed hikes is correct, we would see 10-year Treasury yields rising towards 3.5% over the next 12 months. Accordingly, we are underweight global government bonds. We raised credit to neutral last month, but continue to have some qualms about this asset class, and prefer equities as a way of taking exposure to further upside for risk assets. Besides high leverage among U.S. corporates, we are worried about the deterioration in the quality of the credit market, since duration has been extended, covenants weakened, and the average credit rating fallen (Chart 14). Chart 12Inflation Expectations Driven By Oil Chart 13U.S. Yields Pulled Down By Europe And Japan Chart 14Deterioration In Credit Market Fundamentals Currencies: We see some more upside in the U.S. dollar over the next few months, given U.S. growth and monetary policy relative to the euro area and Japan (Chart 15). This may reverse, however, if global cyclical growth rebounds in the second half. The dollar is particularly vulnerable if macro conditions change, since it looks around 10% overvalued relative to other major DM currencies, and speculative positions are predominantly long dollar (Chart 16). Chart 15Relative Rates Support USD Chart 16But Dollar Vulnerable To Macro Shifts Commodities: With demand likely to grow steadily this year, but supply under pressure because of production cuts by OPEC and Canada, lower U.S. shale oil output, and disruptions in Venezuela and elsewhere, our energy strategists see drawdowns in inventories throughout the year (Chart 17). They forecast Brent to average $75 a barrel during 2019 (compared to $66 now), with WTI $5 a barrel lower. Industrial commodities continue to be driven by China which means, given our view expressed above, that we may see further weakness short-term, with a possible rebound in H2 (Chart 18). Chart 17Oil Supply/Demand Is Tight Chart 18When Will Metal Prices Bottom?   Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   GAA Asset Allocation  

Special Report

Highlights Investors are currently too pessimistic on Europe’s growth prospects. In fact, European growth will soon bottom. European growth and inflation are also set to improve relative to the U.S. This should give investors an opportunity to reassess the long-term outlook for European Central Bank policy relative to the Fed. Global growth dynamics are also moving in an increasingly dollar-bearish direction, which should create a tailwind for the euro. Based on the pricing of European assets relative to the U.S., there is scope to see more capital flows into the euro area, implying that more euro buying is forthcoming. The entire European currency complex is a buy relative to the dollar; while the NOK, the SEK, and even the GBP could outperform the euro, the CHF will underperform. EUR/JPY also has upside. Feature The case to sell the euro is easy to make. European growth has been very poor: PMIs, industrial production and even German exports are all pointing to a contraction in output; and economic surprises are testing levels recorded during the euro area crisis. Most importantly, this economic retrenchment is particularly sharp when compared to the U.S., which suggests that real interest rate differentials should continue to hurt EUR/USD (Chart 1). Chart 1Selling The Euro Seems So Easy... The problem with this narrative is that investors are already well aware of Europe’s woes. Could Europe instead recover and the euro rebound against the dollar? After all, in the past, when investor pessimism towards Europe experienced as pronounced a dip as the one just witnessed, EUR/USD invariably rebounded soon after (Chart 2). Chart 2...But Maybe We Should Look The Other Way In this piece, we explore what could go right for the euro, and argue that the euro is indeed attractive at current levels. European Growth Has Hit A Nadir It is safe to say that the euro area is in a funk today: European real GDP growth dipped to a 1.1% annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2018, while industrial production has plunged by 3.9% on a year-on-year basis. But the markets warned us this would happen: The euro has fallen 9% from its February 2018 top, German bund yields are again flirting with the 0.1% level and European banks plunged by more than 40% between January and December last year. Going forward, for European yields to remain as depressed as they are, for the euro to fall again by a similar margin, or for domestic plays to suffer large declines, European growth will have to slow even further. We are not expecting such a scenario. Instead, we expect European growth to recover significantly this year. First, when it comes to Germany, the locomotive of Europe, the shock from the implementation of the new WLTP auto emission standards is passing: Automobile production is stabilizing, capex is accelerating and inventories have been pared down. Moreover, the slowdown in foreign demand has already percolated through the domestic economy, as domestic manufacturing orders are already experiencing one of their sharpest declines since the Great Financial Crisis (Chart 3, top panel). Chart 3European Growth Is Set To Rebound Another source of optimism comes from the credit market. As the middle panel of Chart 3 illustrates, the European 12-month credit impulse has begun to bottom. This points to stronger euro area-wide domestic demand. Moreover, the Chinese credit and fiscal impulse is also bottoming, suggesting the drag from foreign demand could be dissipating (Chart 3, bottom panel). When looking at other specific trouble spots, Italy first springs to mind. In our view, the most recent deceleration in Italy was mainly a consequence of the tightening in financial conditions that resulted from the surge in Italian yields following the budget standoff between Rome and Brussels. However, the Lega Nord / Five Star Movement coalition has folded and is more or less acquiescing to the EU’s demands. Moreover, the rising probability that the European Central Bank will continue to provide long-term liquidity to the eurozone banking system via some form of new LTRO should diminish the funding risk to the Italian banking system, and thus, the risks to Rome’s fiscal sustainability. This implies that the decline in Italian borrowing costs could deepen (Chart 4), further easing Italian financial conditions and improving the growth outlook in the euro area’s third-largest economy. Chart 4Easing Financial Conditions In Italy France, too, has had its fair share of problems, though it is interesting that its industrial sector is not suffering as much as Germany’s, as highlighted by a French manufacturing PMI above the 50 boom/bust line. Instead, the French service sector is the one contracting (Chart 5). This bifurcation is likely to be a byproduct of the gilets jaunes protests that have lasted since November 2018 and affected retail trade. However, the intensity of the protests is declining and the French population is getting used to this. As a result, we are seeing a rebound in French household confidence, which implies that consumption, the main engine of French growth, is likely to perk up. Chart 5Fade The Gilets Jaunes, Paris In Spring Is Beautiful Finally, euro area fiscal policy is set to be loosened this year, with the fiscal thrust moving from 0.05% of GDP to 0.4% of GDP (Chart 6). The response of French President Emmanuel Macron to the gilets jaunes protests could even make the fiscal policy support slightly bigger this year. Chart 6Positive Fiscal Thrust In 2019 Ultimately, this combination of factors suggests that the large dip in European industrial production is likely to prove transitory, and that European activity will revert back toward the levels implied by the Belgian Business Confidence Index, which has historically been a good leading indicator of European growth (Chart 7). Chart 7European IP To Follow Brussels' Mood Bottom Line: The deterioration in European growth has captured the imagination of investors. However, the performance of European assets last year forewarned that growth would decelerate meaningfully. What matters now is how growth will evolve. Developments from Germany, France, Italy, the credit channel and the fiscal front all suggest that European activity will perk up soon. It’s All Relative While getting a sense of European growth is important when making a call on EUR/USD, economic trends must also be considered relative to the U.S. Surprisingly, despite notorious European growth underperformance, rays of hope are emerging. A major structural negative for EUR/USD has abated: The European debt crisis is behind us, and the aggregate European banking sector has been getting healthier, albeit slowly. This means that the euro area credit growth is not declining anymore against that of the U.S. This is a very long-term force that dictates multi-year cycles in the EUR/USD. As Chart 8 shows, it will be difficult for EUR/USD to move below 1.10 so long as the broad trend in the relative credit growth does not weaken anew. Chart 8Credit Dynamics Suggest That The Worst Is Over For EUR/USD More immediately, the euro area leading economic indicator relative to the U.S. is forming a bottom (Chart 9). Since the U.S. is not benefiting from as large a fiscal boost as in 2018, and financial as well as monetary conditions have tightened there relative to Europe, this suggests the improvement in the euro area relative LEI could continue this year. Chart 9Bottoming European LEI Versus U.S. Relative labor market slack is also evolving in a euro-friendly fashion. From 2013 to 2018, the euro area suffered from greater labor market slack than the U.S., courtesy of a double-dip recession and generally more-moribund growth. However, thanks to a 4.2-percentage-point fall in the European unemployment rate since 2013 to 7.9%, the euro area unemployment gap has not only closed, it is also below that of the U.S. Historically, when the U.S. unemployment gap leapfrogs that of Europe, EUR/USD tends to appreciate (Chart 10). Chart 10Less Slack Leads To A Stronger EUR/USD Relative slack does not only have value in itself, it also matters for relative inflation trends, which have been a crucial determinant of EUR/USD. As Chart 11 illustrates, EUR/USD tends to follow how euro area core CPI evolves relative to the U.S. After sharply falling last year, European relative core inflation is trying to rebound, which at a minimum suggests that EUR/USD has limited downside. Moreover, EUR/USD has correlated positively with German market-based inflation expectations (Chart 11, bottom panel). This suggests that actual relative inflation as well as euro area inflation expectations play a key role in determining perceptions among investors of how ECB policy will evolve relative to the Federal Reserve. Chart 11EUR/USD Trades Off Of Inflation Dynamics The recent euro decline has matched the decline in inflation expectations. However, inflation expectations have been much weaker than implied by the level of wage growth in Europe (Chart 12). This suggests that European inflation breakevens have scope to improve, a positive for the euro. Moreover, European wage growth is not only picking up steam in isolation, it is also rising relative to the U.S., which highlights that European inflation should not just stabilize vis-à-vis the U.S., but also accelerate. Chart 12European Wages Point To Rising Inflation Expectations This case is made even more saliently by looking at relative financial conditions. Due to the tightening in U.S. financial conditions compared to the euro area, European headline and core inflation is set to accelerate relative to the U.S. (Chart 13). Again, this reinforces the case that maybe the euro has upside this year. Chart 13Relative Euro Area Inflation Will Rise Thanks To Easier FCI Ultimately, for the euro to rise, investors will have to begin pricing in some switch in policy spreads between the ECB and the Fed. In the past, we showed that short-term policy expectations are important, but long-term ones can be even more relevant, especially when a central bank is well along the path of lifting rates, as the Fed is, while the other remains at maximum accommodation, like the ECB is today.1  Currently, investors expect euro area short rates to be only 0.5% 5-years from now (Chart 14, top panel). The spread between the eurozone and U.S. 5-year forward 1-month OIS rates remains near all-time lows, which explains the weakness in the euro. Now that European policy is much more accommodative than the U.S.’s, there’s scope for investors to upgrade the path of long-term euro area rates relative to the U.S. This would be bullish for the euro (Chart 14, bottom panel). Recovering relative credit flows and improving relative slack and inflation dynamics could catalyze this change. Chart 14The ECB Is Never Raising Rates Bottom Line: To make the euro an attractive buy, European growth and inflation conditions cannot just increase, they need to improve relative to the U.S. Since long-term interest rate expectations are very depressed in Europe relative to the U.S., a small improvement in the relative growth profile could be enough to catalyze a repricing of the ECB vis-à-vis the Fed, creating a powerful tailwind behind the euro. Nothing Happens In A Vacuum Ultimately, exchange rates, like other prices in the economy, do not only respond to domestic determinants but are also influenced by much larger, global forces. This is because those global trends percolate through domestic economies, resulting in changing relative expected returns that drive money across borders, leading to currency movements. In the case of the euro, global growth matters a lot, because European growth is much more sensitive to global economic fluctuations than U.S. growth is. This is particularly true if shocks emanate from emerging markets (Chart 15). Today, global cyclical variables are increasingly pointing toward an end to the global growth slowdown. A stabilization and reacceleration in global activity would support the euro. First, Chinese monetary conditions have begun to ease, which historically tends to be linked with improvements in European growth relative to the U.S. (Chart 16). Questions remain surrounding this point: How durable will the rebound in Chinese credit be? By how much will Chinese policymakers nurture this bounce? And will this jump be large enough to lift economic activity in the Middle Kingdom? Nonetheless, a reflationary wind from China has begun to blow, and since investors have already discounted much bad news out of Europe, only small improvements could turn the euro around.   Chart 16If China Is Really Stimulating, Europe Will Rip A Greater Dividend Second, as Chart 17 shows, our Nowcast for global industrial activity has decisively stepped down. Yet, the countercyclical dollar has been flat since October 2018. Historically, the performance of EM carry trades funded in yen tends to lead global growth. Currently the performance of these strategies is stabilizing. If EM carry trades funded in yen can rally further, this will spell trouble for the greenback, helping the euro – the anti-dollar – in the process. Chart 17An Early Positive For Global Growth Third, EUR/USD tends to correlate with the relative performance of global cyclical equities (Chart 18). The stabilization in these sectors since 2015 suggests it will be difficult for the euro to fall further from current levels. In fact, if EM carry trades can rebound more, cyclicals have additional scope to outperform, and the euro could rally. Chart 18Cyclical Stocks Pointing To No Real Downside In EUR/USD Fourth, the prospects for the semiconductor sector are improving. Demand for semis is highly pro-cyclical, and the U.S. Chip Stock Timing Model developed by our U.S. Equity Strategy service colleagues is currently sending a bullish signal.2 Since such developments link to improving global growth prospects, they are also associated with a stronger EUR/USD (Chart 19). This is also consistent with a generally weaker dollar and stronger Asian currencies. Chart 19The Outlook For Semiconductors Point Toward A Stronger Euro And A Weaker Dollar Finally, the breakout in copper prices, the stabilization in the CRB Raw Industrials Index and the rally in gold prices all support an improving global growth outlook that could lift EUR/USD. Bottom Line: Various indicators, such as Chinese monetary conditions, EM carry trades, semiconductor demand determinants and commodity prices are suggesting that global growth may soon bottom. Such a development should hurt the countercyclical dollar, amounting to a macro tailwind for EUR/USD. The Bad News Is Priced In Ultimately, the capacity of EUR/USD to rally rests on how much investors upgrade their outlook for Europe. It is therefore crucial to get a sense of exactly how uninspiring Europe currently is to global market participants. There is no better gauge of relative economic pessimism than the price of euro area financial assets relative to U.S. ones. Essentially, money talks. On this front, markets already seem to have internalized the known bad news from Europe, and there is scope for a contrarian rally in the euro, especially if, as we expect, European economic activity improves. First, on a 12-month forward P/E ratio basis, euro area equities are trading at the kind of deep discount to U.S. stocks normally symptomatic of a trough in relative sentiment toward Europe. Such a discount is often followed by a rally in EUR/USD (Chart 20). Chart 20Stock Valuations: Investors Do Not Like Europe Second, retailers’ equities can often give a more focused assessment of how investors perceive the comparative outlook for domestic demand between two nations. Currently, euro area retailers trade at a 16-year low versus their U.S. counterparts (Chart 21). Investors are therefore much more ebullient about the prospects for U.S. domestic demand than in Europe. Interestingly, the euro’s gyrations since 2016 have tracked the direction of the relative performance of retailers but have diverged in terms of levels. This suggests some underlying support for the currency. Chart 21Can European Domestic Demand Really Validate Such Pessimistic Expectations? Third, the relative stock-to-bond ratio also often provides a good read on investors’ comparative economic euphoria/pessimism towards two nations. In 2018, the annual performance of the euro area stock-to-bond ratio relative to the U.S. collapsed to levels not recorded since the euro area crisis was at its apex (Chart 22). This further confirms that investors were massively depressed on European growth prospects relative to the U.S. While this indicator is rebounding, it is still in negative territory, implying that market participants still have room to upgrade their assessment of the euro area relative to the U.S. Historically, this kind of setup has been associated with a rebound in the EUR/USD. Chart 22The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Points To Some Upside Potential Fourth, European net earnings revisions relative to the U.S. have also hit bombed-out levels and are in the process of improving. Since earnings are tightly linked to global growth and reflect the same information that informs capital flows into a country (Chart 23), sell-side analysts becoming more positive on Europe at the margin could indicate that investors are in the process of re-assessing whether to buy European assets. A decision to do so would support EUR/USD. Chart 23When The Sell-Side Move From Deeply To Mildly Bearish, EUR/USD Rallies Bottom Line: Financial market pricing suggests that investors are displaying deep pessimism toward the euro area’s relative growth prospects. The euro could be a contrarian buy. Most importantly, there are early signs that this growth pricing is starting to move in favor of Europe. If our economic view on Europe and global growth is correct, this trend has further to go, implying that more capital could move into Europe, creating a potent tailwind for EUR/USD. What Else? Three additional factors need to be considered: Currency valuations, balance-of-payment dynamics, and technicals. First, while it is not as cheap as it once was, the real trade-weighted euro is still trading below its historical average (Chart 24). Purchasing-power considerations can rarely be used as a timing tool, but our confidence in the euro’s upside would be greatly dented if the euro were a very expensive currency. It is not even mildly pricey. Chart 24Euro Valuations: No Headwinds There Second, balance-of-payment considerations have become increasingly euro-positive. The euro area runs a current account surplus of 3.3% of GDP, and despite large FDI outflows – a natural consequence of being a savings-rich economy – the basic balance of payments remains in surplus. Moreover, as fixed-income outflows have been dissipating, the aggregate portfolio flows into Europe have also been improving (Chart 25). The end of the ECB’s Asset Purchase Program should solidify this trend. Chart 25The Euro Area Balance Of Payments Is Increasingly Favorable Finally, technical oscillators are behaving increasingly well. As Chart 26 shows, not only does our Intermediate-Term Indicator remains oversold, but also, it is has begun to form a positive divergence with the price of EUR/USD. If the economic outlook is becoming more bullish, such a technical setup can often be translated into significant gains. Chart 26EUR/USD: Oversold And A Positive Divergence Is Forming Bottom Line: The euro’s valuation is not as attractive as it once was, but it remains cheap. Moreover, the euro area’s balance-of-payment dynamics and the EUR/USD’s technical setup both suggest the timing is increasingly ripe to buy the euro against the dollar. Investment Conclusions A trough in European growth, improving growth and inflation prospects relative to the U.S., green shoots for global growth and deep pessimism toward Europe relative to the U.S. all argue that the timing is right to bet on a euro rebound. At this point, the durability of the euro rebound remains unclear. Investors are under-appreciating the ability of the Fed to raise rates this year, which could help the dollar. On the other hand, they seem even more sanguine toward the ECB ever lifting rates. Ultimately, the capacity of the euro to rebound on a long-term basis against the dollar will be constrained by global growth. This means that China will continue to play a center-stage role for this crucial FX pair. At this point, it is unclear how determined Chinese policymakers are to reflate their economy. Thus, we recommend investors monitor Chinese policy to gauge how long to stay in the euro. For the time being, enough pieces are falling into place to warrant buying EUR/USD for three to six months. However, if the Chinese credit impulse can continue on its recent rebound, the durability of a euro rally could be extended, implying that the euro may be in the process of forming a long-term bottom against the dollar. A strengthening euro should support the entire European currency complex against the dollar. In fact, the NOK, the SEK and the GBP may even outperform the EUR. The NOK is being boosted by rising oil prices, a more hawkish central bank, better valuations and an even healthier balance of payments. The SEK is also supported by a Riksbank that is slightly more hawkish than the ECB, and better valuations; it also benefits from a Swedish economy that is even more pro-cyclical than the euro area’s. The GBP also benefits from a greater valuation discount than the euro, and political developments in the U.K. are beginning to move toward a more clear-cut positive outcome on the Brexit front.3 The countercyclical and expensive CHF will prove the European laggard. Finally, EUR/JPY is also set to continue its rebound that began on January 4th. In fact, it may be one of the best vehicles to express a euro-bullish view because it is less sensitive to what the Fed does than EUR/USD is. Rising bond yields are an unmitigated positive for EUR/JPY, and BCA firmly believes that U.S. Treasury yields have upside, whether or not the Fed goes back to lifting rates. The Fed will mostly impact whether it is the real or inflation component that lifts Treasury yields. Bottom Line: The entire European currency complex is set to rise along with the euro against the greenback. In fact, the NOK, the SEK and the GBP are likely to outperform the euro, while the CHF should underperform. EUR/JPY may in fact offer the best risk-adjusted returns to play a euro rebound. While it is clear that at this moment that buying the euro makes sense, the principal risk lies around how long this rally will last. We are increasingly convinced that the euro has made a low for the cycle and that its long-term outlook is looking increasingly bright.  Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the EUR/USD: Focus On The Western Shores Of The Atlantic section of the Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert: EM/JPY Carry Trades”, dated December 1, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Reflationary Or Recessionary”, dated February 25, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Why A Catastrophic No-Deal Might Be Good… For The EU”, dated February 28, 2019, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades