Global

Special Report

Highlights So What? The bull market in defense stocks is global and only beginning. We construct a BCA Global Defense Index to give investors exposure to this theme. Why? Multipolarity will drive uncertainty and conflict, spurring arms demand to Cold War heights. Contemporary geopolitical hotspots require expensive and modern technology. Cold War-era weapon systems are long in the tooth and in need of replacement. Also... We close our long Energy / short S&P 500 portfolio hedge for a gain. Feature It is somewhat of a cliché to tell clients that one of our highest conviction calls is to be overweight defense stocks. We are, after all, geopolitical investment strategists! Our decision to go long S&P 500 aerospace and defense stocks / short MSCI ACW is up 14% since initiation in December 2016. In this report, we build on previous work focusing on U.S. defense stocks and expand our analysis to global plays. GPS' Mega-Theme: Multipolarity Is Good For War International affairs are characterized by an anarchic governance structure. In the absence of a global government, the vacuum of power is filled by powerful states. These states behave like bullies in the schoolyard. When a single, powerful bully dominates the lunch break, all other kids fall in line or suffer the bully's wrath. When two bullies split the yard into warring camps, proxy fights may emerge on the sidelines, but generally an equilibrium is preserved. Formal political science theory and history teach us that the further we are from a hegemonic global structure where one country (the hegemon) dominates and bullies all others, the closer we are to anarchy. The "offensive realism" school of International Relations theory further splits multipolarity into two types: Balanced multipolarity is characterized by a number of roughly equally powerful states, similar to the distribution of power of continental Europe during the "Concert of Europe" era in the nineteenth century. Unbalanced multipolarity is closest to contemporary geopolitics. In The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics, John Mearsheimer reviewed 200 years of European history and concluded that unbalanced multipolarity is by far the most volatile geopolitical system (Table 1).1 Table 1Global System Structure And War A multipolar ordering of global power, therefore, produces the highest level of disorder (Chart 1). This finding is theoretically elegant, but normatively disturbing. Every country gets a voice and an opportunity to defend its sovereignty. But the international order is normatively ignorant and desires a bully or hegemon. Chart 1Multipolarity Produces Disorder Over the past fifty years, there have been three identifiable periods in the global arms market (Chart 2): Chart 2Further Upside In The 'War Bull Market' Cold War Arms Race - 1961-1982: The arms trade grew by a whopping 177% during this period, with an average annual growth rate of 5.5%; Disarmament - 1982-2002: Arms trade shrunk by 61% and average annual growth rate was -3.9%; Multipolarity - 2002-present: What started with the U.S. defense buildup following 9/11 has evolved into a truly global response to emerging multipolarity. The arms trade grew by 73% from 2002 to 2017, with an average annual growth rate of 3.4%. Bottom Line: In 2017, the total arms trade was 68% of its peak in 1982, signifying that we have more room to go in this recent "War Bull Market." Given that unbalanced multipolarity produces a higher volume of conflict than a bipolar system, we would expect the current phase to be more fruitful for the global arms race than even the Cold War era. The Pillars Of An Arms Bull Market Chart 3Global Defense Spending... In this report, we focus on the global arms trade, which is different from global defense spending (Chart 3). This is because global defense spending includes non-investible transactions, such as spending on salaries, buildings, health care, and pensions. The global arms trade was once 20% of global defense spending, but is now only 1.9% (Chart 4). Chart 4...Is Different From The Global Arms Trade The reason is that salaries and pensions now dominate defense budgets. In the U.S., they make up 42% of all expenditure. They are higher in much of the developed world (66% in Italy, for example). Moreover, many countries that in 1960 did not have an armaments industry have become quite adept at satisfying demand via domestic production. We nonetheless would expect the global arms trade to bounce off of its lows today. There are three main reasons. Evolving Conflict Zones: Asia And Europe The primary reason to expect a brisk pickup in the global arms race is that the global conflict zones are evolving. Multipolarity is causing shifting geopolitical equilibriums. We expect both East Asia and Europe - largely dormant as hotspots since the end of the Cold War - to catch up with the Middle East as zones of tensions. Periods of rising conflict tend to coincide with the rise in the global arms trade (Chart 5). Chart 5Rising Conflict Coincides With Escalating Arms Trade East Asia is our primary concern. Sino-American tensions have been brewing for decades, well before the trade war initiated by the Trump administration. Recently, the trade war has begun to spill into strategic areas (Table 2), creating a vicious feedback loop that could spark an accident or outright military conflict. Table 2Trade War Spills Into Strategic Areas The South China Sea is the premier geographic location of U.S.-China strategic friction. It is a hub for international trade, a vital supply route for all major Asian economies, and the premier focus of China's attempt to rewrite global rules (Diagram 1). We update our list of clashes in this area in Appendix A. Diagram 1South China Sea As Traffic Roundabout China has used its growing economic heft in the region to bully its neighbors into acquiescing to its geopolitical posture (Chart 6). It has used economic sanctions, trade boycotts, and tourism bans to get its way with the neighborhood. China's East Asia neighbors - including Japan - will look to balance their growing dependence on the Chinese economy with a desire to maintain sovereignty. One way to do so will be to rearm and present a formidable challenge to Beijing's regional hegemony. This means that not only the South China Sea but also China's entire periphery is at risk of friction, and this is true regardless of any U.S. interest in Asia. Chart 6China Uses Its Economic Might To Bully Europe is also growing as a potential source of global arms demand. Since the end of the Cold War, Europe has seen a decline in defense spending. One reason is the NATO alliance, which has allowed Europeans to pass the buck to the U.S. This has not only been the case with the safely cocooned Western European states. Poland, intimately familiar with the built-in geopolitical risks of its neighborhood, reduced its defense spending once it joined NATO. President Trump has made awakening Europe from its stupor a key pillar of his trans-Atlantic policy. A combination of Trump's pestering and concerns that the U.S. is trending towards isolationism with an evolving threat matrix that now includes terrorism, migration, and Russia should be enough to spur Europeans to meet their commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defense (Chart 7). Chart 7Europeans Will Be Swayed To Meet Defense Commitments... If NATO member states and Japan were to respond to their evolving threats and commit to spending 2% of GDP on defense, the impact on global arms demand would be significant. The extra spending would be roughly $145 billion, a 14% increase from current levels (Chart 8). Chart 8...Raising Global Arms Demand What about the Middle East? In the short term, we are concerned that President Trump's "maximum pressure" policy could lead to kinetic action against Iran. In the medium and long term, we expect some form of an equilibrium to emerge in the Middle East that would keep regional demand for weapons stable at current elevated levels. Saudi Arabia has been the primary importer of weapons, with 13% of total demand since 2002. Saudi purchases have accelerated as the U.S. has geopolitically deleveraged out of the region (Chart 9 and Chart 10). Chart 9As The U.S. Military Deleverages... Chart 10...The Saudi Arabian Military Leverages Evolving Technological Demands The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq at the beginning of this century was probably the last large-scale mechanized conflict involving large formations of main battle tanks (MBT). The evolving threat matrixes in East Asia and Europe are likely to create a growing demand for naval, air superiority, and drone/autonomous technology. In East Asia, the two main risk theaters are the South and East China Seas. In Europe, the Mediterranean, the Baltic, and the Black Seas are increasingly becoming a risk vector due to the instability of North African and Middle East countries, as well as Russian assertiveness. This is good news for the arms industry as aircraft and ships are some of the most lucrative exports given the high level of technological sophistication that goes into developing them (Chart 11). A war fought in the trenches and jungles by soldiers and insurgents is unlikely to be very profitable, other than for small arms manufacturers. But tensions between sovereign nations across large distances and bodies of water will be highly lucrative for major defense manufacturers that specialize in anti-access/area-denial systems.2 Chart 11Aircraft And Ships Are Most Lucrative Furthermore, capital depreciation is advanced for the most sophisticated (and thus expensive) military technology that was introduced at the tail-end of the Cold War expansionary phase. The U.S. aircraft carrier fleet, for example, is mostly made up of Nimitz-class carriers, which have served for the past 43 years on average (Chart 12). Chart 12Capital Depreciation Is Advanced Our back-of-the-envelope calculations show that the cyclicality in U.S. aircraft carriers is apparent across the major defense systems. Looking at 40 countries and their respective aircraft and MBTs, the bulk of these weapons is beyond the average age of the previous generation when it was retired (Chart 13). Part of the reason for the extended life cycle is better technology, but we suspect the main reason is that these major weapon systems were developed at the height of the Cold War and have not been updated since then. Chart 13Weapons Are Beyond Retirement Age, Need Updating Population Aging The demographic trends of population aging and low birth rates have wide-ranging macroeconomic implications. But they will also impact the defense industry by encouraging automation. There are benefits to automation in the military sphere beyond simply replacing a shrinking pool of able-bodied youth. First, the likely geopolitical hotspots of this century - East Asian seas, the Persian Gulf, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean - are conducive to high-tech warfare. These bodies of water will be patrolled by drones and plied by autonomous surface vessels while hypersonic missiles deny access to the enemy. Second, by shifting the burden of fighting wars from humans to robots, policymakers will face lower constraints to conflict. This development will not only encourage policymakers to develop autonomous weapon systems, but might also increase the frequency with which they are used, destroyed, and thus re-ordered, shortening the hardware life-cycle and thus increasing the sales volume. Bottom Line: Global multipolarity has seen the U.S. geopolitically deleverage from the Middle East, threaten Europe with abandonment, and put pressure on China in East Asia. These are trends that we believe are here to stay irrespective of President Trump's success or failure in the 2020 election. They are all bullish for defense spending and arms trade. In addition, evolving technological demands and global demographic trends will buoy the arms trade. We expect this era of unbalanced multipolarity to be even more lucrative for global defense contractors. The U.S.: Remain Overweight Anastasios Avgeriou, BCA's chief U.S. equity strategist, recommends that investors remain overweight the pure-play BCA defense index and add exposure to it on any meaningful pullbacks while keeping it as a structural overweight within the GICS1 S&P industrials index. In the U.S., defense spending and investment have bottomed and will continue to accelerate. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) continues to project that defense outlays will jump further next year (middle panel, Chart 14). We expect that this breakneck pace is actually sustainable, mainly because any fiscal compromise with Democrats on discretionary, non-defense spending would require acquiescence on GOP spending priorities, such as defense. Defense outlays will therefore continue to expand into the 2020s. Chart 14Upbeat Defense Outlays... Such a buoyant demand backdrop is music to the ears of defense contractor CEOs and represents a boost to defense equity revenue growth prospects. Defense contractors enjoy high operating leverage. No wonder M&A activity is robust: at least four large deals have been announced in the past year that are underpinning both takeout premia and relative share prices (bottom panel, Chart 15). Chart 15...And A Flurry Of M&A Is A Boon For Defense A closer look at operating metrics corroborates the view that defense goods manufacturers are firing on all cylinders. New orders recently jumped to fresh all-time highs and the industry's shipments-to-inventories ratio is rising, on track to surpass the 2008 peak. Unfilled orders are also running at a high rate, signaling that factories will keep on humming at least for the next few quarters (Chart 16). Chart 16Firming Operating Metrics Importantly, the industry is not standing still and is making significant investments. U.S. defense capex as reported in the financial statements of constituent firms is growing at roughly 20% annually, or twice as fast as overall capex (Chart 17). Defense ROE is running near 30%, again roughly double the rate of the broad market (Chart 18). Chart 17Industry Is Not Standing Still Chart 18Healthy Balance Sheet With High ROE... Valuations are on the expensive side and in overshoot territory (Chart 19). This is clearly a risk to the overall view. However, if our structural thesis pans out, then defense stocks in the U.S. will grow into their pricey valuations as happened in the back half of the 1960s. Chart 19...But Valuations Are Expensive Bottom Line: The secular advance in pure-play defense stocks remains in place. BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy recommends an above-benchmark allocation. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the BCA defense index are: LMT, LLC, NOC, GD, and RTN. Global Stocks: Be Discerning Beyond the U.S., which global defense stocks are appealing? We believe that there are several market and structural factors to consider. We have ranked national defense sectors by market and structural factors in Tables 3 and 4. Further, Appendix B lists all the non-U.S. weapon manufacturers that we examined, as well as market performance by country. Table 3Russian Defense Sector Attractive On Market Factors Table 4European Companies Rank Highly On Structural Factors Momentum - We like stocks from equity markets that have momentum behind them, i.e. whose stock are above their 200-day moving average. Relative valuation - We like defense sectors that are at a discount relative to the U.S. plays. Performance since Trump - For any country that has outperformed the U.S. aerospace and defense sector since the inauguration of President Trump on January 20, the market believes in its competitiveness vis-à-vis the largest exporter. Geographical diversity - We have ranked country defense sectors by how diverse their sources of revenue are. The higher the figure, the more geographically diverse the revenue pool. Russian and Indian defense plays score very low on this variable as they depend solely on one source: themselves. Exposure to arms trade - We have ranked country defense sectors by how exposed their contractors are to defense as opposed to civilian production. Most companies have major civilian outlays. To fully capture our multipolarity theme, we have ranked companies based on how fully focused they are on producing and selling weapons. Share of global arms market - We recommend that clients buy defense companies in countries that already have a high share of the global arms market. Decisions on purchasing weapons often involve path dependency due to the need to acquire compatible systems. Defense spending - We penalize countries that are already spending 2% of GDP on defense. Their companies will see little boost to domestic demand. It is the other, under-spending countries that will significantly increase their outlays over the next decade. Russian companies score high on market factors. They have good momentum, are attractively valued relative to the U.S. aerospace and defense sector, and are structurally supported. Israel, Canada, Australia, and Brazil are also attractive. All of these are made up of only one stock. On structural factors alone, we like German, British, Italian, and Swedish defense companies. They are geographically diversified, have a respectable share of the global arms trade, and have both reason and room to increase domestic spending. French companies are also structurally attractive, although France may have less need to increase defense outlays. Putting it all together, we are creating a BCA Global Defense Basket. We would include the following global tickers in that basket: A:ASBX, F:AIRS, F:CSF, F:SGM, F:AM@F, C:CAE, D:RHM, D:TKA, I:LDO, I:FCTI, ULE, COB and W:SAAB. Clients may want to include in the basket the five U.S. tickers recommended by BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy: LMT, LLL, NOC, GD, and RTN. We recommend that investors buy this basket, in absolute terms, as a structural investment. Housekeeping We are closing two of our hedges today. First, we are closing long Brent / Short S&P 500 for a gain of 6% and our long U.S. energy / short U.S. information technology for a loss of 1.63%. We initiated the two tactical trades on October 3, which means we timed the market correction perfectly. However, concerns over a supply glut in the oil market meant that the "long" part of our trade did not work out. Furthermore, there have been leaks from the White House to the media that the U.S. may award exceptions to the oil embargo to several critical importers. This would suggest that the Trump administration is beginning to see the risks of its aggressive maximum pressure strategy toward Iran and therefore may be trying to backtrack from it. We still think that the odds of an oil spike due to geopolitics in 2019 are high, but they do appear to be declining, at least for the time being. As such, we are closing the two trades for a net gain. We will continue to monitor the Iran embargo carefully as we expect that geopolitical risks will again be understated in the future, offering investors another opportunity to be long energy. Jesse Anak Kuri, Consulting Editor jesse.anakkuri@mail.mcgill.ca 1 Please see John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001). 2 Anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) is a strategy of preventing an adversary from occupying or transiting a geographic area. Defense systems that perform A2/AD functions in the modern era tend to be expensive and technologically sophisticated. They include anti-ship missiles, sophisticated radars, attack submarines, and air-superiority fighter jets. Appendix A Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Notable Clashes In The South China Sea (2010-18) (Continued) Appendix B Appendix B Chart 20British Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 21French Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 22German Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 23Italian Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 24Swedish Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 25Norwegian Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 26Canadian Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 27Australian Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 28Korean Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 29Japanese Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 30Singaporean Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 31Israeli Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 32Russian Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 33Brazilian Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 34Indian Defense Stocks Appendix B Chart 35Turkish Defense Stocks Appendix B Table 1Key Aerospace And Defense Companies Appendix B Table 1Key Aerospace And Defense Companies, Continued

Highlights Growth Scare: Despite the recent pickup in global equity market volatility, bond volatility remains subdued. Until there is more decisive evidence of a deeper pullback in global growth that is impacting the mighty U.S. economy, yields on government bonds - which remain overvalued in all major developed economies - will have difficulty falling much more even if equity markets continue to correct. Stay below benchmark on global duration exposure, while maintaining only a neutral allocation to global credit. Canada: The Bank of Canada remains on a hawkish path to a more neutral policy rate, even with the lingering concerns over household debt and global trade tensions. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds in hedged global bond portfolios. Feature Just like that other great October tradition, Halloween, market volatility has returned to spook investors. Both the MSCI All-Country World Index and S&P 500 index are officially in correction territory, down -10% from the highs reached in September. The causes for the pullback range from high-profile third quarter U.S. earnings disappointments to increased evidence that the U.S.-China tariff war is negatively impacting U.S. investment spending. Yet the reaction from global bond markets has been relatively muted for such a large pullback in stocks. Benchmark 10-year government bond yields for the major developed markets are down from their peaks, but the declines have been smaller in countries where central banks are in a rate hiking cycle (U.S. -14bps, Canada -19bps) relative to countries where central banks are on hold (Germany -20bps, U.K. -31bps). One possible reason for this discrepancy is that the downtrend in data surprises appears to have stabilized in the U.S. and, even more importantly, China, while European data continues to disappoint relative to expectations (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekNoisy Equities, Calm Bonds We still do not believe that global bond yields have peaked for the cycle. We continue to recommend a below-benchmark strategic bias on overall duration exposure, but with only a neutral allocation to global corporate bonds that favors U.S. credit. On a more shorter-term tactical basis, there is a risk that yields could decline further, with more credit spread widening than seen during the current risk-off episode, if economic data starts to disappoint in the U.S. where growth has so far been resilient. Staying up in credit quality within an allocation to U.S. corporates is one way to hedge against such an outcome. Bond Yields Are Normalizing, Bond Volatility Is Not The selloff in risk assets has resulted in a pickup in widely-followed market volatility measures like the U.S. VIX index. Yet when looking at the level of realized total return volatility across all major asset classes, the current bout of turbulence has been unimpressive outside of global equities. In Chart 2, we present an update of a chart from our 2018 global bond outlook report, showing the current levels of realized volatility across different asset class benchmarks compared to their historical ranges. The vertical lines in each chart represent the range between 1999 and 2017 of annualized monthly volatilities for global government bonds, credit, equities, currencies and commodities. The red triangles represent the most recent 13-week annualized volatilities for those same asset classes. What stands out in the chart is that volatilities are off the historical lows for global equities, Italian government bonds and industrial commodities, yet volatilities remain subdued for developed market government bonds, global corporate debt and currencies. Chart 2Bond Volatility Remains Subdued, Despite More Volatile Equities We have long argued that the shift to a structurally higher level of volatility across all asset classes will show up first with a rise in bond volatility. In the U.S., in particular, sustained periods of elevated volatility for both Treasuries (as measured by the MOVE index) and stocks (as measured by the VIX index) have occurred alongside episodes of greater variance in nominal GDP growth (Chart 3). When the latter rises, that also triggers more uncertainty about the future path of monetary policy which feeds into a rise in expected bond volatility. That, in turn, impacts volatility in growth sensitive assets like equities, credit and commodities. Chart 3Equity Vol Responding To Growth Uncertainty Right now, nominal GDP volatility has picked up in the U.S. but still remains low by historical standards (middle panel). Some of that increased growth volatility can be attributed to the Trump fiscal stimulus coming at a time of full employment, which has helped boost both real GDP growth and U.S. inflation. Interest rate markets have moved to discount more Fed hikes in response, but the Fed's steady pace of well-telegraphed, 25bps-per-quarter rate increases is likely acting to dampen Treasury market volatility. As we have written about extensively throughout the course of 2018, the hurdle for central banks (not just the Fed) to shift to a less hawkish or more dovish policy stance is much higher when unemployment is low and inflation is closer to central bank targets. In such an environment, the correlation between equity and bond returns should be weaker than during periods of excess capacity and low inflation when central banks can stay dovish. That can be seen in Chart 4, which plots the trailing 52-week correlation of total returns for equities and government bonds for the major developed markets (top panel), along with the 10-year market-based inflation expectations for each country (bottom panel). For almost all countries shown, the stock/bond correlation has risen to zero away from the negative correlations that dominated the post-crisis years. That move in correlations has occurred alongside a more stable backdrop for inflation expectations, which are much closer to central bank targets. The lone exception is, of course, Japan, where inflation remains disappointingly low and the Bank of Japan continues to keep a tight lid on interest rates. Chart 4More Stable Inflation Means Less Correlated Stock & Bond Returns Besides more stable inflation, another factor preventing yields from falling as much as implied by the declines in equity markets is that global bond yields remain overvalued relative to trend economic growth. One way to assess this is to look at the level of real bond yields relative to a moving average of actual GDP growth. We show this for the major developed economies in Charts 5 & 6, which plot rolling 3-year moving averages of real GDP growth (a proxy for "trend" or potential growth) versus real 5-year government bond yields, 5-years forward. For the latter, we take the nominal 5-year/5-year forward yield and subtract a five-year moving average of realized headline inflation for each country, rather than market-based inflation-linked instruments like CPI swaps or TIPS, to allow for a longer history of real yields in the charts. Chart 5Real Bond Yields Are Still Too Low ... Chart 6... Compared To Real Economic Growth For all countries show, real bond yields remain below the level of real growth. The gap between the two is smallest in the U.S. and Canada - unsurprising, as central bankers have been tightening monetary policy, and helping push up real interest rates, in both countries. Bonds look most overvalued in core Europe, Japan and Sweden where policymakers have been using negative interest rates and quantitative easing (QE) to hold down bond yields. Real yields in those countries are between 200-300bps below our proxy for trend real growth. With such a large gap between actual growth and interest rates, it becomes harder for policymakers to consider easing monetary policy, or at least slow the pace of policy normalization, in response to more volatile financial markets. It should not be a surprise that last week, during a period of global market turmoil, the European Central Bank and Sweden's Riksbank both signaled that they remain on pace to end QE and begin hiking interest rates within the next 6-12 months, while the Bank of Canada delivered another 25bp rate hike. In the absence of a VERY large global growth shock, global real yields should be expected to increase over at least the next year, and a defensive posture on global duration exposure should be maintained. One such shock could come from a deeper downturn in China than has already occurred in 2018, which would feed into a bigger slowdown in non-U.S. growth. Another shock could come from the U.S. if the recent pullback in core durable goods orders (Chart 7) is a sign that a) U.S. companies are becoming more worried about the impact of U.S.-China trade tariffs on global growth; and/or b) the impact of the Trump fiscal stimulus is already starting to fade. Such a move could be exacerbated by a larger downturn in housing activity than seen already in response to rising mortgage rates. Chart 7Treasuries Are Exposed To A U.S. Growth Scare These shocks, if large enough, could trigger a short-covering rally in U.S. Treasuries, where sentiment remains very depressed (bottom panel). However, with leading economic indicators still pointing to above trend U.S. growth, and with U.S. consumer spending holding firm alongside a tight labor market and faster wage growth, such a pullback in yields would likely be short-lived and difficult for investors to time successfully. Bottom Line: Despite the recent pickup in global equity market volatility, bond volatility remains subdued. Until there is more decisive evidence of a deeper pullback in global growth that is impacting the mighty U.S. economy, yields on government bonds - which remain overvalued in all major developed economies - will have difficulty falling much more even if equity markets continue to correct. Stay below benchmark on global duration exposure, while maintaining only a neutral allocation to global credit. Canada Update: The BoC Stays Hawkish The Bank of Canada (BoC) delivered another rate hike last week, lifting the policy rate by 25bps to 1.75%. The language used to explain the hike was surprisingly hawkish. In the press conference following the BoC meeting, Senior Deputy Governor Carolyn Wilkins noted that the policy rate remains negative in real terms and is still below the central bank's estimate of neutral (between 2.5% and 3.5%). She also noted that the term "gradual" was no longer used to describe the pace of monetary tightening, so as not to give the impression that policy was following a steady predetermined path similar to the Fed's tightening cycle - potentially, a sign that more hawkish surprises could be in the offing. The BoC also sounded more optimistic on the outlook for the Canadian economy, while sounding less concerned about the two factors that should cause the most worry - high consumer debt levels and uncertainty over global trade. The more upbeat tone is at odds with the current pace of economic growth in Canada, which has slowed. GDP growth has decelerated to 1.9% from 3.0% at the end of 2017, while the OECD's leading economic indicator for Canada is also in a downtrend (Chart 8). In the Monetary Policy Report (MPR) that was also released last week, the latest BoC forecasts for Canadian real GDP growth for 2019 and 2020 were essentially left unchanged. Chart 8Is The BoC's Growth Optimism Justified? The BoC noted that the composition of demand within the Canadian economy was shifting away from consumption and housing towards business investment and exports. That can be seen in the most recent data that shows sluggish consumer spending (middle panel) and rebounding export growth (bottom panel). The central bank attributes the softer path for consumption to its own interest rate increases and changes to housing market policies, both of which have forced households to adjust their spending patterns. That is evident in the sharp decline in house price growth, deceleration of household credit growth and the softening trends in housing starts and residential investment spending (Chart 9) Chart 9Canadian Housing Has Cooled Off The BoC is of the view, however, that consumer spending will rebound (but not overheat) on the back of strong household income growth and a pickup in net immigration inflows that is boosting population growth. The other area of diminished concern for the central bank is investment spending, which has been negatively impacted by the uncertainty over the renegotiation of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). That smooth acronym is now gone, to be replaced by the more awkward "USMCA", or United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. That new trade deal has reduced the immediate uncertainty over the impact of U.S. trade policy on Canada, although the BoC did note in the MPR that there was still the potential for lingering uncertainty based on previous U.S. trade actions (i.e. on steel and aluminum imports to the U.S.) and because the USMCA has not yet been ratified. The BoC did make an upward adjustment to its assumptions regarding the hit to Canadian growth from U.S. trade policy compared to the July MPR. The level of exports is now only expected to fall by -0.3% over the next two years (vs -0.7% in the July MPR) and business investment is expected to decline by -0.7% over the same period (vs -1.4% in the July MPR). The reduction in trade uncertainty should be expected to free up demand for capex in Canada. The Q3/2018 BoC Senior Loan Officers' Survey reported a further easing of lending standards from the Q2 survey (Chart 10). The central bank's Q3 Business Outlook Survey also noted that firms' investment intentions continued to strengthen to the highest level in eight years (middle panel). This was primarily due to increased expectations for future sales growth, coming at a time of high reported capacity pressures (bottom panel). Importantly, the Business Outlook Survey took place before the USMCA deal was reached, suggesting that the data may actually understate sales expectations. This bodes well for future gains to overall GDP growth from business investment spending. Chart 10Canadian Companies Need To Invest & Hire That same Business Outlook Survey also reported that firms are continuing to experience labor shortages, most notably in sectors such as construction, transportation and information technology. This is a sign that employment growth should remain firm in Canada. Coming at a time when the unemployment rate at 5.9% remains well below estimates of full employment, this suggests that there could be some upward pressure on inflation. Canadian headline CPI inflation currently sits at 2.2%, while core CPI inflation is at 1.8% (Chart 11). That is a sharp decline from the 3% inflation seen in July, which was the result of an unexpected surge in airline fares. Yet at current levels, Canadian inflation sits right at the midpoint of the BoC's 1-3% target range. Furthermore, the BoC's own assessment is that the output gap is in a range of -0.5% to +0.5%, in line with the estimates from the IMF and OECD (middle panel). Although headline wage growth has cooled in recent months, the BoC's preferred measure that incorporates several wage measures ("Wage-Common"), has been stable near the same 2% levels as seen for CPI inflation. Chart 11Canadian Inflation At BoC Target Expect More BoC Hikes With the Canadian economy operating at full employment and with inflation at target, the BoC seems determined to push the policy rate back up towards their estimated 2.5%-3.5% range for the neutral rate. This means another 75-175bps of additional rate increases. At the moment, there are only 49bps of hikes over the next year discounted in the Canadian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve (Chart 12). This leaves Canadian bond yields exposed to additional rate increases. This is especially true given our forecast of continued Fed interest rate increases in 2019, as the BoC has been playing a game of "Follow the Leader" with the Fed during the current tightening cycle (top panel). Chart 12Stay Underweight Canadian Government Bonds In terms of our recommended fixed income investment strategy, we continue to favor: an underweight stance on Canadian government bonds for global bond investors a below-benchmark duration stance within dedicated Canadian bond portfolios long positions in Canadian inflation protection (CPI swaps or inflation-linked bonds) While we expect the Canadian yield curve to flatten as the BoC delivers more rate hikes than currently discounted over the next year, we do not see the 2-year/10-year curve flattening by more than is currently priced in the forwards. This is not the case for an outright duration bet, where the forwards are currently priced for very little upward movement in Canadian bond yields over the next year. Therefore, we prefer to stick with directional bets on Canadian yields (higher) and Canadian relative bond performance versus global peers (worse). Bottom Line: The Bank of Canada remains on a hawkish path to a more neutral policy rate, even with the lingering concerns over household debt and global trade tensions. Stay underweight Canadian government bonds in hedged global bond portfolios. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@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

Special Report

The Great Recession and financial crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policymakers and investors for years to come. The roots of the crisis are already well known. The first of a two-part series looks forward by examining the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. First, the financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. Debt and market liquidity are two key concerns. Corporate leverage will not cause the next recession. Nonetheless, when one does occur, corporate spreads in the U.S. and (to a lesser extent) the Eurozone will widen by more for any given degree of recession. This reflects a low interest coverage ratio, poor market liquidity, the downward trend in credit quality and covenant erosion. Second, the shock of the Great Recession and its aftermath appears to have affected the relationship between economic slack and inflation. Firms have been extra reluctant to grant wage gains. However, we argue that the "shell shock" effect will wane. The fact that inflation has been depressed for so long may actually cultivate the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside in the coming years. Investors should hold inflation-protection in the inflation swaps market, or by overweighting inflation-linked bonds versus conventional issues. Third, the events of the last decade have left a lasting impression on monetary policymakers. They will err on the side of allowing the economy to overheat and inflation to modestly overshoot the target in the major economies, despite signs of financial froth. The Fed will respond only with a lag to the current fiscally-driven surge in U.S. growth, leading to a boom/bust economic scenario. Central bankers will have no trouble employing unorthodox policies again in the future, and will be willing to push the boundaries even further during the next recession. Expect aggressive manipulation of the long-end of the yield curve when the time arrives to ease policy. We may also observe more coordination between monetary and fiscal policies. Fourth, global bond yields fell to unprecedented levels, reflecting both structural and cyclical headwinds to demand growth. A dismal productivity performance is another culprit. Productivity growth is poised to recover to some extent, while some of the growth headwinds have reached an inflection point. We do not expect nominal bond yields to return to pre-Lehman norms, and yields could even fall back to previous lows in the case of a recession. Nonetheless, we expect a yield pattern of higher lows and higher highs over the coming business cycles. The 10-year anniversary of the Lehman shock this autumn sparked an avalanche of analysis on the events and underlying causes of the Great Recession and financial crisis. It is a woeful story of greed, a classic bubble, inadequate regulation, new-fangled financial instruments, and a globalized financial system that spread the shock around the world. The crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policymakers and investors for many years to come. The roots of the crisis are well known, so we will not spend any time going over well-trodden ground. Rather, this Special Report looks forward by examining the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. In Part I, we cover the corporate bond market, the inflation outlook, central bank policymaking and equilibrium bond yields. Part II will look at the debt overhang, systemic risk in the financial sector, asset correlations, the cult of equity and the rise of populism. While not an exhaustive list, we believe these are the key areas of structural change. (1) Corporate Bond Market: Leverage And Downgrade Risk The financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. Debt and market liquidity are two key concerns. An extraordinarily long period of extremely low interest rates was too much for corporate CEOs to pass up. However, because the durability of the economic recovery was so uncertain, it seemed more attractive to hand over the borrowed cash to shareholders than to use it to aggressively expand productive capacity. The ongoing equity bull market rewarded CEOs for the financial engineering, serving to create a self-reinforcing feedback loop. And so far, corporate bondholders have not policed this activity. The result is that the U.S. corporate bond market has grown in leaps and bounds since 2009 (Chart II-1A and Chart II-1B). The average duration of the Bloomberg Barclays index has also risen as firms locked in attractive financing rates. The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the Eurozone. Chart II-1AU.S. BBB-Rated Share Rising... Chart II-1B...Same In The Eurozone Balance sheet health is obviously not the key driver of corporate bond relative returns at the moment. Nonetheless, investors will begin to worry about the growth outlook if interest rates continue to rise. The U.S. national accounts data suggest that interest coverage remains relatively healthy, but this includes large companies such as some of the FAANGs that have little debt and a lot of cash. The national accounts data are unrepresentative of the companies that are included in the Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond index, which are heavy debt issuers. To gain a clearer picture, we calculated a bottom-up Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for a sample of U.S. companies that provides a sector and credit-quality composition that roughly matches the Bloomberg Barclay's index. The CHM is the composite of six critical financial ratios. Chart II-2 highlights that the investment-grade (IG) CHM has improved over the past two years due to the profitability sub-components. However, the debt/equity ratio has been in a steep uptrend. Interest coverage does not appear alarming by historical standards at the moment, but one can argue that it should be much higher given the extremely low average coupon on corporate bonds, and given that profit margins are extraordinarily high in the U.S. The rapid accumulation of debt has overwhelmed these other factors. Evidence of rising leverage is broadly based across sectors and ratings. Chart II-2U.S. IG Corporate Health Unfortunately, the profit tailwind won't last forever. At some point, earnings growth will stall and this cycle's debt accumulation will start to bite in the context of rising interest rates. To gauge the risk, we estimate the change in the interest coverage ratio over the next three years for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt.1 For our universe of Investment-grade U.S. companies, the interest coverage ratio would drop from a little over 7 to under 6, which is close to the lows of the Great Recession (denoted as "x" in Chart II-3). Of course, the decline in interest coverage will be much worse if the Fed steps too far and monetary tightening sparks a recession. The "o" in Chart II-3 denotes the combination of a 100 basis-point interest rate shock and a mild recession in which the S&P 500 suffers a 25% peak-to-trough decline in EPS. The overall interest coverage ratio plunges close to all-time lows at 4½. Chart II-3Interest Coverage To Plunge... These simulations imply that, for any given size of recession, the next economic downturn will have a larger negative impact on corporate health than in the past. Rating agencies have undertaken some downgrading related to shareholder-friendly activity, but downgrades will proliferate when the agencies realize that the economy is turning and the profit boom is over (Chart II-4). Banks will belatedly tighten lending standards, adding to funding pressure for the corporate sector. Chart II-4...And Ratings To Be Slashed Fallen Angels The potential for a large wave of fallen angels means that downgrade activity will be particularly painful for corporate bond investors. The surge in lower-quality issuance has led to a downward trend in the average credit rating and has significantly raised the size of the BBB-rated bonds relative to the IG index and relative to the broader universe of corporate bonds including high yield (Chart II-5, and Chart II-1A).2 The downward trend in credit quality predates Lehman, but events since the Great Recession have likely reinforced the trend. Chart II-5Lower Ratings And Longer Duration Studies show that bonds that get downgraded into junk status can perform well for a period thereafter, suggesting that investors holding a fallen angel should not necessarily sell immediately. Nonetheless, the process of transitioning from investment-grade to high-yield involves return underperformance as the spread widens. Poor market liquidity and covenant erosion will intensify pressure for corporate spreads to widen when the bear market arrives. Market turnover has decreased substantially since the pre-Lehman years, especially for IG (Chart II-6). The poor liquidity backdrop appears to be structural, reflecting regulation that has curtailed banks' market-making activity and prop trading, among other factors. Chart II-6Poor Market Liquidity The Eurozone corporate bond market has also seen rapid growth and a deterioration in the average credit rating. Liquidity is an issue there as well. That said, the Eurozone corporate sector is less advanced in the leverage cycle than the U.S. Interest coverage ratios will fall during the next recession, but this will be concentrated among foreign issuers - domestic issuers are much less at risk to rising interest rates and/or an economic downturn.3 Bottom Line: Corporate leverage will not cause the next recession. Nonetheless, when one does occur, corporate spreads in the U.S. and (to a lesser extent) Eurozone will widen by more for any given degree of recession. Current spreads do not compensate for this risk. (2) Inflation Undershoot Breeds Overshoot Inflation in the U.S. and other developed economies has been sticky since the financial crisis. First, inflation did not fall as much in the recession and early years of the recovery as many had predicted, despite the worst economic contraction in the post-war period. Subsequently, central banks have had trouble raising inflation back to target. In the U.S., core PCE inflation has only recently returned to 2%. Several structural factors have been blamed, but continuing tepid wage growth in the face of a very tight labor market raises the possibility that the inflation-generating process has been fundamentally altered by the Great Recession. In other words, the relationship between slack in the labor market (or market for goods and services) and inflation has changed. In theory, inflation should rise when the economy's output is above its potential level or when the unemployment rate is below its full-employment level. Inflation should fall when the reverse is true. This means that the change (not the level) in inflation should be positively correlated with the level of the output gap or the labor market gap. Chart II-7 presents the change in U.S. core inflation with the output gap. Although inflation appears to have become less responsive to shifts in the output gap after 1990, it has been particularly insensitive in the post-Lehman period. Chart II-7The U.S. Phillips Curve: RIP? One reason may be that the business sector was shell-shocked by the Great Recession and financial crisis to such an extent that business leaders have been more reluctant to grant wage gains than in past cycles. Equally-unnerved workers felt lucky just to have a job, and have been less willing to demand raises. Dampened inflation expectations meant that low actual inflation became self-reinforcing. We have some sympathy with this view. Long-term inflation expectations have been sticky at levels that are inconsistent with the major central banks meeting their inflation targets over the long term. This suggests that people believe that central banks lack the tools necessary to overwhelm the deflationary forces. The lesson for investors and policymakers is that, while unorthodox monetary policies helped to limit the downside for inflation and inflation expectations during and just after the recession, these policies have had limited success in reversing even the modest decline that did occur. That said, readers should keep in mind a few important points: One should not expect inflation to rise much until economies break through their non-inflationary limits. The major advanced economies have only recently reached that point to varying degrees; Inflation lags the business cycle (Chart II-8). This is especially the case in long 'slow burn' economic expansions, as we have demonstrated in previous research; and The historical relationship between inflation and economic slack has been non-linear. As shown in Chart II-9, U.S. inflation has tended to accelerate quickly when unemployment drops below 4½%. Chart II-8U.S. Inflation Lags The Cycle Chart II-9A Kinked Phillips Curve Shell Shock Is Fading We believe that the "shell shock" effect of the Great Recession on inflation will wane over time. Indeed, my colleague Peter Berezin has made the case that the fact that inflation has been depressed for so long actually cultivates the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside in the coming years.4 Central bankers have been alarmed by the economic and financial events of the last decade. They also cast a wary eye on Japan's inability to generate inflation even in the face of massive and prolonged monetary stimulus. Policymakers at the FOMC are determined to boost inflation and inflation expectations before the next economic downturn strikes. They are also willing to not only tolerate, but actively encourage, an overshoot of the 2% inflation target in order to ensure that long-term inflation expectations return "sustainably" to a level consistent with meeting the 2% target over the long term. In other words, the Fed is going to err on the side of too much stimulus rather than too little. This is an important legacy of the last recession (see below). Meanwhile, other structural explanations for low inflation are less powerful than many believe. For example, globalization has leveled off and rising tariff and non-tariff barriers will hinder important global supply chains. Our research also suggests that the rising industrial use of robots and the e-commerce effect on retail prices have had only a small depressing effect on U.S. inflation. Bottom Line: The Phillips curve relationship has probably not changed in a permanent way since Lehman went down. It is quite flat when the labor market is not far away from full employment, but the relationship is probably non-linear. As the unemployment rate drops further, the business sector will have no choice but to lift wages as labor becomes increasingly scarce. The kinked nature of the Phillips curve augments the odds that the Fed will eventually find itself behind the curve, and inflation will rise more than the market is expecting. The same arguments apply to the Bank of England and possibly even the European Central Bank. Gold offers some protection against inflation risk, but the precious metal is still quite expensive in real terms. Investors would be better off simply buying inflation-protection in the inflation swaps market or overweighting inflation-linked bonds over conventional issues. (3) Monetary Policy: Destined To Fight The Last War There are several reasons to believe that the shocking events of the crisis and its aftermath have left a lasting impression on monetary policymakers. Several factors suggest that they will err on the side of allowing the economy to overheat and inflation to modestly overshoot the target: Inflation Persistence: As discussed above, there is a greater awareness that it is difficult to lift both actual inflation and inflation expectations once they have fallen. Some FOMC members believe that long-term inflation expectations are still too low to be consistent with the Fed meeting its 2% inflation target over the long term. A modest inflation overshoot in this cycle would be beneficial, according to this view, in the sense that it would boost inflation expectations and thereby raise the probability that the FOMC will indeed meet its goals over the long term. It might also encourage some discouraged workers to re-enter the labor market. Some policymakers also believe that the Fed is not taking much of a risk by pushing the economy hard, because the Phillips curve is so flat. Zero Bound: Low inflation expectations, among other factors, have combined to dramatically reduce the level of so-called r-star - the short-term rate of interest that is neither accommodative nor restrictive in terms of growth and inflation. R-star is thought to be rising now, at least for the U.S., but it is probably still low by historical standards across the major economies. This increases the risk that policy rates will again hit the lower bound during the next recession, making it difficult for central banks to engineer a real policy rate that is low enough to generate faster growth.5 Fighting the Last War: Memories of the crisis linger in the minds of policymakers. The global economy came dangerously close to a replay of the Great Depression, and policymakers want to ensure that it never happens again. Some monetary officials have argued that a risk-based approach means that it is better to take some inflation risks to limit the possibility of making a deflationary policy mistake down the road. Fears that the major economies are now more vulnerable to deflationary shocks seem destined to keep central banks too-easy-for-too-long. Central bankers will also be quicker and more aggressive in responding when negative shocks arrive in the future. This applies more to the U.S., the U.K. and Japan than the European Central Bank, but even for the latter there has been a clear change in the monetary committee's reaction function since Mario Draghi took over the reins. Financial Stability Concerns Policymakers are also more concerned about financial stability. Pre-crisis, the consensus among the monetary elite was that financial stability should play second fiddle to the inflation target. It was felt that central banks should focus on the latter, and pay attention to signs of financial froth only when they affect the inflation outlook. In practice, this meant paying only lip service to financial excess until it was too late. It was difficult to justify rate increases when inflation was not threatening. It was thought that macro-prudential regulation on its own was enough to contain financial excesses. Today, policymakers see financial stability as playing a key role in meeting the inflation target. It is abundantly clear that a burst bubble can be highly deflationary. Some policymakers still believe that aggressive macro-prudential policies can be effective in directly targeting financial excesses. However, others feel there is no substitute for higher interest rates; as ex-Governor Jeremy Stein stated, interest rates get "in all the cracks". Moreover, the Fed does not regulate the shadow banking sector. The Fed is thus balancing concerns over signs of financial froth against the zero-bound problem and fears of the next deflationary shock. We believe that the latter will dominate their policy choices, because it will still be difficult to justify rate hikes to the public when there is no obvious inflation problem. In the U.S., this implies that the economic risks are skewed toward a boom/bust scenario in which the FOMC is slow to respond to a fiscally-driven late cycle mini-boom. Inflation and inflation expectations react with a lag, but a subsequent acceleration in both forces the Fed to aggressively choke off growth. Policy Toolkit Central bankers will be quite willing to employ their new-found policy tools again in the next recession. The new toolbox includes asset purchases, aggressive forms of forward guidance, negative interest rates, and low-cost direct lending to banks and non-banks in some countries. Policymakers generally view these tools as being at least somewhat effective, although some have argued that the costs of using negative interest rates have outweighed the benefits in Europe and Japan. The debate on how to deal with the zero-bound problem in the U.S. has focused on lifting r-star, including raising the inflation target, adopting a price level target, policies to boost productivity, and traditional fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, ex-Fed Chair Yellen's comments at the Jackson Hole conference in 2016 underscored that it will be more of the same in the event that the zero bound is again reached - quantitative easing and forward guidance.6 No doubt, the major central banks will rely heavily on both of these tools in order to manipulate yields far out the curve. Forward guidance may be threshold-based. For example, policymakers could promise to keep the policy rate frozen until unemployment or inflation reaches a given level. Now that central bankers have crossed the line into unorthodox monetary policy and inflation did not surge, future policymakers will be willing to stretch the boundaries even further in the event of a recession. For example, they may consider price-level targeting, which would institutionalize inflation overshoots to make up for past inflation undershoots. It is also possible that we will observe more coordination between monetary and fiscal policies in the next recession. The combination of fiscal stimulus and a cap on bond yields would be highly stimulative in theory, in part by driving the currency lower. Japan has gone half way in this direction by implementing a yield curve control (YCC) policy. However, it has failed so far to provide any meaningful fiscal stimulus since the yield cap has been in place. It also appears likely that central bank balance sheets will not return to levels as a percent of GDP that existed before the crisis. An abundance of bank deposits at the central bank will help to satisfy a structural increase in the demand for cash-like risk-free assets. Maintaining a bloated balance sheet will also allow central banks to provide substantial amounts of reverse repos (RRPs) into the market, which should improve the functioning of money markets that have been impaired to some degree by regulation. We do not expect that a structural increase in central bank balance sheets will have any material lasting impact on asset prices or inflation. We believe that inflation will surprise on the upside, but not because central banks will continue to hold significant amounts of government bonds on their balance sheets over the medium term. Bottom Line: The implication is that the monetary authorities will have a greater tolerance for an overshoot of the inflation target than in the past. The Fed will respond only with a lag to the fiscally-driven surge in U.S. growth, leading to a boom/bust economic scenario. During the next recession, policymakers will rely heavily on quantitative easing and forward guidance to manipulate the yield curve (after the policy rate reaches the lower bound). (4) Bond Prices: Structural Factors Turning Less Bullish Perhaps the most dramatic and lasting impact of the GFC has been evident in the global bond market. Government yields fell to levels never before observed across the developed countries and have remained extremely depressed, even as the expansion matured and economic slack was gradually absorbed. Real government bond yields are still negative even at the medium and long parts of the curve in the Eurozone and Japan (Chart II-10). It is tempting to conclude that there has been a permanent shift down in global bond yields. Chart II-10Real Yields Still Depressed Equilibrium bond yields are tied to the supply side of the economy. Potential GDP growth is the sum of trend productivity growth and the pace of expansion of the labor force. Equilibrium bond yields may fall below the potential growth rate for extended periods to the extent that aggregate demand faces persistent headwinds. The headwinds in place over the past decade include fiscal austerity, demographics, household deleveraging, increased regulation and lingering problems in the banking sector that limited the expansion of credit, among others. These headwinds either affect the desire to save or the desire to invest, the interplay of which affects equilibrium bond yields. Some of these economic headwinds predate 2007, but the financial crisis reinforced the desire to save more and invest less. Space limitations prevent a full review of the forces that depressed bond yields, but a summary is contained in Appendix 1 and we encourage interested readers to see our 2017 Special Report for full details.7 The Great Supply-Side Shortfall Falling potential output growth in the major advanced economies also helped to drag down equilibrium bond yields. The pace of expansion in the global labor force has plunged from 1¾% in 2005, to under 1% today (Chart II-11). The labor force has peaked in absolute terms in the G7, and is already shrinking in China. Chart II-11Slower Labor Force Expansion... Productivity growth took a dramatic turn for the worst after 2007 (Chart II-12). The dismal productivity performance is not fully understood, but likely reflected the peaking in globalization, increased regulation and the dramatic decline in capital spending relative to GDP. The latter was reflected in a collapse in the growth rate of the global capital stock (Chart II-13). In the U.S., for which we have a longer history of data, growth in the capital stocks has lead shifts in productivity growth with a 3-year lag. Firms have also been slower to adopt new technologies over the past decade. Chart II-12...And Lower Productivity Chart II-13Productivity And Investment The resulting impact on the level of GDP today has been nothing short of remarkable. The current IMF estimate for the level of potential GDP in 2018 is 10% lower than was projected by the IMF in 2008 (Chart II-14). There has been a similar downgrading of capacity in Europe, Japan and the U.K. Actual GDP has closed the gap with potential GDP to varying degrees in the major countries, but at a much lower level than was projected a decade ago. Paul Krugman has dubbed this the "Great Shortfall". Chart II-14A Permanent Loss Of Output The Great Shortfall was even greater with respect to capital spending. For 2017, the IMF estimates that global investment was more than 20% below the level implied by the pre-crisis trend (Chart II-15). Reduced credit intermediation, from a combination of supply and demand factors, was a significant factor behind the structural loss of economic capacity according to the IMF study.8 Chart II-15Permanent Scars On Capital Spending By curtailing the business investment relative to GDP for a prolonged period, major economic slumps can have a permanent effect on an economy's long-term prospects. The loss of output since the financial crisis will never be regained. That said, bond yields in theory are related to the growth rate of productivity, not its level. The IMF report noted that there may even be some long-lasting effects on the growth rate of productivity. The crisis left lingering scars on future growth due to both reduced global labor force migration and fertility rates. The latter rose in the decade before the crisis in several advanced economies, only to decline afterward. Households postponed births in the face of the economic and financial upheaval. The IMF argues that not all of the decline in fertility rates will be reversed. An Inflection Point In Global Bond Yields On a positive note, the pickup in business capital spending in the major countries in recent years implies an acceleration in the growth rate of the capital stock and, thus, productivity. In the U.S., this relationship suggests that productivity growth could rise by a percentage point over the coming few years (Chart II-13). This should correspond to a roughly equivalent rise in equilibrium bond yields. Moreover, some of the other structural factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. For example, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool as people retire and begin to deplete their nest eggs. Household savings rates will trend sharply lower in the coming years. Again, we encourage readers to read the 2017 Special Report for a full account of the structural factors that are shifting in a less bond-bullish direction. QE Reversal To Weigh On Bond Prices And let's not forget the unwinding of central bank balance sheets. The idea that central bank asset purchases on their own had a significant depressing effect on global bond yields is controversial. Some argue that the impact on yields occurred more via forward guidance; quantitative easing was a signal to markets that the central bank would stay on hold for an extended period, which pulled down yields far out the curve. This publication believes that QE had a meaningful impact on global bond yields on its own (Chart II-16). Nonetheless, either way, the Fed is now shrinking its balance sheet and the European Central Bank will soon end asset purchases. This means that the private sector this year is being forced to absorb a net increase in government bonds available to the private sector for the first time since 2014 (Chart II-17). Investors may demand juicier yields in order to boost their allocation to fixed-income assets. Chart II-16Reverse QE To Weigh On Bonds Chart II-17Private Investors Will Have To Buy More We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors still have an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2027 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart II-18). The implied path of real rates in the U.S. looks more reasonable, but there is still upside potential. Moreover, there is room for the inflation expectations component of nominal yields to shift up, as discussed above. Chart II-18Real Yields Still Too Low Another way of making this point is shown in Chart II-19. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is still very low by historical standards. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year/5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart II-19Market Expectations Still Low Bottom Line: Global bond yields fell to unprecedented levels due to a combination of cyclical and structural factors. The bond-bullish structural factors were reinforced by shifts in desired savings and business investment as a result of the Great Recession and financial crisis. Some of these structural factors will linger in the coming years, but others are shifting in a less bond-bullish direction. We do not expect nominal bond yields to return to pre-Lehman norms, and yields could even return close to previous lows in the case of a recession. Nonetheless, we expect a yield pattern of higher lows and higher highs over the coming business cycles. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Appendix 1: Key Factors Behind The Decline In Equilibrium Global Bond Yields The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. A key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. China became a major source of global savings after it joined the WTO, and its large trade surplus was recycled into the global pool of savings. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. The increase in ex-ante savings and reduction in ex-ante capital spending resulted in a substantial drop in equilibrium global interest rates. The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie. A positive labor supply shock should benefit global living standards in the long run, but the adjustment costs related to China's integration into the global economy imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting. The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. Moreover, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners. This represents a headwind to growth that requires lower interest rates all along the curve. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. 1 We make the simplifying assumptions that companies do not issue any more debt over the three years, and that EBIT is unchanged, in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. 2 The average credit rating for the U.S. is unavailable before 2000 in the Bloomberg Barclays index. However, other data sources confirm the long-term downward trend. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The Eurozone Corporate Sector," dated May 31, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Reports "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1)," dated August 10, 2018 and "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2)," dated August 24, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 The lower bound is zero in the U.S., but is in negative territory for those central banks willing to impose negative rates on the banking sector. 6 For more background on the zero bound debate, the usefulness of a large central bank balance sheet and ways to lift r-star, please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Herding Cats At the Fed," dated October 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," dated April 27, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 8 The Global Economic Recovery 10 Years After the 2008 Financial Meltdown. IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2018.