固定収入

特別レポート

Highlights In their current form and size, perpetual bonds issuance and the central bank bills swap program are unlikely game-changers for the banking system in China. However, this mechanism constitutes monetization of banks’ capital and bad assets, i.e., recapitalization of banks, by the PBoC via quantitative easing. Hence, this scheme can be presently viewed as a bazooka that has not yet been loaded by the government. If the authorities pursue this program on a large scale without forcing banks to acknowledge and write off bad assets, banks would regain power to expand their balance sheets, fostering a cyclical economic recovery. Nevertheless, the growth model based on continuous “out of thin air” money and credit expansion inevitably leads to falling productivity growth and rising inflation. Therefore, the economic outcome over the course of several years would be stagflation, which is profoundly bearish for the currency. Feature The Chinese authorities recently launched a Central Bank Bills Swap (CBS) program to boost liquidity and facilitate issuance of commercial banks’ perpetual bonds. Box I-1 on pages 12-13 elaborates on the scheme and provides more detail about the program. Under the CBS program, Chinese banks can buy each other’s perpetual bonds, then exchange these bonds for central bank bills and pledge those bills at the People Bank of China (PBoC) to receive funding. Insurance companies are also allowed to purchase perpetual bonds, but they cannot pledge them with the central bank for funding. What are the macro implications of this program? Can the government use this scheme to recapitalize the banking system? Does the CBS program amount to quantitative easing? Will it be sufficient to boost credit growth in China in 2019? We have conditional answers to these questions – i.e., they all depend on the extent to which the scheme is actually utilized by the authorities. On the one hand, the CBS program could potentially become a proverbial bazooka used by the government to recapitalize the banking system via the PBoC monetizing banks’ bad assets. By doing so, the PBoC would be expanding its balance sheet by injecting excess reserves into the banking system – i.e., quantitative easing. Consequently, it could help banks accelerate credit and money growth, in turn helping the economy. The long-run collateral damage in this scenario, however, would be an RMB depreciation. On the other hand, the authorities could limit the usage of the scheme via various regulatory approvals and norms. In such a case, the impact of the program on money/credit growth and the real economy as well as on the exchange rate would be limited. In other words, it might end up being no more than a tool to help the four large banks meet BIS's TLAC requirements. At the moment, there is not enough information to determine whether the program will be a game changer for the banking system in China, leading to a surge in credit and broader economic recovery. Both total assets and broad credit growth among banks remain very weak for now (Chart I-1). In other words, it is a bazooka that has not been loaded, and may never be loaded because of the potential for seriously negative ramifications over the long term. Chart I-1Chinese Banks: Total Assets And Broad Credit Growth Consequently, we maintain our view that China’s growth will continue to disappoint in the first half of 2019, and that China-related plays, including many emerging markets (EM), remain at risk of a renewed selloff. Bank Recapitalization? In theory, the issuance of perpetual bonds along with the CBS program can be used to recapitalize the banking system. Each bank can buy perpetual bonds issued by other banks up to 10% of their core Tier-1 capital. These banks can get cheap financing from the PBoC by swapping these perpetual bonds with central bank bills, and then pledging those bills at the central bank to get funding. Hence, under this scheme, the PBoC will be financing purchases of perpetual bonds, which means the monetary authorities will indirectly be funding banks’ recapitalization. It is an “open secret” that Chinese banks would be considerably undercapitalized if they were forced to recognize non-performing assets. The non-performing loan (NPL) ratio currently stands at 1.9%, and the special-mention loans ratio is at 3.2%; and the sum of both is at 5.1% of total loans (Chart I-2, top panel). NPL provisions presently amount to 3.4% of total loans. Chart I-2Chinese Banks Are Massively Under-Provisioned When expressed as a share of total risk-weighted assets, the aggregate NPLs and special-mention loans are equal to 4.2% (Chart I-2, bottom panel). At 2.8% of risk-weighted assets, NPL provisions are extremely inadequate. Assuming non-performing assets turn out to be 10% of total risk-weighted assets, some 40% of banks' capital would be wiped out, according to our simulation presented in Table I-1. This is after accounting for existing provisions and assuming a 20% recovery rate of non-performing assets. Provided that risk-weighting assigns a zero weight to banks’ claims on the government, a 50% risk weight to claims on households and a 100% weight to claims on companies, the assumption of 10% of non-performing assets in total risk-weighted assets is reasonable. This is especially the case when the enormous credit boom of the past 10 years is taken into consideration. As a result, in this scenario the capital adequacy ratio (CAR) will drop from its current level of 13.8% to 9.4%. This will bring the CAR below the regulatory minimum of 11%. To raise the CAR to the regulatory minimum of 11%, the banking system would require RMB 2 trillion of capital. This is greater than the maximum potential demand for perpetual bonds that we estimate to be up to RMB 1.4 trillion. To estimate this number, we assumed all banks purchase perpetual bonds in amounts equal to 5% of their core Tier-1 capital and all insurance companies buy perpetual bonds in an amount equal to 5% of assets. This is not an underestimation of potential demand for perpetual bonds since there are currently limitations on banks’ ability to issue and purchase these bonds as elaborated in Box I-1 on pages 12-13. In short, it is not clear if perpetual bond issuance and the CBS will be sufficient to undertake full recapitalization of the banking system and allow banks to accelerate their balance sheet expansion to finance an economic recovery. Bottom Line: In their current form and shape, perpetual bonds and the CBS program are unlikely to be a game-changer for the banking system in China. However, if the authorities eliminate limitations and change regulatory norms, the scheme could potentially be used to recapitalize China’s banking system. This is why this scheme can presently be viewed as a bazooka that has not yet been loaded by the government. Does CBS Represent QE? Its Impact On Liquidity And Money Supply The CBS program is a form of quantitative easing (QE). It will expand the PBoC’s balance sheet and banking system liquidity (excess reserves at the central bank), as elaborated in Box I-1 and Diagram I-1 on pages 12-14. If pursued on a large scale, this scheme would constitute monetization of banks’ capital and their bad assets by the central bank. The mechanism is already in place, but the extent to which authorities will use it to recapitalize banks remains unclear. Even though the CBS program will expand banking system liquidity – i.e., excess reserves at the central bank – it will not – however - affect broad money supply. The basis is simple: Banks’ excess reserves at the central bank are not part of the broad money supply in any country. Banks use excess reserves to settle payments between one another and with the central bank. Banks do not lend out excess reserves. Further, only a central bank can create excess reserves, and it does so “out of thin air.” In brief, excess reserves rather than corporate and individual deposits constitute genuine banking system liquidity. Barring lending to or buying assets from non-banks – which does not typically occur outside of QE programs – central banks do not create broad money or deposits.1 Money/deposits, the ultimate purchasing power for economic agents, is created by commercial banks “out of thin air,” as we have discussed and illustrated in our series of reports on money, credit and savings.2 Having adequate capital and liquidity as well as positive risk appetite, banks can expand their balance sheets, i.e., originate loans and buy various securities. When banks make loans or purchase assets from non-banks, they simultaneously create deposits and new purchasing power. Chart I-3 demonstrates that in recent years, excess reserves in China’s banking system have been flat, yet banks’ assets and the supply of money has expanded tremendously. The opposite can also occur: Banks’ excess reserves can mushroom, but banks may actually be reluctant to grow their balance sheets. This was the case after the Lehman crisis with U.S. banks and in the wake of the European debt crisis with euro area banks. Chart I-3China: Excess Reserves And Broad Money Finally, we have elaborated at great length in our past reports that China’s money and credit excesses do not stem from its high household savings rate. Rather, like any credit bubble in any country, China’s leverage is due to the creation of credit/money “out of thin air.”2 Bottom Line: Perpetual bond issuance and the CBS program will expand the banking system’s excess reserves, but not broad money supply. Besides, it is not certain that excess reserves will accelerate loan growth. Credit origination by banks depends on many other factors such as banks’ willingness to expand their risk assets, loan demand and the regulatory regime and norms. Deleveraging Has Not Yet Started One cannot discuss the potential for a monetary bazooka in China without an update on the status of deleveraging. The fact is that deleveraging in China has not even begun: Credit is still expanding faster than nominal GDP growth. The most common way to measure leverage/debt is to compare it with the cash flow that is used to service debt. Nominal GDP is a measure of cash flow in an economy from a macro perspective. The debt-to-asset ratio is a poor measure of leverage because asset valuations are often subjective: Assets are valued by debtors themselves. Besides, apart from distressed credit investors, one does not want to be a creditor to a country or company that has to sell assets to service its debt. Stock and bond prices of debtor countries or companies tailspin when the latter have to sell assets to service debt. The top panel of Chart I-4 illustrates that China’s enterprise and household domestic credit/debt is still expanding at an annual rate of close to 10% at a time when nominal GDP growth has slowed to 8%. Chart I-4China: Deleveraging Has Not Even Begun Consistently, the debt to GDP ratio has not declined at all (Chart I-4, bottom panel). In this context, a rhetorical question is in order: Should China ramp up money/credit growth and monetize banks’ NPLs, given that deleveraging has yet to take place? Economic Ramifications Of Deploying The Bazooka What would be the economic ramifications if the Chinese authorities once again promote and allow unrelenting money/credit expansion “out of thin air” to bail out zombie banks and companies? Cyclically: If the authorities compel banks to acknowledge NPLs and write them off as and when the PBoC finances their recapitalization, banks may not be in a position to accelerate loan growth. This scenario entails that credit growth and hence cyclical sectors in China would remain weak for a while. In contrast, if the authorities pursue recapitalization of banks without forcing them to acknowledge and write off bad assets, banks would regain their power to expand their balance sheets, fostering a cyclical economic recovery. Structurally (in the long term): The growth model based on continuous “out of thin air” money and credit expansion inevitably breeds economic inefficiencies, falling productivity growth and rising inflation. In short, the economic outcome over the course of several years would be stagflation. Chart I-5 illustrates that China’s ICOR (incremental capital-to-output ratio) is rising, or inversely that the output-to-capital ratio is falling. This entails worsening economic efficiency and slowing productivity growth. Chart I-5Symptoms Of Rising Inefficiencies Chart I-6 shows a potential stylized roadmap for the Chinese economy in the years ahead if the credit and money bubbles are inflated further without corporate restructuring, bankruptcies, the imposition of hard budget constraints and meaningfully improved capital/credit allocation. The red line represents potential GDP growth, and the dotted red line is our projection. In any economy, the potential growth rate is equal to the sum of growth rates of the labor force and productivity. China’s labor force is no longer expanding and will begin shrinking in the coming years (Chart I-7). Hence, going forward, the sole source of potential GDP growth in China will be productivity growth. Productivity growth has been slowing and will continue to do so if structural market-oriented reforms are not implemented (Chart I-8, top panel). Besides, the industrialization ratio has already risen a lot (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7China: No Tailwind From Labor Force Chart I-8China: Productivity Is Slowing With the potential GDP growth rate in China declining, future fiscal and credit stimulus may lead to higher nominal – but not real – growth. The latter will be constrained by a slowing rate of potential real GDP growth. Higher nominal but weaker potential (real) growth entails rising inflation. The combination of higher inflation along with the need to maintain very low nominal interest rates to assist debtors is bearish for the currency. In such a scenario, there will be intensifying depreciation pressure on the yuan from the tremendous overhang of RMBs in the banking system (Chart I-9). The PBoC’s foreign exchange reserves of $3 trillion will not be sufficient to backstop the enormous amount of RMB (money) supply of RMB 210 trillion – which is equivalent to US$30 trillion (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Helicopter Money In China Chart I-10PBoC FX Reserves Are Equal To 10% Of Broad Money Supply If broad money supply continues to expand at an annual rate of close to 9-10% or above, downward pressure on the yuan will escalate immensely, and the Chinese authorities will have no choice but to close the capital account completely and also heavily regulate current account transactions. Bottom Line: If the authorities do not restrain the PBoC’s financing of perpetual bond issuance via the CBS and in the interim do not force banks to write off bad assets, the upshot will be the monetization of banks’ bad assets by the PBoC. This will constitute the ultimate socialist put for banks and zombie debtors, as well as for the entire economy. Business cycle swings, bankruptcies and deflation are inherent features of a market-driven/capitalist economy. A socialist put via promoting unlimited money and credit creation entails long-term stagflation – lower productivity growth and rising inflation. This is very bearish for the currency. Investment Conclusions To be sure, the above analysis suggests that the bazooka has not been loaded and the Chinese economy is not about to stage an imminent recovery. BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy team maintains its bearish stance on China-related plays worldwide. We are closely monitoring China’s money and credit aggregates as well as indicators from the real economy to gauge when China’s business cycle will revive. So far, these indicators continue to point south. EM risk assets and currencies have recently been boosted by the Federal Reserve’s dovish turn. But as we argued in last week’s report, this will prove short-lived. Global trade, China’s growth and commodities prices are the key drivers of EM financial markets, not the Fed. Provided our negative outlook for these three factors due to the ongoing slowdown in China, we continue to recommend a negative stance on EM in absolute terms, and underweighting EM stocks and credit versus their U.S. peers. The dollar’s weakness stemming from the downshift in U.S. interest rate expectations is running out of steam. Chart I-11 shows that the broad trade-weighted dollar is trying to find support at its 200-day moving average. Conversely, the EM stocks index and copper prices are struggling to break above their 200-day moving averages (Chart I-11, middle and bottom panels). Chart I-11Dollar And EM / Commodities: Mirror Images We believe the dollar is poised for a breakout, and EM and copper are due for a breakdown. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com   Box 1 Issuance Of Perpetual Bonds And CBS Program The authorities are promoting the issuance of perpetual bonds and the CBS program as a scheme for the country’s big-four banks to raise capital to meet BIS ’s Total Loss-absorbing Capacity (TLAC) requirements for globally systemically important banks. Limitations and other details on the perpetual bonds issuance and CBS program: 24 out of 30 banks listed on the A-share market are presently qualified to issue perpetual bonds as their assets exceed RMB 200 billion, a threshold established by the PBoC. Perpetual bonds will boost the Tier-1 capital of issuing banks. Banks are allowed to purchase perpetual bonds issued by other banks in amounts up to 10% of their core Tier-1 capital. Only primary dealers (46 banks and 2 brokers) can exchange qualified perpetual bonds they hold for PBoC bills, with a maximum exchange period of three years. The incentive for banks to purchase perpetual bonds will for now be low because these bonds consume large amounts of capital. The risk weights for these perpetual bonds ranges between 150-250%. How Does It Work? As Diagram I-1 on page 14 illustrates, when Bank B purchases perpetual bonds from Bank A, the former transfers excess reserves to the latter. The amount of outstanding deposits, i.e., money supply, is not affected at all. Hence, there is no direct impact on the broad money supply. Banks do not require deposits to make loans and buy securities. Banks need excess reserves at the central bank to pay for or settle payments with other banks. When Bank B transfers excess reserves to Bank A, the aggregate amount of excess reserves in the banking system does not change. Bank B can swap these perpetual bonds with central bank bills, and then pledge these bills at the PBoC to get excess reserves. As it does so, Bank B will replenish its excess reserves. Consequently, the amount of excess reserves in the banking system will expand, as will the PBoC’s balance sheet. Overall, the issuance of perpetual bonds and CBS swaps lead to both bank recapitalization and banking system liquidity (excess reserves) expansion. Why has the PBoC decided to fund the issuance of perpetual bonds? Without PBoC funding, demand for perpetual bonds might be very low, and yields on them could spike. Higher yields could lure away capital from other corporate bonds, producing higher borrowing costs in credit markets. On the positive side, the monetary authorities will not only recapitalize a number of large banks but will also do so by capping borrowing costs in the credit markets and injecting more liquidity into the banking system. On the negative side, yields of these perpetual bonds will not be determined by the market. Rather they will be artificially suppressed by potential open-ended PBoC funding. This will preserve China’s inefficient credit allocation system and misallocation of capital in general. In a market economy, the authorities will typically force banks to raise capital in securities markets or privately. More issuance, especially when it comes from many banks simultaneously, typically pushes down the prices of bank stocks and bonds. The basis is securities issuance often dilutes existing shareholders and is also negative for bondholders. This threat of dilution and losing money incentivizes existing shareholders and bondholders of a bank to impose discipline on the bank’s management. Consequently, banks would be better run and capital allocation would be more efficient than it would otherwise be in a system where such oversight and incentives are absent. In brief, the market mechanism deters banks from risky and speculative behavior and contributes to the long-term health of the banking system, as well as the efficiency of capital allocation in the real economy. By allowing banks to purchase each other’s bonds, and with the PBoC financing it, China is not imposing the much-needed market discipline on bank shareholders, bondholders and by extension, bank management. This does not promote efficient capital allocation and higher productivity growth in the long run. Footnotes 1      Money supply is the sum of all deposits in the banking system. Hence, we use terms money and deposits interchangeably. 2      Please see the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses”, dated October 26, 2016, Special Report “China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB?”, dated November 23, 2016, Special Report “Do Credit Bubbles Originate From HIgh National Savings?”, dated January 18, 2017, Special Report “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings Wall'”, dated December 20, 2017 Special Report “Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China and Brazil”, dated March 22, 2018, available at www.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Stay tactically overweight to equities for the time being. Close the overweight to industrial commodities versus equities. The financials, basic resources, and industrials equity sectors can continue to outperform for a few months longer. EM can also continue to outperform DM for a few months longer. Overweight Germany’s DAX versus German bunds. The second half of the year is going to be much tougher than the first half. Feature Chart of the WeekPessimism Was Overdone: The Classical Cyclicals And EM Are Rebounding Locked In An Intimate Embrace Last week, we highlighted a frustrating truth: for the past 16 months the broad equity market has been on a journey to nowhere. Yet the journey has been far from boring. There have been exciting detours of 10-15 percent in both directions, albeit these moves have been short-lived, lasting no more than three months at a time. The same truth applies to the broad bond market: for the past sixteen months the global long bond yield – defined here as the average of the yields on the 30-year German bund yield and 30-year T-bond – has also ended up going nowhere. On this journey too, there have been exciting detours of up to 50 basis points in both directions, but these moves have also lasted no more than three months before retracing. It follows that for the past 16 months, the strategic allocation to equities, bonds and cash has had zero impact on investment performance, but the tactical allocation to the asset classes has had a huge impact. Yet here’s the thing: the sharp tactical moves in the bond market and in the stock market have been intimately embraced. When the global long bond yield has approached the top of its range, it has catalysed a sharp sell-off in equities; and when the bond yield has approached the bottom of its range, it has catalysed a sharp rally in equities (Chart I-2). In fact, over the past 16 months, asset allocation has boiled down to a very simple trading rule based on the global long bond yield: above 2.2 percent, sell equities; below 1.95 percent, buy equities. Today, the yield stands at 1.85 percent, suggesting a tactically overweight stance to equities. Chart I-2The Sharp Tactical Moves In The Bond Market And Stock Market Are Intimately Connected The Persistent Trends Are In Sectors Some investors cannot shift their portfolios quickly enough to exploit the tactical opportunities in the markets. They need trends that persist for at least six months to a year. The good news is that these more persistent trends do exist, but to find them you have to look at equity sectors, and specifically the classically cyclical sectors (Chart of the Week). The financials and basic resources sectors were in strong relative downtrends through most of 2018; but for the last four months these classically cyclical sectors have flipped into very clear uptrends (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). The same is true for industrials, albeit the end of the downtrend has happened more recently (Chart I-5). Chart I-3Financials Are Rebounding Chart I-4Basic Resources Are Rebounding Chart I-5Industrials Are Rebounding For the avoidance of doubt, technology is not a classically cyclical sector because the sales of technology products – particularly to consumers – are relatively insensitive to short-term fluctuations in the economy. In fact, the relative performance of technology is an almost perfect mirror-image of financials (Chart I-6). Chart I-6The Technology Sector Is Not A Classical Cyclical Neither is the chemicals sector a classical cyclical. Given that raw material prices are an input cost for chemical manufacturers, the chemicals sector can underperform when raw material prices are rising in a cyclical up-oscillation (Chart I-7). It follows that the three true classically cyclical sectors are: financials, basic resources and industrials. Chart I-7The Chemicals Sector Is Not A Classical Cyclical What if your investment process does not allow you to invest in sectors and benefit from their well-defined and longer trends? The good news is that you can play these same trends through regional and country stock market indexes. We refer readers to previous reports for the details, but the crucial message is that regional and country relative performances stem from nothing more than the stock markets’ defining sector skews combined with sector relative performances.1 This revelation of what truly drives regional and country relative performance is bittersweet. It is sweet because it simplifies an investment process that can be very complicated. But it is also bitter because it highlights that the investment industry is still replete with unnecessary layers of complexity. Still, just to drive home the point, we would like the charts to do the talking. The relative performance of financials, the relative performance of Italy’s MIB, and the relative performance of Emerging Markets (EM) versus Developed Markets (DM) are all effectively one and the same story (Chart I-8 and Chart I-9). Chart I-8One And The Same Story: Financials And Italy... Chart I-9...And Financials And EM Versus DM What Are The Markets Telling Us, And Do We Agree? Another very common question we get is: what is our forecast for economic growth and profits growth? For example, two questions on everyone’s lips right now are: can Germany avoid a technical recession, and what is our forecast for Germany’s growth from here? These are indeed important questions, but for investors they are not the most important questions. Financial markets are a discounting mechanism. So for investors, the most important question should always be: what is discounted in the current market price, and is that too optimistic or too pessimistic? Over-optimism and over-pessimism on the economy are especially important for the classically cyclical sectors because their profits have a very high operational gearing to their sales: a small change in the sales outcome has a huge impact on the profit outcome and, therefore, the price.  If the price is discounting a booming economy and what actually transpires is that the economy grows modestly, then a seemingly benign outcome of respectable growth will paradoxically cause the price to slump. Conversely, if the price is discounting a very pessimistic outcome and what actually transpires is anything better than the ultra-pessimism, then even a bad outcome will paradoxically cause the price to soar. In this regard, the recent underperformance of Germany’s DAX versus German bunds is at an extreme not far from that during the euro sovereign debt crisis in 2011-12 (Chart I-10). So the important question for investors is: will the actual economic outcome transpire to be as extreme as that? Our answer is that the extreme underperformance of the DAX versus bunds is discounting an overly pessimistic outcome, and on that basis the correct stance is to be overweight the DAX versus bunds.   Chart I-10Overly Pessimistic: The DAX Versus Bunds Turning to the classical cyclicals, these sectors have rebounded because their embedded assumptions for growth reached peak pessimism in October. Since then, the pessimism has abated at the margin because of improving short-term impulses from Chinese stimulus, lower global bond yields, and sharply lower energy prices. Given that positive (and negative) impulse phases reliably tend to last for six to eight months, our expectation is that this tailwind for the classical cyclical sectors – financials, basic resources, and industrials – can continue for a few months longer. Which means that the outperformance of EM versus DM can also continue for a few months longer. In terms of asset allocation, long industrial commodities versus equities worked very powerfully at the end of last year, but the relative merits of the two asset classes are now more evenly balanced. Hence, we are now closing this position in profit. Finally, our major concern is for later in the year when the aforementioned improving short-term impulses will inevitably fade, and even potentially reverse. Bear in mind that the impulses arise from the short-term changes in credit flows, bond yields, and the oil price. It follows that to recreate these positive impulses for later in the year, bond yields and/or the oil price have to keep falling. This is not our base case, so enjoy the positive impulses while they last! As the year progresses the investment environment is going to get much tougher. Fractal Trading System* The sharp underperformance of the Nikkei 225 versus the Hang Seng is at the limit of tight liquidity that has signaled all of the recent trend reversals in this relative position. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to go long the Nikkei 225 versus the Hang Seng. Set a profit target of 4.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. We now have seven 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. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * 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, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnote 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report “Oil, Banks, And Bonds: The Oddities Of 2018”, dated November 29, 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

Highlights Uncertainty & Growth: There is currently a strong link between depressed global growth expectations and elevated levels of economic policy uncertainty (U.S.-China trade tensions, Brexit, etc). Monetary Policy: A growing number of central banks have taken “risk management” measures to try and prevent a deeper downturn in actual economic activity by shifting to a less hawkish policy bias – even with tight labor markets. Implications For Bond Yields: We do not expect the current soft patch for global growth to extend into a more prolonged period of weak activity, given that global policy rates remain at highly stimulative levels. This will set up the next wave of rising global bond yields, but likely not until the latter half of 2019 (and focused mostly on U.S. Treasury yields). Feature Central Banks Take Out Some Insurance The list of global central banks taking a more cautious stance on monetary policy expanded last week. The Bank of England and Reserve Bank of Australia both cut their growth forecasts for 2019 and signaled that there was no chance of interest rate increases in the near term. This follows similar guidance provided in recent weeks by the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada and Sweden’s Riksbank. There was even a dovish surprise in the emerging world, with the Reserve Bank of India delivering an unexpected rate cut last week. In Europe, the European Central Bank (ECB) has not yet shifted its already highly-dovish policy guidance (no rate hikes until at least September), but ECB President Mario Draghi recently noted that the downside risks to European growth have increased. The European Commission went a step further and downgraded its growth forecasts for 2019 last week. The Bank of Japan cut its inflation forecast for 2019 last month, also indicating that monetary policy would remain unchanged over at least the rest of the year. The language used by all of these policymakers to explain their dovish turn was eerily similar, highlighting elevated global uncertainty weighing on growth expectations and, through plunging asset prices, tightening financial conditions (Chart of the Week). The sources of that uncertainty are well known to investors: U.S.-China tariff negotiations, slowing global trade, Brexit, domestic U.S. political squabbles (i.e. government shutdowns over “The Wall”). Until those developments begin to get resolved, uncertainty will continue to weigh on economic confidence. Chart of the WeekThe “Risk Management” Approach To Setting Monetary Policy 21st Century central bankers mostly subscribe to a “risk management” approach to policymaking. This means setting policy dovish enough to cut off downside tail risks to growth during periods of elevated uncertainty about the economic outlook – especially when inflation is below policymaker targets. Yet central bankers remain devoted followers of the Phillips Curve framework. There is a limit to how dovish they can become while unemployment is low and wage growth is increasing. This limits how far government bond yields can fall if growth does not slow enough to cause unemployment to rise. So far, the softer global growth seen in recent quarters has not resulted in any increase in unemployment rates in the major developed economies. Of course, employment is a lagging variable. If the current soft patch for growth extends into a more prolonged slowdown in the coming months, resulting in companies cutting hiring or shedding labor to protect weakening profitability, then there is room for bond yields to continue to fall as markets begin to price in easier monetary policy. That is not our expectation. The U.S. economy remains on solid footing, and we anticipate additional policy actions from China to stabilize economic growth and put a floor under global trade activity. This will eventually cause central bankers to move back to a less dovish policy stance more consistent with trends in unemployment and inflation, with the U.S. Fed leading the way on that front in the latter half of 2019. The eventual result will be higher U.S. Treasury yields, both in absolute terms and relative to government bond yields of the other major developed economies. Bottom Line: There is currently a strong link between depressed global growth expectations and elevated levels of economic policy uncertainty. Central banks are taking the appropriate “risk management” measures to prevent a deeper downturn in actual economic activity by shifting to a less hawkish policy bias – even with tight labor markets. The Link Between Economic Confidence & Monetary Policy The pro-risk rally that opened 2019 endured its first test last week, with several major market prices – including the S&P 500 index, U.S. high-yield spreads, the 10-year Italy-Germany government bond yield differential and the DXY index of the U.S. dollar - bouncing off key medium-term moving averages (Chart 2). Purely from a technical analysis perspective, a test of the primary trends established in the latter half of 2018 (bearish equities and credit, bullish the U.S. dollar) was to be expected, particularly given the severity of the past selloff in global equity markets. Chart 2The First Test For The 2019 Risk Rally Investor sentiment towards global growth, however, remains pessimistic. Nervousness over the outcome for the U.S.-China trade talks, with the March 1 deadline fast approaching, is an obvious source of concern given how slowing Chinese import demand has spilled over so dramatically into weaker global trade activity (Chart 3). Yet there are several other dates for investors to fret about in the near term, including the deadline for a deal to avert another U.S. government shutdown (this Friday), the U.S. debt ceiling deadline (also March 1) and “Brexit day” in the U.K. (March 29). Chart 3A China-Led Slowing Of Global Trade Yet this current soft patch for the global economy is occurring alongside an extreme divergence between plunging growth expectations and more stable readings on current economic conditions. The fall in expectations is visible in the most countries, according to data series that measure confidence for businesses, consumers and investors. One such set of data that we pay close attention to is the ZEW survey. The ZEW survey, produced by a prominent German economic think tank, is most well-known for the data related to Germany itself. The ZEW also produces similar survey data measuring readings on “current conditions” and “expectations” for other major developed economies: the U.S., U.K., Japan, France, and Italy (as well as an aggregate measure for the entire euro area). This makes the ZEW data useful for conducting cross-country analysis of economic sentiment, as the survey structure and questions are consistent for each country. Looking at the individual country readings from the ZEW data, shown in Charts 4 and 5, it is clear that the depressed readings on global growth sentiment are similar across all major countries. Yet at the same time, the individual ZEW Current Conditions indices, while off their cyclical peaks, are exhibiting more diverse trends. The U.S., in particular, stands out as having a very robust reading on Current Conditions, which lines up with the overall firmness of the U.S. economic data. Chart 4A Co-Ordinated Decline Of Expectations, Not Actual Growth Chart 5The European Growth Slump Is Broad-Based The strong correlation between the ZEW Expectations readings suggests that there is a common factor causing market participants to become more worried about the outlook for global growth. These can all be summarized under “uncertainty”, for which we also have data available at the country level from the Economic Policy Uncertainty indices developed by researchers Scott Baker, Nick Bloom and Steven Davis.1 In Charts 6 and 7, we plot the Policy Uncertainty indices against the ZEW growth expectations indices for the individual countries/regions for which the ZEW conducts its surveys. The growth expectations data is shown inverted to correlate with the Policy Uncertainty indices. The visual relationship shows that the current period of elevated Policy Uncertainty has occurred alongside the plunge in growth expectations, seen most strongly in the U.S., U.K. and Italy. Chart 6Uncertainty Slamming Sentiment Hardest In The U.S. & U.K. Chart 7Germany Weathering The Storm Better Than Italy & France But can this link between uncertain and growth expectations result in an actual slowing of economic activity? Can slumping expectations become a self-fulfilling prophecy? One way to look at this is to see how growth expectations evolve relative to current economic growth. We show those gaps between the Current Conditions and Growth Expectations components of the ZEW survey in Charts 8 and 9. A rising line indicates a wide gap between Current Conditions and Expectations and vice versa. We also add real GDP growth in each panel of the charts, to compare that “ZEW Gap” to actual growth outcomes. Chart 8The “ZEW Gap” Now At Levels That Have Heralded Past Downturns … Chart 9… Within Europe Too … The current gap between the two measures is at or near the widest levels seen in the history of the ZEW data dating back to the early 1990s. The previous times that the ZEW Gap reached such levels, economic growth slowed for all the countries in the ZEW survey – most notably in the run-up to the recessions in the early 1990s, early 2000s and 2009. The ZEW Gap also accurately signaled the recessions seen within the euro area after the 2011 European Debt Crisis. The first implication of this result is large discrepencies between strong current growth and expectations almost always resolve themselves with actual weaker growth, if not outright recession – not a good sign for the global economy in the coming quarters. Yet one major difference between today and those prior episodes of a wide ZEW Gap is the level of monetary policy accommodation. In those prior episodes that ended in recession, central bankers raised policy rates to restrictive levels that eventually caused the growth slowdown. This can be seen in Chart 10, where we plot the ZEW Gaps vs the “Monetary Policy Gaps”, defined as the difference between actual central bank policy rates and an estimate of neutral rates derived from a simple Taylor Rule formula.2 Chart 10...But Monetary Policy Is Not Tight This Time Today, central banks are maintaining policy rates far below levels of neutral consistent with long-run potential growth and economies operating at or beyond full capacity – even with inflation rates that are below central bank targets. This should help cushion the blow from weakening growth expectations stemming from the current period of elevated economic uncertainty. The root cause of all recessions is always monetary policy that becomes too restrictive. Typically, that occurs directly through central banks hiking rates above neutral and actively engineering a growth slowdown. It can also occur if an external shock to growth is severe enough to depress economic activity faster than policymakers can identify the slowdown and respond with easier monetary policy. The latter appears to be the outcome that investors are most worried about today. Yet with central banks now turning more dovish in response to elevated uncertainty, at a time when monetary policy appears already highly stimulative, the odds of a monetary policy error crushing growth are low. We are more worried about the opposite outcome, where policymakers are giving more stimulus to a global economy that does not necessarily need it, given that overly tight monetary policy is not the main problem at the moment. In other words, policymakers who have become more dovish today will need to become less dovish later, if and when the current laundry list of uncertainties begin to get resolved. We think that is only a real issue in the U.S. at the moment, though. Our Central Bank Monitors continue to indicate that tighter monetary policy is still required in the U.S. (Chart 11), unlike the Monitors from the U.K., euro area and Japan – the other countries where we have looked at the expectations/uncertainty relationship. Thus, we expect U.S. Treasury yields to have more upside than German Bund, U.K. Gilt or Japanese government bonds over the next 6-12 months. Chart 11The Message From Our CB Monitors - Stay Underweight U.S. Treasuries Bottom Line: We do not expect the current soft patch for global growth to extend into a more prolonged period of weak activity, given that global policy rates remain at highly stimulative levels. This will set up the next wave of rising global bond yields, but likely not until the latter half of 2019 (and focused mostly on U.S. Treasury yields).   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The full set of global Policy Uncertainty Indices, with data downloads and methodological descriptions, can be found at  www.policyuncertainty.com. 2 Neutral Policy Rate = Potential GDP growth + central bank inflation target + (0.5 x (current inflation minus central bank inflation target)) +( 0.5 * the IMF estimate of the output gap)). Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Treasury Yields & Data Surprises: Our model suggests that positive data surprises are more likely than negative ones during the next couple of months, meaning that the 10-year Treasury yield is biased higher. Positioning data show no long or short consensus among bond investors, but we think below-benchmark portfolio duration will pay off over both short term (0-3 months) and medium term (6-12) investment horizons. Monetary Policy: The Fed cited tighter financial conditions and slower global growth as the two main reasons for pausing the rate hike cycle. Both of those risks appear poised to ease in the coming months. Expect rate hikes to resume in the second half of 2019. Inflation: Year-over-year core inflation appears tame at the moment, but that will change during the next few months as base effects shift from a headwind to a tailwind. Wage acceleration and core services (excluding shelter and medical care) inflation will be the main drivers. Feature It didn’t take very long. Just two days in fact. Two days after Chairman Powell made the Fed’s pause official we learned that the economy added 304k jobs in January (vs. 165k expected) and that the ISM Manufacturing PMI rebounded to a very healthy 56.6 (vs. 54.0 expected). In short, just as the Fed capitulated on rate hikes, the economic data made that decision look offside. Granted, the bond market does not yet see it this way. The economic data surprise index has moved firmly into positive territory, but Treasury yields have so far refused to follow suit, bucking the typical correlation (Chart 1). Still, we can’t help but feel that consensus economic expectations remain overly downbeat, and that this could set the bond market up for a nasty near-term shock. Chart 1Market Set Up For A Surprise Bond Market At Risk In prior research, we documented the strong correlation between economic data surprises and changes in the 10-year Treasury yield.1 We found that if the U.S. economic surprise index ends a given month in positive territory, there is a good chance that the 10-year Treasury yield increased during that month, and vice-versa (Chart 2A). This relationship also holds reasonably well for 3-month and 6-month investment horizons (Charts 2B & 2C). This is a good thing to know, but it is only useful if we can also predict future economic data surprises. That is certainly no easy task. However, we can exploit what we know about market behavior to give ourselves a slight advantage. For instance, we know that investors revise down their economic expectations after a long string of data disappointments, making it easier for future data to surprise on the upside. Similarly, a long string of positive data surprises usually leads to unrealistically strong expectations, setting the market up for a letdown. This dynamic causes the economic surprise index to be a mean reverting series, and we find that we can explain 55% of its historical variation using the following 3-factor auto regressive model: ESIt+1 = 0.87*(ESIt) – 0.25*(ESIt-1) – 0.16*(ESIt-2), where ESIt is the surprise index’s value in the current month Notice that next month’s index value is a positive function of the current month’s value, but a negative function of the values from each of the prior two months. At present, our model predicts that the surprise index will reach 18 one month from now (see the ‘X’ in Chart 1). As shown in Table 1, a reading of 18 from the surprise index coincides with a higher 10-year Treasury yield 53% of the time. Table 1End-Of-Period Surprise Index Levels And Whether The 10-Year Yield Rose Or Fell During That Period (2003 – Present) Bond Market Positioning Investor positioning and data surprises are closely related concepts. When investor economic expectations are downbeat, it is highly likely that bond market participants also carry a lot of duration risk. A large “net long” duration exposure can make the ensuing bond sell-off worse when the data inevitably surprise to the upside. At present, the JPMorgan Duration Survey shows that investors are neither severely long nor short duration risk (Chart 3). Speculators in 10-year Treasury futures are slightly net short (Chart 3, panel 2), and sentiment surveys report that investors are somewhat bearish on bonds (Chart 3, bottom panel). In general, positioning still has a slightly bearish tinge, but is much closer to neutral than it was a few months ago, prior to the sharp plunge in yields. Chart 3Positioning Close To Neutral Bottom Line: Our model suggests that positive data surprises are more likely than negative ones during the next couple of months, meaning that the 10-year Treasury yield is biased higher. Extreme “net long” bond market positioning would exacerbate any related near-term sell-off, but surveys indicate that positioning is close to neutral. This leads us to expect higher yields in the next few months, but no major market dislocation. The Fed’s Dovish Pivot We have not published a regular Weekly Report since the FOMC signaled a pause in its rate hike cycle on January 30. Since then, many have speculated that the Fed’s rate hike cycle is already over and the market has eagerly taken that message on board. As of last Friday’s close, the overnight index swap curve was priced for 11 bps of rate cuts during the next 12 months and 23 bps of rate cuts during the next 24 months. Data Dependence  Unfortunately for bond bulls, the case for rate cuts is simply not supported by the economic data. In fact, a look at the reasons used to justify the Fed’s dovish pivot reveals that the pause in rate hikes will almost certainly prove temporary. In his post-meeting press conference, Chairman Powell attributed the Fed’s dovish turn to the following factors: Tighter financial conditions Slower global growth Government-related risks (i.e. Brexit, U.S./China trade discussions, and the U.S. government shutdown) Financial Conditions Financial conditions tightened sharply near the end of last year, as can been seen by looking at the three components of our Fed Monitor (Chart 4). Our Fed Monitor is a composite indicator designed to predict whether rate hikes or rate cuts are more likely going forward. It includes 44 variables related to either economic growth, inflation or financial conditions. Chart 4Financial Conditions Have Already Eased The most important thing to note from Chart 4 is that all of the Monitor’s recent decline was driven by tighter financial conditions. The economic growth and inflation components of the Monitor remain firmly in “tight money required” territory. This is important because financial conditions can ease as quickly as they can tighten. Ironically, now that the Fed has telegraphed a more supportive policy stance, a rally in risk assets during the next few months is much more likely. As that transpires it will drive our Monitor deeper into “tight money required” territory, and rate hikes will be back on the table. Global Growth The second factor that Powell mentioned was the slowdown in global growth, driven principally by weakness in China and the Eurozone (Chart 5). Interestingly, at the European Central Bank’s (ECB) latest press conference, ECB President Mario Draghi also blamed “softer external demand” for the weakness in European economic data. Chart 5Global Growth Slowdown Driven By China The logical conclusion is that China has been the catalyst for the global slowdown and that the Eurozone economy has come under pressure because of that region’s greater reliance on China as a source of demand. The fact that the Eurozone is more sensitive to Chinese growth than the U.S. is a topic that our Foreign Exchange Strategy service has covered in great detail.2 The Fed obviously cares more about the domestic economy than overall global growth, but weakness abroad has a habit of migrating stateside via a stronger dollar.3 It would certainly help the case for rate hikes if Chinese (and hence global) growth at least stabilized. On that front, some timely global growth indicators are sending positive signals. Our China Investment Strategy team’s Market-Based China Growth Indicator has rebounded strongly (Chart 6), global industrial mining stock prices have jumped (Chart 6, bottom panel), and the CRB Raw Industrials index may finally be turning a corner (Chart 6, panel 2).4 Chart 6Global Growth Indicators Sending A Positive Signal... But for any rebound in those financial market indicators to prove lasting, we will ultimately need to see confirming evidence in the Chinese economic data. Specifically, the money and credit growth data that tend to lead Chinese economic activity (Chart 7). Our China Investment Strategy team’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator – a composite of six money and credit growth indicators – has flattened off at a low level. Looking at its components individually, those that capture the recent RMB depreciation have pressured the index higher (Chart 7, panel 2), while those that measure broad credit growth remain depressed (Chart 7, bottom panel). Our Global Investment Strategy team has argued that Chinese policymakers’ desire to suppress credit growth will soon abate, since credit growth has already fallen close to the rate of nominal GDP growth.5 Chart 7...But A Lot Depends On China Bottom Line: It seems increasingly likely that financial conditions will ease and that the global growth slowdown will moderate in the coming months. Geopolitical tail risks remain, but they are unlikely to impact the Fed’s reaction function if financial conditions are easing and global growth is on solid footing. The end result is that the Fed will resume rate hikes in the second half of this year, and Treasury yields will move higher as a result. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. The End Of QT At January’s press conference, Chairman Powell was also quizzed repeatedly about the Fed’s balance sheet policy. This is not surprising given that the Fed had just announced that it will operate monetary policy using its current “floor system” indefinitely. This means that it will continue to supply the banking system with more reserves than it demands, and will control interest rates by paying interest on excess reserves and through the overnight reverse repo facility. We explained in detail the differences between a floor system and the pre-crisis “corridor system” in a 2014 Special Report.6 Practically, the continuation of the floor system means that the Fed’s balance sheet run-off will end earlier than if it were to return to a corridor system. The latter requires a paucity of bank reserves while the former requires an abundance. Unfortunately, as we discussed in a recent report, and as Chairman Powell explained at his press conference, nobody knows exactly how much more reserve drainage can take place before the Fed’s floor system ceases to function and the Fed loses control of interest rates.7 From Powell’s press conference: [I]n managing the federal funds rate, we’d rather have it set by our administered rates. So that implies you’d want [outstanding bank reserves] to be a bit above what that equilibrium demand for reserves is. And again, there’s no cookbook here, there’s no playbook. No one really knows. The only way you can figure it out is by surveying people and market intelligence and then, ultimately, by approaching that point quite carefully. In other words, the Fed will continue to shrink its balance sheet – draining reserves from the banking system in the process – until it decides that any further reserve drain will cause the funds rate to break through the upper-end of its target band. There is already some evidence of pressure on this front. The effective federal funds rate has been inching toward the upper-end of its target range in recent months, and the 99th percentile of the daily effective fed funds rate has actually been above the target range. This means that, for the past couple months, a few federal funds transactions every day have occurred outside the Fed’s target range (Chart 8). If this situation persists, then it will hasten the Fed’s decision to cease the run-off of its balance sheet. Chart 8Fed Funds Rate Inching Higher Our sense is that the Fed will cease the unwinding of its balance sheet at some point this year or early next year. However, we don’t view that decision as very important from an investment standpoint. It has been the longstanding view of this publication that any possible impact on bond yields from the Fed’s balance sheet policy pales in comparison to the impact from its interest rate policy. We will elaborate on this view in forthcoming research alongside our Global Fixed Income and U.S. Investment Strategy services. For today, we will simply remind readers of our golden rule of bond investing: If Fed rate hikes exceed what is currently priced into the market, then long duration positions will underperform over that time horizon, and vice-versa.8 All other factors are subordinate to that golden rule. Will Tame Inflation Prevent Further Rate Hikes? At January’s press conference, Chairman Powell noted that one reason why the Fed felt comfortable pausing its rate hike cycle was that inflation appeared relatively tame. Once again, the Chairman accurately described the fact that year-over-year core inflation has moderated during the past few months. Year-over-year core CPI inflation is down to 2.21% as of December, from a peak of 2.33% last July. Data on the Fed’s preferred PCE measure has been delayed due to the government shutdown, with a December update expected on March 1. However, this is another situation where the evidence could look a lot different in a few months. The last three monthly core CPI prints have come in at right around 0.2% month-over-month. If that pace is maintained going forward, then year-over-year core CPI will fall a bit further in the near-term, but will then start rising at a rapid pace (Chart 9). By the middle of this year the discussion surrounding inflation could look a lot different. Chart 9Expect Inflation To Pick-Up By The Middle Of The Year Of course, the simple extrapolation in Chart 9 assumes that core inflation will continue to print at a 0.2% monthly rate. Given the low unemployment rate, accelerating wage growth and persistent elevated monthly hiring numbers, we see no reason why this shouldn’t be the case. However, many clients we talk to have strong doubts that core inflation will move higher. This sentiment is reflected in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates that remain well below “well anchored” levels. One of the most common questions we receive from clients is: Where will inflation come from? A good starting point to answer that question is to split core CPI into its main components (Chart 10): Chart 10The Components Of Core CPI Shelter (42% of core) Goods (25% of core) Medical Care (8% of core) Services excluding shelter and medical care (25% of core) After making this decomposition we can attempt to identify unique drivers for each component. For shelter inflation, the rental vacancy rate and home price appreciation are the most important variables. Home prices have decelerated in recent months but the rental vacancy rate remains near historically low levels. Taken together, our shelter CPI model shows that shelter inflation should stay near its current level for the next six months (Chart 10, top panel). Core goods inflation tends to track non-oil import prices with a relatively long lag (Chart 10, panel 2). The current message from import prices is that core goods inflation should level off in the coming months, but should not reverse its recent uptrend. The best determinant of trends in core services (excluding shelter and medical care) inflation is wage growth (Chart 10, panel 3). Here we see that services inflation has responded strongly to accelerating wage growth in recent months and is now running at a healthy 2.6% year-over-year pace. With the unemployment rate at 4%, further wage acceleration is probable. Bottom Line: Year-over-year core inflation appears tame at the moment, but that will change during the next few months as base effects shift from a headwind to a tailwind. Wage acceleration and core services (excluding shelter and medical care) inflation will be the main drivers.   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Much Higher For Yields?”, dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China’s Stimulus”, dated August 3, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “An Oasis Of Prosperity?”, dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 The Market-Based China Growth Indicator is a composite measure of financial market variables that are highly levered to the Chinese economy. For further details please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China’s Savings Problem”, dated January 25, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood”, dated June 10, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed In 2019”, dated December 18, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Hyman Minsky famously said that “stability begets instability.” The converse is also true: Instability begets stability. None of the preconditions for a U.S. recession are in place yet. The Fed’s decision to press the pause button on further rate hikes ensures that it will take at least another 18 months for monetary policy to turn restrictive. Global growth should accelerate by mid-2019, as Chinese stimulus kicks in and the headwinds facing Europe dissipate. Investors should overweight global equities and underweight bonds over the next 12 months. The leadership role in the equity space will gradually shift outside the United States. Feature The Long Shadow Of The Financial Crisis   "Stability begets instability” declared Hyman Minsky in his widely cited, seldom-read book.1 By this, Minsky meant that periods of economic tranquility often encourage excessive risk-taking, sowing the seeds of their own demise. We would not quarrel with Minsky’s assessment, but we would point out that the converse is also true: Instability begets stability. Following periods of intense financial stress, lenders become more circumspect about whom they lend to, while borrowers become reluctant to take on debt. The result is economically bittersweet. On the plus side, the newfound caution of lenders and borrowers alike ensures that financial imbalances are slow to build up again. On the negative side, sluggish credit growth restrains spending. The net effect is a recovery that is often slow and uneven, but one which lasts longer than expected. Few Signs Of Major U.S. Economic Imbalances This is the world in which we find ourselves today. It took a decade following the subprime crisis for the U.S. to return to full employment. Much of Europe is not even there yet. Lenders continue to take risks. However, they have been quicker than usual to scale back exposure at the first sign of trouble. For example, as U.S. auto loan defaults began rising in 2015, banks tightened lending standards. As a result, the share of auto loans transitioning into delinquency peaked in Q4 of 2016 and has since drifted down modestly (Chart 1). Chart 1Lenders Are More Circumspect These Days: The Case Of Autos A similar thing happened when corporate credit spreads blew out in 2015 following the crash in oil prices (Chart 2). Banks tightened lending standards starting in late 2015. Once defaults peaked in early 2017, banks started easing standards. Chart 2Banks Were Quick To Tighten Lending Standards In 2015 Tellingly, the distress in corporate debt markets in 2015-16 did not cause the financial system to seize up, as evidenced by the fact that financial stress indices only increased marginally during that period. This suggests that financial imbalances never had a chance to rise to a level that threatened the overall economy. The Preconditions For The Next U.S. Recession Are Not Yet In Place Today, the U.S. private-sector financial balance – the difference between what the private sector earns and spends – stands at a healthy surplus of 2.1% of GDP. Both of the last two recessions began when the private-sector balance was in deficit (Chart 3). Chart 3The Private Sector Is Not Living Beyond Its Means The Way It Was Before The Last Two Recessions This raises an intriguing question: If the U.S. private sector is not suffering from any major imbalances, what is going to cause the next recession? That’s a very good question, with no obvious answer! The past two recessions were triggered by the bursting of asset bubbles – first the dotcom bubble and then the housing bubble. Today, U.S. equities are far from cheap, but with the S&P 500 trading at 16.1-times forward earnings, they are hardly in a bubble (Chart 4). The housing market is also on much firmer footing: The homeowner vacancy rate is near all-time lows, while the quality of mortgage lending has been very high (Chart 5). Chart 4While U.S. Stocks Are Not Cheap, They Aren't In A Bubble Chart 5Housing Fundamentals Are Solid Of course, recessions can occur for reasons other than the bursting of asset bubbles. The 1973-74 recession and the recessions of the early 1980s were triggered by a surge in oil prices, requiring the Fed to hike rates aggressively. Luckily, such an oil-induced recession is highly unlikely today. Inflation expectations are better anchored, while oil consumption represents a much smaller share of GDP than it did back then (Chart 6). In addition, the U.S. has become a major oil producer, which implies that the drag to consumers from higher oil prices would be partly offset by increased capital spending in the energy sector. At any rate, the ability of shale producers to respond to higher prices with additional output limits the extent to which prices can rise in the first place. Chart 6An Oil Price Shock Is Unlikely To Cause A Recession Past economic downturns have also been caused by major adjustments in the cyclical parts of the economy. As a share of GDP, cyclical spending is lower today than it has been at the outset of most recessions (Chart 7). The proliferation of just-in-time inventory systems has also reduced the influence that inventory swings have on the economy (Chart 8). Chart 7Cyclical Spending Is Not Extended A severe tightening of fiscal policy can also trigger a recession.2 Fortunately, the end of the government shutdown reduces the risk of such an outcome. Rightly or wrongly, voters blamed President Trump for the recent closure (Chart 9). As we speak, the Trump administration is negotiating with Democrats to avert another shutdown slated to begin on February 15. The key item of contention concerns funding for a border wall with Mexico. Even if a deal falls through, rather than shuttering the government again, Trump will probably pursue funding for the wall by declaring a national emergency. Our geopolitical strategists believe such an action will be challenged by the Democrats, but is likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court. Chart 9''I Am Proud To Shut Down The Government'' Global Growth Should Improve Admittedly, the external environment now has a greater influence on the U.S. economy than in the past. Nevertheless, given that exports are only 12% of GDP, it would take a sizeable external shock to knock the U.S. into recession. We think that such a shock is not in the cards. The trade war is likely to go on hiatus as Trump seeks to take credit for a deal with China. In addition, as we discussed two weeks ago, China will scale back its deleveraging campaign now that credit growth has fallen close to nominal GDP growth (Chart 10).3    Chart 10China: Time To Scale Back Deleveraging Euro area growth should reaccelerate over the coming months thanks to lower oil prices, a revival in EM demand, modestly more stimulative fiscal policy, and the palliative effects from the decline in government bond yields across the region. We have also argued that the risks of a “Hard Brexit” should abate.4   Waiting... And Waiting For Inflation To Rise When the next recession rolls around, it will probably be sparked by a surge in inflation, which forces the Fed to raise interest rates much more rapidly than it has so far. Here is the thing though: Inflation is a highly lagging indicator. It usually only peaks long after a downturn has started and troughs after the recovery is well underway (Chart 11).   Consider the example of the 1960s. The unemployment rate fell below NAIRU in 1964, but it took another four years for inflation to break out in earnest (Chart 12). The U.S. unemployment rate has been below NAIRU only since 2017. The unemployment rate in Germany and Japan has been below NAIRU for much longer, yet inflation remains stubbornly low in both countries (Chart 13). Chart 12It Took An Overheated Economy For Inflation To Take Off In The Late-1960s Chart 13The U.S., Japanese, And German Economies Are At Full Employment Cheer Up This leaves us with a striking conclusion: Perhaps the next U.S. recession is not around the corner, as some grumpy economists seem to think. Perhaps this economic expansion can endure beyond 2020. The recent U.S. data has certainly been consistent with that thesis. The ISM manufacturing index rose 2.3 percentage points to 56.6 in January. New orders jumped by 6.9 percentage points to 58.2. Payroll growth has also accelerated. Real aggregate earnings are up 4.2% from a year earlier, the fastest pace since October 2015 (Chart 14). Chart 14U.S. Labor Income Growth Has Been Accelerating Housing data are showing tentative evidence of stabilization. New home sales are rebounding, while mortgage applications are back near cycle-highs (Chart 15). Chart 15Housing Activity Is Stabilizing After Last Year's Weakness Reflecting these positive developments, the Citigroup economic surprise index has jumped into positive territory (Chart 16). The New York Fed’s estimate for Q1 2019 GDP growth has also moved up to 2.4%. Chart 16U.S. Economic Data Are Beating Low Expectations Investment Conclusions Recessions and bear markets usually overlap (Chart 17). With the next recession still at least 18 months away, it is premature to turn bearish on equities. We upgraded stocks in December following the post-FOMC sell-off. Although our tactical MacroQuant model is pointing to an elevated risk of a setback over the next few weeks, we continue to see global equities finishing the year 5%-to-10% above current levels. As global growth bottoms out mid-year, the leadership role in equity markets should increasingly move away from the U.S. towards EM and Europe. Chart 17Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Bonds are a tougher call. We do not expect the Fed to raise rates again at least until June. This will limit the upside for bond yields, as well as the dollar, in the near term. Nevertheless, with the fed funds futures pricing in no rate hikes for the next few years, even a modest shift back to tightening in the second half of this year and beyond will push up bond yields, dampening total returns to fixed income. Looking beyond 2019, the case for maintaining a short duration stance in fixed-income portfolios is very strong. The longer the Fed allows the economy to overheat, the greater the eventual overshoot in inflation will be. Inflation expectations have fallen over the past few months (Chart 18). They should have risen. Ultimately, Gentle Jay Powell’s decision to press the pause button on further rate hikes means that rates will end up peaking at a higher level during this cycle than they would have otherwise. Chart 18Inflation Expectations Have Declined   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      As argued in Hyman P. Minsky, “Stabilizing an Unstable Economy,” Yale University Press, (1986). 2      Severe episodes of fiscal tightening have normally followed military demobilizations. These include the recessions following WW1, WW2, and the Korean War, and to a much lesser extent, the 1990-91 recession which was exacerbated by cuts to the defense budget at the end of the Cold War. 3      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China’s Savings Problem,” dated January 25, 2019. 4      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Patient Jay,” dated January 18, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights 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 further tightening emanates from stock markets and risk spreads. Through the next couple of years U.S. long bonds will strongly outperform German bunds… …and USD/EUR will trend lower. Since October 2017, no stock market rally or sell-off has lasted more than three months. Overweight equities tactically, but don’t get too comfortable. The broad stock market will remain trendless, but offer excellent tactical opportunities in both directions. Feature More than a decade has passed since the Global Financial Crisis. Yet through the past ten years, 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 swiftly reverse course. 2019 is a pivotal year for monetary policy because it will answer a fundamental question: will the 2 percent limit for monetary tightening that has held since 2008 continue to hold, or finally break? (Chart of the Week). The answer will have a huge bearing on European investment strategy for equities, bonds and currencies. Chart of the WeekSince 2008, The Limit For Sequential Rate Hikes Has Been 2 Percent... So Far A History Of Policy Reversals Swedish interest rates peaked near 5 percent in 2008 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. Admittedly, Sweden and Norway were caught in the maelstrom of the euro debt crisis in 2011-12. But on the other side of the world and relatively immune to the crisis in Europe, New Zealand could achieve a tightening of only 1 percent; Korea could manage just 1.25 percent (Chart I-2); the Reserve Bank of Australia marched interest rates up by 1.75 percent before taking a breather… and then marched them down again.   Chart I-2Since 2008, The Limit For Sequential Rate Hikes Has Been 2 Percent The Federal Reserve has sequentially raised interest rates by 2 percent, and guess what? It has just decided to take a breather! Last week, Chairman Jay Powell was asked the question as plainly as possible: is the next move in interest rates as likely to be up as down? And his answer: “we don’t have a strong prior… we will patiently wait and let the data clarify.”1 There is no requirement at BCA for strategists to agree. In fact, the opposite is true in that we encourage independent thinking and diverse ways of looking at the world. BCA’s house view is that the Fed will resume its sequential hiking later in the year. But I believe this takes a too rosy view on the global financial system’s capacity to tolerate further tightening. The Vulnerability Is In Stock Markets And Risk Spreads   Monetary policy operates on an economy by adjusting its financial conditions: its bond yields, credit availability, currency, stock market, and risk spreads. And the neutral monetary policy stance – the so-called ‘neutral real interest rate’ – is the policy stance consistent with the economy growing at trend. In the past, a simple rule of thumb was that real rates, over time, should approximate to the real growth in the economy. But some studies argue that the neutral real rate may now be close to zero. All the Fed has done is bring the real interest rate out of negative territory to barely above zero. Yet its recent hikes have been blamed for extreme volatility in stock markets and risk spreads. Last week, Powell acknowledged 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.” Furthermore, “the policy stance is now in the range of the Committee’s estimates of neutral… and when you get to that (neutral) range we have to put aside our own priors and let the data speak to us.” All of which raises a salutary observation from my colleague Martin Barnes, BCA Chief Economist: if a real interest rate that is barely above zero is enough to trigger extreme market volatility and threaten the economic expansion, then the system is much more vulnerable than generally assumed.2  Martin has hit the nail on the head. At the current level of tightening, the system is much more vulnerable than generally assumed. But the vulnerable components of financial conditions are not bond yields, credit availability, or currency; the vulnerability emanates from stock markets and risk spreads, and specifically their potential for extreme volatility. Previous reports have focused on the source of this vulnerability. To recap, at low yields, bond prices develop the same unattractive negative asymmetry as equities. Therefore, an extended period of ultra-low interest rates removes the need for an equity risk premium, and justifies sharply higher valuations for equities and other risk-assets. But when the 10-year global bond yield rises back to around 2 percent, the process viciously reverses: bond prices lose their negative asymmetry, re-requiring an equity risk premium and sharply lower valuations for risk-assets.3 Put simply, when interest rates rise from low levels they undermine the support for elevated risk-asset valuations in a viciously non-linear way. The consequent plunge in risk-asset prices aggressively tightens financial conditions and thereby sets an unusually low ceiling for nominal interest rates and bond yields. This dynamic proved to be the major feature of the financial market landscape in 2018 and will loom large in 2019 too. It also solves the riddle as to why the neutral real rate may now be close to zero. An unusually low ceiling for the nominal interest rate combined with inflation hovering around 2 percent, translates into a neutral real interest rate that is not much higher than zero. The Investment Implications When the Riksbank paused after its near 2 percent of hiking, it proved to be a good structural entry point for Swedish long bonds, and a good structural exit point for the Swedish krona (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Likewise, when the Reserve Bank of Australia paused after its near 2 percent of hiking, it was an excellent moment to buy Australian long bonds and to sell the Australian dollar (Chart I-5 and Chart I-6). Chart I-3When The Riksbank Paused, It Was A Good Structural Entry Point In To Swedish Bonds... Chart I-4...And A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of The Swedish Krona Chart I-5When The RBA Paused, It Was A Good Structural Entry Point In To Australian Bonds... Chart I-6...And A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of The Australian Dollar Will the the 2 percent limit for monetary tightening that has held since 2008 continue to hold? If, as we expect, the answer is yes the implication is that through the next couple of years U.S. long bonds will strongly outperform German bunds. Over the same time frame, USD/EUR will trend lower (Chart I-7 and Chart I-8).  Chart I-7A Good Structural Entry Point In To Long T-Bonds/Short Bunds Chart I-8A Good Structural Exit Point Out Of USD/EUR Finally, as regards the broad stock market, a quick glance at the MSCI all country world index shows a striking feature. Since October 2017, no rally or sell-off has lasted more than three months (Chart I-9). Given the current highly non-linear relationship between equities and bond yields, this pattern is set to continue. Chart I-9Since October 2017, No Rally Or Sell-Off Has Lasted More Than Three Months In essence, the broad stock market will remain trendless, but offer excellent tactical opportunities in both directions. The current stance is tactically long, but don’t get too comfortable! Fractal Trading System* The sharp recent rally in government bonds has hit a point where tight liquidity conditions could trigger a temporary reversal. Accordingly, the 65-day trade is to go short 30-year T-bonds, setting a profit target at 3 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. All of the five other open positions are in healthy profit. 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. Chart I-10 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions.   Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com  * 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 Footnotes 1 The Federal Reserve has raised the federal funds rate by a total of 2.25 percent comprising an isolated 0.25 percent hike at the end of 2015 and a sequential 2 percent hike from December 2016 through December 2018. 2 Please see the BCA Special Report “A Grumpy View Of The Outlook” January 28, 2019 available at www.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