財政

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

Martin Barnes and I spent last week visiting clients in Hong Kong and Singapore in celebration of BCA’s 70th anniversary. Martin has been with BCA Research for 32 years and has been a keen observer of market trends for much longer than that. It is always fascinating to hear his thoughts on the state of world affairs. I have spent this week visiting clients in Sydney and Melbourne. I made the case that global growth will accelerate next year. Stronger growth will pull down the U.S. dollar, while pushing up bond yields, equities, and commodity prices. EM and European stocks will begin to outperform their global benchmark. Cyclical equity sectors (including financials) will outperform defensives. What follows are my answers to some of the most common questions I have been receiving. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Feature Q: What makes you confident that global growth will rebound? A: Three things. First, global financial conditions have eased significantly thanks largely to the dovish pivot of most central banks. Reflecting this development, credit growth has picked up. This should support economic activity in the months ahead (Chart 1). Second, the manufacturing downturn seems to be running its course, as excess inventories continue to be liquidated (Box 1). As we have noted before, manufacturing cycles tend to last about three years, with 18 months of weaker growth followed by 18 months of stronger growth (Chart 2). Given that the current downturn began in the first half of 2018, we are probably approaching a bottom in growth. Chart 1Lower Rates Should Help Spur Growth Chart 2A Fairly Regular Three-Year Manufacturing Cycle Third, while there will be plenty of bumps along the road, trade tensions are likely to continue easing. As a self-described master negotiator, President Trump has to produce a “tremendous” deal for the American people. Had he negotiated an agreement with China a year or two ago, he would currently be on the hook for showing that it resulted in a smaller trade deficit. But with the presidential election only a year away, he can semi-credibly claim that the trade balance will only improve after he is re-elected. For their part, the Chinese would rather grapple with Trump now than risk either having to negotiate with him during his second term (when he will be unconstrained by re-election pressures) or having to negotiate with Elizabeth Warren (who may insist on including stringent environmental and human rights provisions in any trade deal). Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t, as they say. Q: Will a ceasefire between the U.S. and China really be enough to boost business confidence? Don’t we need to see an outright rollback of tariffs? A: We do not know if any tariffs will be rolled back as part of the “phase 1” deal that is currently being negotiated. Right now, the U.S. has only agreed to cancel the previously announced October 15th tariff hike on $250 billion of Chinese imports. A Reuters news story earlier this week indicated that China is also asking the U.S. scrap its plan to levy tariffs on $156 billion of Chinese imports on December 15th and to abolish the 15% tariffs on $125 billion in imports which were imposed on September 1st.1 Chart 3China Is No Longer As Dependent On Trade With The U.S. As It Once Was While the removal of some tariffs would be a positive development, it is not a necessary condition for a global growth revival. Remember that U.S. exports to China account for only 0.5% of GDP while Chinese exports to the U.S. account for 3.4% of GDP (Chart 3). The numbers are even smaller when measured in value-added terms. That does not mean that the trade war is irrelevant. An out-of-control trade war could cause the global supply chain to break down, leading to significant economic disruptions. To the extent that a détente greatly reduces the odds of such an outcome, it justifies a meaningful upgrade to the probability-weighted economic outlook. Q: What’s your read on the Chinese economy right now? A: China’s growth data have been mixed. The Caixin manufacturing purchasing managers’ index rose to 51.7 in October, the best reading since December 2016. The new orders subcomponent reached the highest level since September 2013. Export orders rose back above 50, registering the largest month-on-month increase of any of the subcomponents. In contrast, the “official” National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) manufacturing PMI, which mainly samples larger, state-owned companies, remained below 50 and sank to the lowest level since February. The NBS nonmanufacturing PMI also weakened. It is worth noting that unlike most of the industries tracked by the NBS, the construction sector PMI moved back above 60 in October. This is consistent with industry data showing that sales of reinforced steel bars, a good proxy for property construction, have accelerated. Electricity consumption has also picked up, which often bodes well for industrial output (Chart 4). Policy has generally remained supportive: Bank reserve requirements have been cut. Benchmark interest rates should come down over the coming months. Credit growth surprised on the upside in September. While the acceleration in credit formation has been more muted this past year than in 2015-16, the credit impulse has nevertheless moved off its late-2018 lows. The Chinese credit impulse leads global growth by about nine months (Chart 5). Chart 4A Positive Sign For Chinese Growth Momentum Chart 5The Chinese Credit Cycle Should Support Global Growth   Chart 6China Stepped Up Fiscal Stimulus In 2019 Less noticed is the fact that fiscal policy has been eased significantly. According to the IMF, the augmented budget deficit – which includes spending through local government financing vehicles and other off-balance sheet expenditures – is on track to reach nearly 13% of GDP in 2019, a bigger deficit than during the depth of the Great Recession (Chart 6).  Looking out, we expect Chinese growth to rebound next year as the global manufacturing downturn ends and trade war tensions subside. Q: How much of a growth rebound can we expect in Europe? A: The slowdown in the euro area has been concentrated in Italy and Germany. In contrast, growth in Spain and France has held up relatively well (Chart 7). Looking out, Italian growth should rebound thanks to the 270 bps decline in 10-year bond yields that has taken place since October 2018 (Chart 8). German growth should also recover on an improvement in world trade and a stabilization in global auto production and demand. Chart 7Euro Area Growth: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly Chart 8Lower Yields Should Lift Italian Growth     Q: Will we see fiscal stimulus in Europe? A: Yes. Fiscal policy remains quite tight in the euro area, but it is starting to loosen at the margin. The fiscal thrust should reach 0.4% of GDP this year, the highest level since 2010 (Chart 9). We expect further modest fiscal easing in 2020, even against a backdrop of stronger domestic economic growth.   Chart 9Euro Area Fiscal Stimulus Will Also Boost Growth Chart 10Germany's Competitive Advantage Against The Rest Of The Euro Area Is Deteriorating       Germany has been reluctant to increase its own budget deficit in the past. However, there are at least two reasons why this attitude may slowly change. First, there are growing calls within Germany for more spending on public infrastructure, including on ”green” measures to mitigate climate change. The fact that Germany can issue debt at negative rates only incentivizes fiscal easing. If you can get paid to issue debt, why not do it? Second, relatively fast wage growth has caused Germany to become less competitive against its neighbors over the past eight years. As a result, Germany’s trade surplus with the rest of the euro area has fallen in half (Chart 10). A shrinking trade surplus will require a bigger budget deficit to compensate for the loss of aggregate demand.   Q: Is A “No Deal” Brexit still a risk? A: No. Westminster and the British Supreme Court have both rebuked Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s threat of a “no deal” Brexit. This means that the only outcome that would unsettle markets – a disorderly U.K. exit from the EU – is practically off the table. Two options remain: An orderly Brexit in which an eventual trade deal minimizes tariffs, or another referendum. There is no appetite for a no-deal exit. Furthermore, if another referendum on EU membership were held today, the remain side would probably win (Chart 11). Chart 11Brexit Angst: A Case Of Bremorse Q: Is the Fed done cutting rates? A: Yes. The FOMC statement removed the promise to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion” and replaced it with a more neutral pledge to “monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook”. If there were any ambiguity left about what this meant, Chair Powell squelched it by noting in his press conference that “monetary policy is in a good place” and “the current stance of policy [is] likely to remain appropriate.” This week’s “insurance cut” brings the total for this year to 75 bps. This is exactly the same amount of easing the Fed delivered in 1995/96 and 1998 — two episodes that are widely seen as successful mid-cycle course corrections. Today’s strong employment report and uptick in the ISM manufacturing index provide further evidence that the U.S. economy is on the right track. If U.S. and global growth continue to pick up as we expect, there will not be any need to cut rates further. Q: When can we expect the Fed to start hiking rates again? Chart 12Inflation Expectations Are Too Low A: Probably not until December 2020 at the earliest. This is partly because the Fed will want to stay out of the political fray leading up to the presidential election (perhaps wishful thinking). Arguably more important, the Fed, along with most market participants, has convinced itself that the neutral rate of interest is very low. If that is truly the case, raising rates is a risky strategy because it could cause growth to weaken at a time when inflation expectations are still below the Fed’s comfort zone (Chart 12). In his recent press conference, Powell seemed to go out of his way to stress that he would not make the same mistake he did last October when he said rates were “a long way from neutral”. Most notably, he said this week that the FOMC “would need to see a really significant move up in inflation that is persistent before we even consider raising rates to address inflation concerns.” Q: How worried should equity investors be about the prospect of President Warren? A: While Elizabeth Warren would not be a welcome treat for shareholders, she probably would not be a disaster either. Right now she is trying to elbow Bernie Sanders out of the race in order to lock up the “progressive” vote. Thus, it is not surprising that she has dialed up the far-left rhetoric. If Warren succeeds in securing the Democratic Party nomination, she will pivot to the centre. Remember this is the same person who said last year she was “a capitalist” and “I love what markets can do… They are what make us rich, they are what create opportunity.”2 Considering that financial sector reform has been the focus of Warren’s academic and legislative career, bank shareholders are understandably worried about what a Warren presidency would entail. They probably shouldn’t be. Banks today operate more like staid utilities than the reckless casinos they were prior to the financial crisis. A lot of the rules and regulations that Warren champions have already been implemented in one guise or another. In fact, it would not be a stretch to say that had these rules been in place 15 years ago, the share prices of many financial institutions would be a lot higher today (especially the ones that went under!). Lastly, one should keep in mind that the U.S. political system has numerous checks and balances. Even if Elizabeth Warren did want to pursue a radical agenda, she would be stymied by moderate Democrats and a Senate which, more likely than not, will remain in Republican control. Q: Taking everything you said on board, how should investors position themselves over the next 12 months? A: Despite the risks facing the global economy, investors should continue to overweight stocks relative to bonds in a balanced portfolio. A rebound in global growth next year will give corporate earnings a lift. As a countercyclical currency, the U.S. dollar is likely to weaken in an environment of improving global growth (Chart 13). The combination of stronger growth and a weaker dollar will boost commodity prices (Chart 14). Chart 13The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 14Dollar Weakness Is A Boon For Commodities Cyclical equity sectors normally outperform defensive sectors when the global economy is strengthening and the dollar is weakening (Chart 15).     Chart15ACyclical Stocks Will Outperform If The Dollar Weakens Chart 15BCyclical Stocks Are More Attractive Than Defensives       We would include financials in our definition of cyclical sectors. As global growth improves, long-term bond yields will increase at the margin. Since central banks are in no hurry to raise rates, yield curves will steepen. This will boost bank net interest margins, flattering profits and share prices (Chart 16). Emerging market and European stocks have more exposure to cyclical sectors than U.S. stocks. Thus, it stands to reason that EM and European equities will outperform their U.S. peers over the next 12 months (Chart 17). Chart 16Steeper Yield Curves Will Benefit Financials Chart 17EM And Euro Area Equities Usually Outperform When Global Growth Improves   Non-U.S. stocks also have the advantage of being cheaper, even if adjusted for differences in sector weights. U.S. equities currently trade at a forward PE ratio of 18, compared to 13 for non-U.S. stocks. Since interest rates are generally lower outside the U.S., the equity risk premium is especially wide for non-U.S. stocks (Chart 18). Chart 18Equity Risk Premia Remain Quite High Box 1 Evidence of Inventory Liquidation In The Manufacturing Sector   U.S. (October 2019): “Finally, despite a renewed rise in input buying, the stronger increase in new business meant firms increasingly dipped into stocks to ensure new orders were fulfilled in a timely manner. Therefore, pre-production inventories fell at the quickest rate for three months and stocks of finished goods decreased slightly.” Markit “The [inventory] index contracted for the fifth straight month, but at a slower rate. Improvements in new orders and stocking for the fourth quarter both contributed positively to the index compared to September” ISM (Institute for Supply Management) Germany (October 2019): “However, weighing on the index were faster decreases in employment and stocks of purchases, alongside a more marked improvement in supplier delivery times.” Markit U.K. (October 2019): “A number of firms revisited their Brexit preparations during October, leading to higher levels of input purchasing and a build-up of safety stocks. Growth in inventories of finished goods and purchases were at six-month highs, but remained below the survey-record rates reached during the first quarter.” Markit Japan (October 2019): “A reluctance to hold items in stocks was also signalled by simultaneous draw-downs to pre- and post-production inventories during the latest survey period. In fact, rates of depletion in both cases accelerated during the month, with stocks of finished goods falling at the fastest rate since survey data were first collected 18 years ago.” Markit Canada (October 2019): “Latest data signalled a marginal accumulation of preproduction inventories across the manufacturing sector. In contrast, stocks of finished goods were depleted for the first time in three months. A number of survey respondents commented on efforts to boost cash flow by streamlining their post-production inventories.” Markit China (October 2019): “Improved client demand led firms to expand their purchasing activity, with the rate of growth the quickest since February 2018. This contributed to a further rise in stocks of inputs, albeit marginal. Inventories of finished goods meanwhile declined amid reports of the greater use of stocks to fulfil orders.” Markit Taiwan (October 2019): “Stocks of both pre- and postproduction goods contracted at accelerated rates, with the latter falling solidly overall.” Markit Korea (October 2019): “Elsewhere, latest survey data highlighted a strong drive towards cost cutting, with firms clearing their existing stocks of both inputs and finished goods at accelerated rates.” Markit India (October 2019): “Both pre- and post-production inventories decreased in October. The fall in the latter was sharper and the quickest in 16 months.” Markit Russia (October 2019): “Finally, firms reduced their purchasing activity further as they supplemented production through the use of preproduction inventories. Stocks of finished goods also fell amid lower client demand and efforts to run down stores.” Markit Turkey (October 2019): “A muted easing of purchasing activity was recorded in October, while stocks of both purchases and finished goods were scaled back.” Markit Brazil (October 2019): “As a result, stocks of purchases fell at the quickest rate in 16 months. Post-production inventories likewise decreased to the greatest extent since mid-2018 during October. According to panel members, the fall was due to sales growth.” Markit   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1Please see David Lawder, and Andrea Shalal, “U.S., China say they are 'close to finalizing' part of a Phase One trade deal,” Reuters (October 25, 2019); and Alexandra Alper, and Doina Chiacu,"Trump: 'ahead of schedule' on China trade deal," Reuters (October 28, 2019). 2Please see John Harwood, “Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ‘I am a capitalist’ – but markets need to work for more than just the rich,” CNBC (July 24, 2018).   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores   Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades