Developed Countries

Highlights So What? Our best and worst calls of 2018 cast light on our methodology and 2019 forecasts. Why? Our clients took us to task for violating our own methodology on the Iranian oil sanctions. Sticking to our guns would have paid off with long Russian equities versus EM. We correctly called China’s domestic policy, the U.S.-China trade war, Europe, the U.S. midterms, and relative winners in emerging markets. Feature It has been a tradition for BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy, since our launch in 2012, to highlight our best and worst forecasts of the year.1 This will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 9, when we return to our regular publication schedule. We wish all of our clients a great Holiday Season. And especially all the very best in 2019: lots of happiness, health, and hefty returns. Good luck and good hunting. The Worst Calls Of 2018 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we always begin the report card with our zingers. Our overall performance in 2018 was … one of our best. The successes below will testify to this. However, we made three notable errors. A Schizophrenic Russia View Our worst call of the year was to panic and close our long Russian equities relative to emerging markets trade in the face of headline geopolitical risks. In early March, we posited that Russia was a “buy” relative to the broad EM equity index due to a combination of cheap valuations, strong macro fundamentals, orthodox policy, and an end to large-scale geopolitical adventurism. This call ultimately proved to be correct (Chart 1). Chart 1Russian Stocks Outperformed In The End What went wrong? The main risk to our view, that the U.S. Congress would pursue an anti-Russia agenda regardless of any Russian sympathies in the Trump White House, materialized in the wake of the poisoning of former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal with a Novichok nerve agent in the United Kingdom. As fate would have it, the incident occurred just before our bullish report went to clients! The ensuing international uproar and sanctions caused a selloff. Our bullish thesis did not rest exclusively on geopolitics, but a thaw in West-Russia relations did form the main pillar of the view. Our Russia Geopolitical Risk Index, which had served us well in the past, was pricing as low of a level of geopolitical risk as one could hope for in the post-Crimea environment (Chart 2). Naturally the measure jumped into action following the Skripal incident. Chart 2Geopolitical Risk Was Low Prior To Skripal The timing of our call was therefore off, but we should have stuck with the overall view. The U.S. imposed preliminary sanctions that lacked teeth. While Washington accepted the U.K.’s assessment that Moscow was behind the poisoning, the weakness of the sanctions also signaled that the U.S. did not consider the incident worthy of a tougher position. There are now two parallel sanction processes under way. The first round of sanctions announced in August gave Russia 90 days to comply and adopt “remedial measures” regarding the use of chemical and biological weapons. On November 9, the U.S. State Department noted that Russia had not complied with the deadline. The U.S. is now expected to impose a second round of sanctions that will include at least three of six punitive actions: Opposition to development aid and assistance by international financial institutions (think the IMF and the World Bank); Downgrading diplomatic relations; Additional restrictions on exports to Russia (high-tech exports have already been barred by the first round of sanctions); Restrictions on imports from Russia; A ban on landing rights in the U.S. for Russian state-owned airlines; Prohibiting U.S. banks from purchasing Russian government debt. While the White House was expected to have such sanctions ready to go on the November 9 deadline, it has dragged its feet for almost two months now. This suggests that President Trump continues to hold out for improved relations with President Putin. A visit by President Putin to Washington remains possible in Q1 2019. As such, we would expect the White House to adopt some mix of the first five items on the above list, hardly a crushing response from Moscow’s perspective. The U.S. Congress, however, has a parallel process in the form of the Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2018 (DASKAA). Introduced in August by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Russia hawk, the legislation would put restrictions on Americans buying Russian sovereign debt and curb investments in Russian energy projects. The bill also includes secondary sanctions on investing in the Russian oil sector, which would potentially ensnare European energy companies collaborating with Russia in the energy sector. There was some expectation that Congress would take up the bill ahead of the midterm election, but nothing came of it. Even with the latest incident – the seizing of two Ukrainian naval vessels in the Kerch Strait – we have yet to see action. While we expect the U.S. to do something eventually, the White House approach is likely to be tepid while the congressional approach may be too draconian to pass into law. And with Democrats about to take over the House, and likely demand even tougher sanctions against Russia, the ultimate legislation may be too bold for President Trump to sign into legislation. The point is that Russia has acted antagonistically towards the West in 2018, but in small enough increments that the response has been tepid. Given the paucity of Russian financial and trade links with the U.S., Washington’s sanctions would only bite if they included the dreaded “secondary sanction” implications for third party sovereigns and firms – particularly European, which do have a lot of business in Russia. This is highly unlikely without major Russian aggression. We cannot completely ignore the potential for such aggression in 2019, especially with President Putin’s popularity in the doldrums (Chart 3) and a contentious Ukrainian election due for March 31. However, we outlined the constraints against Russia in 2014, amidst the Ukrainian crisis, and we do not think that these constraints have been reduced (they may have only grown since then). Chart 3Non-Negligible Risk Of Russian Aggression Regardless of the big picture for 2019, we could have faded the risks in 2018 and stuck to the fundamentals. Russia is up 17.2% against EM year-to-date. The lesson here, therefore, is to find re-entry points into a well-founded view despite market volatility. Chart 1 shows that Russian equities climbed the proverbial “wall of worry” relative to EM in 2018. Doubting Jair Bolsonaro Our list of mistakes keeps us in the EM universe where we underestimated Jair Bolsonaro’s chances of winning the presidency in Brazil. The answer to the question we posed in the title of our September report – “Brazil: Can The Election Change Anything?” – was a definitive “yes.” Since the publication of that report, BRL/USD is up 2.9% and Brazilian equities are up 18.5% relative to EM (Chart 4). Chart 4Bolsonaro Rally Losing Its Luster Already To our credit, the question of Bolsonaro’s electoral chances elicited passionate and pointed internal debate. But our clients did not see the internal struggle, just the incorrect external output! A bad call is a bad call, no matter how it is assembled on the intellectual assembly line. That said, we still think that our report is valuable. It sets out the constraints facing Bolsonaro in 2019. He has to convince the left-leaning median voter that meaningful pension reform is needed; bully a fractured Congress into painful structural reforms; and overcome an unforgiving macro context of tepid Chinese stimulus and a strong USD. If the Bolsonaro administration wastes the good will of the investment community over the next six months, we expect the market’s punishment to be swift and painful. In fact, Chart 4 notes that the initial Bolsonaro rally has already lost most of its shine. Brazilian assets are still up since the election, but the gentle slope could become a steep fall if Bolsonaro stumbles. The market is priced for political perfection. To be clear, we are not bearish on Bolsonaro. We believe that, relative to EM, he will be a positive for Brazil. However, the market is currently betting that he will win by two touchdowns, whereas we think he will squeak by with a last-second field goal. The difference between the two forecasts is compelling and we have expressed it by being long MXN/BRL.2 Not Sticking To Our Method In The Case Of Iran Throughout late-2017 and 2018 we pointed out that President Trump’s successful application of “maximum pressure” against North Korea could become a market-relevant risk if he were emboldened to try the same strategy against Iran. For much of the year, this view was prescient. As investors realized the seriousness of President Trump’s strategy, a geopolitical risk premium began to seep into oil prices, as illustrated in Chart 5 by the red bar. Every time we spoke to clients or published reports on this topic, we highlighted just how dangerous a “maximum pressure” strategy would be in the case of Iran. We stressed that Iran could wreak havoc across Iraq and other parts of the Middle East and even drive up oil prices to the point of causing a “geopolitical recession in 2019.” In other words, we stressed the extraordinary constraints that President Trump would face. To their credit many of our clients called us out on the inconsistency: our market call was über bullish oil prices, while our methodology emphasized constraints over preferences. We were constantly fielding questions such as: Why would President Trump face down such overwhelming constraints? We did not have a very good answer to this question other than that he was ideologically committed to overturning the Iranian nuclear deal. In essence, we doubted President Trump’s own ideological flexibility and realism. That was a mistake and we tip our hat to the White House for recognizing the complex constraints arrayed against it. President Trump realized by October how dangerous those constraints were and began floating the idea of sanction waivers, causing the geopolitical risk premium to drain from the market (Chart 6). To our credit, we highlighted sanction waivers as a key risk to our view and thus took profit on our bullish energy call early. Chart 6Sanction Waivers Caused A Collapse In Oil Prices That said, our clients have taken the argument further, pointing out that if we were wrong on Trump’s ideological flexibility with Iran, we may be making the same mistake when it comes to China. However, there is a critical difference. Americans are more concerned about conflict with North Korea than with Iran (Chart 7), while China is the major concern about trade (Chart 8). Second, railing against the Iran deal did not get President Trump elected, whereas his protectionist rhetoric – specifically regarding China – did (Chart 9). Getting anything less than the mother-of-all-deals with Beijing will draw down Trump’s political capital ahead of 2020 and open him to accusations of being “weak” and “surrendering to China.” These are accusations that the country’s other set of protectionists – the Democrats – will wantonly employ against him in the next general election. Chart 9Protectionism, Not Iran, Helped Trump Get Elected Ultimately, if we have to be wrong, we are at least satisfied that our method stood firm in the face of our own fallibility. We are doubly glad to see our clients using our own method against our views. This is precisely what we wanted to accomplish when we began BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy in March 2012: to revolutionize finance by raising the sophistication with which it approaches geopolitics. That was a lofty goal, but we do not pretend to hold the monopoly on our constraint-based methodology. In the end, our market calls did not suffer due to our error. We closed our long EM energy-producer equities / EM equities for a gain of 4.67% and our long Brent / short S&P 500 for a gain of 6.01%. However, our latter call, shorting the S&P 500 in September, was based on several reasons, including concerns regarding FAANG stocks, overstretched valuations, and an escalation of the trade war. Had we paired our S&P 500 short with a better long, we would have added far more value to our clients. It is that lost opportunity that has kept us up at night throughout this quarter. We essentially timed the S&P 500 correction, but paired it with a wayward long. The Best Calls Of 2018 BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy had a strong year. We are not going to list all of our calls here, but only those most relevant to our clients. Our best 2018 forecast originally appeared in 2017, when in April of that year we predicted that “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018.” Our reasoning was bang on: U.S. fiscal policy would turn strongly stimulative (the tax cuts would pass and Trump would be a big spender) and thus cause the Fed to turn hawkish and the USD to rally, tightening global monetary policy; Trump’s trade war would re-emerge in 2018; China would reboot its structural reform efforts by focusing on containing leverage, thus tightening global “fiscal” policy. In the same report we also predicted that Italian elections in 2018 would reignite Euro Area breakup risks, but that Italian policymakers would ultimately be found to be bluffing, as has been our long-running assertion. Throughout 2018, our team largely maintained and curated the forecasts expressed in that early 2017 report. We start the list of the best calls with the one call that was by far the most important for global assets in 2018: economic policy in China. The Chinese Would Over-Tighten, Then Under-Stimulate Getting Chinese policy right required us, first, to predict that policy would bring negative economic surprises this year, and second, once policy began to ease, to convince clients and colleagues that “this time would be different” and the stimulus would not be very stimulating. In other words, this time, China would not panic and reach for the credit lever of the post-2008 years (Chart 10), but would maintain its relatively tight economic, financial, environmental, and macro-prudential oversight, while easing only on the margin. Chart 10No Massive Credit Stimulus In 2018 This is precisely what occurred. BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy’s “China Play Index,” which is designed to capture any reflation out of Beijing, collapsed in 2018 and has hardly ticked up since the policy easing announced in July (Chart 11). Chart 11Weak Reflation Signal From China Our view was based on an understanding of Chinese politics that we can confidently say has been unique: From March 2017, we highlighted the importance of the 2017 October Party Congress, arguing that President Xi Jinping would consolidate his power and redouble his attempts to “reform” the economy by reining in dangerous imbalances. We explicitly characterized the containment of leverage as the most market-relevant reform to focus on. We stringently ignored the ideological debate about the nature of reform in China, focusing instead on the major policy changes afoot. We identified very early on how the rising odds of a U.S.-China conflict would embolden Chinese leadership to double-down on painful structural reforms. Will China maintain this disciplined approach in 2019? That is yet to be seen. But we are arming ourselves and clients with critical ways to identify when and whether Beijing’s policy easing transforms into a full-blown “stimulus overshoot”: First, we need to see a clear upturn in shadow financing to believe that the Xi administration has given up on preventing excess debt. Assuming that such a shift occurs, and that overall credit improves, it will enable us to turn bullish on global growth and global risk assets on a cyclical, i.e., not merely tactical, horizon (Chart 12). Chart 12A Shadow Lending Surge Would Mean A Big Policy Shift Second, our qualitative checklist will need to see a lot more “checks” in order to change our mind. Short of an extraordinary surge in bank and shadow bank credit, there needs to be a splurge in central and especially local government spending (Table 1). The mid-year spike in local governments’ new bond issuance in 2018 was fleeting and fell far short of the surge that initiated the large-scale stimulus of 2015. Frontloading these bonds in 2019 will depend on timing and magnitude. Table 1A Credit Splurge, Or Government Spending Splurge, Is Necessary For Stimulus To Overshoot Third, we would need to see President Xi Jinping make a shift in rhetoric away from the “Three Battles” of financial risk, pollution, and poverty. Having identified systemic financial risk as the first of the three ills, Xi needs to make a dramatic reversal of this three-year action plan if he is to clear the way for another credit blowout. Trade War Would Reignite In 2018 It paid off to stick with our trade war alarmism in 2018. We correctly forecast that the U.S. and China would collide over trade and that their initial trade agreement – on May 20 – was insubstantial and would not last. In the event it lasted three days. Our one setback on the trade front was to doubt the two sides would agree to a trade truce at the G20. However, by assigning a subjective 40% probability, we correctly noted the fair odds of a truce. We also insisted that any truce would be temporary, which ended up being the case. We may yet be vindicated if the March 1 deadline produces no sustainable deal, as we forecast in last week’s Strategic Outlook. That said, correct geopolitical calls do not butter our bread at BCA. Rather, we are paid to make market calls. To that end, we would point out that we correctly assessed the market-relevance of the trade conflict, fading S&P 500 risks and focusing on the effect on global risk assets. Will this continue into 2019? We think so. We do not see trade conflict as the originator of ongoing market turbulence (Chart 13) and would expect the U.S. to outperform global equities again over the course of 2019 (Chart 14). This view may appear wrong in Q1, as the market digests the Fed backing off from hawkish rhetoric, the ongoing trade negotiations, and the likely seasonal uptick in Chinese credit data in the beginning of the calendar year. Chart 13Yields, Not Trade War, Drove Stocks Chart 14U.S. Stocks Will Resume Outperformance However, any stabilization in equity markets would likely serve to ease financial conditions in the U.S., where economic and inflation conditions remain firmly in tightening territory (Chart 15). As such, the Fed pause is likely to last no more than a quarter, maybe two at best, leading to renewed carnage in global risk assets if our view on Chinese policy stimulus – tepid – remains valid through the course of 2019. Chart 15If Financial Conditions Ease, Tightening Will Be Back On Europe (All Of It… Again) In 2017, our forecasting track record for Europe was stellar. This continued in 2018, with no major setbacks: Populism in Italy: Our long-held view has been that Europe’s chief remaining risks lay in Italian populists coming to power. We predicted in 2016 that this would eventually happen and that they would then be proven to be bluffing. This is essentially what happened in 2018. Matteo Salvini’s Lega is surging in the polls because its leader has realized that a combination of hard anti-immigrant policy and the softest-of-soft Euroskepticism is a winning combination. We believe that investors can live with this combination. Our only major fault in forecasting European politics and assets this year was to close our bearish Italy call too early: we booked our long Spanish / short Italian 10-year government bond trade for a small loss in August, before the spread between the two Mediterranean countries blew out to record levels. That missed opportunity could have also made it on our “worst calls” list as well. Pluralism in Europe: To get the call on Italy right, we had to dabble in some theoretical work. In a somewhat academic report, we showed that political concentration was on the decline in the developed world (Chart 16), but especially in Europe (Chart 17). Put simply, lower political concentration suggests that a duopoly between the traditional center-left and center-right parties is breaking down. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, we argued that Europe’s parliamentary systems would enable centrist parties to adopt elements of the populist agenda, particularly on immigration, without compromising the overall stability of European institutions. As such, political pluralism, or low political concentration, is positive for markets. Immigration crisis is over: For centrist parties to be able to successfully adopt populist immigration policy, they needed a pause in the immigration crisis. This was empirically verifiable in 2018 (Chart 18). Chart 18European Migration Crisis Is Over Merkel’s time has run out: Since early 2017, we had cautioned clients that Angela Merkel’s demise was afoot, but that it would be an opportunity, rather than a risk, when it came. It finally happened in 2018 and it was not a market moving event. The main question for 2019 is whether German policymakers, and Europe as a whole, will use the infusion of fresh blood in Berlin to reaccelerate crucial reforms ahead of the next global recession. Brexit: Since early 2016, we have been right on Brexit. More specifically, we were corrent in cautioning investors that, were Brexit to occur, “the biggest loser would be the Conservative Party, not the EU.” As with the previous two Conservative Party prime ministers, it appears that the question of the U.K.’s relationship with the EU has completely drained any political capital out of Prime Minister Theresa May’s reign. We suspect that the only factor propping up the Tories in the polls is that Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition. We have also argued that soft Brexit would ultimately prove to be “illogical” and that “Bregret” would begin to seep in, as it now most clearly has. We parlayed these rising geopolitical risks and uncertainties by shorting cable in the first half of the year for a 6.21% gain. Malaysia Over Turkey And India Over Brazil Not all was lost for our EM calls this year. We played Malaysia against Turkey in the currency markets for a 17.44% gain, largely thanks to massively divergent governance and structural reform trajectories after Malaysia’s opposition won power for the first time in the country’s history. Second, we initiated a long Indian / short Brazilian equity view in March that returned 27.54% by August. This was a similar play on divergent structural reforms, but it was also a way to hedge our alarmist view on trade. Given India’s isolation from global trade and insular financial markets, we identified India as one of the EM markets that would remain aloof of protectionist risks. We could have closed the trade earlier for greater gain, but did not time the exit properly. Midterm Election: A Major Democratic Victory Our midterm election forecast was correct: Democrats won a substantial victory. Even our initial call on the Senate, that Democrats had a surprisingly large probability of picking up seats, proved to be correct, with Republicans eking out just two gains in a year when Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Trump carried in 2016. What about our all-important call that the election would have no impact on the markets? That is more difficult to assess, given that the S&P 500 has in fact collapsed in the lead-up to and aftermath of the election. However, we see little connection between the election outcome and the stock market’s performance. Neither do our colleagues or clients, who have largely stopped asking about the Democrats’ policy designs. In 2019, domestic politics may play a role in the markets. Impeachment risk is low, but, if it rears its head, it could prompt President Trump to seek relevance abroad, as his predecessors have done when they lost control of domestic policy. In addition, the Democratic Party’s sweeping House victory may suggest a political pendulum swing to the left in the 2020 presidential election. We will discuss both risks as part of our annual Five Black Swans report in early 2019. U.S. domestic politics was a collection of Red Herrings during much of President Obama’s presidency, and has produced strong tailwinds under President Trump (tax cuts in particular). This may change in 2019, with considerable risk to investors, and asset prices, ahead.     Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist roukayai@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      For our 2019 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, “2019 Key Views: Balanced On A Knife’s Edge,” dated December 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2      In part we like this cross because we also think that Mexico’s newly elected president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is priced to lose by two touchdowns, whereas he may merely lose by a last-second field goal.    

HighlightsDuration: The Fed will probably signal a slowing of its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace during the next few months. However, rate hikes will ramp up again after a brief pause, and the Fed will ultimately deliver more tightening than is currently priced. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration.Credit Spreads: Our checklist of global growth and monetary policy indicators does not yet signal a tactical buying opportunity in credit. A dovish message from the Fed tomorrow would bring us closer to meeting the criteria on our checklist.Fed Balance Sheet: It is likely that the Fed will continue running down its balance sheet throughout all of 2019. However, if it turns out that the amount of bank reserves demanded exceeds $1.1 trillion, it will force the Fed to halt the run-off next year. The timing will only become clear when the effective fed funds rate threatens to break above the upper-end of the Fed’s target band.FeatureThis will be the last U.S. Bond Strategy report of 2018. Publication will resume on January 8 with our Portfolio Allocation Summary for January 2019. Until then, we extend our best wishes for a wonderful holiday and a Happy New Year. With the stock market well off its highs and credit spreads in the midst of an uptrend, there is an uncommon amount of pressure on tomorrow’s FOMC meeting. For their part, interest rate curves have already moved to discount a substantial dovish shift in Fed policy. In fact, our 12-month fed funds discounter has fallen all the way down to 36 bps (Chart 1). Chart 1All Eyes On The Fed With the market even more focused on the Fed than usual, there is a chance that a dovish signal tomorrow could spark a rally in risk assets. Conversely, a more hawkish Fed could prolong the market’s pain. Against that back-drop, in this week’s report we discuss what we are likely to hear from the Fed tomorrow and over the course of 2019.The Fed’s RoadmapIn our view, a recent speech from Fed Governor Lael Brainard gives a good indication of the Fed’s current thinking:1Our goal now is to sustain the expansion by maintaining the economy around full employment and inflation around target. The gradual path of increases in the federal funds rate has served us well by giving us time to assess the effects of policy as we have proceeded. That approach remains appropriate in the near term, although the policy path increasingly will depend on how the outlook evolves.This passage strongly suggests that the Fed is committed to delivering one more 25 basis point rate hike this week. But starting next year, the Fed is likely to abandon the predictable +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace that has been in place since December 2016, and shift to a regime in which rate hikes at any given meeting are much more dependent on the incoming economic and financial market data.What To Look For TomorrowFirst off, the Fed is very likely to deliver a rate hike tomorrow, a move that is widely anticipated. Failure to do so would constitute a major dovish surprise that would lead to a bounce in risk assets. We agree with the market that a rate hike tomorrow is highly probable.The DotsBeyond the actual policy move, the most important thing to watch will be the changes to FOMC participants’ forecasts for where the fed funds rate will be at the end of 2019, aka the 2019 dots. This is the easiest place to look to get a sense for how the recent market turmoil and global growth weakness is impacting the Fed’s thinking. At present, the median 2019 dot is between 3% and 3.25%. This suggests that, after lifting rates once more this week, the median Fed member anticipates three more rate hikes in 2019. We expect that the median 2019 dot will shift lower tomorrow, and that the magnitude of the shift will determine the reaction in financial markets. If the downward revision is considered sufficiently dovish, then expect risk assets to rally. If not, then risk assets could sell off.As always, it will be interesting to see whether Fed members revise their longer run rate expectations, i.e. their estimates of the neutral fed funds rate. However, we expect very little movement in neutral rate estimates tomorrow. In any case, the market will be much more focused on the expected policy path for 2019.The StatementIn tomorrow’s post-meeting statement, the following passage will likely be edited:The Committee expects that further gradual increases in the target range for the federal funds rate will be consistent with sustained expansion of economic activity, strong labor market conditions, and inflation near the Committee’s symmetric 2 percent objective over the medium term.The minutes from November’s FOMC meeting suggest that the committee is increasingly uncomfortable with the phrase “further gradual increases”. The Fed will probably remove this phrase from tomorrow’s statement and replace it with guidance that is more consistent with the above excerpt from Governor Brainard’s speech. In general, the Fed wants to signal that it is transitioning away from a predictable +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace and toward a reaction function that is much more data dependent.The Press ConferenceSince the beginning of his tenure, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has preached a message of uncertainty and data dependence.2 These themes will be stressed again tomorrow and we expect his forward guidance will be consistent with what we already heard from Governor Brainard. As such, we view any revisions to the 2019 dots as having more potential to move markets than what Powell says in the press conference.Other BusinessAs was the case in June, tomorrow’s rate hike will result in a 25 bps shift higher in the target range for the fed funds rate, from 2%-2.25% to 2.25%-2.5%, but only a 20 bps increase in the interest rate paid on excess reserves (IOER). This means that the IOER will rise to 2.4%, 10 bps below the upper-end of the Fed’s target range.The smaller IOER increase will occur because the Fed is trying to pressure the effective fed funds rate back toward the middle of its target range. The funds rate has been creeping higher in recent months and the Fed is taking steps to limit its rise. This will continue to be an operational issue for the Fed next year, which we discuss in more detail below.Investment ImplicationsWe think tomorrow’s Fed meeting could be more important for credit spreads than for Treasury yields. In recent reports we discussed why the combination of weakening global growth and relatively hawkish Fed policy is causing credit spreads to widen, and suggested that a significant dovish turn from the Fed could prompt a recovery in global growth and a near-term rally in credit.Our checklist of global growth and monetary policy indicators (Charts 2A & Chart 2B) does not yet decisively signal a tactical buying opportunity in corporate credit, but we have seen the 12-month discounter fall and the gold price rally in recent weeks. A dovish message from the Fed tomorrow would bring us closer to meeting the criteria on our checklist, and thus closer to a near-term peak in spreads. Chart 2AChecklist For Peak Spreads: Global Growth  Chart 2BChecklist For Peak Spreads: Fed Capitulation   On the duration front, with the market already priced for essentially no further rate hikes in 2019 (after a rate hike tomorrow), we view any potential dovish move as already in the price. Since we expect the economic environment will support further rate hikes in 2019, we are inclined to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration while we look for an opportunity to tactically buy credit.What To Expect In 2019More important for portfolios than what to expect from tomorrow’s Fed meeting is what to expect from the Fed over the course of next year. As we have already mentioned, the path for rate hikes will be much less predictable in 2019. An increased focus on the incoming data will replace the Fed’s current predilection for consistent quarterly rate hikes.The Fed will also hold a press conference after all eight FOMC meetings in 2019. Until now, press conferences have only occurred four times per year – in March, June, September and December – and the Fed has shown a reluctance to change interest rates at meetings without a scheduled press conference. Next year, with press conferences after every meeting, the Fed will have more flexibility to vary the pattern of hikes.But what will determine the number of rate hikes in 2019? We focus on three main areas.1) Financial ConditionsBy tightening policy, the Fed is trying to both prevent a future overshoot of its inflation target and tighten financial conditions at the margin. The Fed also increasingly recognizes the importance of financial conditions relative to inflation. As Governor Brainard noted in her recent speech:The last several times resource utilization approached levels similar to today, signs of overheating showed up in financial-sector imbalances rather than in accelerating inflation.But overheating is not the only concern. Excessive tightening in financial conditions could also force the Fed to adopt a more dovish policy stance. In fact, this is exactly what we see happening in the next few months. Financial conditions are already tightening (Chart 3), and will continue to do so until the Fed moderates its pace of rate hikes. At that point, financial conditions will probably ease, and that will allow the Fed to speed up the pace of hikes in the back half of 2019. Chart 3Financial Conditions Are Tightening 2) InflationCore inflation remains relatively close to the Fed’s target. While year-over-year core PCE fell back to 1.78% in October, year-over-year core and trimmed mean CPI came in at 2.24% and 2.22%, respectively, in November (Chart 4). We expect that inflation will move higher in 2019, but will remain relatively close to the Fed’s target. Base effects will pose a high hurdle for year-over-year inflation during the next few months, but inflationary pressures in the economy continue to rise. Survey data on firms’ input prices (Chart 4, panel 3) and planned selling prices (Chart 4, bottom panel) remain very strong. Chart 4Expect Higher Inflation In 2019 Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are at odds with the economy’s inflationary backdrop. They remain below levels that have historically been consistent with the Fed’s inflation target (Chart 4, panel 2). Relatively low TIPS breakeven rates give the Fed cover to slow the pace of rate hikes during the next few months. However, long-maturity breakevens can also rise quickly, and we anticipate that they will return to our target 2.3%-2.5% range in 2019.3) Recession SignalsIn last week’s Key Views for 2019 report, we discussed in detail why we think the Fed’s rate hike cycle will continue throughout 2019, and also why it will probably slow down during the next few months.3 In summary, we see tighter financial conditions causing the Fed to slow the pace of hikes in the near term, but we also doubt that interest rates will get high enough next year to send the U.S. economy into recession.That said, in our Key Views report we flagged several economic indicators to watch that could force us to change our view. Specifically, if the 12-month moving averages in housing starts and new home sales turn down, or if the unemployment rate rises, then it would suggest that a recession is closer than we currently anticipate.Concerning the unemployment rate, it will also be important to watch the trend in initial jobless claims (Chart 5). Rising claims tend to precede increases in the unemployment rate and claims have bounced during the past few weeks. We expect the bounce will prove temporary, but are monitoring it closely. Chart 5Rising Claims A Risk Bottom Line: The Fed is likely to signal a slowing of its +25 bps per quarter rate hike pace during the next few months. This move will be in response to financial conditions that are tightening more quickly than is desirable. But after a pause, we see rate hikes resuming in the second half of 2019 and the Fed will ultimately deliver more rate hikes than are currently priced into the Treasury market.The Balance Sheet In 2019It is also possible that the Fed will have to take steps to deal with its balance sheet in 2019. Right now, the runoff of the balance sheet is proceeding quite smoothly, but as mentioned above, there is some concern that the effective fed funds rate has been creeping toward the upper-end of its target range.Table 1 shows the Fed’s balance sheet compared to just before it started to run down its assets. The table illustrates how the size of the Fed’s securities portfolio determines the amount of reserves supplied to the banking system. The concern is that for the Fed to maintain control of the funds rate using its current “floor system”, it needs to supply more reserves to the banking system than are demanded.4 If it fails to do so, then the fed funds rate will rise above the upper-end of its target range. Table 1A Simplified Federal Reserve Balance Sheet A further complication is that the strict post-crisis regulatory regime makes it difficult to know what level of reserves are currently in demand. In essence, the Fed does not know when it will be time to stop shrinking its balance sheet. The plan appears to be that it will wait for signs that the effective fed funds rate is breaking above the upper-end of its target range, and will then decide that balance sheet run-off needs to stop.Last September, we projected that the Fed would continue to run down its balance sheet until bank reserves reached a steady state of $650 billion. Using that same assumption today, the Fed would shrink its portfolio until March 2021 and would still have combined Treasury and MBS holdings of $3 trillion at that time (Chart 6A). Chart 6AFed Balance Sheet: $650 Billion Steady-State Reserves  Chart 6BFed Balance Sheet: $1.1 Trillion Steady-State Reserves However, the fact that the effective fed funds rate has mostly been near the upper-end of its target range this year has caused many market participants to revise their estimates for the steady state of bank reserves higher. In fact, we infer from responses to the New York Fed’s most recent Survey of Primary Dealers that most dealers think that the steady state for bank reserves is above $1 trillion.5If we use an assumption of $1.1 trillion for steady state bank reserves, then we project that the Fed will stop running down its portfolio in March 2020 and will have combined Treasury and MBS holdings of $3.3 trillion at that time (Chart 6B).Bottom Line: It is likely that the Fed will continue running down its balance sheet throughout all of 2019. However, if it turns out that the amount of bank reserves demanded exceeds $1.1 trillion, it will force the Fed to halt the run-off next year. The timing will only become clear when the effective fed funds rate threatens to break above the upper-end of the Fed’s target band. Ryan Swift, Vice PresidentU.S. Bond Strategyrswift@bcaresearch.comFootnotes1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20181207a.htm2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Powell Doctrine Emerges”, dated September 4, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com3 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.com4 For a detailed description of the floor system for controlling interest rates please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood”, dated June 10, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com5 The survey shows that the median dealer thought that a reserve balance of $1 trillion would cause IOER to trade 5.5 bps below the effective fed funds rate. In other words, reserve balances would be sufficiently scarce for the effective fed funds rate to rise relative to the rates controlled directly by the Fed. https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/markets/survey/2018/nov-2018-spd-results.pdfFixed Income Sector PerformanceRecommended Portfolio Specification

Overweight In this week’s Weekly Report, we highlight three macro factors that, should they sustain their recent trajectories, would serve to catalyze the semi equipment group. First, trade policy uncertainty has dealt a blow to this tech subindex (trade policy uncertainty shown inverted, top panel). Not only are 90% of sales foreign sourced, but a large chunk is also China-related sales. Second, emerging market manufacturing PMIs are showing some signs of life, underscoring that semi equipment demand may turn out to be marginally less grim than currently anticipated (second panel). Third, while global semi sales will continue to decelerate for the next three-to-six months, the semi market is functioning as if the inventory liquidation cycle is in the later innings (third and bottom panel). Net, we think the drubbing in the S&P semi equipment index is overdone and even a modest improvement on either the trade policy, industry demand or currency fronts could result in a reflex rebound. Bottom Line: We lifted the S&P semi equipment index from underweight to overweight on Monday, as a tactical move for the next three-to-six months; please see Monday’s Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SEEQ – AMAT, LRCX and KLAC.

Dear Client, This will be the last Global Investment Strategy report of 2018. Publication will resume on January 4th. On behalf of the entire Global Investment Strategy team, I would like to wish you a Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a Healthy New Year! Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Feature 1.  Will the Fed raise rates more or less than what is priced into the futures curve? Answer: More. The fed funds futures curve is pricing in less than one rate hike in 2019 and rate cuts beyond then. In contrast, we think the Fed will raise rates three or four times next year and continue hiking into 2020. For all the worries about a slowdown, U.S. real GDP growth is still tracking at 3% in Q4 according to the Atlanta Fed, while consumption is set to rise by 4.1%. Ongoing fiscal stimulus, decent credit growth, rising wages, and a decline in the savings rate should continue to support the economy in 2019. Housing construction should also stabilize thanks to a low vacancy rate and a pickup in household formation. The fact that mortgage applications for purchase have rebounded swiftly in recent weeks is evidence that the housing market is not as weak as many people believe (Chart 1). Chart 1U.S. Housing: No Oversupply Problem, While Demand Is Firming 2.  Will U.S. 10-year Treasury yields rise more or less than expected? Answer: More. Treasurys almost always underperform cash when the Fed delivers more rate hikes than the market is discounting (Chart 2). We expect a modest bear flattening of the yield curve in 2019, with rising bond yields nearly offsetting the increase in short-term rates. Most of the flattening is likely to come in the next six months, as slower global growth and the disinflationary effects of lower oil prices keep bond yields contained. As we enter the second half of next year, global growth should reaccelerate as the effects of Chinese stimulus measures fully kick in and the drag on global growth from the recent tightening in financial conditions dissipates. By that time, the U.S. unemployment rate will be in the low 3% range, a level that could trigger material inflationary pressures. Chart 2Treasurys Will Underperform If The Fed Hikes Rates By More Than Expected 3. Will the yield spreads between U.S. Treasurys and other developed economy bond markets widen? Answer: Yes, particularly at the short end of the curve. The Fed is still the one central bank that is most likely to hike rates multiple times in 2019, which will support wider differentials between Treasurys and non-U.S. bond yields. The greatest potential for spread widening will be for Treasurys versus JGBs. With Japanese inflation still stubbornly low and fiscal policy set to tighten from a hike in the sales tax, the BoJ will be in no position to abandon its yield curve control regime. The 10-year Treasury-gilt spread could also widen if the Bank of England is forced to stay on the sidelines until Brexit uncertainty is resolved. Likewise, the U.S.-New Zealand spread will widen as the RBNZ stays on hold due to underwhelming growth and inflation momentum. The U.S.-Canada spread will be range-bound, with the Bank of Canada coming close to matching, but not surpassing, Fed tightening in 2019. While the ECB will refrain from raising rates next year, the U.S. Treasury-German bund spread should narrow marginally if the end of ECB QE lifts bund yields via a recovery in the German term premium. There is more (albeit still modest) scope for a narrowing in the 10-year U.S.-Australia and U.S.-Sweden spreads, as both the RBA and Riksbank begin a tightening cycle. 4. What will happen to U.S. corporate credit spreads? Answer: They are likely to finish 2019 close to current levels. As a rule of thumb, corporate bond returns are highest when the yield curve is very steep, and lowest when it is inverted (Table 1). The former generally corresponds to the early stages of business-cycle expansions, while the latter encompasses the period directly preceding recessions. We are still in the intermediate phase, when excess corporate bond returns (relative to cash) are positive but low. This conclusion is consistent with the observation that corporate balance-sheet leverage has increased over the past four years, but not by enough to instigate a major wave of defaults. Table 1Corporate Bond Performance Given The Slope Of The Yield Curve (1975-Present) 5. Will the U.S. dollar continue to strengthen? Answer: The dollar will strengthen until the middle of 2019 and then begin to weaken. Three main factors determine the short-to-medium term direction of the dollar: 1) momentum; 2) interest rate spreads between the U.S. and its trading partners; and 3) global growth. In general, the dollar does well when it is trending higher, spreads relative to the rest of the world are wide and getting wider, and global growth is slowing (Chart 3). For the time being, momentum continues to work in the greenback’s favor. Spreads have narrowed a bit recently, but the dollar still looks cheap relative to what one would expect based on the current level of spreads (Chart 4). As in 2017, the direction of global growth will likely be the key driver of the dollar next year. If growth bottoms in mid-2019, as we expect, the dollar will probably put in a top. Chart 3Dollar Returns Driven By Momentum, Rate Differentials, And Global Growth   Chart 4Wider Spreads Bode Well For The Dollar   6. Will global equities rise or fall? Answer: Rise. Our tactical MacroQuant stock market timing model finally moved back into neutral territory on Monday after having successfully flagged the correction that began in October (Chart 5). Having downgraded global equities this past summer, we will return to overweight if the ACWI ETF drops to $64, which is only 2.4% below yesterday’s close. The cyclical backdrop for stocks is reasonably constructive. We expect the MSCI All-Country World Index to rise by about 10%-to-15% in dollar terms from current levels by the end of 2019. The higher end of this range would leave it slightly below its January 2018 peak (Chart 6). The index is currently trading at 13.3-times forward earnings, similar to where it was in early-2016. The U.S. accounts for over 50% of global stock market capitalization (Chart 7). As such, the U.S. equity market tends to influence non-U.S. stocks more than the other way around. Sustained U.S. equity bear markets are rare outside of recessions (Chart 8). With another U.S. recession unlikely to occur at least until late-2020, that gives global stocks enough room to rally. Indeed, history suggests that the late stages of business-cycle expansions are often the juiciest for equity investors (Table 2).  Chart 5The MacroQuant Equity Score* Improves To Neutral   Chart 6Global Stocks Have Cheapened Chart 7The U.S. Is The Dominant Equity Market   Chart 8Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap     Table 2Too Soon To Get Out 7. Will cyclical stocks outperform defensives? Answer: Yes, although this is likely to be more of a phenomenon for the second half of 2019. Cyclicals typically outperform defensives when bond yields are climbing (Chart 9). Rising bond yields are usually a sign of stronger growth — manna from heaven for capital goods and commodity producers. As long as global growth is under pressure, cyclicals will struggle. But once growth bottoms in the middle of next year, cyclical stocks will have their day in the sun. Chart 9Cyclicals Tend To Outperform When Yields Rise 8. Will U.S. equities continue to outperform other global stock markets? Answer: Yes, but probably only until mid-2019. The U.S. stock market has less exposure to cyclical sectors such as industrials, materials, energy, and financials than the rest of the world (Table 3). Therefore, it stands to reason that an inflection point for cyclicals versus defensives will correspond to an inflection point for U.S. versus non-U.S. stocks. If this were to happen, it would resemble the period between October 1998 and April 2000, a time when bond yields rose, the dollar rally stalled, cyclicals outperformed defensives, and non-U.S. equities outperformed (Chart 10). Table 3Tech And Health Care Stocks Are Heavily Weighted In The U.S., While Financials And Materials Are Overrepresented In Markets Outside The U.S.   Chart 10Will The Late-1990s Pattern Be Repeated?   9. Will oil prices rise more than expected? Answer: Yes. The December-2019 Brent futures contract is currently trading at $61/bbl (Chart 11). Our energy strategists expect Saudi Arabia and Russia to cut production by enough to push prices to an average of $82/bbl in 2019. Looking further out, the outlook for oil prices is less favorable. As every first-year economics student learns, prices in a competitive market eventually converge to average costs. Shale companies are now the swing producers in the global petroleum market. Their breakeven costs are in the low-$50 range, a number that has been trending lower due to productivity gains. If that is the long-term anchor for oil prices, it means that any major rally in oil is unlikely to extend deep into the next decade. Chart 11Oil Prices Will Recover 10. Will gold prices finally rally? Answer: Yes, but only in the second half of 2019. Gold prices typically fall when the dollar is strengthening (Chart 12). Given our view that the dollar will rally into mid-2019, now is not the time to be loading up on bullion. However, once the dollar peaks and U.S. inflation moves decidedly higher late next year, gold should become a star performer. Chart 12Gold Will Shine Bright After The Dollar Peaks     Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com     Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Dear Client, This is the final Global Fixed Income Strategy report for 2018. We will return with our first report of the new year on January 8th, 2019. Our entire team wishes you a very happy holiday season and a prosperous new year. Best regards, Rob Robis, Chief Strategist 2019 Model Bond Portfolio Positioning: Translating our 2019 key global fixed income views into recommended overall positioning within our model bond portfolio yields the following: target a modest level of active portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration and only neutral exposure to corporate credit. Country Allocation: Government bond allocation should continue to reflect relative expectations for monetary policy changes. That means an overweight in countries where central banks will have little scope to increase rates (core Europe, Japan, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand) and an underweight where central banks are likely to tighten more than markets currently discount (U.S., Canada, Sweden). Corporate Credit: We currently prefer U.S. corporate bonds to European and EM equivalents based on better U.S. profit prospects, which enhances debt serviceability. However, we will look to pare U.S. exposure as the Fed shifts to a more restrictive stance later in 2019. Feature Last week, we published our 2019 “Key Views” report, outlining the thematic implications of the 2019 BCA Outlook for global bond markets.1 In this follow-up report, we translate those themes into specific investment recommendations for next year. We also recommend changes to the allocations in the Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio to reflect our 2019 themes. The main takeaway is that 2019 will be another year of poor returns, with increased volatility, for most global fixed income markets. The greater pressures should come in the latter half of the year, after the U.S. Federal Reserve delivers additional rate hikes and decisive signs of a slowing U.S. economy unfold. Investors should maintain a defensive strategic posture on fixed income markets throughout the year, both for interest rate duration and credit exposure. Selling into market rallies, rather than chasing them, will prove to be the prudent strategy. Top-Down Bond Market Implications Of Our Key Views As a reminder, the main fixed income investment themes from last week’s Key Views report were the following: Late-cycle pressures will keep bond yields elevated. Global growth will remain above trend in 2019, keeping unemployment rates low and preventing central banks from turning dovish. The unwind of crisis-era global monetary policies will continue. Slowing central bank asset purchases will worsen the supply/demand balance for both government bonds, resulting in gentle upward pressure on yields via higher term premia. It is too early to worry about inverted yield curves. The time to be concerned about the recessionary implications of an inverted U.S. Treasury curve will come after the Fed has lifted real interest rates to above neutral (R*), which should occur in the latter half of 2019. Expect poor corporate bond returns from an aging credit cycle. While default risk is likely to stay modest in 2019, the greater risk for corporates could come from concerns over future credit downgrades, as well as diminished inflows in a “post-QE” world. We now present the specific fixed income investment recommendations that flow from those themes in the following categories: overall portfolio risk, overall duration exposure, country allocations within government bonds, yield curve allocations within countries, and corporate credit allocations by country and credit rating. Overall Portfolio Risk: DEFENSIVE Government bond yields enter 2019 at very low (i.e. expensive) levels across the major developed markets, even after the cumulative rise in U.S. Treasury yields seen over the past twelve months. Real yields remain below trend real GDP growth rates, a consequence of central banks keeping policy rates below neutral levels as measured by concepts like the Taylor Rule (Chart of the Week). In addition, credit spreads remain near the low end of long-run historical ranges in all markets. Without the initial starting point of cheap valuations, fixed income return expectations in 2019 should be severely tempered (Charts 2& 3).   Chart 2Low Yields = Low Expected Returns For U.S. Corporates …   Chart 3… And European Corporates Volatility measures like the VIX index will remain elevated until markets begin to sniff out a bottoming of global growth. Much will depend on developments in China, but our expectation is that policymakers there will only act to stabilize the economy rather than provide large, 2016-scale stimulus. That may be enough to create a tactical “risk-on” trading opportunity by mid-year but we recommend using any such rally to reduce credit exposure given the risk of a more lasting global economic downturn in 2020. Importantly, cross-asset correlations should continue to drift lower without broad support from coordinated global economic growth or expanding monetary liquidity via central bank asset purchases (Chart 4). Without those rising tides lifting all boats, more active security selection by country, sector and credit rating should help portfolio managers outperform their benchmarks in what is likely to be another down year for absolute returns. Chart 4High Volatilities With Low Correlations That combination of diminished return prospects and elevated volatility means investors should maintain a defensive bias in fixed income portfolios heading into 2019. Within our own GFIS recommended model bond portfolio, this means keeping our tracking error (the relative expected volatility versus our custom benchmark performance index) well below our maximum target level of 100bps (Chart 5). Chart 5Maintain Moderate Overall Portfolio Risk Overall Duration Stance: BELOW BENCHMARK We do not think that global bond yields have peaked for this business cycle. The current period of softening global economic momentum will not turn into a prolonged period of sub-trend growth that would push up unemployment rates in the major developed economies. With the global output gap nearly closed, and monetary policymakers firmly believing in the Phillips Curve framework (lower unemployment leads to higher inflation) to forecast inflation, a more dovish stance from the major central banks seems unlikely. As we discussed in last week’s report, global bond yields are in a process of normalization away from the depressed levels seen after the 2008-09 global financial crisis and recession (Chart 6). Term premia, inflation expectations and real yields all have upside potential as central banks slowly back away from quantitative easing and low interest rate policies. Thus, we continue to recommend a defensive, below-benchmark strategic stance on overall portfolio duration exposure (Chart 7). Chart 6Bond Yields Will Continue To Normalize In 2019   Chart 7Stay Below-Benchmark On Duration Risk Government Bond Country Allocation: Underweight U.S., Canada, Sweden, Italy. Overweight Germany, France, U.K., Japan, Australia, New Zealand At the country level, we recommend underweighting government bond markets where central banks will be more likely to raise interest rates (because of firm domestic economic growth and building inflation pressures), but where too few rate hikes are currently discounted in money market yield curves. The U.S., Canada and Sweden fit that description (Chart 8). The U.K. would also be part of this group, but the Brexit uncertainty leads us to maintain an overweight stance on U.K. Gilts entering 2019. Chart 8Monetary Policy Expectations Drive Country Allocations By the same token, we are recommending overweights in countries where rate hikes are unlikely to occur in 2019 because of underwhelming inflation, like core Europe, Japan and New Zealand. We are currently overweight Australian government bonds, but we expect to cut that exposure in 2019 as pressure builds for a rate hike in the latter half of the year as inflation picks up. Italian government bonds represent a special case of a developed market trading off sovereign credit risk rather than interest rate or inflation risk. We continue to treat Italian government bonds the same way we view corporate debt, as a growth-sensitive asset. On that basis, we will remain underweight Italian government bonds until Italy’s leading economic indicator bottoms out, mollifying concerns about debt sustainability. The Fed is still the one central bank that is most likely to hike rates multiple times in 2019, which will sustain wide differentials between Treasuries and non-U.S. bond yields (Chart 9). Chart 9ECB, BoE, BoJ Resisting Pressure From Tight Labor Markets The greatest potential for spread widening will be for Treasuries versus JGBs, with no changes in the Bank of Japan’s monetary policy expected due to stubbornly low inflation. The 10-year Treasury-Gilt spread could also widen if the Bank of England stays on the sidelines for longer until Brexit uncertainty is resolved. The 10-year U.S.-New Zealand spread should also widen with the Reserve Bank of New Zealand staying on hold for a while due to underwhelming growth and inflation momentum. The U.S.-Canada spread will be rangebound, with the Bank of Canada likely to match, but not exceed, Fed tightening in 2019. There are some markets, though, where yields could rise a bit more than Treasury yields due to shifting monetary policies. While the ECB will refrain from raising rates next year, there is a potential for the U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread to narrow marginally if the end of ECB new asset purchases lifts Bund yields via a recovery in the German term premium. There is more (albeit still modest) scope for a narrowing in the 10-year U.S.-Australia and U.S.-Sweden spreads. After keeping monetary policy very loose for a long time, the beginning of rate hikes next year by the Reserve Bank of Australia and Riksbank could put meaningful upward pressure on deeply depressed longer-maturity Australian and Swedish yields. Yield Curve Positioning: Favor Bearish Steepeners Everywhere In The First Half Of 2019, Then Switch To Bearish Flatteners In The U.S., Canada, Australia And Sweden We expect some bearish steepening pressures to appear in most countries in the first quarter of 2019 with inflation breakevens likely to rebound if the bullish oil forecast of BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy team comes to fruition (Charts 10 & 11). The end of the net new buying phase of the ECB’s Asset Purchase Program in January will also put upward pressure on longer-dated European yields through a worsening supply/demand balance for European government bonds and a wider term premium, helping keep European yield curves steep. Chart 10Inflation Expectations & Bond Yields Will Rebound In 2019 …   Chart 11… As BCA’s Bullish Oil View Comes To Fruition Importantly, it is too soon to worry about an inversion of the U.S. Treasury curve, as we discussed in last week’s report, with the fed funds rate not yet at a restrictive level (i.e. real rates above measures of neutral like R-star). That outcome should occur by the end of 2019, when we expect the Treasury curve to move towards a true monetary policy-induced inversion. Similar patterns – steepening first from rising inflation expectations, flattening later from more hawkish central banks delivering rate hikes – should unfold in Canada, Australia and Sweden. Applying Our Global Golden Rule To Government Bond Allocations Back in September, we published a Special Report introducing a government bond return forecasting methodology called the “Global Golden Rule.”2 This is an extension of a framework introduced by our sister service, U.S. Bond Strategy, that links U.S. Treasury returns to changes in the fed funds rate that are not discounted in money markets (using our 12-month Discounters derived from Overnight Index Swap curves). In Table 1, we show the expected returns generated by the Global Golden Rule (shown hedged into U.S. dollars) for the countries in our model bond portfolio custom benchmark, based on monetary policy scenarios that we deem to be most plausible for 2019. In Table 2, we show the returns on a duration-adjusted basis (expected total return divided by duration). We then rank the return scenarios for overall country indices, aggregating the returns of the individual yield curve maturity buckets shown in those two tables, in Table 3. Table 1Global Golden Rule Return Forecasts For 2019   Table 2Global Golden Rule Duration-Adjusted Return Forecasts For 2019 The shaded cells in Table 3 represent our base case forecasts for policy rate changes in each country. On this basis, the better return prospects for 2019 will be in markets where central banks will stand pat throughout the year (Germany, Japan). Conversely, the weaker returns will occur where we expect more rate hikes than currently discounted by markets (U.S., Canada). These returns fit with our recommended country allocation outlined above. Table 3Ranking The 2019 Return Scenarios Corporate Credit Allocation: Neutral Overall, But Overweight In U.S. Investment Grade And High-Yield Relative To European And Emerging Market Equivalents. Look To Cut The U.S. To Underweight In The Latter Half Of 2019. We enter 2019 maintaining our recommended overall neutral exposure to corporate debt. As discussed earlier, we expect to see some stabilization of global growth in the first half of 2019. This will create a playable “risk-on” rally for growth sensitive assets like corporates, but we anticipate selling into that rally by downgrading our recommended U.S. credit allocations to underweight. Within U.S. credit markets, we are recommending a less aggressive medium-term stance, staying up in quality within investment grade debt (single-B and single-A rated names versus BBBs) and high-yield (BB-rated vs CCC-rated). With 50% of the investment grade benchmark index now rated just above junk, there is a growing risk of “fallen angel” downgrades to junk status in the event of a material slowing of U.S. economic growth. At the same time, default-adjusted spreads on U.S. high-yield debt only appear attractive if the current exceptionally low default rate backdrop persists (Chart 12). In other words, both U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporate debt are vulnerable to any major slowing of U.S. economic growth and slump in corporate profits. Chart 12U.S. Corporates Vulnerable To Slower Growth The confluence of above-trend U.S. growth and still pro-cyclical Fed policy will support U.S. credit in the near-term, but that will all change later in 2019. We expect the Fed to deliver at least 75bps of rate hikes in 2019 – perhaps only pausing from the current 25bps per quarter pace at the March meeting – which will push the funds rate into restrictive territory and invert the Treasury curve sometime in the 4th quarter of the year. This will cause investors to start to discount a deep growth slowdown in 2020, which will trigger systemic credit spread widening (Chart 13). We expect our next move on U.S. corporate debt to be a downgrade to underweight, likely sometime around mid-year. Chart 13Growth Differentials Continue To Favor U.S. We still prefer U.S. corporates to European or Emerging Market (EM) equivalents, however, thanks to the likelihood of better near-term growth prospects in the U.S. We are concerned about how the European corporate bond market will perform without the support of ECB asset purchases, which leads us to underweight both investment grade and high-yield European corporates (Chart 14).3 Chart 14Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates Vs European Corporates EM corporates will continue to suffer from the toxic combination of rising U.S. interest rates, a stronger dollar and global growth concerns. Our political strategists remain skeptical on the prospects for a permanent deal on thorny U.S.-China trade issues, leaving EM assets exposed to slowing momentum in China’s economy. We continue to prefer owning U.S. credit, given how the relative performance of EM and U.S. credit has not yet converged to levels implied by U.S./EM growth differentials (Chart 15). Chart 15Stay Overweight U.S. Corporates Vs EM Corporates Model Portfolio Adjustments To Begin 2019 In terms of our model bond portfolio, we recommend a few changes to our current allocations to reflect our 2019 outlook and key views (see the table below). We make a few adjustments to our individual country duration allocations, given our expectations of some re-steepening of global yield curves. We also bump up our allocation to core European debt given our expectation that the ECB will keep policy rates on hold throughout 2019. We fund that increase in European exposure from U.S. Treasuries, where too few Fed rate hikes are now discounted. Finally, we make a modest adjustment to our U.S. high-yield allocations, cutting CCC-rated exposure and upgrading B-rated credit.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “2019 Key Views: Normalization Is The “New Normal””, dated December 12th 2018, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Global Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated September 25th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Stubbornly Resilient Bond Yields”, dated November 13th 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.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