Estados Unidos

A client recently came to us asking the question: what percentage of the SPX was classified as value and what was classified as growth? While a simple enough question, it spurred some discussion regarding the classification itself. The S&P classifies the S&P 500 into value, growth and a lucky combination of value and growth (i.e. some constituents, including Google for example, belong to both lists). We thought it worthwhile to separate the stocks into their pureplay components and the result was interesting. As shown in the left piechart below, the market cap weighted styles are actually fairly evenly split between value, growth and the combination thereof. On a count basis (right pie chart), growth stocks fall to under a quarter of the SPX, a logical result considering the mega market cap sizes of the SPX’ growth companies. If you would like to receive our segmented list of tickers, please email our client requests department here.      

Highlights The view that the world will sink into a deflationary “ice age” hinges on the assumption that policymakers will make a colossal mistake by failing to do what is in their own best interest. Contrary to popular belief, governments always have a tool to increase inflation, even when an economy has fallen into a liquidity trap: It’s called sustained fiscal stimulus. Japan could have avoided its deflationary epoch if the authorities had eased fiscal policy more aggressively. Ironically, bigger budget deficits probably would have caused the government debt-to-GDP ratio to rise less than it did. The U.S. and China are unlikely to repeat Japan’s mistake. Actually, looking ahead, Japan may not repeat Japan’s mistake. The euro area is a tougher call given the region’s political and institutional constraints; but even there, a reflationary outcome is more likely than not. An intensification of the trade war will cause government bond yields to fall a bit further in the near term. However, yields are likely to be higher one year from now. Global equities will follow the same path as bond yields: Down in the near term, but up over a 12-month horizon. Feature I feel more confident than ever that the next phase of the Ice Age will soon be upon us. Much of the thesis has come from learning the hard deflationary lessons from Japan. Most commenters now accept the Japanification of mainland Europe has occurred, but they just cannot conceive that the same thing might happen with the US. My biggest conviction call is that US 10y bond yields will converge with Japanese and German yields in the next recession at around minus 1% (and US 30y yields will fall to zero or below) and that markets will panic as outright deflation takes an icy grip. -  Albert Edwards, Société Générale (May 2019) Fire Or Ice? If you were to ask most central bankers today whether it is better to err on the side of too much or too little inflation, chances are they would say the former. Their rationale would surely be as follows: If inflation rises to uncomfortably high levels, they can simply raise interest rates in order to cool the economy. In contrast, if inflation gets too low, and interest rates are already close to zero, monetary policy loses potency. It is better to have more control over the economy than less. This reasoning is correct on its own terms, but if one stands back and thinks about it, it is rather perverse to argue that deflation, which generally stems from a lack of aggregate demand, should be more difficult to overcome than inflation, which is usually the result of too much demand. After all, people like to spend money. Getting someone to work and produce should, in principle, be more difficult than getting them to consume. Inflation should be a bigger problem than deflation. So why do so many economists think otherwise? The Paradox Of Thrift There actually is a very good reason for this bias, one which John Maynard Keynes articulated more than 80 years ago. Keynes observed that when unemployment is rising, people are likely to try to save more due to fear of losing their jobs. Since one person’s spending is another’s income, this could create a vicious cycle where falling spending leads to lower aggregate income, and so on. Unfortunately, it is hard to save if you do not have a job. Thus, the decision by all individuals to save more could result, ironically, in a decline in aggregate savings.1 Keynes called this the paradox of thrift. At the heart of the paradox of thrift lies a deep-seated coordination problem. During an economic downturn, everyone would be better off if everyone else spent more money. However, since the spending of any one person only has a negligible effect on aggregate demand, no one has an incentive to spend more than is absolutely necessary. Keynes’ seminal insight was that a government could overcome this coordination problem by acting as a spender of last resort. Keynes argued that if the private sector decides to save more, the public sector should save less by running a bigger budget deficit. The result would be the preservation of full employment. Debt And Deliverance A common objection to the idea that governments should run bigger budget deficits to compensate for inadequate private-sector demand is that this will cause public-sector debt levels to swell to the point that a fiscal crisis becomes inevitable. The solution to Japan’s problem is obvious: The government should just keep easing fiscal policy until long-term inflation expectations reach the BoJ’s target. For countries such as Italy, this is a legitimate concern. If a country does not have a central bank that can serve as a buyer of last resort of government debt, it can end up facing a pernicious feedback loop where rising bond yields increase the likelihood of default, leading to even higher bond yields. These countries can, and often do, face speculative attacks on their bond markets (Chart 1). For countries that issue debt in their own currencies, this concern does not exist. This is because their governments can print money to pay for goods and services. Since the cost to the government of printing a $100 bill is negligible, the government can always conjure up demand out of thin air. Of course, there is a risk that the government will manufacture too much demand and inflation will rise. But if the goal is to prevent deflation, this is a feature not a bug. Once demand increases enough, the government can just pull the plug on further fiscal stimulus, and everyone can live happily ever after. Japan’s Experience Chart 2The 1990s Japanese Example Didn’t Japan try this approach and fail? No. Japan suffered the mother of all financial shocks in the early 1990s when the real estate and stock market bubbles simultaneously burst. This happened just as the working-age population was peaking, which made businesses even less eager to expand domestic capacity. The result of all this was a massive increase in excess private-sector savings. The government did loosen fiscal policy, but not by enough. Consequently, deflation eventually set in. As inflation expectations fell, real rates rose (Chart 2). Rising real rates put upward pressure on the yen and increased the government’s real debt financing costs. To make matters worse, falling prices made it more difficult for private-sector borrowers to pay back their loans. This further depressed spending. Ironically, had the Japanese government eased fiscal policy more aggressively to begin with, it probably would have been able to trim deficits later on. Nominal GDP would have also increased more briskly. As a consequence, the government debt-to-GDP ratio would have ended up rising less than it did. Today, Japan remains mired in a deflationary mindset. Twenty-year CPI swaps, a proxy for long-term inflation expectations, are trading at 0.3%, nowhere close to the Bank of Japan’s 2% target. Interest rates are stuck near zero, reflecting the fact that the economy continues to suffer from excess savings. Japan Needs Fiscal Stimulus, Not Austerity The solution to Japan’s problem is obvious: The government should just keep easing fiscal policy until long-term inflation expectations reach the BoJ’s target. Given Japan’s pathetically low fertility rate, a sensible strategy would be to offer subsidized housing and baby bonuses to any couple that has three or more children. It is impossible to know how big a budget deficit will be required to reset inflation expectations to a higher level. If people believe that the government is serious about easing fiscal policy by enough to get inflation up to target, real rates will collapse, the yen will fall, and private demand will rise. In the end, the government may not need to raise the budget deficit that much. Even if the Japanese government did have to increase the budget deficit substantially, this would not endanger the economy. As long as the interest rate at which the government borrows is below the growth rate of the economy, any budget deficit, no matter how large, will produce a stable debt-to-GDP ratio in the long run (Chart 3).2 Since there would be no need to ease fiscal policy by so much that the Bank of Japan is forced to lift interest rates above the economy’s growth rate, there is little risk that the debt-to-GDP ratio will end up on an unsustainable trajectory. Chart 4Japanese Excess Savings Are Starting To Recede Will the Japanese government heed this advice? While Q1 GDP growth surprised on the upside, this was mainly because of a strong contribution from net exports and inventories. Final domestic demand remains underwhelming. Stronger global growth will help Japan later this year, but we think there is still a 50/50 chance the planned VAT hike will be postponed. Looking ahead, the exodus of Japanese workers from the labor market into retirement will reduce private-sector savings. The household savings rate has already fallen from nearly 20% in the early 1980s to around 4% in recent years. The ratio of job openings-to-applicants has risen to a 45-year high (Chart 4). Falling private-sector savings will raise the neutral rate of interest, thus giving the BoJ more traction over monetary policy. Japan’s deflationary ice age may be coming to an end. Stimulus With Chinese Characteristics Like Japan, China has struggled to consume enough of what it produces. In the days when China had a massive current account surplus, it could export that excess savings abroad. It cannot do that anymore, so the government has consciously chosen to spur fixed-investment spending in order to prop up employment. Since a lot of investment is financed through credit, debt levels have risen (Chart 5). Much of China’s debt-financed investment spending has been undertaken by local governments and state-owned enterprises. This has made credit and fiscal policy virtually indistinguishable. While the general government fiscal deficit stands at a moderate 4.1% of GDP, the augmented deficit, which includes a variety of off-balance sheet expenditures, has swollen to 10.7% of GDP, up more than six percentage points since 2010 (Chart 6). Chart 5China: From Exporting Savings To Investing Domestically And Building Up Debt As we discussed a few weeks ago in a report entitled “Chinese Debt: A Contrarian View”, there is little preventing the Chinese government from further ramping up credit/fiscal stimulus.3 The fact that the trade negotiations are on the ropes only strengthens the case for additional easing. The government knows full well that it will gain negotiating leverage over the U.S. if the Chinese economy is humming along despite higher tariffs on Chinese imports. Regardless of whether it is right-wing populism or left-wing populism that triumphs in the end, the outcome is likely to be the same: higher inflation. Europe: Turning Japanese? Judging from the fact that German bund yields have fallen to Japanese levels, one might conclude that the Japanification of Europe is complete. There is, however, at least one key macro difference between the two regions: While long-term inflation expectations in the euro area have declined, they are still well above Japanese levels (Chart 7). As a result, real yields are quite a bit lower in core Europe, which gives countries such as Germany and France some cushion of support. Chart 7Despite Similar Nominal Bond Yields, Real Rates Are Still Much Lower In Germany Than Japan Chart 8Italian Bond Yields Are Still Worryingly High Bond yields remain elevated in Italy, though still below the levels seen last October, and far below their peak during the euro crisis in 2011 (Chart 8). Short of the creation of a pan-euro area fiscal union, Italy’s best hope is that Germany takes steps to reflate its own economy. The conventional wisdom is that the German psyche, ever focused on fiscal discipline, would never permit that to happen. This view, however, forgets that Germany had no trouble violating the Maastricht Treaty’s deficit cap of 3% of GDP in the early 2000s. Germany today sees little need to significantly loosen fiscal policy because years of wage repression, and more recently, a weak euro, have caused its current account surplus to swell to 9% of GDP. However, the country’s ability to push out its excess production to the rest of the world may become more limited in the future. The gap in unit labor costs between Germany and other euro area members has narrowed steadily in recent years. This development has coincided with a decline in Germany’s trade surplus with the rest of the euro area (Chart 9). If the common currency starts to appreciate and wage growth in Germany continues to outpace the rest of the region, the German government may have no choice but to loosen the fiscal screws. Chart 9Germany's Competitive Advantage Against The Rest Of The Euro Area Is Declining Chart 10U.S.: Federal Discretionary Spending Has Been Gaining Steam   U.S.: Ice Age Vs. Green New Deal While Trump’s tax cuts have gotten a lot of attention, an equally important development in recent years has been the rapid acceleration in federal government spending. From a contraction of 7% in 2013, real discretionary outlays are set to grow by 3% in 2019 (Chart 10). There is little reason to think that the U.S. budget deficit will shrink anytime soon. Taxes may go back up if the Democrats take control of the White House and sweep Congress next year. However, even in that scenario, any increase in tax rates is likely to be neutralized by higher social welfare spending – yes, including partial implementation of the green new deal. Meanwhile, government outlays on Social Security and health care programs such as Medicaid are on track to rise by 5.4% of GDP over the next thirty years (Chart 11). So far, an overstimulated U.S. economy has not produced much in the way of inflation. But with the unemployment rate down to a 49-year low, that could change over the next few years. Recent communications from FOMC members suggest a growing tolerance for a modest inflation overshoot of the 2% target. An outright increase in the Fed’s inflation target is unlikely in the near term, but could become a viable option if realized inflation moves above the Fed’s current comfort zone of 2%-to-2.5% for long enough. If that were to happen, raising the inflation target could turn out to be politically more expedient than engineering a deep recession in an effort to bring inflation back down. It will also help alleviate the rising real debt burden that will ensue from high deficits. We expect global bond yields to reach a series of “higher highs and higher lows” over the coming years. The Fed is already facing political pressure from the Trump administration to keep rates low. Politics in the U.S. and in many other countries is moving in a more populist direction. Regardless of whether it is right-wing populism or left-wing populism that triumphs in the end, the outcome is likely to be the same: higher inflation. Historically, there is a clear inverse correlation between central bank independence and inflation (Chart 12). Investment Conclusions On the question of whether we are heading for a deflationary ice age or a period of inflationary global warming, we would put higher odds on the latter. Many of the structural factors that have produced lower inflation over the last few decades are in retreat. Globalization has stalled, and may even reverse course if the trade war intensifies (Chart 13). The ratio of workers-to-consumers globally is starting to shrink as the post-war generation leaves the labor force (Chart 14). Central bank autonomy is under attack, while fiscal policy is turning more expansionary. Chart 13The Age Of Globalization Is Over Chart 14The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally To believe that politicians will not dial up fiscal stimulus in the face of a chronic shortfall of aggregate demand is to believe that they will act incompetently. Not incompetent in the low-IQ sort of way. Incompetent in the sense that they will act against their own self-interest. Voters want more employment. In the age of populism, it seems unlikely that politicians with ready access to the printing press will fail to deliver what the people want. We declared “The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market” on July 5, 2016. As luck would have it, this was the very same day that the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield hit an all-time low of 1.37%. We expect global bond yields to reach a series of “higher highs and higher lows” over the coming years. Right now, we are witnessing a countertrend rally in bond prices. Yields could fall a bit further in the coming weeks if the trade war heats up. However, yields will be higher in 12 months’ time, provided that China and the U.S. begrudgingly reach a trade truce and global growth reaccelerates, as we expect. Global equities are likely to follow the same pattern as bond yields. Trade tensions could push stocks down about 5% from current levels (we are presently positioned for this by being tactically short the S&P 500 against an underlying structural overweight position). However, equities will move to fresh highs over a 12-month horizon as global growth picks up. The recent stock market correction caused our long European bank trade to be stopped out for a loss of 7%. We will re-enter the trade once we conclude that global equities have found a bottom. The dollar will probably strengthen a bit more in the near term, but as a countercyclical currency, the greenback will weaken in the second half of this year. This will provide a good opportunity to go overweight EM and European stocks in common-currency terms.   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Another way to see this point is to recall that business spending normally declines when the economy weakens. Investment spending tends to move in lockstep with national savings (indeed, at the global level, the two must be exactly equal to each other). Thus, if consumer spending falls in response to the decision by households to try to save more, and this leads to lower investment, it will also lead to lower aggregate savings. 2      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019. 3      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Chinese Debt: A Contrarian View,” dated April 19, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights So What? Markets remain complacent about U.S.-China trade. Why? The U.S. has escalated the trade war by threatening sanctions on key Chinese tech firms. Chinese President Xi Jinping is preparing his domestic audience for protracted struggle. U.S. domestic politics do not prohibit, and likely encourage, a tough stance on China. Farmers are not a constraint on Trump — economic growth is. Go long spot gold and JPY-USD. Feature Markets remain complacent. Chart 1 suggests that while the combination of unilateral trade tariffs and spiking U.S. 10-year Treasury yields was enough to sink the S&P 500 in 2018, the former alone cannot do so today. Chart 1Tariffs Alone Not Enough To Sink Equities? Wrong. Specifically, the increase in the Section 301 tariff rate from 10% to 25% on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports and the threat of a new 25% tariff on the remaining $300 billion worth of Chinese imports in just a month’s time has only led to a 3% pullback in equities since May 3. That was the last trading day prior to President Donald Trump’s infamous tweet about hiking the tariff. Unlike the trade war escalation in October through November of last year, the Federal Reserve is no longer hiking rates, China’s economic indicators have bottomed, and U.S. equity investors have now fully imbibed the “Art of the Deal.” The consensus holds that the escalation of trade tensions with China is contained within the context of Trump’s well-known routine of inflicting pain and then compromising. We would wager that the bond market is right and equities are wrong. Equities will converge to the downside, unless the market receives a concrete positive catalyst that improves the near-term outlook for U.S.-China relations and hence global trade. The problem is that for equities such a catalyst could happen at any time in the form of additional Chinese stimulus. Therefore, higher volatility is the only guaranteed outcome. The sudden onslaught of U.S. pressure makes it harder for Chinese President Xi Jinping to offer structural concessions to his American counterpart without looking weak. It was easier to do so when the threat of tariffs was under wraps, as was the case between December 1 and May 5. This new obstacle informed our decision to close out our long China equities and long copper trades and downgrade our end-June trade deal probability from 50% to 40%. But the escalation of tensions makes stimulus more likely to surprise to the upside, which will at least partially offset the negative hit to global sentiment and the trade outlook. Waiting For A Positive Political Intervention Three negative geopolitical catalysts loom in plain sight, while investors are still waiting on a positive catalyst. The negatives: China has not yet announced retaliation to the U.S. Commerce Department’s blacklisting of Huawei and a handful of other Chinese tech firms; the U.S. could implement the blacklist within three months, increasing the risk of a broader “tech blockade” against China; and the U.S. authorities are prepared to extend tariffs to all Chinese goods in one month. Meanwhile there are no high-level talks currently scheduled between the principal Chinese and American negotiators as we go to press. This could change quickly. But if negotiating teams do not hold substantive meetings with positive reports afterwards, then investors cannot be sure that Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping will speak to each other, let alone finalize a substantive trade deal, at the G20 in Japan on June 28-29. The macro backdrop is hardly encouraging: global export volumes are contracting and the dollar’s fall may be arrested amid a huge spike in global policy uncertainty. Any rebound in the greenback will pile additional pressure onto trade flows, at least until the market sees a substantial increase in Chinese stimulus (Chart 2). Furthermore, it is concerning that President Trump, a businessman president and champion of American manufacturing, is raising tariffs at a time when lending and factory activity are already slowing in the politically vital Midwestern states (Chart 3). The implication is that he is unfazed by economic risks and therefore less predictable. He is pursuing long-term national foreign policy objectives at the expense of everything else. This may be patriotic but it will be painful for global equity investors. Chart 2Trump Unfazed By Deteriorating Global Economy Chart 3Economic Activity Is Already Slowing Chart 4Markets Blasé About Looming Risks It is not only the S&P 500 that is failing to register the dangerous combination of weak global trade and escalating U.S.-China strategic conflict. Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of the BCA U.S. Equity Strategy points out that the “Ted spread,” the premium charged on interbank lending over the risk-free rate, is as docile as the safe-haven Japanese yen (Chart 4). President Xi Jinping, however, is not so blasé. He took a trip to Jiangxi province on May 20 to declare that China is embarking on a “new Long March.” This is a reference to the legendary strategic withdrawal executed by the early Chinese Communist Party in its civil war against the nationalists in 1934-35. It was an 8,000-mile slog across the rugged terrain of western and central China, peppered with battles against warlords and nationalists, in which nearly nine-tenths of the communist troops never made it. It is a historical event of immense propagandistic power used to celebrate the CPC’s resilience and ultimate triumph over corrupt and capitalist forces backed by imperialist Western powers. Most importantly, the Long March culminated in Mao Zedong’s consolidation of power over the party and ultimately the nation. In short, President Xi just told President Trump to “bring it on,” as he apparently believes that a conflict with the U.S. will strengthen his rule. The S&P 500 and the “Ted spread” are failing to register the dangerous combination of weak global trade and escalating U.S.-China strategic conflict. Trump, meanwhile, operates on a much shorter time horizon. He is coming closer to impeachment, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sharpens her rhetoric and negotiations over a bipartisan infrastructure bill collapse. Impeachment will fail and in the process will most likely help Trump’s reelection chances. But gridlock at home means that one of our top five “Black Swan” risks for 2019 is now being activated: Trump is at risk of becoming a lame duck and is therefore looking for conflicts abroad as a way of stirring up support at home. Bottom Line: The bad news in the trade war is all-too-apparent while good news is elusive. Yet key “risk off” indicators have hardly responded. We recommend going long JPY-USD on a cyclical basis on the expectation that the market will continue to have indigestion until a positive catalyst emerges in the trade talks. Trump’s Trade War Calculus The trade war is focused on China more so than other states – and Trump likely has the public backing for such a conflict. President Trump delayed any Section 232 tariffs on auto and auto parts imports this month as the China trade war escalated (Chart 5). This confirms our reasoning that the nearly 50/50 risk of tariffs on car imports from Europe and Japan (recently upgraded from 35%) is contingent on first wrapping up a China deal. Another signal that Trump is conscientious not to saddle the equity market with too many trade wars is the decision finally to exempt Canada and Mexico from Section 232 aluminum and steel tariffs (Chart 6). It is now possible for Canada to ratify the deal before parliament dissolves in late June and for the U.S. and Mexico to follow. American ratification will involve twists and turns as the Democrats raise challenges but their obstructionism is ultimately fruitless as it will not hurt Trump’s approval ratings and labor unions largely support the new deal. Meanwhile a major hurdle relating to Mexican labor standards has already been met. These are positive developments for these markets and yet they call attention to a critical point about the Trump administration’s trade strategy: Trump has not shown much willingness to compromise his trade demands with allies in order to secure their cooperation in pressuring China. The threat of car tariffs is still looming over Europe (and even Japan and South Korea). In fact, a united front among these players would have made it much harder for China to resist structural changes (Chart 7). Chart 6Canada And Mexico Are Off The Hook Chart 7A 'Coalition Of The Willing' Would Be More Effective Nevertheless, we have long held that China, not NAFTA or Europe, would be the focus of Trump’s ire because there is much greater consensus within the U.S. political establishment on the need for a more muscular approach to China grievances, and hence fewer constraints on Trump. This view has now come full circle, at least for the time being. Bear in mind that while Republicans and even Democrats have a favorable view of international trade, in keeping with an improving economy (Chart 8), the U.S. as a whole is more skeptical of free trade than most other countries (Chart 9). The economy is insulated and globalization has operated unchecked for several decades, generating resentment. This is especially relevant with China. Americans have an unfavorable view of China’s trade practices and China in general (Charts 10 and 11). This perception is getting worse as the great power competition heats up. Even a majority or near-majority of Democrats view China’s cyber-attacks, ownership of U.S. debt, environmental policies, and economic competition as causes of real concern (Chart 12). This means Trump is closer to the median voter when he is tough on China. The result is a lower chance of a “weak deal,” i.e. a short-term deal to reduce the trade deficit primarily through Chinese purchases of commodities, since this will be a political liability for Trump. He may be forced into such a deal if the market revolts (say 35% odds). But otherwise he will hold out for something better, which Xi Jinping may be unwilling to give. China, not NAFTA or Europe, is the focus of Trump’s ire. This is why we rank “no deal” at 50%, more likely than any kind of deal (40%), though there is some chance of an extension of talks beyond the June G20 (10%). Bottom Line: The delay of auto tariffs and progress in replacing NAFTA suggest that the Trump administration is cognizant of the negative market impact of its trade wars and the need to focus on China. However, the risks to Europe and Japan are not yet removed. And any Chinese concessions will be weaker than might otherwise have been possible had Trump created a “coalition of the willing” to prosecute China’s violations of global trading norms. A weak deal makes it more likely that strategic conflict is the result. Trump Beats Bernie Beats Biden? Or Vice Versa? U.S. domestic politics are also pushing Trump in the direction of conflict with China. The American voter’s distrust of China explains why former Vice President Joe Biden, and leading contender for the Democratic Party nomination in 2020, recently caught flak from both sides of the aisle for being soft on China. At a campaign stop in Iowa on May 1, Biden said, “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man … They’re not competition for us.” He has made similarly dovish comments in the recent past. It makes sense, then, that Trump is trying to link “Sleepy Joe” (as he calls Biden) with weakness on China and trade. Biden, who is still enjoying a very sizable bump to his polling a month after formally announcing his candidacy (Chart 13), is a direct threat to Trump’s electoral strategy of maximizing white blue-collar turnout and support, particularly in the Midwestern swing states. Biden was on the ticket when President Barack Obama won these states in 2008 and 2012. He is a native son of Pennsylvania. And he appeals to the same voters as a plain-talking everyman. Both Biden and Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont are beating Trump in the very early head-to-head polling for the 2020 presidential race. In fact, Sanders has a bigger lead over Trump than Biden in many of these polls (Chart 14). Yet Sanders has a narrower path to victory in the general election – he is heavily dependent on the Rustbelt, where he could either win based on repeating the 2016 results in a new demographic context (the “Status Quo” scenario in Chart 15), or by winning back the blue-collar voters who abandoned the Democrats for Trump in 2016 (the “Blue Collar Democrats” scenario). Sanders performed well in these states in the Democratic primary in 2016, whereas he struggled in the South. Chart 16Democrats Swung Too Far Left For Many Independents Biden, on the other hand, is capable of winning not only in these two scenarios, but also by rebuilding the Obama coalition. He has a better bid to win over the black community due to his close association with Obama and his command of Democratic Party machinery, plus potentially his choice of running mate (the “Obama vs. Trump” scenario). By this means Biden, unlike Sanders, can compete against Trump in the Sun Belt and South in addition to the Midwest. Therefore, it is all the more imperative for Trump to try to corner Biden and frame the debate about Biden early. Trump may also be betting that despite the head-to-head polling, Sanders is too far left for the median voter. While the Democratic Party swings sharply to the left, the median voter remains more centrist, judging by the fact that independent voters (who make up half the electorate now) only slightly favor Democrats over Republicans, a trend that is only slightly rising (Chart 16). Biden’s polling is strong enough that he holds out the prospect of winning the Democratic nomination relatively smoothly, without deepening the ideological split in the party too much. Whereas Trump would benefit in the general election if Democrats suffered an internal split over a bloody primary season in which Bernie Sanders clawed his way to the nomination. The hit to American farmers is probably not a significant political constraint on President Trump waging his trade war. The upshot is that Trump is vulnerable in U.S. politics and will attempt to take action to strengthen his position. Meanwhile if Biden’s position on trade changes then we will know that he reads the Midwestern voter the same way Trump does – as a protectionist. Bottom Line: Trump’s eagerness to attack Biden reveals the specific threat that Biden poses to Trump’s electoral strategy as well as Trump’s calculus that a belligerent position on China is a vote-getter in the key Midwestern swing states. We expect Biden to become more hawkish on China, which will emphasize the long-term nature of the U.S.-China struggle and confirm the median voter’s appetite for hawkish policy. American Farmers Unlikely To Alter The 2020 Playing Field Yet can Trump’s political base withstand the trade war? And can he possibly win the swing states if the trade war is escalating and damaging pocketbooks? There are many stories about farmers in the Midwest and other purple states who are deeply alarmed at Trump’s trade policies, prompting questions about whether he could be unseated there. American farmers have been among the hardest hit in the trade war. China was a major market for U.S. agricultural exports prior to the conflict (Chart 17). Since then U.S. agriculture has struggled, as exports to China have declined by more than 50% y/y in 2018 (Chart 18). Agricultural commodity prices are down ~10% since a year ago, with soybeans – the poster child of the conflict – trading at 10 year lows. Net farm incomes – a broad measure of profits – were on a downward trend prior to the trade war (Chart 19). While the USDA estimates that overall U.S. farm income will increase by 8.1% y/y this year, this follows a nearly 18% y/y decline in 2018 to reach the lowest level since 2002 (Chart 20). The recent escalation of the trade war will weigh on these incomes. A common narrative in the financial media is that this hit to American farmers is a significant political constraint on President Trump in waging his trade war. He could be forced to accept a watered-down deal with China to preserve this voting bloc’s support ahead of November 2020, the thinking goes. Possibly, but probably not because of farmers abandoning the Republican Party en masse. First of all, rural counties and small towns continued supporting the Republican Party in the 2018 midterms, at a time when the initial negative impact of the trade war was front-page news (Chart 21). Second, some of the key farm states are unlikely to be key swing states in the election. Take soybeans, for example. Prior to the trade war, nearly 60% of U.S. soybean exports, and more than a third of U.S. soybeans, ended up in China. Illinois is the top producer, followed by Iowa and Minnesota. Last year soybean production in these three states accounted for 15%, 13%, and 8% of total U.S. production, respectively. As such, agriculture and livestock products exports to China in 1Q2019 are down 76% y/y in Illinois and 97% y/y in Minnesota. However, Trump won Iowa by nearly 150 thousand votes, a 9.4% margin, and there are not enough farmers in the state to overturn that margin. The negative impact on soybeans could prevent Trump from picking up Minnesota, where he lost by only 1.5% of the vote. But Minnesota is unlikely to cost him the White House in 2020. The picture is different in the key swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Farming accounts for only ~1% of jobs in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania – and 2.3% of jobs in Wisconsin – and thus farmers represent a small share of the voting bloc in these states (Chart 22). But Trump won Michigan by a mere 0.23% of the vote, Pennsylvania by 0.72%, and Wisconsin by 0.77%. If one-fifth of farmers in these states switched their vote, Trump’s 2016 margin of victory would vanish. Of course, manufacturers are a much larger voting bloc (Chart 23). And rural voters are unlikely to shift to the Democrats on such a large scale. Moreover, ag exports from these states have generally held up (Chart 24), the majority of their exports are destined for North America rather than China. The benefit from the recent thaw in North American trade relations will outweigh the loss of China as a market (Chart 25). The Trump administration is also producing an aid package worth at least $15 billion to shield farmers at least partially from the trade war impact.1 This compares to an estimated $12 billion loss in net farm income in 2018. Ultimately, Trump is much more threatened by other voting groups in these states. Young voters, women, minorities, suburbanites, and college-educated white voters all pose a threat to his thin margins if they turn out to vote and/or increase their support for the Democratic Party in 2020. A surge in Millennials, for instance, played the chief role in unseating Republican Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin in 2018 (Chart 26). While midterm elections differ fundamentally from presidential elections, the Republicans lost 10 out of 12 significant elections in the Midwest during the midterms (Table 1). Table 1Republicans Lost Almost All Significant Midwest Elections In The Midterm It is true that the winning Democratic candidates in the six major statewide races in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all had voters who believed Trump’s trade policies were more likely to “hurt” the local economy than help it, according to exit polls (Chart 27). At the same time, a majority of voters believed that the trade policies either “helped” the local economy or “had no impact,” as opposed to hurting it. And Democrats are somewhat divided on this issue. Health care, not the economy, was the primary concern of voters. Moreover, health care, not the economy, was the primary concern of voters, especially Democratic voters (Chart 28). Republicans cared more about the economy and tended to support Trump’s trade policies. In sum, unless the trade war causes a general economic slowdown that changes voter priorities, Trump’s chief threat in 2020 comes from urban and suburban voters angry over his attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, rather than from farmers suffering from the trade war. The large bloc of manufacturing workers in the Midwestern battleground states helps to explain why Trump is willing to wage a trade war at such a critical time: loyal rural counties bear the brunt of the economic pain yet a tough-on-China policy could bring out swing voters from the manufacturing sector in suburbs and cities. Bottom Line: Trump could very well lose agriculture-heavy swing states in 2020, but it would not be because of losing his base among rural voters. Rather, it would be a result of a broader economic slowdown – or a superior showing of key demographic groups in favor of Democrats for other reasons like health care. The large bloc of manufacturing voters relative to Trump’s margins of victory helps to explain his aggressive posture on the trade war. Investment Conclusions Go long JPY-USD on a cyclical, 12-month horizon in the context of escalating trade war, complacent markets, and yet the prospect of additional Chinese stimulus improving global growth. This trade should be reinforced by the specific hurdles facing Japan over the next three to 18 months. While we would not be surprised if a trade agreement with the U.S. is concluded quickly, even ahead of any U.S.-China deal, nevertheless Japan faces upper house elections, a potential consumption tax hike, and preparations for a contentious constitutional revision and popular referendum on the cyclical horizon. On the expectation of greater Chinese stimulus, we are maintaining our long China Play Index call, which is up 2.2%. As a hedge against both geopolitical risk and the impact of Chinese stimulus over the cyclical horizon, go long spot gold.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 While the plan is yet to be finalized, payments of ~$2/bushel to soybean farmers, $0.63/bushel to wheat farmers, and $0.04/bushel to corn farmers are under consideration. Unlike last year when the payments were distributed according to farmers’ current production, a potential modification to this year’s plan is that the payments will be distributed based on this years’ planted acreage and past yields.

​​​​​​​In our recent Weekly Report, we initiated a pair trade, going long S&P managed health care/short S&P semiconductors. Given the trade’s extreme volatility, we initiated this trade with a stop loss at the -7% mark. However, this market-neutral trade has outperformed beyond our expectations, currently up 14% since its inception at the beginning of last week. Accordingly, and in order to protect these outsized gains, we are moving the goalposts and taking the stop to the 10% mark. From a macro perspective, nothing has changed to shake our conviction. Job openings, the ultimate driver of managed health care enrollments, are upbeat compared with declining global semi revenues (second panel). Further, on the relative pricing power gauge front, overall wage inflation is continuing to outpace DRAM prices (bottom panel). The combination implies more gains in store for the pair trade, despite our risk management change. Bottom Line: We reiterate our long S&P managed health care/short S&P semis pair trade and change our -7% stop loss recommendation to a 10% stop. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P managed health care and S&P semi indexes are: BLBG: S5MANH – UNH, ANTM, HUM, CNC, WCG and BLBG: S5SECO – INTC, AVGO, TXN, NVDA, QCOM, MU, ADI, XLNX, AMD, MCHP, MXIM, SWKS, QRVO, respectively.

Highlights The risk premium in crude oil prices is rising again, as policy risk – and the potential for large policy-driven errors – increases (Chart of the Week).1 This is not being fully reflected in options markets, where implied volatilities are trading close to their long-term average levels (Chart 2). In the past month, risks to oil flows – military and otherwise – and supply have risen, which is keeping a bid under prices. The Sino – U.S. trade war has worsened, and threatens to put global supply chains at risk, along with EM demand growth in the medium term. Meanwhile, amid global monetary easing, the USD has strengthened, producing a more immediate headwind for EM commodity demand. Against this backdrop of opposing forces, oil prices remain elevated and relatively stable in the low $70/bbl range for Brent. Our balances estimates and price forecasts have not changed materially this month. However, the balance of risks has widened in both tails of the price distribution. We expect implied volatilities in the crude oil options markets – particularly Brent – to move higher, as a result. As for prices, we continue to expect Brent to average $75/bbl this year and $80/bbl next year, with WTI trading $7/bbl and $5/bbl below those levels in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Energy: Overweight. The U.S. EIA moved closer to our fundamental assessment and Brent forecast in its most recent market update, lifting its Brent spot-price expectation for this year to an average of $70/bbl, ~ $5/bbl above its April forecast. The EIA’s revision reflects “tighter expected global oil market balances in mid-2019 and increasing supply disruption risks globally.” Base Metals: Neutral. In the wake of Vale’s January supply disaster at its Córrego do Feijão mine, iron ore shipments from Brazil were down 60% in April y/y. Cyclones disrupted supply in Western Australia, pushing 62% Fe iron ore prices to a 5-year high above $100/MT last week. Chinese steelmakers registered a 12.7% y/y gain in crude steel output last month, which, along with dockside iron ore inventory draws of ~ 20 MT ytd, is supporting prices generally. Precious Metals: Neutral. A stronger USD is weighing on gold. Global geopolitical tensions – chiefly in the Persian Gulf and in Sino – U.S. trade relations – are keeping prices above $1,270/oz. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Severe weather conditions in the Midwest continues to delay corn planting, and is contributing to a rally this week in corn prices to $3.94/bushel on Tuesday, up $3.48/bushel from last week’s level. Feature The risk of a military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran is higher than it was a month ago and rising. Should it erupt, such a confrontation would threaten oil exports from the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, where ~ 20% of global supply transits daily.2 Bellicose rhetoric from the U.S. – some of it directed at materially reducing Iran’s influence in Iraq – alternately is ramped up and walked back, while attacks on soft targets in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) – e.g., oil shipping and west-bound oil pipelines – draw attention to the exposure of this critical infrastructure, upon which global oil markets rely.3 Iran, meanwhile, uses the media to prepare its population for further economic deprivation, and to lob its own vituperative rhetoric at the U.S. Venezuela’s collapse as an oil producer and exporter continues unabated, keeping markets for the heavier sour crude favored by U.S. refiners tight. Civil war threatens to cut into Libyan production, which we are carrying at just over 1mm b/d, while whiffs of another Arab Spring can be detected in Algeria, where popular discontent with ruling elites grows.4 On the demand side, the summer driving season is about to kick off in the Northern Hemisphere, heralding increased gasoline demand. Countering that, the Sino – U.S. trade war shows signs of devolving into a Cold War, which could force a re-ordering of supply chains globally, lifting costs and consumer-level inflation in the process. Longer-term, this could work against central-bank easing globally, and retard growth in EM consumer demand. The risk of a military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran is higher than it was a month ago and rising. Should it erupt, such a confrontation would threaten oil exports from the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz. For the present, we continue to expect EM demand growth to hold up, expanding by 1.5mm b/d this year and 1.6mm b/d next year. This will be supported by continued monetary easing globally, and additional fiscal stimulus from China if its trade war with the U.S. worsens. There is a chance weakness in DM demand will persist, but we think the odds of a normal seasonal pick-up in 2H19 will continue to support demand overall (Chart 3). That said, given the threats to demand growth – an expanded Sino – U.S. trade war and stronger USD, in particular – we will continue to monitor the health of EM demand closely. Chart 2Brent Implied Volatility Will Move Higher Chart 3DM Oil Demand Growth Wobbles, EM Steady   OPEC 2.0 Maintains Production Discipline Chart 4OPEC 2.0's Production Discipline, Strong Demand Drained Inventories The goal of OPEC 2.0 from its inception at the end of 2016 has been to drain OECD inventories, which swelled to 3.1 billion barrels in July 2016, on the back of a market-share war launched by the old OPEC under the leadership of KSA, and a surge in U.S. shale-oil production. KSA continues to stress the need to restrain crude oil production so as to draw down global oil inventories, and has done much of the heavy lifting this year to make that happen (Chart 4). The other putative leader of OPEC 2.0, Russia, continues to express misgivings with such a strategy, arguing instead the producer coalition should make more oil available to the market. We are more aligned with Russia’s view, and continue to believe OPEC 2.0 will need to increase production. In our balances (Table 1), our base case assumes those producers that can lift production – core OPEC and Russia – will do so to keep prices below $85/bbl (Chart 5). We expect OPEC 2.0 will be able to offset the loss of ~ 700kb/d from Iran exports by increasing production gradually from May to September in proportion to its quota agreement. In our base case, we have Iranian exports falling to 600k b/d. We continue to expect OPEC 2.0 to be able to offset the loss of Venezuela’s production throughout the year, which we expect to fall to 500k b/d by December (vs. ~ 735k b/d presently). Going into next month’s Vienna meeting, we do not expect KSA to dramatically increase production, but would not be surprised if it took production from its current 9.8mm b/d level closer to its OPEC 2.0 quota of 10.33mm b/d in 2H19. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Going into next month’s Vienna meeting, we do not expect KSA to dramatically increase production, but would not be surprised if it took production from its current 9.8mm b/d level closer to its OPEC 2.0 quota of 10.33mm b/d in 2H19. We also expect Russia to lift its production closer to 11.6mm b/d from ~ 11.4mm b/d at present. Even with OPEC 2.0 lifting production ~ 900k b/d in 2H19 vs. 1H19, the bulk of global production increases will be concentrated in the U.S., where we expect shale-oil output to grow 1.2mm b/d this year, and 840k b/d next year. This will account for 85% of the overall increase of 2.4mm b/d we expect in the U.S. this year and next. Our estimates of production growth in the U.S. shales is tempered by a growing conviction the large integrated oil majors and stand-alone E&P companies will continue to put the interests of shareholders above their desire to increase production just for the sake of increasing it, as was done in the past. This is driven by a desire to attract and retain capital, which will be critical to the majors and the big E&Ps in the years ahead.5 We continue to see demand growth exceeding supply growth this year. This will produce a physical deficit, which will continue to drain inventories. Even with these production increases, we continue to see demand growth exceeding supply growth this year. This will produce a physical deficit, which will continue to drain inventories (Chart 6). Chart 5Core OPEC 2.0 Will Lift Production Chart 6Balances Continue To Tighten   Spare Capacity Will Be Stretched In addition to Iran and Venezuela, we are closely following what appears to be the early stages of another civil war in Libya, which threatens the ~ 1mm b/d of production flowing from there. In addition, we are seeing signs of growing civil discontent in Algeria not unlike that of 2011, which was sparked by popular dissatisfaction with ruling elites throughout the Middle East in the lead-up to the Arab Spring. We have maintained existing spare capacity can handle the loss of Iranian and Venezuelan production and exports we’ve built into our balances and price-forecast models. However, covering these losses will stretch the capacity of global supply to accommodate unplanned outages, which could leave markets extremely tight in the event of production losses in Libya or Nigeria, or in producing provinces prone to natural disasters (e.g., Canadian wildfires or U.S. Gulf hurricanes). At present, markets appear to be comfortable with OPEC 2.0’s ability to cover losses from Iran and Venezuela, given current spare capacity of ~ 3mm b/d, most of which remains in KSA, and continued growth in non-OPEC output (Chart 7). As inventories continue to draw globally, markets’ attention will turn more toward this spare capacity.   Expect Higher Volatility We remain long Brent call spreads in July and August 2019, which are up an average 101% since they were recommended in February. These positions benefit from higher prices and higher volatility. Chart 8Geopolitics, Increasing Backwardation Support Higher Brent Implied Volatility Our fundamental assessments of supply, demand and inventory levels remain fairly steady. Thus, our price forecasts – $75 and $80/bbl this year and next for Brent, with WTI trading $7 and $5/bbl under that – remain unchanged. With OPEC 2.0 maintaining production discipline and U.S. shale producers maintaining capital discipline, the rate of growth on the supply side will be restrained, and below the rate of growth in global demand. These forces combine to keep inventories drawing this year, which will lead to a steeper backwardation in forward curves, particularly Brent’s (Chart 8). Coupled with true uncertainty re how the U.S. – Iran confrontation in the Persian Gulf is resolved, and how the Sino – U.S. trade war plays out, this steepening backwardation will lead to higher implied volatility in crude oil options markets. Bottom Line: Our expectation of higher prices and steepening backwardation in forward curves is supported by our analysis of fundamentals and the current political economy of global oil markets, which emphasizes policy risk arising from the actions of geopolitically significant states. These factors also will push implied volatility in options markets higher. As a result, we remain long Brent call spreads in July and August 2019, which are up an average 101% since they were recommended in February. These positions benefit from higher prices and higher volatility. We also remain long 2H19 Brent vs. short 2H20 Brent futures in line with our view backwardation will increase; this position is up 155.4% since it was initiated in February, as a result of the steepening of backwardation in the forward curve. Steepening backwardation also will benefit our long S&P GSCI recommendation, which is heavily weighted to energy markets; this position is up 8% since inception. Lastly, we remain long spot WTI, which is up 34.6% since it was recommended in January.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In the price decomposition shown in our Chart of the Week, we account for the contribution that changes in global supply, demand and inventory levels make to the evolution of Brent prices, using a proprietary econometric model. We treat the residual term of the model – what’s left of the price decomposition after these fundamental variables are accounted for – as a measure of the risk premium in prices. An expansion of the risk premium – in the positive or negative direction – is coincident with an expansion of the implied volatility of Brent crude oil options typically expands (sometimes with a lag or two), and vice versa. This is intuitively appealing, since risk premia and volatility expand as uncertainty in the market rises. 2 We considered this topic in depth in a Special Report written with BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy entitled “U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic,” published July 19, 2018, and in “Brinkmanship Fuels Chaos In Oil Markets, And Raises The Odds Of Conflict In The Gulf,” published July 5, 2018. Both reports are available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Iran’s influence in Iraq is an internally divisive issue, and a focal point of the U.S., a view we share. Please see, “Iraq: The Fulcrum Of Middle East Geopolitics And Global Oil Supply,” a Special Report we published with BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy September 5, 2018. KSA and Western intelligence agencies allege Iran is behind the attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure. Please see “Saudi Arabia accuses Iran of ordering drone attack on oil pipeline,” published by reuters.com. The westbound pipelines in KSA are critical to maintaining the Kingdom’s export capacity, as we noted in “Risk Premium In Oil Prices Rising; KSA Lifts West Coast Export Capacity,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy October 25, 2018. This report is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see “Algeria Has a Legitimacy Problem,” posted on the LSE’s Middle East Centre Blog by Benjamin P. Nickels on May 20, 2019, and “Algeria’s Second Arab Spring?” by Ishac Diwan posted at project-syndicate.org March 28, 2019. 5 We will be exploring this topic in depth in a Special Report next month. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades Closed in

Informe especial

HighlightsU.S. inflation is on a structural uptrend. Monetary and fiscal policy, populism, and demographics will tend to push inflation higher over the coming decade.How can investors protect portfolios against inflation risk? We look at periods of rising inflation to determine which assets were the best inflation hedge.We find that the level of inflation is very important in determining which assets work best.When inflation is rising and high, or very high, the best inflation hedges at the asset class level are commodities and U.S. TIPS.When inflation is very high, gold is the best commodity to hold and defensive sectors will minimize losses in an equity portfolio.However, hedges have a cost. Allocating a large percentage of a portfolio to inflation hedges will be a drag on returns. Investors should opt for a low allocation to hedges now, and increase to a medium level when inflation rises further.FeatureSome 38 years have passed since the last time the U.S. suffered from double-digit inflation. The Federal Reserve reform of 1979, championed by Paul Volcker, changed the way the Fed approached monetary policy by putting a focus on controlling money growth.1 The reform gave way to almost four decades of relatively controlled inflation, which persists today.But times are changing. While most of today’s investors have never experienced anything other than periods of tame inflation, BCA expects that rising inflation will be a major driving force of asset returns over the coming decade.2 The main reasons behind this view are the following:A rethink in the monetary policy framework: At its most recent meeting, the FOMC openly discussed the idea of a price-level target, implying that it would be open to the economy running hot to compensate for the past 10 years of below-target inflation (Chart I-1A, top panel).Procyclical fiscal policy: The U.S. is conducting expansionary fiscal policy while the economy is at near-full employment (Chart I-1A, middle panel). The last time this happened in the U.S., during the 1960s, high inflation followed, as the fiscal boost made the economy run substantially above capacity.Waning Fed independence: President Trump has openly questioned the hiking campaign undertaken by the Fed. Moreover, he has tried to nominate Fed governors with dovish tendencies. Historically around the world, a lack of central bank independence has often led to higher inflation rates (Chart I-1A, bottom panel).Peak in globalization: Globalization accelerated significantly in the 1990s and 2000s, flooding the global economy with cheap labor (Chart I-1B, top panel). However, we believe that globalization has peaked. Instead, populism and protectionism will be the dominant paradigms for years to come, reducing the cheap pool of workers and goods previously available.Demographics: The population in the U.S. is set to age in coming years (Chart I-1B, middle panel). As the percentage of U.S. retirees increases, the number of spenders relative to savers will begin to rise (Chart I-1B, bottom panel). Higher spending and lower savings in the economy should create upward pressure on inflation. Chart I-1AStructural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (I)  Chart I-1BStructural Forces Point To Higher Inflation In The Coming Decade (II) If our view is correct, how should investors allocate their money?We attempt to answer this question by evaluating the performance of five major asset classes during periods when inflation was rising. Furthermore, we look into sub-asset class performance to determine how investors should position themselves within each asset class to take advantage of an inflationary environment.In our asset-class analysis, we use a data sample starting in 1973 and we limit ourselves to five publicly traded assets that have adequate history: global equities, U.S. Treasuries, U.S. real estate (REITs), U.S. inflation-linked bonds,3 and commodities. We compare asset classes according to their Sharpe ratios: average annualized excess returns divided by annualized volatilities.4 BCA expects that rising inflation will be a major driving force of asset returns over the coming decade.In our sub-asset class analysis, we analyze global equity sectors, international vs U.S. equities, and individual commodities. In some of the sections in our sub-asset class analysis, our sample is slightly reduced due to lack of historical data. Moreover, since in some instances all sectors have negative returns, we compare sub-asset classes according to their excess returns only.We base our analysis on the U.S. Consumer Price Index, given that most of the assets in our sample are U.S. based. We opt for this measure because it tends to track the living expenses for most U.S. citizens and it is the preferred measure to index defined-benefit payments.Finally, we decompose the periods of rising inflation into four quartiles in order to examine whether the level of inflation has any impact on the performance of each asset. Chart I-2 and Table I-1 show the different ranges we use for our analysis as well as a description of the typical economic and monetary policy environments in each of them.Summary Of ResultsTable I-2 shows the summary of our results. For a detailed explanation on how each asset class and sub-asset class behaves as inflation rises, please see the Asset Class section and the Sub-Asset Class section below.Which assets perform best when inflation is rising?Rising inflation affects assets very differently, and is especially dependent on how high inflation is.Global equities performed positively when inflation was rising and low or mild, but they were one of the worst-performing assets when inflation was rising and high or very high. Importantly, equities underperformed U.S. Treasuries in periods of both high and very high inflation.Commodities and U.S. TIPS were the best performers when inflation was high or very high.U.S. REITs were not a good inflation hedge.Which global equity sectors perform best when inflation is rising?Energy and materials outperformed when inflation was high.Every single sector had negative excess returns when inflation was very high, but defensive sectors such as utilities, healthcare, and telecommunications5 minimized losses.Which commodities perform best when inflation is rising?With the exception of energy, most commodities had subpar excess returns when inflation was in the first two quartiles.Industrial metals outperformed when inflation was high.Gold and silver outperformed when inflation was very high. Additionally, gold had consistent returns and low volatility.What is the cost of inflation hedging?To answer this question, we construct four portfolios with different levels of inflation hedging:Benchmark (no inflation hedging): 60% equities / 40% bonds.Low Inflation Hedging: 50% equities / 40% bonds / 5% TIPS / 5% commoditiesMedium Inflation Hedging: 40% equities / 30% bonds / 15% TIPS / 15 % commoditiesPure Inflation Hedging: 50% TIPS / 50% commodities. At the asset-class level, investors should allocate to commodities and U.S. TIPS to hedge inflation. Chart I-3Inflation Hedging Comes At A Cost While increased inflation hedging provides better performance when inflation is high and rising, these hedges are costly to hold when inflation is at lower ranges or when it is falling (Chart I-3, panels 1 & 2). However, adding moderate inflation hedging (low or medium) to a portfolio achieved the right balance between cost and protection, and ultimately improved risk-adjusted returns over the whole sample (Chart I-3, panel 3).What about absolute returns? The benchmark outperformed over the whole sample. However, the low and medium inflation hedging did not lag far behind, while avoiding the big drawdowns of high inflation periods (Chart I-3, panel 4).Investment ImplicationsHigh inflation may return to the U.S. over the next decade. Therefore, inflation hedging should be a key consideration when constructing a portfolio. Based on our results, our recommendations are the following:1.  At the asset-class level, investors should allocate to commodities and U.S. TIPS to hedge inflation.2.  However, these hedges are costly to hold as they will create a drag on returns in periods when inflation is not high or very high. Therefore, a low allocation to inflation hedges is warranted now.3.  Inflation will probably start to pick up in the 2020s. A medium allocation to inflation hedges will then be appropriate.4.  When inflation is high (3.3%-4.9%), investors should overweight energy and materials in their equity portfolios. Likewise, they should overweight industrial metals and energy within a commodity portfolio.5.  When inflation is very high (4.9% or more), investors should overweight defensive sectors in their equity portfolio to minimize losses. Moreover, investors should overweight gold within a commodity portfolio.Asset ClassesGlobal EquitiesThe relationship between equity returns and rising inflation depends on how high inflation is, with outstanding performance when inflation is rising but low or mild, and poor performance as it gets higher (Chart II-1, top panel).This relationship can be explained by the interaction between interest rates, inflation, earnings, and valuations:Earnings growth was usually slightly negative when inflation was recovering from low levels. However, given that interest rates were very low in this environment and growth expectations were high, multiple expansion boosted equity returns (Chart II-1, bottom panel).When inflation was mild, the Fed typically started to raise rates, resulting in a declining multiple. However, equities had the best performance in this range thanks to very high earnings growth – a result of the economy growing strongly due to a healthy level of inflation.When inflation climbed into the high or very high range, earnings growth was usually positive but beginning to slow, as high inflation weighed on growth. Meanwhile the multiple started to decline rapidly due to rising interest rates and declining growth expectations.With the exception of the mild inflation range, the return profile of equities during inflationary periods was similar to its normal profile: negative skew and excess kurtosis (Table II-1). However, the consistency of returns decreased at higher levels of inflation, with only 45% of months with positive returns when inflation was rising and in its highest quartile.U.S. TreasuriesU.S. Treasuries reacted in a similar fashion to equities when inflation was rising (Chart II-2). However, while Treasuries underperformed equities when inflation was low or mild, they actually outperformed equities when inflation was high or very high. This was in part due to the fact that at higher inflation ranges, U.S. Treasuries offer a higher coupon return when rates are high, at least partially counteracting losses from falling prices.The steady stream of cash flows from the coupons helped Treasuries achieve positive returns roughly two-thirds of the time at the highest levels of inflation (Table II-2). However, this consistency in returns came at a cost: very high inflation resulted in negative skew and high excess kurtosis. Therefore, while Treasuries provided frequent positive returns when inflation was very high, they were prone to violent selloffs.U.S. REITsWhile REITs had high risk-adjusted returns when inflation was rising but mild, much like equities they had subpar performance in every other quartile and particularly poor performance when inflation was high or very high (Chart II-3). These results confirm our previous research showing that REITs performance is very similar to that of equities.6The return consistency for REITs was generally poor in inflationary periods, with the second-lowest percentage of positive return of any asset class (Table II-3). Moreover, REIT returns had excess kurtosis and negative skew throughout all inflation quartiles.Commodity FuturesCommodities performed positively in every quartile, and did particularly well when inflation was mild (Chart II-4, top panel). However, total return and price return were very different due to the behavior of the roll and collateral return:Total risk-adjusted returns were lower than spot risk-adjusted returns when inflation was low and rising. This happened because during these periods, commodity supply was high relative to demand, as the economy was recovering from a deflationary shock. Thus, there was an incentive for producers to conserve inventories, making the futures curve upward-sloping (contango). Thus, roll return was negative (Chart II-4, bottom panel).When inflation was in the upper two quartiles, total risk-adjusted returns were much higher than risk-adjusted spot returns. This was because high inflation was the product of supply shocks. These supply shocks resulted in a downward-sloping futures curve (backwardation), which, in turn, resulted in a positive roll return. Additionally, high rates during these regimes contributed to a high collateral return.Commodities provided good return consistency during inflationary periods, with roughly 60% of positive return months in the upper two inflation quartiles (Table II-4). The skew of returns was neutral or positive in the top two quartiles. This means that although volatility was high for commodities, extreme return movements were normally positive.U.S. Inflation-Protected BondsWhile inflation-protected bonds provided meager returns when inflation was rising but in the mild range, they provided excellent performance at the highest levels of inflation (Chart II-5). Moreover, this high Sharpe ratio was not just simply the result of low volatility, since U.S. TIPS had excess returns of 4.6% when inflation was high and 5.7% when inflation was very high.7The return profile of inflation-protected bonds during inflationary periods was also attractive in our testing period. Average skew was positive, while kurtosis was relatively low (Table II-5). The percentage of positive months across all quartiles was also the highest of all asset classes, with a particularly high share of positive returns in the periods of highest inflation.Sub-Asset ClassesGlobal Equity SectorsFor the sector analysis, we looked at information technology, financials, energy, materials, utilities, healthcare, and telecommunications. We excluded industrials, consumer discretionary, and consumer staples given that they do not have adequate back data.Once again, we separate rising inflation periods into four quartiles, arriving at the following results:When inflation was low, information technology had the best excess returns while utilities had the worst (Chart III-1, panel 1). This matches our observations at the asset class level, as IT is highly responsive to changes in the valuation multiple.When inflation was mild, energy had the best performance, followed by information technology (Chart III-1, panel 2). Meanwhile, financials had the worst performance, as rates were normally rising in these periods.When inflation was high, sectors highly correlated with commodity prices such as energy and materials outperformed. Meanwhile, IT was the worst performer (Chart III-1, panel 3).When inflation was very high, every sector had negative excess returns. Overall, investing in energy minimized losses (Chart III-1, panel 4). However, this performance was in part attributable to the oil spikes of the 1970s. Alternatively, defensive sectors such as utilities, telecommunications, and healthcare also minimized losses. International vs U.S. EquitiesHow do equities outside of the U.S. behave when inflation is rising? While the high share of U.S. equities in the global index causes U.S. equities to be the main driver of global stock prices, is it possible to improve returns in inflationary environments by overweighting international equities?The answer once again depends on the level of inflation. When inflation was rising but low, U.S. stocks outperformed global ex-U.S. equities in both common currency and local currency terms (Chart III-2, panel 1). This was in part due to the inherent tech bias in U.S. stocks. Additionally, the low level of inflation was often accompanied by slowing global growth in our sample, helping the U.S. dollar.When inflation was mild, U.S. stocks once again outperformed international stocks in both local and common currency terms, though to a lesser degree (Chart III-2, panel 2). The dollar was roughly flat in this environmentU.S. stocks started to have negative excess returns when inflation was high (Chart III-2, panel 3). On the other hand international equities had positive excess returns in dollar terms, partly because of their energy and material bias and partly because the dollar was generally weak in this period.U.S. equities outperformed global ex-U.S. equities by a small margin when inflation was very high, given that defensive sectors such as telecommunication were over-represented in the U.S. index (Chart III-2, panel 4). The dollar was roughly flat in this period. Individual CommoditiesOur analysis above confirmed that commodities were one of the best assets to hold when inflation was rising. However, which commodity performed best?8Total return for every commodity was lower than spot return when inflation was low (Chart III-3, panel 1). This was due to the upward-sloping term structure of the futures curve (contango), resulting in a negative roll yield. In this range, energy had the best performance, followed by industrial metals. Precious metals had negative excess returns.When inflation was mild, energy had the best performance of any commodity by far (Chart III-3, panel 2). Precious and industrial metals had low but positive excess returns in this period.When inflation was high, industrial metals had the highest excess returns, followed by energy (Chart III-3, panel 3).We omit energy for the last quartile since there is not enough data available. Overall, when inflation was very high, both gold and silver had the highest excess returns (Chart III-3, panel 4). However, gold’s return volatility was much lower, while it also had positive returns  64% of the time compared to 52% for silver.Other AssetsU.S. Direct Real Estate Chart IV-1Direct Real Estate Is A Good Inflation Hedge Our asset-class analysis confirmed that public real estate (REITs) as an asset class offered poor risk-adjusted returns during inflationary periods. But how did direct real estate perform?We analyzed direct real estate separately from all other assets because of a couple of issues:Our return dataset is available only on a quarterly basis, versus a monthly basis for the rest of the assets in our sample. Even when annualized, volatility is not directly comparable when using data with different frequencies.The NCREIF Real Estate Index that we used is a broad aggregate, which is not investable. Individual property prices might differ from this aggregate.Finally, real estate returns are measured on an appraisal basis. Appraisal-based indices are not reflective of real transactions. Moreover, prices tend to be sticky. To attenuate this issue we unsmoothed the capital returns by removing return autocorrelation.Overall, the Sharpe ratio of direct real estate was solid throughout the first three quartiles of rising inflation (Chart IV-1, top panel). There is not enough data available for the fourth quartile. However, judging by the performance of U.S. housing in the 1970s from OECD, risk-adjusted returns when inflation was very high was likely positive (Chart IV-1, bottom panel). Cash Chart IV-2Very High Inflation Erodes The Value Of Cash Cash (investing in a 3-month U.S. Treasury bill) outperformed inflation over our sample. (Chart IV-2, top panel). Moreover, cash provided positive real returns when inflation was mild, or high, or when it was decreasing (Chart IV-2, bottom panel). However, cash was not a good inflation hedge at the highest inflation quartile, with an average annualized real loss of almost 2%. Juan Manuel Correa OssaSenior Analystjuanc@bcaresearch.com Footnotes1      Please see Carl E. Walsh, “October 6, 1979,” FRSBF Economic Letter, 2004:35, (December 3, 2004).2      Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “1970s-Style Inflation: Could it Happen Again? (Part 1), ” dated August 10, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “1970s-Style Inflation: Could it Happen Again? (Part 2),” dated August 24, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.3      We use a synthetic TIPS series for data prior to 1997. For details on the methodology, please see: Kothari, S.P. and Shanken, Jay A., “Asset Allocation with Inflation-Protected Bonds,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 54-70, January/February 2004. Jay A., “Asset Allocation with Inflation-Protected Bonds,” Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 54-70, January/February 2004.4      Excess returns are defined as asset return relative to a 3-month Treasury bill.5      Sector classification does not take into account GICS changes prior to December 2018. 6      Please see Global Asset Allocation Strategy Special Report "REITS Vs Direct: How To Get Exposure To Real Estate," dated September 15, 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.7      It is important to note that the synthetic TIPS series does not completely match actual TIPS series for the periods where they overlap. Specifically, volatility is significantly higher in the synthetic series. Thus, results should be taken as approximations.8      We decompose the returns into the same 4 quartiles to answer this question. However, due to lower data availability, we start our sample in 1978 instead of 1973. Moreover, our sample for energy is smaller beginning in 1983. This mainly reduces the amount of data available at the upper quartile.