Inflation/Deflation

Highlights Structurally overweight US T-bonds versus core European bonds. Our preferred expression is long T-bonds versus Swiss bonds. US yields can fall a lot more than European yields, and European yields can rise a lot more than US yields. Structurally underweight the overvalued dollar versus undervalued European currencies. Our preferred expression is long SEK/USD. Structurally underweight price-sensitive European export sectors. Undervalued European currencies cannot fall much further, and those European exporters that depend on price competitiveness will struggle to outperform. But structurally overweight soft luxuries. Despite President Trump’s threat to tariff French products, soft luxuries retain very strong pricing power and sustainable long term demand growth from rising female labour participation rates globally. Fractal trade: The 65-day fractal structure of global equities suggests that they are vulnerable to a near-term countertrend move. Feature Chart of the WeekLike-For-Like, Structural Inflation Is Lower In the US Than In Europe A seemingly trivial disagreement between Europeans and Americans on how to measure inflation turns out to be the culprit for three major distortions in the world right now: Deeply divergent monetary policies across the developed economies. Huge valuation anomalies in the foreign exchange markets. President Trump’s threat of a trade war to counter the huge trade surpluses that Europe and China are running against the US. The inflation measurement disagreement wouldn’t really matter if inflation were running in the mid-single digits. But when inflation is near zero, the seemingly trivial difference in inflation measurement methodologies has ended up generating massive distortions. European And American Inflation Are Not The Same European inflation excludes the maintenance and upkeep costs associated with owning your home, whereas US inflation includes these costs at a hefty 25 percent weighting, making owner occupied housing by far the largest single item in the US inflation basket. By omitting the largest item in the US inflation basket, European inflation is subtly yet crucially different to American inflation. The European statisticians argue that unlike all the other items in the inflation basket, there is no independent market price for the ongoing cost of home ownership, and therefore this cost should be excluded. The American statisticians argue that the ongoing cost of home ownership is the single largest expense for most people and, as such, it should be ‘imputed’ from a concept known as ‘owner equivalent rent’ – essentially, asking homeowners how much it would cost to rent their own home. Different definitions of inflation will trigger very different policy responses from central banks. Both the European and American approaches have their merits and drawbacks, and it is not our intention to endorse one approach over the other. Our intention is simply to point out that the two approaches can give very different results for inflation – and therefore trigger very different policy responses from inflation-targeting central banks, with their consequent economic and political repercussions. If Americans used the European definition of inflation, then headline inflation in the US today would be running at the same sub-par rate as in the euro area, 1 percent, and well below the Fed’s 2 percent target (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). More important, the five year annualised rate of inflation – let’s call it US structural inflation – would have been stuck below 1 percent since 2016 (Chart I-1 and Chart I-4). Under these circumstances, it would have been impossible for the Fed to hike the funds rate eight times, as it did through 2017-18. Chart I-2Like-For-Like, Headline Inflation Is Identical In The US And The Euro Area... Chart I-3...And Core Inflation Is ##br##Very Similar   Chart I-4Using The European Definition Of Inflation, The Fed Couldn't Have Hiked Rates Instead, what if Europeans used the American definition of inflation? European inflation does not include owner equivalent rent, but it does include housing rent for those that do rent their homes. In the US, these two items tend to move in lockstep (Chart I-5). If we assume the same for Europe, we can deduce that a US type weighting for owner equivalent rent would have boosted the headline inflation rate in the euro area by 0.3-0.4 percent through 2014-16, and by a possible 0.5 percent in Sweden through 2013-15 (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Under these circumstances, it would have been very difficult for the ECB and Riksbank to take and maintain policy rates deeply in negative territory, as they did through 2015-19. Chart I-5Owner Equivalent Rent Tracks ##br##Housing Rent Chart I-6Using The American Definition Of inflation, Euro Area Inflation Would Have Been Higher... Chart I-7...And Swedish Inflation Would Have Been Much Higher The Different Definitions Of Inflation Have Created Dangerous Distortions If Europeans and Americans were using the same definition of inflation then, one way or the other, their monetary policies would not be as deeply divergent as they are now. One important implication is that European currencies would not be as undervalued as they are now. If Europeans and Americans were using the same definition of inflation then their monetary policies would not be as deeply divergent as they are now.  Based on the ECB’s own analysis, the euro area is over-competitive versus its top 19 trading partners – meaning the euro is undervalued – by at least 10 percent. Moreover, the ECB admits that this sizable undervaluation only appeared after the ECB and Fed started taking their monetary policies in opposite directions in 2015 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Euro Is Undervalued By More Than 10 Percent Put the other way, the dollar would not be as overvalued as it is now. In turn, the stronger dollar has created its own dangerous spill-overs. As we explained last week in The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015… And Why It Matters Now, the surging dollar in 2015 could not have come at a worse time for China. Given that the Chinese economy was already slowing sharply, and the yuan was pegged to the dollar, the resulting loss of Chinese competitiveness just exacerbated the slump. Forcing China to loosen the dollar peg in August 2015. All of which brings us neatly to the hot topic of 2019, and likely 2020 too – President Trump’s threat of a trade war to counter the huge trade imbalances that Europe and China are running against the US. As it happens, President Trump has a good point. Trade wars almost always stem from trade imbalances; and trade imbalances almost always stem from exchange rate manipulations or, at least, exchange rate distortions that advantage one economy to the detriment of another. The euro's undervaluation only happened after monetary policies diverged in 2015. Most of the euro area’s €150 billion trade surplus with the US appeared after 2015, so it cannot be a structural issue. In fact, the evolution of the trade imbalance has tracked relative monetary policy between the Fed and ECB almost tick for tick (Chart I-9), via the exchange rate channel and the over-competitiveness of the euro which the ECB fully admits. Chart I-9Excessively Divergent Monetary Policies Caused The Euro Area's Huge Trade Surplus With The US Of course, neither the ECB nor the Fed are deliberately targeting trade or the exchange rate; they are targeting inflation. But to repeat, they are targeting different definitions of inflation. Crucially, with a backdrop of near zero inflation, small definitional differences in inflation can generate huge economic and financial distortions, with dangerous political consequences. The Compelling Structural Opportunities The definitional difference between European and American inflation explain many of the economic and financial distortions we are witnessing now, as well as the dangerous political consequences. The main counterargument is that the inflation definitions are what they are; neither the ECB nor the Fed are likely to change them anytime soon. Nevertheless, there are compelling structural opportunities. Since 2015, American inflation has outperformed European inflation for one reason and one reason only: owner equivalent rents have surged by almost 20 percent relative to other prices (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). The historic evidence suggests that such a pace of outperformance is unsustainable structurally and, absent this tailwind, US and European headline inflation rates have to converge, one way or the other. Chart I-10An Unsustainable Surge In US Owner Equivalent Rent... Chart I-11...Has Lifted US Headline ##br##Inflation In this inevitable convergence, the asymmetric starting point of bond yields favours a long US T-bonds, short core European bonds structural position. Because, if the inflation convergence is downwards, T-bond yields will fall much further than European yields; whereas if the inflation convergence is upwards, European yields will likely rise more than T-bond yields. Our preferred structural expression is: long US T-bonds, short Swiss bonds. For currencies it is the opposite message. The overvalued dollar is likely to underperform, at least versus other developed market currencies. Given that Swedish inflation has been the most understated by the exclusion of owner equivalent rents, combined with the Riksbank’s intention to exit negative interest rate policy imminently, our preferred structural expression is: long SEK/USD. American inflation has outperformed European inflation for one reason and one reason only: owner equivalent rents have surged by almost 20 percent relative to other prices. Lastly, European export growth – even in Germany – has been heavily reliant on a cheapening euro (Chart I-12). Undervalued European currencies cannot fall much further, and those European exporters that depend on price competitiveness will struggle to outperform. Even those multinationals that sell their products in dollars will lose out in the accounting translation back into a strengthening domestic currency. Hence, structurally underweight price-sensitive European export sectors. Chart I-12Without A Weaker Euro, Most European Exporters Will Struggle To Outperform The one exception to this is the soft luxuries sector. Despite President Trump’s threat to tariff French products, soft luxuries retain very strong pricing power and sustainable long term demand growth from rising female labour participation rates globally. Stay structurally overweight soft luxuries. Fractal Trading System* The 65-day fractal structure of global equities suggests that they are vulnerable to a near-term countertrend move. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to short the MSCI All Country World versus the global 10-year bond (simple average of US, euro area, and China), setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2.5 percent. In other trades, long NZD/JPY and long SEK/JPY both achieved their profit targets of 3 percent and 1.5 percent respectively. Against this, long Poland versus World reached its 4 percent stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 65 percent. Chart I-13MSCI All-Country World Vs. Global 10-Year Bond When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights China’s PMIs continue to flash a positive signal, but the hard data trend remains negative. There has been a notable improvement in China’s cyclical sectors (versus defensives) over the past month, but broad equity market performance has been flat-to-down. China’s lackluster equity index performance in the face of rising PMIs suggests that investors can afford to wait for an improvement in the hard economic data before tactically upgrading to overweight. Cyclically, we continue to recommend an overweight stance towards both the investable and A-share markets versus the global benchmark, favoring the former over the latter. Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, China’s November PMIs were clearly positive, and the rise in the official manufacturing PMI above the 50 mark is notable. However, the odds continue to favor a bottoming in the economy in Q1 rather than Q4, in large part because China’s “hard” economic data has continued to deteriorate during the time that the Caixin PMI has been signaling an expansion in manufacturing activity. In this vein, China’s November update for producer prices and total imports have high potential to be market-moving, and should be closely monitored. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Within financial markets, China’s cyclical sectors have outperformed defensives, which is consistent with the positive message from China’s PMIs. But China’s broad equity markets have been flat-to-down versus the global index over the past month, suggesting that investors can afford to wait for confirmation of a hard data improvement before upgrading their tactical stance to overweight (from neutral). Cyclically, we continue to recommend an overweight stance towards both the investable and A-share markets, but favor the former over the latter in a trade truce scenario. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide below several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Both measures of the Li Keqiang index (LKI) that we track indicated no obvious improvement in Chinese economy activity in October. The BCA China Activity indicator, a broader coincident measure of China’s economy, also moved sideways in October and (for now) remains in a downtrend. Thus, based on the “hard data”, Chinese economic activity has not yet bottomed. Chart 1A Moderate Strength Economic Recovery Will Begin In Q1 The components of our LKI leading indicator continue to tell a story of easy monetary conditions and sluggish money & credit growth (Chart 1). The indicator itself remains in an uptrend, but it is a shallow one that does not match the intensity of previous credit cycles. While the uptrend in the indicator suggests that China’s economy will soon bottom, the shallow pace suggests that the coming rebound in growth will be less forceful than during previous economic recoveries. The uptrend in headline CPI is a notable macro development, with prices having risen 3.8% year-over-year in Oct (the fastest pace in almost eight years). This rise has been driven almost entirely by a surge in pork prices, which have risen over 60% relative to last year (panel 1 of Chart 2). While some investors have questioned whether the rise in headline inflation will cause the PBoC to tighten its stance at the margin, we argued with high conviction in our November 20 Weekly Report that this will not occur.1 Panel 2 of Chart 2 shows that periods of easy monetary policy line up strongly with periods of deflating producer prices, arguing that the PBoC will see through transient shocks to headline inflation. China’s October housing market data highlighted three points: housing sales are modestly improving, the pace of housing construction has again deviated from the trend in sales, and housing price appreciation is slowing in Tier 2 and Tier 3 markets. For now, we are inclined to discount the surge in floor space started, given previous divergences that proved to be unsustainable. The bigger question is whether investors should be concerned about slowing housing prices. Chart 3 shows that floor space sold and property prices have been negatively correlated over the past three years, in contrast to a previously positive relationship. Deteriorating affordability and tight housing regulations have contributed to this shift in correlation, which helps explain why the PBoC’s Pledged Supplementary Lending (PSL) program has been so closely related to housing sales over the past few years. While the growth in PSL injections is becoming less negative, it has not risen to the point that it would be associated with a strong trend in sales. As such, we continue to see poor affordability as a threat to further housing price appreciation, absent stronger funding assistance. Poor affordability will continue to be a headwind for China’s housing market. Chart 2The PBoC Will See Through Transient Shocks To Headline Inflation Chart 3Poor Affordability Will Continue To Weigh On Housing Demand Chart 4Investors Need To See Concrete Signs Of A Hard Data Improvement China’s November PMIs were quite positive, which legitimately increases the odds that China’s economy is beginning the process of recovery. However, we see two reasons to believe that the odds continue to favor a bottoming in the economy in Q1 rather than Q4. First, while they improved in November, several important elements of the official PMI remain in contractionary territory, particularly the new export orders subcomponent. Second, while the Caixin PMI has now been above the 50 mark for 4 consecutive months, China’s hard data has continued to deteriorate since the summer (Chart 4). Given the historical volatility of the Caixin PMI, we advise investors to wait for concrete signs of a hard data improvement before firmly concluding that China’s economy is recovering. Over the last month, China’s investable stock market has rallied roughly 1% in absolute terms, while domestic stocks have fallen about 3%. In relative terms, A-shares underperformed the global benchmark, while the investable market moved sideways. In our view, the underperformance of China’s domestic market reflects increased sensitivity to monetary conditions and credit growth compared with the investable market,2 and a weaker credit impulse in October appears to have been the catalyst for A-share underperformance. Over the cyclical horizon, earnings will improve in both the onshore and offshore markets in response to a modest improvement in economic activity, suggesting that an overweight stance is justified for both markets. But we think the investable market has more upside potential in a trade truce scenario. The outperformance of cyclical versus defensive sectors is sending a positive signal, but investors can afford to wait for better economic data before tactically upgrading. Chart 5A Positive Sign From Cyclicals Versus Defensives Within China’s investable stock market, it is quite notable that cyclicals have outperformed defensives over the past month on an equally-weighted basis (Chart 5). Interestingly, key defensive sectors such as investable health care and utilities have sold off significantly, and equally-weighted cyclicals have also outperformed defensives in the domestic market. The outperformance of cyclicals and underperformance of defensives is consistent with the positive message from China’s PMIs, but the fact that this improvement is occurring against the backdrop of flat-to-down relative performance for China’s equity market suggests that investors can afford to wait for confirmation of a hard data improvement before upgrading their tactical stance to overweight. In this vein, China’s November update for producer prices and total imports have high potential to be market-moving, and should be closely monitored. China’s government bond yields fell slightly in November, potentially reflecting expectations of further modest easing. Our view that monetary policy will likely remain easy over the coming year even in a modest recovery scenario suggests that Chinese interbank rates and government bond yields are likely to range-trade over the coming 6-12 months. We expect onshore corporate bonds to continue to outperform duration-matched government bonds in 2020. Chinese onshore corporate bond spreads eased modestly over the past month. Despite continued concerns about onshore corporate defaults, the yield advantage offered by onshore corporate bonds have helped the asset class generate a 5.4% year-to-date return in local currency terms. Barring a substantial intensification of the pace of defaults, we expect onshore corporate bonds to continue to outperform duration-matched government bonds in 2020. The RMB has moved sideways versus the US dollar over the last month. USD-CNY had fallen below 7 in October following the announcement of the intention to sign a “phase one” trade deal, but the move ultimately proved temporary given the deferral of an agreement. We would expect the RMB to appreciate following a deal of any kind (a truce or something more), and it is also likely to be supported next year by improving economic activity. Still, it would not be in the PBoC’s best interests to let the RMB appreciate too rapidly, because an appreciating Chinese currency would act as a deflationary force on China’s export and manufacturing sectors. As such, we expect a modest downtrend in USD-CNY over the coming year.   Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Questions From The Road: Timing The Turn," dated November 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "A Guide To Chinese Investable Equity Sector Performance," dated November 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights Economy & Inflation: The macro backdrop in Japan remains bond friendly for JGBs; growth momentum is only starting to bottom out, but will lag the recovery heralded by improving global leading economic indicators, while inflation remains closer to 0% than the BoJ's 2% target. BoJ Options: The BoJ has limited policy choices available to provide more stimulus, with negative policy rates crushing Japanese bank profitability and the central bank already owning massive amounts of JGBs and ETFs. 2020 Japan Bond Strategy: Dedicated bond investors should overweight Japan in global government bond portfolios over the next year, as a complement to an overall below-benchmark duration exposure. Expect some mild yield curve steepening pressure if the BoJ attempts to use its limited remaining policy tools, like targeting shorter maturities for its asset purchases, to try and alleviate the pressure on banks from negative rates and a flat yield curve. Feature Chart 1The Role Of Japan In Global Bond Investing Is Complex In a year where the majority of global bond markets have delivered stellar returns, Japanese fixed income performance has predictably languished in 2019 compared to the other developed economies. Despite a cyclically weak economy with very low inflation, Japanese government bond (JGB) yields have been locked in narrow ranges at or below 0% throughout the year. Monetary policy is a big reason for that, as the Bank of Japan (BoJ) has run of out of fresh stimulus options to try and push JGB yields even lower. In this Special Report, we make the case for owning JGBs as a low-beta, defensive asset in global fixed income portfolios over the next 6-12 months – a period when improving growth is expected to exert upward pressure on global bond yields, but where JGB yields are expected to remain anchored with Japan likely to lag the global upturn (Chart 1). The Japanese Growth & Inflation Backdrop Is No Threat To JGBs Japan’s economy has suffered alongside the global industrial downturn in 2019, with the Japanese manufacturing PMI struggling below 50 for seven consecutive months. Both business investment and exports have been contracting, in response to the slump in global and trade and increase in uncertainty related to the US-China tariff war. The underlying trend in consumer spending – the largest component of Japan’s economy – is more difficult to interpret, however, because of the volatility surrounding the October hike in the consumption tax. On October 1st, Japanese Prime Minister Abe’s government finally passed its long-desired hike in the consumption tax rate from 8% to 10%, in a bid to begin chipping away at Japan’s massive fiscal debt burden. The timing of the move, which had been twice delayed previously, appears ill-advised given the overall weakness in the economy. That can be seen in the response of consumer demand to the tax increase. Japanese consumers, quite rationally, front-loaded purchases in September in advance of the tax hike, but that surge was followed by a collapse in nominal retail sales in October of -14% on a month-over-month basis (Chart 2). This was much larger than the decreases seen after the previous consumption tax increases in 1997 and 2014. This may seem surprising given that the Japanese unemployment rate is a stunningly low 2.4%, suggesting a tight labor market that should be boosting wage growth and consumer confidence. Quite the opposite is happening, however, as consumer confidence is depressed and wage growth is contracting in real terms (bottom panel). Even more unusual is that real disposable income growth for Japanese households is now up to 5% (year-over-year), after stagnating for much of the previous decade. The acceleration is due to more people, especially women and senior citizens, having joined the labor force and found work – on a “per worker” basis, income growth is much less impressive and is more in line with stagnant wage growth. Therefore, unless there is clear acceleration of wages, a sustainable improvement in aggregate consumption is not expected. In the absence of an unlikely consumer boom, a pickup in global trade and manufacturing activity is a necessary requirement to stabilize the Japanese economy where the manufacturing sector is relatively larger than that of other major developed countries (20% of GDP).1 On that front, the news is getting better with the recent improvement seen in the global manufacturing PMI, global ZEW and our own global leading economic indicator (LEI). Looking at the overall conditions in Japan's manufacturing sector, however, there are still mixed signals indicating that a true bottom has been reached (Chart 3): Chart 2Challenging Times For Japanese Consumers Chart 3A Trough In Japanese Manufacturing the Markit manufacturing PMI did rise modestly in November, but remains at only 48.9 (top panel); the most recent Tankan survey from the BoJ showed that both large and small firms in the manufacturing sector expect business conditions to worsen (second panel); real capital spending growth did perk up in the third quarter in the GDP accounts, but additional gains are unlikely given the still moderate reading on manufacturing business confidence (third panel); machine tool orders continue to contract on a year-over-year basis, although the growth in domestic orders may be stabilizing; foreign orders remain depressed due to weakening Chinese demand for automotive and electronic equipment (bottom panel). Chart 4Japan"s Non-Manufacturing Sector Is Struggling Turning to the services sector, which accounts for around 80% of the Japanese economy, the data also show only moderate growth. This is mainly because demand for services is less influenced by global economic conditions, and more related to the tight labor market and rising household income growth. Even given that better fundamental backdrop, however, it is still not clear that services can drive growth in the Japanese economy in 2020 (Chart 4): Chart 5Past The Worst For Japanese Exports while the Tankan survey of large non-manufacturing firms has stayed at the same high level seen since 2014, the data for smaller firms has weakened steadily throughout 2019; the Markit services PMI index has remain solidly above the 50 boom/bust line all year long, yet overall sales for non-manufacturers contracted by -3.1% on a year-over-year basis in the third quarter of the year according to Japan’s Ministry of Finance. One potential ray of hope for Japanese growth comes from exports. While growth in total nominal exports is still contracting by –9.2% on a year-over-year basis, the recent pickup in our global LEI is heralding a potential bottoming in export momentum (Chart 5). In particular, the emerging market sub-component of our global LEI is signaling a potentially sharp pickup in demand for Japanese exports to Asia (middle panel). A similar optimistic message is given regarding Chinese demand, based on the modest improvement in the OECD China LEI (bottom panel). Yet these developments are still in the early stages and could be derailed by a breakdown of the US-China trade negotiations (not the base case scenario of BCA’s geopolitical strategists). Summing it all up, the Japanese economy remains in a fragile state after absorbing multiple blows from trade uncertainty, contracting global manufacturing activity and, more recently, an ill-timed hike in the consumption tax. While some data is showing signs of bottoming, the momentum is unlikely to be strong enough in 2020 to generate much upward pressure on Japanese bond yields. Japanese Inflation Remains A No-Show Japan remains the poster child for the global low inflation backdrop of the post-crisis decade. Even an economy with an unemployment rate near record lows can still not generate inflation sustainably above 0%. Headline CPI inflation is now at only 0.2%, while and core CPI inflation is slightly higher at 0.7% (Chart 6). The former is being dragged down by the lagged impact of lower oil prices and the stubbornly firm Japanese yen. More worrisome, however, is that services CPI inflation dipped slightly below 0% in November (middle panel), in line with the contraction seen in the domestic corporate goods prices and import prices indices (bottom panel). Chart 6Inflation Remains WELL Below The BoJ"s Target Chart 7Not A Consistent Story From Japanese Inflation Expectations Market-based inflation expectations, measured using either CPI swap rates or breakevens from inflation-linked bonds, are also hovering close to 0% (Chart 7). In a bit of a surprise, survey-based measures of inflation expectations produced by the BoJ are closer to the 2-3% range, even though realized inflation only reached that range once, on an annual calendar year basis, since 1991 – in 2014, unsurprisingly another year with a consumption tax increase. The market-based inflation indicators are more important for bond investors, however. It will take a sustained increase in realized inflation before the JGB market begins to worry about inflation again. Perhaps that can begin to happen in 2020 if Japanese and global growth improves, coming alongside some yen weakness. More likely, next year will be another year of mushy inflation readings from Japan as the economy tries to emerge from the slowdown seen in 2019 and the unnecessary tightening of fiscal policy coming from the consumption tax hike (which is likely to cause a temporary, but not sustained, blip in realized inflation rates in 2020). Bottom Line: The macro backdrop in Japan remains bond friendly for JGBs; growth momentum is only starting to bottom out, but will lag the recovery heralded by improving global leading economic indicators, while inflation remains closer to 0% than the BoJ's 2% target. There’s Not Much New The BoJ Can Do The BoJ remains in a bind with regards to future monetary policy decisions. Inflation remains far below its target, while the economy is struggling to generate above-potential growth. Yet unemployment remains exceptionally low and, by the BoJ’s own estimates, Japan’s economy is operating with no spare capacity (i.e. the output gap is a positive number). For a traditional central bank that believes in the tradeoff between spare capacity/unemployment and inflation, like the BoJ, the data is sending a very confusing message about the next policy move. Can A Weaker Yen Solve Japan’s Low Inflation Problem? Chart 8The Balance Of Payments Remains Yen-Supportive The BoJ’s job in setting the right policy to get Japanese inflation higher would be made a lot easier if the yen were not so stubbornly firm. On a trade-weighted basis, the yen is 10.1% above the low seen in 2018 and 22.9% above the 2015 low (Chart 8). This has happened despite the disappointing performance of the Japanese economy and the negative interest rates that have typically made the yen a good funding currency for global carry trades. While there has been likely been some safe-haven demand for the yen given the global growth uncertainties and sharp decline in non-Japanese bond yields in 2019, the root cause for the yen strength is more fundamental. Our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy published a Special Report last week, reviewing the balance of payments of the major global currencies.2 Going through the components for Japan, the current account balance remains firmly positive at 3.4% of GDP, despite the fact that the trade balance is now negative. The main reason for that is the steady 4% of GDP in the investment income balance – an inevitable result given Japan’s massive net foreign asset position. On the capital account side, there has been a steady increase in net foreign direct investment (FDI) outflows over the past several years, as more Japanese companies have moved productive capacity offshore (and fewer foreign companies invest in Japan). In addition, portfolio outflows have been gaining momentum with Japanese investors ramping up their purchases of foreign long term assets. Add it all up and Japan's basic balance (the current account plus net FDI) is now negative for the first time since 2015 (bottom panel). Thus, Japan’s balance of payments may now finally be in a position to generate some yen weakness that can help boost domestic inflation – if some of the uncertainties over global growth and the US-China trade negotiations begin to dissipate, as we expect in 2020. So what can the BoJ do? The BoJ has maintained a negative policy interest rate for 45 months since cutting rates below zero in February 2016. Yet according to our BoJ Monitor, there is still a need for additional monetary policy easing to combat weak growth and inflation (Chart 9). Chart 9The BoJ"s Policy Options Are Limited Interest rate markets do not expect the BoJ to do much with short-term interest rates in 2020, with only -5bps of cuts discounted in the Japanese overnight index swap (OIS) curve. BoJ officials have not outright dismissed the possibility that another rate cut could happen, but policymakers have learned that negative rates are lethal for the profits of the banking system. That can be seen in Japan, where bank profits have contracted -19.4% over the past year as negative borrowing rates have become more deeply entrenched. Other parts of the Japanese financial system, like insurance companies and pension funds that need income to meet payouts and liabilities, also suffer from negative interest rates on domestic fixed income assets. Therefore, the BoJ cutting policy rates deeper into negative territory is a very unlikely outcome, even if the economy and inflation continue to struggle, as the risks to the financial system would be worsened. So what else can the BoJ do to provide further monetary stimulus, if necessary? The choices are limited. The BoJ could alter its forward guidance to signal to the market that rates will remain low for a very long time, but that would have a limited effect with rate levels already so low. The central bank could also ramp up its pace of asset purchases, but that will also prove difficult as it owns nearly 50% of outstanding JGBS and nearly 80% of outstanding ETFs. Buying more assets would likely not generate any easier financial conditions, and would simply further disrupt the liquidity of Japan’s financial markets. A March 2019 academic study found that the impact on Nikkei 225 stock returns from the BoJ ETF buying has grown smaller over time despite the increased purchase amounts.3 Chart 10More Room For The BoJ To Buy Shorter Maturity Bonds The BoJ could lower its “Yield Curve Control” target yield for 10-year JGBs to below 0%, but that would also prove difficult as the BoJ already owns a whopping 75% of all outstanding 10-year JGBs (Chart 10) – a figure that would likely need to increase if global bond yields continue to drift higher in 2020, as we expect, forcing the BoJ to buy more 10-year JGBs to ensure that yields do not rise. A unique option might be for the BoJ to purchase foreign bonds. This would potentially help further weaken the yen, which would help increase exports and inflation. Although given the current global backdrop of populism and trade protectionism, a policy specifically designed to weaken the yen would likely not be greeted warmly by other countries. In our view, there is only one plausible option that the BoJ could consider to ease policy further in 2020 to fight low inflation – choosing a different maturity point for its Yield Curve Target. For example, instead of targeting a 10-year JGB near 0%, the BoJ could target a 5-year JGB near 0%. The BoJ owns a lower share of outstanding bonds in that part of the curve (around 45%, by our calculations). The net result could be a steeper JGB curve, which could help ease the drag on profits of the Japanese banks from negative longer-term yields and a flat curve (Chart 11). One thing is for certain: none of the conditions that we have long believed would be necessary before the BoJ would consider abandoning its yield curve target and letting yields rise – a USD/JPY exchange rate between 115 and 120; core CPI inflation and nominal wage inflation both above 1.5%; and clear signs of JGB overvaluation - are currently in place (Chart 12). The BoJ has to continue to stay accommodative, even if other central banks turn less dovish as global growth improves in 2020. Chart 11Shifting BoJ Purchases Could Generate A Steeper JGB Curve Chart 12These Must ALL Happen Before The BoJ Lifts Its JGB Yield Target   Bottom Line: The BoJ has limited policy choices available to provide more stimulus, with negative policy rates crushing Japanese bank profitability and the central bank already owning massive amounts of JGBs and ETFs. Overweight Low-Beta JGBs In Global Bond Portfolios In 2020 Chart 13Overweight Low-Beta JGBs In 2020 As we have discussed in previous reports, yield betas of developed market sovereign bonds to changes in the “global” bond yield are a good tool to use when considering fixed income country allocation decisions when yields are rising everywhere.4 We are currently recommending overweight allocations to government bonds in countries with more dovish central banks and/or where yields are low in relative terms – namely, Germany, Japan and Australia. Not by coincidence, those are also countries whose government bonds have the lowest yield betas among the major developed economies. The rolling 52-week yield betas for JGB yields to the “global” yield (defined as the yield-to-maturity of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index) is shown in Chart 13. We show the betas for different maturity “buckets” across the yield curve, and we also present the same betas for US Treasuries and German government bonds for comparison. The betas for JGBs are consistent but positive across the entire yield curve, around 0.5 or less. German yields have a similar beta at shorter maturities but a beta close to 1.0 at the longer-end of the curve. US Treasuries, to no surprise, are the highest beta market, with yield betas of 1.5 or more across the entire yield curve. The positive low beta for JGBs means that Japanese bond yields will still move in the same direction as global yields, but with far less volatility. Thus, during the period when global government bonds are rallying, low-beta markets like Japan underperform versus global benchmarks. That has been the story in 2019, when much of the world needed to ease monetary policy but Japan was already at very accommodative policy settings. When global yields are rising, however, lower beta markets should see smaller yield increases and better relative performance. That will be the story for JGBs in 2020, given the strong likelihood that Japan will lag the global economic rebound that we expect next year and the BoJ will be forced to, once again, be the most dovish central bank among the major economies. Bottom Line: Dedicated bond investors should overweight Japan in global government bond portfolios over the next year, as a complement to an overall below-benchmark duration exposure. Expect some mild yield curve steepening pressure if the BoJ attempts to use its limited remaining policy tools, like targeting shorter maturities for its asset purchases, to try and alleviate the pressure on banks from negative rates and a flat yield curve.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Based on the value added from manufacturing as % of GDP. Other countries, by comparison: China: 29%; Germany: 21%; World: 16%; US: 11%. Source: United Nations and World Bank. 2 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, “Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor” dated November 29, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3 Kimie Harada and Tatsuyoshi Okimoto, "The BOJ’s ETF Purchases and Its Effects on Nikkei 225 Stocks", RIETI Discussion Paper Series 19-E-014, March 2019. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, " Cracks Are Forming In The Bond-Bullish Narrative", dated October 23, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.

Feature Recommended Allocation In late November, BCA Research published its 2020 Outlook titled Heading Into The End Game, an annual discussion between BCA’s managing editors and the firm’s longstanding clients Mr. and Ms X.1 We recommend GAA clients read that document for a full analysis of the macro and investment environment we expect in 2020. In this Monthly Portfolio Outlook, we focus on portfolio construction: how we would recommend positioning a global multi-asset portfolio for the 12-month investment horizon in light of that analysis. First, a brief summary of the BCA macro outlook. We believe the global manufacturing cycle is starting to bottom out, partly because of its usual periodicity of 18 months from peak to trough, and also because of easier financial conditions, and some moderate fiscal and credit stimulus from China (Chart 1).  Central banks will remain dovish next year despite accelerating growth. The Fed, in particular, worries that inflation expectations have become unanchored (Chart 2) and, moreover, will be reluctant to raise rates ahead of the US presidential election. This environment implies a moderate rise in long-term interest rates, with the US 10-year Treasury yield rising to 2.2-2.5%. Chart 1Reasons To Expect A Rebound Chart 2Unanchored Inflation Expectations Worry The Fed For an asset allocator, this combination of an improving manufacturing cycle and easy monetary policy looks like a very positive environment for risk assets (Chart 3). We, therefore, remain overweight equities and underweight fixed income. We have discussed over the past few months the timing to turn more risk-on and pro-cyclical in our recommendations.2 Since we are increasingly confident about the probability of the manufacturing cycle turning up, this is the time to make that change. Consequently, the shifts we are recommending in our global portfolio, shown in the Recommended Allocation table and discussed in detail below, add to its beta (Chart 4).   Chart 3A Positive Environment For Risk Assets Chart 4Raising The Beta Of Our Portfolio Chart 5Some Signs Of Risk-On Still Missing Nonetheless, we still have some concerns. China’s stimulus (particularly credit growth) remains half-hearted compared to previous cyclical rebounds in 2012 and 2016. We expect a “phase one” ceasefire in the trade war. But even that is not certain, and it would not anyway solve the long-term structural disputes. To turn fully risk-on, we would want to see signs of a clear rebound in commodity prices and a depreciation of the US dollar, which have not yet happened (Chart 5). The 2020 Outlook proposed some milestones to monitor whether our scenario is playing out and whether we should turn more or less risk-on. We summarize these milestones in Table 1. Given these uncertainties, to hedge our pro-cyclical positioning we continue to recommend an overweight in cash, and we are instituting an overweight position in gold. Table 1Milestones For 2020 Chart 6Recessions Are Caused By Inflation Or Debt How will this cycle end? All recessions in modern history have been caused either by a sharp rise in inflation, or by a debt-fueled asset bubble (Chart 6). The Fed will likely fall behind the curve at some point as, after further tightening in the labor market, inflation starts to pick up. How the Fed reacts to that will determine what triggers the recession. If – as is most likely – it lets inflation run, that could blow up an asset bubble (and it was the bursting of such bubbles which caused the 2000 and 2007 recessions); if it decides to tighten monetary policy to kill inflation, the recession would look more like those of the 1970s and 1980s. But it is hard to see either happening over the next 12-18 months. Equities: As part of our shift to a more pro-risk, pro-cyclical stance, we are cutting US equities to underweight, and raising the euro zone to overweight, and Emerging Markets and the UK to neutral. US equities have outperformed fairly consistently since the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 7) – except during the two periods of accelerating global growth, in 2012-13 (when Europe did better) and 2016-17 (when EM particularly outperformed). The US today is expensive, particularly in terms of price/sales, which looks more expensive than the P/E ratio because the profit margin is at a record high level (Chart 8). The upside for US stocks in 2020 is likely to be limited. In 2019 so far, US equities have risen by 29% despite earnings growth close to zero. Multiples expanded because the Fed turned dovish, but investors should not assume further multiple expansion in 2020. Our rough model for US EPS growth points to around 8% next year (sales in line with nominal GDP growth of 4%, margins expanding by a couple of points, plus 2% in share buybacks). Add a dividend yield of 2%, and US stocks might give a total return of 10% or so. Chart 7US Doesn't Always Outperform Chart 8US Equities Are Expensive To play the cyclical rebound, we prefer euro zone stocks over those in EM or Japan. Euro zone stocks have a higher weighting in sectors we like such as Financials and Industrials (Table 2). European banks, in particular, look attractively valued (Chart 9) and offer a dividend yield of 6%, something investors should find appealing in this low-yield world. EM is more closely linked to China and commodities prices, which are not yet sending strong positive signals. We worry about the excess of debt in EM (Chart 10), which remains a structural headwind: the IMF and World Bank put total external EM debt at $6.8 trillion (Chart 11). Table 2Equity Sector Composition Chart 9Euro Zone Banks Are Especially Cheap Chart 10EM Debt Remains A Headwind Japan is another likely beneficiary of a cyclical recovery. But, before we turn positive, we want to see (1) signs of a stabilization of consumption after the recent tax rise (retail sales fell by 7% year-on-year in October), and (2) clarification of a worrying new investment law (which will require any investor which intends to “influence management” to get prior government approval before buying as little as a 1% stake in many sectors). For an asset allocator this combination of an improving manufacturing cycle and easy monetary policy looks very positive for risk assets. We raise the UK to neutral. The market has been a serial underperformer over the past few years, but this has been due to the weak pound and derating, rather than poor earnings growth (Chart 12). It now looks very cheap and, with the risk of a no-deal Brexit off the table, sterling should rebound further. The UK is notably overweight the sectors we like (Table 2). However, political risk makes us limit our recommendation to neutral. Although the Conservatives look likely to win a majority in this month’s general election, which will allow them to push through the negotiated Brexit deal, subsequent arguments over the future trade relationship with the EU will be divisive. Chart 116.8 Trillion In EM External Debt Chart 12The UK Has Been Derated Since 2016   Fixed Income: We remain underweight government bonds. Stronger economic growth is likely to push up long-term rates (Chart 13). Nonetheless, the rise in yields should be limited. The Fed looks to be on hold for the next 12 months, but the futures market is not far away from that view: it has priced in only a 60% probability of one rate cut over that time. The gap between market expectations and what the Fed actually does is what our bond strategists call the “golden rule of bond investing”. US inflation is also likely to soften over the next few months due to the lagged effect of this year’s weaker growth and appreciating dollar. We do not expect the 10-year US Treasury to rise above 2.5% – the current FOMC estimate of the long-run equilibrium level of short-term rates (Chart 14). Chart 13Growth Will Push Up Rates...   Chart 14...But Only As Far As 2.5%   Within the fixed-income universe, we remain positive on corporate credit. But US investment-grade bond spreads are no longer attractive and so we downgrade them to neutral (Chart 15). Investors looking for high-quality bond exposure should prefer Agency MBS, which trade on an attractive spread relative to Aa- and A-rated corporate bonds. European IG should do better since spreads are not so close to historical lows, risk-free rates should rise less than in the US, and because the ECB is increasing its purchases of corporate bonds. Chart 15US IG Spreads Are Close To Historical Lows Chart 16US Caa Bonds Have Some Catching Up To Do We continue to like high-yield bonds, both in the US and Europe. But we would suggest moving down the credit curve and increasing the weight in Caa-rated bonds. These have underperformed this year (Chart 16), mainly because of technical factors such as their overweight in the energy sector and relatively smaller decline in duration.3 With a stronger economy and rising oil prices, they should catch up to their higher-rated HY peers in 2020. To play the cyclical rebound, we prefer euro zone stocks over those in EM or Japan. Currencies: Since the US dollar is a counter-cyclical currency (Chart 17), we would expect it to weaken against more cyclical currencies such as the euro, and commodity currencies such as the Australian dollar and Canadian dollar. But it should appreciate relative to the yen and Swiss franc, which are the most defensive major currencies. We expect EM currencies to continue to depreciate. Most emerging markets are experiencing disinflation (Chart 18), which will push central banks to cut rates and inject liquidity into the banking system. This will tend to weaken their currencies. Overall, we are neutral on the US dollar. Chart 17The Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency Chart 18Disinflation Will Push EM Currencies Down Further     Commodities: Industrials metals prices are closely linked to Chinese stimulus (Chart 19). A moderate recovery in Chinese growth should be a positive, and so we raise our recommendation to neutral. But with question-marks still lingering over the strength of the rebound in the Chinese economy, we would not be more positive than that. Oil prices should see moderate upside over the next 12 months, with supply tight and demand growth recovering in line with the global economy. Our energy strategists forecast Brent crude to average $67 a barrel in 2020 (compared to a little over $60 today). Chart 19Metals Prices Depend On China Chart 20Gold: Short-Term Negatives, But Remains A Good Hedge   Gold looks a little overbought in the short term, and less monetary stimulus and a rise in rates next year would be negative factors (Chart 20). Nonetheless, we see it as a good hedge against our positive economic view going awry, and against geopolitical risks. If central banks do decide to let economies run hot next year and ignore rising inflation, gold could do particularly well. We, therefore, raise our recommendation to overweight on a 12-month horizon.     Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    Please see "Outlook 2020," dated November 22 2019, available at bcaresearch.com 2   Please see, for example, last month’s GAA Monthly Portfolio Update, “Looking For The Turning-Point,” dated November 1, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3   For a more detailed explanation, please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Signs Or Buying Opportunity,” dated 26 November 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Investors should remain overweight global stocks relative to bonds over the next 12 months and begin shifting equity exposure towards non-US markets. Bond yields will rise next year as global growth picks up, while the dollar will sell off. The extent to which bond yields increase over the long term depends on whether inflation eventually stages a comeback. Today’s high debt levels could turn out to be deflationary if they curtail spending by overstretched households, firms, and governments. However, high debt levels could also prompt central banks to engineer higher inflation in order to reduce the real burden of debt obligations. Which of these two effects will win out depends on whether central banks are able to gain traction over the economy. This ultimately boils down to whether the neutral rate of interest is positive or negative in nominal terms. While there is little that policymakers can do to alter certain drivers of the neutral rate such as the trend rate of economic growth, they do have control over other drivers such as the stance of fiscal policy. Ironically, a structural shift towards easier fiscal policy could lead to a decline in government debt-to-GDP ratios if higher inflation, together with central bankers' reluctance to raise nominal rates, pushes real rates down far enough. This suggests that the endgame for today’s high debt levels is likely to be overheated economies and rising inflation.   Stay Bullish On Stocks But Shift Towards Non-US Equities We returned to a cyclically bullish stance on global equities following the stock market selloff late last year, having temporarily moved to the sidelines in June 2018. We have remained overweight global equities throughout 2019. Two weeks ago, we increased our pro-cyclical bias by upgrading non-US stocks within our recommended equity allocation at the expense of their US peers. Our decision to upgrade non-US equities stems from the conviction that global growth has turned the corner. Manufacturing has been at the heart of the global slowdown. As we have often pointed out, manufacturing cycles tend to last about three years – 18 months of weaker growth followed by 18 months of stronger growth (Chart 1). The current slowdown began in the first half of 2018, and right on cue, the recent data has begun to improve. The global manufacturing PMI has moved off its lows, with significant gains seen in the new orders-to-inventories component. Global growth expectations in the ZEW survey have rebounded. US durable goods orders surprised on the upside in October. The regional Fed manufacturing surveys have also brightened, suggesting upside for the ISM next week (Chart 2). Chart 1A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle Chart 2Some Manufacturing Green Shoots     Unlike in 2016, China has not allowed a major reacceleration in credit growth this year. Instead, fiscal policy has been loosened significantly. The official general government deficit has increased from around 3% of GDP in mid-2018 to 6.5% of GDP at present. The augmented budget deficit – which includes spending through local government financing vehicles and other off-balance sheet expenditures – is on track to reach nearly 13% of GDP in 2019. This is a bigger deficit than during the depths of the Great Recession (Chart 3). As a result of all this fiscal easing, the combined Chinese credit/fiscal impulse has continued to move up. It leads global growth by about nine months (Chart 4). Chart 3China Has Been Stimulating, Fiscally Chart 4Chinese Stimulus Should Boost Global Growth The dollar tends to weaken when global growth strengthens (Chart 5). The combination of stronger global growth and a softer dollar will disproportionately benefit cyclical equity sectors. Financials will also gain thanks to steeper yield curves (Chart 6). The sector weights of non-US stock markets tend to be more tilted towards deep cyclicals and financials. As a consequence, non-US stocks typically outperform when global growth picks up (Chart 7). Chart 5The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 6Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials In addition, valuations favor stocks outside the US. Non-US equities currently trade at 13.8-times forward earnings, compared to 18.1-times for the US. The valuation gap is even greater if one looks at price-to-book, price-to-sales, and other measures (Chart 8). Chart 7Non-US Equities Usually Outperform When Global Growth Improves Chart 8US Stocks Are Relatively More Expensive Trade War Remains A Key Risk The US-China trade war remains a key risk to our bullish equity view. President Trump continues to send conflicting signals about the status of the talks. He complained last week that Beijing is not “stepping up” in finalizing a phase 1 agreement, adding that China wants a deal “much more than I do.” This Wednesday he struck a more optimistic tone, saying that negotiators were in the “final throes” of deal. However, he made this statement on the same day that he decided to sign the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act into law, a decision that was bound to antagonize China. According to our BCA geopolitical team, Trump had little choice but to sign the bill. The Senate approved it unanimously, while the House voted for it 417-1. Failure to sign it would have resulted in an embarrassing veto by the Senate. The key point is that the new law does not force Trump to take any immediate actions against China. This suggests that the trade talks will continue. In fact, from China's point of view, Congress’ desire to pass a Hong Kong bill may provide a timely reminder that getting a deal done with Trump now may be preferable to waiting until after the election and potentially facing someone like Elizabeth Warren who is likely to make human rights a key element of any deal to roll back tariffs. Waiting For Inflation If global growth accelerates next year, history suggests that bond yields will rise (Chart 9). Looking further out, the extent to which bond yields will continue to increase depends on whether inflation ultimately stages a comeback. Right now, most of our forward-looking inflationary indicators remain well contained (Chart 10). However, this could change if falling unemployment eventually triggers a price-wage spiral. Chart 9Stronger Economic Growth Will Put Upward Pressure On Government Bond Yields Chart 10An Inflation Breakout Is Not Imminent     Many investors are skeptical that such a price-wage spiral could ever emerge. They argue that automation, globalization, weak trade unions, and demographic changes make an inflationary outburst rather implausible. We have addressed these arguments in the past1 and will not delve into them in this report. Instead, we will focus on one argument that also gets a fair bit of attention, which is that high debt levels will prove to be deflationary. Are High Debt Levels Inflationary Or Deflationary? Total debt levels in developed economies are no lower today than they were during the Great Recession. While private debt has fallen, public debt has risen by roughly the same magnitude, leaving the overall debt-to-GDP ratio unchanged (Chart 11). Meanwhile, debt levels in emerging markets have risen substantially. A common rebuttal to any suggestion that inflation might rise over the medium-to-longer term is that high debt levels around the world will cause households, firms, and governments to pare back spending. While this may be true, it could also be argued that high debt levels could prompt central banks to engineer higher inflation in order to reduce the real burden of debt obligations. So which effect will win out? Given the choice, it is likely that most policymakers would opt for higher inflation. This is partly because high unemployment and fiscal austerity are politically toxic. It is also because falling prices make it very difficult to reduce real debt burdens. The experience of the Great Depression bears this out: Private debt declined by 25% in absolute terms between 1929 and 1933. However, due to the collapse in nominal GDP, the ratio of debt-to-GDP actually increased more in the first half of the 1930s than during the Roaring Twenties (Chart 12). Chart 11Global Debt Levels Remain High Chart 12The Experience Of The Great Depression Shows Deleveraging Is Impossible Without Growth   Means, Motive And Opportunity Chart 13A Kinked Relationship: It Takes Time For Inflation To Break Out There is a big difference between wanting to engineer higher inflation and being able to do so. The distinction between success and failure ultimately boils down to a seemingly technical question: Is the neutral rate of interest – the interest rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation – positive or negative in nominal terms? When the neutral rate is above zero, central banks can gain traction over the economy. Even if the neutral rate is only slightly positive, a zero rate would be enough to keep monetary policy in expansionary territory. When monetary policy is accommodative, the unemployment rate will tend to drop. Eventually the “kink” in the Phillips curve will be reached, resulting in higher inflation (Chart 13). In contrast, when the neutral rate is firmly below zero, monetary policy loses traction over the economy. Since there is a limit to how deeply negative policy rates can go before people decide to hold cash, the central bank could find itself out of ammunition. This could set off a vicious circle where high unemployment causes inflation to drift lower, leading to an increase in real rates. Rising real rates will then further curb spending, causing inflation to fall even more. Drivers Of The Neutral Rate Two of the more important determinants of the neutral rate of interest are the growth rate of the economy and the national savings rate. If either the savings rate rises or economic growth slows, the stock of fixed capital will tend to pile up in relation to GDP, leading to a higher capital-to-output ratio.2 As Chart 14 shows, this has already happened in Europe and Japan. An increase in the capital-to-GDP ratio will drag down the rate of return on capital. A lower interest rate will be necessary to ensure that the capital stock is fully utilized. Chart 14Capital Stock-To-Output Ratios Have Risen Realistically, there is not much that policymakers can do to raise trend GDP growth. While looser immigration policy would allow for a faster expansion of labor force growth, this is politically contentious. Increasing productivity growth is also easier said than done. Fiscal Policy And The Neutral Rate In contrast, policymakers already have a ready-made mechanism for lowering the savings rate: fiscal policy. The fiscal balance is a component of national savings. If the government runs a larger budget deficit in order to finance tax cuts or higher transfer payments to households, national savings will decline and aggregate demand will rise. Is the endgame for today’s high debt levels deflation or inflation? The answer is inflation. Since one can think of the neutral rate as the interest rate that brings aggregate demand in line with the economy’s supply-side potential, anything that raises demand will also lift the neutral rate. Once the neutral rate has risen above the zero bound, monetary policy will gain traction again. This implies that central banks should never run out of ammunition in countries whose governments can issue debt in their own currencies. While higher inflation stemming from fiscal stimulus will erode the real value of private sector debt obligations, won’t the impact on total debt be offset by the increase in public debt? Not necessarily. True, larger budget deficits will raise the stock of government debt. However, nominal GDP will also rise on account of higher inflation. Standard debt sustainability equations state that the government debt-to-GDP ratio could actually fall if higher inflation pushes real policy rates down far enough. As discussed in Box 1, such an outcome is quite likely when inflation accelerates in response to an overheated economy, but the central bank nevertheless refrains from raising nominal rates. The Final Verdict We are finally ready to answer the question posed in the title of this report: Is the endgame for today’s high debt levels deflation or inflation? The answer is inflation. People with a 30-year fixed rate mortgage will always favor inflation over deflation. And there are more voters who owe mortgage debt than own mortgage debt. Chart 15Germany's Competitive Advantage Over The Rest Of The Euro Area Is Deteriorating Politics is moving in a more populist direction. Whether it is left-wing populism of the Elizabeth Warren/Jeremy Corbyn variety or right-wing populism of the Donald Trump/Matteo Salvini variety, the result is usually bigger budget deficits and higher inflation. Even in those countries where populism has been slow to take hold, there may be pragmatic reasons for loosening fiscal policy. For example, Germany’s trade surplus with the rest of the euro area has fallen in half since 2007, largely because German unit labor costs have increased more than elsewhere (Chart 15). As Germany loses its ability to ship excess production to the rest of the world, it may end up having to rely more on easier fiscal policy to bolster demand. Of course, the path to higher inflation is paved with interest rates that stay lower for much longer than the economy needs to reach full employment. This means we are entering a period where first the US economy, and then many other economies, will start to overheat, and yet central banks will still refrain from tightening monetary policy until inflation rises well above their comfort zones. Such an environment will be positive for stocks for as long as it lasts, even if it eventually produces a mighty hangover.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Box 1 When Does A Large Budget Deficit Lead To A Lower Government Debt-to-GDP Ratio?   Footnotes 1    Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2),” dated August 24, 2018. 2   This point can be seen through the lens of the widely used Solow growth model. In steady state, the desired level of investment in the model is given by the formula: I=(a/r)(n+g+d)Y where a denotes the output elasticity of capital, r is the real rate of interest, n is labor force growth, g is productivity growth, d is the depreciation rate, and Y is GDP. Savings is assumed to be a constant fraction of income, S=sY. Equating savings with investment yields: r=(a/s)(n+g+d). A decrease in the growth rate of the economy (n+g) shifts the investment schedule downward, leading to a lower equilibrium rate of interest. This initially makes investing in fixed capital more attractive than buying bonds. Over time, however, the marginal return on capital will fall as the capital stock expands in relation to GDP.    Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights Building on a previous special report focused on the investable market, in this report we construct and present models designed to predict the odds of Chinese domestic equity sector outperformance. BCA Research's China Investment Strategy service will aim to use our newly developed sector outperformance probability models to better understand the drivers of performance at any given moment, and to make more active equity sector recommendations in the future. Episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) than has been the case for the investable market, suggesting that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. Among the predictors included in our model, our Li Keqiang leading indicator (based on monetary conditions, money, and credit growth) has been the most important. Our base case view argues in favor of domestic cyclicals over defensives over the coming year, but recent sector performance suggests that domestic consumer discretionary and tech should be favored within a cyclical equity portfolio over energy, materials, and industrials barring a surge in oil prices or a capitulation by Chinese policymakers in favor of “flood irrigation-style” stimulus. Over the long-term, we argue that investors have a good reason to favor domestic defensives over cyclicals until the latter demonstrates meaningfully better earnings performance. Feature We examined China’s investable equity sector performance in detail in our October 30 Special Report,1 with a particular emphasis on understanding the specific macroeconomic or equity market factors that have historically predicted relative sector performance. In today’s report, we extend our approach to China’s A-share market. Our research focused on constructing and presenting models that quantify a checklist-based approach to determining the odds of equity sector performance. The aim is to use these models to better understand the drivers of performance at any given moment, and to make more active equity sector recommendations in the future. These recommendations will not mechanically follow the models; rather, we plan to use them as a stand in for what typically would be expected given the macro and financial market environment, and as a basis to investigate “abnormal” relative performance. We find that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) that has been the case for the investable market, suggesting that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. Among the macroeconomic and equity market factors that we found to be important predictors, our Li Keqiang leading indicator was the most significant. This confirms that China’s domestic market is more sensitive to monetary conditions, money, and credit growth than its investable peer. We also note the sharp difference in the relative performance of cyclicals versus defensives in the domestic market compared with the investable market, and what this means for investors over the coming 6-12 months. Finally, we argue that investors should maintain a structural bias towards defensive stocks in the domestic market until cyclicals demonstrate meaningfully better earnings performance, and point to an existing position in our trade book for investors interested in strategically allocating to the A-share market. Detailing Our Approach In our effort to better understand historical periods of domestic sector performance, we have chosen to model the probability of outperformance of each level 1 GICS sector (plus banks) based on a set of macro and equity market variables. Specifically, we use an analytical tool called a logistic regression, which forecasts the probability of a discrete event rather than forecasting the value of a dependent variable. We utilized this approach when building our earnings recession model for China (first presented in our January 16 Special Report).2 The “events” that we modeled are historical periods of individual Chinese investable sector outperformance from 2010 to 2018, relative to the MSCI China index (the “broad market”). We find that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) than has been the case for the investable market. Chart I-1A and Chart I-1B illustrate these periods with shading in each panel. We then attempt to explain these episodes of outperformance with the following macro predictors: Chart I-1AThis Report Builds Models ##br##Aimed At... Chart I-1B...Predicting The Shaded Regions Of These Charts Periods of accelerating economic activity, represented by our BCA's China Activity Index Periods of rising leading indicators of economic activity, represented by our BCA Li Keqiang (LKI) Leading Indicator Episodes of tight monetary policy, defined as periods where China’s 3-month interbank repo rate is rising Periods of accelerating inflation, measured both by headline and core inflation We also include several equity market variables: uptrends in relative sector earnings, periods of rising broad market stock prices, uptrends in broad market earnings, and episodes of extreme technical conditions and relative over/undervaluation for the sector in question. In the case of energy stocks, we also include oil prices as a predictor. Chart I-2A and Chart I-2B illustrate these periods as well as the macro & market variables that we have included as predictors. Chart I-2AWe Use These Macroeconomic And Equity Market Factors... Chart I-2B...To Predict Periods Of Equity Sector Outperformance Our approach also accounts for the existence of any leading or lagging relationships between the macro and market variables we have used as predictors and sector relative performance. In most cases the predictors lead relative sector performance, but in some cases it is the opposite. In the case of the latter, we have limited the lead of any variable in our models to three months in order to reduce the need to forecast. Finally, our approach also limits the extent to which we consider a leading relationship between our predictors and relative sector performance, in order to avoid picking up overlapping economic cycles. This issue, and the evidence supporting the existence of a 3½-year credit cycle in China, is detailed in Box I-1 of our October 30 Special Report (please see footnote 1). Key Drivers Of Sector Performance: Domestic Versus Investable Pages 11-22 present the results of each sector’s outperformance probability model, along with a list of factors that were found to be useful predictors and a summary of the results. The importance of the factors included in the models is shown in each of the tables at the top right of pages 11-22 by a score of 1-3 stars, (loosely representing key levels of statistical significance) as well as each factor’s optimal lead or lag. A minus sign shows that the predictor leads sector relative performance, whereas a plus sign shows that it lags. Following a review of our domestic equity sector outperformance models, differences in the results from those presented in our previous report can be organized into three distinct elements: 1) the breadth of macro & equity market factors in predicting sector performance, 2) the relative importance of our LKI leading indicator, and 3) the difference between domestic/investable cyclical versus defensive performance. The Breath Of Predictive Factors Chart I-3In The Domestic Market, The Breadth Of Predictive Factors Is Narrower Compared with the models for investible sector performance that we detailed in our previous report, our work modeling domestic equity sector performance highlights that the breadth of predictive factors is narrower, particularly among cyclical sectors (Chart I-3). Our model for domestic materials (shown on page 12) is one exception to this rule, but we found that our models for energy, industrial, and consumer discretionary relative performance were all focused on fewer predictors than is the case for the investable market. In addition, our domestic utilities model has considerably worse predictive power than our model for investable utilities. The case of industrials is particularly notable: our model for investable industrials highlighted the importance of tight monetary policy, rising core inflation, rising broad market stock prices & earnings, and overbought and oversold technical conditions in explaining past periods of industrial sector outperformance. By contrast, our domestic industrials model is quite simple: the sector has been more likely to outperform, with a lag, when our BCA China Activity Index and LKI leading indicator have been rising, and underperform following periods of extreme overvaluation. One of the core conclusions of our previous report was that investors should view the relative performance of investable industrials versus consumer staples as a reflationary barometer, given the strong sensitivity of both sectors to tight monetary policy. We explained this sensitivity by pointing to the substantial difference in corporate health between the two sectors: industrial firms are heavily debt-laden and thus experience deteriorating operating performance and an environment of rising interest rates. In comparison, food and beverage firms appear to have the strongest balance sheets among the sub-sectors that we have examined, suggesting that they would benefit less from easier monetary conditions than firms in other industries. Our leading indicator for Chinese economic activity has been considerably more important in predicting domestic equity sector outperformance than in the investable market. However, these dynamics appear to be completely absent in influencing performance in China’s domestic equity market. Not only has domestic industrial sector relative performance not been negatively linked to periods of tight monetary policy, but our model for consumer staples (shown on page 15) highlights that periods of staples performance have been driven by two simple factors: the relative trend in staples EPS  (positive sign), and the trend in broad market EPS (negative sign). The Relative Importance Of Monetary Conditions, Money, And Credit Growth Chart I-4 summarizes the significance of the factors in predicting sector performance in general, by summing up each predictor’s number of stars across all of the models. The chart shows that our LKI leading indicator is the most important signal of sector performance that emerged from our analysis, followed by rising core inflation, rising broad market stock prices, rising economic activity, and oversold technical conditions. The ranking of results shown in Chart I-4 is fairly similar to those that we listed for the investable market, with two exceptions. First, for the domestic market, periods of tight monetary policy were considerably less important than in the investable market as an important predictor of relative sector performance. Instead, our LKI leading indicator was by far the most important predictor, which underscores a point that we have made in previous reports: domestic stocks appear to be much more sensitive to the trend in monetary conditions, money, and credit growth than for the investable market. This increased sensitivity has helped explain the difference in performance this year between the investable and domestic market, underscoring that the former has more catch-up potential than the latter in a trade truce scenario. Chart I-4Monetary Conditions, Money, & Credit Growth Drive A-Share Performance Second, in the investable market, episodes of significant overvaluation had essentially no power to predict future episodes of equity market underperformance. But this factor was an important or very important contributor to our domestic industrials, health care, and tech models. This finding is consistent with our May 23 Special Report, which noted that value stocks have outperformed in China’s domestic equity market over the past five years and underperformed in the investable market (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Value Has Been A More Successful ##br##Factor In The Domestic Market   Major Differences In The Performance Of Cyclicals Versus Defensives The results of our models for domestic equity sector performance did not change the cyclical & defensive labels that we applied in our previous report. The signs of the predictors shown in the tables on pages 11-22 clearly highlight that the domestic energy, materials, industrials consumer discretionary, and information technology sectors are cyclical sectors, and that consumer staples, health care, financials, telecom services, utilities, and real estate are defensive. What is striking, however, is that there is a major difference in the relative performance of equally-weighted domestic cyclicals versus defensives compared with what has occurred in the investable market over the past decade. Chart I-6A and Chart I-6B illustrate the different relative performance trends, along with their corresponding trends in relative P/E and relative EPS. Whereas the relative performance of investable cyclicals versus defensives has had somewhat of a stable mean over the past decade, domestic cyclicals have badly underperformed since early-2011. The charts also make it clear that this underperformance has been driven by a downtrend in relative EPS, not due to trend differences in relative valuation. Chart I-6ACyclicals/Defensives Somewhat Mean-Reverting In The Investable Market... Chart I-6B...But Not So In The Domestic##br## Market Digging further, it appears that this discrepancy can be largely explained by the significant difference in performance between investable and domestic tech over the past decade (Chart I-7). Whereas the former has outperformed the overall investable index by roughly 4-5 times since 2010, the relative performance of the latter has only very modestly risen. In effect, Charts I-6 and I-7 highlight that Chinese cyclical sectors have been structurally impaired over the past decade and have only been “saved” in the investable market by massive outsized outperformance of the tech sector. The fact that investable tech sector performance itself has been largely driven by 2 extremely successful firms underscores how narrowly based the investible cyclical versus defensives performance trend has been. Chart I-7A Huge Gap In Tech Explains Domestic Cyclical Underperformance Investment Conclusions There are three conclusions that investors can draw from our analysis. First, our research shows that episodes of domestic equity sector outperformance over the past decade appear to be more idiosyncratic (or sector specific) that has been the case for the investable market. This does not mean that domestic sector performance is not significantly impacted by macro and top down equity market factors, but it suggests that periods of “abnormal” relative sector performance may occur more frequently than in the investable universe. As such, investors should be prepared to include episode-specific investigation of abnormal performance as a regular part of their domestic equity sector allocation decisions. Investors should favor domestic cyclicals over the coming year, with exposure focused on consumer discretionary and tech. Second, the fact that our LKI leading indicator is in an uptrend suggests that investors should favor domestic cyclicals over defensives over the coming year, with a caveat. We have noted in several previous reports that our indicator is in a shallow uptrend, and the slower pace of money and credit growth than during previous economic upswings suggests that the bar may be higher for some cyclical sectors to outperform. We would advise investors to watch closely over the coming 3-6 months for signs of a technical breakout in all cyclical sectors. But sector performance in Q1 of this year, when the overall A-share market rose sharply versus global stocks, suggests that domestic consumer discretionary and tech should be favored within a cyclical equity portfolio over energy, materials, and industrials barring a surge in oil prices or a capitulation by Chinese policymakers in favor of “flood irrigation-style” stimulus (Chart I-8). Within resources, we prefer the investable energy sector to its domestic peer, due to a sizeable valuation advantage. Chart I-8Favor Select Domestic Cyclical Sectors Over The Coming Year As a third and final point, abstracting from our bullish outlook for select cyclical sectors over the coming year, Charts 6 and 7 clearly argue for investors to maintain a structural bias towards defensive stocks in the domestic market until cyclicals demonstrate meaningfully better earnings performance. In the May 23 Special Report that we referred to above, we noted that an A-share portfolio formed of industry groups with above-median return on equity and below-median ex-post beta has significantly outperformed over the past decade. Table I-1 presents the current industry group weights of this portfolio, and shows that overweight exposure is concentrated in the health care, consumer staples, and real estate sectors (all of which are defensive), and a heavy underweight towards industrials. Table I-1Current High ROE / Low Beta Factor Industry Group Portfolio Weights* For clients who are interested in strategically allocating to the A-share market, we maintain a long position in this portfolio relative to the MSCI China A Onshore index in our trade book, and plan to continue to update the performance of the trade on a weekly basis. Energy Chart II-1 Table II-1 Similar to the investable energy sector, periods of domestic energy sector outperformance are strongly positively related to rising oil prices and rising headline inflation in China. We noted in our previous report that this is a behavioral relationship, rather than a fundamental one. Domestic energy stocks are negatively associated with rising broad market stock prices, unlike their investable peers. This largely reflects the fact that the relative performance of domestic energy stocks has been in a structural downtrend over the past decade. From 2010 to mid-2016, this decline was caused by a persistent underperformance in earnings. Since mid-2016, domestic energy sector EPS have been rising in relative terms, meaning that more recent underperformance has been due to multiple contractions. While not as relatively cheap as their investable peers, domestic energy stocks are heavily discounted versus the broad domestic market based on both the price/earnings ratio and the dividend yield. Consequently, it is possible that domestic energy stocks may at some point begin to outperform in a rising broad equity market environment. For now, our model argues for an underweight stance towards domestic energy due to the lack of a clear uptrend in oil prices. As a pure value play, investable energy stocks maintain a dividend yield of nearly 6.5%, and are thus more attractive than their domestic peers. Materials Chart II-2 Table II-2 Our model for the domestic materials highlights that the sector’s performance has been related to strengthening economic activity and strongly related to a rising Li Keqiang leading indicator. Among the equity market variables that we tested, materials outperformance has been positively associated with rising relative EPS, rising broad market EPS, and prior oversold technical conditions. Similarly, the investable materials sector, these results show that domestic materials are a strong play on accelerating Chinese economic activity. The factors included in our domestic materials sector model are similar to those included in our investable material, except that relative material earnings have also been a significant predictor of sector relative performance. In addition, the macro & equity market predictors included in our domestic materials model have done a better job of leading material sector performance. The odds of domestic materials outperformance rose twice above the 50% mark this year according to our model, without any corresponding improvement in relative stock prices. The spikes in the model occurred largely because domestic materials became significantly oversold; technical conditions for the sector have only twice been weaker over the past decade. This underscores that investors should be watching domestic materials closely in Q1 of next year for signs of a relative rebound. Industrials Chart II-3 Table II-3 The results of our model for domestic industrial sector outperformance are interesting, as they imply that the drivers of performance are different between the domestic and investable markets. In the investable index, we found that industrials were heavily sensitive to monetary policy, rising core inflation, relative sector earnings, and periods of rising broad market stock prices. Our domestic model is considerably simpler: industrials outperform, with a lag, when our activity index and Li Keqiang leading indicator are rising. Periods of strong overvaluation have also been significant in predicting future episodes of domestic industrial sector underperformance. It is not clear to us why the drivers of relative performance for domestic industrials have been different than in the investable equity index, But the good news is that the relative simplicity of the model makes the investment decision making process for domestic industrials considerably easier. Today, domestic industrials are significantly undervalued, and our Li Keqiang leading indicator is in a shallow uptrend. This suggests that domestic industrials are likely to begin outperforming at some point in early-2020 following a bottoming in Chinese economic activity, unless policymakers are quick to tighten once activity begins to improve (which would be contrary to our expectations). Consumer Discretionary Chart II-4 Table II-4 Our domestic consumer discretionary model highlights that the sector’s relative performance is positively associated with a rising Li Keqiang leading indicator, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Similar to its investable peers, domestic consumer discretionary stocks are cyclical, and positive relationship with core inflation may reflect improved pricing power for the sector. Unlike investable consumer discretionary, the domestic consumer discretionary has not been meaningfully impacted by the December 2018 changes to the global industry classification standard. Hence, our model does not exclude the internet & direct marketing retail sector as we did in our previous report on investable sectors. For now, our model suggests that the domestic consumer discretionary sector is likely to continue to underperform, given decelerating core inflation and the lack of a clear uptrend in the broad domestic equity index. However, as a cyclical sector, we will be watching closely for an upside breakout in domestic consumer discretionary performance in the first quarter as a signal to increase exposure to the sector. Consumer Staples Chart II-5 Table II-5 Our domestic consumer staples model is significantly different than that shown in our previous report for investable staples. This reflects sizeable differences in investable/domestic staples relative performance over the past decade, particularly from mid-2015 to late-2017 (where domestic staples outperformed significantly and investable staples languished). Of the two predictors found to be significant in explaining historical periods of domestic staples performance, a negative relationship with the trend in broad market EPS has been the most important. This underscores that staples are defensive sector. The trend in staples relative earnings has closely followed in importance, showing that the tremendous outperformance in domestic consumer staples over the past several years has, at least in part, been driven by fundamentals. Still, domestic consumer staples are currently priced at 34x earnings per share, compared with 15x for the overall domestic market. While our model currently argues for continued staples outperformance, the risk of a valuation mean reversion next year, against the backdrop of an improving economy, is above average. Over the coming 6-12 months, investors should be closely monitoring domestic staples for signs of waning earnings momentum and/or a major technical breakdown as potential signals to reduce domestic staples exposure. Health Care Chart II-6 Table II-6 Over the past decade, periods of domestic health care outperformance have been negatively associated with rising economic activity, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Oversold technical conditions and periods of overvaluation have also helped predict future episodes of health care relative performance. These factors clearly point to the defensive nature of domestic health care, similar to health care stocks in the investable index. However, one clear difference between investable and domestic health care is that the former appears to have leading properties and the latter does not. We noted in our previous report that periods of investable health care underperformance appeared to lead, on average, our BCA Activity Index, periods of rising core inflation, and uptrends in the broad investable index. By contrast, domestic health care lags the Activity Index and core inflation by just over a year, and also lags the trend in broad market EPS. Our model points to further health care outperformance, but we would expect domestic health care stocks to underperform at some point next year following an improvement in economic activity and a resumed uptrend in broad domestic EPS. Financials Chart II-7 Table II-7 Our outperformance probability model for domestic financials highlights that the sector is countercyclical: periods of outperformance have been negatively related to our LKI leading indicator, rising core inflation, and rising broad market stock prices. Similar to the case of the investable index and unlike the case globally, financials are clearly defensive. Investable financials have exhibited atypical performance this year according to the model presented in our previous report. By contrast, domestic financials have performed in line with what our model has suggested: our LKI leading indicator is in a shallow uptrend, and the relative performance of domestic financials has trended flat-to-down since late-2018. Barring a major shift by the PBoC towards a hawkish stance in the coming year (which we do not expect), our base case view for the Chinese economy implies that domestic financials are likely to continue to underperform. Banks Chart II-8 Table II-8 Our model for domestic banks is similar to that of financials, with some important differences. In addition to being sensitive to our LKI leading indicator, domestic bank performance is negatively related to our Activity Index. Oversold technical conditions have also been quite important in predicting future episodes of domestic bank outperformance. The model is currently forecasting domestic bank underperformance, although it was late in predicting the selloff in bank stocks that began late last year. Similar to the case for domestic financials, our baseline view for the Chinese economy implies that domestic bank are likely to continue to underperform over the coming year. Information Technology Chart II-9 Table II-9 Our model for the domestic technology sector is different than that of investable tech, which reflects the vast difference in performance between the two sectors. While the relative performance of domestic tech has trended sideways over the past decade, investable tech stock prices have risen fourfold relative to the broad investable index. This difference is largely accounted for by the absence of the BAT stocks (Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent) from the domestic market. Similar to investable tech, domestic technology stocks are negatively related to tight monetary policy, and positively linked with a pro-cyclical economic variable (a rising LKI leading indicator). However, strangely, domestic tech has been strongly and negatively related to rising headline inflation, a finding with no clear fundamental basis. The model has been less successful in predicting domestic tech performance over the past year than in the past, which appears to be linked to the inclusion of headline inflation in the model. Rising headline inflation has been clearly associated with three major episodes of domestic tech underperformance since 2010, but over the past year domestic tech has outperformed as headline inflation accelerated. For now we would advise investors to focus on the other factors in the model: the lack of overvaluation, and our view that policy will remain easy on a measured basis, supports an overweight stance towards domestic tech over the coming year. Telecom Services Chart II-10 Table II-10 Our domestic telecom services relative performance model highlights that the sector is defensive like its investable peer, but the factors driving performance are somewhat different. The only similarity between the two models is that periods of outperformance are negatively related to rising broad market stocks prices for both investable and domestic telecom services, with domestic telecom stocks responding with a lag. Among the macro factors included in the model, periods of domestic telecom services outperformance are negatively and coincidently related to our LKI leading indicator, and positively related to tight monetary policy (with a slight lead). Oversold technical conditions have also proven to help predict future episodes of outperformance. The model failed to predict a brief period of outperformance in mid-2018, but has generally accurately predicted underperformance of domestic telecom stocks since early-2017. Barring a collapse in the US/China trade talks or considerably weaker near-term economic conditions than we expect, domestic telecom services will likely continue to underperform until the specter of tighter monetary policy emerges. This is unlikely to occur until the middle of 2020, at the earliest. Utilities Chart II-11 Table II-11 Overall, our domestic utilities model has considerably worse predictive power than our model for investable utilities. The model shows that the performance of domestic utilities is negatively related to rising core inflation (with a lag) and rising broad market EPS, but these relationships are not particularly strong. We noted in our June 19 Special Report that domestic utilities ranked highly on the impact that relative EPS had on predicting relative stock prices , yet relative sector earnings did not register as a significant predictor in our model. This apparent discrepancy is resolved by differences in the time horizon between these two approaches. The analysis that we presented in our June 19 Special Report examined the relationship between earnings and stock prices over the entire sample period (2011-2018), meaning that it examined the predictive power of earnings over the long-term. The models built in this report have focused strongly on explaining periods of outperformance over a 6-12 month time horizon, there have been enough deviations in the trend between the relative performance of utilities and relative utilities earnings that the relationship between the two was not sufficiently strong to show up in the model. In other words, the long-term link between utilities relative earnings and stock prices is strong, but the short-term link is fairly weak. Real Estate Chart II-12 Table II-12 Similar to investable real estate, our model shows that domestic real estate is a counter-cyclical sector in that it is negatively related to periods of rising economic activity, a rising LKI leading indicator, tight monetary policy, and rising core inflation. Overbought technical conditions have also aided in predicting future episodes of domestic real estate underperformance. Our model for domestic real estate stocks has performed quite well on average, but its predictive success since late-2017 has been mixed. This period of atypical underperformance has coincided with a considerably weaker rebound in residential floor space sold than has occurred in previous recoveries in the real estate market. This suggests that domestic real estate stocks are more susceptible to trends in housing sales than their investable peers (which appear to be mostly sensitive to rising house prices). We noted in our November 6 Weekly Report that floor space sold is picking up , but it still remains weak when compared with history. This, in combination with our view that the Chinese economy will improve over the coming year, suggests that investors should avoid domestic real estate exposure relative to the overall domestic equity market. Footnotes 1  Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "A Guide To Chinese Investable Equity Sector Performance," dated October 30, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2  Please see China Investment Strategy "Six Questions About Chinese Stocks," dated January 16, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3  Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Chinese Equity Sector Earnings: Predictability, Cyclicality, And Relevance," dated June 19, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4  Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China Macro And Market Review," dated November 6, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Mr. X and his daughter, Ms. X, are long-time BCA clients who visit our office toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: I have been eagerly looking forward to this meeting given my many concerns about the outlook. Our portfolio has done well in the past year thanks to the surge in bond prices and the outperformance of defensive equities. However, I am deeply troubled by the amount of monetary stimulus required to support risk assets, and by how expensive bonds and equities are. Moreover, the global economy remains engulfed in deflationary risks, and policymakers are running out of ammunition. As always, there is much to talk about. Ms. X: Let me add that I am also pleased to once again be here to discuss the major risks and opportunities in the global marketplace. A year ago, I held a more positive market view than my father. Directly after our meeting, the deep market correction gave me second thoughts, but ultimately, the rebound in stock prices vindicated my view. Clearly, your assertion that markets would be turbulent proved correct. Since I joined the family firm in early 2017, I have been pushing my father to keep a higher equity exposure than he was normally comfortable with. We agreed to still favor stocks last year, albeit, with a bias toward defensive sectors, and this strategy paid off. But after the past year’s powerful rally in both bonds and stocks, we are again left wondering how to position our portfolio. Ultimately, I do not believe a recession is imminent. Yes, stocks are expensive, but bonds are even more so. Since I expect economic growth to pick up, I am inclined to tilt the portfolio further into equities and move away from our preference for defensive sectors. As usual, I am very interested to hear your views. BCA: Our core theme for 2019 was that we would face classic late-cycle turbulence. Despite this volatility, a run-up in asset prices was likely. Soon after we met, the stock market plunged, hitting a low on December 26, 2018. We anticipated the Federal Reserve to be much more hawkish than what actually transpired. Wage growth and even core inflation have remained firm in the US, but the weakness in global inflation expectations drove central banks’ reaction functions more powerfully than we anticipated. Moreover, the rapid escalation of the Sino-US trade war added a layer of uncertainty that exacerbated the economic slowdown that had started in mid-2018, forcing global central banks to ease policy as an indemnity against recession. Looking ahead, central bankers are highly unlikely to tighten monetary policy as long as inflation expectations remain below their normal range consistent with a 2% inflation target. We agree that the odds of a US recession in the coming year are still low because financial conditions are set to remain accommodative, Chinese authorities are setting policy to shore up growth, and a trade truce is likely. Global economic activity will rebound in early 2020. Instead, the most probable timeframe for a broad based recession is late 2021/early 2022. As a result, we remain positive on risk assets, especially foreign stocks. We are also underweighting bonds as they offer extremely poor absolute and relative value. Mr. X: I can see we will have a lively discussion because I do not share your or my daughter’s optimism. My list of concerns is long, I hope we have time to get through them all. But first, let’s briefly review your predictions from last year. BCA: This exercise is always interesting and often humbling, too. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: Tensions between policy and markets would be an ongoing theme in 2019. With the US unemployment rate at a 48-year low, it would take a significant slowdown for the Fed to stop hiking rates. Ultimately, the Fed would deliver more hikes in 2019 than discounted in the markets. This would push up the dollar and keep the upward trend in Treasury yields intact. The dollar would peak in mid-2019. China would also become more aggressive in stimulating its economy, which would boost global growth. However, until both of these things happened, emerging markets would remain under pressure. We favored developed market equities over their EM peers. We also preferred defensive equity sectors such as healthcare and consumer staples over cyclical sectors such as industrials and materials. Within the developed market universe, the US would outperform Europe and Japan over the next few quarters, especially in dollar terms. Stabilization in global growth would ignite a blow off rally in global equities. If the Fed was raising rates in response to falling unemployment, it would be unlikely to derail the stock market. However, once supply-side constraints began to bite fully in early 2020 and inflation began to rise well above the Fed’s target of 2%, stocks would begin to buckle. This would mean that a window would exist in 2019 for stocks to outperform bonds. We would maintain a benchmark allocation to stocks, but increase exposure if global bourses were to fall significantly from then (late 2018) current levels without a corresponding deterioration in the economic outlook. Corporate credit would underperform stocks as government bond yields rise. A major increase in credit spreads was unlikely as long as the economy remained in expansion mode, but spreads could still widen modestly. US shale companies had been the marginal producers in the global oil sector. With breakeven costs in shale close to $50/bbl, crude prices would be unlikely to rise much from current levels over the long term. However, we expected production cuts in Saudi Arabia would push prices up, with Brent crude averaging around $82/bbl in 2019. A balanced portfolio was likely to generate average returns of only 2.8% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.6% a year between 1982 and 2018. As already noted, our forecast for more Fed rate hikes was wrong. This meant that we were offside in our duration call. Ultimately, 10-year Treasuries have generated returns of 10.8% so far this year, and German bunds and Japanese government bonds returns of 5.8% and 1.0% in EUR and JPY terms, or 2.5% and 2.0% in USD terms, respectively (Table 1). Nonetheless, our expectation of a run-up in risk asset prices was spot on. Equities outperformed bonds, with global stocks climbing 22.2% in USD terms. We missed the initial outperformance of corporate bonds relative to Treasuries, as investment grade credit rose by 13.9%. However, our bond team took a more constructive stance on corporates as the year progressed. Table 1Market Performance Chart 12019 Was A Good Year For Stocks In terms of regional allocation recommendations, we were correct to overweight US equities which beat non-US stocks by 13.4%, partly thanks to the dollar’s appreciation. We were also right to underweight EM equities, with Asia and Latin America generating dollar returns of only 12.6% and 6.9%. Overall, it was a good year for financial markets (Chart 1). Our growth forecasts were mixed. We predicted global growth would slow in the first half of 2019 but improve thereafter. Instead, the slowdown extended and intensified into the second half of the year as the Sino-US trade war escalated more than expected, and Chinese policymakers were more reluctant to reflate than anticipated. The IMF also revised down its growth forecasts. In the October 2019 World Economic Outlook report, growth in advanced economies for the year was cut to 1.7% from 2.1% compared to 2018 forecasts, led by a downward revision to 1.5% from 2% in Europe (Table 2). They also pared down 2019 EM growth estimates to 3.9% from 4.7%. Consequently, inflation was softer than originally predicted. These trends in economic activity meant that our dollar call was partially right. The currency did not peak in the middle of the year as we foresaw, but has been flat since the spring and today trades where it was in April. Meanwhile, the weaker-than-expected growth put our oil call offside, with Brent averaging $62/bbl this year, not $82/bbl. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts The Cycle’s End Game Mr. X: You mentioned that you remain positive on risk assets and stocks for 2020. You will not be surprised that I am extremely skeptical of this view. The Fed could only raise rates to 2.5% before all hell broke loose, and it has now cut them back to 1.75%. The European Central Bank has lowered its deposit rate to -0.5% and is resuming its asset purchase program, while the Bank of Japan is clearly out of ammunition. Yet global growth remains weak. Despite this lack of economic traction, US stocks are at a record high and are unequivocally expensive. This situation seems untenable. If global growth weakens further, there is little more policymakers can do. I think the risk of a recession is a lot more elevated than you believe, especially as we cannot count on a lasting trade détente. Meanwhile, the US presidential election makes me uncomfortable, and I cannot see how business leaders will want to deploy capital to expand capacity given the risk that the regulatory and tax environment could become hostile to the corporate sector. If I’m wrong about growth – and I hope I am – then inflationary pressures will build and central banks will have to tighten policy suddenly. As bond yields rise, stocks will be sold and yet bonds will not offer any protection since they yield so little. Also, I have not even talked about negative interest rates. $12.1 trillion of debt yields less than zero percent. This is obviously preventing creative destruction from purging the system of rot. It is also promoting capital misallocation and undue risk-taking by financial institutions who cannot meet fiduciary liabilities. Ms. X: Based on this tirade, you can easily imagine what life at the office has been like in recent months. I do share some of my father’s concerns. Negative rates cannot be a good thing, especially from a long-term perspective. If growth weakens further, I’m also concerned that central banks have few options left. However, I do not see these risks as imminent. There are nascent signs that the global economy will stabilize soon; both President Trump and President Xi have strong incentives to reach a trade truce; and central banks are nowhere near removing the proverbial punch bowl. While US stocks are expensive, other risk assets offer value if global growth rebounds. The wall of worry is high, but stocks can and will climb that wall. BCA: Your debate is similar to our own internal discussions. It is undeniable that the investing landscape looks shaky at the moment, especially with the S&P 500 currently trading at 18-times forward earnings. However, the situation you are describing is a direct consequence of one BCA’s long running macro themes: The end of the debt supercycle. While the debt supercycle is dead in advanced economies, it remains very much alive in emerging markets, and China in particular. The private debt load in advanced economies has declined by 20% of GDP since 2009 (Chart 2A). Despite the burgeoning US federal government deficit, public debt accumulation has not been strong enough to cause total debt loads to increase. Instead, aggregate indebtedness has been stuck slightly above 260% of GDP for the past 10 years. Depressed, and in some cases, negative interest rates reflect weak demand for credit. Chart 2AThe Debt Supercycle Is Dead In DM... Chart 2B...But Not In EM   The end of the debt supercycle has both a negative and positive impact. Without increasing leverage, domestic demand cannot grow faster than trend GDP. Thus, it takes much more time for inflationary pressures to build. Concurrently, in the absence of inflationary pressure, more time passes before monetary policy reaches a restrictive level causing recession. The upshot is that the business cycle can last much longer. Moreover, a world less geared to credit accumulation reduces the fragility of the financial system, at the margin. While the debt supercycle is dead in advanced economies, it remains very much alive in emerging markets, and China in particular (Chart 2B), where the demand for credit is still very sensitive to changes in monetary settings. EM countries are the major source of volatility in the global business cycle. Chinese policymakers’ management of the tradeoff between growth and leverage will determine whether the global economy can avoid deflation. If they decide to tackle debt excesses head on, EM credit growth will contract and EM final demand will suffer. In this scenario, negative rates will persist in low-growth advanced economies, and the Fed will be incapable of raising rates because global deflationary forces will be too strong. Chart 3The World Is In The Midst Of A Deflationary Episode The second half of 2018 and the whole of 2019 gave us a taste of these forces. When China tightened credit conditions, the EM economies slowed first. Trade and manufacturing hubs like Europe, Australia and Japan quickly followed. A deflationary wave spread around the world, as evidenced by a drop in global producer prices (Chart 3). The US is a comparatively closed economy, but it could not avoid this gravitational pull. The ISM manufacturing survey ultimately started to contract in August 2018, converging to weakness in the rest of the world. The trade war’s hit to business confidence added insult to the injury of an already weak economic environment. Looking ahead, our optimism reflects an expectation that Chinese policymakers will adopt a more pro-growth policy stance because they too are spooked by the downtrend in their economy. While the Politburo Standing Committee has not abandoned its structural reform agenda, it realizes that aggressive deleveraging is dangerous. The Chinese economy is growing at its weakest pace in nearly 30 years and deflation is once again taking hold. In response to date, policymakers have lowered China’s reserve requirement ratio by 400 basis points, cut taxes by 2.8% of GDP, increased the issuance of local government bonds to finance public infrastructure projects, and boosted capex at state-owned enterprises. EM economies will respond to these stimulative measures. The Chinese credit and fiscal impulse has stabilized (Chart 4). Meanwhile, the Fed has pushed the real fed funds rate 74.4 basis points below the Holston-Laubach-Williams estimate of the neutral rate, and coordinated global policy easing points to a rebound in the global manufacturing sector (Chart 4, bottom panel). Moreover, the global inventory purge that magnified the industrial sector’s pain is getting exhausted and the auto sector is looking up. Finally, we agree with Ms. X that both President Trump and President Xi have their own incentives to deescalate trade policy uncertainty. We are entering the end game of this business cycle and bull market. Global borrowing rates will rise, but only to a limited extent. Rightly or wrongly, major central banks are terrified by the prospect of the Japanification of their economies. Practically speaking, this means that they want inflation expectations to move back up to normal levels (Chart 5). However, after undershooting their 2% targets for 11 years, achieving this objective will require central banks to let realized inflation overshoot these targets first. Thus, central banks are unlikely to tighten policy until late next year at the earliest, which will limit how far yields can climb in 2020. Chart 4…But Do Not Bet Against Reflation Chart 5Depressed Inflation Expectations   Equities and other risk assets should perform well if global growth re-accelerates but interest rates don’t rise much at first. Some benefit of this fertile backdrop is already priced in, but many pockets of value levered to stronger global growth still exist. We are entering the end game of this already long business cycle. While the general environment favors remaining invested in risk assets in 2020, this is likely the last window of opportunity to do so. Today’s accommodative monetary policy will revive inflationary pressures in 2021, and central banks will ultimately be forced to lift rates much more aggressively. China will continue to resist excessive leverage. Neither the business cycle nor the equity bull market will withstand these final assaults. Mr. X: Your benign outlook reminds me of when we met in December 2007. Do you remember? You told me that the housing slowdown and the credit market seizure were large risks, but central banks would put a floor under global growth. How did that turn out? I agree that in advanced economies, overall debt loads have been stable. But this belies major disparities. For example, US corporate debt has never represented a larger share of GDP than it does today. This must be a major vulnerability. While household balance sheets look healthy, I do not think consumption will save the day if companies are cutting capex and employment while they clean up their balance sheets. Countries like Canada and Australia are drowning in private sector debt. How can you ignore these vulnerabilities? BCA: A comparison with 2008 actually reveals why advanced economies, particularly the US, are not the powder keg that they once were. US corporate debt is elevated when compared to GDP, but profits also represent a much larger share of GDP than they did 10 or 20 years ago, and interest rates are close to historic lows. As a result, interest coverage ratios are still adequate (Chart 6). In 2007, household debt loads were large, but interest payments also accounted for 18.1% of disposable income, the highest proportion since 1972. Additionally, US firms’ debt-to-asset ratio is in line with the post-1970 average of 22.1%. Finally, US businesses have not used rising leverage to fund capital spending, as demonstrated by the elevated age of the capital stock. Thus, the US corporate sector continues to generate positive net savings. Ahead of recessions, US businesses typically generate negative net savings. The composition of the creditors is another important difference. In 2007, an extremely large share of the spurious borrowings resided on banks’ balance sheets. Moreover, the banking system was woefully undercapitalized with a leverage ratio of 17x. Weak banks had to absorb 2.2 trillion of losses after 2008. Consequently, the money creation mechanism broke down, and money multipliers collapsed (Chart 7). Today, US banks boast relatively stronger balance sheets, and they are still judicious about extending credit despite being less exposed to the corporate sector than they were to the mortgage market in 2008. Instead, most corporate debt is held by less levered entities such as ETFs, pension plans, and insurance companies. The leveraged losses that proved so debilitating in 2008 are less likely to be a source of systemic risk in this cycle. Chart 6US Businesses Can Still Service Their Debt Chart 72008 Heralded A Destruction Of Money   Countries like Australia and Canada have much more worrisome private sector debt dynamics, as their servicing costs are elevated (Chart 8). However, these economies are unlikely to collapse when global rates are low, as long as the global economy can avoid a recession, which would reduce export revenue in these trade-sensitive countries. You expect a moderate rebound in global growth next year, but not a sharp acceleration because Chinese stimulus will not be that aggressive. The bottom line is that both the US corporate sector and at-risk countries like Canada should avoid a day of reckoning until interest rates rise meaningfully. As we have already mentioned, central banks are very clear that they will allow inflation to overshoot before tightening policy anew. We monitor US inflation breakeven rates to gauge the likely timing of that outcome. At 1.6%, they remain well below the 2.3% to 2.5% range, which is historically consistent with central banks durably achieving their inflation target (Chart 9). Until inflation expectations are re-anchored back up in that range, we will not worry about an imminent tightening in monetary conditions. Chart 8Canada And Australia Are Close To Their Debt Walls Chart 9The Fed Is In No Rush To Tighten   Chart 10Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator It is true that inflationary pressures are building in the US. Historical evidence points to a kink in the Phillips curve, the link between wage growth and the unemployment rate. Since the labor market is tight, we are already seeing average hourly earnings growth accelerate. Moreover, the output gap is mostly closed. However, keep in mind that inflation is also a lagging economic indicator (Chart 10). Consequently, the recent global economic slowdown is likely to keep US inflation at bay for most of 2020. The sharp fall in US capacity utilization along with the decline in imported goods and core producer price inflation corroborate this picture. Mr. X: So you believe that as long as rates stay low, the day of reckoning will be delayed. But ultimately, that it is unavoidable. BCA: Correct. No matter what, we are entering the end game of this already long business cycle. The current period of easy policy will allow cyclical spending to rise as a share of output, and debt to build up again over the coming 18 months. Because slack is clearly limited, this latest wave of policy easing will generate inflationary pressures. Ultimately, the Fed will be forced to play catch up and tighten more aggressively than expected in 2021. Paradoxically, the longer the onset of recession is delayed, the deeper it is likely to be… Mr. X: Because imbalances and vulnerabilities will only grow larger! BCA: Absolutely! Mr. X: That is something we can agree on. Ms. X: The way you complete one another’s sentences is a testament to how many years you have been talking to each other. For me, the most concerning issue is political risk. While I am more positive on the outlook for trade policy than my father, I do worry about the impact of US election risk on capital spending. Chart 11If The 2012 Election Is Any Guide, Trump Can Still Win A Second Term BCA: On the trade war, we would like to address your father’s concerns. All politicians, even unconventional ones like President Trump, seek re-election. Yet, President Trump’s overall approval rating is low (Chart 11). If the election were held today, his odds of winning would be minimal. However, US presidential elections do ultimately favor the incumbent. If the re-election of President Obama in 2012 is any guide, President Trump has enough time to boost his approval rating over the coming 12 months to secure a second term through the Electoral College. In order to achieve this outcome, he must reverse the large slowdown in wage growth currently plaguing the swing states he won by only a small margin in 2016 (Chart 12). Workers in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are suffering disproportionately from the uncertainty created by the trade tensions. President Trump will have to pause the tariffs – and even cut tariff rates – to support the economy and reassure voters. Chart 12Trump's Fear Is Coming True China is willing to accept a trade truce. The Chinese economy is weak and producer prices are once again deflating. President Xi doesn’t want to preside over another massive surge in leverage or a 1930’s Irving Fisher-style deflationary spiral. Reviving private sector investment sentiment via a reduction in trade policy uncertainty would help stabilize spending and avoid a disorderly economic slump. Moreover, President Xi may not trust the current White House, but the prospect of a Democratic administration that will be tough on both environmental standards and human rights would offer little solace. This brings us to the US election. The recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch positioning survey shows that the investment community shares your concerns. This risk is hard to quantify. The Democratic nomination is wide open. Former Vice President Joe Biden leads the opinion polls, and is a known quantity. Meanwhile, the rising progressive wing of the party, embodied in Senator Elizabeth Warren, is hostile to business and likely to cause concerns in boardrooms across the US, especially in the tech, energy, financial services and healthcare sectors. This could dampen animal spirits. Biden’s and Warren’s odds of beating President Trump are overstated by current polls, especially if the President softens his stance on trade to allow for a growth pick-up. Moreover, to be competitive nationally, Senator Warren will have to abandon some of her more progressive plans and pivot toward the center. The recent upbeat equity market performance of sectors like managed healthcare suggests that markets are discounting this shift. Thus, we doubt the election is currently really weighing on business intentions. The recent pick up in capital spending intentions in various Fed Manufacturing surveys fades this risk. Chart 13A Structural Tailwind Has Vanished What is clear though is that if the economy were to weaken further, Senator Warren’s chances would improve and CEOs would genuinely begin to worry about re-regulation, potentially unleashing a vicious cycle. Thus, the end game is an unstable equilibrium. On a structural basis, whether one looks at the rise of populism or the geopolitical rivalry between China and the US, trade tensions will remain a pesky feature of the global economy. In effect, the trade truce will not be a permanent deal. The global economy has therefore lost the tailwind of deepening global integration achieved through trade (Chart 13). This will limit global potential GDP growth. Ms. X: Thank you. I think the time is right to explore your economic outlook in more detail. The Economic Outlook Chart 14China: Modest Reflation Is Underway Mr. X: From your arguments, it seems that the outlook for China and Emerging Markets is critical, so let’s start there. My impression is that President Xi is not abandoning his structural reform agenda. Avoiding the middle-income trap will require decreasing China’s dependence on credit as a growth driver. Can economic activity really stabilize under those circumstances? BCA: You are correct: Senior Chinese administrators are reluctant to allow another major phase of debt accumulation to take hold. However, as we already highlighted, policymakers are taking steps to end the most severe economic slowdown since the first half of the 1990s. China is currently implementing a middling stimulus program. The positive impact of the lower bank reserve requirement ratio, the tax cuts and increased public infrastructure spending is being mitigated by strong regulatory constraints on the shadow banking system and small financial institutions, by efforts to limit real estate speculation, and by the cash crunch facing real estate developers. These crosscurrents make it unlikely that the credit impulse will rise as sharply as it did following the reflationary campaigns of 2009, 2012 or 2016. Nonetheless, the Chinese economy is indeed exhibiting some mildly positive signals. Our monetary indicator and state-owned enterprise capital spending point to a rebound in overall Chinese economic activity (Chart 14). Moreover, household spending is trying to bottom. If China stabilizes, then the EM slowdown will end soon. Without a deepening drag from the Chinese economy, EM countries should be able to take advantage of the easing in global financial and liquidity conditions. But the end of the Chinese drag on EM growth does not mean a massive tailwind will be forthcoming. Additionally, deflationary forces remain stronger in the emerging world than in the US. As a result, EM real rates will remain stubbornly above the level that real economic activity warrants, posing a headwind for capital and durable goods spending. Generally speaking, EM and China are moving from a headwind for the world to a mild tailwind. Treasury yields are unlikely to move significantly higher than the 2.25% to 2.5% zone. Ms. X: I’m somewhat more positive than you on global growth next year. The policy easing around the world looks very promising for economic activity. How do you factor the impact of improving global liquidity conditions into your outlook for 2020? BCA: It is undeniable that global liquidity conditions have eased massively. As we already highlighted, the majority of global central banks cutting rates is a very positive dynamic for global growth. Trends in measures of liquidity ratify this message. Foreign exchange reserves are again growing and our BCA US Financial Liquidity index has rallied sharply over the past 12 months. Historically, this indicator forecasts the trend in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator, commodity prices and EM export prices by 18 months (Chart 15). Moreover, money aggregates are growing faster than credit across the major advanced economies. Such developments typically foretell an acceleration in global economic activity (Chart 16). Chart 15Liquidity Dynamics: Fueling A Global Growth Recovery Chart 16Rising Money Supply Is A Good Thing   The duration of the current slowdown also warrants optimism. We have often highlighted that since the early 1990s, the global manufacturing sector evolves over 36-month symmetric cycles (Chart 17). The current soft patch has lasted more than 18 months. In the context of easing liquidity and depleted inventories, pent-up demand can easily translate into actual spending. The recent surge in the new orders-to-inventories ratio confirms that global manufacturing activity should soon pick up (Chart 18). The auto sector’s weakness, which was exacerbated by previous inventory buildups, changing emission standards, and rising borrowing costs, is also ebbing. Chart 17The Mid-Cycle Slowdown Is Long In The Tooth Chart 18The New Order-To-Inventory Ratio Points To A Global Rebound     Various growth indicators are sniffing out this positive inflection point. The recent trough in the global ZEW survey is revealing (Chart 19). It materialized quickly after Sino-US trade tensions began to ease. Enough positive global economic momentum exists such that a minor decline in policy uncertainty could unleash a large improvement in growth expectations. The rebound in Taiwanese equities and European luxury stocks confirms that the global economy should soon bottom. There are two things we cannot emphasis enough. First, this is the end game of the business cycle, after which a recession will ensue. Second, investors should not expect the kind of strong synchronized growth rebound witnessed in 2017. Without a Chinese and EM boom, a crucial source of demand will be wanting. Mr. X: What about US growth? The yield curve inverted this summer and deteriorating consumer and business confidence raised the specter of an imminent recession. Moreover, the fiscal stimulus that helped the economy in the first half of 2019 is now over. In fact, with a $1 trillion federal deficit despite an unemployment rate of only 3.6%, we have run out of fiscal room to support activity if and when a recession materializes. BCA: The recent yield curve inversion most likely overstated the risk of an economic contraction. First, in the mid-1990s, if the term premium had been as low as it is today, the curve would have also inverted without any recession materializing from 1995 to 2000. Second, this summer, the curve inverted up to the 5-year tenor and steepened for longer maturities. Prior to recessions, the curve inverts across all maturities. Recessions are not born out of thin air. They are caused by imbalances and tight monetary policy. The large debt buildup and other investment imbalances that have preceded prior US recessions are not yet apparent. Prior to the 1991, 2001 and 2008 recessions, the private sector debt load had increased by 20.6%, 14.6% and 25.6% of GDP in the previous five years, not the current 1.4% run rate. The Fed’s policy is now clearly accommodative. Not only is the real fed funds rate 74.4 basis points below the Fed’s favored estimate of the neutral rate of interest, but also real estate, the most interest-rate sensitive economic sector, is rebounding. In 2018, real estate activity collapsed in response to mortgage rates rising to 4.9%. Today, the NAHB Homebuilding index has retraced 79% of its losses; mortgage demand has improved; and housing starts and building permits have recovered (Chart 20). When policy is tight, real estate activity never recovers this quickly, even as yields fall. Chart 19Positive Signals For Global Growth Chart 20The Housing Market Signals That Policy Is Accommodative   Chart 21Robust Household Financial Health A counterargument is that real estate price appreciation is weak. However, tight monetary policy is not the cause. Two forces are dampening house prices. First, the Jobs and Tax Act of 2017 lowered allowable mortgage interest and state and local tax deductions. High-end properties in high-tax states such as California, New York and Massachusetts have suffered from this adjustment. Second, the US housing market has an overhang of large, pricey homes relative to strong demand for smaller, starter homes. Median home prices outpacing average ones show this divergence. We also to need to gauge if consumer spending is likely to follow the manufacturing sector lower. If it does, a recession will be unavoidable. On this front, we are hopeful because: The outlook for household income is positive. As you noted, the unemployment rate is still extraordinarily low, and more Americans will be working by the end of 2020 than today. Additionally, the rising employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers is tightly linked to stronger wages (Chart 21). Also, the recent pick up in productivity growth points to higher real wage growth. The household savings rate is elevated and has limited upside. Households already have a large cushion insulating them from unforeseen shocks. At 8.1% of disposable income, the savings rate is in the 65th percentile of its post-1980 distribution. It is especially lofty if we take into account robust American households’ net worth (Chart 21, bottom panel). Consumer credit demand is rising, according to the Fed’s Senior Loan officer survey. Since household liquid assets are quickly expanding and the household formation rate is robust, consumption of durable goods should pick up, especially in light of the large decrease in borrowing costs. This is particularly true since the household debt-to-assets ratio is at its lowest level since 1985 and debt-servicing costs only represent 9.7% of disposable income, the lowest share for nearly 40 years. The corporate sector outlook should brighten soon. The modest rise in productivity protects margins from higher wages, an effect that will linger given that capacity expansion is consistent with further productivity gains (Chart 22). Crucially, the combined fiscal and monetary easing in China should bolster capital-spending intentions around the world, including the US (Chart 23). Rising productivity will only consolidate these trends. Chart 22Capacity Growth Provides Some Support For Productivity Chart 23Chinese Reflation Will Revive US Capital Spending   The most positive development for the US corporate sector is our outlook for non-US growth. If the global manufacturing sector mends itself, so will the US. Ample liquidity is a positive for the world economy, as well as for US manufacturing conditions (Chart 24). On the fiscal front, we appreciate your worries, but they are not a story for 2020. The US fiscal thrust will not be as positive as it was in 2018 or 2019, but it is set to remain a small tailwind, not a drag. Furthermore, given that 2020 is an election year it is unlikely that politicians will tighten purse strings over the coming 12 months. Fiscal risks are undoubtedly greater in the long run. However, a sudden fiscal consolidation is a remote probability because fiscal austerity has gone out of style. Instead, the federal debt burden will be a major source of long-term inflation because there is no other easy way to address this gigantic pile of liabilities. The path of least resistance will be more spending and financial repression. In other words, real rates will stay too low and excess government spending will push prices higher, conveniently eroding the real value of that high federal debt burden. This was a big story in the 20th century and it will remain so in the 21st (Chart 25), especially since an aging population and the peak in globalization will weigh on global savings. Chart 24The US Manufacturing Slowdown Has Run Its Course Chart 25Inflation Is About Political Decisions   Ms. X: Your point about demographics makes me think of Europe and Japan. Brexit has not been resolved; populism remains a concern in Italy; and the European banking system is still fragile. Japan suffers from an even worse demographic profile and the recent VAT increase was ill-timed, economically. Given these headwinds, can these regions participate in the global recovery you foresee? BCA: The short answer is yes, albeit to varying degrees. The outlook for Europe is more promising than Japan. A No-Deal Brexit is now a very low probability event, even after next month’s UK election. The conservatives’ support for Prime Minister Johnson’s Brexit plan will ensure as much. A large source of uncertainty is being lifted, which will allow European businesses to resume investment planning. The situation in the European periphery is also improving. Non-performing loans in Spain and Italy are falling (Chart 26), which is allowing for a normalization of credit origination. The narrowing Italian and peripheral spreads to German bunds will be helped by easing financial conditions in the European economies that need it most. Higher Italian bond prices improve banks’ solvency and cut borrowing costs for the private sector. Finally, populism is alive and well in Europe, rejecting fiscal austerity, but not embracing euro-skepticism. More generous fiscal spending would be a positive for Europe. European liquidity conditions are also generous. Deposit growth has strengthened and financial conditions have benefited from lower German yields and a cheap euro, which trades 15% below fair-value estimates. Our model for European banks’ return on tangible equity is rising, which is a clear indication that easy financial and liquidity conditions should deliver stronger incremental economic activity (Chart 27). Chart 26Declining Non-Performing Loans Are A Positive For The European Periphery Chart 27European Banks' Return On Equity Will Improve In 2020   The fiscal outlook is murkier. European fiscal thrust was a positive 0.4% of GDP in 2019, but it will decline to 0.1% in 2020. However, fiscal policy affects economic activity with a lag. The impact of this year’s easing has yet to be fully felt. Since European rates are so low and the economy is not operating at full capacity, the fiscal multiplier is greater than one. Therefore, Europe can still reap a substantial fiscal dividend next year. Finally, Europe remains a very pro-cyclical economy. A large share of euro area GDP is connected to manufacturing and exports. As a result, Europe will be one of the prime beneficiaries of a pickup in global growth. Already, the sharp rebound in the German and euro area ZEW survey expectation components point to a brighter outlook for the region. Japan is also a very pro-cyclical economy, which will reap a dividend from a bottom in global manufacturing activity. However, the Land of the Rising Sun is still subject to idiosyncratic constraints. Japanese financial conditions have not improved as much as those in Europe. The yen has appreciated 2.6% in trade-weighted terms this year, while Japanese yields have not melted as much as European ones (because Italian and peripheral yields fell so much in 2019). Japan will also have to reckon with the impact of the October VAT increase. Ahead of the tax hike, retail sales spiked by 9.1% on a year-on-year basis, or 7.1% compared to the previous month, a script similar to 2014. 2015 was a payback year where consumption was depressed. This scenario will play out again, even if the Abe government has implemented some fiscal offsets. Ultimately, the Japanese economy will lag Europe’s in the first half of the year but should catch up in the second half. The impact of the tax hike will dissipate. Most importantly, rebounding global growth will hurt the yen, at least on a trade-weighted basis, providing a lift to export prospects and easing Japanese financial conditions relative to the rest of the world, which will produce a growth dividend later in 2020. Ms. X: To summarize, you expect a moderate rebound in global growth next year, but not a sharp acceleration because Chinese stimulus will not be that aggressive. EM activity will also pick up but will not generate fireworks. The US will be okay but Europe will probably deliver the largest positive growth surprise as external and domestic conditions align positively. Japan will also stabilize on the back of stronger global growth, but domestic headwinds mean that a true reacceleration won’t happen until the latter part of the year. This recovery constitutes the business cycle’s end game as inflation will become a concern in 2021, forcing the Fed to tighten then. BCA: Yes, this is correct. Ms. X: Thank you! Bond Market Prospects Chart 28Global Bonds Are Extremely Overvalued Ms. X: I do not like US Treasuries at current yields. They do not protect me against an inflation surprise and will do nothing for me in an economic recovery. However, my bearishness is tempered by the large stock of bonds with negative yields in Europe and Japan. As long as this strange situation persists, I doubt US yields will experience much upside. US paper is too attractive to foreign asset managers right now. BCA: We share your view and are recommending an underweight to global government bonds. Global yields offer little value and are vulnerable to a rebound in economic activity or a trade détente. Our Global Bond Valuation index is flashing a clear sell signal (Chart 28). As yields rise, global yield curves are bound to steepen. We also agree that the upside for Treasury yields is limited, but we disagree with the limiting factor. Foreign investors are not the major buyers of Treasuries. Indeed, the data shows that European and Japanese investors have not been aggressive purchasers of US government securities. The US yield curve is flat and US short rates tower above European and Japanese ones, hedging currency exposure when buying Treasuries is expensive. In euro or yen terms, a hedged Treasury yields -67 basis points and -60 basis points, less than 10-year bunds or JGBs, respectively. Meanwhile, EM central banks are diversifying their FX reserves away from the US dollar into gold. Instead, our view is governed by the concept we dub the “Golden Rule of Treasury Investing.” According to this principle, the outperformance of Treasuries relative to cash is a direct function of the Fed’s ability to surprise the market. If the Fed cuts rates more than the OIS curve anticipated 12 months prior, Treasuries outperform. The opposite happens if the Fed delivers a hawkish surprise (Chart 29). Chart 29The Golden Rule Of Treasury Investing Treasury yields are unlikely to move significantly higher than the 2.25% to 2.5% zone, because the OIS curve is now only pricing in 28 basis points of rate cuts over the next year. It is not just the US OIS curve that has priced out a large amount of rate cuts; this phenomenon has materialized around the world over the past five weeks. Chart 30The Term Premium Is Too Low Any upside risk to that 2.25% to 2.5% forecast for 2020 will come from the inflation expectations and term premium components of yields. Central banks, including the Fed, have telegraphed an intention to allow inflation expectations to rise, initially, in response to stronger global growth. Moreover, declining risk aversion should also allow the exceptionally depressed term premium to normalize (Chart 30). Only in late 2020 or early 2021 will Treasury yields durably move above this 2.25-2.5% zone. Punching above these levels will require core PCE inflation to have been above target long enough to re-anchor inflation expectations back up to their 2.3% to 2.5% target zone. Only then will the Fed give the all-clear signal to the bond market to lift yields higher. Mr. X: You still have not directly addressed the question of negative yields in Europe and Japan. This story will not end well. Do you worry about these bond markets over the next year? BCA: Our answer is an emphatic yes. But we assume you will not let us leave it at that. Mr. X: You know me too well. BCA: Over the course of the past 50 years, we have learned a thing or two about you. In all seriousness, let’s start with our simple but effective valuation ranking. It compares the current level of real yields for each country to their historical averages and standard deviations. You can see that the most unattractive bond markets right now are all in Europe (Chart 31). Chart 31European Bonds Are Too Dear Chart 32Swiss Bonds Are A Lose-Lose Proposition The lower bound of interest rates is another reason to avoid these markets. This floor seems to lie around -1% in nominal terms. Because of these constraints, in recent months, Swiss, Swedish, Dutch and German 10-year bonds have failed to rally as much as their higher-yielding US, Canadian or Australian counterparts when global yields are declining. However, they also underperform when yields are rising (Chart 32). They have become a lose-lose proposition. The only pockets of value left in DM bond markets are Greece, Portugal or Italy. Despite their apparent risks, we still like them. Support for the euro in Greece and Italy is 70% and 65%, respectively. Even populist governments in these nations are reluctant to attack euro membership anymore. Moreover, the ECB remains committed to the survival of the euro area in its current form. Christine Lagarde will not change that. For 2020 or 2021, the risk of euro breakup is practically zero. The same may not be true on a 5- to 10-year investment horizon, but for the coming year, these bonds offer an attractive risk-adjusted carry. Ms. X: Unsurprisingly, my father does not like corporate bonds because of highly levered corporate balance sheets. I think this is a long-term problem, but not a risk for 2020, so I’m looking to stay overweight spread product relative to Treasuries. Where do you stand on this market? BCA: On this issue, we sit somewhere between you both. Our Corporate Health Monitor continues to deteriorate (Chart 33). The high debt load of the US business sector coupled with the decline of the return on capital worries us. Furthermore, the covenant-lite trend in recent issuance suggests that corporate borrowers, not lenders, are getting the good deals. Essentially, too much cash is still chasing too little available yield pick-up. In this environment, capital is sure to be misallocated, and money ultimately lost. We find the reward-to-risk tradeoff more attractive in Europe and Japan than in emerging markets. On a short-term basis, the spreads will not widen much. An easy Fed, recovering global growth, and the gigantic pile of negative-yielding bonds around the world will make sure of that. We advocate a neutral stance on investment grade corporates because IG bonds have high modified duration such that breakeven spread compensation versus Treasuries is near the bottom of its historical distribution across the IG credit spectrum (Chart 34). This means that credit will generate poor returns if government bond yields rise. Chart 33Dangerous Long-Term Picture For US Corporates Chart 34No Value Left In IG   Chart 35EMs Still Experiencing Deflation Thankfully, they are ways around this problem: emphasizing exposure to high-yield (HY) bonds and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) instead. HY breakeven spreads remain much more attractive than in the IG space, and option-adjusted spreads will benefit if our growth and inflation forecasts materialize. Investors reluctant to commit capital to these products should look into high quality agency MBS. After the recent wave of mortgage refinancing, these securities’ duration has collapsed to 3.0 compared to 7.9 for IG corporates. These securities therefore offer much better protection in a rising-yield environment. Ms. X: Before we move on to equities, where do you stand on EM bonds? BCA: We need to differentiate between EM local-currency bonds and EM USD-denominated bonds. We do like some EM local currency bonds. Inflation in EM countries is low and dropping. Money and credit growth is slowing, which implies that the disinflationary trend will remain in place through 2020 (Chart 35). Weaker nominal growth means that central banks in EM will continue to cut rates, providing a nice tailwind for local-currency bond prices. This comes with a caveat. Lower policy rates will boost bond prices but hurt EM currencies, especially because most EM currencies are not cheap and are already over-owned. Next year, it will be preferable to garner exposure to those countries interest rate moves via the swap market rather than the cash bond market. Chart 36The Mexican Peso Is Cheap There are some exceptions, like Mexico. The MXN is already very cheap because of fears surrounding the economic policies of President Andres Manual Lopez Obrador (AMLO) (Chart 36). However, we doubt he will turn out to be as dangerous as feared. Hence, MXN Mexican bonds are attractive to foreign investors in unhedged terms. We are currently avoiding EM USD-denominated debt, corporate and sovereign. Since emerging markets sport $5.1 trillion of dollar-denominated debt, falling EM exchange rates will increase the cost of servicing this debt, which makes it riskier. Mr. X: I think we will continue to underweight corporate and EM bonds in our fixed income portfolio. Spread levels still make no sense in terms of providing compensation for credit risk. I must admit that I find your recommendation to overweight MBS intriguing. We will need to ponder this idea further. Ms. X: And please wish me luck trying to convince my father to buy some high-yield bonds. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: US stocks are too expensive for my taste, with the S&P 500 trading at a forward P/E ratio of 18. I’m well aware of the argument that equities may be expensive but that they are actually cheap compared to bonds, which implies that I should favor stocks over bonds. However, you know that I emphasize capital preservation. With stocks this rich already, equities offer no margin of safety. If I own stocks, I am therefore exposed to any unexpected shocks. Because I do not share your optimism on the economy, I am more worried about downside risk. Moreover, even if the economy performs better than I fear, I suspect stocks will respond poorly to higher yields. Chart 37The S&P Is Very Expensive Ms. X: I agree with my father that stocks are expensive. Nonetheless, as Keynes famously quipped, “Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” In today’s context, to me this means that stocks can ignore their overvaluation so long as liquidity is plentiful, rates are low, and a recession is avoided. BCA: On this question, we agree with Ms. X. We all agree that US equities are expensive. As you mentioned, their price-to-earnings ratio is 18. Only at the apex of the tech bubble and in early 2018 was the S&P 500 more expensive. Worryingly, the price-to-sales ratio is at 2.3, an even larger historical outlier than the P/E (Chart 37). Chart 38Low Yields And Plentiful Liquidity Are Still Fertile Ground For Stocks Ms. X is correct that we cannot look at stock valuations in isolation. Investing is about opportunity cost and the macroeconomic context. On this front, even US equities have their merit. Despite the S&P 500’s expensive multiples, our Composite Valuation Indicator is no more elevated than it was in 2013. Meanwhile, our Monetary Indicator has rarely been as supportive of stock prices as it is today, and our Speculation Indicator is in line with its January 2016 reading (Chart 38). Moreover, BCA’s Composite Sentiment indicator is still below its long-term historical average and margin debt has declined by $47.5 billion to the lowest share of US market capitalization since June 2005. These are hardly signs of irrational exuberance. Ultimately, bear markets and recessions travel together. A durable 20% drop in stock prices requires a significant and long-lasting decline in earnings. These developments happen during recessions (Chart 39). Our call is for a recession in the next 24 months or so. We must also remember that while equities perform poorly six months ahead of a recession, the end of a bull market, its last 12 to 18 months, tend to be very rewarding (Table 3). We are within this window. Chart 39Bear Markets And Recessions Travel Together Table 3The End Game Can Be Rewarding Based on our forecast for interest rates, we do not share the concerns that rising bond yields will topple stocks right away. Stock prices are an inverse function of risk-free rates, but a positive function of growth expectations. Higher yields will initially reflect stronger growth, not restrict it. But remember: the upside for yields is limited because central banks do not want to choke off the recovery. They will maintain accommodative policy. In other words, we expect real rates to lag behind growth expectations. Because long-term growth expectations, whether from sell-side analysts or extracted out of market prices using the Gordon Growth Model, are low, we are willing to make this bet (Chart 40). Equities will suffer if the global bond yield rises above 2.5%. This is more a story for 2021, and not our central scenario for 2020. It is nonetheless a reminder that we are entering the end game of the business cycle, so we are also entering the end-game of the bull market. Mr. X: I think you are playing with fire. Stocks are so expensive that if you are wrong on either the growth call or the yield call, they will suffer. I would rather miss the last melt-up in stocks than unnecessarily expose my portfolio to a meltdown. Additionally, you have not addressed the fact that S&P 500 margins have begun to soften but are still extremely elevated. Shouldn’t this dampen your optimism? BCA: Aggregate S&P 500 margins have some downside. Our Composite Margin Proxy, Operating Margins Diffusion index and Corporate Pricing Power indicator all remain weak (Chart 41). The deceleration in the crude PPI excluding food and energy and the past strength in the dollar confirm this insight, especially as the corporate wage bill climbs in a tight labor market. The biggest mitigating factor is that productivity is also on the mend, which curbs the negative impact of higher worker pay. Chart 40Growth Expectations Are Muted Chart 41US Margins Under Pressure   This danger must be put into perspective though. Margin expansion has been dominated by the tech sector (Chart 42). Excluding this industry, S&P 500 margins are roughly in line with their previous peak, and are not declining. The aggregate softness in margins is a reflection of the sharper decline in tech margins. Declining margins do not spell the imminent end of the bull market either. Table 4 shows that on average, the S&P 500 rises by 9.5% following the peak in margins. Equities can rise after margins crest because this is often an environment where wages are climbing, which boosts consumption. Consequently, top-line growth can accelerate and earnings can rise even if they represent a lower proportion of sales. This is the environment we foresee over 2020. Chart 42Tech Margins Have Likely Peaked Table 4Margin Peaks Do Not Spell S&P Doom   Chart 43Taiwanese Stocks Are Sniffing Out Better Global Growth Ms. X: You have talked about the tech sector being a drag on overall margins. How would you position a US stock portfolio? BCA: First, around the world, we prefer cyclical sectors to defensive ones. Cyclical stocks are depressed relative to defensive firms’ shares. Rebounding global growth and rising bond yields will favor cyclical sectors. Globally, the performance of cyclical equities relative to defensive ones correlates with Taiwanese equities, which are currently rallying smartly (Chart 43). This suggests that at the margin, the most cyclical asset markets are beginning to express optimism about global growth. Within the S&P 500, our favorite pair trade to express this bias is to overweight energy stocks at the expense of utilities. Utilities are bond proxies which will substantially underperform energy stocks when the rate of change of Treasury yields moves up (Chart 44). Moreover, based on our valuation indicators, energy stocks have never traded at such a deep discount to utilities, nor have they ever been as oversold. Chart 44Favor Energy Over Utilities Second, we are currently neutral on tech stocks but have put them on a downgrade alert. Tech equities are expensive, trading at a forward P/E ratio 21% above the other cyclicals. Moreover, since software spending has remained surprisingly resilient despite the global economic slowdown, it will likely lag investment in machinery and structures when industrial demand rebounds. Consequently, tech earnings will lag other traditional cyclical sectors. Tech multiples will also suffer when bond yields rise. As high-growth stocks, tech equities derive a large proportion of their intrinsic value from long-term deferred cash flows and their terminal value. Thus, tech multiples are highly sensitive to changes in the discount rate We implement this view by way of an underweight in tech and an overweight to industrials. Industrials have suffered disproportionately from the trade war. Any near term truce is unlikely to contain a grand bargain on intellectual property rights transfer that galvanizes tech exports, but it will remove some of the uncertainty weighing on industrials. Moreover, industrials are a much cheaper play on a global growth rebound. The global manufacturing slowdown has caused industrial equities to trade at their greatest discount to the tech sector since the financial crisis. Finally, the wage bill for the industrial sector is melting relative to tech, and our margin proxy is surging (Chart 45). This has created a very positive backdrop for this pair trade. We also like financials. They will be a key beneficiary of rising yields and a steepening yield curve. Additionally, household credit demand has picked up and overall credit growth should accelerate as central banks will maintain very accommodative monetary conditions. The yield impulse already points toward higher bank credit growth and companies are issuing an increasingly large stock of bonds (Chart 46). Chart 45Operating Metrics Will Boost Industrials Versus Tech Equities Chart 46Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Credit Creation   Ms. X: When combining valuation analysis with your fundamental sectoral slant, I am guessing that you must favor European, Japanese and EM stocks over the S&P 500? BCA: We do favor European and Japanese equities. Based on valuation alone, all the regions you mentioned offer higher expected long-term real rates of return than the US (Chart 47). Moreover, the dollar is expensive relative to advanced economies’ currencies. Hence, these markets are cheaper vehicles than the S&P 500 to bet on a global economic recovery. But valuation alone is not enough. US stocks are trading at unprecedented levels relative to global equities because of the FAANG craze (Chart 48). Looking at sector representation, our positive view on non-tech cyclicals also flatters exposure to Europe and Japan (Table 5). Chart 47Non US Equities Offer Better Value Chart 48FAANG-Driven US Outperformance   Table 5Equity Market Sector Composition Chart 49European Banks Are Cheap Europe is particularly attractive because of its large skew towards industrials and financials, which represent 32.3% of the market versus 22.3% in the US. Moreover, European financials are also a tantalizing bet because they trade at a 50% discount to US financials, according to their price-to-book ratio. Additionally, their return on tangible equity will benefit from higher German yields, easing financial conditions, declining non-performing loans in the periphery and rebounding global growth. Our RoE model for European banks already points to a resurgence in their stock prices (Chart 49). Of the major markets we track, Japan offers the highest prospective long-term real returns. Its strong cyclical slant and low share of tech stocks means it is another market investors should overweight to bet on a global recovery. The biggest problem for Japanese equities is the yen. When global yields climb higher, a weak JPY will clip some of the Nikkei’s gains for foreign investors. Finally, we are reluctant to overweight EM stocks just yet. In this space, median P/E ratios are much higher than on a market capitalization-weighted basis (Chart 50). State-owned companies explain this bifurcation, Chinese banks in particular. Since we expect Chinese banks to remain a conduit for policy, credit origination may flatter economic growth more than shareholders’ interests. Moreover, we have a negative outlook on EM currencies, and hedging this exposure is expensive. Finally, if China’s economic activity improves only modestly in 2020, the 2012 experience suggests that EM stocks can still underperform the global equity universe as global growth improves and yields rise (Chart 51). In other words, we find the reward-to-risk tradeoff more attractive in Europe and Japan than in emerging markets. Chart 50EM Stocks Are No Bargain Yet Chart 51EM Stocks Can Underperform When Global Growth Improves     Mr. X: Thank you. I am still not sure what share of our portfolio will be dedicated to stocks. However, I think that whatever this proportion will be, buying global equities makes more sense than US ones. Your valuation argument alone is swaying me, considering my more conservative instincts. Ms. X: I’m glad we will not have to argue on this point, but I know we will nonetheless battle on the stock/bond/gold split. Should we move on to your currency and commodity forecasts? BCA: It would be our pleasure. Currencies And Commodities Mr. X: You have often argued that the dollar is a countercyclical currency. Based on our discussion so far, you must expect the dollar to decline until we get closer to the next recession. I am not fully convinced. Specifically, I remember that in the back half of 2016 global growth was rebounding, but the dollar soared. Therefore, the growth/dollar relationship can be more complex than you argue. Meanwhile, with negative interest rates in Europe, Japan and Switzerland, why would I even consider divesting out of my positive yielding dollar assets? Chart 52The Dollar Is A Counter Cyclical Currency BCA: You raise interesting questions, and you are correct that we expect the dollar to depreciate if our constructive view on global growth pans out for 2020. The inverse relationship between global industrial production (excluding the US) and the trade-weighted dollar is unambiguous (Chart 52). As you also mentioned, the reality is a little bit more nuanced. To understand why, it is important to remember how currencies function. We can think of an exchange rate as an adjustment mechanism that solves for the gap in growth between any two countries. This is at the root of the dollar’s counter-cyclicality. When global growth is picking up, returns tend to be higher in cyclical markets, which are highly concentrated outside of the US. Flows then gravitate from the US to other markets and the dollar declines. After a while, the dollar becomes cheap enough that these flows reverse. In the second half of 2016, three factors drove the dollar rebound. First, US manufacturing was improving at a faster pace than that of the rest of the world. Second, the Fed resumed its interest rate hikes, so interest rate differentials suddenly flattered the dollar anew. Finally, the election of President Trump, who campaigned on large scale fiscal stimulus, elicited memories of the Reagan dollar bull market of the first half of the 1980s. These factors eventually faded as global growth rebounded. Today, the Fed’s policies are hurting the dollar. Aside from recent interest rate cuts, the Fed has been injecting liquidity into the banking system through repurchase agreements and renewed asset (T-Bills) purchases. Moreover, the rate cuts are also easing global funding conditions and promoting a re-steepening of the yield curve. This will incentivize banks to lend and boost the US money supply. As growth re-accelerates and demand for imports (machinery, commodities, and consumer goods) rises, the current account deficit will widen further. This process will increase the international supply of dollars. Historically, these dynamics usually hurt the dollar. What we have described is a tentative abatement in geopolitical risk at best – but it would be cavalier to get overly enthusiastic. Like you, we are deeply uncomfortable with negative interest rates. Thankfully, the nascent pickup in global economic activity is lifting global bond yields. So far, foreign bond markets have led this move. More specifically, countries that have suffered most from the global manufacturing slowdown are now seeing their bond yields rise the quickest (Chart 53). For example, yields in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Japan have risen by a lot more than those in the US since global yields troughed in September. Should the initial signals of stabilization in global growth morph into a synchronized recovery, the US yield advantage will evaporate. In a nutshell, interest rates might be negative in Europe and Switzerland, but the positive carry offered by US assets is rapidly fading. Chart 53AAre Interest Rate Differentials Flashing A Signal About Exchange Rates? Chart 53BAre Interest Rate Differentials Flashing A Signal About Exchange Rates?   Chart 54Foreigners Are Selling Treasuries For international investors, the currency risk inherent in owning US bonds is just too large at the current juncture. Remember, the trade-weighted dollar stands 25% above its long-term equilibrium and the US twin deficits are expanding. Markets priced in cheap currencies with some potential upside, such as Australia, Canada, Norway or even the European periphery, might be better bets. Flows highlight just how precarious the situation is for the US dollar. Since last August, overall flows into the US Treasury market have been negative. Net foreign purchases by private investors are still positive at an annualized US$180 billion, but they are clearly rolling over. Moreover, official net outflows are running at $350 billion, easily cancelling out the private sector’s inflows (Chart 54). Essentially, foreigners’ appetite for US fixed-income assets is waning exactly as interest rate differentials have started moving against the dollar. Ms. X: I share my father’s concerns, but how would you implement your negative dollar view. Which currencies should I be loading up on as we enter the business cycle’s end game? BCA: The more export-dependent economies (and currencies) should benefit the most from a rebound in global growth. Within the G-10, we particularly like the Swedish krona, the Norwegian krone and the British pound. Bond yields for these currencies are rising the fastest vis-à-vis the US. As a result, the currencies themselves should soon follow (previously mentioned Chart 53). We also expect commodity currencies to benefit, but only upon clearer signs that the resource-thirsty Chinese economy is improving. Until then, they are likely to lag the pro-cyclical European currencies, which are less directly dependent on Chinese stimulus. The euro could become the greatest beneficiary from a weaker dollar because a large headwind for European economic activity is disappearing for now. For the past ten years, European real interest rates have been too low for the most productive, competitive exporter – Germany – but too high for others such as Spain and Italy. Consequently, the euro has been caught in a tug-of-war between a rising neutral rate of interest for Germany and a very low one for the peripheral economies. Via its rate cuts, asset purchase programs, and aggressive TLTRO packages, the ECB may have now finally eased policy to the point where nearly all Eurozone countries enjoy an accommodative monetary environment. 10-year government bond yields in France, Spain, Portugal and even Italy now all sit close to the neutral rate of interest for the entire eurozone (Chart 55). Chart 55The ECB Has Eased Policy Enough Finally, the euro is likely to benefit from inflows into European equity markets. The euro’s drop since 2018 has eased financial conditions and made euro area businesses more competitive. This is an important tailwind for European corporate profits and thus stocks. Moreover, European equities, especially those in the periphery, remain unloved, as illustrated by their cheap valuations compared to other advanced economies. Additionally, analysts’ earnings expectations for eurozone equities are perking up relative to US stocks. If the sell-side is right, powerful inflows into the region will lift the euro in 2020. Mr. X: Thank you. I find it difficult to share your enthusiasm for the euro, a currency backed by such a flimsy edifice. While I would agree that it could rebound next year, I find currencies highly unpredictable on such a time horizon. I prefer to think about them on a long-term basis, and while the euro is cheap, its weak institutional underpinning is too concerning. Let’s move on to commodities. Following our meeting last year, we took your advice on oil and gold. Overall, these calls helped our portfolio. Going forward, these markets are extremely perplexing. There is so much risk in oil markets, such as the tensions in the Middle East and the uncertainty stemming from the trade war between the US and China. How would you recommend playing the oil market in 2020? Chart 56Inventory Drawdown Will Support Oil BCA: Your assessment of these markets is spot on. Yet, price risk is skewed to the upside because fiscal and monetary stimulus will revive commodity demand. The oil-producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia will continue to restrain production, and will probably extend its 1.2mm b/d production cut due to expire at the end of March to year-end 2020. In the US, market-imposed capital discipline will keep reducing the growth of US shale-oil supply. Additionally, US shale-oil supply growth is threatened by flaring of associated natural gas in the Bakken and Permian basins. Failure to limit the burn-off at oil-production sites could provide the environmental lobby an opening to challenge growth. Ms. X: What about the demand side of the oil markets? The fall in the growth rate of demand this year caught most participants off guard. What do you make of that? BCA: Demand data shows a lot of lingering weakness, much of which was caused by tight financial conditions last year in the US and China. But now, most global central banks are pursuing highly accommodative monetary policy and many governments are also easing fiscal policy. As a result, this demand weakness will fade next year. We think next year growth will clock in at 1.4mm b/d. Not as robust as 2017, but still respectable. This should stop the downward pressure on oil prices that has prevailed since May (Chart 56). Mr. X: You’re describing a fairly strong market for next year. What are the downside risks to your view? BCA: Global economic policy uncertainty remains elevated. Uncertainty is one of the key factors driving demand for USD, which is one of the most popular safe havens in the world (Chart 57). A strong dollar creates a headwind for commodity demand. It raises the local-currency costs of consumers in the EM economies that drive oil demand, and lowers production costs outside of the US, encouraging supply growth at the margin. Chart 57Elevated Global Economic Uncertainty Has Kept The USD Well Bid Chart 58Gold: A Valuable Portfolio Hedge Ms. X: So, pulling it all together, what is your call for 2020? BCA: The weaker 2019 demand data and the upward revisions to global oil inventories pushed our 2020 Brent Oil forecast to $67/bbl from $70/bbl. We still expect WTI to trade at a $4/bbl discount to Brent. As we mentioned earlier, the risk to our forecast is to the upside: a resolution of the US-China trade war, and lower global economic policy uncertainty could trigger a sharp rally in crude prices. Mr. X: Thank you for your insight on oil. I would like to hear your thoughts on gold. You can tell that I see little absolute value in stocks or bonds at the moment, so I have an outsized preference for the yellow metal this year. Also, how could the US dollar and gold both rally at the same time in 2019? BCA: Let’s start with your dollar/gold question. It is very rare to see gold and the dollar rally together. Normally a strong dollar hurts gold. As you know, we’ve been recommending an allocation to gold since 2017, mostly as a portfolio hedge. We like that gold strongly outperforms other safe havens in equity bear markets and can participate in the upside (even if to a limited extent) in bull markets. We think the safe-haven properties of gold and the US dollar really have come to the fore over the past couple of years (Chart 58). Economic policy uncertainty, and divisive politics globally have raised the level of uncertainty to record levels. In such an environment, the dollar and gold both provide a safe haven and a portfolio hedge. Hence, their joint popularity this past year. We should also remember that gold is a good inflation hedge, and is particularly negatively correlated with real interest rates. A Fed that is willing to let the economy overheat is a Fed that will limit how high real rates climb. Moreover, global liquidity is plentiful. Finally, EM central banks have been slowly divesting from Treasuries and diversifying into gold lately, buying most of the new supply in the process. This backdrop, along with our forecast of a weaker dollar, should support gold again in 2020. That being said, because gold is tactically overbought and could face temporary headwinds if global uncertainty recedes, we prefer silver, which is not as stretched. Furthermore, silver’s higher industrial use means that it should also benefit from a global manufacturing recovery. Geopolitics Chart 59Multipolarity Creates An Unstable Environment Mr. X: Let’s return to geopolitical and policy risks, both of which abound. Global economic policy uncertainty is the highest it has been since academics began measuring it. The world is fraught with populism, authoritarianism, war, immigration, technological disruption, inequality, and corruption. With so much chaos, and so little consensus, is there anything solid for an investor to grasp about the political backdrop next year? BCA: Geopolitics is the likeliest candidate to short circuit this long bull market, given that the Federal Reserve, the usual culprit, has paused its rate tightening campaign. On a secular basis, geopolitical risk is rising because the United States’ national power is declining relative to that of other world powers (Chart 59). China’s rise, in particular, is stirring conflict with the US and its allies in the western Pacific. Beijing’s technological and military advance is generating fear across the American political establishment. Russia and China continue to deepen their relationship in the face of an increasingly unpredictable United States. These strategic tensions will persist despite any tariff ceasefire with China. Chart 60Globalization Has Peaked Competition among the great powers makes for a world of contested authority. As the rules of the road have become less certain, the tailwind behind international trade and investment has weakened (Chart 60). Deglobalization is a headwind for the earnings of large cap global companies in the long run. Emerging markets, which are exposed to trade, face persistent unrest. Mr. X: Given the above, how can an investor take an optimistic view of the global economy and markets next year? BCA: We have a framework for analyzing politics: constraints over preferences. We cannot predict what the chief politicians will prefer at any given time, but we can try to identify and measure the constraints that will restrict their freedom of movement. With global growth slowing, world leaders have become more sensitive to their constraints. The Fed has reversed rate hikes; China is easing policy; President Trump has refrained from attacking Iran; and President Trump and President Xi are negotiating a ceasefire. The UK has avoided a “no deal” Brexit – not once but twice. In short, the risk of recession (or conflict) has been sufficient to alter the policy trajectory. As a result, there is a prospect for global geopolitical risks to abate somewhat in 2020. Both the American and Chinese administrations need to see growth stabilize despite their ongoing strategic conflict. Both the British and European governments need to avoid a disorderly Brexit despite their lack of clarity beyond that. Geopolitical risk is declining, albeit from an extremely elevated level. Mr. X: The US and China have already come close to a deal only to get cold feet and back away from it. The British Prime Minister is committed to leaving the EU with or without a deal. Surely you cannot believe that the Middle East, Russia, other emerging markets, or North Korea will be any bastion of stability. BCA: The US-China trade war is still the single greatest threat to the equity bull market. Brexit is not resolved and a new deadline for a trade deal looms at the end of 2020. Investors must remain vigilant and hedge their portfolios, particularly with gold. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore this year’s reaffirmation of the Fed put, the China put, and Trump’s “Art of the Deal.” The base case for next year should be constructive, albeit with vigilant attention to the major risks: President Trump, China and Iran. The other issues you mention have varying degrees of market relevance. Russia is focusing on pacifying domestic discontent. North Korea is on a diplomatic track with the United States. Emerging market unrest is particularly relevant where it can have a bearing on global stability: Iraq, Iran and Hong Kong in particular. Ms. X: If I may interject: It seems to me that the worst of the trade war has passed, that the risk of a no-deal Brexit is negligible, and that Iran is unlikely to outdo its attack against Saudi Arabia in September. Doesn’t this imply that geopolitical risk is overrated and that investors should rush to capture the risk premium in equities? BCA: What we have described is a tentative abatement in geopolitical risk at best – but it would be cavalier to get overly enthusiastic. After all, any fall in global risks will be amply made up for by the impending rise in US domestic political risk. Indeed, US politics are the chief source of global political risk in 2020. First, if President Trump becomes a “lame duck” then he could take actions that are hugely disruptive to global markets in a desperate attempt to win reelection as a “war president.” Chart 61European Political Risk Is Now Low Second, if President Trump is reelected, then his disruptive populism will have a new mandate and his “America First” foreign and trade policy will be unshackled. Third, if the opposition Democrats succeed in unseating an incumbent president, they will likely take the Senate too, removing the main hurdle to a dramatic policy change. That would mark the third 180-degree reversal in national policy in 12 years. Moreover, investors may find the country merely exchanged right-wing populism for left-wing populism, which has a more negative impact on corporate earnings prospects. Polarization and institutional erosion will continue. The election results may be razor thin; swing states may have to recount votes; and the outcome could hinge on rare or unprecedented developments in the Electoral College, the Supreme Court or cyberspace. A crisis of legitimacy could easily afflict the next administration. In short, there are few scenarios in which US political risk does not rise over the next 12-24 months. Rising American risk stands in stark contrast to Europe (Chart 61), where the will to integrate has overcome several challenges since the sovereign debt crisis. Substantial majority of voters support the euro and the European Union. Germany is on the brink of a major political succession but it is not turning its back on the European project. France is successfully pursuing structural reforms. Italy remains the weakest link, but even the populist Northern League accepts the euro. This leaves two remaining global risks: China and Iran. Chinese political risk is generally understated. President Xi Jinping, lacking President Trump’s electoral constraint, could overestimate his leverage. He could overreach in the trade talks, in his battle to prevent excessive debt growth, or in his handling of Hong Kong, Taiwan, North Korea, or Iran. The result could be a breakdown in the trade talks or a separate strategic crisis with the United States. Another cold war-style escalation in tensions could easily kill the green shoots in global growth. As for Iran, the regime is under crippling American sanctions and faces unrest both at home and within its regional sphere of influence. There is a non-negligible risk that it will lash out and cause an extended oil supply shock. Conclusions Mr. X: This is a good place to conclude our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground but I remain deeply concerned that staying invested in risk assets today is akin to picking-up pennies in front of a steamroller. I accept your opinion that a recession is unlikely in 2020, but valuations of both stocks and bonds are uncomfortably stretched for my taste. As a result, I believe stocks could suffer whether growth is good or bad next year. Finally, since so many things need to go right for the global economy to continue to defy gravity, a recession may hit faster than you envision. To me, there is simply not enough margin of safety in stocks to compensate me for the risk! Ms. X: I agree with my father that the risks are high because we are entering the end game of the cycle. But I also see pockets of value, some of which you have mentioned today. Moreover, I am sympathetic to your view that global growth will recover next year. Corporate earnings should therefore expand. Hence, I fear that being out of the market will be very painful, especially because policy is quite accommodative. While stocks may not perform as well as they did in 2019, I expect them to outperform bonds handily. I’m therefore willing to continue holding risk assets, even if I need to be more judicious in my sector and regional allocation. BCA: Your family debate mirrors our own internal discussions. There is always a trade-off between maximizing short-term returns and taking a longer-term approach. Valuations are the ultimate guidepost for long-term return prospects. Because so many assets have become more expensive this year, long-term returns are likely to be uninspiring compared to recent history. Table 6 shows our baseline calculations of what a balanced portfolio will earn over the coming decade. We estimate that such a portfolio will deliver average annual returns of 4.4% over the next ten years, or 2.4% after adjusting for inflation. That is a noticeable deterioration from our inflation-adjusted estimate of 2.8% from last year, and also still well below the 6.5% real return that a balanced portfolio earned between 1982 and 2019. Table 6Asset Market Return Projections Our outlook for next year hinges on global growth rebounding and policy uncertainty receding. Monetary policy is less of a threat to equities than it was last year because central banks have already eased considerably and have been very open about their willingness to let inflation run above target for a while before retightening the monetary screws. We propose the following list of easy-to-track milestones to monitor whether or not our central scenario for the global economy and asset markets is playing out, and how close we are to the end of the cycle: Chinese money and credit numbers. Chinese credit growth must stabilize for the economy to do so. If credit origination continues to decelerate, this will indicate that Beijing has decided to tolerate the slowdown and prioritize its reform and deleveraging agenda. In this case, the Chinese debt supercycle is over sooner and the global economy will pay the price. Our China Investment Strategy Activity Index. Global policy is accommodative and liquidity conditions have improved significantly. However, if the Chinese economy continues to deteriorate, global growth will not rebound. The China Activity Index must stabilize and even improve somewhat for our global growth view to come to fruition. Progress in the “phase one” deal. China and the US must agree to a trade détente. As long as uncertainty around immediate tariffs remain high and retaliation risks stay alive, global capital spending intentions and thus the global manufacturing sector will be hamstrung. Surveys of global growth. The Global manufacturing PMI and the global growth expectation component of the ZEW survey must both recover. If these variables cannot gain any traction, the global economy is sicker than we estimate and risk assets will suffer. Commodity prices and the dollar. In the first quarter, industrial commodity prices must rebound and the dollar must start to depreciate. These two developments will not only reflect an improvement in global growth. They will also alleviate deflationary pressures around the world, revive profits and sponsor a business spending recovery. Moreover, a weaker dollar will also ease global financial conditions by decreasing the global cost of capital. 10-year inflation breakeven rate. If US breakevens move above the 2.3% to 2.5% zone, the Fed will become more proactive about raising rates. This would provoke a quicker end to the business cycle. President Trump’s approval rating. If President Trump’s approval rating stabilizes below 42%, he could give up on the economy and instead bet on a “rally around the flag” as his best strategy for re-election. This would result in a much more hawkish and confrontational White House that would become an even greater source of uncertainty for the economy, and thus risk asset prices. Ms. X: Thank you for this comprehensive list of variables to monitor. As always, you have left us with much to think about. We look forward to these discussions every year. Before we conclude, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: It will be our pleasure. The key points are as follow: Global equities are entering the end game of their nearly 11-year bull market. Stocks are expensive, but bonds are even more so. As a result, if global growth can recover and the US can avoid a recession in 2020, earnings will not weaken significantly and stocks will again outperform bonds. Low rates reflect the end of the debt supercycle in the advanced economies. However, the debt supercycle is still alive in EM in general, and in China, in particular. The global economic slowdown that begun more than 18 months ago started when China tried to limit debt growth. If Beijing continues to push for more deleveraging, global growth will continue to suffer as the EM debt supercycle will end. Nonetheless, we expect China to try to mitigate domestic deflationary pressures in 2020. As a result, a small wave of Chinese reflation, coupled with the substantial easing in global monetary and liquidity conditions should promote a worldwide re-acceleration in economic activity. Policy uncertainty will recede next year. Domestic constraints are forcing China and the US toward a trade détente. The risk of a no-deal Brexit is now marginal, and President Trump is still the favorite in 2020. A decline in policy risk will foster a global economic rebound. That being said, some pockets of risk remain, such as in the Middle East. Global central banks are highly unlikely to remove the punch bowl anytime soon. Not only will it take some time before global deflationary forces recede, monetary authorities in the G10 want to avoid the Japanification of their economies. As a result, they are already announcing that they will allow inflation to overshoot their 2% target for a period of time. This will ultimately raise the need for higher rates in 2021, which will push the global economy into recession in late 2021, or early 2022. These dynamics are key to our categorization of 2020 as the end game. US growth will re-accelerate. The US consumer remains in good shape thanks to healthy balance sheets and robust employment and wage growth prospects. Meanwhile, corporate profits and capex should benefit from a decline in global uncertainty and a pick-up in global economic activity. China will continue to stimulate its economy but will not do so as aggressively as it did over the past 10 years. Consequently, EM growth will also bottom but is unlikely to boom. Europe and Japan will re-accelerate in 2020. Bond yields will grind higher in 2020. However, Treasury yields are unlikely to break above the 2.25% to 2.5% range until much later in the year. Inflationary pressures won’t resurface quickly, so the Fed is unlikely to signal its intention to raise interest rates until late 2020 or later. European bonds are particularly unattractive. Corporate bonds are a mixed offering. Investment grade credit is unattractive owing to low option-adjusted spreads and high duration, especially when corporate health is deteriorating. Agency mortgage-backed securities and high-yield bonds offer better risk-adjusted value. Global stocks will enjoy their last-gasp rally in 2020. As global growth recovers, favor the more cyclical sectors and regions which also happen to offer the best value. US stocks are the least attractive bourse; they are very expensive and loaded with defensive and tech-related exposure, two groups that could suffer from higher bond yields. We are neutral on EM equities. Investors should pare exposure to equities after inflation breakevens have moved back into their 2.3% to 2.5% normal range and the Fed funds rate has moved closer to neutral. We anticipate this to be a risk in 2021. The dollar is likely to decline because it is a countercyclical currency. Balance of payment dynamics and valuation considerations are also becoming headwinds. The pro-cyclical European currencies and the euro should be the main beneficiary of any dollar depreciation. Oil and gold will have upside next year. Crude will benefit from both supply-side discipline and a recovery in oil demand on the back of the improving growth outlook. Gold will strengthen as global central banks limit the upside to real rates by allowing inflation to run a bit hot. A weaker dollar will flatter both commodities. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 2.4% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.5% a year between 1982 and 2019. We would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 22, 2019

Highlights Stock markets are set to produce low single digit returns in 2020. Favour stocks over bonds and cash, especially where bond yields are zero or negative – specifically, Germany, Switzerland, and Sweden. Underweight zero and negative yielding high-quality bonds versus higher yielding bonds – for example, underweight Swiss bonds versus US T-bonds. Favour lower yielding currencies because the central bank loses the ability to depress its own currency. For 2020, our preferred expression of this is long SEK/USD. The biggest risk in 2020 is if the global bond yield were to rise towards 2.5 percent exposing the fragility of risk-asset prices to higher bond yields. The $400 trillion global risk-asset edifice dwarfs the $80 trillion global economy by five to one. Fractal trade: Short Ireland (ISEQ 20) versus Europe (Stoxx Europe 600). Feature For all the talk of economic growth driving stock markets, the big story through 2018-19 has been bond yields driving stock markets. This is true in Europe as well as more broadly – and it is very easy to demonstrate by decomposing the stock market price into its two components: the underlying profits (earnings per share) and the valuation multiple paid for those profits (Chart of the Week). Chart of the Week2018 And 2019 Were All About Valuations. What About 2020? 2018 And 2019 Were All About Valuations Contrast 2018-19 with 2017. In 2017, the stock market’s stellar return came almost entirely from growth – profits surged while the multiple drifted sideways. But in 2018 and 2019, the story was all about valuation multiples – profits drifted sideways while the multiple plunged in 2018, and then symmetrically surged in 2019 (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Decomposing Stock Market Performance... Chart I-3...Into Valuation And Profits The cause of the stock market multiple contraction and re-expansion was the dramatic swing in bond yields. This is hardly surprising given that the prospective return on bonds drives the prospective return on competing long-duration assets, like equities and real-estate. Higher bond yields require a higher prospective return on equities, meaning a lower valuation multiple, while lower bond yields require a higher valuation multiple. In driving the swing in bond yields, the principal player was the Federal Reserve. Again, this is hardly surprising given that the ECB and BoJ are stuck on the side lines with monetary policy already locked at ‘maximum accommodative’, while the Fed can still move the lever in both directions. The cause of the stock market multiple contraction and re-expansion was the dramatic swing in bond yields. Through 2018-2019, the 10-year T-bond yield took a round trip from around 2 percent to 3.3 percent and then down again to around 2 percent where it stands today. This explains the mirror-image round trip in the stock market’s multiple: from 16 down to 13 and then back up again to 16 where it stands today (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Round Trip In The T-Bond Yield Explains The Round Trip In The Stock Market's Valuation Admittedly, the Fed’s dramatic pivot was influenced by the trade war, and the perceived threat to global growth. But two other considerations loomed large: the persistent undershoot of inflation versus its 2 percent target; and the fragility of risk-asset valuations – and thereby financial conditions – to higher bond yields. Bear in mind that the value of global risk-assets at over $400 trillion now dwarfs the $80 trillion global economy by a factor of five to one. So the main danger is not that economic imbalances and fragilities will drag down the financial markets; the main danger is that financial market imbalances and fragilities will drag down the economy – as we painfully felt in 2000, 2007, and 2011. The Valuation And Growth Outlook In 2020 The two key investment questions for 2020 are: What will happen to bond yields, and what will happen to stock market profits? Starting with bond yields, most of the major central banks are, to repeat, out of play. Leaving the Fed as the principal player. But at the last press conference, Jay Powell, made it crystal clear that the Fed is also out of play for the time being, at least when it comes to raising rates. “We've just touched 2 percent core inflation, and then we've fallen back. So, I think we would need to see a really significant move up in inflation that's persistent before we even consider raising rates to address inflation concerns.” Reinforcing this, Powell also hinted at introducing a potential ‘tolerance band’ around the 2 percent inflation target – perhaps 1.5-2.5 percent – before the central bank would need to react. “We're also, as part of our review, looking at potential innovations… changes to the framework that would be more supportive of achieving inflation on a symmetric 2 percent basis over time… these changes to monetary policy frameworks don't happen really quickly (but)… I think we'll wrap it up around the middle of next year. I've some confidence in that.” What about profits – could 2020 be a repeat of the 2017 stellar growth story? No, there are two reasons why it will be very difficult to repeat the 2017 story on profits. The two reasons come from the two components of profits: sales and profit margins. Unlike in 2017, global sales will not start 2020 at the very depressed levels from which they can play a very strong catch-up. The first reason is that, unlike in 2017, global sales will not start 2020 at the very depressed levels from which they can play a very strong catch-up (Chart I-5). Significantly, the recession in global sales through 2015-16 was comparable to that suffered in 2008-09. The 2015-16 recession just hasn’t been well documented because it was essentially an emerging markets recession rather than the developed market recession of 2008-09. Chart I-5Global Sales Are Not Depressed The second reason is that today’s profit margins are still close to their structural and cyclical peak; whereas at the start of 2017, they were at a cyclical low (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Profit Margins Are Elevated Hence, the two components of profits – sales and profit margins – will start 2020 at elevated levels. The upshot is that profits can grow in 2020, but the growth will be pedestrian at best. Let’s summarise some of the key investment messages for 2020. High quality bond yields that are near the lower bound of -1 percent cannot go much lower, but those yields in the region of 2 percent cannot go significantly higher. It follows that fixed-income investors should underweight zero and negative yielding bonds versus higher yielding bonds – for example, underweight Swiss bonds versus US T-bonds. In a negative growth shock, T-bonds can still offer substantial capital gains but Swiss bonds cannot. For currencies, it is the opposite message. Favour lower yielding currencies because the central bank loses the ability to depress its own currency. For 2020, our preferred expression of this is long SEK/USD. Stock markets are set to produce low single digit returns. This is uninspiring, but in a world of low prospective returns from all major asset-classes, favour stocks over bonds and cash. This is especially true in those regions and countries where bond yields are zero or negative – specifically, Germany, Switzerland, and Sweden. Today’s profit margins are still close to their structural and cyclical peak The biggest risk to this view is if the global bond yield were to rise towards 2.5 percent exposing the fragility of the risk-asset edifice to higher bond yields. To repeat, the value of global risk-assets, at over $400 trillion, dwarfs the $80 trillion global economy. So the biggest risk comes from the valuation of global financial markets, it does not come from the global economy. More About Price To Sales Having completed our 20 paragraphs on 2020, we would like to follow up on the analysis in last week’s report: Are European Stocks Attractive? To recap, we found that price to sales is the stock market valuation metric that has the best predictive power for prospective returns – because unlike other metrics such as assets, profits, and cash flow, sales are quantifiable, unambiguous, and undistorted by profit margins. In last week’s report our prospective return forecasts were based on price to sales data sourced from Thomson Reuters. To which, several clients asked if the analysis would be the same using the price to sales data sourced from MSCI (Chart I-7). The answer is broadly yes. Chart I-8-Chart I-10 illustrate that: Chart I-7Despite The US, Germany, And Japan Trading On Different Valuations... Chart I-8...The Prospective Return From The US Is Low Single Digit... Chart I-9...The Prospective Return From Germany Is Low Single Digit... Chart I-10...The Prospective Return From Japan Is Low Single Digit... First, despite vastly different stock market valuations in Germany, Japan, and the US, the implied prospective 10-year annualised returns are almost identical. Second, the implied prospective returns from the MSCI calculated price to sales are slightly lower than from the Thomson Reuters data, because current MSCI valuations are closer to the dot com bubble peak. Third, this just reinforces the point that stock market valuations are very fragile to higher bond yields, as already discussed in our preceding 20 paragraphs on 2020. Fractal Trading System* This week we note that the strong outperformance of the Irish stock market is vulnerable to a correction based on its broken 65-day fractal structure. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short Ireland (ISEQ 20) versus Europe (Stoxx Europe 600). Set the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 4 percent. In other trades, we are pleased to report that long gold versus nickel achieved its 11 percent profit target and is now closed. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated   December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

Feature We spent the past two weeks visiting and exchanging views with our clients in Asia. We presented our view that the ongoing stimulus measures are beginning to bear fruit in terms of stabilizing China’s economic activity, and that we expect the economic slowdown to bottom early next year. In addition, Chinese policymakers are signaling their willingness to accelerate stimulus on both monetary and fiscal fronts, which should mitigate the downside risks and help the economy regain traction in 2020. Interestingly, our view sparked divergent responses: clients outside of China were more upbeat about the state of the Chinese economy than clients from mainland China.  While few investors we spoke to showed concerns over an imminent “hard landing” in China’s economy or systemic risk from China’s financial system, our mainland Chinese clients remain skeptical that the ongoing stimulus will be sufficient to revive the economy. They were also worried that financial regulations may be too restrictive to generate the amount of money growth needed for the economy. Another interesting observation was that while being pessimistic about the economy, our mainland Chinese investors share our assessment that Chinese domestic stocks still have some upside in the coming year. On the other hand, global investors, who are more sanguine about China’s economic recovery, prefer to wait on the sidelines before favoring Chinese investable stocks (Chart 1). Chart 1AA Tale Of Two Markets: Onshore Outperforms Global Markets... Chart 1B...While Offshore Underperforms Below we present some of the top questions that were posed by investors during our trip, along with our answers. We recap the conclusions of our view, and draw out the investment implications of the differences between the sentiments towards China’s equity markets, in the last question of the report. Q: Recent economic data suggests a weakening Chinese economy. Why do you think the economy will reach a bottom in 2020? Historically, China’s credit formation has consistently led economic activity by about three quarters (Chart 2).  Even though credit growth this year has not been as strong as in previous expansionary cycles, a turning point in the credit impulse occurred at the start of 2019. This suggests that economic activity should turn around within the next two quarters. Chart 2Expecting A Turn In Q1 2020 Chart 3Emerging Green Shoots   Furthermore, despite weakening headline economic data, some underlying components indicate promising improvements (Chart 3): Growth in infrastructure investment has ticked up modestly in the past couple months, and is set to improve further. The State Council mandated local governments to allocate the proceeds from special-purpose bond sales to infrastructure projects by the end of October. This, combined with a frontloading of next year’s local government bonds, should lend support to infrastructure spending in the coming months. After fluctuating in and out of contraction for a year, growth in auto manufacturing production picked up in August and remained positive through October. This improvement is due to less contraction in auto sales and a faster reduction in auto inventories. Moreover, electricity output surged in October, which also indicates that growth may be gaining momentum. Chart 4Trade Should Improve Into 2020 Lastly, global financial conditions have eased significantly and credit growth has picked up worldwide, which should help support global demand. Even though Sino-US trade negotiations are ongoing, our baseline view is that a “Phase One” trade deal will be inked in the next couple months. Eased trade tensions and even some rollbacks in the existing tariffs on Chinese export goods, coupled with improved global demand, should provide some tailwinds to China’s external sector (Chart 4). Q: What is your outlook on China’s economic policy for 2020? The Chinese economic growth model remains reliant on credit formation and capital investment. Therefore, the sustainability of an economic recovery depends on whether Chinese policymakers are willing to keep the stimulus wheel turning. Chart 5A Sign Of A Policy Shift For investors favoring China-related assets, the good news is that there has been an increasing urgency in policymakers’ tone to support economic growth since September. Capex growth from state-owned enterprises (SOEs) has increasingly outpaced the private sector, which is significant:  A sustained rotation in the pace of SOE vis-à-vis private sector capex marked a turning point in the 2015-2016 cycle, when Chinese policymakers’ imperative to supporting growth outweighed their desire to continue with structural reforms (Chart 5).  We do not expect a 2016-style drastic rise in SOE capex growth next year, because the current economic slowdown is not as severe or prolonged as in 2015. Nonetheless, the rotation in capex growth is an important signal that Chinese policymakers may be more willing to stimulate the economy by again allowing the state sector to upstage the private sector. In the meantime, we expect that some pro-growth “policy adjustments” will be deployed in 2020: Chart 6Infrastructure Investment Likely To Rise Monetary policy will incrementally ease, with one to two 10-15bps loan prime rate (LPR) cuts in the next 3-6 months. At the same time, China’s central bank (PBoC) will keep bank liquidity ample and commercial banks’ funding costs relatively low, by continuing frequent liquidity injections to stabilize the interbank rate. A further cut in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR) is also highly likely. Keeping banks well capitalized will partially mitigate the pressure commercial banks face from falling profit margins and rising credit defaults. Accommodative monetary conditions will also support more stimulus on the fiscal front. We expect that the National People’s Congress in March 2020 will approve higher quotas on the issuing of local government bonds. Chinese state-owned commercial banks will continue to be the main buyers for local government bonds.  A portion of 2020 local government special-purpose bond issuance will be frontloaded to the remainder of 2019 and into the first months of next year. Relaxed capital requirements will likely boost local governments’ infrastructure project funding and expenditures. Our model suggests infrastructure spending should pick up from the current 3.3% year-on-year, to close to 7.5% in the second and third quarters next year (Chart 6). There are subtle signs that the government is starting to relax restrictions on the real estate sector. Land sales by local governments have increased since mid-2019, and the trend will continue into 2020 (Chart 7).  Income from land sales accounts for 70% of local government revenues, thus allowing more land sales should help fund a larger local government spending budget next year. Declining government subsidies to shantytown renovation (namely the Pledged Supplementary Lending, or PSL) have recently abated and will likely continue to improve (Chart 8). Chart 7Some Improvement To Come In The Real Estate Sector Chart 8Government Subsidies Will Continue   December’s Central Economic Work Conference (CEWC) will set policy priorities for the following year. We think Chinese policymakers will make economic growth a top priority for 2020. Credit growth swelled in the first quarter of 2019 following the December 2018 CEWC, and we expect a surge in early 2020 as well.Due to the unusually high credit growth in January this year and the seasonal factor next year (Chinese New Year will fall in January 2020), the surge in credit growth, on a year-over-year basis, will more likely be muted until towards the end of the first quarter and into the second quarter. Investors should overweight Chinese investable stocks in the next 6-12 months, but need to watch for more positive signs to upgrade tactical stance. Beyond the second quarter, however, the outlook gets cloudier as tension from the US election heats up and President Trump may change his trade negotiation strategies with China.1 This may have implications on China’s domestic policies. But for now, our baseline view is that Chinese policymakers will incrementally accelerate the pace of economic stimulus throughout next year. Q:  Monetary policy has been accommodative for more than a year, but capex this year has fallen below market expectations compared with past cycles. How will further stimulus help to revive investment and economic growth next year? In short, our answer is this: interest rate cuts alone will not be enough to boost economic growth in China. Capex, and growth more generally, will only revive through synchronized policy support from the Chinese authorities. In a previous report2 we discussed that the lack of response to monetary easing has been due to a less effective monetary policy transmission mechanism, a reactive and reluctant central bank, and a debt-loaded corporate sector. More importantly, the “half-measured” stimulus has been preferred by Chinese authorities in this cycle, as they prioritized financial de-risking over growth and have significantly tightened financial regulations since 2016. Given the expected policy pivot to a more pro-growth stance in the coming year, the following underlines our conviction that capex should pick up in 2020.  Modern Money Theory (MMT), with Chinese characteristics:3 local governments will ramp up debt again, and this quasi-fiscal stimulus will be a key support to the economy in 2020. During the 2015-2016 cycle, aggressive interest cuts did not result in a significant uptick in credit growth. Bank lending was not the core driver for economic recovery in 2016. The economy only bottomed following an unprecedented issuance of local government bonds after mid-2015 (Chart 9).  Chinese authorities will keep a “back door” open: even though overall tight financial regulations will remain intact, we expect the PBoC to allow a more moderate contraction in shadow banking (Chart 10). This will provide smaller banks and enterprises access to tap into bank credit. Importantly, this means the government will acquiesce to local governments in providing extra funding through shadow banking. We already see local government financing vehicles (LGFV) making a comeback in recent months. Chart 9A Chinese Version Of MMT Chart 10The "Back Door" May Open Wider     Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) will benefit from lowered financing costs through the new LPR system. As we pointed out in our previous report,4 the new LPR regime is not intended as much to expand bank credit as to help struggling SMEs survive economic hardships. This, along with tax cuts, should provide SMEs some relief from capital constraints. Q. CPI has been rising sharply and is above the government’s inflation target of 3%. Will inflation prevent the PBoC from maintaining an easy monetary policy? Chart 11PBoC Likely To Capitulate To Producer Deflation No. We think deflationary pressure in the industrial sector (measured by producer prices) poses a bigger threat to the economy, and that PBoC is more likely to loosen monetary policy than to tighten (Chart 11). Chart 12 shows that the recent surge in headline consumer prices has almost been entirely driven by soaring pork prices. There is compelling evidence from historical data that, unless core consumer price inflation also rises, climbing food prices alone will have a limited impact on PBoC policy (Chart 13). We think this approach is justified, as the necessity of “core feedthrough” is also what most central banks in the developed world look for when confronted with a detrimental supply shock. Chart 12Rising Pork Prices Have Driven Up Headline Inflation... Chart 13...But Won't Be Driving Up Interest Rates Chart 14A Wild Year For The RMB Core CPI has been trending downwards since February 2018, and there is no evidence to suggest that food prices will drive up core CPI inflation (Chart 13, bottom panel).  This, in combination with deflating producer prices, means that the probability of tighter monetary policy over the coming 6-9 months is extremely low. In fact, we expect, with high conviction, that the PBOC will guide the LPR lower in the coming months. Q: What is your view on the RMB for 2020? The RMB depreciated by 5% against the US dollar from its peak in February this year, mostly driven by market expectations of US tariffs imposed on Chinese export goods. Interest rate differentials, short-term capital flows, and economic fundamentals all have played much smaller roles in the RMB’s value changes (Chart 14). The depreciation in the CNY/USD this year has pushed the RMB close to two sigma below its long-term trend (Chart 15). As we expect a “Phase One” trade deal to be signed and trade tensions abating at least in the near term, the RMB will face upward pressure through the first half of 2020. The appreciation will also be supported by, although to a lesser extent, China’s improved domestic economy, rising demand for RMB-denominated assets, and a weakening US dollar (Chart 16). According to our model, the USD/CNY exchange rate can return to a 6.8-7.0 range, if a significant portion of the existing tariffs is rolled back (Chart 17).  This range seems to be within the “fair value” of the RMB, justifiable by the current China-US interest rate differential (Chart 14, bottom panel). Chart 15Has The RMB Gone Too Far? Chart 16Demand For RMB Assets On The Rise, Despite The Trade War However, it would not be in the PBoC’s best interests to let the RMB appreciate too rapidly, because an appreciating Chinese currency would act as a deflationary force on China’s export and manufacturing sectors.  The large differential in the China-US interest rates would allow PBoC to cut interest and/or RRR rates, to ease upward pressure on the RMB.   Chart 17Tariff Rollbacks Will Push Up RMB   Q: How should equity investors position themselves towards China over the coming year? We are bullish on Chinese investable stocks in the next 6 to 12 months, based on our view that the Chinese economy will bottom in the first quarter next year, policy will be incrementally more supportive, and a “Phase One” trade deal will be signed soon. In the very near term, however, we think downside risks to Chinese equities are not trivial. We remain a neutral tactical stance, but will continue to watch for the following signs before upgrading our tactical call from neutral to overweight.5 Chart 18A (top panel) shows that cyclical stocks remain very depressed relative to defensives, underscoring investors’ lack of confidence in the Chinese economy and trade negotiations. A breakout in cyclicals versus defensives would signify a major improvement in investor sentiment towards Chinese economic growth. An uptick in the relative performance of industrials and consumer staples (Chart 18A, bottom panel). The negative sensitivity of industrials and positive sensitivity of consumer staples to monetary policy suggests that the relative performance between the two sectors may be a reflationary barometer for China’s economy. The relative performance trend remains off its recent low, which suggests that China’s existing policy stance has not yet turned more reflationary. A technical breakdown in the relative performance of healthcare and utility stocks (Chart 18B) would also be a bullish sign. Investable health care and utilities stocks have historically led China’s economic activity, core inflation and stock prices by 1-3 months. A technical breakdown in the relative performance of these sectors would signify that market participants anticipate a bottom in China’s economy. As we mentioned at the outset, we observed an interesting divergence in sentiment among our domestic versus global investors. This divergence is reflected in both the onshore and offshore stock markets; year to date, onshore A shares have outperformed global benchmarks by 5.6% (Chart 1, on page 1 of the report). Chart 18AWaiting For A Telltale Sign... Chart 18B...Before A Tactical Upgrade However, all of the outperformance in A shares occurred before end April, when the trade talks broke down and domestic credit expansion significantly slowed from the first quarter. Since May, the relative performance of A shares in US dollar terms has been mostly flat, reflecting the fact the markets were not expecting a significant stimulus forthcoming.  Chinese investable stocks, on the other hand, have been trading heavily on the day-to-day news surrounding the trade negotiations and have significantly underperformed both domestic A shares and global benchmarks. Therefore, our base case view of a trade truce coupled with an improved Chinese economy and more supportive policy near year, warrant a cyclical overweight stance favoring Chinese investable stocks over their domestic peers. Earnings from both onshore and offshore markets will benefit from a modest improvement in economic activity, but we think the investable market will benefit more from the trade truce and more upside growth potential. Stay tuned.   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Is China Afraid Of The Big Bad Warren?" dated October 25, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, " Threading A Stimulus Needle (Part 1): A Reluctant PBoC," dated July 10 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3We call it a “MMT” because China’s state-owned commercial banks own approximately 80% of local government bonds. The commercial banks are essentially backed by China’s central bank, which has a fiat currency system and can make independent monetary policy decisions. 4Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Mild Deflation Means Timid Easing," dated October 9, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "A Guide To Chinese Investable Equity Sector Performance," dated October 30, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations