インフレーション/デフレーション

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  

特別レポート

Feature Feature ChartNo 'Secular Stagnation' In Japan! Bond yields have plummeted to all-time lows and inflation has continued to undershoot the 2 percent target which central bankers tell us is ‘price stability’. This configuration has led to renewed fears that the European and global economies are entering a so-called ‘secular stagnation’. We strongly disagree with this line of thinking. Near-zero bond yields and inflation are categorically not portents of a long-term drought in economic progress. Quite the opposite. Chart I-2Japan Has Experienced Near-Zero Inflation For Decades Japan has experienced near-zero bond yields and inflation for decades (Chart I-2). Yet since the late 1990s, the growth in Japan’s real GDP per head has outperformed every other major economy1 (Feature Chart). Granted, the Japanese government has been running persistent deficits, but this is to counterbalance private sector de-levering. Total indebtedness as a share of GDP has not been rising. In the post credit boom era, Japan’s economic progress has come entirely from productivity improvements. The ability to learn, experiment, and innovate boosts the quality and/or quantity of output from a fixed set of inputs. Unlike the unsustainable growth that is fuelled by credit booms and asset bubbles, real growth that comes from productivity improvements marks genuine and sustainable economic progress. In Europe, Switzerland tells a similar tale. Swiss bond yields and inflation have been near zero for decades, but they have not defined a secular stagnation. Real GDP per head and living standards have steadily advanced, even from an already high base. In the post credit boom era, Japan’s economic progress has come entirely from productivity improvements.  But the best counterexample comes from economic history. At the height of the British Empire in 1914, British consumer prices were little different to where they stood at the end of the English Civil War in 1651 – meaning that Britain experienced near-zero inflation and low bond yields for almost three centuries (Chart I-3). Did these define a secular stagnation? No, quite the opposite. For Britain, this was a golden epoch in which it emerged as the world’s preeminent economy. Chart I-3Britain Experienced Near-Zero Inflation For Centuries The Real Reason For Near-Zero Inflation And Bond Yields The fear-mongering about a secular stagnation misses the real reason for today’s sub-2 percent inflation and record low bond yields. Central banks have wrongly defined price stability. Central banks have wrongly defined price stability because they think of it in terms of the economics and mathematics in which they have expertise. Their models tell them that they can nail inflation to one decimal place – two point zero. But price stability has as much to do with biology and psychology. Biologists will tell you that the human brain cannot distinguish inflation rates between -1 and 2 percent, a range we indistinguishably perceive as ‘price stability’. If biology teaches us that we cannot distinguish between -1 and 2 percent inflation, then central banks have a huge problem. It is impossible for a central bank to change our inflation expectations within that range, because the entire range just feels the same to us. Therefore, our behaviour in terms of wage demands and willingness to borrow will also stay unchanged. And if our economic behaviour is unchanged, what is the transmission mechanism to fine tune inflation within the -1 to 2 percent range? Central banks have wrongly defined price stability.  Therefore, price stability is actually like a ‘quantum state’. You’re in the state or you’re out of the state, but once you’re in the state you cannot then fine tune inflation to an arbitrary number like two point zero. In fact, average inflation over, say, five years will gravitate to the mid-point of the price stability state, 0.5 percent, which is a long way below the central bank’s arbitrary target of 2 percent (Chart I-4). This forces the central bank into drastic and prolonged monetary policy easing – which depresses bond yields (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Central Banks Have Wrongly Defined Price Stability... Chart I-5...Forcing Them To Depress Bond Yields Monetary Policies Will Ultimately Converge As structural credit booms have sequentially ended, economies have one by one entered the state of price stability. First it was Japan; then it was Switzerland; more recently it has been the euro area and the United States. It follows that the 5-year annualised inflation rates have also sequentially tumbled to the mid-point of the price stability state, around 0.5 percent. By which point, inflation is so far below the misplaced 2 percent target, that the central bank’s drastic and prolonged monetary policy easing has depressed the 5-year bond yield to near zero. Japan reached this point in the late 1990s, Switzerland in the early 2010s, and the euro area in the late 2010s. Begging the question: why has the 5-year inflation rate in the U.S. not tumbled towards 0.5 percent too?  The answer is that actually, it has. On a like-for-like basis, 5-year inflation rates are way below the 2 percent target in all the major jurisdictions. You see, the Americans measure inflation differently to the Europeans. In the U.S., the consumer price basket includes owner-occupied housing costs at a substantial weighting, while in Europe it is completely excluded. Using the same definition of inflation as in Europe, the U.S. 5-year inflation rate is not at 1.5 percent, it is at a feeble 0.6 percent (Chart I-6). Chart I-6On a Like-For-Like Basis, U.S. 5-Year Inflation Is A Feeble 0.6 Percent Crucially, on a like-for-like basis, 5-year inflation rates are way below the 2 percent target in all the major jurisdictions: the U.S., euro area, and Japan. This leads us to believe that the current chasm in monetary policies is unsustainable. Even including owner-occupied housing in the consumer price basket, as the U.S. does, the long run boost to annual inflation is only about 0.2 percent (Chart I-7). Meaning that it is only a matter of time before U.S. structural inflation and bond yields converge with those in the euro area. Chart I-7Owner-Occupied Housing Boosts Inflation, But In The Long Run By Only 0.2 Percent In the meantime, the chasm between monetary policies has become a major geopolitical risk. This is because it has depressed the euro versus the dollar by at least 10 percent – based on the ECB’s own competitiveness indicators. The exchange rate distortion stemming from polarised monetary policies is the culprit for the euro area’s huge trade surplus with the United States (Chart I-8). On this point, President Trump is spot on to complain that the Fed’s policy stance relative to other central banks is severely handicapping U.S. manufacturers. As the president tries to counter this handicap with tariffs, real or threatened, the Fed is being forced to lean against the risks to growth and inflation. Chart I-8Blame Polarised Monetary Policies For The Euro Area’s Huge Trade Surplus With The U.S. What Does All Of This Mean? One way or another, the dollar will come under structural pressure in the coming years as the current chasm in monetary policies proves to be unjustified. However, in the near term, we prefer to express this not via the euro, but via the yen. The corollary is that U.S bond yields will eventually converge with their European counterparts. But to reiterate, a world with near-zero inflation is categorically not a portent of secular stagnation. It is just the true state of price stability as the human brain perceives it, rather than the over-precise two point zero that central banks have arbitrarily picked. In turn, ultra-low bond yields stem from the monetary policy response to this massive undershoot of true price stability from central bank defined price stability.   All of this raises a fascinating question: if bond yields are lower than is truly required, why hasn’t it created a new inflation? The answer is that it has, but the new inflation is not in the real economy. The reason is that the world has just been through a structural credit boom, remains heavily indebted, and is still unwinding some of the credit excesses. In this world, as Japan has illustrated in recent decades, productivity growth must drive economic progress. Instead, the new inflation is in equity and other risk-asset prices. At ultra-low bond yields the prospect of bond capital gains diminishes versus potential losses, making bonds as risky as equities. This removes the need for an excess return on equities and other risk-assets versus bonds, meaning that the valuation of risk-assets inflates exponentially (Chart I-9). So long as bond yields remain depressed, this new inflation in risk-asset valuations is well justified and supported.2  But be very careful if the global 10-year bond yield rises above 2 percent.3   Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Based on real GDP per working age (15-64) population, but also broadly true for real GDP per total population. 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Risk: The Great Misunderstanding Of Finance”, October 25 2018, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3 The global 10-year bond yield is the simple average of 10-year government bond yields in the U.S., euro area (or France as a proxy), and China.

Highlights Duration: Global manufacturing growth will rebound near the end of this year. Much like in 2016, this will result in higher global bond yields on a 12-month horizon. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for now, but be prepared to shift to below-benchmark when our global growth indicators show signs of improvement. Country Allocation: Countries with yield curves furthest away from the effective lower bound also have the most cyclical bond markets. At present, this means that U.S. and Canadian bond markets will perform best if global growth continues to weaken. They will also perform worst in the event of an economic turnaround. Japanese bonds will perform best in a bond bear market, with German debt a close second. Relative Value In Global Government Debt: Changes in the level and shape of global yield curves have altered the relative value opportunities in the global government bond space. We find that the most positive carry (including both yield income and rolldown) in global government bond markets is earned in 30-year German, Japanese and Australian bonds, and in 10-year U.K. and Japanese bonds. Feature Reflexivity Chart 1A Brief Inversion The decline in global bond yields has been unrelenting, and it took on a life of its own last week when the U.S. 2-year/10-year slope briefly inverted (Chart 1). After the inversion, the 30-year U.S. Treasury yield broke below 2% and the 10-year yield broke below 1.50%. The average yield on the 7-10 year Global Treasury Index closed at 0.49% last Thursday, just above its all-time low of 0.48% (Chart 1, bottom panel). There’s an interesting self-fulfilling prophesy that can take hold when the yield curve inverts. Investors interpret the inversion as a signal of weaker economic growth ahead. They then bid up long-dated bond prices causing the curve to invert even more. This sort of circular reasoning can cause bond yields to disconnect from the trends in global economic data, often severely. While recession fears have benefited government bonds, risky assets – equities and corporate bonds – have experienced relatively minor pain. The S&P 500’s recent sell-off pales in comparison to the one seen late last year (Chart 2). Meanwhile, corporate bond spreads remain well below early-2019 peaks. Risky assets have clearly benefited from the drop in bond yields, as markets price-in a future where central banks ease monetary policy in response to weaker economic growth, and where that easing is sufficient to keep equities and credit well supported. Chart 2Low Yields Support Risk Assets I Chart 3Low Yields Support Risk Assets II Further evidence of this dynamic is presented in Chart 3. The chart shows the sensitivity of daily changes in the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield to changes in the S&P 500 for each year since 2010. The sample is split into days when the S&P 500 rose and when it fell. For example, in 2010 the sensitivity on “up days” was 2.6, meaning that on days when the S&P 500 rose, the 10-year yield rose 2.6 basis points for every 1% increase in the S&P 500. Similarly, the sensitivity in 2010 on “down days” was 3.2. This means that the 10-year yield fell 3.2 bps for every 1% drop in the equity index. The main takeaway from Chart 3 is how dramatically the sensitivities have shifted in 2019. The yield sensitivity on “up days” has fallen sharply – down to 0.8. This means that yields barely rise on days when equities move up. Meanwhile, the sensitivity on “down days” has shot higher, to just under 4. This means that yields fall a lot on days when equities sell off. The perception of easier monetary policy has been the main support for risk assets this year.  The logical interpretation of these trends is that the perception of easier monetary policy has been the main support for risk assets this year. Global Growth Needed At present, we are stuck in an environment where aggressively easy monetary policy and low bond yields are the sole supports for risky assets. In turn, falling bond yields are stoking concerns about the economy, leading to even easier monetary policy. Only one thing can bust us out of this pattern, and that’s a resurgence of global manufacturing growth. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that this is taking place (Chart 4). The Global Manufacturing PMI is now down to 49.3, below the 2016 trough of 49.9 (Chart 4, top panel). U.S. Industrial Production growth remains weak, but is showing signs of stabilization above the 2016 trough (Chart 4, panel 2). European Industrial Production, on the other hand, continues to contract (Chart 4, panel 3). The downtrend in our favorite real-time indicator of global manufacturing – the CRB Raw Industrials index – remains unbroken (Chart 4, bottom panel). However, even though evidence of a turnaround in global manufacturing is scant, we expect a rebound near the end of this year, for the following reasons: Global financial conditions have eased this year, the result of aggressive central bank stimulus. Financial conditions are easier now than they were in 2018, and much easier than they were prior to the 2015/16 global growth slowdown (Chart 5, top panel). China has started to ease credit conditions in response to U.S. tariffs and the slowdown in growth. So far, stimulus has been tepid relative to 2015/16 levels, but it should ramp up in the coming months.1 Many large important segments of the global economy remain unaffected by the global manufacturing slowdown. The U.S. consumer continues to spend: Core retail sales are growing at a robust 5% year-over-year rate, and consumer sentiment remains elevated (Chart 5, panels 2 & 3). Even in the Eurozone, the service sector has not experienced the same pain as manufacturing (Chart 5, bottom panel). Fiscal policy will remain a tailwind for economic growth this year and next. Last week, there were even rumors of increased fiscal thrust from Germany if the growth slowdown persists.2 Strong inflation readings only increased market worries that the Fed might not be as accommodative as necessary.  On the whole, we expect that the above 4 factors will lead to a rebound in global manufacturing growth near the end of this year. Much like in 2016, this will result in higher global bond yields on a 12-month horizon, but the global growth indicators shown in Chart 4 will need to rebound first. Chart 4Global Growth Indicators Chart 5Catalysts For Economic Recovery Inflation Puts Pressure On Powell Chart 6Strong Inflation Could Complicate The Fed's Message Strong U.S. inflation prints during the past two months add an interesting wrinkle to the macro landscape. Core U.S. inflation grew at an annualized rate of 3.55% in July, following an annualized rate of 3.59% in June (Chart 6). However, these strong inflation readings only increased market worries that the Fed might not be as accommodative as necessary. This exacerbated the flattening of the yield curve and sent long-dated TIPS breakeven inflation rates lower. Our sense is that the Fed is chiefly concerned with re-anchoring inflation expectations (Chart 6, bottom panel). This probably means that another rate cut is coming in September, and that Chairman Powell will do his best to sound accommodative in his Jackson Hole address on Friday. However, recent strong inflation data could prompt Powell to sound more hawkish than the market would like, causing yield curves to flatten and risky assets to fall. Bottom Line: Global manufacturing growth will rebound near the end of this year. Much like in 2016, this will result in higher global bond yields on a 12-month horizon. Investors should keep portfolio duration close to benchmark for now, but be prepared to shift to below-benchmark when our global growth indicators show signs of improvement. Country Allocation & The Zero Lower Bound Perhaps the most straightforward way to think about country allocation within a portfolio of developed market government bonds is to classify the different markets as either “high beta” or “low beta”. Chart 7 shows the trailing 3-year sensitivity of major countries’ 7-10 year bond yields relative to the global 7-10 year yield.3 The U.S. and Canada have the highest betas, followed by the U.K. and Australia. Germany has a beta close to one, and Japan’s beta is the lowest. Chart 7Global Yield Beta In other words, if global growth falters and global bond yields decline, U.S. and Canadian bond markets should perform best, followed by the U.K. and Australia. German bonds should perform in line with the global index, and Japanese bonds should underperform the global benchmark. What makes this approach to portfolio allocation even better is that the calculation of trailing betas is not really necessary. A very similar ordering of countries – from “high beta” to “low beta” – is achieved by simply ranking the markets from highest yielding to lowest yielding. High yielding countries, like the U.S. and Canada, have the most room to ease monetary policy in response to a negative growth shock. This means that yields in those countries will respond most to global growth fluctuations. On the other hand, the entire Japanese yield curve is already pinned near the effective lower bound. Even in the event of a negative growth shock, there is little scope for easier Japanese monetary policy, and JGB yields will be relatively unaffected. Chart 8High Beta Countries Are Most Sensitive To Economic Growth It’s interesting to note in Chart 7 that while German yields are actually below JGB yields, bunds remain somewhat less defensive than the Japanese market. This is because the German term structure has only recently moved to the effective lower bound, and investors likely still retain some hope that an improvement in global growth could lead to European policy tightening at some point in the future. This belief is largely absent in Japan, where the term structure has been pinned at the lower bound for many years.   Chart 8 provides some further evidence of the split between “high beta” and “low beta” bond markets. It shows that the bond markets with the highest yields are also the most sensitive to trends in global growth, as proxied by the Global Manufacturing PMI. U.S. bond yields are highly correlated with the Global PMI, while Japanese bond yields are hardly correlated at all. It follows that if the slowdown in global growth continues and all nations’ yield curves converge to Japanese levels, then the overall economic sensitivity of global bond yields will decline. Bottom Line: Countries with yield curves furthest away from the effective lower bound also have the most cyclical bond markets. At present, this means that U.S. and Canadian bond markets will perform best if global growth continues to weaken. They will also perform worst in the event of an economic turnaround. Japanese bonds will perform best in a bond bear market, with German debt a close second. Looking For Positive Carry Yield curves have undergone dramatic shifts in recent months, in terms of both level and shape. Not only have curves for the major government bond markets shifted down since the beginning of the year, they also now exhibit varying degrees of a ‘U’ shape (Charts 9A-9F). With that in mind, in this week’s report we look for the best “positive carry” opportunities in global government bond markets. Yield curves for the major government bond markets have shifted down since the beginning of the year, they also now exhibit varying degrees of a ‘U’ shape. We use the term carry to mean the expected return from a given bond assuming an unchanged yield curve. This is essentially the combination of yield income (i.e. coupon return) and the price impact of rolling down (or up) the yield curve. For the purposes of this report, we assume a 12-month investment horizon and incorporate the impact of currency hedging into each security’s yield income. Rolldown ‘U’ shaped yield curves mean that bonds near the base of the ‘U’ currently suffer from negative rolldown, while the rolldown for long maturities is often highly positive. Table 1 shows that rolldown is currently negative for all 2-year bonds, but especially for U.S. and Canadian debt. The U.S. and Canada have the highest policy rates within developed markets, so it’s not surprising that the front-end of their yield curves are also the most steeply inverted. In other words, their yield curves are pricing-in that they have more room to cut rates than other countries. Table 112-Month Rolldown* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds In general, rolldown is relatively modest for most 5-year and 7-year maturities. The exceptions being German 5-year debt and Aussie 7-year debt, which benefit from 31 bps and 45 bps of positive rolldown, respectively. As mentioned above, rolldown is currently very positive for long maturity debt. In fact, a 10-year U.K. bond offers a whopping 85 bps of rolldown on a 12-month horizon. Yield Income & Overall Carry As mentioned above, rolldown is only one part of a bond’s carry. The other is the yield an investor earns over the course of the investment horizon – the yield income. Because we assume that investors hedge the currency impact of their bond positions, this yield income also depends on the native currency of the investor. Therefore, we show yield income and overall carry below from the perspective of investors in each of the major currency blocs (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, CAD, AUD). USD Investors Being the global high yielder, USD investors benefit the most from currency hedging. That is, USD investors earn a lot of additional income on their currency hedges, making non-U.S. bonds look more attractive. Unsurprisingly, carry is most positive at the long-end of yield curves (Tables 2 & 3). Table 2In USD: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 3In USD: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds EUR Investors The polar opposite of USD investors, EUR-based investors give up a lot of return through currency hedging. This makes the potential for positive carry much less. In any case, the best positive carry opportunities still lie in German, Japanese and Australian 30-year bonds. U.K. and Japanese 10-year bonds are also attractive (Tables 4 & 5). Table 4In EUR: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 5In EUR: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds JPY Investors Yen-based investors currently have more opportunities to earn positive carry than those based in euros. But these opportunities remain confined to long-maturity debt. Once again, the standouts are Japanese, German and Australian 30-year bonds, and also U.K. and Japanese 10-year debt  (Tables 6 & 7). Table 6In JPY: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 7In JPY: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds GBP Investors Currency hedges work more in favor of GBP than EUR or JPY. As a result, GBP-based investors see more opportunities to earn positive carry (Tables 8 & 9). Table 8In GBP: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 9In GBP: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds CAD Investors As with USD-based investors, CAD-based investors also benefit from currency hedging. All securities continue to offer positive carry when hedged into CAD (Tables 10 & 11). Table 10In CAD: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Table 11In CAD: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds AUD Investors AUD-based investors also see positive carry across the entire global bond space, after factoring-in the impact of currency hedging (Tables 12 & 13). Table 12In AUD: 12-Month Yield Income* (%) For A Long Position In Government Bond Table 13In AUD: 12-Month Carry (%) For A Long Position In Government Bonds Bottom Line: Changes in the level and shape of global yield curves have altered the relative value opportunities in the global government bond space. We find that the most positive carry (including both yield income and rolldown) in global government bond markets is earned in 30-year German, Japanese and Australian bonds, and in 10-year U.K. and Japanese bonds.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Trump Interruption”, dated August 13, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-16/germany-ready-to-raise-debt-if-recession-hits-spiegel-reports  3 We calculate betas using average yields from the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury Master index. Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

特別レポート

Highlights So What? Maintain a cautious stance on Turkish currency and risk assets. Why? Following the AKP’s defeat in Istanbul, Erdogan has doubled down on unorthodox economic policies. Improvements in the current account balance are temporary. Unless investor sentiment is meaningfully repaired, the lira will resume its decline in 2020. In the meantime, tensions with the West – especially the U.S. – will remain elevated. The imposition of secondary sanctions from the U.S. is likely. Feature U.S. President Donald Trump is wavering in the trade war, which is ostensibly positive news for global risk assets that are selling off dramatically amid very gloomy expectations about the near future. The question is whether the delay is too little, too late to halt the slide in financial markets in the near term. The reason to be optimistic is that interest rates have fallen and the global monetary policy “put” is fully in effect. Moreover, it is irrefutable now that President Trump is sensitive to the negative financial effects of the trade war. He is delaying new tariffs on some of the remaining $300 billion worth of imports from China not simply because consumer price inflation has ticked up but more fundamentally because the tightening of financial conditions increases the risk of a recession. A president can survive a small increase in inflation but not a big increase in unemployment. The reason to be pessimistic is that global economic expectations are threatening the crisis levels of 2008 (Chart 1) and Trump’s tariff delay offers cold comfort. His administration has not delayed all the tariffs, and the delay lasts only three months. Rather than renew the license for U.S. companies to do business with Chinese telecom giant Huawei, his Commerce Department has deferred any decision – leaving uncertainty to fester in the all-important tech sector. Chart 1Global Economic Expectations Near Crisis Levels Chart 2More China Stimulus Needed To Prevent EM Breakdown Beneath the surface is the fact that China’s money-and-credit growth faltered in July, suggesting that negative sentiment is still suppressing credit demand and preventing policy stimulus from having as big of a bang as in 2015-16. The late-July Politburo meeting signaled a more accommodative turn in policy, as we have expected, and BCA’s China strategist Jing Sima expects more fiscal stimulus to be announced after the October 1 National Day celebration. But high-beta economies and assets will suffer in the meantime – especially emerging market assets (Chart 2). Emerging markets are also seeing geopolitical risks rise across the board – and with the exception of China and Brazil, these risks are underrated by markets: Greater China: Beijing is getting closer to intervening in Hong Kong with police or military force. Such a crackdown will increase the odds of a confrontation with Taiwan and a backlash across the region and world, meaning that East Asian currencies in particular have more room to break down. India: The escalation in Kashmir is not a “red herring.” A single terrorist attack in India blamed on Pakistan could trigger a dangerous military standoff that hurts rather than helps Indian equities, unlike the heavily dramatized standoff ahead of the election earlier this year. Russia: Large-scale protests, overshadowed by Hong Kong, highlight domestic instability amid falling oil prices. These developments bode ill for Russian currency and equities. We will return to these risks in the coming weeks. This week we offer a special report on Turkey, where political risk is becoming extremely underrated as the lira rallies despite a further deterioration in governance (Chart 3). Chart 3Political Risks Are Underrated In Turkey Too Early To Write Off Erdogan “Whoever wins Istanbul, wins Turkey … Whoever loses Istanbul, loses Turkey.” President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has had a tough year. The March 31 local elections – especially the rerun election for mayor of Istanbul – dealt the party its biggest electoral losses since it emerged as the country’s dominant political force in 2002 (Chart 4). The elections came to be seen as a referendum on President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and thus raise the question of whether the party’s strongman leader is in decline – and what that might mean for emerging market investors. Erdogan’s grip on power has long been overrated – it is his vulnerability that has driven him to such extremes of policy over the past decade. The Gezi Park protests of 2013 and the attempted military coup of 2016 revealed significant strains of internal opposition in the aftermath of the Great Recession. With each case of dissent, the AKP responded by stimulating the economy and tightening state control over society (Chart 5). But this strategy faltered last year when monetary policy finally became overextended, the currency collapsed, and the country slid into recession. The opposition finally had its moment. The AKP is less a source of unity. As a consequence, the AKP is less a source of unity among Turkish voters. Both its share of seats in parliament and the overall level of party concentration in the Turkish parliament have declined since 2002 (Chart 6). Were it not for its coalition partner, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), the AKP would not have gained a majority in the 2018 parliamentary election. The AKP’s popular base consists of conservative, rural, and religious voters. This bloc is losing influence in parliament relative to centrist and left-wing parties (Chart 7). Moreover, the share of Turks identifying with political Islam, while still the largest grouping, is declining. Those who identify with more secular Turkish nationalism are on the rise (Chart 8). Does this shift entail a major turn in national policy? Will a new party emerge to challenge the AKP at last? Chart 8Secular Nationalism Is On The Rise There has long been speculation that former AKP leaders such as former Turkish president Abdullah Gul, former prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu, and former deputy prime minister Ali Babacan might form a political alternative. The latter resigned from the AKP on July 8, reviving speculation that a rival party could emerge that is capable of combining disillusioned AKP voters with the broader opposition movement at a time when Erdogan’s vulnerability has been made plain. However, the opposition is likely getting ahead of itself. The ruling party still has many tools at its disposal. Its share of seats in parliament is more than double that of the main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP). It is also viewed favorably in rural areas, and support for Erdogan there will not shift easily. Moreover, despite the negative electoral trend, the AKP has a lot of enthusiasm among its supporters – it is the party with the highest favorability among its own voters (Chart 9). The March election served as a wakeup call for the AKP – a warning not to take its power for granted. Erdogan can still salvage his position. The next election is not due until June 2023, leaving the party with four years to recuperate. While polls for the 2023 parliamentary election paint an ominous sign (Chart 10), they are very early, and the key will be whether Erdogan can divide the opposition and reconnect with his voter base. Above all, this will depend on what changes he makes to economic policy. Chart 10Erdogan Needs To Reconnect With Voter Base Bottom Line: Erdogan’s and the AKP’s popularity is waning, but it is too soon to write them off. The key question is how Erdogan will handle economic policy now that there are chinks in his armor. Doubling Down On Erdoganomics The fluctuation in the lira “is a U.S.-led operation by the West to corner Turkey … The inflation rate will drop as we lower interest rates.” President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Erdogan needs to see the economy back to recovery in order to secure his success in the next election. A survey conducted early this year reveals that Turks view unemployment, the high cost of living, and the depreciation of the lira as the most significant problems facing Turkey, with 27% of respondents indicating that unemployment is the most important problem facing the country (Chart 11). More importantly, Turks do not have much confidence in the government’s ability to manage this pain – only one-third of respondents viewed economic policies as successful, a 14pp decline from the previous year. This highlights the need for Erdogan to revive confidence in Turkey’s policymaking institutions and to deliver on the economic front.     The key is how Erdogan will handle economic policy. However, it is still too early to call for a sustainable improvement in the Turkish economy as many of the same fundamental imbalances continue to pose risks. While the current account has improved significantly – even registering a surplus in May – the improvement will not endure (Chart 12). On the one hand, the weaker lira has made exports more attractive relative to global competition. However, the improvement in the external balance is in large part due to weaker imports which are now more expensive for Turkey’s residents and have fallen by 19% y/y in 1H2019. Shrinking imports also reflect weak domestic demand which has been weighed down by tight monetary conditions (Chart 13). Chart 12Current Account Improvement Will Not Endure Chart 13Tight Monetary Conditions Weighed On Domestic Demand What is more, portfolio inflows which in the past were necessary to offset the large current account deficit, have collapsed (Chart 14). Were it not for the improvement in the trade balance, the central bank of the Republic of Turkey (CBRT) would have experienced a pronounced decline in its foreign reserves, and currency pressures would have been significant. A meaningful improvement in investor sentiment – which will remain cautious on the back of economic and geopolitical risks – is a necessary precondition for the return of these inflows. Nevertheless, the current account deficit will likely remain narrow in the second half of the year as the trade balance improves on the back of a weak lira and imports remain depressed due to soft domestic demand. This will keep the lira supported over this period. Although risks from a wide current account deficit have been temporarily put off, years of foreign debt accumulation are a hazard to a sustainable improvement in the lira. Foreign debt obligations (FDO) due over the coming 12 months are extremely elevated at $167 billion (Chart 15). It is not clear that they can be paid off. While the FDO figure is overly pessimistic as some of these debts will be rolled over, net central bank foreign exchange reserves can cover only 2.7% of these obligations. This poses downside risks on the lira at a time when inflows have not yet recovered.1 Moreover, unorthodox economic policies will eventually reverse any improvement in the currency. Chart 14Financial Account Does Not Lend Support Chart 15FDO Pose A Risk To The Currency While the 4 years between now and the next election could be an opportunity to embark on unpopular structural reforms that will improve the outlook by the time voting season rolls in, Erdogan has instead doubled down on his current strategy. Less than two weeks after the results of the Istanbul election rerun, CBRT governor Murat Cetinkaya was removed by presidential decree. A month later, key CBRT staff were dismissed.2 At his first monetary policy committee meeting as governor on July 25, Murat Uysal slashed the one-week repo rate by 425bps. Given Erdogan’s outspoken distaste for high interest rates, the president’s consolidation of power over economic decision making implies that the outlook for easier monetary policy is now guaranteed. However, the ramifications of this dovish shift will be concerning for voters. The depreciating lira was singled out as the most important economic problem facing Turkey by the largest number of survey respondents (Chart 16). Erdogan’s pursuit of dovish policies despite popular opinion shows that he is doubling down on unorthodox policy despite popular opinion. Monetary easing threatens to unwind the current account improvement and ultimately de-stabilize the lira. Assuming that the banking sector does not hold back the supply of credit to the private sector, lower rates will generate a pickup in demand which will raise imports and widen the current account deficit. Unless there is a marked improvement in investor sentiment – which will remain tainted by the erosion of central bank independence and increased tensions with the West – a return in portfolio inflows to pre-2018 levels is unlikely. As a consequence the lira will begin to soften anew in 2020. The lira will soften anew in 2020. While inflation will subside as the lira stabilizes this year, it will likely remain elevated relative to pre-2018 levels – in the 10% to 15% range. Contrary to Erdoganomics, traditional economic theory postulates that interest rate cuts pose upside pressure on prices. The resurgence in domestic demand will occur against a backdrop of rising wages (Chart 17). Chart 17Price Pressures Will Persist With foreign currency reserves running low, the CBRT recently adopted several measures to discourage locals from exchanging their liras for foreign currency. These efforts reflect attempts to mitigate the negative impact of monetary easing on the lira, and to ensure FX reserves are supported: A 1-percentage point increase in the reserve requirement ratio for foreign currency deposits and participation funds. A 1-percentage point reduction in the interest rate on dollar-denominated required reserves, reserve options and free reserves held at the bank. An increase in the tax on some foreign exchange sales to 0.1% from zero. These measures make it more expensive for banks to hold foreign currency, incentivizing lira holdings instead. They also raise the CBRT’s foreign reserves highlighting the downside risks on these holdings and the lira. However, given that these measures boost CBRT reserves only superficially – rather than mirroring an improvement in the underlying economic conditions – they highlight that need for policy tightening to defend the lira, even as the CBRT officially pursues an accommodative path. Bottom Line: The Turkish economy will be extremely relevant to Erdogan’s fate in 2023. However with large foreign debt obligations, a rate cutting cycle underway, and foreign investors who remain uneasy, the case for Turkey’s economic recovery – especially amid turbulent global conditions – is weak. In the meantime, Erdogan will continue to blame external factors for the nation’s malaise. Don’t Bet On Trump-Erdogan Friendship “Being Asian and in Asia is as important as being European and in Europe for us.” Turkish Foreign Minister Melvut Cavusoglu For several years Erdogan has attempted to distract the populace from the country’s economic slide by adopting an aggressive foreign policy, particularly toward the West. The immediate cause is Syria, where Turkey has fundamental security interests that clash with those of the U.S. and Europe. But tensions also stem from Erdogan’s economic and political instability. This aggressive foreign policy has not changed in the wake of the AKP’s electoral loss. Erdogan is continuing to test the U.S.’s and EU’s limits and the result is likely to be surprise events, such as U.S.-imposed sanctions, that hurt Turkey’s economy and financial assets. Erdogan clashes with the West both because of substantive regional disagreements and because it plays well domestically. Turks increasingly see the U.S. and other formal NATO allies as a threat, while looking more favorably upon American rivals like Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela (Chart 18). The U.S., meanwhile, is expanding the use of “secondary sanctions” to impose costs on states that make undesirable deals with its rivals, and Turkey is now in its sights. The reason is Erdogan’s decision to purchase the S400 missile defense system from Russia. This decision exemplifies the breakdown in the U.S.-Turkish alliance and Turkey’s search for alternative partners and allies. The arms sale is likely – eventually – to trigger secondary sanctions under the U.S. International Emergency Economic Powers Act and especially the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Washington has already imposed sanctions on China for buying the same weapons from Russia. Erdogan recently accepted the first delivery of components for the S400s, which are supposed to go live by April 2020. He stuck with this decision in disregard of Washington’s warnings. He has a solid base of popular support across political parties for this act of foreign policy and military independence from the U.S. (Chart 19). But the full consequences have not yet been felt. President Trump’s response is muted thus far. He banned Turkish pilots from the U.S. F-35 program and training but has not yet imposed sanctions due to his special relationship with Erdogan and ongoing negotiations over Syria. Syria is the root of the breakdown in Turkish-American relations since 2014. Washington and Ankara have clashed repeatedly over their preferred means of intervening into the Syrian civil war and fighting the Islamic State. The U.S. relies on the Syrian Democratic Forces, led by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), which are affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The PKK is based in Turkey and both the U.S. and Turkey designate it as a “terrorist organization” due to its militant activities in its long-running struggle for autonomy from Turkey. Turkey has intervened in Syria west of the Euphrates River and has repeatedly threatened to conduct deeper strikes against the Kurds. The latter would put U.S. troops in harm’s way and could result in lost leverage for Western forces seeking to maintain their YPG allies and force an acceptable settlement to the Syrian conflict. There is a basis for a deal between Presidents Trump and Erdogan that could keep sanctions from happening. Trump is attempting to wash its hands of Syria to fulfill a promise of limiting U.S. costs in wars abroad. Meanwhile an aggressive intervention in Syria is not a popular option in Turkey, which is why Erdogan has not acted on threats to seize a larger swath of territory (Chart 20). As a result, the U.S. and Turkey recently formed a joint operation center to coordinate and manage “safe zones” for Syrian refugees. If they can manage the gray area on the Turkish-Syrian border, the Trump administration can continue to prepare for withdrawal while preventing Erdogan from taking too much Kurdish territory. The tradeoff is clear, but similar agreements have fallen apart. First, the U.S. Congress is ready to impose sanctions over the S400s and Trump is under pressure to punish Turkey for undermining NATO and dealing with the Russians. Second, the Trump administration has not found an acceptable solution to the Syrian imbroglio that makes full withdrawal possible. If Trump becomes convinced that the risks of a total and rapid withdrawal from Syria are greater than the rewards (as many of his GOP allies staunchly believe), then he has less incentive to protect Erdogan. Meanwhile Erdogan could still decide he needs to plunge deeper into Syria to counteract the YPG. Or he could retaliate against any sanctions over the S400s and provoke a broader tit-for-tat exchange. He has threatened to cancel orders for Boeing aircraft worth $10 billion. Clearly U.S. sanctions will cause the lira to fall and send Turkey into another bout of financial turmoil. In the meantime Turkey’s relations with Europe also pose risks. While the refugee crisis has abated, in great part due to Turkish cooperation, other disagreements are still problematic: The EU is not upgrading Turkey’s customs union and both sides know that Turkey is not eligible for EU membership anytime soon. In response to what the EU has deemed as illegal drilling for oil and gas off the coast of Cyprus, the EU called off high-level political meetings with Turkey and suspended EUR 145.8 million in pre-accession aid. EU foreign ministers have also put off talks on the Comprehensive Air Transport Agreement between the two parties which would have led to an increase in passengers using Turkish airports as a transit hub. In addition, EU ministers asked the European Investment Bank to review its lending activities in Turkey, which amounted to EUR 358.8 million last year. Erdogan is taking a bolder approach to Cyprus. He has decided to send a fourth ship to drill for natural gas in Cyprus’s Exclusive Economic Zone in the Eastern Mediterranean. The purpose is to rally support for his government by calling on the public’s strong allegiance to Turkish Cypriots (Chart 21). The problem is that a confrontation sought as a domestic distraction could provoke negative policy reactions from the EU (or the U.S., which is reconsidering its arms embargo on the Greek Cypriot side). Relations with the West would get worse. Chart 22... But Turkey Cannot Afford To Flout The EU Turkey cannot afford to flout the U.S. and EU. Its economy is dependent on Europe (Chart 22). And the U.S. still underwrites Turkey’s NATO membership and access to the global financial system. The problem is that Erdogan is an ambitious and unorthodox leader and he has clearly wagered that he can rally domestic support through various confrontations with Western policies. This means that for the immediate future the country is more likely to clash with Western nations than it is to recognize its own limits. Political risks are frontloaded and investors should be cautious before trying to snap up the depressed lira or Turkish government bonds. Bottom Line: Tensions with the West – especially the U.S. – will likely lead to economic sanctions. While there is a basis for Presidents Trump and Erdogan to avoid a falling out, it is not reliable enough to underpin a constructive investment position – especially given Erdogan has not changed course in the wake of this year’s significant electoral loss. Investment Conclusions Chart 23Optimism On Lira Amid Unresolved Risks The lira has rallied by 3.6% since the Istanbul election. It has risen 0.3% since the replacement of CBRT Governor Murat Cetinkaya and rallied further despite the sacking of the central bank’s chief economist and other high-level staff (Chart 23). Given that the market knows that the central bank reshuffle entails interest rate cuts, is this a clear signal that the lira has hit a firm bottom and cannot fall further? Turkey is more likely to clash with Western nations.  We doubt it. First, Erdogan’s doubling down on unorthodox policy threatens the recovery in the currency and risk assets and his aggressive foreign policy raises the risk of sanctions and further economic pain. Second, although Turkey is not overly exposed to China, it is heavily exposed to Europe, which is on the brink of a full-fledged recession and depends heavily on the Chinese credit cycle – which had another disappointment in July. German manufacturing PMI has been sinking further below the 50 boom-bust mark since the beginning of the year, and the economy contracted in 2Q2019 (Chart 24). Chart 24Global Backdrop Not Yet Supportive Chart 25Improvement In Spread Will Be Fleeting Given these domestic and global economic risks and geopolitical tensions, we expect any improvement in the sovereign spread to be fleeting (Chart 25). While the lira may experience temporary improvement, pressures will re-emerge in 2020 as the lagged impact of Erdogan’s pursuit of growth at all costs re-emerge. Stay on the sidelines as any improvement in the near term is fraught with risk.     Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy roukayai@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 See Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “Country Insights: Indonesia, Turkey, And The UAE” May 2, 2019, ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Among those removed are the central bank’s chief economist Hakan Kara as well as the research and monetary policy general manager, markets general manager, and banking and financial institutions general manager.

Highlights A lot has changed in a week and a half, … : The FOMC meeting that we thought would mark the end of global market-moving news until September turned out to be a prelude for the real fireworks. … as U.S.-China trade tensions escalated, … : The imposition of tariffs on the only remaining subset of Chinese imports that had escaped duties so far inspired China to let the yuan fall below a key technical level. … and other countries braced for the fallout: China’s devaluation opened up a new front in the conflict, turning a bilateral tariff spat into a threat to other countries’ well-being and competitiveness. Asia-Pacific central banks swiftly followed with larger-than-expected rate cuts. Below-benchmark-duration positioning is no longer appropriate in the near term, and we recommend moving to benchmark duration: Interest rates will be hard-pressed to rise with global central banks squarely in easing mode. Although we still believe that inflation and the fed funds rate will surprise to the upside, it’s going to take a while. Feature Dear Client, There will be no U.S. Investment Strategy next week as we take our final summer break. U.S. Investment Strategy will return on Monday, August 26th. Best regards, Doug Peta So much for the idea that the July 30-31 FOMC meeting would be the last market-moving event before Labor Day. By lunchtime on August 1st, the S&P 500 was back to its July 30th close above 3,010; the 10-year Treasury yield had settled around 1.96%, ten basis points (“bps”) lower than its pre-meeting level; and gold had fallen by ten bucks, to $1,420, as markets digested the news that the Fed was less concerned about the economy than they were. Then the trade war reared its ugly head in the form of new tariffs on Chinese imports to the U.S., and the S&P slid to 2,822, the 10-year Treasury yield tumbled to 1.59%, and gold surged to $1,510. The new round would ensnare the subset of goods that had previously been spared from import duties, and Beijing promised to retaliate. It’s hard for rates to rise when every central bank has an easing bias as it nervously eyes the U.S.-China tilt.   Chart 1Beijing Plays The Currency Card The retaliation arrived Sunday night in the U.S., when Chinese officials allowed the renminbi to trade above 7 to the dollar for the first time since 2008 (Chart 1). The move provoked a global equity selloff, and the S&P 500 lost 3% in its worst session of the year. With the currency floodgates opened, the trade war morphed from a bilateral tariff spat into a global battle for competitiveness, and central banks in India, Thailand and New Zealand responded with larger-than-expected rate cuts. India is a comparatively closed economy battling a domestic downturn, but it is clear that countries with any reliance on exports are loath to be saddled with a strong currency that will hamstring their global competitiveness. It turns out that the Fed isn’t the only central bank that sees the appeal of taking out some insurance. That is an unfriendly backdrop for below-benchmark-duration positioning, and we are joining our fixed-income colleagues in raising our duration recommendation from underweight to neutral over the tactical timeframe (0-3 months). While we still believe that the fed funds rate and long yields will surprise to the upside, they cannot do so while bond investors are adamant that the Fed is going to have to adopt an easing bias over the near term. Our rates checklist, discussed in the rest of this report, supports the decision. The shift in the rates backdrop undermines our newly established agency mortgage REIT recommendation, and we are watching it closely. The Rates Checklist: The Fed Table 1Rates View Checklist Turning to our rates view checklist (Table 1), the first item is derived from our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s golden rule of bond investing.1 The golden rule asks one simple question to anchor views on Treasuries: Over the next 12 months, will the Fed move the fed funds rate by more or less than the bond market is currently discounting? Since 1990, when the Fed has surprised dovishly (the fed funds rate has turned out to be lower than the money market implied twelve months earlier), Treasuries have almost always generated positive excess returns over cash. Periods of negative excess returns have occurred nearly exclusively when the Fed has delivered a hawkish surprise. We still think inflation will become a problem, but it certainly isn’t one yet. Since we rolled out the checklist last year, we have consistently expected a hawkish surprise. Though we continue to believe that an extended cycle of rate cuts is not in the cards, markets disagree, and we concede that the Fed now has a near-term easing bias, despite Chair Powell’s demurrals at the post-meeting press conference. We are leaving the box unchecked because we believe that nearly four more 25-bps cuts over the next twelve months, equating to a target fed funds rate of 1.25-1.50% (Chart 2), are unlikely. The spread between our expectations and the market’s expectations is still wide enough to merit a below-benchmark-duration view over the next twelve months, even if benchmark duration makes more sense for the rest of the year. Chart 2Four More Rate Cuts Are A Stretch The yield curve’s inversion has become more pronounced in the wake of the re-escalation of the trade war (Chart 3), and we duly check the second box. As a reminder, we track the 3-month/10-year segment of the yield curve to define inversion because it is less susceptible to estimate error, and has been a timelier indicator of recessions, than the more frequently cited 2-year/10-year segment. We have argued before that the unprecedentedly large negative 10-year term premium makes the curve more prone to invert and makes it a less sensitive economic barometer, but part of the rationale of creating a checklist is to limit one’s discretion in interpreting events. Chart 3More Rate Cuts, Please The Rates Checklist: Inflation Inflation has gone AWOL around the globe. Although the U.S. no longer faces the negative output gaps that remain in other major economies, its main measures of consumer prices (Chart 4) do nothing to counteract the widespread view that the Fed has a free pass to devote its energies to shoring up growth. Inflation break-evens were making progress toward the 2.3-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target when we launched the checklist last year, but the plunge in oil prices stopped them in their tracks (Chart 5). Rather than encouraging the Fed to hike, soft inflation expectations helped drive the Fed’s dovish pivot. Chart 4Realized Inflation Is Below Target, ... Chart 5... And So Are Inflation Expectations Our view that the seeds of inflation pressures have been sown has not changed. After slowing on a real final domestic demand basis in the first quarter from the one-two punch of the government shutdown and the fourth quarter’s sharp tightening of financial conditions, the U.S. economy has resumed operating above capacity. Though we check the “sluggish-inflation” boxes, and acknowledge that inflation is not going to inspire a more restrictive turn in Fed policy any time soon, we do think it will become an issue down the road. The Rates Checklist: The Labor Market The labor market remains robust. The headline unemployment rate remains at a level last seen in 1969, and is well below the CBO’s estimate of NAIRU. NAIRU is the minimum structural unemployment rate, and wage gains quicken when the unemployment rate falls below it (Chart 6). The broader definition of unemployment, encompassing discouraged workers and involuntary part-time workers, fell to its lowest level since 2000 in July (Chart 7), and the job openings and job quits rates (Chart 8) indicate that demand for workers remains high. Chart 6Wage Gains Will Accelerate, ... Chart 7... As Slack Has Been Absorbed, ... Chart 8... And Demand Is Robust   3.2% year-over-year growth in average hourly earnings may not be thrilling, but wages do remain in an uptrend. The laws of supply and demand (Chart 9), and the Fed’s best efforts, suggest that the uptrend will continue. We do not check any of the labor market boxes, and expect that we will not over the rest of the year. The Rates Checklist: Instability At Home And Abroad Chart 10No Overheating Yet There continue to be no signs of cyclical overheating in the U.S. economy, as the most cyclical segments of the economy are nowhere near the red end of the tachometer (Chart 10). Financial imbalances have moved to the back burner, but they are part of the Fed’s post-crisis mandate, and we are leaving the imbalances box unticked to reflect that the “low spreads and loosening credit terms” Governor Brainard decried last September2 may stay the Fed from embarking on a full-on easing cycle. We are checking the international duress box, at least for the time being, given the potential for a self-reinforcing rate-cutting cycle that could hold down the entire term structure of rates around the world. Bottom Line: The inverted yield curve, a lack of consumer price inflation, and the cloud cast by the trade war all suggest that bond markets will require some convincing before they allow rates to rise much higher. We conclude that a neutral duration stance is appropriate in the near term. Keeping Score We have been staunch supporters of below-benchmark duration positioning since the end of last July,3 given that we thought the 10-year Treasury yield was too low relative to our assessment of the strength of the U.S. economy and the potential for inflation to begin to rise. It appears that our stronger-than-consensus economic view was correct, but we were myopic in failing to grasp how punk growth in the rest of the world would keep long-maturity Treasury yields from making a sustained move higher. We were way early on inflation’s ETA, and slow to grasp how sensitive the Fed would be to faltering global growth and escalating trade tensions in its absence. In short, both our model of the Fed’s reaction function and the inputs to our model turned out to be faulty. The duration call stings, but our asset allocation recommendations have worked out. The fix we are making is to wait until inflation is a clear and present danger before assuming that the Fed will respond to it. Although we got the duration call wrong, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds have outperformed Treasuries in the aggregate since we upgraded them to overweight versus Treasuries at the end of January (Chart 11). BCA as a house niftily sidestepped the fourth-quarter selloff in equities by downgrading them to equal weight, and raising cash to overweight, late last June. We upgraded equities to overweight versus cash and fixed income in our first publication of the year, and the S&P 500 has handily outperformed Treasuries since that date, despite the nasty selloff following the July FOMC meeting and the new round of tariffs (Chart 12). Chart 11Spread Product Has Modestly Outperformed Treasuries, ... Chart 12... But Equities Have Crushed Them Agency Mortgage REIT Implications We recommended agency mortgage REITs a day before the FOMC meeting, suggesting that investors allocate capital away from equities and high yield as a way to reduce equity beta and boost portfolio income away from the herd chasing lower and lower high-yield bond yields. Through Thursday’s close, the Bloomberg Mortgage REIT Index has gained about 35 bps on a total return basis, while the Barclays High Yield Index is off 70 bps and the S&P 500 is down 2.7%. Unfortunately, the agency mREITs we sought out for their yield curve exposure have lagged badly as the yield curve has relentlessly flattened. For now, only the one agency mREIT with a dedicated adjustable-rate mortgage portfolio faces immediate earnings pressure. The rest are subject to refinancing volumes, which are likely to be higher than we expected when we projected that the 10-year Treasury yield wouldn’t fall much below 2%. The specter of increased prepayments makes the agency mREITs a less attractive investment than we thought they would be two weeks ago. On the other hand, their exclusively domestic exposure, and low credit risk, increases their value as a haven from global turmoil. Net-net, we are sticking with them, though they are now on a far shorter leash than they were when we made the recommendation. We will not stick with a position to save face, or to avoid looking irresolute. Flexibility and a willingness to admit mistakes are essential characteristics of successful investors. When the facts change, we change our mind, without the faintest hint of embarrassment. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the July 24, 2018 U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing,” available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Brainard, Lael (2018). “What Do We Mean by Neutral And What Role Does It Play in Monetary Policy,” speech delivered at the Detroit Economic Club, Detroit, Mich., September 12, 2018. 3 Please see the July 30, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rates Outlook,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.