消費者

An analysis on Brazil is available below. Feature Chart I-1Poor Performance By EM Stocks, Currencies And Commodities I had the pleasure of meeting again with a long-term BCA client Ms. Mea last week during my trip to Europe. Ms. Mea and I meet on a semi-annual basis, where she has the opportunity to query my analysis and view. In our latest meeting, she was more perplexed than usual by the global macro developments and financial market dynamics. Ms. Mea: All the seemingly positive news on the trade front is pushing up global share prices. In fact, a substantial portion -if not all -of the global equity price gains have occurred on days when there has been positive news surrounding the US-China trade negotiations. Given EM financial markets were the most damaged by the trade war, one would have thought that EM markets would outperform in a rally stemming from progress in negotiations. Yet this has not occurred. EM currencies have failed to advance (a number of currencies are in fact breaking down), EM sovereign credit spreads are widening and the relative performance of EM vs. DM share prices has relapsed (Chart I-1). What is causing this disconnect? Answer: The disconnect is due to a somewhat false narrative that the global trade and manufacturing recession as well as the EM/China slowdown were primarily caused by the US-China trade confrontation. The principal reason behind the global manufacturing and trade recession has been a deceleration in Chinese domestic demand. The latter can only partially be attributed to the US-China trade tariffs and tensions. Chart I-2 illustrates that mainland exports are not contracting while imports excluding processing trade1 are down 5% from a year ago. This implies that China’s growth slump has not been due to a contraction in its exports but rather due to weakness in its domestic demand. The principal reason behind the global manufacturing and trade recession has been a deceleration in Chinese domestic demand. The basis as to why mainland exports have held up so well is because Chinese exporters have been re-routing their shipments to the US via other countries such as Vietnam and Taiwan. Critically, the key force driving EM currencies and risk assets has been Chinese imports (Chart I-3). Mainland imports continue to shrink, with no recovery in sight. This is the reason why EM risk assets and currencies have performed so poorly, even amid the global risk-on environment. Chart I-2Chinese Imports Are Worse Than Exports Chart I-3China Imports Drive EM Currencies   Ms. Mea: Are you implying that a ceasefire in the trade war will not help Chinese growth rebound, and in turn support EM economies? The “Phase One” agreement and possible reductions in US tariffs on imports from China may help the Middle Kingdom’s exports, but not its imports. Crucially, the Chinese authorities will likely be reluctant to augment their credit and fiscal stimulus if there is a “Phase One” deal with the US. Absent greater stimulus, China’s domestic demand is unlikely to stage a swift recovery. In the case of a “Phase One” agreement, a mild improvement in business confidence in China and worldwide is likely, but a major upswing is doubtful. The basis is that business people around the world have witnessed the struggles faced by the US and China in their negotiations. They will likely doubt the ability of both nations to reach a structural resolution – and rightly so. Investors should realize that the Chinese economy does not depend on exports to the US nearly as much as is commonly believed. Importantly, global investors are miscalculating China’s negotiating strategy and tactics. We put much greater odds than many other investors on the possibility that China will continue to drag out the negotiations without signing the “Phase One” agreement. This could easily derail the global equity rally. Investors should realize that the Chinese economy does not depend on exports to the US nearly as much as is commonly believed. China’s shipments to the US have been around 3.3% of GDP, even before the trade war began. The value-added to the economy/income generated from China’s exports to the US is less than 3% of its GDP. In contrast, capital spending accounts for the largest share (42%) of China’s GDP. In turn, investment outlays are driven by the credit cycle and fiscal spending, rather than by exports. Chart I-4China: Stimulus And Business Cycle Ms. Mea: Turning to stimulus in China, the authorities have been easing for about a year. By now, the cumulative effect of this stimulus should have begun to revive the mainland’s domestic demand. Why do you still think China’s business cycle has not reached a bottom? Answer: Indeed, our credit and fiscal spending impulse has been rising since January. Based on its historical relationship with business cycle variables – it leads those variables by roughly nine months – China’s growth should have troughed in August or September (Chart I-4). However, the time lags between the credit and fiscal spending impulse and economic cycle are not constant as can be seen in Chart I-4. On average, the lag has been nine months but has also varied from zero (at the trough in early 2009) to 18 months (at the peak in 2016-‘17). Relationships in economics – as opposed to those in hard sciences – are not constant and stable. Rather, correlations and time lags between variables vary substantially over time. In addition, the magnitude of stimulus is not the only variable that should be taken into account. The potential multiplier effect is also significant. One way to proxy the multiplier effect is via the marginal propensity to spend by households and companies. In our opinion, the prime cause behind households’ and businesses’ reluctance to spend is the weak property market. Our proxies for Chinese marginal propensity to spend by companies and households have been falling (Chart I-5). This entails that households and businesses in China remain downbeat, which caps their expenditures, in turn offsetting the positive impact of stimulus. In our opinion, the prime cause behind households’ and businesses’ reluctance to spend is the weak property market. Without rapidly rising property prices and construction volumes, boosting sentiment and growth will prove challenging. We discussed the current conditions and outlook of China’s property market in last week’s report. Construction is the single largest sector of the mainland economy, and it is in recession: floor area started and under construction are all shrinking (Chart I-6). Chart I-5China: A Weak Multiplier Effect Chart I-6China Construction Is In Recession   It is difficult to envision an improvement in manufacturing and a rebound in demand for commodities/materials and industrial goods without a recovery in construction. Notably, Chart I-6 displays the most comprehensive data on construction, as it encompasses all residential and non-residential construction by property developers and all other entities. Ms. Mea: Why are some global business cycle indicators turning up if, as you argue, the global manufacturing slowdown originated from Chinese domestic demand and the latter has not yet turned around? Answer: At any point of the business cycle, it is possible to find data that point both up and down. Our ongoing comprehensive review of global business cycle data leads us to conclude that the improvement is evident only in a few circumstances, and is not broad-based. In particular: In China and the rest of EM, there is no domestic demand recovery at the moment. China and EM ex-China capital goods imports are shrinking (Chart I-7). Chinese consumer spending is also sluggish (Chart I-8). The rise in China’s manufacturing Caixin PMI over the past several months is an aberration. Chart I-7EM/China Capex Is Very Weak Chart I-8No Recovery For Chinese Consumers     In EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan, narrow and broad money growth are underwhelming (Chart I-9). These developments signify that EM policy rate cuts have not yet boosted money/credit and domestic demand. We elaborated on this in more detail in our recent report. The basis for such poor transmission is banking-system health in many developing countries. Banks remain saddled with non-performing loans (NPLs). The need to boost provisions and fears of more NPLs continues to make banks reluctant to lend. Besides, real (inflation-adjusted) lending rates are high, discouraging credit demand. In the US and euro area, consumption – outside of autos – as well as money and credit growth have never slowed in this cycle. The slowdown has largely been due to exports and the auto sector. The latter may be bottoming in the euro area (Chart I-10). This might be behind the improvement in some business surveys in Europe. Chart I-9EM Ex-China: Money Growth Is At Record Low Chart I-10Euro Area’s Auto Sales: Is The Worst Over?   European business survey data are mixed, but the weakest segment - manufacturing – remains lackluster. In particular, Germany’s IFO index for business expectations and current conditions in manufacturing have not improved (Chart I-11, top panel). Similarly, the Swiss KOF economic barometer remains downbeat (Chart I-11, top panel). The only improvement is in Belgian business confidence, and a mild pickup in the euro area manufacturing PMI (Chart I-11, bottom panel). Chart I-11European Manufacturing And Business Confidence   In the US, shipping and carload data are rather grim. They are not corroborating the marginal improvement in the US manufacturing PMI. Overall, at this point there are no signs that domestic demand is recovering in China and the rest of EM, which have been the epicenter of the slowdown. The improvement is limited to some data in the US and Europe. Consistently, US and European share prices have been surging, while EM equities have dramatically underperformed. Ms. Mea: What about lower interest rates driving multiples expansion in both DM and EM equities? Answer: Concerning multiples expansion, our general framework is as follows: So long as corporate profits do not contract, lower interest rates will likely lead to equity multiples expansion. However, when corporate earnings shrink, the latter overwhelms the positive effect of a lower discount rate on multiples, and share prices drop along with lower interest rates. DM corporate profits are flirting with contraction, but are not yet contracting meaningfully. Hence, it is sensible that US and European stocks have experienced multiples expansion. In contrast, EM corporate earnings are shrinking at a rate of 10% from a year ago as illustrated in Chart I-12. The basis for an EM profit recession is the downturn in Chinese domestic demand and consequently imports. EM per-share earnings correlate much better with Chinese imports (Chart I-13, top panel) than US ones (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Chart I-12EM Profits And Share Prices Chart I-13EM EPS Is Driven By China Not The US   In fact, we have documented numerous times in our reports that EM currencies and share prices correlate well with China’s business cycle/global trade/commodities prices, more so than with US bond yields. This does not mean that EM share prices are insensitive to interest rates. They are indeed sensitive to their own borrowing costs, but not to US Treasury yields. Chart I-14 demonstrates that EM share prices move in tandem with inverted EM sovereign US dollar bond yields and EM local currency bond yields. Similarly, emerging Asian share prices correlate with inverted high-yield Asian US dollar corporate bond yields (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Chart I-14EM Share Prices And EM Bond Yields Chart I-15Chinese Bond Yields Herald Relapse In EM Stocks And Currencies In short, EM share prices typically sell off when EM borrowing costs rise – regardless if it is driven by mounting US Treasury yields or widening credit spreads. Looking forward, exchange rates hold the key. A relapse in EM currencies will push up both the US dollar and local currency bond yields in many EMs. That will in turn warrant a setback in EM share prices. Ms. Mea: What about the correlation between EM performance and Chinese local rates? Answer: This is an essential relationship. Chart I-15 demonstrates that EM share prices and currencies have a strong positive correlation with local interest rates in China. The rationale is that all of them are driven by China’s business cycle. Relapsing interest rates in China are presently sending a bearish signal for EM risk assets and currencies. Ms. Mea: What does all this mean for investment strategy? A few weeks ago, you wrote that if the MSCI EM equity US dollar index breaks above 1075, you would reverse your recommended strategy. How does this square with your fundamental analysis that is still downbeat? Answer: My fundamental analysis on EM/China has not changed: I do not believe in the sustainability of this EM rebound in general, and EM outperformance versus DM in particular. The key risk to my strategy on EM stems from the US and Europe. It is possible that US and European share prices continue to rally. EM share prices typically sell off when EM borrowing costs rise – regardless if it is driven by mounting US Treasury yields or widening credit spreads. Notably, the high-beta segments of the US equity market and the overall Euro Stoxx 600 index are flirting with major breakouts (Chart I-16A and I-16B). If these breakouts transpire, the up-leg in US and European share prices will be long-lasting. This will also drag EM share prices higher in absolute terms. This is why I have placed a buy stop on the EM equity index. Chart I-16AUS High-Beta Stocks Chart I-16BEuropean Equities: At A Critical Juncture   That said, I have a strong conviction that EM will continue to underperform DM, even in such a scenario. Hence, I continue to recommend underweighting EM versus DM in both global equity and credit portfolios. As we have recently written in detail, the global macro backdrop and financial market dynamics in such a scenario will resemble 2012-2014, when EM currencies depreciated, commodities prices fell and EM share prices massively underperformed DM ones (Chart I-17). Further, I am not arguing that the current global trade and manufacturing downtrends will persist indefinitely. The odds are that the global business cycle, including China’s, will bottom sometime next year. The point is that EM share prices have decoupled from fundamentals – namely corporate earnings growth – since January. The point is that EM share prices have decoupled from fundamentals – namely corporate earnings growth – since January (please refer to Chart I-12 on page 8). This is an unprecedented historical gap, making EM stocks, currencies and credit markets vulnerable to continued disappointments in EM corporate profitability. Ms. Mea: What market signals give you confidence in poor EM performance going forward? Answer: Even though the S&P 500 has broken to new highs, multiple segments of EM financial markets have posted extremely disappointing performance. These include: Small-cap stocks in EM overall and emerging Asia as well as the EM equal-weighted equity index have struggled to rally (Chart I-18). Chart I-17EM Underperformed During 2012-14 Bull Market Chart I-18Various EM Equity Indexes: Failure To Rally Is A Bad Omen   Various Chinese equity indexes – onshore and offshore, small and large – have failed to advance and continue to underperform the global equity index. EM ex-China currencies and industrial commodities prices have remained subdued (please refer to Chart I-1 on page 1). Ms. Mea: Would you mind reminding me of your country allocation across various EM asset classes such as equities, credit, currencies and fixed-income? Answer: Within an EM equity portfolio, our overweights are Mexico, Russia, central Europe, Korea and Thailand. Our equity underweights are Indonesia, the Philippines, Turkey, South Africa and Colombia. We continue recommending to short an EM currency basket including ZAR, CLP, COP, IDR, MYR, PHP and KRW. Today, we add the BRL to our short list (please refer to the section below on Brazil). As to the country allocation within EM local currency bonds and sovereign credit portfolios, investors can refer to our asset allocation tables below that are published at the end of each week’s report and are available on our web site. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Brazil: Deflationary Pressures Warrant A Weaker BRL The Brazilian real is breaking below its previous support. We recommend shorting the BRL against the US dollar. The primary macro risk in Brazil is not inflation but rather mounting deflationary pressures. Inflation has fallen to very low levels, to the bottom of the central bank’s target range (Chart II-1). Deflation or low inflation is dangerous when there are high debt levels. The Brazilian government is heavily indebted. With nominal GDP growth still below government borrowing costs and a primary budget balance at -1.3% of GDP, the public debt trajectory remains unsustainable as we discussed in previous reports (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Brazil: Undershooting Inflation Target Chart II-2Public Debt Dynamics Are Still Not Sustainable   The cyclical profile of the economy is very weak as shown in Chart II-3. Tight fiscal policy and a drawdown of foreign exchange reserves have caused money growth to slow. That in turn entails a poor outlook for the economy, which will reinforce the deflationary trend. Accordingly, Brazil needs to reflate its economy to boost nominal GDP, which is the only scenario where the nation escapes a public debt trap. Yet, fiscal policy is straightjacketed by the spending cap rule, which stipulates that government spending can only grow at the previous year’s IPCA inflation rate. Federal government spending is set to grow only at the low nominal rate of 3.4% in 2020. Hence, monetary policy is the sole tool available for policymakers to reflate. Both bond yields and bank lending rates remain elevated in real terms. This hampers any recovery in the business cycle. Notably, the marginal propensity to spend by companies and consumers is declining, foreshadowing weaker economic activity ahead (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Brazil: The Economy Is Weak Chart II-4Brazil: Propensity To Spend Is Declining   The central bank is determined to reduce interest rates further. As such, they cannot control the exchange rate. Indeed, the Impossible Trinity thesis states that in an economy with an open capital account (like in Brazil), the authorities cannot control both interest and exchange rates simultaneously. Minister of Economy Paulo Guedes stated in recent days that tight fiscal and easy monetary policies are consistent with a lower currency value. Brazilian policymakers are open to the idea of a weaker exchange rate and will not defend the real. Their currency market interventions are intended to smooth volatility in the exchange rate but not preclude depreciation. In fact, currency depreciation is another option to boost nominal growth that the nation desperately needs. Brazilian policymakers are open to the idea of a weaker exchange rate and will not defend the real. Their currency market interventions are intended to smooth volatility in the exchange rate but not preclude depreciation. Commodities prices remain an important driver of the Brazilian real (Chart II-5). These have failed to rebound amid the risk-on regime in global financial markets. This suggests that the path of least resistance for commodities prices is down, which is bad news for the real. Brazil’s current account deficit is widening and has reached 3% of GDP (Chart II-6). Notably, not only are export prices deflating but export volumes are also shrinking (Chart II-6, bottom panel). Chart II-5BRL And Commodities Prices Chart II-6Widening Current Account Deficit   Chart II-7The BRL Is Not Cheap Meanwhile, the nation’s foreign debt obligations – the sum of short-term claims, interest payments and amortization over the next 12 months – are at $190 billion, all-time highs. As the real depreciates, foreign currency debtors (companies and banks) will rush to acquire dollars or hedge their dollar liabilities. This will reinforce the weakening trend in the currency. Finally, the Brazilian real is not cheap - it is close to fair value (Chart II-7). Hence, valuation will not prevent currency depreciation. Bottom Line: We are initiating a short BRL / long US dollar trade. Investors should remain neutral on Brazil within EM equity, local bonds and sovereign credit portfolios. Investors with long-term horizon should consider the following strategy: long the Bovespa, short the real. This is a bet that Brazil will succeed in reflating the economy at the detriment of the currency. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1    Processing trade includes imports of goods that undergo further processing before being re-exported.   Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Monetary policy settings should continue to sustain the expansion,… : Tight monetary policy is a precondition for a recession. Although the line separating tight from easy is a matter of judgment, current Fed policy is squarely accommodative.  … and the building blocks of GDP confirm that recession is not an imminent threat: A robust labor market and fortified household balance sheets should continue to support consumption; the fixed investment outlook is okay as long as trade tensions don’t wreck business confidence; and the fiscal taps are likely to remain open throughout 2020. Housing will not get in the way of the economy or the markets: Mortgage rates have fallen since we examined housing dynamics in a two-part Special Report this time last year, and residential investment will increasingly reflect it. We project that the beginning of the next recession is about two years away, and that the equity and credit bull markets still have room to run: We are not perma-bulls, but there’s no evidence that the long bull run is about to end. Feature We view the study of key cycles – the business cycle, the credit cycle, the monetary policy cycle and the sentiment cycle – as an essential element of investment strategy. The monetary policy cycle has been especially critical throughout the long expansion and bull market because it has held sway over the business cycle and the credit cycle since the crisis. We have also found that it exerts a powerful influence on equity returns: for six decades, stocks have done very well when policy is easy, but they have failed to generate positive real total returns when it’s tight. There is far more to investment returns than monetary policy, but a simple strategy of embracing risk during easy-policy phases of the fed funds rate cycle and limiting exposure to it when policy is tight has been a big winner over time. Although the fed funds rate cycle has been an especially valuable input in our process, it relies on an estimate. The equilibrium, or neutral, fed funds rate cannot be directly observed. We can only infer when the target fed funds rate crosses above or below it by observing actual economic performance. We continually review real-time data to gauge whether our equilibrium estimate is in the ballpark. As a formal check on that estimate, we regularly examine the building blocks of GDP for insight into where the business cycle is going. We update our review of the GDP equation in this report, and conclude that the expansion should remain on track over the next six to twelve months. We also provide an update on housing a year after our dedicated Special Reports on the topic, finding that it is unlikely to derail the expansion. The GDP Equation – Consumption As we all learned in Introductory Macroeconomics, GDP is the sum of consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G) and net exports (X-M). As net exports are insubstantial in the comparatively closed US economy, US GDP growth reduces to the weighted sum of growth in consumption, investment and government spending, with consumption accounting for two-thirds of growth and investment and government spending accounting for one-sixth each. GDP = C + I + G Month-to-month moves in real retail sales and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) are volatile, but both series have recovered from their late-2018 softness to get back to their mean for this cycle, somewhat below the means of the previous two expansions (Chart 1). The activity supports our constructive take at the time of our initial review of the GDP equation in April,1 but the choppy series do not provide much insight into the consumption outlook. Looking forward involves examining households’ income prospects and balance sheets to project the money that will be coming in, and consumers’ ability and willingness to spend it. Chart 1Consumption Has Been Holding Up Well Labor market conditions drive household income, and they remain quite tight. The number of unfilled job openings continues to exceed the number of unemployed workers (Chart 2), indicating that demand for employees remains strong. An elevated quits rate indicates that employers are competing fiercely to meet that demand, even to the point of poaching employees from one another (Chart 3). Our payrolls model projects that employment growth will stay close to its pace of the last several years (Chart 4, top panel), as small businesses have ambitious hiring plans (Chart 4, second panel), temporary employment is still growing (Chart 4, third panel), and the 26-week moving average of initial unemployment claims is only slowly beginning to rise (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 2With More Jobs Than Workers, ... Chart 3... Employees Can Seek Out Greener Pastures Chart 4Payrolls Will Keep Expanding Wages are already growing around 3% year-over-year, and the tight labor-market backdrop should promote further gains. With employers forced to bid up wages to attract a shrinking pool of available workers, we expect that wage growth will peak somewhere above 3.5% before the cycle ends. Humans’ ability to see into the future does not extend beyond six to twelve months, but we are confident that more households will be working by the middle of 2020 than are working now, and that they’ll be earning more, in real terms. Households don't have to spend their income gains, but they're in a comfortable position to do so after several years of building up savings and working down debt. Households won’t necessarily spend all of their income gains. They may choose to direct them to paying down debt or increasing savings. Their balance sheets suggest they don’t have a need to do so, however, as the savings rate is back to early ‘90s levels above 8% (Chart 5, top panel), nearly all the debt as a share of GDP that they took on in the last expansion has been worked off (Chart 5, middle panel), and their aggregate debt service burden is lower now than it has been at any point in the last 40 years (Chart 5, bottom panel). Not only do households face little pressure to save their coming income gains, they have plenty of capacity to borrow to augment them. Chart 5Household Finances Are Solid The GDP Equation – Investment And Government Spending Investment accounts for just a sixth of GDP, but its volatility gives it a greater likelihood of tipping the economy into a recession than either consumption or government spending (Chart 6). Per the surveys we use to anticipate capital expenditures, the change since April is mixed. Small business capital spending plans as reported in the NFIB survey have ticked up and remain elevated (Chart 7, top panel), while capex intentions from the regional Fed manufacturing surveys have continued to slip and are only around their historical mean (Chart 7, bottom panel). We expect that the trade negotiations will exert a powerful near-term pull on corporate capex; if the US and China reach some sort of accord, capex should pick up, but if tensions worsen, corporate confidence will decline and capex may outright contract. Our base case calls for a modest détente around a Phase 1 agreement, so we do not expect that investment will break down, but it is the most vulnerable component of GDP and we are watching it closely. Chart 6Investment Is The Swing Factor Chart 7The Capex Outlook Is Only Okay, ... Government spending, on the other hand, doesn’t merit a whole lot of attention right now. It is a stable series that accounts for a modest share of GDP and for most of the postwar era, it was reliably countercyclical, shrinking when times were good and expanding when times were bad (Chart 8). The gaping divergence between the federal deficit and economic performance bodes ill for Treasuries and the dollar over the long term, but it shows that there’s no appetite for reining in federal spending ahead of the most hotly contested election campaign in recent memory. State and local spending accounts for about 60% of all government spending, and the strong labor market will boost state receipts, which come from income and sales taxes, while steady home price appreciation will support property tax receipts (Chart 9), keeping municipal coffers full. The longer-term implications of the debauched federal budget are unpleasant, but government profligacy will help sustain the expansion through the end of next year. Chart 8... But The Fiscal Party Rages On Chart 9Home Price Gains Will Fill Local Government Coffers Housing Residential investment finally broke out of a six-quarter string of detracting from GDP growth last quarter, though its drag in the first half of the year was modest. Residential investment may not exert the sway over the economy that it did earlier in the postwar era when the suburbs were being created from scratch, but its interest rate sensitivity makes it a good proxy for the effect of monetary policy on the economy. Housing has picked up as mortgage rates have fallen, and rates’ lagged effect suggests that more gains are in store (Chart 10). A high level of affordability should keep the momentum going (Chart 11), and new household formations continue to outstrip housing starts (Chart 12, top panel), at a time when inventories (Chart 12, middle panel) and vacancies (Chart 12, bottom panel) are historically low. Chart 10The Full Effect Of Lower Rates Is Yet To Be Felt Chart 11Affordability Is High, ... Chart 12... And Supply Is Tight We continue to believe that housing poses no threat to the expansion. New home sales should pick up as builders address the undersupply of homes for first-time and first move-up buyers. The cap on itemized deductions imposed by the December 2017 revision to the federal tax code does not appear to have had a material impact on regional sales activity, and the relationship between top marginal income tax rates2 and home price appreciation since the tax act passed is weak (Chart 13). The bottom line is that residential investment is more likely to boost fixed investment over the next year than it is to detract from it. Chart 13Post-Act Home Price Appreciation Among 20-City Case-Shiller Constituents Investment Implications The underlying elements of the GDP equation support our monetary policy-driven assessment that the expansion will keep chugging along. A robustly healthy labor market will support wage gains, and household balance sheets have firmed up enough to allow consumers to spend their increased income. Surveys indicate that fixed investment does not present a major economic headwind, and positive trade developments could turn it into a tailwind. Government spending will be well supported through 2020. It would be consistent with history if this bull market didn't end until it made one more big push higher. Recessions and bear markets coincide, so the equity bull market should persist until the next recession is in sight. Spread product should also continue to outperform Treasuries and cash, especially while lenders are desperately seeking incremental carry. We reiterate our broad recommendation to overweight equities and spread product, while underweighting Treasuries, and urge investors with more conservative mandates to remain at least equal weight equities and spread product. Excesses in the real economy or the financial markets are a recession prerequisite, and it is quite possible that the excesses that precipitate the next recession will not emerge until after stocks make another significant move higher. We want to be positioned to participate in that move, which would be consistent with bull markets’ established tendency to sprint to the finish line.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the April 8, 2019 US Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “If We Were Wrong,” available at www.bcaresearch.com 2 The 2017 Act capped the amount of state and local tax payments household filers could claim as itemized deductions, severely reducing the federal government’s homeownership subsidy. Residents of states with high income tax rates lost the most from the change, but those states’ housing markets have not yet experienced disproportionately negative impacts.

特別レポート

Mr. X and his daughter, Ms. X, are long-time BCA clients who visit our office toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: I have been eagerly looking forward to this meeting given my many concerns about the outlook. Our portfolio has done well in the past year thanks to the surge in bond prices and the outperformance of defensive equities. However, I am deeply troubled by the amount of monetary stimulus required to support risk assets, and by how expensive bonds and equities are. Moreover, the global economy remains engulfed in deflationary risks, and policymakers are running out of ammunition. As always, there is much to talk about. Ms. X: Let me add that I am also pleased to once again be here to discuss the major risks and opportunities in the global marketplace. A year ago, I held a more positive market view than my father. Directly after our meeting, the deep market correction gave me second thoughts, but ultimately, the rebound in stock prices vindicated my view. Clearly, your assertion that markets would be turbulent proved correct. Since I joined the family firm in early 2017, I have been pushing my father to keep a higher equity exposure than he was normally comfortable with. We agreed to still favor stocks last year, albeit, with a bias toward defensive sectors, and this strategy paid off. But after the past year’s powerful rally in both bonds and stocks, we are again left wondering how to position our portfolio. Ultimately, I do not believe a recession is imminent. Yes, stocks are expensive, but bonds are even more so. Since I expect economic growth to pick up, I am inclined to tilt the portfolio further into equities and move away from our preference for defensive sectors. As usual, I am very interested to hear your views. BCA: Our core theme for 2019 was that we would face classic late-cycle turbulence. Despite this volatility, a run-up in asset prices was likely. Soon after we met, the stock market plunged, hitting a low on December 26, 2018. We anticipated the Federal Reserve to be much more hawkish than what actually transpired. Wage growth and even core inflation have remained firm in the US, but the weakness in global inflation expectations drove central banks’ reaction functions more powerfully than we anticipated. Moreover, the rapid escalation of the Sino-US trade war added a layer of uncertainty that exacerbated the economic slowdown that had started in mid-2018, forcing global central banks to ease policy as an indemnity against recession. Looking ahead, central bankers are highly unlikely to tighten monetary policy as long as inflation expectations remain below their normal range consistent with a 2% inflation target. We agree that the odds of a US recession in the coming year are still low because financial conditions are set to remain accommodative, Chinese authorities are setting policy to shore up growth, and a trade truce is likely. Global economic activity will rebound in early 2020. Instead, the most probable timeframe for a broad based recession is late 2021/early 2022. As a result, we remain positive on risk assets, especially foreign stocks. We are also underweighting bonds as they offer extremely poor absolute and relative value. Mr. X: I can see we will have a lively discussion because I do not share your or my daughter’s optimism. My list of concerns is long, I hope we have time to get through them all. But first, let’s briefly review your predictions from last year. BCA: This exercise is always interesting and often humbling, too. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: Tensions between policy and markets would be an ongoing theme in 2019. With the US unemployment rate at a 48-year low, it would take a significant slowdown for the Fed to stop hiking rates. Ultimately, the Fed would deliver more hikes in 2019 than discounted in the markets. This would push up the dollar and keep the upward trend in Treasury yields intact. The dollar would peak in mid-2019. China would also become more aggressive in stimulating its economy, which would boost global growth. However, until both of these things happened, emerging markets would remain under pressure. We favored developed market equities over their EM peers. We also preferred defensive equity sectors such as healthcare and consumer staples over cyclical sectors such as industrials and materials. Within the developed market universe, the US would outperform Europe and Japan over the next few quarters, especially in dollar terms. Stabilization in global growth would ignite a blow off rally in global equities. If the Fed was raising rates in response to falling unemployment, it would be unlikely to derail the stock market. However, once supply-side constraints began to bite fully in early 2020 and inflation began to rise well above the Fed’s target of 2%, stocks would begin to buckle. This would mean that a window would exist in 2019 for stocks to outperform bonds. We would maintain a benchmark allocation to stocks, but increase exposure if global bourses were to fall significantly from then (late 2018) current levels without a corresponding deterioration in the economic outlook. Corporate credit would underperform stocks as government bond yields rise. A major increase in credit spreads was unlikely as long as the economy remained in expansion mode, but spreads could still widen modestly. US shale companies had been the marginal producers in the global oil sector. With breakeven costs in shale close to $50/bbl, crude prices would be unlikely to rise much from current levels over the long term. However, we expected production cuts in Saudi Arabia would push prices up, with Brent crude averaging around $82/bbl in 2019. A balanced portfolio was likely to generate average returns of only 2.8% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.6% a year between 1982 and 2018. As already noted, our forecast for more Fed rate hikes was wrong. This meant that we were offside in our duration call. Ultimately, 10-year Treasuries have generated returns of 10.8% so far this year, and German bunds and Japanese government bonds returns of 5.8% and 1.0% in EUR and JPY terms, or 2.5% and 2.0% in USD terms, respectively (Table 1). Nonetheless, our expectation of a run-up in risk asset prices was spot on. Equities outperformed bonds, with global stocks climbing 22.2% in USD terms. We missed the initial outperformance of corporate bonds relative to Treasuries, as investment grade credit rose by 13.9%. However, our bond team took a more constructive stance on corporates as the year progressed. Table 1Market Performance Chart 12019 Was A Good Year For Stocks In terms of regional allocation recommendations, we were correct to overweight US equities which beat non-US stocks by 13.4%, partly thanks to the dollar’s appreciation. We were also right to underweight EM equities, with Asia and Latin America generating dollar returns of only 12.6% and 6.9%. Overall, it was a good year for financial markets (Chart 1). Our growth forecasts were mixed. We predicted global growth would slow in the first half of 2019 but improve thereafter. Instead, the slowdown extended and intensified into the second half of the year as the Sino-US trade war escalated more than expected, and Chinese policymakers were more reluctant to reflate than anticipated. The IMF also revised down its growth forecasts. In the October 2019 World Economic Outlook report, growth in advanced economies for the year was cut to 1.7% from 2.1% compared to 2018 forecasts, led by a downward revision to 1.5% from 2% in Europe (Table 2). They also pared down 2019 EM growth estimates to 3.9% from 4.7%. Consequently, inflation was softer than originally predicted. These trends in economic activity meant that our dollar call was partially right. The currency did not peak in the middle of the year as we foresaw, but has been flat since the spring and today trades where it was in April. Meanwhile, the weaker-than-expected growth put our oil call offside, with Brent averaging $62/bbl this year, not $82/bbl. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts The Cycle’s End Game Mr. X: You mentioned that you remain positive on risk assets and stocks for 2020. You will not be surprised that I am extremely skeptical of this view. The Fed could only raise rates to 2.5% before all hell broke loose, and it has now cut them back to 1.75%. The European Central Bank has lowered its deposit rate to -0.5% and is resuming its asset purchase program, while the Bank of Japan is clearly out of ammunition. Yet global growth remains weak. Despite this lack of economic traction, US stocks are at a record high and are unequivocally expensive. This situation seems untenable. If global growth weakens further, there is little more policymakers can do. I think the risk of a recession is a lot more elevated than you believe, especially as we cannot count on a lasting trade détente. Meanwhile, the US presidential election makes me uncomfortable, and I cannot see how business leaders will want to deploy capital to expand capacity given the risk that the regulatory and tax environment could become hostile to the corporate sector. If I’m wrong about growth – and I hope I am – then inflationary pressures will build and central banks will have to tighten policy suddenly. As bond yields rise, stocks will be sold and yet bonds will not offer any protection since they yield so little. Also, I have not even talked about negative interest rates. $12.1 trillion of debt yields less than zero percent. This is obviously preventing creative destruction from purging the system of rot. It is also promoting capital misallocation and undue risk-taking by financial institutions who cannot meet fiduciary liabilities. Ms. X: Based on this tirade, you can easily imagine what life at the office has been like in recent months. I do share some of my father’s concerns. Negative rates cannot be a good thing, especially from a long-term perspective. If growth weakens further, I’m also concerned that central banks have few options left. However, I do not see these risks as imminent. There are nascent signs that the global economy will stabilize soon; both President Trump and President Xi have strong incentives to reach a trade truce; and central banks are nowhere near removing the proverbial punch bowl. While US stocks are expensive, other risk assets offer value if global growth rebounds. The wall of worry is high, but stocks can and will climb that wall. BCA: Your debate is similar to our own internal discussions. It is undeniable that the investing landscape looks shaky at the moment, especially with the S&P 500 currently trading at 18-times forward earnings. However, the situation you are describing is a direct consequence of one BCA’s long running macro themes: The end of the debt supercycle. While the debt supercycle is dead in advanced economies, it remains very much alive in emerging markets, and China in particular. The private debt load in advanced economies has declined by 20% of GDP since 2009 (Chart 2A). Despite the burgeoning US federal government deficit, public debt accumulation has not been strong enough to cause total debt loads to increase. Instead, aggregate indebtedness has been stuck slightly above 260% of GDP for the past 10 years. Depressed, and in some cases, negative interest rates reflect weak demand for credit. Chart 2AThe Debt Supercycle Is Dead In DM... Chart 2B...But Not In EM   The end of the debt supercycle has both a negative and positive impact. Without increasing leverage, domestic demand cannot grow faster than trend GDP. Thus, it takes much more time for inflationary pressures to build. Concurrently, in the absence of inflationary pressure, more time passes before monetary policy reaches a restrictive level causing recession. The upshot is that the business cycle can last much longer. Moreover, a world less geared to credit accumulation reduces the fragility of the financial system, at the margin. While the debt supercycle is dead in advanced economies, it remains very much alive in emerging markets, and China in particular (Chart 2B), where the demand for credit is still very sensitive to changes in monetary settings. EM countries are the major source of volatility in the global business cycle. Chinese policymakers’ management of the tradeoff between growth and leverage will determine whether the global economy can avoid deflation. If they decide to tackle debt excesses head on, EM credit growth will contract and EM final demand will suffer. In this scenario, negative rates will persist in low-growth advanced economies, and the Fed will be incapable of raising rates because global deflationary forces will be too strong. Chart 3The World Is In The Midst Of A Deflationary Episode The second half of 2018 and the whole of 2019 gave us a taste of these forces. When China tightened credit conditions, the EM economies slowed first. Trade and manufacturing hubs like Europe, Australia and Japan quickly followed. A deflationary wave spread around the world, as evidenced by a drop in global producer prices (Chart 3). The US is a comparatively closed economy, but it could not avoid this gravitational pull. The ISM manufacturing survey ultimately started to contract in August 2018, converging to weakness in the rest of the world. The trade war’s hit to business confidence added insult to the injury of an already weak economic environment. Looking ahead, our optimism reflects an expectation that Chinese policymakers will adopt a more pro-growth policy stance because they too are spooked by the downtrend in their economy. While the Politburo Standing Committee has not abandoned its structural reform agenda, it realizes that aggressive deleveraging is dangerous. The Chinese economy is growing at its weakest pace in nearly 30 years and deflation is once again taking hold. In response to date, policymakers have lowered China’s reserve requirement ratio by 400 basis points, cut taxes by 2.8% of GDP, increased the issuance of local government bonds to finance public infrastructure projects, and boosted capex at state-owned enterprises. EM economies will respond to these stimulative measures. The Chinese credit and fiscal impulse has stabilized (Chart 4). Meanwhile, the Fed has pushed the real fed funds rate 74.4 basis points below the Holston-Laubach-Williams estimate of the neutral rate, and coordinated global policy easing points to a rebound in the global manufacturing sector (Chart 4, bottom panel). Moreover, the global inventory purge that magnified the industrial sector’s pain is getting exhausted and the auto sector is looking up. Finally, we agree with Ms. X that both President Trump and President Xi have their own incentives to deescalate trade policy uncertainty. We are entering the end game of this business cycle and bull market. Global borrowing rates will rise, but only to a limited extent. Rightly or wrongly, major central banks are terrified by the prospect of the Japanification of their economies. Practically speaking, this means that they want inflation expectations to move back up to normal levels (Chart 5). However, after undershooting their 2% targets for 11 years, achieving this objective will require central banks to let realized inflation overshoot these targets first. Thus, central banks are unlikely to tighten policy until late next year at the earliest, which will limit how far yields can climb in 2020. Chart 4…But Do Not Bet Against Reflation Chart 5Depressed Inflation Expectations   Equities and other risk assets should perform well if global growth re-accelerates but interest rates don’t rise much at first. Some benefit of this fertile backdrop is already priced in, but many pockets of value levered to stronger global growth still exist. We are entering the end game of this already long business cycle. While the general environment favors remaining invested in risk assets in 2020, this is likely the last window of opportunity to do so. Today’s accommodative monetary policy will revive inflationary pressures in 2021, and central banks will ultimately be forced to lift rates much more aggressively. China will continue to resist excessive leverage. Neither the business cycle nor the equity bull market will withstand these final assaults. Mr. X: Your benign outlook reminds me of when we met in December 2007. Do you remember? You told me that the housing slowdown and the credit market seizure were large risks, but central banks would put a floor under global growth. How did that turn out? I agree that in advanced economies, overall debt loads have been stable. But this belies major disparities. For example, US corporate debt has never represented a larger share of GDP than it does today. This must be a major vulnerability. While household balance sheets look healthy, I do not think consumption will save the day if companies are cutting capex and employment while they clean up their balance sheets. Countries like Canada and Australia are drowning in private sector debt. How can you ignore these vulnerabilities? BCA: A comparison with 2008 actually reveals why advanced economies, particularly the US, are not the powder keg that they once were. US corporate debt is elevated when compared to GDP, but profits also represent a much larger share of GDP than they did 10 or 20 years ago, and interest rates are close to historic lows. As a result, interest coverage ratios are still adequate (Chart 6). In 2007, household debt loads were large, but interest payments also accounted for 18.1% of disposable income, the highest proportion since 1972. Additionally, US firms’ debt-to-asset ratio is in line with the post-1970 average of 22.1%. Finally, US businesses have not used rising leverage to fund capital spending, as demonstrated by the elevated age of the capital stock. Thus, the US corporate sector continues to generate positive net savings. Ahead of recessions, US businesses typically generate negative net savings. The composition of the creditors is another important difference. In 2007, an extremely large share of the spurious borrowings resided on banks’ balance sheets. Moreover, the banking system was woefully undercapitalized with a leverage ratio of 17x. Weak banks had to absorb 2.2 trillion of losses after 2008. Consequently, the money creation mechanism broke down, and money multipliers collapsed (Chart 7). Today, US banks boast relatively stronger balance sheets, and they are still judicious about extending credit despite being less exposed to the corporate sector than they were to the mortgage market in 2008. Instead, most corporate debt is held by less levered entities such as ETFs, pension plans, and insurance companies. The leveraged losses that proved so debilitating in 2008 are less likely to be a source of systemic risk in this cycle. Chart 6US Businesses Can Still Service Their Debt Chart 72008 Heralded A Destruction Of Money   Countries like Australia and Canada have much more worrisome private sector debt dynamics, as their servicing costs are elevated (Chart 8). However, these economies are unlikely to collapse when global rates are low, as long as the global economy can avoid a recession, which would reduce export revenue in these trade-sensitive countries. You expect a moderate rebound in global growth next year, but not a sharp acceleration because Chinese stimulus will not be that aggressive. The bottom line is that both the US corporate sector and at-risk countries like Canada should avoid a day of reckoning until interest rates rise meaningfully. As we have already mentioned, central banks are very clear that they will allow inflation to overshoot before tightening policy anew. We monitor US inflation breakeven rates to gauge the likely timing of that outcome. At 1.6%, they remain well below the 2.3% to 2.5% range, which is historically consistent with central banks durably achieving their inflation target (Chart 9). Until inflation expectations are re-anchored back up in that range, we will not worry about an imminent tightening in monetary conditions. Chart 8Canada And Australia Are Close To Their Debt Walls Chart 9The Fed Is In No Rush To Tighten   Chart 10Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator It is true that inflationary pressures are building in the US. Historical evidence points to a kink in the Phillips curve, the link between wage growth and the unemployment rate. Since the labor market is tight, we are already seeing average hourly earnings growth accelerate. Moreover, the output gap is mostly closed. However, keep in mind that inflation is also a lagging economic indicator (Chart 10). Consequently, the recent global economic slowdown is likely to keep US inflation at bay for most of 2020. The sharp fall in US capacity utilization along with the decline in imported goods and core producer price inflation corroborate this picture. Mr. X: So you believe that as long as rates stay low, the day of reckoning will be delayed. But ultimately, that it is unavoidable. BCA: Correct. No matter what, we are entering the end game of this already long business cycle. The current period of easy policy will allow cyclical spending to rise as a share of output, and debt to build up again over the coming 18 months. Because slack is clearly limited, this latest wave of policy easing will generate inflationary pressures. Ultimately, the Fed will be forced to play catch up and tighten more aggressively than expected in 2021. Paradoxically, the longer the onset of recession is delayed, the deeper it is likely to be… Mr. X: Because imbalances and vulnerabilities will only grow larger! BCA: Absolutely! Mr. X: That is something we can agree on. Ms. X: The way you complete one another’s sentences is a testament to how many years you have been talking to each other. For me, the most concerning issue is political risk. While I am more positive on the outlook for trade policy than my father, I do worry about the impact of US election risk on capital spending. Chart 11If The 2012 Election Is Any Guide, Trump Can Still Win A Second Term BCA: On the trade war, we would like to address your father’s concerns. All politicians, even unconventional ones like President Trump, seek re-election. Yet, President Trump’s overall approval rating is low (Chart 11). If the election were held today, his odds of winning would be minimal. However, US presidential elections do ultimately favor the incumbent. If the re-election of President Obama in 2012 is any guide, President Trump has enough time to boost his approval rating over the coming 12 months to secure a second term through the Electoral College. In order to achieve this outcome, he must reverse the large slowdown in wage growth currently plaguing the swing states he won by only a small margin in 2016 (Chart 12). Workers in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are suffering disproportionately from the uncertainty created by the trade tensions. President Trump will have to pause the tariffs – and even cut tariff rates – to support the economy and reassure voters. Chart 12Trump's Fear Is Coming True China is willing to accept a trade truce. The Chinese economy is weak and producer prices are once again deflating. President Xi doesn’t want to preside over another massive surge in leverage or a 1930’s Irving Fisher-style deflationary spiral. Reviving private sector investment sentiment via a reduction in trade policy uncertainty would help stabilize spending and avoid a disorderly economic slump. Moreover, President Xi may not trust the current White House, but the prospect of a Democratic administration that will be tough on both environmental standards and human rights would offer little solace. This brings us to the US election. The recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch positioning survey shows that the investment community shares your concerns. This risk is hard to quantify. The Democratic nomination is wide open. Former Vice President Joe Biden leads the opinion polls, and is a known quantity. Meanwhile, the rising progressive wing of the party, embodied in Senator Elizabeth Warren, is hostile to business and likely to cause concerns in boardrooms across the US, especially in the tech, energy, financial services and healthcare sectors. This could dampen animal spirits. Biden’s and Warren’s odds of beating President Trump are overstated by current polls, especially if the President softens his stance on trade to allow for a growth pick-up. Moreover, to be competitive nationally, Senator Warren will have to abandon some of her more progressive plans and pivot toward the center. The recent upbeat equity market performance of sectors like managed healthcare suggests that markets are discounting this shift. Thus, we doubt the election is currently really weighing on business intentions. The recent pick up in capital spending intentions in various Fed Manufacturing surveys fades this risk. Chart 13A Structural Tailwind Has Vanished What is clear though is that if the economy were to weaken further, Senator Warren’s chances would improve and CEOs would genuinely begin to worry about re-regulation, potentially unleashing a vicious cycle. Thus, the end game is an unstable equilibrium. On a structural basis, whether one looks at the rise of populism or the geopolitical rivalry between China and the US, trade tensions will remain a pesky feature of the global economy. In effect, the trade truce will not be a permanent deal. The global economy has therefore lost the tailwind of deepening global integration achieved through trade (Chart 13). This will limit global potential GDP growth. Ms. X: Thank you. I think the time is right to explore your economic outlook in more detail. The Economic Outlook Chart 14China: Modest Reflation Is Underway Mr. X: From your arguments, it seems that the outlook for China and Emerging Markets is critical, so let’s start there. My impression is that President Xi is not abandoning his structural reform agenda. Avoiding the middle-income trap will require decreasing China’s dependence on credit as a growth driver. Can economic activity really stabilize under those circumstances? BCA: You are correct: Senior Chinese administrators are reluctant to allow another major phase of debt accumulation to take hold. However, as we already highlighted, policymakers are taking steps to end the most severe economic slowdown since the first half of the 1990s. China is currently implementing a middling stimulus program. The positive impact of the lower bank reserve requirement ratio, the tax cuts and increased public infrastructure spending is being mitigated by strong regulatory constraints on the shadow banking system and small financial institutions, by efforts to limit real estate speculation, and by the cash crunch facing real estate developers. These crosscurrents make it unlikely that the credit impulse will rise as sharply as it did following the reflationary campaigns of 2009, 2012 or 2016. Nonetheless, the Chinese economy is indeed exhibiting some mildly positive signals. Our monetary indicator and state-owned enterprise capital spending point to a rebound in overall Chinese economic activity (Chart 14). Moreover, household spending is trying to bottom. If China stabilizes, then the EM slowdown will end soon. Without a deepening drag from the Chinese economy, EM countries should be able to take advantage of the easing in global financial and liquidity conditions. But the end of the Chinese drag on EM growth does not mean a massive tailwind will be forthcoming. Additionally, deflationary forces remain stronger in the emerging world than in the US. As a result, EM real rates will remain stubbornly above the level that real economic activity warrants, posing a headwind for capital and durable goods spending. Generally speaking, EM and China are moving from a headwind for the world to a mild tailwind. Treasury yields are unlikely to move significantly higher than the 2.25% to 2.5% zone. Ms. X: I’m somewhat more positive than you on global growth next year. The policy easing around the world looks very promising for economic activity. How do you factor the impact of improving global liquidity conditions into your outlook for 2020? BCA: It is undeniable that global liquidity conditions have eased massively. As we already highlighted, the majority of global central banks cutting rates is a very positive dynamic for global growth. Trends in measures of liquidity ratify this message. Foreign exchange reserves are again growing and our BCA US Financial Liquidity index has rallied sharply over the past 12 months. Historically, this indicator forecasts the trend in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator, commodity prices and EM export prices by 18 months (Chart 15). Moreover, money aggregates are growing faster than credit across the major advanced economies. Such developments typically foretell an acceleration in global economic activity (Chart 16). Chart 15Liquidity Dynamics: Fueling A Global Growth Recovery Chart 16Rising Money Supply Is A Good Thing   The duration of the current slowdown also warrants optimism. We have often highlighted that since the early 1990s, the global manufacturing sector evolves over 36-month symmetric cycles (Chart 17). The current soft patch has lasted more than 18 months. In the context of easing liquidity and depleted inventories, pent-up demand can easily translate into actual spending. The recent surge in the new orders-to-inventories ratio confirms that global manufacturing activity should soon pick up (Chart 18). The auto sector’s weakness, which was exacerbated by previous inventory buildups, changing emission standards, and rising borrowing costs, is also ebbing. Chart 17The Mid-Cycle Slowdown Is Long In The Tooth Chart 18The New Order-To-Inventory Ratio Points To A Global Rebound     Various growth indicators are sniffing out this positive inflection point. The recent trough in the global ZEW survey is revealing (Chart 19). It materialized quickly after Sino-US trade tensions began to ease. Enough positive global economic momentum exists such that a minor decline in policy uncertainty could unleash a large improvement in growth expectations. The rebound in Taiwanese equities and European luxury stocks confirms that the global economy should soon bottom. There are two things we cannot emphasis enough. First, this is the end game of the business cycle, after which a recession will ensue. Second, investors should not expect the kind of strong synchronized growth rebound witnessed in 2017. Without a Chinese and EM boom, a crucial source of demand will be wanting. Mr. X: What about US growth? The yield curve inverted this summer and deteriorating consumer and business confidence raised the specter of an imminent recession. Moreover, the fiscal stimulus that helped the economy in the first half of 2019 is now over. In fact, with a $1 trillion federal deficit despite an unemployment rate of only 3.6%, we have run out of fiscal room to support activity if and when a recession materializes. BCA: The recent yield curve inversion most likely overstated the risk of an economic contraction. First, in the mid-1990s, if the term premium had been as low as it is today, the curve would have also inverted without any recession materializing from 1995 to 2000. Second, this summer, the curve inverted up to the 5-year tenor and steepened for longer maturities. Prior to recessions, the curve inverts across all maturities. Recessions are not born out of thin air. They are caused by imbalances and tight monetary policy. The large debt buildup and other investment imbalances that have preceded prior US recessions are not yet apparent. Prior to the 1991, 2001 and 2008 recessions, the private sector debt load had increased by 20.6%, 14.6% and 25.6% of GDP in the previous five years, not the current 1.4% run rate. The Fed’s policy is now clearly accommodative. Not only is the real fed funds rate 74.4 basis points below the Fed’s favored estimate of the neutral rate of interest, but also real estate, the most interest-rate sensitive economic sector, is rebounding. In 2018, real estate activity collapsed in response to mortgage rates rising to 4.9%. Today, the NAHB Homebuilding index has retraced 79% of its losses; mortgage demand has improved; and housing starts and building permits have recovered (Chart 20). When policy is tight, real estate activity never recovers this quickly, even as yields fall. Chart 19Positive Signals For Global Growth Chart 20The Housing Market Signals That Policy Is Accommodative   Chart 21Robust Household Financial Health A counterargument is that real estate price appreciation is weak. However, tight monetary policy is not the cause. Two forces are dampening house prices. First, the Jobs and Tax Act of 2017 lowered allowable mortgage interest and state and local tax deductions. High-end properties in high-tax states such as California, New York and Massachusetts have suffered from this adjustment. Second, the US housing market has an overhang of large, pricey homes relative to strong demand for smaller, starter homes. Median home prices outpacing average ones show this divergence. We also to need to gauge if consumer spending is likely to follow the manufacturing sector lower. If it does, a recession will be unavoidable. On this front, we are hopeful because: The outlook for household income is positive. As you noted, the unemployment rate is still extraordinarily low, and more Americans will be working by the end of 2020 than today. Additionally, the rising employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers is tightly linked to stronger wages (Chart 21). Also, the recent pick up in productivity growth points to higher real wage growth. The household savings rate is elevated and has limited upside. Households already have a large cushion insulating them from unforeseen shocks. At 8.1% of disposable income, the savings rate is in the 65th percentile of its post-1980 distribution. It is especially lofty if we take into account robust American households’ net worth (Chart 21, bottom panel). Consumer credit demand is rising, according to the Fed’s Senior Loan officer survey. Since household liquid assets are quickly expanding and the household formation rate is robust, consumption of durable goods should pick up, especially in light of the large decrease in borrowing costs. This is particularly true since the household debt-to-assets ratio is at its lowest level since 1985 and debt-servicing costs only represent 9.7% of disposable income, the lowest share for nearly 40 years. The corporate sector outlook should brighten soon. The modest rise in productivity protects margins from higher wages, an effect that will linger given that capacity expansion is consistent with further productivity gains (Chart 22). Crucially, the combined fiscal and monetary easing in China should bolster capital-spending intentions around the world, including the US (Chart 23). Rising productivity will only consolidate these trends. Chart 22Capacity Growth Provides Some Support For Productivity Chart 23Chinese Reflation Will Revive US Capital Spending   The most positive development for the US corporate sector is our outlook for non-US growth. If the global manufacturing sector mends itself, so will the US. Ample liquidity is a positive for the world economy, as well as for US manufacturing conditions (Chart 24). On the fiscal front, we appreciate your worries, but they are not a story for 2020. The US fiscal thrust will not be as positive as it was in 2018 or 2019, but it is set to remain a small tailwind, not a drag. Furthermore, given that 2020 is an election year it is unlikely that politicians will tighten purse strings over the coming 12 months. Fiscal risks are undoubtedly greater in the long run. However, a sudden fiscal consolidation is a remote probability because fiscal austerity has gone out of style. Instead, the federal debt burden will be a major source of long-term inflation because there is no other easy way to address this gigantic pile of liabilities. The path of least resistance will be more spending and financial repression. In other words, real rates will stay too low and excess government spending will push prices higher, conveniently eroding the real value of that high federal debt burden. This was a big story in the 20th century and it will remain so in the 21st (Chart 25), especially since an aging population and the peak in globalization will weigh on global savings. Chart 24The US Manufacturing Slowdown Has Run Its Course Chart 25Inflation Is About Political Decisions   Ms. X: Your point about demographics makes me think of Europe and Japan. Brexit has not been resolved; populism remains a concern in Italy; and the European banking system is still fragile. Japan suffers from an even worse demographic profile and the recent VAT increase was ill-timed, economically. Given these headwinds, can these regions participate in the global recovery you foresee? BCA: The short answer is yes, albeit to varying degrees. The outlook for Europe is more promising than Japan. A No-Deal Brexit is now a very low probability event, even after next month’s UK election. The conservatives’ support for Prime Minister Johnson’s Brexit plan will ensure as much. A large source of uncertainty is being lifted, which will allow European businesses to resume investment planning. The situation in the European periphery is also improving. Non-performing loans in Spain and Italy are falling (Chart 26), which is allowing for a normalization of credit origination. The narrowing Italian and peripheral spreads to German bunds will be helped by easing financial conditions in the European economies that need it most. Higher Italian bond prices improve banks’ solvency and cut borrowing costs for the private sector. Finally, populism is alive and well in Europe, rejecting fiscal austerity, but not embracing euro-skepticism. More generous fiscal spending would be a positive for Europe. European liquidity conditions are also generous. Deposit growth has strengthened and financial conditions have benefited from lower German yields and a cheap euro, which trades 15% below fair-value estimates. Our model for European banks’ return on tangible equity is rising, which is a clear indication that easy financial and liquidity conditions should deliver stronger incremental economic activity (Chart 27). Chart 26Declining Non-Performing Loans Are A Positive For The European Periphery Chart 27European Banks' Return On Equity Will Improve In 2020   The fiscal outlook is murkier. European fiscal thrust was a positive 0.4% of GDP in 2019, but it will decline to 0.1% in 2020. However, fiscal policy affects economic activity with a lag. The impact of this year’s easing has yet to be fully felt. Since European rates are so low and the economy is not operating at full capacity, the fiscal multiplier is greater than one. Therefore, Europe can still reap a substantial fiscal dividend next year. Finally, Europe remains a very pro-cyclical economy. A large share of euro area GDP is connected to manufacturing and exports. As a result, Europe will be one of the prime beneficiaries of a pickup in global growth. Already, the sharp rebound in the German and euro area ZEW survey expectation components point to a brighter outlook for the region. Japan is also a very pro-cyclical economy, which will reap a dividend from a bottom in global manufacturing activity. However, the Land of the Rising Sun is still subject to idiosyncratic constraints. Japanese financial conditions have not improved as much as those in Europe. The yen has appreciated 2.6% in trade-weighted terms this year, while Japanese yields have not melted as much as European ones (because Italian and peripheral yields fell so much in 2019). Japan will also have to reckon with the impact of the October VAT increase. Ahead of the tax hike, retail sales spiked by 9.1% on a year-on-year basis, or 7.1% compared to the previous month, a script similar to 2014. 2015 was a payback year where consumption was depressed. This scenario will play out again, even if the Abe government has implemented some fiscal offsets. Ultimately, the Japanese economy will lag Europe’s in the first half of the year but should catch up in the second half. The impact of the tax hike will dissipate. Most importantly, rebounding global growth will hurt the yen, at least on a trade-weighted basis, providing a lift to export prospects and easing Japanese financial conditions relative to the rest of the world, which will produce a growth dividend later in 2020. Ms. X: To summarize, you expect a moderate rebound in global growth next year, but not a sharp acceleration because Chinese stimulus will not be that aggressive. EM activity will also pick up but will not generate fireworks. The US will be okay but Europe will probably deliver the largest positive growth surprise as external and domestic conditions align positively. Japan will also stabilize on the back of stronger global growth, but domestic headwinds mean that a true reacceleration won’t happen until the latter part of the year. This recovery constitutes the business cycle’s end game as inflation will become a concern in 2021, forcing the Fed to tighten then. BCA: Yes, this is correct. Ms. X: Thank you! Bond Market Prospects Chart 28Global Bonds Are Extremely Overvalued Ms. X: I do not like US Treasuries at current yields. They do not protect me against an inflation surprise and will do nothing for me in an economic recovery. However, my bearishness is tempered by the large stock of bonds with negative yields in Europe and Japan. As long as this strange situation persists, I doubt US yields will experience much upside. US paper is too attractive to foreign asset managers right now. BCA: We share your view and are recommending an underweight to global government bonds. Global yields offer little value and are vulnerable to a rebound in economic activity or a trade détente. Our Global Bond Valuation index is flashing a clear sell signal (Chart 28). As yields rise, global yield curves are bound to steepen. We also agree that the upside for Treasury yields is limited, but we disagree with the limiting factor. Foreign investors are not the major buyers of Treasuries. Indeed, the data shows that European and Japanese investors have not been aggressive purchasers of US government securities. The US yield curve is flat and US short rates tower above European and Japanese ones, hedging currency exposure when buying Treasuries is expensive. In euro or yen terms, a hedged Treasury yields -67 basis points and -60 basis points, less than 10-year bunds or JGBs, respectively. Meanwhile, EM central banks are diversifying their FX reserves away from the US dollar into gold. Instead, our view is governed by the concept we dub the “Golden Rule of Treasury Investing.” According to this principle, the outperformance of Treasuries relative to cash is a direct function of the Fed’s ability to surprise the market. If the Fed cuts rates more than the OIS curve anticipated 12 months prior, Treasuries outperform. The opposite happens if the Fed delivers a hawkish surprise (Chart 29). Chart 29The Golden Rule Of Treasury Investing Treasury yields are unlikely to move significantly higher than the 2.25% to 2.5% zone, because the OIS curve is now only pricing in 28 basis points of rate cuts over the next year. It is not just the US OIS curve that has priced out a large amount of rate cuts; this phenomenon has materialized around the world over the past five weeks. Chart 30The Term Premium Is Too Low Any upside risk to that 2.25% to 2.5% forecast for 2020 will come from the inflation expectations and term premium components of yields. Central banks, including the Fed, have telegraphed an intention to allow inflation expectations to rise, initially, in response to stronger global growth. Moreover, declining risk aversion should also allow the exceptionally depressed term premium to normalize (Chart 30). Only in late 2020 or early 2021 will Treasury yields durably move above this 2.25-2.5% zone. Punching above these levels will require core PCE inflation to have been above target long enough to re-anchor inflation expectations back up to their 2.3% to 2.5% target zone. Only then will the Fed give the all-clear signal to the bond market to lift yields higher. Mr. X: You still have not directly addressed the question of negative yields in Europe and Japan. This story will not end well. Do you worry about these bond markets over the next year? BCA: Our answer is an emphatic yes. But we assume you will not let us leave it at that. Mr. X: You know me too well. BCA: Over the course of the past 50 years, we have learned a thing or two about you. In all seriousness, let’s start with our simple but effective valuation ranking. It compares the current level of real yields for each country to their historical averages and standard deviations. You can see that the most unattractive bond markets right now are all in Europe (Chart 31). Chart 31European Bonds Are Too Dear Chart 32Swiss Bonds Are A Lose-Lose Proposition The lower bound of interest rates is another reason to avoid these markets. This floor seems to lie around -1% in nominal terms. Because of these constraints, in recent months, Swiss, Swedish, Dutch and German 10-year bonds have failed to rally as much as their higher-yielding US, Canadian or Australian counterparts when global yields are declining. However, they also underperform when yields are rising (Chart 32). They have become a lose-lose proposition. The only pockets of value left in DM bond markets are Greece, Portugal or Italy. Despite their apparent risks, we still like them. Support for the euro in Greece and Italy is 70% and 65%, respectively. Even populist governments in these nations are reluctant to attack euro membership anymore. Moreover, the ECB remains committed to the survival of the euro area in its current form. Christine Lagarde will not change that. For 2020 or 2021, the risk of euro breakup is practically zero. The same may not be true on a 5- to 10-year investment horizon, but for the coming year, these bonds offer an attractive risk-adjusted carry. Ms. X: Unsurprisingly, my father does not like corporate bonds because of highly levered corporate balance sheets. I think this is a long-term problem, but not a risk for 2020, so I’m looking to stay overweight spread product relative to Treasuries. Where do you stand on this market? BCA: On this issue, we sit somewhere between you both. Our Corporate Health Monitor continues to deteriorate (Chart 33). The high debt load of the US business sector coupled with the decline of the return on capital worries us. Furthermore, the covenant-lite trend in recent issuance suggests that corporate borrowers, not lenders, are getting the good deals. Essentially, too much cash is still chasing too little available yield pick-up. In this environment, capital is sure to be misallocated, and money ultimately lost. We find the reward-to-risk tradeoff more attractive in Europe and Japan than in emerging markets. On a short-term basis, the spreads will not widen much. An easy Fed, recovering global growth, and the gigantic pile of negative-yielding bonds around the world will make sure of that. We advocate a neutral stance on investment grade corporates because IG bonds have high modified duration such that breakeven spread compensation versus Treasuries is near the bottom of its historical distribution across the IG credit spectrum (Chart 34). This means that credit will generate poor returns if government bond yields rise. Chart 33Dangerous Long-Term Picture For US Corporates Chart 34No Value Left In IG   Chart 35EMs Still Experiencing Deflation Thankfully, they are ways around this problem: emphasizing exposure to high-yield (HY) bonds and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) instead. HY breakeven spreads remain much more attractive than in the IG space, and option-adjusted spreads will benefit if our growth and inflation forecasts materialize. Investors reluctant to commit capital to these products should look into high quality agency MBS. After the recent wave of mortgage refinancing, these securities’ duration has collapsed to 3.0 compared to 7.9 for IG corporates. These securities therefore offer much better protection in a rising-yield environment. Ms. X: Before we move on to equities, where do you stand on EM bonds? BCA: We need to differentiate between EM local-currency bonds and EM USD-denominated bonds. We do like some EM local currency bonds. Inflation in EM countries is low and dropping. Money and credit growth is slowing, which implies that the disinflationary trend will remain in place through 2020 (Chart 35). Weaker nominal growth means that central banks in EM will continue to cut rates, providing a nice tailwind for local-currency bond prices. This comes with a caveat. Lower policy rates will boost bond prices but hurt EM currencies, especially because most EM currencies are not cheap and are already over-owned. Next year, it will be preferable to garner exposure to those countries interest rate moves via the swap market rather than the cash bond market. Chart 36The Mexican Peso Is Cheap There are some exceptions, like Mexico. The MXN is already very cheap because of fears surrounding the economic policies of President Andres Manual Lopez Obrador (AMLO) (Chart 36). However, we doubt he will turn out to be as dangerous as feared. Hence, MXN Mexican bonds are attractive to foreign investors in unhedged terms. We are currently avoiding EM USD-denominated debt, corporate and sovereign. Since emerging markets sport $5.1 trillion of dollar-denominated debt, falling EM exchange rates will increase the cost of servicing this debt, which makes it riskier. Mr. X: I think we will continue to underweight corporate and EM bonds in our fixed income portfolio. Spread levels still make no sense in terms of providing compensation for credit risk. I must admit that I find your recommendation to overweight MBS intriguing. We will need to ponder this idea further. Ms. X: And please wish me luck trying to convince my father to buy some high-yield bonds. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: US stocks are too expensive for my taste, with the S&P 500 trading at a forward P/E ratio of 18. I’m well aware of the argument that equities may be expensive but that they are actually cheap compared to bonds, which implies that I should favor stocks over bonds. However, you know that I emphasize capital preservation. With stocks this rich already, equities offer no margin of safety. If I own stocks, I am therefore exposed to any unexpected shocks. Because I do not share your optimism on the economy, I am more worried about downside risk. Moreover, even if the economy performs better than I fear, I suspect stocks will respond poorly to higher yields. Chart 37The S&P Is Very Expensive Ms. X: I agree with my father that stocks are expensive. Nonetheless, as Keynes famously quipped, “Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” In today’s context, to me this means that stocks can ignore their overvaluation so long as liquidity is plentiful, rates are low, and a recession is avoided. BCA: On this question, we agree with Ms. X. We all agree that US equities are expensive. As you mentioned, their price-to-earnings ratio is 18. Only at the apex of the tech bubble and in early 2018 was the S&P 500 more expensive. Worryingly, the price-to-sales ratio is at 2.3, an even larger historical outlier than the P/E (Chart 37). Chart 38Low Yields And Plentiful Liquidity Are Still Fertile Ground For Stocks Ms. X is correct that we cannot look at stock valuations in isolation. Investing is about opportunity cost and the macroeconomic context. On this front, even US equities have their merit. Despite the S&P 500’s expensive multiples, our Composite Valuation Indicator is no more elevated than it was in 2013. Meanwhile, our Monetary Indicator has rarely been as supportive of stock prices as it is today, and our Speculation Indicator is in line with its January 2016 reading (Chart 38). Moreover, BCA’s Composite Sentiment indicator is still below its long-term historical average and margin debt has declined by $47.5 billion to the lowest share of US market capitalization since June 2005. These are hardly signs of irrational exuberance. Ultimately, bear markets and recessions travel together. A durable 20% drop in stock prices requires a significant and long-lasting decline in earnings. These developments happen during recessions (Chart 39). Our call is for a recession in the next 24 months or so. We must also remember that while equities perform poorly six months ahead of a recession, the end of a bull market, its last 12 to 18 months, tend to be very rewarding (Table 3). We are within this window. Chart 39Bear Markets And Recessions Travel Together Table 3The End Game Can Be Rewarding Based on our forecast for interest rates, we do not share the concerns that rising bond yields will topple stocks right away. Stock prices are an inverse function of risk-free rates, but a positive function of growth expectations. Higher yields will initially reflect stronger growth, not restrict it. But remember: the upside for yields is limited because central banks do not want to choke off the recovery. They will maintain accommodative policy. In other words, we expect real rates to lag behind growth expectations. Because long-term growth expectations, whether from sell-side analysts or extracted out of market prices using the Gordon Growth Model, are low, we are willing to make this bet (Chart 40). Equities will suffer if the global bond yield rises above 2.5%. This is more a story for 2021, and not our central scenario for 2020. It is nonetheless a reminder that we are entering the end game of the business cycle, so we are also entering the end-game of the bull market. Mr. X: I think you are playing with fire. Stocks are so expensive that if you are wrong on either the growth call or the yield call, they will suffer. I would rather miss the last melt-up in stocks than unnecessarily expose my portfolio to a meltdown. Additionally, you have not addressed the fact that S&P 500 margins have begun to soften but are still extremely elevated. Shouldn’t this dampen your optimism? BCA: Aggregate S&P 500 margins have some downside. Our Composite Margin Proxy, Operating Margins Diffusion index and Corporate Pricing Power indicator all remain weak (Chart 41). The deceleration in the crude PPI excluding food and energy and the past strength in the dollar confirm this insight, especially as the corporate wage bill climbs in a tight labor market. The biggest mitigating factor is that productivity is also on the mend, which curbs the negative impact of higher worker pay. Chart 40Growth Expectations Are Muted Chart 41US Margins Under Pressure   This danger must be put into perspective though. Margin expansion has been dominated by the tech sector (Chart 42). Excluding this industry, S&P 500 margins are roughly in line with their previous peak, and are not declining. The aggregate softness in margins is a reflection of the sharper decline in tech margins. Declining margins do not spell the imminent end of the bull market either. Table 4 shows that on average, the S&P 500 rises by 9.5% following the peak in margins. Equities can rise after margins crest because this is often an environment where wages are climbing, which boosts consumption. Consequently, top-line growth can accelerate and earnings can rise even if they represent a lower proportion of sales. This is the environment we foresee over 2020. Chart 42Tech Margins Have Likely Peaked Table 4Margin Peaks Do Not Spell S&P Doom   Chart 43Taiwanese Stocks Are Sniffing Out Better Global Growth Ms. X: You have talked about the tech sector being a drag on overall margins. How would you position a US stock portfolio? BCA: First, around the world, we prefer cyclical sectors to defensive ones. Cyclical stocks are depressed relative to defensive firms’ shares. Rebounding global growth and rising bond yields will favor cyclical sectors. Globally, the performance of cyclical equities relative to defensive ones correlates with Taiwanese equities, which are currently rallying smartly (Chart 43). This suggests that at the margin, the most cyclical asset markets are beginning to express optimism about global growth. Within the S&P 500, our favorite pair trade to express this bias is to overweight energy stocks at the expense of utilities. Utilities are bond proxies which will substantially underperform energy stocks when the rate of change of Treasury yields moves up (Chart 44). Moreover, based on our valuation indicators, energy stocks have never traded at such a deep discount to utilities, nor have they ever been as oversold. Chart 44Favor Energy Over Utilities Second, we are currently neutral on tech stocks but have put them on a downgrade alert. Tech equities are expensive, trading at a forward P/E ratio 21% above the other cyclicals. Moreover, since software spending has remained surprisingly resilient despite the global economic slowdown, it will likely lag investment in machinery and structures when industrial demand rebounds. Consequently, tech earnings will lag other traditional cyclical sectors. Tech multiples will also suffer when bond yields rise. As high-growth stocks, tech equities derive a large proportion of their intrinsic value from long-term deferred cash flows and their terminal value. Thus, tech multiples are highly sensitive to changes in the discount rate We implement this view by way of an underweight in tech and an overweight to industrials. Industrials have suffered disproportionately from the trade war. Any near term truce is unlikely to contain a grand bargain on intellectual property rights transfer that galvanizes tech exports, but it will remove some of the uncertainty weighing on industrials. Moreover, industrials are a much cheaper play on a global growth rebound. The global manufacturing slowdown has caused industrial equities to trade at their greatest discount to the tech sector since the financial crisis. Finally, the wage bill for the industrial sector is melting relative to tech, and our margin proxy is surging (Chart 45). This has created a very positive backdrop for this pair trade. We also like financials. They will be a key beneficiary of rising yields and a steepening yield curve. Additionally, household credit demand has picked up and overall credit growth should accelerate as central banks will maintain very accommodative monetary conditions. The yield impulse already points toward higher bank credit growth and companies are issuing an increasingly large stock of bonds (Chart 46). Chart 45Operating Metrics Will Boost Industrials Versus Tech Equities Chart 46Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Credit Creation   Ms. X: When combining valuation analysis with your fundamental sectoral slant, I am guessing that you must favor European, Japanese and EM stocks over the S&P 500? BCA: We do favor European and Japanese equities. Based on valuation alone, all the regions you mentioned offer higher expected long-term real rates of return than the US (Chart 47). Moreover, the dollar is expensive relative to advanced economies’ currencies. Hence, these markets are cheaper vehicles than the S&P 500 to bet on a global economic recovery. But valuation alone is not enough. US stocks are trading at unprecedented levels relative to global equities because of the FAANG craze (Chart 48). Looking at sector representation, our positive view on non-tech cyclicals also flatters exposure to Europe and Japan (Table 5). Chart 47Non US Equities Offer Better Value Chart 48FAANG-Driven US Outperformance   Table 5Equity Market Sector Composition Chart 49European Banks Are Cheap Europe is particularly attractive because of its large skew towards industrials and financials, which represent 32.3% of the market versus 22.3% in the US. Moreover, European financials are also a tantalizing bet because they trade at a 50% discount to US financials, according to their price-to-book ratio. Additionally, their return on tangible equity will benefit from higher German yields, easing financial conditions, declining non-performing loans in the periphery and rebounding global growth. Our RoE model for European banks already points to a resurgence in their stock prices (Chart 49). Of the major markets we track, Japan offers the highest prospective long-term real returns. Its strong cyclical slant and low share of tech stocks means it is another market investors should overweight to bet on a global recovery. The biggest problem for Japanese equities is the yen. When global yields climb higher, a weak JPY will clip some of the Nikkei’s gains for foreign investors. Finally, we are reluctant to overweight EM stocks just yet. In this space, median P/E ratios are much higher than on a market capitalization-weighted basis (Chart 50). State-owned companies explain this bifurcation, Chinese banks in particular. Since we expect Chinese banks to remain a conduit for policy, credit origination may flatter economic growth more than shareholders’ interests. Moreover, we have a negative outlook on EM currencies, and hedging this exposure is expensive. Finally, if China’s economic activity improves only modestly in 2020, the 2012 experience suggests that EM stocks can still underperform the global equity universe as global growth improves and yields rise (Chart 51). In other words, we find the reward-to-risk tradeoff more attractive in Europe and Japan than in emerging markets. Chart 50EM Stocks Are No Bargain Yet Chart 51EM Stocks Can Underperform When Global Growth Improves     Mr. X: Thank you. I am still not sure what share of our portfolio will be dedicated to stocks. However, I think that whatever this proportion will be, buying global equities makes more sense than US ones. Your valuation argument alone is swaying me, considering my more conservative instincts. Ms. X: I’m glad we will not have to argue on this point, but I know we will nonetheless battle on the stock/bond/gold split. Should we move on to your currency and commodity forecasts? BCA: It would be our pleasure. Currencies And Commodities Mr. X: You have often argued that the dollar is a countercyclical currency. Based on our discussion so far, you must expect the dollar to decline until we get closer to the next recession. I am not fully convinced. Specifically, I remember that in the back half of 2016 global growth was rebounding, but the dollar soared. Therefore, the growth/dollar relationship can be more complex than you argue. Meanwhile, with negative interest rates in Europe, Japan and Switzerland, why would I even consider divesting out of my positive yielding dollar assets? Chart 52The Dollar Is A Counter Cyclical Currency BCA: You raise interesting questions, and you are correct that we expect the dollar to depreciate if our constructive view on global growth pans out for 2020. The inverse relationship between global industrial production (excluding the US) and the trade-weighted dollar is unambiguous (Chart 52). As you also mentioned, the reality is a little bit more nuanced. To understand why, it is important to remember how currencies function. We can think of an exchange rate as an adjustment mechanism that solves for the gap in growth between any two countries. This is at the root of the dollar’s counter-cyclicality. When global growth is picking up, returns tend to be higher in cyclical markets, which are highly concentrated outside of the US. Flows then gravitate from the US to other markets and the dollar declines. After a while, the dollar becomes cheap enough that these flows reverse. In the second half of 2016, three factors drove the dollar rebound. First, US manufacturing was improving at a faster pace than that of the rest of the world. Second, the Fed resumed its interest rate hikes, so interest rate differentials suddenly flattered the dollar anew. Finally, the election of President Trump, who campaigned on large scale fiscal stimulus, elicited memories of the Reagan dollar bull market of the first half of the 1980s. These factors eventually faded as global growth rebounded. Today, the Fed’s policies are hurting the dollar. Aside from recent interest rate cuts, the Fed has been injecting liquidity into the banking system through repurchase agreements and renewed asset (T-Bills) purchases. Moreover, the rate cuts are also easing global funding conditions and promoting a re-steepening of the yield curve. This will incentivize banks to lend and boost the US money supply. As growth re-accelerates and demand for imports (machinery, commodities, and consumer goods) rises, the current account deficit will widen further. This process will increase the international supply of dollars. Historically, these dynamics usually hurt the dollar. What we have described is a tentative abatement in geopolitical risk at best – but it would be cavalier to get overly enthusiastic. Like you, we are deeply uncomfortable with negative interest rates. Thankfully, the nascent pickup in global economic activity is lifting global bond yields. So far, foreign bond markets have led this move. More specifically, countries that have suffered most from the global manufacturing slowdown are now seeing their bond yields rise the quickest (Chart 53). For example, yields in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Japan have risen by a lot more than those in the US since global yields troughed in September. Should the initial signals of stabilization in global growth morph into a synchronized recovery, the US yield advantage will evaporate. In a nutshell, interest rates might be negative in Europe and Switzerland, but the positive carry offered by US assets is rapidly fading. Chart 53AAre Interest Rate Differentials Flashing A Signal About Exchange Rates? Chart 53BAre Interest Rate Differentials Flashing A Signal About Exchange Rates?   Chart 54Foreigners Are Selling Treasuries For international investors, the currency risk inherent in owning US bonds is just too large at the current juncture. Remember, the trade-weighted dollar stands 25% above its long-term equilibrium and the US twin deficits are expanding. Markets priced in cheap currencies with some potential upside, such as Australia, Canada, Norway or even the European periphery, might be better bets. Flows highlight just how precarious the situation is for the US dollar. Since last August, overall flows into the US Treasury market have been negative. Net foreign purchases by private investors are still positive at an annualized US$180 billion, but they are clearly rolling over. Moreover, official net outflows are running at $350 billion, easily cancelling out the private sector’s inflows (Chart 54). Essentially, foreigners’ appetite for US fixed-income assets is waning exactly as interest rate differentials have started moving against the dollar. Ms. X: I share my father’s concerns, but how would you implement your negative dollar view. Which currencies should I be loading up on as we enter the business cycle’s end game? BCA: The more export-dependent economies (and currencies) should benefit the most from a rebound in global growth. Within the G-10, we particularly like the Swedish krona, the Norwegian krone and the British pound. Bond yields for these currencies are rising the fastest vis-à-vis the US. As a result, the currencies themselves should soon follow (previously mentioned Chart 53). We also expect commodity currencies to benefit, but only upon clearer signs that the resource-thirsty Chinese economy is improving. Until then, they are likely to lag the pro-cyclical European currencies, which are less directly dependent on Chinese stimulus. The euro could become the greatest beneficiary from a weaker dollar because a large headwind for European economic activity is disappearing for now. For the past ten years, European real interest rates have been too low for the most productive, competitive exporter – Germany – but too high for others such as Spain and Italy. Consequently, the euro has been caught in a tug-of-war between a rising neutral rate of interest for Germany and a very low one for the peripheral economies. Via its rate cuts, asset purchase programs, and aggressive TLTRO packages, the ECB may have now finally eased policy to the point where nearly all Eurozone countries enjoy an accommodative monetary environment. 10-year government bond yields in France, Spain, Portugal and even Italy now all sit close to the neutral rate of interest for the entire eurozone (Chart 55). Chart 55The ECB Has Eased Policy Enough Finally, the euro is likely to benefit from inflows into European equity markets. The euro’s drop since 2018 has eased financial conditions and made euro area businesses more competitive. This is an important tailwind for European corporate profits and thus stocks. Moreover, European equities, especially those in the periphery, remain unloved, as illustrated by their cheap valuations compared to other advanced economies. Additionally, analysts’ earnings expectations for eurozone equities are perking up relative to US stocks. If the sell-side is right, powerful inflows into the region will lift the euro in 2020. Mr. X: Thank you. I find it difficult to share your enthusiasm for the euro, a currency backed by such a flimsy edifice. While I would agree that it could rebound next year, I find currencies highly unpredictable on such a time horizon. I prefer to think about them on a long-term basis, and while the euro is cheap, its weak institutional underpinning is too concerning. Let’s move on to commodities. Following our meeting last year, we took your advice on oil and gold. Overall, these calls helped our portfolio. Going forward, these markets are extremely perplexing. There is so much risk in oil markets, such as the tensions in the Middle East and the uncertainty stemming from the trade war between the US and China. How would you recommend playing the oil market in 2020? Chart 56Inventory Drawdown Will Support Oil BCA: Your assessment of these markets is spot on. Yet, price risk is skewed to the upside because fiscal and monetary stimulus will revive commodity demand. The oil-producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia will continue to restrain production, and will probably extend its 1.2mm b/d production cut due to expire at the end of March to year-end 2020. In the US, market-imposed capital discipline will keep reducing the growth of US shale-oil supply. Additionally, US shale-oil supply growth is threatened by flaring of associated natural gas in the Bakken and Permian basins. Failure to limit the burn-off at oil-production sites could provide the environmental lobby an opening to challenge growth. Ms. X: What about the demand side of the oil markets? The fall in the growth rate of demand this year caught most participants off guard. What do you make of that? BCA: Demand data shows a lot of lingering weakness, much of which was caused by tight financial conditions last year in the US and China. But now, most global central banks are pursuing highly accommodative monetary policy and many governments are also easing fiscal policy. As a result, this demand weakness will fade next year. We think next year growth will clock in at 1.4mm b/d. Not as robust as 2017, but still respectable. This should stop the downward pressure on oil prices that has prevailed since May (Chart 56). Mr. X: You’re describing a fairly strong market for next year. What are the downside risks to your view? BCA: Global economic policy uncertainty remains elevated. Uncertainty is one of the key factors driving demand for USD, which is one of the most popular safe havens in the world (Chart 57). A strong dollar creates a headwind for commodity demand. It raises the local-currency costs of consumers in the EM economies that drive oil demand, and lowers production costs outside of the US, encouraging supply growth at the margin. Chart 57Elevated Global Economic Uncertainty Has Kept The USD Well Bid Chart 58Gold: A Valuable Portfolio Hedge Ms. X: So, pulling it all together, what is your call for 2020? BCA: The weaker 2019 demand data and the upward revisions to global oil inventories pushed our 2020 Brent Oil forecast to $67/bbl from $70/bbl. We still expect WTI to trade at a $4/bbl discount to Brent. As we mentioned earlier, the risk to our forecast is to the upside: a resolution of the US-China trade war, and lower global economic policy uncertainty could trigger a sharp rally in crude prices. Mr. X: Thank you for your insight on oil. I would like to hear your thoughts on gold. You can tell that I see little absolute value in stocks or bonds at the moment, so I have an outsized preference for the yellow metal this year. Also, how could the US dollar and gold both rally at the same time in 2019? BCA: Let’s start with your dollar/gold question. It is very rare to see gold and the dollar rally together. Normally a strong dollar hurts gold. As you know, we’ve been recommending an allocation to gold since 2017, mostly as a portfolio hedge. We like that gold strongly outperforms other safe havens in equity bear markets and can participate in the upside (even if to a limited extent) in bull markets. We think the safe-haven properties of gold and the US dollar really have come to the fore over the past couple of years (Chart 58). Economic policy uncertainty, and divisive politics globally have raised the level of uncertainty to record levels. In such an environment, the dollar and gold both provide a safe haven and a portfolio hedge. Hence, their joint popularity this past year. We should also remember that gold is a good inflation hedge, and is particularly negatively correlated with real interest rates. A Fed that is willing to let the economy overheat is a Fed that will limit how high real rates climb. Moreover, global liquidity is plentiful. Finally, EM central banks have been slowly divesting from Treasuries and diversifying into gold lately, buying most of the new supply in the process. This backdrop, along with our forecast of a weaker dollar, should support gold again in 2020. That being said, because gold is tactically overbought and could face temporary headwinds if global uncertainty recedes, we prefer silver, which is not as stretched. Furthermore, silver’s higher industrial use means that it should also benefit from a global manufacturing recovery. Geopolitics Chart 59Multipolarity Creates An Unstable Environment Mr. X: Let’s return to geopolitical and policy risks, both of which abound. Global economic policy uncertainty is the highest it has been since academics began measuring it. The world is fraught with populism, authoritarianism, war, immigration, technological disruption, inequality, and corruption. With so much chaos, and so little consensus, is there anything solid for an investor to grasp about the political backdrop next year? BCA: Geopolitics is the likeliest candidate to short circuit this long bull market, given that the Federal Reserve, the usual culprit, has paused its rate tightening campaign. On a secular basis, geopolitical risk is rising because the United States’ national power is declining relative to that of other world powers (Chart 59). China’s rise, in particular, is stirring conflict with the US and its allies in the western Pacific. Beijing’s technological and military advance is generating fear across the American political establishment. Russia and China continue to deepen their relationship in the face of an increasingly unpredictable United States. These strategic tensions will persist despite any tariff ceasefire with China. Chart 60Globalization Has Peaked Competition among the great powers makes for a world of contested authority. As the rules of the road have become less certain, the tailwind behind international trade and investment has weakened (Chart 60). Deglobalization is a headwind for the earnings of large cap global companies in the long run. Emerging markets, which are exposed to trade, face persistent unrest. Mr. X: Given the above, how can an investor take an optimistic view of the global economy and markets next year? BCA: We have a framework for analyzing politics: constraints over preferences. We cannot predict what the chief politicians will prefer at any given time, but we can try to identify and measure the constraints that will restrict their freedom of movement. With global growth slowing, world leaders have become more sensitive to their constraints. The Fed has reversed rate hikes; China is easing policy; President Trump has refrained from attacking Iran; and President Trump and President Xi are negotiating a ceasefire. The UK has avoided a “no deal” Brexit – not once but twice. In short, the risk of recession (or conflict) has been sufficient to alter the policy trajectory. As a result, there is a prospect for global geopolitical risks to abate somewhat in 2020. Both the American and Chinese administrations need to see growth stabilize despite their ongoing strategic conflict. Both the British and European governments need to avoid a disorderly Brexit despite their lack of clarity beyond that. Geopolitical risk is declining, albeit from an extremely elevated level. Mr. X: The US and China have already come close to a deal only to get cold feet and back away from it. The British Prime Minister is committed to leaving the EU with or without a deal. Surely you cannot believe that the Middle East, Russia, other emerging markets, or North Korea will be any bastion of stability. BCA: The US-China trade war is still the single greatest threat to the equity bull market. Brexit is not resolved and a new deadline for a trade deal looms at the end of 2020. Investors must remain vigilant and hedge their portfolios, particularly with gold. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore this year’s reaffirmation of the Fed put, the China put, and Trump’s “Art of the Deal.” The base case for next year should be constructive, albeit with vigilant attention to the major risks: President Trump, China and Iran. The other issues you mention have varying degrees of market relevance. Russia is focusing on pacifying domestic discontent. North Korea is on a diplomatic track with the United States. Emerging market unrest is particularly relevant where it can have a bearing on global stability: Iraq, Iran and Hong Kong in particular. Ms. X: If I may interject: It seems to me that the worst of the trade war has passed, that the risk of a no-deal Brexit is negligible, and that Iran is unlikely to outdo its attack against Saudi Arabia in September. Doesn’t this imply that geopolitical risk is overrated and that investors should rush to capture the risk premium in equities? BCA: What we have described is a tentative abatement in geopolitical risk at best – but it would be cavalier to get overly enthusiastic. After all, any fall in global risks will be amply made up for by the impending rise in US domestic political risk. Indeed, US politics are the chief source of global political risk in 2020. First, if President Trump becomes a “lame duck” then he could take actions that are hugely disruptive to global markets in a desperate attempt to win reelection as a “war president.” Chart 61European Political Risk Is Now Low Second, if President Trump is reelected, then his disruptive populism will have a new mandate and his “America First” foreign and trade policy will be unshackled. Third, if the opposition Democrats succeed in unseating an incumbent president, they will likely take the Senate too, removing the main hurdle to a dramatic policy change. That would mark the third 180-degree reversal in national policy in 12 years. Moreover, investors may find the country merely exchanged right-wing populism for left-wing populism, which has a more negative impact on corporate earnings prospects. Polarization and institutional erosion will continue. The election results may be razor thin; swing states may have to recount votes; and the outcome could hinge on rare or unprecedented developments in the Electoral College, the Supreme Court or cyberspace. A crisis of legitimacy could easily afflict the next administration. In short, there are few scenarios in which US political risk does not rise over the next 12-24 months. Rising American risk stands in stark contrast to Europe (Chart 61), where the will to integrate has overcome several challenges since the sovereign debt crisis. Substantial majority of voters support the euro and the European Union. Germany is on the brink of a major political succession but it is not turning its back on the European project. France is successfully pursuing structural reforms. Italy remains the weakest link, but even the populist Northern League accepts the euro. This leaves two remaining global risks: China and Iran. Chinese political risk is generally understated. President Xi Jinping, lacking President Trump’s electoral constraint, could overestimate his leverage. He could overreach in the trade talks, in his battle to prevent excessive debt growth, or in his handling of Hong Kong, Taiwan, North Korea, or Iran. The result could be a breakdown in the trade talks or a separate strategic crisis with the United States. Another cold war-style escalation in tensions could easily kill the green shoots in global growth. As for Iran, the regime is under crippling American sanctions and faces unrest both at home and within its regional sphere of influence. There is a non-negligible risk that it will lash out and cause an extended oil supply shock. Conclusions Mr. X: This is a good place to conclude our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground but I remain deeply concerned that staying invested in risk assets today is akin to picking-up pennies in front of a steamroller. I accept your opinion that a recession is unlikely in 2020, but valuations of both stocks and bonds are uncomfortably stretched for my taste. As a result, I believe stocks could suffer whether growth is good or bad next year. Finally, since so many things need to go right for the global economy to continue to defy gravity, a recession may hit faster than you envision. To me, there is simply not enough margin of safety in stocks to compensate me for the risk! Ms. X: I agree with my father that the risks are high because we are entering the end game of the cycle. But I also see pockets of value, some of which you have mentioned today. Moreover, I am sympathetic to your view that global growth will recover next year. Corporate earnings should therefore expand. Hence, I fear that being out of the market will be very painful, especially because policy is quite accommodative. While stocks may not perform as well as they did in 2019, I expect them to outperform bonds handily. I’m therefore willing to continue holding risk assets, even if I need to be more judicious in my sector and regional allocation. BCA: Your family debate mirrors our own internal discussions. There is always a trade-off between maximizing short-term returns and taking a longer-term approach. Valuations are the ultimate guidepost for long-term return prospects. Because so many assets have become more expensive this year, long-term returns are likely to be uninspiring compared to recent history. Table 6 shows our baseline calculations of what a balanced portfolio will earn over the coming decade. We estimate that such a portfolio will deliver average annual returns of 4.4% over the next ten years, or 2.4% after adjusting for inflation. That is a noticeable deterioration from our inflation-adjusted estimate of 2.8% from last year, and also still well below the 6.5% real return that a balanced portfolio earned between 1982 and 2019. Table 6Asset Market Return Projections Our outlook for next year hinges on global growth rebounding and policy uncertainty receding. Monetary policy is less of a threat to equities than it was last year because central banks have already eased considerably and have been very open about their willingness to let inflation run above target for a while before retightening the monetary screws. We propose the following list of easy-to-track milestones to monitor whether or not our central scenario for the global economy and asset markets is playing out, and how close we are to the end of the cycle: Chinese money and credit numbers. Chinese credit growth must stabilize for the economy to do so. If credit origination continues to decelerate, this will indicate that Beijing has decided to tolerate the slowdown and prioritize its reform and deleveraging agenda. In this case, the Chinese debt supercycle is over sooner and the global economy will pay the price. Our China Investment Strategy Activity Index. Global policy is accommodative and liquidity conditions have improved significantly. However, if the Chinese economy continues to deteriorate, global growth will not rebound. The China Activity Index must stabilize and even improve somewhat for our global growth view to come to fruition. Progress in the “phase one” deal. China and the US must agree to a trade détente. As long as uncertainty around immediate tariffs remain high and retaliation risks stay alive, global capital spending intentions and thus the global manufacturing sector will be hamstrung. Surveys of global growth. The Global manufacturing PMI and the global growth expectation component of the ZEW survey must both recover. If these variables cannot gain any traction, the global economy is sicker than we estimate and risk assets will suffer. Commodity prices and the dollar. In the first quarter, industrial commodity prices must rebound and the dollar must start to depreciate. These two developments will not only reflect an improvement in global growth. They will also alleviate deflationary pressures around the world, revive profits and sponsor a business spending recovery. Moreover, a weaker dollar will also ease global financial conditions by decreasing the global cost of capital. 10-year inflation breakeven rate. If US breakevens move above the 2.3% to 2.5% zone, the Fed will become more proactive about raising rates. This would provoke a quicker end to the business cycle. President Trump’s approval rating. If President Trump’s approval rating stabilizes below 42%, he could give up on the economy and instead bet on a “rally around the flag” as his best strategy for re-election. This would result in a much more hawkish and confrontational White House that would become an even greater source of uncertainty for the economy, and thus risk asset prices. Ms. X: Thank you for this comprehensive list of variables to monitor. As always, you have left us with much to think about. We look forward to these discussions every year. Before we conclude, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: It will be our pleasure. The key points are as follow: Global equities are entering the end game of their nearly 11-year bull market. Stocks are expensive, but bonds are even more so. As a result, if global growth can recover and the US can avoid a recession in 2020, earnings will not weaken significantly and stocks will again outperform bonds. Low rates reflect the end of the debt supercycle in the advanced economies. However, the debt supercycle is still alive in EM in general, and in China, in particular. The global economic slowdown that begun more than 18 months ago started when China tried to limit debt growth. If Beijing continues to push for more deleveraging, global growth will continue to suffer as the EM debt supercycle will end. Nonetheless, we expect China to try to mitigate domestic deflationary pressures in 2020. As a result, a small wave of Chinese reflation, coupled with the substantial easing in global monetary and liquidity conditions should promote a worldwide re-acceleration in economic activity. Policy uncertainty will recede next year. Domestic constraints are forcing China and the US toward a trade détente. The risk of a no-deal Brexit is now marginal, and President Trump is still the favorite in 2020. A decline in policy risk will foster a global economic rebound. That being said, some pockets of risk remain, such as in the Middle East. Global central banks are highly unlikely to remove the punch bowl anytime soon. Not only will it take some time before global deflationary forces recede, monetary authorities in the G10 want to avoid the Japanification of their economies. As a result, they are already announcing that they will allow inflation to overshoot their 2% target for a period of time. This will ultimately raise the need for higher rates in 2021, which will push the global economy into recession in late 2021, or early 2022. These dynamics are key to our categorization of 2020 as the end game. US growth will re-accelerate. The US consumer remains in good shape thanks to healthy balance sheets and robust employment and wage growth prospects. Meanwhile, corporate profits and capex should benefit from a decline in global uncertainty and a pick-up in global economic activity. China will continue to stimulate its economy but will not do so as aggressively as it did over the past 10 years. Consequently, EM growth will also bottom but is unlikely to boom. Europe and Japan will re-accelerate in 2020. Bond yields will grind higher in 2020. However, Treasury yields are unlikely to break above the 2.25% to 2.5% range until much later in the year. Inflationary pressures won’t resurface quickly, so the Fed is unlikely to signal its intention to raise interest rates until late 2020 or later. European bonds are particularly unattractive. Corporate bonds are a mixed offering. Investment grade credit is unattractive owing to low option-adjusted spreads and high duration, especially when corporate health is deteriorating. Agency mortgage-backed securities and high-yield bonds offer better risk-adjusted value. Global stocks will enjoy their last-gasp rally in 2020. As global growth recovers, favor the more cyclical sectors and regions which also happen to offer the best value. US stocks are the least attractive bourse; they are very expensive and loaded with defensive and tech-related exposure, two groups that could suffer from higher bond yields. We are neutral on EM equities. Investors should pare exposure to equities after inflation breakevens have moved back into their 2.3% to 2.5% normal range and the Fed funds rate has moved closer to neutral. We anticipate this to be a risk in 2021. The dollar is likely to decline because it is a countercyclical currency. Balance of payment dynamics and valuation considerations are also becoming headwinds. The pro-cyclical European currencies and the euro should be the main beneficiary of any dollar depreciation. Oil and gold will have upside next year. Crude will benefit from both supply-side discipline and a recovery in oil demand on the back of the improving growth outlook. Gold will strengthen as global central banks limit the upside to real rates by allowing inflation to run a bit hot. A weaker dollar will flatter both commodities. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 2.4% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.5% a year between 1982 and 2019. We would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 22, 2019

Mr. X and his daughter, Ms. X, are long-time BCA clients who visit our office toward the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook for the year ahead. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: I have been eagerly looking forward to this meeting given my many concerns about the outlook. Our portfolio has done well in the past year thanks to the surge in bond prices and the outperformance of defensive equities. However, I am deeply troubled by the amount of monetary stimulus required to support risk assets, and by how expensive bonds and equities are. Moreover, the global economy remains engulfed in deflationary risks, and policymakers are running out of ammunition. As always, there is much to talk about. Ms. X: Let me add that I am also pleased to once again be here to discuss the major risks and opportunities in the global marketplace. A year ago, I held a more positive market view than my father. Directly after our meeting, the deep market correction gave me second thoughts, but ultimately, the rebound in stock prices vindicated my view. Clearly, your assertion that markets would be turbulent proved correct. Since I joined the family firm in early 2017, I have been pushing my father to keep a higher equity exposure than he was normally comfortable with. We agreed to still favor stocks last year, albeit, with a bias toward defensive sectors, and this strategy paid off. But after the past year’s powerful rally in both bonds and stocks, we are again left wondering how to position our portfolio. Ultimately, I do not believe a recession is imminent. Yes, stocks are expensive, but bonds are even more so. Since I expect economic growth to pick up, I am inclined to tilt the portfolio further into equities and move away from our preference for defensive sectors. As usual, I am very interested to hear your views. BCA: Our core theme for 2019 was that we would face classic late-cycle turbulence. Despite this volatility, a run-up in asset prices was likely. Soon after we met, the stock market plunged, hitting a low on December 26, 2018. We anticipated the Federal Reserve to be much more hawkish than what actually transpired. Wage growth and even core inflation have remained firm in the US, but the weakness in global inflation expectations drove central banks’ reaction functions more powerfully than we anticipated. Moreover, the rapid escalation of the Sino-US trade war added a layer of uncertainty that exacerbated the economic slowdown that had started in mid-2018, forcing global central banks to ease policy as an indemnity against recession. Looking ahead, central bankers are highly unlikely to tighten monetary policy as long as inflation expectations remain below their normal range consistent with a 2% inflation target. We agree that the odds of a US recession in the coming year are still low because financial conditions are set to remain accommodative, Chinese authorities are setting policy to shore up growth, and a trade truce is likely. Global economic activity will rebound in early 2020. Instead, the most probable timeframe for a broad based recession is late 2021/early 2022. As a result, we remain positive on risk assets, especially foreign stocks. We are also underweighting bonds as they offer extremely poor absolute and relative value. Mr. X: I can see we will have a lively discussion because I do not share your or my daughter’s optimism. My list of concerns is long, I hope we have time to get through them all. But first, let’s briefly review your predictions from last year. BCA: This exercise is always interesting and often humbling, too. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: Tensions between policy and markets would be an ongoing theme in 2019. With the US unemployment rate at a 48-year low, it would take a significant slowdown for the Fed to stop hiking rates. Ultimately, the Fed would deliver more hikes in 2019 than discounted in the markets. This would push up the dollar and keep the upward trend in Treasury yields intact. The dollar would peak in mid-2019. China would also become more aggressive in stimulating its economy, which would boost global growth. However, until both of these things happened, emerging markets would remain under pressure. We favored developed market equities over their EM peers. We also preferred defensive equity sectors such as healthcare and consumer staples over cyclical sectors such as industrials and materials. Within the developed market universe, the US would outperform Europe and Japan over the next few quarters, especially in dollar terms. Stabilization in global growth would ignite a blow off rally in global equities. If the Fed was raising rates in response to falling unemployment, it would be unlikely to derail the stock market. However, once supply-side constraints began to bite fully in early 2020 and inflation began to rise well above the Fed’s target of 2%, stocks would begin to buckle. This would mean that a window would exist in 2019 for stocks to outperform bonds. We would maintain a benchmark allocation to stocks, but increase exposure if global bourses were to fall significantly from then (late 2018) current levels without a corresponding deterioration in the economic outlook. Corporate credit would underperform stocks as government bond yields rise. A major increase in credit spreads was unlikely as long as the economy remained in expansion mode, but spreads could still widen modestly. US shale companies had been the marginal producers in the global oil sector. With breakeven costs in shale close to $50/bbl, crude prices would be unlikely to rise much from current levels over the long term. However, we expected production cuts in Saudi Arabia would push prices up, with Brent crude averaging around $82/bbl in 2019. A balanced portfolio was likely to generate average returns of only 2.8% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.6% a year between 1982 and 2018. As already noted, our forecast for more Fed rate hikes was wrong. This meant that we were offside in our duration call. Ultimately, 10-year Treasuries have generated returns of 10.8% so far this year, and German bunds and Japanese government bonds returns of 5.8% and 1.0% in EUR and JPY terms, or 2.5% and 2.0% in USD terms, respectively (Table 1). Nonetheless, our expectation of a run-up in risk asset prices was spot on. Equities outperformed bonds, with global stocks climbing 22.2% in USD terms. We missed the initial outperformance of corporate bonds relative to Treasuries, as investment grade credit rose by 13.9%. However, our bond team took a more constructive stance on corporates as the year progressed. Table 1Market Performance Chart 12019 Was A Good Year For Stocks In terms of regional allocation recommendations, we were correct to overweight US equities which beat non-US stocks by 13.4%, partly thanks to the dollar’s appreciation. We were also right to underweight EM equities, with Asia and Latin America generating dollar returns of only 12.6% and 6.9%. Overall, it was a good year for financial markets (Chart 1). Our growth forecasts were mixed. We predicted global growth would slow in the first half of 2019 but improve thereafter. Instead, the slowdown extended and intensified into the second half of the year as the Sino-US trade war escalated more than expected, and Chinese policymakers were more reluctant to reflate than anticipated. The IMF also revised down its growth forecasts. In the October 2019 World Economic Outlook report, growth in advanced economies for the year was cut to 1.7% from 2.1% compared to 2018 forecasts, led by a downward revision to 1.5% from 2% in Europe (Table 2). They also pared down 2019 EM growth estimates to 3.9% from 4.7%. Consequently, inflation was softer than originally predicted. These trends in economic activity meant that our dollar call was partially right. The currency did not peak in the middle of the year as we foresaw, but has been flat since the spring and today trades where it was in April. Meanwhile, the weaker-than-expected growth put our oil call offside, with Brent averaging $62/bbl this year, not $82/bbl. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts The Cycle’s End Game Mr. X: You mentioned that you remain positive on risk assets and stocks for 2020. You will not be surprised that I am extremely skeptical of this view. The Fed could only raise rates to 2.5% before all hell broke loose, and it has now cut them back to 1.75%. The European Central Bank has lowered its deposit rate to -0.5% and is resuming its asset purchase program, while the Bank of Japan is clearly out of ammunition. Yet global growth remains weak. Despite this lack of economic traction, US stocks are at a record high and are unequivocally expensive. This situation seems untenable. If global growth weakens further, there is little more policymakers can do. I think the risk of a recession is a lot more elevated than you believe, especially as we cannot count on a lasting trade détente. Meanwhile, the US presidential election makes me uncomfortable, and I cannot see how business leaders will want to deploy capital to expand capacity given the risk that the regulatory and tax environment could become hostile to the corporate sector. If I’m wrong about growth – and I hope I am – then inflationary pressures will build and central banks will have to tighten policy suddenly. As bond yields rise, stocks will be sold and yet bonds will not offer any protection since they yield so little. Also, I have not even talked about negative interest rates. $12.1 trillion of debt yields less than zero percent. This is obviously preventing creative destruction from purging the system of rot. It is also promoting capital misallocation and undue risk-taking by financial institutions who cannot meet fiduciary liabilities. Ms. X: Based on this tirade, you can easily imagine what life at the office has been like in recent months. I do share some of my father’s concerns. Negative rates cannot be a good thing, especially from a long-term perspective. If growth weakens further, I’m also concerned that central banks have few options left. However, I do not see these risks as imminent. There are nascent signs that the global economy will stabilize soon; both President Trump and President Xi have strong incentives to reach a trade truce; and central banks are nowhere near removing the proverbial punch bowl. While US stocks are expensive, other risk assets offer value if global growth rebounds. The wall of worry is high, but stocks can and will climb that wall. BCA: Your debate is similar to our own internal discussions. It is undeniable that the investing landscape looks shaky at the moment, especially with the S&P 500 currently trading at 18-times forward earnings. However, the situation you are describing is a direct consequence of one BCA’s long running macro themes: The end of the debt supercycle. While the debt supercycle is dead in advanced economies, it remains very much alive in emerging markets, and China in particular. The private debt load in advanced economies has declined by 20% of GDP since 2009 (Chart 2A). Despite the burgeoning US federal government deficit, public debt accumulation has not been strong enough to cause total debt loads to increase. Instead, aggregate indebtedness has been stuck slightly above 260% of GDP for the past 10 years. Depressed, and in some cases, negative interest rates reflect weak demand for credit. Chart 2AThe Debt Supercycle Is Dead In DM... Chart 2B...But Not In EM   The end of the debt supercycle has both a negative and positive impact. Without increasing leverage, domestic demand cannot grow faster than trend GDP. Thus, it takes much more time for inflationary pressures to build. Concurrently, in the absence of inflationary pressure, more time passes before monetary policy reaches a restrictive level causing recession. The upshot is that the business cycle can last much longer. Moreover, a world less geared to credit accumulation reduces the fragility of the financial system, at the margin. While the debt supercycle is dead in advanced economies, it remains very much alive in emerging markets, and China in particular (Chart 2B), where the demand for credit is still very sensitive to changes in monetary settings. EM countries are the major source of volatility in the global business cycle. Chinese policymakers’ management of the tradeoff between growth and leverage will determine whether the global economy can avoid deflation. If they decide to tackle debt excesses head on, EM credit growth will contract and EM final demand will suffer. In this scenario, negative rates will persist in low-growth advanced economies, and the Fed will be incapable of raising rates because global deflationary forces will be too strong. Chart 3The World Is In The Midst Of A Deflationary Episode The second half of 2018 and the whole of 2019 gave us a taste of these forces. When China tightened credit conditions, the EM economies slowed first. Trade and manufacturing hubs like Europe, Australia and Japan quickly followed. A deflationary wave spread around the world, as evidenced by a drop in global producer prices (Chart 3). The US is a comparatively closed economy, but it could not avoid this gravitational pull. The ISM manufacturing survey ultimately started to contract in August 2018, converging to weakness in the rest of the world. The trade war’s hit to business confidence added insult to the injury of an already weak economic environment. Looking ahead, our optimism reflects an expectation that Chinese policymakers will adopt a more pro-growth policy stance because they too are spooked by the downtrend in their economy. While the Politburo Standing Committee has not abandoned its structural reform agenda, it realizes that aggressive deleveraging is dangerous. The Chinese economy is growing at its weakest pace in nearly 30 years and deflation is once again taking hold. In response to date, policymakers have lowered China’s reserve requirement ratio by 400 basis points, cut taxes by 2.8% of GDP, increased the issuance of local government bonds to finance public infrastructure projects, and boosted capex at state-owned enterprises. EM economies will respond to these stimulative measures. The Chinese credit and fiscal impulse has stabilized (Chart 4). Meanwhile, the Fed has pushed the real fed funds rate 74.4 basis points below the Holston-Laubach-Williams estimate of the neutral rate, and coordinated global policy easing points to a rebound in the global manufacturing sector (Chart 4, bottom panel). Moreover, the global inventory purge that magnified the industrial sector’s pain is getting exhausted and the auto sector is looking up. Finally, we agree with Ms. X that both President Trump and President Xi have their own incentives to deescalate trade policy uncertainty. We are entering the end game of this business cycle and bull market. Global borrowing rates will rise, but only to a limited extent. Rightly or wrongly, major central banks are terrified by the prospect of the Japanification of their economies. Practically speaking, this means that they want inflation expectations to move back up to normal levels (Chart 5). However, after undershooting their 2% targets for 11 years, achieving this objective will require central banks to let realized inflation overshoot these targets first. Thus, central banks are unlikely to tighten policy until late next year at the earliest, which will limit how far yields can climb in 2020. Chart 4…But Do Not Bet Against Reflation Chart 5Depressed Inflation Expectations   Equities and other risk assets should perform well if global growth re-accelerates but interest rates don’t rise much at first. Some benefit of this fertile backdrop is already priced in, but many pockets of value levered to stronger global growth still exist. We are entering the end game of this already long business cycle. While the general environment favors remaining invested in risk assets in 2020, this is likely the last window of opportunity to do so. Today’s accommodative monetary policy will revive inflationary pressures in 2021, and central banks will ultimately be forced to lift rates much more aggressively. China will continue to resist excessive leverage. Neither the business cycle nor the equity bull market will withstand these final assaults. Mr. X: Your benign outlook reminds me of when we met in December 2007. Do you remember? You told me that the housing slowdown and the credit market seizure were large risks, but central banks would put a floor under global growth. How did that turn out? I agree that in advanced economies, overall debt loads have been stable. But this belies major disparities. For example, US corporate debt has never represented a larger share of GDP than it does today. This must be a major vulnerability. While household balance sheets look healthy, I do not think consumption will save the day if companies are cutting capex and employment while they clean up their balance sheets. Countries like Canada and Australia are drowning in private sector debt. How can you ignore these vulnerabilities? BCA: A comparison with 2008 actually reveals why advanced economies, particularly the US, are not the powder keg that they once were. US corporate debt is elevated when compared to GDP, but profits also represent a much larger share of GDP than they did 10 or 20 years ago, and interest rates are close to historic lows. As a result, interest coverage ratios are still adequate (Chart 6). In 2007, household debt loads were large, but interest payments also accounted for 18.1% of disposable income, the highest proportion since 1972. Additionally, US firms’ debt-to-asset ratio is in line with the post-1970 average of 22.1%. Finally, US businesses have not used rising leverage to fund capital spending, as demonstrated by the elevated age of the capital stock. Thus, the US corporate sector continues to generate positive net savings. Ahead of recessions, US businesses typically generate negative net savings. The composition of the creditors is another important difference. In 2007, an extremely large share of the spurious borrowings resided on banks’ balance sheets. Moreover, the banking system was woefully undercapitalized with a leverage ratio of 17x. Weak banks had to absorb 2.2 trillion of losses after 2008. Consequently, the money creation mechanism broke down, and money multipliers collapsed (Chart 7). Today, US banks boast relatively stronger balance sheets, and they are still judicious about extending credit despite being less exposed to the corporate sector than they were to the mortgage market in 2008. Instead, most corporate debt is held by less levered entities such as ETFs, pension plans, and insurance companies. The leveraged losses that proved so debilitating in 2008 are less likely to be a source of systemic risk in this cycle. Chart 6US Businesses Can Still Service Their Debt Chart 72008 Heralded A Destruction Of Money   Countries like Australia and Canada have much more worrisome private sector debt dynamics, as their servicing costs are elevated (Chart 8). However, these economies are unlikely to collapse when global rates are low, as long as the global economy can avoid a recession, which would reduce export revenue in these trade-sensitive countries. You expect a moderate rebound in global growth next year, but not a sharp acceleration because Chinese stimulus will not be that aggressive. The bottom line is that both the US corporate sector and at-risk countries like Canada should avoid a day of reckoning until interest rates rise meaningfully. As we have already mentioned, central banks are very clear that they will allow inflation to overshoot before tightening policy anew. We monitor US inflation breakeven rates to gauge the likely timing of that outcome. At 1.6%, they remain well below the 2.3% to 2.5% range, which is historically consistent with central banks durably achieving their inflation target (Chart 9). Until inflation expectations are re-anchored back up in that range, we will not worry about an imminent tightening in monetary conditions. Chart 8Canada And Australia Are Close To Their Debt Walls Chart 9The Fed Is In No Rush To Tighten   Chart 10Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator It is true that inflationary pressures are building in the US. Historical evidence points to a kink in the Phillips curve, the link between wage growth and the unemployment rate. Since the labor market is tight, we are already seeing average hourly earnings growth accelerate. Moreover, the output gap is mostly closed. However, keep in mind that inflation is also a lagging economic indicator (Chart 10). Consequently, the recent global economic slowdown is likely to keep US inflation at bay for most of 2020. The sharp fall in US capacity utilization along with the decline in imported goods and core producer price inflation corroborate this picture. Mr. X: So you believe that as long as rates stay low, the day of reckoning will be delayed. But ultimately, that it is unavoidable. BCA: Correct. No matter what, we are entering the end game of this already long business cycle. The current period of easy policy will allow cyclical spending to rise as a share of output, and debt to build up again over the coming 18 months. Because slack is clearly limited, this latest wave of policy easing will generate inflationary pressures. Ultimately, the Fed will be forced to play catch up and tighten more aggressively than expected in 2021. Paradoxically, the longer the onset of recession is delayed, the deeper it is likely to be… Mr. X: Because imbalances and vulnerabilities will only grow larger! BCA: Absolutely! Mr. X: That is something we can agree on. Ms. X: The way you complete one another’s sentences is a testament to how many years you have been talking to each other. For me, the most concerning issue is political risk. While I am more positive on the outlook for trade policy than my father, I do worry about the impact of US election risk on capital spending. Chart 11If The 2012 Election Is Any Guide, Trump Can Still Win A Second Term BCA: On the trade war, we would like to address your father’s concerns. All politicians, even unconventional ones like President Trump, seek re-election. Yet, President Trump’s overall approval rating is low (Chart 11). If the election were held today, his odds of winning would be minimal. However, US presidential elections do ultimately favor the incumbent. If the re-election of President Obama in 2012 is any guide, President Trump has enough time to boost his approval rating over the coming 12 months to secure a second term through the Electoral College. In order to achieve this outcome, he must reverse the large slowdown in wage growth currently plaguing the swing states he won by only a small margin in 2016 (Chart 12). Workers in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are suffering disproportionately from the uncertainty created by the trade tensions. President Trump will have to pause the tariffs – and even cut tariff rates – to support the economy and reassure voters. Chart 12Trump's Fear Is Coming True China is willing to accept a trade truce. The Chinese economy is weak and producer prices are once again deflating. President Xi doesn’t want to preside over another massive surge in leverage or a 1930’s Irving Fisher-style deflationary spiral. Reviving private sector investment sentiment via a reduction in trade policy uncertainty would help stabilize spending and avoid a disorderly economic slump. Moreover, President Xi may not trust the current White House, but the prospect of a Democratic administration that will be tough on both environmental standards and human rights would offer little solace. This brings us to the US election. The recent Bank of America Merrill Lynch positioning survey shows that the investment community shares your concerns. This risk is hard to quantify. The Democratic nomination is wide open. Former Vice President Joe Biden leads the opinion polls, and is a known quantity. Meanwhile, the rising progressive wing of the party, embodied in Senator Elizabeth Warren, is hostile to business and likely to cause concerns in boardrooms across the US, especially in the tech, energy, financial services and healthcare sectors. This could dampen animal spirits. Biden’s and Warren’s odds of beating President Trump are overstated by current polls, especially if the President softens his stance on trade to allow for a growth pick-up. Moreover, to be competitive nationally, Senator Warren will have to abandon some of her more progressive plans and pivot toward the center. The recent upbeat equity market performance of sectors like managed healthcare suggests that markets are discounting this shift. Thus, we doubt the election is currently really weighing on business intentions. The recent pick up in capital spending intentions in various Fed Manufacturing surveys fades this risk. Chart 13A Structural Tailwind Has Vanished What is clear though is that if the economy were to weaken further, Senator Warren’s chances would improve and CEOs would genuinely begin to worry about re-regulation, potentially unleashing a vicious cycle. Thus, the end game is an unstable equilibrium. On a structural basis, whether one looks at the rise of populism or the geopolitical rivalry between China and the US, trade tensions will remain a pesky feature of the global economy. In effect, the trade truce will not be a permanent deal. The global economy has therefore lost the tailwind of deepening global integration achieved through trade (Chart 13). This will limit global potential GDP growth. Ms. X: Thank you. I think the time is right to explore your economic outlook in more detail. The Economic Outlook Chart 14China: Modest Reflation Is Underway Mr. X: From your arguments, it seems that the outlook for China and Emerging Markets is critical, so let’s start there. My impression is that President Xi is not abandoning his structural reform agenda. Avoiding the middle-income trap will require decreasing China’s dependence on credit as a growth driver. Can economic activity really stabilize under those circumstances? BCA: You are correct: Senior Chinese administrators are reluctant to allow another major phase of debt accumulation to take hold. However, as we already highlighted, policymakers are taking steps to end the most severe economic slowdown since the first half of the 1990s. China is currently implementing a middling stimulus program. The positive impact of the lower bank reserve requirement ratio, the tax cuts and increased public infrastructure spending is being mitigated by strong regulatory constraints on the shadow banking system and small financial institutions, by efforts to limit real estate speculation, and by the cash crunch facing real estate developers. These crosscurrents make it unlikely that the credit impulse will rise as sharply as it did following the reflationary campaigns of 2009, 2012 or 2016. Nonetheless, the Chinese economy is indeed exhibiting some mildly positive signals. Our monetary indicator and state-owned enterprise capital spending point to a rebound in overall Chinese economic activity (Chart 14). Moreover, household spending is trying to bottom. If China stabilizes, then the EM slowdown will end soon. Without a deepening drag from the Chinese economy, EM countries should be able to take advantage of the easing in global financial and liquidity conditions. But the end of the Chinese drag on EM growth does not mean a massive tailwind will be forthcoming. Additionally, deflationary forces remain stronger in the emerging world than in the US. As a result, EM real rates will remain stubbornly above the level that real economic activity warrants, posing a headwind for capital and durable goods spending. Generally speaking, EM and China are moving from a headwind for the world to a mild tailwind. Treasury yields are unlikely to move significantly higher than the 2.25% to 2.5% zone. Ms. X: I’m somewhat more positive than you on global growth next year. The policy easing around the world looks very promising for economic activity. How do you factor the impact of improving global liquidity conditions into your outlook for 2020? BCA: It is undeniable that global liquidity conditions have eased massively. As we already highlighted, the majority of global central banks cutting rates is a very positive dynamic for global growth. Trends in measures of liquidity ratify this message. Foreign exchange reserves are again growing and our BCA US Financial Liquidity index has rallied sharply over the past 12 months. Historically, this indicator forecasts the trend in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator, commodity prices and EM export prices by 18 months (Chart 15). Moreover, money aggregates are growing faster than credit across the major advanced economies. Such developments typically foretell an acceleration in global economic activity (Chart 16). Chart 15Liquidity Dynamics: Fueling A Global Growth Recovery Chart 16Rising Money Supply Is A Good Thing   The duration of the current slowdown also warrants optimism. We have often highlighted that since the early 1990s, the global manufacturing sector evolves over 36-month symmetric cycles (Chart 17). The current soft patch has lasted more than 18 months. In the context of easing liquidity and depleted inventories, pent-up demand can easily translate into actual spending. The recent surge in the new orders-to-inventories ratio confirms that global manufacturing activity should soon pick up (Chart 18). The auto sector’s weakness, which was exacerbated by previous inventory buildups, changing emission standards, and rising borrowing costs, is also ebbing. Chart 17The Mid-Cycle Slowdown Is Long In The Tooth Chart 18The New Order-To-Inventory Ratio Points To A Global Rebound     Various growth indicators are sniffing out this positive inflection point. The recent trough in the global ZEW survey is revealing (Chart 19). It materialized quickly after Sino-US trade tensions began to ease. Enough positive global economic momentum exists such that a minor decline in policy uncertainty could unleash a large improvement in growth expectations. The rebound in Taiwanese equities and European luxury stocks confirms that the global economy should soon bottom. There are two things we cannot emphasis enough. First, this is the end game of the business cycle, after which a recession will ensue. Second, investors should not expect the kind of strong synchronized growth rebound witnessed in 2017. Without a Chinese and EM boom, a crucial source of demand will be wanting. Mr. X: What about US growth? The yield curve inverted this summer and deteriorating consumer and business confidence raised the specter of an imminent recession. Moreover, the fiscal stimulus that helped the economy in the first half of 2019 is now over. In fact, with a $1 trillion federal deficit despite an unemployment rate of only 3.6%, we have run out of fiscal room to support activity if and when a recession materializes. BCA: The recent yield curve inversion most likely overstated the risk of an economic contraction. First, in the mid-1990s, if the term premium had been as low as it is today, the curve would have also inverted without any recession materializing from 1995 to 2000. Second, this summer, the curve inverted up to the 5-year tenor and steepened for longer maturities. Prior to recessions, the curve inverts across all maturities. Recessions are not born out of thin air. They are caused by imbalances and tight monetary policy. The large debt buildup and other investment imbalances that have preceded prior US recessions are not yet apparent. Prior to the 1991, 2001 and 2008 recessions, the private sector debt load had increased by 20.6%, 14.6% and 25.6% of GDP in the previous five years, not the current 1.4% run rate. The Fed’s policy is now clearly accommodative. Not only is the real fed funds rate 74.4 basis points below the Fed’s favored estimate of the neutral rate of interest, but also real estate, the most interest-rate sensitive economic sector, is rebounding. In 2018, real estate activity collapsed in response to mortgage rates rising to 4.9%. Today, the NAHB Homebuilding index has retraced 79% of its losses; mortgage demand has improved; and housing starts and building permits have recovered (Chart 20). When policy is tight, real estate activity never recovers this quickly, even as yields fall. Chart 19Positive Signals For Global Growth Chart 20The Housing Market Signals That Policy Is Accommodative   Chart 21Robust Household Financial Health A counterargument is that real estate price appreciation is weak. However, tight monetary policy is not the cause. Two forces are dampening house prices. First, the Jobs and Tax Act of 2017 lowered allowable mortgage interest and state and local tax deductions. High-end properties in high-tax states such as California, New York and Massachusetts have suffered from this adjustment. Second, the US housing market has an overhang of large, pricey homes relative to strong demand for smaller, starter homes. Median home prices outpacing average ones show this divergence. We also to need to gauge if consumer spending is likely to follow the manufacturing sector lower. If it does, a recession will be unavoidable. On this front, we are hopeful because: The outlook for household income is positive. As you noted, the unemployment rate is still extraordinarily low, and more Americans will be working by the end of 2020 than today. Additionally, the rising employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers is tightly linked to stronger wages (Chart 21). Also, the recent pick up in productivity growth points to higher real wage growth. The household savings rate is elevated and has limited upside. Households already have a large cushion insulating them from unforeseen shocks. At 8.1% of disposable income, the savings rate is in the 65th percentile of its post-1980 distribution. It is especially lofty if we take into account robust American households’ net worth (Chart 21, bottom panel). Consumer credit demand is rising, according to the Fed’s Senior Loan officer survey. Since household liquid assets are quickly expanding and the household formation rate is robust, consumption of durable goods should pick up, especially in light of the large decrease in borrowing costs. This is particularly true since the household debt-to-assets ratio is at its lowest level since 1985 and debt-servicing costs only represent 9.7% of disposable income, the lowest share for nearly 40 years. The corporate sector outlook should brighten soon. The modest rise in productivity protects margins from higher wages, an effect that will linger given that capacity expansion is consistent with further productivity gains (Chart 22). Crucially, the combined fiscal and monetary easing in China should bolster capital-spending intentions around the world, including the US (Chart 23). Rising productivity will only consolidate these trends. Chart 22Capacity Growth Provides Some Support For Productivity Chart 23Chinese Reflation Will Revive US Capital Spending   The most positive development for the US corporate sector is our outlook for non-US growth. If the global manufacturing sector mends itself, so will the US. Ample liquidity is a positive for the world economy, as well as for US manufacturing conditions (Chart 24). On the fiscal front, we appreciate your worries, but they are not a story for 2020. The US fiscal thrust will not be as positive as it was in 2018 or 2019, but it is set to remain a small tailwind, not a drag. Furthermore, given that 2020 is an election year it is unlikely that politicians will tighten purse strings over the coming 12 months. Fiscal risks are undoubtedly greater in the long run. However, a sudden fiscal consolidation is a remote probability because fiscal austerity has gone out of style. Instead, the federal debt burden will be a major source of long-term inflation because there is no other easy way to address this gigantic pile of liabilities. The path of least resistance will be more spending and financial repression. In other words, real rates will stay too low and excess government spending will push prices higher, conveniently eroding the real value of that high federal debt burden. This was a big story in the 20th century and it will remain so in the 21st (Chart 25), especially since an aging population and the peak in globalization will weigh on global savings. Chart 24The US Manufacturing Slowdown Has Run Its Course Chart 25Inflation Is About Political Decisions   Ms. X: Your point about demographics makes me think of Europe and Japan. Brexit has not been resolved; populism remains a concern in Italy; and the European banking system is still fragile. Japan suffers from an even worse demographic profile and the recent VAT increase was ill-timed, economically. Given these headwinds, can these regions participate in the global recovery you foresee? BCA: The short answer is yes, albeit to varying degrees. The outlook for Europe is more promising than Japan. A No-Deal Brexit is now a very low probability event, even after next month’s UK election. The conservatives’ support for Prime Minister Johnson’s Brexit plan will ensure as much. A large source of uncertainty is being lifted, which will allow European businesses to resume investment planning. The situation in the European periphery is also improving. Non-performing loans in Spain and Italy are falling (Chart 26), which is allowing for a normalization of credit origination. The narrowing Italian and peripheral spreads to German bunds will be helped by easing financial conditions in the European economies that need it most. Higher Italian bond prices improve banks’ solvency and cut borrowing costs for the private sector. Finally, populism is alive and well in Europe, rejecting fiscal austerity, but not embracing euro-skepticism. More generous fiscal spending would be a positive for Europe. European liquidity conditions are also generous. Deposit growth has strengthened and financial conditions have benefited from lower German yields and a cheap euro, which trades 15% below fair-value estimates. Our model for European banks’ return on tangible equity is rising, which is a clear indication that easy financial and liquidity conditions should deliver stronger incremental economic activity (Chart 27). Chart 26Declining Non-Performing Loans Are A Positive For The European Periphery Chart 27European Banks' Return On Equity Will Improve In 2020   The fiscal outlook is murkier. European fiscal thrust was a positive 0.4% of GDP in 2019, but it will decline to 0.1% in 2020. However, fiscal policy affects economic activity with a lag. The impact of this year’s easing has yet to be fully felt. Since European rates are so low and the economy is not operating at full capacity, the fiscal multiplier is greater than one. Therefore, Europe can still reap a substantial fiscal dividend next year. Finally, Europe remains a very pro-cyclical economy. A large share of euro area GDP is connected to manufacturing and exports. As a result, Europe will be one of the prime beneficiaries of a pickup in global growth. Already, the sharp rebound in the German and euro area ZEW survey expectation components point to a brighter outlook for the region. Japan is also a very pro-cyclical economy, which will reap a dividend from a bottom in global manufacturing activity. However, the Land of the Rising Sun is still subject to idiosyncratic constraints. Japanese financial conditions have not improved as much as those in Europe. The yen has appreciated 2.6% in trade-weighted terms this year, while Japanese yields have not melted as much as European ones (because Italian and peripheral yields fell so much in 2019). Japan will also have to reckon with the impact of the October VAT increase. Ahead of the tax hike, retail sales spiked by 9.1% on a year-on-year basis, or 7.1% compared to the previous month, a script similar to 2014. 2015 was a payback year where consumption was depressed. This scenario will play out again, even if the Abe government has implemented some fiscal offsets. Ultimately, the Japanese economy will lag Europe’s in the first half of the year but should catch up in the second half. The impact of the tax hike will dissipate. Most importantly, rebounding global growth will hurt the yen, at least on a trade-weighted basis, providing a lift to export prospects and easing Japanese financial conditions relative to the rest of the world, which will produce a growth dividend later in 2020. Ms. X: To summarize, you expect a moderate rebound in global growth next year, but not a sharp acceleration because Chinese stimulus will not be that aggressive. EM activity will also pick up but will not generate fireworks. The US will be okay but Europe will probably deliver the largest positive growth surprise as external and domestic conditions align positively. Japan will also stabilize on the back of stronger global growth, but domestic headwinds mean that a true reacceleration won’t happen until the latter part of the year. This recovery constitutes the business cycle’s end game as inflation will become a concern in 2021, forcing the Fed to tighten then. BCA: Yes, this is correct. Ms. X: Thank you! Bond Market Prospects Chart 28Global Bonds Are Extremely Overvalued Ms. X: I do not like US Treasuries at current yields. They do not protect me against an inflation surprise and will do nothing for me in an economic recovery. However, my bearishness is tempered by the large stock of bonds with negative yields in Europe and Japan. As long as this strange situation persists, I doubt US yields will experience much upside. US paper is too attractive to foreign asset managers right now. BCA: We share your view and are recommending an underweight to global government bonds. Global yields offer little value and are vulnerable to a rebound in economic activity or a trade détente. Our Global Bond Valuation index is flashing a clear sell signal (Chart 28). As yields rise, global yield curves are bound to steepen. We also agree that the upside for Treasury yields is limited, but we disagree with the limiting factor. Foreign investors are not the major buyers of Treasuries. Indeed, the data shows that European and Japanese investors have not been aggressive purchasers of US government securities. The US yield curve is flat and US short rates tower above European and Japanese ones, hedging currency exposure when buying Treasuries is expensive. In euro or yen terms, a hedged Treasury yields -67 basis points and -60 basis points, less than 10-year bunds or JGBs, respectively. Meanwhile, EM central banks are diversifying their FX reserves away from the US dollar into gold. Instead, our view is governed by the concept we dub the “Golden Rule of Treasury Investing.” According to this principle, the outperformance of Treasuries relative to cash is a direct function of the Fed’s ability to surprise the market. If the Fed cuts rates more than the OIS curve anticipated 12 months prior, Treasuries outperform. The opposite happens if the Fed delivers a hawkish surprise (Chart 29). Chart 29The Golden Rule Of Treasury Investing Treasury yields are unlikely to move significantly higher than the 2.25% to 2.5% zone, because the OIS curve is now only pricing in 28 basis points of rate cuts over the next year. It is not just the US OIS curve that has priced out a large amount of rate cuts; this phenomenon has materialized around the world over the past five weeks. Chart 30The Term Premium Is Too Low Any upside risk to that 2.25% to 2.5% forecast for 2020 will come from the inflation expectations and term premium components of yields. Central banks, including the Fed, have telegraphed an intention to allow inflation expectations to rise, initially, in response to stronger global growth. Moreover, declining risk aversion should also allow the exceptionally depressed term premium to normalize (Chart 30). Only in late 2020 or early 2021 will Treasury yields durably move above this 2.25-2.5% zone. Punching above these levels will require core PCE inflation to have been above target long enough to re-anchor inflation expectations back up to their 2.3% to 2.5% target zone. Only then will the Fed give the all-clear signal to the bond market to lift yields higher. Mr. X: You still have not directly addressed the question of negative yields in Europe and Japan. This story will not end well. Do you worry about these bond markets over the next year? BCA: Our answer is an emphatic yes. But we assume you will not let us leave it at that. Mr. X: You know me too well. BCA: Over the course of the past 50 years, we have learned a thing or two about you. In all seriousness, let’s start with our simple but effective valuation ranking. It compares the current level of real yields for each country to their historical averages and standard deviations. You can see that the most unattractive bond markets right now are all in Europe (Chart 31). Chart 31European Bonds Are Too Dear Chart 32Swiss Bonds Are A Lose-Lose Proposition The lower bound of interest rates is another reason to avoid these markets. This floor seems to lie around -1% in nominal terms. Because of these constraints, in recent months, Swiss, Swedish, Dutch and German 10-year bonds have failed to rally as much as their higher-yielding US, Canadian or Australian counterparts when global yields are declining. However, they also underperform when yields are rising (Chart 32). They have become a lose-lose proposition. The only pockets of value left in DM bond markets are Greece, Portugal or Italy. Despite their apparent risks, we still like them. Support for the euro in Greece and Italy is 70% and 65%, respectively. Even populist governments in these nations are reluctant to attack euro membership anymore. Moreover, the ECB remains committed to the survival of the euro area in its current form. Christine Lagarde will not change that. For 2020 or 2021, the risk of euro breakup is practically zero. The same may not be true on a 5- to 10-year investment horizon, but for the coming year, these bonds offer an attractive risk-adjusted carry. Ms. X: Unsurprisingly, my father does not like corporate bonds because of highly levered corporate balance sheets. I think this is a long-term problem, but not a risk for 2020, so I’m looking to stay overweight spread product relative to Treasuries. Where do you stand on this market? BCA: On this issue, we sit somewhere between you both. Our Corporate Health Monitor continues to deteriorate (Chart 33). The high debt load of the US business sector coupled with the decline of the return on capital worries us. Furthermore, the covenant-lite trend in recent issuance suggests that corporate borrowers, not lenders, are getting the good deals. Essentially, too much cash is still chasing too little available yield pick-up. In this environment, capital is sure to be misallocated, and money ultimately lost. We find the reward-to-risk tradeoff more attractive in Europe and Japan than in emerging markets. On a short-term basis, the spreads will not widen much. An easy Fed, recovering global growth, and the gigantic pile of negative-yielding bonds around the world will make sure of that. We advocate a neutral stance on investment grade corporates because IG bonds have high modified duration such that breakeven spread compensation versus Treasuries is near the bottom of its historical distribution across the IG credit spectrum (Chart 34). This means that credit will generate poor returns if government bond yields rise. Chart 33Dangerous Long-Term Picture For US Corporates Chart 34No Value Left In IG   Chart 35EMs Still Experiencing Deflation Thankfully, they are ways around this problem: emphasizing exposure to high-yield (HY) bonds and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) instead. HY breakeven spreads remain much more attractive than in the IG space, and option-adjusted spreads will benefit if our growth and inflation forecasts materialize. Investors reluctant to commit capital to these products should look into high quality agency MBS. After the recent wave of mortgage refinancing, these securities’ duration has collapsed to 3.0 compared to 7.9 for IG corporates. These securities therefore offer much better protection in a rising-yield environment. Ms. X: Before we move on to equities, where do you stand on EM bonds? BCA: We need to differentiate between EM local-currency bonds and EM USD-denominated bonds. We do like some EM local currency bonds. Inflation in EM countries is low and dropping. Money and credit growth is slowing, which implies that the disinflationary trend will remain in place through 2020 (Chart 35). Weaker nominal growth means that central banks in EM will continue to cut rates, providing a nice tailwind for local-currency bond prices. This comes with a caveat. Lower policy rates will boost bond prices but hurt EM currencies, especially because most EM currencies are not cheap and are already over-owned. Next year, it will be preferable to garner exposure to those countries interest rate moves via the swap market rather than the cash bond market. Chart 36The Mexican Peso Is Cheap There are some exceptions, like Mexico. The MXN is already very cheap because of fears surrounding the economic policies of President Andres Manual Lopez Obrador (AMLO) (Chart 36). However, we doubt he will turn out to be as dangerous as feared. Hence, MXN Mexican bonds are attractive to foreign investors in unhedged terms. We are currently avoiding EM USD-denominated debt, corporate and sovereign. Since emerging markets sport $5.1 trillion of dollar-denominated debt, falling EM exchange rates will increase the cost of servicing this debt, which makes it riskier. Mr. X: I think we will continue to underweight corporate and EM bonds in our fixed income portfolio. Spread levels still make no sense in terms of providing compensation for credit risk. I must admit that I find your recommendation to overweight MBS intriguing. We will need to ponder this idea further. Ms. X: And please wish me luck trying to convince my father to buy some high-yield bonds. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: US stocks are too expensive for my taste, with the S&P 500 trading at a forward P/E ratio of 18. I’m well aware of the argument that equities may be expensive but that they are actually cheap compared to bonds, which implies that I should favor stocks over bonds. However, you know that I emphasize capital preservation. With stocks this rich already, equities offer no margin of safety. If I own stocks, I am therefore exposed to any unexpected shocks. Because I do not share your optimism on the economy, I am more worried about downside risk. Moreover, even if the economy performs better than I fear, I suspect stocks will respond poorly to higher yields. Chart 37The S&P Is Very Expensive Ms. X: I agree with my father that stocks are expensive. Nonetheless, as Keynes famously quipped, “Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.” In today’s context, to me this means that stocks can ignore their overvaluation so long as liquidity is plentiful, rates are low, and a recession is avoided. BCA: On this question, we agree with Ms. X. We all agree that US equities are expensive. As you mentioned, their price-to-earnings ratio is 18. Only at the apex of the tech bubble and in early 2018 was the S&P 500 more expensive. Worryingly, the price-to-sales ratio is at 2.3, an even larger historical outlier than the P/E (Chart 37). Chart 38Low Yields And Plentiful Liquidity Are Still Fertile Ground For Stocks Ms. X is correct that we cannot look at stock valuations in isolation. Investing is about opportunity cost and the macroeconomic context. On this front, even US equities have their merit. Despite the S&P 500’s expensive multiples, our Composite Valuation Indicator is no more elevated than it was in 2013. Meanwhile, our Monetary Indicator has rarely been as supportive of stock prices as it is today, and our Speculation Indicator is in line with its January 2016 reading (Chart 38). Moreover, BCA’s Composite Sentiment indicator is still below its long-term historical average and margin debt has declined by $47.5 billion to the lowest share of US market capitalization since June 2005. These are hardly signs of irrational exuberance. Ultimately, bear markets and recessions travel together. A durable 20% drop in stock prices requires a significant and long-lasting decline in earnings. These developments happen during recessions (Chart 39). Our call is for a recession in the next 24 months or so. We must also remember that while equities perform poorly six months ahead of a recession, the end of a bull market, its last 12 to 18 months, tend to be very rewarding (Table 3). We are within this window. Chart 39Bear Markets And Recessions Travel Together Table 3The End Game Can Be Rewarding Based on our forecast for interest rates, we do not share the concerns that rising bond yields will topple stocks right away. Stock prices are an inverse function of risk-free rates, but a positive function of growth expectations. Higher yields will initially reflect stronger growth, not restrict it. But remember: the upside for yields is limited because central banks do not want to choke off the recovery. They will maintain accommodative policy. In other words, we expect real rates to lag behind growth expectations. Because long-term growth expectations, whether from sell-side analysts or extracted out of market prices using the Gordon Growth Model, are low, we are willing to make this bet (Chart 40). Equities will suffer if the global bond yield rises above 2.5%. This is more a story for 2021, and not our central scenario for 2020. It is nonetheless a reminder that we are entering the end game of the business cycle, so we are also entering the end-game of the bull market. Mr. X: I think you are playing with fire. Stocks are so expensive that if you are wrong on either the growth call or the yield call, they will suffer. I would rather miss the last melt-up in stocks than unnecessarily expose my portfolio to a meltdown. Additionally, you have not addressed the fact that S&P 500 margins have begun to soften but are still extremely elevated. Shouldn’t this dampen your optimism? BCA: Aggregate S&P 500 margins have some downside. Our Composite Margin Proxy, Operating Margins Diffusion index and Corporate Pricing Power indicator all remain weak (Chart 41). The deceleration in the crude PPI excluding food and energy and the past strength in the dollar confirm this insight, especially as the corporate wage bill climbs in a tight labor market. The biggest mitigating factor is that productivity is also on the mend, which curbs the negative impact of higher worker pay. Chart 40Growth Expectations Are Muted Chart 41US Margins Under Pressure   This danger must be put into perspective though. Margin expansion has been dominated by the tech sector (Chart 42). Excluding this industry, S&P 500 margins are roughly in line with their previous peak, and are not declining. The aggregate softness in margins is a reflection of the sharper decline in tech margins. Declining margins do not spell the imminent end of the bull market either. Table 4 shows that on average, the S&P 500 rises by 9.5% following the peak in margins. Equities can rise after margins crest because this is often an environment where wages are climbing, which boosts consumption. Consequently, top-line growth can accelerate and earnings can rise even if they represent a lower proportion of sales. This is the environment we foresee over 2020. Chart 42Tech Margins Have Likely Peaked Table 4Margin Peaks Do Not Spell S&P Doom   Chart 43Taiwanese Stocks Are Sniffing Out Better Global Growth Ms. X: You have talked about the tech sector being a drag on overall margins. How would you position a US stock portfolio? BCA: First, around the world, we prefer cyclical sectors to defensive ones. Cyclical stocks are depressed relative to defensive firms’ shares. Rebounding global growth and rising bond yields will favor cyclical sectors. Globally, the performance of cyclical equities relative to defensive ones correlates with Taiwanese equities, which are currently rallying smartly (Chart 43). This suggests that at the margin, the most cyclical asset markets are beginning to express optimism about global growth. Within the S&P 500, our favorite pair trade to express this bias is to overweight energy stocks at the expense of utilities. Utilities are bond proxies which will substantially underperform energy stocks when the rate of change of Treasury yields moves up (Chart 44). Moreover, based on our valuation indicators, energy stocks have never traded at such a deep discount to utilities, nor have they ever been as oversold. Chart 44Favor Energy Over Utilities Second, we are currently neutral on tech stocks but have put them on a downgrade alert. Tech equities are expensive, trading at a forward P/E ratio 21% above the other cyclicals. Moreover, since software spending has remained surprisingly resilient despite the global economic slowdown, it will likely lag investment in machinery and structures when industrial demand rebounds. Consequently, tech earnings will lag other traditional cyclical sectors. Tech multiples will also suffer when bond yields rise. As high-growth stocks, tech equities derive a large proportion of their intrinsic value from long-term deferred cash flows and their terminal value. Thus, tech multiples are highly sensitive to changes in the discount rate We implement this view by way of an underweight in tech and an overweight to industrials. Industrials have suffered disproportionately from the trade war. Any near term truce is unlikely to contain a grand bargain on intellectual property rights transfer that galvanizes tech exports, but it will remove some of the uncertainty weighing on industrials. Moreover, industrials are a much cheaper play on a global growth rebound. The global manufacturing slowdown has caused industrial equities to trade at their greatest discount to the tech sector since the financial crisis. Finally, the wage bill for the industrial sector is melting relative to tech, and our margin proxy is surging (Chart 45). This has created a very positive backdrop for this pair trade. We also like financials. They will be a key beneficiary of rising yields and a steepening yield curve. Additionally, household credit demand has picked up and overall credit growth should accelerate as central banks will maintain very accommodative monetary conditions. The yield impulse already points toward higher bank credit growth and companies are issuing an increasingly large stock of bonds (Chart 46). Chart 45Operating Metrics Will Boost Industrials Versus Tech Equities Chart 46Easing Financial Conditions Will Support Credit Creation   Ms. X: When combining valuation analysis with your fundamental sectoral slant, I am guessing that you must favor European, Japanese and EM stocks over the S&P 500? BCA: We do favor European and Japanese equities. Based on valuation alone, all the regions you mentioned offer higher expected long-term real rates of return than the US (Chart 47). Moreover, the dollar is expensive relative to advanced economies’ currencies. Hence, these markets are cheaper vehicles than the S&P 500 to bet on a global economic recovery. But valuation alone is not enough. US stocks are trading at unprecedented levels relative to global equities because of the FAANG craze (Chart 48). Looking at sector representation, our positive view on non-tech cyclicals also flatters exposure to Europe and Japan (Table 5). Chart 47Non US Equities Offer Better Value Chart 48FAANG-Driven US Outperformance   Table 5Equity Market Sector Composition Chart 49European Banks Are Cheap Europe is particularly attractive because of its large skew towards industrials and financials, which represent 32.3% of the market versus 22.3% in the US. Moreover, European financials are also a tantalizing bet because they trade at a 50% discount to US financials, according to their price-to-book ratio. Additionally, their return on tangible equity will benefit from higher German yields, easing financial conditions, declining non-performing loans in the periphery and rebounding global growth. Our RoE model for European banks already points to a resurgence in their stock prices (Chart 49). Of the major markets we track, Japan offers the highest prospective long-term real returns. Its strong cyclical slant and low share of tech stocks means it is another market investors should overweight to bet on a global recovery. The biggest problem for Japanese equities is the yen. When global yields climb higher, a weak JPY will clip some of the Nikkei’s gains for foreign investors. Finally, we are reluctant to overweight EM stocks just yet. In this space, median P/E ratios are much higher than on a market capitalization-weighted basis (Chart 50). State-owned companies explain this bifurcation, Chinese banks in particular. Since we expect Chinese banks to remain a conduit for policy, credit origination may flatter economic growth more than shareholders’ interests. Moreover, we have a negative outlook on EM currencies, and hedging this exposure is expensive. Finally, if China’s economic activity improves only modestly in 2020, the 2012 experience suggests that EM stocks can still underperform the global equity universe as global growth improves and yields rise (Chart 51). In other words, we find the reward-to-risk tradeoff more attractive in Europe and Japan than in emerging markets. Chart 50EM Stocks Are No Bargain Yet Chart 51EM Stocks Can Underperform When Global Growth Improves     Mr. X: Thank you. I am still not sure what share of our portfolio will be dedicated to stocks. However, I think that whatever this proportion will be, buying global equities makes more sense than US ones. Your valuation argument alone is swaying me, considering my more conservative instincts. Ms. X: I’m glad we will not have to argue on this point, but I know we will nonetheless battle on the stock/bond/gold split. Should we move on to your currency and commodity forecasts? BCA: It would be our pleasure. Currencies And Commodities Mr. X: You have often argued that the dollar is a countercyclical currency. Based on our discussion so far, you must expect the dollar to decline until we get closer to the next recession. I am not fully convinced. Specifically, I remember that in the back half of 2016 global growth was rebounding, but the dollar soared. Therefore, the growth/dollar relationship can be more complex than you argue. Meanwhile, with negative interest rates in Europe, Japan and Switzerland, why would I even consider divesting out of my positive yielding dollar assets? Chart 52The Dollar Is A Counter Cyclical Currency BCA: You raise interesting questions, and you are correct that we expect the dollar to depreciate if our constructive view on global growth pans out for 2020. The inverse relationship between global industrial production (excluding the US) and the trade-weighted dollar is unambiguous (Chart 52). As you also mentioned, the reality is a little bit more nuanced. To understand why, it is important to remember how currencies function. We can think of an exchange rate as an adjustment mechanism that solves for the gap in growth between any two countries. This is at the root of the dollar’s counter-cyclicality. When global growth is picking up, returns tend to be higher in cyclical markets, which are highly concentrated outside of the US. Flows then gravitate from the US to other markets and the dollar declines. After a while, the dollar becomes cheap enough that these flows reverse. In the second half of 2016, three factors drove the dollar rebound. First, US manufacturing was improving at a faster pace than that of the rest of the world. Second, the Fed resumed its interest rate hikes, so interest rate differentials suddenly flattered the dollar anew. Finally, the election of President Trump, who campaigned on large scale fiscal stimulus, elicited memories of the Reagan dollar bull market of the first half of the 1980s. These factors eventually faded as global growth rebounded. Today, the Fed’s policies are hurting the dollar. Aside from recent interest rate cuts, the Fed has been injecting liquidity into the banking system through repurchase agreements and renewed asset (T-Bills) purchases. Moreover, the rate cuts are also easing global funding conditions and promoting a re-steepening of the yield curve. This will incentivize banks to lend and boost the US money supply. As growth re-accelerates and demand for imports (machinery, commodities, and consumer goods) rises, the current account deficit will widen further. This process will increase the international supply of dollars. Historically, these dynamics usually hurt the dollar. What we have described is a tentative abatement in geopolitical risk at best – but it would be cavalier to get overly enthusiastic. Like you, we are deeply uncomfortable with negative interest rates. Thankfully, the nascent pickup in global economic activity is lifting global bond yields. So far, foreign bond markets have led this move. More specifically, countries that have suffered most from the global manufacturing slowdown are now seeing their bond yields rise the quickest (Chart 53). For example, yields in Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Japan have risen by a lot more than those in the US since global yields troughed in September. Should the initial signals of stabilization in global growth morph into a synchronized recovery, the US yield advantage will evaporate. In a nutshell, interest rates might be negative in Europe and Switzerland, but the positive carry offered by US assets is rapidly fading. Chart 53AAre Interest Rate Differentials Flashing A Signal About Exchange Rates? Chart 53BAre Interest Rate Differentials Flashing A Signal About Exchange Rates?   Chart 54Foreigners Are Selling Treasuries For international investors, the currency risk inherent in owning US bonds is just too large at the current juncture. Remember, the trade-weighted dollar stands 25% above its long-term equilibrium and the US twin deficits are expanding. Markets priced in cheap currencies with some potential upside, such as Australia, Canada, Norway or even the European periphery, might be better bets. Flows highlight just how precarious the situation is for the US dollar. Since last August, overall flows into the US Treasury market have been negative. Net foreign purchases by private investors are still positive at an annualized US$180 billion, but they are clearly rolling over. Moreover, official net outflows are running at $350 billion, easily cancelling out the private sector’s inflows (Chart 54). Essentially, foreigners’ appetite for US fixed-income assets is waning exactly as interest rate differentials have started moving against the dollar. Ms. X: I share my father’s concerns, but how would you implement your negative dollar view. Which currencies should I be loading up on as we enter the business cycle’s end game? BCA: The more export-dependent economies (and currencies) should benefit the most from a rebound in global growth. Within the G-10, we particularly like the Swedish krona, the Norwegian krone and the British pound. Bond yields for these currencies are rising the fastest vis-à-vis the US. As a result, the currencies themselves should soon follow (previously mentioned Chart 53). We also expect commodity currencies to benefit, but only upon clearer signs that the resource-thirsty Chinese economy is improving. Until then, they are likely to lag the pro-cyclical European currencies, which are less directly dependent on Chinese stimulus. The euro could become the greatest beneficiary from a weaker dollar because a large headwind for European economic activity is disappearing for now. For the past ten years, European real interest rates have been too low for the most productive, competitive exporter – Germany – but too high for others such as Spain and Italy. Consequently, the euro has been caught in a tug-of-war between a rising neutral rate of interest for Germany and a very low one for the peripheral economies. Via its rate cuts, asset purchase programs, and aggressive TLTRO packages, the ECB may have now finally eased policy to the point where nearly all Eurozone countries enjoy an accommodative monetary environment. 10-year government bond yields in France, Spain, Portugal and even Italy now all sit close to the neutral rate of interest for the entire eurozone (Chart 55). Chart 55The ECB Has Eased Policy Enough Finally, the euro is likely to benefit from inflows into European equity markets. The euro’s drop since 2018 has eased financial conditions and made euro area businesses more competitive. This is an important tailwind for European corporate profits and thus stocks. Moreover, European equities, especially those in the periphery, remain unloved, as illustrated by their cheap valuations compared to other advanced economies. Additionally, analysts’ earnings expectations for eurozone equities are perking up relative to US stocks. If the sell-side is right, powerful inflows into the region will lift the euro in 2020. Mr. X: Thank you. I find it difficult to share your enthusiasm for the euro, a currency backed by such a flimsy edifice. While I would agree that it could rebound next year, I find currencies highly unpredictable on such a time horizon. I prefer to think about them on a long-term basis, and while the euro is cheap, its weak institutional underpinning is too concerning. Let’s move on to commodities. Following our meeting last year, we took your advice on oil and gold. Overall, these calls helped our portfolio. Going forward, these markets are extremely perplexing. There is so much risk in oil markets, such as the tensions in the Middle East and the uncertainty stemming from the trade war between the US and China. How would you recommend playing the oil market in 2020? Chart 56Inventory Drawdown Will Support Oil BCA: Your assessment of these markets is spot on. Yet, price risk is skewed to the upside because fiscal and monetary stimulus will revive commodity demand. The oil-producer coalition led by Saudi Arabia and Russia will continue to restrain production, and will probably extend its 1.2mm b/d production cut due to expire at the end of March to year-end 2020. In the US, market-imposed capital discipline will keep reducing the growth of US shale-oil supply. Additionally, US shale-oil supply growth is threatened by flaring of associated natural gas in the Bakken and Permian basins. Failure to limit the burn-off at oil-production sites could provide the environmental lobby an opening to challenge growth. Ms. X: What about the demand side of the oil markets? The fall in the growth rate of demand this year caught most participants off guard. What do you make of that? BCA: Demand data shows a lot of lingering weakness, much of which was caused by tight financial conditions last year in the US and China. But now, most global central banks are pursuing highly accommodative monetary policy and many governments are also easing fiscal policy. As a result, this demand weakness will fade next year. We think next year growth will clock in at 1.4mm b/d. Not as robust as 2017, but still respectable. This should stop the downward pressure on oil prices that has prevailed since May (Chart 56). Mr. X: You’re describing a fairly strong market for next year. What are the downside risks to your view? BCA: Global economic policy uncertainty remains elevated. Uncertainty is one of the key factors driving demand for USD, which is one of the most popular safe havens in the world (Chart 57). A strong dollar creates a headwind for commodity demand. It raises the local-currency costs of consumers in the EM economies that drive oil demand, and lowers production costs outside of the US, encouraging supply growth at the margin. Chart 57Elevated Global Economic Uncertainty Has Kept The USD Well Bid Chart 58Gold: A Valuable Portfolio Hedge Ms. X: So, pulling it all together, what is your call for 2020? BCA: The weaker 2019 demand data and the upward revisions to global oil inventories pushed our 2020 Brent Oil forecast to $67/bbl from $70/bbl. We still expect WTI to trade at a $4/bbl discount to Brent. As we mentioned earlier, the risk to our forecast is to the upside: a resolution of the US-China trade war, and lower global economic policy uncertainty could trigger a sharp rally in crude prices. Mr. X: Thank you for your insight on oil. I would like to hear your thoughts on gold. You can tell that I see little absolute value in stocks or bonds at the moment, so I have an outsized preference for the yellow metal this year. Also, how could the US dollar and gold both rally at the same time in 2019? BCA: Let’s start with your dollar/gold question. It is very rare to see gold and the dollar rally together. Normally a strong dollar hurts gold. As you know, we’ve been recommending an allocation to gold since 2017, mostly as a portfolio hedge. We like that gold strongly outperforms other safe havens in equity bear markets and can participate in the upside (even if to a limited extent) in bull markets. We think the safe-haven properties of gold and the US dollar really have come to the fore over the past couple of years (Chart 58). Economic policy uncertainty, and divisive politics globally have raised the level of uncertainty to record levels. In such an environment, the dollar and gold both provide a safe haven and a portfolio hedge. Hence, their joint popularity this past year. We should also remember that gold is a good inflation hedge, and is particularly negatively correlated with real interest rates. A Fed that is willing to let the economy overheat is a Fed that will limit how high real rates climb. Moreover, global liquidity is plentiful. Finally, EM central banks have been slowly divesting from Treasuries and diversifying into gold lately, buying most of the new supply in the process. This backdrop, along with our forecast of a weaker dollar, should support gold again in 2020. That being said, because gold is tactically overbought and could face temporary headwinds if global uncertainty recedes, we prefer silver, which is not as stretched. Furthermore, silver’s higher industrial use means that it should also benefit from a global manufacturing recovery. Geopolitics Chart 59Multipolarity Creates An Unstable Environment Mr. X: Let’s return to geopolitical and policy risks, both of which abound. Global economic policy uncertainty is the highest it has been since academics began measuring it. The world is fraught with populism, authoritarianism, war, immigration, technological disruption, inequality, and corruption. With so much chaos, and so little consensus, is there anything solid for an investor to grasp about the political backdrop next year? BCA: Geopolitics is the likeliest candidate to short circuit this long bull market, given that the Federal Reserve, the usual culprit, has paused its rate tightening campaign. On a secular basis, geopolitical risk is rising because the United States’ national power is declining relative to that of other world powers (Chart 59). China’s rise, in particular, is stirring conflict with the US and its allies in the western Pacific. Beijing’s technological and military advance is generating fear across the American political establishment. Russia and China continue to deepen their relationship in the face of an increasingly unpredictable United States. These strategic tensions will persist despite any tariff ceasefire with China. Chart 60Globalization Has Peaked Competition among the great powers makes for a world of contested authority. As the rules of the road have become less certain, the tailwind behind international trade and investment has weakened (Chart 60). Deglobalization is a headwind for the earnings of large cap global companies in the long run. Emerging markets, which are exposed to trade, face persistent unrest. Mr. X: Given the above, how can an investor take an optimistic view of the global economy and markets next year? BCA: We have a framework for analyzing politics: constraints over preferences. We cannot predict what the chief politicians will prefer at any given time, but we can try to identify and measure the constraints that will restrict their freedom of movement. With global growth slowing, world leaders have become more sensitive to their constraints. The Fed has reversed rate hikes; China is easing policy; President Trump has refrained from attacking Iran; and President Trump and President Xi are negotiating a ceasefire. The UK has avoided a “no deal” Brexit – not once but twice. In short, the risk of recession (or conflict) has been sufficient to alter the policy trajectory. As a result, there is a prospect for global geopolitical risks to abate somewhat in 2020. Both the American and Chinese administrations need to see growth stabilize despite their ongoing strategic conflict. Both the British and European governments need to avoid a disorderly Brexit despite their lack of clarity beyond that. Geopolitical risk is declining, albeit from an extremely elevated level. Mr. X: The US and China have already come close to a deal only to get cold feet and back away from it. The British Prime Minister is committed to leaving the EU with or without a deal. Surely you cannot believe that the Middle East, Russia, other emerging markets, or North Korea will be any bastion of stability. BCA: The US-China trade war is still the single greatest threat to the equity bull market. Brexit is not resolved and a new deadline for a trade deal looms at the end of 2020. Investors must remain vigilant and hedge their portfolios, particularly with gold. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore this year’s reaffirmation of the Fed put, the China put, and Trump’s “Art of the Deal.” The base case for next year should be constructive, albeit with vigilant attention to the major risks: President Trump, China and Iran. The other issues you mention have varying degrees of market relevance. Russia is focusing on pacifying domestic discontent. North Korea is on a diplomatic track with the United States. Emerging market unrest is particularly relevant where it can have a bearing on global stability: Iraq, Iran and Hong Kong in particular. Ms. X: If I may interject: It seems to me that the worst of the trade war has passed, that the risk of a no-deal Brexit is negligible, and that Iran is unlikely to outdo its attack against Saudi Arabia in September. Doesn’t this imply that geopolitical risk is overrated and that investors should rush to capture the risk premium in equities? BCA: What we have described is a tentative abatement in geopolitical risk at best – but it would be cavalier to get overly enthusiastic. After all, any fall in global risks will be amply made up for by the impending rise in US domestic political risk. Indeed, US politics are the chief source of global political risk in 2020. First, if President Trump becomes a “lame duck” then he could take actions that are hugely disruptive to global markets in a desperate attempt to win reelection as a “war president.” Chart 61European Political Risk Is Now Low Second, if President Trump is reelected, then his disruptive populism will have a new mandate and his “America First” foreign and trade policy will be unshackled. Third, if the opposition Democrats succeed in unseating an incumbent president, they will likely take the Senate too, removing the main hurdle to a dramatic policy change. That would mark the third 180-degree reversal in national policy in 12 years. Moreover, investors may find the country merely exchanged right-wing populism for left-wing populism, which has a more negative impact on corporate earnings prospects. Polarization and institutional erosion will continue. The election results may be razor thin; swing states may have to recount votes; and the outcome could hinge on rare or unprecedented developments in the Electoral College, the Supreme Court or cyberspace. A crisis of legitimacy could easily afflict the next administration. In short, there are few scenarios in which US political risk does not rise over the next 12-24 months. Rising American risk stands in stark contrast to Europe (Chart 61), where the will to integrate has overcome several challenges since the sovereign debt crisis. Substantial majority of voters support the euro and the European Union. Germany is on the brink of a major political succession but it is not turning its back on the European project. France is successfully pursuing structural reforms. Italy remains the weakest link, but even the populist Northern League accepts the euro. This leaves two remaining global risks: China and Iran. Chinese political risk is generally understated. President Xi Jinping, lacking President Trump’s electoral constraint, could overestimate his leverage. He could overreach in the trade talks, in his battle to prevent excessive debt growth, or in his handling of Hong Kong, Taiwan, North Korea, or Iran. The result could be a breakdown in the trade talks or a separate strategic crisis with the United States. Another cold war-style escalation in tensions could easily kill the green shoots in global growth. As for Iran, the regime is under crippling American sanctions and faces unrest both at home and within its regional sphere of influence. There is a non-negligible risk that it will lash out and cause an extended oil supply shock. Conclusions Mr. X: This is a good place to conclude our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground but I remain deeply concerned that staying invested in risk assets today is akin to picking-up pennies in front of a steamroller. I accept your opinion that a recession is unlikely in 2020, but valuations of both stocks and bonds are uncomfortably stretched for my taste. As a result, I believe stocks could suffer whether growth is good or bad next year. Finally, since so many things need to go right for the global economy to continue to defy gravity, a recession may hit faster than you envision. To me, there is simply not enough margin of safety in stocks to compensate me for the risk! Ms. X: I agree with my father that the risks are high because we are entering the end game of the cycle. But I also see pockets of value, some of which you have mentioned today. Moreover, I am sympathetic to your view that global growth will recover next year. Corporate earnings should therefore expand. Hence, I fear that being out of the market will be very painful, especially because policy is quite accommodative. While stocks may not perform as well as they did in 2019, I expect them to outperform bonds handily. I’m therefore willing to continue holding risk assets, even if I need to be more judicious in my sector and regional allocation. BCA: Your family debate mirrors our own internal discussions. There is always a trade-off between maximizing short-term returns and taking a longer-term approach. Valuations are the ultimate guidepost for long-term return prospects. Because so many assets have become more expensive this year, long-term returns are likely to be uninspiring compared to recent history. Table 6 shows our baseline calculations of what a balanced portfolio will earn over the coming decade. We estimate that such a portfolio will deliver average annual returns of 4.4% over the next ten years, or 2.4% after adjusting for inflation. That is a noticeable deterioration from our inflation-adjusted estimate of 2.8% from last year, and also still well below the 6.5% real return that a balanced portfolio earned between 1982 and 2019. Table 6Asset Market Return Projections Our outlook for next year hinges on global growth rebounding and policy uncertainty receding. Monetary policy is less of a threat to equities than it was last year because central banks have already eased considerably and have been very open about their willingness to let inflation run above target for a while before retightening the monetary screws. We propose the following list of easy-to-track milestones to monitor whether or not our central scenario for the global economy and asset markets is playing out, and how close we are to the end of the cycle: Chinese money and credit numbers. Chinese credit growth must stabilize for the economy to do so. If credit origination continues to decelerate, this will indicate that Beijing has decided to tolerate the slowdown and prioritize its reform and deleveraging agenda. In this case, the Chinese debt supercycle is over sooner and the global economy will pay the price. Our China Investment Strategy Activity Index. Global policy is accommodative and liquidity conditions have improved significantly. However, if the Chinese economy continues to deteriorate, global growth will not rebound. The China Activity Index must stabilize and even improve somewhat for our global growth view to come to fruition. Progress in the “phase one” deal. China and the US must agree to a trade détente. As long as uncertainty around immediate tariffs remain high and retaliation risks stay alive, global capital spending intentions and thus the global manufacturing sector will be hamstrung. Surveys of global growth. The Global manufacturing PMI and the global growth expectation component of the ZEW survey must both recover. If these variables cannot gain any traction, the global economy is sicker than we estimate and risk assets will suffer. Commodity prices and the dollar. In the first quarter, industrial commodity prices must rebound and the dollar must start to depreciate. These two developments will not only reflect an improvement in global growth. They will also alleviate deflationary pressures around the world, revive profits and sponsor a business spending recovery. Moreover, a weaker dollar will also ease global financial conditions by decreasing the global cost of capital. 10-year inflation breakeven rate. If US breakevens move above the 2.3% to 2.5% zone, the Fed will become more proactive about raising rates. This would provoke a quicker end to the business cycle. President Trump’s approval rating. If President Trump’s approval rating stabilizes below 42%, he could give up on the economy and instead bet on a “rally around the flag” as his best strategy for re-election. This would result in a much more hawkish and confrontational White House that would become an even greater source of uncertainty for the economy, and thus risk asset prices. Ms. X: Thank you for this comprehensive list of variables to monitor. As always, you have left us with much to think about. We look forward to these discussions every year. Before we conclude, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: It will be our pleasure. The key points are as follow: Global equities are entering the end game of their nearly 11-year bull market. Stocks are expensive, but bonds are even more so. As a result, if global growth can recover and the US can avoid a recession in 2020, earnings will not weaken significantly and stocks will again outperform bonds. Low rates reflect the end of the debt supercycle in the advanced economies. However, the debt supercycle is still alive in EM in general, and in China, in particular. The global economic slowdown that begun more than 18 months ago started when China tried to limit debt growth. If Beijing continues to push for more deleveraging, global growth will continue to suffer as the EM debt supercycle will end. Nonetheless, we expect China to try to mitigate domestic deflationary pressures in 2020. As a result, a small wave of Chinese reflation, coupled with the substantial easing in global monetary and liquidity conditions should promote a worldwide re-acceleration in economic activity. Policy uncertainty will recede next year. Domestic constraints are forcing China and the US toward a trade détente. The risk of a no-deal Brexit is now marginal, and President Trump is still the favorite in 2020. A decline in policy risk will foster a global economic rebound. That being said, some pockets of risk remain, such as in the Middle East. Global central banks are highly unlikely to remove the punch bowl anytime soon. Not only will it take some time before global deflationary forces recede, monetary authorities in the G10 want to avoid the Japanification of their economies. As a result, they are already announcing that they will allow inflation to overshoot their 2% target for a period of time. This will ultimately raise the need for higher rates in 2021, which will push the global economy into recession in late 2021, or early 2022. These dynamics are key to our categorization of 2020 as the end game. US growth will re-accelerate. The US consumer remains in good shape thanks to healthy balance sheets and robust employment and wage growth prospects. Meanwhile, corporate profits and capex should benefit from a decline in global uncertainty and a pick-up in global economic activity. China will continue to stimulate its economy but will not do so as aggressively as it did over the past 10 years. Consequently, EM growth will also bottom but is unlikely to boom. Europe and Japan will re-accelerate in 2020. Bond yields will grind higher in 2020. However, Treasury yields are unlikely to break above the 2.25% to 2.5% range until much later in the year. Inflationary pressures won’t resurface quickly, so the Fed is unlikely to signal its intention to raise interest rates until late 2020 or later. European bonds are particularly unattractive. Corporate bonds are a mixed offering. Investment grade credit is unattractive owing to low option-adjusted spreads and high duration, especially when corporate health is deteriorating. Agency mortgage-backed securities and high-yield bonds offer better risk-adjusted value. Global stocks will enjoy their last-gasp rally in 2020. As global growth recovers, favor the more cyclical sectors and regions which also happen to offer the best value. US stocks are the least attractive bourse; they are very expensive and loaded with defensive and tech-related exposure, two groups that could suffer from higher bond yields. We are neutral on EM equities. Investors should pare exposure to equities after inflation breakevens have moved back into their 2.3% to 2.5% normal range and the Fed funds rate has moved closer to neutral. We anticipate this to be a risk in 2021. The dollar is likely to decline because it is a countercyclical currency. Balance of payment dynamics and valuation considerations are also becoming headwinds. The pro-cyclical European currencies and the euro should be the main beneficiary of any dollar depreciation. Oil and gold will have upside next year. Crude will benefit from both supply-side discipline and a recovery in oil demand on the back of the improving growth outlook. Gold will strengthen as global central banks limit the upside to real rates by allowing inflation to run a bit hot. A weaker dollar will flatter both commodities. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 2.4% a year in real terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 6.5% a year between 1982 and 2019. We would like to take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors November 22, 2019

特別レポート

Highlights Maintaining an adequate level of aggregate demand has proven to be one of the biggest macroeconomic challenges of the modern era. Yet, in principle, it should not be difficult to increase demand. After all, people like to consume. If households are not spending enough, governments can just give them money or increase spending directly on public infrastructure and other worthwhile endeavors.  Various explanations have been proposed for why these solutions either won’t work or are bad ideas even if they do work. These include Ricardian Equivalence-type arguments; claims that periods of high unemployment may be necessary to cleanse financial and economic imbalances; and concerns about excessive levels of government debt. None of these explanations are particularly persuasive, which suggests that politics, rather than economics, may be at the heart of the demand-side secular stagnation problem. Bondholders benefit from low inflation, which has often led them to oppose meaningful fiscal stimulus. Looking out, the influence of bondholders is likely to wane as populism proliferates. Investors should favor “real assets” such as equities, real estate, and commodities over “nominal assets” such as bonds and cash. A Rather Peculiar Problem Some problems are hard to solve. Curing cancer is hard. Reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity is hard. But why should getting people to spend more be so difficult? After all, people like to consume. It is getting them to save that should be challenging. And yet, the most pressing macroeconomic problem in many countries over the past decade (and much longer in Japan) has been generating enough spending to achieve full employment, which is a precondition for allowing central banks to move away from extreme measures such as quantitative easing and negative rates. It would be one thing if secular stagnation were primarily a problem of inadequate supply. Increasing supply is difficult. While some economists such as Robert Gordon have focused on the poor prospects for potential GDP growth in developed economies (sluggish productivity and labor force growth being among the key culprits), the Larry Summers characterization of secular stagnation is first and foremost about inadequate demand. If people are not spending enough, why can’t the government simply increase transfers to households or spend money directly on public infrastructure, scientific exploration, or other worthwhile endeavors? Three arguments have been advanced as to why this strategy either will not work or is a bad idea even if it does work: 1) Ricardian Equivalence-type theories claiming that the private sector will increase savings by enough to counter larger budget deficits, thus leaving overall demand unchanged; 2) claims that periods of high unemployment are both necessary and desirable for shifting resources to more productive uses; and 3) concerns that higher government debt levels stemming from larger budget deficits will impose long-term costs that swamp the short-term growth benefits of fiscal stimulus. As we discuss below, none of these arguments are particularly persuasive. This suggests that politics, rather than economics, explains why there has been so much reluctance towards fiscal easing. Ricardian Equivalence Ricardian Equivalence stipulates that the lifetime present value of after-tax income determines household consumption. This implies that if a government issues each person a check for $1 million, everybody will just save the money in anticipation of higher taxes down the road. If that sounds a tad implausible, this is because the theory assumes, among other things, that everyone is perfectly rational, can borrow as much as they want, and lives forever (or at least values their heirs’ or beneficiaries’ welfare as much as their own).  The theory is even less convincing when applied to government spending. Only in the extreme scenario where the government permanently increases spending would rational, infinitely-lived households cut their spending by exactly enough to offset the rise in government expenditures. If the increase in government spending were perceived to be temporary, aggregate demand would still rise, even if everyone is completely rational. To see this, consider a case where the government increases spending by $1 billion per year for three years. The “rational” response would be for households to cut their own expenditures by the annual carrying cost of the additional $3 billion in debt. Assuming an interest rate of 2%, this would amount to a reduction in annual consumption of about $60 million, leaving a net annual fiscal boost of $940 billion. The example above almost certainly overstates the negative impact on consumption in situations where the economy is operating below potential. This is because raising government spending in a depressed economy will boost output, thus increasing the present value of lifetime incomes. The expectation of higher income will lift consumption. The bottom line is that Ricardian Equivalence applies only in a very narrow range of circumstances, none of which are relevant in the real world. Indeed, as Box 1 discusses, the empirical evidence clearly suggests that fiscal multipliers are positive, especially in economies grappling with high unemployment. The Urge To Purge One popular view, often associated with the Austrian School of economics, is that recessions cleanse the economy and the financial system of excesses, paving the way for faster growth. The main problem with this view is that it assumes that resources will only shift to more worthwhile uses if many people are unemployed. In practice, this is not the case. In any given month, about five million US workers will either quit or lose their job, while a slightly higher number will find new work (Chart 1). Chart 1Labor Market Churn Tends To Increase As Unemployment Falls Chart 2Residential Construction Accounted For Only 20% Of The Job Losses During The Great Recession   The small difference between gross inflows and outflows is the net change in employment. This is the number investors focus on every month when the payroll report is released; it is usually less than 5% of gross flows. Strikingly, gross separations usually rise when the unemployment rate falls, implying that labor market churn increases when the economy strengthens. This occurs because more people tend to quit their jobs when the labor market is tight and job openings are plentiful. The pro-cyclicality of the quits rate dominates the counter-cyclicality of the discharge rate. The Great Recession demonstrated that most of the job losses during severe downturns are gratuitous in the sense that they impose needless suffering on workers without making the economy more productive. Chart 2 shows that only 20% of US job losses between 2007 and 2009 took place in the residential building sector and related financial activities where excesses were plainly evident. The rest of the losses were in parts of the economy that had little to do with the housing bubble.   Too Much Debt? Opponents of loose fiscal policy often point to rising government debt levels as an unwelcome side effect of larger budget deficits. Worries about high debt levels are certainly justified for countries that do not print their own currencies. When a country lacks a buyer of last resort for its debt, a self-fulfilling crisis can develop where rising bond yields make it more difficult for the government to service its obligations, leading to even higher bond yields (Chart 3). Chart 3Multiple Equilibria In Debt Markets Are Possible Without A Lender Of Last Resort In contrast, central banks in countries that are able to issue debt in their own currencies can always purchase their own government’s bonds with newly issued cash. They can also set short-term interest rates at whatever level they want, thus ensuring that the government has a reliable source of financing. The “golden rule” for debt sustainability says that a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio will stabilize as long as the interest rate the government pays on its debt is less than the growth rate of the economy. This is true regardless of how big a primary budget deficit the government runs (Chart 4).1 Chart 4Debt Dynamics When r Is Less Than g In fact, the higher the debt-to-GDP ratio is, the larger the sustainable level of the budget deficit that the government can achieve. For example, if nominal GDP growth is 4% and the target debt-to-GDP ratio is 50%, the government can run a budget deficit of 2% of GDP in perpetuity; in contrast, if the target debt-to-GDP ratio is 250%, the government can run a budget deficit of 10% of GDP. The catch is that this magic only works if the interest rate stays below the growth rate of the economy. When there is a lot of spare capacity, this is not a major issue since interest rates can be kept low without the worry that inflation will accelerate. Things get trickier once the economy reaches full employment. At that point, if the budget deficit remains high, inflation could rise as aggregate demand begins to outstrip the economy’s productive capacity. This may cause the central bank to raise interest rates, which could be a vexing problem for a highly indebted government. One might argue that the government could preempt the central bank from having to raise rates simply by tightening fiscal policy once the economy begins to overheat. In many cases, this would indeed be the correct response. However, there may be some occasions where tightening fiscal policy is politically impossible. In such cases, the preferred political response may be to allow inflation to rise. Higher inflation would push up nominal income, thus putting downward pressure on the debt-to-GDP ratio. Once the real value of the debt has been inflated away, the central bank could raise rates in order to cool the economy. Would such an inflationary strategy be preferable to not running a large budget deficit to begin with? It depends on who you ask! If you ask bondholders, they would certainly say no. If anything, bondholders might prefer a deflationary environment since falling prices would increase the purchasing power of their bonds. In contrast, workers and businesses may prefer more stimulus. For them, higher inflation down the road is a price worth paying if it means continued low unemployment and rising profits. How do these competing interests balance out? In most cases, the economy would be better off following the bigger budget deficit/higher inflation strategy. This is partly because deflation is generally a greater risk to the financial system and the broader economy than inflation. It is also because the capital stock is likely to grow more quickly in an economy that is able to stay close to full employment than one that suffers from deficient demand (firms generally invest more when unemployment is low). Hence, not only can fiscal stimulus provide short-term support to employment and consumption during the period when demand is depressed, it can even generate longer-term gains in the form of higher labor productivity and lower structural unemployment compared to what would have happened in the absence of any fiscal easing. The Political Economy Of Debt And Inflation The discussion above suggests that political forces, rather than economic logic, explain why some countries fail to take the necessary steps to solve what should be an elementary problem: increasing demand. In particular, demand-side secular stagnation is likely to be a bigger threat in countries where the preferences of bondholders and others who benefit from very low inflation hold sway. The appreciation of this fact helps explain some key developments in economic history, while shedding light on what the future may hold. Chart 5Universal Suffrage Made Inflation Politically More Palatable Than Deflation The introduction of universal suffrage in the first few decades of the twentieth century made inflation politically more palatable (Chart 5). A poor farmer did not need to worry quite as much about losing his land to the bank, since he could vote for someone who would ensure that crop prices increased rather than decreased. In William Jennings Bryan's colorful words, the rich and powerful would no longer “crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." Today, populism is on the rise again. Whether it is rightwing populism or leftwing populism, the result is usually the same: bigger budget deficits and higher inflation. Retirees may not welcome higher inflation, but given the choice between rising prices and cuts to pensions and health care programs, they are likely to opt for the former. For their part, today’s youth has become increasingly enamored with socialism. According to a recent YouGov poll, 70% of Millennials would be somewhat or extremely likely to vote for a socialist candidate (Chart 6). More than one-third of Millennials view communism favorably, while about 20% think the Communist Manifesto “better guarantees freedom and equality” than the Declaration of Independence. No wonder the Democrats are talking about introducing Universal Basic Income, Medicare For All, and a Green New Deal. Chart 6Woke Millennials Cozying Up To Socialism Contrary to conventional wisdom, an individual’s political attitudes are fairly stable over their lifespan.2 This suggests that the average political orientation of US voters will continue to move leftward as older voters pass away. Meanwhile, globalization – a historically deflationary force – has peaked (Chart 7). And despite all the hype about game-changing technological innovation, productivity growth in advanced economies continues to underwhelm (Chart 8). Chart 7Globalization Has Peaked   In a world of excess savings, inflation could be held at bay. However, the ratio of workers-to-consumers has now begun to decline as ever more baby boomers leave the labor force (Chart 9). As more people stop working, aggregate savings will fall. The shortage of savings will put upward pressure on the neutral rate. If central banks drag their feet in raising policy rates in response to an increase in the neutral rate, monetary policy will end up being too stimulative. As economies overheat, inflation will pick up. Chart 8Productivity Growth In Advanced Economies Has Decelerated Materially Chart 9The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally   Investment Conclusions Few people are worried about rising inflation these days, as evidenced by the weakness in long-term market-based inflation expectations (Chart 10). For now, most of our leading inflation indicators remain contained (Chart 11). However, we suspect this will change in the next few years as the unemployment rate – which is already at a generational low in the G7 – continues to fall (Chart 12). Chart 10Long-Term Inflation Expectations Are Muted Chart 11An Inflation Breakout Is Not Imminent   Chart 12Falling Unemployment Rate Across Developed Markets Chart 13Prices And Wages In Japan Have Been Rising Since 2014... Albeit At A Sluggish Pace   Chart 14Japan: Labor Market Tightening May Eventually Spur Higher Inflation As we discussed two weeks ago in our analysis of whether negative rates will spread out across the world, both the theoretical and empirical evidence suggest that the Phillips curve is kinked.3 This means that a decline in the unemployment rate may not have a significant effect on inflation until unemployment reaches a threshold that is low enough to trigger a price-wage spiral. The US will probably be the first major economy to reach the kink, but others will follow. This includes the mother of all recent deflationary economies: Japan. Chart 13 shows that Japanese prices are rising again, albeit still at a slower pace than the BoJ’s target. Japanese inflation will accelerate if the labor market continues to tighten. Already, the ratio of job openings-to-applicants is near a 45-year high (Chart 14). All this suggests that investors should favor “real assets” such as equities, real estate, and commodities over “nominal assets” such as bonds and cash. To the extent that investors need to maintain exposure to fixed income, we would recommend a short-duration stance and above-benchmark exposure to inflation-linked securities. Box 1 Fiscal Multipliers: How Large? Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019, for a fuller discussion of this debt sustainability equation. 2Johnathan Peterson, Kevin Smith, and John Hibbing, “Do People Really Become More Conservative as They Age? ” The Journal of Politics, (2018). 3Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Is The Entire World Heading For Negative Rates?” dated October 25, 2019.   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Business confidence peaked in March 2018 and has been in a freefall ever since, with the steepest drop taking place in recent months as the Sino-American trade war has re-escalated (CEO confidence shown inverted, top panel). Moreover, there is mounting evidence that the trade tensions are further infecting the economy beyond manufacturing including services and the consumer. Using data from the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence survey and from the University of Michigan Sentiment survey the chart shows that consumer intentions to buy large household durable goods (shown inverted, second panel), cars (shown inverted, third panel) and homes (shown inverted, bottom panel), all have taken a massive hit of late. Historically, all three survey measures have been excellent leading indicators of the labor market and the current message is to expect a rise in the unemployment rate in coming months. Bottom Line: While we are on the sidelines on the defensive/cyclical portfolio bent we stand ready to move to a defensive over cyclical preference. Once our S&P software trailing stop gets triggered, which will move this heavyweight tech subgroup to neutral, then the broad tech sector will shift to underweight and our defensive/cyclical bent to overweight. Stay tuned.  

ハイライト 今後12か月で景気後退が発生するとまだ見ていない、… : 景気後退は金融政策が引き締め的なときにのみ発生する。現状は金融は緩やかであり、FRBが引き締めにつながる一連の利上げを実行するほどの状況になるまでには時間がかかるだろう。 … それでも懸念がないというわけではない、… : 逆イールドは問題の前兆というよりFRBの資産買入の反映のように見えるが、先行指標は通年で悪方向に動いている。 … 調査データは世帯と企業の信頼感が脆弱であることを明確に示している: 消費者信頼感指数や最新のISM調査はムードの悪化を示している。ハードデータはソフトデータより良好だが、不安が自己実現的になる危険性がある。 我々は建設的な見方を維持するが、成長見通しに対するリスクには警戒している: 労働市場は失業率を押し下げるほど活況であり、製造業の縮小にもかかわらず、国内外でサービス部門は拡大を続けている。拡大は減速しているが、まだ終了していない。 特集 先月のサウジのエネルギーインフラへの攻撃（図表1）をオイル市場が素早くやり過ごしたものの、投資家の懸念は他にも尽きない。米中交渉が日ごとに融和と冷却を行ったり来たりし、ブレグジットが滑稽さの中の茶番のように混迷を続け、ワシントンで激しい弾劾戦の構えが築かれている状況では、企業が長期の投資支出を決断するのは容易ではない。世界の輸出量は7月までの8か月間で年率ベースで6か月が縮小しており（図表2）、多国籍企業の利益見通しに冷や水を浴びせている。賃金労働者は企業が利益減少時に人員削減を行うと知っているため、消費者信頼感も貿易交渉の浮き沈みに左右される。 Chart 1 中東の緊張はもう先月の話 不安のループ 不安のループ 懸念は周知の事実だが、それらが長く続けばそれ自体が景気後退を引き起こす可能性がある。 Chart 2 何かを減らしたければ、それに課税せよ 何かを減らしたければ、それに税をかけよ 何かを減らしたければ、それに税をかけよ もし市場が中国問題やブレグジットの懸念をずっと前から織り込んでいなければ、楽観的に見づらいだろう。弾劾の見世物は新しいが、ペンス政権から投資家や企業が恐れるべきことが何かあるかは不明だ。もし調査データが景気後退の芽をまくほどに一貫してセンチメントの悪化を示していなければ、悲観的に見づらい。結論として、景気循環は後期にあり、データの軟化と地政学的緊張の組み合わせが投資家の残された楽観を削りつつある。 当社の景気後退／ベアマーケット指標 金融政策の引き締めは、十分条件ではないにせよ景気後退の必要条件である。我々が均衡フェドファンド金利の推定を維持している60年の期間を通じて、フェドファンド金利が我々の均衡推定値を上回っても拡張が直ちに止まることはなかったが、拡張が停止して景気後退が起きたのはそれが起きた時だけだ（図表3）。我々は現在、均衡金利が2％のターゲットを大きく上回っていると推定しており、今月末のFOMC会合では1.75％に向かっているように見える。現時点のインフレの穏やかな進みを考えれば、我々の均衡推定が概ね正しければ、金融政策は2020年を通じて緩和的であり続けるはずだ。 Chart 3 金融政策は緩和的でさらに緩和へ：グリーン 金融政策は緩和的で、さらに緩和へ向かっている：グリーン 金融政策は緩和的で、さらに緩和へ向かっている：グリーン 我々はFRBが拡張を終わらせるつもりはないと確信しているが、我々の単純な景気後退指標の他の構成要素は懸念を示している。イールドカーブは5か月連続で逆イールドになっている。逆イールドは歴史的に金融政策が過剰にタイトであることの信頼できる指標であり、景気後退を予見する点で立派な実績を持っている（図表4）。しかし、今日の前例のないほどにネガティブなタームプレミアムはイールドカーブのメッセージを混乱させ、過去との比較を歪めている可能性がある。1 Chart 4 イールドカーブは逆転しているが…：イエロー イールドカーブは逆転したが…：イエロー イールドカーブは逆転したが…：イエロー コンファレンスボードの先行景気指標（LEI）の前年比変化が我々の景気後退指標のもう一つの構成要素である。LEIはイールドカーブと同じくらい信頼でき、かつ急速に減速している（図表5）。しかし、LEIはこの拡張期において同様の下落から二度回復したことがあり、まだ縮小には至っていない点に注意する。製造業偏重のため、LEIは貿易緊張の実質的な緩和なしには加速を再開しないだろうが、米中間の限定的な合意は不可能ではない。 Chart 5 LEIの成長は急速に減速：イエロー LEIの成長は急速に減速している：黄色 LEIの成長は急速に減速している：黄色 結論： 緑1つと黄2つは景気サイクルの見通しに対する力強い支持とは言えないが、それでもこの組合せは拡張期間を通じて投資家に十分な報酬を与えてきたリスク志向のコースを維持することを示している。 低迷する製造業のISM … 米国は世界情勢の影響を遅れて受けるが、9月の製造業ISM報告は最終的に影響を受けていることを確認した。 先週火曜日の冴えない製造業ISM報告は、S&P 500の2日間の売りを引き起こし、金融系テレビはこれを危機以来の最悪の第4四半期のスタートと強調した。総合指数は50のコンセンサスを大きく下回り、2009年6月以来の低水準に落ち込み、2015-16年の世界的な製造業不況以来初めて50のブーム/バストラインを2か月連続で下回った（図表6、上段）。崩れゆく輸出（図表6、第二パネル）と停滞する新規受注（図表6、第三パネル）が総合指数を押し下げた。わずかな希望の光は在庫の大幅な縮小（図表6、第四パネル）により受注在庫比率が上昇したことだった（図表6、下段）。 Chart 6 世界的な製造業の減速が米国に到達 世界的な製造業の減速が米国に波及 世界的な製造業の減速が米国に波及 Chart 7 消費者はISMを気にしなかった... 消費者はISMを気にしなかった... 消費者はISMを気にしなかった... 予想外に悪い報告はメディアで再び景気後退懸念を煽ったが、どうやら一般大衆の間ではそうではない（図表7）。潜在的な経済的脅威は、この報告が雇用や投資を削ぐ可能性から生じる。木曜午後に発表されたNFIBの月次雇用報告は、中小企業が依然として積極的に人員を募集していることを示唆しているが、応募者の母集団は縮小し続けている。アトランタ連銀のGDPNowモデルは製造業ISM発表後、非居住用固定投資の3四半期GDPへの寄与を+10ベーシスポイントから-10ベーシスポイントに引き下げたが、全体の成長率は1.8％を見込んでいる。 … そして消費者信頼感の低下 … 主要な消費者センチメント調査も低下傾向にあるが、それでも歴史的水準に比べれば高い位置にある（図表8）。その二面性がブル対ベアの論争を維持させており、強気派は高い水準を指摘し、弱気派は低下する方向性を挙げる。ここで水準対方向性の議論を決着させるつもりはないが、実質消費の成長は調査の期待コンポーネントと強い相関を示してきたことは指摘しておく。期待が低下すれば消費も落ち込むが、期待指数が90年代半ばレベル以上にとどまる限り、消費は経済成長をトレンド水準付近に維持するように思われる（図表9）。 Chart 8 … そして依然としてかなり楽観的である ...そして彼らは依然としてかなり楽観的だ ...そして彼らは依然としてかなり楽観的だ Chart 9 消費は依然として堅調に見える 消費は依然として良好に見える 消費は依然として良好に見える … それに対して依然として堅調なハードデータ 調査データが着実に期待を下回っている一方で（先週のかつては強固だった非製造業ISMも含む）、ハードデータはプラスのサプライズを提供している。経済サプライズ指数がようやく7月初めに底を打ち平均回帰の過程に入って以来、実質活動の指標は励みになる（図表10）。9月の雇用情勢報告は採用のペースが鈍化していることを示し、賃金成長が不可解に停滞したが、広義の失業率はドットコム・ブームのピーク以来初めて7％を下回り、史上最低値からわずか一段階上にある（図表11）。年初来の力強い株式上昇は家計純資産を可処分個人所得で割った倍率を史上最高水準に押し戻しており、家計全体として貯蓄率を上げる必要はほとんどないことを示唆している（図表12）。 Chart 10 ハードデータは低い基準を超えた ハードデータは低いハードルをクリアした ハードデータは低いハードルをクリアした Chart 11 労働市場は依然として余剰人員を吸収している 労働市場は依然として余剰を吸収し続けている 労働市場は依然として余剰を吸収し続けている Chart 12 貯蓄率が下がる余地がある 貯蓄率が低下する余地がある 貯蓄率が低下する余地がある 総括 米国は比較的閉鎖的な経済であり、主要な他国と比べて世界的な動向に対してより長いラグで反応するのが通例である。今年は国内の財政刺激の低下で減速するはずだったが、世界的な弱さが今や米国にも波及し始めている。投資家にとっての問題は、この減速がどこまで進むかだ。単なるサイクル中盤の減速で、1～2四半期成長を落とすだけなのか、それとも拡張の終焉なのか？ FRBは拡張を維持するために適切に行動すると今年何度も約束しており、それはほとんどマントラとなっている。市場はそれを真に受けており、先週木曜には非製造業ISM公表直後のS&P 500の1％の下落がすぐに1％の上昇に転じ、金曜には混在した雇用情勢報告が再び1％の押し上げをもたらした。投資家がFRBが成長見通しのリスクを緩和するために金融政策を緩和する意志と手段があると信じる限り、悪いニュースは依然として株式にとって良いニュースである。大中小の中央銀行間で金融緩和がルールとなっている世界で、FRBが追加緩和の余地を持っていることを考えれば、我々は株式市場の判断が正しいと考えている。 投資家が心配することは山ほどあるが、心配がブルマーケットの燃料にもなることを忘れてはならない。 我々の楽観的見解は有益なトレーディング格言にも支えられている。悪いニュースで株が下がらない（あるいは良いニュースで上がらない）ということは何かを示している。この場合、S&P 500が波状的な悪材料にもかかわらず転覆し続けていないことは、かなりの悲観をすでに織り込んでいることを示している。たとえば米中貿易交渉からかなりの良いニュースが出れば、株式は歴史的なブルマーケットのパターンに沿って再び上昇を再開し、ゴールに向けて猛ダッシュする可能性がある。 投資への示唆 弱い調査が実体の弱さに転じるという懸念はもっともである。企業や消費者のセンチメント低下が自己実現的な予言になる可能性は明らかだ。企業経営者が貿易ルールの不確実性の中で手をこまねいていれば、企業の投資や雇用は枯渇する可能性がある。ある人の支出は別の人の所得であり、その逆も同様で、家計が支出を貯蓄に回せば所得は減少する。企業が投資意欲を失っている時に家計が支出を取りやめれば、貯蓄は眠ってしまい金利を下げるだけで、成長見通しへの不安をさらに煽る可能性がある。 我々が恐れるべきものはおそらく恐怖それ自体ほど多くはないかもしれないが、恐怖は伝播し自己強化的である点を考えれば、それでも十分である。我々の観点からの良いニュースは、企業も家計もまだ岐路に立っているわけではないと考えていることだ。実質の最終国内需要（在庫調整と純輸出を除くGDP）は、昨年の第4四半期の急落、1か月に及ぶ連邦政府閉鎖、継続する関税の混乱にもかかわらず堅調に踏みとどまっている。労働市場は依然として逼迫しており、賃金の上昇を助けるはずだ。現時点でFRBが新興のインフレ圧力と対峙して介入する可能性は低く、好循環の入り口が開かれている可能性がある。 どのサイクルも永遠には続かないし、今回のサイクルも確かに後期にあるが、我々は3～12か月の景気循環的タイムフレームでは引き続きポジティブである。短期的にはより慎重であり、0～3か月の戦術的タイムフレームでは通常より保守的にポートフォリオを位置づけ、ポジションを短い綱で管理するのが適切かもしれない。投資家は今後数か月間警戒感を抱えながら生活しなければならないが、ブルマーケットはそのような不安の“壁”をよじ登ることを見失ってはならない。 Doug Peta, CFA チーフ米国投資ストラテジスト dougp@bcaresearch.com 脚注 1 BCAのU.S. インベストメント・リサーチ・ウィークリー・レポート「Everybody Into The Pool!」(2019年6月24日掲載)を参照。usis.bcaresearch.comで入手可能。

ハイライト 米国の成長は、国内活動を牽引する堅固な要因とマネーおよびクレジット動向の強まりにより、まもなく回復するだろう。 米連邦準備制度理事会は緩和的なバイアスを維持し、再びバランスシートを拡大するだろう。 拡大する米連邦準備制度理事会のバランスシートは世界的な流動性環境の基調改善を触発し、世界経済を押し上げるだろう。 ブレグジット、中国、およびイランが主要リスクである。 ドルは下落し、債券利回りはさらに上昇し、銀は金をアウトパフォームするだろう。 株式は景気循環的および構造的な投資期間の両面で債券を上回るだろう。 金融株とエネルギーはテクノロジーとヘルスケアよりも魅力的である。したがって、欧州は米国に対して相対的にいっそう魅力的になりつつある。 特集 世界の株式は2018年1月の史上最高値からわずか5%下回るだけで、S&P 500は2019年7月の記録を上抜けしようとしている。いっぽうで利回りは反発し、バリュー株がモメンタム株を圧倒している。これらのトレンドは持続可能だろうか。 世界成長が鍵である。世界各地の経済活動が安定し最終的に改善することができれば、株式は上抜けし、来年にかけて債券価格は下落するだろう。そうでなければ、これら最近の金融市場の展開は元に戻るだろう。 たとえ現在の活動が弱いままであっても、貿易戦争、ブレグジット、中東の緊張、インターバンク市場の問題にもかかわらず、世界成長の見通しは改善しつつある。したがって、利回りの上昇余地が残っているため、我々は引き続き株式を債券より好む。ドルが弱まれば、当社のプロリスクの姿勢はさらに強まるだろう。 米国の成長ドライバーは健全である Chart I-1景気後退指標がイエローフラッグを示している 景気後退の指標が黄色信号を点滅させている 景気後退の指標が黄色信号を点滅させている 米国は強力なミッドサイクルの減速の終盤に近いが、景気後退は回避されるだろう。イールドカーブや先行指標の年率変化率などの主要な景気後退指標は依然として曖昧なシグナルを送っているものの（Chart I-1）、現状は来年の米国活動の改善を支える。 米国の成長は最終的にLEIを押し上げ、イールドカーブを再び急勾配化させる五つの基本要因により強まるだろう：住宅の回復の芽生え、堅調な家計支出、安定化する製造業、限定的なインフレ圧力、そしてマネーとクレジット動向の回復である。 住宅 住宅市場は安定している。要因は、家計形成の旺盛さ、まずまずの住宅の手頃さ、州および地方税控除上限によるショックの通過、そして2018年11月以降のモーゲージ金利の110ベーシスポイントの低下である。 住宅市場の指標はついに住宅ローン申請のような先行変数に追いつきつつある。過去9か月で、NAHB住宅市場指数は2018年12月以来の下落のほぼ3分の2を回復した。建築許可件数と住宅着工件数は、昨年大幅に落ち込んだにもかかわらず、2007年以来の高水準にある。既存住宅販売も12月以来11%増加しており、借入コスト低下による刺激のトレンドに沿っている（Chart I-2）。 Chart I-2住宅の回復は実在する 住宅市場の回復は確かだ 住宅市場の回復は確かだ 住宅投資は、過去6四半期でGDPレベルを1%押し下げていた後、まもなく経済活動を押し上げるはずだ。さらに、住宅活動の回復は政策が成長を抑制していないことを示唆する。不動産セクターは歴史的に金融環境に最も敏感である。 家計は依然健全である 米国のコア実質小売売上高は年率4%超のペースで増加を続けており、アトランタ連銀のGDPNowモデルは第3四半期の消費支出が年率3.1%の健全な増加を予測している。このレジリエンスは、経済的不確実性やISM製造業指数の50の景気分岐点割れを前にして特に印象的である。 家計の強固なバランスシートが重要である。12年間のデレバレッジの結果、家計債務は可処分所得比で37ポイント縮小し99%となった。その結果、債務返済コストは可処分所得のわずか10%を占め、45年以上で最低水準である。さらに、家計貯蓄率は税引後所得の7.9%と健全であり、これは過去最高の純資産と1985年以来の最低の負債対資産比率という文脈において特に高い。 家計所得は消費に追加の支えをもたらす。実質可処分所得は雇用創出が鈍化しているにもかかわらず年率3%のペースで拡大している。この一見した逆説はタイトな労働市場により説明される。当社が労働市場の余剰を測る上で最も重視する指標である主要労働年齢層の就業者比率は79.7%まで上昇し、これは賃金・給与の年率2.9%の伸びと整合的である（Chart I-3）。GMでのUAWのストライキ、18年ぶり高水準にある離職率、小規模企業が有能な労働者を見つける困難さは、賃金（したがって消費）が引き続きしっかり支えられることを示唆している（Chart I-3、下段）。 製造業見通しの改善 ISM製造業指数の弱さにもかかわらず、製造業活動は反発する見込みである。最近の鉱工業生産の数字はすでに改善している。月次の鉱工業生産は8月に月率0.6%で拡大したが、直近では4月に月率-0.6%で縮小していた。 米国の金融環境は今後およそ18か月間、資産価格と世界経済活動を支え続けるだろう。 自動車セクターはまもなく底打ちするだろう。弱い自動車生産が最近の世界的な製造業減速の主要因であった。GDPの自動車関連項目は第2四半期に驚くべき年率29.1%の縮小となった。しかし、米国のライトビークル販売は概ね横ばいである。この二極化は自動車セクターの在庫が急速に縮小していることを示唆している（Chart I-4）。 Chart I-3タイトな労働市場が消費を支える 2019年10月 2019年10月 Chart I-4自動車生産はまもなく回復するか？ 自動車生産は近いうちに回復するか？ 自動車生産は近いうちに回復するか？   設備投資（Capex）も回復するはずだ。前四半期には構造物および設備への投資がGDP成長を押し下げた。それ以前は設備投資意向が大幅に低下していたが、現在フィラデルフィア連銀の設備投資構成要素は安定化を試みている。グローバルな製造業が強化されるためには、設備投資は下落を止めなければならない。 限定的なインフレ圧力 米国のインフレ圧力は抑制されており、これは二つの方法で成長を支える。第一に、インフレが抑制されていることで米連邦準備制度理事会は金融緩和的な条件を維持できる。過度な債務返済コストが存在しない限り、緩和的な政策は拡張を保証する。第二に、低いインフレは実質所得の伸びを高く保ち、家計の福祉を高める。 コアCPIは2.4%で堅調だが、まもなく頭打ちするだろう。過去3年間、コア財価格が総合的なコア価格の変動を主導してきた一方で、サービス部門のインフレ率はこの期間2.7%で安定している。財のインフレは以下の理由でまもなく弱まるだろう： Chart I-5貿易戦争は経済のデフレ傾向を覆い隠している 貿易戦争は経済のデフレ傾向を覆い隠している 貿易戦争は経済のデフレ傾向を覆い隠している 世界的な経済活動の弱さが世界的なインフレを押し下げる。インフレは実物活動に遅行し、シンガポールのGDPのような世界経済の代理指標はOECDのコアCPIの弱さを示唆している（Chart I-5）。この弱さは米国の財価格に国際的要素が大きいため、米国インフレに対する下押し要因となる。 米国の輸入物価は15か月前にピークアウトしており、通常は財のインフレを約1年半先導する。 過去18か月で約15%上昇し史上最高に達した広義の貿易加重ドルの強さは財価格を圧迫するだろう。 米国の稼働率は2019年を通じて低下し、歴史的にコア財価格が過熱する80%水準を大きく下回っている。 ホワイトハウスの対中国関税はインフレを押し上げているが、この効果は一過性であろう。関税は課税対象となる財のインフレを押し上げる一方で、影響を受けない財はデフレを経験している（Chart I-5、下段）。関税は一度きりの影響を与えるため、インフレ期待が歴史的低水準近辺にとどまっている状況では、関税対象財のインフレは非関税財の基調に収れんしていくだろう。 強まるマネーとクレジットの動向 マネーとクレジットの動向は、最近の落ち込みが景気後退に転化しないことを示唆している。さらに、米国の民間セクターの流動性環境の改善はミッドサイクルの減速が終わりつつあることを示している。 Chart I-6流動性指標は成長の反発を示唆している 流動性指標は成長の反発を示唆している 流動性指標は成長の反発を示唆している 米国のブロードマネーは回復している。昨年11月に0.9%まで落ち込んだ後、米国の実質M2成長率は年率3%のペースで拡大しており、これはミッドサイクルの減速の終わりに一致するペースである。さらに、マネーはクレジット発行に対しても加速しており、これは歴史的に工業活動の加速を示してきた。同様に、当社の米国金融流動性指数は急速に上昇しており、これは通常ISM製造業指数の転換点に先行する動きである（Chart I-6）。 クレジット活動も回復している。社債発行は堅調であり、米連邦準備制度理事会のシニア・ローン・オフィサー調査によれば、ローン需要は全般的に反発している。利回りの急落はG-10全体でクレジット成長を押し上げている。 金は債券をアウトパフォームしており、これはミッドサイクルの減速が発生したことを確認する。インフレが問題でなければ、金は景気後退前に常に債券に劣後する。しかし、ミッドサイクルの下落の前には、金は一貫して債券をアウトパフォームしてきた（Chart I-7）。 Chart I-7景気後退の前に債券は金をアウトパフォームする 景気後退を控え、ボンドがゴールドを上回る 景気後退を控え、ボンドがゴールドを上回る さらなるFRBの緩和が差し迫っている 米国の金融環境は今後およそ18か月間、資産価格と世界的な経済活動を支え続けるだろう。FRB（連邦準備制度理事会）はさらに金融緩和を進める見込みであり、引き締めにはほど遠い。 先週、連邦公開市場委員会（FOMC）はフェデラルファンド金利の誘導目標を25ベーシスポイント引き下げて2％とした。さらに、中央値の予測はFRBメンバーが少なくとも今後18か月間は追加利下げを見込んでいないことを示しているが、現実はより微妙である。17人のFOMCメンバーのうち7人は年末までにフェデラルファンド金利をさらに25ベーシスポイント引き下げると予想し、8人は2020年後半により低い政策金利を見込んでいる。 米ドルは非常に割高であり、世界的な流動性環境が改善するにつれて下落するだろう。 我々は依然として今年中に25ベーシスポイントの利下げを3回行う見通しにある。FRBは依然としてデータに大きく依存しており、特に低迷したインフレ期待に敏感である。これは、金融環境が突然引き締まることによって生じる危険をFRBが鋭敏に認識していることを意味する。年末までに市場が2019年の追加利下げの織り込みを離れていなければ、FOMCはこの緩和を実施する可能性が高い。さもなければ、金融条件が突然引き締まり、インフレ期待と経済見通しを損ねるだろう。もし世界成長が2020年初めに回復しなければ、FRBは第1四半期にさらに一度利下げを行う可能性が高く、これはOISカーブに織り込まれた現行の12か月のプライシングを検証することになる。 チャート I-8十分な余剰準備金がない 超過準備金が不足している 超過準備金が不足している FRBは再びバランスシートの拡大を行うだろう。インターバンク市場はFOMCを追い込み、世界経済に歓迎される刺激を追加することを強いた。民間銀行の余剰準備金の再拡大を許容することは、単なる利下げよりも世界成長に対してより大きなプラスの影響をもたらすだろう。 先月、我々は余剰準備金の減少、プライマリー・ディーラーのレポ取引で調達された膨張した証券在庫、そして米国債の発行増加の組み合わせがレポ市場にもたらすリスクを指摘した1 。これらのリスクは先週顕在化し、担保付翌日物資金調達レート（SOFR）が突然5％を上回る水準に急騰した（チャート I-8）。市場を落ち着かせるために、FRBは先週火曜日から毎日750億ドルを注入し、レポ金利を超過準備金利（IOER）に近づけた。しかし、これは長期的な解決策ではない。 チャート I-9余剰準備金の増加は米ドルを押し下げ、世界成長を押し上げる 超過準備金の増加はドルに悪影響を与え、世界経済の成長を押し上げる 超過準備金の増加はドルに悪影響を与え、世界経済の成長を押し上げる 逆説的だが、レポ市場の緊張が顕在化したことは世界経済にとって好材料だ。なぜならそれがFRBに来月にもバランスシートを再拡大させることを強いるからだ。レポ市場への資金供給は恒久的に増加する必要があり、これは銀行の余剰準備金が再び拡大しなければならないことを意味する。先月示したように、余剰準備金の増加は米ドルを傷つけ、新興市場の為替を押し上げ、世界のPMIを押し上げるだろう（チャート I-9）。 余剰準備金の増加は世界的な流動性環境を緩和する。注入されたマネーは世界の他の地域へと流れていくだろう。米ドルは購買力平価の長期的な公正価値推定に対して約25％高値で取引されている。したがって、より大きなFRBのバランスシートによって間接的にファイナンスされる財政赤字の拡大は、米国の経常収支赤字を拡大させ、それが結果として世界の外貨準備高を押し上げるだろう。結果として、他の中央銀行のためにFRBが保管する証券保有高は増加する。こうして、ドルベースの世界的流動性は、それが支える米ドル建て外債のストックに対して縮小を停止することになる（チャート I-10）。 余剰準備金の増加はまた世界の金融条件を緩和する。ドルベースの流動性を高めることで、FRBのバランスシートの拡大はオフショアのドル金利を抑制するだろう。さらに、余剰準備金の増加は米ドルを減価させ、米ドルで借り入れる外国主体の資金調達コストをさらに引き下げる。この現象は新興市場（EM）にとって特に重要である。したがって、新興市場の為替レートに大きく依存するEMの金融状況は緩和されるはずだ。歴史的に見て、EMの金融状況の緩和は世界成長の強化につながる（チャート I-11）。 チャート I-10基礎的流動性は改善する見込み 強力な流動性は改善する見込み 強力な流動性は改善する見込み チャート I-11新興市場の金融状況指数（FCI）の緩和は成長加速につながるはず EMのFCI緩和は成長の加速をもたらすはずだ EMのFCI緩和は成長の加速をもたらすはずだ   リスク：英国、中国、イラン 見通しは概して世界成長の回復を示しており、リスク資産にとって良好な環境を作るだろうが、英国、中国、イランの状況は注意深く監視する必要がある。 英国 我々の基本見通しは穏当な結末を見込むものの、ブレグジットは依然として世界にとっての潜在的危険である。英国首相ボリス・ジョンソンがEUに譲歩を強いるためにノー・ディール・ブレグジットを仕掛ける手法は、誤算を招く可能性がある。そのような事態が起これば、すでに弱い世界貿易によって傷んでいる欧州経済は景気後退に陥るだろう。米ドルは強含み、世界の金融環境は引き締まり、世界成長はさらに打撃を受ける。 チャート I-12英国：潜在的な選挙を前に明確な勝者は見えない 英国：見込まれる選挙を前に明確な勝者は見えず 英国：見込まれる選挙を前に明確な勝者は見えず 今週の最高裁がジョンソンの議会休会決定に対して全会一致で判断を下したことを受け、ノー・ディールの確率は10％未満となっている。ジョンソンはハード・ブレグジットに強く反対する議会で過半数を欠いており、EU離脱期限である10月31日までに選挙を実行することができない。したがって、延期が最もあり得る結果であり、それによりEUと英国は議会が承認できるアイルランドのバックストップに関する合意に至る余地が生まれるだろう。 最終的には、英国は現状の膠着を打破するために再度の選挙を必要としており、これは11月か12月に実現する可能性がある。しかし、残留支持の票は労働党、自由民主党（Lib Dems）、スコットランド民族党（SNP）に分散している一方で、離脱支持の票はそれほど分散していない（チャート I-12）。したがって、ブレグジットは完全に世界成長への本格的な襲撃に変貌しないとしても、依然として背景に潜むリスクであり続けるだろう。 中国 チャート I-13中国の景気刺激策は依然として不十分で、決定的な効果を与えていない 中国の景気刺激策は、影響を与えるにはあまりに生ぬるいままだ 中国の景気刺激策は、影響を与えるにはあまりに生ぬるいままだ 中国の経済活動は引き続き減速している。8月には鉱工業生産と固定資産投資がそれぞれ前年比4.4％、5.5％に減速した。さらに、総社会融資の成長は年間ベースで鈍化し、中国全体の信用フローはGDP比で減少した（チャート I-13）。中国の政策によるリフレーションは、貿易不確実性と支出に対する限界傾向の弱さが生み出す下押しを覆すには依然として弱すぎる（チャート I-13、下段）。 米中貿易摩擦はここ数か月で大幅に緩和されたが、中国と世界にとって重要な不確実性の源であり続ける。中国と米国は来月再び高官級協議を行う予定であり、トランプ大統領は一部の関税引き上げを再度延期し、中国は再び中西部産の大豆と豚肉を購入している。しかし、中国当局による米国農場訪問の先週金曜の取りやめは、状況が非常に流動的であることを思い起こさせる。究極的には、中国と米国は長期的な地政学的ライバルである。トランプは2020年選挙によって制約を受けるかもしれないが、中国は依然として強硬な取引を仕掛ける可能性がある。したがって、交渉はストップ・アンド・ゴーのパターンになると見ておくのが賢明である。 チャート I-14デフレは実質借入コストの上昇という悪循環を引き起こす デフレーションは実質的な借入コストの上昇という悪循環を引き起こす デフレーションは実質的な借入コストの上昇という悪循環を引き起こす 弱い中国は自ら回復の芽を生むだろう。投資計画と信用需要に対する貿易不確実性の負の影響に加えて、北京は雇用の悪化とPPI（生産者物価）の-0.8％という状況に直面している（チャート I-14、上段）。PPIの下振れが拡大するにつれて、多額の債務を抱える企業借入者は実質金利の上昇に直面する（チャート I-14、下段）。この借入コストの上昇は、脆弱な経済をさらに弱め、悪循環を引き起こす。中国の政策当局がこの状況を長く容認することは考えにくい。2018年4月以降の預金準備率の累計400ベーシスポイントの引き下げは正しい方向の一歩だが、まだ十分ではない。政治局と国務院の文言のハト派化は、より大規模な刺激策が差し迫っていることを示している。したがって、信用拡大、地方政府の特別債券発行、そして財政刺激は2019年第4四半期にさらに顕著になるだろう。この政策は2020年に経済活動を目に見えて押し上げ、世界成長の加速を助けるはずだ。 イラン 緊張は再び高まりつつあり、原油価格の急騰は脆弱な世界経済を脅かすだろう。しかし、これは中心的なシナリオではなくリスクにとどまる。 我々は『ザ・バンク・クレジット・アナリスト』7月号で、イランとの緊張が世界成長とリスク資産に対する最大の目に見えるリスクであると警告した2。この危険は先週、サウジアラビアのフーライス油田とアブカイク石油処理施設へのドローン攻撃により顕在化し、世界の原油供給は日量570万バレルという前例のない規模、すなわち世界需要の5.5％分が削減された。予想どおり、ブレントは急速に12％上昇して68ドル/バレルとなった。 チャート I-15エネルギー効率の向上が世界をより強靭にする エネルギー効率の向上は世界をより強靭にする エネルギー効率の向上は世界をより強靭にする 原油価格の持続的な急騰は世界経済を景気後退に追い込みかねない。特に世界経済がすでに脆弱な足場にある現状ではそうだ。米国株式のチーフ・ストラテジスト、アナスタシオス・アヴゲリウは顧客に対して、ジェームズ・D・ハミルトン教授の2011年の有意義な論文によれば、原油価格の倍増が戦後の景気後退のほとんどの前兆となっていたことを注意喚起した3。しかし、原油が原因の景気後退は浅いものにとどまる可能性が高い。過去30年間で世界経済の石油強度は大幅に低下しているからだ（チャート I-15）。さらに、世界の財政当局は景気収縮に対して強力に対応するだろうため、このショックの影響は限定的となるだろう。 年末までに原油価格が倍増する可能性は低い。ブレントが100ドル/バレルまで急騰する必要があるが、サウジアラビアはすでに生産が数日内に危機前の水準へ戻り、一便の出荷も欠けることはないと表明している。この約束はさらなる在庫取り崩しを示唆する。アラムコも11月下旬までに最大生産を達成する見込みだ。さらに、原油価格の上昇は米国のシェール開発をさらに活性化させるだろう。したがって、今後3か月でブレントがさらに35ドル/バレルも急騰する可能性は低い。しかし、ブレントは来年75ドル/バレルまで上昇する可能性がある。というのも、原油需要は回復する見込みである一方で、投資家はサウジの供給途絶に対するリスクプレミアムをより多く織り込む必要があるからだ。 イランとの軍事衝突はテールリスクだが、もし現実化すれば原油は瞬時にして35ドル/バレル以上急騰するだろう。BCAのチーフ・ジオポリティカル・ストラテジスト、マット・ガートケンによれば、そのような衝突への米国の民意は低い5。トランプ大統領は孤立主義的傾向があり、また別の紛争に深入りすることを望んでいない。投資への含意 米ドル 米ドルは大幅な下落余地を抱えている。米ドルは非常に割高であり、世界的な流動性環境が改善すれば下落するだろう（チャート I-16）。これらの動きは米ドルの逆景気循環的性質を反映しており、上昇時も下落時も強い米ドルのモメンタムをもたらす。世界的な成長と流動性環境の改善に応じて米ドルは弱含み、ドル安は世界的な金融環境を緩和し、世界経済をさらに刺激する。そうした中で好循環が生まれる可能性がある。 Chart I-16Increasing Financial Liquidity Will Hurt The Greenback 金融流動性の増加は米ドルに打撃を与える 金融流動性の増加は米ドルに打撃を与える 本国還流は追い風から逆風へと転じるだろう。リスク回避の高まりとトランプの減税策に促されて、米国の経済主体は過去18か月で4610億ドルを本国還流させた。これが米ドルを強力に下支えしてきた（チャート I-17）。減税効果は薄れつつあり、世界的な成長の回復は米国の家計や企業に対して世界景気循環によりレバレッジされた外国資産を購入するインセンティブを与える。その過程で彼らは米ドルを売却するだろう。 Chart I-17Repatriation Will Not Support The Dollar For Much Longer 本国への資金還流は、もはや米ドルを長く支えないだろう 本国への資金還流は、もはや米ドルを長く支えないだろう ユーロは引き続き反ドルとして振る舞うだろう。これは両通貨ペアの豊富な市場流動性の結果である。さらに、ユーロは購買力平価均衡に対して17％のディスカウントで取引されている。先週の利下げと量的緩和の発表後、欧州中央銀行はこれ以上の緩和余地を残していない。代わりに、周辺国債スプレッドの最近の縮小が欧州の金融環境を緩めており、欧州の成長見通しを押し上げている。これがユーロをより魅力的にしている。 債券と貴金属 安全資産利回りは今後12～18か月で大幅に上振れするだろう。先月強調したように、債券は非常に高値で買われ過ぎかつ保有過多であり、サイクル的なリターンがマイナスになる確率が極めて高い（チャート I-18、左右のパネル）。さらに、米連邦準備制度理事会（FRB）がバランスシートの拡大を再開すると超過準備金は再び増加する。超過準備金の増加は利回り曲線の傾きの急勾配化をもたらす（チャート I-19）。短期金利は下押し余地が限定されているため、曲線は10年物利回りの上昇を通じてしか傾斜を強めることができない。 Chart I-18AValuation And Technicals Point Toward Higher Yields In 12 Months (I) バリュエーションとテクニカルは12か月で利回りの上昇を示唆（I） バリュエーションとテクニカルは12か月で利回りの上昇を示唆（I） Chart I-18BValuation And Technicals Point Toward Higher Yields In 12 Months (II) バリュエーションとテクニカル指標は12か月で利回りの上昇を示唆している（II） バリュエーションとテクニカル指標は12か月で利回りの上昇を示唆している（II）   Chart I-19Fed Purchases Will Steepen The Curve FRBの買い入れがイールドカーブをスティープ化する FRBの買い入れがイールドカーブをスティープ化する 短期の動きはより複雑だ。米国債利回りは9月3日の安値以降21ベーシスポイント上昇しており、主に貿易緊張の緩和が背景にある。以前のミッドサイクルの減速局面では、債券価格のピークはISM景況指数が底打ちしてから初めて顕在化した。我々はまだそこに達していない。予測不能な米中交渉と世界成長の現時点での回復不足を考慮すると、利回りは短期的に大きなボラティリティを示すと予想される。この移行過程において、景気循環型投資家は現在のような債券ラリーを利用して、フィクスト・インカム・ポートフォリオにベンチマークを下回るデュレーション・ポジションを構築すべきである。 貴金属の中では、我々は引き続き金よりも銀を選好している。私たちは6月下旬以来貴金属を推奨してきた6が、より高い債券利回りは金にとってはマイナスだ。一方で、中央銀行はインフレ・ブレイクイーブンを歴史的な標準である2.3％～2.5％に戻すことを狙ったハト派バイアスを維持している。この過程は来年末に経済が過熱する可能性を高める。今後12か月は、実質金利の上昇ではなくインフレ期待の高まりが債券利回りを押し上げるだろう。ドル安と相まって、この構成は金に対してやや強気である。銀は金よりもベータが高く工業用途が多いため、世界成長が回復すればアウトパフォームする期間が来るだろう。この文脈において、1970年以来の6パーセンタイルに位置する銀対金の比率は平均回帰狙いとして魅力的である（チャート I-20）。 Chart I-20The Silver-Gold Ratio Is A Bargain 銀と金の比率はお買い得だ 銀と金の比率はお買い得だ 株式 投資家は今後1年間、債券に対して株式を引き続き選好すべきである。株式は景気後退が始まる6か月前まで良好に推移する（表 I-1）。さらに、当社の金融およびテクニカル指標は強含みである（セクションIII参照）。加えてセンチメント調査は投資家の過度なコンプラセンシーを示しておらず（セクションIII参照）、これは逆張り的な観点からのリスクを限定する。一方で利回りには上振れ余地があり、これは株式が債券に対してアウトパフォームすることを意味する。 Table I-1The S&P 500 Doesn’t Peak Until Six Months Before A Recession 2019年10月 2019年10月 短期的な状況はより複雑だ。PER拡大がS&P 500の上昇の90％を牽引してきた（2018年12月24日の底打ち以降）一方、当社のモデルによれば米国の営業利益は少なくともさらに8か月は縮小する見通しである（チャート I-21）。したがって、残りの期間に利回りが上昇すれば、マルチプルはおそらく縮小するだろう。S&P 500はその期間、もみ合いを続ける見込みだ。 Chart I-21U.S. Profits Still Have Downside 米国の利益は依然として下方余地がある 米国の利益は依然として下方余地がある このような状況では、ストラテジーは投資家に株式市場内部のダイナミクスに注目することを要求する。すなわち、投資家は以下の理由からテクノロジーとヘルスケアを割り引いて金融セクターとエネルギーを選好すべきである： 利回り上昇は金融セクターのネット金利マージンを押し上げる。また、長期キャッシュフローとターミナルバリューに多くの本質的価値を抱えるテクノロジー株のマルチプルを圧迫する。したがって、利回り上昇は金融がテクに対してアウトパフォームすることと相関する（チャート I-22）。さらに、金融のバリュエーションとテクニカルはテクに比べて非常に低迷しており、比較される利益見通しも同様に厳しい（チャート I-23）。最後に、当社の米国株式ストラテジーチームは金融セクターによる自社株買いが大幅に増加すると見込んでいる。7 Chart I-22If Yields Rise, Financials Will Beat Tech 利回りが上昇すれば、金融株はテック株を上回る 利回りが上昇すれば、金融株はテック株を上回る Chart I-23Valuations, Technicals And Sentiment Favor Financials Over Tech バリュエーション、テクニカル、センチメントはテクノロジー株に対して金融株を優位にしている バリュエーション、テクニカル、センチメントはテクノロジー株に対して金融株を優位にしている     利回り上昇はヘルスケア株にも打撃を与える。加えて、エリザベス・ウォーレン上院議員のような民主党内の進歩派の支持拡大により、投資家はヘルスケア株の価格にリスクプレミアムを織り込む必要がある（チャート I-24）。進歩派は医療保険の公的化を目指し、医薬品から病院に至るまで医療分野の利益率を圧縮しようとしている。 Chart I-24The Rise Of The Progressives Requires A Risk Premium In Health Care Stocks 2019年10月 2019年10月 我々は中東の緊張高まりに対するヘッジとしてエネルギー株を利用してきた。現在、当社の米国株式ストラテジーの同僚はこのセクターに対してよりポジティブになっている。エネルギーのバリュエーションとテクニカルはS&P 500と比べて非常に魅力的である（チャート I-25）。8世界成長が回復して世界的な債券利回りが上昇すれば、エネルギー株はアウトパフォームするだろう。 これらのセクター別の推奨は、投資家がまもなく米国株に対して欧州株を選好し始めるべきだという主張とも一致する。金融とエネルギーは欧州株式で比率が高く、テクノロジーとヘルスケアは米国で大きくオーバーウェイトされている（表 I-2）。さらに、欧州の景況は米国より世界的な経済モメンタムに対して感度が高い。したがって、世界的な利回りが上昇し世界経済が安定化すれば、欧州株は米国株をアウトパフォームするだろう（チャート I-26）。加えて、欧州の銀行は簿価の0.6倍で取引されており、これは金融環境の緩和と利回り上昇に非常にレバレッジの効いた究極のバリュー・プレイとなる。 Chart I-25Energy Is A Compelling Buy エネルギーは魅力的な買い エネルギーは魅力的な買い Table I-2Overweighting Europe Is Consistent With Our Sectoral Recommendations 2019年10月 2019年10月 Chart I-26Europe Will Soon Outperform The U.S. ヨーロッパはまもなく米国をアウトパフォームする ヨーロッパはまもなく米国をアウトパフォームする Chart I-27Long-Term Investors Should Favor Stocks Over Bonds 長期投資家は債券より株式を優先すべきだ 長期投資家は債券より株式を優先すべきだ これらのセクター・バイアスはバリュー株がグロース株をアウトパフォームするという見解とも整合する。しかし、BCAのグローバル・アセット・アロケーションサービスのXiaoli TangがセクションIIで論じているように、バリュー対グロースの問題は地理的地域や時価総額別に差別化する必要がある複雑な問題である。 最後に、長期投資家は株式を債券よりも選好すべきである。BCAのチーフ・グローバル・ストラテジストであるPeter Berezinによれば、現在のバリュエーション水準におけるグローバル株式は期待される10年実質リターン4.2％を提供する。歴史的基準から見るとこれは高いリターンではないが、政府債よりははるかに魅力的である。配当利回りに基づけば、米国、日本、欧州の株式はそれぞれ10年ベースで債券に劣後する前に18％、28％、40％下落する必要がある。これは大きな安全余地である（チャート I-27）。我々はより魅力的なバリュエーションと現地通貨での期待収益を持つ海外株式を好む。加えて、米ドルは割高であり5～10年の投資期間では弱含むだろう。 Mathieu Savary バイスプレジデント ザ・バンク・クレジット・アナリスト 2019年9月26日 次回レポート：2019年10月31日   II. バリュー？ グロース？ それは本当に状況次第！ 投資家は、学術的にも実務的にもバリューとグロースのストラテジーを評価する際に、定義と方法論に特に注意を払うべきである。 バリュー投資家は米国外市場、特に新興市場のスモールキャップ・ユニバースに注力すべきである。 グロース投資家はラージキャップ、特に米国のラージキャップ・ユニバースに注力すべきである。 スモールキャップ投資家はバリューに注力すべきである。 ラージおよびミッドキャップ投資家は、戦略的にバリューとグロースのどちらかに賭けるべきではない。タクティカルなスタイル・ローテーションは、バリュエーションのスプレッドが極端な水準に達した時にのみ行うべきである。  GAAはバリュー対グロースについてはニュートラルを維持しているが、スタイルの傾斜を実現するためにセクター・ポジショニング（景気循環株対ディフェンシブ、金融対テクノロジーおよびヘルスケア）や国別ポジショニング（ユーロ圏対米国）を用いることを好む。 スタイルによる投資は投資そのものと同じくらい古くからある手法である。最近の急激なスタイルの逆転を踏まえ、ここしばらくクライアントから最も頻繁に尋ねられる質問の一つがバリュー対グロースである。本レポートでは、バリュー対グロースに関してよく寄せられる質問にいくつか答えることを試みる。これらの疑問は五つの別個のセクションに整理した。 まず最初に、学術界が主にファマ＝フレンチの枠組みを使用してきたため、ファマ＝フレンチのバリューおよびグロースのポートフォリオに関する93年分の歴史を見て、バリュー、グロース、サイズが時間とともにどのように相互作用してきたかを検証する。 第二に、実務者は主にS&P、Russell、MSCIといった商用のインデックスをベンチマークとして使用するため、これらの米国のスタイル・インデックスがどれほど比較可能かを検討する。 第三に、MSCIのバリュー-グロース指数群（MSCIはグローバルカバレッジ下の各市場ごとにバリュー-グロース指数を作成する唯一のインデックス提供者であるため）を用いて、国際市場が米国と同じバリュー-グロースのパフォーマンス・サイクルを共有しているかを調査する。 第四に、S&PおよびRussellのピュア・スタイル指数と標準の対応する指数を比較することで、バリューとグロースへの純粋なエクスポージャーが実際にバリュー-グロースのパフォーマンス差を改善できるかを検証する。 最後に、投資結論のセクションでGAAのスタイル傾斜へのアプローチを提示する。 1. 長期的に見てバリューは本当にグロースをアウトパフォームするのか？ バリュー・プレミアムの存在を支持する圧倒的な学術的証拠が存在する。10 学術的には、「バリュー・プレミアム」、すなわちHML（ハイ・マイナス・ロー）ファクタープレミアム、またはバリューのアウトパフォーマンスは、最も割安な株式と最も割高な株式とのリターン差として定義される。ファマとフレンチは簿価対株価比率を唯一の評価基準として用いたが、11 多くの研究者は簿価対株価比率を収益対株価比率、売上対株価比率、配当利回りなどの他の評価指標と組み合わせている。12  また、「大型株においてはバリューのアウトパフォーマンスはほとんど存在しない」という学術的証拠もある。13 さらに2014年、ファマとフレンチは「A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model」というワーキングペーパーを公表し、大きな波紋を呼んだ。そこでは「HMLは冗長なファクターである」と示され、「平均HMLリターンはHMLの他ファクター（サイズ、収益性、投資パターンなど）へのエクスポージャーによって説明される」としている（1963年から2013年の米国データに基づく）。14 資産オーナーおよびアロケーターは、バリューおよびグロースのベンチマークを選定する際に特に注意を払うべきである。 非定量系の実務者、特にロングオンリー投資家にとって、バリューとグロースは学術上の「バリュー・ファクター」と同じ原理を共有しながらも別個の投資スタイルである。定義はS&P Dow Jones、FTSE Russell、MSCIがそれぞれのバリューおよびグロース指数をどのように定義しているかに示される通り異なる（次節を参照）。一般に、バリュー株は割安であり、平均を下回る収益成長の可能性を持つ一方、グロース株は平均を上回る収益成長の可能性を持つが非常に割高である。商用インデックス提供者が公表する指数は長い歴史を持たない場合が多いが、幸いにもファマ＝フレンチは公開ウェブサイト上でバリュー-グロース-サイズのポートフォリオを提供している。15 表 II-1 は、1926年7月から2019年6月までの93年間にわたり、よく知られたファマ＝フレンチの手法に基づく米国のバリュー・ポートフォリオが、等ウェイトであれマーケットキャップ加重であれ、そのグロースに相当するポートフォリオを上回ってきたことを示している。特に注目すべきは、イコールウェイトのスモールキャップ・バリューが絶対値で年間10％以上グロースをアウトパフォームし、リスク調整後リターンではグロースの2倍以上となっている点である。 表 II-1ファマ＝フレンチ バリュー-グロース-サイズ ポートフォリオのパフォーマンス* 2019年10月 2019年10月 一部の報道は、バリュー株は平均して「より大きくより確立された企業」であるため「ボラティリティが低い」と主張している。16 これは特定の期間では当てはまるかもしれない。しかしファマ＝フレンチがカバーする93年間では、この一般的な見解は支持されない。実際、ラージおよびスモールのユニバースにおいて、バリュー・ポートフォリオはコンポーネントの加重方法に関わらず一貫してグロース・ポートフォリオよりもボラティリティが高かった。しかしながら超過リターンは高いボラティリティを相殺し、四つのペアのうち三つではリスク調整後リターンを上回っている。例外はマーケットキャップ加重のラージキャップ・グロースであり、これはバリューの対応物よりもはるかに低いボラティリティのためにわずかに高いリスク調整後リターンを示している。非常に長期的な観点から見ると、バリューのアウトパフォーマンスはより高いリスクを取ることから生じている。 さらに調査すると、バリューがグロースに対して長期的に優位であったのは主にファマ＝フレンチの93年サンプルの最初の80年間に集中していることが分かる。2007年以降のより最近の期間では、四つのファマ＝フレンチのバリュー-グロースのペアのうち三つでバリューが大きく劣後しているが、イコールウェイトのスモールキャップ・バリュー‐グロースのペアだけは例外である（表 II-2参照）。イコールウェイトのスモールキャップ・バリューは最近の期間でも依然としてそのグロースの対応物を上回っているが、勝率（ヒット率）は最初の80年間の76％から54％に低下し、平均カレンダー年でのアウトパフォーマンスの大きさも最初の80年間の12.5％からわずか1.3％に落ち込んでいる。 表 II-2バリューとグロースの攻防* 2019年10月 2019年10月 統計的分析は選択する期間に敏感である。バリューとグロースは時間とともにどのようにパフォーマンスを示してきたのか？ 図 II-1 はバリュー、グロース、サイズの長期的なダイナミクスを示す。以下の結論が明確である： 図 II-1ファマ＝フレンチ バリュー-グロース-サイズのパフォーマンス動態* Fama-French バリュー・グロース・サイズ パフォーマンスの動態* Fama-French バリュー・グロース・サイズ パフォーマンスの動態* バリュー投資家はラージキャップよりもスモールキャップを選好すべきである。一方でグロース投資家はスモールキャップよりもラージキャップを選好すべきであるが、成功の可能性ははるかに低い（図 II-1、パネル1）。 スモールキャップ投資家はグロース株よりもバリュー株を選好すべきである（パネル2）。 ラージキャップ領域におけるバリューのアウトパフォーマンス（パネル3）は、スモールキャップ領域（パネル2）におけるそれよりもはるかに弱い。 ファマ＝フレンチは、CRSP（Center for Research In Security Prices）上の全NYSE銘柄の中央値時価総額に基づいてスモールとラージを定義し、NYSEの中央値サイズを用いてNYSE、AMEXおよびNASDAQ（1972年以後）をスモールキャップ・グループとラージキャップ・グループに分割している。バリューとグロースの分割は簿価対株価比率に基づき、下位30％がグロース、上位30％がバリューに分類される。興味深いことに、スモールキャップ・バリューとスモールキャップ・グロースは、図 II-2Aおよび図 II-2Bに示されているように、全ユニバースのごく一部しか占めていない。 バリュー株の平均時価総額は、ラージおよびスモールの両ユニバースにおいてグロース株の約半分である（図 II-2A、図 II-2Bのパネル3）。これもまた、バリュー株がより大きくより確立された企業であるという一部の報道の主張を支持するものではない。むしろ、すべての投資家がスモールキャップ・バリュー株を選好すべきだという主張を補強する。しかし残念ながら「スモールキャップ・バリュー」は非常に小さなユニバースである。2019年6月時点でのCRSPの米国株式時価総額合計は26.2兆ドルであり、スモールキャップ・バリューはそのうちわずか1.5％（約3,830億ドル）を占めるに過ぎない。ラージキャップ・バリューですら相対的に小さなウェイトで、約13％（約3.5兆ドル）にとどまる。 図 II-2Aスモールキャップ バリュー-グロース ポートフォリオ* スモールキャップ・バリュー・グロース・ポートフォリオ スモールキャップ・バリュー・グロース・ポートフォリオ 図 II-2Bラージキャップ バリュー-グロース ポートフォリオ* ラージキャップ・バリュー・グロース・ポートフォリオ ラージキャップ・バリュー・グロース・ポートフォリオ   米国市場はラージキャップ・グロース株が56％（2019年6月時点で約14.7兆ドル）という大きなウェイトで支配している。これは学術研究がラージキャップにおけるバリュー・プレミアムは弱いと示しているため、励みになる。ただしラージキャップにおけるバリューの弱さは主に2007年以降に始まっており、それ以前の80年間はラージキャップ・グロースに対して強さを示していた（図 II-1、パネル3）。 ファマ＝フレンチのアプローチは、1926年からの長い歴史を持つことから学術研究で広く用いられている。しかし非定量系の実務者、特にロングオンリー投資家にとっては、FTSE Russell、S&P Dow Jones、MSCIといった商用インデックスがパフォーマンスベンチマークとしてより頻繁に使われる。本レポートでは、米国およびグローバルの一連の商用バリュー-グロース・インデックスを検討し、バリュー-グロースのダイナミクスと資産アロケーターがそれらを意思決定プロセスにどのように組み込めるかについて考察する。2. すべての米国型スタイル指数が同じに作られているわけではない 主要なインデックス・プロバイダーは三社あり、スタイル指数を提供している。1987年に業界で最初のバリュー・グロース・インデックス群を立ち上げたFTSE Russell、S&P Dow Jones、そしてMSCIである。MSCIは、カバレッジ下の各個別市場すべてについて同一の方法論でフルスイートのバリュー・グロース指数を持つ唯一のプロバイダーである。三者はいずれも親指数の全構成を含む「標準」スタイル指数を提供しているが、FTSE RussellとS&P Dow Jonesはさらに「ピュア」スタイル指数も提供している。「標準」スタイル指数と「ピュア」スタイル指数の間には二つの大きな違いがある。1) 標準指数は時価総額加重であるのに対し、ピュア指数はスタイル・スコアに基づいてウェイト付けされる。2) 標準のバリューと標準のグロースは構成銘柄が重複するが、ピュア・バリューとピュア・グロースは共通の構成銘柄を持たない。 我々は戦術的にスタイルの傾きを実装する際にセクターおよび国のポジショニングを用いることを好む。 Fama‑Frenchのアプローチで用いられる簿価対株価以外に、三社はバリューとグロースの判定においてそれぞれ異なる変数を追加しており、表 II-3に示されている。これはまた、業界におけるバリューとグロースの理解の進化を反映している。例えば、MSCIが1997年にスタイル指数を初めて立ち上げた際には簿価対株価のみを用いていたが、2003年5月に現在の「マルチファクター二次元」のフレームワークへとアプローチを変更した。 表 II-3バリュー・グロース指数の基準 2019年10月 2019年10月 指数構築方法の違いのため、米国のバリュー・グロース指数は異なる挙動を示してきた。S&P 500、Russell 1000、そしてMSCIの標準（ラージおよびミッドキャップ）指数は1970年代に遡るバックテストの履歴があり、広く機関投資家に追随されるベンチマークである。チャート II-3は三社の相対的なバリュー／グロースのパフォーマンス動態と、インデックス・プロバイダーのアプローチと整合させるために時価総額加重としたFama and Frenchのものを示している。以下の点が観察できる： Chart II-3Which Value/Growth? バリュー／グロース、どちら？ バリュー／グロース、どちら？ 三つの組合せのどれもがFama‑Frenchの時価総額加重のバリュー／グロースと正確に一致していない。これは、Fama‑Frenchの長期にわたるバリュー／グロース・ポートフォリオに基づく歴史的分析を商用の指数にどのように適用すべきかという問題を提起する。 1975年から2000年2月までの最初のサイクルでは、三つの指数ペアはいずれも一巡し、バリューとグロースの間でフラットなパフォーマンスとなった。また、S&P 500とRussell 1000は互いの相関がMSCIよりも高かったものの、三者はかなり類似していた。 しかし2000年2月に始まった現在のサイクルでは、Russellのバリュー／グロースの反発が他の二つよりもはるかに強かった。だが、2007年に始まった下落局面では、三つの指数は互いにほぼ同等のパフォーマンスを示した（表 II-4参照）。 表 II-4米国スタイル指数のパフォーマンス* 2019年10月 2019年10月 さらに、S&PとRussellの差異は単にS&P 500とRussell 1000の間にあるだけではない。チャート II-4に示されるように、実際にはすべての時価総額セグメントに存在する。残念ながら、MSCIは詳細なキャップ・セグメントについて1975年からの履歴を提供していない。2000年2月以降の現サイクルでは、S&Pのバリューは2000年から2006年の間で最も小さく反発した。なぜだろうか？ Chart II-4ベンチマークを知る ベンチマークを把握する ベンチマークを把握する さらに調査すると、いくつか興味深い観察が得られる（チャート II-5参照）。 Chart II-5バリュー／グロース：Russell対S&P バリュー／グロース：ラッセル対エスアンドピー バリュー／グロース：ラッセル対エスアンドピー 集計レベルでは、S&P 1500、Russell 3000およびそれぞれのスタイル指数は、2000年2月から始まる最新サイクルにおいて概ね同等のパフォーマンスとなっており（チャート II-5、パネル4）、インデックスの収斂という業界トレンドを反映している。 しかし異なる時価総額セグメントでは、特にスモールキャップ領域（パネル1）で乖離が依然として顕著である。S&P 600はバリューとグロースの両カテゴリで一貫してRussell 2000をアウトパフォームしてきた。異なるスタイルファクターに加えて、この一貫性は異なるユニバース、サイズ分布、およびセクター・エクスポージャーを反映しており、これは以前のGAAのスペシャル・レポート（スモールキャップに関する）で説明した通りである。17 Russell 2000をパフォーマンス・ベンチマークとする運用者は、Russell 2000とS&P 600の間でトータルリターンのパフォーマンス入れ替えを行うだけで容易にベンチマークを上回ることができる。 結論：アセットオーナーおよび配分担当者は、バリューおよびグロースのベンチマークを選択する際に特に注意を払うべきである。 3. バリューとグロースはグローバルでどのようにパフォーマンスしたか？ MSCIは、同一の方法論を用いてグローバルなカバレッジ下の各株式市場ごとにバリュー・グロース指数を作成している唯一のインデックス・プロバイダーである。残念ながら、長期の履歴があるのは「標準」（すなわちラージおよびミッドキャップ）ユニバースのみで、その履歴は1974年12月から始まる。チャート II-6Aおよびチャート II-6Bは主要な先進国（DM）および新興国（EM）市場におけるバリュー／グロースの動態を示している。 MSCIの先進国（DM）におけるバリュー対グロースの相対パフォーマンスは、2000年以降の最新サイクルでは米国のパターンと類似しているが、2000年以前の期間では非常に異なる様相を示している（チャート II-6A）。新興国のラージおよびミッドキャップにおけるバリュー対グロースの比率は、先進国のピアのピークから約5年遅れて、2012年2月までピークに達さなかった（チャート II-6B、パネル1）。一方で、新興国のスモールキャップにおけるバリューは、ラージキャップの同等品とほぼ同時にピークを迎えた後、2016年初めからグロースに対して優位性を再び取り戻している。 Chart II-6A先進国でバリューは死んだのか？ DMでバリューは死んだのか？ DMでバリューは死んだのか？ Chart II-6B新興国でバリューは死んだのか？ EM（新興市場）でバリューは死んでいるのか？ EM（新興市場）でバリューは死んでいるのか？   グローバルなバリュー／グロースの動態はまた、「バリューがグロースをアウトパフォームする」効果がスモールキャップ領域でより顕著であることを示している。しかし、なぜスモールのバリューがほとんどの先進国市場でスモールのグロースに劣後しているのか。我々の説明は、新興国ユニバースは先進国ユニバースよりもはるかに非効率であるという点にある。これは、新興国スモールキャップ領域に専念するクオンツ・ファンドが多くないことに加え、一般に新興国のスモールキャップは先進国市場のそれよりも非常に小さいという事実による。これはまた、一般にファクター・プレミアムが新興国ユニバースでより顕著であるという我々の発見とも整合する。18 結論：バリュー・プレミアムは米国外市場、特に新興国のスモールキャップ市場でより顕著である。 4. ピュア・スタイル指数はパフォーマンスを改善するか？ S&P Dow JonesとFTSE Russellの両者はピュア・バリューおよびピュア・グロース指数を提供している。親指数の時価総額の約50％をターゲットとする標準のバリュー・グロース指数とは異なり、ピュア・スタイル指数は最も強いバリューおよびグロース特性を持つ銘柄のみを含む。両者の間に重複はない。 理論的には、ピュア・スタイル指数はスタイル・ファクターへの集中エクスポージャーのために標準スタイル指数をアウトパフォームするはずである。現実にはどうか。表 II-5は、絶対リターンの面では1998年から2019年の期間でS&PおよびRussellの18ペアのうち14ペアで実際にその通りであったことを示している。しかし、スタイル・ファクターへのより大きなエクスポージャーから得られた高いリターンは、18ペアのうち17ペアで大幅に高いボラティリティから来ている。一般にピュア・スタイルは標準スタイルよりもボラティリティが高く、唯一の例外はRussellのミッドキャップ・バリュー領域である。そのため、リスク調整ベースではピュア・スタイルが必ずしも優れているわけではない。 表 II-5ピュアであることが必ずしも良いとは限らない 2019年10月 2019年10月 チャート II-7Aおよびチャート II-7Bは、S&PとRussellファミリーのスタイル指数における異なるパフォーマンス動態を示している。 S&P指数については、ピュア・グロースは三つの時価総額セグメントのすべてで期間を通じて標準のグロースをアウトパフォームしたが、ピュア・バリューが標準の対応物を上回ったのはS&P 500のみであった。したがって、スタイル特性へのより集中したエクスポージャーがバリュー／グロース・スプレッドを改善したのはラージキャップ領域のみであり、ミッドおよびスモールキャップのユニバースでは実際にはバリュー／グロース・スプレッドを悪化させている（チャート II-7A）。 Chart II-7AS&P ピュア・スタイル* S&P ピュア・スタイルズ* S&P ピュア・スタイルズ* Chart II-7BRussell ピュア・スタイル* ラッセル・ピュア・スタイルズ* ラッセル・ピュア・スタイルズ*   Russell指数については、2000年のテック・バブルに向けて同社のピュア・グロース指数にははるかに多くのテック株が含まれていたことが明らかである。ピュア・グロースはバブル崩壊前に標準のグロースよりもはるかに急上昇し、崩壊後にはより甚だしく急落した。全体として、スタイル・ファクターへのより集中したエクスポージャーによってバリュー／グロース・スプレッドが改善したのはスモールキャップ領域のみである。しかし、この改善はピュア・スタイルが標準指数に対してアウトパフォームしたことによるものではない。実際、スモールキャップのユニバースにおけるピュア・バリューおよびピュア・グロースはともに標準の対応物に劣後しており、むしろピュア・グロースのほうがさらに悪い成績であった（チャート II-7Bおよび表 II-5）。5. 投資結論 バリューとグロースは非常に異なる意味を持ち、振る舞いも大きく異なり得る。学術的にも実務的にも、スタイル指数やストラテジーを評価する際には定義と方法論に特に注意を払うべきである。 投資家の運用指示（マンダテ）に応じて、以下を推奨する： バリュー投資家は米国以外の市場、特に新興市場の小型株ユニバースに注力すべきである。 グロース投資家は大型株（ラージキャップ）、特に米国の大型株セグメントに注力すべきである。 小型株投資家はバリューに注力すべきである。 大型株および中型株投資家は、戦略的にバリューとグロースの間で賭けをするべきではない。戦術的なスタイルのローテーションは、評価のスプレッドが極端な水準に達した場合にのみ行うべきである。 株価純資産倍率（Price-to-book）は、学術界および実務家がバリューとグロースを決定する際に使用する唯一の共通変数である。体系的なリターン予測子としての実績は芳しくなく、これはCharts II-8AおよびII-8Bのパネル2に示されている。私たちが長期のデータを持つもう一つの要素は配当利回りである。その予測力は株価純資産倍率よりもさらに劣っている（パネル3）。 Chart II-8A評価は米国でのタイミングツールとしては頼りにならない バリュエーションは米国ではタイミングを測るための有効なツールではない。 バリュエーションは米国ではタイミングを測るための有効なツールではない。 Chart II-8B評価は世界的に見てタイミングツールとしては頼りにならない バリュエーションはタイミングツールとしては不向きだ バリュエーションはタイミングツールとしては不向きだ   多くの要因が学術界および実務家によって株価純資産倍率と併用され、バリューとグロースのローテーションのタイミングに用いられてきた。しかし、その結果はまちまちである。過去に正しく予測した回帰モデルが将来も同様に機能するとは限らない。例えば、1982年1月から1999年10月のデータに基づく評価スプレッドと利益成長スプレッドに基づく回帰モデルは、2000年初頭に始まったバリューのアウトパフォームの反発を成功裏に予測したが19、過去数年にわたるバリュー・ファンドの普遍的な苦戦は、このモデルが多くの誤ったシグナルを出していた可能性を示唆している。 Chart II-9は、回帰モデルをバリューとグロースのローテーションのタイミングツールとして用いることがいかに困難であるかを示している。バリューとグロースのリターン差（以降60か月のリターン）と相対的な株価純資産倍率の間で単純回帰を行った。1974年12月から2019年7月のデータでは、MSCIワールドの決定係数は0.38、米国は0.09である。振り返れば、両モデルとも2000年初頭に始まったバリューのアウトパフォームを予測していた。しかし、実際のバリューとフィッティドバリューの間のギャップは2000年よりずっと前に開き始めていた。1998年末までにそのギャップは既に前サイクルの安値より広がっていたが、バリューがグロースに対して下振れを続けたため、2000年2月までギャップはさらに拡大した。 Chart II-9適合度はどれほど良いか？ 適合度はどれほど良いですか？ 適合度はどれほど良いですか？ これらのモデルに基づいて、現在投資家は何をすべきだろうか。ギャップは大きいが、2000年初めほど大きくはない。12年以上のアンダーパフォーマンスを経たバリューに対して、投資家はどの時点でバリューへシフトを開始すべきだろうか。 我々はしばしば、スタイルの傾きを実行する際にセクターおよび国別ポジショニングを用いることを好むと記してきた。20, 21 この方針は変わっていない。 バリューとグロースの指数は、時間とともに変化するセクター傾斜を持つ。現在、S&Pダウ・ジョーンズの大型・中型バリュー指数は、グロース系の対応指数と比較して金融株に明確なオーバーウェイトを持ち、一方で情報技術（テクノロジー）およびヘルスケアにアンダーウェイトとなっている（Table II-6）。 Table II-6バリューとグロース指数におけるセクターベット* 2019年10月 2019年10月 Chart II-10スタイルよりもセクターと国のポジショニングを優先する セクターおよびカントリー・ポジショニングをスタイル・ティルトより重視する セクターおよびカントリー・ポジショニングをスタイル・ティルトより重視する 我々はバリューとグロースについて中立の立場を取っているが、米国とユーロ圏の間の国別株式配分や、景気循環株とディフェンシブ株の間、さらには金融株と情報技術株の間でのセクター配分を変更する場合には、この見解を変える可能性が高い（Chart II-10）。 シャオリ・タン アソシエイト・バイスプレジデント グローバル・アセット・アロケーション III. 指標と参照チャート S&P 500は今年ももみ合いを続けるだろう。米国株は9月中を通じて急速に反発したが、センチメントは中立的である。それでも当面、株式が7月の高値を大きく上抜けるのは困難であろう。短期のモメンタム・オシレーターは買われ過ぎであり、米国企業の利益には依然下振れ余地がある。今年の株式ラリーはほぼ完全にマルチプル（評価倍率）によって牽引されたため、利回りが上昇する局面には株式は脆弱である。利回りは成長の改善を織り込んでいないため、成長に関するポジティブなサプライズは株価よりも利回りを押し上げる可能性が高い。しかし、成長が期待外れに終われば、低い金利が予想利益に対する打撃をある程度和らげるだろう。 この状況と整合して、我々の行動選好指標（Revealed Preference Indicator: RPI）は引き続き株式を敬遠している。RPIは市場のモメンタムの概念と評価および政策測定を組み合わせたものである。市場の強いモメンタムが政策と評価の示唆と揃えば強力な強気シグナルを提供する。逆に、強い市場モメンタムが評価や政策に裏付けられていない場合、投資家は市場トレンドに逆らう姿勢を取るべきである。世界の成長は依然として株式にとって最大の問題である。世界経済が底を打つまでは、利益見通しは悪く、我々のRPIは株式買いに反対するだろう。 来年の見通しは株式にとって建設的であり続ける。米国と日本の支払意思（Willingness-to-Pay: WTP）指標は著しく改善している。しかし、欧州では依然として悪化が続いている。WTP指標はフローを追跡するため、投資家が実際に何をしているかに関する情報を提供する。一方でセンチメント指標は投資家の感情を追跡する。 世界の利回りは非常に低く、極めて刺激的な水準にとどまっている。さらに、世界的にマネーサプライの伸びが加速し、各国の中央銀行は再び利下げとバランスシートの拡大を行っている。その結果、我々の金融指標は2015年初以来もっとも緩和的な水準にある。加えて、我々の複合テクニカル指標はもはや改善していないかもしれないが、それでもなお建設的な領域にある。したがって、4年前とは異なり、BCA複合バリュエーション指数が改善を続けていることもあり、株式は過大評価による逆風を回避する可能性がより高い。 10年物米国債は先月以降やや割安になったかもしれないが、依然として非常に割高である。さらに、現在の過大評価水準が我々のテクニカル指標が今日のように大幅に買われ過ぎの状態と重なる場合、安全資産である債券はその後12か月間にわたって顕著な価格下落を経験する。それとは言っても、利回りの上昇のタイミングは不確かである。過去のミッドサイクルの景気減速が示唆するところによれば、利回りは世界の製造業PMIが底を打つのを待ってから自由に上昇する必要があるかもしれない。それでも、現在の状況は長期債のポジションを追加することに反対する論拠を与えている。 購買力平価（PPP）ベースでは、米ドルはますます割高になっており、米国の経常収支は再び悪化している。現時点では、世界の製造業活動の弱さがドルを強く買われた状態に保っている。しかし、我々の複合テクニカル指標は勢いを失い、ドルの水準との間にネガティブ・ダイバージェンスを形成している。これは、成長が安定化するような局面においてドルが非常に脆弱であることを意味する。実際、我々は米ドルが世界成長が持続的な底を形成しつつあるかどうかを評価するための最良の変数となる可能性があると考えている。   株式： Chart III-1米国株式指標 米国エクイティ指標 米国エクイティ指標 Chart III-2リスクに対する支払意思 リスクに対して支払う意欲 リスクに対して支払う意欲 Chart III-3米国株式センチメント指標 米国エクイティ・センチメント指標 米国エクイティ・センチメント指標   Chart III-4行動選好指標 顕示選好指標 顕示選好指標 Chart III-5米国株式市場のバリュエーション 米国株式市場のバリュエーション 米国株式市場のバリュエーション Chart III-6米国の収益 米国決算 米国決算   Chart III-7グローバル株式市場と収益：相対パフォーマンス グローバル株式市場と業績：相対パフォーマンス グローバル株式市場と業績：相対パフォーマンス Chart III-8グローバル株式市場と収益：相対パフォーマンス グローバル株式市場と企業業績：相対パフォーマンス グローバル株式市場と企業業績：相対パフォーマンス   フィクスト・インカム： Chart III-9米国債と評価 米国債とバリュエーション 米国債とバリュエーション Chart III-10イールドカーブの傾き イールドカーブの傾き イールドカーブの傾き Chart III-11主要米国債利回り 主要な米国債利回り 主要な米国債利回り Chart III-1210年物米国債利回りの構成要素 10年米国債利回りの構成要素 10年米国債利回りの構成要素 Chart III-13米国社債とヘルスモニター 米国コーポレート債とヘルスモニター 米国コーポレート債とヘルスモニター Chart III-14グローバル債券：先進国市場 グローバル債券：先進国市場 グローバル債券：先進国市場 Chart III-15グローバル債券：新興市場 グローバル・ボンド：エマージング・マーケッツ グローバル・ボンド：エマージング・マーケッツ   通貨： Chart III-16米ドルと購買力平価 米ドルと購買力平価（PPP） 米ドルと購買力平価（PPP） Chart III-17米ドルと指標 米ドルとインジケーター 米ドルとインジケーター Chart III-18米ドルのファンダメンタルズ 米ドルのファンダメンタルズ 米ドルのファンダメンタルズ Chart III-19日本円のテクニカル 日本円のテクニカル分析 日本円のテクニカル分析 Chart III-20ユーロのテクニカル ユーロのテクニカル分析 ユーロのテクニカル分析 Chart III-21ユーロ/円のテクニカル ユーロ/円のテクニカル分析 ユーロ/円のテクニカル分析 Chart III-22ユーロ/英ポンドのテクニカル ユーロ/ポンドのテクニカル分析 ユーロ/ポンドのテクニカル分析  コモディティ： チャート III-23広範なコモディティ指標 幅広いコモディティ指標 幅広いコモディティ指標 チャート III-24コモディティ価格 コモディティ価格 コモディティ価格 チャート III-25コモディティ価格 コモディティ価格 コモディティ価格 チャート III-26コモディティ・センチメント コモディティ・センチメント コモディティ・センチメント チャート III-27投機的ポジショニング 投機的ポジショニング 投機的ポジショニング   経済： チャート III-28米国およびグローバルのマクロ的背景 米国およびグローバルのマクロ環境 米国およびグローバルのマクロ環境 チャート III-29米国のマクロ概況 米国マクロ・スナップショット 米国マクロ・スナップショット チャート III-30米国の成長見通し 米国の成長見通し 米国の成長見通し チャート III-31米国の循環的支出 米国の景気循環的支出 米国の景気循環的支出 チャート III-32米国の労働市場 米国労働市場 米国労働市場 チャート III-33米国の消費 米国消費 米国消費 チャート III-34米国の住宅 米国住宅 米国住宅 チャート III-35米国の債務とデレバレッジ 米国の債務とデレバレッジ 米国の債務とデレバレッジ   チャート III-36米国の金融環境 米国の金融環境 米国の金融環境 チャート III-37グローバル経済概況：ヨーロッパ グローバル経済スナップショット：ヨーロッパ グローバル経済スナップショット：ヨーロッパ チャート III-38グローバル経済概況：中国 グローバル経済スナップショット：中国 グローバル経済スナップショット：中国   Mathieu Savary 副社長 ザ・バンク・クレジット・アナリスト 脚注 1       詳細は ザ・バンク・クレジット・アナリスト セクション I、「2019年9月」、2019年8月29日付、bca.bcaresearch.comで入手可能をご参照ください 2       詳細は ザ・バンク・クレジット・アナリスト セクション I、「2019年7月」、2019年6月27日付、bca.bcaresearch.comで入手可能をご参照ください 3       詳細は 米国株式ストラテジー週間レポート、「オイル・ファクター」、2019年9月23日付、uses.bcaresearch.comで入手可能をご参照ください 4              J. D. Hamilton, "Historical Oil Shocks," NBER ワーキング・ペーパー No. 16790。 5       詳細は 地政学的ストラテジー特別レポート「政策リスクと不確実性が原油価格予測を曇らせる」、2019年9月19日付、gps.bcaresearch.comで入手可能をご参照ください 6       詳細は ザ・バンク・クレジット・アナリスト セクション I、「2019年7月」、2019年6月27日付、bca.bcaresearch.comで入手可能をご参照ください 7       詳細は 米国株式ストラテジー週間レポート、「ザ・グレート・ローテーション」、2019年9月16日付、uses.bcaresearch.comで入手可能をご参照ください 8       詳細は 米国株式ストラテジー週間レポート、「オイル・ファクター」、2019年9月23日付、uses.bcaresearch.comで入手可能をご参照ください 9       詳細は グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー特別レポート、「TINAは救済になるか？」、2019年8月23日付、gis.bcaresearch.comで入手可能をご参照ください 10     Antti Ilmanen, Ronen Israel, Tobias J. Moskowitz, Ashwin Thapar, Franklin Wang, “Factor Premia and Factor Timing: A Century of Evidence,” AQR ワーキング・ペーパー, 2019年7月2日。 11     Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “Common risk factors in the return on stocks and bonds,” ジャーナル・オブ・ファイナンシャル・エコノミクス, 33 (1993)。 12     Clifford Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel and Tobias Moskowitz, “Fact, Fiction, and Value Investing,” ジャーナル・オブ・ポートフォリオ・マネジメント, 第42巻 第1号、2015年秋。 13     Ronen Israel and Tobias J. Moskowitz, “The Role of Shorting, Firm Size and Time on Market Anomalies,” ジャーナル・オブ・ファイナンシャル・エコノミクス, 第108巻 第2号、2013年5月 14      Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French, “A Five-Factor Asset Pricing Model,” ワーキング・ペーパー, シカゴ大学、2014年9月。 15             ファマ＝フレンチのバリュー・グロース・サイズ・ポートフォリオ。 16     Mark P. Cussen, “Value or growth Stocks: Which are Better?” インベストペディア、2019年6月25日。 17     詳細は グローバル・アセット・アロケーション特別レポート「スモールキャップのアウトパフォーマンス：事実か神話か？」、2017年4月7日付、gaa.bcaresearch.comで入手可能をご参照ください。 18     詳細は グローバル・アセット・アロケーション特別レポート「スマートベータはグローバル・アセット・アロケーションに有用なツールか？」、2016年7月8日付、gaa.bcaresearch.comで入手可能をご参照ください。 19    Clifford S. Asness, Jacques A Friedman, Robert J. Krail and John M Liew, “Style Timing: Value versus Growth,” ザ・ジャーナル・オブ・ポートフォリオ・マネジメント, 2000年春。 20     詳細は グローバル・アセット・アロケーション 四半期ポートフォリオ見通し、「四半期報告 - 2016年3月」、2016年3月31日付、gaa.bcaresearch.comで入手可能をご参照ください。 21     詳細は グローバル・アセット・アロケーション 四半期ポートフォリオ見通し、「四半期報告 - 2019年4月」、2019年4月1日付、gaa.bcaresearch.comで入手可能をご参照ください。