Deuda Soberana

Informe especial

Dear Client, This week we are sending you two Special Reports. One report deals with the outlook for U.S. fiscal policy and government debt. It was written by Mark McClellan, Chief Strategist of the monthly Bank Credit Analyst, and was first published in the July edition of that publication. We are also sending a Special Report on the topic of global yield curves that was written by Chief Global Fixed Income Strategist Robert Robis. We trust you will find both reports very informative. Best regards, Ryan Swift Highlights Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus when the economy is already at full employment. The budget deficit is on track to surpass 6% of GDP in a few years. It would likely peak above 8% in the case of a recession. The alarming long-term U.S. fiscal outlook is well known, but it has just become far worse. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. The federal government will be spilling far more red ink over the next decade than during any economic expansion phase since the 1940s. The debt/GDP ratio could surpass the previous peak set during WWII within 12 years. Shockingly large budget deficits in the past have sparked some attempt in Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. Factors that explain the political shift include disappointing income growth, income inequality, and rising political clout for Millennials, Hispanics and the elderly. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change over the next decade, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions necessary. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, there are costs: in the long-term, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. Feature Profligacy: (Noun) Unconstrained by convention or morality. Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted before in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus at a time when the economy is already at full employment. Investors are celebrating the growth-positive aspects of the new fiscal tailwind at the moment, but it may wind up generating a party that is followed by a hangover as the Fed is forced to lean hard against the resulting inflationary pressures. Moreover, even in the absence of a recession, the federal government will likely be spilling far more red ink than during any economic expansion since the 1940s (Chart 1). What are the long-term implications of this macro experiment? Will the U.S. continue to easily fund large and sustained budget deficits? Chart 1U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period Historically, shockingly large budget deficits sparked some attempt by Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, we argue in this Special Report that there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. On The Bright Side The Trump tax cuts, the immediate expensing of capital spending and a lighter regulatory touch have stirred animal spirits in the U.S. The Administration's trade policies are a source of concern, but CEO confidence is generally high. The NFIB survey highlights that small business owners are almost euphoric regarding the outlook. The IMF estimates that the tax cuts and less restrictive spending caps will provide a direct fiscal thrust of 0.8% in 2018 and 0.9% in 2019 (Chart 2). The overall impact on the economy over the next 12-18 months could be larger to the extent that business leaders follow through on their newfound bullishness and ramp up capital spending. Chart 2Lots Of Fiscal Stimulus In 2018 And 2019 Fiscal policy is a clear positive for stocks and other risk assets in the near term, as long as inflation is slow to respond. In addition to the near-term boost, there will be longer-term benefits from the 2017 tax act. Various provisions of the act affect the long-run productive potential of the U.S. economy, by promoting increases in investment and labor supply. Corporate tax cuts and the full expensing of business capital outlays should permanently increase the nation's capital stock relative to what it otherwise would be, leading to a slightly faster trend pace of productivity growth. Similarly, lower income taxes are projected to encourage more people to enter the workforce or to work longer hours. The CBO estimates that the tax act will boost the level of potential real GDP by 0.9% by the middle of the next decade. This may not sound like much, but it translates into almost a million extra jobs. The supply-side benefits of the 2017 tax act are therefore meaningful. Unfortunately, given the lack of offsetting spending cuts, it comes at the cost of a dramatically worse medium- and long-term outlook for government debt. The CBO estimates that the recent changes in fiscal policy will cumulatively add $1.7 trillion to the federal government's debt pile, relative to the previous baseline (Chart 3). The annual deficit is projected to surpass $1 trillion in 2020, and peak as a share of GDP at 5.4% in 2022. Federal government debt held by the private sector will rise from 76% this year to 96% in 2028 in this scenario. The budget situation begins to look better after 2020 in the CBO's baseline forecast because a raft of "temporary provisions" are assumed to sunset as per current law, including some of the personal tax cuts and deductions included in the 2017 tax package. As is usually the case, the vast majority of these provisions are likely to be extended. The CBO performed an alternative scenario in which it extends the temporary provisions and grows the spending caps at the rate of inflation after 2020. In this more realistic scenario, the deficit reaches 7% of GDP by 2028 and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio hits 105% (Chart 3). Chart 3Comparing To The Reagan Era Moreover, there will undoubtedly be a recession sometime in the next five years. Even a mild downturn, on par with the early 1990s, could inflate the budget deficit to 8% or more of GDP. The Demographic Time Bomb The pressure that the aging population will place on federal coffers over the medium term is well known, but it is worth reviewing in light of Washington's new attitude toward deficit financing. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. In 1970, there were 5.4 people between the ages of 20 and 64 for every person 65 or older. That ratio has since dropped to 4 and will be down to 2.6 within the next 20 years (Chart 4). Spending on entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Security and government pensions) is on an unsustainable trajectory (Charts 5 and 6). In fiscal 2017, these programs absorbed 76% of federal revenues and the CBO estimates that this will rise to almost 100% by 2028, absent any change in law. If we also include net interest costs, total mandatory spending1 is projected to exceed total federal government revenues as early as next year, meaning that deficit financing will be required for all discretionary spending. Chart 4The Withering ##br##Support Ratio Chart 5Entitlements Will Explode ##br##Mandatory Spending Chart 6All Discretionary Spending ##br## To Be Deficit Financed? The CBO last published a multi-decade outlook in 2017 (Chart 7). The Federal debt/GDP ratio was projected to reach 150% by 2047. If we adjust this for the new (higher) starting point in 2028 provided by the CBO's alternative scenario, the debt/GDP ratio would top 164% in 2047. Chart 7An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation To put this into perspective, the demands of WWII swelled the federal debt/GDP ratio to 106% in 1946, the highest on record going back to the early 1700s (Chart 8). The debt ratio could rocket past that level before 2030, even in the absence of a recession. Chart 8U.S. Debt In Historical Context These extremely long-term projections are only meant to be suggestive. A lot of things can happen in the coming years that could make the trajectory better or even worse. But the point is that current levels of taxation are insufficient to fund entitlements in their current form in the long run. Chart 9 shows that outlays as a share of GDP have persistently exceeded revenues since the mid-1970s, except for a brief period during the Clinton Administration. The gap is set to widen over the coming decade. Something will have to give. Chart 9U.S. Outlays And Revenues Forget Starving The Beast "Starve the Beast" refers to the idea that the size of government can be restrained through a low-tax regime that spurs growth and pressures Congress to cut spending and control the budget deficit. It has been the mantra of Republicans since the Reagan era. The 1981 Reagan tax cuts included an across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates, taking the top rate down from 70% to 50%. Corporate taxes were slashed by $150 billion over a 5-year period and tax rates were indexed for inflation, among other changes. It was not surprising that the budget deficit subsequently ballooned. Outrage grew among fiscal conservatives, but Congress spent the next few years passing laws to reverse the loss of revenues, rather than aggressively attacking the spending side. Today, Congressional fiscal hawks are in retreat and the Republican Party under President Donald Trump is not as fiscally conservative as it once was. This trend reflects the pull toward the center of the economic policy spectrum in response to a shift to the left among voters. BCA's political strategists have highlighted that this is the "median voter theory" (MVT) in action.2 The MVT posits that parties and politicians will approximate the policy choices of the median voter in order to win an election or stay in power. Every U.S. presidential election involves candidates making a mad dash to the most popularly appealing positions. President Trump exhibited this process when he ran in the Republican primary on a platform of increased infrastructure spending and zero cuts to "entitlement" spending. The Great Financial Crisis, disappointingly slow growth, stagnating middle class incomes and the widening income distribution have resulted in a leftward shift among voters on economic issues. Adding to the shift is the rising political clout of the Millennial generation, which generally favors more government involvement in the economy and will become the major voting block as it ages in the 2020s. There also are important changes underway in the ethnic composition of the electorate. The rising proportion of Hispanic voters will on balance favor the Democrats, according to voting trends (Chart 10). A previous Special Report by Peter Berezin, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, predicted that Texas will become a swing state in as little as a decade and a solid Democrat state by 2030.3 Chart 10The Proportion Of Minority Voters Set To Grow President Trump's shift to the left on economic policy helped him to out-flank Clinton in the election, particularly in the Rust Belt, where his protectionist and anti-austerity message resonated. Even his anti-immigration appeal is mostly based on economic reasoning - i.e. jobs, rather than cultural factors. Trump has admitted that he is not all that concerned about taking the country deeper into hock. The Republican rank-and-file has generally gone along with Trump's agenda because he has delivered traditional Republican tax cuts and continues to rate highly among his supporters (his approval is around 90% among Republicans). Fiscal hawks within the GOP have been forced to the sidelines while Trump and moderate Republicans have passed bipartisan spending increases with Democratic assistance. Where's The Outrage? The implication is that, unlike the Reagan years, we do not expect there will be a strong political force capable of leading a fight against budget deficits. After a decade of disappointing income growth, voters are in no mood for tax hikes. On the spending side, health care and pensions are still politically untouchable. A recent study by the Pew Research Center confirms that only a very small percentage of Americans of either political stripe would agree with cuts to spending on education, Medicare, Social Security, defense, infrastructure, veterans or anti-terrorism efforts (Chart 11). It is therefore no surprise that a populist such as Trump has promised to defend entitlement programs. Moreover, the graying of America will make it increasingly difficult for politicians to tame the entitlement beast. An aging population might generally favor the GOP, but it will also solidify opposition towards cutting Medicare and Social Security. As for defense, U.S. military spending was 3.3% of GDP and almost 15% of total spending in 2017 (Chart 12). Congress recently lifted the spending cap for defense expenditures, but it is still projected to fall as a share of total government spending and GDP in the coming years. It is conceivable that Congress could eventually trim the defense budget even faster, but spending is already low by historical standards and it is hard to see any future Congress gutting the military at a time when the global challenge from China and Russia is rising. Indeed, given the geopolitical atmosphere of great power competition, defense spending is more likely to rise. Chart 11Entitlements Are Popular* Chart 12What's Left To Cut? So, what is left to cut? If entitlements and defense are off the table, that leaves non-defense discretionary spending as the sacrificial lamb. This category includes spending by the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Justice, State and Veteran Affairs. Such spending has already declined sharply during the past several decades (Chart 12). Non-defense discretionary spending amounted to $610 billion in 2017, which is only 15.3% of total federal spending. To put this into perspective, cutting every last cent of non-defense discretionary spending by 2022 would still leave a budget deficit of about 2½% of GDP. And it would be political suicide. The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice and Veterans Affairs account for more than half of non-defense discretionary spending. But these programs are very popular among voters. And, at only 1.3% of total spending, eliminating all foreign aid won't make much difference. Either President Trump or Vice-President Mike Pence will be the GOP presidential candidate in 2020. Pence could be more fiscally conservative than Trump, but Congress is unlikely to remain GOP-controlled through 2024. Similarly, it is difficult to see the Democrats making more than a token effort to rein in the deficit if the party is in charge after 2020. Perhaps they will raise taxes on the rich and push the corporate rate back up a bit, but voters will probably not favor a full reversal of the Trump tax cuts. Democrats will not tackle entitlements either. In other words, we can forget about "starving the beast" as a viable option no matter which party is in power. There will be little appetite for fiscal austerity in the U.S. through to the mid-2020s at a minimum. International Comparison This all places the U.S. out of sync with other major industrialized countries, where structural budget deficits have been tamed in most cases and are expected to remain so according to the IMF's latest projections (Chart 13). The U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit is projected to be almost 7% of GDP in 2019, by far the highest among other industrialized countries except for Norway. Spain and Italy are expected to have relatively small structural deficits of 2½% and 0.8%, respectively, next year. Greece is running a small structural surplus! Including all levels of government, the IMF estimates that the U.S. general government gross debt/GDP ratio is projected to be well above that of the U.K., France, Germany, Spain and Portugal in 2023 (Chart 14). It is expected to be on par with Italy at that time, although the newly-installed populist government there is likely to negotiate a loosening of the fiscal rules with Brussels, leading to higher debt levels than the IMF currently expects. Chart 13U.S. Budget Deficit Stands Out Chart 14International Debt Comparison The implication is that the U.S. government appears destined to become one of the most indebted in the developed world. The Fiscal Tipping Point Investors are not yet worried about the path of U.S. fiscal policy; the yield curve is quite flat, CDS spreads on U.S. Treasurys have not moved and the dollar is still overvalued by most traditional measures. The challenge is timing when a fiscally-induced crisis might occur. A warning bell does not ring when government debt or deficits reach certain levels. Fiscal trends generally do not suddenly spiral out of control - it is a gradual and insidious process reflected in multi-year deficits and slowly accumulating debt burdens. Eventually, a tipping point is reached where the only solution is drastic policy shifts or in extreme cases, default. Along the way, there are a number of signs that fiscal trends are entering dangerous territory. The relevance of the various signs will be different for each country, reflecting, among other things, the depth and structure of the financial system, the soundness of the economy, the dependence on foreign capital, and the asset preferences of domestic investors. Some key signs of building fiscal stress are given in Box 1. None of the factors in Box 1 appear to be a threat at the moment for the U.S. Moreover, comparisons with other countries that have hit the debt wall in the past are not that helpful because the U.S. is a special case. It has a huge economy and has political and military clout. The dollar is the world's main reserve currency and the country is able to borrow in its own currency. This suggests that the U.S. will be able to "get away with" its borrowing habit for longer than other countries have in the past. At the same time, financial markets are fickle and, even with hindsight, it not always clear why investors switch from acceptance to bearishness about a particular state of affairs. Box 1: Traditional Signs Of An Approaching Debt Crisis Government deficits absorb a rising share of net private savings, leaving little for new investment. Interest payments account for an increasingly large share of government revenues, squeezing out discretionary spending and requiring tough budget action merely to stop the deficit from rising. The government exhausts its ability to raise tax burdens. Traditional sources of debt finance dry up, requiring alternative funding strategies. Fears of inflation and/or default lead to a rising risk premium on interest rates and/ or a falling exchange rate. Political shifts occur as governments get blamed for eroding living standards, high taxes, and continued pressure to cut spending. The Costs Of Fiscal Profligacy Even if the U.S. is not near a fiscal tipping point, this does not mean that massive debt accumulation is costless: Interest Costs: Spending 3% of GDP on servicing the federal government's debt load over the next decade is not a disaster. Nonetheless, it does reduce the tax dollars available to fund entitlements or investing in infrastructure. Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Lawmakers would have less flexibility to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected events, such as natural disasters or recessions. As noted above, a recession in 2020 could generate a federal deficit of more than 8% of GDP. In that case, Congress may feel constrained in supporting the economy with even temporary fiscal stimulus. National Savings: Because government borrowing reduces national savings, then either capital spending must assume a smaller share of the economy or the U.S. must borrow more from abroad. Most likely it will be some combination of both. Crowding Out: If global savings are not in plentiful supply, then the additional U.S. debt issuance will place upward pressure on domestic interest rates and thereby "crowd out" business capital spending. This would reduce the nation's capital stock, leading to lower growth in productivity and living standards than would otherwise be the case. The CBO estimates that the positive impact on the capital stock from the changes to the corporate tax structure will overwhelm the negative impact from higher interest rates over the next decade. Nonetheless, the crowding out effect may dominate over a longer-time horizon. Academic studies suggest that every percentage point rise in the government's debt-to-GDP ratio adds 2-3 basis points to the equilibrium level of bond yields. If this is correct, then a rise in the U.S. ratio of 25 percentage points over the next decade in the CBO's baseline would lift equilibrium long-term bond yields by a meaningful 50-75 basis points. Much depends, however, on global savings backdrop at the time. External Trade Gap: If global savings are plentiful, then it may not take much of a rise in U.S. interest rates to attract the necessary foreign inflows to fund both the higher U.S. federal deficit and the private sector's borrowing requirements. Of course, this implies a larger current account deficit and a faster accumulation of foreign IOUs. Twin Deficits The U.S. has run a current account deficit for most of the past 40 years, which has cumulated into a rising stock of foreign-owned debt. The Net International Investment Position (NIIP) is the difference between the stock of foreign assets held by U.S. residents and the stock of U.S. assets held by foreign investors. The NIIP has fallen increasingly into the red over the past few decades, reaching 40% of GDP today (Chart 15). The current account deficit was 2.4% at the end of 2017, matching the post-Lehman average. Nonetheless, this deficit is set to worsen as increased domestic demand related to the fiscal stimulus is partly satisfied via higher imports. Chart 15Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position We estimate that a two percentage point rise in the budget deficit relative to the baseline could add a percentage point or more to the current account deficit, taking it up close to 4% of GDP. Upward pressure on the external deficit will also be accentuated in the next few years to the extent that the U.S. business sector ramps up capital spending. Chart 16Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar The implication is that the NIIP will fall deeper into negative territory at an even faster pace. A 2% current account deficit would be roughly consistent with stabilization in the NIIP/GDP ratio. But a 4% deficit would cause the NIIP to deteriorate to almost 80% of GDP by 2040 (Chart 15). The sustainability of the U.S. twin deficits has been an area of intense debate among academics and market practitioners for many years. The U.S. has been able to get away with the twin deficits for so long in part because of the dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. The critical role of the dollar in international transactions underpins global demand for the currency. This has allowed the U.S. to issue most of its debt obligations in U.S. dollars, forcing the currency risk onto foreign investors. The worry is that foreign investors will at some point begin to question the desirability of an oversized exposure to U.S. assets within their global portfolios. We argued in our April 2018 Special Report 4 that the U.S. situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar and Treasury bond prices are about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns about the unsustainability of the current account deficit. Even though the NIIP/GDP ratio will continue to deteriorate in the coming years, it does not appear that the U.S. is close to the point where foreign investors would begin to seriously question America's ability or willingness to service its debt. That said, the "twin deficits" and the downward trend in U.S. productivity relative to the rest of the world will ensure that the underlying long-term trend in the dollar will remain down (Chart 16).5 Conclusions The long-term U.S. fiscal outlook was dire even before the Great Recession and the associated shift to the political left in America. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change before the mid-2020s, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions. Given demographic trends, it appears more likely that taxes will rise than entitlements cut. We do not foresee a crisis occurring in the next few years. Nonetheless, arguing that the U.S. fiscal situation is sustainable for the foreseeable future does not mean that it is desirable. There will be costs associated with current fiscal trends, even on a relatively short 5-10 year horizon. Interest costs will mushroom, potentially crowding out government spending in other areas. U.S. government debt has already been downgraded by S&P to AA+ in 2013, and the other two main rating agencies are likely to follow suit during the next recession as the deficit balloons to 8% or more. Investors may begin to demand a risk premium in order to entice them to continually raise their exposure to U.S. government bonds in their portfolios. Taxes will eventually have to rise to service the government debt, and some capital spending will be crowded out, both of which will undermine the economy's growth potential. Finally, the dollar will also be weaker than it otherwise would be in the long-term, representing an erosion in America's standard of living because everything imported is more expensive. Could Japan offer a roadmap for the U.S.? The Bank of Japan has effectively monetized 43% of the JGB market and has control over yields, at least out to the 10-year maturity. Moreover, Japan has enjoyed a "free lunch" so far because monetization has not resulted in inflation. The reason that Japan has enjoyed a free lunch is that it has suffered from a chronic lack of demand and excess savings in the private sector. The government has persistently run a deficit and fiscally stimulated the economy in order to offset insufficient demand in the private sector. The Bank of Japan purchased bonds and drove short-term interest rates down to zero. These policies have made very slow progress in eradicating lingering deflationary economic forces. However, if animal spirits in the business sector perk up, then inflation could make a comeback unless the policy stimulus is dialed down in a timely manner. In other words, the BoJ-financed fiscal "free lunch" should disappear at some point. The U.S. is in a very different situation. There is no lack of aggregate demand or excessive savings in the private sector. The economy is at full employment, and thus persistent budget deficits should turn into inflation much more quickly than was the case in Japan. In other words, the U.S. is unlikely to enjoy much of a "free lunch", whether the Fed monetizes the debt or not. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Mandatory spending refers to entitlements; that is, government expenditure programs that are required by current law. These include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, government pensions and other smaller programs. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing The Median Voter Theory," June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "America's Fiscal Fortune: Leave Your Wallet On The Way Out," June 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed?," April, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 5 In the near term, fiscal stimulus and increased business capital spending will likely boost the dollar. But this effect on the dollar will reverse in the long-term.

Informe especial

Highlights Without swift and considerable fiscal austerity or aggressive privatization, Brazil's public debt situation will become uncontrollable. Brazilian voters' priorities and preferences are for more public spending, not fiscal austerity. Hence, the upcoming president will not have a mandate to pursue fiscal austerity. The sole politically viable solution to stabilize Brazil's public debt situation is to boost nominal GDP growth - something that can only be achieved by sacrificing the exchange rate. The real is set to depreciate considerably. Provided the currency is key to the performance of Brazilian asset prices, the latter will remain in a bear market. Stay put/underweight on Brazilian risk assets. Feature Brazil is approaching a major showdown between creditors and the government. The country's public debt burden is out of control and unsustainable, unless immediate and drastic actions on the fiscal front are undertaken. At the same time, the economy has barely recovered after an extended period of depression, and the general population does not have the appetite for fiscal austerity. Crucially, the nation is heading into presidential and general elections in October. Whoever is elected, the new president will struggle to stabilize public debt dynamics amid a weak economy and the public's intolerance for fiscal tightening. On the surface, the plunge in Brazilian financial markets in recent months could well be attributed to the truckers' strike following the liberalization of fuel prices. The authorities hiked fuel prices because the deteriorating budget situation forced them to discontinue subsiding it. However, the strike was a symptom of a much deeper problem: the government's debt dynamics are degenerating, while the population and businesses have grown tired of the prolonged depression - and are deeply opposed to any kind of fiscal austerity. The sole macro solution to this debt problem is to boost nominal growth. This can be achieved via much lower real interest rates and/or a major currency devaluation. The latter will be detrimental to foreign investors holding Brazilian assets. Fiscal Austerity Is Required... Chart I-1Nominal Growth (A Proxy For Revenue) Is Lower Than Borrowing Costs Brazil continues to head towards a fiscal debacle. Not only does the government's fiscal position remain untenable, but nominal GDP growth has also relapsed to its 2015 lows (Chart I-1). The lack of nominal growth is depressing government revenues. Importantly, the widened gap between nominal GDP growth that currently stands at 4% and local currency borrowing rates of 10% is not sustainable (Chart I-1). Barring swift and substantial fiscal tightening, weak economic growth and high borrowing costs will ensure that the public debt-to-GDP ratio continues to rise into the foreseeable future. A rising debt-to-GDP ratio without clear government policies and actions to tackle indebtedness will feed into a higher risk premium in the exchange rate as well as government borrowing costs. Hence, a vicious cycle will likely unravel: escalating public debt will exert upward pressure on the government's borrowing costs, rising interest rate payments on public debt will keep the fiscal deficit wide and, consequently, the debt-to-GDP ratio will continue to escalate. Table 1 presents three scenarios for Brazil's public debt trajectory. In our base case scenario, the gross debt-to-GDP ratio1 reaches 82% by the end of 2019. In fact, even under the optimistic scenario, the gross public debt-to-to GDP ratio will continue to rise and end up at 80%. Table 1Brazil: Public Debt Sustainability Test Chart I-2High Debt Is Not A Problem In The U.S. A public debt burden above 80% of GDP would not be alarming if interest rates on that debt were not in the double digits. For example, the U.S.'s public debt burden of 100% of GDP is not a problem because interest rates are low, in fact well below nominal GDP growth (Chart I-2). To stabilize the public debt dynamics, the Brazilian government must run primary fiscal surpluses. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Brazil escaped a public debt trap because the government tightened fiscal policy considerably. They adopted Fiscal Responsibility Law in 2000, whereby the authorities were required by law to keep government expenditures limited to 50% of net revenues for that year. In turn, this allowed governments to run comfortable primary fiscal surpluses of 3% and above (Chart I-3). As shown on this chart, Brazil ran primary surpluses of 3-4% from 2001 through to 2012. Presently, the primary fiscal balance stands at -1.5% of GDP (Chart I-3, bottom panel). To stabilize the public debt dynamics, the government must undertake fiscal tightening of about 3% of GDP within the next 12-24 months to bring the primary surplus to around 1.5% of GDP. However, such fiscal tightening at a time when the economy is still very weak will push it back into recession. More importantly such fiscal tightening is politically unfeasible, as discussed below. Brazil's Achilles heel has been and remains social security finances. The social security deficit at the moment amounts to 3% of GDP (Chart I-4). According to IMF projections,2 social security expenditures will rise to 15% of GDP by 2021, bringing the total social security deficit to 12% of GDP under the current system. Chart I-3Brazilian Public Debt Dynamics Are Unsustainable Chart I-4Brazil's Social Security Deficit Crucially, Brazil is facing demographic headwinds that are contributing to the ballooning social security deficit. In particular, a rapidly aging population and rising life expectancy are all expected to drag government finances lower in the coming decades (Chart I-5). The social security deficit has increased in recent years to 40% of the overall deficit. Chart I-5Deteriorating Demographics Major and front-loaded cuts in social security expenditures are vital to stabilize government finances and debt dynamics. However, there is little support among the population and Congress for such austerity measures (we discuss this in more detail in the next section). Aggressive privatization could be a one-off short-term solution if the proceeds are used to reduce public debt. This could avert a vicious cycle of rising risk premiums, higher interest rates and larger debt burdens, at least for a while. However, the recent case of the privatization of Eletrobras shows that the process has been much slower than expected. Moreover, the total estimated sale price of Eletrobras will only produce BRL 12 billion. This compares with a BRL 104 billion annual primary deficit. Further, a sale of the Brazilian government's ownership of oil giant Petrobras would bring in an estimated BRL 90-95 billion, or 1.6% of GDP (this assumes a sale of a 64% stake in common shares, including government, BDNES and Caixa shares). This is still less than the annual primary deficit of BRL 104 billion (1.5% of GDP). Consequently, even aggressive privatization will not be sufficient to reduce debt or improve the nation's fiscal position on a sustainable basis. Further, aggressive privatization is not politically feasible as it lacks public support, and Congressional approvals on this matter will be a challenge. Bottom Line: The public debt burden is surging and fiscal dynamics remain unsustainable. Without swift and considerable fiscal austerity or aggressive privatization, Brazil's public debt situation will become uncontrollable. ...But Is Politically Unfeasible The prospects for fiscal reforms and improved public debt sustainability are dependent on the upcoming presidential elections. As October's vote approaches, social security and privatization reforms will be key determinants of the path of Brazil's risk premium for the foreseeable future. The presidential elections are scheduled for October 7 and 28 (a second round will be held if no candidate achieves an absolute majority of the vote). Uncertainty is unusually high. Yet investors need to understand the constraints that underpin the current presidential race. First, Brazilian voters' priorities and preferences are for more public spending, not fiscal austerity. According to polls conducted by Confederacao Nacional da Industria (CNI), the top five priorities of respondents are to improve health and education, and raise wages (Chart I-6). By contrast, only 3% of respondents believe that pension reform (cutting spending) should be a top government priority. Chart 6Brazil's Population Is Not Open To Fiscal Austerity This polling confirms our thesis that the median voter in Brazil remains firmly on the left of the economic policy spectrum.3 The combined support for left-leaning candidates Lula, Marina Silva and Ciro Gomes remains close to 50% (Table 2). Table 2The Left Is Ahead On the whole, fiscal austerity and privatization, as proposed by centrist and right-leaning candidates, will garner little support from the electorate. Second, Brazil's Congress is one the most fractious in the world. With over 20 political parties in Congress, the key to passing critical reforms is contingent on the ability of the president to form, maintain and reward a coalition that can muster majority votes in Congress. Crucially, reforms requiring constitutional amendments, such as the pension system, would need a supermajority of 308 out of 513 seats in the Chamber of Deputies, or 60% of congressmen. As the recent experience of acting president Temer shows, this will be difficult. Temer was an experienced political operator and the head of the largest party in Congress, yet even he failed to gain sufficient support to pass social security reforms, even when they were watered down and their costs back-loaded. There are low odds that any of the existing presidential candidates - all of whom have single-digit or low double-digit support rates - will be able to get enough votes to adopt meaningful social security reforms. True, the right-wing candidate, Jair Bolsonaro, has proposed aggressive privatization and spending cuts to rein in the public debt. Ultimately, only policies of this kind can reduce spending, correct the debt trajectory, stabilize the foreign exchange rate, and enable the country to avoid a vicious cycle of escalating risk premiums in financial markets. That, in turn, would give the economy some breathing room -- a buying opportunity in financial markets might emerge. However, Jair Bolsonaro faces an uphill battle in the presidential election given that the median voter is on the left. Even if elected, he is unlikely to garner support for privatization and austerity in a fractionalised Congress. Bottom Line: Brazilian voters' priorities and preferences are for more public spending, not fiscal austerity. Hence, the upcoming president will not have a mandate to pursue fiscal austerity. Monetary Policy And The Exchange Rate Given fiscal austerity is politically unviable, the other option to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio is to boost nominal GDP. Yet the nominal GDP growth rate has relapsed to 2015 lows (refer to Chart I-1 above). Even though real GDP is slowly recovering, inflation has plunged, depressing nominal growth (Chart I-7). As a result, real rates in Brazil remain very high (Chart I-7, bottom panel). This in turn has curbed the economic recovery. Low income growth and high real rates are not only impairing public sector creditworthiness, but they are also hurting the private sector's ability to service its debt. Consistently, weaker nominal GDP growth points to a renewed rise in NPLs and NPL provisions at banks (shown inverted in the chart) (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Real Rates Are Still Punishingly High In Brazil Chart I-8Banks' Bad Loans And Provisions Are Set To Rise Monetary policy in Brazil is constrained by exchange rate movements. With the exchange rate currently under selling pressure, the central bank is unlikely to reduce interest rates for now. The next government will have no option but to force the central bank to reduce nominal and real interest rates in an attempt to both boost nominal growth and decrease public debt servicing costs. The victim of this policy will be the currency: the Brazilian real will plunge. The good news for the government is that 96% of its debt is in local currency. Hence, sizable currency depreciation will not have much of an effect on the public debt burden. Table 3External Debt As Of Q4 2017 That said, companies and banks have high levels of external debt (Table 3), and they will suffer at the hands of significant currency depreciation. However, this is the most politically viable and economically feasible way to avoid a public debt fiasco. If the government's pressure on the central bank to reduce interest rates leads to a riot in financial markets and borrowing costs on government debt rise, the government may put pressure on the central bank and state-owned commercial banks to monetize public debt - i.e., purchase government bonds to bring bond yields down. In short, Brazil could institute quantitative easing to reduce and cap government bond yields. The U.S., the UK, Japan, the euro area and Sweden have all done this, and the new government in Brazil may also opt for such a solution. It might either be done in a transparent way, as central banks in the developed economies did, or it might be done in a disguised manner. Chart I-9Divergence Between Central Bank Reserves & The Real Interestingly, there are some indications the central bank is trying to err on the side of easier money, despite the latest currency depreciation. Specifically, it has in recent months been injecting more liquidity into the banking system, despite the sharp selloff in the real, as illustrated in Chart I-9. This constitutes a departure from past policy reactions to selloffs in the real, and in a way is a form of disguised easing. The central bank's recent liquidity additions have prevented interbank rates - and hence the entire structure of interest rates - from increasing more than they otherwise would have. In short, the upcoming government might resort to open or disguised public debt monetization to prevent a fiscal debacle. Needless to say, the Brazilian real will plummet in such a scenario. Bottom Line: The sole politically viable solution to stabilize Brazil's public debt situation is to boost nominal GDP growth - something that can only be achieved by sacrificing the exchange rate. Financial Markets The currency is the key to the performance of Brazilian asset prices. The real will depreciate much further. In addition to the above factors, the following will continue to weigh on the currency: Export growth is decelerating (Chart I-10), and this trend is likely to persist as China's growth slows further and commodities prices drop. The currency is not yet very cheap, according to the real effective exchange rate based on consumer and producer prices (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Brazilian Export Growth Is Decelerating Chart I-11The Real Is Not Cheap Foreign debt obligations - external debt servicing over the next 12 months - are elevated both in dollars and from a historical perspective relative to exports (Chart I-12). Not surprisingly, demand for dollars is very strong, as evidenced by rising U.S. dollar funding rates (Chart I-13 ). Finally, even though interest rate differentials over the U.S. have never been a key driving force behind the real, they are currently at a record low (Chart I-14). Chart I-12Foreign Private Sector Debt Is High Chart I-13Demand For U.S. Dollars Is Strong Chart I-14Brazilian Interest Rate Differentials: At A Historical Low Chart I-15Brazil: Weak Trade Balance Is Negative For Equities With respect to equities, Brazilian share prices perform poorly when the current account and trade balances are deteriorating (Chart I-15). Falling commodities prices are negative for resource companies. Finally, the stock market's long-term technical profile seems to suggest that a major top has been reached in share prices in U.S. dollar terms and the path of least resistance is down (Chart I-16). Chart I-16Brazilian Stocks In U.S. Dollars Investment Conclusions We remain negative on Brazil's financial markets. Further depreciation in the currency will continue, and will cause a selloff in equities, local bonds and sovereign and corporate credit markets. Dedicated EM portfolios should continue to underweight Brazil in equity and fixed-income portfolios. We continue recommending a long position in the nation's sovereign CDSs. The BRL is among our favoured currency shorts - we are maintaining both our short BRL/long USD and our short BRL/long MXN positions. Among equity sectors, we are reiterating our short position in bank stocks. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthur@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst AndrijaV@bcaresearch.com 1 In our simulations, we used gross government debt, which is calculated as total government public debt excluding central bank holdings of government securities. Gross public debt-to-GDP ratio is now at 74%. Under the older methodology, which included accounting for government debt held by the central bank, the public debt-to-GDP ratio would have been 85%. 2 Cuevas et al. IMF Working Paper; Fiscal Challenges of Population Aging in Brazil, March 2017 3 Pease see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report "Brazil's Election: Separating Signal From The Noise", dated September 10, 2014, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Informe especial

Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus when the economy is already at full employment. The budget deficit is on track to surpass 6% of GDP in a few years. It would likely peak above 8% in the case of a recession. The alarming long-term U.S. fiscal outlook is well known, but it has just become far worse. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. The federal government will be spilling far more red ink over the next decade than during any economic expansion phase since the 1940s. The debt/GDP ratio could surpass the previous peak set during WWII within 12 years. Shockingly large budget deficits in the past have sparked some attempt in Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. Factors that explain the political shift include disappointing income growth, income inequality, and rising political clout for Millennials, Hispanics and the elderly. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change over the next decade, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions necessary. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, there are costs: in the long-term, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. Profligacy: (Noun) Unconstrained by convention or morality. Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted before in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus at a time when the economy is already at full employment. Investors are celebrating the growth-positive aspects of the new fiscal tailwind at the moment, but it may wind up generating a party that is followed by a hangover as the Fed is forced to lean hard against the resulting inflationary pressures. Moreover, even in the absence of a recession, the federal government will likely be spilling far more red ink than during any economic expansion since the 1940s (Chart II-1). What are the long-term implications of this macro experiment? Will the U.S. continue to easily fund large and sustained budget deficits? Chart II-1U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period Historically, shockingly large budget deficits sparked some attempt by Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, we argue in this Special Report that there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. On The Bright Side The Trump tax cuts, the immediate expensing of capital spending and a lighter regulatory touch have stirred animal spirits in the U.S. The Administration's trade policies are a source of concern, but CEO confidence is generally high. The NFIB survey highlights that small business owners are almost euphoric regarding the outlook. The IMF estimates that the tax cuts and less restrictive spending caps will provide a direct fiscal thrust of 0.8% in 2018 and 0.9% in 2019 (Chart II-2). The overall impact on the economy over the next 12-18 months could be larger to the extent that business leaders follow through on their newfound bullishness and ramp up capital spending. Chart II-2Lots Of Fiscal Stimulus In 2018 And 2019 Fiscal policy is a clear positive for stocks and other risk assets in the near term, as long as inflation is slow to respond. In addition to the near-term boost, there will be longer-term benefits from the 2017 tax act. Various provisions of the act affect the long-run productive potential of the U.S. economy, by promoting increases in investment and labor supply. Corporate tax cuts and the full expensing of business capital outlays should permanently increase the nation's capital stock relative to what it otherwise would be, leading to a slightly faster trend pace of productivity growth. Similarly, lower income taxes are projected to encourage more people to enter the workforce or to work longer hours. The CBO estimates that the tax act will boost the level of potential real GDP by 0.9% by the middle of the next decade. This may not sound like much, but it translates into almost a million extra jobs. The supply-side benefits of the 2017 tax act are therefore meaningful. Unfortunately, given the lack of offsetting spending cuts, it comes at the cost of a dramatically worse medium- and long-term outlook for government debt. The CBO estimates that the recent changes in fiscal policy will cumulatively add $1.7 trillion to the federal government's debt pile, relative to the previous baseline (Chart II-3). The annual deficit is projected to surpass $1 trillion in 2020, and peak as a share of GDP at 5.4% in 2022. Federal government debt held by the private sector will rise from 76% this year to 96% in 2028 in this scenario. Chart II-3Comparing To The Reagan Era The budget situation begins to look better after 2020 in the CBO's baseline forecast because a raft of "temporary provisions" are assumed to sunset as per current law, including some of the personal tax cuts and deductions included in the 2017 tax package. As is usually the case, the vast majority of these provisions are likely to be extended. The CBO performed an alternative scenario in which it extends the temporary provisions and grows the spending caps at the rate of inflation after 2020. In this more realistic scenario, the deficit reaches 7% of GDP by 2028 and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio hits 105% (Chart II-3). Moreover, there will undoubtedly be a recession sometime in the next five years. Even a mild downturn, on par with the early 1990s, could inflate the budget deficit to 8% or more of GDP. The Demographic Time Bomb Chart II-4The Withering Support Ratio The pressure that the aging population will place on federal coffers over the medium term is well known, but it is worth reviewing in light of Washington's new attitude toward deficit financing. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. In 1970, there were 5.4 people between the ages of 20 and 64 for every person 65 or older. That ratio has since dropped to 4 and will be down to 2.6 within the next 20 years (Chart II-4). Spending on entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Security and government pensions) is on an unsustainable trajectory (Charts II-5 and II-6). In fiscal 2017, these programs absorbed 76% of federal revenues and the CBO estimates that this will rise to almost 100% by 2028, absent any change in law. If we also include net interest costs, total mandatory spending1 is projected to exceed total federal government revenues as early as next year, meaning that deficit financing will be required for all discretionary spending. Chart II-5Entitlements Will Explode ##br##Mandatory Spending Chart II-6All Discretionary Spending ##br##To Be Deficit Financed? The CBO last published a multi-decade outlook in 2017 (Chart II-7). The Federal debt/GDP ratio was projected to reach 150% by 2047. If we adjust this for the new (higher) starting point in 2028 provided by the CBO's alternative scenario, the debt/GDP ratio would top 164% in 2047. Chart II-7An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation To put this into perspective, the demands of WWII swelled the federal debt/GDP ratio to 106% in 1946, the highest on record going back to the early 1700s (Chart II-8). The debt ratio could rocket past that level before 2030, even in the absence of a recession. Chart II-8U.S. Debt In Historical Context These extremely long-term projections are only meant to be suggestive. A lot of things can happen in the coming years that could make the trajectory better or even worse. But the point is that current levels of taxation are insufficient to fund entitlements in their current form in the long run. Chart II-9 shows that outlays as a share of GDP have persistently exceeded revenues since the mid-1970s, except for a brief period during the Clinton Administration. The gap is set to widen over the coming decade. Something will have to give. Chart II-9U.S. Outlays And Revenues Forget Starving The Beast "Starve the Beast" refers to the idea that the size of government can be restrained through a low-tax regime that spurs growth and pressures Congress to cut spending and control the budget deficit. It has been the mantra of Republicans since the Reagan era. The 1981 Reagan tax cuts included an across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates, taking the top rate down from 70% to 50%. Corporate taxes were slashed by $150 billion over a 5-year period and tax rates were indexed for inflation, among other changes. It was not surprising that the budget deficit subsequently ballooned. Outrage grew among fiscal conservatives, but Congress spent the next few years passing laws to reverse the loss of revenues, rather than aggressively attacking the spending side. Today, Congressional fiscal hawks are in retreat and the Republican Party under President Donald Trump is not as fiscally conservative as it once was. This trend reflects the pull toward the center of the economic policy spectrum in response to a shift to the left among voters. BCA's political strategists have highlighted that this is the "median voter theory" (MVT) in action.2 The MVT posits that parties and politicians will approximate the policy choices of the median voter in order to win an election or stay in power. Every U.S. presidential election involves candidates making a mad dash to the most popularly appealing positions. President Trump exhibited this process when he ran in the Republican primary on a platform of increased infrastructure spending and zero cuts to "entitlement" spending. The Great Financial Crisis, disappointingly slow growth, stagnating middle class incomes and the widening income distribution have resulted in a leftward shift among voters on economic issues. Adding to the shift is the rising political clout of the Millennial generation, which generally favors more government involvement in the economy and will become the major voting block as it ages in the 2020s. There also are important changes underway in the ethnic composition of the electorate. The rising proportion of Hispanic voters will on balance favor the Democrats, according to voting trends (Chart II-10). A previous Special Report by Peter Berezin, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, predicted that Texas will become a swing state in as little as a decade and a solid Democrat state by 2030.3 Chart II-10The Proportion Of Minority Voters Set To Grow President Trump's shift to the left on economic policy helped him to out-flank Clinton in the election, particularly in the Rust Belt, where his protectionist and anti-austerity message resonated. Even his anti-immigration appeal is mostly based on economic reasoning - i.e. jobs, rather than cultural factors. Trump has admitted that he is not all that concerned about taking the country deeper into hock. The Republican rank-and-file has generally gone along with Trump's agenda because he has delivered traditional Republican tax cuts and continues to rate highly among his supporters (his approval is around 90% among Republicans). Fiscal hawks within the GOP have been forced to the sidelines while Trump and moderate Republicans have passed bipartisan spending increases with Democratic assistance. Where's The Outrage? Chart II-11Entitlements Are Popular* The implication is that, unlike the Reagan years, we do not expect there will be a strong political force capable of leading a fight against budget deficits. After a decade of disappointing income growth, voters are in no mood for tax hikes. On the spending side, health care and pensions are still politically untouchable. A recent study by the Pew Research Center confirms that only a very small percentage of Americans of either political stripe would agree with cuts to spending on education, Medicare, Social Security, defense, infrastructure, veterans or anti-terrorism efforts (Chart II-11). It is therefore no surprise that a populist such as Trump has promised to defend entitlement programs. Moreover, the graying of America will make it increasingly difficult for politicians to tame the entitlement beast. An aging population might generally favor the GOP, but it will also solidify opposition towards cutting Medicare and Social Security. As for defense, U.S. military spending was 3.3% of GDP and almost 15% of total spending in 2017 (Chart II-12). Congress recently lifted the spending cap for defense expenditures, but it is still projected to fall as a share of total government spending and GDP in the coming years. It is conceivable that Congress could eventually trim the defense budget even faster, but spending is already low by historical standards and it is hard to see any future Congress gutting the military at a time when the global challenge from China and Russia is rising. Indeed, given the geopolitical atmosphere of great power competition, defense spending is more likely to rise. Chart II-12What's Left To Cut? So, what is left to cut? If entitlements and defense are off the table, that leaves non-defense discretionary spending as the sacrificial lamb. This category includes spending by the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Justice, State and Veteran Affairs. Such spending has already declined sharply during the past several decades (Chart II-12). Non-defense discretionary spending amounted to $610 billion in 2017, which is only 15.3% of total federal spending. To put this into perspective, cutting every last cent of non-defense discretionary spending by 2022 would still leave a budget deficit of about 2½% of GDP. And it would be political suicide. The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice and Veterans Affairs account for more than half of non-defense discretionary spending. But these programs are very popular among voters. And, at only 1.3% of total spending, eliminating all foreign aid won't make much difference. Either President Trump or Vice-President Mike Pence will be the GOP presidential candidate in 2020. Pence could be more fiscally conservative than Trump, but Congress is unlikely to remain GOP-controlled through 2024. Similarly, it is difficult to see the Democrats making more than a token effort to rein in the deficit if the party is in charge after 2020. Perhaps they will raise taxes on the rich and push the corporate rate back up a bit, but voters will probably not favor a full reversal of the Trump tax cuts. Democrats will not tackle entitlements either. In other words, we can forget about "starving the beast" as a viable option no matter which party is in power. There will be little appetite for fiscal austerity in the U.S. through to the mid-2020s at a minimum. International Comparison This all places the U.S. out of sync with other major industrialized countries, where structural budget deficits have been tamed in most cases and are expected to remain so according to the IMF's latest projections (Chart II-13). The U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit is projected to be almost 7% of GDP in 2019, by far the highest among other industrialized countries except for Norway. Spain and Italy are expected to have relatively small structural deficits of 2½% and 0.8%, respectively, next year. Greece is running a small structural surplus! Including all levels of government, the IMF estimates that the U.S. general government gross debt/GDP ratio is projected to be well above that of the U.K., France, Germany, Spain and Portugal in 2023 (Chart II-14). It is expected to be on par with Italy at that time, although the newly-installed populist government there is likely to negotiate a loosening of the fiscal rules with Brussels, leading to higher debt levels than the IMF currently expects. The implication is that the U.S. government appears destined to become one of the most indebted in the developed world. Chart II-13U.S. Budget Deficit Stands Out Chart II-14International Debt Comparison The Fiscal Tipping Point Investors are not yet worried about the path of U.S. fiscal policy; the yield curve is quite flat, CDS spreads on U.S. Treasurys have not moved and the dollar is still overvalued by most traditional measures. The challenge is timing when a fiscally-induced crisis might occur. A warning bell does not ring when government debt or deficits reach certain levels. Fiscal trends generally do not suddenly spiral out of control - it is a gradual and insidious process reflected in multi-year deficits and slowly accumulating debt burdens. Eventually, a tipping point is reached where the only solution is drastic policy shifts or in extreme cases, default. Along the way, there are a number of signs that fiscal trends are entering dangerous territory. The relevance of the various signs will be different for each country, reflecting, among other things, the depth and structure of the financial system, the soundness of the economy, the dependence on foreign capital, and the asset preferences of domestic investors. Some key signs of building fiscal stress are given in Box II-1. None of the factors in Box II-1 appear to be a threat at the moment for the U.S. Moreover, comparisons with other countries that have hit the debt wall in the past are not that helpful because the U.S. is a special case. It has a huge economy and has political and military clout. The dollar is the world's main reserve currency and the country is able to borrow in its own currency. This suggests that the U.S. will be able to "get away with" its borrowing habit for longer than other countries have in the past. At the same time, financial markets are fickle and, even with hindsight, it not always clear why investors switch from acceptance to bearishness about a particular state of affairs. BOX II-1 Traditional Signs Of An Approaching Debt Crisis Government deficits absorb a rising share of net private savings, leaving little for new investment. Interest payments account for an increasingly large share of government revenues, squeezing out discretionary spending and requiring tough budget action merely to stop the deficit from rising. The government exhausts its ability to raise tax burdens. Traditional sources of debt finance dry up, requiring alternative funding strategies. Fears of inflation and/or default lead to a rising risk premium on interest rates and/ or a falling exchange rate. Political shifts occur as governments get blamed for eroding living standards, high taxes, and continued pressure to cut spending. The Costs Of Fiscal Profligacy Even if the U.S. is not near a fiscal tipping point, this does not mean that massive debt accumulation is costless: Interest Costs: Spending 3% of GDP on servicing the federal government's debt load over the next decade is not a disaster. Nonetheless, it does reduce the tax dollars available to fund entitlements or investing in infrastructure. Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Lawmakers would have less flexibility to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected events, such as natural disasters or recessions. As noted above, a recession in 2020 could generate a federal deficit of more than 8% of GDP. In that case, Congress may feel constrained in supporting the economy with even temporary fiscal stimulus. National Savings: Because government borrowing reduces national savings, then either capital spending must assume a smaller share of the economy or the U.S. must borrow more from abroad. Most likely it will be some combination of both. Crowding Out: If global savings are not in plentiful supply, then the additional U.S. debt issuance will place upward pressure on domestic interest rates and thereby "crowd out" business capital spending. This would reduce the nation's capital stock, leading to lower growth in productivity and living standards than would otherwise be the case. The CBO estimates that the positive impact on the capital stock from the changes to the corporate tax structure will overwhelm the negative impact from higher interest rates over the next decade. Nonetheless, the crowding out effect may dominate over a longer-time horizon. Academic studies suggest that every percentage point rise in the government's debt-to-GDP ratio adds 2-3 basis points to the equilibrium level of bond yields. If this is correct, then a rise in the U.S. ratio of 25 percentage points over the next decade in the CBO's baseline would lift equilibrium long-term bond yields by a meaningful 50-75 basis points. Much depends, however, on global savings backdrop at the time. External Trade Gap: If global savings are plentiful, then it may not take much of a rise in U.S. interest rates to attract the necessary foreign inflows to fund both the higher U.S. federal deficit and the private sector's borrowing requirements. Of course, this implies a larger current account deficit and a faster accumulation of foreign IO Us. Twin Deficits The U.S. has run a current account deficit for most of the past 40 years, which has cumulated into a rising stock of foreign-owned debt. The Net International Investment Position (NIIP) is the difference between the stock of foreign assets held by U.S. residents and the stock of U.S. assets held by foreign investors. The NIIP has fallen increasingly into the red over the past few decades, reaching 40% of GDP today (Chart II-15). The current account deficit was 2.4% at the end of 2017, matching the post-Lehman average. Nonetheless, this deficit is set to worsen as increased domestic demand related to the fiscal stimulus is partly satisfied via higher imports. Chart II-15Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position We estimate that a two percentage point rise in the budget deficit relative to the baseline could add a percentage point or more to the current account deficit, taking it up close to 4% of GDP. Upward pressure on the external deficit will also be accentuated in the next few years to the extent that the U.S. business sector ramps up capital spending. The implication is that the NIIP will fall deeper into negative territory at an even faster pace. A 2% current account deficit would be roughly consistent with stabilization in the NIIP/GDP ratio. But a 4% deficit would cause the NIIP to deteriorate to almost 80% of GDP by 2040 (Chart II-15). The sustainability of the U.S. twin deficits has been an area of intense debate among academics and market practitioners for many years. The U.S. has been able to get away with the twin deficits for so long in part because of the dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. The critical role of the dollar in international transactions underpins global demand for the currency. This has allowed the U.S. to issue most of its debt obligations in U.S. dollars, forcing the currency risk onto foreign investors. The worry is that foreign investors will at some point begin to question the desirability of an oversized exposure to U.S. assets within their global portfolios. We argued in our April 2018 Special Report 4 that the U.S. situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar and Treasury bond prices are about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns about the unsustainability of the current account deficit. Even though the NIIP/GDP ratio will continue to deteriorate in the coming years, it does not appear that the U.S. is close to the point where foreign investors would begin to seriously question America's ability or willingness to service its debt. That said, the "twin deficits" and the downward trend in U.S. productivity relative to the rest of the world will ensure that the underlying long-term trend in the dollar will remain down (Chart II-16).5 Chart II-16Structural Drivers Of The U.S. Dollar Conclusions The long-term U.S. fiscal outlook was dire even before the Great Recession and the associated shift to the political left in America. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change before the mid-2020s, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions. Given demographic trends, it appears more likely that taxes will rise than entitlements cut. We do not foresee a crisis occurring in the next few years. Nonetheless, arguing that the U.S. fiscal situation is sustainable for the foreseeable future does not mean that it is desirable. There will be costs associated with current fiscal trends, even on a relatively short 5-10 year horizon. Interest costs will mushroom, potentially crowding out government spending in other areas. U.S. government debt has already been downgraded by S&P to AA+ in 2013, and the other two main rating agencies are likely to follow suit during the next recession as the deficit balloons to 8% or more. Investors may begin to demand a risk premium in order to entice them to continually raise their exposure to U.S. government bonds in their portfolios. Taxes will eventually have to rise to service the government debt, and some capital spending will be crowded out, both of which will undermine the economy's growth potential. Finally, the dollar will also be weaker than it otherwise would be in the long-term, representing an erosion in America's standard of living because everything imported is more expensive. Could Japan offer a roadmap for the U.S.? The Bank of Japan has effectively monetized 43% of the JGB market and has control over yields, at least out to the 10-year maturity. Moreover, Japan has enjoyed a "free lunch" so far because monetization has not resulted in inflation. The reason that Japan has enjoyed a free lunch is that it has suffered from a chronic lack of demand and excess savings in the private sector. The government has persistently run a deficit and fiscally stimulated the economy in order to offset insufficient demand in the private sector. The Bank of Japan purchased bonds and drove short-term interest rates down to zero. These policies have made very slow progress in eradicating lingering deflationary economic forces. However, if animal spirits in the business sector perk up, then inflation could make a comeback unless the policy stimulus is dialed down in a timely manner. In other words, the BoJ-financed fiscal "free lunch" should disappear at some point. The U.S. is in a very different situation. There is no lack of aggregate demand or excessive savings in the private sector. The economy is at full employment, and thus persistent budget deficits should turn into inflation much more quickly than was the case in Japan. In other words, the U.S. is unlikely to enjoy much of a "free lunch", whether the Fed monetizes the debt or not. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Mandatory spending refers to entitlements; that is, government expenditure programs that are required by current law. These include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, government pensions and other smaller programs. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing The Median Voter Theory," June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "America's Fiscal Fortune: Leave Your Wallet On The Way Out," June 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed?," April, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 In the near term, fiscal stimulus and increased business capital spending will likely boost the dollar. But this effect on the dollar will reverse in the long-term.

Highlights We have been cautious on asset allocation on a tactical (3-month) horizon for two months. The backdrop has deteriorated enough that we believe that caution is now warranted beyond a tactical horizon. Trim exposure to global stocks to benchmark and place the proceeds in cash on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon. Government bonds remain at underweight. Our growth and earnings indicators are not flashing any warning signs. Indeed, while economic growth is peaking at the global level, it remains impressive in the U.S. Nonetheless, given the advanced stage of the economic cycle and the fact that a lot of good news is discounted in risk assets, we believe that it is better to be early and leave some money on the table than to be late. There are several risks that loom large enough to justify caution. First, the clash between monetary policy and the markets that we have been expecting is drawing closer. The FOMC may soon be forced to more aggressively tighten the monetary screws. The ECB signaled that it will push ahead with tapering. Perhaps even more important are escalating trade tensions, which could turn into a full-scale trade war with possible military implications. China has eased monetary policy slightly, but the broad thrust of past policy tightening will continue to weigh on growth. The RMB may be used to partially shield the economy from rising tariffs. Global bonds remain vulnerable. In the U.S., rate expectations in 2019 and beyond are still well below the path implied by a "gradual" tightening pace. In the Eurozone, there is also room for the discounted path of interest rates beyond the next year to move higher. Lighten up on both U.S. IG and HY corporate bonds, placing the proceeds at the short-end of the Treasury and Municipal bond curves. Duration should be kept short. We would consider upgrading if there is a meaningful correction in risk assets. More likely, however, we will shift to an outright bearish stance later this year or in early 2019 in anticipation of a global recession in 2020. Diverging growth momentum, along with the ongoing trade row, will continue to place upward pressure on the dollar. Shift to an overweight position in U.S. equities versus the other major markets on an unhedged basis. The risk of an oil price spike to the upside is rising. Feature The time to reduce risk-asset exposure on a cyclical horizon has arrived. Escalating risks and our assessment that equities and corporate bonds offered a poor risk/reward balance caused us to trim our tactical (3-month) allocation to risk assets to neutral two months ago. We left the 6-12 month cyclical view at overweight, because we expected to shed our near-term caution once the global slowdown ran its course, geopolitical risk calmed down a little, and EM assets stabilized. Nonetheless, the backdrop for global financial markets has deteriorated enough that we believe that caution is now warranted beyond a tactical horizon. It is not that there have been drastic changes in any particular area. Indeed, while profit growth is peaking at the global level, 12-month forward earnings continue to rise smartly in the major markets (Chart I-1). In the U.S., our corporate pricing power indicator is still climbing, forward earnings estimates have "gone vertical", and the net earnings revisions ratio is elevated (Chart I-2). The negative impact of this year's dollar strength on corporate profits will be trounced by robust sales activity. The U.S. economy is firing on all cylinders and growth appears likely to remain well above-trend in the second half of the year. Chart I-1Forward EPS Estimates Still Rising Chart I-2Some Mixed Signals For Stocks This economic and profit backdrop might make the timing of our downgrade seem odd at first glance. Nevertheless, valuations and the advanced stage of the economic and profit cycle mean that it is prudent to focus on capital preservation and be quicker to take profits than would be the case early in the cycle. BCA has recommended above-benchmark allocations to equities and corporate bonds for most of the time since mid-2009. There are several risks that loom large enough to justify taking some money off the table. One of our main themes for the year, set out in the 2018 BCA Outlook, is that markets are on a collision course with policy. This is particularly the case in the U.S. Real interest rates and monetary conditions still appear to be supportive by historical norms, but this cycle has been anything but normal and the level of real interest rates that constitute "neutral" today is highly uncertain. The fact that broad money growth has slowed in absolute terms and relative to nominal GDP is a worrying sign (Chart I-3). Dollar-based global liquidity is waning based on our proxy measure, which is particularly ominous for EM assets (bottom panel). Chart I-3Liquidity Conditions Are Deteriorating Moreover, our Equity Scorecard remained at 'two' in June, which is below a level that is consistent with positive excess returns in the equity market (please see the Overview section of the May 2018 Bank Credit Analyst). Our U.S. Willingness-to-Pay indicator reveals that investment flows are no longer favoring stocks over bonds in the U.S. (Chart I-2). Perhaps even more importantly for the near term are the escalating trade tensions, which could turn into a full trade war with possible military implications (see below). These and other risks suggest to us that the period of "prudent caution" may extend well into the 6-12 month cyclical horizon. For those investors not already at neutral on equities and corporate bonds, we recommend trimming exposure and placing the proceeds in cash rather than bonds. Fixed-income remains at underweight. There are risks on both sides for government bonds, but we believe that it is more likely that yields rise than fall. Trade Woes: Not Yet At Peak Pessimism The Trump Administration upped the ante in June by announcing plans to impose tariffs on another $200 billion of Chinese exports to the U.S., as well as to restrict Chinese investment in the U.S. We would expect China to retaliate if this is implemented but, at that point, China's proportionate response would cover more goods than the entire range of U.S. imports. Retaliation will therefore have to occur elsewhere. Tariffs are bad enough, but our geopolitical team flags the risk that trade tensions spill over into the South China Sea and other areas of strategic disagreement. The South China Sea or Taiwan could produce market-moving "black swan" geopolitical events this year or next.1 The Trump Administration has also launched an investigation into the auto industry, and has threatened to tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Congress will likely push hard to save the agreement because it is important for so many U.S. companies, especially those with supply chains that criss-cross the borders with Canada and Mexico. Still, Trump has the option of triggering the six-month withdrawal period as a negotiating tactic to increase the pressure on the two trading partners. This would really rattle equity markets. Many believe that Trump will back away from his aggressive negotiating tactics if the U.S. stock market begins to feel pain. We would not bet on that. The President's popularity is high, and has not been overly correlated with the stock market. Moreover, blue collar workers, Trump's main support base, do not own many stocks. The implication is that the President will be willing to take risks with the equity market in order to score points with his base heading into the mid-term elections. The bottom line is that we do not believe that investors have seen "peak pessimism" on the trade front. A trade war would result in a lot of stranded capital, forcing investors to mark down the value of the companies in their portfolios. Can Trump Reduce The Trade Gap? One of the Administration's stated goals is to reduce the U.S. trade deficit. It is certainly fair to ask China to pay for the intellectual property it takes from other countries. Broadly speaking, rectifying unfair trade practices is always a good idea. However, erecting a higher tariff wall alone is unlikely to either shrink the trade gap or boost U.S. economic growth, especially given that other countries are retaliating in kind. During the 2016 election campaign, then-candidate Trump proposed a 35% and 45% across-the-board tariff on Mexican and Chinese imports, respectively. We estimated at the time that, with full retaliation, this policy would reduce U.S. real GDP by 1.2% over two years, not including any knock-on effects to global business confidence.2 Cancelling NAFTA would be much worse. The bottom line is that nobody wins a trade war. Moreover, the trade deficit is more likely to swell than deflate in the coming years, irrespective of U.S. trade policy action. The flip side of the U.S. external deficit is an excess of domestic investment over domestic savings. The latter is set to shrivel given the pending federal budget deficit blowout and the fact that the household savings rate continues to decline and is close to all-time lows. This, together with an expected acceleration in business capital spending, pretty much guarantees that the U.S. external deficit will swell in the next few years. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 18, discusses the consequences of the deteriorating long-term fiscal outlook and the associated "twin deficits" problem. We conclude that a market riot point will be required to change current trends. But even if disaster is avoided for a few more years, the dollar will ultimately be a casualty. In the near term, however, trade friction and the decoupling of U.S. from global growth should continue to support the dollar. We highlighted the divergence in growth momentum in last month's Overview. Fiscal policy is pumping up the U.S. economy, while trade woes are souring confidence abroad. Coincident and leading economic indicators confirm that the divergence will continue for at least the near term (Chart I-4). Policy Puts We do not believe that the current 'soft patch' in the Eurozone and Japanese economies will turn into anything worse over the next year. We are much more concerned with the Chinese economy. May data on industrial production, retail sales, and fixed asset investment all disappointed. Property prices in tier 1 cities are down year-over-year. Our leading indicator for the Li Keqiang index, a widely followed measure of economic activity, is in a clear downtrend (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Growth Divergence To Continue Chart I-5China's Growth Slowdown The authorities will likely provide fresh stimulus if the trade war intensifies. Indeed, recent statements from the Ministry of Finance suggest that planned fiscal spending for the year will be accelerated/brought forward, and the PBOC has already made a targeted cut to the reserve requirement ratio and reduced the relending rate for small company loans. Chart I-6U.S. Small Business Is Ecstatic However, the bar for a fresh round of material policy stimulus is higher today than it was in the past; elevated debt levels, excess capacity in some parts of the industrial sector, and worries about pollution all limit the extent to which the authorities can respond with monetary or fiscal stimulus. The most effective way for China to retaliate to rising U.S. tariffs is to weaken the RMB, but this too could be quite disruptive for financial markets and, thus, provides another reason for global investors to scale back on risk. Similarly, the bar is also rising in terms of the Fed's willingness to come to the rescue. Policymakers have signaled that they will not mind an overshoot of the inflation target. Nonetheless, the facts that core PCE inflation is closing in on 2% and that unemployment rate is well below the Fed's estimate of full employment, mean that the FOMC will be slower to jump to stock market's defense were there to be a market swoon. Small business owners are particularly bullish at the moment because of Trump's regulatory, fiscal and tax policies. The NFIB survey revealed that confidence soared to the second highest level in the survey's 45-year history (Chart I-6). Expansion plans are also the most robust in survey history. With the output gap effectively closed, increasing pressure on resource utilization should translate into faster wage gains and higher inflation. This was also quite apparent in the latest NFIB survey. Reports of higher compensation hit an all-time high as firms struggle to find qualified workers, and a growing proportion of small businesses plan to increase selling prices. Despite the signs of a very tight labor market, the FOMC's inconsistent macro projection remained in place in June. Policymakers expect continued above-trend growth for 2018-2020, but they forecast a flat jobless rate and core inflation at 3.5% and 2.1%, respectively. If the Fed is right on growth, then the overshoot of inflation will surely be larger than officials are currently expecting. Risk assets will come under downward pressure when the Fed is forced to shift into a higher gear and actively target slower economic growth. We expect the Fed to hike more aggressively next year than is discounted, and lift the consensus 'dot' for the neutral Fed funds rate from the current 2¾-3% range. Bonds remain vulnerable to this shift because rate expectations in 2019 and beyond are still well below the path implied by a "gradual" quarter-point-per-meeting tightening pace (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Market Expectations For Fed Funds Are Below A ''Gradual'' Pace At a minimum, rising inflation pressures have narrowed the Fed's room to maneuver, which means that the "Fed Put" is less of a market support. Italy Backs Away From The Brink Last month we flagged Italy as a reason to avoid risk in financial markets, but we are less concerned today. We believe that Italy will eventually cause more volatility in global financial markets, but for the short-term it appears that this risk has faded. The reason is that the M5S-Lega coalition has already punted on three of its most populist promises: wholesale change to retirement reforms, a flat tax of 15%, and universal basic income. The back-of-the-envelope cost of these three proposals is €100bn, which would easily blow out Italy's budget deficit to 7% of GDP. There was also no mention of issuing government IOUs that would create a sort of "parallel currency" in the country. If this is wrong and there is another blowout in Italian government spreads, investors should fade any resulting contagion to the peripheral countries. Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain - the hardest-hit economies in 2010 - have undertaken significant fiscal adjustment and, unlike Italy, have closed a lot of the competitiveness gap relative to Germany. Spread widening in these countries related to troubles in Italy should be considered a buying opportunity.3 ECB: Tapering To Continue The ECB looked through the recent Italian political turmoil and struck a confident tone in the June press conference. President Draghi described the first quarter cooling of the euro area economy as a soft patch driven mainly by external demand. We agree with the ECB President; in last month's Overview we highlighted several factors that had provided extra lift to the Eurozone economy last year. These tailwinds are now fading, but we believe that growth is simply returning to a more sustainable, but still above-trend, pace. That said, rising trade tensions are a wildcard to the economic outlook, especially because of Europe's elevated trade sensitivity. Draghi provided greater clarity on the outlook for asset purchases and interest rates. The pace of monthly purchases will slow from the current €30bn to €15bn in the final three months of year and then come to a complete end (Chart I-8). On interest rates, the ECB expects rates to remain at current levels "at least through the summer of 2019". This means that September 2019 could be the earliest timing for the ECB to deliver the first rate hike. Chart I-8ECB Balance Sheet Will Soon Stop Growing We agree with this assessment on the timing of the first rate increase. It will likely take that long for inflation to move into the 1½-2% range, and for long-term inflation expectations to surpass 2%. These thresholds are consistent with the ECB's previous rate hike cycles. Still, there is room for the discounted path of interest rates beyond the next year to move higher as Eurozone economic slack is absorbed. The number of months to the first rate hike discounted in the market has also moved too far out (24 months). Thus, we expect that bunds will contribute to upward pressure on global yields. Bond investors should be underweight the Eurozone within global fixed income portfolios. In contrast, we recommend overweight positions in U.K. gilts because market expectations for the Bank of England (BoE) are too hawkish. Investors should fade the central bank's assertion that policymakers now have a lower interest rate threshold for beginning to shrink the balance sheet. The knee-jerk rally in the pound and gilt selloff in June will not last. First, the OECD's leading economic indicator remains in a downtrend, warning that the U.K. economy faces downside risks (Chart I-9). Second, Brexit uncertainty will only increase into the March 2019 deadline. Prime Minister May managed to win a key parliamentary vote on the Withdrawal Bill in late June, but the Tories will face more tests ahead, including a vote on the Trade and Customs Bill. The fault lines between the hard and soft Brexiteers within the Tory party could bring an early end to May's government. Either May could be replaced with a hard Brexit prime minister, such as Brexit Secretary David Davis, or the U.K. could face a new general election. The latter implies the prospect of a Labour-led government. Admittedly, this will ensure a soft Brexit, but Jeremy Corbyn would almost surely herald far-left economic policies that will dampen business sentiment. As a result, we believe that the BoE is sidelined for the remainder of the year, which will keep a lid on gilt yields and sterling. Corporate Bonds: Poor Value And Rising Leverage Our newfound caution for equities on a 6-12 month investment horizon carries over to the corporate bond space. Corporate balance sheets have been deteriorating since 2015 Q1 based on our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM). The first quarter's improvement in the CHM simply reflected the tax cuts and thus does not represent a change in trend (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Fade BoE Hawkish Talk Chart I-10Q1 Improvement In Corporate ##br##Health To Reverse The improvement was concentrated in the components of the Monitor that use after-tax cash flows, and as such they were influenced by the sharp decline in the corporate tax rate. Profit margins, for example, increased from 25.8% to 26.4% on an after-tax basis in Q1 (Chart I-10, panel 2), but would have fallen to 25.5% if the effective corporate tax rate had remained the same as in 2017 Q4. As the effective corporate tax rate levels-off around its new lower level (bottom panel), last quarter's improvement in the Corporate Health Monitor will start to unwind. More importantly, the corporate sector has been leveraging aggressively, as we highlighted in our special reports that analysed company-level data from the U.S. and the Eurozone.4 We highlighted that investors and rating agencies are not too concerned about leverage at the moment, but that will change when growth slows. Interest- and debt-coverage ratios are likely to plunge to new historic lows (Charts I-11A and I-11B). Chart I-11ACorporate Leverage Will Come ##br##Back To Haunt Bondholders Chart I-11BCorporate Leverage Will Come ##br##Back To Haunt Bondholders Both U.S. investment grade (IG) and high-yield (HY) corporates are expensive, but not at an extreme, based on the 12-month breakeven spread.5 However, both IG and HY are actually extremely overvalued once we adjust for gross leverage (Chart I-12). Chart I-12U.S. Leverage - Adjusted ##br##Corporate Bond Valuation We have highlighted several other indicators to watch to time the exit from corporate bonds. These include long-term inflation expectations (when the 10-year TIPS inflation breakeven reaches the 2.3-2.5% range), bank lending standards for C&I loans, the slope of the yield curve, and real short-term interest rates or monetary conditions. While monetary conditions have tightened, the overall message from these indicators as a group is that it is still somewhat early to expect rising corporate defaults and sustained spread widening. That said, we have also emphasized that it is very late in the credit cycle and return expectations are quite low. Excess returns historically have been modest when the U.S. 3-month/10-year yield curve slope has been in the 0-50 basis point range. Similar to our logic behind trimming our equity exposure, the expected excess return from corporate bonds no longer justifies the risk. We recommend lightening up on both U.S. IG and HY corporate bonds, moving to benchmark and placing the proceeds at the short-end of the Treasury and Municipal bond curves. Duration should be kept short. Also downgrade EM hard currency sovereign and corporate debt to maximum underweight. We are already underweight on Eurozone corporates within European fixed-income portfolios due to the pending end to the ECB QE program. Conclusions The political situation in Italy and tensions vis-à-vis North Korea appear to be less of a potential landmine for investors, at least for the next year. Nonetheless, the risks have not diminished overall - they have simply rotated into other areas such as international trade. It is also worrying that the FOMC will have to become more aggressive in toning down the labor market. What makes the asset allocation decision especially difficult is that the economic and earnings backdrop in the U.S. is currently constructive for risk assets. Nonetheless, recessions and bear markets are always difficult to spot in real time. Given the advanced stage of the economic cycle and the fact that a lot of good news is discounted in risk assets, we believe that it is better to be early and leave some money on the table than to be late and go over the cliff. This does not mean that we will recommend a neutral allocation to risk assets for the remainder of the economic expansion. We would consider upgrading if there is a meaningful correction in equity and corporate bond prices at a time when our growth indicators remain positive. More likely, however, we will shift to an outright bearish stance on risk assets later this year or in early 2019 in anticipation of global recession in 2020. The divergence in growth momentum between the U.S. and the rest of the major economies, along with the ongoing trade row, will continue to place upward pressure on the dollar. We envision the following pecking order from weakest to strongest currency versus the greenback: dollar bloc and EM commodity currencies, non-commodity sensitive EM currencies, the euro and yen. The Canadian dollar is an exception; we are bullish versus the U.S. dollar beyond a short-term horizon due to expected Bank of Canada rate hikes. Tightening financial conditions are likely to culminate in a crisis in one or more EM countries; as a share of GDP, exports and international reserves, U.S. dollar debt is at levels not seen in over 15 years. Slowing Chinese growth and trade tensions just add to the risk in this space. The recent upturn in base metal prices will likely reverse if we are correct on the Chinese growth outlook. Oil is a different story, despite our bullish dollar view. OPEC 2.0 - the oil-producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia - agreed in June to raise oil output by 1 million bpd. The coalition aims to increase production to compensate for an over-compliance of previous deals to trim output, as well as production losses due to lack of investment and maintenance (Chart I-13). The bulk of the losses reflect the free-fall in Venezuela's output. Our oil experts believe that OPEC 2.0 does not have much spare capacity to lift output. Meanwhile, the trend decline in production by non-OPEC 2.0 states is being magnified by unplanned outages in places like Nigeria, Libya and Canada. While U.S. shale producers can be expected to grow their output, infrastructure constraints - chiefly insufficient pipeline capacity to take all of the crude that can be produced in the Permian Basin to market - will continue to limit growth in the short-term. In the face of robust demand, the risk to oil prices thus remains to the upside. A stronger dollar will somewhat undermine the profits of U.S. multinationals. U.S. equities also appear a little expensive versus Europe and Japan based on our composite valuation indicators (Chart I-14). Nonetheless, the sector composition of the U.S. stock market is more defensive than it is elsewhere and relative economic growth will favor the U.S. market. On balance, we no longer believe that euro area and Japanese equities will outperform the U.S. in local currency terms. Overweight the U.S. market on an unhedged basis. Chart I-13Oil Production Outlook Chart I-14Composite Equity Valuation Indicators Consistent with our shift in broad asset allocation this month, we have adjusted our global equity sector allocation to be more defensive. Materials and Industrials were downgraded to underweight, while Healthcare and Telecoms were upgraded (Consumer Staples was already overweight). Financials was downgraded to benchmark because the flattening term structure is expected to pressure net interest margins. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 28, 2018 Next Report: July 26, 2018 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?," March 28, 2017 and "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Overview, dated December 2016, Box I-1. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Mediterranean Europe: Contagion Risk Or Bear Trap?," June 13, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, March 2018 and June 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 The breakeven spread is the amount of spread widening that would have to occur over 12 months for corporates to underperform Treasurys. We focus on the breakeven spread to adjust for changes in the average duration of the index over time. II. U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus when the economy is already at full employment. The budget deficit is on track to surpass 6% of GDP in a few years. It would likely peak above 8% in the case of a recession. The alarming long-term U.S. fiscal outlook is well known, but it has just become far worse. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. The federal government will be spilling far more red ink over the next decade than during any economic expansion phase since the 1940s. The debt/GDP ratio could surpass the previous peak set during WWII within 12 years. Shockingly large budget deficits in the past have sparked some attempt in Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. Factors that explain the political shift include disappointing income growth, income inequality, and rising political clout for Millennials, Hispanics and the elderly. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change over the next decade, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions necessary. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, there are costs: in the long-term, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. Profligacy: (Noun) Unconstrained by convention or morality. Congress is conducting a major economic experiment that has never been attempted before in the U.S. outside of wartime; substantial fiscal stimulus at a time when the economy is already at full employment. Investors are celebrating the growth-positive aspects of the new fiscal tailwind at the moment, but it may wind up generating a party that is followed by a hangover as the Fed is forced to lean hard against the resulting inflationary pressures. Moreover, even in the absence of a recession, the federal government will likely be spilling far more red ink than during any economic expansion since the 1940s (Chart II-1). What are the long-term implications of this macro experiment? Will the U.S. continue to easily fund large and sustained budget deficits? Chart II-1U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period Historically, shockingly large budget deficits sparked some attempt by Congress to limit the damage. Unfortunately, we argue in this Special Report that there will be little appetite to tighten the fiscal purse strings for the next decade. Voters have shifted to the left and politicians are following along. While the U.S. is not at imminent risk of a market riot over the deteriorating fiscal trends, the dollar will be weaker, borrowing rates will be higher and living standards will be lower than otherwise would be the case. On The Bright Side The Trump tax cuts, the immediate expensing of capital spending and a lighter regulatory touch have stirred animal spirits in the U.S. The Administration's trade policies are a source of concern, but CEO confidence is generally high. The NFIB survey highlights that small business owners are almost euphoric regarding the outlook. The IMF estimates that the tax cuts and less restrictive spending caps will provide a direct fiscal thrust of 0.8% in 2018 and 0.9% in 2019 (Chart II-2). The overall impact on the economy over the next 12-18 months could be larger to the extent that business leaders follow through on their newfound bullishness and ramp up capital spending. Chart II-2Lots Of Fiscal Stimulus In 2018 And 2019 Fiscal policy is a clear positive for stocks and other risk assets in the near term, as long as inflation is slow to respond. In addition to the near-term boost, there will be longer-term benefits from the 2017 tax act. Various provisions of the act affect the long-run productive potential of the U.S. economy, by promoting increases in investment and labor supply. Corporate tax cuts and the full expensing of business capital outlays should permanently increase the nation's capital stock relative to what it otherwise would be, leading to a slightly faster trend pace of productivity growth. Similarly, lower income taxes are projected to encourage more people to enter the workforce or to work longer hours. The CBO estimates that the tax act will boost the level of potential real GDP by 0.9% by the middle of the next decade. This may not sound like much, but it translates into almost a million extra jobs. The supply-side benefits of the 2017 tax act are therefore meaningful. Unfortunately, given the lack of offsetting spending cuts, it comes at the cost of a dramatically worse medium- and long-term outlook for government debt. The CBO estimates that the recent changes in fiscal policy will cumulatively add $1.7 trillion to the federal government's debt pile, relative to the previous baseline (Chart II-3). The annual deficit is projected to surpass $1 trillion in 2020, and peak as a share of GDP at 5.4% in 2022. Federal government debt held by the private sector will rise from 76% this year to 96% in 2028 in this scenario. Chart II-3Comparing To The Reagan Era The budget situation begins to look better after 2020 in the CBO's baseline forecast because a raft of "temporary provisions" are assumed to sunset as per current law, including some of the personal tax cuts and deductions included in the 2017 tax package. As is usually the case, the vast majority of these provisions are likely to be extended. The CBO performed an alternative scenario in which it extends the temporary provisions and grows the spending caps at the rate of inflation after 2020. In this more realistic scenario, the deficit reaches 7% of GDP by 2028 and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio hits 105% (Chart II-3). Moreover, there will undoubtedly be a recession sometime in the next five years. Even a mild downturn, on par with the early 1990s, could inflate the budget deficit to 8% or more of GDP. The Demographic Time Bomb Chart II-4The Withering Support Ratio The pressure that the aging population will place on federal coffers over the medium term is well known, but it is worth reviewing in light of Washington's new attitude toward deficit financing. The combination of rising life expectancy and a decline in the ratio of taxpayers to retirees will place growing financial strains on the Social Security and Medicare systems. In 1970, there were 5.4 people between the ages of 20 and 64 for every person 65 or older. That ratio has since dropped to 4 and will be down to 2.6 within the next 20 years (Chart II-4). Spending on entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Income Security and government pensions) is on an unsustainable trajectory (Charts II-5 and II-6). In fiscal 2017, these programs absorbed 76% of federal revenues and the CBO estimates that this will rise to almost 100% by 2028, absent any change in law. If we also include net interest costs, total mandatory spending1 is projected to exceed total federal government revenues as early as next year, meaning that deficit financing will be required for all discretionary spending. Chart II-5Entitlements Will Explode ##br##Mandatory Spending Chart II-6All Discretionary Spending ##br##To Be Deficit Financed? The CBO last published a multi-decade outlook in 2017 (Chart II-7). The Federal debt/GDP ratio was projected to reach 150% by 2047. If we adjust this for the new (higher) starting point in 2028 provided by the CBO's alternative scenario, the debt/GDP ratio would top 164% in 2047. Chart II-7An Unsustainable Debt Accumulation To put this into perspective, the demands of WWII swelled the federal debt/GDP ratio to 106% in 1946, the highest on record going back to the early 1700s (Chart II-8). The debt ratio could rocket past that level before 2030, even in the absence of a recession. Chart II-8U.S. Debt In Historical Context These extremely long-term projections are only meant to be suggestive. A lot of things can happen in the coming years that could make the trajectory better or even worse. But the point is that current levels of taxation are insufficient to fund entitlements in their current form in the long run. Chart II-9 shows that outlays as a share of GDP have persistently exceeded revenues since the mid-1970s, except for a brief period during the Clinton Administration. The gap is set to widen over the coming decade. Something will have to give. Chart II-9U.S. Outlays And Revenues Forget Starving The Beast "Starve the Beast" refers to the idea that the size of government can be restrained through a low-tax regime that spurs growth and pressures Congress to cut spending and control the budget deficit. It has been the mantra of Republicans since the Reagan era. The 1981 Reagan tax cuts included an across-the-board reduction in marginal tax rates, taking the top rate down from 70% to 50%. Corporate taxes were slashed by $150 billion over a 5-year period and tax rates were indexed for inflation, among other changes. It was not surprising that the budget deficit subsequently ballooned. Outrage grew among fiscal conservatives, but Congress spent the next few years passing laws to reverse the loss of revenues, rather than aggressively attacking the spending side. Today, Congressional fiscal hawks are in retreat and the Republican Party under President Donald Trump is not as fiscally conservative as it once was. This trend reflects the pull toward the center of the economic policy spectrum in response to a shift to the left among voters. BCA's political strategists have highlighted that this is the "median voter theory" (MVT) in action.2 The MVT posits that parties and politicians will approximate the policy choices of the median voter in order to win an election or stay in power. Every U.S. presidential election involves candidates making a mad dash to the most popularly appealing positions. President Trump exhibited this process when he ran in the Republican primary on a platform of increased infrastructure spending and zero cuts to "entitlement" spending. The Great Financial Crisis, disappointingly slow growth, stagnating middle class incomes and the widening income distribution have resulted in a leftward shift among voters on economic issues. Adding to the shift is the rising political clout of the Millennial generation, which generally favors more government involvement in the economy and will become the major voting block as it ages in the 2020s. There also are important changes underway in the ethnic composition of the electorate. The rising proportion of Hispanic voters will on balance favor the Democrats, according to voting trends (Chart II-10). A previous Special Report by Peter Berezin, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, predicted that Texas will become a swing state in as little as a decade and a solid Democrat state by 2030.3 Chart II-10The Proportion Of Minority Voters Set To Grow President Trump's shift to the left on economic policy helped him to out-flank Clinton in the election, particularly in the Rust Belt, where his protectionist and anti-austerity message resonated. Even his anti-immigration appeal is mostly based on economic reasoning - i.e. jobs, rather than cultural factors. Trump has admitted that he is not all that concerned about taking the country deeper into hock. The Republican rank-and-file has generally gone along with Trump's agenda because he has delivered traditional Republican tax cuts and continues to rate highly among his supporters (his approval is around 90% among Republicans). Fiscal hawks within the GOP have been forced to the sidelines while Trump and moderate Republicans have passed bipartisan spending increases with Democratic assistance. Where's The Outrage? Chart II-11Entitlements Are Popular* The implication is that, unlike the Reagan years, we do not expect there will be a strong political force capable of leading a fight against budget deficits. After a decade of disappointing income growth, voters are in no mood for tax hikes. On the spending side, health care and pensions are still politically untouchable. A recent study by the Pew Research Center confirms that only a very small percentage of Americans of either political stripe would agree with cuts to spending on education, Medicare, Social Security, defense, infrastructure, veterans or anti-terrorism efforts (Chart II-11). It is therefore no surprise that a populist such as Trump has promised to defend entitlement programs. Moreover, the graying of America will make it increasingly difficult for politicians to tame the entitlement beast. An aging population might generally favor the GOP, but it will also solidify opposition towards cutting Medicare and Social Security. As for defense, U.S. military spending was 3.3% of GDP and almost 15% of total spending in 2017 (Chart II-12). Congress recently lifted the spending cap for defense expenditures, but it is still projected to fall as a share of total government spending and GDP in the coming years. It is conceivable that Congress could eventually trim the defense budget even faster, but spending is already low by historical standards and it is hard to see any future Congress gutting the military at a time when the global challenge from China and Russia is rising. Indeed, given the geopolitical atmosphere of great power competition, defense spending is more likely to rise. Chart II-12What's Left To Cut? So, what is left to cut? If entitlements and defense are off the table, that leaves non-defense discretionary spending as the sacrificial lamb. This category includes spending by the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Justice, State and Veteran Affairs. Such spending has already declined sharply during the past several decades (Chart II-12). Non-defense discretionary spending amounted to $610 billion in 2017, which is only 15.3% of total federal spending. To put this into perspective, cutting every last cent of non-defense discretionary spending by 2022 would still leave a budget deficit of about 2½% of GDP. And it would be political suicide. The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice and Veterans Affairs account for more than half of non-defense discretionary spending. But these programs are very popular among voters. And, at only 1.3% of total spending, eliminating all foreign aid won't make much difference. Either President Trump or Vice-President Mike Pence will be the GOP presidential candidate in 2020. Pence could be more fiscally conservative than Trump, but Congress is unlikely to remain GOP-controlled through 2024. Similarly, it is difficult to see the Democrats making more than a token effort to rein in the deficit if the party is in charge after 2020. Perhaps they will raise taxes on the rich and push the corporate rate back up a bit, but voters will probably not favor a full reversal of the Trump tax cuts. Democrats will not tackle entitlements either. In other words, we can forget about "starving the beast" as a viable option no matter which party is in power. There will be little appetite for fiscal austerity in the U.S. through to the mid-2020s at a minimum. International Comparison This all places the U.S. out of sync with other major industrialized countries, where structural budget deficits have been tamed in most cases and are expected to remain so according to the IMF's latest projections (Chart II-13). The U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit is projected to be almost 7% of GDP in 2019, by far the highest among other industrialized countries except for Norway. Spain and Italy are expected to have relatively small structural deficits of 2½% and 0.8%, respectively, next year. Greece is running a small structural surplus! Including all levels of government, the IMF estimates that the U.S. general government gross debt/GDP ratio is projected to be well above that of the U.K., France, Germany, Spain and Portugal in 2023 (Chart II-14). It is expected to be on par with Italy at that time, although the newly-installed populist government there is likely to negotiate a loosening of the fiscal rules with Brussels, leading to higher debt levels than the IMF currently expects. The implication is that the U.S. government appears destined to become one of the most indebted in the developed world. Chart II-13U.S. Budget Deficit Stands Out Chart II-14International Debt Comparison The Fiscal Tipping Point Investors are not yet worried about the path of U.S. fiscal policy; the yield curve is quite flat, CDS spreads on U.S. Treasurys have not moved and the dollar is still overvalued by most traditional measures. The challenge is timing when a fiscally-induced crisis might occur. A warning bell does not ring when government debt or deficits reach certain levels. Fiscal trends generally do not suddenly spiral out of control - it is a gradual and insidious process reflected in multi-year deficits and slowly accumulating debt burdens. Eventually, a tipping point is reached where the only solution is drastic policy shifts or in extreme cases, default. Along the way, there are a number of signs that fiscal trends are entering dangerous territory. The relevance of the various signs will be different for each country, reflecting, among other things, the depth and structure of the financial system, the soundness of the economy, the dependence on foreign capital, and the asset preferences of domestic investors. Some key signs of building fiscal stress are given in Box II-1. None of the factors in Box II-1 appear to be a threat at the moment for the U.S. Moreover, comparisons with other countries that have hit the debt wall in the past are not that helpful because the U.S. is a special case. It has a huge economy and has political and military clout. The dollar is the world's main reserve currency and the country is able to borrow in its own currency. This suggests that the U.S. will be able to "get away with" its borrowing habit for longer than other countries have in the past. At the same time, financial markets are fickle and, even with hindsight, it not always clear why investors switch from acceptance to bearishness about a particular state of affairs. BOX II-1 Traditional Signs Of An Approaching Debt Crisis Government deficits absorb a rising share of net private savings, leaving little for new investment. Interest payments account for an increasingly large share of government revenues, squeezing out discretionary spending and requiring tough budget action merely to stop the deficit from rising. The government exhausts its ability to raise tax burdens. Traditional sources of debt finance dry up, requiring alternative funding strategies. Fears of inflation and/or default lead to a rising risk premium on interest rates and/ or a falling exchange rate. Political shifts occur as governments get blamed for eroding living standards, high taxes, and continued pressure to cut spending. The Costs Of Fiscal Profligacy Even if the U.S. is not near a fiscal tipping point, this does not mean that massive debt accumulation is costless: Interest Costs: Spending 3% of GDP on servicing the federal government's debt load over the next decade is not a disaster. Nonetheless, it does reduce the tax dollars available to fund entitlements or investing in infrastructure. Counter-Cyclical Fiscal Policy: Lawmakers would have less flexibility to use tax and spending policies to respond to unexpected events, such as natural disasters or recessions. As noted above, a recession in 2020 could generate a federal deficit of more than 8% of GDP. In that case, Congress may feel constrained in supporting the economy with even temporary fiscal stimulus. National Savings: Because government borrowing reduces national savings, then either capital spending must assume a smaller share of the economy or the U.S. must borrow more from abroad. Most likely it will be some combination of both. Crowding Out: If global savings are not in plentiful supply, then the additional U.S. debt issuance will place upward pressure on domestic interest rates and thereby "crowd out" business capital spending. This would reduce the nation's capital stock, leading to lower growth in productivity and living standards than would otherwise be the case. The CBO estimates that the positive impact on the capital stock from the changes to the corporate tax structure will overwhelm the negative impact from higher interest rates over the next decade. Nonetheless, the crowding out effect may dominate over a longer-time horizon. Academic studies suggest that every percentage point rise in the government's debt-to-GDP ratio adds 2-3 basis points to the equilibrium level of bond yields. If this is correct, then a rise in the U.S. ratio of 25 percentage points over the next decade in the CBO's baseline would lift equilibrium long-term bond yields by a meaningful 50-75 basis points. Much depends, however, on global savings backdrop at the time. External Trade Gap: If global savings are plentiful, then it may not take much of a rise in U.S. interest rates to attract the necessary foreign inflows to fund both the higher U.S. federal deficit and the private sector's borrowing requirements. Of course, this implies a larger current account deficit and a faster accumulation of foreign IO Us. Twin Deficits The U.S. has run a current account deficit for most of the past 40 years, which has cumulated into a rising stock of foreign-owned debt. The Net International Investment Position (NIIP) is the difference between the stock of foreign assets held by U.S. residents and the stock of U.S. assets held by foreign investors. The NIIP has fallen increasingly into the red over the past few decades, reaching 40% of GDP today (Chart II-15). The current account deficit was 2.4% at the end of 2017, matching the post-Lehman average. Nonetheless, this deficit is set to worsen as increased domestic demand related to the fiscal stimulus is partly satisfied via higher imports. Chart II-15Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position We estimate that a two percentage point rise in the budget deficit relative to the baseline could add a percentage point or more to the current account deficit, taking it up close to 4% of GDP. Upward pressure on the external deficit will also be accentuated in the next few years to the extent that the U.S. business sector ramps up capital spending. The implication is that the NIIP will fall deeper into negative territory at an even faster pace. A 2% current account deficit would be roughly consistent with stabilization in the NIIP/GDP ratio. But a 4% deficit would cause the NIIP to deteriorate to almost 80% of GDP by 2040 (Chart II-15). The sustainability of the U.S. twin deficits has been an area of intense debate among academics and market practitioners for many years. The U.S. has been able to get away with the twin deficits for so long in part because of the dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. The critical role of the dollar in international transactions underpins global demand for the currency. This has allowed the U.S. to issue most of its debt obligations in U.S. dollars, forcing the currency risk onto foreign investors. The worry is that foreign investors will at some point begin to question the desirability of an oversized exposure to U.S. assets within their global portfolios. We argued in our April 2018 Special Report 4 that the U.S. situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar and Treasury bond prices are about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns about the unsustainability of the current account deficit. Even though the NIIP/GDP ratio will continue to deteriorate in the coming years, it does not appear that the U.S. is close to the point where foreign investors would begin to seriously question America's ability or willingness to service its debt. That said, the "twin deficits" and the downward trend in U.S. productivity relative to the rest of the world will ensure that the underlying long-term trend in the dollar will remain down (Chart II-16).5 Chart II-16Structural Drivers Of The U.S. Dollar Conclusions The long-term U.S. fiscal outlook was dire even before the Great Recession and the associated shift to the political left in America. Fiscal conservatism is out of fashion and this is unlikely to change before the mid-2020s, no matter which party is in power. This means that a market riot will be required to shake voters and the political establishment into making the tough decisions. Given demographic trends, it appears more likely that taxes will rise than entitlements cut. We do not foresee a crisis occurring in the next few years. Nonetheless, arguing that the U.S. fiscal situation is sustainable for the foreseeable future does not mean that it is desirable. There will be costs associated with current fiscal trends, even on a relatively short 5-10 year horizon. Interest costs will mushroom, potentially crowding out government spending in other areas. U.S. government debt has already been downgraded by S&P to AA+ in 2013, and the other two main rating agencies are likely to follow suit during the next recession as the deficit balloons to 8% or more. Investors may begin to demand a risk premium in order to entice them to continually raise their exposure to U.S. government bonds in their portfolios. Taxes will eventually have to rise to service the government debt, and some capital spending will be crowded out, both of which will undermine the economy's growth potential. Finally, the dollar will also be weaker than it otherwise would be in the long-term, representing an erosion in America's standard of living because everything imported is more expensive. Could Japan offer a roadmap for the U.S.? The Bank of Japan has effectively monetized 43% of the JGB market and has control over yields, at least out to the 10-year maturity. Moreover, Japan has enjoyed a "free lunch" so far because monetization has not resulted in inflation. The reason that Japan has enjoyed a free lunch is that it has suffered from a chronic lack of demand and excess savings in the private sector. The government has persistently run a deficit and fiscally stimulated the economy in order to offset insufficient demand in the private sector. The Bank of Japan purchased bonds and drove short-term interest rates down to zero. These policies have made very slow progress in eradicating lingering deflationary economic forces. However, if animal spirits in the business sector perk up, then inflation could make a comeback unless the policy stimulus is dialed down in a timely manner. In other words, the BoJ-financed fiscal "free lunch" should disappear at some point. The U.S. is in a very different situation. There is no lack of aggregate demand or excessive savings in the private sector. The economy is at full employment, and thus persistent budget deficits should turn into inflation much more quickly than was the case in Japan. In other words, the U.S. is unlikely to enjoy much of a "free lunch", whether the Fed monetizes the debt or not. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 Mandatory spending refers to entitlements; that is, government expenditure programs that are required by current law. These include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, government pensions and other smaller programs. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing The Median Voter Theory," June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "America's Fiscal Fortune: Leave Your Wallet On The Way Out," June 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed?," April, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 In the near term, fiscal stimulus and increased business capital spending will likely boost the dollar. But this effect on the dollar will reverse in the long-term. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The divergence between the U.S. corporate earnings data and our equity-related indicators continued in June. Forward earnings estimates continue to climb at an impressive pace. The U.S. net revisions ratio pulled back a little, but remains well above the zero line. Moreover, positive earnings surprises continue to trounce negative surprises. That said, the earnings upgrades are partly due to the Trump tax cuts, which are still being reflected in analysts' estimates. Second, some of our indicators are warning that there are clouds on the horizon. Our Monetary Indicator has fallen to levels that are low by historical standards, which is a negative sign for risk assets. This partly reflects the slowdown in growth in the monetary aggregates (see the Overview section). Our Equity Technical Indicator is threatening to dip below the zero line, which would be a clear 'sell' signal. Our Equity Valuation Indicator is flirting with our threshold of overvaluation, at +1 standard deviations. This is not bearish on its own, but valuation does provide information on the downside risks when the correction finally occurs. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. has rolled over, although this hasn't yet occurred for Japan and the Eurozone. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. This indicator suggests that flows into the U.S. stock market are waning. Finally, our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks remained on a 'sell' signal in June. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. These indicators are not aligned at the moment, further supporting the view that caution is warranted. The U.S. 10-year Treasury is slightly on the inexpensive side and our Composite Technical Indicator suggests that the bond has still not worked off oversold conditions. This suggests that the consolidation period has further to run, although we still expect yields to move higher over the remainder of the year. The dollar is expensive on a PPP basis, but is not yet overbought. The long-term outlook for the dollar is down, but it has more upside in the next 6-12 months. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Informe especial

Highlights The degree of external debt stress in EM is primarily contingent on the magnitude of both currency depreciation and economic downtrend. So long as EM currencies depreciate against the greenback, EM FX debt stress will mount, and EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads will widen. This will occur irrespective of whether U.S. Treasury yields rise or drop. Global fixed-income portfolios should underweight EM sovereign and corporate credit relative to U.S. investment-grade corporate credit. Within EM sovereign credit, our overweights are Russia, Mexico, Korea, Thailand, Poland, Hungary and Argentina. Our underweights are Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Venezuela. Feature A Primer On EM External Debt Concerns about EM external debt have re-surfaced as EM currencies have depreciated. In this week's report we offer a qualitative analysis on the drivers of EM external debt risks, as well as present quantitative vulnerability rankings for developing countries. External or foreign currency1 debt is borrowing (loans and bonds) by governments, banks/financial institutions and companies that is denominated in foreign currency. In this vein, foreigners' holdings of local currency bonds or non-residents' deposits in local banks do not constitute external debt. Debt Becomes A Problem In Downturns Investors often ask how worrisome the situation with EM external debt currently is - specifically, who might default, and when? There are no easy answers to these questions. The reason is that the responses to these questions are often contingent on the magnitude of both EM currency depreciation and economic slowdown. Debt stress recedes in economic upswings and rises in economic downturns (Chart I-1). The reason is that debtors' cash flows shrink in downturns and grow in economic expansions. In Chart I-1 we use Germany's IFO manufacturing business expectations as a proxy for global trade; it has been a great leading indicator for global exports.2 It also correlates well with EM credit spreads. Chart 1-1Global Manufacturing Cycle And EM Sovereign Credit Spreads When dealing with foreign currency (FX) debt, the exchange rate becomes a critical factor in terms of affecting creditworthiness. Local currency depreciation increases (appreciation reduces) the burden of foreign debt servicing for debtors whose revenues are in domestic currency. This is why when currencies depreciate, both foreign debt burdens (the degree of indebtedness) and debt servicing stresses mount. Among EM companies issued U.S. dollar bonds, there are a few exporters. Many of them are in fact commodities producers. Although their export revenues are in U.S. dollars, their export proceeds fluctuate enormously as commodities prices swing. Typically, when the U.S. dollar rallies, commodities prices drop. Chart I-2 exhibits sector weights in the EM J.P. Morgan CEMBI Corporate Bond Index. The largest issuers are banks/financials, which along with real estate companies account for 37% of the index. Resources - oil/gas, metal mining, pulp and paper - make around 26% of the index. This confirms that only a few non-commodities exporters have issued foreign currency bonds. Chart I-2Financials And Resource Producers Make Up More Than 60% Of EM Corporate Bond Index We expect revenue growth for EM debtors (both governments and companies/banks) to recede as EM economic growth slumps. Chart I-3 illustrates that manufacturing PMI for EM has declined, pointing to a further relapse in EM corporate profits and share prices. The feedback loop between EM growth and currencies works both ways. First, EM currencies are pro-cyclical - they appreciate during economic recoveries and depreciate during business-cycle downturns (Chart I-4, top panel). Chart I-3EM Manufacturing PMI Is In A Downtrend Chart I-4EM Currencies Are Pro-Cyclical Second, in the case of many vulnerable developing economies, plunging currencies push up local interest rates. This in turn reinforces growth deceleration in these economies. Notably, EM manufacturing growth has begun to downshift since early this year while their currencies have only started plunging - and interest rates rising - since early April. Hence, the latest drop in the EM manufacturing PMI cannot be attributed to the recent hikes in EM policy rates. Interest rates impact growth with a time lag longer than a few weeks. Rather, it has been cracks in global growth primarily and higher U.S. interest rates partially that have caused EM currencies to plunge in recent months (Chart I-4, bottom panel). There is also a strong positive correlation between commodities prices and EM currencies (Chart I-5, top panel). Not only do commodities producers' currencies plunge when commodities prices decline, but non-commodity dependent countries' currencies also exhibit a positive correlation with resource prices. For example, the Korean won and commodities prices often move in tandem (Chart I-5, bottom panel). The underlying factor driving various EM currencies and commodities prices is the global business cycle. This common denominator explains why all EM exchange rates - including those of non-commodity producers - are positively correlated with resource prices. On the whole, global growth downturns not only hurt EM country/company revenues, but also weigh on their currencies - making foreign currency debt more difficult to service. Altogether, this triggers a widening in EM sovereign and corporate spreads and weighs on capital flows to EM, exacerbating the cycle. Contrary to the mainstream view, neither nominal nor real EM interest rate differentials over the U.S. rates explain the trend in EM currencies, as shown in Chart I-6. Further, neither the level nor the change in interest rate differentials explains trends in EM exchange rates. On the contrary, it is the trend in EM exchange rates that drives local interest rates in high-yielding EM. This is why gauging currency movements correctly is of paramount importance to investors in various EM asset classes. Chart I-5All EM Currencies Correlate ##br##With Commodities Prices Chart I-6Nominal And Real Interest Rates Differential ##br##Over U.S. Rates Do Not Drive EM Currencies On the whole, exchange rate trends are critical to the creditworthiness of debtors with large FX liabilities: currency appreciation improves and deprecation worsens their ability to service debt. Given EM currencies are pro-cyclical and their depreciation often leads to higher domestic interest rates, the ability of EM FX debtors to service their external liabilities fluctuates with both the global business cycle and their own domestic economic performance. This is why we pay a lot of attention to the global business cycle trajectory as well as that of EM and China. Bottom Line: Apart from some basket cases like Venezuela, which is careening toward debt default, the degree of external debt stress in EM is primarily contingent on the magnitude of currency depreciation. We expect EM currencies to continue to plunge, heightening debt stress and warranting a widening in EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads. What Is More Imperative: Exchange Rates Or Interest Rates? EM debtors with dollar debt are much more vulnerable to an appreciating dollar than rising U.S. interest rates. Table I-1 illustrates this point using the following hypothetical simulation: We consider a conjectural Brazilian debtor with $1,000 in debt with five years remaining to maturity, and a starting point exchange rate of 4 BRL per USD. Table I-1A Hypothetical Simulation: FX Debt Burden Is More Sensitive To Exchange Rate Than Borrowing Costs In our example, a 5% depreciation in local currency against the dollar boosts the overall debt burden by 200 BRL (please refer to row 2 of Table I-1). This does not include the rise in local currency costs of interest payments. It reflects only the increased burden of principal. Chart I-7EM Credit Spreads Have Higher Correlation ##br##With EM FX Than U.S. Bonds Yields An equivalent rise in debt servicing costs in local currency will require a 100-basis-point increase in U.S. dollar borrowing costs. In brief, U.S. dollar rates should rise by 100 basis points for interest payments to increase by BRL 200 over a five-year period, the time remaining to maturity. This simulation reveals that a 5% dollar appreciation versus local currency is as painful as a 100 basis points rise in U.S. dollar rates and is more burdensome if the cost of coupon payments is accounted for. Provided there are higher odds of 5% currency depreciation in many EMs than a 100-basis-point rise in U.S. dollar borrowing costs, we infer that EM FX debtors' creditworthiness is more sensitive to exchange rates than to U.S. Treasury yields. As Chart I-7 clearly demonstrates, EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads correlate much more strongly with EM exchange rates than with U.S. bond yields. Consequently, the trend in EM exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar is much more important for EM credit spreads than fluctuations in U.S. bond yields. As to the currency composition of EM FX debt, about 82% of EM external debt is in U.S.-dollar terms. Bottom Line: So long as EM currencies depreciate against the greenback, EM FX debt stress will mount, and EM corporate and sovereign credit spreads will widen. This will occur irrespective of whether U.S. Treasury yields rise or drop. EM FX Debt: A Quantitative Snapshot In this section, we present a snapshot of EM ex-China FX debt and its composition, and discuss China's external debt separately. As of the end of 2017, EM ex-China external debt of $5.32 trillion was comprised of the following: government borrowings of $1.53 trillion; non-financial company borrowings of $1.7 trillion; financial organization/bank borrowings of $1.17 trillion; and inter-company loans of $0.77 trillion (Table I-2). Since early 2016, EM external debt has risen only marginally by $400 billion, largely due to borrowing by governments and companies (Chart I-8). Table I-2EM External Debt Snapshot Chart I-8Evolution Of EM External Debt Please note that all of these data are from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) joint external debt hub and dated as of December 31, 2017. There was a non-trivial issuance of foreign currency bonds by EM issuers in the first quarter of this year that is not included in these calculations. At $1.7 trillion, China's foreign currency debt is substantial. China's banks/financial institutions and non-financial companies account for $850 billion and $460 billion of the nation's total external debt, respectively (Table I-2). Yet, the mainland's foreign currency debt is small relative to both the size of its GDP (only 11%), but not small relative to exports (60%) and the nation's FX reserves (47%). Further, China's strong corporate leverage is domestic not external - companies' local currency borrowing stands at RMB 132 trillion, equivalent to $20 trillion. Often debt stress arises when short-term debt - due in the next year - is large. Table I-3 presents the distribution of short-term debt for EM ex-China and China. Table I-3EM: Short-Term (Due In 2018) FX Debt For EM ex-China, the short-term FX debt due in 2018 is $491 billion for banks/financials and $396 billion for non-financial companies. For China, the same measure is $670 billion for banks/financials and $333 billion for non-financial companies (Table I-3). These are large amounts and, as such, escalating funding stress is likely, especially if EM/China growth disappoints and the dollar continues climbing. How does the current EM FX indebtedness for the private sector (banks and companies) compare with FX indebtedness before the EM crises of the late 1990s? Table I-4 reveals foreign debt as a share of GDP was not large before the 1996 EM/Asian crises, except for Thailand. However, as EM currencies plunged in 1997-'98, foreign debt burdens skyrocketed. This underscores the above discussion that debt vulnerability is not static. Rather, it is a dynamic concept, changing as the key variables fluctuate. This also confirms the importance of exchange rate trajectory in FX debt vulnerability. Table I-4EM Private Sector FX Debt: 1996 Versus Today Vulnerability Assessment On a macro level, foreign debt vulnerability can be measured by both foreign debt service obligations (FDSO) and foreign funding requirements (FFR). FDSOs are the sum of interest payments and amortization of all types of external debt in the next 12 months. FFRs are calculated as the current account deficit plus FDSO in the next 12 months. It measures the amount of foreign capital inflows required in the next 12 months for a country to cover any shortfall in current account transactions as well as to service its foreign currency debt (both principals and interest). Given these data from BIS are as of December 31, 2017, the next 12 month is for the entire 2018, which is technically not 12 months from today. Exports are a country's foreign currency earnings (cash flow) that can be used to service FX debt. Central banks' FX reserves are a stock of liquid foreign currency assets that can be used by the central bank to plug the gap in balance of payments, if needed. Chart I-9 and Chart I-10 rank countries in terms of their FDSO as a share of exports of goods and services, and FFR as a share of central bank FX reserves, respectively. Not surprisingly, Turkey, Argentina and Indonesia are the most vulnerable in both measures. Chart I-9FX Debt Vulnerability Ranking 1: Foreign Debt Service Obligations ##br##(FX Debt Service In Next 12 Months) Chart I-10FX Debt Vulnerability Ranking 2: Foreign Funding Requirements ##br##(FX Debt Service In Next 12 Months Plus Current Account Balance) Chart I-11 combines these two measures on a scatter plot to identify the most- and least-vulnerable countries. In addition to Turkey, Argentina and Indonesia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Peru also appear quite vulnerable. In the meantime, Thailand, Russia and Korea are the least vulnerable. Chart I-11Combining FX Debt Vulnerability Ranking 1 And 2 To also identify investment opportunities, we compare the FDSO/exports ratio with corporate spreads across EM countries (Chart I-12), and the FFR/FX reserves ratio with sovereign spreads across EM countries (Chart I-13). Chart I-12EM Corporate Spreads: Fundamentals Versus Valuations Chart I-13EM Sovereign Spreads: Fundamentals Versus Valuations With respect to corporate spreads, Chart I-12 displays that after adjusting for their respective fundamentals, corporate spreads in Brazil, Indonesia, Peru, Chile and Colombia are too tight. Turkey seems to be fairly valued at the moment, while Russia, Mexico and South Africa are cheap in relative terms. In terms of sovereign spreads, Chart I-13 reveals that sovereign credit is overpriced relative to fundamentals in Chile, Indonesia, Mexico and Colombia. Turkey has a neutral valuation, while Brazil, Russia and South Africa offer relative value. A caveat of this analysis is that it is static. If EM currencies continue to plummet, EM external debt matrices will worsen. In countries where their currencies depreciate more, debt vulnerability will rise and current pricing of sovereign and corporate credit will likely become inadequate. For example, if the South African rand depreciates considerably, in turn underperforming its EM peers - which is our view - its corporate and sovereign FX debt vulnerability will rise, and credit spreads will have to be re-priced both in absolute terms, as well as relative to the EM benchmark. More detailed numerical information on EM FX debt is presented in the Appendix on page 16. Investment Conclusions EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads will continue widening, pushing up their respective bond yields in the process. Rising EM corporate and sovereign U.S. dollar bond yields are typically bearish for EM stocks. This does not only hold for vulnerable EMs running current account deficits, but for emerging Asia as well. Although the selloff in emerging Asian equities has so far been moderate, rising high-yield corporate bond yields in Asia point to trouble for the regional bourses (Chart I-14). Chart I-14A Message From Emerging Asian High-Yield Corporate Bonds Furthermore, emerging Asian high-yield corporate bonds have begun underperforming their investment grade peers. This typically warrants lower share prices in Asia (Chart I-15). Chart I-15Emerging Asia: Beware Of Junk Outperforming ##br##Investment Grade Corporate Credit Global fixed-income portfolios should underweight EM sovereign and corporate credit relative to DM corporate credit in general, and U.S. investment-grade corporate credit in particular. As we have discussed in the past, asset allocators should not compare EM U.S. dollar bonds (EM credit markets) to EM local currency bonds or EM equities. EM U.S. dollar bonds should be compared to U.S. corporate bonds. Within the EM sovereign credit space, our overweights are Russia, Mexico, Korea, Thailand, Poland, Hungary and Argentina. This investment strategy combines low-beta markets with some high-beta ones where either fundamentals are healthy - such as in Russia and Mexico - or where valuation is attractive - such as in Argentina. Our recommended underweights are Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia and Venezuela. Finally, Colombia, Chile, Peru and India warrant a neutral allocation within an EM credit portfolio. Modifications to our past allocation/positions are as follows: Close short Turkey / long Philippines sovereign credit trade. We also downgraded Philippines to neutral on April 25 consistent with our analysis elaborated in our Special Report.3 We moved Russia from overweight to neutral after the new sanctions were announced in April but we are now moving it back to overweight. Move Peruvian sovereign credit from overweight to neutral. Close long Peru / short Brazil sovereign credit and long Peru sovereign / short Peru corporate positions. Close long Argentina / short Venezuela sovereign credit but maintain long Argentina / short Brazil sovereign credit position. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 For the purposes of this report, we use external and foreign currency debt interchangeably. 2 The chart showing the correlation between German IFO manufacturing business expectations was published as Chart 1 in last week's report titled "Will Emerging Asia De-Couple Or Re-Couple?"; the link is available on page 23. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy/Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "The Philippines: Duterte's Money Illusion," dated April 25, 2018, link available on page 23. Appendix: A Snapshot Of EM FX Debt External Debt Statistics Government External Debt Ranking Non-Financial Corporate External Debt Burden Financials External Debt Burden Outstanding External Inter-Company Loans Short-Term External Debt Statistics (Does Not Include Intercompany Debt) Short-Term External Debt Composition Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Last year's broad-based global growth recovery has given way to slower growth and increasing differentiation in growth rates across economies. The U.S. has gone from laggard to leader in the global growth horse race, helping to drive the dollar to a five-month high. The biggest risk to our cautious view on emerging markets is that China stimulates the economy proactively as an insurance policy against a possible trade war. So far, there is little evidence that this is happening, but we are watching the data closely. The turmoil in Italy's bond markets is a timely reminder that if the European periphery wants more stimulus, this has to happen through a weaker euro rather than through larger budget deficits. Stay short EUR/USD. We expect to take profits at around the 1.15 level. Feature From Convergence To Divergence 2017 was the year of synchronized global growth. For the first time since 2007, all 46 countries tracked by the OECD experienced positive GDP growth. The euro area economy surprised on the upside, recording real GDP growth of 2.3%. This was slightly above U.S. levels, despite the fact that trend growth is about half a percentage point lower in the euro area. Growth in Japan nearly doubled to 1.7% from the prior year. Emerging markets, which succumbed to a broad-based slowdown starting in 2015, came roaring back. The U.S. dollar tends to perform poorly when global growth is accelerating and the composition of that growth is shifting away from the United States. This was precisely the setting that the global economy found itself in last year, which is why the greenback came under pressure. Things are looking sharply different this year. Global growth has cooled, as evidenced by both the PMIs and economic surprise indices (Chart 1). Euro area growth was sliced in half in the first quarter; U.K. growth decelerated further; and Japanese growth fell into negative territory for the first time since 2015. In contrast, the U.S. has held up relatively well. While growth did dip to 2.3% in Q1, the latest tracking estimates suggest a rebound in the second quarter. Retail sales accelerated in April. The Philly Fed PMI also surprised on the upside, with the new orders component reaching the highest level since 1973. The New York's Fed model is pointing to growth of 3.2% in Q2, while the Atlanta Fed's Nowcast is signaling growth of 4.1%. The divergence in growth rates between the U.S. and most major economies has been mirrored in recent inflation prints. U.S. core inflation has moved higher, but has stumbled elsewhere (Chart 2). Chart 1Global Growth Has Cooled With The U.S.##br## Faring Best Chart 2Inflation Is Accelerating In The U.S., ##br##Decelerating Elsewhere The relatively strong pace of U.S. growth has led to a widening in interest-rate differentials between the United States and its peers. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has risen by 95 basis points since its September lows, compared to 20 points for German bunds, 47 points for U.K. gilts, and 4 points for JGBs. With the exception of the U.K., the increase in spreads has been dominated by the real rate component (Chart 3). Chart 3Widening Interest Rate Differentials Between The U.S. And Its Peers ##br##Have Been Driven By The Real Component King Dollar Reigns Supreme Conceptually, it is real, rather than nominal, interest rate differentials that ought to move currencies. We noted earlier this year that the dollar's failure to strengthen on the back of rising Treasury yields was an anomaly that was unlikely to persist. Sure enough, the dollar has now begun to recouple with real interest rate differentials (Chart 4). Our sense is that this year's trends can last a while longer. Leading Economic Indicators have continued to move in favor of the U.S., suggesting that U.S. outperformance is not likely to end anytime soon (Chart 5). Fiscal policy should also help prop up U.S. aggregate demand. The U.S. structural budget deficit is set to widen much more than elsewhere over the next few years (Chart 6). Chart 4Dollar Is Recoupling With Rate Differentials Chart 5U.S. Is Outshining Its Peers Chart 6U.S. Fiscal Policy Is More Stimulative The U.S. economy is now back to full employment. For the first time in the 17-year history of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS), the number of job openings exceeds the number of unemployed workers (Chart 7). Our composite labor survey indicator has continued to move higher (Chart 8). Core PCE inflation has already accelerated to 2.3% on an annualized 6-month basis and 2.6% on a 3-month basis. The New York Fed's Inflation Gauge, which leads inflation by about 18 months, is pointing to higher inflation over the coming quarters (Chart 9). This means that the bar for further gradual rate hikes is quite low. Chart 7There Are Now More Vacancies Than Jobseekers Chart 8U.S. Wage Growth Is Set To Grind Higher Chart 9U.S. Inflation: Upside Risks Recent revelations by Kevin Warsh - who was once the favorite to lead the Federal Reserve - that Trump was dismissive of the Fed's historic independence during their interview, is only likely to strengthen Jay Powell's resolve to avoid being seen as a Trump flunky.1 China: Shifting Into The Slow Lane? Of course, the outlook for the dollar and bond spreads will also hinge on what happens in the rest of the world. We are watching two economies especially closely: China and Italy. The latest data suggest that China has lost some growth momentum. Retail sales and fixed asset investment decelerated in April. Property sales also declined from an elevated level. Sales tend to lead prices. Home prices were flat in most tier 1 cities over the prior year, reflecting elevated inventory levels, tighter lending standards, and stricter administrative controls (Chart 10). Further price weakness is likely, which could dampen construction activity in the months ahead. Industrial production beat expectations in April, but the overall trend in industrial activity remains to the downside. Electricity production, freight traffic, and excavator sales have all been decelerating (Chart 11). Import growth has also come down, which is one reason why GDP growth in the rest of the world has moderated (Chart 12). Chart 10China: Housing Has Cooled Chart 11China: Industrial Activity Is Slowing Chart 12China: Import Growth Has Decelerated Trade War Fears: Will China Overcompensate? In addition to the regular cyclical growth risks, concerns about a trade war loom in the background. The Trump Administration's decision last weekend to defer imposing tariffs on China caused investors to breathe a sigh of relief, but much remains unresolved, including ongoing allegations that China is stealing intellectual property from the U.S. and other countries. Trump's decision to pull out of June's summit with North Korea will only strain America's relationship with China. Considering the damage to China that a full-out trade war would cause, it would be sensible for the government to take out some insurance against a possible downturn. Thus far, any evidence that the authorities are trying to stimulate the economy through either fiscal or monetary means is sketchy (Chart 13). Reserve requirements were cut by 100 basis points in April, but corporate borrowing costs remain elevated. Fiscal outlays are growing at broadly the same pace as last year. The trade-weighted RMB has continued to strengthen. Still, it is hard to believe that the government has not put together a contingency plan that it could roll out if circumstances warrant it. The biggest risk to our fairly cautious view on emerging markets is that China launches a stimulus package in response to a trade war that quickly ends in détente. Similar to what occurred in 2008/09, this would leave China with more stimulus than it actually needed. Italy: From Fiscal Austerity To Bunga Bunga Unlike in China, Italy's incoming coalition government - forged through an uneasy alliance between the populist Five Star Movement (M5S) and the right-leaning League - has made no secret about its desire to ease fiscal policy. The M5S wants more social spending while the League has lobbied for a flat tax. These measures, along with a host of others, would add €100 billion, or 6% of GDP, to the budget deficit. Given that the Italian unemployment rate stands at 11% - 5.3 percentage points above its 2007 low - one could make a compelling case that Italy would benefit from temporary fiscal stimulus. However, the proposed policies are being marketed as permanent in nature. Moreover, several policies, such as the proposal to roll back the planned increase in the retirement age, would actually reduce potential GDP by shrinking the size of the labor force. It is no wonder that bond markets are worried (Chart 14). Chart 13China: No Clear Evidence Of Stimulus ... Yet Chart 14Mamma Mia! Propping Up Demand In Italy Much has been written about what Italy should be doing, but the fact is that there are no simple solutions. Italy suffers from a shrinking working-age population and anemic productivity growth, both of which reduce the incentive for firms to expand capacity. Like many other European countries, Italy also suffers from a debt overhang. This is obviously true for government debt but it is also true, to some extent, for private debt. While the ratio of private debt-to-GDP is below the euro area average, it stills stands at 113%, up from 65% in the mid-1990s (Chart 15). The desire to save more in order to pay back debt, coupled with a reluctance to invest in new capacity, has left Italy with what economists call a private-sector financial surplus (Chart 16). Chart 15Italian Private Sector Has Been Taking ##br## On Less Debt Since The Crisis Chart 16Italy: The Private Sector Wants To Save If the private sector earns more than it spends, the excess savings have to be absorbed either by the government through its own dissaving or by the rest of the world through a current account surplus. Both options are problematic for Italy. Running large budget deficits for a prolonged period of time would take the level of government debt-to-GDP to stratospheric levels. Japan has been able to get away with this strategy because it issues debt in its own currency. This is a luxury that is not at Italy's disposal. Despite Mario Draghi's pledge to do "whatever it takes" to preserve the euro area, it is far from clear that the ECB would keep buying Italian debt if the country began to openly skirt the EU's deficit rules. Absent an effective lender of last resort, the Italian bond market could fall victim to a speculative attack - a process in which higher yields lead to even higher yields, and eventually a default (Chart 17). Chart 17When A Lender Of Last Resort Is Absent, Multiple Equilibria Are Possible This just leaves the option of trying to bolster aggregate demand by exporting excess production abroad via a current account surplus. To its credit, Italy has been able to shift its current account balance from a deficit of 1.4% of GDP in 2007 to a projected surplus of 2.6% of GDP this year. However, some of that surplus simply reflects the fact that a weak economy has suppressed imports. Progress in reducing unit labor costs relative to its euro area peers has been painfully slow (Chart 18). Chart 18Italy: More Work To Be Done To Improve Competitiveness If Italy had a flexible exchange rate, it could simply devalue its currency to gain competitiveness. Since it does not have one, it has to improve competitiveness by restraining wage growth and implementing productivity-enhancing structural reforms. The former requires the presence of labor market slack, while the latter, even in a best-case scenario, will take substantial time to achieve. And neither option is politically popular. Given the difficulty of raising Italy's competitiveness relative to the rest of the euro area, the only realistic short-term solution is to boost it relative to the rest of the world. That requires a weak euro which, in turn, requires a dovish ECB. Investment Conclusions In our Second Quarter Strategy Outlook, published on March 30th, we predicted that the dollar was poised to experience a violent rally as short sellers rushed to cover their positions. This view has played out in spades. As we go to press, the nominal broad-trade weighted dollar has gained 4% since early April. It is up 30% since bottoming in July 2011 and is only 6% below its December 2016 peak (Chart 19). The dollar rally has brought our views closer in line with the market. Notably, EUR/USD is now less than two percent above our target of $1.15. The dollar is an ultra-high momentum currency. Chart 20 shows that a simple strategy of buying the DXY when it was above its moving average and selling it when it was below its moving average would have delivered a sizable profit over the past two decades (the exact moving average does not matter much, but the 50-day seems to work best). As such, while we intend to turn neutral on the dollar if it gains another few percent or so, an overshoot is quite probable. Chart 19The Dollar Has Bounced Back Chart 20The Dollar Trades On Momentum About 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. In many cases, dollar borrowers have non-dollar revenue streams. Thus, a stronger dollar automatically hurts their businesses. In the past, this has often ignited a feedback loop where a stronger dollar triggers capital outflows from emerging markets, leading to an even stronger dollar. Our EM strategists strongly feel that such a vicious cycle is fast approaching, especially if China's economy continues to slow. In the late 1990s, brewing EM tensions triggered several brutal equity selloffs. For example, the S&P lost 22% between July 20 and October 8, 1998. However, EM stress also restrained the Fed from tightening too quickly. The resulting dose of liquidity set the stage for a massive blow-off rally between the fall of 1998 and the spring of 2000. A similar dynamic could unfold this time around. We remain overweight global equities for now, but are hedging the risk by being short AUD/JPY, a trade that has gained 5% since we initiated it on February 1st. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Ben White, "How Trump could break from the Fed's independence," Politico, May 9, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Informe especial

Feature The prospect of a 5S-Lega government in Italy is unnerving some analysts and commentators. Italy's sovereign debt-to-GDP ratio is already one of the highest in the world. A seemingly endless economic stagnation is constraining GDP, and now the populists are proposing policies that would increase the deficit, lifting sovereign debt even higher. Feature ChartFiscal Thrust Has Driven Italy's ##br##Growth In Recent Years The suggested cures to Italy's high sovereign debt-to-GDP ratio divide into two opposing camps. One camp - Italy's populists - wants to boost GDP, the ratio's denominator. The other camp - Brussels - wants to rein in sovereign debt, the ratio's numerator. Who's right? It is not a simple choice. Growth and debt are not independent variables. It is impossible to boost growth quickly without a positive credit impulse from some part of the economy. Equally, reducing government borrowing can have a devastating impact on growth (Chart I-2). Therefore, to resolve the conflict between Italy's populists and Brussels, we need to understand the specific relationship in Italy between government debt, GDP, and their interaction: the fiscal multiplier. Chart I-2The Fiscal Multiplier Is High ##br##When The Private Sector Or Banks Are Financially Unhealthy Italy Is Right, Brussels Is Wrong Imagine that government debt starts at 130 and GDP starts at 100. Imagine also that each unit of government borrowing to spend lifts GDP by one unit, meaning the fiscal multiplier equals one. Under these assumptions, three units of fiscal thrust would lift debt to 133 and lift GDP to 103, reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio to 129%. Conversely, three units of fiscal drag would reduce debt to 127 and reduce GDP to 97, paradoxically increasing the debt-to-GDP ratio to 131% and making the austerity strategy entirely counterproductive. Critics will snap back that these two assumptions appear inconsistent. When sovereign indebtedness is already high, at say 130% of GDP, it seems implausible that the fiscal multiplier could also be high: the government has already done its useful borrowing to spend and, at the margin, additional borrowing is likely to be 'fiscally irresponsible'. This criticism would be valid if the government was the only part of the economy that could borrow. But it isn't. Whether the fiscal multiplier is high or low also depends on what is happening in the private sector (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Fiscal Multiplier Is Low ##br##When The Private Sector And Banks Are Financially Healthy Fiscal multipliers become very high when there is a breakdown in the ability of households and firms to borrow and/or a breakdown in the ability of banks to lend. After such a breakdown, credit flows to the private sector remain depressed however low (or negative) interest rates go. Specifically, this happens after a severe economic trauma when large numbers of households and firms are simultaneously repairing their badly damaged balance sheets and/or when banks are insolvent. If the one and only engine of demand - government spending - then cuts out, the economy can enter a prolonged stagnation. Under such conditions, thrift reinforces thrift: one unit of fiscal drag can trigger an additional private sector spending cut, magnifying the impact of the original cut. In other words, the fiscal multiplier can exceed one and reach a level as high as two according to several academic and empirical studies.1 During and immediately after the global financial crisis, fiscal multipliers surged. Through 2009-12, fiscal thrust had a very strong explanatory power for GDP growth; across 14 major economies, the regression slope of 1.5 confirms a high average fiscal multiplier. In other words, each unit of fiscal thrust boosted GDP by 1.5 units; and each unit of fiscal drag depressed GDP by 1.5 units.2 Another way to see this is to observe that in the global financial crisis the economies that had the largest fiscal thrusts tended to experience the least severe recessions. The annual fiscal thrust in the U.S., U.K. and France equalled 2% of GDP; in Spain it equalled 3%.3 By contrast, Germany and Italy had negligible fiscal thrusts, and they suffered the worst recessions. But by 2012, households and firms around the world were willing to borrow again, and banks were sufficiently recapitalised to lend. Hence, fiscal multipliers slumped: fiscal thrust no longer had any explanatory power for GDP growth (Charts I-4 - I-7). Chart I-4Post 2012: No Connection Between##br## Fiscal Thrust And Growth In The U.S. Chart I-5Post 2012: No Connection Between##br## Fiscal Thrust And Growth In The U.K. Chart I-6Post 2012: No Connection Between ##br##Fiscal Thrust And Growth In The Germany Chart I-7Post 2012: No Connection Between##br## Fiscal Thrust And Growth In The France There was one glaring exception to this trend: alas, poor Italy. Trapped in the EU's inflexible and misguided fiscal compact, and without an outright crisis, the Italian government could not recapitalise the dysfunctional banks. Although the solvency of the banks has improved in the past year, the evidence strongly suggests that fiscal thrust remains the main driver of the Italian economy (Feature Chart). On this evidence, the best economic policy for Italy right now is not to adhere slavishly to the misguided one-size-fits-all EU fiscal compact. The best policy is to use fiscal thrust intelligently to boost growth. We conclude that, on this specific point, Italy's populists are right and Brussels is wrong. Italy Needs Growth Italian BTPs offer a yield premium over German bunds as a compensation for two possible risks. One risk is a haircut or, more euphemistically, a 'restructuring'. But the likelihood of such a restructuring is very low. Putting aside the damage it would do to Italy's international standing, the simpler explanation is that it would kill the Italian banking system. As a rule of thumb, a bank's investors start to get nervous about its solvency when equity capital no longer covers its net non-performing loans (NPLs). In this regard, the largest Italian banks now have €165 billion of equity capital against €130 billion of NPLs, implying excess capital of €35 billion. The banks also hold around €350 billion of Italian government bonds (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Italian Banks Own 350 Billion Euro Of Italian Government Bonds So a mere 10% haircut on these BTPs could cripple the banking system and send the economy into a new tailspin. Meaning, it is in nobody's interest to restructure Italian bonds. The more likely risk to BTP holders - albeit still small - is redenomination out of the euro and into a reinstated lira. In which case the yield premium on BTPs ought to equal: (The likely loss on being paid in liras rather than deutschmarks) multiplied by (the annual probability of Italy leaving the euro) The first of these terms captures Italy's competitiveness shortfall versus Germany, which will change quite gradually. The second term captures a political risk, as leaving the euro would require a mandate from the Italian people. This means that the second term is very sensitive (inversely) to the popularity of the euro in Italy. It follows that a policy that kick starts growth and improves living standards - thereby boosting the popularity of the euro amongst the Italian people - is also a good policy for Italian bonds, banks, sustainable growth in Italy, and therefore for the euro itself. Bear in mind that Italy's structural deficit, at just 1%, is nowhere near the double-digit percentage levels that reliably signal the onset of a sovereign debt trap (Table I-1). Table I-1Italy's Structural Deficit Has Almost Disappeared Given Italy's high fiscal multiplier, we conclude once again that Italy's populists are right and Brussels is wrong. Some Investment Considerations Italian assets rallied strongly at the start of the year and certainly did not discount an election outcome in which the unlikely bedfellows 5S and La Lega formed a government. Therefore, from a technical perspective, the rally was extended and ripe for a pullback. A further consideration for Italy's MIB is that it is over-weighted to banks, so a sustained outperformance from the stock market requires a sustained outperformance from global banks, which we do not expect to start imminently. So in the near term, we prefer France's CAC to Italy's MIB. We have also opened a tactical pair-trade: long Poland's Warsaw General Index, short Italy's MIB. However, later this year, we expect both our credit impulse (cyclical) indicator and fractal dimension (technical) indicator to signal a better entry point into banks, into the Italian equity market and for BTP yield spread compression. Italy's structural deficit, at 1%, is amongst the lowest in the world, so Italy has plenty of 'fiscal space'. Moreover, fiscal stimulus can deliver bang for its buck because Italy appears to have a high fiscal multiplier. This differentiates Italy from other major economies, and makes the EU's one-size-fits-all fiscal compact entirely counterproductive for the euro area's third largest economy. This means that policies that push back against Brussels on this specific point might finally permit Italy to escape its decade-long growth trap. And therefore, somewhat paradoxically, they will enable the yield premium on 10-year Italian BTPs versus 10-year French OATs ultimately to compress. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 For example, please see: When Is The Government Spending Multiplier Large? Christiano, Eichenbaum and Rebelo, Northwestern University. 2 Even removing the outlier data point that is Greece, the best-fit line has a slope of 1.1. And the r-squared explanatory power remains significant at 0.5. 3 Through 2008-9.

Highlights The 2018 outlook for both economic growth and corporate profits remains constructive for risk assets, although evidence is gathering that global growth is peaking. Some measures of global activity related to capital spending have softened in recent months. Nonetheless, the G3 aggregate for capital goods orders remains in an uptrend, suggesting that it is too soon to call an end in the mini capital spending boom. Our global leading indicators are not heralding any major economic slowdown. The dip in early 2018 in the Global ZEW index likely reflected uncertainty over protectionist trade action. Economic growth in the major countries outside of the U.S. may have peaked, but will remain robust at least through this year. The potential for a trade war is a key risk facing investors. Sino-American tensions are likely to intensify over the long term as the two nations spar over geopolitical and military supremacy. That said, there are hopeful signs that the latest trade skirmish will not degenerate into a full-blown trade war and thereby cause lasting damage to risk assets. Stay overweight equities and corporate bonds. President Trump will announce on May 19 whether he will terminate the nuclear agreement with Iran. Cancelation could be a game-changer for Iranian internal politics, and the return of hardliners would signal greater instability in the region. Stay long oil and related investments. The profit picture remains bright as global margins continue to make new cyclical highs and earnings revisions are elevated. EPS growth is peaking in Europe and Japan, but has a bit more upside in the U.S. later this year. Cross-country equity allocation is a tough call, but relative monetary policy, our positive view for the dollar, the potential for earnings surprises and better value bias us toward European stocks relative to the U.S. in local currency terms. Rising U.S. corporate leverage is not an issue now, but could intensify the next downturn as ratings are slashed, defaults rise and banks tighten lending standards. The bond bear market remains intact, although the consolidation phase has further to run. By Q1 2019, the Fed could find itself with inflation close to target, above-trend growth driven by a strong fiscal tailwind, and an unemployment rate that is a full percentage point below NAIRU. Policymakers will then try to nudge up the unemployment rate, but the odds of avoiding a recession are very low. Feature Investors are right to be concerned following the March 23 U.S. announcement of tariffs on about $50 billion of Chinese imports. The President is low in the polls and needs a victory of some sort heading into midterm elections. Getting tough on trade plays well with voters, and the President faces few constraints from Congress on this issue. Trump wants a raft of items from China, including opening up to foreign investment and a crackdown on intellectual theft. Sino-American tensions are likely to intensify over the long term as the two nations spar over geopolitical and military supremacy.1 That said, we do not expect the latest trade skirmish to degenerate into a full-blown trade war. First, China has already signaled it wants to avoid significant escalation. Beijing has offered several concessions, and its threat of retaliatory trade action has been measured so far. On the U.S. side, the fact that the Administration has decided to bring its case against China to the World Trade Organization (WTO) shows that the Americans are willing to proceed through the normal trade-dispute channels. The bottom line is that, while we cannot rule out escalating trade action that causes meaningful damage to the equity market, it is more likely that the current round of tensions will be limited to brief flare-ups. Investors should monitor the extent of European involvement. If Europe joins the U.S. effort to force China to change its trade practices via the WTO, then China will have little choice but to give in without a major fight. In terms of other geopolitical risks, North Korea should move to the back burner for a while now that the regime has agreed to negotiations. Of greater near-term significance is May 19, when Trump will announce whether he will terminate the nuclear agreement with Iran. Cancelation could be a game-changer for Iranian internal politics, and the return of hardliners would signal greater instability in the region. Oil prices would benefit if the May deadline for issuing waivers on Iran sanctions passes. Trade penalties against Iran would reduce its oil production and exports. The U.S. is also considering sanctions on Venezuela's oil industry. Moreover, Russia and Saudi Arabia are reportedly considering a deal to greatly extend their alliance to curb oil supply. While there are downside risks as well, our base case outlook sees the price of Brent reaching US$74 before year end. Global Growth: Some Mixed Signs Also facing investors this year is the risk that the recent softening in the economic data morphs into a serious growth scare. The 2018 outlook for both the economy and corporate profits remains constructive in our view, but evidence is gathering that global growth is peaking. Investors may begin to question recent upward revisions to the growth outlook for this year and next. Industrial production has softened and the manufacturing PMI has shifted lower in most of the advanced economies (Chart I-1). Bad weather in North America and Europe in early 2018 may be partly to blame, but Korean exports, a leading indicator for the global business cycle, have also softened. The Chinese economy is decelerating and we believe the growth risks are underappreciated. President Xi has cemented his power base and there has been a shift toward accelerated reform. Chinese leaders recognize that leverage in the system is a problem, and the regime is tightening policy on a multi-pronged basis. Structural reforms are positive for long-term growth, but are negative in the short term. The tightening in financial conditions is already evident in the Chinese PMI and the sharp deceleration in the Li Keqiang index (although the latest reading shows an uptick; not shown). A hard landing is not our base case, but the risks are to the downside because the authorities will err on the side of tight policy and low growth. It is also disconcerting that some of our measures of global activity related to capital spending have softened in recent months, including capital goods imports and industrial production of capital goods (Chart I-2). Nonetheless, the fact that the G3 aggregate for capital goods orders remains in an uptrend suggests that it is too soon to call an end in the mini capital spending boom. Consumer and business confidence continues to firm in the major economies. Chart I-1Some Signs Of A Peak In Global Growth Chart I-2A Soft Spot For Capital Spending Our global leading indicators are not heralding any major economic slowdown (Chart I-3). BCA's Global LEI remains in an uptrend and its diffusion index is above the 50 line. In contrast, the global measure of the ZEW investor sentiment index plunged in March. We attribute the decline to the announcement of steel and aluminum tariffs and the subsequent market swoon, suggesting that the ZEW pullback will prove to be temporary. Turning to the U.S., retail sales disappointed in January and February, especially considering that taxpayers just received a sizable tax cut. Nonetheless, this probably reflects lagged effects and weather distortions. Our U.S. consumer spending indicator continues to strengthen as all of the components remain constructive outside of auto sales. Household balance sheets are the best that they have been since 2007; net worth is soaring and the aggregate debt-to-income ratio is close to the lowest level since the turn of the century (Chart I-4). Given robust employment growth and the tightest labor market in decades, there is little to hold U.S. consumer spending back. We expect that the tax cut effect on retail sales will be revealed in the coming months, helping to sustain the healthy backdrop for corporate profits. Chart I-3Global Leading Indicators Mostly Positive Chart I-4U.S. Consumers In Good Shape Global Margins Still Rising The profit picture remains bright as global margins continue to make new cyclical highs and earnings revisions are elevated (Chart I-5). Earnings-per-share surged in the early months of the year in both the U.S. and Japan, although they languished in the Eurozone according to IBES data (local currencies; not shown). Relative equity returns in local currency tend to follow relative shifts in 12-month forward EPS expectations over long periods, and bottom-up analysts have lifted their U.S. earnings figures in light of the fiscal stimulus (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Global Margins Still Rising Chart I-6EPS And Relative Equity Returns The key question is: can the U.S. market outperform again in 2018 now that the tax cuts have largely been priced in? One can make a compelling case either way. Growth: Global growth will remain robust for at least the next year, and the Eurozone and Japanese markets are more geared to global growth than is the U.S. However, the impressive fiscal stimulus in the pipeline means that economic growth momentum is likely to swing back toward the U.S. this year. GDP growth in Europe and Japan will remain above-trend, but it has probably peaked for the cycle in both economies. Valuation: Our composite measure of valuation suggests that Europe and Japan are on the cheap side relative to the U.S. based on our aggregate valuation indicator, which takes into consideration a wide variety of yardsticks (Chart I-7). That said, one of the reasons why European stocks are on the cheap side at the moment is that export-oriented German exporters are quite exposed to rising international tariffs. Earnings: Previous currency shifts will add to EPS growth in the U.S. in the first half of the year, but will be a drag in Europe and Japan (Chart I-8). However, these effects will wane through the year unless the dollar keeps falling. Indeed, we expect the dollar to firm modestly over the next year, favoring the European equity market at the margin. In contrast, we expect the yen to strengthen in the near term, which will trim Japanese EPS growth. Chart I-7Valuation Ranking Of Nonfinancial ##br##Equity Markets Relative To The U.S. Chart I-8Impact Of Currency Shifts On EPS Growth Chart I-9 updates the forecast from our top-down earnings models. The incorporation of the fiscal stimulus lifted the U.S. EPS growth profile relative to our previous forecast. EPS growth is expected to peak at over 20% later this year (4-quarter moving total basis using S&P 500 data). Growth is expected to decelerate thereafter since we have factored in a modest margin squeeze as U.S. wage growth picks up. Narrowing margins are less of a risk in Europe. U.S. EPS growth should be above that of Europe in 2018, but will then fall to about the same pace in 2019. We expect Japanese profit growth to remain very strong this year and next, given Japan's highly pro-cyclical earnings sensitivity. However, this does not incorporate the risk of further yen strength. Earnings expectations will also matter. Twelve-month bottom-up expectations are higher than our U.S. forecast ('x' in Chart I-9 denotes 12-month forward EPS expectations). In contrast, expectations are roughly in line with our forecast for the European market. It will therefore be more difficult at the margin for U.S. earnings to surprise to the upside. Monetary Policy: The relative shift in monetary policies should favor the European and Japanese markets to the U.S. The FOMC will continue tightening, with risks still to the upside on rates in absolute terms and relative to the other two economies. Sector Performance: Sector skews should work in Europe's favor. Financials are the largest overweight in Euro area bourses, while technology is the largest overweight in the U.S. We are constructive on the financial sector in both markets, but out-performance of the sector will favor the Eurozone broad market. Meanwhile, tech companies are particularly sensitive to changes in discount rates, since they often trade on the assumption that most of their earnings will be realized far into the future. As such, higher long-term real bond yields will adversely affect U.S. tech names, especially in an environment where the dollar is strengthening. The Japanese market has a relatively high weighting in industrials and consumer discretionary. The market will benefit if the global mini capex boom continues, but this could be counteracted by softness in global auto sales and further yen strength. It is a tough call, but relative monetary policy, our positive view for the dollar, the potential for earnings surprises and better value bias us toward European stocks relative to the U.S. in local currency terms. We continue to avoid the Japanese market for the near term because of the potential for additional yen gains. As for the equity sector call, investors should remain oriented toward cyclicals versus defensives. Our key themes of a synchronized global capex mini boom, rising bond yields and firm oil prices favor the industrials, energy and financial sectors. Chart I-10 highlights four indicators that support the cyclicals over defensives theme, the dollar and the business sales-to-inventories ratio. Telecom, consumer discretionary and homebuilders are underweight. Chart I-9Profit Forecast Chart I-10These Indicators Favor Cyclical Stocks We will be watching the indicators in Chart I-10 to time the shift to a more defensive equity sector allocation. Leverage And The Next Recession As the economic expansion enters the late stages, investors are focused on where leverage pressure points may lurk. Last month's Special Report on U.S. corporate vulnerability to higher interest rates and a recession raised some eyebrows. For our sample of 770 companies, we estimated how much interest coverage for the average company would decline under two scenarios: (1) interest rates rise by 100 basis points across the curve; and (2) interest rates rise by 100 basis points and there is a recession in which corporate profits fall by 25% peak to trough. Given all the client inquiries, we decided to delve deeper into the results. We were concerned that our sample of high-yield companies distorted the overall results because it includes many small firms and outliers. We are more comfortable with the results using only the investment-grade firms, shown in Chart I-11. The 'x' marks the interest rate shock and the 'o' marks the combined shock. Nonetheless, the main qualitative message is unchanged. The starting point for interest coverage is low, considering that interest rates are near the lowest levels on record and profits are extremely high relative to GDP. This is the result of an extended period of corporate releveraging on the back of low borrowing rates. Chart I-12 shows that the interest coverage ratio has declined even as profit margins have remained elevated. Normally the two move together through the cycle. Chart I-11Corporate Leverage Will Take A Toll Chart I-12The Consequences Of Rising Leverage The implication is that the next recession will see interest coverage fare worse than in previous recessions. Of course, there are many other financial ratios and statistics that the rating agencies employ, but our results suggest that downgrades will proliferate when the agencies realize that the economy is turning south. Moreover, banks may tighten C&I lending standards earlier and more aggressively because they will also be finely attuned to the first hint of economic trouble given the leverage of the companies in their portfolio. Recovery rates may be particularly low in the next recession because the equity cushion has been squeezed via buybacks, which will intensify widening pressure in corporate spreads. Tighter lending standards would generate more corporate defaults, even wider spreads and a greater overall tightening in financial conditions. Corporate leverage could therefore intensify the pullback in business spending in the next recession. The good news is that we do not see any other major macro-economic imbalances, such as areas of overspending, that could turn a mild recession into a nasty one. As long as growth remains solid, the market and rating agencies will ignore the leverage issue. Indeed, ratings migration has improved markedly following the energy related downgrades in 2014 and 2015. An improving rating migration ratio is usually associated with corporate bond outperformance relative to Treasurys (Chart I-13). We remain overweight U.S. investment-grade and high-yield bonds within fixed-income portfolios for now. The European corporate sector is further behind in the leverage cycle (Chart I-14). Europe does not appear to be nearly as vulnerable to rising interest rates. Nonetheless, our European Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) has deteriorated over the past couple of years due to some erosion in profit margins, debt coverage and the return on capital. Meanwhile, the U.S. CHM has improved in recent quarters because the favorable earnings backdrop has temporarily overwhelmed rising leverage (top panel of Chart I-14). For the short-term, at least, corporate health is moving in favor of the U.S. at the margin. Chart I-13Ratings Migration Is Constructive For Now Chart I-14Corporate Health Trend Favors U.S. The implication is that, while we see trouble ahead for the U.S. corporate sector in the next economic downturn, in the short term we now favor the U.S. over Europe in the credit space. We are watching our Equity Scorecard, bank lending standards, the yield curve and our profit margin proxy in order to time our exit from both corporate bonds and equities (see last month's Overview section). We are also watching for a rise in the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate above 2.3% as a signal that the FOMC will get more aggressive in leaning against above-trend growth and a falling unemployment rate. Powell Doesn't Rock The Boat The Fed took a measured approach when reacting to the fiscal stimulus that is in the pipeline. The FOMC lifted rates in March and marginally raised the 'dot plot' for 2019 and 2020. Policymakers shaved the projection for unemployment to 3.6% by the end of 2019. This still appears too pessimistic, unless one assumes that the labor force participation rate will rise sharply. Table I-1 provides estimates for when the unemployment rate will reach 3½% based on different average monthly payrolls and participation rates. Our base case scenario, with 200k payrolls per month and a flat participation rate, sees the unemployment rate reaching 3½% by March 2019. Table I-1Dates When 3.5% Unemployment Rate Threshold Is Reached The soft-ish February reports for consumer prices and average hourly earnings took some of the heat off the FOMC. Core CPI, for example, rose 'only' 0.2% from the month before. Still, when viewed on a 3-month rate-of-change basis, underlying inflation remains perky; the core CPI inflation rate increased from 2.8% in January to 3% in February (Chart I-15). Inflation in core services excluding medical care and shelter, as well as in core goods, have also surged on a 3-month basis. We expect the latter to continue to pressure overall inflation higher, following the upward trend in import prices. The recent downtrend in shelter inflation should also stabilize due to the falling rental vacancy rate. Chart I-15U.S. Inflation Is Perky Moreover, the NFIB survey of U.S. small businesses shows that the gap between the difficulties of finding qualified labor versus demand problems is close to record highs. The ISM manufacturing survey shows that companies are paying more for their inputs and experiencing delays with suppliers. This describes a late-cycle environment marked with rising inflationary pressures. We expect that core inflation will grind up to the 2% target by early next year. By the first quarter of 2019, the Fed could find itself with inflation close to target, above-trend growth driven by a strong fiscal tailwind, and an unemployment rate that is a full percentage point below its estimate of the non-inflationary limit. Policymakers will then attempt a 'soft landing' in which they tighten policy enough to nudge up the unemployment rate. Unfortunately, the Fed has never been able to generate a soft landing. Once unemployment starts to rise, the next recession soon follows. Our base case is that the next recession begins in 2020. Bond Bear In Hibernation For Now The bond market showed that it can still intimidate in February, but things have since calmed down as the U.S. mini inflation scare ebbed, some economic data disappointed and trade friction created additional macro uncertainty. Bearish sentiment and oversold technical conditions suggest that the consolidation period has longer to run. Nonetheless, unless inflation begins to trend lower, the fact that even the doves on the FOMC believe that the headwinds to growth have moderated places a floor under bond yields. Fair value for the 10-year Treasury is 2.90% based on our short-term model, but we expect it to reach the 3.3-3.5% range before the cycle is over. Both real yields and long-term inflation expectations have room to move higher. Private investors will also have to absorb US$680 billion worth of bonds this year from governments in the U.S., Eurozone, Japan and U.K., the first positive net flow since 2014 (see last month's Overview). Yields may have to fatten a little in order for the private sector to make room in their portfolios for that extra government supply. In the Eurozone, the net supply of government bonds available to the private sector will still be negative this year, even if the ECB tapers to zero in September as we expect. Some investors are concerned about a replay in the European bond markets of the Fed's 'taper tantrum' of 2013, when then-Chair Bernanke surprised markets with a tapering announcement. The ECB has learned from that mistake and has given several speeches recently highlighting that policymakers will be making full use of forward guidance to avoid "...premature expectations of a first rate rise."2 We think they will be successful in avoiding a similar tantrum, but the flow effect of waning bond purchases will still place some upward pressure on the term premium in Eurozone bonds (Chart I-16).3 Chart I-16ECB: End Of QE Will Pressure Term Premium The bottom line is that monetary policy will undermine global bond prices in both the U.S. and Eurozone, but we expect U.S. yields to lead the way higher this year. Japanese bond prices will be constrained by the 10-year yield target. Investors with a horizon of 6-12 months should remain overweight JGBs, at benchmark in Eurozone government bonds and underweight Treasurys within hedged global bond portfolios. We recommend hedging the currency risk because we continue to expect the dollar to rebound this year. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 18, discusses the cyclical factors that will support the dollar: interest rate differentials, a rebound in U.S. productivity growth and a shift in international growth momentum back in favor of the U.S. In terms of the longer-term view, the Special Report makes the case that the U.S. dollar's multi-decade downtrend will persist. This does not mean, however, that long-term investors will make any money by underweighting the greenback. The 30-year U.S./bund yield spread of 190 basis points means that the €/USD would have to rise to more than 2.2 to offset the yield disadvantage of being overweight the euro versus the dollar over the next 30-years. Indeed, once it appears that the U.S. yield curve has discounted the full extent of the Fed tightening cycle (perhaps 12 months from now), it will make sense for long-term investors to go long U.S. Treasurys versus bunds on an unhedged basis. Conclusion Recent data releases suggest that global growth is peaking, especially in the manufacturing sector. Nonetheless, we do not believe that this heralds a slowdown in growth meaningful enough to negatively impact the profit outlook in the major countries. Indeed, the major fiscal tailwind in the U.S. will lift growth and extend the runway for earnings to expand at least through 2019. That said, fiscal stimulus at this stage of the U.S. business cycle will serve to accentuate a boom/bust cycle, where stronger growth in 2018/19 gives way to higher inflation a hard landing in 2020. The Fed is willing to sit back and watch the impact of fiscal stimulus unfold in the near term. But by early 2019, the Fed will find itself behind the curve with rising inflation and an overheating economy. The monetary policy risk for financial markets will then surge, setting up for a classic end to this expansion. The consequences of years of corporate releveraging will come home to roost. This year, trade skirmishes will be a headwind for risk assets and will no doubt generate further bouts of volatility. Nonetheless, recent signals from both the U.S. and China suggest that the situation will not degenerate into a trade war. The bottom line is that, while the economic expansion and equity bull market are both in late innings, investors should stay overweight risk assets and short duration for now. Stay overweight cyclical stocks versus defensives, overweight corporate bonds versus governments, overweight oil-related plays, and modestly long the U.S. dollar against most currencies except the yen. Our checklist of items to time the exit from risk is not yet flashing red. We would change our mind if our checklist goes south, our forward-looking indicators turn sharply lower or U.S. inflation suddenly picks up. We are also watching closely the situation in Iran, the U.S./China trade spat and NAFTA negotiations. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 29, 2018 Next Report: April 26, 2018 1 For more information on why we believe that Sino-American conflict will be a defining feature of the 21st century, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 ECB President Mario Draghi. Speech can be found at http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2018/html/ecb.sp180314_1.en.html 3 For more information, please see BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report "Bond Markets Are Suffering Withdrawal Symptoms," dated March 20, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com II. U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed? In this Special Report, we review the theory behind exchange rate determination and examine the cyclical and structural forces that will drive the dollar. The long-term structural downtrend in the dollar is intact. This trend reflects both a slower underlying pace of U.S. productivity growth relative to the rest of the world and a persistent external deficit. The U.S. shortfall on its net international investment position, now at about 40% of GDP, is likely to continue growing in the coming decades. Fiscal stimulus means that the U.S. twin deficits are set to worsen, but the situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar is about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns regarding sustainability. The U.S. is not close to the point where investors will begin to seriously question America's ability to service its debt. The U.S. will continue to enjoy a net surplus on its international investments except under a worst-case scenario for relative returns. From an economic perspective, we see little reason why the U.S. will not be able to easily continue financing its domestic saving shortfall in the coming years. There are some parallels today with the Nixon era, but we do not expect the same outcome for the dollar. The Fed is unlikely to make the same mistake as it made in the late 1960s/early 1970s. There are risks of course. Growing international political tensions and a trade war could threaten the U.S. dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. We will explore the geopolitical angle in next month's Special Report. While the underlying trend in the dollar is down, cyclical factors are likely to see it appreciate on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Growth momentum, which moved in favor of the major non-U.S. currencies in 2017, should shift in the greenback's favor this year. U.S. fiscal stimulus is bullish the dollar, despite the fact that this will worsen the current account balance. Additional protectionist measures should also support the dollar as long as retaliation is muted. The U.S. dollar just can't seem to get any respect even in the face of a major fiscal expansion that is sure to support U.S. growth. Nonetheless, there are a lot of moving parts to consider besides fiscal stimulus: a tightening Fed, accumulating government debt, geopolitical tension and growing trade protectionism among others. The interplay of all these various forces can easily create confusion about the currency outlook. Textbook economic models show that the currency should appreciate in the face of stimulative fiscal policy and rising tariffs, at least in the short term, not least because U.S. interest rates should rise relative to other countries. However, one could also equate protectionism and a larger fiscally-driven external deficit with a weaker dollar. Which forces will dominate? In this Special Report, we sort out the moving parts. We review the theory behind exchange rate determination and examine the cyclical and structural forces that will drive the dollar in the short- and long-term. Tariffs And The Dollar Let's start with import tariffs. In theory, higher tariffs should be positive for the currency as long as there is no retaliation. The amount spent on imports will fall as consumer spending is re-directed toward domestically-produced goods and services. A lower import bill means the country does not need to export as much to finance its imports, leading to dollar appreciation (partially offsetting the competitive advantage that the tariff provides). Tariffs also boost inflation temporarily, which means that higher U.S. real interest rates should also lift the dollar to the extent that the Fed responds with tighter policy. That said, the tariffs recently announced by the Trump Administration are small potatoes in the grand scheme. The U.S. imported $39 billion of iron and steel in 2017, and $18 billion of aluminum. That's only 2% of total imports and less than 0.3% of GDP. If import prices went up by the full amount of the tariff, this would add less than five basis points to inflation. The positive impact on U.S. growth is also modest as the tariffs benefit only two industries, and higher domestic prices for steel and aluminum undermine U.S. consumers of these two metals. A unilateral tariff increase could be mildly growth-positive if there is no retaliation by trading partners. This was the result of a Bank of Canada study, which found that much of the growth benefits from a higher import tariff are offset by an appreciation of the currency.1 Even a short-term growth boost is not guaranteed. A detailed analysis of the 2002 Bush steel tariff increase found that the import tax killed many more jobs than it created.2 Shortages forced some U.S. steel-consuming firms to source the metal offshore, while others made their steel suppliers absorb the higher costs, leading to job losses. A recent IMF3 study employed a large macro-economic model to simulate the impact of a 10% across-the-board U.S. import tariff without any retaliation. It found that tariffs place upward pressure on domestic interest rates, especially if the economy is already at full employment (Chart II-1). This is because the central bank endeavors to counter the inflationary impact with higher interest rates. However, a stronger currency and higher interest rates eventually cool the economy and the Fed is later forced to ease policy. This puts the whole process into reverse as interest rate differentials fall and the dollar weakens. Chart II-1At Full Employment, Import Tariffs Raise Rates The economic outcome would be much worse if U.S. trading partners were to retaliate and the situation degenerates into a full-fledged trade war involving a growing number of industries. In theory, the dollar would not rise as much if there is retaliation because foreign tariffs on U.S. exports are offsetting in terms of relative prices. But all countries lose in this scenario. China is considering only a small retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs as we go to press, but the trade dispute has the potential to really heat up, as we discuss in the Overview section. The bottom line is that the Trump tariffs are more likely to lead to a stronger dollar than a weaker one, although far more would have to be done to see any meaningful impact. Fiscal Stimulus And The Dollar Traditional economic theory suggests that fiscal stimulus is also positive for the currency in the short term. The boost in aggregate demand worsens the current account balance, since some of the extra government spending is satisfied by foreign producers. The U.S. dollar appreciates as interest rates increase relative to the other major countries, attracting capital inflows. The currency appreciation thus facilitates the necessary adjustment (deterioration) in the current account balance. The impact on interest rates is similar to the tariff shock shown in Chart II-1. All of the above market and economic adjustments should be accentuated when the economy is already at full employment. Since the domestic economy is short of spare capacity, a vast majority of the extra spending related to fiscal stimulus must be imported. Moreover, the Fed would have to respond even more aggressively to the extent that inflationary pressures are greater when the economy is running hot. The result would be even more upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. Reality has not supported the theory so far. The U.S. dollar weakened after the tax cuts were passed, and it did not even get a lift following the Senate spending plan that was released in February. The broad trade-weighted dollar has traded roughly sideways since mid-2017. Judging by the market reaction to the fiscal news, it appears that investors are worried about a potential replay of the so-called Nixon shock, when fiscal stimulus exacerbated the 'twin deficits' problem, investors lost confidence in policymakers and the dollar fell. Twin deficits refers to a period when the federal budget deficit and the current account deficit are deteriorating at the same time. Chart II-2 highlights that the late 1960s/early 1970s was the last time that the federal government stimulated the economy at a time when the economy was already at full employment. Seeing the parallels today, some investors are concerned the dollar will decline as it did in the early 1970s. Chart II-2A Replay Of The Nixon Years? Current Account And Budget Balances Often Diverge... The two deficits don't always shift in the same direction. In fact, Chart II-3 highlights that they usually move in opposite directions through the business cycle. This is not surprising because the current account usually improves in a recession as imports contract more than exports, but the budget deficit rises as tax revenues wither. The process reverses when the economy recovers. Chart II-3Twin Deficits And The Dollar The current account balance equals the government financial balance (i.e. budget deficit) plus the private sector financial balance (savings less investment spending). Thus, swings in the latter mean that the current account can move independently of the budget deficit. Even when the two deficits move in the same direction, there has been no clear historical relationship between the sum of the fiscal and current account balances and the value of the trade-weighted dollar (shaded periods in Chart II-3). In the early 1980s, the twin deficits exploded on the back of the Reagan tax cuts and the military buildup, but the dollar strengthened. In contrast, the dollar weakened in the early 2000s, a period when the twin deficits rose in response to the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq War, and a booming housing market. ...But Generally Fiscal Expansion Undermines The Current Account Over long periods, a sustained rise in the fiscal deficit is generally associated with a sustained deterioration in the external balance. Numerous academic studies have found that every 1 percentage-point rise in the budget deficit worsens the current account balance by an average of 0.2-0.3 percentage points over the medium term. One study found that the current account deteriorates by an extra 0.2 percentage points if the fiscal stimulus arrives at a time when the economy is at full employment (i.e. an additional 0.2 percentage points over-and-above the 0.2-0.3 average response, for a total of 0.4 to 0.5).4 Given that the U.S. economy is at full employment today, these estimates imply that the expected two percentage point rise in the budget deficit relative to the baseline over 2018 and 2019 could add almost a full percentage point to the U.S. current account deficit (from around 3% of GDP currently to 4%). It could be even worse over the next couple of years because the private sector is likely to augment the government sector's drain on national savings. The mini capital spending boom currently underway will lift imports and thereby contribute to a further widening in the U.S. external deficit position. Nonetheless, theory supports the view that the dollar will rise in the face of fiscal stimulus, at least in the near term, even if this is accompanied by a rising external deficit. Theory gets fuzzier in terms of the long-term outlook for the currency. However, the traditional approach to the balance of payments suggests that the equilibrium value of the dollar will eventually fall. An ongoing current account deficit will accumulate into a rising stock of foreign-owned debt that must be serviced. The Net International Investment Position (NIIP) is the difference between the stock of foreign assets held by U.S. residents and the stock of U.S. assets held by foreign investors. The NIIP has fallen increasingly into the red over the past few decades, reaching 40% of GDP today (Chart II-4). The dollar will eventually have to depreciate in order to generate a trade surplus large enough to allow the U.S. to cover the extra interest payments on its growing stock of foreign debt. Chart II-4Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar The structural depreciation of the U.S. dollar observed since the early 1980s supports the theory, because it has trended lower along with the NIIP/GDP ratio. However, the downtrend probably also reflects other structural factors. For example, U.S. output-per-employee has persistently fallen relative to its major trading partners for decades (Chart II-4, third panel). The bottom line is that, while the dollar is likely to remain in a structural downtrend, it should receive at least a short-term boost from the combination of fiscal stimulus and higher tariffs. What could cause the dollar to buck the theory and depreciate even in the near term? We see three main scenarios in which the dollar could fall on a 12-month investment horizon. (1) Strong Growth Outside The U.S. First, growth momentum favored Europe, Japan and some of the other major countries relative to the U.S. in 2017. This helps to explain dollar weakness last year because the currency tends to underperform when growth surprises favor other countries in relative terms. It is possible that momentum will remain a headwind for the dollar this year. Nonetheless, this is not our base case. European and Japanese growth appears to be peaking, while fiscal stimulus should give the U.S. economy a strong boost this year and next (see the Overview section). (2) A Lagging Fed The Fed will play a major role in the dollar's near-term trend. The Fed could fail to tighten in the face of accelerating growth and falling unemployment, allowing inflation and inflation expectations to ratchet higher. If investors come to believe that the Fed will remain behind-the-curve, rising long-term inflation expectations would depress real interest rates and thereby knock the dollar down. This was part of the story in the Nixon years. Under pressure from the Administration, then-Fed Chair Arthur Burns failed to respond to rising inflation, contributing to a major dollar depreciation from 1968 to 1974. We see this risk as a very low-probability event. Today's Fed acts much more independently of Congress beyond its dual commitment on inflation and unemployment. And, given that the economy is at full employment, there is nothing stopping the FOMC from acting to preserve its 2% inflation target if it appears threatened. Chair Powell is new and untested, but we doubt he and the rest of the Committee will be influenced by any political pressure to keep rates unduly low as inflation rises. Even Governor Brainard, a well-known dove, has shifted in a hawkish direction recently. President Trump would have to replace the entire FOMC in order to keep interest rates from rising. We doubt he will try. (3) Long-Run Sustainability Concerns It might be the case that the deteriorating outlook for the NIIP undermines the perceived long-run equilibrium value of the currency so much that it overwhelms the impact of rising U.S. interest rates and causes the dollar to weaken even in the near term. This scenario would likely require a complete breakdown in confidence in current and future Administrations to avoid a runaway government debt situation. Historically, countries with large and growing NIIP shortfalls tend to have weakening currencies. The sustainability of the U.S. twin deficits has been an area of intense debate among academics and market practitioners for many years. One could argue that the external deficit represents the U.S. "living beyond its means," because it consumes more than it produces. Another school of thought is that global savings are plentiful, and investors seek markets that are deep, liquid and offer a high expected rate of return. Indeed, China has willingly plowed a large chunk of its excess savings into U.S. assets since 2000. If the U.S. is an attractive place to invest, then we should not be surprised that the country runs a persistent trade deficit and capital account surplus. But even taking the more positive side of this debate, there are limits to how long the current situation can persist. The large stock of financial obligations implies flows of income payments and receipts - interest, dividends and the like - that must be paid out of the economy's current production. This might grow to be large enough to significantly curtail U.S. consumption and investment. At some point, foreign investors may begin to question the desirability of an oversized exposure to U.S. assets within their global portfolios. We are not suggesting that foreign investors will suddenly dump their U.S. stocks and bonds. Rather, they may demand a higher expected rate of return in order to accept a rising allocation to U.S. assets. This would imply that the dollar will fall sharply so that it has room to appreciate and thereby lift the expected rate of return for foreign investors from that point forward. Chart II-5 shows that a 2% current account deficit would be roughly consistent with stabilization in the NIIP/GDP ratio. Any deficit above this level would imply a rapidly deteriorating situation. A 4% deficit would cause the NIIP to deteriorate to almost 80% of GDP by 2040. The fact that the current account averaged 4.6% in the 2000s and 2½% since 2010 confirms that the NIIP is unlikely to stabilize unless major macroeconomic adjustments are made (see below). Chart II-5Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Academic research is inconclusive on how large the U.S. NIIP could become before there are serious economic consequences and/or foreign investors begin to revolt. Exorbitant Privilege The U.S. has been able to get away with the twin deficits for so long in part because of the dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. The critical role of the dollar in international transactions underpins global demand for the currency. This has allowed the U.S. to issue most of its debt obligations in U.S. dollars, forcing the currency risk onto foreign investors. The U.S. is also able to get away with offering foreign investors a lower return on their investment in the U.S. than U.S. investors receive on their foreign investment. Chart II-6 provides a proxy for these two returns. Relatively safe, but low yielding, fixed-income investments are a large component of foreign investments in the U.S., while U.S. investors favor equities and other assets that have a higher expected rate of return when investing abroad (Chart II-7). This gap increased after the Great Recession as U.S. interest rates fell by more than the return U.S. investors received on their foreign assets. Today's gap, at almost 1½ percentage points, is well above the 1 percentage point average for the two decades leading up to the Great Recession. Chart II-6U.S. Investors Harvest Higher Returns Chart II-7Composition Of Net International ##br##Investment Position A yield gap of 1.5 percentage points may not sound like much, but it has been enough that the U.S. enjoys a positive net inflow of private investment income of about 1.2% of GDP, despite the fact that foreign investors hold far more U.S. assets than the reverse (Chart II-6, top panel). In Chart II-8 we simulate the primary investment balance based on a persistent 3% of GDP current account deficit and under several scenarios for the investment yield gap. Perhaps counterintuitively, the primary investment surplus that the U.S. currently enjoys will actually rise slightly as a percent of GDP if the yield gap remains near 1½ percentage points. This is because, although the NIIP balance becomes more negative over time, U.S. liabilities are not growing fast enough relative to its assets to offset the yield differential. Chart II-8Primary Investment Balance Simulations However, some narrowing in the yield gap is likely as the Fed raises interest rates. Historically, the gap does not narrow one-for-one with Fed rate hikes because the yield on U.S. investments abroad also rises. Assuming that the yield gap returns to the pre-Lehman average of 1 percentage point over the next three years, the primary investment balance would decline, but would remain positive. Only under the assumption that the yield gap falls to 50 basis points or lower would the primary balance turn negative (Chart II-8, bottom panel). Crossing the line from positive to negative territory on investment income is not necessarily a huge red flag for the dollar, but it would signal that foreign debt will begin to impinge on the U.S. standard of living. That said, the yield gap will have to deteriorate significantly for this to happen anytime soon. What Drives The Major Swings In The Dollar? While the dollar has been in a structural bear market for many decades, there have been major fluctuations around the downtrend. Since 1980, there have been three major bull phases and two bear markets (bull phases are shaded in Chart II-9). These major swings can largely be explained by shifts in U.S./foreign differentials for short-term interest rates, real GDP growth and productivity growth. A model using these three variables explains most of the cyclical swings in the dollar, as the dotted line in the top panel of Chart II-9 reveals. Chart II-9U.S. Dollar Cyclical Swings Driven By Three Main Factors The peaks and troughs do not line up perfectly, but periods of dollar appreciation were associated with rising U.S. interest rates relative to other countries, faster relative U.S. real GDP growth, and improving U.S. relative productivity growth. Since the Great Recession, rate differentials have moved significantly in favor of the dollar, although U.S. relative growth improved a little as well. Productivity trends have not been a factor in recent years. Note that the current account has been less useful in identifying the cyclical swings in the dollar. Looking ahead, we expect short-term interest rate differentials to shift further in favor of the U.S. dollar. We assume that the Fed will hike rates three additional times in 2018 and another three next year. The Bank of Japan will stick with its current rate and 10-year target for the foreseeable future. The ECB may begin the next rate hike campaign by mid-2019, but will proceed slowly thereafter. We expect rate differentials to widen by more than is discounted in the market. As discussed above, we also expect growth momentum to swing back in favor of the U.S. economy in 2018. U.S. productivity growth will continue to underperform the rest-of-world average over the medium and long term. Nonetheless, we expect a cyclical upturn in relative productivity performance that should also support the greenback for the next year or two. Conclusion Reducing the U.S. structural external deficit to a sustainable level would require significant macro-economic adjustments that seem unlikely for the foreseeable future. We would need to see some combination of a higher level of the U.S. household saving rate, a balanced Federal budget balance or better, and/or much stronger growth among U.S. trading partners. In other words, the U.S. would have to become a net producer of goods and services, and either Europe or Asia would have to become a net consumer of goods and services. Current trends do not favor such a role reversal. Indeed, the U.S. twin deficits are sure to move in the wrong direction for at least the next two years. Longer-term, pressure on the federal budget deficit will only intensify with the aging of the population. The shortfall in terms of net foreign assets will continue to grow, which means that the long-term structural downtrend in the trade-weighted value of the dollar will persist. Other structural factors, such as international productivity trends, also point to a long-term dollar depreciation. It seems incongruous that the U.S. dollar is the largest reserve currency and that U.S. is the world's largest international debtor. The situation is perhaps perpetuated by the lack of an alternative, but this could change over time as concerns over the long-run viability of the Eurozone ebb and the Chinese renminbi gains in terms of international trade. The transition could take decades. The U.S. twin-deficits situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar is about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns about the unsustainability of the current account deficit. Even though the NIIP/GDP ratio will continue to deteriorate in the coming years, it does not appear that the U.S. is anywhere close to the point where investors would begin to seriously question America's ability to service its debt. The U.S. will continue to enjoy a net surplus on its international investments except under a worst-case scenario for relative returns. From an economic perspective, we see no reason why the U.S. will not be able to easily continue financing its domestic saving shortfall in the coming years. There are other risks of course. Growing international political tensions and a trade war could threaten the U.S. dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. We will explore the geopolitical angle in next month's Special Report. In 2018, we expect the dollar to partially unwind last year's weakness on the back of positive cyclical forces. Additional protectionist measures should support the dollar as long as retaliation is muted. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Mathieu Savary Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy 1 A Wave of Protectionism? An Analysis of Economic and Political Considerations. Bank of Canada Working Paper 2008-2. Philipp Maier. 2 The Unintended Consequences of U.S. Steel Import Tariffs: A Quantification of the Impact During 2002. Trade Partnership Worldwide, LLC. Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman. February 4, 2003. 3 See footnote to Chart II-1. 4 Fiscal Policy and the Current Account. Center for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper No. 7859 September 16, 2010. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The earnings backdrop remains constructive for the equity market. In the U.S., bottom-up forward earnings estimates and the net earnings revisions ratio have spiked on the back of the tax cuts. Unfortunately, many of the other equity-related indicators in this section have moved in the wrong direction. The monetary indicator is shifting progressively into negative territory as the Fed gradually tightens the monetary screws. Valuation in the U.S. market improved a little over the past month, but our composite Valuation Indicator is still very close to one sigma overvalued. Technically, our Speculation Indicator is still in frothy territory, but our Composite Sentiment Indicator has pulled back significantly toward the neutral line. Our Technical Indicator broke below the 9-month moving average in March (i.e. a 'sell' signal). These are worrying signs. Nonetheless, at this point we believe they are a reflection of the more volatile late-cycle period that the market has entered. An equity correction could occur at any time, but a bear market would require a significant and sustained economic downturn that depresses earnings estimates. Our checklist does not warn of such a scenario over the next 12 months. It is also a good sign that our Willingness-to-Pay indicator is still rising, at least for the U.S. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. While this suggests that investor flows remain positive for the U.S. equity market, the WTP appears to have rolled over in both Europe and Japan. This goes against our overweight in European stocks versus the U.S. in currency hedged terms (see the Overview section). Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remained on its bullish equity signal in March. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. So far, the indicator has not flashed 'red'. Treasurys are hovering on the 'inexpensive' side of fair value, but are not cheap based on our model. Extended technicals suggest that the period of consolidation will persist for a while longer. Value is not a headwind to a continuation in the cyclical bear phase. Little has changed on the U.S. dollar front. It is expensive by some measures, but is on the oversold side technically. We still expect a final upleg this year, before the long-term downtrend resumes. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst