Estados Unidos

Highlights So What? The late-cycle rally still faces non-trivial political hurdles. Why? U.S.-China trade talks, the U.S. threat of tariffs on auto imports, and Brexit continue to pose risks. A shocking revelation from the Mueller report could have a temporary negative impact on equity markets. A bombshell would increase Trump’s chances of removal from office. We give 35% odds to tarrifs on autos and auto parts, and 10% odds to a hard Brexit. Feature In our February 6 report we outlined how a “Witches’ Brew” of geopolitical risks had the potential to short-circuit the late-cycle equity rally. A month later, that brew is still bubbling. President Donald Trump’s approval rating has rebounded but going forward it faces challenges from negative headlines (Chart 1). These include a soaring trade deficit, a large influx of illegal immigrants on the southern border, a weak jobs report for February, a setback in North Korean diplomacy, and an intensification of the scandals plaguing Trump’s inner circle. Chart 1Don't Get Comfortable Just Yet, Mr. President Each of these issues calls into question the effectiveness of Trump’s core policies and the stability of his administration, though in reality they are only potentially problematic. While Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s forthcoming report poses a tail risk, the substantial threat remains Trump’s trade policy.  Indeed, investors face “the persistence of uncertainties related to geopolitical factors” and the “threat of protectionism,” according to European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, who spoke as he rolled out a new round of monetary stimulus for Europe and its ailing banks. What did Draghi have in mind? The obvious culprits are the U.S.-China trade talks, the U.S. threat of tariffs on auto imports, and Brexit. There were other issues – such as “vulnerabilities in emerging markets” – but the first three are the most likely to have turned Draghi’s head. The global economic outlook is likely to improve on the back of Chinese stimulus and policy adjustments by the ECB and Federal Reserve. But growth has not yet stabilized and financial markets face additional volatility due to the fact that none of these “geopolitical factors” is going to be resolved easily. The good news is that Trump, overseeing a precarious economy ahead of an election, has an incentive to play softball rather than hardball.  Mueller’s Smoking Gun? News reports suggest that Mueller will soon issue the final report of his investigation into President Trump’s election campaign links with Russia. There is really only one way in which the Mueller report could be market relevant: it could produce smoking-gun evidence that results in non-trivial impeachment proceedings. Any scandal big enough to remove Trump from office or clearly damage his reelection chances is significant because financial markets would dislike the extreme policy discontinuity (Chart 2). Anything short of this will be a red herring for markets, though admittedly many of our clients disagree. Very little is known about what Mueller will report and how he will interpret his mandate. Mueller’s investigation may or may not make it to the public in full form, at least initially, and he may or may not make any major additional indictments. Congress will strive to get access to the report, which is internal to the Justice Department, while spin-off investigations will proliferate among lower-level federal district attorneys and congressional committees. The legal battle, writ large, will run into the 2020 election and beyond. House Democrats alone can decide whether to bring articles of impeachment against Trump, but the case would be struck down in the Senate if it did not rest on ironclad evidence of wrongdoing that implicated Trump personally. Republican Senators will not jump ship easily – especially not 18 of them. That would require a sea change in grassroots support for Trump. Trump’s approval among Republicans remains the indicator to watch, and it is still strong (Chart 3). If this number crashes in the aftermath of the Mueller report, then Trump could find himself on a Nixonian trajectory, implying higher odds of a Senate conviction (Chart 4). At that point, markets would begin discounting a Democratic sweep in 2020, with business sentiment and risk assets likely to drop at the prospect of higher taxes and increased regulation (Chart 5). Chart 5A 2020 Democratic Sweep Would Dent Business Sentiment After all, if scandals remove Trump from office, then not only is a Democrat likely to win the White House, but any Democrat is likely to win – even a non-centrist like Bernie Sanders or other Democratic candidates like Kamala Harris who have swung hard to the left. Meanwhile, the odds of Democrats taking control of the Senate (while keeping the House) will rise. With Democratic candidates flirting with democratic socialism and proposing a range of left-wing policies, the prospect of full Democratic control of the legislative and executive branches would weigh on financial markets. We doubt that the Mueller report can fall short of a smoking gun while still dealing a fatal blow to Trump. The Democrats control the House, so if the scandal grows to gigantic proportions, they will impeach. Yet if they impeach without an ironclad case, Trump will be acquitted. And if Trump is acquitted, it is hard to see how his chances of reelection would fall. The impeachment of former President Bill Clinton looms large over Democrats, since it ended up boosting his popularity. If Democrats are overzealous to no end, it will help Trump’s campaign. If Trump should then win re-election, he will have veto power and likely a GOP Senate, so his policies will remain in place. The outcome for markets would be policy continuity, though the market-positive aspects of Trump’s first term may not be improved while the market-negative aspects, such as his trade policy and foreign policy, may reboot. Mueller is an all-or-nothing prospect: he either leads us to the equivalent of the Watergate Tapes or not. Lesser crimes are unlikely to have a decisive impact on the election. But volatility is likely to go up as the report comes due, just as it did during the Lewinsky scandal (Chart 6), at least until the dust settles and there is clarity on impeachment. And an equity sell-off at dramatic points in the saga cannot be ruled out, especially if global factors combine with actual impeachment (Chart 7). Chart 6Impeachment Proceedings Likely To Raise Vol... Chart 7… And Potentially Dampen Returns Bottom Line: A specific, shocking revelation from the Mueller report could have a negative impact on equity markets and risk assets, but any such moves would be temporary as long as the growth and earnings backdrop remain positive and Mueller does not drop a bombshell that increases Trump’s chances of removal from office. Separating The Budget From The Border The president faces adverse developments on the southern border after having initiated a controversial national emergency in order to transfer military funds to construct new barriers. The U.S. has seen an abnormally large increase in apprehensions and attempted entries this year (Charts 8A & 8B). Ultimately the influx calls attention to the porous southern border and as such may help to justify Trump’s policy focus. For now it raises the question of why the administration’s tough tactics are failing to deter immigrants. Meanwhile his emergency declaration has divided the Republican Party, with several members likely to join with Democrats in a resolution of disapproval that Trump will veto. Congress will not be able to override the veto, but Trump’s decree also faces challenges in the judicial system. We doubt that the Supreme Court will rule against him but it certainly is possible. The ruling is highly likely to come before the election. Meanwhile Trump is kicking off the FY2020 budget battle with his newest request of $8.6 billion for the border wall and cuts to a range of discretionary non-defense spending. The presidential budget is a fiction – it is based on unrealistic cuts to a range of government programs. Any budget that is passed will bear no relation to the administration’s proposals. Opinion polls referenced above clearly demonstrate that Trump’s approval rating suffered from the recent government shutdown. This does not mean that he will conclude the next budget battle by the initial deadline of October 1 or that a late-2019 shutdown is impossible. He might accept a short shutdown to try to secure defense spending that would arguably legitimize his repurposing of military funds for border construction. But his experience early this year means that the odds of another long-running, bruising shutdown are low. Might Trump refuse to raise the debt ceiling later this year to get his way on the wall? This is even less likely than a shutdown due to the negative impact that a debt ceiling constraint would have on social security recipients and bond markets. Trump also has the most to lose if the 2011 budget caps snap back into place in 2020 due to any failure of the FY2020 negotiations (Chart 9). As such, the debt ceiling – which the Treasury Department can keep at bay until the end of the fiscal year in October – and the 2020 budget may be resolved together this time around. In short, Trump will be forced to punt on congressional funding for the wall later this year and will have to campaign on it again in November 2020, with the slogan “Finish the Wall.” This is a market-positive outcome, as the hurdles to fiscal spending in 2020 are likely to be reduced: Trump will have to concede to some Democratic priorities and abandon his proposed cuts. The Democrats, for their part, are likely to have enough moderates to get the next budget over the line with Republican support. To illustrate, Republicans only need 21 votes for a majority, while no fewer than 26 Democrats were recently chastised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for cooperating with Republicans. The implication is that a bipartisan majority can be found. Since Trump cannot get his budget cuts, and does not really even want them, the projected contraction of the budget deficit in 2020 will be reduced or erased (Chart 10). On the margin, this would support higher inflation and bond yields.  The biggest threat to Trump’s reelection is still the risk that the long business cycle will expire by November next year. However, the exceedingly low February payrolls print was misleading – the unemployment rate fell and wage growth was firm (Chart 11). American households are in relatively good shape and that bodes well for Trump, for the time being. Chart 11American Households Are In Good Shape Bottom Line: The economy is relatively well supported and Trump and the Democrats are ultimately likely to cooperate on the budget under the table, reducing the risks of a debt ceiling breach, or an extended government shutdown later this year, or a fall off the 2020 stimulus cliff. The Trade Deficit: Trump’s Pivot To Europe Trade policy is where Trump’s challenges merge with Draghi’s woes. The U.S. trade deficit lurched upwards to a ten-year high of $621 billion in 2018 (Chart 12). The trade deficit is uniquely important to Trump because he campaigned on an unorthodox protectionist agenda in order to reduce it. It will be very difficult for him to evade the consequences if the deficit is higher, as a share of GDP, in November 2020 than it was in January 2017. Chart 12Trade Deficit Jump Is A Blow To Trump The underlying cause of the rising deficit is that a growing American economy at full employment with a relatively strong dollar will suck in larger quantities of imports. This effect is overriding any that Trump’s tariffs have had in discouraging imports. Meanwhile the global slowdown, reinforced by trade retaliation and negative sentiment, are harming U.S. exports (Chart 13). The administration’s policies of fiscal stimulus combined with encouraging private investment are guaranteed to lead to a higher current account deficit, barring an offsetting (and highly unlikely) rise in private saving. The current account deficit must equal the gap between domestic saving and investment and a rising fiscal deficit represents a drop in saving. Chart 13Trade War Hurting U.S. Exports What does the trade deficit imply for the U.S.-China talks? On one hand, the U.S. could put more pressure on China after feeling political heat from the large deficit. On the other hand, China has always offered to reduce the bilateral trade deficit directly through bulk purchases of goods, particularly commodities. It is Trump’s top negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, who has insisted that China make structural changes to reduce trade imbalances on a long-term and sustainable basis.1  In a sign of progress, the U.S. and China have reportedly arrived at a currency agreement. No details are known and therefore it is impossible to say if it would mean a more “market-oriented” renminbi, which could fluctuate and have a variable impact on the trade deficit, or a renminbi that is managed to be stronger against the dollar, which would tend to weigh on the deficit, as Trump might wish. The two negotiating teams are working on the text of five other structural issues that should also mitigate the deficit. Moreover, China’s new foreign investment law, if enforced, could increase American market access by leveling the playing field for foreign firms. However, there is still no monitoring mechanism, the two presidents have not scheduled a final signing summit, and the deterioration in North Korean peace talks also works against any quick conclusion. If Trump concludes a deal, the next question for investors is whether he will impose Section 232 tariffs on auto and auto imports on the EU and other partners (Chart 14). The European Commission’s top trade negotiator, Cecilia Malmstrom, recently met with Lighthizer in Washington to discourage tariffs. She refused to admit agriculture into the negotiations, as per a U.S.-EU joint statement in July 2018, but proposed equalizing tariffs on industrial goods as a way for both sides to make a positive start (Chart 15). She said that the U.S. repealing the Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs are necessary for any final deal. And she reiterated that any new tariffs (e.g., the proposed Section 232 tariffs on autos and auto parts) would prevent a deal and provoke immediate retaliation on $23 billion worth of American exports. Malmstrom also said that the EU would prefer to work with the U.S. on reforming the World Trade Organization and addressing China’s trade violations. This approach fits with that of Japan, which has joined the U.S. and EU in trilateral discussions toward reforming the global trade architecture in a bid to mitigate U.S. protectionism and constrain China. The problem with the EU’s position is that once the U.S. and China make a trade deal, the U.S. will not have as immediate of a need to form a trade coalition against China (other than in dealing with WTO issues). Moreover, Japan will be forced to accept a deal with the U.S. in short order. A rotation of Trump trade policy to focus on Europe is likely. We give 35% odds to tariffs on autos and auto parts. The USMCA will increase the cost of production in North America while Europe is so far excluding cars from negotiations with the U.S., so there is room for a clash. But any tariffs on autos will be less sweeping than those against China. Trump will play softball rather than hardball for the following reasons: The public is less skeptical of trade with Europe and Japan than with China. The auto sector is heavily concentrated in the Red States and many states that are heavily exposed to trade with the EU are also critical to Trump’s reelection (Map 1). Section 232 tariffs that are required to be enacted by May 18 would have plenty of time to impact the U.S. economy negatively by November 2020. Congress and the defense establishment are against a trade war with U.S. allies, while bipartisanship reigns when it comes to tougher actions toward China. The bilateral trade deficit is less excessive with Europe than with China (see Chart 12 above). The U.S. carmaker and auto parts lobby are unanimously against the tariffs – and in fact has called for the removal of the steel and aluminum tariffs in a stance that echoes that of the EU. The existing steel and aluminum tariffs provide Trump with leverage in the negotiations with the EU and Japan, whereas the U.S. has agreed not to impose new tariffs on these partners while trade negotiations are underway. New tariffs would nix negotiations and ensure that the ensuing quarrels are long and drawn out, with a necessarily worse economic impact. To initiate a new trade war in the wake of the U.S.-China war would be to undercut the positive impact on trade, financial conditions, and sentiment that is supposedly driving Trump’s desire for a China deal in the first place. The U.S. eventually will need to build a trilateral coalition to hold China to account and ensure that it does not slide back into its past mercantilist practices. Even limited or pinprick tariffs will have an adverse impact on equity markets, given that they will hit Europe at a time when its economy is decelerating dangerously and when Brexit uncertainty is already weighing on European assets and sentiment (see next section).  This may be why both the U.K. and Germany have recently softened their positions on Chinese telecom company Huawei, which they have been investigating for national security concerns related to the rollout of 5G networks. They are signaling that they are not going to sacrifice their relationship with China if the U.S. is dealing with China bilaterally while threatening to turn around and slap tariffs on their auto exports. If the U.S. goes ahead with tariffs – on the basis that its China agreement allows it to isolate Europe – the EU will not be a pushover, as exports to the U.S. only amount to 2.6% of GDP (Chart 16). The result of the U.S.-China quarrel has been a deepening EU-China trade relationship and that trend is set to continue (Chart 17), especially if the U.S. continues to use punitive measures that increase the substitution effect and the strategic value of the Chinese and European markets to each other. Chart 16The EU Will Not Be A Pushover In Face Of U.S. Tariffs Chart 17EU-China Trade Relationship Deepening Bottom Line: In the wake of any U.S.-China agreement, we give a 35% chance that Trump will impose tariffs on European cars and car parts. Such tariffs are not our base case because they are unlikely to shrink the U.S. trade deficit and would have a negative impact on the Red State economy. But lower magnitude tariffs cannot be ruled out – and the impact on the euro and European industrial sector would clearly be detrimental in the short run. Assuming that global and European growth is recovering, a tariff shock to Europe’s carmakers could present a good opportunity to buy on the dip. Any U.S.-EU trade war will ultimately be shorter-lived and less disruptive than the U.S.-China trade war, which is likely to resume at some point even if Presidents Trump and Xi get a deal this year. The United Kingdom: Snap Election More Likely A series of important votes is taking place in Westminster this week, with the end result likely to be an extension to negotiations over a withdrawal deal at the EU Council summit on March 21. Conditional on that extension, the odds of a new election are sharply rising. The first vote, as we go to press on Tuesday, has resulted in a rejection of Prime Minister Theresa May’s exit plan by 149 votes – the second rejection after her colossal defeat in January by 230 votes. The loss was expected because the EU has not offered a substantial compromise on the contentious Irish “backstop” arrangement, which would keep Northern Ireland and/or the U.K. in the European Customs Union beyond the transition date of December 31, 2020. All that was offered was an exit clause for the U.K. sans Northern Ireland. But Northern Ireland is part of the U.K. and the introduction of additional border checks on the Irish Sea would mark a new division within the constitutional fabric. This is unacceptable to the Conservative Party and especially to the Democratic Union Party of Northern Ireland, which gives May her majority in parliament. On Wednesday, we expect the vote for a “no deal” exit, in which the U.K. simply leaves the EU without any arrangements as to the withdrawal (or future relationship), to fail by an even larger margin than May’s plan. Leaving without a deal would cause a negative economic shock due to the automatic reversion to relatively high WTO tariff levels with the EU, which receives 46% of the U.K.’s exports and is thus vital in the maintenance of its trade balance and terms of trade (Chart 18). It is impossible to see parliament voting in favor of such an outcome – parliament was never the driving force behind Brexit, with most MPs preferring to remain in the EU.     Chart 18No Deal Brexit A Huge Blow To U.K. The risk is that parliament should fail repeatedly to pass the third vote this week, a motion asking the EU for an extension period to the March 29 “exit day.” This is unlikely but possible. In this case, the supreme decision-making body of the U.K. will be paralyzed. A bloodbath will ensue in which the country will either see Prime Minister May ousted, a snap election called, or both. If the extension passes, the EU Council is likely to go along with the decision. It is in the EU’s near-term economic interest not to trigger a crash Brexit and in its long-term interest to delay Brexit until the U.K. public decides they would rather stay after all. The problem is that it will not want to grant an extension for longer than July, when new Members of the European Parliament take their seats after the May 23-26 EU elections. The U.K. may be forced to put up candidates for the election. What good would an extension do anyway? The likeliest possibility is, yet again, a new election. The conditions are not yet ripe for a second referendum, though the odds are rising that one will eventually occur. The Labour Party has fallen in the opinion polls amidst Jeremy Corbyn’s indecisive leadership and a divisive platform change within the party to push for a second Brexit referendum (Chart 19). An election now gives May’s Conservatives an opportunity to build a larger and stronger majority – after all, in the U.K. electoral system, the winner takes all in each constituency, so the Tories would pick up most of the seats that Labour loses. May’s faction might be able to strengthen its hand vis-à-vis hard Brexiters who have less popular support yet currently have the numbers to block May’s withdrawal plan. Chart 19A New Election Would Be Opportunistic Theresa May might be unwilling to call an election given her fateful mistake of calling the snap election of 2017. If she demurs, she could face an internal party coup. There is a slim chance that a hard Brexiter could take the helm, bent on steering the U.K. out of the EU without a deal. Parliament, however, would rebel against such a leader. Ultimately, the economic and financial constraints of a crash Brexit are too hard and we expect that the votes will reflect this fact, whether in an adjusted exit deal or a new election. But both outcomes require an extension.  However, we must point out that the constitutional and geopolitical constraints alone are not sufficient to prevent a crash out: parliament is the supreme lawmaking authority and there is no other basis for the U.K. to leave in an orderly fashion. The United Kingdom has survived worse, as many hard Brexiters will emphasize. A crash is a mistake that can happen. But the odds are not higher than 10%-20% given the stakes (Diagram 1). Diagram 1The Path To Salvation Remains Fraught With Dangers With the EU economy not having stabilized and the U.S. contemplating Section 232 trade tariffs, Brexit is all the more reason to be wary of sterling, the euro, and European equities in the near term, especially relative to the U.S. dollar and U.S. equities. Gilts can rally even in the event of an extension given the uncertainty that this would entail, though the BCA House View is neutral. Bottom Line: Expect parliament to ask for an extension. At the same time, the odds of a new election have risen sharply. The absence of a new election could lead to a power struggle within the Tory party that could escalate the risk of a hard Brexit, though we still place the odds at 10%. A second referendum is rising in probability but will only become possible after the dust settles from the current crisis. Investment Conclusions The ECB’s stimulus measures are positive for European and global growth over a 6-to-12-month time frame. They suggest that financial assets could be supported later in the year, depending in great part on what happens in China. China’s combined January and February total social financing growth reinforces our Feb 20 report arguing that the risk of stimulus is now to the upside. As People’s Bank Governor Yi Gang put it, the slowdown in total social financing last year has stopped. The annual meeting of the National People’s Congress also resulted in largely accommodative measures on top of this credit increase. Nevertheless, stimulus operates with a lag, and for the reasons outlined above we are not yet willing to favor EUR/USD or European equities within developed markets. A 35% chance of tariffs is non-negligible. We expect U.S. equities to outperform within the developed world and Chinese equities to outperform within the emerging world on a 6-to-12 month basis.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Lighthizer now has bipartisan support in Congress, whose members will lambast Trump if he squanders the historic leverage he has built up in exchange for a shallow deal that only temporarily weighs on the trade deficit. 

  Underweight The S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index has been trading sideways for the last several months. Weakness in the cruise lines half of the index has been offset by relative outperformance by hotels, specifically Hilton, who released better than expected Q4 results last month. The market cheered the results, despite the company trimming this year’s revenue per available room guidance. We think the lowered guidance bears scrutiny. Domestic capacity has been rapidly expanding for the past seven years and while pricing has been resilient for much of that time, it is likely only a matter of time before the pricing reacts to the dramatic supply increase, let alone the ongoing Airbnb threat (construction spending shown inverted and advanced, second panel); Hilton’s guidance appears to confirm this. Meanwhile, a tight labor market is driving a recovery in sector wages which will provide added pressure to margins if prices falter (third panel). All of this is captured by our earnings model which indicates earnings underperformance should persist (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Headwinds to hotel earnings should remove the remaining support for the S&P hotels, resorts and cruise lines index; stay underweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5HOTL - MAR, CCL, RCL, HLT, NCLH.      

Neutral In this week’s Special Report, we moved to a neutral recommendation on the BCA aerospace index. The report highlights the two pillars supporting the aerospace index and its relative performance: global trade sentiment and execution-driven profit performance. With respect to the first, relief in trade wars represents a powerful catalyst. Nevertheless, that same trade sentiment pendulum swings both ways and we believe elevated trade tensions will increase volatility and decrease predictability, particularly considering the global nature of aerospace firms (second panel). Still, aerospace sales and earnings growth look assured for a reasonable forecast horizon, considering the upbeat commercial aerospace demand over the past five years as well as the current robust order environment. However, aerospace firms have been blowing out their balance sheets to retire debt and currently enjoy near-record valuations (third & bottom panels). Bottom Line: On balance, we think it no longer pays to be underweight the BCA aerospace index and we moved to a benchmark allocation. Please see Monday’s Special Report for more details.   ​​​​​​​

Highlights Duration: With rate hikes more likely than cuts over the next 12 months, it makes sense to maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios. However, timing the next up-move in Treasury yields is difficult. We recommend that investors initiate positive carry yield curve trades to boost returns while we wait for Treasury yields to bottom alongside the CRB/Gold ratio. Corporates: The Fed’s pause is leading to improvement in our global growth indicators. The end result is a window where corporate spreads will tighten during the next few months. Remain overweight corporate bonds, but be prepared to downgrade when spreads reach our targets. CMBS: We upgrade our allocation to non-agency CMBS from underweight to neutral, due to elevated spreads relative to other Aaa-rated sectors. While spreads are currently attractive, the macro back-drop is also fairly bleak. If spreads tighten to more reasonable levels or CMBS delinquencies start to rise we will be quick to downgrade. Feature Green Shoots For Global Growth Since 1994 the Global (ex. U.S.) Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) has contracted relative to its 12-month trend six times. In all six episodes it eventually dragged the U.S. LEI down with it (Chart 1). As we predicted last August, the U.S. economy cannot remain an oasis of prosperity when the rest of the world is in turmoil.1 However, to focus on the weakening U.S. data right now is to miss the bigger picture. Chart 1U.S. Follows The Rest Of The World Corporate bond spreads already reacted to the global slowdown by widening near the end of last year. Then, the Federal Reserve reacted to tighter financial conditions by signaling a pause in its rate hike cycle. We took that opportunity to turn more bullish on spread product, and now, there are budding signs of improvement in the global growth outlook. While the Global LEI (including the U.S.) remains in a downtrend, our Global LEI Diffusion Index is well off its lows (Chart 2). Historically, the Diffusion Index has a good track record leading changes in the overall indicator. Chart 2Global LEI Diffusion Index Is Back Above 50% Similarly, the timeliest indicators of global growth that called the early-2016 peak in credit spreads are starting to improve (Chart 3). The CRB Raw Industrials index is breaking out, the BCA Market-Based China Growth Indicator has recovered and Global Industrial Mining Stock prices are heading up. Chart 3Global Growth Checklist All told, it appears that the Fed’s pause and related dollar weakness, along with less restrictive fiscal and monetary policies in China, are starting to pay dividends.2 The end result is a window where leading global growth indicators will improve and financial conditions will ease. We recommend that investors maintain an overweight allocation to corporate bonds during this supportive window, though we also note that the continued rapid pace of corporate re-leveraging is a cause for concern. We will be quick to downgrade our recommended allocation to corporate bonds when our near-term spread targets are hit. Our spread target for Aa-rated corporates is 57 bps, the current spread level is 61 bps. Our spread target for A-rated corporates is 85 bps, the current spread level is 92 bps. Our spread target for Baa-rated corporates is 128 bps, the current spread level is 159 bps. Our spread target for Ba-rated corporates is 188 bps, the current spread level is 243 bps. Our spread target for B-rated corporates is 297 bps, the current spread level is 400 bps. Our spread target for Caa-rated corporates is 573 bps, the current spread level is 827 bps. We recommend avoiding Aaa-rated corporate bonds, which already look expensive. We explore the universe of Aaa-rated spread product in more detail below. Implications For Treasury Yields The Fed’s pause and the nascent improvement in global growth are both obvious positives for corporate spreads. The impact on Treasury yields is somewhat less obvious. We contend that once financial conditions ease sufficiently, the market will start to price-in further Fed rate hikes and this will pressure Treasury yields higher at both the short and long ends of the curve. The ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials index and the gold price can help clarify this concept. Chart 4 shows that the 10-year Treasury yield tends to rise when the CRB index outpaces gold, and vice-versa. The rationale for this correlation is that the CRB index is a proxy for global growth and gold is a proxy for the stance of monetary policy. Chart 4Timing The Next Treasury Sell-Off A rising gold price suggests that monetary policy is becoming increasingly accommodative. This eventually leads to an improvement in global growth and a rising CRB index. But Treasury yields do not rise alongside the CRB index. They only increase once the improvement in global growth is sufficient for the market to discount a tighter monetary policy. That moment occurs when the CRB index rises more quickly than the gold price. The bottom line is that with rate hikes more likely that cuts over the next 12 months it makes sense to maintain below-benchmark duration in U.S. bond portfolios. However, timing the next up-move in Treasury yields is difficult. We recommend that investors initiate positive carry yield curve trades to boost returns while we wait for Treasury yields to bottom alongside the CRB/Gold ratio.3 Checking In On The Labor Market Based on the number of emails we’ve received on the topic, the last two U.S. employment reports have stoked some confusion among investors. This is not surprising given the volatility in the headline numbers: Nonfarm payrolls increased +311k in January and only +20k in February. The U3 unemployment rate jumped to 4% in January, then fell back to 3.8% in February. The U6 unemployment rate jumped to 8.1% in January, then fell back to 7.3% in February. Much of the volatility is likely explained by data collection issues related to the partial government shutdown, which makes it useful to look through the noise and focus on a few important trends. Trend #1: Slow Growth In Q1 The employment data clearly point to a U.S. growth slowdown in the first quarter of 2019. Real GDP growth can be proxied by looking at the sum of the growth rate in aggregate hours worked and the growth rate in labor force productivity (Chart 5). The recent steep decline in hours worked suggests that first quarter growth is going to be weak. Chart 5Employment Data Point To Slow Growth In Q1 But as was noted in the first section of this report, weak Q1 GDP is the result of the global growth slowdown dragging the U.S. lower. Crucially, the market has already discounted this eventuality and the budding improvement in leading global growth indicators suggests that the U.S. slowdown will prove temporary. Trend #2: No More Slack A broad set of indicators now all point to the fact that the U.S. economy is at full employment (Chart 6). The implication is that we should expect wage growth to accelerate and payroll growth to decelerate as we move deeper into the cycle. Chart 6At Full Employment Some investors may retain the belief that a rising labor force participation rate will keep wage growth capped, but even here the prospects are dim. The participation rate for people of prime working age (25-54) has risen rapidly during the past few years, but that has only led to a small bounce in overall participation (Chart 7). This is because the aging of the population has pushed more and more people out of that prime working age demographic bucket. Chart 7Labor Force Participation The dashed line in the top panel of Chart 7 shows where the labor force participation rate would be, based on current demographics, if the participation rate for each narrow age cohort reverted to its July 2007 level. The message is that the scope for a further increase in labor force participation is limited. Trend #3: No Recession Risk Yet The full employment state of accelerating wage growth and decelerating employment growth can last for some time before a recession hits. In our research we have noted that, from a financial markets perspective, one of the best leading indicators is the change in initial jobless claims. Typically, a bottom in initial jobless claims coincides with an inflection point in Treasury excess returns (Chart 8). Chart 8Jobless Claims Have Called Troughs In Treasury Returns Initial jobless claims have risen somewhat during the past few weeks, and while this trend is worth monitoring, it is premature to flag it as a concern. The 4-week moving average in claims has already fallen back to 226k from a recent high of 236k, and next week an elevated print of 239k will roll out of the 4-week average. Any initial claims print below 239k next week will cause the 4-week average to decline further. Bottom Line: The U.S. labor market has reached full employment. Going forward we should expect a continued acceleration in wage growth and deceleration in payroll growth. This situation can persist without causing a recession until initial jobless claims start to head higher. We see no evidence of this as of yet. Aaa-Rated Spread Products In this week’s report we consider the risk/reward trade-off on offer from the major Aaa-rated spread products. Specifically, we consider corporate bonds, agency and non-agency CMBS, conventional 30-year residential MBS and consumer ABS (both credit cards and auto loans). Focusing purely on expected returns, we find that non-agency CMBS offer the highest option-adjusted spread of 73 bps. This is followed by 65 bps from corporates, 50 bps from Agency CMBS, 41 bps from MBS, 35 bps from auto ABS and 31 bps from credit card ABS. But this is just one side of the equation. Chart 9 shows each sector’s spread relative to the likelihood that it will experience losses versus Treasuries. To measure the risk of losses we use our measure of Months-To-Breakeven. This is defined as the number of months of average spread widening that each sector requires before it starts to lose money relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. Essentially, the Months-To-Breakeven measure is each sector’s 12-month breakeven spread adjusted by its spread volatility since 2014. We only calculate spread volatility since 2014 because that it is when data for Agency CMBS start. Chart 9 shows that while Aaa corporate bonds offer elevated expected returns compared to the other sectors, they also offer a commensurate increase in risk. Similarly, consumer ABS offer lower expected returns than the other sectors but with considerably less risk. According to Chart 9, the only sector that offers an attractive risk/reward trade-off is non-agency CMBS. This warrants further investigation. Looking at spreads throughout history, we see that non-agency CMBS spreads also look relatively attractive. While Aaa-rated consumer ABS spreads are near all-time lows, non-agency CMBS spreads are still not quite one standard deviation below the pre-crisis mean (Chart 10). Chart 10CMBS Spreads Have Room To Narrow We noted in last week’s report that consumer ABS look even worse when we incorporate the macro environment.4 All-time tight ABS spreads currently coincide with tightening consumer lending standards and a rising consumer credit delinquency rate. This is why we downgraded consumer ABS from neutral to underweight last week. The macro environment for CMBS is also fairly bleak (Chart 11). Commercial real estate lending standards are tightening, loan demand is waning and prices are decelerating. The one saving grace is that, so far, this has not translated into a rising CMBS delinquency rate (Chart 11, bottom panel). It is probably only a matter of time before CMBS delinquencies start to trend higher, but with spreads so attractive relative to the investment alternatives, the sector warrants better than an underweight allocation. Chart 11Delinquencies Biased Higher? Bottom Line: We upgrade our allocation to non-agency CMBS from underweight to neutral. Spreads are currently attractive relative to other Aaa-rated sectors, but we will keep a close eye on the evolving macro backdrop. If spreads tighten to more reasonable levels or if CMBS delinquencies start to rise, we will be quick to downgrade.   Ryan Swift,  U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “An Oasis Of Prosperity”, dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For further details on recent shifts in Chinese policy please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Dealing With A (Largely) False Narrative”, dated February 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on the attractiveness of positive carry yield curve trades please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “The Sequence Of Reflation”, dated March 5, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification