Developed Countries

Special Report

Highlights Actively managed U.S. equity mutual funds have been hemorrhaging assets under management (AUM), with the lost AUM flowing directly to ETFs and index mutual funds. Chatter about the adverse consequences of too much passive investing is intensifying, and BCA clients are increasingly asking if a bubble is inflating in passive investing or ETFs more generally. We view passive investing as the surest cure for passive investing and do not worry that index tracking is undermining price discovery or distorting equity markets. Temporary distortions are manna from heaven for professional investors and we would like to have more of them. Active mutual fund management may not be all it’s cracked up to be, in any event. The Active Share metric, which measures the portion of a portfolio that differs from its benchmark, has been in steady decline for the last 30 years, indicating that active management practices have undergone a sea change. We have faith in ETFs’ underlying architecture and continue to recommend investing in them. They are an efficient, inexpensive and liquid way to gain market exposure and investors need not worry about getting stuck when the music stops. Feature Dear Client, The market impact of passive investing continues to be a hot topic among investors, sell-side researchers and the financial media. To contribute our view to the discussion, we are sending you a lightly edited update of a review of passive investing’s implications first published under our Global ETF Strategy banner in September 2017. We met with clients in China last week, and will be taking some time off this week, so we will not be publishing on April 29th. We will resume publication on Monday, May 6th. Best regards, Doug Peta   Over the last few years, we have received a thin but steady stream of questions from clients asking about a potential ETF bubble. We note that ETFs do not exhibit any of the characteristics delineated by economic historian Charles Kindleberger in Manias, Panics and Crashes. There is a difference between the increasingly widespread adoption of a useful innovation and a febrile spell of mass exuberance or suspension of disbelief. We have duly expressed the view in one-on-one communications with clients that ETFs shouldn’t inspire any particular worry. The related chatter about a passive investment bubble only seems to intensify, however, and we focus on it in this Special Report. We ultimately fail to see the justification for the most extreme warnings about the dangers of passive investing. Perhaps the emergence and bursting of two bubbles in rapid succession has sparked a mini-bubble in searching for bubbles among academics, investors and reporters. We do not think that the popularity of ETFs is distorting pricing mechanisms, though we would welcome a good distortion to break up the logjam of full-but-not-extreme valuations that portend tepid intermediate- and long-term balanced portfolio returns. The Active Management Exodus The causes and consequences may be a matter of debate, but the facts are clear: actively managed U.S. equity mutual funds have been losing ground to index mutual funds for two-and-a-half decades (Chart 1). Before ETFs began to boom ahead of the crisis, active equity mutual funds still managed to attract annual net inflows despite their share losses, but they have now suffered net outflows in every one of the last 12 years. Index ETF and index mutual fund inflows have amounted to nearly 90% of the active mutual funds’ outflows, with index ETFs drawing more than twice the AUM as their mutual fund counterparts (Chart 2). Chart 2Mirror Image Given the near symmetry of active mutual fund outflows and index fund inflows, it appears that an extended active-to-passive migration is well under way. The move is rational, and has helped investors at the expense of asset managers, as index funds cost considerably less than actively managed funds. (In 2017, the asset-weighted average expense ratio for actively managed and index equity mutual funds was 0.78% and 0.09%, respectively.) If mutual fund managers tend to be wealthier than their clients, the fee savings give the economy a modest boost by shifting wealth to households with a higher marginal propensity to consume. The Spoilsport Chorus What’s not to like about lower fees for the same, or better, returns?1 Plenty, as it turns out. The myriad objections to passive investing’s increasing sway boil down to three major arguments: passive investing undermines price discovery; passive investing undermines capital allocation; and passive investing is potentially anti-competitive. Price insensitivity carries the seeds of its own demise. An index-tracking investor is a price-insensitive investor, and a surfeit of passive investment could undermine equity markets’ price-discovery function. Index-trackers are free riders, living off of the active investors whose trading decisions set prices. Just as a parasite cannot live without a host, naive passive investors need price-setters to keep them safe. The passive investing naysayers’ heads are filled with images of lemmings rushing over the edge of a cliff after active investors are routed, but we are not so sure. It’s important to remember that the price an investor pays for a security2 is the major determinant of his/her long-run return, and a price-insensitive investor is all but certain to underperform a price-aware investor over time, perhaps by a material margin. Thus the cure for passive investment is passive investment; the fewer active investors participating in the markets, the greater the prospective returns accruing to active investment. Greater prospective returns will draw an increasing proportion of assets until active management is no longer likely to outperform. Then the pendulum will swing back to index investing – lather, rinse, repeat – but skilled security analysts will have a field day while their talents are underappreciated. Passive investing’s impact on markets’ capital allocation function is indirect at best. Only primary market transactions channel capital to, or from, ideas and enterprises. Secondary market transactions merely involve exchanges of capital between incumbents and new owners, and index tracking is a secondary-market function. The sell-siders that found passive investing wanting in comparison with central planning would seem to have been trying too hard to be provocative.3 The late John Bogle may have been a bit of a scold, but we’d take him over Karl Marx any day. The notion that high concentrations of ownership among passive holders could be anti-competitive strikes us as especially strained. An article published in The Atlantic a year and a half ago bore the provocative headline, “Are Index Funds Evil?” and sub-header, “A growing chorus of experts argue that they’re strangling the economy – and must be stopped.4” The article highlighted a working paper from a team of newly-minted PhDs that argued that high common ownership in the airline industry has been associated with decreased route competition and increased fares. If the same entities hold significant stakes in all of the companies in a particular industry, those entities may have an incentive to collude to restrain competition within the industry and thereby increase the size of the pie for the industry as a whole. This may be so at the airline-industry level, but as passive owners of the entire market, Vanguard, BlackRock and State Street own considerable stakes in every other industry as well, so increasing the profitability of a single portfolio segment at the expense of other portfolio segments would seem to be self-defeating, not to mention personally risky, given stiff antitrust penalties. What Makes A Bubble? Bubbles differ in their specifics, but they share several common empirical characteristics. Kindleberger homes in on the easy availability of credit and its role in enabling the euphoria that fuels temporarily self-reinforcing, albeit ultimately unsustainable, price gains. The gains generated by the headlong pursuit of short-term capital gains are the key to keeping the bubble going, but the upward price movement is halted in its tracks when credit availability slows, and prices plunge like Wile E. Coyote once it’s cut off. Neither ingredient has been a part of the ETF boom. Index ETFs are the opposite of a get-rich-quick scheme; they’re what investors buy when they decide to stop chasing after buried treasure. The easy and inexpensive availability of credit has surely contributed to elevated equity multiples (Chart 3) and narrow bond spreads (Chart 4). The instruments ETFs hold are somewhat pricey and will be vulnerable when the next recession comes, but they are not discounting euphoric expectations that cannot realistically be met. ETF sponsors do not rely on debt; launching an ETF is such a capital-light process that the field is full to bursting with several funds that amount to unfinished experiments. Without the burden of servicing debt, sponsors are free to throw their ideas up against a wall and see what sticks. Chart 3Equity Multiples Are Elevated... Chart 4... And Spreads Are Tight ETFs are not being bought on margin in any significant degree; they are not the apple of frenzied gain-chasers’ eyes. Aside from leveraged ETFs that provide a designated multiple of daily returns, pooled investment vehicles that amalgamate the performance of several securities are the antithesis of an ideal speculative instrument. Index ETFs allow an investor to obtain benchmark returns at low cost and with a minimum of fuss, and are a sane alternative to speculation. As Benjamin Graham put it, the dumb money ceases to be dumb when it acknowledges its limitations, and index investing is an explicit acknowledgement of one’s limitations. ETF Flows Are Not Coming Out Of Thin Air To the notion that “so much money is flowing into ETFs that it’s distorting prices across the board,” we say not necessarily. If the money to buy ETFs were materializing out of thin air (as it is in Tokyo and Zurich thanks to the efforts of the BoJ and the SNB), one could argue that ETF inflows are inflating multiples and narrowing spreads. But the money to purchase U.S.-listed ETFs comes almost entirely from sales of actively managed mutual funds. ETF purchases are a reallocation of existing investment capital, not new marginal investment with the potential to move markets. Just How Active Are The “Active” Outflows? Chart 5Indexing Hasn't Hijacked Equity Correlations On the subject of changes at the margin, if the capital to purchase index ETFs comes from mutual funds that are active in name only, they simply shift cash from one passive pocket to another, and don’t amount to any change at all. The professor-investors who created the Active Share metric to measure how much a portfolio deviates from its benchmark5 describe a mutual fund industry that has steadily migrated away from stock picking. By their reckoning, the share of mutual fund assets managed by closet indexers rose from 1% in 1980 to nearly 33% in 2009.6 Using the Active Share calculator at https://activeshare.info/, we find that one-third of AUM in actively-managed U.S. equity mutual funds with AUM of at least $1 billion are held by closet-indexing mutual funds (funds with Active Share of 60% or less). Our large-fund sample suggests that two-thirds of active fund AUM is truly active. The loss of even that amount of actively managed assets does not appear to have been enough to hijack internal market dynamics. If everyone became an index tracker, and all trades were trades of the entire market, correlations at the stock and sector level would go to 1. Despite ETFs’ growing muscle, and their capture of share from stock-picking funds, correlations have not consistently risen over the 2015-17 period that has witnessed a stampede from active to indexed equity funds (Chart 5). Investment Implications We do not believe that the steadily expanding investment in passive vehicles poses a threat to markets or investors. Passive vehicles offer investors the most cost-effective way to obtain market exposure and the actively managed funds they’re exchanging for index trackers have become increasingly less active as benchmark indexes have become more prominent. If the passive trend continues, and a rising share of capital is invested without regard for distinctions between companies, the ex-ante returns to active strategies will increase and investors will return to them in droves. In the meantime, if passive investing’s share reaches the tipping point, wherever it may be, fundamentally-focused investors will feast on excess returns. Active investors will clean up if passive investing ever crosses the tipping point. We do not worry that passive investing will weigh on the economy by hindering the efficient allocation of capital to the ideas with the most merit. Index tracking is confined to the secondary markets and will not consign the U.S. economy to a Soviet fate. We view the suggestion that index tracking may lead to collusion among operating companies as unfounded conjecture. Investors need not worry that ETFs are in a bubble, or that investing in passive strategies will be a drag on economic output.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 In a typical year, a majority of mutual funds underperform their benchmarks. 2 Price is defined as starting real yield for bonds, and cyclically-adjusted P/E for equities. 3 “The Silent Road to Serfdom: Why Passive Investing Is Worse Than Marxism,” August 23, 2016, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC. 4    Partnoy, Frank, “Are Index Funds Evil?” The Atlantic, September 2017. 5 Cremers, K.J. Martijn and Petajisto, Antti. “How Active Is Your Fund Manager? A New Measure That Predicts Performance,” Review of Financial Studies, September 2009. 6 Petajisto, Antti. “Active Share and Mutual Fund Performance,” Financial Analysts Journal, July/August 2013.

Highlights Solid credit growth numbers from China last week suggest an emerging window for pro-cylical currency trades. However, since 2009, these currency pairs have tended to work in real time rather than with a lag. Continued muted currency action over the next few weeks will be cause for concern. Our favorite currency pairs to play U.S. dollar downside for now are the SEK, NOK and GBP. With the Aussie dollar close to the epicenter of Chinese stimulus, data down under is increasingly stabilizing. Place a limit buy on AUD/USD at 0.70. Improving global growth will eventually put downward pressure on the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar. Meanwhile, the risk-reward profile for safe-haven currencies has been greatly augmented in this low-volatility environment. Rising net short positioning on the yen and swiss franc is making them attractive from a contrarian standpoint. Feature The unambiguous message from incoming data is that we are entering a reflationary window. Our report last week highlighted the fact that the Chinese economy is in a bottoming process.1 Since then, data out of China has come out much stronger than expected. Export growth in March surged from -21% to 14%, new yuan-denominated loans came in at 1.7 trillion RMB versus 886 billion RMB the previous month, and industrial production in March grew at 8.5% on an annual basis – the strongest print since July 2014. Retail sales were also stronger and house prices are re-inflating, suggesting construction activity will pick up steam. Historically, March data is a cleaner print compared to prior months since it evades nuances from the Chinese lunar new year. As such, these numbers are consistent with a re-acceleration in domestic demand in the Chinese economy in the coming months. As we embrace confirmation that the Chinese economy has bottomed, it will be important to monitor if this cycle plays out like those in the past. Since 2009, the evolution of the Chinese credit cycle has been an important driver of pro-cyclical currency trades. However, in recent years there appears to have been diminishing returns to these trades. Continued lack of more pronounced strength in the Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian dollar exchange rates in light of solid hard data out of China will be genuine reason for concern. Our general assessment is that while the credit impulse in China has clearly bottomed, the magnitude of the rise is unlikely to be what we saw in 2015-2016. Given this backdrop, not all pro-cyclical currency pairs are going to benefit equally. We are long the SEK, NOK, and GBP and recommend adding AUD to the list of pro-cyclical favorites. Paradoxically, the risk-reward profile for safe-haven currencies has also been greatly augmented in this low-volatility environment, but it is still too early to begin putting on currency hedges. Pro-Cyclical Trades Need Broad Dollar Weakness Chart I-1 highlights the fact that pro-cyclical currencies have had diverging performances over the evolution of the business cycle since 2009. The aftermath of the global financial crisis was most bullish for commodity currencies, with the AUD, CAD, NOK, and NZD rising around 20%-30% versus the U.S. dollar. The DXY index was roughly flat during this period, but the broad trade-weighted dollar did weaken. The biggest driver back then was rising commodity prices, driven by Chinese demand and a revaluation of these currency pairs from deeply oversold levels. The weakest currencies were the euro and yen. Chart I-2New Lows In Currency Volatility The second phase of the business cycle upswing occurred from July 2012 to February 2014, using the global Purchasing Managers’ Index from J.P. Morgan. During this phase, the best-performing currency pairs were the euro and swiss franc, and the worst was the Japanese yen. Commodity currencies fared poorly back then. The driver then was monetary policy, with European Central Bank Governor Mario Draghi’s “whatever it takes” put and the launch of “Abenomics.” Notably, the 4% weakness in the DXY did not help pro-cyclical currencies much, given commodity prices had peaked. From February 2016 to December 2017, the upswing was driven again by Chinese stimulus. Commodity prices rallied and the dollar did weaken significantly, which helped pro-cyclical currencies. However, the returns were modest compared to 2009-2010 episode. The yen was flat during the period. Finally, NOK, SEK and NZD have been winners throughout all three business cycle upswings. This time around, more evidence will need to emerge that the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar has peaked for pro-cyclical currencies to outperform. For now, the calm in developed currency markets seems very eerie, given the flow of incoming economic data. We have highlighted in recent bulletins that most currency pairs have been narrowly trading towards the apex of very tight wedge formations, which has severely dampened volatility (Chart I-2). In the post-Bretton Woods world, it has been very rare for periods of extended currency stability to persist. We eventually expect the U.S. dollar to weaken, but we will need to closely monitor the forces that have so far been keeping a bid under it.  Liquidity, Global Growth And The Dollar Most measures of relative trends still favor the dollar. The April Markit manufacturing PMI releases this week showed that while both Japan and the euro area remain in contraction territory, the U.S. reading of 52.4 puts it solidly above the rest of the world. It is true that the momentum of this leadership has been rolling over recently, but historically such growth divergences between the U.S. and the rest of the world have generated anywhere from 10%-15% rallies in the greenback over a period of six months (Chart I-3). So far, the DXY dollar index is up 1% for the year. Repatriation flows have had a non-neglible influence on the broad trade-weighted dollar. Meanwhile, even though the Federal Reserve has paused hiking interest rates, relative policy trends still favor the greenback. The interest rate gap between the U.S. and the rest of the world pins the broad trade-weighted dollar index at 128, or 7% above current levels (Chart I-4). And even today, unless the Fed moves toward outright rate cuts, the dovish shift by other central banks around the world remains an immediate tailwind for the U.S. dollar. It will be important for yield curves to steepen globally as confirmation that other central banks are getting ahead of the curve, which should be a headwind for the dollar. Chart I-3U.S. Growth Leadership ##br##Is Rolling Over Chart I-4Interest Rate Differentials Still Favor The Dollar Internationally, dollar liquidity will need to increase significantly for the greenback to meaningfully weaken. The Fed’s tapering of asset purchases has been a net drain on dollar liquidity, despite a widening U.S. current account deficit. This is expected to end by September, but has already triggered a severe contraction in the U.S. monetary base. Our preferred measure of international liquidity is foreign central bank reserves deposited at the Fed, and this is still contracting at its worst pace in over 40 years (Chart I-5). At a minimum, an end to the balance sheet runoff will steer growth in the U.S. monetary base from deeply negative to zero. A rising external profit environment will be needed for an increase in foreign central bank reserves. Finally, data from the U.S. Treasury International Capital (TIC) system show that on a rolling 12-month basis, the U.S. continues to repatriate back a net of about $400 billion in assets, or close to 2% of GDP. Repatriation flows have had a non-neglible influence on the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart I-6). Unless these flows roll over and begin to weaken, it will make it very difficult for the greenback to depreciate. Chart I-5International Dollar Liquidity Remains Tight Chart I-6Repatriation Flows Still Favor The Dollar Chart I-7Watch The Gold-To-Bond Ratio The bottom line is that pro-cyclical currencies will need broad dollar weakness to outperform. Our favorite indicator for gauging ultimate downside in the dollar is the gold-to-bond ratio (Chart I-7). Any sign that the balance of forces are moving away from the U.S. dollar will favor a breakout in the gold-to-bond ratio. For now, our favorite currency pairs to play U.S. dollar downside are the SEK, NOK, and GBP. What About Safe Havens? During bull markets, countries that have negative interest rates are subject to powerful outflows from carry trades. The impact of these outflows are difficult to measure, but it is fair to assume that periods of low hedging costs (which tend to correspond to periods of lower volatility) can be powerful catalysts. As markets get volatile and these trades get unwound, unhedged trades become victim to short-covering flows. With many yield curves around the world flattening, the danger is that the frequency of this short-covering implicitly rises, since long bond returns are falling short of spot rates. One winner as volatility starts to rise is the yen (Chart I-8). Investors should consider initiating small short USD/JPY and USD/CHF positions in the coming weeks as a portfolio hedge. Back in late 2016, global growth was soft, the yen was very cheap and everyone was short the currency on the back of a dovish shift by the Bank of Japan. Having recently introduced yield curve control (YCC), the market was grappling with the dovish implications for the currency, arguably the most significant change in monetary policy by any central bank at the time in several years. Given that backdrop, the yen strengthened by circa 10% from December 2016 to mid-2017, even as equity markets remained resilient. When the equity market drawdown finally arrived in early 2018, it carried the final legs of the yen rally. Dollar weakness was a significant reason for yen strength given global growth was accelerating, a negative for the counter-cyclical dollar. But with a net international investment position of almost 60% of GDP, and yearly income receipts of almost 4% of GDP, any volatility in markets could lead to powerful repatriation flows back to Japan. Chart I-9The Consumption Tax Hike Will Hurt Japanese Growth We expect the BoJ to remain on hold at next week’s policy meeting, but the incentive for the central bank to act preemptively this time around is getting stronger. The starting point is that the consumption tax hike, scheduled for October this year, will be disastrous for the economy. Since the late 1990s, every time the consumption tax has been hiked, the economy has slumped by an average of over 1.3% in subsequent quarters. For an economy with a potential growth rate of just 0.5-1%, this is a highly unpalatable outcome (Chart I-9). More importantly, similar to past episodes, the consumption tax is being hiked at a time when the economy is slowing. This week’s data show that exports continued to contract for the month of March. Machine tool orders, a good proxy for Japanese machinery sales, are still falling by almost 30% year-on-year. The Japanese PMI remains below the 50 boom/bust line, even though it has ticked marginally higher in April. Both household and business confidence are falling. The Economy Watcher’s Survey is currently at 44.8, well below the 50 boom/bust line and the lowest reading since 2016. In its April regional outlook, the BoJ downgraded most of the prefectures in Japan, with only Hokkaido receiving an upgrade in the aftermath of the earthquake. As domestic deflationary pressures intensify, this should nudge the BoJ towards more stimulus. This also raises the probability that the government defers the consumption tax hike. However, the yen could benefit from any short-covering rallies in the interim. We expect the BoJ to remain on hold at next week’s policy meeting, but the incentive for the central bank to act preemptively this time around is getting stronger. Bottom Line: The risk-reward profile for safe-haven currencies has been greatly augmented in this low-volatility environment. The rise in net short positioning on the yen and Swiss franc is becoming attractive from a contrarian standpoint. Investors should consider initiating short USD/JPY and short USD/CHF positions in the coming weeks as a hedge. Place A Limit-Buy On AUD/USD At 0.70 Data out of Australia are showing tentative signs of a bottom. This week’s important jobs report showed that the economy added 25,700 jobs, more than double the consensus forecast. Importantly, this was driven by full-time jobs, with a net gain of 48,300. And despite the participation rate ticking higher, unemployment stayed near a six-year low at 5%. Admittedly, the most recent Reserve Bank of Australia minutes showed there was discussion about rate cuts, but this could change if the economy begins to benefit from an acceleration in Chinese growth. Outright short AUD bets are at risk from either upside surprises in global growth or simply the forces of mean reversion. For more than two decades, the Australian dollar has tended to be mostly driven by external conditions, especially the commodity cycle. But for the first time in several years, domestic factors have joined in to exert powerful downward pressure on the currency. The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) succeeded in its mission to deflate the overvalued housing market, and with house prices deflating by over 5% year-on-year, Australia may already be far along its adjustment path, especially vis-à-vis its antipodean counterpart (Chart I-10). In terms of currency performance, a lot of the bad news already appears priced in to the Australian dollar, which is down 12% from its 2018 peak and 35% from its 2011 peak. This suggests outright short AUD bets are at risk from either upside surprises in global growth or simply the forces of mean reversion (Chart I-11). We are already long the Aussie dollar versus the kiwi and suggest placing a limit-buy on AUD/USD at 0.7. Chart I-10The Aussie Housing Market Has Already Adjusted Chart I-11Chinese Growth Will Benefit The Aussie Dollar Chart I-12LNG Exports Will Benefit The Aussie Dollar Finally, the AUD/USD cross will benefit from rising terms-of-trade. Iron ore prices are already surging, reflecting supply-related issues but also rising demand in China. Meanwhile, Beijing’s clear environmental push has lifted the share of liquefied natural gas in Australia’s export mix (Chart I-12). Given that eliminating pollution is a strategic goal in China, this will be a multi-year tailwind. As the market becomes more liberalized and long-term contracts are revised to reflect higher spot prices, the Aussie dollar will get a boost.   Chester Ntonifor, Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Reading The Tea Leaves From China,” dated April 12, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. suggest a slower pace of growth: The preliminary U. of Mich. consumer sentiment index fell to 96.9 in April. The NY empire state manufacturing index surprised to the upside, coming in at 10.1 in April. Industrial production contracted by 0.1% month-on-month in March. Trade balance came in at a lower-than-expected deficit of $49.4B in February. Retail sales increased by 1.6% month-on-month in March. Preliminary April Markit composite PMI fell to 52.8; manufacturing component and services component fell to 52.4 and 52.9, respectively. DXY index edged up by 0.35% this week. The Fed’s Beige Book was released on Wednesday, summarizing that economic activity expanded at a slight-to-moderate pace in March and early April, with some states showing more signs of relative strength. The Book suggests that going forward, a similarly muted pace of growth should be anticipated for the coming months. Report Links: Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Tug OF War, With Gold As Umpire - March 29, 2019 Into A Transition Phase - March 8, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area remain soft: Industrial production came in at -0.3% year-on-year in February, outperforming expectations. April ZEW economic sentiment index improved to 4.5 in euro area. The German ZEW current conditions component fell to 5.5, while sentiment improved to 3.1 nonetheless. The current account balance fell to €26.8B, while trade balance increased to €19.5B in February. March headline inflation and core inflation were unchanged at 1.4% and 0.8% year-on-year, respectively. The euro area April composite PMI fell to 51.3; the services component fell to 52.5; the manufacturing component increased to 47.5. German composite PMI increased to 52.1; manufacturing and services components increased to 44.5 and 55.6, respectively. French composite PMI increased to 50; manufacturing component fell to 49.6; services component increased to 50.5. EUR/USD fell by 0.34% this week. As the Chinese economy bottoms, this should benefit European exports and the euro. Report Links: Reading The Tea Leaves From China - April 12, 2019 Into A Transition Phase - March 8, 2019 A Contrarian Bet On The Euro - March 1, 2019 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been neutral: The adjusted trade balance decreased, coming in at a ¥177.8 billion deficit in March. Exports contracted by 2.4% year-on-year, while imports grew by 1.1% year-on-year. Industrial production fell by 1.1% year-on-year in February. The preliminary Nikkei manufacturing PMI improved to 49.5 in April. USD/JPY has been trading flat this week. During the most recent IMF meeting, global finance chiefs have warned that global growth uncertainties remain at a high level. With currency volatility at record lows, any flight to safety could support safe-haven currencies like the yen. Report Links: Tug OF War, With Gold As Umpire - March 29, 2019 A Trader’s Guide To The Yen - March 15, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. have been mostly positive: Rightmove house price index slightly improved to -0.1% year-on-year in April.  On the labor market front, 179K jobs were created in February; ILO unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.9%; average weekly earnings came in line at 3.5% year-on-year.  On the inflation front, headline inflation and core inflation were unchanged at 1.9% and 1.8% year-on-year, respectively, underperforming expectations. Retail sales came in at 6.7% year-on-year in March, surprising to the upside. GBP/USD fell by 0.5% this week. With Brexit being kicked down the road, the volatility of sterling has dropped, and attention is moving towards U.K. fundamentals. Economic surprises in the U.K. relative to both the U.S. and euro area are soaring. This will put a bid under sterling. Report Links: Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 A Trader’s Guide To The Yen - March 15, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The labor market in Australia remains robust: Westpac leading index increased by 0.19% month-on-month in March. 25.7K jobs were created in total in March, with 48.3K new full-time jobs and a loss of 22.6K part-time jobs. The participation rate increased to 65.7% in March, slightly higher than expected which nudged the unemployment rate to 5%, in line with expectations. AUD/USD appreciated by 0.7% this week, now approaching 0.72. The RBA published its meeting minutes on Tuesday. The minutes stated that the Australian dollar is still near its recent lower end. However, the strength in commodity prices and improving trade terms are supporting the currency. Report Links: Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Into A Transition Phase - March 8, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1   Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2   Recent data in New Zealand are slowing: Q1 inflation fell to 1.5% year-on-year, underperforming expectations. NZD/USD fell by 0.8% this week. The relative underperformance of New Zealand growth could further weaken the Kiwi on a cyclical basis. Our long AUD/NZD position is now 1.6% in the money. Report Links: Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in Canada have been mostly positive: The Teranet/National Bank HPI fell to 1.5% year-on-year in March. Existing home sales in March grew by 0.9% month-on-month, higher than the previous reading of -9.1% while still lower than the expected 2%. Trade balance came in at a smaller deficit of 2.9 billion CAD. Headline inflation and core inflation climbed to 1.9% and 1.6% year-on-year respectively. The ADP number of new jobs created fell to 13.2K in March. Retail sales increased by 0.8% month-on-month in February, outperforming expectations. USD/CAD fell by 0.3% this week. The spring 2019 BoC Business Outlook Survey was released on Monday. It’s worth mentioning that the Business Outlook Survey Indicator fell from a strongly positive level in the winter survey to slightly negative, implying the softening in recent business sentiment. Report Links: A Shifting Landscape For Petrocurrencies - March 22, 2019 Into A Transition Phase - March 8, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been positive: Producer and import prices came in at -0.2% year-on-year in March, higher than the previous reading of -0.7%. Trade balance increased to a surplus of 3.2 billion CHF in March. Exports increased to 21 billion CHF, and imports increased to 17.9 billion CHF. Swiss watch exports increased by 4.4% year-on-year in March. USD/CHF rose by 1% this week. The global growth stabilization and improving sentiment in the euro area are offsetting the attractiveness of the safe-haven franc. We are long EUR/CHF for a 1% profit. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Waiting For A Real Deal - December 7, 2018 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 There is little data from Norway this week: Trade balance in March fell to 13.9 billion NOK. USD/NOK fell after the spike overnight, returning flat this week. The Norwegian krone is still trading at around one sigma band below its fair value, while the economic activity is improving with rising oil prices. Our long NOK/SEK position is now at a 3.6% profit. Report Links: A Shifting Landscape For Petrocurrencies - March 22, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been negative: The unemployment rate increased to 6.7% in March. USD/SEK appreciated by 0.2% this week. Like the Norwegian krone, the Swedish krona is undervalued, trading at a large discount to its fair value. We remain overweight the SEK, which will benefit from a bottoming in global growth. Report Links: Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Global Liquidity Trends Support The Dollar, But... - January 25, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Chinese credit origination surpassed expectations in March. Credit growth is now clearly trending higher, and the latest data suggest that economic activity is rebounding. This bodes well for global growth. The conventional wisdom is that China’s releveraging efforts represent “short-term gain for long-term pain.” We disagree. For the most part, Chinese releveraging is inevitable, desirable, and sustainable. Credit growth is inevitable because rising debt is necessary for transforming the country’s copious savings into fixed-asset investment. It is desirable for ensuring that GDP growth stays close to trend. It is broadly sustainable because the interest rate at which the government and much of the private sector are able to borrow is well below the economy’s growth rate. In fact, under a plausible set of assumptions, faster credit growth in China could lead to a lower debt-to-GDP ratio. Stronger global growth later this year should weaken the U.S. dollar. We are closing our long DXY trade for a carry-adjusted gain of 16.4% and exiting our long USD/CNY trade for a loss of 3.1%. We are also taking profits on our short AUD/CAD, short EUR/CAD, and short EUR/RUB trades of 1.6%, 3.9%, and 8.6%, respectively, and initiating two new currency trades: short USD/RUB and long EUR/JPY. The combination of a weaker dollar and faster Chinese growth should benefit EM and European stocks. Gold hit our limit buy order of $1275/ounce and we are now long the yellow metal. Feature A Blockbuster Month For Chinese Credit Growth After turning cautious for about six months, we moved back to being bullish on global equities in late December. We also sold our put on the EEM ETF on January 3rd for a gain of 104% in anticipation of a wave of Chinese credit stimulus. Credit growth blew past expectations in January, but surprised on the downside in February. This made the March release particularly important. In the end, the March data did not disappoint those who were hoping for a solid reading. New CNY loans rose by RMB 1690 billion, above Bloomberg consensus estimates of RMB 1250 billion. Our adjusted aggregate financing measure, which excludes a number of items such as equity financing but includes local government bond issuance, rose by 12.3% year-over-year, up from 11.6% in February (Chart 1). China’s credit impulse leads the import component of its manufacturing PMI (Chart 2). The credit impulse bottomed in November 2018, which should feed into higher imports over the coming months. This week’s release of better-than-expected data on industrial production, retail sales, and housing activity all suggest that the rebound in Chinese growth is already afoot. Chart 1Chinese Credit Growth Is Rebounding... Chart 2...Which Should Bode Well For Global Exports To China   Short-Term Gain For Long-Term Pain? At times like these, the bears are always ready with their standby argument: Sure, China may be stimulating, but all that credit growth will just make the debt bubble even bigger. Once the bubble bursts, there will be hell to pay. Long-term investors should steer clear of any growth-sensitive assets. It is a seductive argument. But it is wrong. Chinese releveraging is: 1) inevitable; 2) desirable; and 3) sustainable. The fundamental macroeconomic problem that China faces is that it consumes too little of what it produces. 1. Chinese Debt Growth Is Inevitable The fundamental macroeconomic problem that China faces is that it consumes too little of what it produces. The result is a national savings rate of 45%, by far the highest of any major economy (Chart 3). Chart 3China Still Saving A Lot Chart 4From Exporting Savings To Investing Domestically And Building Up Debt   There was a time when China was able to export a large part of its excess production. Its current account surplus reached nearly 10% of GDP in 2007. As its economy has grown in relation to the rest of the world, running massive trade surpluses has become more difficult. This is especially true today, when the country is being targeted by the Trump administration and much of the international community for alleged unfair trade practices. As China’s ability to churn out large current account surpluses declined, the government moved to Plan B: propping up growth by recycling the country’s copious savings into fixed-asset investment. This process saw households park their savings in banks and other financial institutions which, in turn, lent the money out to companies and local governments in order to finance various investment projects. Not surprisingly, debt levels exploded higher (Chart 4). As China’s population ages and more workers leave the labor force, savings will decline. However, this is likely to be a slow process. In the meantime, further debt growth is inevitable. 2. Chinese Debt Growth Is Desirable In an ideal world, Chinese households would consume more of their incomes, leaving only enough savings to finance high-quality private and public investment projects. That is not the world we are living in. In a far-from-ideal world, we need to think about second-best solutions. Yes, a sizable share of Chinese investment spending goes towards projects of dubious value. Yet, the same could have been said about Japan’s fabled “bridges to nowhere.” One may regard the construction of a seldom-used bridge as a misallocation of capital. But what is the counterfactual? If the bridge had not been built, would the workers have found productive work? If not, then there also would have been a misallocation of capital – human capital – which is arguably a much more serious problem. In any case, keep in mind that the rate of return on private investment depends on the state of the economy. If an economy is suffering from chronic lack of demand, only the most worthwhile projects will be undertaken. As the economic outlook improves, the set of viable projects will expand. It is only when all excess private-sector savings have been depleted, and interest rates are rising, that public spending starts to crowd out private investment. 3. Chinese Debt Growth Is Sustainable Even if one accepts the proposition that China needs continued debt growth to maintain full employment, is it still possible that all this additional debt will push the economy into a full-blown debt crisis? Most self-professed “serious-minded” observers would say yes. But then again, many of these same observers were predicting that Japan was heading for a debt crisis when government debt reached 100% of GDP in the late 1990s. Today, Japan’s government debt-to-GDP ratio stands at about 240% of GDP, and yet interest rates remain at rock-bottom levels. China will avoid a debt crisis for the same reason Japan has been able to avoid one. Much of China’s debt stock is composed of state-owned enterprise, local government, and other forms of quasi-public sector debt. Credit policy in China is often indistinguishable from fiscal policy. Given the abundant supply of savings in the economy, most of this debt can be internally financed at fairly low interest rates. The standard equation for government debt dynamics says that the change in the debt-to-GDP ratio, D/Y, can be expressed as:1 G - T is the primary budget deficit, r  is the borrowing rate, and g is the growth rate of the economy (it is irrelevant whether r and g are defined in nominal or real terms, as long as they are both expressed the same way). China will avoid a debt crisis for the same reason Japan has been able to avoid one. The Chinese 10-year government bond yield is currently four percentage points below projected GDP growth over the next decade, which is one of the biggest gaps among the major economies (Chart 5). Arithmetically, this means that China can have as large a primary fiscal deficit as it wants. As long as r remains below g, the debt-to-GDP ratio will converge to a stable level. Chart 6 shows this point analytically. In fact, it is possible that a permanently larger budget deficit could lead to a decline in the equilibrium debt-to-GDP ratio. How could that be? The answer is revealed by the equation above. If the debt-to-GDP ratio is fairly high to begin with and an increase in the primary budget deficit leads to higher inflation (and hence, lower real rates and/or faster nominal GDP growth), this could more than fully counteract the increase in the deficit. Chart 7Stronger Growth Coincided With Accelerating Inflation And Lower Real Rates This is not just a theoretical curiosity. Historically, Chinese inflation has risen while real rates have fallen whenever GDP growth has accelerated (Chart 7). Given China’s high debt levels, even a modest amount of additional inflation could put significant downward pressure on the debt-to-GDP ratio.2  Of course, all this is predicated on the assumption that faster credit growth will not cause interest rates to rise above the growth rate of the economy. For the portion of China’s debt stock that is either directly or indirectly backstopped by the central government, this seems like a safe assumption. After all, if credit/fiscal stimulus is simply being undertaken in response to inadequate demand, there is no need for policymakers to hike rates. Things get trickier when we look at private debt. In the past, the government has encouraged state-owned banks to roll over souring loans for fear that a wave of defaults would undermine the economy and endanger social stability. More recently, however, policymakers have been backing away from this strategy due to the well-founded view that it encourages moral hazard. Faster growth in China in the second half of this year will lift Chinese imports. This will be welcome news for the rest of the world. We expect the authorities to continue taking steps to instill market discipline by allowing failing firms to, well, fail. Realistically, however, the transition to a full market-based economy will take quite a bit of time. In the interim, the government will keep cutting taxes and increasing on-budget spending in order to ensure that any decline in employment among failing firms is offset by employment growth elsewhere. In such an environment, neither a debt crisis nor a deep economic slowdown appear likely. Investment Conclusions Faster growth in China in the second half of this year will lift Chinese imports. This will be welcome news for the rest of the world. Chart 9Germany Welcomes The Upturn In Chinese Credit Growth While the U.S. will benefit from a revival in Chinese growth, Europe will gain even more (Chart 8). Germany, in particular, should see a pronounced acceleration in growth. China’s credit impulse leads Chinese automobile spending which, in turn, reliably leads euro area automobile exports, as well as overall exports (Chart 9). The recent rebound in the expectations component of the German ZEW index, as well as in the manufacturing output component of the April flash PMI, suggests that green shoots are starting to sprout (Chart 10). Italy should also benefit from the steep drop in bond yields since last October (Chart 11). Italian industrial production strongly surprised to the upside in February, suggesting that the euro area’s third biggest economy may have finally turned the corner. Chart 10Tentative Green Shoots Out Of Germany Chart 11Italy: The Drop In Bond Yields Should Boost The EconomyThe ECB will not hike rates this year even if growth shifts into higher gear, but the market will probably price in a bit more monetary tightening in 2020 and 2021. This should help lift the euro. We recommend that investors position themselves for this by going long EUR/JPY. Relatedly, we are closing our short EUR/CAD trade for a gain of 3.9%.   The U.S. dollar tends to be a countercyclical currency, meaning that it moves in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 12). This countercyclicality stems from the fact that the U.S. is more geared towards services than manufacturing compared with most other economies (Chart 13). As such, when global growth accelerates, capital tends to flow from the U.S. to the rest of the world, translating into more demand for foreign currency and less demand for dollars. Chart 12The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 13The U.S. Is A Low-Beta Play On Global Growth A “patient” Fed and the prospect of stronger global growth in the second half of this year are bearish for the dollar. As such, we are closing our long DXY trade for a carry-adjusted gain of 16.4% and exiting our long USD/CNY trade for a loss of 3.1%. We are also closing our short AUD/CAD trade for a gain of 1.6%. Faster Chinese growth will boost metal prices, which is bullish for the Aussie dollar. Lastly, we are switching our short EUR/RUB trade (which is currently up 8.6%) into a short USD/RUB trade. A weaker greenback and stronger global growth will be manna from heaven for international stocks, especially when priced in U.S. dollars. Investors should prepare to move European and EM equities to overweight within a global equity portfolio during the coming weeks. A “patient” Fed and the prospect of stronger global growth in the second half of this year are bearish for the dollar. We are less keen on upgrading Japanese equities. While Japanese exporters will benefit from stronger Chinese growth, the domestic economy will be weighed down by the upcoming hike in the sales tax, which is slated to take place in October. Moreover, the yen is likely to experience headwinds as global bond yields rise in relation to JGB yields. Investors contemplating buying Japanese stocks should hedge any currency risk. Finally, the price of gold fell to $1275/ounce earlier this week, triggering our buy order. With the Fed on pause, the U.S. economy starting to overheat, and the dollar likely to trend lower, bullion could shine over the coming months.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019, for a fuller discussion of this debt sustainability equation. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The political economy of oil will become even more complicated, following remarks by Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov over the weekend, which suggested policymakers there are considering another market-share war to crash prices to limit the growth of U.S. shales. The logic appears to be that by abandoning OPEC 2.0’s production-cutting deal and pushing Brent prices below $40/bbl once again for a year or so, Russia will severely reduce investment flow to the U.S. shale-oil patch, allowing it to retake global market share ceded mostly to Texas oil producers.1 The threat of a market-share war was proffered on top of stepped-up rhetoric by senior government officials – ranging from Igor Sechin, head of state-owned Rosneft Oil, to Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) – indicating Russia will be pushing for higher production by OPEC 2.0 in 2H19 at the coalition’s upcoming June meeting. We agree with this assessment: The market will require OPEC 2.0 to lift production in 2H19, given our assessment of supply-demand balances. In our estimation, OPEC 2.0’s position has been strengthened considerably by policy-induced disruptions to the oil market.2 As such, we believe Russia’s threat of a market-share war is a feint, particularly since Russia has benefited greatly from higher prices (see below). Our balances and price forecasts this month are largely unchanged (Chart of the Week). We continue to expect Brent to average $75/bbl this year. For 2020, we expect Brent to average $80/bbl. WTI will trade $7 and $5/bbl lower (Chart 2). The balance of price risk has shifted slightly to the left side of the distribution, driven by policy risk and potential miscalculation by the dramatis personae on the international stage, chiefly leaders in the U.S., Russia and China. Chart of the WeekMarkets Continue To Track BCA Balances... Chart 2...While Prices Continue Tracking BCA Forecasts Highlights Energy: Overweight. Tensions in Libya could keep ~ 300k b/d of supply from reaching global markets via its Zawiya port near Tripoli. We closed our long June 2019 $70/bbl vs. short $75/bbl call spread last Thursday with a gain of 87.7%.3 Base Metals: Neutral. China’s latest credit data confirms our view the country’s credit cycle bottomed earlier this year: March Total Social Financing (TSF) increased CNY 2.8 trillion month-on-month vs. consensus expectation of CNY 1.7 trillion. This will support base metals in the coming months. We continue to expect Chinese authorities to expand credit in 2H19.Our long copper trade is up 0.7% since inception on March 7, 2019. We are closing out our tactical iron-ore trade – long 65% Fe vs. short 62% Fe at tonight’s close; it was up 22.9% at Monday’s close. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold fell 4% from its February high on easing inflation concerns and as fears of an equity correction subsided. March U.S. PCE ex-food and -energy dropped to 1.79% yoy from 1.95% in February, while global equities rose 14% YTD. Our long gold recommendation is down 2.4% since last week, but is still up 3.6% since inception on May 4, 2017. Agriculture: Underweight. U.S. corn and wheat farmers are behind schedule in their spring planting, according to USDA data. The top four American corn-producing states had not started planting by last week, while spring and winter wheat producing states are 11% and 3% behind schedule, mostly due to weather conditions. While delays in planting are always cause for concern, we are still early in the planting season, which gives farmers time to catch up. Feature Policy uncertainty vis-à-vis global oil supply was elevated by Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov’s comments indicating policymakers are considering reviving an oil market-share war directed at U.S. shale-oil producers. Siluanov said prices could fall to $40/bbl or less, in the event. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, among the policy elites of Russia, remains primus inter pares, has indicated he is satisfied with prices where they are now His remarks come on the back of statements from Russian government and oil company officials lobbying for higher output. These comments suggest there is a heavyweight Russian contingent fully supporting these demands for OPEC 2.0 to increase production in 2H19 when it meets in June. Otherwise, the threat implies, Russia will seriously consider leaving OPEC 2.0, and will launch its own market-share war against U.S. shale-oil production, led by the fast-growing Permian Basin in Texas. Thus far, Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, among the policy elites of Russia, remains primus inter pares, has indicated he is satisfied with prices where they are now – nicely above $70/bbl in the Brent market. He also wants to maintain cooperation with OPEC 2.0, particularly its other putative leader, KSA. We continue to believe, however, KSA and Russia become less comfortable with Brent prices moving sharply above $80/bbl.4 Nonetheless, the threat posed by the U.S. shales is non-trivial: In our latest balances estimates, we raised our 2H19 U.S. output estimates to 12.53mm b/d, and slightly decreased our 2020 estimates to 13.35mm b/d”, led by a 1.17mm b/d and 0.84mm b/d increase in shale output this year and next (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Oil Production Estimate Higher For Shales However, Russia – and OPEC 2.0 generally – may be overestimating the rate of growth from U.S. shales going forward: In future research, we will be exploring the extent to which capital markets will restrain growth in the U.S. shales, as investors continue to demand higher returns. The days of growing shale production at any cost may be coming to an end. Russia’s Threat Is A Feint We believe Russia’s threat of a market-share war is a feint: A market-share war would damage the Rodina’s economy more than the balance sheets of U.S. shale producers, particularly those that hedge the first year or two of their production. The threat needs to be understood in the context of the deterioration of Russia’s position in Venezuela; the increasing tempo of U.S. military operations in its near abroad; and rapidly evolving global oil and gas trade flows, all of which are working against Russian interests and investments.5 The threat appears to be a not-too-subtle reminder of the havoc Russia still can create globally, should it choose to do so, as Vladimir Rouvinski noted recently re Russia’s Venezuela policy.6 Russia almost surely is better off under the production-cutting regime launched by OPEC 2.0 than it would be in another price war. Russia’s GDP elasticity to oil prices is more than twice that of KSA’s, which we demonstrated last week.7 This means, from an economic standpoint, it benefits more from higher prices than the Kingdom, based on our modeling. Russia’s oil is exported to refiners and trading companies who pay whatever price is clearing the market, versus KSA, which relies more on direct investments in end-use markets to serve captive demand, and whose GDP has a higher sensitivity to EM economic growth. Russia almost surely is better off under the production-cutting regime launched by OPEC 2.0 than it would be in another price war. The coalition’s production-cutting deal this year has reduced global supplies by 1.0mm b/d since the beginning of the year, lifting price from below $50/bbl to more than $70/bbl, in line with our forecast. These production cuts have been supported by strong global demand this year this, which, we expect, will persist in 2020. Of course, Russia could abandon the production-cutting deal with KSA, in the hope of severely reducing investment in U.S. shale-oil production. However, it also would accelerate the loss of foreign direct investment (FDI) in its own hydrocarbons sector, along with those of other OPEC 2.0 member states (Chart 4). Bottom Line: A Russian market-share war aimed at U.S. shale producers would run the very real risk of tanking Russia’s GDP and those of the rest of OPEC 2.0’s member states, as these economies lack the resilience and diversification of the U.S.’s GDP, particularly Texas’s. Even if its fiscal balances are in better shape now, Russia’s economy remains highly sensitive to Brent crude oil prices – moreso than KSA’s, and far moreso the U.S.’s (Chart 5).8 Chart 4Another Oil Market-Share War Would Crush OPEC 2.0 In-Bound FDI Chart 5Russia Benefits More Than KSA From Higher Oil Prices BCA’s Balances Mostly Unchanged Our updated balances reflect the lower Venezuelan and Iranian output reported by OPEC’s survey of secondary sources (Table 1). As we have noted previously, we believe OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity is sufficient to cover the loss of Venezuelan output, and the limited losses on Iranian exports imposed by U.S. sanctions (Chart 6). Beyond that, however, the market will be severely stretched if an unplanned outage removes significant production from global supply. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) On the supply side, we continue to expect OPEC and Russia to lift supply in 2H19, following the successful draining of global inventories (Chart 7). We expect OPEC ex-Iran, Libya and Venezuela, led by KSA, will lift 2H19 supply by ~ 400k b/d vs. 1H19 levels, while we expect Russia’s output to rise 200k b/d. Chart 7Lower Inventories Require OPEC 2.0 Supply Increase In 2H19 We continue to expect oil demand to be supported by the renewed easing of monetary policy globally, which will redound to the benefit of EM demand, which also will benefit from the bottoming of China’s credit cycle. Indeed, the EIA added 130k b/d to its estimate of non-OECD demand for this year, on the back of stronger expected growth. We expect demand growth of 1.5mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d next year, with EM growth accounting for 1.1mm b/d of growth this year and 1.3mm b/d next year. In levels, global demand will average 101.8mm b/d and 103.4mm b/d in 2019 and 2020. Waivers On U.S. Iran Sanctions Will Be Extended We continue to expect waivers on U.S. sanctions of Iranian oil imports will be extended on May 2, owing to the still-tight supply conditions globally with Venezuela output collapsing and ~ 1mm b/d of Iranian oil already forced off the market. This has, as we’ve noted in our discussions of the New Political Economy of oil, strengthened OPEC 2.0’s hand. This will become apparent when the coalition meets in June to consider whether to increase production in 2H19, in line with our expectation. KSA, Russia and OPEC 2.0 member states will have sufficient data on hand to determine whether and by how much to lift output, in a manner that supports their GDPs. Indeed, on Wednesday, Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said, “We should do what is more expedient for us.”9 KSA and Russia appear to be managing production in a manner consistent with our forecasts of $75 and $80/bbl for Brent this year and next than not. We also expect U.S. President Donald Trump to try to jawbone OPEC 2.0 into increasing production again, as he did in 2H18. However, we expect those demands to fall on deaf ears, unless fundamental supply dislocations warrant such action. Bottom Line: OPEC 2.0’s strategy is working – it will have maximum flexibility re how it handles its production in 2H19, following the U.S. decision on waivers to its Iran oil-export sanctions on May 2. As we noted last month, KSA and Russia appear to be managing production in a manner consistent with our forecasts of $75 and $80/bbl for Brent this year and next than not.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/Non-OPEC oil-producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia.  It agreed in November to remove 1.2mm b/d off the market, in order to balance global supply and demand and reduce inventories.  Please see “Russia, OPEC may ditch oil deal to fight for market share: Russian minister,” published April 13, 2019, for a re-cap of Siluanov’s remarks. 2      Please see “The New Political Economy of Oil,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 21, 2019; and “OPEC 2.0: Oil’s Price Fulcrum,” published March 21, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see “Oil steadies as market focuses on supply risks,” published April 15 2019 by reuters.com 4      Please see “Putin Says No Imminent Decision on Oil Output Cuts,” published April 10, 2019, by The Moscow Times. 5      Please see for example, “Pentagon developing military options to deter Russian, Chinese influence in Venezuela,” published by cnn.com April 15, 2019; “Destroyer USS Ross Enters Black Sea, Fourth U.S. Warship Since 2019,” published by news.usni.org April 15, 2019; and “U.S. LNG exports pick up, with Europe a major buyer,” published by reuters.com March 7, 2019. 6      Please see “Russian-Venezuelan Relations at a Crossroads” by Vladimir Rouvinski, published by the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute in its February Latin American digest. 7      Please see “Sussing Out OPEC 2.0’s Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy April 11, 2019.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8      We discuss the impact of higher oil prices on Russia’s economy in last week’s report, which is cited in footnote 6 above.  Russia’s GDP in 2017 was ~ U.S. $1.6 trillion, according to the World Bank, while the GDP of Texas was ~ $1.7 trillion, American Enterprise Institute. 9      Please see “Russia’s Novak: early to speak about options for oil output deal,” published reuters.com April 17, 2019. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 ​​​​​​​ Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

Overweight The S&P oil & gas exploration & production (E&P) index received a much needed boost last week when the blockbuster acquisition of Anadarko by Chevron (at a 37% premium to the stock’s previous close) was announced, triggering a wave of M&A premia being added to stocks in the index. This valuation lift looks reasonably well deserved in our opinion, considering the degree to which the integrated oil majors are moving in to shale gas plays with a focus on the Permian basin. A narrowing of junk bond spreads is confirming the resurgent optimism in the sector (second panel). Our investment thesis is based on our sister publication, BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy, and their bullish WTI view, which is the fundamental growth driver in the sector (WTI shown advanced six months, bottom panel). We continue to expect a recovering energy price to drive a reversal of the recent moderation in oil & gas production, delivering a double dose of growth and margin improvement, goosing sector earnings and share prices. Bottom Line: We reiterate our overweight recommendation on the S&P oil & gas E&P index and our high-conviction overweight recommendation on the broader S&P energy index that we added this week.1 The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILP - COP, EOG, APC, PXD, CXO, HES, FANG, DVN, MRO, APA, NBL, COG, XEC.   1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “ Show Me The Profits” dated April 15, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Dear Client, This Special Report is the full transcript and slides of a keynote presentation I recently gave to the Sovereign Investor Institute in London titled: 'The Biggest Risks To The Global Economy Are…' The short presentation pulls together several concepts and observations which identify the ‘weak links’ in the global economy. Therefore, the presentation should serve as a useful summary of the global economy’s current vulnerabilities. The report then explains how each of the risks translates into a European investment context. I hope you find it insightful. Best regards, Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist Feature Full Transcript And Slides Good morning Thank you for inviting me to give today’s keynote presentation under the title: ‘The Biggest Risks To The Global Economy Are…’ (Slide 1). I will not discuss all the risks out there, but the four risks that I will present are the ones that I think are the most significant. And the biggest of these four risks I will leave to the end. So let’s begin. Risk 1 is China’s Credit Cycle (Slide 2). You can see this very clearly in this slide (Slide 3) which shows the short-term accelerations and decelerations in credit within the world’s three largest economies – Europe, the United States, and China. In essence, it is showing how much new credit was created in the last six months compared with the preceding six months. Was it more credit creation or was it less, and how much more or less? Everything is in dollars to allow a fair comparison. Now look at the red line. The red line is China. Just ten years ago, China’s credit cycle was irrelevant. It simply didn’t matter. But after the GFC, China’s short-term credit expansions and contractions suddenly became as large as those in Europe and the U.S. More recently, China’s cycle is dwarfing the others, so now it is the European and the U.S. credit cycles that are irrelevant! This means that whenever China’s short-term credit cycle turns down, as it did in late 2015, early 2017, and 2018, the global economy feels a chill. The point is that this short-term cycle is a near-perfect oscillator. Down-oscillations will occur every eighteen months or so, and any of them has the potential to turn nasty. Though we are currently in an up-oscillation, the next down-oscillation is due later this year. And I predict that it will pose a big risk to the global economy. Risk 2 is Trade Imbalances (Slide 4). This slide (Slide 5) has a mischievous title ‘Where President Trump Is Right About Europe’. The red line shows where the president is absolutely right: Europe is running a massive – a record-high – trade surplus with the United States. It is an undeniable fact. But the president is wrong about the underlying cause. The underlying cause is not unfair trade practices or tariffs, the underlying cause is the other line, the blue line, which shows the divergent monetary policies of the ECB and the Fed. The trade imbalance and monetary policy divergence are moving together tick for tick, and the transmission mechanism is of course the exchange rate. The divergent monetary policies have depressed the euro, and a depressed euro obviously makes German cars cheaper for American consumers. That is the reason that the president is seeing so many BMWs driving down Fifth Avenue! My point is that these record-high imbalances are being used to justify economic nationalism – retaliatory tariffs, restricted trade, and potentially all-out trade wars. Alternatively, this chart suggests that the imbalances would correct with large-scale movements of exchange rates. But to me, either of these options poses a big risk to the global economy. Risk 3 Is Technological Disruption (Slide 6). To understand why, I want to introduce you to a concept known as Moravec’s Paradox (Slide 7). A professor of robotics, Hans Moravec, noticed something odd. He realized that things that we find very hard are actually very easy for AI. Things like complex mathematics, speaking multiple languages, or advance pattern recognition. Typically, as few people have these skills, they are well-paid skills. Whereas things that we find very easy are incredibly difficult for AI. Things like human movement and recognizing, and responding to, emotional signals. Typically, as everybody has these skills, they are low-paid skills.  Moravec’s Paradox means that the current wave of technological progress is much more disruptive than previous waves. The steam engine destroyed low-paid jobs, forcing workers up the income ladder. But the current wave of technology, led by AI, is destroying well-paid jobs forcing workers down the income ladder. You can see it in the data. While job creation in most major economies is on the face of it very strong, just look at what type of jobs are being created (Slide 8). Food delivery, bar work, care work and social work. Now you’ll agree that this is not highly paid work with career prospects!  In essence, the current wave of technology is revealing a huge misallocation of capital. You might have invested huge amounts of time and money in say, becoming a linguist. Only to find that AI can translate languages much better than you – and your employment opportunities are limited to lower-income work. Well that misallocation of capital is very disruptive.  In my opinion, it’s one of the main reasons why even though economies are growing and unemployment is very low, people don’t feel good. Making them susceptible to simplistic fixes such as ‘take back control’ and economic nationalism. My point is that the current wave of AI-led job disruption has much further to run, and the populist backlash will remain a big risk to the global economy. But now I want to turn to what I believe is the biggest risk of all. Risk 4 Is Higher Bond Yields (Slide 9). Most people believe that economic downturns cause financial market downturns. But the truth is the complete opposite: the causality almost always runs the other way! In the vast majority of cases, it is financial market imbalances and mispricing that cause economic downturns and crises. Take the last three economic downturns – in 2001, in 2008 and in 2011. They all had their roots in financial mispricing – the dot com bubble, the U.S. mortgage market, and euro area sovereign debt. Likewise for the Great Depression in the 30s, Japan’s recession in the early 90s. I could go on. You get the point… What is the financial vulnerability today that could cause an economic downturn? (Slide 10) The answer is that the very rich valuation of equities and other risk-assets is highly sensitive to bond yields. Which means that substantially higher bond yields pose a very big risk to the global economy. You see, at very low bond yields, the bond price can no longer go up much but it can go down massively (Slide 11). The latest advances in financial theory now conclusively show that this unattractive ‘negative’ asymmetry is what defines ‘risk’ for investors. The crucial point is that at low bond yields, bonds become as risky, or more risky, than equities (Slide 12). And this necessarily means that equities no longer need to deliver a superior return, a risk-premium, over the low bond yield (Slide 13). As bond yields decline this means equity valuations get an exponential boost because both components of the equity’s required return – the risk-free component and the risk-premium component – are collapsing simultaneously (Slide 14). But if bond yields rise substantially, the process would go into vicious reverse and equity valuations would fall off a cliff. Other risk-assets too, and bear in mind that if we include real estate – as we should – global risk-assets are worth $400 trillion, five times the size of the global economy!   Our research shows that the point of vulnerability is if the global 10-year bond yield approaches 2 percent, which is about 50 basis points above where it stands right now. And that, to me, is by far the biggest risk to the global economy. So to summarise, the biggest risks to the global economy are: China’s credit cycle; trade imbalances and technological disruption and their associated populist backlash; and the biggest risk is higher bond yields (Slide 15). In the near future I think alarm bells should start to ring if China’s credit cycle has tipped into a down-oscillation and/or the global 10-year bond yield is 50 bps higher. Don’t worry, the alarm bells are not ringing right now but they might be later this year. Finally, given the title you gave me, this presentation has necessarily focussed on the key risks. But I don’t want you to get too negative. I also have another presentation called ‘The Biggest Positives For The Global Economy Are…’ And for balance, I hope you invite me to present that next time! Thank you. How Do The Risks Translate Into A European Investment Context? Risk 1: China’s Credit Cycle, is highly relevant to European investors, for two reasons. First, the European economy is very open, meaning that exports make a substantial contribution to GDP growth. This is especially true in Europe’s engine economy, Germany, but it is also important for other major economies like Sweden. And it is evidenced in large trade surpluses as, for example, illustrated in Slide 5. Therefore, whenever China’s credit cycle enters a down-oscillation, as it did last year, Germany cannot escape the nasty chill coming through its all-important net export channel. Second, the European equity market is over-exposed to global growth sensitive sectors and companies – specifically, Industrials, Materials, and Financials. These sectors tend to have a very high operational gearing to global growth. Meaning that a small change in global growth has a disproportionate effect on these companies’ profits and share price performance. The upshot is that in a credit cycle up-oscillation, Europe’s global-growth sensitive stock markets and sectors benefit from a sharp burst of outperformance. The opposite applies in a credit cycle down-oscillation. It follows that if China’s credit cycle is due to tip into a down-oscillation later this year, it would be time to close our successful relative overweighting to European equities and to the global growth sensitive cyclical sectors. Risk 2: Trade Imbalances, is also highly relevant to European investors, for the obvious reason that European economies – especially Germany – are running huge trade surpluses. This puts these economies squarely in the cross-hairs of a retaliatory salvo involving tariffs, trade barriers, or worse, an all-out trade war. Clearly, Europe’s ‘exporting champions’ are the most vulnerable to this risk. The issue is important for the exchange rate too. We showed conclusively that Europe’s trade imbalance is the consequence of the depressed euro. It follows that another way to correct this imbalance is via a stronger euro. In this sense, the fundamentals imply euro upside from here. Risk 3: Technological Disruption, manifests through disruption in the jobs market, the lack of feel good, and the ensuing backlash leading to populism and nationalism. This is particularly relevant to Europe because its collection of nations, each with its own political processes, provides more scope for a political tail-event. A lull in the major political-event cycle is a good thing for Europe. In this regard, the upcoming EU parliamentary elections is not a big risk given the EU parliament’s inability, by itself, to drive policy. The risk increases approaching a meaningful political event, and this includes the date of Brexit. Therefore, this risk is likely to rise somewhat towards the end of the year. Risk 4: Higher Bond Yields, is clearly very relevant to Europe because many of the core euro area bond yields are at their lower bound. This means that the negative asymmetry of returns has its maximum impact on, for example, German bunds. It follows that German bunds are a sell in the near-term. Nevertheless, the upside to yields is ultimately limited given the aforementioned vulnerability of risk-asset valuations to higher bond yields. Therefore, the better long-term strategy is to short German bunds relative to U.S. T-bonds. Finally, a 50 basis points rise in 10-year yields from current levels would be a trigger to flip to underweight European equities.  Fractal Trading System* Crude oil is at a technical reversal level. The best way to play this is on a hedged basis versus metals: short WTI, long LMEX. Set the profit target at 5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, we are pleased to report long AUD/CNY achieved its profit target at which it was closed. This leaves five open positions. 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 Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart I-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations   Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Going long Treasurys/short bunds has been a “widow maker trade” for the past decade. Similarly trying to short the SPX has also proven impossible since March 2009 as stocks have been climbing the proverbial “wall of worry” and risen roughly 2,200 points or more than fourfold. While the correlation between the bond spread and the SPX may be spurious, it has been ongoing in both rising and falling markets for the better part of the past 25 years. The rationale would be that higher relative yields attract capital to U.S. shores and vice versa and some of that capital gets parked inevitably in U.S. stocks. Another reason behind the past decade’s widening of the bond spread is that U.S. return on capital (ROC) has been significantly higher than euro area ROC. Currently, there is tentative evidence that this bond spread has crested and at least from a tactical perspective some caution is warranted in the SPX.