アメリカ合衆国

Export growth is an important indicator that closely tracks the ebbs and flows of global trade. When the trade-weighted U.S. dollar appreciates it dampens trade, the opposite is also true. Currently the Fed’s trade-weighted greenback based on goods has vaulted to cyclical highs, warning that the path of least resistance is lower for trade, thus a net negative for relative export and profit prospects (second & third panels) Similarly, EM capital outflows exacerbate the ongoing global growth blues and put additional strain on EM economies as depreciating currencies sap consumer purchasing power (top panel). The implication is that EM final demand is in retreat. Our macro-based cyclicals/defensives EPS growth models do an excellent job in capturing all these moving parts and signal that defensives have the upper hand in the coming quarters (bottom panel). Bottom Line: Stay on the sidelines in the S&P cyclicals/S&P defensives ratio, but put it on downgrade alert. Please see this Tuesday’s Weekly Report for additional details.

There are high odds that capex has now hit a wall and the virtuous EPS-to-capex cycle will reverse to a vicious down cycle. EPS are now contracting spelling trouble for deep cyclical high-operating leverage sectors. One of the key capex drivers is China and the emerging markets (EM). News on both fronts is grim. Our real-time indicator that gauges China’s reflation efforts (monetary and fiscal) turning into actual economic activity is Chinese excavator sales that is still in the doldrums (top panel). Granted, global growth remains elusive as we highlighted last week and while softening Chinese economic activity is weighing on global growth, European and Japanese GDP growth is also decelerating with a number of economies already in the contraction zone (bottom panel). Melting global bond yields reflect these growth fears and warn that the relative share price ratio has more downside (middle panel). Please see the next Insight for the remaining capex drivers.

As the summer holidays become a memory, central banks globally are mobilizing to fight mounting recession risks. More than 30 at last count are busily easing financial conditions to boost growth (Chart of the Week). Going into 4Q19, this monetary stimulus – coupled with fiscal stimulus globally – should allow growth ex-U.S. to revive, which will weaken the USD. This will be bullish for commodity demand in general, oil in particular. Fundamentally, the supply side of the oil market is in good shape. Production discipline by OPEC 2.0 will be maintained, while members of the coalition iterate on the level of output required to keep the rate of growth on the supply side below that of consumption.1 Capital discipline is being forced on U.S. shale-oil operators by markets. This will restrain their output growth rates to levels markets can absorb without inducing unintended inventory accumulation. A ceasefire in the Sino-U.S. trade war also could brighten short-term demand prospects and revive global trade volumes. This would indicate a recovery in manufacturing, given the heavy weight of manufactured goods in trade flows, and also in the the low-sulfur marine fuel markets. Going into 4Q19 and 1Q20, these supply-demand fundamentals will tighten markets, and force crude oil and refined product inventories lower. This will push Brent crude oil prices to our forecast levels of $66 and $75/bbl on average this year and next, with WTI trading $6.50 and $4/bbl under that. In addition, it would further backwardate crude oil forward curves. Chart of the WeekFinancial Conditions Continue Easing Among the risks to this view: Too-weak monetary/fiscal stimulus, leading to a failure to revive demand and stave off recession; a breakdown in OPEC 2.0’s production discipline; an expansion of the Sino-U.S. trade war; a disorderly Brexit; and, critically, a stubbornly strong USD, which raises the risk of direct intervention in FX markets by the U.S. central bank. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Saudi Aramco’s board of directors apparently has ruled out a listing of its IPO in New York, owing to legal risk in the U.S., according to Reuters news service.2 Riyadh and London reportedly are favored by board members. The Kingdom’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly has the final say. Base Metals: Neutral. The nickel rally likely corrects over the short term, after a vertical shot that lifted the metal ~56.2% between early June and this week. This was partly fueled by speculation over commentary from an Indonesian official in July reinforcing the country’s stated goal of banning raw ore exports by 2022. Indonesia is the largest nickel ore producer in the world.3 Precious Metals: Neutral. Our tactical long platinum position is up 3.9% since it was recommended last week. We continue to expect platinum will draft in gold’s wake, benefiting from safe-haven demand for precious metals generally. Fundamentally, the risk of power outages in South Africa, which produces ~67% of the world’s platinum, remains high this month, putting platinum-group metal production at risk there. Technically, the metal held long-term support at $785/oz this year – a level that goes back to the Global Financial Crisis lows – and has since rallied ~ 18%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Chinese tariffs on U.S. soybean imports went up 5% to a total of 30% September 1, coinciding with the imposition of additional tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese imports. Feature USD strength remains a headwind to stronger EM growth, which is keeping oil demand growth in check (Chart 2).4 Indeed, in local-currency terms, oil prices remain closer to their 2014 highs, when Brent and WTI were trading above $100/bbl (Chart 3). The persistently strong USD is one reason we lowered our oil-demand forecast four times this year, which puts it at 1.2mm b/d for 2019. Chart 2USD Strength Hinders Oil Demand Growth Chart 3USD Strength Keeps Local-Currency Costs High The slowdown in global oil demand began in 2H18 and picked up speed in 1H19. We believe this largely was the result of a global tightening in financial conditions – apparent in the Chart of the Week – led by the Fed, which, with near-singular determination, raised its policy rate four times last year. Fed policy kept USD-denominated assets well bid, but, equally importantly, it raised the costs of commodities and all goods and services invoiced in USD globally in local-currency terms. This reduced aggregate demand ex-U.S. as households’ and firms’ discretionary incomes fell.5 Commodity demand also was derailed by the extended de-leveraging campaign by Chinese policymakers, which ran from 2017-18 and succeeded in its goal of bringing down the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio and the growth rate of leverage. Central Banks Scramble To Revive Growth The Treasury may be forced to up the ante and directly intervene in FX markets to weaken the dollar. To reverse the tightening of monetary conditions worldwide, central banks this year started moving to more accommodative monetary-policy settings, which we expect will continue to support looser financial conditions around the globe. In addition, fiscal stimulus either is being deployed or readied in key EM economies like China and India, which, together, account for 36% of the 53.5mm b/d of EM oil consumption we estimate for 2019. These policy responses should revive GDP growth – particularly in EM economies – and, all else equal, oil demand in the process going into 4Q19. The performance of our leading indicators support this expectation (Chart 4). That said, with so many systematically important central banks weakening their currencies, the USD could remain strong in relative terms.6 If the dollar remains a safe-haven asset in uncertain markets, while serving as the world’s reserve/invoicing/funding currency, weakening the USD during a period of high financial stress could be difficult. In that case, the Treasury may be forced to up the ante and directly intervene in FX markets to weaken the dollar. Chart 4Global LEIs Bottomed And Are Moving Up   Managing Financial Conditions In A Trade War We do not expect the Sino-U.S. trade war to be resolved. National security, foreign policy and technology positions that have been advanced by both sides appear impossible to walk back (e.g., protecting 5G networks from spying, and safeguarding intellectual property). This suggests the Sino-U.S. relationship is in the early stages of a Cold War, which could go hot in the short run.7 Still, a short-term agreement or ceasefire this year or next is still possible. The basis for such a shift would be President Trump staging a retreat to try to clinch a deal and improve the economy prior to his re-election campaign. China might accept a temporary reprieve. This would allow both sides to retreat to re-group for the almost-certain renewed trade tension that will mark the Sino-U.S. relationship going forward. Over the short run, a ceasefire could brighten demand prospects and revive global trade volumes. This would be supportive of crude oil and refined-products markets, particularly the low-sulfur marine fuel market, which, on January 1, will be bound by IMO 2020 standards.8 In the medium to longer-run, however, neither the U.S. nor China will cede ground if it strengthens the hand of the other, particularly regarding national security and technology, which will continue to be the key concern for all national security issues. This complicates fiscal and monetary policy for both sides going forward, along with trade relationships for each. We do not believe either side has these issues sorted, and likely will need time and space to develop policies for the medium- and longer-term. It also means each side’s respective allies will have to make hard choices in deciding whose camp they will migrate toward. These considerations cloud the outlook for the medium- to long-term oil markets. We will be exploring them in greater depth in forthcoming Commodity & Energy Strategy reports. Investment Implications We remain broadly long in our exposure to oil markets, expecting the fundamentals outlined above to tighten supply, strengthen demand and draw down inventories. Given this view, we remain long WTI flat price, and long 4Q19 Brent futures vs. short 4Q20 Brent futures, expecting a steeper backwardation. We also remain long the S&P GSCI commodity index, given its relatively heavy exposure to energy markets. Bottom Line: Supply-demand fundamentals, coupled with a favorable fiscal and monetary backdrop, indicate oil prices will move higher from current levels toward our forecasts of $75/bbl and $71/bbl next year for Brent and WTI, respectively. This view is not without risk – chiefly around the Sino-U.S. trade war, and the risk that an expansion of tensions would stunt global demand for oil significantly. We continue to follow this closely.   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. It was formed in 2016 to manage production and reduce oil inventory levels globally. For a complete summary of our supply-demand expectations for this year and next, please see the August 22, 2019 Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "USD Strength Slows Oil Demand Growth; 2020 Brent Forecast Remains At $75/bbl". 2      Please see Exclusive: Saudi Aramco board sees too many risks for New York IPO - sources, published by reuters.com August 30, 2019. 3      Please see Nickel price forecast revised up as speculative rally boosts tight market — report, published by mining.com August 29, 2019. 4      We have shown in previous research EM income growth accounts for most of the growth in oil demand globally. This year, for example, we expect EM demand growth to account for 87% of 2019’s 1.2mm b/d growth in oil consumption. Next year, EM is expected to account for 79% of the 1.5mm b/d of growth we expect. For this reason, oil prices – and base metals prices – are a good barometer of the of EM income growth. 5      Maurice Obstfeld noted at the Fed’s June 2019 Conference on Monetary Policy Strategy, Tools, and Communication Practices (A Fed Listens Event) that the USD is not only the world’s reserve currency, it also is the dominant invoicing and funding currency. “… the dollar’s invoice-currency role affects the international price mechanism by influencing how U.S. monetary policy will move real exchange rates, inflation, and export competitiveness throughout the world. … (The) dollar’s funding currency role mediates the transmission of U.S. monetary policy to global financing conditions. “Through both mechanisms, U.S. monetary policy has an outsized impact on global economic activity – consistent with the evidence on unconventional policy spillovers. … The Federal Reserve, more than other central banks, should therefore consider spillbacks from the global economy as a relevant transmission mechanism for its policies.” Prof. Obstfeld’s paper can be downloaded at the Fed website, Global Dimensions of U.S. Monetary Policy. 6      In the August 26, 2019, issue of BCA Research’s U.S. Investment Strategy, our colleague Doug Peta, chief U.S. investment strategist, notes, “No central bank wants a stronger currency while confronting a demand deficiency aggravated by trade tensions and a global manufacturing slowdown. The New York Times Business section put the prevailing policy winds into living color in a nearly full-page, four-column graphic spotlighting the 32 central banks that have cut their policy rate so far this year.” For further discussion, please see Market Messages, published August 26, 2019, by BCA Research’s U.S. Investment Strategy. It is available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 7      Our geopolitical strategists make the odds of a trade agreement 40%, perhaps a bit higher. Please see Big Trouble In Greater China, published August 23, 2019, by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy, for an excellent discussion of the fraught Sino-U.S. relationship. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8      We expect global shipping-fuels market to tighten as UN-mandated fuel standards kick in next year. This will keep ship fuels, specifically Gasoil and ULSFO, and other distillate prices – e.g., diesel and jet fuel – elevated relative to other refined products like gasoline. This will boost demand for lighter, sweeter crudes – particularly Brent and similar grades – that allow refiners to raise distillate yields, as they scramble to meet higher demand for low-sulfur ship-fuel next year. For more information on IMO 2020, please see IMO 2020: The Greening Of The Ship-Fuel Market, published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy February 28, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades

The SPX moved laterally last week, and remains below the critical 50-day moving average. Recession worries intensified on the back of the first sustained 10/2 yield curve slope inversion. Coupled with the trade war re-escalation, they remain the dominant macro themes (top panel). Clearly, the trade war is a boon to the U.S. dollar and it further sabotages exports (greenback shown inverted, middle panel). Yesterday, adding insult to injury, the economically hyper-sensitive U.S. manufacturing sector convulsed and the ISM manufacturing survey broke below the boom/bust line for the first time since the late-2015/early-2016 manufacturing recession. These exporters are in retrenchment and if CEOs continue to prune capex plans, more pain lies ahead (for additional details on the capex outlook, please see yesterday’s Weekly Report). Bottom Line: We reiterate our cautious overall equity market stance on a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon.  ​​​​​​​ ​​​​​​​

特別レポート

Feature BCA Research (aka The Bank Credit Analyst) published its first report in 1949, a remarkable 70 years ago. This probably makes us the longest-running independent investment research firm in the world. As we age, it is normal to occasionally reflect on how the world has changed over the course of our lives. It is an interesting exercise in the case of BCA. We need to start with a little history. The Bank Credit Analyst began life as a small-circulation newsletter produced by Hamilton Bolton, a Montreal-based money manager. He had been sending out investment commentary to his clients for some time and was encouraged to start catering to a wider audience. Bolton was a visionary because he was one of the few market analysts at that time to understand the importance of money and credit in driving economic and market cycles. In those days, banks were the dominant financial intermediary, so an analysis of flows through the banking system provided accurate and leading signals about economic and market trends. That is why he named his new service “The Bank Credit Analyst”. Bolton developed a series of monetary-based indicators that allowed him to make some great market calls. He passed away in 1967, but his valuable contribution to financial research was acknowledged in 1987 when the CFA Institute posthumously awarded him the prestigious “Outstanding Contribution to Investment Research Award”.1 Hamilton Bolton was a product of his times in that his worldview was influenced heavily by having lived through the Great Depression. Like many of his generation, he had a strong aversion to excessive debt growth, and was highly sensitive to any buildup of financial imbalances that could tip the economy back into a severe downturn. In fact, widespread fears of renewed depression did not really fade until the late 1950s. That psychology helps explain why policymakers were complicit in allowing inflation to take hold in the 1960s because there is a common tendency to fight the last war. As long as depression/deflation is seen as the primary threat, then there will be complacency about inflation risks. Does This Sound Familiar? Let’s look at some of the conditions that existed in 1949, when The Bank Credit Analyst started publication. The U.S. long-term Treasury yield had been capped at 2.5% since April 1942. At the request of the Treasury Department, the Fed had given up control of the money supply by buying whatever bonds were needed to keep yields below 2.5%, in order to support the financing of war-inflated budget deficits. The level of federal debt was down from its wartime peak of 106% of GDP, but was still at a historically high 77.5%. The European and Japanese economies were in a complete mess, having been devastated during the war. As already noted, fears of renewed deflation and depression were prevalent. Inflation was tame with the U.S. personal consumption deflator declining by 0.8% in 1949 and rising by only 1.2% in 1950. There was considerable geopolitical upheaval. Most notably, the Cold War intensified as Russia extended its control over East Europe and other countries. Mao Zedong founded the People’s Republic of China in October 1949 after his communist forces defeated the Kuomintang led by Chiang Kai-shek. There were serious border clashes between North and South Korea in August 1949, a prelude to the North’s invasion in June 1950. It does not require a huge stretch of the imagination to see some parallels with the current environment. We currently are having (or have had): Massive central bank purchases of government debt (i.e. quantitative easing) and the explicit pegging of bond yields by the Bank of Japan. A huge increase in government debt levels, albeit not because of war-related spending. In a remarkable coincidence, U.S. federal debt reached 77.8% of GDP in fiscal 2018, almost exactly the same level as in 1949. The European and Japanese economies are moribund. However, unlike in 1949, this reflects structural forces, not war-related devastation. There are widespread fears about the long-run economic growth outlook, well captured by the secular stagnation thesis, promoted by Larry Summers. Central bankers are concerned that inflation is too low. Geopolitical concerns abound. These include U.S.-China tensions, Brexit, Korea (again), rising populism and Russia’s more aggressive stance on the world stage. In the end, the fears of 70 years ago that the world might slip back into depression proved unfounded. The 1950s and 1960s, for the most part, turned out to be golden decades for consumers, businesses and equity investors. Unfortunately, this does not mean that we can look forward to a repeat experience in the decades ahead, because we must now turn to the major differences between the present and the past. The Past Worked Out Just Fine The conditions for an economic boom in the 1950s and 1960s could hardly have been better. The U.S. armed forces employed more than 12 million men and women at the end of WWII, 7.6 million of whom were stationed overseas. After the war, these people were desperate to get back to a normal life, with civilian jobs, marriage and children. The inevitable result was a population boom and a surge in growth as pent-up demand for housing and consumer goods was unleashed. It was all aided by the 1944 G.I. Bill that provided low-cost mortgages and many other benefits. The improvement in economic growth boosted government tax receipts and, coupled with a drop in defense spending, this kept fiscal finances in check. During the 1950s and 1960s, the federal deficit averaged less than 1% of GDP and debt had fallen to less than 30% of GDP by 1969. This occurred despite a surge in federal infrastructure spending, helped by the Federal Highway Act of 1956 that authorized the construction of an interstate highway system. Meanwhile, the economy did not appear to be impeded by tax rates that were far above current levels. The reconstruction of the European economies was a monumental task that was beyond the financing capabilities of those shattered countries. However, between 1948 and 1951, the U.S. European Recovery Program (The Marshall Plan) transferred $100 billion in 2018 dollars to aid the recovery effort and this helped Europe get back on its feet. There also was a huge amount of U.S. aid to support the rebuilding of Japan. Economic growth in Japan averaged almost 9% a year in the 1950s and more than 10% in the 1960s. In Germany, the comparable figures were 7.7% and 4.2%. The growth of the world economy also was boosted by steady reductions in tariffs during the 1950s and 60s. The most notable was the Kennedy Round of 1964-67 that achieved a 38% weighted average drop in tariffs. Protectionism was in strong retreat in the decades after WWII. Finally, a word on the markets. At the end of 1949, the S&P 500 was trading at seven times trailing earnings while the dividend yield was at 6¾%. The market’s earnings yield of 14% compared to a 2.2% yield on 30-year Treasuries. In other words, stocks were incredibly cheap. Moreover, when the 1951 Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord ended the bond peg, yields inevitably rose steadily over the subsequent years, making bonds a poor investment. In the 1950s, U.S. equities delivered real compound returns of 16.6% a year compared to -3.3% for 30-year bonds. In the 1960s, the annualized real returns were a still-respectable 5.3% for stocks and -1.4% for bonds. In sum, the two decades after the launch of the BCA were a very favorable time and it was largely due to a very depressed starting point. However, the current environment is very different to that of 70 years ago. It’s a Different Picture Now Perhaps the most important difference with the past is the demographic outlook. In contrast to the post-WWII baby boom, the U.S. and most other developed economies face bleak population dynamics. Almost all developed economies – and many emerging ones – have seen the birth rate drop below replacement levels with the result that population growth has slowed dramatically. In many cases, populations are in actual decline – especially in the important working-age segment. That deprives economic growth of its main driver. The annual potential growth of U.S. real GDP averaged 4% in the 1950s and 4.3% in the 1960s. Potential growth in the next decade will average only 1.8% a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). And it will be even lower in Europe and Japan. As far as pent-up demand is concerned, the picture also is very different. While the consumer industry works hard to develop new must-have goods and services, the reality is that demand is satiated for a lot of products. For example, in 2017, there were 259 million registered private and commercial autos and trucks in the U.S. compared to only 225 million licensed drivers. In 1950, the number of licensed drivers (62 million) far exceeded the number of registered vehicles (48 million). And it is hard to believe that the ownership penetration of most consumer durables has much upside. Turning to government finances, the current environment of bloated deficits and debt significantly constrains the room for fiscal stimulus. Yes, there is constant talk of the need for more infrastructure spending, but this has proven very difficult to implement without offsetting cuts in other spending or measures to boost revenues. The U.S. is saddled with unprecedented peacetime fiscal deficits and the CBO projects that federal debt will approach 100% of GDP within ten years, even without factoring in another recession. The comparison between the free trade era of the 1950s and 60s and the current situation speaks for itself. It is unclear at this stage just how far the move toward protectionism will go, but one thing seems clear. The rush toward globalization that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union and the entry of China into the global trading system is in retreat. This shows up not only in rising tariffs, but also in declining cross-border direct investment flows and increased antipathy to large-scale international migration. The irony is that the developed world needs more immigration to offset the weak growth in resident populations. What about the markets? The stock market certainly is not cheap, the way it was 70 years ago, with the S&P 500 trading at more than 18 times trailing operating earnings. Low interest rates are providing support, but future returns are likely to be in low single figures in a world where economic growth is moderate and there is little scope for profit margins and/or multiples to expand. Prospects for bonds do look somewhat similar to the situation in the early 1950s. Then, there was only one way for yields to go once the Fed’s peg ended. Today, yields will only fall sustainably if the economy sinks into a protracted downturn. We will get another recession in the next few years and yields could certainly hit new lows at that point. But the resulting policy response – both fiscal and monetary – seems almost certain to lead to higher inflation down the road. That would not bode well for the bond outlook, as was the case between the second half of the 1960s and the early 1980s. Concluding Thoughts Hamilton Bolton was fortunate to launch his new investment service ahead of a powerful economic revival and an almost two-decade bull market in stocks. He did not live long enough to witness the inflation upturn and volatile economic environment of the 1970s and 1980s, but BCA’s monetary focus allowed it to prosper during that period. Under the leadership of Tony Boeckh, the company’s then owner and Editor-in-Chief, BCA was strident in warning investors about the buildup of inflationary pressures and the dangers this posed for markets. During this time, BCA also developed the concept of the Debt Supercycle which helped investors understand the complex forces driving policy and the economic/market cycles. If Bolton was alive today, he would be horrified at the state of the world. He would not be able to understand how investors could be so complacent in the face of record government deficits and debt and by what he would regard as the reckless behavior of central banks. At the same time, he would be able to identify with the renewed focus on weak growth and deflation risks. The bottom line is that he would be advising investors to be extremely cautious. Investors currently are semi-obsessed with the timing of the next recession as that would be the signal to significantly downgrade risk assets. The official BCA stance is that a recession is not imminent and this creates a window for stocks to outperform. This matters for those investors who need to be concerned with relative performance. It is painful to sit on the sidelines if markets keep rising and you underperform your peers. However, for those more concerned with absolute performance, and that was true of most investors in Bolton’s time, the upside potential currently seems unattractive relative to the downside risks. Unfortunately, economists have a poor track record of forecasting recessions and bear markets thus often come as a complete surprise. Yes, low interest rates provide a floor under stocks, with the dividend yield comfortably above the 10-year Treasury yield. But rates are low for a reason: the economy and thus corporate earnings face major downside risks. Against this background, I would tend to side with what I imagine Bolton would say: this is a time to focus on capital preservation rather than taking risks to maximize returns. Let me try to end on a more positive note. As noted earlier, the long-term outlook turned out much better than Bolton probably anticipated 70 years ago. What could make that true this time around? Some things cannot be changed, at least over the next decade: adverse demographic trends, high ownership of consumer goods, and high levels of government debt. Geopolitical developments could go either way – for the better or worse – so I will make no predictions there. The one savior would be a marked revival in productivity because, ultimately, that is the only real source of rising living standards. Technology is changing rapidly and there are lots of exciting innovations. But to make a significant and lasting difference it will require more than developments such as autonomous vehicles or 3-D printing. We will need a new General Purpose Technology (GPT) that has a profound impact on the way economies and societies are structured. Previous examples include the steam engine, electricity and of course the internet. Perhaps Artificial Intelligence will do the trick, but that does not seem likely to be a near-term cure. Chart 1Then (1949) And Now (2019) In closing, we can be sure of one thing. The world changed in ways Hamilton Bolton could not have conceived and that also will be true for us today. BCA will endeavor to evolve with the times as it has done over the past 70 years and we look forward to keep helping our clients prosper in a complex and ever-changing world. 1949 – A Very Momentous Year Hamilton Bolton launches The Bank Credit Analyst The Peoples Republic of China, the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) are founded Indonesia gains independence from the Netherlands The civil war in Greece ends NATO is established The Geneva Convention is agreed The Soviet Union detonates its first atomic bomb Apartheid becomes official policy in South Africa Alfred Jones creates the first hedge fund The first non-stop circumnavigation of the world by an aircraft occurs The first commercial jet airliner, the De Havilland Comet, has its maiden flight EDSAC – the first practicable stored-program computer runs its first program at Cambridge University Products introduced that year included Lego, the 45 rpm record, the first Porsche car and the Xerox photocopier. George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 is published People born include Ivana Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, Benjamin Netanyahu, Meryl Streep and Bruce Springsteen 2019 – Not So Much Chaotic politics in the U.K., Italy and many other countries Trade wars   Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Previously known as the Nicholas Molodovsky Award