ポリシー

Highlights So What? Geopolitical risks are not about to ease. Why? Fiscal policy becomes less accommodative next year unless politicians act. Financial conditions give President Trump room to expand his tariff onslaught. Our Iran view is confirmed by rapid escalation of tensions – war risk is high. The odds of a no-deal Brexit have risen. Feature The AUD-JPY cross and copper-to-gold ratio – two market indicators that flag global growth and risk-on sentiment – are hovering over critical points at which a further breakdown would catalyze a renewed flight to quality (Chart 1). Chart 1Risk-On Indicators Breaking Down? Global sentiment remains depressed amid a rash of negative economic surprises and bonds continue to rally despite a more dovish outlook from the Fed (Chart 2). Chart 2Global Sentiment Remains Depressed The cavalry is on the way: European Central Bank President Mario Draghi oversaw a dramatic easing of monetary policy on June 18, driving the Italian-German sovereign bond spread down to levels not seen since before the populist election outcome of March 2018 (Chart 2, bottom panel). The Federal Reserve adjusted its policy rate projections to countenance an interest rate cut in the not-too-distant future. More needs to be done, however, to sustain the optimism that has propelled the S&P 500 and global equities upward since the volatility catalyzed by President Donald Trump’s announcement of a tariff rate hike on May 6. Political and geopolitical risks are higher, not lower, since that time as market-negative scenarios are playing out with U.S. policy, Iran, and Brexit, while we take a dim view of the end-game of the U.S.-China negotiations despite recent improvements. Fiscal And Trade Uncertainties This year’s growth wobbles have occurred in the context of expansive fiscal policy in the developed markets. Next year, however, the fiscal thrust (the change in the cyclically adjusted budget balance) is projected to decline in the U.S. and Japan and nearly to do so in Europe (Chart 3). We expect President Trump and the House Democrats to raise spending caps (or at least keep spending at current levels) and thus prevent the budget deficit from contracting in FY2020 – this is their only substantial point of agreement. But this at best neutralizes what would otherwise be a negative fiscal backdrop. Meanwhile it is not at all clear that Brussels will relax its scrutiny of member states seeking to cut taxes and boost spending, such as Italy. Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo would need to arrange for the Diet to pass a new law to avoid the consumption tax hike from 8% to 10% on October 1. He can pull this off, especially if the U.S. trade war escalates – or if he decides to turn next month’s upper house election into a general election and needs to boost his popularity. But as things currently stand in law, the world’s third biggest economy will face a deep fiscal pullback next year (Chart 3, bottom panel). In short, DM fiscal policy will not really become contractionary in 2020, but this is a view and not yet a reality (Chart 4). Chart 3Fiscal Pullback Likely Next Year Chart 4Only The U.S. Is Profligate Meanwhile China’s stimulus is still in question – in fact it remains the major macro question this year. The efficacy of China’s stimulus is declining ... An escalating trade war will bring greater stimulus but also greater transmission problems.  Since February we have argued that the Xi administration has shifted to sweeping fiscal-and-credit stimulus in the face of the unprecedented external threat posed by the Trump administration (Charts 5A and 5B). We expect China’s credit growth to continue its upturn in June and in H2. Ultimately, we think the whole package will be comparable to 2015-16 – and anything even close to that will prolong the global economic expansion. We do not see a massive 2008-style stimulus occurring unless relations with the U.S. completely collapse and a global recession occurs. Chart 5AStimulus Amid The Trade War The catch – as we have shown – is that the efficacy of China’s stimulus is declining over time because of over-indebtedness and bearish sentiment in China’s private sector. These tepid animal spirits stem from epochal changes: Xi’s reassertion of communism and America’s withdrawal of strategic support for China’s rise. An escalating trade war will bring greater stimulus but also greater transmission problems. The magnitude of the tariffs that President Trump is threatening to impose on China, Mexico, the EU, and Japan is mind-boggling. We illustrate this with a simple simulation of duties collected as a share of total imports under different scenarios (Chart 6). China and Mexico are fundamentally different from the EU and Japan and hence the threat of tariffs will continue to weigh on markets for Trump’s time in office – China because of a national security consensus and Mexico because of the Trump administration’s existential emphasis on curbing illegal immigration. But we still put the risk of auto tariffs (or other punitive measures) on Europe at 45% if Trump seals a China deal. The odds are lower for Japan but it is still at risk. Global supply chains are shifting – a new source of costs and uncertainty for companies – as a slew of recent news has highlighted. Already 40% of companies surveyed by the American Chamber of Commerce in China say they are relocating to Southeast Asia, Mexico, and elsewhere (Chart 7). If the G20 is a flop – or results in nothing more than a pause in tariffs for another three-month dialogue – relocations will gain steam, forcing companies’ bottom lines to take a hit. Even in the best case, in which the Trump-Xi summit produces a joint statement outlining a “deal in principle” accompanied by a rollback of the May 10 tariff hike, uncertainty will persist due to President Trump’s unpredictability, China’s incentive to wait until after the U.S. election, and Trump’s incentive to corner the “China hawk” platform prior to the election. We maintain that, by November 2020, there is a roughly 70% chance of further escalation. At least the U.S.-China conflict is nominally improving. The same cannot be said for other geopolitical risks discussed below: the U.S. and Iran are flirting with war; the U.S. presidential election is injecting a steady trickle of market-negative news; the chances of a no-deal Brexit are rising; and Trump may turn on Europe at a moment when it lacks leadership. This list assumes that Russia takes advantage of American distraction by improving domestic policy rather than launching into a new foreign adventure – say in Ukraine or Kaliningrad. If there is any doubt as to whether political risk can outweigh more accommodative monetary policy, remember that President Trump actually can remove Chairman Jerome Powell. Legally he is only allowed to do so “for cause” as opposed to “at will.” But the meaning of this term is a debate that would go to the Supreme Court in the event of a controversial decision. Meanwhile the stock market would dive. Now, this is precisely why Trump will not try. But the implication, as with Congress and the border wall, is that Trump is constrained on domestic policy and hence tariffs are his most effective tool to try to achieve policy victories. With an ebullient stock market and a Fed that is adjusting its position, Trump can try to kill two birds with one stone: wring concessions from trade partners while forcing the FOMC to keep responding to rising external risks. Bottom Line: Central banks are riding to the rescue, but there is only so much they can do if global leaders are tightening budgets and imposing barriers on immigration and trade. We remain tactically cautious. Oh Man, Oh Man, Oman Iran has swiftly responded to the Trump administration’s imposition of “maximum pressure” on oil exports. The shooting down of an American drone that Tehran claims violated its airspace on June 20 is the latest in a spate of incidents, including a Houthi first-ever cruise missile attack on Abha airport in Saudi Arabia. Two separate attacks on tankers near the Strait of Hormuz (Map 1) demonstrate that Iran is threatening to play its most devastating card in the renewed conflict with the U.S. Hormuz ushers through a substantial share of global oil demand and liquefied natural gas demand (Chart 8). The amount of spare pipeline capacity that the Gulf Arab states could activate in the event of a disruption is merely 3.9 million barrels per day, or 6 million if questionable pipelines like the outdated Iraqi pipeline in Saudi Arabia prove functional (Table 1). Table 1No Sufficient Alternatives To Hormuz A conflict with Iran could cause the biggest oil shock of all time. Even if this spare capacity were immediately utilized, a conflict could cause the biggest oil shock of all time – considerably bigger than that of the Iranian Revolution (Chart 9). We have shown in the past that Iran has the military capability of interrupting the flow of traffic in Hormuz for anywhere from 10 days to four months. A preemptive strike by Iran would be most effective, whereas a preemptive American attack would include targets to reduce Iran’s ability to retaliate via Hormuz. The impact on oil prices ranges from significant to devastating. Needless to say, blocking the Strait of Hormuz would initiate a war so Iran is attempting to achieve diplomatic goals with the threats themselves – it will only block the strait as a last resort, say if it is convinced that the U.S. is about to attack anyway. As the experience of President Jimmy Carter shows, Americans may rally around the flag during a crisis but they will also kick a president out of office for higher prices and an economic slowdown. President Trump cannot be unaware of this precedent. The intention of his Iran policy is to negotiate a “better deal” than the 2015 one – a deal that includes Iran’s regional power projection and ballistic missile capabilities as well as its nuclear program. The problem is that Trump has already been forced to deploy a range of forces to the region, including additional troops (albeit so far symbolic at 2,500) (Chart 10). He is also sending Special Representative for Iran, Brian Hook, to the region to rally support among Gulf Cooperation Council. The week after Hook will court Britain, Germany, and France, three of the signatories of the 2015 deal. Trump ran on a campaign of eschewing gratuitous wars in the Middle East – a popular stance among war-weary Americans (Chart 11) – but there is a substantial risk that he could get entangled in the region. First, he is adopting a more aggressive foreign policy to attempt to compensate for the lack of payoff in public opinion from the strong economy. Second, Iran is not shrinking from the fight, which could draw him deeper into conflict. Third, there is always a high risk of miscalculation when nations engage in such brinkmanship. Chart 10Is The 'Pivot To Asia' About To Reverse? The Iranian response has been, first, to reject negotiations. When Trump sent a letter to Rouhani via Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, Abe was rebuffed – and one of the tankers attacked near Oman was a Japanese flagged vessel, the Kokuka Courageous. This is a posture, not a permanent position, as the Iranian release of an American prisoner demonstrates. But the posture can and will be maintained in the near term – with escalation as the result. Second, Iran is increasing its own leverage in any future negotiation by demonstrating that it can sow instability across the region and bring the global economy grinding to a halt. Iran cannot assume that Trump means what he says about avoiding war but must focus on the United States’ actions and capabilities. Cutting off all oil exports is a recipe for extreme stress within the Iranian regime – it is an existential threat. Therefore, the Iranians have signaled that the cost of a total cutoff will be a war that will cause a global oil price shock. The Iranian leaders are also announcing that they are edging closer to walking away from the 2015 nuclear pact (Table 2). If so, they could quickly approach “breakout” capacity in the uranium enrichment – meaning that they could enrich to 20% and then in short order enrich to 90% and amass enough of this fuel to make a nuclear device one year thereafter. The Trump administration has reportedly reiterated that this one-year limit is the U.S. government’s “red line,” just as the Obama administration had done. Table 2Iran Threatens To Walk Away From 2015 Nuclear Deal This Iranian threat is a direct reaction to Trump’s decision in May not to renew the oil sanction waivers. Previously the Iranians had sought to preserve the 2015 deal, along with the Europeans, in order to wait out Trump’s first term. These developments push us to the brink of war. Iran is retaliating with both military force and a nuclear restart. This comes very close to meeting our conditions for an American (and Israeli) retaliation that is military in nature. Diagram 1 is an update of our decision tree that we have published since last year when Trump reneged on the 2015 deal. The window to de-escalate is closing rapidly. The Appendix provides a checklist for air strikes and/or the closure of Hormuz. Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree At very least we expect to see the U.S. attempt to create a large international fleet to assert freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. While Iran may lay low during a large show of force, it will later want to demonstrate that it has not been cowed. And it has the capacity to retaliate elsewhere, including in Iraq, an area we have highlighted as a major geopolitical risk to oil supply. The U.S. government has already reacted to recent threats there from Iranian proxies by pulling non-essential personnel. Iran has several incentives to test the limits of conflict if the U.S. insists on the oil embargo. First, tactically, it seeks to deter President Trump, take advantage of American war-weariness, drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe, and force a relaxation of the sanctions. This would also demonstrate to the region that Iran has greater resolve than the United States of America. This goal has not been achieved by the recent spate of actions, so there is likely more conflict to come. Second, President Hassan Rouhani’s government is also likely to maintain a belligerent posture – at least in the near term – to compensate for its loss of face upon the American betrayal of the 2015 nuclear deal. Rouhani negotiated the deal against the warnings of hardline revolutionaries. The 2020 majlis elections make this an important political goal for his more reform-oriented faction. Negotiations with Trump can only occur if Rouhani has resoundingly demonstrated his superiority in the clash of wills. Structurally, Iran faces tremendous regime pressures in the coming years and decades because of its large youth population, struggling economy, and impending power transition from the 80 year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei. A patriotic war against America and its allies – while not desirable – is a risk that Khamenei can take, as an air war is less likely to trigger regime change than it is to galvanize a new generation in support of the Islamic revolution. For oil markets the outcome is volatility in the near term – reflecting the contrary winds of trade war and global growth fears with rising supply risks. Because we expect more Chinese stimulus, both as the trade talks extend and especially if they collapse, we ultimately share BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy view that the path of least resistance for oil prices is higher on a cyclical horizon, as demand exceeds supply (Chart 12). We remain long EM energy producers relative to EM ex-China. Chart 12Crude Oil Supply-Demand Balance Should Send Prices Higher Bottom Line: The risk of military conflict has risen materially. This also drastically elevates the risk of a supply shock in oil prices that would kill global demand. The U.S. Election Adds To Geopolitical Risk The 2020 U.S. election poses another political risk for the rising equity market. The Democratic Party’s first debate will be held on June 26-27. The leftward shift in the party will be on full display, portending a possible 180-degree reversal in U.S. policy if the Democrats should win the election, with the prospect of a rollback of Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation of health, finance, and energy. The uncertainty and negative impact on animal spirits will be modest if current trends persist through the debates. Former Vice President Joe Biden remains the frontrunner despite having naturally lost the bump to his polling support after announcing his official candidacy (Chart 13). Biden is a known quantity and a centrist, especially compared to the farther left candidates ranked second and third in popular support– Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Biden is not only beating Sanders in South Carolina, which underscores the fact that he is competitive in the South and hence has a broader path to the White House, but also in New Hampshire, where the Vermont native should be ahead (Chart 14). These states hold the early primaries and caucuses and if Biden maintains his large lead then he will start to appear inevitable very early in the primary campaign next year. Hence a poor showing in the debate on June 27 is a major risk to Biden – he should be expected to be eschew the limelight and play the long game. Elizabeth Warren, by contrast, has the most to gain as she appears on the first night and does not share a stage with the other heavy hitters. If she or other progressive candidates outperform then the market will be spooked. The market could begin to trade off the polls. All of these candidates are beating Trump in current head-to-head polling – Biden is even ahead in Texas (Chart 15). This means that any weakness from Biden does not necessarily offer the promise of a Trump victory and policy continuity. The Democrats also have a powerful demographic tailwind. The just-released projections from the U.S. Census Bureau reveal how Trump’s narrow margins of victory in the swing states in 2016 are in serious jeopardy in 2020 as a result of demographics if he does not improve his polling among the general public (Chart 16). We still give Trump the benefit of the doubt as the incumbent president amid an expanding economy, but it is essential to recognize that his popular approval rating is reminiscent of a president during recession – i.e. one who is about to lose the White House for his party (Chart 17). Even if there is not a recession, an increase in unemployment is likely to cost him the election – and even a further decrease in unemployment cannot guarantee victory (Chart 18). This is why we see Trump making a bid to become a foreign policy president and seek reelection on the basis that it is unwise to change leaders amid an international crisis. We still give Trump the benefit of the doubt ... but his popular approval rating is reminiscent of a president during recession. The race for the U.S. senate is extremely important for the policy setting from 2021. If Republicans maintain control, they will be able to block sweeping Democratic legislation – which is particularly relevant if a progressive candidate should win the White House. However, if Democrats can muster enough votes to remove a sitting president with a strong economy – including a strong economy in the key senate swing races (Chart 19) – then they will likely win over the senate as well. Chart 19Hard To Win The Senate In 2020 While Key States Prosper Bottom Line: The 2020 election poses a double risk to the bull market. First, the Democratic primary campaign threatens sharp policy discontinuity, especially if and when developments cause Biden to drop in the polls (dealing a blow to centrism or the political establishment). Second, Trump’s vulnerability makes him more likely to act aggressive on the international stage, whether on trade, immigration, or national security, reinforcing the risks outlined above with regard to China, Iran, Mexico, and even Europe. Rising Odds Of A No-Deal Brexit Former Mayor of London and former foreign secretary Boris Johnson looks increasingly likely to seal the Conservative Party leadership contest in the United Kingdom. It is not yet a done deal, but the shift within the party in favor of accepting a “no deal” exit is clear. None of the remaining candidates is willing to forgo that option. The newest development advances us along our decision tree in Diagram 2, altering the conditional probabilities for this year’s events. We expect the next prime minister to try to push a deal substantially similar to outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May before attempting any kamikaze run as the October 31 deadline approaches. The attempt to leverage the EU’s economic weakness will not produce a fundamental renegotiation of the exit deal, but some element of diplomatic accommodation is possible as the EU seeks to maintain overall stability and a smooth exit if that is what the U.K. is determined to accomplish. Diagram 2Brexit Decision Tree Hence the prospect of passing a deal substantially similar to outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal is about 30%, roughly equal to the chance of a delay (28%). These options are believable as the new leader will have precious little time between taking the reins and Brexit day. The EU can accept a delay because it ultimately has an interest in keeping the U.K. bound into the union. Public opinion polling is not conducive to the new prime minister seeking a new election unless the change of face creates a massive shift in support for the Conservatives, both by swallowing the Brexit Party and outpacing Labour. If the purpose is to deliver Brexit, then the risk of a repeat of the June 2017 snap election would seem excessive. Nevertheless, the Tories’ working majority in parliament is vanishingly small, at five MPs, so a shift in polling could change the thinking on this front. The pursuit of a no-deal exit would create a backlash in parliament that we reckon has a 21% chance of ending in a no-confidence motion and new election. Bottom Line: The odds of a crash Brexit have moved up from 14% to 21% as a result of the leadership contest. The threat that the U.K. will crash out of the EU is not merely a negotiating ploy, although it will be a last resort even for the new hard-Brexit prime minister. Public opinion is against a no-deal Brexit, as is the majority of parliament, but the risk to the U.K. and EU economies will loom large over global risk assets in the coming months. Investment Conclusions Political and geopolitical risks to the late-cycle expansion are rising, not falling. U.S. foreign policy remains the dominant risk but U.S. domestic policy pre-2020 is an aggravating factor. Easing financial conditions give President Trump more ammunition to use tariffs and sanctions. Meanwhile our view that this summer will feature “fire and fury” between the U.S. and Iran has been confirmed by the tanker attacks in Oman. Tensions will likely escalate from here. Ultimately, we believe Trump is more likely to back off from the Iran conflict than the China conflict. This is part of our long-term theme that the U.S. really is pivoting to China and geopolitical risk will rotate from the Middle East to East Asia. But as highlighted above, the risk of entanglement is very high due to Trump’s approach and Iran’s incentives to raise the stakes. Oil prices will not resume their upward drift until Chinese stimulus is reconfirmed – and even then they will continue to be volatile. We remain cautious and are maintaining our safe-haven tactical trades of long gold and long JPY/USD.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix

Highlights As long as the global long bond yield stays near 2 percent or below, European equities will end the year at broadly the same level as now… …but they will experience a dip of at least 4-5 percent along the way. All central banks have pivoted to dovish but the Fed has more easing armoury than the ECB. This means that the recent outperformance of 10-year U.S. T-bonds versus 10-year German bunds can continue. It also means that the euro has a sound structural underpinning versus the dollar. Feature At the start of this year we explained Why 2019 Is A Pivotal Year For Monetary Policy. Today we want to elaborate on that report, and its key observations: Since 2008, no developed economy central bank has been able to hike interest rates sequentially by more than 2 percent before needing to take a breather… and then reverse course. The current vulnerability to tightening emanates from the hyper-sensitivity of financial conditions to rate hikes, rather than from the direct impact on rate-sensitive sectors in the economy. Since October 2017, no stock market rally or sell-off has lasted more than three months or so (Chart Of The Week). These observations are as relevant – or more relevant – now, as they were at the time of our original report.1 Since the Global Financial Crisis, no developed economy central bank has been able to hike interest rates sequentially by more than 2 percent. Chart Of The WeekSince October 2017, No Rally Or Sell-Off Has Lasted More Than Three Months A 2 Percent Tightening Is The Post-2008 Limit Since the Global Financial Crisis, no developed economy central bank has been able to hike interest rates sequentially by more than 2 percent before having to reverse course (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2A 2 Percent Sequential Tightening Is The Post-2008 Limit Chart I-3A 2 Percent Sequential Tightening Is The Post-2008 Limit     In 2008, Swedish interest rates peaked near 5 percent before collapsing to the zero bound in the financial crisis. But when the Riksbank started its so-called ‘policy normalisation’ in 2010, the interest rate could only reach 2 percent before the central bank had to backtrack; Norway could manage just 1 percent of tightening before its volte-face. Though admittedly, both Sweden and Norway were caught in the maelstrom of the euro debt crisis in 2011-12. However, on the other side of the world and relatively immune to the crisis in Europe, New Zealand could achieve a tightening also of only 1 percent; Korea could manage just 1.25 percent; the Reserve Bank of Australia marched interest rates up by 1.75 percent before taking a breather… and then marched them down again. The consensus was taking far too rosy a view on the global financial system’s capacity to tolerate further tightening. The Federal Reserve raised interest rates sequentially by 2 percent through December 2016 to December 2018, and guess what – it is now on the cusp of reversing course. The ultimate course will have a huge bearing on investment strategy for European equities, bonds and currencies. The Neutral Real Rate Of Interest Is Zero Many economists and strategists expected the Fed to continue hiking through 2019, but this publication pushed back hard. The consensus was taking far too rosy a view on the global financial system’s capacity to tolerate further tightening. Central to this publication’s resistance was, and is, a high-conviction view that the so-called ‘neutral’ real rate of interest – the real interest rate that is neither accommodative nor restrictive, the real interest rate consistent with an economy maintaining full employment while keeping inflation constant – is zero. The neutral rate of interest is very low. In our Special Report Why The Neutral Rate Of Interest Is Zero we proposed that the neutral rate is global rather than region-specific, that it refers to the bond yield rather than to the policy rate, and that it is extremely low. As it happens, the Fed broadly concurs. With the policy rate, bond yield, and inflation all at around 2 percent, the real policy rate and real bond yield are both near zero. At this level the central bank claims that “the policy stance is now in the Committee’s estimates of neutral… and when you get to that range we have to let the data speak to us.”2  However, the data that is speaking most loudly is not necessarily the economic data, it is the financial market data. Jay Powell has said that if there is a sustained change in financial conditions through any one or more of its components then “that has to play into our thinking.” We think it has (Chart I-4). Comparing Today’s Rich Valuations With 2007 In the aftermath of the dot com bubble burst in 2000, policy interest rates collapsed to very low levels but, crucially, long bond yields did not. This contrasts with the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, during which both policy interest rates and bond yields have plunged to all-time lows (Charts I-5 - I-7). Funny things happen when the long bond yield gets to, and remains, at ultra-low nominal levels. Chart I-5In The Aftermath Of 2000, Bond Yields Did Not Collapse; But In The Aftermath Of 2008, They Did Chart I-6In The Aftermath Of 2000, Bond Yields Did Not Collapse; But In The Aftermath Of 2008, They Did   Chart I-7In The Aftermath Of 2000, Bond Yields Did Not Collapse; But In The Aftermath Of 2008, They Did The difference between the post-2000 and post-2008 policy responses can be summarized in two letters: QE. For all its apparent complexity, QE is actually a very simple monetary policy tool. It is just a mechanism for signalling that the policy interest rate will remain low for an extended period. Thereby, QE pulls down the long-term interest rate, which is to say the long bond yield. The double-digit rally over the past six months is technically extended. But as we have consistently pointed out on these pages, funny things happen when the long bond yield gets to, and remains, at ultra-low nominal levels. We refer readers to our other reports for the details, but in a nutshell the risk of owning bonds converges to the risk of owning equities and other so-called ‘risk-assets’. The upshot of this risk convergence is that investors price these risk-assets to deliver the same ultra-low nominal return as bonds, meaning that the valuation of the risk-assets soars.3   Chart I-8Since 2015, The Global Long Bond Yield Has Been Unable To Remain Above 2.5 Percent All of which brings us to the crucial point. The post-2000 extreme policy easing distorted the real economy. It engineered a credit boom. So the fragility to the subsequent policy tightening emanated from the real economy, and particularly the most rate-sensitive sectors in the economy such as mortgage lending and housing. In contrast, the post-2008 extreme policy easing – driven by QE – has distorted the valuation of risk-assets. Moreover, the value of global risk-assets, at $400 trillion dwarfs the $80 trillion global economy by five to one. So the current fragility to policy tightening does not emanate from the real economy, it emanates from the hyper-sensitivity of financial conditions to higher bond yields (Chart 8). Some European Investment Implications The integration of global capital markets means that the valuation anchor for European – and all regional – stock markets now comes from the global long bond yield, which we define as the simple average of the 10-year yields in the euro area, U.S., and China. Through the past five years, the inability of the global long bond yield to remain above 2.5 percent confirms the hyper-sensitivity of financial conditions to higher interest rates. And it suggests that the ‘neutral’ rate on this measure is around 2 percent. The good news is that this measure now stands slightly below neutral at 1.9 percent. The euro has a sound structural underpinning versus the dollar. At around this level of the global long bond yield, the rich valuation of European equities has some support. That said, the double-digit rally over the past six months is technically extended, as most of the things that could go right did go right – central banks pivoted to dovish, euro area growth rebounded, and, until recently, geopolitical risks were easing. Hence, as long as the global long bond yield stays near 2 percent or below, we expect European equities to end the year at broadly the same level as now, though our technical signals do strongly suggest a dip of at least 4-5 percent along the way (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Double-Digit Rally In Stock Markets Over The Past Six Months Is Technically Extended Chart I-10The Fed Has More Easing Armoury Than The ECB As regards bonds and currencies, all central banks have pivoted to dovish but the Fed has more easing armoury than the ECB (Chart I-10). This means that the recent outperformance of 10-year U.S. T-bonds versus 10-year German bunds can continue. It also means that the euro has a sound structural underpinning versus the dollar. However, this structural underpinning also applies to the yen, and until we get some clarity on Brexit we prefer the yen over the euro.   Fractal Trading System* In line with the main body of this report and Chart 9, we see evidence that the double-digit rally in stock markets over the past six months is technically extended. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to short the MSCI All-Country World index, setting the profit target at 4 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. This leaves us with four open positions.  For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. *      For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com.   Dhaval Joshi, Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report ‘Why 2019 Is A Pivotal Year For Monetary Policy’ February 7, 2019 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report ‘Why The Neutral Rate Of Interest Is Zero’ June 6, 2019 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report ‘Risk: The Great Misunderstanding Of Finance’ October 25, 2018 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations      

Analysis on Thailand is available below. Feature Last week we were on the road meeting with some of our U.S. clients. This week’s report presents some of the key topics of our discussions in a Q&A format. Question: You have been downplaying the potentially positive impact of lower bond yields in advanced economies on EM risk assets. Why do you think lower bond yields in developed markets (DM) and potential rate cuts by DM central banks won’t suffice to lift EM markets on a sustainable basis? Answer: Falling interest rates are positive for share prices when profits are growing, even at a slower rate. When corporate profits are contracting, lower interest rates typically do not preclude equity prices from dropping. Presently, EM and Chinese corporate earnings are shrinking rapidly (Chart I-1). This is the primary reason why we believe DM monetary easing will not help EM share prices much. Furthermore, EM exchange rates follow relative EPS cycles in local currency terms (Chart I-2). In short, EM currencies are driven by relative corporate profitability between EM and the U.S. – not by interest rate differentials. Chart I-1EM & China EPS Are Contracting Chart I-2Relative EPS And Exchange Rate   The contraction in EM and China EPS has not been caused by higher interest rates and slump in DM domestic demand. Rather, the EM/China profit contraction has been due to China’s economic slowdown spilling over to the rest of EM. Crucially, there is no empirical evidence that interest rate cuts and QEs in DM preclude EM selloffs when EM/Chinese growth is slumping. Specifically: Chart I-3A and I-3B illustrate that neither the level of G4 central banks’ assets nor their annual rate of change correlates with EM share prices or EM local bonds’ total returns in U.S. dollar terms. Hence, QEs have not always guaranteed positive returns for EM financial markets. Chart I-3APace Of QE And EM Performance Chart I-3BPace Of QE And EM Performance Chart I-4U.S. Treasury Yields And EM Performance Chart I-4 demonstrates the correlation between U.S. 5-year Treasurys yields on the one hand and EM spot exchange rates, EM sovereign credit spreads and EM share prices on the other. There has been no stable relationship – at times it has been positive, and at other times negative. We are not implying that DM interest rates have no bearing on EM financial markets. Our point is that lower interest rates and QEs in DM do not constitute sufficient conditions for EM financial markets to rally. Even though DM monetary policy has not been the driving force of cyclical fluctuations in EM financial markets, it has had a structural impact. QEs and lower bond yields in DM have prompted an expanded search for yield and have produced substantial compression in risk premia worldwide. For example, Chart I-5 demonstrates that excess returns on EM corporate bonds have historically been correlated with the global manufacturing cycle, but the correlation has diminished in recent years. The widening gap between the two lines is due to investors’ search for yield. Investors have bought and continue to hold securities of “zombie” companies and countries that have low productivity and poor fundamentals. In short, QEs have undermined the efficiency of global capital allocation. This is marginally adverse for productivity in the global economy in the long run. Question: But doesn’t DM monetary policy influence DM demand, which in turn affects EM corporate profits? Answer: DM monetary policy influences DM domestic demand, but there is little correlation between DM domestic demand and EM corporate profits. For example, U.S. import volumes have been growing at a decent pace, yet EM corporate profits have shrunk (Chart I-6). Indeed, robust growth in U.S. imports did not preclude EM EPS contraction in 2012, 2014-‘15 and 2018-‘19, as shown in this chart. Chart I-5Fundamentals Have Become Less Important Due To QE Programs Chart I-6EM EPS And U.S. Imports   Chart I-7 reveals additional evidence of the diminished impact of U.S. growth on Asian exports. Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese and Singaporean exports to the U.S. are growing at 7% rate, while their shipments to China are contracting at an 11% rate from a year ago as of May. As a result, these countries’ overall exports are shrinking because they ship to China considerably more than they do to the U.S. We are not implying that DM interest rates have no bearing on EM financial markets. Our point is that lower interest rates and QEs in DM do not constitute sufficient conditions for EM financial markets to rally. The current global slowdown did not originate in the U.S. or Europe. Rather, it originated in China and has spilt across the world, affecting the economies that sell to China the most. The deceleration in global trade can be tracked to Chinese imports contraction (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Asia's Exports To China And U.S. Chart I-8Chinese Imports And Global Trade   U.S. manufacturing is the least exposed to China, which is the main reason why it was the last shoe to drop in the global manufacturing recession. Question: So, what drives EM business cycles if it is not DM growth and DM interest rates? Chart I-9China's Credit & Fiscal Impulse And EM EPS Answer: The key and dominant driver of EM risk assets – stocks, credit markets and currencies – has been the global trade and EM/China growth cycles. There is a much stronger correlation between EM financial markets and the global business cycle in general, and Chinese imports in particular than with DM interest rates. In turn, Chinese imports are driven by its capital spending cycle. 85% of the mainland’s good imports are composed of industrial goods and devices, machinery, chemicals, various commodities and autos. Only 15% are non-auto consumer goods. Meanwhile, the credit/money cycles drive capital spending. That is why China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse leads EM corporate profits (Chart I-9). This is also why we spend a significant amount of time analyzing and discussing China's credit cycle. Question: Why has the policy stimulus in China not revived growth in its economy and its suppliers around the world? Answer: Our aggregate credit and fiscal spending impulse bottomed in January of this year, but its recovery has so far been timid. In the past, this indicator led China’s business cycle and the global manufacturing PMI by an average of about nine months (Chart I-10, top panel) and EM corporate profits by 12 months (Chart I-9). According to this pattern, the bottom in global manufacturing should occur in August of this year. However, global share prices have not led global manufacturing PMI during this decade; they have instead been coincident (Chart I-10, bottom panel). Hence, there was no historical justification for global share prices to rally since early January - well ahead of a potential bottom in the global manufacturing PMI in August. The current global slowdown did not originate in the U.S. or Europe. Rather, it originated in China and has spilt across the world, affecting the economies that sell to China the most. That said, due to the U.S.-China confrontation and other structural reasons currently prevailing in China – including high levels of indebtedness and more regulatory scrutiny over shadow banking as well as local government debt – a recovery in mainland household and corporate spending is likely to be delayed. Crucially, as we have documented in previous reports, the marginal propensity to spend for consumers and companies continues to fall (Chart I-11). This is the opposite of what occurred in early 2016. Chart I-10Chinese Stimulus, Global Manufacturing And Global Stocks Chart I-11China: What Is Different From 2016   Overall, a revival in China’s growth will likely take longer to unfold and EM risk assets will likely sell off anew before bottoming. Chart I-12Global Slowdown Is Not Yet Over Chart I-13Global Semiconductor Demand Is Shrinking Question: Apart from China’s credit and fiscal spending impulse and marginal propensity to spend among households and companies, what other indicators are you monitoring to gauge a bottom in the global manufacturing cycle? Answer: Among many variables and indicators we continuously monitor, there are a few we have been paying particular attention to: The difference between global narrow (M1) and broad money growth correlates well with global corporate earnings (Chart I-12). The rationale for this indicator is that it is akin to the marginal propensity to spend: When demand deposits (M1) outpace time/savings deposits, it is indicative that households and companies are getting ready to spend on large-ticket items or kick off capital spending, and vice versa. Presently, this narrow-to-broad money growth differential continues to point to lower global growth. Last week we published a report on the global semiconductor industry, arguing that upstream demand for semiconductors is withering as sales of servers, smartphones, PCs and autos are all shrinking globally (Chart I-13). With consumption of these goods contracting, demand for semiconductors remains lackluster, and semiconductor prices are still deflating (Chart I-14). Hence, semiconductor prices can be used as an indicator of final demand dynamics in many important segments of the global economy. China’s Container Freight Index – the price to ship containers – is also currently lackluster, reflecting weak global trade dynamics (Chart I-15, top panel). Chart I-14Semiconductor Prices Are Still Deflating Chart I-15Global Shipments Are Very Weak   In the U.S., both total intermodal carloads and railroad carloads excluding petroleum and coal are tanking, reflecting subsiding growth (Chart I-15, middle and bottom panel). In turn, Chinese imports continue to contract. This is the primary channel in terms of how the Middle Kingdom affects the rest of the world economy. From the rest of the world’s perspective, China is in recession because their shipments to the mainland are shrinking. In China and Taiwan, the seasonally adjusted manufacturing PMI new orders have rolled over after the temporary pick up early this year (Chart I-16). Finally, we are monitoring our Reflation Indicator and Risk-On/Safe-Haven Currency Ratio (Chart I-17). Both are market-based indicators and are very sensitive to global growth conditions – especially to the dynamics in commodities markets – making them very pertinent to EM investors. Chart I-16Manufacturing PMI: New Orders Seasonally-Adjusted Chart I-17Market-Based Indicators   As with any marked price-based signals, both are very volatile. Even though both indicators have rebounded in recent days, only a major trend reversal matters for macro investors. Technically speaking, the profile of both indicators is consistent with a breakdown rather than a breakout. Question: You have highlighted that EM corporate EPS is contracting. How widespread is the profit contraction, and how long will it persist? Answer: EM corporate EPS contraction is widespread across almost all sectors. Chart I-18A and I-18B illustrate EPS growth in U.S. dollar terms for all sectors. EPS growth is negative for most sectors, close to zero for three (technology, financials and materials) and still positive for the energy sector. However, technology, materials and energy EPS are heading into contraction, given the drop in semiconductor, industrial metals and oil prices, respectively. Chart I-18ASynchronized EM EPS Contraction Chart I-18BSynchronized EM EPS Contraction   Consequently, all EM equity sectors will soon be experiencing synchronized profit contraction. EM corporate EPS contraction is widespread across almost all sectors. Our credit and fiscal spending impulse for China leads EM EPS growth by about 12 months, and it currently entails that the profit contraction will continue to deepen all the way through December (Chart I-9 on page 6). It would be surprising if EM share prices stage a major rally amid a hastening decline in corporate EPS (please refer to Chart I-1 on page 1). Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Thailand: A Defensive Play Within EM The Thai parliament has elected to keep the ex-military general Prayuth Chan-ocha as the country’s prime minister. This will instill political stability for now, which is positive for investor confidence. In absolute terms, Thai financial markets are leveraged to global trade and will, therefore, sell off if our negative views on the latter and EM risk assets play out. Chart II-1Thailand's Current Account Is In Surplus Relative to their EM peers, Thai equities, credit, currency and domestic bonds will continue outperforming: The Thai current account balance remains in large surplus, which provides a large cushion for the Thai baht amid the slowdown in global growth (Chart II-1). Critically, Thailand is less exposed to China and is more leveraged to the U.S. and Europe than its EM peers. Thailand’s shipments to China account for 12% of the former’s total exports, while exports to the U.S. and EU together account for 21%. Both U.S. and European imports are holding up better than those of China. Thailand also has the lowest foreign debt obligations (FDO) among EM countries. FDOs measure the sum of short-term claims, interest payments and amortization over the next 12 months. The country’s current FDOs stand at 8% relative to its exports of goods and services and 12% relative to the central bank’s foreign exchange reserves. The rest of EM countries have much higher ratios. In addition, foreign ownership of local currency bonds is amongst the lowest in the region (18%). As a result, currency depreciation will not trigger major portfolio outflows and a self-reinforcing downtrend in Thai financial markets. Thailand also has the lowest foreign debt obligations (FDO) among EM countries. Chart II-2Thailand: Moderate Growth In Private Consumption Thailand’s private consumption is growing reasonably well (Chart II-2, top panel). Likewise, passenger and commercial vehicle sales are rising and so is household credit (Chart II-2, bottom two panels). The Thailand MSCI index carries a large weight in domestic and defensive stocks such as transportation, utilities, telecommunication, and consumer staples. These sectors will benefit from moderate consumption growth. In fact, Thai equity outperformance versus EM has been justified by its non-financial companies’ EBITDA outpacing that of EM non-financials (Chart II-3). This trend remains intact. Concerning banks, Thailand’s commercial banks suffer from credit excesses, as do many of their EM peers. However, Thai commercial banks have been responsible in terms of recognizing NPLs and have been properly provisioning for them (Chart II-4). This is contrary to many other EM banks. This means that share prices of Thai commercial banks will outperform their EM counterparts. Finally, although the Thai bourse is more expensive than its EM counterparts, relative equity valuation will likely get even more stretched before a major reversal occurs. Given our cautious view on overall EM, we continue to prefer this richly valued and defensive bourse to the more cyclical, albeit cheaper, but fundamentally vulnerable EM peers. Chart II-3Equity Outperformance Has Been Justified By Earnings Chart II-4Thai Commercial Banks Are Well Provisioned Bottom Line: Investors should keep an overweight position in Thai equities, currency, domestic bonds and credit markets. Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Fed: Depressed U.S. Treasury yields now discount more rate cuts than the FOMC is likely to deliver, even for “insurance” purposes to offset the negative growth impacts from trade policy uncertainty. Maintain a below-benchmark strategic U.S. duration stance, and stay underweight the U.S. in global hedged government bond portfolios. JGBs: The low yield beta of Japanese government bonds can be a useful diversifier of duration risk in global government bond portfolios. We recommend taking advantage of this by increasing allocations to Japan, out of U.S. Treasuries, on a currency-hedged basis (in USD). Feature June FOMC Preview: Hawks & Doves, Living Together, Mass Hysteria! The next two days will be critical for global bond markets, with the U.S. Federal Reserve set to update its outlook for U.S. monetary policy. The only logical interpretation of current market pricing is that bond investors now expect a major hit to U.S. (and global) business confidence and economic growth from a U.S.-China trade war - without any lasting pickup in U.S. inflation from the tariffs. The Fed is stuck in a difficult position at the moment. Looking purely at the state of the economy, there is no immediate need for rate cuts. The unemployment rate is still low at 3.6%; real GDP growth was a solid 3.1% in Q1 and the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model estimates Q2 growth will be a trend-like 2.1%; and consumer confidence remains healthy. Our Global Duration Indicator has hooked up, driven by an improving global leading economic indicator and stabilizing economic sentiment surveys. Yet despite this, U.S. Treasury yields have melted down to levels consistent with much weaker economic growth and inflation, with -83bps of Fed rate cuts now discounted over the next twelve months (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekToo Much Economic Pessimism Now Discounted In U.S. Treasury Yields Chart 2U.S. Business Confidence: Fraying On The Edges The only logical interpretation of current market pricing is that bond investors now expect a major hit to U.S. (and global) business confidence and economic growth from a U.S.-China trade war - without any lasting pickup in U.S. inflation from the tariffs. Reducing interest rates now would be the appropriate pre-emptive policy response, even if the current health of the economy does not justify a need to ease. A look at various U.S. business confidence surveys confirms that interpretation. Both the NFIB Small Business Confidence index and the Duke CFO U.S. Economic Outlook index are still at fairly high levels, but have clearly softened in recent months (Chart 2, top panel). The deterioration in the Duke CFO measure has come from a sharp fall in the percentage of respondents who are more optimistic on the U.S. economic outlook – a move mirrored by the deterioration in the Conference Board’s survey of CEO Confidence (second panel).   On the inflation side, the Duke CFO survey shows that companies have dramatically cut back on their planned increases for labor compensation over the next year, from 5.1% in the March survey to 3.8% in the June survey (third panel). Plans for price increases over the next year have also collapsed from 2.7% to 1.4% in the June survey (bottom panel). As the FOMC deliberates, the doves will make the following case for an insurance rate cut now (Chart 3): The U.S. manufacturing sector has caught up with the global downturn. Market-based inflation expectations remain below levels consistent with the Fed’s 2% PCE inflation target (between 2.3% and 2.4% using CPI-based TIPS breakevens). The 10-year/3-month U.S. Treasury yield curve remains inverted, typically a sign that monetary policy has become restrictive. The trade-weighted dollar remains near the post-crisis highs, even as U.S. bond yields have plunged. Global economic policy uncertainty remains elevated. Meanwhile, the hawks on the FOMC will argue that easing would be premature (Chart 4): Chart 3The Case For Fed Rate Cuts Chart 4The Case Against Fed Rate Cuts U.S. equities are only 2% below the all-time high. High-yield spreads are stable and nowhere close to the peaks seen during previous bouts of market turmoil. A similar argument applies for market volatility, with the VIX index also relatively subdued in the mid-teens. Global leading economic indicators are bottoming out. Underlying realized inflation trends – average hourly earnings growth, trimmed mean inflation measures – are sticky, at cyclical highs. Given the compelling arguments on both sides, the most likely outcome tomorrow will be the Fed holding off on cutting rates, but making a clear case for what it will take to ease at the July 30-31 FOMC meeting. We imagine that checklist to include: a) Failure of U.S.-China trade talks at the G-20 summit later this month to progress toward an agreement. b) The June U.S. Payrolls report, to be released on July 5th, confirming that the soft May reading was not a one-off. c) The June Consumer Price Index report to be released on July 11th, and the May PCE deflator reading out on July 28th, showing no acceleration of some of the “transitory” components that the Fed believes has been dampening U.S. core inflation. d) A major pullback in U.S. equities and/or a widening of U.S. corporate bond spreads, leading to tighter U.S. financial conditions. Chart 5The Market & FOMC Disagree On The Terminal Rate A new set of FOMC economic projections will be unveiled at this meeting, providing the intellectual cover for the Fed to signal that a rate cut is imminent. A new set of interest rate projections will also be provided. While this current edition of the FOMC has been downplaying the importance of the message implied by those interest rate projections, any movement in the “dots” will be noticed by the markets. The dot plot has only existed in a phase of expected Fed tightening. A shift to a projected ease would be momentous. In particular, any shift in the longer run “terminal rate” dot would be critical to ascertaining the Fed’s reaction function (Chart 5). This is especially true given the wide gap between our estimate of the market expectation of the terminal funds rate for this cycle (the 5-year U.S. Overnight Index Swap rate, 5-years forward, which is currently at 2%) and the median FOMC member estimate of the terminal rate from the last set of economic projections in March (2.8%). If the Fed were to make the case for an insurance rate cut tomorrow, while also lowering the terminal rate estimate, this would suggest that the FOMC was growing more concerned over the medium-term economic outlook as fewer future rate hikes would be needed. More dovish guidance on near-term rate moves, but without any change in the terminal rate projection, would imply that the Fed would view any insurance rate cut as a temporary measure that would need to be reversed at a later date if global uncertainty abates, U.S. growth recovers and U.S. inflation rebounds. Whatever the outcome of this week’s FOMC meeting, U.S. Treasury yields now discount a lot of bad news on both growth and inflation. Both the real and inflation expectations component of the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield are at critical support levels (Chart 6), suggesting that yields can only decline further in the face of incrementally more bearish economic data. Given the risk/reward tradeoff of yields at current levels, we do not recommend chasing this Treasury market rally, and prefer to position for an eventual rebound in yields. Chart 6Not Much Downside Left For Treasury Yields It is possible that the Fed gives a message this week that is more hawkish than the market expects, similar to last December, leading to a sharp selloff in risk assets that temporarily pushes the 10-year Treasury yield to 2%. Such an outcome would eventually force the Fed’s hand to cut rates down the road to offset the tightening of financial conditions and stabilize equity and credit markets. This will eventually trigger a rebound in Treasury yields via rising inflation expectations and investors’ moving out of bonds into risky assets. Given the risk/reward tradeoff of yields at current levels, we do not recommend chasing this Treasury market rally, and prefer to position for an eventual rebound in yields. Bottom Line: Depressed U.S. Treasury yields now discount more rate cuts than the FOMC is likely to deliver, even for “insurance” purposes to offset the negative growth impacts from trade policy uncertainty. Maintain a below-benchmark strategic U.S. duration stance, and stay underweight the U.S. in global hedged government bond portfolios. JGBs As A Duration Management Tool In Global Bond Portfolios It has been quite some time since we have discussed Japanese government bonds (JGBs) in this publication. That is for a good reason – they are an incredibly boring asset. We can think of many more interesting investments than a bond market with no yield, no volatility, no inflation and a central bank with no other viable policy options. Yet low Japanese interest rates make borrowing in yen a good source of funding for carry trades. JGBs also offer the usual safe-haven appeal during periods of risk aversion and recessions. JGBs are a low-beta sovereign bond market, making them a useful way to manage duration risk in a global bond portfolio – especially in environments like today, where JGB yields are higher than U.S. Treasury yields on a currency hedged basis (in U.S. dollars). Chart 7JGBs Are Essentially A 'Global Duration' Bet Most relevant for global bond investors - JGBs typically outperform their developed market peers during periods of rising global bond yields, and vice versa. That can be seen in Chart 7, where we show the total return of the Barclays Bloomberg Japan government bond index, hedged into U.S. dollars, on a duration-matched basis to the Global Treasury index. That return is plotted versus the overall Global Treasury index yield-to-maturity. The correlation is clear from the chart: JGBs outperform when the global yield rises, and underperform when the global yield is falling. In other words, JGBs are a low-beta sovereign bond market, making them a useful way to manage duration risk in a global bond portfolio – especially in environments like today, where JGB yields are higher than U.S. Treasury yields on a currency hedged basis (in U.S. dollars). For bond investors with a view that U.S. Treasury yields have fallen too far and are likely to begin rising again, JGBs are a compelling alternative. Selling Treasuries for JGBs, and hedging the currency risk back into U.S. dollars, can be a way to gain a yield pickup while reducing sensitivity to U.S. bond yield changes (i.e. duration) by owning an asset with a low, or even negative, beta to Treasuries. Chart 8BoJ Needs To Ease, But Options Are Limited Japan’s export-led economy is sputtering on worries over U.S.-China trade tensions which are dampening global growth sentiment more broadly. The Bank of Japan’s (BoJ) widely-watched Tankan survey shows that business confidence has turned more pessimistic; the manufacturing PMI has fallen below 50; and the OECD leading economic indicator for Japan is falling sharply. Even with the unemployment rate at a multi-decade low of 2.4%, wage growth remains muted and consumer confidence is softening. Our own BoJ Monitor is signaling the need for easier monetary policy, and there are now -9bps of rate cuts discounted in the Japanese Overnight Index Swap curve (Chart 8). The BoJ’s policy options, however, are limited. The official policy rate (the discount rate) is already negative, and pushing that lower risks damaging Japanese bank profitability even further. More dovish forward guidance is of limited impact with markets already priced for a prolonged period of low rates. The BoJ cannot pursue more quantitative easing (QE) either, as it already owns nearly 50% of all outstanding JGBs - a massive presence that has, at times, disrupted functionality in the JGB market. There is nothing on the horizon indicating that JGB yields will move much from current levels, allowing JGBs to maintain their defensive status in global bond portfolios. The only real policy tool left is Yield Curve Control (YCC), where the BoJ has been targeting a 10-year JGB yield close to 0% and managing purchases to sustain the yield target. In our view, any upward adjustment of that yield target range (currently 0-0.2% on the 10yr JGB) would require a combination of three factors: The USD/JPY exchange rate must increase back to at least the 115-120 range, to provide a lower starting point for the likely yen appreciation that would occur if the BoJ targeted a higher bond yield. Japanese core CPI inflation and nominal wage growth must both rise and remain above 1.5%, which is close enough to the BoJ’s 2% inflation target to justify an increase in nominal bond yields. The momentum in the yield differential between 10-year Treasuries and JGBs must be overshooting to the upside; the BoJ would not want to keep JGB yields too depressed for too long if the global economy was strong enough to boost non-Japanese yields at a rapid pace. Chart 9BoJ Yield Curve Control Is Here To Stay Currently, none of those criteria is in place (Chart 9). USD/JPY is down to 108; core CPI inflation is 0.6%; real wage growth is effectively zero; and the 10yr U.S.-Japan bond spread is contracting. There is nothing on the horizon indicating that JGB yields will move much from current levels, allowing JGBs to maintain their defensive status in global bond portfolios. Changes to our model bond portfolio We have been recommending an overweight stance on JGBs in our model portfolio for much of the past two years. This is in line with our long-held view that global bond yields had to rise on the back of improving global growth and the slow normalization of interest rates by the Fed and other central banks not named the Bank of Japan. Events this year have obviously challenged that view and we have reduced the size of our recommended overweight in our model bond portfolio. Given our view that U.S. Treasury yields are likely to grind higher in the next few months, we see a need to turn to Japan as a way to play defense against a rebound in global bond yields. That means increasing the Japan allocation, and decreasing the U.S. allocation, in our model bond portfolio. We can fine-tune that allocation shift based on the empirical yield betas of U.S. Treasuries to JGBs across different maturity buckets. In Chart 10, we show the rolling 52-week yield beta of JGBs to the other major developed bond markets, shown at the four critical yield curve points (2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 30-year). In all cases, the yield beta is low and fairly consistent across all maturities. When looking at those same rolling betas using yields hedged into U.S. dollars, shown in Chart 11, the story changes (note that we are using hedged yield data from Bloomberg Barclays, so the maturity buckets correspond to those used in the benchmark indices). The yield betas between JGBs and other markets are at or below zero in the 3-5 year and 7-10 year maturity buckets, with particularly large negative betas versus U.S. Treasuries. This implies that there is a gain to be made by focusing any Japan-for-U.S. switch in currency-hedged global bond portfolios on bonds with maturities between three and ten years. Chart 10JGBs Are Low-Beta To Global Yields... Chart 11...And Even Negative-Beta After Hedging Into USD Based on this analysis, and our view on U.S. Treasuries laid out earlier in this report, we are making a shift in our model bond portfolio on page 12 – cutting the weight in the maturity buckets in the middle of the Treasury curve and placing the proceeds into similar maturity buckets in Japan. Bottom Line: The low yield beta of Japanese government bonds can be a useful diversifier of duration risk in global government bond portfolios. We recommend taking advantage of this by increasing allocations to Japan, out of U.S. Treasuries, on a currency-hedged basis (into USD).   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com   Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns