Estados Unidos

Informe especial

Highlights Many on the left have embraced Modern Monetary Theory because it seemingly provides a politically expedient way to increase social welfare spending without raising taxes. Money-financed budget deficits can be justified when an economy is stuck in a liquidity trap, but can be extremely inflationary once full employment is reached. Investors should regard MMT as simply an extreme example of the increasingly permissive attitude that policymakers are adopting towards inflation and larger budget deficits. The path to high rates is lined with low rates, meaning that an extended period of accommodative monetary policy is usually necessary to stoke inflation. Investors should maintain a bullish bias towards global equities for now, but be prepared to turn bearish late next year as inflation begins to accelerate in the United States. An earlier turn to a more defensive posture on stocks may be necessary if Bernie Sanders, or some other far-left candidate, emerges as the likely victor in the next presidential election. Feature Print Some Money And Feel The Bern You know that an economic theory has reached the big leagues of policy debate when the Fed Chair is asked about it during his congressional testimony. This is exactly what happened on February 26, 2019, when Senator David Perdue questioned Jay Powell about his views on Modern Monetary Theory, or simply MMT as it is often called. Rather ironically given its name, MMT plays down the influence of monetary policy over the economy. Its adherents argue that Congress, and not the Fed, should be responsible for maintaining full employment. MMT proponents abhor the idea of a “balanced budget.” They contend that worries about sovereign debt levels are overblown. The U.S. government can always print money to finance itself. Fiscal deficits matter, but only to the extent that excessive deficits can cause inflation. The theory’s backers are a bit cagey about exactly how much inflation they are willing to tolerate or what they would do if, as in the 1970s, inflation and unemployment both rose together. Whether one thinks MMT is crackpot economics is not the point. What matters is that its supporters are growing in number. They include Stephanie Kelton, Bernie Sanders’ former economic advisor, and one of the speakers at BCA’s forthcoming annual New York Investment Conference. In my personal opinion, Sanders stands a very good chance of winning the 2020 presidential election. This makes MMT about as market-relevant as anything out there. In the following Q&A, we discuss the details of MMT and what it means for investors: Q: How does Modern Monetary Theory differ from standard Keynesian economics? A: MMT is almost indistinguishable from Keynesian economics when an economy is stuck in a liquidity trap, an environment where even interest rates of zero are not enough to revive demand. What really separates the two schools of thought is that MMT proponents tend to see liquidity trap conditions as the normal state of affairs, whereas most Keynesians see them as the exception to the rule. Q: Who’s right? The Keynesians or the MMTers? A: That remains to be seen. Near-zero rates have been the norm for most of the last decade, and much longer in Japan. This is a key reason why MMT has grown in popularity. The future may be different, however. Output gaps are shrinking and some of the structural forces which have held down rates over the last decade may fade. For example, the ratio of workers-to-consumers has peaked around the world, which may result in a decline in global savings (Chart 1). This could push up interest rates. Chart 1The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally Q: Does the tendency of MMT backers to see the world as chronically ensnarled in a liquidity trap explain why they seem to consistently argue for bigger budget deficits? A: It does. If an economy needs negative interest rates to reach full employment, but actual rates are constrained by the zero-lower bound, anything which incrementally adds to aggregate demand will not result in higher rates. This means that increased government spending will not crowd out private investment – indeed, quite to the contrary, bigger budget deficits will “crowd in” private spending by boosting employment. The standard MMT prescription is to run a budget deficit that is large enough, but no larger, to maintain full employment. In effect, this means taking any excess private-sector savings – that is, savings which cannot be transformed into private investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus – and having the government absorb them with its own dissavings. Q: So MMT supporters are assuming that the government is competent and agile enough to tighten and loosen fiscal policy at exactly the right time? Good luck with that. A: Yes, that is a common problem with most left-wing theories: They assume that the government should not be trusted with anything unless it is run by fellow leftists, in which case it should be trusted with everything. To make the fiscal response timelier, MMT supporters have proposed creating a government job guarantee. The basic idea is that the government would hire more workers when the private sector is hunkering down, while shedding workers when the private sector is expanding. In theory, automatic fiscal stabilizers of this sort could help dampen the business cycle. The consensus among MMT backers in the U.S. is that a $15 wage would be high enough to offer a tolerable standard of living without enticing many people to opt for government work when suitable private-sector employment is available. MMT supporters are assuming that the government is competent and agile enough to tighten and loosen fiscal policy at exactly the right time. Unfortunately, as is often the case with such ideas, the devil is in the details. For example, does the $15 wage include potentially generous government benefits? What will the government do if someone shows up for work but decides to just loaf around? What about low-skilled workers who would be more productive in the private sector but are instead diverted into government make-work projects? Inquiring minds want to know. Q: And the price tag could be huge! Wouldn’t an extended period of large budget deficits – even if justified by economic circumstances – cause debt levels to spiral out of control? A: A prolonged period of large budget deficits would most certainly lead to a significant increase in the government debt burden. However, if the interest rate on government borrowing is lower than the growth rate of the economy, as MMT supporters tend to assume, the debt-to-GDP ratio will eventually stabilize.1 In such a setting, the government could just roll over the existing stock of debt indefinitely, while issuing enough new debt to cover interest payments. No additional taxes would be necessary. Chart 2 shows this point analytically. Right now, projected GDP growth is higher than 10-year government borrowing rates for most countries (Chart 3). That’s the good news. The bad news is that there is no guarantee that this will remain the case indefinitely. If interest rates ever rose above GDP growth for an extended period of time, debt dynamics would quickly become unsustainable. MMTers argue that the government can borrow at any rate it wants because they see the currency as a public monopoly.  Q: Isn’t it crazy to assume that interest rates will always stay below GDP growth? A: Not according to MMTers. They argue that the government can borrow at any rate it wants. This is because they see the currency as a public monopoly. As long as a government is able to issue its own currency, it can create money to pay for whatever it purchases, and by definition, money pays no interest. This means that the interest rate can always be held below the growth rate of the economy. The only reason policymakers may wish to raise interest rates is if inflation is getting out of hand. However, even then, most MMT adherents would prefer that the government tighten fiscal policy either by hiking taxes on the rich or cutting spending programs they don’t like (the military is usually high on their list). Raising rates is widely seen by MMT supporters as simply providing a handout to bondholders. Q: It sounds like MMT basically cuts the Fed and other central banks out of the loop. A: That’s right. MMTers contend that monetary policy has little impact on the economy. In fact, many MMT advocates believe that higher rates raise aggregate demand by putting more income into bondholders’ pockets. It’s a very odd argument. Yes, corporate investment tends to respond more to animal spirits than to changes in interest rates. However, there is little doubt that rates affect housing, the currency, and asset prices (and all three, in turn, affect animal spirits). It is almost as if the 1982 recession – an episode where the Volcker Fed took interest rates to 19% – never happened. Q: An odd argument, but perhaps not a surprising one? A: That’s where the “Magic Money Tree” moniker comes in. When an economy is suffering from high unemployment, there really is a free lunch: Putting more people to work can increase someone’s spending without decreasing someone else’s. However, when an economy is at full employment, scarcity becomes relevant again. If a government wants to spend more, it has to convince the private sector to spend less, which it normally does by raising interest rates. MMTers like to throw out the old chestnut about how budget deficits endow the private sector with financial assets such as cash or government bonds. But if additional government spending leads to higher inflation, an increase in the volume of financial assets will simply result in the erosion of the value of existing financial assets. There may be times when more government spending is beneficial even in a full-employment economy, such as funding for basic scientific research or public infrastructure. However, there may also be times when increased government spending is wasteful and comes at the expense of valuable private-sector investment. MMT does not distinguish between the two cases because its adherents seem to deny that any such trade-off exists. Q: It sounds like MMTers want to have their cake and eat it too. A: Exactly. The political appeal of MMT is that it seemingly promises European-style welfare spending without Europe’s level of taxes. Just print more money! Let us ignore the fact that the Fed actually pays interest on bank reserves. Under the current rules, increasing the monetary base would not be costless for the government if that money ended up back at the Fed in the form of excess reserves, as it surely would. The bigger problem is that a large increase in government spending, which is not matched by much higher taxes, will quickly cause the economy to overheat. At that point, policymakers would either need to rapidly tighten fiscal policy, aggressively hike interest rates, or face hyperinflation and a plunging currency. Q: That seems like an obvious point. Why don’t MMTers see it? A: It gets back to what we discussed at the outset – MMTers regard the world as being chronically stuck in a liquidity trap. The prevailing view among MMTers is that there is still a lot of spare capacity globally, including in the United States, where the unemployment rate has fallen below official estimates of NAIRU (the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment). MMT supporters tend to be skeptical of these NAIRU estimates, believing them to be biased upwards. MMTers see the world as being chronically stuck in a liquidity trap. The prevailing view among MMTers is that there is still a lot of spare capacity in the world. To be fair, the methodology used by the OECD and many other statistical agencies to calculate the full employment rate, which effectively just smooths out past values of the actual unemployment rate, has probably understated the degree of labor market slack in a few countries (Chart 4). Chart 4AThe Unemployment Rate Versus NAIRU (I) Chart 4BThe Unemployment Rate Versus NAIRU (II) That said, we doubt that NAIRU is overstated in the United States. Both the Fed and the OECD peg NAIRU at 4.3%, slightly below the CBO’s estimate of 4.6%. As it is, the current CBO estimate is nearly one percentage point below the post-1960 average (Chart 5). Back in the 1960s and 1970s, most economists thought NAIRU was lower than it actually turned out to be (Chart 6). This caused the Fed to keep rates below where they should have been. Chart 5U.S. NAIRU Is Estimated To Be The Lowest On Record Chart 6The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Q: Let’s bring this back to market strategy. What does the increasing popularity of MMT mean for investors? A: Investors should regard MMT as simply an extreme example of the increasingly permissive attitude that policymakers are adopting towards inflation. The idea that central banks should raise rates preemptively to avoid overheating is slowly giving way to the belief that they should wait to see the “whites of inflation’s eyes” before tightening monetary policy. Meanwhile, on the fiscal side, austerity is out, and big deficits are in. None of this should be all that surprising. Attitudes towards inflation move in generational cycles. The generation that grew up during the 1930s was highly sensitized towards deflation risk. As a result, policymakers focused on increasing employment, even at the expense of higher inflation. In contrast, the generation that came of age in the 1970s favored policies that clamped down on inflation. For today’s generation, the stagflation of the seventies is a distant memory. “Maximum employment” is the name of the game again. It often takes several years for an overheated economy to produce inflation. This is particularly true when the Phillips curve is quite flat, as appears to be the case today. To the extent that the Fed raises rates over the next 12 months, it will be in response to better-than-expected growth. The stock market should be able to do well in that environment. However, as we get into late-2020 or early-2021, inflation may begin to move materially higher, forcing the Fed to crank up the pace of rate hikes. At that point, equity prices will drop and a maximum short duration stance towards government bonds will be warranted. Q: Just in time for Bernie Sanders’ inauguration! You predicted Trump would win, but Crazy Bernie? Come on, seriously? A: My guess is that Trump was the only Republican candidate who could have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016, while Clinton was the only Democratic candidate who could have lost to Trump. Had it been Bernie versus Trump, Trump would have lost. Given how close the election turned out to be, Sanders would have probably prevailed.   This is not just idle speculation. During the tail end of the 2016 primary season, head-to-head polls showed Sanders leading Trump by about 10 points, compared to a 3-point lead for Clinton (Chart 7). The final results would have been more favorable for Trump, but given how close the election turned out to be, Sanders would have probably prevailed. A strong economy will help Trump this time around. However, demographic trends continue to move against Republicans. Trump also made a strategic mistake during his first two years in office by focusing on Republican pet issues like corporate tax cuts and gutting Obamacare, rather than securing funding for the border wall, which was his signature campaign promise. For its part, the Democrat establishment will try to stymie Sanders again, but having recently watered down the “superdelegate” rules, it will be in a much weaker position to do so than last time. Q: Yikes, President Bernie doesn’t sound good for stocks! A: In our client conversations on “tail risks” facing the markets, Bernie Sanders almost never comes up. Admittedly, a lot can change in the next 12 months, including the possibility that Joe Biden will enter the race. Biden is more moderate than Sanders and has broad-based appeal. This means that it is still too early to make any significant changes to portfolio strategy. However, if Bernie Sanders, or some other far-left candidate, begins to do well in the polls, markets may start to get antsy later this year.     Peter Berezin Chief Global Investment Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com       1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019.     Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Price differentials between global light-sweet crude oil benchmarks Brent and WTI will narrow over the next three years, as U.S. light-sweet crude oil exports expand and North Sea production growth remains challenged. U.S. product exports also will expand, as investments by Gulf Coast refiners allow them to take in more of the domestic light-sweet crude output. Growing volumes of WTI being exported to Europe are being priced relative to Brent. Over time, we expect the marginal light-sweet crude barrel for the global oil market – and the benchmark of refiners’ primary cost – will be directly linked to WTI – Houston pricing. Given this expectation of increased U.S. exports, we are initiating a long WTI vs. short Brent swap position at tonight’s close in 2020. The 2020 swap settled Tuesday at $6.6/bbl; we project it will average $3.25/bbl. In the heavy-sour markets, differentials – most prominently the Brent – Dubai spread – will remain tight, owing to OPEC 2.0 production cuts, lost Venezuelan and Iranian exports, due to U.S. sanctions, and ongoing difficulties getting Canadian heavy crude to refining markets. Energy: Overweight. OPEC 2.0 likely will decide to extend production cuts to year-end in June, as opposed to May, as was expected earlier.1 This will allow the Cartel to respond to whatever the U.S. decides on May 4 re extending waivers on Iranian export sanctions, and to export losses from U.S. sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company. Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang announced tax cuts amounting to almost $300 billion (~ 2 trillion RMB), as policymakers attempt to hit a GDP growth target of 6.0 to 6.5% this year. We are getting tactically long spot copper at tonight’s close, expecting this fiscal stimulus to boost prices over $3.00/lb in the next 3 – 6 months. Feature In a little more than two years from now, Exxon will add 1mm b/d of pipeline take-away capacity to the Permian Basin. The new pipe is in addition to the 2mm b/d of takeaway capacity currently being added to the basin, which is expected to be fully operational by the end of this year. Current production in the Permian is close to 4mm b/d, so the combined incremental new pipe will provide considerable room for production growth into the 2020s. Exxon’s pipeline expansion – undertaken with Plains All American and Lotus Midstream – was announced in January, just before the company proceeded with its final investment decision (FID) to expand the capacity of its Beaumont, TX, refinery by 250k b/d to 616k b/d. The new capacity is expected to come online in 2022, and will make Beaumont the largest refinery in the U.S. The refinery expansion will take in light-sweet crude from the Permian, where Exxon plans to triple production to 600k b/d by 2025.2 These announcements are not one-offs: Permian production, and shale-oil output generally, is booming. In the Permian, oil output rose just over 800k b/d last year, according to the U.S. EIA (Chart of the Week, panel 1). Overall U.S. shale output in the Big 5 basins – Anadarko, Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara and Permian – rose close to 1.5mm b/d in 2018.3 Output growth in the Permian will remain super-charged on the back of the pipeline buildout, and the capex being poured into it as the Majors and large E&P companies industrialize production there, not unlike a manufacturing process. We expect the Permian to lead the development of shale-oil production, driving total crude and liquids growth in the U.S., which last year grew by 2.2mm b/d to reach 19mm b/d by December (Chart of the Week, panel 2). Chart of the WeekBrent Physical Liquidity Continues To Fall Continued investments in state-of-the-art refinery expansions in the U.S. Gulf are expected to continue as well, given the production growth we expect for the Permian, and the pipeline expansions that will take that output to the Houston refining market. Chevron, for example, is expected to close on an acquisition from Brazilian state oil company Petrobras for the 110k b/d Pasadena Refining System, also in the Houston Ship Channel. The company will feed this unit with light-sweet crude from the Permian, which it told analysts this week it expects to grow to 600k b/d by end-2020 and 900k b/d by 2023.4 At present, the U.S. Gulf Coast refining infrastructure cannot absorb all of the light-sweet crude that will be produced in the Permian and the other major basins in coming years. The export markets – particularly the Atlantic Basin, which is home to the physical Brent market – will be absorbing more and more of U.S. light-sweet production in coming years as North Sea production stagnates relative to the U.S. shales (Chart of the Week, panel 3). Output in the U.K. North Sea was at its lowest level since 1973 in 2017, following the price collapse of 2014 – 2017 instigated by the OPEC market-share war launched in 2014. UK output was flattish last year, while Norwegian production was down slightly more than 6% in 2018, bringing it to just under 1.5mm b/d. Drilling activity is picking up this year, along with M&A activity as private equity firms step in to buy properties being sold by the U.S. Majors. As can be seen in the Chart of the Week, production is expected to begin picking up at the end of this year, but base effects from the low levels of late exaggerate the gains in percentage terms. U.S. Crude Exports Set To Soar The North Sea Brent market is arguably the most important crude oil market in the world. It is the underlying physical market for the world’s benchmark crude oil – Brent Blend – against which up to two-thirds of the world’s crude oil prices are indexed.5 Production of the five constituent streams comprising the Brent index – the Brent, Forties, Oseberg, Ekofisk and Troll crudes – has been falling year on year, and one of the streams (Forties) is regularly being exported to Asian refining markets. This has prompted the main price-reporting agencies to consider adding to the constituents of the Brent index, and changing the type of pricing it records.6 At the same time, increasing volumes of WTI light-sweet crude are making their way into the Brent North Sea physical market.7 These export volumes will increase, supported by the buildout of pipeline takeaway and deep-water harbor capacity in the U.S. Gulf, which, when done, will expand the capacity of Gulf ports to accommodate very large crude carriers (VLCCs).8 On the back of these rising exports to the European market, Argus Media, one of the price-reporting agencies, this year began publishing U.S. waterborne pricing assessments as differentials to the ICE Brent futures. According to Argus, slightly over a quarter of the 2.6mm b/d of crude exports out of the U.S. last November went to Europe to compete with North Sea grades like Brent and Forties, two of the Brent index constituents. For the week ended February 22, 2019, the four-week average of crude oil exports from the U.S. was close to 3.1mm b/d, a record for average exports. According to S&P Global Platts, “There have been 48 VLCCs booked for loading out of the USGC so far in 2019 – about five times the amount booked in the first two months of 2018 and a drastic difference to the two VLCCs that were booked during the same period in 2017.”9 Most of the growth in U.S. exports is coming from the shale-oil production boom, which is swelling the volume of light-sweet barrels in the Gulf. While increasing volumes of WTI are making their way into European wet markets, it is too early to call WTI delivered to the Houston refining market (WTI – Houston) a benchmark; it’s more of a reference price for now. All the same, the necessary and sufficient conditions are falling into place for WTI – Houston to become a global benchmark: It has consistent quality; diversity of buyers (refiners and trading companies), sellers (producers and traders), and speculators to provide hedging liquidity to physical-market participants; and, in due course, will have reliable shipping facilities, including ports capable of handling VLCCs and smaller vessels. This last condition is the critical limiting factor at present.10 We expect that, by the early 2020s, the necessary and sufficient conditions will be in place to allow WTI – Houston to become a global benchmark. By that time, we project the U.S. will be exporting in excess of 10mm b/d of crude and liquids, and refined products, with crude exports alone exceeding 5mm b/d by then. Currently, the U.S. exports slightly more than 8mm b/d of crude oil and products (Chart 2). The six largest importers of U.S. crudes are found in the Atlantic and Pacific basins (Charts 3A & 3B). Chart 2U.S. Will Expand Its Lead As Largest Crude and Products Exporter Chart 3AU.S. Exports To Atlantic ... Chart 3B... And Pacific Growing Bottom Line: We expect the Brent vs. WTI crude oil differential to narrow next year, as U.S. light-sweet crude oil exports expand and North Sea production stagnates. On the back of this, we are opening a long WTI vs. short Brent position in 2020. We expect this differential to average $3.25/bbl next year versus current market levels of $6.6/bbl. Canadian WCS Differentials Could Relapse The Western Canadian Select (WCS) differential to WTI YTD contracted to a discount of $10.50/bbl from an average discount of $26.3/bbl in 2018, as the Alberta government’s production curtailment took effect (Chart 4).11 This is allowing Alberta’s excess inventories to start declining, which was one of the primary motivations of the government’s action. Chart 4Government-mandated Production Cuts Reverse Inventory Builds in Alberta Not all the news out of Canada is good for producers, however. An unexpected delay in Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement and expansion puts future Canadian production growth in jeopardy. This will complicate the Alberta government’s plan to stabilize the sound discount to WTI, which is necessary to maintain investors’ confidence in the sector. In our previous analysis of the Canadian oil sector, we assumed the Line 3 replacement project would be completed in the fourth quarter of this year. This is now pushed back by at least 6 months, likely into 2H20.12 The replacement was expected to restore Line 3’s original takeaway capacity of 760k b/d from 390k b/d, and was a crucial input in our Canadian oil output forecasts. The reduction of the production curtailment to ~ 95k b/d in 2H19 previously announced by the Alberta government will not be sufficient to maintain the WCS transportation discount below $15/bbl (Chart 5). Thus, the government most likely will extend part of the ~ 325k b/d mandatory cuts into 2H19. A rollback of the curtailment policy to 95k b/d ahead of the Line 3 replacement would push the differential back above the crude-by-rail range – i.e., a $15-to-$22/bbl discount over the quality discount for heavy sour crude vs. the light-sweet. We expect a combination of production decreases and increased crude-by-rail transport, which will have to go to record levels, could help alleviate the negative pressure on the WCS-WTI discount (Chart 6). For instance, maintaining a 225k-barrel-per-day production curtailment from April to December 2019, combined with an increase in crude-by-rail transport to ~ 460k b/d by year-end would be enough to maintain the discount in our estimated crude-by-rail range (Chart 7).13 Heavy Crude Differentials Will Remain Tight The prolongation of Canadian crude bottlenecks will contribute to keeping heavy-sour vs. light-sweet price differentials tight. Altogether, our expectation of high compliance to the output cuts agreed by OPEC 2.0 countries, which primarily export heavy-sour crudes; larger-than-expected Venezuelan output declines in heavy-sour output; and continued takeaway capacity constraints in Canada will keep the price differentials between light-sweet and heavy-sour crudes tight. This can be seen in the Brent – Dubai spread, which at times, favors the heavy-sour crude streams (Chart 8). Chart 8Heavy-Sour Crude Differentials Tighten As Supply Contracts Bottom Line: The WCS differential vs. WTI is at risk of weakening once again, following the unexpected delay in Enbridge’s Line 3 replacement and expansion. The Alberta government will have to get more deeply involved to keep unconstrained production from hammering the differential once again.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see “OPEC likely to defer output policy decision until June – sources,” published by uk.reuters.com, March 4, 2019. 2 Please see “Permian Majors Expand Downstream Processing,” published by Morningstar Commodities Research, February 11, 2019. 3 These data were sourced from the EIA’s Drilling Productivity Report for February 2019. 4 See fn 2 above. See also “Chevron, Exxon take turns wooing investors with shale boasts,” published by reuters.com March 5, 2019. 5 This estimate comes from ICE Brent Crude Oil, published by The Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), which runs the Brent futures market. 6 Please see “Viewpoint: North Sea benchmark changes looming” which was published by Argus Media on December 27, 2018. 7 Please see “US waterborne crude trade shifts toward Brent basis” published by Argus Media on February 15, 2019. 8 See, e.g., Carlyle Group’s recently announced involvement in such a venture. Carlyle expects its deep-water buildout to be done in late 2020. 9 Please see “In the LOOP: Record US crude exports boost VLCC tanker demand, rates,” published by S&P Global Platts on March 5, 2019. 10 Please see Liz Bossley’s article “There Can (Not) Be Only One,” beginning on p. 15 of the May 2018 issue of the Oxford Energy Forum – Oil Benchmarks – Issue 113, for a discussion of different oil-price benchmarks. 11 We discuss Canada’s take-away dilemma in our November 29, 2018, publication entitled “The Third Man At OPEC 2.0’s Meeting.” It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see “Enbridge’s Line 3 pipeline replacement likely won’t be in service until second half of 2020,” published by The Globe and Mail on March 3, 2019. 13 The government intends to increase the production ceiling by 100k b/d by April 2019, this makes the mandatory cuts at 225k b/d from 325k b/d in January 2019. https://www.alberta.ca/protecting-value-resources.asp Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in Summary of Trades Closed in

Overweight (High-Conviction) In last week’s GDP report, software was a clear standout. Investment in software as a ratio of total fixed non-residential investment has been on fire for much of the past four years and is on the cusp of surpassing the GFC highs when capex collapsed, but defensive outlays on software stood their ground (top panel). On a rate of change basis, growth in investment in software has breached the double-digit level for the first time in seven years; the last time this happened marked the beginning of software’s five year bull run. Further, the acute uptick in software investment’s contribution to GDP growth is an excellent herald for relative earnings performance. While the latter’s growth has been decelerating of late, the sharp divergence from the former suggests a resumption of outsized EPS growth in the S&P software index (bottom panel). Bottom Line: We reiterate our high-conviction overweight recommendation in the S&P software index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5SOFT - MSFT, ORCL, ADBE, CRM, INTU, RHT, ADSK, SNPS, CTXS, ANSS, CDNS, FTNT and SYMC.  

Informe especial

Highlights So What? Optimism over a U.S.-China trade deal is becoming excessive. Why? Presidents Trump and Xi appear to want a deal but their late March summit is not yet finalized. Several news reports supporting the bullish consensus are overrated. The odds of a “grand compromise” that entails China implementing U.S. structural demands are 10%. The odds of trade war escalation are 30%. China’s policy stimulus is a better reason than trade talks to become more constructive on Chinese and China-sensitive risk assets. Feature The Chinese equity market is rallying enthusiastically as the annual “Two Sessions” legislative meeting convenes (Chart 1). The basis for the rally is evidence of greater policy support for the economy along with a general belief that the U.S. and China are close to concluding a trade deal, possibly at a fourth summit between President Donald Trump and Xi Jinping that may be held in late March. The NPC session will build on the optimism with Premier Li Keqiang’s promise of more “forceful” policy support and the passage of a new foreign investment law that promises fair treatment to foreign companies. Chart 1Positive Trade Signals, But Market Getting Ahead Of Itself Our view is that the trade signals are broadly positive – implying a 70% chance that tariffs will either remain frozen or decrease in the scenario analysis below – but that the market is getting ahead of itself both in terms of the likelihood of a “structural deal” and in terms of the positive market impact from any deal. The market impact will depend on the depth of the concessions that China offers the United States. If the concessions are significant, President Donald Trump will be able to roll back tariffs to a considerable extent – trade policy uncertainty will fall, China’s economic outlook will improve, and Trump’s reelection odds (and hence U.S. economic policy continuity) could increase marginally. If China’s concessions are slight, tariff rollbacks will be limited or non-existent and the deal will stand on shaky ground, ensuring elevated policy uncertainty in the aftermath of the agreement and raising the probability of a relapse into trade war ahead of the 2020 election. Trump may feel he has to prove his protectionist credentials anew against a trade critic in the general election. Will the outcome be positive enough to surprise Chinese and global markets that have already discounted a lot of positive news? From where we sit, this is unlikely. More likely, investors will be underwhelmed by a lack of resolution or the shallowness of a deal. The risk to this view is the aforementioned structural deal that involves substantial Chinese concessions combined with a major reduction in U.S. tariffs and sanctions. But even in this case investors will face additional trade uncertainty relating to the U.S. Section 232 investigation into auto imports, on which Trump must decide by May 18, underscoring the point that trade alone is not a firm basis for bullish investment recommendations over the course of H1 2019. The continued strength of the U.S. economy and China’s policy stimulus provide a more realistic basis for global risk assets to rally over the 6-12 month horizon. Presidential Momentum For A Trade Deal We remain pessimistic about U.S.-China relations in general and the prospects for a structural trade deal in particular. This is reflected in our subjective trade-deal probabilities, which hold that an additional extension is as likely as a final deal this month and that the risk of a relapse into trade war remains elevated at 30% (Table 1). Table 1Updated Trade War Probabilities Fundamentally, our pessimism stems from our view that the U.S. and China are locked in the early chapters of an epic struggle for supremacy in Asia Pacific that will reduce their ability to engage cooperatively (Chart 2). Chart 2China, U.S. In Geopolitical Power Struggle Critically, the economic impact of a trade war is not prohibitive for either country. China is not as reliant on exports as it once was. In addition, neither the U.S. nor China is too reliant on trade with the other to make a trade war unthinkable, as was the case with Canada and Mexico (Chart 3). Chart 3Economic Impact Of A Trade War Is Not Prohibitive China is economically vulnerable but is politically centralized, as symbolized by Xi Jinping’s aggressive purge of the Communist Party on the basis of corruption (Chart 4). The ruling party can and will accept the worst international economic outcomes since 1989-91, if it believes this is necessary for regime survival. Chart 4Regime Survival is Paramount Meanwhile the U.S. is economically insulated and performing relatively well (Chart 5), and is not politically divided on the question of China. A bipartisan, hawkish consensus has developed that will be discussed below. Just as we argued correctly that this trade war would occur, so too we believe it has a fair chance of reigniting. This could be due to policy miscalculation, unforeseen events, or the likelihood that Trump will face heat from the left-wing ahead of the election if he gives China as easy of a deal as he gave to Canada. Chart 5The U.S. Economy Is Strong But Softening... Nevertheless we accept that there is top-level momentum in favor of a deal for the time being, and this comes from both Presidents Trump and Xi. In China, delaying tactics are the standard way of coping with an angry Washington, as the perception in Beijing is that economic and technological advancement give it greater leverage over time. Moreover, the economy is weakening on several fronts, private sector sentiment is bearish, and the easing of fiscal and monetary policy is of unclear effectiveness (Chart 6). These are all reasons for Xi to seek at least a temporary reprieve. Chart 6...While the Chinese Economy Is Weak But Stimulating In the United States, Trump faces a difficult election campaign due to his relatively low job approval with voters (Chart 7). His polling has recently improved with the settlement of the FY2019 budget and avoidance of a second government shutdown, and this is despite his controversial decision to press forward unilaterally on southern border security. But he will be running for office late in the business cycle and is vulnerable to an equity bear market and recession. This explains why he has shown risk aversion since October on market-relevant issues ranging from NAFTA, Iran, and China. A trade deal with China offers the possibility not only of satisfying a campaign promise (renegotiating the terrible trade deals of the past) but also of a substantial boost to investor sentiment and key parts of the U.S. economy via Chinese cash. Thus it is reasonable to assess that Trump and Xi can satisfy their political preference for a deal in the short run. If Xi does not gratify Trump’s campaign platform as a great deal-maker, he will give impetus to Trump to form a grand protectionist coalition. Such a coalition could eventually succeed in constricting China’s technological development, as exemplified by the U.S.’s campaign against Chinese telecoms equipment maker Huawei. Fundamentally, China still depends on the West for the computer chips that are essential building blocks for its manufacturing sector (Chart 8). However, while this is a reason for Xi to play ball, it is far from clear that Xi will rapidly implement deep structural changes demanded by the United States. Xi has good reason to fear that Trump will continue the tech war on national security grounds despite any trade deal. Plus, either Trump or a Democratic president could take new punitive trade measures after 2020, given the underlying strategic struggle. For these reasons China is likely to slow-walk any structural concessions. We recognize that our 35% probability that trade talks will be extended cannot last forever. Assuming that Trump and Xi confirm the time and place of a fourth summit, the probability of some kind of deal will rise toward 70%. We doubt very much that Trump and Xi will attend such a summit without a high degree of confidence in the outcome, unlike the Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi, which suffered from inadequate preparation. Yet even if the probability of a deal rises to 70%, we still think there would remain a 30% chance of either an unexpected extension or a disastrous breakdown in negotiations – and we are not yet at that 70% mark. Bottom Line: Until a Trump-Xi summit is finalized in the context of continued progress in trade negotiations, we maintain our pessimistic probabilities for the trade negotiations, with a 30% chance of total collapse and a 35% chance of a further extension of talks beyond March. Remain Vigilant On The Trade Talks It is debatable whether momentum in favor of a U.S.-China trade deal has increased over the past two weeks as much as the news flow suggests. First, Trump’s extension of the tariff deadline – which he originally envisioned as a pause for a month “or less” – could just as easily lead to additional extensions rather than a quick resolution. This will be clear if a Trump-Xi summit does not materialize in late March. A logical time for the two to meet would be at the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan on June 28-29, which would prolong the trade policy uncertainty for nearly four months from today. Second, reports suggest that China, like the EU, is demanding that all Trump’s tariffs be removed as part of any trade deal. If true, this demand is more likely to result in a failure to make a deal than a total tariff rollback. The reason is that the U.S. needs to retain the ability to adjust Section 301 tariffs based on China’s actual degree of implementation of any commitments it makes to reduce forced technology transfers, economic espionage, and intellectual property theft. Several of these commitments are enshrined in the new foreign investment law that would pass through China’s legislature over the next two weeks (Table 2), but the U.S. will want to ensure that the law is actually implemented. Table 2New Foreign Investment Law Would Be A Positive For U.S.-China Negotiations If the U.S. rolls back all Section 301 tariffs it will lose a convenient legal standing from which to dial the tariffs back up if necessary. It is more likely that part or all of the 10% tariff on $200 billion worth of goods will be rolled back (our short-term trade deal scenario with 25% odds) than that the entire Section 301 tariffs will be rolled back (our best-case trade deal scenario with a 10% probability). The degree of rollback will be a critical indicator of the durability of any deal, as it will make a material difference for China’s export-manufacturing outlook (Chart 9). Thus far, China’s economy has counterintuitively benefited from the trade war due to tariff front-running. Chart 9The Degree Of Tariff Rollback Matters Third, the disagreements between President Trump and his hawkish lead negotiator, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, are likely overstated in their ability to increase the odds of finalizing a deal. There are two arguments for the view that Trump is losing faith in Lighthizer. The first is that he blames Lighthizer’s tough tactics for the equity market selloff. This may not be valid given that stocks continued to sell off after Trump sided with the trade doves and agreed to a trade truce with Xi Jinping. In December the S&P 500 suffered the worst monthly performance since February 2009 and the worst December performance since 1931. The second argument is more substantial and comes from Trump’s public interchange with Lighthizer over the use and value of memorandums of understanding (MOUs). The interchange was awkward and suggests that tensions exist between Trump and his top negotiator.1 However, the episode may have an important implication. Whatever the reason for the disagreement, Lighthizer gained the assent of two Chinese negotiators – Vice Premier Liu He and U.S. ambassador Cui Tiankai – in his declaration, on camera, that the term MOU would be dropped in preference for the term “trade agreement.” The result is that while the deal is still not going to be a “Free Trade Agreement” that requires legislative ratification, the language of the final document will be if anything more, not less, binding. This episode cannot possibly accelerate a final deal. It is hard to believe that Lighthizer is not secretly happy with the result of his dust-up with the president. It is well known – and frequently complained about by Lighthizer and other Trump administration officials – that China has very active diplomacy and makes many international agreements that are more nominal than real in their results. As a simple example, China typically agrees to a larger value of outbound investment than is ultimately realized (Chart 10). In fact, Lighthizer is at the forefront of the administration’s repeated and explicit aim to pin China down to better implementation and enforcement of any agreement. Indeed, in both of Lighthizer’s reports on the Section 301 investigation that motivate the tariffs, he refers to a well-known September 2015 commitment, between President Xi and former U.S. President Barack Obama, not to conduct cyber-espionage against each other’s countries. Lighthizer shares the view of the broader U.S. political establishment that China only temporarily enforced this commitment and later ramped up its hacking to steal trade secrets.2 Chart 10China Known For Overpromising Fourth, Trump’s failure to conclude a peace and denuclearization deal with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi, Vietnam does not increase the odds of a U.S.-China deal – it is either neutral or negative for U.S.-China talks. Whether intentional or not, the summit reminded the Chinese that Trump’s “art of the deal” requires the willingness to walk away from a bad deal. As mentioned, we view the odds of Trump walking away from a China deal at 30%. But the deeper problem is that Trump expects China’s assistance with North Korea as a condition of the trade deal. Whenever Trump thinks that China is not providing enough assistance, he threatens to walk away from talks with Kim. This occurred in May 2018 and has apparently occurred again. The failure of the summit is a failure of U.S.-China diplomacy in the sense that China could not or would not convince Kim Jong Un to offer more concrete steps toward denuclearization. This reflects negatively on the trade talks if it reflects anything at all. Bottom Line: Aside from the presidential momentum behind a trade deal, none of the recent news reports or leaks form a basis for upgrading the probability of a final agreement in late March. Will It Be A “Structural Deal”? Lighthizer is not isolated in driving a hard bargain with China: he enjoys the support of both parties in the U.S. Congress. At his recent testimony on U.S.-China trade to the House Ways and Means Committee, bipartisanship was a key theme. Democrats as well as Republicans voiced support for Lighthizer as the top negotiator due to his strict stance on China’s trade practices, while Lighthizer himself praised both Trump and Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for being skeptical about China’s trade practices as far back as 2001. The takeaway is that Trump needs deep concessions from China – what the top Democrat on the committee called “a structural deal” – in order to defend any trade deal against domestic critics and skeptical voters on the campaign trail in 2020. In other words, there is unanimity in Congress, as there was in May 2018, that Trump should not sacrifice his leverage for a deal limited to Boeings and soybeans but should instead obtain victories on core disagreements: national security, foreign exchange rates, market access, and intellectual property. The MOUs – now “agreements” – that are reportedly being drafted address these core disagreements. Therefore signs of progress in producing final drafts should be seen as evidence that the odds of a final deal are improving: Forced tech transfers: Raising equity caps for foreign investment in key sectors is a headline way to reduce the leverage that Chinese companies have used to extract technology (Table 3). There are other arbitrary licensing and permitting practices that could also be curtailed. Table 3Foreign Investment Equity Caps Intellectual property: China’s purchases of U.S. intellectual property are conspicuously small, especially when considering that China is not yet an innovation giant in terms of international IP licensing receipts relative to the amount that it pays out.3 If the U.S.’s IP trade balance with China were equivalent to its balance with South Korea, it would result in a $36.7 billion improvement in the U.S. balance (Chart 11). Services: China is a major growing market for U.S. service exports but Washington frequently complains about denial of market access, for instance in financial and legal services. Services exports also underscore the above point about intellectual property (Chart 12). Foreign exchange: The U.S. is asking China not to maintain a more market-oriented currency but rather to promote a stronger currency relative to the dollar, perhaps referring to the yuan’s undervaluation according to purchasing power parity (Chart 13). It is impossible for Trump to accept a deal that does not include some text on the currency since he has hammered the issue of Chinese currency manipulation on the campaign trail and is trying to talk down the greenback. South Korea agreed to a currency annex and Japan is likely to do the same, and that makes it even less feasible for China to get off the hook. Non-tariff barriers: The U.S. has a long roster of complaints about China’s trade practices, including subsidies to state-owned companies, dumping, and inadequate health, environmental, and labor standards. Changing these practices will raise the costs of production in China. Changes to non-tariff barriers can also increase American market access in a way that goes beyond the simultaneous demands for lower tariffs on U.S. imports (Chart 14). Chart 13China Not Off The Hook On Currency Manipulation If China pledges improvements on these issues then it could justify substantial tariff rollback, perhaps the entire 10% tariff on $200 billion. This scenario, the best version of our 25% trade deal scenario, would comprise a positive surprise for markets in the current environment. It still could fall short of a grand bargain justifying a total tariff rollback, unless implementation is swift and decisive, which is highly improbable. A lesser but still market-positive surprise would be an American agreement to reduce pressure on Huawei (comparable to the deal reached in May 2018 on that other besieged Chinese tech company, ZTE). Still less positive outcomes would be a partial reduction in the tariff rate or an American agreement to expand or expedite exemptions to existing tariffs. The last would indicate relatively low expectations about the depth of China’s concessions. Bottom Line: Until the actual details of any Chinese structural concessions and American tariff relief are known, the durability of any U.S.-China trade deal cannot be assessed. This warrants at best cautious optimism regarding the trade talks: the two sides are working on draft texts about the right things. Investors will not be positively surprised by an agreement that does not include structural concessions of the nature above as well as substantial American tariff rollback, which is needed to verify American confidence in China’s commitments. Investment Implications The outcomes that are currently available to investors leave substantial room for prolonged trade policy uncertainty (Chart 15). Any further extension of trade talks means that uncertainty will persist at current levels. A deal that includes limited structural concessions means that uncertainty will ease but remain elevated relative to pre-2018 levels, due to the persistent threat of Section 301 tariffs that the U.S. will wield in order to secure Chinese concessions. A failure of negotiations means a dramatic escalation in uncertainty; this is our 30% risk due to the geopolitical and technological struggle underway. We allot only a 10% chance to a grand bargain that includes deep structural reforms and full tariff rollback. Chart 15Trade Uncertainty Will Persist As a final consideration, investors should be aware that the better the U.S.-China trade deal, the higher the probability that Trump imposes tariffs on auto and auto part imports pursuant to the Section 232 investigation into the impact of these imports on national security, which concluded February 17. The Commerce Department’s recommendations are still unknown but it is not a stretch to imagine that the administration has discovered a national security threat. However, this determination alone does not require Trump to impose tariffs. If he is to impose, he has until May 18 to do so. The full value of U.S. auto and auto parts imports is larger than the value of Chinese imports that currently fall under Trump’s tariffs. It is very unlikely that the U.S. will match this size of tariffs against the EU (Chart 16). Certainly it will not do so if the U.S.-China conflict remains unresolved, since it seems a stretch to believe the equity market can sustain both trade wars at the same time. The Trump administration has already found that the China tariffs without negotiations were disruptive to the U.S. equity market and economy, and the U.S. has told the European Union and Japan that it will not impose tariffs as long as negotiations are underway. To do so would be practically to foreclose the possibility of a trade agreement prior to the 2020 election, at least in the case of the EU. Thus it is only after any U.S.-China deal that the risk of EU impositions rises. We take the view that Japan is likely to conclude an agreement with the Trump administration quickly, possibly even before the China deal but almost certainly shortly afterwards. Trump administration officials will also likely intervene on behalf of South Korea due to the strategic need to stay on the same page regarding North Korea, which itself led to the successful renegotiation of the two countries’ existing trade agreement last year (which included autos but did not explicitly exempt Korea from Section 232 auto tariffs). This leaves the EU, which is quarreling with the U.S. over a range of issues: trade, Iran, Russia, China, Brexit, Syria, etc. Our base case is that the U.S. will not impose sweeping Section 232 tariffs on the EU due to the negative impact this would have on the U.S. auto industry, which is rooted in the electorally critical Midwest; the aforementioned risk to the equity market and economy; and the fact that neither the U.S. public, nor Congress, nor the corporate lobby are supportive of a trade war with Europe. Tariffs would also harm the Trump administration’s broader attempt to galvanize Western countries against the strategic challenge of China, Russia, and Iran. Nevertheless, the risk of such sweeping tariffs is non-trivial because Trump does not face legal constraints in imposing them – he can act unilaterally, just as he did with the early Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum, which broadly remain in force. A negative trade shock to the EU at a time of economic weakness may not overwhelm the positive trade impact of a U.S.-China deal in the context of China’s policy stimulus, but it would take the shine off of any risk-on exuberance following a China deal. In the end, China’s risk assets are likely to continue benefiting from domestic policy stimulus plus the 70% likelihood that tariffs will not go up. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy remains cyclically positive Chinese stocks relative to emerging market stocks over a 12-month horizon given China’s more robust stimulus measures and the above trade view. We are shifting our long China Play Index to a trade as opposed to a portfolio hedge. We are also long copper. We would anticipate that the trend for CNY-USD will be flat to up as long as negotiations proceed in a positive manner. BCA’s China Investment Strategy is tactically positive Chinese stocks relative to the global MSCI benchmark on the same basis, but is awaiting more evidence of a stabilization in the earnings outlook before recommending that investors shift to an outright overweight over the cyclical horizon. Still, our China team placed Chinese stocks on upgrade watch in their February 27 Weekly Report, signaling that the next change in recommended allocation is likely to be higher rather than lower.4   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com     Footnote 1 News reports had indicated that Lighthizer and his Chinese counterparts were negotiating six MOUs – on forced tech transfer and cyber theft, intellectual property rights, services, currency, agriculture, and non-tariff barriers to trade – in pursuit of the March 1 deadline. When asked about the time horizon of the MOUs at a public press conference with the Chinese trade delegation in the White House, President Trump said that MOUs were not the same as a “final, binding contract” that he wanted as an outcome of the talks. Lighthizer spoke up in defense of MOUs, leading the president to publicly disagree with him. Lighthizer then declared that the term “MOU” would no longer be used and instead the two sides would use the term “trade agreement.” 2 This was the same summit at which Xi Jinping declared in the Rose Garden that China had no intention to militarize the South China Sea – an even more frequently cited example of divergence between China’s official rhetoric and policy actions on matters of strategic consequence. 3 Please see Scott Kennedy, “The Fat Tech Dragon: Benchmarking China’s Innovation Drive,” CSIS, August 2017, available at www.csis.org. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Dealing With A (Largely) False Narrative,” dated February 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Chart 1Track The CRB/Gold Ratio Earlier this year the Fed signaled a dovish policy shift in response to slowing global growth and tighter financial conditions. In large part due to the Fed’s move, financial conditions are now easing and the CRB Raw Industrials index – a timely proxy for global growth – is starting to perk up. But when will this improvement translate to higher Treasury yields? The CRB/gold ratio offers some clues. Gold moves higher when monetary policy eases. Then with a lag, that easier policy spurs stronger global growth and a rising CRB index. Eventually, that stronger growth puts rate hikes back on the table. A more hawkish Fed limits the upside in gold and sends Treasury yields higher. In fact, we find that the 10-year Treasury yield only starts to rise when the CRB index outpaces the gold price (Chart 1). The recent jump in the CRB index is a positive sign, but we shouldn’t expect Treasury yields to rise until the CRB/gold ratio heads higher. In the meantime, investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and initiate positive-carry yield curve trades (see page 10) to boost returns while we wait for the next upward adjustment in yields. Feature Investment Grade: Overweight Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 59 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +243 bps. The Federal Reserve’s pause opens a window for corporate spreads to tighten during the next few months. We recommend overweight positions in corporate bonds for now, but will be quick to reduce exposure once spreads reach our near-term targets (Chart 2). Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview In last week’s report we published option-adjusted spread targets for each corporate credit tier.1 The targets are based on the median 12-month breakeven spreads during prior periods when the slope of the yield curve is quite flat but not yet inverted, what we call a Phase 2 environment.2 Currently, the Aa-rated spread of 59 bps is 3 bps above our target (panel 2). The A-rated spread of 91 bps is 6 bps above our target (panel 3). The Baa-rated spread of 156 bps is 28 bps above our target (panel 4). The Aaa-rated spread is already below our target. We advise investors to avoid the Aaa-rated credit tier. With profit growth poised to moderate during the next few quarters, it is unlikely that gross corporate leverage will continue to decline at its current pace (bottom panel). As such, we will be quick to reduce corporate bond exposure when spreads reach our targets. Renewed Fed hawkishness will be another headwind for corporate bonds in the second half of the year. High-Yield: Overweight High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 175 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +590 bps. In last week’s report we published near-term spread targets for each high-yield credit tier.3 The targets are based on the median 12-month breakeven spreads seen during periods when the yield curve is quite flat but not yet inverted, what we call a Phase 2 environment.4 At present, the Ba-rated option-adjusted spread is 224 bps, 37 bps above our target. The B-rated spread is 376 bps, 81 bps above our target. The Caa-rated spread is 780 bps, 208 bps above our target. Our default-adjusted spread is an alternative measure of high-yield valuation. It represents the excess spread available in the High-Yield index after accounting for expected default losses. It is currently 243 bps, very close to the historical average of 250 bps (Chart 3). In other words, if corporate defaults match the Moody’s baseline forecast during the next 12 months, high-yield bonds will return 243 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries, assuming no change in spreads. Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview The Moody’s baseline forecast calls for a default rate of 2.4% during the next 12 months. This appears a touch too optimistic, as our own macro model is calling for a default rate closer to 3.5%.5 In either case, junk bonds currently offer adequate compensation for default risk. MBS: Neutral Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 6 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +39 bps. The conventional 30-year zero-volatility spread tightened 2 bps on the month, driven by a 5 bps decline in the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost). The fall in option cost was partially offset by a 3 bps widening in the option-adjusted spread (OAS). The recent drop in the 30-year mortgage rate led to a jump in mortgage refinancings from historically low levels, putting some temporary upward pressure on MBS spreads (Chart 4). However, the relatively tepid pace of new issuance during the past few years means that the existing MBS stock is not very exposed to refinancing risk, even if mortgage rates fall further. All in all, we view agency MBS as one of the safest spread products in the current macro environment. Chart 4MBS Market Overview The problem with MBS is that valuation remains unattractive. The index option-adjusted spread for conventional 30-year MBS is well below its average pre-crisis level (panel 3) and the sector offers less compensation than normal compared to corporate bonds (panel 4). We continue to recommend a neutral allocation to agency MBS. An upgrade will only be appropriate when value in the corporate sector is no longer attractive relative to expected default risk. Government-Related: Underweight The Government-Related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 38 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +92 bps. Sovereign debt outperformed duration-equivalent Treasuries by 97 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +320 bps. Local Authorities outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 54 bps in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +86 bps. Foreign Agencies outperformed by 44 bps in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +109 bps, while Domestic Agencies outperformed by 12 bps on the month, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +9 bps. Supranationals outperformed by 10 bps in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +13 bps. The USD-denominated sovereign debt of most countries continues to look expensive relative to equivalently-rated U.S. corporate credit. However, in a recent report we highlighted that Mexican sovereign debt is an exception (Chart 5).6 Chart 5Government-Related Market Overview Not only is Mexican sovereign debt cheap relative to U.S. corporate credit, but our Emerging Markets Strategy service highlights that the Mexican peso is very cheap as measured by the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs.7 This is not surprising given that the peso has been relatively flat versus the dollar during the past two years, despite real interest rates being much higher in Mexico than in the U.S. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Municipal bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 85 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +92 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Aaa-rated Municipal / Treasury yield ratio fell 5% in February, and currently sits at 81% (Chart 6). This is more than one standard deviation below its post-crisis mean and right at the average level that prevailed in the late stages of the previous cycle, between mid-2006 and mid-2007. Chart 6Municipal Market Overview In other words, municipal bonds on average are no longer cheap. Rather, they appear fairly valued compared to similar prior macro environments. But a pure focus on the average yield ratio across the curve hides an important distinction. The yield ratio for short maturities (2-year and 5-year) is very low relative to history, while the yield ratio for long maturities (10-year, 20-year and 30-year) remains quite cheap (panel 2). Investors should continue to focus on long-maturity municipal debt to add yield to U.S. bond portfolios. In our research into the phases of the credit cycle, we often divide the cycle based on the slope of the yield curve. Since 1983, in the middle phase of the credit cycle when the 3/10 Treasury slope is between 0 bps and 50 bps (where it stands today), investment grade corporate bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of +3 bps. In contrast, municipal bonds have delivered annualized excess returns of +64 bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage).8 Given strong historical returns during the current phase of the cycle and the fact that our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory (bottom panel), we advocate an overweight allocation to municipal bonds. Treasury Curve: Favor 2/30 Barbell Over 7-Year Bullet Treasury yields rose in February, led by the long-end of the curve. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 3 bps on the month and currently sits at 21 bps. The 5/30 slope steepened 1 bp on the month and currently sits at 57 bps. Our 12-month fed funds discounter remains below zero, meaning that the market is priced for rate cuts during the next year (Chart 7). We continue to view rate hikes as more likely than cuts on this time horizon, and therefore recommend yield curve trades that will profit from a move higher in our discounter. In prior research we found that the 5-year and 7-year Treasury maturities are most sensitive to changes in our discounter, so any trade where you sell the 5-year or 7-year bullet and buy a duration-matched barbell consisting of the long and short ends of the curve will provide the appropriate exposure.9 Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview An added benefit of implementing a barbell over bullet strategy in the current environment is that barbells currently offer higher yields than bullets, meaning that you earn positive carry as you wait for the market to price rate hikes back into the curve (bottom 2 panels).10 Not surprisingly, barbell strategies also look attractively valued on our yield curve models, the output of which is found in Appendix B. TIPS: Overweight TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 36 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +120 bps. The 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 11 bps on the month and currently sits at 1.96%. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate rose 7 bps on the month and currently sits at 2.07%. Both rates remain below the 2.3% - 2.5% range that has historically been consistent with inflation expectations that are well-anchored around the Fed’s target. After last month’s increase, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently very close to the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations model (Chart 8).11 This model is based on a combination of backward-looking and forward-looking inflation measures and is premised on the idea that investors’ inflation expectations take time to adjust to changing macro environments. The current fair value reading from the model is 1.97%, but that fair value will trend steadily higher as long as core CPI inflation remains above 1.84%. The 1.84% threshold is the annualized trailing 10-year growth rate in core CPI, and it is the most important variable in the model. Chart 8Inflation Compensation On that note, core CPI has increased at an annual rate of 2.58% during the past four months, well above the necessary threshold. And while some forward-looking inflation measures have moderated, notably the ISM Prices Paid index (panel 3), this is largely a reaction to the recent drop in energy prices. A drop that should reverse as global growth improves in the coming months. ABS: Neutral Cut To Underweight Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 22 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +38 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS narrowed 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 31 bps, 3 bps below its pre-crisis low (Chart 9). Chart 9ABS Market Overview Our excess return Bond Map, shown in Appendix C on page 18, shows that Aaa-rated ABS offer a relatively poor risk/reward trade-off compared to other U.S. bond sectors. Aaa-rated auto loan ABS in particular offer greater risk and lower potential return than the Aggregate Plus index (the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate index plus high-yield).  Tight spreads look even more unattractive when you consider that the delinquency rate for consumer credit is rising, and according to the uptrend in household interest expense, will continue to march higher in the coming quarters (panel 4). Lending standards are also tightening for both credit cards and auto loans, a dynamic that often coincides with a rising delinquency rate and wider ABS spreads (bottom panel). Given the recent spread tightening, we advise investors to reduce consumer ABS exposure in U.S. bond portfolios. Other sectors, such as Agency CMBS, offer a more attractive risk/reward trade-off within high-rated spread product. Non-Agency CMBS: Underweight Non-Agency Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 74 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +142 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 13 bps on the month and currently sits at 93 bps, below the average pre-crisis level but somewhat higher than the recent tights (Chart 10). Chart 10CMBS Market Overview The Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey showed that banks tightened lending standards on commercial real estate (CRE) loans in Q4 and witnessed falling demand (bottom 2 panels). This, coupled with decelerating CRE prices paints a relatively negative picture for non-agency CMBS. Agency CMBS: Overweight Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Teasury index by 49 basis points in February, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +77 bps. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 8 bps on the month and currently sits at 48 bps. The excess return Bond Map in Appendix C shows that Agency CMBS offer high potential return compared to other low-risk spread products. An overweight allocation to this defensive sector continues to make sense. Appendix A - The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing We follow a two-step process to formulate recommendations for bond portfolio duration. First, we determine the change in the federal funds rate that is priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Second, we decide – based on our assessments of the economy and Fed policy – whether the change in the fed funds rate will exceed or fall short of what is priced into the curve. Most of the time, a correct answer to this question leads to the appropriate duration call. We call this framework the Golden Rule Of Bond Investing, and we demonstrated its effectiveness in the U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Chart 11 illustrates the Golden Rule’s track record by showing that the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index tends to outperform cash when rate hikes fall short of 12-month expectations, and vice-versa. At present, the market is priced for 2 basis points of rate cuts during the next 12 months. Given that we expect the Fed to deliver rate hikes in the second half of this year, we recommend that investors maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Chart 11The Golden Rule's Track Record We can also use our Golden Rule framework to make 12-month total return forecasts for the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury index under different scenarios for the change in the fed funds rate. To forecast total returns we first calculate the 12-month fed funds rate surprise in each scenario by comparing the assumed change in the fed funds rate to the current value of our 12-month discounter. This rate hike surprise is then mapped to an expected change in the Treasury index yield using a regression based on the historical relationship between those two variables. Finally, we apply the expected change in index yield to the current characteristics (yield, duration and convexity) of the Treasury index to estimate total returns on a 12-month horizon. The below tables present those results, along with 95% confidence intervals. Appendix B - Butterfly Strategy Valuation The following tables present the current read-outs from our butterfly spread models. We use these models to identify opportunities to take duration-neutral positions across the Treasury curve. The following two Special Reports explain the models in more detail: U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “More Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies”, dated May 15, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Table 4 shows the raw residuals from each model. A positive value indicates that the bullet is cheap relative to the duration-matched barbell. A negative value indicates that the barbell is cheap relative to the bullet. Table 5 scales the raw residuals in Table 4 by their historical means and standard deviations. This facilitates comparison between the different butterfly spreads. Table 6 flips the models on their heads. It shows the change in the slope between the two barbell maturities that must be realized during the next six months to make returns between the bullet and barbell equal. For example, a reading of +55 bps in the 5 over 2/10 cell means that we would only expect the 5-year to outperform the 2/10 if the 2/10 slope steepens by more than 55 bps during the next six months. Otherwise, we would expect the 2/10 barbell to outperform the 5-year bullet. Table 4Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Raw Residuals In Basis Points (As of February 28, 2019) Table 5Butterfly Strategy Valuation: Standardized Residuals (As of February 28, 2019) Table 6Discounted Slope Change During Next 6 Months (BPs) Appendix C - Excess Return Bond Map The Excess Return Bond Map is used to assess the relative risk/reward trade-off between different sectors of the U.S. fixed income market. The Map employs volatility-adjusted breakeven spread analysis to show how likely it is that a given sector will earn/lose money during the subsequent 12 months. The Map does not incorporate any macroeconomic view. The horizontal axis of the Map shows the number of days of average spread widening required for each sector to lose 100 bps versus a position in duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further to the left require more days of average spread widening and are therefore less likely to see losses. The vertical axis shows the number of days of average spread tightening required for each sector to earn 100 bps in excess of duration-matched Treasuries. Sectors plotting further toward the top require fewer days of spread tightening and are therefore more likely to earn 100 bps of excess return.   Ryan Swift,  U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 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 Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Dissecting China’s Stimulus”, dated January 17, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9  Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Don’t Position For Curve Inversion”, dated January 22, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Paid To Wait”, dated February 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 11 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018 available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation

Neutral We have successfully ridden down the S&P 1500 components index on a structural basis over the past four years. But now, factors are falling into place for an end to this multi-year bloodbath. On Monday, we lifted exposure to neutral from underweight, locking in relative gains of 36% since inception. In the U.S., light vehicle sales have been stable over the past five years and the latest Conference Board consumer confidence release showed that consumers’ plans to purchase a car remain upbeat, and could serve as a catalyst to unlock excellent relative value (middle panel). With regard to President Trump’s hawkish tariff rhetoric and the ongoing U.S./China trade tussle, automobile components makers have taken a big hit. But, there are high odds of an end to the U.S./China trade dispute. Tack on a softening greenback courtesy of a more dovish Fed. U.S. auto components producers will likely grab a larger slice of the global auto parts revenue pie (top panel). Still a number of risks keep us from turning outright bullish on this consumer discretionary subsector, including auto loan delinquencies which are increasing rapidly, approaching last cycle’s peak (bottom panel). Bottom Line: The easy money has already been made by shying away from auto component manufacturers and we lifted the S&P 1500 auto components index to neutral; please see Monday’s Weekly Report for more details. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S15AUTC – APTV, BWA, GNTX, GT, DAN, VC, FOXF, DORM, LCII, DJPH, AXL, ADNT, CTB, THRM, GTX, SMP, CPS, MPAA, SUP.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy While equities will likely be higher in the coming 9-12 months, we would refrain from committing fresh capital to the market at this juncture. A better entry point lies ahead. Tactically, this market needs a breather to digest the V-shaped formation since last December’s G20 meeting before it resumes its bull run. Firming leading indicators of global auto sales, upbeat auto components industry operating metrics, a softening U.S. dollar, the looming truce in the U.S./China trade spat and depressed relative technicals and valuations all suggest that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P 1500 auto components index. Augment positions to neutral. The global economic soft patch that is exerting downward pressure on real interest rates, a soft U.S. dollar and rising global policy uncertainty, all signal that it still makes sense to hold a global gold mining equity portfolio hedge. Recent Changes Lift the S&P 1500 auto components index to neutral and cement gains of 36% today. From a portfolio management perspective, downgrade the S&P semi equipment index to neutral for a gain of 16% since the December 17, 2018 inception. Table 1 Feature The S&P 500 hit a trouble spot last week, despite positive news on the U.S./China trade tussle. Clearly, there is an element of “buy the rumor sell the news” in the market as equities have come a long way this year, reversing all of last December’s steep losses. But, the SPX now faces stiff resistance at the most important 2,800 level as we highlighted in recent research.1 Chart 1 shows “The Good”. From a sentiment/technical perspective, fresh all-time highs in the S&P 500 advance/decline line portend ongoing gains in this broad-based equity market advance. The junk bond market sends an equally encouraging signal: The Barclays total return high yield corporate bond index has vaulted to new highs, which bodes well for the SPX (middle panel, Chart 1). Finally, all three of the S&P risk parity total return indexes2 have slingshot into uncharted territory and suggest that the S&P 500 is headed there next. Chart 1The Good… Nevertheless, there are some cracks appearing in the U.S. economy. News of an abysmal retail sales report was quickly discredited by pundits, with some blaming poor data collection due to the government shutdown. Chart 2 shows “The Bad”. Worrisomely, contracting intermodal rail carloads and a nosedive in the “First Data merchant services dollar spend” at retailers likely corroborate the Commerce Department’s weak retail sales data. Moreover, the recent plunge in the Goldman Sachs MAP (Macro-data Assessment Platform) Surprise Index, which is now probing a three year low, suggests that the U.S. economy is in a soft-patch. Chart 2…The Bad… Charts 3 & 4 show “The Ugly”. Our Economic Impulse Indicator (EII) first introduced last October,3 has taken a turn for the worse. Six economic indicators encapsulating the U.S. economy comprise the EII, and there is clear deterioration in economic activity on a second derivative basis. The recent contraction in the overall business (manufacturing, wholesale and retail) sales-to-inventories (SI) ratio also warns of profit trouble in the coming quarters (Chart 4). Keep in mind that this data series only goes to November 2018 and once it gets updated to include December later this week, the SI ratio will likely fall deeper into the contraction zone. Chart 3…And The… Chart 4…Ugly So should investors take some chips off the table given this macro backdrop? Prior to answering the question, as a reminder, BCA’s view remains that the business cycle is alive and well and there is no recession on a cyclical time horizon. Therefore, equities should be higher in the coming 9-12 months. Our end-2019 SPX target remains at 3,000 based on $181 EPS for calendar year 2020 assuming a 16.5 multiple.4 Nevertheless from a shorter-term perspective, we would refrain from committing fresh capital to this market, as we believe a better entry point lies ahead. Tactically, this market now needs a breather to digest the V-shaped formation since last December’s G20 meeting, before it resumes its bull run. In addition, we would book gains on any alpha generating tactical trades; today we crystalize 16% gains in the S&P semi equipment tactical overweight position since the December 17, 2018 inception and downgrade to neutral. This week, we book handsome profits on a long-held underweight in a consumer discretionary subindex that Trump’s hawkish tariff rhetoric and actions have badly wounded. We also update a materials subsector that benefits from the ongoing global reflationary impulse. Auto Components: Aiming For Pole Position? We have successfully ridden down the S&P 1500 components index on a structural basis over the past four years. But now, factors are falling into place for an end to this multi-year bloodbath. We are lifting exposure to neutral from underweight, locking in relative gains of 36% since inception. Global auto sales are the main driver of auto components profits, thus identifying where we stand in the global auto sales cycle is key. Bellwether German automakers have been caught in an emissions-related downdraft with “Dieselgate” weighing heavily on this sector when new emissions-test procedures were implemented last quarter. The top panel of Chart 5 shows that the worst is likely behind this drubbing in German automobile production as new orders have recently gone vertical. Backlogs are also sky-high and suggest that a definitive turn looms in German motor vehicle output. The upshot is that global auto sales may come out of their recent funk. Chart 5Global Auto Sales Are About To Turn The Japanese car industry, the other global heavyweight, also suffered a minor setback last year, but leading indicators of Japanese auto production are also ticking higher. Japanese industrial robot shipments are at fresh cyclical highs and signal that global auto sales will hook up (bottom panel, Chart 5). In the U.S., light vehicle sales have been stable over the past five years, but auto industrial production growth has been roaring, rising 40 percentage points from the manufacturing recession trough (second panel, Chart 6). Chart 6Improving… All of this paints a brightening backdrop for U.S. auto components manufacturers. Indeed, auto components new orders are at all-time highs (middle panel, Chart 7), at a time when inventories remain tame. In fact the new orders-to-inventories ratio sits squarely above one and continues to firm, with unfilled orders also at all-time highs (Chart 8). As a result, selling prices are accelerating at a healthy clip (third panel, Chart 6). The upshot is that industry profits will likely overwhelm. Chart 7…Operating… Chart 8...Auto Component Metrics On the domestic demand front, the latest Conference Board consumer confidence release showed that consumers’ plans to purchase a car remain upbeat, and could serve as a catalyst to unlock excellent relative value (bottom panel, Chart 7). With regard to President Trump’s hawkish tariff rhetoric and the ongoing U.S./China trade tussle, automobile components makers have taken a big hit. But, there are high odds of an end to the U.S./China trade dispute. Tack on a softening greenback courtesy of a more dovish Fed. U.S. auto components producers will likely grab a larger slice of the global auto parts revenue pie (top panel, Chart 7). Despite these tailwinds, investors have relentlessly avoided auto component stocks. Technicals remain washed out and industry valuations are a small fraction of the broad market and below the historical mean as per the relative price-to-sales ratio (Chart 9). Chart 9Cheap And Oversold… Nevertheless, we refrain from turning outright bullish on this consumer discretionary subsector given the following risks: First, auto loan delinquencies are increasing rapidly, approaching last cycle’s peak. Second, car financing interest rates are still rising, which, at the margin, dents demand for new car sales. Third, auto credit growth is decelerating and demand for auto loans is also anemic according to the Fed’s latest Senior Loan Officer survey (Chart 10). This stands in marked contrast to the aforementioned Conference Board’s survey of consumers’ plans to buy a car. Finally, were President Trump to proceed with auto tariffs on European car manufacturers once he strikes a deal with China, U.S. auto parts producers will suffer a setback. Chart 10…But There Are Some Risks Netting it all out, the easy money has already been made by shying away from auto component manufacturers. Firming leading indicators of global auto sales, upbeat auto components industry operating metrics, a softening U.S. dollar, the looming truce in the U.S./China trade spat and depressed relative technicals and valuations all suggest that it no longer pays to be bearish the S&P 1500 auto components index. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P 1500 auto components index to neutral and crystalize gains of 36% today. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S15AUTC – APTV, BWA, GNTX, GT, DAN, VC, FOXF, DORM, LCII, DJPH, AXL, ADNT, CTB, THRM, GTX, SMP, CPS, MPAA, SUP. A Modest Gold Portfolio Hedge Still Makes Sense Within our broad-based U.S. equity sector and subsector coverage, we continue to recommend a modest gold-related hedge via being overweight the global gold mining index (given that the S&P gold index only comprises a single stock) versus the MSCI All-Country World Index, expressed through the long GDX:US/short ACWI:US exchange traded funds. There is compelling evidence that gold bullion is a reliable reflationary gauge. The shiny metal troughed in mid-August, leading even the JP Morgan EM FX index. Since then, it has been in an uninterrupted run rising over $180/oz. or 15% and sniffing out a reflationary impulse. Not only is there a tight inverse correlation with the trade-weighted U.S. dollar, but over the past three years the Chinese renminbi also moves in close lockstep with gold (Chart 11). Now that Chinese policymakers have opened the credit spigots (January credit data revealed the largest ever month-over-month loan increase in the history of the data, please refer to the second panel of Chart 2 in last week’s publication)5 reflating their economy, there are high odds that gold can break out of its past five year trading range in a bullish fashion. Chart 11Gold Is Sniffing Out A Reflationary Impulse Commodity sentiment and positioning data suggest that gold’s run up will prove durable and continue to underpin the relative share price ratio (second & third panels, Chart 12). Chart 12Bullish Bullion Positioning Underpins Global Gold Miners Importantly, the precious metals industry has not stood still. It has embarked on a massive consolidation phase and the recent spike in M&A activity in global gold miners signals that there is more upside for relative share prices (top panel, Chart 12). But the good news does not stop there. Globally there is a slowdown that has infected a number of economies and BCA’s calculated Global ZEW economic sentiment index has lit a fire under gold mining stocks (Global ZEW shown inverted, second panel, Chart 13). The longer the global soft-patch lasts the longer Central Banks will remain on the sidelines or even ease monetary policy in order to rekindle growth. This macro backdrop represents fertile ground for gold and gold related equities (bottom panel, Chart 14). Chart 13Rising Uncertainty, Global Growth Softpatch And… Chart 14…Falling Real Rates Are Excellent Gold Mining Supports Keep in mind that gold bullion yields zero and the gold mining equities’ dividend yield trails the broad market by 100bps; thus, there is an opportunity cost to holding gold and gold related equities, especially now that even U.S. cash yields 2.5%. This explains the inverse correlation with real interest rates and the recent 30bps fall in the U.S. 10-year TIPS yield reinforces gold bullion and the relative share price ratio (TIPS yield shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 14). Moreover, the global policy uncertainty index is perking up given the ongoing U.S./China trade tussle (top panel, Chart 13), recent news of a no deal between the U.S. and North Korea and looming Brexit deadline. All of this underpins global gold stocks (top panel, Chart 13). Tack on the recent fear that gripped markets, and skyrocketing equity risk premia, and the ingredients are in place for additional gains in the relative share price ratio (third panel, Chart 13). While some semblance of normality has returned to global bourses year-to-date, fixed income investors do not share the euphoria their equity peers are emitting. Such a dichotomy favors global gold mining stocks. Finally, with regard to relative valuations and technicals, global gold equities remain in undervalued territory, but have recently recovered smartly from deeply oversold conditions (Chart 15). Chart 15Valuations Ready To Shine In sum, gold bullion is sniffing out a reflationary impulse that is bullish for global gold mining equities. The global economic soft patch that is exerting downward pressure on real interest rates, a soft U.S. dollar and rising global policy uncertainty, all signal that it still makes sense to hold a global gold mining equity portfolio hedge. Bottom Line: Stay overweight the global gold miners index (long GDX:US/short ACWI:US), and remove the downgrade alert.   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Trader’s Paradise” dated January 28, 2019,available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      https://us.spindices.com/documents/methodologies/methodology-sp-risk-parity-indices.pdf?force_download=true 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Icarus Moment” dated October 22, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Catharsis” dated January 14, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 5      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Report, “Reflationary Or Recessionary” dated February 25, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps