Developed Countries

How important is the potential thawing of the Sino-U.S. trade war to oil markets?  On a scale of 1 – 10, this goes up to 11 (Chart of the Week). Brent’s and WTI’s one-day rally of ~ 5% on Tuesday, followed by a 4.5% sell-off on Wednesday, is a testimony to the importance these markets place on the evolution of the Sino-U.S. trade war, and anything that suggests a change in the status quo.1 The rally was an almost-immediate response to the announcement the U.S. would delay until December 15 the imposition of tariffs on ~ $160 billion of $300 billion of goods that become effective September 1. The tariffs were announced August 1 by President Trump. Wednesday's sell-off was triggered by weak global economic data and building U.S. crude stocks. It also was a wake-up that nothing substantive was advanced to resolve the Sino-U.S. trade war. The rally indicates pent-up demand awaits a resolution of trade uncertainties. In this report, we introduce our new proprietary Nowcast model of EM commodity demand.2 We also look at the overall macro backdrop for commodity markets, which is largely supportive, with most of the world’s central banks moving to a recession-fighting mode.3   In addition, we could get a deal between the U.S. and China following the resumption of tariff negotiations in Washington come September, which allows some resumption of trade. We have little doubt markets would welcome such an outcome. However, we remain skeptical of the deeper issues separating the two sides – e.g., IP protection, an end to forced technology transfers – will be resolved in the near future. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Saudi Aramco held its first-ever investor call this week, disclosing it earned close to $50 billion in 1H19. Earnings were down ~ 12% in the period, according to the company, partly as a result of a 4% decline in realized prices for crude oil vs. 1H18. This is a relatively small decline vs. the 7% and 12% 1H19 y/y declines in Brent and WTI, over the same period, reflecting the Kingdom’s premier position as the largest exporter of medium and heavy crudes in the world. These streams are in short supply relative to the light-sweet crude being produced in the U.S. shales. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper also got a lift from renewed trade-talk hopes, rising 2.3% on the back of the unexpected trade news from the Trump administration earlier in the week. Many of the products exempted by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative are electronics – cell phones, laptop computers, video game consoles, and computer monitors – which will marginally support copper prices, and Christmas retail sales. Copper held on to most of its gains Wednesday. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold and silver sold off following the U.S. trade representative’s announcement, but recovered later in the trading day, and Wednesday. Gold continues to trade above $1,500/oz, while silver trades over $17/oz. We remain long both metals as portfolio hedges against policy risk. Ags/Softs: Underweight. With the exception of corn, grains and beans mostly rallied on the trade news, with soybeans ending the day up 1.2% Tuesday. Corn traded down 6.1% Monday and a further 5.0% Tuesday, following the USDA’s WASDE report, which indicated acres planted would fall by less than analysts estimated going into the Monday morning release of the department’s supply-demand estimates, according to agriculture.com. Feature Commodity markets are noted for their ability to cover a year’s worth of price movement in a matter of days. The past two weeks in the oil markets have not disappointed, as the Chart of the Week attests. Despite the volatility introduced by exogenous policy shocks, we remain constructive on crude oil. The underlying resilience in the growth of EM economies, which drives commodity demand generally, is apparent in various gauges we’ve developed to track something close to current conditions in markets. In addition, as noted above, fiscal and monetary policy globally remains supportive of commodity demand. While growth may not match the halcyon pre-GFC days shown in the top panel of Chart 2, growth still is strong and, importantly for commodities, is coming off a higher base level.4 Broader indicators – e.g., global and country-specific LEIs – support our expectation for improved EM growth, which, ultimately is what drives commodity demand. We are compelled to note considerable uncertainty around the prospects for global growth – particularly for EM GDP growth – exists in markets and within BCA Research. Our Special Report on these divergent views elegantly presents these differences, and we highly recommend it to our readers. Fundamentally, we align with the bulls, who argue global growth can be expected to rebound this year, for reasons we cite above. The bears in BCA, which include our Emerging Market strategists, have a different view to ours, particularly on EM domestic demand. The bears expect a further deterioration in global economic activity or a delayed recovery. As a result, they expect additional downside in stocks and risk assets – including commodities – and outperformance of defensives relative to cyclicals, low safe-haven yields, and a generally stronger dollar.5  EM GDP Resilience Our BCA EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast model points to an underlying recovery in oil demand, despite the continued policy-induced volatility in prices (Chart 2). This model is a weighted index of our Global Commodity Factor (GCF), Global Industrial Activity (GIA) Index, and EM Import Volume (EMIV) models (Chart 3).6  Chart 2BCA EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast Suggests Oil Demand Rebounding Chart 3BCA EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast Components   Chart 4Global Growth Poised To Resume The GCF uses principal component analysis to distill the primary driver of 28 different commodity prices traded globally. The GIA index uses trade data, FX rates, manufacturing data and Chinese industrial activity statistics, which can be updated monthly. Lastly, the EMIV model is driven by EM import volumes reported with a two-month lag by the CPB in the Netherlands, which can be updated to current time using FX rates of economies highly sensitive to EM trade. Our BCA EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast is strongly correlated with y/y growth in nominal EM GDP and non-OECD oil consumption, as Chart 2 shows. This highlights the strong connection between EM GDP growth and oil demand growth. This also is critical to price formation – indeed,  our Nowcast is highly correlated with crude oil prices, which explains why EM GDP is our principal demand variable in forecasting oil prices (Chart 2, bottom panel). Other, broader indicators – e.g., global and country-specific LEIs – support our expectation for improved EM growth, which, ultimately is what drives commodity demand (Chart 4). However, these can change as local economic activity changes.7 One important thing to note, however: While China’s nominal import volumes are weaker y/y, its volume of crude oil imports (Chart 4, top panel) are growing. Partly this is the result of strong refinery margins; but there is a risk too much product will be produced, which could saturate Asian refined-product markets.8 Bullish Crude Oil Term Structure While price levels have been hammered lower by trade policy uncertainty and weekly pivots in direction, the Brent and WTI forward curves remain backwardated (Chart 5). This normally indicates market tightness – i.e., refiners are willing to pay more for prompt-delivered crude than for deferred delivery. Crude oil markets continue to be buffeted by policy shocks – particularly in regard to the Sino-U.S. trade war. Chart 5Crude Oil Forwards Remain Backwardated This is consistent with our reading of the underlying supply-demand dynamics of the crude market. It is important to note the backwardation in these forward curves weakened almost every month since the beginning of the year. This suggests demand slowed – the market is tight, but closer to balanced, and not in as large a supply deficit as it was expected earlier in the year. We expect OPEC 2.0 to continue to maintain production discipline, and for demand to turn up in 2H19.9 In addition, we continue to expect strong demand in 2H19 and in 2020 as we’ve noted above, given the supportive fiscal and monetary backdrop globally. Bottom Line: Crude oil markets continue to be buffeted by policy shocks – particularly in regard to the Sino-U.S. trade war. Despite these shocks, demand for crude is holding up, although it still is lower than what we expected previously – along with the EIA and IEA, we’ve been revising demand lower in our last three monthly Global Oil Balance assessments. Demand is now supported by monetary and fiscal policy easing globally. However, escalation in trade tensions could bring demand down again. Indeed, an escalation in Sino-U.S. trade tensions could push this to a lower equilibrium. It is important to point out our Nowcast is a coincident indicator, and that most of our series' last data points were observed in July, which is before the latest escalation in trade tensions. We could see a move down in some of our indicators next month. To be clear, we are not sounding an all-clear on the trade front, although we are seeing signs of recovery from relatively high base levels of EM GDP activity.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com   Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see USTR Announces Next Steps on Proposed 10 Percent Tariff on Imports from China, issued by the Office of the United States Trade Representative August 13, 2019. The USTR’s press release appears to be something of an olive branch, noting, “On May 17, 2019, USTR published a list of products imported from China that would be potentially subject to an additional 10 percent tariff.  This new tariff will go into effect on September 1 as announced by President Trump on August 1.”  This suggests the opening of a possible compromise ahead of trade talks set to resume next month. 2      As discussed below, our BCA EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast combines three of our proprietary models gauging EM commodity demand.  Please see Getting Long Silver, To Hedge Exogenous Shocks, published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy August 8, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3    Our prior remains it is highly unlikely the PBOC or the Fed will let their economies weaken substantially without deploying additional monetary stimulus.  In addition, we believe Chinese policymakers will hold off on major stimulus in the next couple of months to get thru National Day, which will allow them to deploy further fiscal stimulus after October and next year, in the event the trade war and currency war worsens.  We also draw attention to the fact that, globally, central banks all are acting as if they’re already fighting a recession – last week, three central banks announced further easing (India, New Zealand, Thailand), following similar action by the Fed and Asian central banks (South Korea and Indonesia).  A full-blown trade war between the U.S. and China would be tumultuous, but, after the dust settles, global supply chains would have to be rebuilt or augmented, as trading blocs centered on the respective antagonists regrouped and reorganized their trading relationships and supply lines. 4     Using World Bank quarterly GDP figures, we calculate Emerging and Developing markets’ GDP will be up close to 74% between 2007 and 2019, averaging $7.24 trillion in constant 2010 USD this year. 5      We urge our clients to read this Special Report, What Goes On Between Those Walls? BCA’s Diverging Views In The Open, published by BCA Research July 19, 2019. 6       The nowcasting index uses the weighted average of each component’s coefficient of determination that falls out of a regression against EM GDP growth. Our analysis indicates EM oil demand is driven by EM GDP growth.  For additional information on the separate gauges, please see Getting Long Silver, To Hedge Exogenous Shocks, Expanded Sino – U.S. Trade War Could Be Bullish For Base Metals published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy August 8 and May 9, 2019.  Both are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7      We note Indian economic activity is slowing due to strains on the shadow-banking system in that country.  This bears watching, as India is the second largest EM economy we track in our oil-demand estimates.  Please see India's passenger vehicle sales drop at steepest pace in nearly two decades, published by in.reuters.com August 13, 2019. Auto industry representatives are pushing for government support to address the sales downturn.  S&P’s BSE index measuring the health of Indian banks is down 23% ytd.  8     Please see UPDATE 1-China's July crude oil imports rise as refiners ramp up output published by reuters.com August 8, 2019. 9      We are updating our supply-demand balances and prices forecasts for Brent and WTI next week. For our most recent forecast, please see Weak 1H19 Oil Demand Data Fuels Market Uncertainty published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy July 18, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

While the stock market cheered the news that President Trump will postpone the tariffs on certain Chinese made goods to December – slightly reminiscent of Trump’s Mexican tariffs backtracking – we continue to heed the negative messages from a number of our indicators and remain cautious on the broad market on a cyclical time horizon. Our Equity Market Internal Dynamics Indicator (comprising economically sensitive equity sector tilts, EMIDI) continues to emit an unambiguous sell signal. Historically, this indicator peaks in advance of the broad market as it sniffs out trouble ahead of the overall market (see circles, top panel). With regard to troughs, the EMIDI’s track record is more coincident than leading. Beyond this negative omen, stalling earnings also suggest at least a digestion period in the SPX. As a reminder the last time EPS hit a wall near $118/share for three years running between 2014 and 2016, the SPX moved laterally with a lot of volatility post the August 11th, 2015 Chinese renminbi devaluation (bottom panel). Fast forward to today and it appears as though the overall market cannot clear the $165/share level. Sell-side analysts are also feverishly downgrading Q3/2019, Q4/2019 and overall 2020 EPS, warning that the SPX has more downside. Bottom Line: Absent a turnaround in profits we remain cautious on the broad equity market on a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon. ​​​​​​​

Highlights Duration: Hawkish trade policy will continue to weigh on bond yields for at least the next few months, but a rebound in global economic growth should take hold before the end of the year. Ultimately, a growth rebound will lead to higher bond yields on a 12-month horizon, but the timing is difficult and investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for the time being. High-Yield: The Fed’s accommodative policy stance and the likelihood of a global growth recovery argue for maintaining an overweight allocation to corporate credit. Within that allocation, junk bonds should outperform investment grade due to much more attractive valuations. 10-Year Treasury Yield: The current shock to global economic growth is of a similar magnitude to the one that occurred in 2015/16. However, wage and inflationary pressures are higher now than they were back then. This means that the 10-year Treasury yield will not re-visit the 2016 trough of 1.37%, and is probably already close to its floor. Feature Regular readers will be aware of our Fed Policy Loop framework for analyzing the wiggles in financial markets. The Loop works as follows: Step 1: A dovish shift in Fed policy leads to a favorable market reaction, easing financial conditions. Step 2: Easier financial conditions suggest to the Fed that economic growth will strengthen in the future. The Fed can therefore respond by adopting a more hawkish policy stance. Step 3: The Fed’s hawkish policy shift leads to a negative market reaction, tightening financial conditions. Step 4: Tighter financial conditions suggest to the Fed that economic growth will weaken in the future. The Fed is forced to ease monetary policy at the margin. Return to Step 1 But it appears that BCA readers aren’t the only ones aware of the Fed Policy Loop. President Trump has also been exploiting the two-way relationship between Fed policy and financial conditions as he escalates his trade war with China. Chart 1 illustrates how this has been working. Step 1 of the Fed policy loop continues to function exactly as described above. However, the last few times that financial conditions have eased, the President has seized the opportunity to ratchet up trade tensions. Much like the Fed, the President reasons that periods of easier financial conditions are when the economy and financial markets can best handle a negative shock. The fall-out is that financial conditions tighten in response to the hawkish trade announcement, and the Fed is forced to respond to tighter financial conditions by turning even more dovish. The end result is that the part of the Fed Policy Loop labeled “Hawkish Fed” is by-passed. Without that step it is impossible for bond yields to rise (Chart 2). Chart 2The Back-Drop Of The Interrupted Fed Policy Loop Our Geopolitical Strategy service provided a comprehensive breakdown of U.S./China trade negotiations in last week’s report.1 The overall message is that the 2020 election is the President’s main constraint. He views hawkish trade policy as a winning issue, but only insofar as it can be accomplished without a significant decline in the stock market or economic activity. Faced with that constraint, the President will continue to interrupt the Fed Policy Loop, and the Fed will continue to do its job by adopting a more dovish monetary policy to offset possible trade shocks. At present, this means that another rate cut is likely in September. Against the back-drop of the “interrupted” Fed Policy Loop, Treasury yields can only move higher if global economic growth strengthens. In that case, the policy loop will remain operative, but at an overall higher level of yields. With that in mind, while hawkish trade policy will continue to weigh on bond yields for at least the next few months, a rebound in global economic growth should take hold before the end of the year. This will lead to higher bond yields on a 12-month horizon. Still Tracking The 2015/16 Roadmap In our research, we have repeatedly pointed out the similarities between the 2015/16 episode of flagging global growth and the current period. Specifically, we continue to witness weak manufacturing data – both in the U.S. and abroad – but a resilient service sector and strong labor market. Much like in 2015/16, we expect that the shifts toward easier monetary policy in the U.S. and more accommodative credit conditions in China will eventually put a floor under the global manufacturing cycle. The Fed will continue to do its job by adopting a more dovish monetary policy to offset possible trade shocks. At present, this means that another rate cut is likely in September. Case in point, even as President Trump has tightened global financial conditions at the margin through his hawkish trade policy, overall global financial conditions have eased since the beginning of the year (Chart 3). In 2016, easier financial conditions eventually led to upturns in crucial measures of global growth such as the Goldman Sachs Current Activity Indicator (Chart 3, top panel), the Global Manufacturing PMI (Chart 3, panel 2), and the CRB Raw Industrials index (Chart 3, bottom panel). The same dynamic should play out this time around. It’s likely that the main reason why global growth has not responded as quickly as it did in 2016 is that Chinese policy easing has not been as rapid (Chart 4). Our China Investment Strategy service’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator – a composite measure of money and credit indicators designed to lead Chinese economic activity – has clearly bottomed, but has not yet surged as it did in 2015/16. However, Chinese policy easing continues to ramp up, a process that will continue in the months ahead. The most recent indication of this trend was China’s decision to de-value its currency versus the U.S. dollar, causing the exchange rate to jump above the important psychological threshold of 7 yuan per dollar (Chart 4, bottom panel). China took similar measures to de-value its currency in August 2015, a move that initially roiled markets but eventually helped usher in a rebound in global growth. Chart 3The 2015/2016 Scenario Has Yet To Play Out... Chart 4...As Long As China Does Not Stimulate More When it comes to strategy, we remain confident that global growth is close to a trough, but admit that timing the rebound is difficult. One indicator that should help with timing is the ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials index and Gold (Chart 5). This ratio is tightly correlated with the 10-year Treasury yield, and will only rise when the perceived improvement in global growth – proxied by the CRB index – starts to outpace the perceived dovish tilt to Fed policy – proxied by the rising gold price. Chart 5Keep Tracking The CRB / Gold Ratio In light of these difficulties with timing, we recommend that investors keep portfolio duration close to benchmark, but position for a rebound in global growth by maintaining an overweight allocation to credit risk and by running a heavily barbelled Treasury portfolio, overweighting the long and short ends of the curve while avoiding the 5-year and 7-year maturities. The barbell strategy increases average portfolio yield, and also avoids the part of the yield curve that will suffer the most when yields rise. Take Credit Risk In Junk As mentioned above, we recommend that investors maintain an overweight allocation to corporate credit versus Treasuries, despite our recent shift to benchmark duration.2 This is particularly true for high-yield bonds, where spreads are very attractive. Charts 6A and 6B show one of our favorite ways of looking at corporate bond spreads. The charts show the 12-month breakeven spread for each credit tier as a percentile rank relative to history.3 We show each credit tier individually to control for the time-varying average credit rating of the overall indexes. Similarly, we show breakeven spreads instead of the average option-adjusted spreads to control for the time-varying average duration of the bond indexes. Chart 6A shows the following valuation for investment grade credit tiers: Throughout history, Aaa credits have been more expensive than they are today only 13% of the time. Aa credits have been more expensive than they are today 19% of the time. A-rated credits have been more expensive 20% of the time. Baa credits have been more expensive 33% of the time. Chart 6B shows that the corresponding valuation for high-yield is much more compelling: Ba credits have been more expensive than today 55% of the time. B credits have been more expensive 81% of the time. Caa credits have been more expensive 84% of the time. Chart 6AInvestment Grade Breakeven Spreads Chart 6BHigh-Yield Breakeven Spreads In general, this way of looking at spreads shows that investment grade credits are quite expensive, while high-yield credits are either fairly valued or cheap. However, there is one more adjustment we can make to get an even better picture of corporate bond value. Adjusting For The Phase Of The Cycle A useful tool for cyclical portfolio allocation is to split the cycle into three phases based on the slope of the yield curve (Chart 7). We define the three phases as: Chart 7The Three Phases Of The Cycle Phase 1: From the end of the last recession until the 3/10 Treasury slope flattens to below 50 bps. Phase 2: When the 3/10 slope is between 0 bps and +50 bps. Phase 3: From when the 3/10 slope inverts until the start of the next recession. We have previously discussed the implications of the different phases for bond portfolio allocation in more depth.4 This week, we simply want to point out that credit spreads tend to be tighter during Phase 2 of the cycle, when monetary policy has tightened, but not by enough to cause a surge in corporate defaults. The recent surge in investment grade net debt-to-EBITDA likely reflects the shift toward a greater concentration of Baa-rated issuers. With this cyclical decomposition in mind, we can calculate the median breakeven spread for each credit tier in past Phase 2 periods and use that as a spread target for this cycle. We then convert our breakeven spread targets into average option-adjusted spread targets using current index duration. Charts 8A and 8B show how far each credit tier’s spreads are from target. The message is quite clear. Outside of Aaa, investment grade credits are more or less fairly valued, while high-yield credits appear very cheap. Chart 8AInvestment Grade Spread Targets Chart 8BHigh-Yield Spread Targets One might reasonably challenge this approach to corporate bond valuation by noting that, outside of looking at credit tiers individually, we have not taken fundamental credit quality trends into account. That is, we have made no adjustment for the fact that the credit quality of a Ba-rated issuer might be worse today than in prior cycles. We are skeptical that fundamental credit metrics matter more than the phase of the monetary policy cycle when it comes to corporate bond spread forecasting.5 However, this point of view is still worth exploring, especially considering that net debt-to-EBITDA for the median corporate bond issuer is quite elevated compared to history (Chart 9). Note that we have not attempted to maintain consistent weightings between the different credit tiers in the bottom-up samples shown in Chart 9. This means that the recent surge in investment grade net debt-to-EBITDA likely reflects the shift toward a greater concentration of Baa-rated issuers. Nonetheless, the net debt-to-EBITDA ratio of the median junk issuer is clearly worse than during the past two recoveries. But even if we take this into account by looking at the ratio between the junk index 12-month breakeven spread and the median net debt-to-EBITDA, we see that the ratio is still close to its historical median (Chart 10). In other words, at current spread levels junk investors appear reasonably compensated for the elevated median net debt-to-EBITDA ratio Chart 9Elevated Corporate Leverage Chart 10Favor Junk Bonds Bottom Line: The Fed’s accommodative policy stance and the likelihood of a global growth recovery argue for maintaining an overweight allocation to corporate credit. Within that allocation, junk bonds should outperform investment grade due to much more attractive valuations. Close To The Floor Chart 11Now Vs. Mid-2016 In a prior report we walked through the process of creating a macroeconomic fair value model for the 10-year Treasury yield, with a focus on describing the different independent variables that might be included in such a model, and the rationale for each one.6 This week, we focus on two vital macroeconomic variables and use them to demonstrate why the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to re-visit its mid-2016 trough of 1.37%. The two main variables we focus on are (i) the pace of economic growth, and (ii) the size of the output gap. All else equal, a stronger pace of economic growth leads to expectations for a higher policy rate in the future and a higher 10-year Treasury yield today. However, it is not just the pace of growth that matters. The same rate of economic growth generates more inflationary pressure when the output gap is small than when it is large. This means that bond yields should be higher when the output gap is smaller (or more specifically, less negative). We have found that the Global Manufacturing PMI is probably the indicator of economic growth that correlates best with the 10-year Treasury yield. Similarly, measures of wage growth – and to a lesser extent core inflation – tend to give the best read on the output gap. With that in mind, we can see how these factors look today relative to when the 10-year yield troughed at 1.37% in mid-2016 (Chart 11). Global economic growth looks slightly worse, but not dramatically so. The Global Manufacturing PMI is at 49.3 today. It troughed at 49.9 in 2016. If this were the only variable that mattered, we might reason that the 10-year yield should be below 1.37% already. But we also need to consider that wage growth and inflation are both much higher than in 2016. Average hourly earnings are growing at a year-over-year rate of 3.2%, compared to a rate of 2.8% when the 10-year troughed in 2016. Similarly, the Atlanta Fed’s measure of median wage growth is up to 3.7% for the un-weighted sample and 3.9% for the sample that is weighted to more closely match the demographic characteristics of the overall population (Chart 11, panel 3). It’s true that core PCE inflation is running below where it was in mid-2016, but the trimmed mean measure is much higher (Chart 11, bottom panel). The core PCE inflation measure also has a strong track record of converging toward the trimmed mean, a process we expect is playing out again. The core PCE inflation measure also has a strong track record of converging toward the trimmed mean, a process we expect is playing out again. Bottom Line: The current shock to global economic growth is of a similar magnitude to the one that occurred in 2015/16. However, wage and inflationary pressures are higher now than they were back then. This means that the 10-year Treasury yield will not re-visit the 2016 trough of 1.37%, and is probably already close to its floor.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rattling Of Sabers”, dated August 9, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “Underinsured”, dated August 6, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 The 12-month breakeven spread is the basis point widening required on a 12-month horizon for each credit tier to break even with a duration-matched position in Treasuries. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Risk From U.S. Corporate Debt: Theory And Evidence”, dated April 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Bond Kitchen”, dated April 9, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Negative Interest Rates: Time will tell if negative bond yields are indeed the “new normal”. We need to see negative yields maintained outside of a growth slowdown to prove that thesis. USTs & Bunds: U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds both look overbought, amid extreme price/yield momentum and aggressively long duration positioning. Yet given the persistent headline risk from the U.S.-China trade dispute, and without signs of improving growth in China or Europe, it is too early to position for a reversal of the stretched yield moves. Maintain a neutral overall stance on global duration exposure.1 Feature Positive Headlines On Negative Yields? Investors should always be cautious of “new era” explanations to justify an elevated asset price after a massive rally. That is akin to internet stocks in the late 1990s that were valued on “clicks and eyeballs” in the absence of actual profits. Or the “peak oil” thesis, predicting an impending exhaustion of global petroleum supplies, that was trotted out during past periods when oil prices were already above $100/bbl. The latest such argument can be found in government bonds, where fundamental justifications for the growing inventory of negative yielding bonds being “the new normal” have started to proliferate. The arguments underlying the “Negative Normal Thesis” (which we will coin “NNT”, not to be confused with the MMT of Modern Monetary Theory!) are hardly new. Aging demographics, “savings gluts” and a dwindling supply of global safe assets have been widely cited as causes for low bond yields since early in the 21st century (remember former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan’s famous “bond conundrum”?). Proponents of NNT point to Japan as the textbook example of how rates can stay low forever when savings are high and demand for capital is low. They are now declaring the “Japanification” of Europe … with the U.S. next in line to eventually join the negative rate party. If the argument that negative interest rates are now normal were to hold, however, we would need to see bond yields continue to stay at negative (or at least extremely low) levels even after global economic growth has stabilized. Chart of the WeekIs This Really A “New Era” For Bond Yields? If the argument that negative interest rates are now normal were to hold, however, we would need to see bond yields continue to stay at negative (or at least extremely low) levels even after global economic growth has stabilized. For if negative yields are, in fact, structurally driven by excess savings and not just cyclically driven by weak nominal growth, then improving economic momentum should have little impact on the level of interest rates. That would be a true “Japanification” scenario. For now, as far as we can tell from the data, the big decline in bond yields over the past year can be fully explained by the classic drivers – slowing economic growth and soft inflation (Chart of the Week). Investors are keenly aware of the triggers for these moves by now: a) slowing global trade and capital spending, both victims of the ever-worsening U.S.-China trade dispute; b) the lagged impact of past monetary tightening (Fed rate hikes and, arguably, the end of ECB bond buying at the end of 2018); and c) the persistent strength of the U.S. dollar preventing global “reflation”. You do not have to be an aging saver to view those as good reasons to favor the near-term safety of government bonds. Right now, the steady drumbeat of weakening cyclical global growth indicators is fueling bullish bond sentiment, especially in the parts of the world most exposed to global trade like Europe. Looking ahead, however, we may get the first test of NNT much sooner than expected. The latest update of the OECD’s leading economic indicators (LEI) was released last week. The message is consistent with the modest improvement seen over the past several months (Chart 2), with meaningful gains seen in many economies sensitive to global growth like Mexico, Taiwan, Australia and, most importantly, China.   Our “leading leading” indicator – the diffusion index of the global LEI, which includes many of the individual country OECD LEIs – continues to show that the majority of countries are seeing a rise in their LEI. We have shown that the LEI diffusion index has, in the past, been a fairly reliable leading indicator of the direction of not only the global LEI itself but of global bond yields as well. At present, the relatively optimistic reading from the global LEI diffusion index is at odds with the sharp downward momentum in bond yields (see the middle panel of the Chart of the Week). NNT at work, or a sign of a bubble forming in government bond markets? Time will tell. To be sure, the shaken confidence of investors thanks to the intensifying U.S.-China trade dispute has likely weakened the link between growth and yields – at least temporarily. Investors need to see hard evidence that global growth is bottoming out before seriously reevaluating the current level of bond yields. Signs of improvement in Chinese growth momentum would go a long way to turning around depressed investor confidence. It is still a bit too soon, however, to expect a rebound in Chinese domestic demand given the long lags between leading indicators like the OECD measure (or the China credit impulse) and hard Chinese economic data (Chart 3). More likely, a change in trend for these series would not be visible until well into the 4th quarter of 2019, at the earliest. Chart 2A Ray Of Hope For Global Growth? Chart 3Still A Bit Too Soon To Expect A China Turnaround Signs of better growth in Europe – where negative bond yields are most prevalent, including in corporate bonds – would also help to reverse excessive investor pessimism. A turnaround there, however, also needs better growth in China, given the heavy exposure of European exporters to Chinese demand. So until we see signs of a pickup in Chinese growth momentum, the economic gloomsters, “Ice Agers” and NNT crowd are in charge of the global government bond market. Until we see signs of a pickup in Chinese growth momentum, the economic gloomsters, “Ice Agers” and NNT crowd are in charge of the global government bond market. Bottom Line: Time will tell if negative bond yields are indeed the “new normal”. We need to see negative yields sustained outside of a growth slowdown to prove that thesis. Have The Rallies In U.S. Treasuries & German Bunds Now Gone Too Far? Last week, we upgraded our overall global duration call to neutral on a tactical (0-3 month) basis.2 This was driven by the growing risk that the global central banks – most notably, the Federal Reserve – could be forced to become even more dovish because of the escalation in the U.S.-China trade war. Furthermore, our Global Duration Indicator has pulled back after the steady rise since late 2018, and is now in line with the aggregate level of 10-year bond yields in the major developed markets (Chart 4). This is consistent with a neutral tactical duration view. Chart 4The Signal From Our Duration Indicator Is Consistent With A Neutral Stance There are signs, however, that Treasuries are overbought: Even as Treasury yields are heading closer to the 2016 lows, U.S. inflation expectations derived from the TIPS market are closer to 2% than the lows below 1.5% seen in 2016 (Chart 5). That market pricing seems reasonable, with realized inflation higher, and the labor market tighter, than was the case three years ago. The price momentum for the 10-year Treasury yield is approaching the extremes seen in the “post Fed QE” era (Chart 6), with the 6-month rate of change of the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Treasury index approaching 10%. The deviation of the 10-year Treasury yield from its 200-day moving average, which is also at the post-QE extreme of -75bps, tells a similar story. Chart 5A Different U.S. Inflation Backdrop Vs. 2016 Chart 6The Fall In UST Yields Looks Stretched Investor positioning has become VERY long, with the J.P. Morgan duration survey of Active Clients surging to the highest level in the two-decade history of the series (Chart 6, third panel). A similar story applies to the German bond market, where the entire yield curve out to 30-years is trading below 0% (raising a cheer from the NNTers): Market-based inflation expectations have collapsed, with the 5-year CPI swap, 5-years forward reaching a low of 1.2% – lower than 2016, despite a tighter overall euro area labor market, accelerating wage growth and core inflation remaining sticky around 1% (Chart 7). The 6-month total return of the German government bond index is reaching a post-European Debt Crisis extreme near 10%, while the 10-year Bund yield is trading around a similar extreme of 50bps below its 200-day moving average (Chart 8). Chart 7European Inflation: Expectations Worse Than Reality Chart 8The Fall in Bund Yields Is Looking Stretched While the near-term backdrop does not justify a tactically bearish view on Treasuries or Bunds, the stretched technical backdrop suggests that yields could snap back quite sharply on any sign of better global growth or an easing of U.S.-China trade tensions. While the near-term backdrop does not justify a tactically bearish view on Treasuries or Bunds, the stretched technical backdrop suggests that yields could snap back quite sharply on any sign of better global growth or an easing of U.S.-China trade tensions. Bottom Line: U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds both look overbought, amid extreme price/yield momentum and aggressively long duration positioning. Yet given the persistent headline risk from the U.S.-China trade dispute, and without durable signs of improving growth in China or Europe, it is too early to position for a reversal of the stretched yield moves. Maintain a neutral overall stance on global duration exposure.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade War Worries: Once More, With Feeling”, dated August 6, 2019, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade War Worries: Once More, With Feeling”, dated August 6, 2019, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Dear Client, Instead of our regular report, this week we are sending you a Special Report penned by Matt Gertken, Chief Geopolitical Strategist of our sister Geopolitical Strategy service, titled “The Polybius Solution.” In this report Matt argues that a full-fledged cold war with China would put a cap on American political polarization, putting China at a disadvantage. By contrast, a U.S. war with Iran would exacerbate polarization, giving China a huge strategic opportunity. We trust that you will find this Special Report useful and insightful. Best regards, Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist Highlights So What? U.S.-Iran risk is front-loaded, but U.S.-China is the greater risk overall. A full-fledged cold war with China will put a cap on American political polarization, putting China at a disadvantage. By contrast, a U.S. war with Iran would exacerbate polarization, giving China a huge strategic opportunity. War with Iran or trade war escalation with China are both ultimately dollar bullish – even though tactically the dollar may fall.  Feature The idea of the “Thucydides Trap” has gone viral in recent years – for good reason. The term, coined by Harvard political scientist Graham Allison, refers to the ancient Greek historian Thucydides (460-400 BC), author of the seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. The “trap” is the armed conflict that most often develops when a dominant nation that presides over a particular world order (e.g. Sparta, the U.S.) faces a young and ambitious rival that seeks fundamental change to that order (e.g. Athens, China).1 This conflict between an “established” and “revisionist” power was highlighted by the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes in his translation of Thucydides in the seventeenth century; every student of international relations knows it. Allison’s contribution is the comparative analysis of various Thucydides-esque episodes in the modern era to show how today’s U.S.-China rivalry fits the pattern. The implication is that war (not merely trade war) is a major risk. We have long held a similar assessment of the U.S.-China conflict. It is substantiated by hard data showing that China is gaining on America in various dimensions of power (Chart 1). Assuming that the U.S. does not want to be replaced, the current trade conflict will metastasize to other areas. If the U.S. and China really engage in an epic conflict, American political polarization should fall. There is an important but overlooked corollary to the Thucydides Trap: if the U.S. and China really engage in an epic conflict, American political polarization should fall. Polarization fell dramatically during the Great Depression and World War II and remained subdued throughout the Cold War. It only began to rise again when the Soviet threat faded and income inequality spiked circa 1980. Americans were less divided when they shared a common enemy that posed an existential threat; they grew more divided when their triumph proved to benefit some disproportionately to others (Chart 2). Chart 1China Is Gaining On The U.S. Chart 2U.S. Polarization Falls During Crisis   If the U.S. and China continue down the path of confrontation, a similar pattern is likely to emerge in the coming years – polarization is likely to decline. China possesses the raw ability to rival or even supplant the United States as the premier superpower over the very long run. Its mixed economy is more sustainable than the Soviet command economy was, and it is highly integrated into the global system, unlike the isolated Soviet bloc. As long as China’s domestic demand holds up and Beijing does not suppress its own country’s technological and military ambitions, Trump and the next president will face a persistent need to respond with measures to limit or restrict China’s capabilities. Eventually this will involve mobilizing public opinion more actively. Further, if the U.S.-China conflict escalates, it will clarify U.S. relations with the rest of the world. For instance, Trump’s handling of trade suggests that he could refrain from trade wars with American allies to concentrate attention on China, particularly sanctions on its technology companies. Meanwhile a future Democratic president would preserve some of these technological tactics while reinstituting the multilateral approach of the Barack Obama administration, which launched the “Pivot to Asia,” the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and intensive freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. These are all aspects of a containment strategy that would reinforce China’s rejection of the western order. Bottom Line: If the White House, any White House, were to pursue a consistent strategy to contain China, the result would be a major escalation of the trade conflict that would bring Americans together in the face of a common enemy. It would also encourage the U.S. to form alliances in pursuit of this objective. So far these things have not occurred, but they are logical corollaries of the Thucydides Trap and they will occur if the Thucydides thesis is validated. How Would China Fare In The Thucydides Trap? China would be in trouble in this scenario. The United States, if the public unifies, would have a greater geopolitical impact than it currently does in its divided state. And a western alliance would command still greater coercive power than the United States acting alone (Chart 3). External pressure would also exacerbate China’s internal imbalances – excessive leverage, pollution, inefficient state involvement in the economy, poor quality of life, and poor governance (Chart 4). China has managed to stave off these problems so far because it has operated under relative American and western toleration of its violations of global norms (e.g. a closed financial system, state backing of national champions, arbitrary law, censorship). This would change under concerted American, European, and Japanese efforts. Chart 3China Fears A Western 'Grand Alliance' Chart 4China's Domestic Risks Underrated Concerted external pressure would make it harder for China to manage its internal imbalances. How would the Communist Party respond? First, it could launch long-delayed and badly needed structural reforms and parlay these as concessions to the West. The ramifications would be negative for Chinese growth on a cyclical basis but positive on a structural basis since the reforms would lift productivity over the long run – a dynamic that our Emerging Markets Strategy has illustrated, in a macroeconomic context, in Diagram 1. This is already an option in the current trade war, but China has not yet clearly chosen it – likely because of the danger that the U.S. would exploit the slowdown. Diagram 1Foreign Pressure And Structural Reform = Short-Term Pain For Long-Term Gain Alternatively the Communist Party could double down on confrontation with the West, as Russia has done. This would strengthen the party’s grip but would be negative for growth on both a cyclical and structural basis. The effectiveness of China’s fiscal-and-credit stimulus would likely decline because of a drop in private sector activity and sentiment – already a nascent tendency – while the lack of “reform and opening up” would reduce long-term growth potential. This option makes structural reforms look more palatable – but again, China has not yet been forced to make this choice. None of the above is to say that the West is destined to win a cold war with China, but rather that the burden of revolutionizing the global order necessarily falls on the country attempting to revolutionize it. Bottom Line: If the Thucydides Trap fully takes effect, western pressure on China’s economy will force China into a destabilizing economic transition. China could lie low and avoid conflict in order to undertake reforms, or it could amplify its aggressive foreign policy. This is where the risk of armed conflict rises. Introducing … The Polybius Solution The problem with the above is that there is no sign of polarization abating anytime soon in the United States. Extreme partisanship makes this plain (Chart 5). Rising polarization could prevent the U.S. from responding coherently to China. The Thucydides Trap could be avoided, or delayed, simply because the U.S. is distracted elsewhere. The most likely candidate is Iran. A lesser known Greek historian – who was arguably more influential than Thucydides – helps to illustrate this alternative vision for the future. This is Polybius (208-125 BC), a Greek who wrote under Roman rule. He described the rise of the Roman Empire as a result of Rome’s superior constitutional system. Polybius explains domestic polarization whereas Thucydides explains international conflict. Polybius took the traditional view that there were three primary virtues or powers governing human society: the One (the king), the Few (the nobles), and the Many (the commons). These powers normally ran the country one at a time: a dictator would die; a group of elites would take over; this oligarchy would devolve into democracy or mob-rule; and from the chaos would spring a new dictator. His singular insight – his “solution” to political decay – was that if a mixture or balance of the three powers could be maintained, as in the Roman republic, then the natural cycle of growth and decay could be short-circuited, enabling a regime to live much longer than its peers (Diagram 2). Diagram 2Polybius: A Balanced Political System Breaks The Natural Cycle Of Tyranny And Chaos In short, just as post-WWII economic institutions have enabled countries to reduce the frequency and intensity of recessions (Chart 6), so Polybius believed that political institutions could reduce the frequency and intensity of revolutions. Eventually all governments would decay and collapse, but a domestic system of checks and balances could delay the inevitable. Needless to say, Polybius was hugely influential on English and French constitutional thinkers and the founders of the American republic. Chart 6Orthodox Economic Policy Has Made Recessions Less Frequent And Less Acute What is the cause of constitutional decay, according to Polybius? Wealth, inequality, and corruption, which always follow from stable and prosperous times. “Avarice and unscrupulous money-making” drive the masses to encroach upon the elite and demand a greater share of the wealth. The result is a vicious cycle of conflict between the commons and the nobles until either the constitutional system is restored or a democratic revolution occurs. Compared to Thucydides, Polybius had less to say about the international balance of power. Domestic balance was his “solution” to unpredictable outside events. However, states with decaying political systems were off-balance and more likely to be conquered, or to overreach in trying to conquer others. Bottom Line: The “Polybius solution” equates with domestic political balance. Balanced states do not allow the nation’s leader, the elite, or the general population to become excessively powerful. But even the most balanced states will eventually decline. As they accumulate wealth, inequality and corruption emerge and cause conflict among the three powers. Why Polybius Matters Today It does not take a stretch of the imagination to apply the Polybius model to the United States today. Just as Rome grew fat with its winnings from the Punic Wars and decayed from a virtuous republic into a luxurious empire, as Polybius foresaw, so the United States lurched from victory over the Soviet Union to internal division and unforced errors. For instance, the budget surplus of 2% of GDP in the year 2000 became a budget deficit of 9% of GDP after a decade of gratuitous wars, profligate social spending and tax cuts, and financial excesses. It is on track to balloon again when the next recession hits – and this is true even without any historic crisis event to justify it. U.S. polarization is contaminating foreign policy. The rise in polarization has coincided with a rise in wealth inequality, much as Polybius would expect (Chart 7). In all likelihood the Trump tax cuts will exacerbate both of these trends (Chart 8). Even worse, any attempts by “the people” to take more wealth from the “nobles” will worsen polarization first, long before any improvements in equality translate to a drop in polarization. Chart 7Polarization Unlikely To Drop While Inequality Rises Chart 8Trump Tax Cuts Fuel Inequality Most importantly, from a global point of view, U.S. polarization is contaminating foreign policy. Just as the George W. Bush administration launched a preemptive war in Iraq, destabilizing the region, so the Obama administration precipitously withdrew from Iraq, destabilizing the region. And just as the Obama administration initiated a hurried détente with Iran in order to leave Iraq, the Trump administration precipitously withdrew from this détente, provoking a new conflict with Iran and potentially destabilizing Iraq. Major foreign policy initiatives have been conducted, and revoked, on a partisan basis under three administrations. And a Democratic victory in 2020 would result in a reversal of Trump’s initiatives. In the meantime Trump’s policy could easily entangle him in armed conflict with Iran – as nearly occurred on June 21. Iranian domestic politics make it very difficult, if not impossible, to go back to the 2015 setting. Despite Trump’s recent backpedaling, his administration runs a high risk of getting sucked into another Middle Eastern quagmire as long as it enforces the sanctions on Iranian oil stringently. China would be the big winner if such a war occurred, just as it was one of the greatest beneficiaries of the long American distraction in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would benefit from another 5-10 years of American losses of blood and treasure. It would be able to pursue regional interests with less Interference and could trade limited cooperation with the U.S. on Iran for larger concessions elsewhere. And a nuclear-armed Iran – which is a long-term concern for the U.S. – is not in China’s national interest anyway. Bottom Line: The U.S. is missing the “Polybius solution” of balanced government; polarization is on the rise. As a result, the grand strategy of “pivoting to Asia” could go into reverse (Chart 9). If that occurs, the conflict with China will be postponed or ineffective. Chart 9Will The Pivot To Asia Reverse? Iran Is The Wild Card If the U.S. gets bogged down in the Middle East yet again, the “Pivot To Asia” will go into reverse and the “Thucydides Trap” with China will be delayed. A war with Iran manifestly runs afoul of the Trump administration’s and America’s national interests, whereas a trade war with China does not. First, although an Iranian or Iranian-backed attack on American troops would give Trump initial support in conducting air strikes, the consequences of war would likely be an oil price shock that would sink his approval rating over time and reduce his chances of reelection (Chart 10). We have shown that such a shock could come from sabotage in Iraq as well as from attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran could be driven to attack if it believes the U.S. is about to attack. Second, not only would Democrats oppose a war with Iran, but Americans in general are war-weary, especially with regard to the Middle East (Chart 11). President Trump capitalized on this sentiment during his election campaign, especially in relation to Secretary Hillary Clinton who supported the war in Iraq. Over the past two weeks, he has downplayed the Iranian-backed tanker attacks, emphasized that he does not want war, and has ruled out “boots on the ground.” Chart 10Carter Gained Then Lost From Iran Oil Shock Third, it follows from the above that, in the event of war, the United States would lack the political will necessary to achieve its core strategic objectives, such as eliminating Iran’s nuclear program or its power projection capabilities. And these are nearly impossible to accomplish from the air alone. And U.S. strategic planners are well aware that conflict with Iran will exact an opportunity cost by helping Russia and China consolidate spheres of influence. The wild card is Iran. President Hassan Rouhani has an incentive to look tough and push the limits, given that he was betrayed on the 2015 deal. And the regime itself is probably confident that it can survive American air strikes. American military strikes are still a serious constraint, but until the U.S. demonstrates that it is willing to go that far, Iran can test the boundaries. In doing so it also sends a message to its regional rivals – Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab monarchies, and Israel – that the U.S. is all bark, no bite, and thus unable to protect them from Iran. This may lead to a miscalculation that forces Trump to respond despite his inclinations. The China trade war, by contrast, is less difficult for the Trump administration to pursue. There is not a clear path from tariffs to economic recession, as with an oil shock: the U.S. economy has repeatedly shrugged off counter-tariffs and the Fed has been cowed. While Americans generally oppose the trade war, Trump’s base does not, and the health of the overall economy is far more important for most voters. And a majority of voters do believe that China’s trade practices are unfair. Strategic planners also favor confronting China – unlike Trump they are not concerned with reelection, but they recognize that China’s advantages grow over time, including in critical technologies. Bottom Line: While the media and market focus on China and Iran risks can alternate in the short run, the Trump administration is likely to continue downgrading the conflict with Iran and upgrading the conflict with China over the next six-to-18 months. Neither politics nor grand strategy support a war with Iran, whereas politics might support a trade war with China and grand strategy almost certainly does. China Could Learn From Polybius Too China also lacks the Polybius solution. It suffers from severe inequality and social immobility, just like the Latin American states and the U.S., U.K., and Italy (Chart 12). But unlike the developed markets, it lacks a robust constitutional system. Political risks are understated given the emergence of the middle class, systemic economic weaknesses, and poor governance. Over the long run, Xi Jinping will need to step down, but having removed the formal system for power transition, a succession crisis is likely. China’s imbalances could cause domestic instability even if the U.S. becomes distracted by conflict in the Middle East. But China has unique tools for alleviating crises and smoothing out its economic slowdown, so the absence of outside pressure will probably determine its ability to avoid a painful economic slump. China also lacks the “Polybius solution” of balanced government – and it even lacks a robust constitutional system. This helps to explain China’s interest in dealing with the U.S. on North Korea. President Xi Jinping’s first trip to Pyongyang late last month helped pave the way for President Trump to resume negotiations with the North’s leader Kim Jong Un at the first-ever visit of an American president north of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). China does not want an unbridled nuclear North Korea or an American preventative war on the peninsula. If Beijing could do a short-term deal with the U.S. on the basis of assistance in reining in North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, it could divert U.S. animus away from itself and encourage the U.S. to turn its attention toward the next rogue nuclear aspirant, Iran. It would also avoid structural economic concessions. Of course, a smooth transition today means short-term gain but long-term pain for Chinese and global growth. Productivity and potential GDP will decline if China does not reform (Diagram 3). But this kind of transition is the regime’s preferred option since Beijing seeks to minimize immediate threats and maintain overall stability. Diagram 3Stimulus And Delayed Reforms = Socialist Put = Stagflation If Chinese internal divisions do flare up, China’s leaders will take a more aggressive posture toward its neighbors and the United States in order to divert public attention and stir up patriotic support. Bottom Line: China suffers from understated internal political risk. While U.S. political divisions could lead to a lack of coherent strategy toward China, a rift in China could lead to Chinese aggression in its neighborhood, accelerating the Thucydides Trap. Investment Conclusions If the U.S. reverses the pivot to Asia, attacks Iran, antagonizes European allies, and exhausts its resources in policy vacillation, its budget deficit will balloon (Chart 13), oil prices will rise, and China will be left to manage its economic transition without a western coalition against it. The implication is a weakening dollar, at least initially. But the U.S. is nearing the end of its longest-ever business expansion and an oil price spike would bring forward the next recession, both of which will push up the greenback. Much will depend on the extent of any oil shock – whether and how long the Strait of Hormuz is blocked. Beyond the next recession, the dollar could suffer severe consequences for the U.S.’s wild policies. Chart 13An Iran War Will Bust The Budget Persian Gulf risks are coming to the fore. But over the next six-to-18 months, U.S.-China conflict will be the dominant marketmover. If the U.S. continues the pivot to Asia, and the U.S. and China proceed with tariffs, tech sanctions, saber-rattling, diplomatic crises, and possibly even military skirmishes, China will be forced into an abrupt and destabilizing economic transition. The U.S. dollar will strengthen as global growth decelerates. Developed market equities will outperform emerging market equities, but equities as a whole will underperform sovereign bonds and other safe-haven assets. Our highest conviction call on this matter is that any trade deal before the U.S. 2020 election will be limited in scope. It will fall far short of a “Grand Compromise” that ushers in a new era of U.S.-China engagement – and hence it will be a disappointment to global equities. Our trade war probabilities, updated on July 26, can be found in Diagram 4. The combined risk of further escalation is 60% -- meaning that the U.S. will either implement the final batch of tariffs or refuse to renew Huawei’s trade license, or both. We are maintaining our risk-off trades: long JPY/USD, long gold, long Swiss bonds, and long USD/CNY. Diagram 4U.S.-China Trade War Decision Tree (Updated July 26, 2019)   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Graham Allison, “The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?” The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, and Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017).

Highlights A lot has changed in a week and a half, … : The FOMC meeting that we thought would mark the end of global market-moving news until September turned out to be a prelude for the real fireworks. … as U.S.-China trade tensions escalated, … : The imposition of tariffs on the only remaining subset of Chinese imports that had escaped duties so far inspired China to let the yuan fall below a key technical level. … and other countries braced for the fallout: China’s devaluation opened up a new front in the conflict, turning a bilateral tariff spat into a threat to other countries’ well-being and competitiveness. Asia-Pacific central banks swiftly followed with larger-than-expected rate cuts. Below-benchmark-duration positioning is no longer appropriate in the near term, and we recommend moving to benchmark duration: Interest rates will be hard-pressed to rise with global central banks squarely in easing mode. Although we still believe that inflation and the fed funds rate will surprise to the upside, it’s going to take a while. Feature Dear Client, There will be no U.S. Investment Strategy next week as we take our final summer break. U.S. Investment Strategy will return on Monday, August 26th. Best regards, Doug Peta So much for the idea that the July 30-31 FOMC meeting would be the last market-moving event before Labor Day. By lunchtime on August 1st, the S&P 500 was back to its July 30th close above 3,010; the 10-year Treasury yield had settled around 1.96%, ten basis points (“bps”) lower than its pre-meeting level; and gold had fallen by ten bucks, to $1,420, as markets digested the news that the Fed was less concerned about the economy than they were. Then the trade war reared its ugly head in the form of new tariffs on Chinese imports to the U.S., and the S&P slid to 2,822, the 10-year Treasury yield tumbled to 1.59%, and gold surged to $1,510. The new round would ensnare the subset of goods that had previously been spared from import duties, and Beijing promised to retaliate. It’s hard for rates to rise when every central bank has an easing bias as it nervously eyes the U.S.-China tilt.   Chart 1Beijing Plays The Currency Card The retaliation arrived Sunday night in the U.S., when Chinese officials allowed the renminbi to trade above 7 to the dollar for the first time since 2008 (Chart 1). The move provoked a global equity selloff, and the S&P 500 lost 3% in its worst session of the year. With the currency floodgates opened, the trade war morphed from a bilateral tariff spat into a global battle for competitiveness, and central banks in India, Thailand and New Zealand responded with larger-than-expected rate cuts. India is a comparatively closed economy battling a domestic downturn, but it is clear that countries with any reliance on exports are loath to be saddled with a strong currency that will hamstring their global competitiveness. It turns out that the Fed isn’t the only central bank that sees the appeal of taking out some insurance. That is an unfriendly backdrop for below-benchmark-duration positioning, and we are joining our fixed-income colleagues in raising our duration recommendation from underweight to neutral over the tactical timeframe (0-3 months). While we still believe that the fed funds rate and long yields will surprise to the upside, they cannot do so while bond investors are adamant that the Fed is going to have to adopt an easing bias over the near term. Our rates checklist, discussed in the rest of this report, supports the decision. The shift in the rates backdrop undermines our newly established agency mortgage REIT recommendation, and we are watching it closely. The Rates Checklist: The Fed Table 1Rates View Checklist Turning to our rates view checklist (Table 1), the first item is derived from our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s golden rule of bond investing.1 The golden rule asks one simple question to anchor views on Treasuries: Over the next 12 months, will the Fed move the fed funds rate by more or less than the bond market is currently discounting? Since 1990, when the Fed has surprised dovishly (the fed funds rate has turned out to be lower than the money market implied twelve months earlier), Treasuries have almost always generated positive excess returns over cash. Periods of negative excess returns have occurred nearly exclusively when the Fed has delivered a hawkish surprise. We still think inflation will become a problem, but it certainly isn’t one yet. Since we rolled out the checklist last year, we have consistently expected a hawkish surprise. Though we continue to believe that an extended cycle of rate cuts is not in the cards, markets disagree, and we concede that the Fed now has a near-term easing bias, despite Chair Powell’s demurrals at the post-meeting press conference. We are leaving the box unchecked because we believe that nearly four more 25-bps cuts over the next twelve months, equating to a target fed funds rate of 1.25-1.50% (Chart 2), are unlikely. The spread between our expectations and the market’s expectations is still wide enough to merit a below-benchmark-duration view over the next twelve months, even if benchmark duration makes more sense for the rest of the year. Chart 2Four More Rate Cuts Are A Stretch The yield curve’s inversion has become more pronounced in the wake of the re-escalation of the trade war (Chart 3), and we duly check the second box. As a reminder, we track the 3-month/10-year segment of the yield curve to define inversion because it is less susceptible to estimate error, and has been a timelier indicator of recessions, than the more frequently cited 2-year/10-year segment. We have argued before that the unprecedentedly large negative 10-year term premium makes the curve more prone to invert and makes it a less sensitive economic barometer, but part of the rationale of creating a checklist is to limit one’s discretion in interpreting events. Chart 3More Rate Cuts, Please The Rates Checklist: Inflation Inflation has gone AWOL around the globe. Although the U.S. no longer faces the negative output gaps that remain in other major economies, its main measures of consumer prices (Chart 4) do nothing to counteract the widespread view that the Fed has a free pass to devote its energies to shoring up growth. Inflation break-evens were making progress toward the 2.3-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target when we launched the checklist last year, but the plunge in oil prices stopped them in their tracks (Chart 5). Rather than encouraging the Fed to hike, soft inflation expectations helped drive the Fed’s dovish pivot. Chart 4Realized Inflation Is Below Target, ... Chart 5... And So Are Inflation Expectations Our view that the seeds of inflation pressures have been sown has not changed. After slowing on a real final domestic demand basis in the first quarter from the one-two punch of the government shutdown and the fourth quarter’s sharp tightening of financial conditions, the U.S. economy has resumed operating above capacity. Though we check the “sluggish-inflation” boxes, and acknowledge that inflation is not going to inspire a more restrictive turn in Fed policy any time soon, we do think it will become an issue down the road. The Rates Checklist: The Labor Market The labor market remains robust. The headline unemployment rate remains at a level last seen in 1969, and is well below the CBO’s estimate of NAIRU. NAIRU is the minimum structural unemployment rate, and wage gains quicken when the unemployment rate falls below it (Chart 6). The broader definition of unemployment, encompassing discouraged workers and involuntary part-time workers, fell to its lowest level since 2000 in July (Chart 7), and the job openings and job quits rates (Chart 8) indicate that demand for workers remains high. Chart 6Wage Gains Will Accelerate, ... Chart 7... As Slack Has Been Absorbed, ... Chart 8... And Demand Is Robust   3.2% year-over-year growth in average hourly earnings may not be thrilling, but wages do remain in an uptrend. The laws of supply and demand (Chart 9), and the Fed’s best efforts, suggest that the uptrend will continue. We do not check any of the labor market boxes, and expect that we will not over the rest of the year. The Rates Checklist: Instability At Home And Abroad Chart 10No Overheating Yet There continue to be no signs of cyclical overheating in the U.S. economy, as the most cyclical segments of the economy are nowhere near the red end of the tachometer (Chart 10). Financial imbalances have moved to the back burner, but they are part of the Fed’s post-crisis mandate, and we are leaving the imbalances box unticked to reflect that the “low spreads and loosening credit terms” Governor Brainard decried last September2 may stay the Fed from embarking on a full-on easing cycle. We are checking the international duress box, at least for the time being, given the potential for a self-reinforcing rate-cutting cycle that could hold down the entire term structure of rates around the world. Bottom Line: The inverted yield curve, a lack of consumer price inflation, and the cloud cast by the trade war all suggest that bond markets will require some convincing before they allow rates to rise much higher. We conclude that a neutral duration stance is appropriate in the near term. Keeping Score We have been staunch supporters of below-benchmark duration positioning since the end of last July,3 given that we thought the 10-year Treasury yield was too low relative to our assessment of the strength of the U.S. economy and the potential for inflation to begin to rise. It appears that our stronger-than-consensus economic view was correct, but we were myopic in failing to grasp how punk growth in the rest of the world would keep long-maturity Treasury yields from making a sustained move higher. We were way early on inflation’s ETA, and slow to grasp how sensitive the Fed would be to faltering global growth and escalating trade tensions in its absence. In short, both our model of the Fed’s reaction function and the inputs to our model turned out to be faulty. The duration call stings, but our asset allocation recommendations have worked out. The fix we are making is to wait until inflation is a clear and present danger before assuming that the Fed will respond to it. Although we got the duration call wrong, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds have outperformed Treasuries in the aggregate since we upgraded them to overweight versus Treasuries at the end of January (Chart 11). BCA as a house niftily sidestepped the fourth-quarter selloff in equities by downgrading them to equal weight, and raising cash to overweight, late last June. We upgraded equities to overweight versus cash and fixed income in our first publication of the year, and the S&P 500 has handily outperformed Treasuries since that date, despite the nasty selloff following the July FOMC meeting and the new round of tariffs (Chart 12). Chart 11Spread Product Has Modestly Outperformed Treasuries, ... Chart 12... But Equities Have Crushed Them Agency Mortgage REIT Implications We recommended agency mortgage REITs a day before the FOMC meeting, suggesting that investors allocate capital away from equities and high yield as a way to reduce equity beta and boost portfolio income away from the herd chasing lower and lower high-yield bond yields. Through Thursday’s close, the Bloomberg Mortgage REIT Index has gained about 35 bps on a total return basis, while the Barclays High Yield Index is off 70 bps and the S&P 500 is down 2.7%. Unfortunately, the agency mREITs we sought out for their yield curve exposure have lagged badly as the yield curve has relentlessly flattened. For now, only the one agency mREIT with a dedicated adjustable-rate mortgage portfolio faces immediate earnings pressure. The rest are subject to refinancing volumes, which are likely to be higher than we expected when we projected that the 10-year Treasury yield wouldn’t fall much below 2%. The specter of increased prepayments makes the agency mREITs a less attractive investment than we thought they would be two weeks ago. On the other hand, their exclusively domestic exposure, and low credit risk, increases their value as a haven from global turmoil. Net-net, we are sticking with them, though they are now on a far shorter leash than they were when we made the recommendation. We will not stick with a position to save face, or to avoid looking irresolute. Flexibility and a willingness to admit mistakes are essential characteristics of successful investors. When the facts change, we change our mind, without the faintest hint of embarrassment. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the July 24, 2018 U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing,” available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Brainard, Lael (2018). “What Do We Mean by Neutral And What Role Does It Play in Monetary Policy,” speech delivered at the Detroit Economic Club, Detroit, Mich., September 12, 2018. 3 Please see the July 30, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rates Outlook,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.