Geopolitics

Special Report

Brief Market Overview The S&P 500 convulsed last week, as a slew of weaker-than-expected data shattered investors’ confidence in the longevity of the business and profit cycles. Importantly, both ISM surveys declined month-over-month, arguing that the manufacturing sector’s ails are infecting services industries (second panel, Chart 1). Chart 1The U.S. Dollar Is The Key Indicator To Monitor The “In Fed We Trust” doctrine will get severely tested in upcoming weeks. The Federal Reserve’s reaction function to the poor data took center stage with bond investors pricing a 75% probability of a rate cut in late October. However, our four factor EPS growth model continues to predict that earnings will remain weak for the rest of 2019 (not shown). Thus, next year’s 10% EPS growth is wishful thinking and profit growth will begin to bottom in Q1/2020 at the earliest. Absent profit growth, stocks will have to face reality and continue to drift lower. Importantly, the U.S. dollar – the great reflator – is the key determinant of both profit and global economic growth in coming quarters. The third panel of Chart 1 shows that currently that are no advanced economy central banks that have a policy rate higher than the Fed. Historically, this has been U.S. dollar bullish and has weighed on SPX momentum (trade-weighted U.S. dollar shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 1). It remains to be seen if aggressive Fed easing can change this relationship, stave off recession and engineer a soft landing. U.S. Equity Strategy’s view remains intact that things will get worse before they get better and therefore a cautious overall U.S. equity market stance is still warranted on a cyclical 9-12 month time horizon. NIPA VS. SPX Profit Margins On the eve of earnings season, we decided to delve deeper into corporate profits and margins, and tally where we are in the cycle, specifically with regard to profit margin drivers. To start off, we compare overall economy profits, as measured by the NIPA accounts, with SPX earnings (Chart 2). While a lot of ink has been spent on this topic and the differences between these two profit measures are more or less well recognized and understood, Kenneth A. Petrick’s commentary on the issue is worth re-reading. Without going into much detail, according to Petrick four key reasons explain the differences between NIPA and S&P 500 profits: “coverage, changing shares, industry representation and accounting principles”.1 What interests us is the leading property of NIPA profits. Importantly, NIPA profits have peaked in advance of SPX earnings in the previous three cycles. Economy-wide profits may have already peaked this cycle, warning that the SPX earnings juggernaut is long in the tooth (top panel, Chart 2). Chart 2Earnings Fatigue Given that NIPA profits include a broader universe of firms, small and medium enterprise (SME) profits are weighing on the overall NIPA number. The recent drubbing in economically hypersensitive S&P 400 (mid-caps) and S&P 600 (small-caps) profit estimates confirms this SME profit deterioration and forewarns that SPX profits are likely running out of fuel. While the SPX has not cracked yet courtesy of the heavyweight S&P software index, the Value Line Arithmetic (VLA, gauging the average stock) and Value Line Geometric (VLG, gauging the median stock) indexes appear to have peaked and correspond better to the NIPA profits as these indexes are broad-based are not market capitalization weighted (bottom panel, Chart 3). Chart 3Top Chart Of The Year Worryingly for the S&P 500, the VLG index is an excellent leading indicator of the SPX. Based on empirical evidence, it has led the SPX tops in the past three cycles, making it a serious contender for our “Chart Of The Year” award (top panel, Chart 3). Not only have NIPA profits likely crested, but NIPA profit margins are in steep retreat and have definitively peaked. Similar to earnings, NIPA margins lead SPX profit margins (top panel, Chart 4). Importantly, the delta between the two margin gauges is surprisingly wide. This margin gap now sits nearly three standard deviations above the historical mean and has only been wider during the dotcom bubble (bottom panel, Chart 4). Our sense is that such an acute divergence is unsustainable and will likely narrow via a mean reversion in SPX margins. Chart 4Mind The Gap Primary Margin Drivers Taking a deeper dive into traditional margin drivers is instructive. We use SPX margins since 1960 and prior to that we have used reconstructed SPX earnings divided by U.S. GDP (gauging SPX sales) to recreate a longer-term equity market profit margin proxy. The primary net-profit margin drivers are: Interest rates, Tax rates, Labor costs / Globalization, And corporate pricing power. Globalization has been another significant profit margin booster in the U.S. As countries are more outward looking, trade flourishes and openness to trade allows the free flow of capital to take advantage of profit maximizing projects. The bond bull market since the early 1980s has been a clear contributor to the secular advance in profits margins. Interest rates cut both ways and the big rise in long-term bond yields post World War II ate into margins. If the bond bull market is ending, then interest rates will start eating into margins anew (interest rates shown inverted, top panel, Chart 5). Intuitively, taxes and margins are also inversely correlated (tax rate shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 5). Following the 2018 fiscal easing package, the effective corporate tax rate is now hovering in the mid-teens and explains the jump to all-time highs in SPX margins. We doubt corporate tax rates will drop further. At best, taxes will be margin-neutral in the coming years. Rising labor input costs squeeze margins and declining wages boost corporate profit margins. While labor’s share of income tentatively peaked in 1980, the late-1990s is this series’ ultimate peak and since then, it has been in a steady decline (employee compensation shown inverted, second panel, Chart 5). This labor input cost suppression has likely run its course and given that the U.S. economy is at full employment, wage inflation should also start denting margins. Globalization has been another significant profit margin booster in the U.S. As countries are more outward looking, trade flourishes and openness to trade allows the free flow of capital to take advantage of profit maximizing projects. Following the end of the Great Recession and similar to the Great Depression, de-globalization has commenced (third panel, Chart 5). Chart 5Primary... Clearly, the Sino-U.S. war has accentuated and accelerated the inward movement of countries including Korea and Japan, and has had negative knock on effects on trade as evidenced by the now nearly two-year old global growth deceleration. The longer the U.S./China trade war remains unresolved, the deeper the cracks in the foundations of global trade. Such a backdrop is negative for profit margins, as inward looking countries prevent capital from being allocated most efficiently. Moreover, the uprooting of supply chains due to the trade war hurts margins and the redeployment of equipment in different jurisdictions will weigh on margins at a time when final demand suffers a setback. Corporate pricing power is deteriorating, which will negatively impact profit margins, given that they are joined at the hip. The current global manufacturing recession is wreaking havoc on selling prices around the world as a number of countries are experiencing outright producer price deflation. To compete, the U.S. corporate sector is doomed to suffer the same fate, which is depressing our Corporate Pricing Power proxy, an indicator composed of 60 top-down sector price series (bottom panel, Chart 6). Chart 6...And Secondary Profit Margin Drivers Secondary Margin Drivers The ability of the overall corporate sector to lift prices is largely a function of firming final demand (i.e. volumes) and a falling greenback for the 40% of SPX sales that are international. This leads us to two secondary profit margin drivers: The trade-weighted U.S. dollar, And the yield curve. The ability of the overall corporate sector to lift prices is largely a function of firming final demand (i.e. volumes) and a falling greenback for the 40% of SPX sales that are international. Thus, not only is S&P 500 revenue growth and the trade-weighted U.S. dollar tightly inversely correlated, but also the same holds true for the greenback and profit margins (U.S. dollar shown inverted, top panel, Chart 6). Given that the U.S. dollar refuses to fall and is breaking out according to some Federal Reserve trade-weighted indexes, the path of least resistance for profit margins points south. The yield curve is related to the primary “interest rate” driver discussed above, but its most important signal concerns the business cycle. Empirically, profit margins mean revert at the onset of recession (yield curve shown advanced, middle panel, Chart 6). As a reminder, parts of the yield curve inverted last December, signaling that a corporate profit margin squeeze is looming. Income Inequality And Margins Finally, we make an interesting geopolitical observation. Rising profit margins are synonymous with wealth accruing to the top 1% of U.S. families and vice versa. This relationship dates back to the late-1920s, as far back as our dataset goes. Using Piketty and Saez data excluding capital gains it is clear that profit margin expansion accentuates income inequality (Chart 7).2 Chart 7Income Inequality And Margins Rising profit margins lead to rising profits. Because families at the top of the income distribution are more often than not business owners, income disparities are the widest when margins are in overshoot territory. Eventually this income chasm comes to a head and potentially explains the rise of populism. Income re-distribution is therefore a rising probability event in the coming decades.3 Bottom Line: Unequivocally, all six key drivers we have identified (interest rates, tax rates, labor costs / globalization, corporate pricing power, yield curve and the U.S. dollar) are firing warning shots that profit margins have peaked and a “catch down” phase of SPX margins to NIPA margins is in store in the coming quarters.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      https://apps.bea.gov/scb/pdf/national/niparel/2001/0401cpm.pdf 2      https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2017.xls 3      Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?” dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights The Cold War is a limited analogy for the U.S.-China conflict; In a multipolar world, complete bifurcation of trade is difficult if not impossible; History suggests that trade between rivals will continue, with minimal impediments; On a secular horizon, buy defense stocks, Europe, capex, and non-aligned countries. Feature There is a growing consensus that China and the U.S. are hurtling towards a Cold War. BCA Research played some part in this consensus – at least as far as the investment community is concerned – by publishing “Power and Politics in East Asia: Cold War 2.0?” in September 2012.1 For much of this decade, Geopolitical Strategy focused on the thesis that geopolitical risk was rotating out of the Middle East, where it was increasingly irrelevant, to East Asia, where it would become increasingly relevant. This thesis remains cogent, but it does not mean that a “Silicon Curtain” will necessarily divide the world into two bifurcated zones of capitalism. Trade, capital flows, and human exchanges between China and the U.S. will continue and may even grow. But the risk of conflict, including a military one, will not decline. In this report, we first review the geopolitical logic that underpins Sino-American tensions. We then survey the academic literature for clues on how that relationship will develop vis-à-vis trade and economic relations. The evidence from political theory is surprising and highly investment relevant. We then look back at history for clues as to what this means for investors. Our conclusion is that it is highly likely that the U.S. and China will continue to be geopolitical rivals. However, due to the geopolitical context of multipolarity, it is unlikely that the result will be “Bifurcated Capitalism.” Rather, we expect an exciting and volatile environment for investors where geopolitics takes its historical place alongside valuation, momentum, fundamentals, and macroeconomics in the pantheon of factors that determine investment opportunities and risks. The Thucydides Trap Is Real … Speaking in the Reichstag in 1897, German Foreign Secretary Bernhard von Bülow proclaimed that it was time for Germany to demand “its own place in the sun.”2 The occasion was a debate on Germany’s policy towards East Asia. Bülow soon ascended to the Chancellorship under Kaiser Wilhelm II and oversaw the evolution of German foreign policy from Realpolitik to Weltpolitik. While Realpolitik was characterized by Germany’s cautious balancing of global powers under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Weltpolitik saw Bülow and Wilhelm II seek to redraw the status quo through aggressive foreign and trade policy. Imperial Germany joined a long list of antagonists, from Athens to today’s People’s Republic of China, in the tragic play of human history dubbed the “Thucydides Trap.”3 Chart 1Imperial Overstretch The underlying concept is well known to all students of world history. It takes its name from the Greek historian Thucydides and his seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides explains why Sparta and Athens went to war but, unlike his contemporaries, he does not moralize or blame the gods. Instead, he dispassionately describes how the conflict between a revisionist Athens and established Sparta became inevitable due to a cycle of mistrust. Graham Allison, one of America’s preeminent scholars of international relations, has argued that the interplay between a status quo power and a challenger has almost always led to conflict. In 12 out of the 16 cases he surveyed, actual military conflict broke out. Of the four cases where war did not develop, three involved transitions between countries that shared a deep cultural affinity and a respect for the prevailing institutions.4 In those cases, the transition was a case of new management running largely the same organizational structure. And one of the four non-war outcomes was nothing less than the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S. The fundamental problem for a status quo power is that its empire or “sphere of influence” remains the same size as when it stood at the zenith of power. However, its decline in a relative sense leads to a classic problem of “imperial overstretch.” The hegemonic or imperial power erroneously doubles down on maintaining a status quo that it can no longer afford (Chart 1). The challenger power is not blameless. It senses weakness in the hegemon and begins to develop a regional sphere of influence. The problem is that regional hegemony is a perfect jumping off point towards global hegemony. And while the challenger’s intentions may be limited and restrained (though they often are ambitious and overweening), the status quo power must react to capabilities, not intentions. The former are material and real, whereas the latter are perceived and ephemeral. The challenging power always has an internal logic justifying its ambitions. In China’s case today, there is a sense among the elite that the country is merely mean-reverting to the way things were for many centuries in China’s and Asia’s long history (Chart 2). In other words, China is a “challenger” power only if one describes the status quo as the past three hundred years. It is the “established” power if one goes back to an earlier state of affairs. As such, the consensus in China is that it should not have to pay deference to the prevailing status quo given that the contemporary context is merely the result of western imperialist “challenges” to the established Chinese and regional order. Chart 2China’s Mean Reverting Narrative In addition, China has a legitimate claim that it is at least as relevant to the global economy as the U.S. and therefore deserves a greater say in global governance. While the U.S. still takes a larger share of the global economy, China has contributed 23% to incremental global GDP over the past two decades, compared to 13% for the U.S. (Chart 3). Chart 3The Beijing Consensus Bottom Line: The emerging tensions between China and the U.S. fit neatly into the theoretical and empirical outlines of the Thucydides Trap. We do not see any way for the two countries to avoid struggle and conflict on a secular or forecastable horizon. What does this mean for investors? For one, the secular tailwinds behind defense stocks will persist. But what beyond that? Is the global economy destined to witness complete bifurcation into two armed camps separated by a Silicon Curtain? Will the Alibaba and Amazon Pacts suspiciously glare at each other the way that NATO and Warsaw Pacts did amidst the Cold War? The answer, tentatively, is no. … But It Will Not Lead to Economic Bifurcation President Trump’s aggressive trade policy also fits neatly into political theory, to a point. Realism in political science focuses on relative gains over absolute gains in all relationships, including trade. This is because trade leads to economic prosperity, prosperity to the accumulation of economic surplus, and economic surplus to military spending, research, and development. Two states that care only about relative gains due to rivalry produce a zero-sum game with no room for cooperation. It is a “Prisoner’s Dilemma” that can lead to sub-optimal economic outcomes in which both actors chose not to cooperate. The U.S.-China conflict will not lead to complete bifurcation of the global economy. Diagram 1 illustrates the effects of relative gain calculations on the trade behavior of states. In the absence of geopolitics, demand (Q3) is satisfied via trade (Q3-Q0) due to the inability of domestic production (Q0) to meet it. Diagram 1Trade War In A Bipolar World However, geopolitical externality – a rivalry with another state – raises the marginal social cost of imports – i.e. trade allows the rival to gain more out of trade and “catch up” in terms of geopolitical capabilities. The trading state therefore eliminates such externalities with a tariff (t), raising domestic output to Q1, while shrinking demand to Q2, thus reducing imports to merely Q2-Q1, a fraction of where they would be in a world where geopolitics do not matter. The dynamic of relative gains can also have a powerful pull on the hegemon as it begins to weaken and rethink its originally magnanimous trade relations. As political scientist Duncan Snidal argued in a 1991 paper, When the global system is first set up, the hegemon makes deals with smaller states. The hegemon is concerned more with absolute gains, smaller states are more concerned with relative, so they are tougher negotiators. Cooperative arrangements favoring smaller states contribute to relative hegemonic decline. As the unequal distribution of benefits in favor of smaller states helps them catch up to the hegemonic actor, it also lowers the relative gains weight they place on the hegemonic actor. At the same time, declining relative preponderance increases the hegemonic state’s concern for relative gains with other states, especially any rising challengers. The net result is increasing pressure from the largest actor to change the prevailing system to gain a greater share of cooperative benefits.5 The reason small states are initially more concerned with relative gains is because they are far more concerned with national security than the hegemon. The hegemon has a preponderance of power and is therefore more relaxed about its security needs. This explains why Presidents George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and George Bush Jr. all made “bad deals” with China. Writing nearly thirty years ago, Snidal cogently described the current U.S.-China trade war. Snidal thought he was describing a coming decade of anarchy. But he and fellow political scientists writing in the early 1990s underestimated American power. The “unipolar moment” of American supremacy was not over, it was just beginning! As such, the dynamic Snidal described took thirty years to come to fruition. When thinking about the transition away from U.S. hegemony, most investors anchor themselves to the Cold War as it is the only world they have known that was not unipolar. Moreover the Cold War provides a simple, bipolar distribution of power that is easy to model through game theory. If this is the world we are about to inhabit, with the U.S. and China dividing the whole planet into spheres like the U.S. and Soviet Union, then the paragraph we lifted from Snidal’s paper would be the end of it. America would abandon globalization in totality, impose a draconian Silicon Curtain around China, and coerce its allies to follow suit. But most of recent human history has been defined by a multipolar distribution of power between states, not a bipolar one. The term “cold war” is applicable to the U.S. and China in the sense that comparable military power may prevent them from fighting a full-blown “hot war.” But ultimately the U.S.-Soviet Cold War is a poor analogy for today’s world. In a multipolar world, Snidal concludes, “states that do not cooperate fall behind other relative gains maximizers that cooperate among themselves. This makes cooperation the best defense (as well as the best offense) when your rivals are cooperating in a multilateral relative gains world.” Snidal shows via formal modeling that as the number of players increases from two, relative-gains sensitivity drops sharply.6 The U.S.-China relationship does not occur in a vacuum — it is moderated by the global context. Today’s global context is one of multipolarity. Multipolarity refers to the distribution of geopolitical power, which is no longer dominated by one or two great powers (Chart 4). Europe and Japan, for instance, have formidable economies and military capabilities. Russia remains a potent military power, even as India surpasses it in terms of overall geopolitical power. Chart 4The World Is No Longer Bipolar A multipolar world is the least “ordered” and the most unstable of world systems (Chart 5). This is for three reasons: Chart 5Multipolarity Is Messy Math: Multipolarity engenders more potential “conflict dyads” that can lead to conflict. In a unipolar world, there is only one country that determines norms and rules of behavior. Conflict is possible, but only if the hegemon wishes it. In a bipolar world, conflict is possible, but it must align along the axis of the two dominant powers. In a multipolar world, alliances are constantly shifting and producing novel conflict dyads. Lack of coordination: Global coordination suffers in periods of multipolarity as there are more “veto players.” This is particularly problematic during times of stress, such as when an aggressive revisionist power uses force or when the world is faced with an economic crisis. Charles Kindleberger has argued that it was exactly such hegemonic instability that caused the Great Depression to descend into the Second World War in his seminal The World In Depression.7 Mistakes: In a unipolar and bipolar world, there are a very limited number of dice being rolled at once. As such, the odds of tragic mistakes are low and can be mitigated with complex formal relationships (such as U.S.-Soviet Mutually Assured Destruction, grounded in formal modeling of game theory). But in a multipolar world, something as random as an assassination of a dignitary can set in motion a global war. The multipolar system is far more dynamic and thus unpredictable. In a multipolar world, the U.S. will not be able to exclude China from the global system. Diagram 2 is modified for a multipolar world. Everything is the same, except that we highlight the trade lost to other great powers. The state considering using tariffs to lower the marginal social cost of trading with a rival must account for this “lost trade.” In the context of today’s trade war with China, this would be the sum of all European Airbuses and Brazilian soybeans sold to China in the place of American exports. For China, it would be the sum of all the machinery, electronics, and capital goods produced in the rest of Asia and shipped to the United States. Diagram 2Trade War In A Multipolar World Could Washington ask its allies – Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. – not to take advantage of the lucrative trade (Q3-Q0)-(Q2-Q1) lost due to its trade tiff with China? Sure, but empirical research shows that they would likely ignore such pleas for unity. Alliances produced by a bipolar system produce a statistically significant and large impact on bilateral trade flows, a relationship that weakens in a multipolar context. This is the conclusion of a 1993 paper by Joanne Gowa and Edward D. Mansfield.8 The authors draw their conclusion from an 80-year period beginning in 1905, which captures several decades of global multipolarity. Unless the U.S. produces a wholehearted diplomatic effort to tighten up its alliances and enforce trade sanctions – something hardly foreseeable under the current administration – the self-interest of U.S. allies will drive them to continue trading with China. The U.S. will not be able to exclude China from the global system; nor will China be able to achieve Xi Jinping’s vaunted “self-sufficiency.” A risk to our view is that we have misjudged the global system, just as political scientists writing in the early 1990s did. To that effect, we accept that Charts 1 and 4 do not really support a view that the world is in a balanced multipolar state. The U.S. clearly remains the most powerful country in the world. The problem is that it is also clearly in a relative decline and that its sphere of influence is global – and thus very expensive – whereas its rivals have merely regional ambitions (for the time being). As such, we concede that American hegemony could be reasserted relatively quickly, but it would require a significant calamity in one of the other poles of power. For instance, a breakdown in China’s internal stability alongside the recovery of U.S. political stability. Bottom Line: The trade war between the U.S. and China is geopolitically unsustainable. The only way it could continue is if the two states existed in a bipolar world where the rest of the states closely aligned themselves behind the two superpowers. We have a high conviction view that today’s world is – for the time being – multipolar. American allies will cheat and skirt around Washington’s demands that China be isolated. This is because the U.S. no longer has the preponderance of power that it enjoyed in the last decade of the twentieth and the first decade of the twenty-first century. Insights presented thus far come from formal theory in political science. What does history teach us? Trading With The Enemy In 1896, a bestselling pamphlet in the U.K., “Made in Germany,” painted an ominous picture: “A gigantic commercial State is arising to menace our prosperity, and contend with us for the trade of the world.”9 Look around your own houses, author E.E. Williams urged his readers. “The toys, and the dolls, and the fairy books which your children maltreat in the nursery are made in Germany: nay, the material of your favorite (patriotic) newspaper had the same birthplace as like as not.” Williams later wrote that tariffs were the answer and that they “would bring Germany to her knees, pleading for our clemency.”10 By the late 1890s, it was clear to the U.K. that Germany was its greatest national security threat. The Germany Navy Laws of 1898 and 1900 launched a massive naval buildup with the singular objective of liberating the German Empire from the geographic constraints of the Jutland Peninsula. By 1902, the First Lord of the Royal Navy pointed out that “the great new German navy is being carefully built up from the point of view of a war with us.”11 There is absolutely no doubt that Germany was the U.K.’s gravest national security threat. As a result, London signed in April 1904 a set of agreements with France that came to be known as Entente Cordiale. The entente was immediately tested by Germany in the 1905 First Moroccan Crisis, which only served to strengthen the alliance. Russia was brought into the pact in 1907, creating the Triple Entente. In hindsight, the alliance structure was obvious given Germany’s meteoric rise from unification in 1871. However, one should not underestimate the magnitude of these geopolitical events. For the U.K. and France to resolve centuries of differences and formalize an alliance in 1904 was a tectonic shift — one that they undertook against the grain of history, entrenched enmity, and ideology.12 History teaches us that trade occurs even amongst rivals and during wartime. Political scientists and historians have noted that geopolitical enmity rarely produces bifurcated economic relations exhibited during the Cold War. Both empirical research and formal modeling shows that trade occurs even amongst rivals and during wartime.13 This was certainly the case between the U.K. and Germany, whose trade steadily increased right up until the outbreak of World War One (Chart 6). Could this be written off due to the U.K.’s ideological commitment to laissez-faire economics? Or perhaps London feared a move against its lightly defended colonies in case it became protectionist? These are fair arguments. However, they do not explain why Russia and France both saw ever-rising total trade with the German Empire during the same period (Chart 7). Either all three states were led by incompetent policymakers who somehow did not see the war coming – unlikely given the empirical record – or they simply could not afford to lose out on the gains of trade with Germany to each other. Chart 6The Allies Traded With Germany… Chart 7… Right Up To WWI Chart 8Japan And U.S. Never Downshifted Trade A similar dynamic was afoot ahead of World War Two. Relations between the U.S. and Japan soured in the 1930s, with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. In 1935, Japan withdrew from the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty – the bedrock of the Pacific balance of power – and began a massive naval buildup. In 1937, Japan invaded China. Despite a clear and present danger, the U.S. continued to trade with Japan right up until July 26, 1941, few days after Japan invaded southern Indochina (Chart 8). On December 7, Japan attacked the U.S. A skeptic may argue that precisely because policymakers sleepwalked into war in the First and Second World Wars, they will not (or should not) make the same mistake this time around. First, we do not make policy prescriptions and therefore care not what should happen. Second, we are highly skeptical of the view that policymakers in the early and mid-twentieth century were somehow defective (as opposed to today’s enlightened leaders). Our constraints-based framework urges us to seek systemic reasons for the behavior of leaders. Political science provides a clear theoretical explanation for why London and Washington continued to trade with the enemy despite the clarity of the threat. The answer lies in the systemic nature of the constraint: a multipolar world reduces the sensitivity of policymakers to relative gains by introducing a collective action problem thanks to changing alliances and the difficulty of disciplining allies’ behavior. In the case of U.S. and China, this is further accentuated by President Trump’s strategy of skirting multilateral diplomacy and intense focus on mercantilist measures of power (i.e. obsession with the trade deficit). An anti-China trade policy that was accompanied by a magnanimous approach to trade relations with allies could have produced a “coalition of the willing” against Beijing. But after two years of tariffs and threats against the EU, Japan, and Canada, the Trump administration has already signaled to the rest of the world that old alliances and coordination avenues are up for revision. There are two outcomes that we can see emerging over the course of the next decade. First, U.S. leadership will become aware of the systemic constraints under which they operate, and trade with China will continue – albeit with limitations and variations. However, such trade will not reduce the geopolitical tensions, nor will it prevent a military conflict. In facts, the probability of military conflict may increase even as trade between China and the U.S. remains steady. Second, U.S. leadership will fail to correctly assess that they operate in a multipolar world and will give up the highlighted trade gains from Diagram 2 to economic rivals such as Europe and Japan. Given our methodological adherence to constraint-based forecasting, we highly doubt that the latter scenario is likely. Bottom Line: The China-U.S. conflict is not a replay of the Cold War. Systemic pressures from global multipolarity will force the U.S. to continue to trade with China, with limitations on exchanges in emergent, dual-use technologies that China will nonetheless source from other technologically advanced countries. This will create a complicated but exciting world where geopolitics will cease to be seen as exogenous to investing. A risk to the sanguine conclusion is that the historical record is applicable to today, but that the hour is late, not early. It is already July 26, 1941 – when U.S. abrogated all trade with Japan – not 1930. As such, we do not have another decade of trade between U.S. and China remaining, we are at the end of the cycle. While this is a risk, it is unlikely. American policymakers would essentially have to be willing to risk a military conflict with China in order to take the trade war to the same level they did with Japan. It is an objective fact that China has meaningfully stepped up aggressive foreign policy in the region. But unlike Japan in 1941, China has not outright invaded any countries over the past decade. As such, the willingness of the public to support such a conflict is unclear, with only 21% of Americans considering China a top threat to the U.S. Investment Implications This analysis is not meant to be optimistic. First, the U.S. and China will continue to be rivals even if the economic relationship between them does not lead to global bifurcation. For one, China continues to be – much like Germany in the early twentieth century – concerned with access to external markets on which 19.5% of its economy still depend. China is therefore developing a modern navy and military not because it wants to dominate the rest of the world but because it wants to dominate its near abroad, much as the U.S. wanted to, beginning with the Monroe Doctrine. This will continue to lead to Chinese aggression in the South and East China Seas, raising the odds of a conflict with the U.S. Navy. Given that the Thucydides Trap narrative remains cogent, investors should look to overweight S&P 500 aerospace and defense stocks relative to global equity markets. An alternative way that one could play this thesis is by developing a basket of global defense stocks. Multipolarity may create constraints to trade protectionism, but it engenders geopolitical volatility and thus buoys defense spending. Second, we would not expect another uptick in globalization. Multipolarity may make it difficult for countries to completely close off trade with a rival, but globalization is built on more than just trade between rivals. Globalization requires a high level of coordination among great powers that is only possible under hegemonic conditions. Chart 9 shows that the hegemony of the British and later American empires created a powerful tailwind for trade over the past two hundred years. Chart 9The Apex Of Globalization Is Behind Us The Apex of Globalization has come and gone – it is all downhill from here. But this is not a binary view. Foreign trade will not go to zero. The U.S. and China will not completely seal each other’s sphere of influence behind a Silicon Curtain. Instead, we focus on five investment themes that flow from a world that is characterized by the three trends of multipolarity, Sino-U.S. geopolitical rivalry, and apex of globalization: Europe will profit: As the U.S. and China deepen their enmity, we expect some European companies to profit. There is some evidence that the investment community has already caught wind of this trend, with European equities modestly outperforming their U.S. counterparts whenever trade tensions flared up in 2019 (Chart 10). Given our thesis, however, it is unlikely that the U.S. would completely lose market share in China to Europe. As such, we specifically focus on tech, where we expect the U.S. and China to ramp up non-tariff barriers to trade regardless of systemic pressures to continue to trade. A strategic long in the secularly beleaguered European tech companies relative to their U.S. counterparts may therefore make sense (Chart 11). Chart 10Europe: A Trade War Safe Haven Chart 11Is Europe Really This Incompetent? USD bull market will end: A trade war is a very disruptive way to adjust one’s trade relationship. It opens one to retaliation and thus the kind of relative losses described in this analysis. As such, we expect that U.S. to eventually depreciate the USD, either by aggressively reversing 2018 tightening or by coercing its trade rivals to strengthen their currencies. Such a move will be yet another tailwind behind the diversification away from the USD as a reserve currency, a move that should benefit the euro. Bull market in capex: The re-wiring of global manufacturing chains will still take place. The bad news is that multinational corporations will have to dip into their profit margins to move their supply chains to adjust to the new geopolitical reality. The good news is that they will have to invest in manufacturing capex to accomplish the task. One way to articulate this theme is to buy an index of semiconductor capital companies (AMAT, LRCX, KLAC, MKSI, AEIS, BRIKS, and TER). Given the highly cyclical nature of capital companies, we would recommend an entry point once trade tensions subside and green shoots of global growth appear. “Non-aligned” markets will benefit: The last time the world was multipolar, great powers competed through imperialism. This time around, a same dynamic will develop as countries seek to replicate China’s “Belt and Road Initiative.” This is positive for frontier markets. A rush to provide them with exports and services will increase supply and thus lower costs, providing otherwise forgotten markets with a boon of investments. India, and Asia-ex-China more broadly, stand as intriguing alternatives to China, especially with the current administration aggressively reforming to take advantage of the rewiring of global manufacturing chains. Capital markets will remain globalized: With interest rates near zero in much of the developed world and the demographic burden putting an ever-greater pressure on pension plans to generate returns, the search for yield will continue to be a powerful drive that keeps capital markets globalized. Limitations are likely to grow, especially when it comes to cross-border private investments in dual-use technologies. But a completely bifurcation of capital markets is unlikely. The world we are describing is one where geopolitics will play an increasingly prominent role for global investors. It would be convenient if the world simply divided into two warring camps, leaving investors with neatly separated compartments that enabled them to go back to ignoring geopolitics. This is unlikely. Rather, the world will resemble the dynamic years at the end of the nineteenth century, a rough-and-tumble era that required a multi-disciplinary approach to investing.   Marko Papic, Consulting Editor, BCA Research Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group Marko@clocktowergroup.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?,” September 25, 2012, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think,” October 4, 2013, “The Great Risk Rotation,” December 11, 2013, and “Strategic Outlook 2014 – Stay The Course: EM Risk – DM Reward,” January 23, 2014, “Underestimating Sino-American Tensions,” November 6, 2015, “The Geopolitics Of Trump,” December 2, 2016, “How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia,” March 1, 2017, and others available at gps.bcaresearch.com or upon request. 2 Please see German Historical Institute, “Bernhard von Bulow on Germany’s ‘Place in the Sun’” (1897), available at http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/ 3 See Graham Allison, Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Miffin Harcourt, 2017). 4 The three cases are Spain taking over from Portugal in the sixteenth century, the U.S. taking over from the U.K. in the twentieth century, and Germany rising to regional hegemony in Europe in the twenty-first century. 5 Duncan Snidal, “Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation,” The American Political Science Review, 85:3 (September 1991), pp. 701-726. 6 We do not review Snidal’s excellent game theory formal modeling in this paper as it is complex and detailed. However, we highly encourage the intrigued reader to pursue the study on their own. 7 See Charles P. Kindleberger, The World In Depression, 1929-1939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013). 8 Joanne Gowa and Edward D. Mansfield, “Power Politics and International Trade,” The American Political Science Review, 87:2 (June 1993), pp. 408-420. 9 See Ernest Edwin Williams, Made in Germany (reprint, Ithaca: Cornell University Press), available at https://archive.org/details/cu31924031247830. 10 Quoted in Margaret MacMillan, The War That Ended Peace (Toronto: Allen Lane, 2014). 11 Peter Liberman, “Trading with the Enemy: Security and Relative Economic Gains,” international Security, 21:1 (Summer 1996), pp. 147-175. 12 Although France and Russia overcame even greater bitterness due to the ideological differences between a republic founded on a violent uprising against its aristocracy – France – and an aristocratic authoritarian regime – Russia. 13 See James Morrow, “When Do ‘Relative Gains’ Impede Trade?” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41:1 (February 1997), pp. 12-37; and Jack S. Levy and Katherine Barbieri, “Trading With the Enemy During Wartime,” Security Studies, 13:3 (December 2004), pp. 1-47.

Highlights MARKET FORECASTS Investment Strategy: Markets have entered a “show me” phase. Better economic data and meaningful progress on the trade negotiations will be necessary for stocks to move sustainably higher. We think both preconditions will be realized. Until then, risk assets could come under pressure. Global Asset Allocation: Investors should overweight stocks relative to bonds over a 12-month horizon, but maintain higher-than-normal cash positions in the near term as a hedge against downside risks. Equities: EM and European stocks will outperform once global growth bottoms out. Cyclical sectors, including financials, will also start to outperform defensives when the growth cycle turns. Bonds: Central banks will remain dovish, but yields will nevertheless rise modestly on the back of stronger global growth. Favor high-yield corporate credit over government bonds. Currencies: As a countercyclical currency, the U.S. dollar should peak later this year. Commodities: Oil and industrial metals prices will move higher. Gold prices have entered a holding pattern, but should shine again late next year or in 2021 when inflation finally breaks out. Feature Dear Client, In lieu of this report, I hosted a webcast on Monday, October 7th at 10:00 AM EDT, where I discussed the major investment themes and views I see playing out for the rest of the year and beyond. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist   I. Global Macro Outlook A Testing Phase For The Global Economy The global economy has reached a critical juncture. Growth has been slowing since early 2018, reaching what many would regard as “stall speed.” This is the point where economic weakness begins to feed on itself, potentially triggering a recession. Will the growth slowdown worsen? Our guess is that it won’t. Global financial conditions have eased significantly over the past four months, thanks in part to the dovish pivot by most central banks. Looser financial conditions usually bode well for global growth (Chart 1). Our global leading indicator has hooked up, mainly due to a marginal improvement in emerging markets’ data (Chart 2). Chart 1Easier Financial Conditions Will Boost Global Growth Chart 2Global LEI Has Moved Off Its Lows     An important question is whether the weakness in the manufacturing sector will spread to the much larger services sector. There is some evidence that this is happening, with yesterday’s weaker-than-expected ISM non-manufacturing release being the latest example. Nevertheless, the deceleration in service sector activity has been limited so far (Chart 3). Even in Germany, with its large manufacturing base, the service sector PMI remains in expansionary territory. This is a key difference with the 2001/02 and 2008/09 periods, when service sector activity collapsed in lockstep with manufacturing activity. Chart 3AThe Service Sector Has Softened Less Than Manufacturing (I) Chart 3BThe Service Sector Has Softened Less Than Manufacturing (II) The Drive-By Slowdown If one were to ask most investors the reasons behind the manufacturing slowdown, they would probably cite the trade war or the Chinese deleveraging campaign. These are both valid reasons, but there is a less well-known culprit: autos. According to WardsAuto, global auto sales fell by over 5% in the first half of the year, by far the biggest decline since the Great Recession (Chart 4). Production dropped by even more. Chart 4Weakness In The Auto Sector Has Exacerbated The Manufacturing Downturn Chart 5U.S. Auto Demand Is Recovering   The weakness in the global auto sector reflects a variety of factors. New stringent emission requirements, expiring tax breaks, lagged effects from tighter auto loan lending standards, and trade tensions have all played a role. In addition, the decline in gasoline prices in 2015/16 probably brought forward some automobile purchases. This suggests that the 2015/16 global manufacturing downturn may have helped sow the seeds for the current one. The fact that automobile output is falling faster than sales is encouraging because it means that excess inventories are being worked off. U.S. auto loan lending standards have started to normalize, with banks reporting stronger demand for auto loans in the latest Senior Loan Officer Survey (Chart 5). In China, auto sales have troughed after having declined by as much as 14% earlier this year (Chart 6). The Chinese automobile ownership rate is a fifth of what it is in the U.S., a quarter of what it is in Japan, and a third of what it is in Korea (Chart 7). Given the low starting point, Chinese auto sales are likely to resume their secular uptrend. Chart 6Auto Sector In China Is Finding A Floor Chart 7China: Structural Outlook For Autos Is Bright   The Trade War: Tracking Towards A Détente? Chart 8A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle Manufacturing cycles typically last about three years – 18 months of slowing growth followed by 18 months of rising growth (Chart 8). To the extent that the global manufacturing PMI peaked in the first half of 2018, we should be nearing the end of the current downturn. Of course, much depends on policy developments. As we go to press, high-level negotiations between the U.S. and China have resumed. While it is impossible to predict the outcome of these talks, it does appear that both sides have an incentive to de-escalate the trade conflict. President Trump gets much better marks from voters on his management of the economy than on anything else, including his handling of trade negotiations with China (Chart 9). A protracted trade war would hurt U.S. growth, while weakening the stock market. Both would undermine Trump’s re-election prospects. Chart 9Trump Gets Reasonably High Marks On His Handling Of The Economy, But Not Much Else Chart 10Who Will Win The 2020 Democratic Nomination? China also wants to bolster growth. As difficult as it has been for the Chinese leadership to deal with Donald Trump, trying to secure a trade deal with him after he has been re-elected would be even more challenging. This would especially be the case if Trump thought that the Chinese had tried to sabotage his re-election bid. Even if Trump were to lose the election, it is not clear that China would end up with someone more pliant to deal with on trade matters. Does the Chinese government really want to negotiate over environmental standards and human rights with President Warren, who betting markets now think has a better chance of becoming the Democratic nominee than Joe Biden (Chart 10)? The Democrats’ initiative to impeach President Trump make a trade resolution somewhat more likely. First, it brings attention to Joe Biden’s (and his son’s) own dubious dealings in Ukraine, thus delivering a blow to China’s preferred U.S. presidential candidate. Second, it makes Trump more inclined to want to put the China spat behind him in order to focus his energies on domestic matters. More Chinese Stimulus? Strategically, China has a strong incentive to stimulate its economy in order to prop up growth and gain greater leverage in the trade negotiations. The Chinese credit impulse bottomed in late 2018. The impulse leads Chinese nominal manufacturing output and most other activity indicators by about nine months (Chart 11). So far, the magnitude of China’s credit/fiscal easing has come nowhere close to matching the stimulus that was unleashed on the economy both in 2015/16 and 2008/09. This is partly because the authorities are more worried about excessive debt levels today than they were back then, but it is also because the economy is in better shape. The shock from the trade war has not been nearly as bad as the Great Recession – recall that Chinese exports to the U.S. are only 2.7% of GDP in value-added terms. Unlike in 2015/16, when China lost over $1 trillion in external reserves, capital outflows have remained muted this time around (Chart 12). Chart 11Chinese Stimulus Should Boost Global Growth Chart 12China: No Major Capital Outflows Better-than-expected Chinese PMI data released earlier this week offers a glimmer of hope. Nevertheless, in light of the disappointing August activity numbers, China is likely to increase the pace of stimulus in the coming months. The authorities have already reduced bank reserve requirements. We expect them to cut policy rates further in the coming months. They will also front-load local government bond issuance, which should help boost infrastructure spending. European Growth Should Improve A pickup in global growth will help Europe later this year. Germany, with its trade-dependent economy, will benefit the most. Chart 13Spreads Have Come In Across Southern Europe Chart 14Faster Money Growth Bodes Well For GDP Growth In The Euro Area Falling sovereign spreads should also support Southern Europe (Chart 13). The Italian 10-year spread with German bunds has narrowed by almost a full percentage point since mid-August, taking the Italian 10-year yield down to 0.83%. Greek 10-year bonds are now yielding less than U.S. Treasurys (the Greek manufacturing PMI is currently the strongest in the world). With the ECB back in the market buying sovereign and corporate debt, borrowing rates should remain low. Euro area money growth, which leads GDP growth, has already picked up (Chart 14). Bank lending to the private sector should continue to accelerate. A modest serving of fiscal stimulus will also help. The European Commission estimates that the fiscal thrust in the euro area will increase by 0.5% of GDP in 2019 (Chart 15). Assuming, conservatively, a fiscal multiplier of one, this would boost euro area growth by half a percentage point. Owing to lags between changes in fiscal policy and their impact on the real economy, most of the gains to GDP growth will occur over the remainder of this year and in 2020. Chart 15Euro Area Fiscal Stimulus Will Also Boost Growth Chart 17Brexit Angst: A Case Of Bremorse Chart 16U.K.: Brexit Uncertainty Is Weighing On Growth In the U.K., Brexit uncertainty continues to weigh on growth. U.K. business investment has been especially hard hit (Chart 16). Prime Minister Boris Johnson remains insistent that he will take the U.K. out of the EU with or without a deal at the end of October. We would downplay his bluster. The Supreme Court has already denied his attempt to shutter parliament. The public is having second thoughts about the desirability of Brexit (Chart 17). While we do not have a strong view on the exact plot twists in the Brexit saga, we maintain that the odds of a no-deal Brexit are low. This is good news for U.K. growth and the pound. Japan: Own Goal Recent Japanese data releases have not been encouraging: Machine tool orders declined by 37% year-over-year in August. Exports contracted by over 8%, with imports recording a drop of 12%. The September PMI print exposed further deterioration in manufacturing, with the index falling to 48.9 from 49.3 in August. In addition, industrial production contracted by more than expected in August, falling by 1% month-over-month, and close to 5% year-over-year. The ongoing uncertainty surrounding the U.S.-China trade negotiations, as well as Japan’s own tensions with neighboring South Korea, have also weighed on the Japanese economy. Japanese industrial activity will improve later this year as global growth rebounds. But the government has not helped growth prospects by raising the consumption tax on October 1st. While various offsets will blunt the full effect of the tax hike, it still amounts to unwarranted tightening in fiscal policy. Nominal GDP has barely increased since the early 1990s. What Japan needs are policies that boost nominal income. Such reflationary policies may be the only way to stabilize debt-to-GDP without pushing the economy back into a deflationary spiral.1  The U.S.: Hanging Tough Chart 18U.S. Has A Smaller Share Of Manufacturing Than Most Other Developed Economies The U.S. economy has fared relatively well during the latest global economic downturn, partly because manufacturing represents a smaller share of GDP than in most other economies (Chart 18). According to the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model, real GDP is on track to rise at a trend-like pace of 1.8% in the third quarter (Chart 19). Personal consumption is set to increase by 2.5%, after having grown by 4.6% in the second quarter. Consumer spending should stay robust, supported by rising wage growth. The personal savings rate also remains elevated, which should help cushion households from any adverse shocks (Chart 20).   Chart 19U.S. Growth Has Softened, But Is Still Close To Trend Residential investment finally looks as though it is turning the corner. Housing starts, building permits, and home sales have all picked up. Given the tight relationship between mortgage rates and homebuilding, construction activity should accelerate over the next few quarters (Chart 21). Low inventory and vacancy rates, rising household formation, and reasonable affordability all bode well for the housing market (Chart 22). Chart 20The Savings Rate Has (A Lot Of) Room To Drop, Judging From The Historical Relationship With Wealth Chart 21U.S. Housing Will Rebound Chart 22U.S. Housing: On A Solid Foundation Chart 23U.S. Capex Plans Have Come Off Their Highs, But Are Nowhere Close to Recessionary Levels In contrast to residential investment, business capex continues to be weighed down by the manufacturing recession, a strong dollar, and trade policy uncertainty. Core durable goods orders declined in August. Capex intention surveys have also weakened, although they remain well above recessionary levels (Chart 23). The ISM manufacturing index hit its lowest level since July 2009 in September. The internals of the report were not quite as bad as the headline. The new orders-to-inventories component, which leads the ISM by two months, moved back into positive territory. The weak ISM print also stands in contrast to the more upbeat Markit U.S. manufacturing PMI, which rose to its highest level since April. Statistically, the Markit PMI does a better job of tracking official measures of U.S. manufacturing output, factory orders, and employment than the ISM. Taking everything together, the U.S. economy is likely to see modestly stronger growth later this year, as the global manufacturing recession comes to an end, while strong consumer spending and an improving housing market bolster domestic demand. II. Financial Markets Global Asset Allocation Markets have entered a “show me” phase. Better economic data and meaningful progress on the trade negotiations will be necessary for stocks to move sustainably higher. As such, investors should maintain larger-than-normal cash positions for the time being to guard against downside risks. Chart 24Stocks Will Outperform Bonds If Growth Recovers Fortunately, any pullback in risk asset prices is likely to be temporary. If trade tensions subside and global growth rebounds later this year, as we expect, stocks and spread product should handily outperform government bonds over a 12-month horizon (Chart 24). Admittedly, there are plenty of things that could upend this sanguine 12-month recommendation: Global growth could continue to deteriorate; the trade war could intensify; supply-side shocks could cause oil prices to spike up again; the U.K. could end up leaving the EU in a “hard Brexit” scenario; and last but not least, Elizabeth Warren or some other far-left candidate could end up becoming the next U.S. president. The key question for investors today is whether these risks have been fully discounted in financial markets. We think they have. Chart 25 shows our estimates for the global equity risk premium (ERP), calculated as the difference between the earnings yield and the real bond yield. Our calculations suggest that stocks still look quite cheap compared to bonds. Chart 25AEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (I) Chart 25BEquity Risk Premia Remain Quite High (II) One might protest that the ERP is high only because today’s ultra-low bond yields are reflecting very poor growth prospects. There is some truth to that claim, but not as much as one might think. While trend GDP growth has fallen in the U.S. over the past decade, bond yields have declined by even more. The gap between U.S. potential nominal GDP growth, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, and the 10-year Treasury yield is close to two percentage points, the highest since 1979 (Chart 26). Chart 26Bond Yields Have Fallen More Than Trend Nominal GDP Growth At the global level, trend GDP growth has barely changed since 1980, largely because faster-growing emerging markets now make up a larger share of the global economy (Chart 27). For large multinational companies, global growth, rather than domestic growth, is the more relevant measure of economic momentum. Gauging Future Equity Returns A high ERP simply says that equities are attractive relative to bonds. To gauge the prospective return to stocks in absolute terms, one should look at the absolute level of valuations. Chart 27The Trend In Global Growth Has Remained Steady Thanks To Faster-Growing EM Chart 28S&P 500: All Of The Increase In Margins Has Occurred In The IT Sector As we argued in a recent report entitled “TINA To The Rescue?,”2 the earnings yield can be used as a proxy for the expected real total return on equities. Empirically, the evidence seems to bear this out: Since 1950, the earnings yield on U.S. equities has averaged 6.7%, compared to a real total return of 7.2%. Today, the trailing and forward PE ratio for U.S. stocks stand at 21.1 and 17.4, respectively. Using a simple average of the two as a guide for future returns, U.S. stocks should deliver a long-term real total return of 5.2%. While this is below its historic average, it is still a fairly decent return. One might complain that this calculation overstates prospective equity returns because the U.S. earnings yield is temporarily inflated by abnormally high profit margins. The problem with this argument is that virtually all of the increase in S&P 500 margins has occurred in just one sector: technology. Outside of the tech sector, S&P 500 margins are not far from their historic average (Chart 28). If high IT margins reflect structural changes in the global economy – such as the emergence of “winner take all” companies that benefit from powerful network effects and monopolistic pricing power – they could remain elevated for the foreseeable future.   Regional And Sector Equity Allocation The earnings yield is roughly two percentage points higher outside the U.S., suggesting that non-U.S. stocks will best their U.S. peers over the long haul. In the developed market space, Germany, Spain, and the U.K. appear especially cheap. In the EM realm, China, Korea, and Russia stand out as being very attractively priced (Chart 29). At the sector level, cyclical stocks look more appealing than defensives (Chart 30). Chart 29U.S. Stocks Appear Expensive Compared To Their Peers Chart 31Economic Growth Drives Stocks Over A 12-Month Horizon Chart 30Cyclical Stocks Are More Attractive Than Defensives Chart 32EM And Euro Area Equities Usually Outperform When Global Growth Improves Valuations are useful mainly as a guide to long-term returns. Over a horizon of say, 12 months, cyclical factors – i.e., what happens to growth, interest rates, and exchange rates – matter more (Chart 31). Fortunately, our cyclical views generally line up with our valuation assessment. Stronger global growth, a weaker dollar, and rising commodity prices should benefit cyclical stocks relative to defensives. To the extent that EM and European stock markets have more of a cyclical sector skew than U.S. stocks, the former should end up outperforming (Chart 32). We would put financials on our list of sectors to upgrade by year end once global growth begins to reaccelerate. Falling bond yields have hurt bank profits (Chart 33). The drag on net interest margins should recede as yields start rising. European banks, which currently trade at only 7.6 times forward earnings, 0.6 times book value, and sport a hefty dividend yield of 6.3%, could fare particularly well (Chart 34). Chart 33AHigher Bond Yields And Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials (I) Chart 33BHigher Bond Yields And Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials (II) As Chart 35 illustrates, a bet on financials is similar to a bet on value stocks. Growth has trounced value over the past 12 years, but a bit of respite for value is in order over the next 12-to-18 months. Chart 34European Banks Are Attractive Chart 35Is Value Turning The Corner?   Fixed Income Chart 36AYields Should Rise On Stronger Growth (I) Dovish central banks and, for the time being, still-subdued inflation will help keep government bond yields in check over the next 12 months. Nevertheless, yields will still rise from currently depressed levels on the back of stronger global growth (Chart 36).     Chart 36BYields Should Rise On Stronger Growth (II) Bond yields tend to rise or fall depending on whether central banks adjust rates by more or less than is anticipated (Chart 37). Investors currently expect the Fed to cut rates by another 80 basis points over the next 12 months. While we think the Fed will bring down rates by 25 basis points on October 30th, we do not anticipate any further cuts beyond then. The cumulative 75 basis points in cuts during this easing cycle will be equivalent to the amount of easing delivered during the two mid-cycle slowdowns in the 1990s (1995/96 and 1998). All told, the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield is likely to move back into the low 2% range by the middle of 2020. Chart 37AStronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields (I) Chart 36BStronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields (II) Chart 38U.S. Government Bond Yields Are More Procyclical Than Yields Abroad Unlike U.S. equities, which tend to have a low beta compared to stocks abroad, U.S. bonds possess a high beta. This means that U.S. Treasury yields usually rise more than yields abroad when global bond yields, in aggregate, are increasing, and fall more than yields abroad when global bond yields are decreasing (Chart 38).  Moreover, U.S. Treasurys currently yield less than other bond markets once currency-hedging costs are taken into account (Table 1). If U.S. yields were to rise more than those abroad over the next 12-to-18 months, this would further detract from Treasury returns. As a result, investors should underweight Treasurys within a global government bond portfolio. Stronger global growth should keep corporate credit spreads at bay. Lending standards for U.S. commercial and industrial loans have moved back into easing territory, which is usually bullish for corporate credit (Chart 39). According to our U.S. bond strategists, high-yield corporate spreads, and to a lesser extent, Baa-rated investment-grade spreads, are still wider than is justified by the economic fundamentals (Chart 40).3 Better-rated investment-grade bonds, in contrast, offer less relative value. Table 1Bond Markets Across The Developed World Chart 39Easier Lending Standards Bode Well For Corporate Credit Chart 40U.S. Corporates: Focus On Baa And High-Yield Credit     Looking beyond the next 18 months, there is a high probability that inflation will start to move materially higher. The unemployment rate across the G7 has fallen to a multi-decade low (Chart 41). The share of developed economies that have reached full employment has hit a new cycle high (Chart 42). For all the talk about how the Phillips curve is dead, wage growth has remained tightly correlated with labor market slack (Chart 43). Chart 41Unemployment Rates Keep Trending Lower Chart 42Developed Markets: Full Employment Reaching New Cycle Highs Chart 43The Phillips Curve Is Alive And Well As wages continue to rise, prices will start to move up, potentially setting off a wage-price spiral. The Fed, and eventually other central banks, will have to start raising rates at that point. Once interest rates move into restrictive territory, equities will fall and credit spreads will widen. A global recession could ensue in 2022. Currencies And Commodities Chart 44The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency The U.S. dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it tends to move in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 44). We do not have a strong near-term view on the direction of the dollar at the moment, but expect the greenback to begin to weaken by year end as global growth starts to rebound. EUR/USD should increase to around 1.13 by mid-2020. GBP/USD will rise to 1.29. USD/CNY will move back to 7. USD/JPY is likely to be flat, reflecting the yen’s defensive nature and the drag on Japanese growth from the consumption tax hike. The trade-weighted dollar will continue to depreciate until late-2021, after which time a more aggressive Fed and a slowdown in global growth will cause the dollar to rally anew. During the period in which the dollar is weakening, commodity prices will move higher (Chart 45). Chart 45Dollar Weakness Is A Boon For Commodities BCA’s commodity strategists are particularly bullish on oil over a 12-month horizon (Chart 46). They see Brent crude prices rising to $70/bbl by the end of this year and averaging $74/bbl in 2020 based on the expectation that stronger global growth and production discipline will drive down oil inventory levels. OPEC spare capacity – the difference between what the cartel is capable of producing and what it is actually producing – is currently below its historic average (Chart 47). Crude oil reserves have also been trending lower within the OECD. Saudi Arabia’s own reserves have fallen by over 40% since peaking in 2015 (Chart 48). Chart 46Supply Deficit To Continue Chart 47Limited Availability Of Spare Capacity To Offset Outages Chart 48Key Strategic Petroleum Reserves Higher oil prices should benefit currencies such as the Canadian dollar, Norwegian krone, Russian ruble and Colombian peso. Finally, a few words on gold. We closed our long gold trade on August 29th for a 20-week gain of 20.5%. We still see gold as an excellent long-term hedge against higher inflation. In the near term, however, rising bond yields may take the wind out of gold’s sails, even if a weaker dollar does help bullion at the margin. We will reinitiate our long gold position towards the end of next year or in 2021 once inflation begins to break out.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Are High Debt Levels Deflationary Or Inflationary?” dated February 15, 2019. 2Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “TINA To The Rescue?” dated August 23, 2019. 3Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed,” dated September 17, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

The price differential at which Canadian heavy-sour crude trades to the North American benchmark WTI will be pushed to -$20/bbl into 1Q20, as transportation constraints continue to slow the marginal barrel’s egress from Alberta. Increasing demand for low-sulfur distillate fuels as global marine-fuel standards tighten under IMO 2020 regulations next year also will contribute to weaker Canadian crude oil prices. Over the next three to five years, domestic politics will determine whether the Canadian oil industry will be able to attract the investment needed for growth. And that will depend on how uncertainty around pipeline expansion is resolved. Allowing pipeline capacity to expand so that more crude can be shipped south could lead to a significant rebound in Canadian producers’ equity valuations. The industry’s breakeven costs now are on either side of $50/bbl for heavy oil delivered at Cushing, OK. As light-sweet production in the U.S. shales rises, the demand for the relatively scarce, heavier crude likely will pick up, redounding to the benefit of Canadian producers. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Operations at Saudi Aramco’s Abqaiq crude oil processing facility and the Khurais oil field were largely restored by the end of September, in line with management guidance. Capacity in the Kingdom is at 11.3mm b/d, while production is running at 9.9mm b/d. Abqaiq and Khurais were attacked by drone and cruise missiles, an operation the U.S. and Saudi Arabia believe was orchestrated by Iran. On Sunday, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, speaking on CBS News’s 60 Minutes, agreed with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s characterization of the attack as an act of war by Iran, and warned, “If the world does not take a strong and firm action to deter Iran, we will see further escalations that will threaten world interests. Oil supplies will be disrupted and oil prices will jump to unimaginably high numbers that we haven't seen in our lifetimes.” In the interview with Norah O’Donnell, he followed that up with a declaration that the Kingdom prefers “a political and peaceful solution” to resolve its issues with Iran. The crown prince, striking a conciliatory tone, said President Donald Trump and the Kingdom are seeking peace, but that “the Iranians don’t want to sit down at the table.”1 Base Metals: Neutral. China’s steel output rose 9.3% y/y in August to 87.3k MT, according to the World Steel Association (WSA). This was 56% of global output, based on WSA data. Chinese output reached a record 89.1k MT in May. Precious Metals: Neutral. Precious metals' prices collapsed as the broad trade-weighed USD surged earlier this week. Platinum prices were down 5.5% from Friday's close by Tuesday, while gold and silver were down 1.3% and 2%, respectively. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Corn and soybean prices surged earlier in the week in the wake of a bullish USDA stocks report.  December corn was up 5.7%, while beans were up 4.1%.  Feature Canadian heavy oil demand is running strong in Asia, as seen in the surge of exports via the U.S. Gulf over the May-to-mid-September period. By ClipperData’s reckoning, 16mm barrels of Canadian crude were shipped over that period, more than doubling the entire volume shipped to Asia in 2018.2 Canadian demand is being boosted by the collapse of Venezuela’s oil industry, which has removed some 1.5mm b/d of heavy crude from the market since 2016. While Canadian exports into Asia markets are surging, the pick-up in this demand hints at an even greater opportunity if north-to-south pipeline capacity is expanded. Year-to-date exports of Canadian crude to the U.S. are up ~ 2.5% y/y to an average 3.5mm b/d, according to the U.S. EIA. This growth is restrained by slowly expanding export capacity.3 Canadian Oil Takeaway Constraints From 2010 to 2017, Western Canadian oil production grew by an impressive 6.5% p.a., pushing pipeline and storage infrastructure to maximum utilization (Chart of the Week). The development of supporting infrastructure failed to produce the required takeaway capacity, locking bitumen production within the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB). Consequently, Alberta crude oil inventories grew above normal levels and the Western Canadian Select (WCS) discount to Cushing WTI exploded, reaching -$50/bbl in 3Q18. While this incentivized crude-by-rail (CBR) shipments, prices received by Albertan producers fell below $20/bbl, a level significantly below breakeven levels required to sustain investment. Chart of the WeekHeavy Crude Output Surges ... Facing multiple delays in pipeline developments, then-Premier Rachel Notley announced in December the provincial government would impose mandatory oil production restrictions of ~ 325k b/d starting in January 2019. Moreover, her government secured contracts to lease 4,400 rail cars – ~ 120k b/d by mid-2020 – with Canadian National (CN) and Canadian Pacific (CP) to move crude out of the WCSB. The Alberta government’s intervention rapidly distorted the market’s price mechanism. Initially, the government-mandated production curtailment had the desired impact. The transportation component of the WCS-WTI discount began to narrow, and Alberta’s crude inventory started declining (Chart 2). Chart 2... But Infrastructure Lags However, the Alberta government’s intervention rapidly distorted the market’s price mechanism. To be profitable, moving oil by rail requires a WCS-WTI discount that is somewhere between -$12/bbl to -$22/bbl on top of a quality discount, and possibly higher when additional investments in trains and crews are needed (Chart 3). In January 2019, the transportation discount overshot its equilibrium – narrowing to -$2.90/bbl below the quality component – which weakened crude-by-rail volumes and led to a build in inventories. Chart 3Provincial Government Policy Distorts Market's Heavy-Oil Pricing Dynamics The Great Balancing Act To address these imbalances, the provincial government gradually started easing production curtailments (Chart 4). But this is a work in progress: Ultimately, its goal is to find the right balance between production levels and the WCS-WTI spread – i.e. the necessary price incentive for the market to move further crude by rail (CBR). The following projects still are being advanced by developers. However, no significant additional pipeline takeaway capacity is expected before 2H20 (Chart 5): Chart 4Policy Remains A Work In Progress Chart 5Markets Are Attempting To Redress Takeaway Deficit Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement. This pipeline is part of Enbridge Mainline system. This project will restore the original capacity of the existing Line 3 pipeline to 760k b/d from 390k b/d. The replacement runs from Hardisty, AB, to Superior, WI in the U.S. Since its initial announcement in 2014, the project has faced multiple headwinds, most recently, a delay in permits from the State of Minnesota re the impact of a possible oil spill near Lake Superior. The company continues to expect the project will be completed in 2H20. The Canadian and Wisconsin portions are already completed. TC Energy’s Keystone XL. This is the largest of the proposed projects. It will increase Canadian export capacity to the U.S. by 830k b/d. The project was first proposed in 2008, and will run from Hardisty, AB to Steele City, NE. Recently, Nebraska’s Supreme Court approved the Keystone XL route, lifting one of the last remaining – and probably the most important – legal challenges facing the pipeline construction. This is a positive development for Canadian oil producers. Nonetheless, the project is still facing a federal lawsuit in Montana filed by environmental groups blocking President Trump’s new permit, which gave the project a green light. A hearing is scheduled on October 9, this is a crucial win for TC Energy.4 Reaching a Final Investment Decision (FID) before year-end makes a completion by end-2022 possible. Federally-owned Trans Mountain expansion. The initial application was filed in 2013 and is projected to add 590k b/d of capacity from Edmonton, AB, to Burnaby, B.C. The pipeline was bought for $4.5 billion last year by the Federal government. Earlier this month, a Federal Court of Appeals judge ruled out six of the 12 legal challenges to the expansion, dismissing claims centered on environmental issues. Construction will continue, the government expects the expansion will be operational by mid-2022. Capacity expansion at existing pipelines. We expect some marginal capacity increases at existing pipeline to take place between 3Q19 and 3Q20. Enbridge communicated it could add up to 450k b/d without building new pipelines by 2022. At the moment, we believe ~150k b/d will be gradually added before the end of next year. Additionally, Enbridge mentioned it could boost capacity on its Express line by ~60k b/d before the end of 2020. Lastly, Plains Midstream Canada announced additional capacity on its Rangeland line in both the North and South directions.5 This will assist Canadian producers awaiting for the 2H20 Line 3 replacement. Delays in bringing new takeaway capacity online forced the newly formed Conservative provincial government led by Jason Kenney, which came to power in April 2019, to extend the curtailment program until December 2020. We expect this balancing act to continue over the next 12 months.6 Short- and Medium-term outlook We expect CRB needs to surpass 450k b/d to balance the market In our March 7, 2019 report, we argued the transportation component of the WCS-WTI spread needed to increase by ~ $10/bbl to support incremental crude-by-rail volumes. From March to July, the transportation discount rose by only $4.80/bbl to ~$12/bbl – the floor of our estimated rail price range – and collapsed soon after that. This failed to catalyze sufficient rail volumes to clear the market overhang. Preliminary estimates of CBR volumes based on CN and CP data shows it was largely flat in August and September (Chart 6). Chart 6Crude-By-Rail Shipments Stall As the government continues to relax production curtailments – reaching 100k b/d in October – we continue to believe the transportation discount needs to rise from current levels. Recent movements in the discount, averaging $10.3/bbl since the beginning of the month, support our view, and we expect this to continue until it reaches ~$15/bbl. We expect CRB needs to surpass 450k b/d to balance the market until the Line 3 replacement is completed, somewhere in 2H20 (Chart 7). We also expect the quality discount for WCS crude oil to start rising as IMO 2020 approaches. YTD the quality discount has remained relatively narrow, due to the global shortage of heavy-sour crude supply (Chart 8).7 Starting in January 2020, demand for heavy crude will moderate as shippers adapt to the new marine-fuel regulation, offsetting some of the effect of the limited supply. We project this will add $5/bbl to the WCS-WTI spread. Chart 7Additional CBR Capacity Required Chart 8Heavy-Crude Market Remains Tight Combined, the quality and transportation discount should push the WCS-WTI spread toward -$20/bbl over the next 6 months, which will, we believe, hurt Canadian producers’ cash flows. We expect WCSB supply will remain flat y/y in 2019. Next year, output is expected to grow 4%, and in 2021 by another 1.2% y/y. Long-term Production Outlook Investment in the Canadian oil sector never truly recovered from the 2014 global oil price collapse, despite the pickup in oil prices (Chart 9). Canada’s total capex ex-oil and -gas has been increasing since 2016, pushing down the share of capex from oil and gas extraction to 14% from 27% in 2014 (Chart 10). This is showing up in our longer-term production forecast: We expect WCSB production will average 5.1mm b/d in 2022 vs. 5.3mm b/d being forecast by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). The finite pool of funding available to the Canadian oil and gas sector is competing with U.S. shale development. A favorable regulatory and tax environment, shorter investment cycles and faster initial returns attract most of the funds allocated to oil and gas development to the U.S. at the expense of Canada (Chart 11).8 Most recently, the divergence in investment flows centers on market access Chart 9Canadian Oil Investment Lags Chart 10Canada's Oil & Gas Sector Losing Weight Chart 11U.S. Perceived As Favorable Investment Alternative Foreign companies are exiting the Canadian oil patch, divesting more than $30 billion since 2017.9 The government’s intervention to curtail production led firms to postpone new projects in Alberta. The rig count in Canada remains weak and shows no sign of picking up (Chart 12).10 Nonetheless, the sector should offer an opportunity for investors in the coming years. Once uncertainty around pipeline completion is resolved, we believe there could be a significant rebound in Canadian producers’ equity performance (Chart 13). Technology improvement has reduced oil-sands’ breakeven costs to somewhere between $45/bbl-$55/bbl for oil delivered at Cushing.11 Moreover, the low decline rates of oil-sands supply makes it a more stable and predictable source of supply compared to shale production. Chart 12Capex Reductions Reduce Rig Counts Chart 13Energy Stock Prices Could Rebound The upcoming new pipeline capacity allowing more Canadian heavy crude oil to be delivered to the complex U.S. Gulf Coast refineries will revive sentiment towards Canadian oil sand projects. Canada is judiciously positioned to be the clear winner of the market-share war fought by heavy oil-producing countries to secure capacity at U.S. Gulf refineries. Canadian oil is already dominating PADD 2 imports, and has been increasing its share of PADD 3 imports (Chart 14). The above-mentioned shortage of heavy crude oil presents an excellent opportunity for Canada to capture additional space at PADD 3 refineries. The collapse of Venezuela and the recent attacks on critical oil infrastructure in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) highlight the attractiveness of Canadian heavy crude to U.S. refiners. Chart 14Strong U.S. Demand For Canada's Oil Impact Of The Upcoming Canadian Federal Election Canada is gearing up for a federal election on October 21. The consensus holds that the Liberal Party of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will remain in power with a minority government, or possibly in a coalition with the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) and/or the Green Party. Our Geopolitical Strategists think the chances of Trudeau maintaining a single-party majority are much higher than consensus (which is about 25%), given that he is running on the back of a fairly strong economy, a renegotiated trade deal with the United States, and a stable socio-political environment (Chart 15). Chart 15Canadian Political Risk Is Muted And Should Stay That Way While Trudeau’s popularity has waned, his approval rating still puts him in the higher range of Canadian prime ministers and he does not face a charismatic challenger. He has a firm base in both of the traditional bastions of political power, Ontario and Quebec, and seat projections show the Liberals leading in both provinces. The small parties are not polling well; the NDP is faring poorly in Quebec and unlikely to steal many Liberal votes. There could still be surprises but it is telling that the Liberals remain in the lead despite the scandals and last minute controversies threatening them. The Canadian election should produce a status quo result that does not change the energy sector outlook. For the energy sector, the most positive outcome is a Conservative majority; otherwise a renewed Liberal majority is the status quo and hence least negative outcome. Trudeau is criticized by the Conservatives and in Alberta for compromising Canada’s energy interests, yet his support of the Trans-Mountain pipeline has him at odds with the left-wing parties. The worst scenario for the energy sector is if Trudeau is forced to rely on these parties in parliament – and this is a real possibility though not our base case. Bottom Line: The Canadian election should produce a status quo result that does not change the energy sector outlook – however, it holds a non-trivial risk of forcing the Liberals into a coalition with left-wing parties whose stances are market-negative for the energy industry. If this outcome is avoided, expect the market to celebrate in the short term, although the long-term effects of a second Trudeau term are not positive on the energy front.   Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      Please see Mohammad bin Salman denies ordering Khashoggi murder, but says he takes responsibility for it, which aired Sunday September 29, 2019, on CBS News. In a related development last week, Saudi Arabia announced a limited ceasefire with the Iranian-backed Houthi Movement in Yemen, with which it has been engaged in a war since 2015; please see Saudi Arabia agrees to limited ceasefire in Yemen, published by Arabian Business September 28, 2019. 2      Please see Canada's heavy oil exports to Asia from U.S. surge: data, traders published September 27, 2019, by reuters.com. 3      Enbridge Inc.’s 100k b/d pipeline expansion scheduled to be operational by December will marginally increase Canadian shipments south Enbridge us the dominant oil pipeline operator in western Canada. It is attempting to get shippers to sign long-term contracts – vs. existing monthly contracts – during its current auction for pipeline space. Its regulator has “has concerns regarding the fairness of Enbridge’s open season process and the perception of abuse of Enbridge’s market power.” Please see Canada regulator orders Enbridge to halt pipeline overhaul plan due to 'perception of abuse' published by reuters.com September 27, 2019. 4      Please see Court affirms alternative Keystone XL oil pipeline route through Nebraska, published August 23, 2019, by reuters.com. 5      Please see “Canadian Oil Sands Supply Costs and Developments Projects (2019-2039),” published by the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), July 2019. 6      The new government made additional small changes to the previous policy. For instance, it will give producers 2 months’ notice of any changes to the limits, increased the base limit to 20k b/d from 10k b/d and allows the energy minister to use discretion to set production limits after M&A. Please see the oil production limit section of the government of Alberta’s website. 7           As discussed in our March 2019 report, our expectation of high compliance to the output cuts agreed by OPEC 2.0 countries, which primarily export heavy-sour crudes; larger-than-expected Venezuelan output declines in heavy-sour output; and sanctions on Iranian oil exports volume limits the supply of heavy crude available to consumers. 8              In June 2019, the Canadian government passed Bill C-69, called “The modernization of the National Energy Board and Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.” This law changes the federal environmental assessment process. Critics argued this would repel energy investors and limit pipeline projects approval. Additionally, Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-48 – which aims to ban large oil tankers from waters off the north of B.C.’s coast. This law makes it harder for Alberta to ship its oil via northern B.C. export facilities. Companies are now testing shipment of semi-solid bitumen rather than in liquid form to avoid complying with the new legislation. Please see Oilsands crude sails from B.C., sidestepping federal ban, published by the Edmonton Journal on September 26, 2019. 9           Please see The $30-billion exodus: Foreign oil firms keep bailing on Canada's energy sector published by the Financial Post on August 22, 2019. 10             Rig count does not fully capture Canadian oil production. Bitumen production from mining represent ~30% of total production. However, we believe rig count remains a good proxy of capex in the sector. 11             Please see “Canadian Oil Sands Supply Costs and Developments Projects (2019-2039),” published by the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI), July 2019. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q3 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights European and global growth will rebound in the fourth quarter but the rebound will lack longevity. Bonds: Expect bond yields to edge modestly higher, especially for those yields that are deeply in negative territory. Underweight German bunds in a European or global bond portfolio. Currencies: Zero/negative yielding currencies have the most to gain, and our preference remains the yen. Equities: a tug of war between growth and valuation will leave the broad equity market index in a sideways channel. But with the higher yield, prefer equities over bonds. Equity sectors: Non-China cyclical plays will outperform China plays. Continue to overweight banks versus resources and/or industrials. Equity regions: Continue to overweight the Eurostoxx 50 versus the Shanghai Composite and/or the Nikkei 225. Feature Comfort and discomfort are not absolute, they are relative. Put your hand in cold water, and whether it feels comfortable or uncomfortable depends on where your hand has come from. If your hand has come from room temperature, the cold water will feel uncomfortable. But if your hand has come from an ice bucket, the cold water will feel like bliss! The same principle applies to how we, and the financial markets, perceive short-term economic growth. After a strong expansion, a pedestrian growth rate of 1 percent feels uncomfortable. But after an economic contraction, 1 percent growth feels very pleasant. This leads to two important points: In the short term, the market is less concerned about the rate of growth per se, it is more concerned about whether the rate of growth is accelerating or decelerating. When it comes to the short term drivers of growth – bond yields, credit, and the oil price – we must focus not on their changes, we must focus on their impulses, meaning the changes in their changes. This is because it is the impulses of bond yields, credit, and the oil price that drive the accelerations and decelerations of economic growth, often with a useful lead time of a few months. The Chart of the Week combined with Chart I-1-Chart I-4 should leave you in no doubt. In the euro area, United States, and China, the domestic bond yield 6-month impulses have led their domestic 6-month credit impulses with near-perfect precision. Chart of the WeekCredit Growth To Rebound In The Fourth Quarter, Then Fade Chart I-2The Euro Area Bond Yield Impulse Leads Its Credit Impulse Chart I-3The U.S. Bond Yield Impulse Leads Its Credit Impulse Chart I-4The China Bond Yield Impulse Leads Its Credit Impulse Based on this near-perfect precision, the credit impulses in the euro area and the U.S. should briefly rebound in the fourth quarter. But expect much less of a rebound, if any, in China. While bond yields have collapsed in the euro area and the U.S., resulting in tailwind credit impulses, they have moved much less in China. Indeed, China’s bond yield 6-month impulse has been moving deeper into headwind territory in the past few months (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Bond Yield Impulses Were Tailwinds In The Euro Area And U.S., But Not In China It follows that a credit growth rebound in the fourth quarter will be sourced in Europe and the U.S. rather than in China. From a tactical perspective, this will favour non-China cyclical plays over China plays. But moving into the early part of 2020, expect the credit impulses to fade across all the major economies – unless bond yields now fall very sharply everywhere. Investing On Impulse Many people still find it confusing that it is the impulses – and not the changes – of bond yields, credit, and the oil price that drive the accelerations and decelerations of economic growth. To resolve this confusion, let’s clarify the point. The credit impulses in the euro area and the U.S. should briefly rebound in the fourth quarter.  A bond yield decline will trigger new borrowing. For example, a given decline in the U.S. bond yield, say 0.5 percent, will trigger a given increase in the number of mortgage applications (Chart I-6). New borrowing will add to demand, meaning it will generate growth. But in the following period, a further bond yield decline of 0.5 percent will generate the same further new borrowing and growth rate. The crucial point is that, if the decline in the bond yield is the same, growth will not accelerate. Chart I-6A Given Decline In The Bond Yield Triggers A Given Increase In New Borrowing Growth will accelerate only if the first 0.5 percent bond yield decline is followed by a bigger, say 0.6 percent, decline – meaning a tailwind impulse. Conversely and counterintuitively, growth will decelerate if the first 0.5 percent decline is followed by a smaller, say 0.4 percent, decline – meaning a headwind impulse. Don’t Blame Autos For A German Recession Chart I-7German Car Production Rebounded In The Third Quarter If the German economy contracts in the third quarter and thereby enters a technical recession, the knee-jerk response will be to blame the troubles in the auto industry. But the evidence does not support this story. German new car production rebounded in the third quarter (Chart I-7). Begging the question: if not autos, what is the true culprit for the deceleration? The likely answer is that Germany recently suffered a severe headwind from the oil price impulse. Germany has one of the world’s highest volumes of road traffic per unit of GDP, second only to the U.S. (Table I-1). A possible explanation for Germany’s high traffic intensity is that, just like the U.S., Germany is a decentralised economy with multiple ‘hubs and spokes’ requiring a lot of criss-crossing of traffic. But unlike the U.S., German transport is highly dependent on oil imports, which tend to be non-substitutable and highly inelastic to price. As the value of German oil imports rise in lockstep with the oil price, Germany’s net exports decline, weighing on growth. Table I-1Germany Has A Very High Road Traffic Intensity   The upshot is that the oil price impulse has a major bearing on Germany’s short term growth accelerations and decelerations. The six month period ending around June 2019 constituted a severe headwind impulse. This is because a 30 percent increase in the oil price in that period followed a 40 percent decline in the previous six month period, equating to a headwind impulse of 70 percent.1  Germany has one of the world’s highest volumes of road traffic per unit of GDP. Allowing for typical lags of a few months, this severe headwind impulse was a major contributor to Germany’s recent deceleration. Oscillations in the oil price’s 6-month impulse have explained the oscillations in Germany’s 6-month economic growth with a spooky accuracy (Chart I-8). The good news is that the oil price’s severe headwind impulse has eased – allowing a rebound in German economic growth during the fourth quarter. Chart I-8The Oil Price Impulse Explains Oscillations In German Growth Nevertheless, a putative rebound could be nullified by a wildcard: the ‘geopolitical risk impulse’. To be clear this is not an impulse in the technical sense, but it is a similar concept: are the number of potential tail-events increasing or decreasing? For the fourth quarter, our subjective answer is they are decreasing. In Europe, the formation of a new coalition government in Italy has removed Italian politics as a possible tail-event for the time being. Meanwhile, we assume that the Benn-Burt law in the U.K. has been drafted well enough to eliminate a potential no-deal Brexit on October 31. Elsewhere, the U.S/China trade war and Middle East tensions are most likely to be in stasis through the fourth quarter.  How To Position For The Fourth Quarter After a disappointing third quarter for global and European growth, we expect a rebound in the fourth quarter. But at the moment, we do not have any conviction that the rebound’s momentum will take it deeply into 2020. Position for the fourth quarter as follows:  Expect a rebound in the fourth quarter. Bonds: Expect bond yields to edge modestly higher, especially for those yields that are deeply in negative territory. Underweight German bunds in a European or global bond portfolio. Currencies: Zero/negative yielding currencies have the most to gain, and our preference remains the yen. With a Brexit denouement, the pound could be the biggest mover and our inkling is to the upside. But we await more clarity before pulling the trigger. Equities: a tug of war between growth and valuation will leave the broad equity market index in the sideways range in which it has existed over the past two years (Chart I-9). But with a higher yield than bonds, equities are the preferred asset-class in the ugly contest. Equity sectors: Non-China cyclical plays will outperform China plays. Continue to overweight banks versus resources and/or industrials. Equity regions: Continue to overweight the Eurostoxx 50 versus the Shanghai Composite and/or the Nikkei 225 (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Global Equities Have Gone Nowhere For Two Years Chart I-10Stay Overweight Europe ##br##Versus China   Fractal Trading System* The recent surge in the nickel price is due to scares about supply disruption, specifically an Indonesian export ban. However, the extent of the rally appears technically stretched. We would express this as a pair-trade versus gold: long gold / short nickel. Chart I-11Nickel VS. Gold Set a profit target of 11 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The 6-month steps in the WTI crude oil price were $74.15, $45.21, and $58.24. The first change equated to a 40 percent decrease and the second change equated to a 30 percent increase. So the 6-month impulse was 70 percent. Fractal Trading Model Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Highlights The global manufacturing cycle is likely to bottom soon, and consumption and services remain robust. The risk of recession over the next 12 months is low. This suggests that equities will continue to outperform bonds. But the risks to this optimistic scenario are rising. A denting of consumer confidence and worsening of geopolitical tensions could hurt risk assets. We hedge this by overweighting cash. China remains reluctant for now to use aggressive monetary easing. Until it does, the less cyclical U.S. equity market should outperform. We may shift into EM and European equities when China ramps up stimulus and the manufacturing cycle clearly bottoms. To hedge against this upside risk, we go tactically overweight Financials, and reiterate our overweight on Industrials and neutral on Australia. Bond yields should continue their rebound. We recommend an underweight on duration and favor TIPS. Credit should outperform on the cyclical horizon, but high corporate debt is a risk – we recommend a neutral position. Recommendations   Feature Overview Hedges All Around This is a particularly uncertain time for the global economy – and so a tricky one for asset allocators. Will manufacturing activity bottom soon, or will it drag down the services sector and consumption with it? Will bond yields continue their strong rebound? Is the Fed done cutting rates? Will China now ramp up monetary stimulus? Will Iran escalate a confrontation with Saudi Arabia? What will President Trump tweet about next? This is the sort of environment in which portfolio construction comes into its own. We have our view on all these questions, but our level of conviction is somewhat lower than usual. The way for investors to react is to plan asset allocation in such a way that a portfolio is robust in all the most probable scenarios. We expect the global manufacturing cycle to bottom soon. The Global Leading Economic Indicator is already picking up, and the Global PMI shows some signs of bottoming (Chart 1). The shortest-term lead indicator, the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index, has recently jumped in every region except Europe (Chart 2). (See also What Our Clients Are Asking on page 7 for some more esoteric indicators of cycle bottoms.) The bottoming-out is due to easier financial conditions over the past nine months, a stabilization in Chinese growth, and simply time – the down-leg in manufacturing cycles typically last 18 months, and this one peaked in H1 2018. Chart 1First Signs Of Bottoming Chart 2Surprisingly Strong Surprises     At the same time, government bond yields should have further to rise. The Fed may cut rates once more but, given the resilient U.S. economy, no more than that. This is less than the 59 basis points of cuts over the next 12 months priced in by the Fed Fund futures. The recent pick-up in economic surprises suggests that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield should return at least to where it was six months ago, 2.3-2.4% (Chart 3). This might be delayed, however, if there is an increase in political tensions, for example a break-up of the U.S./China trade talks (Chart 4). Chart 3Long-Term Rates To Rebound Further... Chart 4...But Geopolitical Tensions Remain A Risk This implies that equities are likely to continue to outperform bonds over the next few quarters, and so we remain overweight global equities and underweight global bonds on the 12-month investment horizon. However, the risks to this rosy scenario are rising. We remain concerned about the inverted yield curve, which has accurately forecast every recession since World War II, usually about 18 months in advance (Chart 5). The 3-month/10-year curve inverted in the middle of this year. We also worry that the weakness in the manufacturing sector may dent consumer confidence. There are some signs of this in Europe and Japan – but none significant yet in the U.S. (Chart 6). Accordingly last month, as a hedge against an economic downturn, we went overweight cash, which we see as a more attractive hedge, from a risk/reward point-of-view, than bonds. Chart 5Can We Ignore The Message From The Yield Curve? Chart 6Some Signs Of Weaker Consumer Confidence     We also remain overweight U.S. equities, which are lower-beta and have fewer structural headwinds than equities in other regions. However, we continue to look for an entry point into the more cyclical equity markets which would also be beneficiaries of bolder China stimulus. China’s monetary easing remains more tepid than in previous stimulus episodes. It has probably been enough to stabilize domestic activity (Chart 7) but not to trigger a rally in industrial commodity prices, EM assets, and euro area equities, as it did in 2016. A pick-up in global PMIs and signs of stronger Chinese credit growth would clearly help EM and Europe (Chart 8) but we need higher conviction that these things are indeed happening before making that move. In the meantime, we are hedging the upside risk by raising the global Financials sector tactically to overweight, since it would likely do well if euro area stocks started to outperform. Earlier this year, we raised the Industrials sector to overweight and Australian equities to neutral, also to hedge against the upside risk from more aggressive Chinese stimulus. Chart 7Chinese Stimulus Has Merely Stabilized Growth Chart 8Europe And EM Are The Most Cyclical Markets     Chart 9Oil Price Spikes Often Precede Recessions The biggest geopolitical risk to our sanguine scenario is the situation in the Middle East, after the attacks on Saudi oil refineries. Every recession in the past 50 years has been preceded by a 100% year-on-year spike in the crude oil price (though note that Brent would need to rise to over $100 a barrel by year-end, from $61 today, for that to eventuate (Chart 9)). A short-term oil shortage is not the problem since strategic reserves are ample. But the attack demonstrates the vulnerability of the Saudi installations. And a reprisal attack on Iran could lead it to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which more than 20% of global oil passes. We have an overweight on the Energy sector, partly as a hedge against these risks. BCA’s oil strategists expected Brent crude to rise to $70 this year, and average $74 in 2020, even before the recent attack. They argue that the risk premium in the oil price (the residual in Chart 10) is too low, given not only tensions with Iran, but also other potential supply disruptions in Iraq, Libya, Venezuela and elsewhere.   Chart 10Is The Oil Risk Premium Too Low?   Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com     What Our Clients Are Asking Which Leading Indicators Should Investors Watch To Time The Rebound In Global Growth? Chart 11Positive Signals For Global Growth During 2019, the global growth decline was a key driver of the bond rally and the outperformance of defensive assets. Thus, timing when this decline will reverse will be crucial, since it would also result in a change of leadership from defensive to cyclical assets. But how can this be done? Below we list three of our favorite indicators that have provided reliable leading signals on the global economy in the past: Carry-trade performance: The performance of EM currencies with very high carry versus the yen tends to be a leading indicator for global growth (Chart 11, panel 1). In general, carry trades distribute liquidity from countries where funds are plentiful but rates of return are low (like Japan), to places with savings shortfalls and high risk, but where prospective returns are high. Positive performance of these currencies tends to signal a positive shift in global liquidity, which usually fuels global growth. Swedish inventory cycle: The Swedish new-orders-to-inventories ratio is a leading indicator of the global manufacturing cycle (panel 2). Why? Sweden is a small open economy that is very sensitive to global growth dynamics. Moreover, Swedish exports are weighted towards intermediate goods, which sit early in the global supply chain. This makes the Swedish inventory cycle a good early barometer of the health of the global manufacturing cycle. G3 monetary trends: G3 excess money supply – measured as the difference between money supply growth and loan growth – is a leading indicator of global industrial production (panel 3). As base money and deposits become more plentiful in the banking system relative to the pool of existing loans, the liquidity position of commercial banks improves. This provides banks with the necessary fuel to generate more loan growth, a development which eventually provides a boon to economic activity. Importantly, all these leading indicators are sending a positive signal on the global economy. This confirms our view that rates should go up as global growth strengthens. Therefore, investors should remain overweight equities and underweight bonds in their portfolios.   Is It Time To Buy Euro Area Banks? In a Special Report on euro area banks in December 2018, we noted that “Historically, when the relative P/B discount hits the lower band and the relative dividend yield hits the upper band, a rebound in relative return performance could be expected”.1 Our recommendation back then was that “long-term investors should avoid banks in the region, but investors with a more tactical mandate and much nimbler style could use the valuation indicators to ‘time’ their entry into and exit out of banks as a short-term trade.” Since then, banks have continued to underperform the overall market by over 10%, further pushing down relative valuation metrics. Currently, both relative P/B and relative dividend yield are at extreme levels that have historically heralded at least a short-term bounce. The euro area PMI is still below 50, but there are signs that the euro area economy could rebound later this year, which should be positive for banks’ relative earnings. Already, forward EPS growth has been stabilizing relative to the broad market (Chart 12, panel 4). In addition, two of the key concerns back in December 2018 were Italian government debt and the unwinding of QE. Now Italian debt is no longer in crisis and the ECB has relaunched QE. As such, investors with a tactical mandate and a nimble style should buy (overweight) banks in the euro area. Long-term investors should still avoid such a short-term trade because structural issues remain. Chart 12Tactically Upgrade Euro Area Banks   Is The Gold Rally Over? Spot gold prices have increased 17% year-to-date, on the back of global growth weakness, dovish central banks, and rising political tensions. Should investors now pare back their gold exposure? Common sense would suggest they should. However, these are not ordinary times. In the short term, gold prices might suffer from some profit-taking due to overbought technicals and excessively positive sentiment (Chart 13, panel 1). Moreover, gold prices have moved this year due to increased market expectations of central bank easing (panel 2). We expect that markets will be disappointed going forward by only limited rate cuts, which could put downward pressure on gold. On the other hand, with approximately 27%, or $14.9 trillion, of global debt with negative yields at the moment, investors will continue to shift to the next best asset – zero-yielding gold (panel 3). This is clear from the rise in holdings of gold over the past few years by both central banks and investors (panels 4 & 5). We expect this trend to persist as investors continue their search to avoid negative yields and focus on capital preservation. Geopolitical tensions have intensified since the beginning of the year: ongoing yet inconclusive trade negotiations between the U.S. and China, implementation of further tariffs, Brexit uncertainty, and the recent military attacks in the Middle East (panel 6). This environment should also continue to push gold prices higher. We continue to recommend gold as a hedge against inflation – which we see picking up over the next 12 months – as well as against any further deterioration in global growth and the geopolitical situation. Chart 13Gold: Sell Or Hold? Risks to the rosy scenario are rising. We remain concerned about the inverted yield curve, which has accurately forecast every recession since World War II. How Low Can Rates Go? The zero lower bound is a thing of the past. Last month, Denmark’s central bank cut rates to -0.75%, and 10-year government bonds in Switzerland hit a historic low for any major country, -1.12%. In the next recession, how much further could interest rates theoretically fall? For individuals, cash rates might be limited by the cost of storing paper currency, which has a zero yield (unless governments find a way to ban cash or charge an annual fee on it). A bank safety deposit box costs about $300 a year, and a professional-quality safe big enough to store $1 million (which would be a pile of $100 bills 31 x 55 cms, weighing 10 kg) costs $2,000 with installation costs. Amortize the latter over 10 years, and the cost of storing $1 million is about 0.2%-0.3% a year. Swiss franc bills – maximum denomination CHF1,000 – would cost less to store. But storage costs for physical gold are around 2% a year. Since rates have fallen below this, there must be other constraints. Individuals would find storing money in cash possibly dangerous and certainly very inconvenient (imagine having to transport the cash to a bank to pay a tax bill). And the cost for a rich individual or company of storing, say, $1 billion (weighing 10 tonnes) would be much higher. Given the history in even low-rate countries (Chart 14, panel 1), we suspect around -1% is the level at which cashholders would seek alternatives to bank deposits of government bills. Chart 14How Low Can They Go? Chart 15Yield Curves When Rates Are At Zero Or Below   At the long end, the yield curve does not typically invert much when short-term rates are zero or negative (Chart 15). The biggest 3-month/10-year inversion was in Switzerland earlier this year, -0.05%. This points then to the absolute lowest level for 10-year bonds anywhere, even in the middle of a nasty recession, at around -1.1%. That is a worry for asset allocators. It means that the maximum mathematical upside for Swiss government bonds from their current level (-0.8%) is 3% while it is 5% for German bonds (currently -0.5%). This is not much of a hedge. Only the U.S. looks better: if the 10-year Treasury yield falls to 0%, the total return is 18%.   Global Economy Chart 16U.S. Growth Remains Solid Overview: Industrial-sector growth globally has been weak, with the manufacturing PMI in most countries falling below 50. But consumption and services almost everywhere have remained resilient, even in the manufacturing-heavy euro area. And there are tentative signs of a bottoming-out in manufacturing. However, a full-scale rebound will depend on further monetary stimulus in China, where the authorities still seem cautious about rolling out easing on the scale of what was done in 2016. U.S.: U.S. manufacturing has now followed the rest of the world into contraction, with the ISM manufacturing index slipping below 50 in August (Chart 16, panel 2). However, consumption and services are holding up well. Employment continues to expand (albeit at a slightly slower pace than last year, perhaps because of a lack of jobseekers), there is no sign of a rise in layoffs, and consumer confidence remains close to a historical high (though it slipped slightly in September). Housing has recovered after last year’s slowdown, and the recent congressional budgetary agreement means fiscal policy will be mildly expansionary over the coming 12 months. Only capex (panel 5) has slowed, as companies postpone investment decisions due to uncertainty surrounding the trade war. The consensus expects U.S. real GDP growth of 2.2% this year, above most estimates of trend growth. Euro Area: Given its higher concentration in manufacturing, European growth is weaker than in the U.S. The manufacturing PMI has been below 50 since February, and fell further to 45.6 in August. Industrial production is shrinking by 2% year-on-year. Italy has experienced two negative quarters of growth, and Germany may also enter a technical recession in Q3 (GDP shrank by 0.1% in Q2). However, there are some tentative signs that manufacturing is bottoming: the ZEW survey in September, for example, surprised on the upside. And, like the U.S., consumption remains strong. Even in manufacturing-heavy Germany, employment continues to grow, and retail sales in July were up 4.4% year-on-year. In the U.K., however, uncertainty surrounding Brexit has damaged business investment, though employment has been strong.2 Chart 17First Signs Of A Rebound In The Rest Of The World? Japan: Consumption has already slipped, even before the consumption tax hike scheduled in October. Retail sales in July fell 2% year-on-year, due to negative wage growth and consumer sentiment falling to a five-year low. Manufacturing continues to suffer from China’s slowdown and the strong yen (up 6% over the past 12 months), with exports falling 6% and industrial production down 2% year-on-year over the past three months. The effect of the consumption tax hike may be cushioned by government measures (lowering taxes on autos and making high-school education free, for example). And a pickup in Chinese growth would boost exports. But there are scant signs yet of a bottoming in activity. Emerging Markets: China’s growth appears to have stabilized, with both manufacturing and non-manufacturing PMIs above 50 (Chart 17, panel 3). But confidence remains fragile, with retail sales growth slowing to a 20-year low and car sales down 7% in August, despite the introduction of cars compliant with new emissions standards. The authorities have responded with further easing measures (including a further cut in the reserve requirement in September) but seem reluctant to launch a full-scale monetary stimulus, similar to what they did in 2016. Elsewhere in EM, growth has slowed in countries with structural issues (latest year-on-year real GDP growth in Argentina is -5.7%, in Turkey -1.5% and in Mexico -0.8%) but remains fairly resilient elsewhere (India 5%, Indonesia 5%, Poland 4.2%, Colombia 3.4%). Interest Rates: Central banks almost everywhere have turned dovish, with the Fed cutting rates for a second time, the ECB restarting asset purchases, and the Bank of Japan signaling it will ease in October. But further monetary accommodation will probably be less than the market expects. The Fed signaled that its cuts were just a mid-cycle correction and that further easing is unlikely. And the ECB and BoJ have little ammunition left. With signs of growth bottoming, and the market understanding that central banks’ dovish turn is reaching its end, long-term rates, which have already risen in the U.S. from 1.45% to 1.72% in September, are likely to move higher. Investors should also carefully watch U.S. inflation, which is showing signs of underlying strength, with core CPI inflation rising 2.4% year-on-year in August (and as much as 3.4% annualized over the past three months).   Global Equities Chart 18Has Earnings Growth Bottomed? Still Cautious, But Adding An Upside Hedge: Global equities registered a small loss of 8 basis points in Q3 (Chart 18) despite all the headline risks from geopolitics and weakening economic data. Overall, our defensive country allocation worked well in Q3, since DM equities outperformed EM by 4.5%, and the U.S. outperformed the euro area by 2.8%. Our sector positioning did not do as well since underweights in Utilities and Consumer Staples and overweights in Industrials, Energy and Health Care all went in the wrong direction, even though the underweight in Materials did help to offset the loss. During the quarter, however, both sector and country rotations were evident within the global equity universe, in line with the wild swings in bond yields. September saw some reversals in DM/EM, U.S./euro area and cyclical/defensives. Going forward, BCA’s House View remains that global economic growth will begin to recover over the coming months, albeit a little later than we previously expected. As such, our defensive country allocation remains appropriate. We did put euro area and EM equities on upgrade watch in April,3 but the delay in the global recovery also implies that it is still not the time to trigger this call. With our view that bond yields have hit bottom,4 we are making one adjustment in our global sector allocation by upgrading Financials to overweight from neutral. We are financing this by cutting in half the double overweight in Health Care to overweight (see next page for more details). This adjustment also acts as a hedge against two possible outcomes: 1) that the euro area outperforms the U.S., and 2) that Elizabeth Warren wins in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.5   Upgrade Global Financials To Overweight From Neutral Chart 19Upgrade Global Financials The relative performance of global Financials to the overall equity market has been hugely affected by the movements in global bond yields (Chart 19, panel 1). As bond yields made a sharp reversal in September, so did the relative performance of Financials, even though it is barely evident on the chart given how much Financials have underperformed the broad market over recent years. It’s not clear how sustainable the sharp reversal in bond yields will be, but BCA’s House View is that bond yields will move higher over the next 9-12 months. As such, we are upgrading Financials to overweight from neutral, for the following additional reasons: Valuations are extremely attractive as shown in panel 2. More importantly, the relative valuation is now at an extreme level that historically heralded a bounce in Financials’ relative performance. Loan quality has improved. The U.S. non-performing loan (NPL) ratio is nearing the lows reached before the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Even in Spain and Italy, NPL ratios have fallen significantly, though they remain higher than they were prior to the GFC (panel 3). U.S. consumption has been strong, housing has rebounded, and demand for loans is getting stronger (panel 4), in line with data such as the Citi Economic Surprise Index, suggesting that economic data may have hit bottom. To finance this upgrade, we cut the double overweight of Health Care to overweight, as a hedge against Elizabeth Warren winning next year’s U.S. presidential election and tightening rules on drug pricing. Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight On Duration. Our below-benchmark duration call was severely challenged by the global bond markets in the first two months of the third quarter. The U.S. 10-year Treasury yield hit 1.43% on September 3 in response to the weaker-than-expected ISM manufacturing index in the U.S., 57 bps lower than the level at the end of previous quarter, and just a touch higher than the historical low of 1.32% reached on July 6, 2016. The rebound in bond yields since September 5, however, was driven not only by the ebb and flow in the U.S./China trade policy dynamics, but also by the positive surprises in economic data releases, as shown in Chart 20. BCA’s Global Duration Indicator, constructed by our Global Fixed Income Strategy team using various leading economic indicators, is also pointing to higher yields globally going forward. Investors should maintain a slight underweight on duration over the next 9-12 months. Favor Linkers Vs. Nominal Bonds. Global inflation expectations have also rebounded after continuing their downtrend in the first two months of the quarter. This largely reflects the acceleration in August in realized inflation measures such as core CPI, core PCE, and average hourly earnings. In addition, historically, the change in the crude oil price tends to have a good correlation with inflation expectations. The oil price jumped initially by 20% following the attack on the Saudi Arabian oil production facilities. While it’s not clear how the geopolitical tensions will evolve in the Middle East, a conservative assumption of a flat oil price until the end of the year still points to much higher inflation expectations, supporting our preference for inflation-linked bonds over nominal bonds. We also favor linkers in Japan and Australia over their respective nominal bonds (Chart 21). Chart 20Bond Yields Have Hit Bottom Chart 21Favor Inflation Linkers We continue to look for an entry point into more cyclical markets which would benefit from a bolder Chinese stimulus. Corporate Bonds Since we turned cyclically overweight on credit within a fixed-income portfolio, investment-grade bonds and high-yield bonds have produced 220 and 73 basis points, respectively, of excess return over duration-matched government bonds. We remain bullish on the outlook for credit over the next 12 months, as we expect global growth to accelerate before the end of the year. Historically, improving global growth has resulted in sustained outperformance of credit over government bonds. Moreover, default rates should remain subdued over the next year given that lending standards continue to ease (Chart 22, panel 1). How long will we remain overweight credit? High levels of leverage, declining interest coverage ratios, and the high share of Baa-rated debt in the U.S. corporate debt market continue to make credit a risky proposition on a structural basis. However, with inflation expectations still very low, the Fed has a strong incentive to keep monetary policy easy. This dovish monetary policy should keep interest costs at bay, helping credit outperform over the next year. That said, we believe that there are some credit categories that are more attractive than others. Specifically, we recommend investors favor Baa-rated and high yield securities, given that there is still room for further credit compression in these credit buckets (panel 2 and panel 3). On the other hand, investors should stay away from the highest credit categories, as they no longer offer value (panel 4). Chart 22Baa-rated And High-Yield Credit Offer The Most Value   Commodities Chart 23No Supply Shock In The Oil Market Energy (Overweight): September’s drone attack on Saudi crude facilities sent oil prices soaring as much as 20% in the days following, before falling back to pre-attack levels. Initial estimates estimated the supply disruption at 5.7 million barrels a day – approximately 5.5% of global supply – making it the largest crude supply outage in history. However, assuming the Saudis can return 70% of the lost output back online as they claim, OPEC’s spare capacity, approximately 1.8 million barrels a day, should be able to balance the market and cover the remaining lost production.6,7 In the longer-term, a pick-up in global oil demand, as economic growth rebounds, plus supply tightness should keep oil price elevated, with Brent reaching $70 this year and averaging $74 in 2020 (Chart 23, panels 1 & 2). Industrial Metals (Neutral): A combination of half-hearted year-to-date stimulus by Chinese authorities and a stronger USD in the second and third quarters of 2019 have driven industrial metals spot prices lower. However, the Chinese government announced additional stimulus in September, with further bond issuance to finance infrastructure projects and an easing of monetary policy (panel 3). This should give some upside for industrial metal prices over the coming six-to-12 months. Precious Metals (Neutral): We remain positive on gold, despite its strong performance year-to-date, since we see it as a good hedge against recession, inflation, and geopolitical risks. We discuss gold in detail in the What Our Clients Are Asking section on page 9. Silver also looks attractive in the short term. The nature of the use of silver has changed over the past two decades, from being mostly a base metal for industrial fabrication to becoming more of a precious metal viewed as a safe haven. The correlation between gold and silver prices has increased since the Global Financial Crisis from an average of 0.5 pre-crisis to 0.8 post-crisis (panels 4 & 5). Global growth and political uncertainty should support silver prices in the coming months. Currencies U.S. Dollar: The trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 2.5% since we turned neutral in April. We expect that the steep drop in yields will continue to ease financial conditions and help global growth in the last quarter of the year. Given that the dollar is a counter-cyclical currency, an environment where global growth rallies have historically been negative for the greenback. Euro: Since we turned bullish in April, EUR/USD has depreciated by 2.7%. Overall, we continue to be positive on EUR/USD on a cyclical timeframe. After the ECB cut rates by 10 basis points and announced further rounds of quantitative easing, there is not much room left for the euro area to keep easing relative to the U.S. (Chart 24, panel 1). Moreover, improving expectations of profit growth in the euro area vis-à-vis the U.S. will drive money flows towards Europe, pushing EUR/USD up in the process (panel 2). Emerging Market Currencies: We remain bearish on emerging market currencies for the time being. That being said, they remain on upgrade watch for the end of the year. There are multiple signs that global growth is turning up, a consequence of the easy financial conditions caused by some of the lowest bond yields on record. Moreover, the marginal propensity to spend (proxied by M1 growth relative to M2 growth) in China, the main engine of EM growth, continues to point to further appreciation in emerging market currencies (panel 3). Chart 24Interest Rate And Profit Expectation Differentials Favor The Euro     Alternatives Chart 25Favor Hedge Funds Untill Global Growth Bottoms Return Enhancers: Over the past 12 months, we have recommended investors pare back on private equity and increase allocations to hedge funds – macro hedge funds in particular. This was due to our judgement that we are late in the economic cycle. While we expect growth to pick up over the coming months, this is not yet clear in the data (Chart 25, panel 1). This uncertain macro outlook will prove tough for private equity funds, especially given an environment of rising multiples and increasing competition for deals. We continue to see global macro hedge funds as the best hedge ahead of the next recession and would advise investors to allocate funds now, given the time it takes to move allocations in the illiquid space. Inflation Hedges: In the current environment, TIPS are likely a better inflation hedge than illiquid alternative assets. Our May 2019 Special Report 8 showed that TIPS produce a particularly attractive risk-adjusted return during times when inflation is rising, but still fairly low (below 2.3%). TIPS should do well, therefore, in the environment we expect over the next few months, where the Fed remains dovish, cutting rates perhaps once more, while condoning a moderate acceleration of inflation (panel 2). Volatility Dampeners: Structured products – mostly Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) – have had an excellent record of reducing portfolio volatility (panel 3). Despite that, we do not recommend more than a neutral allocation to MBS currently due to a less-than-attractive valuation picture. Despite Treasury yields falling by more than 100 basis points this year and refinancing activity picking up, nominal MBS spreads remained near their all-time lows. However, as Treasury yields bottom, we expect refinancing to slow, putting downward pressure on spreads. Risks To Our View The most likely upside risk comes from the Fed being too dovish and falling behind the curve. Underlying inflation pressures in the U.S. remain strong (with core CPI up 3.4% annualized over the past three months). After two rate cuts, the Fed Funds rate is now comfortably below the neutral rate: 0.1% in real terms compared to a Laubach-Williams r* of 0.8% (Chart 26). Tightness in the money markets have pushed the Fed to start expanding its balance sheet again. If manufacturing growth accelerates next year, and wages and profits begin to rise, a stock market melt-up, similar to that in 1999, would be possible. Eventually, though, the Fed would need to raise rates (perhaps sharply) to kill inflation, which could usher in the next recession. There are a broader range of possible downside risks. As argued throughout this Quarterly, there are various possible triggers of recession: failure of China to stimulate, and a loss of confidence by consumers, in particular. Some models of recession put the risk over the next 12 months as high as 30% (Chart 27). Structurally, the biggest risk is probably the high level of corporate debt in the U.S. (Chart 28). A breakdown in the junk bond market, as seen briefly last December, could lead to companies failing to refinance the large amount of debt maturing over the next 18 months. Geopolitical risks also remain elevated and are, by nature, hard to forecast. The outcome of Brexit remains highly uncertain – though we see low risk of a no-deal exit. We expect trade talks between the U.S. and China to drag on, without a comprehensive deal, while a clear breakdown would be negative. Impeachment of President Trump is probably not a significant market event, but might hurt market sentiment briefly (particularly if it makes the election of Elizabeth Warren more likely). The Iran/Saudi conflict could escalate. Risk premiums may need to rise to take into account these threats. Chart 26Is The Fed Turning Too Dovish? Chart 27What Risk Of Recession? Chart 28Is Corporate Debt The Biggest Risk?   Footnotes 1Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, titled "Euro Area Banks: Value Play Or Value Trap?" dated December 14, 2018, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, “United Kingdom: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise?”, dated 20 September 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3Please see Global Asset Allocation Quarterly, titled "Quarterly - April 2019" dated April 1, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 4Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Bond Yields Have Hit Bottom," dated September 6, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Elizabeth Warren And The Markets," dated September 13, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6Dmitry Zhdannikov and Alex Lawler “Exclusive: Saudi oil output to return faster than first thought - sources,” Reuters, dated Sepetmber 17, 2019. 7Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert titled, “Attacks On Critical Infrastructure In KSA Raises Questions About U.S. Response,” dated September 16, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, titled “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated May 22, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights The fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong but investors’ skittishness has caused stocks to fluctuate with the ebb and flow of news headlines. With investor sentiment playing a leading role, we introduce a simple framework for tracking the course of animal spirits. Earnings expectations are undemanding, risk appetite remains robust and the monetary policy backdrop is supportive of the expansion. However, geopolitical unpredictability and potential irrational exuberance send warning signals. We continue to believe that recession worries are overblown, but there is no rule that says bear markets can only occur alongside recessions. Although there are some areas of concern, our overall assessment of other potential bear market triggers does not suggest that trouble is at hand. Feature A bear can find plenty to worry about these days. The trade war is still casting a shadow over global trade prospects, global manufacturing activity is slowing, the U.K. and German economies contracted in the second quarter and recent attacks demonstrated that Middle Eastern oil facilities were more vulnerable than investors realized. The R-word has abounded in the financial press all summer and the number of Google searches for the term “recession” surged to levels last reached in the months leading to the Great Financial Crisis. The summer anxiety did not last, though. Powered by a perceived cooling of trade tensions and monetary support from the Fed, the S&P 500 has already recouped all of its summer losses. The market swings were not driven by the domestic macroeconomic backdrop, which remained largely unremarkable. The U.S. economy is slowing after 2018’s sugar rush, but is still getting enough fiscal support to grow at or above trend despite the global slowdown. To this point, the slowdown has been confined to manufacturing, and the history of past industrial production cycles suggests it has almost run its course. The service sector is resilient across the developed world and the fundamentals for U.S. consumption remain strong. Fundamentals are not the whole story, however, and they have lately taken a backseat to politicians’ whims. The resulting anxiety has made it relatively easy to surpass downwardly revised expectations (Chart 1), and we have little concern that the bottom is about to drop out of S&P 500 earnings. But earnings are only half of the equation. The multiple investors are willing to pay for those earnings is the other half, and they could be the key swing factor if earnings growth is going to remain in the low single digits. Chart 1Markets And Economic Data Are Out Of Sync We introduce a simple framework for tracking animal spirits. Multiples are largely a function of investor enthusiasm, and we attempt to track it via the Ex-Recession Bear Market Checklist developed by our sister Global ETF Strategy service (Table 1). It seeks to measure animal spirits across six dimensions: expectations, prices, appetite, euphoria, policy and geopolitics. Constructing the checklist is necessarily subjective, and as such we consider it a welcome complement to our fundamental analysis. We remain deeply invested in searching out the coming equity market inflection point, and delving into animal spirits allows us to track a wider range of potential catalysts. Table 1Ex-Recession Bear Market Checklist Expectations Chart 2Back To Sustainable Levels... After calling for unusually strong late-cycle profits growth last year on the back of the cut in corporate tax rates, earnings expectations are undemanding relative to history (Chart 2). Consensus S&P 500 earnings estimates for the full year project just 1.5% growth over 2018. As of the beginning of last week, analysts had penciled in a 3% year-over-year decline in 3Q earnings for the S&P 500. Those estimates are likely to be revised even lower as corporations make sure they’ve underpromised in the final two weeks before 3Q earnings season kicks off. Perhaps the consensus is a bit too conservative. Even though the year-over-year benefits of corporate tax cuts are gone, the dovish pivots by the Fed and other major central banks will support earnings growth. In the U.S. in particular, where the economy is still strong, easier financial conditions should help extend the shelf life of the current expansion through 2020. Bottom Line: Earnings growth is not going to blast higher, but profits are unlikely to contract as long as the Fed continues to support the expansion. The earnings bar has been set very low, and it will be rather easy for S&P 500 companies to exceed it. Prices We keep close tabs on valuation metrics, though we try not to get too wrapped up in them. Expensive (cheap) stocks can get more expensive (cheaper) as investors can remain irrational for a while. Valuations only become prone to mean-revert when they reach extreme levels. Chart 3Restored Normal Mirror-Image Relationship Forward multiples offer greater insight when considered in conjunction with forward earnings estimates. It is unusual for both earnings estimates and forward multiples to be extended at the same time, as they were in 2018, because investors are typically unwilling to pay high multiples when they suspect that earnings may be peaking. The more normal mirror-image relationship has restored itself this year, as projected earnings growth has slipped below its mean level, balancing out the above-mean forward multiple (Chart 3). Chart 4Definitely Elevated, But Not Problematic Yet   Other conventional valuation measures remain elevated but valuations within one standard deviation of the mean are far from extreme (Chart 4). The S&P 500 price-to-sales ratio is the only metric nearing the two-standard-deviation level that marks what we view as the beginning of extreme territory. It is worth noting valuations have only eroded modestly in the current global geopolitical backdrop. Though they slid in the wake of the first tariff announcement, they have mostly recovered and have seemed somewhat inured to subsequent escalations, which may suggest that investors are becoming complacent about trade threats. Bottom Line: Stocks are fully priced and the fact that valuations were only modestly affected by tariff uncertainty has gotten our attention. One-sigma deviations do not point to an immediate reversal, however, so we will wait for more metrics to approach the two-sigma threshold before raising a red flag on valuations. Appetite IPO activity is a proxy for animal spirits. Well-received IPOs are a sign that investors still have a hearty appetite for what the future might hold and suggests that they do not fear the imminent end of the bull market. If new issues are too well received, however, IPO appetite becomes a contrary indicator. When an IPO frenzy takes hold, it’s a sign that optimism has reached unsustainable levels and the end of the cycle must be near. For now, we judge that the IPO market is healthy but not too healthy. Chart 5Improved Corporate Health Or Heightened Risk Appetite? We consider it healthy that the number of IPO deals has remained stable since 2017, though the fact that their average value has more than doubled over that time could be a sign that investors are willing to grant increasingly higher values to private and newly-public companies (Chart 5). The fact that a steadily increasing share of the companies commanding larger valuations have yet to turn a profit is somewhat unsettling (please see the “Euphoria” section, below). We are therefore encouraged that investors pushed back so vigorously against the IPO of We Work’s parent company. Media reports suggesting that the sub-lessor of office space may be valued around a quarter of management’s initial estimates indicates that institutional investors are not blindly chasing the next hot deal. The companies that have completed offerings this year have fared well. 60% of the U.S. companies that have gone public so far this year are trading above their initial offering price. The median “successful” IPO in 2019 has returned 50% since inception, while the median “unsuccessful” IPO lost 23%. This asymmetry and the larger number of “successful” IPOs suggests that IPOs continue to be generally well-received. Bottom Line: Investors’ appetite for new issues has held up despite a challenging geopolitical and global growth backdrop, while We Work’s struggles to attract a public ownership base suggests they have maintained some healthy skepticism. As it relates to the near-term outlook, we rate investor appetites as light green. Euphoria IPO activity can also offer a window into investor euphoria. The share of companies going public with negative earnings has reached levels last observed in the years preceding the dot-com crash. The fact that profitless IPOs are currently better received by investors than IPOs of profitable companies is a concern (Chart 6). Chart 6Getting Carried Away While we noted that aggregate S&P 500 valuations are within normal ranges, valuations among the most highly valued stocks suggest that some exuberance has broken out. Using the backtest functionality of BCA’s Equity Trading Strategy platform,1 we devised baskets of the top deciles of stocks ranked by Price-to-Earnings, Forward Price-to-Earnings, Price-to-Tangible Book Value, Price-to-Sales and Price-to-Operating Cash Flow. Chart 7The Most Expensive Stocks Are Getting More Expensive The rising median P/E ratio of the top-decile P/E stocks suggests that investors continue to support the highest valuations by piling into the most richly valued firms. The same pattern prevails for the top deciles of stocks ranked on the four other multiples (Chart 7). Four out of the five metrics we track are now at or above two standard deviations from their mean. Bottom Line: Demand for unprofitable companies’ IPOs and the extreme valuations of the highest-valued companies on a range of metrics suggest that investors have gotten a little carried away. We rate this dimension orange. Policy We previously noted that restrictive monetary policy has been a precondition for every recession in the last 50 years. Consistent with its repeated pledge to sustain the expansion as long as possible, the Fed delivered its second rate cut earlier this month, and central banks around the world have embarked on what is turning into a synchronized dovish pivot. Despite unanimous expectations of easier policy at its September meeting, the ECB managed to surprise somewhat dovishly with the announcement of an open-ended bond purchase program, dubbed “QE Infinity”. Other developed-economy central banks like the already accommodative Reserve Bank of New Zealand have been delivering dovish surprises in the form of larger-than-expected rate cuts. Bottom Line: Uber-dovish U.S. and global central banks should prolong the shelf life of the expansion. Geopolitics The U.S.-China trade war continues to loom as the biggest risk to the global economy and the main source of investor angst. The Iranian attack on critical Saudi Arabian infrastructure also has the potential to destabilize markets and exacerbate investor concerns. Our Geopolitical Strategy service could see U.S.-China tensions receding in the near term, but fear that Iran will be an ongoing irritant. The motivations on the U.S. side are straightforward: first and foremost, the current administration wants to be re-elected next November. It is way too early to call the election – we won’t know who will face off until next summer – but one ironclad law of presidential elections is surely on the administration’s mind. The incumbent party always loses the White House if a recession occurs during the campaign (Chart 8). If hard-nosed trade policy appeared to be pushing the economy in the direction of a recession, it is likely the administration would dial down its aggressiveness. Chart 8A 2020 Recession Is The Biggest Threat To Trump's Reelection Prospects Enter the Iranians. Their (apparent) attack on critical Saudi oil facilities2 signals that Middle Eastern tensions could intensify and crude prices could blast higher. As we wrote last week, the U.S. economy is far less exposed to an oil price shock than it was in the ‘70s, due mainly to its emergence as the world’s largest oil producer, but the rest of the world is vulnerable. An oil price shock could induce a global ex-U.S. recession. The U.S. is a comparatively closed economy, and it regularly responds to global forces with a longer lag than other economies. It does eventually respond to them, however, and if an oil price shock leads to recessions in major economies in the rest of the world, it will ultimately threaten the U.S. economy. Keeping the expansion going through November 2020 may require U.S. policymakers to focus carefully on the Middle East to defuse the potential implications of Iranian belligerence. The administration may need to cool tensions with China to free up the bandwidth to deal with Iran, and also to prevent trade tensions’ marginal pressure on global growth from making the global economy more vulnerable to an oil price spike. Our overall assessment of bear market triggers does not suggest that trouble is imminent. The U.S.-China pause our geopolitical colleagues have been calling for would not be as beneficial for markets as a holistic trade settlement, but it appears to be materializing. In deference to China’s National Day celebrations, the U.S. will delay the tariff hike that was supposed to begin October 1st (from 25% to 30% on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports). China, for its part, has issued waivers for tariffs and promised to increase purchases of U.S. farm goods. A trade deal with Japan has also been agreed in principle and is slated to be signed any day, while U.S. relations with Europe are marginally improving.3 Bottom Line: The latest pause in trade tensions is boosting investor sentiment and risk-asset performance but the unpredictability of the current administration’s actions and public communications still have the potential to rattle markets. We rate this dimension orange. Investment implications We continue to believe that worries of a recession are overblown, but it might also take time for investors to overcome all of their concerns. A lot of fear is already discounted in the 2019 earnings estimates correction, bringing the bar quite low for corporate earnings to beat expectations. Coupled with an accommodative policy backdrop and still-robust investor appetites, the expansion still has room to run. Equities are not a slam dunk at this point in the cycle. Valuations are full, global growth is uncertain, and geopolitics are a wild card. Volatility is likely to be elevated and subject to sporadic spikes. We remain positive on the U.S. economy and continue to expect global growth will pick up later this year, however, so we continue to recommend that investors remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios.   Jennifer Lacombe, Senior Analyst jenniferl@bcaresearch.com Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Available at https://ets.bcaresearch.com/ 2 Abqaiq is the most important oil-processing facility in the world, and the Khurais oil field is adjacent to the Ghawar oil field, the world’s largest. 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report “Trump’s Tactical Retreat”, published September 13, 2019. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights Pension reform in Brazil is pushing through. The upcoming 12-18 months offer a window of opportunity, most notably on the privatization and tax reform front. Ongoing efforts should sustain an improvement in “animal spirits” in the short term and create some potential for structural improvements over the long term. Nevertheless, Brazil’s slow grinding economic recovery remains vulnerable to a negative external or domestic shock that could cause it to “stall speed”. If structural reforms or the business cycle hit stall speed, financial markets will sell off. Weighing the pros and cons, we are upgrading Brazil from underweight to neutral. Feature Pension Reform Will (Eventually) Pass, But What Next? Recent progress on Brazil’s economic reform agenda is market-positive but is clearly at risk of “stall speed”1 if reform momentum is not sustained after the likely passage of social security cuts. Having cleared the Chamber of Deputies, the pension reform bill is now likely to pass the senate. The first round of voting is expected any day now and the government’s senate leader, Fernando Bezerra, expects the bill to pass the second round by mid-October (Diagram I-1). Diagram I-1Brazil: Pension Reform Timeline Chart I-1Pension Bill Will See The Light Of Day The reform is all but certain to be approved by congress, granting the Bolsonaro administration its first major legislative victory. Lower house deputies voted largely in line with party alliances – if this continues in the senate, the bill should rack up the support of at least 56 of the 81 senators – surpassing the 49 votes needed for passage (Chart I-1). We would not be surprised if the bill faced sudden hang-ups in the senate, such as delays or dilutions. The House bill was introduced in February and after some delay passed in August. Rodrigo Maia, President of the Chamber of Deputies, was instrumental in ensuring the bill’s smooth passage. While Senate President Davi Alcolumbre has a similar interest in ensuring its passage, there is no guarantee that it will be smooth. Fragmentation in the senate, for example, is at the highest level ever, unlike the lower house. The bill requires two rounds of voting. Bezerra’s expectation of voting on September 24 and October 15 is already a delay from the initial projection of September 18 and October 2. Bottom Line: Pension reform is highly likely to pass, if not as rapidly as its promoters say, and the Brazilian congress will soon need to turn to the next major item on the economic reform agenda. Tracking Bolsonaro’s Political Capital For The Post-Pension Reform Agenda Does Bolsonaro have enough political capital to pass other structural reforms? Or will he fall victim to stall speed as his policy focus shifts to less market-friendly areas, his relationship with the legislature breaks down, and his popular support continues to slide? With macroeconomic headwinds and a fragile governing coalition, the answer is a qualified yes that Bolsonaro has sufficient political capital to spend on additional reforms. But since it is impossible to know precisely what will occur after the pension reform goes through, we highlight the key signposts that we will use to monitor Bolsonaro’s progress. A fundamental premise is that neither Bolsonaro nor his party are instinctively or ideologically pro-market. He won the 2018 election due to a specific set of circumstances and popular policies. These form the four pillars of his political support: The Collapse Of The Left: The 2016 and 2018 elections wiped out the Worker’s Party, which had ruled Brazil since 2003, and swept Bolsonaro to power on a wave of deep disillusionment. The success of Bolsonaro’s right-wing Social Liberal Party (PSL), a decidedly minor party, over Fernando Haddad’s left-wing PT, one of the country’s biggest parties, highlighted Brazilians’ disenchantment after the worst recession in a century and a sprawling corruption scandal that implicated most of the political elite. Chart I-2The Left Is Still Wounded While Bolsonaro’s “honeymoon period” after election has ended, the PT has not recovered from its loss of legitimacy over the past decade. A poll conducted in late August reveals that if the 2022 election were held today, Bolsonaro would secure a sizable lead not only over the PT but also over the combined opposition (Chart I-2). Pension Reform: All of Brazil’s political elites recognize that the bloated pension system must be cut back to improve the country’s fiscal profile and debt sustainability. After the previous government failed to do so, this became a central Bolsonaro campaign promise. Consensus on pension reform has enabled him to form a majority coalition; it is among the most popular items on the government’s agenda not because people love having their pensions cut but because of the widespread perception that it is necessary and will improve Brazil’s overall economic circumstances (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Brazilians See The Value In Pension Reform Ironically, however, passing this reform will also remove this pillar of the administration’s political capital. Bolsonaro will be left with less political capital to spend on other reforms and he will face less unity within his coalition having accomplished its greatest shared goal. Thus if the bill passes yet fails to boost his approval rating, or immediately prompts him to pursue less market-friendly policies or to lose major parties from his coalition, then it is a red flag suggesting that he is a one-trick pony and will not get other major reforms done in his term. Law And Order: Bolsonaro was elected on a ticket of restoring order. The crime rate has fallen since the beginning of the year and voters will be looking for this to be sustained (Chart I-4). The fall in the crime rate and the net approval of the security environment in Brazil are positive for Bolsonaro’s credibility. However, it is not clear that his policies are directly responsible for this improvement, which means the trend could change. If crime goes up, he loses political capital to do other things. Moreover the public may not approve of his approach. As indicated by Chart I-3 above, while the population is divided over the right to possess weapons in the home, there is clear disapproval of the right to possess weapons on the street. Pursuit of an unpopular solution could diminish his support on law and order. Chart I-4A Rise In Crime Would Hurt Bolsonaro Chart I-5Moro Key For Bolsonaro Anti-Corruption Drive Corruption: The third panel of Chart I-4 also reveals that combating corruption is a key area of perceived success by the Bolsonaro administration to date. Bolsonaro won the office partly because he was seen as a clean leader during a time of pervasive corruption. His administration is also fortified by the presence of Minister of Justice Sergio Moro, who played a leading role in prosecuting corrupt figures in the Lava Jato operation. Moro is by far the most popular minister in cabinet today (Chart I-5). A decline in Moro’s popularity would be an indication that Brazilians are not satisfied with the administration’s progress on the anti-corruption front. As such it would flag declining political capital. If Moro departs the administration for any reason, that would also hurt Bolsonaro's credibility on this critical issue. Bolsonaro’s approval rating to date is very low relative to previous presidents and falling (Chart I-6). The only way this can change is if he gets credit for the pension reform and then prioritizes policies that are broadly popular rather than ideological. As mentioned, the change in the wake of pension reform will be critical to observe: polls show that the public gives the federal government and President Bolsonaro personally the most credit for improvements in Brazil (Chart I-7), but it is not clear that he will be greatly rewarded for cutting pensions. Chart I-6Will Pension Reform Passage Save Bolsonaro? Chart I-7All Credit Goes To The Bolsonaro Administration   The legislative effort has succeeded largely due to House Speaker Rodrigo Maia, a clutch player in congress. The economic liberal Maia has set aside personal differences with the leadership to shepherd economic reforms through congress. This has involved a pragmatic approach that sidelines the president’s controversial social policies and focuses on getting pro-market bills passed. Chart I-8A Weak Starting Point For PSL The political news flow from Brazil this year has been preoccupied with the rift between the legislative and executive branches. At first glance, congress looks impossible to navigate. As is typical in Brazil, congress is extremely fractured. Bolsonaro’s PSL holds only 10% of seats that belong to the 25 parties in the lower house, and only 5% of the seats that belong to the 17 parties in the upper house (Chart I-8). This is comparable to the first Cardoso administration – so it is not impossible to grow this legislative base – but it is a weak starting point. On top of that, Bolsonaro has held true to his campaign promise to shun so-called “old politics” – the granting of cabinet positions or “pork” based on congressional patronage. This reinforces his anti-corruption pillar but makes it hard to grease the wheels of legislation. The passage of the pension reform proposal through Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies shows that congress can be navigated, but it highlights Maia’s critical role. This relationship could break down after pension reform, which would reduce the government’s ability to accomplish additional reforms that require legislative approval. Maia’s third two-year term will expire at the end of next year. He technically cannot be elected for a successive term (although this rule has already been broken). This raises the threat that his successor may not be as pro-market or as successful in managing the lower house. In fact, the coming 12 to 18 months create a window of opportunity for the administration and legislature to pass bills before the 2020 local elections and the 2022 general election begin to interfere. Since the pension cuts will be back-loaded – delayed until subsequent years – voters will not immediately feel the pain of the social security changes, which will reduce the chances of a major popular backlash during this window. Provided Maia’s pragmatism continues to prevail, the government can use the pension reform to launch into another major reform initiative. Economy minister Paulo Guedes, another key pro-market player, has highlighted privatization and tax reforms as the next big issues on his agenda. The upcoming 12-18 months offer a window of opportunity for further reforms. Bottom Line: Tensions between the executive and legislative branches of government have not prevented pension reforms from passing because Bolsonaro had a fresh mandate, full political capital, and a broad consensus on the policy itself. Going forward a great deal of political capital will have been spent while consensus will have to be built for the next policy priority. House Speaker Rodrigo Maia is a clutch player, pragmatically enabling the passage of bills through congress, so his cooperation is essential. The upcoming 12-18 months offer a window of opportunity for further reforms, most notably privatization and tax reform. An Executive Way Forward On Privatization The administration’s privatization plan is overly ambitious but there is an executive path forward while the government enters a long slog in the legislature. Guedes has indicated that he wants to sell all of Brazil’s state owned enterprises to the private sector. In value terms, the government hopes to raise 1.3 trillion reals ($323 billion) in the process, about 20% of total public debt. Brazil has 418 SOEs controlled directly or indirectly by the state, both at the state and municipal levels. Of the 134 federal companies, 46 are under direct control, while the remaining 88 are under indirect control – subsidiaries of major SOEs such as Petrobras, Eletrobras, Banco do Brasil, Caixa, and BNDES. With Brazil’s public debt at 86% of GDP, profit from these sales would go toward paying down the debt and hopefully also raising GDP through gains from increased competition and efficiency. The program would also reduce the government’s interest payments – that account for 25% of government spending and 5% of GDP. Salim Mattar – Special Secretary of Privatization, Divestment and Market — argues that the interest saved will allow the government to divert funds to education and health, buoying Brazil’s human capital over the long term. The privatization of inefficient and loss-generating SOEs is positive for both the near-term and long-term outlook, but the government’s plan is completely unrealistic. Even Mattar’s significantly lower projected gains – up to 800 billion reals ($214 billion) – are likely unattainable. Although the government will easily meet its target of raising $20 billion this year,2 these sales represent the low-hanging fruit – they are the asset sales that face no or low resistance from the public and congress. On August 21, the Bolsonaro government released a list of 17 state-owned companies that it intends to privatize (Table I-1). From among the largest SOEs, – Petrobras, Eletrobras, BNDES, Banco do Brasil, and Caixa Economica Federal – only Eletrobras is on the list. The rest of the major SOEs will face greater hurdles as they have been identified as “strategic” and face greater resistance from the public (Chart I-9). In fact, although government officials expressed confidence that Eletrobras will be privatized in 2020, Senate President Davi Alcolumbre indicated that the process faces significant resistance in the senate. As such we would expect the legislature to tackle companies that are not as controversial. Table I-1Government Privatization List What is more, while congressional approval is required for the sale of SOEs, a supreme court ruling earlier this year allows the government to sell subsidiaries of its companies without approval from congress. Thus while major state companies such as Petrobras or Eletrobras are unlikely to be privatized (certainly not wholly), the government will attempt to move forward by selling non-core assets of non-strategic companies, and taking other measures to improve efficiency of operations. Chart I-9These "Strategic" SOEs Face Privatization Resistance Chart I-10Privatization Will Reduce Debt Burden Putting aside the administration’s plan to accelerate the program next year, if we project $20 billion worth of privatizations per year for the remainder of Bolsonaro’s term, the total $80 billion in total sales will bring Brazil’s debt-to-GDP ratio down to 81% from 85% (Chart I-10). Bottom Line: Although the sale of the largest “strategic” state-owned companies will not happen, the administration’s privatization program can succeed by diverting congressional efforts to non-strategic companies. The administration can also move alone on non-core assets. This is a net positive for overall productivity, competitiveness, and fiscal sustainability although it is not huge in magnitude. Less Optimism On Tax And Tariff Reform In addition to the outsized economic role of the state, Brazil has been suffering from inefficiencies due to the relatively elevated tax burden and overly complicated system (Chart I-11). This has reduced its ranking in the World Bank’s Doing Business rankings which assigns it the seventh worst spot in paying taxes (Chart I-12). The nearly six thousand laws governing taxes in Brazil likely hold back the country’s FDI potential and encourages tax evasion. Chart I-11Brazilians Suffer From Outsized Tax Burden … Chart I-12… Contributing To An Unattractive Business Environment Given Brazil’s poor fiscal standing and large debt load, there is no room to reduce taxes. Rather, reform efforts are centered around simplifying the tax code in order to improve the investment environment. A complete overhaul requires the approval of three-fifths of congress. Pension reform shows this is theoretically possible, but the process will be lengthy and unlikely to occur before the second half of next year. There are currently four main proposals being considered. All aim to simplify the tax system by combining all current taxes imposed on consumption into a single tax. The proposal most advanced in the legislative process enjoys the support of Maia and has already been deemed lawful by a lower house committee. It recommends applying the single tax rate uniformly across all states. Bolsonaro’s administration is also designing its own reform proposals, but has yet to release details. As revealed by the firing of special secretary to Brazil’s federal revenue service Marcos Cintra on September 11, the cabinet is in conflict over the reintroduction of a financial transactions tax, such as the CPMF which expired in 2007. Chart I-3 above illustrates that the tax is generally unpopular, causing Bolsonaro to be staunchly against the tax, while Guedes has indicated that it should be part of the reform. The proposal is expected to be put to lawmakers in a congressional committee responsible for drafting the bill by October 8 before being introduced to the lower house. However, given that the financial transactions tax is unpopular and a point of contention in the administration, the timeline will likely be delayed. Moreover the legislative approval process will be lengthy. While Bezerra Coelho does not expect tax reform to be approved until the second half of 2020, this is an optimistic assessment. Given the complexity of overhauling the tax system, we expect a one-year process at minimum and therefore doubt that approval will come in 2020. Instead modifications to the current system may be easier to enact and implement. Guedes has also signaled the need for a reduction in Brazil’s extremely elevated import tariffs which have been erected amid a policy of import substitution (Chart I-13). With most tariffs in the range of 10% and 35%, Guedes has stated that the government plans to reduce tariffs by 10 percentage points during Bolsonaro’s four year term by cutting the rate by one percentage point in the first year, two in the second, three in the third, and four in the fourth. This can be done by executive action and does not require legislation. What about Bolsonaro's trade liberalization push? On the campaign trail, Bolsonaro expressed his intention to step back from Mercosur and instead prioritize bilateral trade with rich countries such as the United States. However, given the importance of the bloc to Brazilian trade, the reality is that Bolsonaro cannot afford to neglect these countries (Chart I-14). The recently agreed EU-Mercosur trade deal, 20 years in the making, could create opportunities for Brazil over the long-run, but it is being held up by European countries as appetite for free trade deals becomes politically problematic across the world. Chart I-13Elevated Tariff Rate Hurts Brazil's Competitiveness Chart I-14Trade Surplus With Mercosur Is Reliable While greater integration with global trade will increase Brazil’s market access – a positive for exports – it also results in increased competition and a threat to existing companies that are unable to compete at an international level over the near term. Thus it is not immediately clear whether trade liberalization will generate net gains for Brazil’s economy in the short term. If Bolsonaro and Guedes do not move immediately, they will have to pause these efforts in the 2021 lead up to the 2022 election. Moreover the Mercosur agreement, as well as Brazil’s general bilateral trade with Argentina, are at risk if opposition leader Alberto Fernandez wins the presidential election on October 27. A return to protectionist policies by Argentina could harm Brazilian exports and threaten progress on the Mercosur trade bloc. There is more reason to be optimistic about privatization than about tax reform or trade liberalization. Bottom Line: There is more reason to be optimistic about privatization efforts than about the passage of a major overhaul to Brazil’s tax system or the integration of Brazil with global markets. Nevertheless, ongoing efforts should sustain an improvement in “animal spirits” in the short term and create some potential for structural improvements over the long term. The Economy: A Stall Speed Risk Chart I-15A Slow Grinding Recovery The Brazilian economy is en route to recovery, albeit a slow one. The level of economic activity is still well below its pre-recession level but is grinding slowly back (Chart I-15). The key economic risk is stall speed. Like an aircraft, if the pace of growth falls below stall speed, gravity forces will overwhelm, and the economy will descend into a recession. In the case of Brazil, gravity forces refer to indebtedness – public debt, household debt servicing costs and corporate foreign currency debt. The path of least resistance for the business cycle is up and bullishness on Brazil is pervasive in the global investment community. Nevertheless, the economy remains very fragile. At the current juncture, while acknowledging that odds for the positive outlook to pan out are reasonably high, we would like to emphasize that gravity forces remain acute in Brazil. While odds for the positive outlook to pan out are high, gravity forces remain reasonably acute. Weakening narrow money growth fore shadows a weaker pace of nominal and real economic activity (Chart I-16). Brazilian households have increasingly relied on credit cards and revolving credit lines to finance their consumption in recent years. These types of credit carry high interest rates. Consequently, at 21% of disposable income, household debt servicing remains very elevated despite a large reduction in bond yields and policy rates (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Is Growth About To Stall? Chart I-17Household Servicing Costs Remain Elevated Private banks have experienced a modest uptick in non-performing loans (NPLs) (Chart I-18). This may incentivize private banks to moderate credit growth. With public banks deleveraging or shrinking their balance sheets, any moderation in private bank lending could stall the pace of growth in the economy. Interestingly, all-time low bond yields and the Selic rate have not yet translated into a meaningful recovery in real estate prices and new construction launches remain anemic (Chart I-19). Chart I-18Private Banks NPLs And Credit Growth Chart I-19Weak Property Market Despite Low Interest Rates   Fiscal policy is straightjacketed by the spending cap rule, which indexes government spending to the rate of inflation of the previous year. Nominal fiscal spending will grow only 4.3% this year and will expand by a mere 3.4% in 2020. Foreign debt obligations (FDO) – the sum of short-term claims, interest payments and amortization over the next 12 months – stand at $180 billion, equivalent to 78% of Brazil’s annual exports (Chart I-20).  The current account deficit will continue widening if domestic demand and, consequently, imports recover. Foreign funding requirements – FDO plus the current account balance – are substantial, standing at $250 billion (Chart I-21). If portfolio flows to EM are disturbed, Brazil will feel the pain. Chart I-20Foreign Debt Obligation Are Elevated Chart I-21Brazil Has Large Funding Gap... Chart I-22...With Exports Contracting With export growth contracting by double digits on both a value and volume basis (Chart I-22), the demand vesus supply of dollars in Brazil will likely keep the greenback well bid versus the Brazilian real. The nation’s pension bill is a very positive and much-needed step in the structural reform process. However, in its current form, it is insufficient to make public debt dynamics sustainable – i.e., halt the rise in the government debt-to-GDP ratio. Bottom Line: The path of least resistance for the business cycle is up. However, the economy remains very fragile. A negative external or domestic shock could cause the Brazilian economy to stall speed. Barring such negative shocks, the economy will continue its recovery. Have Financial Markets Reached Escape Velocity? Financial markets are vulnerable to the risk of stall speed on both the structural reforms and economic growth fronts. This is especially true now that equity and bond prices have risen substantially. If the pace of structural reforms or the economy fall victim to stall speed, financial markets will tumble. On the contrary, if the reform agenda progresses and economic growth accelerates, financial markets will reach escape velocity and sustain their bull markets. Apart from the outlook for both structural reforms and the business cycle, the largest risks to Brazil’s financial markets are as follows: BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team expects base metals and energy prices to decline further, weighing on EM currencies. The main culprit is weakening Chinese demand. This scenario entails non-negligible odds of Brazilian real depreciation because the latter has historically been positively correlated with commodity prices (Chart I-23). Brazil has become a net exporter of oil, so lower crude prices are negative for the currency. Importantly, the real is not cheap based on the real effective exchange rate (Chart I-24). Chart I-23Commodity Prices Hold The Key Chart I-24Real Valuations Are Not Yet Attractive The gap between local currency and U.S. dollar bond yields has narrowed to a record low. This along with the large overhang of corporate foreign currency debt, as discussed above, is already encouraging debt swap - corporates borrow in reals to repay their foreign currency debt. These capital outflows from residents will continue weighing on the exchange rate. A widening current account deficit has historically foreshadowed lower share prices in U.S. dollar terms (Chart I-25). Finally, local bond yields, and sovereign and corporate spreads have plummeted despite currency depreciation. Such resilience by fixed-income markets to currency depreciation is historically unprecedented. It remains to be seen if yields and credit spreads can remain low if the currency breaks down. Bottom Line: Barring stall speed in structural reforms and economic growth, downside in Brazilian asset prices is limited. However, near-term volatility is likely as the nation’s financial markets are overbought and investor sentiment is very bullish. Besides, equity prices in dollar terms have not broken above important technical resistance levels, as shown in Chart I-26. Hence, we can say the bull market in the Bovespa in dollar terms has not yet reached escape velocity. Chart I-25The Current Account Is A Risk To Share Prices Chart I-26The Bovespa In Dollar Terms Has Not Reached Escape Velocity Investment Recommendations Weighing the pros and cons, we recommend upgrading Brazil from underweight to neutral for dedicated EM equity, credit and domestic bond portfolios. Given the potential risks discussed above, we are looking for a better entry point to upgrade Brazil to overweight. We upgraded Brazil to overweight on October 9, 2018 following the first round of presidential elections but downgraded it on April 4, 2019 when volatility began rising. In retrospect, that was the wrong decision. Volatility could rise but there is a basis for giving the administration the benefit of the doubt as long as it remains committed to pro-market reforms. Chart I-27Real Estate Stocks Offer An Opportunity For long-term absolute return investors the key risk is the exchange rate. Hence, these investors should adopt a positive long-term bias for local currency returns but hedge currency risk periodically. Currently, global financial markets are in a juncture where the dollar will likely move higher and the Brazilian real will depreciate. Hence, investors already invested in Brazil should hedge exchange rate risk. Within the Brazilian equity universe, BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy service favors real estate because low nominal and real interest rates are bullish for the property sector. The latter was devastated during the recession and has not yet recovered (Chart I-27). Consequently, for long-term investors, we continue recommending Brazilian real estate plays/assets on dips. Footnotes   1      "Stall speed" is the velocity below which an aircraft will descend, or 'stall', regardless of its angle of attack. If an aircraft's airspeed is greater than the stall speed then the pilot can increase the aircraft's angle of attack to achieve additional lift. 2      So far in 2019 the government has already sold off $12.3 billion worth of assets from Petrobras, $4.9 billion in shares held in various companies, and gained $1.9 billion from leases on airports, railways and ports.