財政
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. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: I have been eagerly looking forward to this meeting given the recent turbulence in financial markets. Our investments have done poorly in the past year and, with hindsight, I wish I had followed my instincts to significantly cut our equity exposure at the end of 2017, although we did follow your advice to move to a neutral stance in mid-2018. I remain greatly troubled by economic and political developments in many countries. I have long believed in open and free markets and healthy political discourse, and this all seems under challenge. As always, there is much to talk about. Ms. X: Let me add that I also am pleased to have this opportunity to talk through the key issues that will influence our investment strategy over the coming year. As I am sure you remember, I was more optimistic than my father about the outlook when we met a year ago but things have not worked out as well as I had hoped. In retrospect, I should have paid more attention to your view that markets and policy were on a collision course as that turned out to be a very accurate prediction. When I joined the family firm in early 2017, I persuaded my father that we should have a relatively high equity exposure and that was the correct stance. However, this success led us to maintain too much equity exposure in 2018, and my father has done well to resist the temptation to say “I told you so.” So, we are left with a debate similar to last year: Should we move now to an underweight in risk assets or hold off on the hope that prices will reach new highs in the coming year? I am still not convinced that we have seen the peak in risk asset prices as there is no recession on the horizon and equity valuations are much improved, following recent price declines. I will be very interested to hear your views. BCA: Our central theme for 2018 that markets and policy would collide did turn out to be appropriate and, importantly, the story has yet to fully play out. The monetary policy tightening cycle is still at a relatively early stage in the U.S. and has not even begun in many other regions. Yet, although it was a tough year for most equity markets, the conditions for a major bear market are not yet in place. One important change to our view, compared to a year ago, is that we have pushed back the timing of the next U.S. recession. This leaves a window for risk assets to show renewed strength. It remains to be seen whether prices will reach new peaks, but we believe it would be premature to shift to an underweight stance on equities. For the moment, we are sticking with our neutral weighting for risk assets, but may well recommend boosting exposure if prices suffer further near-term weakness. We will need more clarity about the timing of a recession before we consider aggressively cutting exposure. Mr. X: I can see we will have a lively discussion because I do not share your optimism. My list of concerns is long and I hope we have time to get through them all. But first, let’s briefly review your predictions from last year. BCA: That is always interesting to do, although sometimes rather humbling. A year ago, our key conclusions were that: The environment of easy money, low inflation and healthy profit growth that has been so bullish for risk assets will start to change during the coming year. Financial conditions, especially in the U.S., will gradually tighten as decent growth leads to building inflationary pressures, encouraging central banks to withdraw stimulus. With U.S. equities at an overvalued extreme and investor sentiment overly optimistic, this will set the scene for an eventual collision between policy and the markets. The conditions underpinning the bull market will erode only slowly which means that risk asset prices should continue to rise for at least the next six months. However, long-run investors should start shifting to a neutral exposure. Given our economic and policy views, there is a good chance that we will move to an underweight position in risk assets during the second half of 2018. The U.S. economy is already operating above potential and thus does not need any boost from easier fiscal policy. Any major tax cuts risk overheating the economy, encouraging the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates and boosting the probability of a recession in 2019. This is at odds with the popular view that tax cuts will be good for the equity market. A U.S. move to scrap NAFTA would add to downside risks. For the second year in a row, the IMF forecasts of economic growth for the coming year are likely to prove too pessimistic. The end of fiscal austerity has allowed the Euro Area economy to gather steam and this should be sustained in 2018. However, the slow progress in negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU poses a threat to the U.K. economy. China’s economy is saddled with excessive debt and excess capacity in a number of areas. Any other economy would have collapsed by now, but the government has enough control over banking and other sectors to prevent a crisis. Growth should hold above 6% in the next year or two, although much will depend on how aggressively President Xi pursues painful reforms. The market is too optimistic in assuming that the Fed will not raise interest rates by as much as indicated in their “dots” projections. There is a good chance that the U.S. yield curve will become flat or inverted by late 2018. Bonds are not an attractive investment at current yields. Only Greece and Portugal have real 10-year government bond yields above their historical average. Corporate bonds should outperform governments, but a tightening in financial conditions will put these at risk in the second half of 2018. The Euro Area and Japanese equity markets should outperform the U.S. over the next year reflecting their better valuations and more favorable financial conditions. Developed markets should outperform the emerging market index. Historically, the U.S. equity market has led recessions by between 3 and 12 months. If, as we fear, a U.S. recession starts in the second half of 2019, then the stock market would be at risk from the middle of 2018. The improving trend in capital spending should favor industrial stocks. Our other two overweight sectors are energy and financials. The oil price will be well supported by strong demand and output restraint by OPEC and Russia. The Brent price should average $65 a barrel over the coming year, with risks to the upside. We expect base metals prices to trade broadly sideways but will remain highly dependent on developments in China. Modest positions in gold are warranted. Relative economic and policy trends will favor a firm dollar in 2018. Unlike at the start of 2017, investors are significantly short the dollar which is bullish from a contrary perspective. Sterling is quite cheap but Brexit poses downside risks. The key market-relevant geopolitical events to monitor will be fiscal policy and mid-term elections in the U.S., and reform policies in China. With the former, the Democrats have a good chance of winning back control of the House of Representatives, creating a scenario of complete policy gridlock. A balanced portfolio is likely to generate average returns of only 3.3% a year in nominal terms over the next decade. This compares to average returns of around 10% a year between 1982 and 2017. As already noted, the broad theme that policy tightening – especially in the U.S. – would become a problem for asset markets during the year was supported by events. However, the exact timing was hard to predict. The indexes for non-U.S. developed equity markets and emerging markets peaked in late-January 2018, and have since dropped by around 18% and 24%, respectively (Chart 1). On the other hand, the U.S. market, after an early 2018 sell-off, hit a new peak in September, before falling anew in the past couple of months. The MSCI All-Country World index currently is about 6% below end-2017 levels in local-currency terms. Chart 1Our 'Collision Course' Theme For 2018 Played Out We started the year recommending an overweight in developed equity markets but, as you noted, shifted that to a neutral position mid-year. A year ago, we thought we might move to an underweight stance in the second half of 2018 but decided against this because U.S. fiscal stimulus boosted corporate earnings and extended the economic cycle. Our call that emerging markets would underperform was on target. Although it was U.S. financial conditions that tightened the most, Wall Street was supported by the large cut in the corporate tax rate while the combination of higher bond yields and dollar strength was a major problem for many indebted emerging markets. Overall, it was not a good year for financial markets (Table 1). Table 1Market Performance As far as the overall macro environment was concerned, we were correct in predicting that the IMF was too pessimistic on economic growth. A year ago, the IMF forecast that the advanced economies would expand by 2% in 2018 and that has since been revised up to 2.4% (Table 2). This offset a slight downgrading to the performance of emerging economies. The U.S., Europe and Japan all grew faster than previously expected. Not surprisingly, inflation also was higher than forecast, although in the G7, it has remained close to the 2% level targeted by most central banks. Table 2IMF Economic Forecasts Despite widespread fears to the contrary, the data have supported our view that Chinese growth would hold above a 6% pace in 2018. Nevertheless, a slowdown currently is underway and downside risks remain very much in place in terms of excessive credit and trade pressures. Another difficult year lies ahead for the Chinese authorities and we will no doubt return to this topic later. As far as our other key forecasts are concerned, we were correct in our views that oil prices and the U.S. dollar would rise and that the market would be forced to revise up its predictions of Fed rate hikes. Of course, oil has recently given back its earlier gains, but we assume that is a temporary setback. On the sector front, our macro views led us to favor industrials, financials and energy, but that did not work out well as concerns about trade took a toll on cyclical sectors. Overall, there were no major macro surprises in 2018, and it seems clear that we have yet to resolve the key questions and issues that we discussed a year ago. At that time, we were concerned about the development of late-cycle pressures that ultimately would undermine asset prices. That story has yet to fully play out. It is hard to put precise timing on when the U.S. economy will peak and, thus, when asset prices will be at maximum risk. Nevertheless, our base case is that there likely will be a renewed and probably final run-up in asset prices before the next recession. Late-Cycle Challenges Mr. X: This seems like déjà-vu all over again. Since we last met, the cycle is one year older and, as you just said, the underlying challenges facing economies and markets have not really changed. If anything, things are even worse: Global debt levels are higher, inflation pressures more evident, Fed policy is moving closer to restrictive territory and protectionist policies have ratcheted up. If it was right to be cautious six months ago, then surely we should be even more cautious now. Ms. X: Oh dear, it does seem like a repeat of last year’s discussion because, once again, I am more optimistic than my father. Obviously, there are structural problems in a number of countries and, at some point, the global economy will suffer another recession. But timing is everything, and I attach very low odds to a downturn in the coming year. Meanwhile, I see many pockets of value in the equity market. Rather than cut equity positions, I am inclined to look for buying opportunities. BCA: We sympathize with your different perspectives because the outlook is complex and we also have lively debates about the view. The global equity index currently is a little below where it was when we met last year, but there has been tremendous intra-period volatility. That pattern seems likely to be repeated in 2019. In other words, it will be important to be flexible about your investment strategy. You both make good points. It is true that there are several worrying problems regarding the economic outlook, including excessive debt, protectionism and building inflation risks. At the same time, the classic conditions for an equity bear market are not yet in place, and may not be for some time. This leaves us in the rather uncomfortable position of sitting on the fence with regard to risk asset exposure. We are very open to raising exposure should markets weaken further in the months ahead, but also are keeping careful watch for signs that the economic cycle is close to peaking. In other words, it would be a mistake to lock in a 12-month strategy right now. Mr. X: I would like to challenge the consensus view, shared by my daughter, that the next recession will not occur before 2020, and might even be much later. The main rationale seems to be that the policy environment remains accommodative and there are none of the usual imbalances that occur ahead of recessions. Of course, U.S. fiscal policy has given a big boost to growth in the past year, but I assume the effects will wear off sharply in 2019. More importantly, there is huge uncertainty about the level of interest rates that will trigger economic problems. It certainly has not taken much in the way of Fed rate hikes to rattle financial markets. Thus, monetary policy may become restrictive much sooner than generally believed. I also strongly dispute the idea that there are no major financial imbalances. If running U.S. federal deficits of $1 trillion in the midst of an economic boom is not an imbalance, then I don’t know what is! At the same time, the U.S. corporate sector has issued large amounts of low-quality debt, and high-risk products such as junk-bond collateralized debt obligations have made an unwelcome reappearance. It seems that the memories of 2007-09 have faded. It is totally normal for long periods of extremely easy money to be accompanied by growing leverage and increasingly speculative financial activities, and I don’t see why this period should be any different. And often, the objects of speculation are not discovered until financial conditions become restrictive. Finally, there are huge risks associated with rising protectionism, the Chinese economy appears to be struggling, Italy’s banks are a mess, and the Brexit fiasco poses a threat to the U.K. economy. Starting with the U.S., please go ahead and convince me why a recession is more than a year away. BCA: It is natural for you to worry that a recession is right around the corner. The current U.S. economic expansion will become the longest on record if it makes it to July 2019, at which point it will surpass the 1990s expansion. Economists have a long and sad history of failing to forecast recessions. Therefore, a great deal of humility is warranted when it comes to predicting the evolution of the business cycle. The Great Recession was one of the deepest downturns on record and the recovery has been fairly sluggish by historic standards. Thus, it has taken much longer than usual for the U.S. economy to return to full employment. Looking out, there are many possible risks that could trip up the U.S. economy but, for the moment, we see no signs of recession on the horizon (Chart 2). For example, the leading economic indicator is still in an uptrend, the yield curve has not inverted and our monetary indicators are not contracting. Our proprietary recession indicator also suggests that the risk is currently low, although recent stock market weakness implies some deterioration. Chart 2Few U.S Recession 'Red Flags' The buildup in corporate debt is a cause for concern and we are not buyers of corporate bonds at current yields. However, the impact of rising yields on the economy is likely to be manageable. The interest coverage ratio for the economy as a whole – defined as the profits corporations generate for every dollar of interest paid – is still above its historic average (Chart 3). Corporate bonds are also generally held by non-leveraged investors such as pension funds, insurance companies, and ETFs. The impact of defaults on the economy tends to be more severe when leveraged institutions are the ones that suffer the greatest losses. Chart 3Interest Costs Not Yet A Headwind We share your worries about the long-term fiscal outlook. However, large budget deficits do not currently imperil the economy. The U.S. private sector is running a financial surplus, meaning that it earns more than it spends (Chart 4). Not only does this make the economy more resilient, it also provides the government with additional savings with which to finance its budget deficit. If anything, the highly accommodative stance of fiscal policy has pushed up the neutral rate of interest, giving the Fed greater scope to raise rates before monetary policy enters restrictive territory. The impetus of fiscal policy on the economy will be smaller in 2019 than it was in 2018, but it will still be positive (Chart 5). Chart 4The U.S. Private Sector Is Helping To Finance The Fiscal Deficit Chart 5U.S. Fiscal Policy Still Stimulative In 2019 The risks to growth are more daunting outside the U.S. As you point out, Italy is struggling to contain borrowing costs, a dark cloud hangs over the Brexit negotiations, and China and most other emerging markets have seen growth slow meaningfully. The U.S., however, is a relatively closed economy – it is not as dependent on trade as most other countries. Its financial system is reasonably resilient thanks to the capital its banks have raised over the past decade. In addition, Dodd-Frank and other legislation have made it more difficult for financial institutions to engage in reckless risk-taking. Mr. X: I would never take a benign view of the ability and willingness of financial institutions to engage in reckless behavior, but maybe I am too cynical. Even if you are right that debt does not pose an immediate threat to the market, surely it will become a huge problem in the next downturn. If the U.S. federal deficit is $1 trillion when the economy is strong, it is bound to reach unimaginable levels in a recession. And, to make matters worse, the Federal Reserve may not have much scope to lower interest rates if they peak at a historically low level in the next year or so. What options will policymakers have to respond to the next cyclical downturn? Is there a limit to how much quantitative easing central banks can do? BCA: The Fed is aware of the challenges it faces if the next recession begins when interest rates are still quite low. Raising rates rapidly in order to have more “ammunition” for counteracting the downturn would hardly be the best course of action as this would only bring forward the onset of the recession. A better strategy is to let the economy overheat a bit so that inflation rises. This would allow the Fed to push real rates further into negative territory if the recession turns out to be severe. There is no real limit on how much quantitative easing the Fed can undertake. The FOMC will undoubtedly turn to asset purchases and forward guidance again during the next economic downturn. Now that the Fed has crossed the Rubicon into unorthodox monetary policy without generating high inflation, policymakers are likely to try even more exotic policies, such as price-level targeting. The private sector tends to try to save more during recessions. Thus, even though the fiscal deficit would widen during the next downturn, there should be plenty of buyers for government debt. However, once the next recovery begins, the Fed may feel increasing political pressure to keep rates low in order to allow the government to maintain its desired level of spending and taxes. The Fed guards its independence fiercely, but in a world of increasingly political populism, that independence may begin to erode. This will not happen quickly, but to the extent that it does occur, higher inflation is likely to be the outcome. Ms. X: I would like to explore the U.S.-China dynamic a bit more because I see that as one of the main challenges to my more optimistic view. I worry that President Trump will continue to take a hard line on China trade because it plays well with his base and has broad support in Congress. And I equally worry that President Xi will not want to be seen giving in to U.S. bullying. How do you see this playing out? BCA: Investors hoping that U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping will reach a deal to end the trade war on the sidelines of the forthcoming G20 leaders' summit in Buenos Aires are likely to be disappointed. President Trump's fiscal policy is completely inconsistent with his trade agenda. Fiscal stimulus in a full-employment economy will suck in imports. It also forces the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. The result will be a larger U.S. trade deficit. Trump will not be able to blame Canada or Mexico for a deteriorating trade position because he just signed a trade agreement with them. The new USMCA agreement is remarkably similar to NAFTA, with the notable exception that it contains a clause barring Canada and Mexico from negotiating bilateral trade deals with China. This means Trump needs a patsy who will take the blame for America's burgeoning trade deficit and China will fill that role. For his part, President Xi knows full well that he will still be China’s leader when Trump is long gone. Giving in to Trump’s demands would hurt him politically. All this means that the trade war will persist. Mr. X: I see a trade war as a major threat to the economy, but it is not the only thing that could derail the economic expansion. Let’s explore that issue in more detail. The Economic Outlook Mr. X: You have shown in previous research that housing is often a very good leading indicator of the U.S. economy, largely because it is very sensitive to changes in the monetary environment. Are you not concerned about the marked deterioration in recent U.S. housing data? BCA: Recent trends in housing have indeed been disappointing, with residential investment acting as a drag on growth for three consecutive quarters. The weakness has been broad-based with sales, the rate of price appreciation of home prices, and builder confidence all declining (Chart 6). Even though the level of housing affordability is decent by historical standards, there has been a fall in the percentage of those who believe that it is a good time to buy a home. Chart 6Recent Softness In U.S. Housing There are a few possible explanations for the weakness. First, the 2007-09 housing implosion likely had a profound and lasting impact on the perceived attractiveness of home ownership. The homeownership rate for people under 45 has remained extremely low by historical standards. Secondly, increased oversight and tighter regulations have curbed mortgage supply. Finally, the interest rate sensitivity of the sector may have increased with the result that even modest increases in the mortgage rate have outsized effects. That, in turn, could be partly explained by recent tax changes that capped the deduction on state and local property taxes, while lowering the limit on the tax deductibility of mortgage interest. The trend in housing is definitely a concern, but the odds of a further major contraction seem low. Unlike in 2006, the home vacancy rate stands near record levels and the same is true for the inventory of homes. The pace of housebuilding is below the level implied by demographic trends and consumer fundamentals are reasonably healthy. The key to the U.S. economy lies with business investment and consumer spending and these areas are well supported for the moment. Consumers are benefiting from continued strong growth in employment and a long overdue pickup in wages. Meanwhile, the ratio of net worth-to-income has surpased the previous peak and the ratio of debt servicing-to-income is low (Chart 7). Last year, we expressed some concern that the depressed saving rate might dampen spending, but the rate has since been revised substantially higher. Based on its historical relationship with U.S. household net worth, there is room for the saving rate to fall, fueling more spending. Real consumer spending has grown by 3% over the past year and there is a good chance of maintaining that pace during most of 2019. Chart 7U.S. Consumer Fundamentals Are Healthy Turning to capital spending, the cut in corporate taxes was obviously good for cash flow, and surveys show a high level of business confidence. Moreover, many years of business caution toward spending has pushed up the average age of the nonresidential capital stock to the highest level since 1963 (Chart 8). Higher wages should also incentivize firms to invest in more machinery. Absent some new shock to confidence, business investment should stay firm during the next year. Chart 8An Aging Capital Stock Overall, we expect the pace of U.S. economic growth to slow from its recent strong level, but it should hold above trend, currently estimated to be around 2%. As discussed earlier, that means capacity pressures will intensify, causing inflation to move higher. Ms. X: I share the view that the U.S. economy will continue to grow at a healthy pace, but I am less sure about the rest of the world. BCA: You are right to be concerned. We expected U.S. and global growth to diverge in 2018, but not by as much as occurred. Several factors have weighed on CEO confidence outside of the U.S., including trade wars, a strong dollar, higher oil prices, emerging market turbulence, the return of Italian debt woes, and a slowdown in the Chinese economy. The stress has shown up in the global manufacturing PMI, although the latter is still at a reasonably high level (Chart 9). Global export growth is moderating and the weakness appears to be concentrated in capex. Capital goods imports for the major economies, business investment, and the production of investment-related goods have all decelerated this year. Chart 9Global Manufacturing Slowdown Our favorite global leading indicators are also flashing yellow (Chart 10). BCA’s global leading economic indicator has broken below the boom/bust line and its diffusion index suggests further downside. The global ZEW composite and the BCA boom/bust indicator are both holding below zero. Chart 10Global Growth Leading Indicators Current trends in the leading indicators shown in Chart 11 imply that the growth divergence between the U.S. and the rest of the world will remain a key theme well into 2019. Among the advanced economies, Europe and Japan are quite vulnerable to the global soft patch in trade and capital spending. Chart 11Global Economic Divergence Will Continue The loss of momentum in the Euro Area economy, while expected, has been quite pronounced. Part of this is due to the dissipation of the 2016/17 economic boost related to improved health in parts of the European banking system that sparked a temporary surge in credit growth. The tightening in Italian financial conditions following the government’s budget standoff with the EU has weighed on overall Euro Area growth. Softer Chinese demand for European exports, uncertainties related to U.S. trade policy and the torturous Brexit negotiations, have not helped the situation. Real GDP growth decelerated to close to a trend pace by the third quarter of 2018. The manufacturing PMI has fallen from a peak of 60.6 in December 2017 to 51.5, mirroring a 1% decline in the OECD’s leading economic indicator for the region. Not all the economic news has been bleak. Both consumer and industrial confidence remain at elevated levels according to the European Commission (EC) surveys, consistent with a resumption of above-trend growth. Even though exports have weakened substantially from the booming pace in 2017, the EC survey on firms’ export order books remains at robust levels (Chart 12). Importantly for the Euro Area, the bank credit impulse has moved higher.The German economy should also benefit from a rebound in vehicle production which plunged earlier this year following the introduction of new emission standards. Chart 12Europe: Slowing, But No Disaster We interpret the 2018 Euro Area slowdown as a reversion-to-the-mean rather than the start of an extended period of sub-trend growth. Real GDP growth should fluctuate slightly above trend pace through 2019. Given that the Euro Area’s output gap is almost closed, the ECB will not deviate from its plan to end its asset purchase program by year end. Gradual rate hikes should begin late in 2019, assuming that inflation is closer to target by then. In contrast, the Bank of Japan (BoJ) is unlikely to change policy anytime soon. The good news is that wages have finally begun to grow at about a 2% pace, although it required extreme labor shortages. Yet, core inflation is barely positive and long-term inflation expectations are a long way from the 2% target. The inflation situation will have to improve significantly before the BoJ can consider adjusting or removing the Yield Curve Control policy. This is especially the case since the economy has hit a bit of an air pocket and the government intends to raise the VAT in 2019. Japan’s industrial production has stalled and we expect the export picture to get worse before it gets better. We do not anticipate any significant economic slack to develop, but even a sustained growth slowdown could partially reverse the gains that have been made on the inflation front. Ms. X: We can’t talk about the global economy without discussing China. You have noted in the past how the authorities are walking a tightrope between trying to unwind the credit bubble and restructure the economy on the one hand, and prevent a destabilizing economic and financial crisis on the other. Thus far, they have not fallen off the tightrope, but there has been limited progress in resolving the country’s imbalances. And now the authorities appear to be stimulating growth again, risking an even bigger buildup of credit. Can it all hold together for another year? BCA: That’s a very good question. Thus far, there is not much evidence that stimulus efforts are working. Credit growth is still weak and leading economic indicators have not turned around (Chart 13). There is thus a case for more aggressive reflation, but the authorities also remain keen to wean the economy off its addiction to debt. Chart 13China: No Sign Of Reacceleration Waves of stimulus have caused total debt to soar from 140% of GDP in 2008 to about 260% of GDP at present (Chart 14). As is usually the case, rapid increases in leverage have been associated with a misallocation of capital. Since most of the new credit has been used to finance fixed-asset investment, the result has been overcapacity in a number of areas. For example, the fact that 15%-to-20% of apartments are sitting vacant is a reflection of overbuilding. Meanwhile, the rate of return on assets in the state-owned corporate sector has fallen below borrowing costs. Chart 14China: Debt Still Rising Chinese exports are holding up well so far, but this might only represent front-running ahead of the implementation of higher tariffs. Judging from the steep drop in the export component of both the official and private-sector Chinese manufacturing PMI, exports are likely to come under increasing pressure over the next few quarters as the headwinds from higher tariffs fully manifest themselves (Chart 15). Chart 15Chinese Exports About To Suffer The most likely outcome is that the authorities will adjust the policy dials just enough to stabilize growth sometime in the first half of 2019. The bottoming in China’s broad money impulse offers a ray of hope (Chart 16). Still, it is a tentative signal at best and it will take some time before this recent easing in monetary policy shows up in our credit impulse measure and, later, economic growth. A modest firming in Chinese growth in the second half of 2019 would provide a somewhat stronger demand backdrop for commodities and emerging economies that sell goods to China. Chart 16A Ray Of Hope From Broad Money Ms. X: If you are correct about a stabilization in the Chinese economy next year, this presumably would be good news for emerging economies, especially if the Fed goes on hold. EM assets have been terribly beaten down and I am looking for an opportunity to buy. BCA: Fed rate hikes might have been the catalyst for the past year’s pain in EM assets, but it is not the underlying problem. As we highlighted at last year’s meeting, the troubles for emerging markets run much deeper. Our long-held caution on emerging economies and markets is rooted in concern about deteriorating fundamentals. Excessive debt is a ticking time bomb for many of these countries; EM dollar-denominated debt is now as high as it was in the late 1990s as a share of both GDP and exports (Chart 17). Moreover, the declining long-term growth potential for emerging economies as a group makes it more difficult for them to service the debt. The structural downtrend in EM labor force and productivity growth underscores that trend GDP growth has collapsed over the past three decades (Chart 17, bottom panel). Chart 17EM Debt A Problem Given Slowing Supply-Side... Decelerating global growth has exposed these poor fundamentals. EM sovereign spreads have moved wider in conjunction with falling PMIs and slowing industrial production and export growth. And it certainly does not help that the Fed is tightening dollar-based liquidity conditions. EM equities usually fall when U.S. financial conditions tighten (Chart 18). Chart 18...And Tightening Financial Conditions Chart 19 highlights the most vulnerable economies in terms of foreign currency funding requirements, and foreign debt-servicing obligations relative to total exports. Turkey stands out as the most vulnerable, along with Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile, and Colombia. In contrast, Emerging Asia appears to be in better shape relative to the crisis period of the late 1990s. Chart 19Spot The Outliers The backdrop for EM assets is likely to get worse in the near term, given our view that the Fed will continue to tighten and China will be cautious about stimulating more aggressively. Our base case outlook sees some relief in the second half of 2019, but it is more of a “muddle-through” scenario than a V-shaped economic recovery. Mr. X: Perhaps EM assets could enjoy a bounce next year if the Chinese economy stabilizes, but the poor macro fundamentals you mentioned suggest that it would be a trade rather than a buy-and-hold proposition. I am inclined to avoid the whole asset class in 2019. Bond Market Prospects Ms. X: Let’s turn to fixed income now. I was bearish on bonds in 2018, but yields have risen quite a bit, at least in the United States. The Fed has lifted the fed funds rate by 100 basis points over the past year and I don’t see a lot of upside for inflation. So perhaps yields have peaked and will move sideways in 2019, which would be good for stocks in my view. BCA: Higher yields have indeed improved bond value recently. Nonetheless, they are not cheap enough to buy at this point (Chart 20). The real 10-year Treasury yield, at close to 1%, is still depressed by pre-Lehman standards. Long-term real yields in Germany and Japan remain in negative territory at close to the lowest levels ever recorded. Chart 20Real Yields Still Very Depressed We called the bottom in global nominal bond yields in 2016. Our research at the time showed that the cyclical and structural factors that had depressed yields were at an inflection point, and were shifting in a less bond-bullish direction. Perhaps most important among the structural factors, population aging and a downward trend in underlying productivity growth resulted in lower equilibrium bond yields over the past couple of decades. Looking ahead, productivity growth could stage a mild rebound in line with the upturn in the growth rate of the capital stock (Chart 21). As for demographics, the age structure of the world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging is beginning to drain that pool as people retire and begin to consume their nest eggs (Chart 22). The household saving rates in the major advanced economies should trend lower in the coming years, placing upward pressure on equilibrium global bond yields. Chart 21Productivity Still Has Some Upside Chart 22Demographics Past The Inflection Point Cyclical factors are also turning against bonds. U.S. inflation has returned to target and the Fed is normalizing short-term interest rates. The market currently is priced for only one more rate hike after December 2018 in this cycle, but we see rates rising more than that. Treasury yields will follow as market expectations adjust. Long-term inflation expectations are still too low in the U.S. and most of the other major economies to be consistent with central banks’ meeting their inflation targets over the medium term. As actual inflation edges higher, long-term expectations built into bond yields will move up. The term premium portion of long-term bond yields is also too low. This is the premium that investors demand to hold longer-term bonds. Our estimates suggest that the term premium is still negative in the advanced economies outside of the U.S., which is not sustainable over the medium term (Chart 23). Chart 23Term Premia Are Too Low We expect term premia to rise for two main reasons. First, investors have viewed government bonds as a good hedge for their equity holdings because bond prices have tended to rise when stock prices fell. Investors have been willing to pay a premium to hold long-term bonds to benefit from this hedging effect. But the correlation is now beginning to change as inflation and inflation expectations gradually adjust higher and output gaps close. As the hedging benefit wanes, the term premium should rise back into positive territory. Second, central bank bond purchases and forward guidance have depressed yields as well as interest-rate volatility. The latter helped to depress term premia in the bond market. This effect, too, is beginning to unwind. The Fed is letting its balance sheet shrink by about $50 billion per month. The Bank of England has kept its holdings of gilts and corporate bonds constant for over a year, while the ECB is about to end asset purchases. The Bank of Japan continues to buy assets, but at a much reduced pace. All this means that the private sector is being forced to absorb a net increase in government bonds for the first time since 2014 (Chart 24). Chart 25 shows that bond yields in the major countries will continue to trend higher as the rapid expansion of central bank balance sheets becomes a thing of the past. Chart 24Private Sector To Absorb More Bonds Chart 25QE Unwind Will Weigh On Bond Prices Ms. X: I’m not a fan of bonds at these levels, but that sounds overly bearish to me, especially given the recent plunge in oil prices. BCA: Lower oil prices will indeed help to hold down core inflation to the extent that energy prices leak into non-energy prices in the near term. Nonetheless, in the U.S., this effect will be overwhelmed by an overheated economy. From a long-term perspective, we believe that investors still have an overly benign view of the outlook for yields. The market expects that the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years will only be slightly above today’s spot yield, which itself is still very depressed by historical standards (Chart 26). And that also is the case in the other major bond markets. Chart 26Forward Yields Are Too Low Of course, it will not be a straight line up for yields – there will be plenty of volatility. We expect the 10-year Treasury yield to peak sometime in 2019 or early 2020 in the 3.5%-to-4% range, before the next recession sends yields temporarily lower. Duration should be kept short at least until the middle of 2019, with an emphasis on TIPS relative to conventional Treasury bonds. We will likely downgrade TIPS versus conventionals once long-term inflation expectations move into our target range, which should occur sometime during 2019. The ECB and Japan will not be in a position to raise interest rates for some time, but the bear phase in U.S. Treasurys will drag up European and Japanese bond yields (at the very long end of the curve for the latter). Total returns are likely to be negative in all of the major bond markets in 2019. Real 10-year yields in all of the advanced economies are still well below their long-term average, except for Greece, Italy and Portugal (Chart 27). Chart 27Valuation Ranking Of Developed Bond Markets Within global bond portfolios, we recommend being underweight bond markets where central banks are in a position to raise short-term interest rates (the U.S. and Canada), and overweight those that are not (Japan and Australia). The first ECB rate hike is unlikely before the end of 2019. However, the imminent end of the asset purchase program argues for no more than a benchmark allocation to core European bond markets within global fixed-income portfolios, especially since real 10-year yields in parts of continental Europe are the furthest below their long-term average. We are overweight gilts at the moment, but foresee shifting to underweight in 2019, depending on how Brexit plays out. Ms. X: What about corporate bonds? I know that total returns for corporates will be poor if government bond yields are rising. But you recommended overweighting corporate bonds relative to Treasurys last year. Given your view that the next U.S. recession is more than a year away, it seems reasonable to assume they will outperform government bonds. BCA: We were overweight corporates in the first half of 2018, but took profits in June and shifted to neutral at the same time that we downgraded our equity allocation. Spreads had tightened to levels that did not compensate investors for the risks. Recent spread widening has returned some value to U.S. corporates. The 12-month breakeven spreads for A-rated and Baa-rated corporate bonds are almost back up to their 50th percentile relative to history (Chart 28). Still, these levels are not attractive enough to justify buying based on valuation alone. As for high-yield, any rise in the default rate would quickly overwhelm the yield pickup in this space. Chart 28Corporate Bond Yields Still Have Upside It is possible that some of the spread widening observed in October and November will reverse, but corporates offer a poor risk/reward tradeoff, even if the default rate stays low. Corporate profit growth is bound to decelerate in 2019. This would not be a disaster for equities, but slowing profit growth is more dangerous for corporate bond excess returns because the starting point for leverage is already elevated. As discussed above, at a macro level, the aggregate interest coverage ratio for the U.S. corporate sector is decent by historical standards. However, this includes mega-cap companies that have little debt and a lot of cash. Our bottom-up research suggests that interest coverage ratios for firms in the Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond index will likely drop close to multi-decade lows during the next recession, sparking a wave of downgrade activity and fallen angels. Seeing this coming, investors may require more yield padding to compensate for these risks as profit growth slows. Our next move will likely be to downgrade corporate bonds to underweight. We are watching the yield curve, bank lending standards, profit growth, and monetary indicators for signs to further trim exposure. You should already be moving up in quality within your corporate bond allocation. Mr. X: We have already shifted to underweight corporate bonds in our fixed income portfolio. Even considering the cheapening that has occurred over the past couple of months, spread levels still make no sense in terms of providing compensation for credit risk. Equity Market Outlook Ms. X: While we all seem to agree that corporate bonds are not very attractive, I believe that enough value has been restored to equities that we should upgrade our allocation, especially if the next recession is two years away. And I know that stocks sometimes have a powerful blow-off phase before the end of a bull market. Mr. X: This is where I vehemently disagree with my daughter. The recent sell-off resembles a bloodbath in parts of the global market. It has confirmed my worst fears, especially related to the high-flying tech stocks that I believe were in a bubble. Hopes for a blow-off phase are wishful thinking. I’m wondering if the sell-off represents the beginning of an extended bear market. BCA: Some value has indeed been restored. However, the U.S. market is far from cheap relative to corporate fundamentals. The trailing and 12-month forward price-earnings ratios (PER) of 20 and 16, respectively, are still far above their historical averages, especially if one leaves out the tech bubble period of the late 1990s. And the same is true for other metrics such as price-to-sales and price-to-book value (Chart 29). BCA’s composite valuation indicator, based on 8 different valuation measures, is only a little below the threshold of overvaluation at +1 standard deviation because low interest rates still favor equities on a relative yield basis. Chart 29U.S. Equities Are Not Cheap It is true that equities can reward investors handsomely in the final stage of a bull market. Chart 30 presents cumulative returns to the S&P 500 in the last nine bull markets. The returns are broken down by quintile. The greatest returns, unsurprisingly, generally occur in the first part of the bull market (quintile 1). But total returns in the last 20% of the bull phase (quintile 5) have been solid and have beaten the middle quartiles. Chart 30Late-Cycle Blow-Offs Can Be Rewarding Of course, the tricky part is determining where we are in the bull market. We have long viewed financial markets through the lens of money and credit. This includes a framework that involves the Fed policy cycle. The historical track record for risk assets is very clear; they tend to perform well when the fed funds rate is below neutral, whether rates are rising or falling. Risk assets tend to underperform cash when the fed funds rate is above neutral (Table 3). Table 3Stocks Do Well When The Fed Funds Rate Is Below Neutral We believe the fed funds rate is still in easy territory. This suggests that it is too early to shift to underweight on risk assets. We may even want to upgrade to overweight if stocks become cheap enough, as long as Fed policy is not restrictive. That said, there is huge uncertainty about the exact level of rates that constitutes “neutral” (or R-star in the Fed’s lingo). Even the Fed is unsure. This means that we must watch for signs that the fed funds rate has crossed the line into restrictive territory as the FOMC tightens over the coming year. An inversion of the 3-month T-bill/10-year yield curve slope would be a powerful signal that policy has become tight, although the lead time of an inverted curve and declining risk asset prices has been quite variable historically. Finally, it is also important to watch U.S. profit margins. Some of our research over the past couple of years focused on the late-cycle dynamics of previous long expansions, such as the 1960s, 1980s and 1990s. We found that risk assets came under pressure once U.S. profit margins peaked. Returns were often negative from the peak in margins to the subsequent recession. Mr. X: U.S. profit margins must be close to peak levels. I’ve seen all sorts of anecdotal examples of rising cost pressures, not only in the labor market. BCA: We expected to see some margin pressure to appear by now. S&P 500 EPS growth will likely top out in the next couple of quarters, if only because the third quarter’s 26% year-over-year pace is simply not sustainable. But it is impressive that our margin proxies are not yet flagging an imminent margin squeeze, despite the pickup in wage growth (Chart 31). Chart 31U.S. Margin Indicators Still Upbeat Margins according to the National Accounts (NIPA) data peaked in 2014 and have since diverged sharply with S&P 500 operating margins. It is difficult to fully explain the divergence. The NIPA margin is considered to be a better measure of underlying U.S. corporate profitability because it includes all companies (not just 500), and it is less subject to accounting trickery. That said, even the NIPA measure of margins firmed a little in 2018, along with the proxies we follow that correlate with the S&P 500 measure. The bottom line is that the macro variables that feed into our top-down U.S. EPS model point to a continuing high level of margins and fairly robust top-line growth, at least for the near term. For 2019, we assumed slower GDP growth and incorporated some decline in margins into our projection just to err on the conservative side. Nonetheless, our EPS model still projects a respectable 8% growth rate at the end of 2019 (Chart 32). The dollar will only be a minor headwind to earnings growth unless it surges by another 10% or more. Chart 32EPS Growth Forecasts The risks to EPS growth probably are to the downside relative to our forecast, but the point is that U.S. earnings will likely remain supportive for the market unless economic growth is much weaker than we expect. None of this means that investors should be aggressively overweight stocks now. We trimmed our equity recommendation to benchmark in mid-2018 for several reasons. At the time, value was quite poor and bottom-up earnings expectations were too high, especially on a five-year horizon. Also, sentiment measures suggested that investors were overly complacent. As you know, we are always reluctant to chase markets into highly overvalued territory, especially when a lot of good news has been discounted. As we have noted, we are open to temporarily shifting back to overweight in equities and other risk assets. The extension of the economic expansion gives more time for earnings to grow. The risks facing the market have not eased much but, given our base-case macro view, we would be inclined to upgrade equities if there is another meaningful correction. Of course, our profit, monetary and economic indicators would have to remain supportive to justify an upgrade. Mr. X: But you are bearish on bonds. We saw in October that the equity market is vulnerable to higher yields. BCA: It certainly won’t be smooth sailing through 2019 as interest rates normalize. Until recently, higher bond yields reflected stronger growth without any associated fears that inflation was a growing problem. The ‘Fed Put’ was seen as a key backstop for the equity bull market. But now that the U.S. labor market is showing signs of overheating, the bond sell-off has become less benign for stocks because the Fed will be less inclined to ease up at the first sign of trouble in the equity market. How stocks react in 2019 to the upward trend in yields depends a lot on the evolution of actual inflation and long-term inflation expectations. If core PCE inflation hovers close to or just above 2% for a while, then the Fed Put should still be in place. However, it would get ugly for both bonds and stocks if inflation moves beyond 2.5%. Our base case is that this negative dynamic won’t occur until early 2020, but obviously the timing is uncertain. One key indicator to watch is long-term inflation expectations, such as the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate (Chart 33). It is close to 2% at the moment. If it shifts up into the 2.3%-2.5% range, it would confirm that inflation expectations have returned to a level that is consistent with the Fed meeting its 2% inflation target on a sustained basis. This would be a signal to the Fed that it is must become more aggressive in calming growth, with obvious negative consequences for risk assets. Chart 33Watch For A Return To 2.3%-2.5% Range Mr. X: I am skeptical that the U.S. corporate sector can pull off an 8% earnings gain in 2019. What about the other major markets? Won’t they get hit hard if global growth continues to slow as you suggest? BCA: Yes, that is correct. It is not surprising that EPS growth has already peaked in the Euro Area and Japan. The profit situation is going to deteriorate quickly in the coming quarters. Industrial production growth in both economies has already dropped close to zero, and we use this as a proxy for top-line growth in our EPS models. Nominal GDP growth has decelerated sharply in both economies in absolute terms and relative to the aggregate wage bill. These trends suggest that profit margins are coming under significant downward pressure. Even when we build in a modest growth pickup and slight rebound in margins in 2019, EPS growth falls close to zero by year-end according to our models. Both the Euro Area and Japanese equity markets are cheap relative to the U.S., based on our composite valuation indicators (Chart 34). However, neither is above the threshold of undervaluation (+1 standard deviation) that would justify overweight positions on valuation alone. We think the U.S. market will outperform the other two at least in the first half of 2019 in local and, especially, common-currency terms. Chart 34Valuation Of Nonfinancial Equity Markets Relative To The U.S. Ms. X: It makes sense that U.S. profit growth will outperform the other major developed countries in 2019. I would like to circle back to emerging market assets. I understand that many emerging economies have deep structural problems. But you admitted that the Chinese authorities will eventually stimulate enough to stabilize growth, providing a bounce in EM growth and asset prices next year. These assets seem cheap enough to me to warrant buying now in anticipation of that rally. As we all know, reversals from oversold levels can happen in a blink of an eye and I don’t want to miss it. BCA: We are looking for an opportunity to buy as well, but are wary of getting in too early. First, valuation has improved but is not good enough on its own to justify buying now. EM stocks are only moderately undervalued based on our EM composite valuation indicator and the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio (Chart 35). EM currencies are not particularly cheap either, outside of Argentina, Turkey and Mexico (Charts 36A and 36B). Valuation should only play a role in investment strategy when it is at an extreme, and this is not the case for most EM countries. Chart 35EM Stocks Are Not At Capitulation Levels... Chart 36A…And Neither Are EM Currencies Chart 36B…And Neither Are EM Currencies Second, corporate earnings growth has plenty of downside potential in the near term. Annual growth in EM nonfinancial EBITDA, currently near 10%, is likely to turn negative next year, based on our China credit and fiscal impulse indicator (Chart 37). And, as we emphasized earlier, China is not yet pressing hard on the gas pedal. Chart 37EM Earnings Growth: Lots Of Downside Third, it will take time for more aggressive Chinese policy stimulus, if it does occur, to show up in EM stocks and commodity prices. Trend changes in money growth and our credit and fiscal impulse preceded the trough in EM stocks and commodity prices in 2015, and again at the top in stocks and commodities in 2017 (Chart 38). However, even if these two indicators bottom today, it could take several months before the sell-off in EM financial markets and commodity prices abates. Chart 38Chinese Money And Credit Leads EM And Commodities Finally, if Chinese stimulus comes largely via easier monetary policy rather than fiscal stimulus, then the outcome will be a weaker RMB. We expect the RMB to drift lower in any event, because rate differentials vis-à-vis the U.S. will move against the Chinese currency next year. A weaker RMB would add to the near-term headwinds facing EM assets. The bottom line is that the downside risks remain high enough that you should resist the temptation to bottom-fish until there are concrete signs that the Chinese authorities are getting serious about boosting the economy. We are also watching for signs outside of China that the global growth slowdown is ending. This includes our global leading economic indicator and data that are highly sensitive to global growth, such as German manufacturing foreign orders. Mr. X: Emerging market assets would have to become a lot cheaper for me to consider buying. Debt levels are just too high to be sustained, and stronger Chinese growth would only provide a short-term boost. I’m not sure I would even want to buy developed market risk assets based solely on some Chinese policy stimulus. BCA: Yes, we agree with your assessment that buying EM in 2019 would be a trade rather than a buy-and-hold strategy. Still, the combination of continued solid U.S. growth and a modest upturn in the Chinese economy would alleviate a lot of investors’ global growth concerns. The result could be a meaningful rally in pro-cyclical assets that you should not miss. We are defensively positioned at the moment, but we could see becoming more aggressive in 2019 on signs that China is stimulating more firmly and/or our global leading indicators begin to show some signs of life. Besides upgrading our overall equity allocation back to overweight, we would dip our toes in the EM space again. At the same time, we will likely upgrade the more cyclical DM equity markets, such as the Euro Area and Japan, while downgrading the defensive U.S. equity market to underweight. We are currently defensively positioned in terms of equity sectors, but it would make sense to shift cyclicals to overweight at the same time. Exact timing is always difficult, but we expect to become more aggressive around the middle of 2019. We also think the time is approaching to favor long-suffering value stocks over growth stocks. The relative performance of growth-over-value according to standard measures has become a sector call over the past decade: tech or financials. The sector skew complicates this issue, especially since tech stocks have already cracked. But we have found that stocks that are cheap within equity sectors tend to outperform expensive (or growth) stocks once the fed funds rate moves into restrictive territory. This is likely to occur in the latter half of 2019. Value should then have its day in the sun. Currencies: Mr. X: We don’t usually hedge our international equity exposure, so the direction of the dollar matters a lot to us. As you predicted a year ago, the U.S. dollar reigned supreme in 2018. Your economic views suggest another good year in 2019, but won’t this become a problem for the economy? President Trump’s desire to lower the U.S. trade deficit suggests that the Administration would like the dollar to drop and we could get some anti-dollar rhetoric from the White House. Also, it seems that the consensus is strongly bullish on the dollar which is always a concern. BCA: The outlook for the dollar is much trickier than it was at the end of 2017. As you highlighted, traders are already very long the dollar, implying that the hurdle for the greenback to surprise positively is much higher now. However, a key driver for the dollar is the global growth backdrop. If the latter is poor in the first half of 2019 as we expect, it will keep a bid under the greenback. Interest rates should also remain supportive for the dollar. As we argued earlier, current market expectations – only one more Fed hike after the December meeting – are too sanguine. If the Fed increases rates by more than currently discounted, the dollar’s fair value will rise, especially if global growth continues to lag that of the U.S. Since the dollar’s 2018 rally was largely a correction of its previous undervaluation, the currency has upside potential in the first half of the year (Chart 39). Chart 39U.S. Dollar Not Yet Overvalued A stronger dollar will dampen foreign demand for U.S.-produced goods and will boost U.S. imports. However, do not forget that a rising dollar benefits U.S. consumers via its impact on import prices. Since the consumer sector represents 68% of GDP, and that 69% of household consumption is geared toward the (largely domestic) service sector, a strong dollar will not be as negative for aggregate demand and employment as many commentators fear, unless it were to surge by at least another 10%. In the end, the dollar will be more important for the distribution of U.S. growth than its overall level. Where the strong dollar is likely to cause tremors is in the political arena. You are correct to point out that there is a large inconsistency between the White House’s desires to shore up growth, while simultaneously curtailing the trade deficit, especially if the dollar appreciates further. As long as the Fed focuses on its dual mandate and tries to contain inflationary pressures, the executive branch of the U.S. government can do little to push the dollar down. Currency intervention cannot have a permanent effect unless it is accompanied by shifts in relative macro fundamentals. For example, foreign exchange intervention by the Japanese Ministry of Finance in the late 1990s merely had a temporary impact on the yen. The yen only weakened on a sustained basis once interest rate differentials moved against Japan. This problem underpins our view that the Sino-U.S. relationship is unlikely to improve meaningfully next year. China will remain an easy target to blame for the U.S.’s large trade deficit. What ultimately will signal a top in the dollar is better global growth, which is unlikely until the second half of 2019. At that point, expected returns outside the U.S. will improve, causing money to leave the U.S., pushing the dollar down. Mr. X: While 2017 was a stellar year for the euro, 2018 proved a much more challenging environment. Will 2019 be more like 2017 or 2018? BCA: We often think of the euro as the anti-dollar; buying EUR/USD is the simplest, most liquid vehicle for betting against the dollar, and vice versa. Our bullish dollar stance is therefore synonymous with a negative take on the euro. Also, the activity gap between the U.S. and the Euro Area continues to move in a euro-bearish fashion (Chart 40). Finally, since the Great Financial Crisis, EUR/USD has lagged the differential between European and U.S. core inflation by roughly six months. Today, this inflation spread still points toward a weaker euro. Chart 40Relative LEI's Moving Against Euro It is important to remember that when Chinese economic activity weakens, European growth deteriorates relative to the U.S. Thus, our view that global growth will continue to sputter in the first half of 2019 implies that the monetary policy divergence between the Fed and the ECB has not yet reached a climax. Consequently, we expect EUR/USD to trade below 1.1 in the first half of 2019. By that point, the common currency will be trading at a meaningful discount to its fair value, which will allow it to find a floor (Chart 41). Chart 41Euro Heading Below Fair Value Before Bottoming Mr. X: The Bank of Japan has debased the yen, with a balance sheet larger than Japan’s GDP. This cannot end well. I am very bearish on the currency. BCA: The BoJ’s monetary policy is definitely a challenge for the yen. The Japanese central bank rightfully understands that Japan’s inability to generate any meaningful inflation – despite an economy that is at full employment – is the consequence of a well-established deflationary mindset. The BoJ wants to shock inflation expectations upward by keeping real rates at very accommodative levels well after growth has picked up. This means that the BoJ will remain a laggard as global central banks move away from accommodative policies. The yen will continue to depreciate versus the dollar as U.S. yields rise on a cyclical horizon. That being said, the yen still has a place within investors’ portfolios. First, the yen is unlikely to collapse despite the BoJ’s heavy debt monetization. The JPY is one of the cheapest currencies in the world, with its real effective exchange rate hovering at a three-decade low (Chart 42). Additionally, Japan still sports a current account surplus of 3.7% of GDP, hardly the sign of an overstimulated and inflationary economy where demand is running amok. Instead, thanks to decades of current account surpluses, Japan has accumulated a positive net international investment position of 60% of GDP. This means that Japan runs a constant and large positive income balance, a feature historically associated with strong currencies. Chart 42The Yen Is Very Cheap Japan’s large net international investment position also contributes to the yen’s defensive behavior as Japanese investors pull money back to safety at home when global growth deteriorates. Hence, the yen could rebound, especially against the euro, the commodity currencies, and EM currencies if there is a further global growth scare in the near term. Owning some yen can therefore stabilize portfolio returns during tough times. As we discussed earlier, we would avoid the EM asset class, including currency exposure, until global growth firms. Commodities: Ms. X: Once again, you made a good call on the energy price outlook a year ago, with prices moving higher for most of the year. But the recent weakness in oil seemed to come out of nowhere, and I must admit to being confused about where we go next. What are your latest thoughts on oil prices for the coming year? BCA: The fundamentals lined up in a very straightforward way at the end of 2017. The coalition we have dubbed OPEC 2.0 – the OPEC and non-OPEC producer group led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – outlined a clear strategy to reduce the global oil inventory overhang. The producers that had the capacity to increase supply maintained strict production discipline which, to some analysts, was still surprising even after the cohesiveness shown by the group in 2017. Outside that core group output continued to fall, especially in Venezuela, which remains a high-risk producing province. The oil market was balanced and prices were slowly moving higher as we entered the second quarter of this year, when President Trump announced the U.S. would re-impose oil export sanctions against Iran beginning early November. The oft-repeated goal of the sanctions was to reduce Iranian exports to zero. To compensate for the lost Iranian exports, President Trump pressured OPEC, led by KSA, to significantly increase production, which they did. However, as we approached the November deadline, the Trump Administration granted the eight largest importers of Iranian oil 180-day waivers on the sanctions. This restored much of the oil that would have been lost. Suddenly, the market found itself oversupplied and prices fell. As we move toward the December 6 meeting of OPEC 2.0 in Vienna, we are expecting a production cut from the coalition of as much as 1.4mm b/d to offset these waivers. The coalition wishes to keep global oil inventories from once again over-filling and dragging prices even lower in 2019. On the demand side, consumption continues to hold up both in the developed and emerging world, although we have somewhat lowered our expectations for growth next year. We are mindful of persistent concerns over the strength of demand – particularly in EM – in 2019. Thus, on the supply side and the demand side, the level of uncertainty in the oil markets is higher than it was at the start of 2018. Nonetheless, our base-case outlook is on the optimistic side for oil prices in 2019, with Brent crude oil averaging around $82/bbl, and WTI trading $6/bbl below that level (Chart 43). Chart 43Oil Prices To Rebound In 2019 Ms. X: I am skeptical that oil prices will rebound as much as you expect. First, oil demand is likely to falter if your view that global growth will continue slowing into early 2019 proves correct. Second, U.S. shale production is rising briskly, with pipeline bottlenecks finally starting to ease. Third, President Trump seems to have gone from taking credit for high equity prices to taking credit for low oil prices. Trump has taken a lot flack for supporting Saudi Arabia following the killing of The Washington Post journalist in Turkey. Would the Saudis really be willing to lose Trump’s support by cutting production at this politically sensitive time? BCA: Faltering demand growth remains a concern. However, note that in our forecasts we do expect global oil consumption growth to slow down to 1.46mm b/d next year, somewhat lower than the 1.6mm b/d growth we expect this year. In terms of the U.S. shale sector, production levels over the short term can be somewhat insensitive to changes in spot and forward prices, given the hedging activity of producers. Over the medium to longer term, however, lower spot and forward prices will disincentivize drilling by all but the most efficient producers with the best, lowest-cost acreage. If another price collapse were to occur – and were to persist, as the earlier price collapse did – we would expect a production loss of between 5% and 10% from the U.S. shales. Regarding KSA, the Kingdom needs close to $83/bbl to balance its budget this year and next, according to the IMF’s most recent estimates. If prices remain lower for longer, KSA’s official reserves will continue to fall, as its sovereign wealth fund continues to be tapped to fill budget gaps. President Trump’s insistence on higher production from KSA and the rest of OPEC is a non-starter – it would doom those economies to recession, and stifle further investment going forward. The U.S. would also suffer down the road, as the lack of investment significantly tightens global supply. So, net, if production cuts are not forthcoming from OPEC at its Vienna meeting we – and the market – will be downgrading our oil forecast. Ms. X: Does your optimism regarding energy extend to other commodities? The combination of a strong dollar and a China slowdown did a lot of damage to industrial commodities in 2018. Given your view that China’s economy should stabilize in 2019, are we close to a bottom in base metals? BCA: It is too soon to begin building positions in base metals because the trade war is going to get worse before it gets better. Exposure to base metals should be near benchmark at best entering 2019, although we will be looking to upgrade along with other risk assets if Chinese policy stimulus ramps up. Over the medium term, the outlook for base metals hinges on how successfully China pulls off its pivot toward consumer- and services-led growth, away from heavy industrial-led development. China accounts for roughly half of global demand for these base metals. Commodity demand from businesses providing consumer goods and services is lower than that of heavy industrial export-oriented firms. But demand for commodities used in consumer products – e.g., copper, zinc and nickel, which go into stainless-steel consumer appliances such as washers and dryers – will remain steady, and could increase if the transition away from heavy industrial-led growth is successful. Gasoline and jet fuel demand will also benefit, as EM consumers’ demand for leisure activities such as tourism increases with rising incomes. China is also going to be a large producer and consumer of electric vehicles, as it attempts to reduce its dependence on imported oil. Although timing the production ramp-up is difficult, in the long term these trends will be supportive for nickel and copper. Mr. X: You know I can’t let you get away without asking about gold. The price of bullion is down about 5% since the end of 2017, but that is no worse than the global equity market and it did provide a hedge against economic, financial or political shocks. The world seems just as risky as it did a year ago, so I am inclined to hold on to our gold positions, currently close to 10% of our portfolio. That is above your recommended level, but keeping a solid position in gold is one area where my daughter and I have close agreement regarding investment strategy. BCA: Gold did perform well during the risk asset corrections we had in 2018, and during the political crises as well. The price is not too far away from where we recommended going long gold as a portfolio hedge at the end of 2017 ($1230.3/oz). We continue to expect gold to perform well as a hedge. When other risk assets are trading lower, gold holds value relative to equities and tends to outperform bonds (Chart 44). Likewise, when other risk assets are rising, gold participates, but does not do as well as equities. It is this convexity – outperforming on the downside but participating on the upside with other risk assets – that continues to support our belief that gold has a role as a portfolio hedge. However, having 10% of your portfolio in gold is more than we would recommend – we favor an allocation of around 5%. Chart 44Hold Some Gold As A Hedge Geopolitics Ms. X: I’m glad that the three of us agree at least on one thing – hold some gold! Let’s return to the geopolitical situation for a moment. Last year, you correctly forecast that divergent domestic policies in the U.S. and China – stimulus in the former and lack thereof in the latter – would be the most investment-relevant geopolitical issue. At the time, I found this an odd thing to highlight, given the risks of protectionism, populism, and North Korea. Do you still think that domestic policies will dominate in 2019? BCA: Yes, policy divergence between the U.S. and China will also dominate in 2019, especially if it continues to buoy the U.S. economy at the expense of the rest of the world. Of course, Beijing may decide to do more stimulus to offset its weakening economy and the impact of the trade tariffs. A headline rate cut, cuts to bank reserve requirements, and a boost to local government infrastructure spending are all in play. In the context of faltering housing and capex figures in the U.S., the narrative over the next quarter or two could be that the policy divergence is over, that Chinese policymakers have “blinked.” We are pushing back against this narrative on a structural basis. We have already broadly outlined our view that China will not be pressing hard to boost demand growth. Many of its recent policy efforts have focused on rebalancing the economy away from debt-driven investment (Chart 45). The problem for the rest of the world is that raw materials and capital goods comprise 85% of Chinese imports. As such, efforts to boost domestic consumption will have limited impact on the rest of the world, especially as emerging markets are highly leveraged to “old China.” Chart 45Rebalancing Of The Chinese Economy Meanwhile, the Trump-Democrat gridlock could yield surprising results in 2019. President Trump is becoming singularly focused on winning re-election in 2020. As such, he fears the “stimulus cliff” looming over the election year. Democrats, eager to show that they are not merely the party of “the Resistance,” have already signaled that an infrastructure deal is their top priority. With fiscal conservatives in the House all but neutered by the midterm elections, a coalition between Trump and likely House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could emerge by late 2019, ushering in even more fiscal stimulus. While the net new federal spending will not be as grandiose as the headline figures, it will be something. There will also be regular spending increases in the wake of this year’s bipartisan removal of spending caps. We place solid odds that the current policy divergence narrative continues well into 2019, with bullish consequences for the U.S. dollar and bearish outcomes for EM assets, at least in the first half of the year. Mr. X: Your geopolitical team has consistently been alarmist on the U.S.-China trade war, a view that bore out throughout 2018. You already stated that you think trade tensions will persist in 2019. Where is this heading? BCA: Nowhere good. Rising geopolitical tensions in the Sino-American relationship has been our premier geopolitical risk since 2012. The Trump administration has begun tying geopolitical and strategic matters in with the trade talks. No longer is the White House merely asking for a narrowing of the trade deficit, improved intellectual property protections, and the removal of non-tariff barriers to trade. Now, everything from surface-to-air missiles in the South China Sea to Beijing’s “Belt and Road” project are on the list of U.S. demands. Trade negotiations are a “two-level game,” whereby policymakers negotiate in parallel with their foreign counterparts and domestic constituents. While Chinese economic agents may accept U.S. economic demands, it is not clear to us that its military and intelligence apparatus will accept U.S. geopolitical demands. And Xi Jinping himself is highly attuned to China’s geopolitical position, calling for national rejuvenation above all. We would therefore downplay any optimistic news from the G20 summit between Presidents Trump and Xi. President Trump could freeze tariffs at current rates and allow for a more serious negotiating round throughout 2019. But unless China is willing to kowtow to America, a fundamental deal will remain elusive in the end. For Trump, a failure to agree is still a win domestically, as the median American voter is not asking for a resolution of the trade war with China (Chart 46). Chart 46Americans Favor Being Tough On China Ms. X: Could trade tensions spill into rising military friction? BCA: Absolutely. Minor military skirmishes will likely continue and could even escalate. We believe that there is a structural bull market in “war.” Investors should position themselves by being long global defense stocks. Mr. X: That is not encouraging. What about North Korea and Iran? Could they become geopolitical risks in 2019? BCA: Our answer to the North Korea question remains the same as 12 months ago: we have seen the peak in the U.S.’ display of a “credible military threat.” But Iran could re-emerge as a risk mid-year. We argued in last year’s discussion that President Trump was more interested in playing domestic politics than actually ratcheting up tensions with Iran. However, in early 2018 we raised our alarm level, particularly when staffing decisions in the White House involved several noted Iran hawks joining the foreign policy team. This was a mistake. Our initial call was correct, as President Trump ultimately offered six-month exemptions to eight importers of Iranian crude. That said, those exemptions will expire in the spring. The White House may, at that point, ratchet up tensions with Iran. This time, we will believe it when we see it. Intensifying tensions with Iran ahead of the U.S. summer vacation season, and at a time when crude oil markets are likely to be finely balanced, seems like folly, especially with primary elections a mere 6-to-8 months away. What does President Trump want more: to win re-election or to punish Iran? We think the answer is obvious, especially given that very few voters seem to view Iran as the country’s greatest threat (Chart 47). Chart 47Americans Don’t See Iran As A Major Threat Ms. X: Let’s turn to Europe. You have tended to dismiss Euroskeptics as a minor threat, which has largely been correct. But don’t you think that, with Brexit upon us and Chancellor Angela Merkel in the twilight, populism in continental Europe will finally have its day? BCA: Let’s first wait to see how Brexit turns out! The next few months will be critical. Uncertainty is high, with considerable risks remaining. We do not think that Prime Minister May has the votes in the House of Commons to push through any version of soft Brexit that she has envisioned thus far. If the vote on the U.K.-EU exit deal falls through, a new election could be possible. This will require an extension of the exit process under Article 50 and a prolonged period of uncertainty. The probability of a no-deal Brexit is lower than 10%. It is simply not in the interest of anyone involved, save for a smattering of the hardest of hard Brexit adherents in the U.K. Conservative Party. Put simply, if the EU-U.K. deal falls through in the House of Commons, or even if PM May is replaced by a hard-Brexit Tory, the most likely outcome is an extension of the negotiation process. This can be easily done and we suspect that all EU member states would be in favor of such an extension given the cost to business sentiment and trade that would result from a no-deal Brexit. It is not clear that Brexit has emboldened Euroskeptics. In fact, most populist parties in the EU have chosen to tone down their Euroskepticism and emphasize their anti-immigrant agenda since the Brexit referendum. In part, this decision has to do with how messy the Brexit process has become. If the U.K. is struggling to unravel the sinews that tie it to Europe, how is any other country going to fare any better? The problem for Euroskeptic populists is that establishment parties are wise to the preferences of the European median voter. For example, we now have Friedrich Merz, a German candidate for the head of the Christian Democratic Union – essentially Merkel’s successor – who is both an ardent Europhile and a hardliner on immigration. This is not revolutionary. Merz simply read the polls correctly and realized that, with 83% of Germans supporting the euro, the rise of the anti-establishment Alternative for Germany (AfD) is more about immigration than about the EU. As such, we continue to stress that populism in Europe is overstated. In fact, we expect that Germany and France will redouble their efforts to reform European institutions in 2019. The European parliamentary elections in May will elicit much handwringing by the media due to a likely solid showing by Euroskeptics, even though the election is meaningless. Afterwards, we expect to see significant efforts to complete the banking union, reform the European Stability Mechanism, and even introduce a nascent Euro Area budget. But these reforms will not be for everyone. Euroskeptics in Central and Eastern Europe will be left on the outside looking in. Brussels may also be emboldened to take a hard line on Italy if institutional reforms convince the markets that the core Euro Area is sheltered from contagion. In other words, the fruits of integration will be reserved for those who play by the Franco-German rules. And that could, ironically, set the stage for the unraveling of the European Union as we know it. Over the long haul, a much tighter, more integrated, core could emerge centered on the Euro Area, with the rest of the EU becoming stillborn. The year 2019 will be a vital one for Europe. We are sensing an urgency in Berlin and Paris that has not existed throughout the crisis, largely due to Merkel’s own failings as a leader. We remain optimistic that the Euro Area will survive. However, there will be fireworks. Finally, a word about Japan. The coming year will see the peak of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s career. He is promoting the first-ever revision to Japan’s post-war constitution in order to countenance the armed forces. If he succeeds, he will have a big national security success to couple with his largely effective “Abenomics” economic agenda – after that, it will all be downhill. If he fails, he will become a lame duck. This means that political uncertainty will rise in 2019, after six years of unusual tranquility. Conclusions Mr. X: This is a good place to conclude our discussion. We have covered a lot of ground and your views have reinforced my belief that 2019 could be even more turbulent for financial markets than the past has been. I accept your opinion that a major global economic downturn is not around the corner, but with valuations still stretched, I feel that it makes good sense to focus on capital preservation. I may lose out on the proverbial “blow-off” rally, but so be it – I have been in this business long enough to know that it is much better to leave the party while the music is still playing! Ms. X: I agree with my father that the risks surrounding the outlook have risen as we have entered the late stages of this business-cycle expansion. Yet, if global growth does temporarily stabilize and corporate earnings continue to expand, I fear that being out of the market will be very painful. The era of hyper-easy money may be ending, but interest rates globally are still nowhere near restrictive territory. This tells me that the final stages of this bull market could be very rewarding. A turbulent market is not only one where prices go down – they can also go up a lot! BCA: The debate you are having is one we ourselves have had on numerous occasions. 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 returns. While most assets have cheapened over the past year, prices are still fairly elevated. Table 4 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 4.9% over the next ten years, or 2.8% after adjusting for inflation. That is an improvement over our inflation-adjusted estimate of 1.3% from last year, but still well below the 6.6% real return that a balanced portfolio earned between 1982 and 2018. Table 410-Year Asset Return Projections Our return calculations for equities assume that profit margins decline modestly over the period and that multiples mean revert to their historical average. These assumptions may turn out to be too pessimistic if underlying changes in the economy keep corporate profits elevated as a share of GDP. Structurally lower real interest rates may also justify higher P/E multiples, although this would be largely offset by the prospect of slower economic growth, which will translate into slower earnings growth. In terms of the outlook for the coming year, a lot hinges on our view that monetary policy in the main economies stays accommodative. This seems like a safe assumption in the Euro Area and Japan, where rates are near historic lows, as well as in China, where the government is actively loosening monetary conditions. It is not such a straightforward conclusion for the U.S., where the Fed is on track to keep raising rates. If it turns out that the neutral interest rate is not far above where rates are already, we could see a broad-based slowdown of the U.S. economy that ripples through to the rest of the world. And even if U.S. monetary policy does remain accommodative, many things could still upset the apple cart, including a full-out trade war, debt crises in Italy or China, or a debilitating spike in oil prices. As the title of our outlook implies, 2019 is likely to be a year of increased turbulence. Ms. X: As always, you have left us with much to think about. My father has looked forward to these discussions every year and now that I am able to join him, I understand why. Before we conclude, it would be helpful to have a recap of your key views. BCA: That would be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: The collision between policy and markets that we discussed last year finally came to a head in October. Rather than falling as they normally do when stocks plunge, U.S. bond yields rose as investors reassessed the willingness of the Fed to pause hiking rates even in the face of softer growth. Likewise, hopes that China would move swiftly to stimulate its economy were dashed as it became increasingly clear that the authorities were placing a high emphasis on their reform agenda of deleveraging and capacity reduction. The ongoing Brexit saga and the stalemate between the populist Italian government and the EU have increased uncertainty in Europe at a time when the region was already beginning to slow. We expect the tensions between policy and markets to be an ongoing theme in 2019. With the U.S. unemployment rate at a 48-year low, it will take a significant slowdown for the Fed to stop hiking rates. Despite the deterioration in economic data over the past month, real final domestic demand is still tracking to expand by 3% in the fourth quarter, well above estimates of the sustainable pace of economic growth. Ultimately, the Fed will deliver more hikes next year than discounted in the markets. This will push up the dollar and keep the upward trend in Treasury yields intact. The dollar should peak midway next year. China will also become more aggressive in stimulating its economy, which will boost global growth. However, until both of these things happen, emerging markets will remain under pressure. For the time being, we continue to favor developed market equities over their EM peers. We also prefer defensive equity sectors such as health care and consumer staples over cyclical sectors such as industrials and materials. Within the developed market universe, the U.S. will outperform Europe and Japan for the next few quarters, especially in dollar terms. A stabilization in global growth could ignite a blow-off rally in global equities. If the Fed is raising rates in response to falling unemployment, this is unlikely to derail the stock market. However, once supply-side constraints begin to fully bite in early 2020 and inflation rises well above the Fed’s target of 2%, stocks will begin to buckle. This means that a window exists next year where stocks will outperform bonds. We would maintain a benchmark allocation to stocks for now, but increase exposure if global bourses were to fall significantly from current levels without a corresponding deteriorating in the economic outlook. Corporate credit will underperform stocks as government bond yields rise. A major increase in spreads is unlikely as long as the economy is still expanding, but spreads could still widen modestly given their low starting point. U.S. shale companies have been the marginal producers in the global oil sector. With breakeven costs in shale close to $50/bbl, crude prices are unlikely to rise much from current levels over the long term. However, over the next 12 months, we expect production cuts in Saudi Arabia will push prices up, with Brent crude averaging around $82/bbl in 2019. A balanced portfolio is 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. 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 26, 2018
Highlights So What? The Trump administration is focusing on re-election in 2020, which could push the recession call into 2021. Why? The midterms were investment-relevant, just not in the way most of our clients thought. We are downgrading our alarmism on Iran; Trump is aware of his constraints. But investor optimism regarding the trade war may be overdone. China has contained its capital outflows, which suggests Beijing will be comfortable with more CNY/USD downside. A new GPS mega-theme: Bifurcated Capitalism! Watch carefully for any upcoming trade action on semiconductors. Feature There is no better feeling than hearing from our clients that we got a call wrong because we misjudged the constraints of the Trump administration by focusing too much on its preferences. Why? Because it means that clients are keeping us honest by employing our most important method: constraints over preferences. This is one of the takeaways from a quarter filled with meetings with our clients in the Midwest, Toronto, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Frankfurt, Berlin, Auckland, Melbourne, Sydney, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and sunny Marbella, Spain! In this report, we discuss several pieces of insight from our clients. Midterms Are Investment Relevant Generally speaking, few of our clients agreed with our assessment that the midterm elections were not investment-relevant. The further away from the U.S. we traveled, the greater the sense among investors that equity markets influence U.S. politics: both the upcoming takeover of the House of Representatives by the Democratic Party and the odds of trade war intensification. We strongly disagree with this assessment. Both periods of equity market turbulence this year were preceded by a rising U.S. 10-year yield, not any particularly damning trade war chatter (Chart 1). In fact, the intensification of the trade war this summer occurred amidst a fairly buoyant S&P 500! Meanwhile, the odds of a Democratic takeover of the House were priced in well before the October equity decline began. Chart 1Yields, Not Trade, Matter For Stocks Generally speaking, even midterms that produce gridlock have led to a relief rally (Chart 2). This time could be the same, especially because the likely next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has signalled that the main policy goal for 2019 would be infrastructure spending. In her "victory" speech following the election, Pelosi mentioned infrastructure numerous times (impeachment, zero times). Chart 2Stocks Are Indifferent To Midterm Results Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio, likely head of the House of Representatives committee overseeing transportation, has already signalled that he will ask for "real money, real investment."1 DeFazio has previously proposed a $500bn infrastructure plan, backed by issuance of 30-year Treasuries and raising fuel taxes. He has rejected the February 2017 Trump proposal, which largely relied on raising private money for the job. Would President Trump go with such a plan? Maybe. In early 2018, he stunned lawmakers by saying that he supported hiking the federal gasoline tax by 25 cents a gallon (the federal 18.4 cent-a-gallon gasoline tax has not been hiked since 1993). He has since confirmed that "everything is on the table" to achieve an infrastructure deal. Several clients from around the world pointed out that both Democrats and President Trump have an incentive to make a deal. President Trump wants to avoid the deeply negative fiscal thrust awaiting him in 2020 (Chart 3). Given the House takeover by the Democrats, it is tough to imagine that new tax cuts are the means for Trump to avoid the "stimulus cliff." As such, another round of stimulative fiscal spending may be the only way for him to avoid a late-2020 recession (although the latter is currently the BCA House View). Chart 3Can Trump And Pelosi Reverse... Democrats, on the other hand, have an incentive to ditch "Resistance" and embrace policy-making. Yes, hastening the recession in 2020 would be the Machiavellian play, but President Trump would be able to blame Democrats for the downturn - since they will necessarily have had to participate in planning an infrastructure bill only to sink it. They also learned the lesson from the January 2018 government shutdown, which backfired at the polls and forced Senate Democrats to come to an agreement quickly on a two-year stimulative budget deal. What about the GOP fiscal conservatives? They don't necessarily need to come on board. The House is held by Democrats. And the Democrats in the Senate would only need 15-18 GOP Senators to support a profligate infrastructure plan. Given that infrastructure is popular, that the president will be pushing it, and that the GOP-controlled Senate agreed with the budget bill in January, we think that even more Republican Senators can go along with an infrastructure plan. Another big takeaway from the midterms is that the GOP suffered deep losses in the Midwest. President Trump's party lost ten out of twelve races in the region (Table 1). The two most representative contests were the loss of Republican Wisconsin Governor and one-time rising presidential star Scott Walker, and the victory of the left-wing and über-protectionist Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Table 1Massive Republican Losses Across The Midwest Senator Brown won his contest comfortably by 6.4% in a state that Trump carried by 8.13%. The appeal of Brown to the very blue-collar voters that Trump himself won is obvious. On trade, there is no daylight between the left-wing Brown and President Trump. Meanwhile, Walker, an establishment Republican who built his reputation on busting public-sector unions, could not replicate Trump's success in Wisconsin. Several of our clients suggested that the GOP performance in the Midwest was poor because of the aggressive trade rhetoric. But that makes little sense. Republicans did not run Trump-style populists in the Midwest, to their obvious detriment. Democrats have always claimed to be for "fair trade" rather than "free trade." And we know, empirically, that Trump saw a key swing of turnout in 2016 in these states, largely thanks to his protectionist rhetoric (Chart 4). Chart 4Trump Owes The Midwest The Presidency President Trump cannot take Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin lightly. His performance in 2016 was extraordinary, but also tight. The Democrats will win these states if Trump does not grow voter turnout and support, according to demographic projections - and they lost them by less than a percentage point of white voters (Map 1). As such, we think that Democrats will talk tough on trade and try to reclaim their union and blue-collar voters, while President Trump has to double down on an aggressive trade posture towards China. Map 1Can 'White Hype' Work In 2020? Trump's Margins Are Small The midterms are investment relevant after all, but not in the way some might think. The Democratic takeover of the House, and the resultant gridlock, will potentially avert the "stimulus cliff" in 2020. This ought to support short-term inflation expectations and thus allow the Fed to stay-the-course. For markets, this could be unsettling given the correlation between yields and downturns in 2018. For the dollar, this should be supportive. The odds of an infrastructure deal are good, above 50%, with the key risk being a Democratic House focused on impeaching Trump. Such a bill would augur even higher levels of fiscal spending through 2020, possibly prolonging the business cycle, and setting up an even wider budget deficit when the next recession hits (Chart 5). Chart 5Pro-Cyclical Policy Has To Continue Meanwhile, the shellacking in the Midwest ought to embolden the president to go even harder against China on trade. Rather than the upcoming Xi-Trump meeting in Buenos Aires, the key bellwether of this thesis is whether Trump signals afterwards that he will implement the tariff rate hike on January 1, 2019 (and whether he announces a third round of tariffs). Bottom Line: Go long building products and construction material stocks. Stay short China-exposed S&P 500 companies. The 10-year yield may end the year even closer to 3.5% when the market realizes that the odds of an infrastructure deal are higher than previously thought. The political path of least resistance in the U.S. continues to point towards greater profligacy. Trump Is Aware Of His Constraints In The Middle East Throughout 2018, we have flagged U.S.-Iran tensions as the risk for 2019. In early October, we went long Brent / short S&P 500 as a hedge against this risk, a trade that we closed for a 6% gain last week. During our meetings with clients this quarter, however, several astute observers pointed out that in our own analyses we have stressed the geopolitical and political constraints to President Trump. First, we have argued that the original 2015 nuclear deal signed by President Obama had a deep geopolitical logic, allowing the U.S. to pivot to Asia and stare down China by geopolitically deleveraging the U.S. from the Middle East. If President Trump undermined the détente with Iran, he would be opening up a two-front conflict with both China and Iran, diluting his administration's focus and capabilities. Second, we noted that a rise in oil prices could precipitate an early recession and push up gasoline prices in 2019, a probable death knell for any president's re-election prospects. Our clients were right to ask: Why would President Trump face down these constraints, given the high cost that he would incur? We did not have a very good answer to this question. It is difficult to understand President Trump's preferences for raising tensions against Iran beyond the fact that he promised to do so in his campaign, appears to want to undermine all of President Obama's policies, and turned to Iran hawks to head his foreign policy. Are these preferences worth the risk of a recession in 2019? Or worth the risk of triggering yet another military conflict in the Middle East over a country that only 7% of Americans consider is the 'greatest enemy' (Chart 6)? Chart 6Americans Don't Perceive Iran As 'The Greatest Enemy' Given that the administration has offered exemptions to the oil embargo to eight key importers, it now appears that President Trump is well aware of his geopolitical and domestic constraints. The combined imports of Iranian oil by these eight states is ~1.4mm b/d. While we do not have the detail of the volumes that will be allowed under the waivers, it is likely that these Iranian sales will recover some of the ~1mm b/d of exports lost already (Chart 7). Chart 7Waivers Will Restore Iranian Exports For 180 Days What does this mean for investors? On one hand, it means that the risk of oil prices spiking north of $100 per barrel have substantively decreased. On the other hand, however, it also means that the Trump administration agrees with BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy view that oil markets remain tight and that OPEC 2.0's spare capacity may be a constraint to future production increases. Bottom Line: The risks of an oil-price-shock-induced 2019 recession have fallen. However, oil prices may yet surge in 2019 to the $85-95 level (Brent) on the back of supply risks in Venezuela and Iran, especially if Saudi Arabia and Russia prove unable to expand production much beyond their current levels. Most of our clients in the Middle East shared the skepticism of our commodity strategists that Saudi Arabia would be able to increase production much higher than current levels in 2019. However, the view was not unanimous. Risks Of Saudi Arabia Going Rogue Have Declined Clients in the Middle East were convinced that the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi would have no impact on Saudi oil production decisions. However, the insight from the region is that the incident has probably ended the "blank cheque" that the Trump administration initially gave Riyadh on foreign policy. For global investors, this may not have a major impact. But it may have been at least part of the administration's reasoning behind giving embargo exemptions to such a large number of economies. The incident has likely forced Saudi Arabia to adjust its calculus on three issues: Qatar: The Saudi-Qatari split never made much sense in the first place. It was initially endorsed by President Trump, who may not have understood the strategic value of Qatar to the United States. Defense Secretary James Mattis almost immediately responded by reaffirming the U.S. commitment to the Persian Gulf country which hosts one of the most strategic U.S. air bases in the world. Yemen: The U.S. has now openly called on Saudi Arabia to end its military operations in Yemen. We would expect Riyadh to acquiesce to the request. Iran: With the U.S. giving major importers of Iranian oil exemptions, the message is twofold. First, the U.S. cares about its domestic economic stability. Second, the U.S. does not care about Saudi domestic economic stability. Our commodity strategists believe that Saudi fiscal breakeven oil price is around $85. As such, the U.S. decision to slow-roll the sanctions against Iran will be received with chagrin in Riyadh, especially as the latter will now have to shoulder both lower oil prices and the American request for higher output. Could Saudi Arabia break with the U.S.? Not a chance. The U.S. is the Saudis' security guarantor. As such, it is up to Saudi Arabia to acquiesce to American foreign policy goals, not the other way around. While we think that President Trump ultimately succumbed to geopolitical and political constraints when he decided to take the "phoney war" approach to Iran, he may have been nudged in that direction by Khashoggi's tragic murder. Bottom Line: A major risk for investors in 2019 was that the Trump administration would treat Saudi preferences for a major confrontation with Iran as its own interests. Such a strategy would have destabilized the global oil markets and potentially have unwound the 2015 U.S.-Iran détente that has allowed the U.S. to focus on China. However, the death of Khashoggi has marginally hurt President Trump domestically - given that it makes him look soft on Saudi Arabia, an unpopular stance in the U.S. Moreover, the administration has come to grips with the risks of a dire oil shock should Iran retaliate. The shift in U.S. policy vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia will therefore refocus the Trump administration on its own priorities, not that of its ally in the Middle East. Trade War Is All About CNY/USD In The Short Term... Clients in Australia and New Zealand are the most sophisticated Western investors when it comes to China. The level of macro understanding of the Chinese economy and the markets in these two countries is unparalleled (outside of China itself, of course). We therefore always appreciate the insights we pick up from our clients Down Under. And they are convinced that the massive capital outflow from China has clearly ceased. The flow of Chinese capital into Auckland, Melbourne, and Sydney real estate has definitely slowed, and anecdotal evidence appears to be showing up in the price data (Chart 8). Separately, this intel has been confirmed by clients from British Columbia and California. Chart 8Pacific Rim Home Prices Rolling Over The reality is that China has successfully closed its capital account. How else can we explain that a 4.7% CNY/USD depreciation in 2015 precipitated a $483 billion outflow of forex reserves, whereas a 10.1% depreciation this year has not had a major impact (Chart 9)? Chart 9On Balance, China Is Experiencing Modest Outflows To be fair, forex reserves declined by $34bn in October, but that is still a far cry from the panic in 2015. Our other indicators suggest that the impact on capital seepage is muted this time around, largely due to the official crackdown on various forms of capital outflows: Quarterly data (Chart 10) reflecting the change in foreign exchange reserves minus the sum of the current account balance and FDI, indicate that while net inflows have remained negative, they are still a far cry from 2015 levels. Chart 10Far Cry From 2016 Crisis Import data (Chart 11) no longer show the massive deviation between Chinese national statistics and IMF figures. Imports from Hong Kong (Chart 12), specifically, are now down to normal levels, with the fake invoicing problem having quieted down for now. Chart 11No More Confusion Regarding Imports Chart 12Fake Invoicing Has Been Curbed Growth rate of foreign reserves (Chart 13) is not clearly contracting yet, and has been positive this year. Chart 13Severe FX Reserve Drawdown Has Ended Chinese foreign borrowing (Chart 14) is down from stratospheric levels, which limits the volume of potential outflows. Chart 14China's Foreign Lending Has Eased And the orgy of M&A and investment deals in the U.S. (Chart 15) has ended. Chart 15M&A Deals Have Eased Bottom Line: Anecdotal and official data suggest that capital outflows are in check despite their recent uptick. This could embolden Chinese leaders to continue using CNY/USD depreciation as their primary weapon against President Trump's tariffs, especially if the global backdrop is not collapsing. An increase of the 10% tariff rate to 25% on January 1 could, therefore, precipitate further weakness in the CNY/USD. The announcement of a third round of tariffs covering the remainder of Chinese imports could do the same. This would be negative for global risk assets, particularly EM equities and currencies. ... In the Long Term, Bifurcated Capitalism Our annual pilgrimage to Oceania included our traditional meeting with The Smartest Man In Oceania The Bloke From Down Under.2 He shares our belief that the long-term result of the broader Sino-American geopolitical conflict will be a form of Bifurcated Capitalism. His exact words were that "countries may soon have to choose between being in the Amazon or Alibaba camp," a great real-world implication of our mega-theme. Australian and New Zealand clients are particularly sensitive to the idea that the world may soon be split into spheres of influence because both countries are so high-beta to China, while obviously retaining their membership card in the West. Our suspicion is that both will be fine as they export mainly a high-grade and diversified range of commodities to China. Short of war, it is unlikely that the U.S. will one day demand that New Zealand stop its dairy exports to China, or that Australia stop iron ore and LNG exports. Countries exporting semiconductors to China, on the other hand, could face a choice between enforcing a future embargo or incurring the wrath of their closest military ally. The Bloke From Down Under has pointed out that, given China's dependency on semiconductor technology, a U.S. embargo of this critical tech could be comparable to the U.S. oil embargo against Japan that precipitated the latter's attack on Pearl Harbor. Chart 16China Accounts For 60% Of Global Semiconductor Demand The global semiconductor market reached $354 billion in 2016, with China accounting for 60% of total consumption (Chart 16). Despite the country's insatiable appetite for semiconductors, no Chinese firm is among the world's top 20 makers. This is why Beijing's "Made in China 2025" plan has focused so much on semiconductor capability (Chart 17). The goal is for China to become self-sufficient in semiconductors, gaining 35% share of the global design market. Chart 17China's High-Tech Protectionism A key feature of Bifurcated Capitalism will be impairment of investment in high-tech that has dual-use applications in military. Semiconductors obviously make that list. Another key feature would be investment restrictions in such high-tech sectors, particularly the kind of investments and M&A deals that China has been looking for in the U.S. this decade. Further, clients in California are very concerned about the U.S.'s proposed export controls, which would cut off access to China and wreak havoc on the industry. The Trump administration has already signalled that it will restrict Chinese inbound investment. Congress passed, with a large bipartisan majority, an expanded review system, the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA). The law has expanded the purview of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a secretive interagency panel nominally under control of the Treasury Department that can block inbound investment on national security grounds. CFIUS, at its core, has always been an entity focused on China. While the Treasury Department initially signalled it would take as much as 18 months to adopt the new FIRRMA rules, Secretary Mnuchin has accelerated the process. The procedure now will expand review from only large-stake takeovers to joint ventures and smaller investments by foreigners, particularly in technology deemed critical for national security reasons. This oversight began on November 10 and will allow CFIUS to block foreigners from taking a stake in a business making sensitive technology even if it gives the foreign investors merely a board seat. Countries of "special concern" will inherently receive heightened scrutiny, and a country's history of compliance with U.S. law, as well as cybersecurity and American citizens' privacy, will be considerations. A new interagency process led by the Commerce Department will focus on refurbishing export controls so as to protect "emerging and foundational technologies." Such impediments to capital flows are likely to become endemic and expand beyond the U.S. We may be seeing the first steps in the Bifurcated Capitalism concept that one day comes to dominate the global economy. Entire countries and sectors may become off-limits to Western investors and vice-versa for Chinese market participants. At the very least, companies whose revenue growth is currently slated to come from expansion in overseas markets may see those expectations falter. At its most pessimistic, however, Bifurcated Capitalism may precipitate geopolitical conflict if it denies China or the U.S. critical technology or commodities. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see David Shepardson, "Democrats to push for big infrastructure bill with 'real money' in 2019," Reuters, dated November 7, 2018, available at reuters.com. 2 At the time of publication, the said investor was unable to secure the permission of his wife for the "The Smartest Man" moniker. Geopolitical Calendar
As is tradition, during client visits in Europe last week, I had the pleasure of reconnecting with Ms. Mea, a long-term BCA client.1 It was our third encounter and, as always, Ms. Mea was eager to delve into our reasoning, challenge our views and strategy, as well as gauge our conviction level. We devote this week's report to key parts of our dialogue. I hope clients find it insightful and beneficial. Ms. Mea: Isn't the EM selloff and underperformance already overextended? I am afraid you will overstay your negative view on EM risk assets as happened in 2016. What are you watching to ensure you alter your stance as and when appropriate? Answer: I am very cognizant of not overstaying my negative stance on EM. I viewed the EM/China rally from their 2016 lows as a mid-cycle outperformance in a structural downtrend.2 Consequently, I argued the rally was not sustainable and that it was a matter of time before EMs and China-plays entered into a new bear market. Barring perfect timing, it was difficult to make money during that rally. Investors who averaged in EM stocks and local bonds over the past three years (including late 2015/early 2016 lows) and did not sell early this year have not made money. The current down-leg in EM financial markets may be the last phase of the bear market/underperformance that began in 2011, and it will eventually create a major buying opportunity. That said, this bear market will likely last much longer and be larger in magnitude than many investors expect. In the recent report titled EMs Are In A Bear Market, I elaborated on why this is a bear market and not just a correction. We also discussed how much further it might go.3 Big-picture macro themes - such as China/EM credit excesses and misallocation of capital - have informed my core views in recent years. Notwithstanding, I am watching various market signals that often lead economic data and are typically early in signaling a reversal in financial markets. Just a few examples of market signals and indicators I am following closely: Turns in EM corporate bond yields often coincide with reversals in EM stocks. For now, EM corporate bond yields are rising, and hence they do not signal a bottom in EM share prices (Chart I-1, top panel). Chart I-1EM/Asian Corporate Bonds Signal Downside Risks To Share Prices The same holds true for Emerging Asian markets: surging corporate bond yields are heralding further declines in Asian share prices (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Our Risk-on versus Safe-Haven (RSH) currency ratio positively correlates with EM equity prices. The RSH ratio has recently rebounded but has not broken above its 200-day moving average (Chart I-2). Hence, there is no meaningful buy signal as of yet. Chart I-2Our Market Risk Indicator The annual rate of change of this indicator leads the global trade cycles and entails further slowdown in global trade (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Global Trade Slowdown Is Not Over Finally, a number of EM equity indexes - small-caps and an equal-weighted index - have broken below their 3-year moving averages (Chart I-4). This entails that the selloff in EM stocks is very broad-based. It could also entail that the overall EM index will likely break below its 3-year moving average as well (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart I-4EM Equity Selloff Has Been Broad-Based Apart from market signals, I am also monitoring economic data, and so far, there are few signs of a revival in global trade or EM growth. The EM manufacturing PMI is falling (Chart I-5, top panel). Manufacturing output growth in Asia and Germany are decelerating sharply (Chart I-5, bottom panel). When global trade growth underwhelms, EM risk assets and currencies fare poorly. Chart I-5Global Growth And EM Credit Spreads Remarkably, both panels of Chart I-5 corroborate that the key reason for the EM selloff this year has not been the Federal Reserve tightening but the deceleration in global trade. We do not foresee a reversal in global trade and China/EM growth deceleration in the coming months. This heralds maintaining our negative view on EM risk assets and currencies for now. Ms. Mea: It is true that China is slowing, but policymakers are also stimulating and a lot of bad news may already be priced into China-related markets. Why do you believe there is more downside in China-related markets and EM risk assets from today's levels? Answer: Indeed, China is easing policy, but policy stimulus has so far been limited. It also works with a time lag. First, the bottoms in the money and the combined credit and fiscal spending impulses preceded the trough in EM and commodities by 6 months at the bottom in 2015 and by about 15 months at the top in 2017 (Chart I-6). Even if the money as well as credit and fiscal impulses bottom today it could take several more months before the selloff in EM financial markets and commodities prices abates. Chart I-6China: Money, Credit And Fiscal Impulses And Financial Markets Second, the stimulus has so far been limited. The recently increased issuance of special bonds by local governments was already part of this year's budget. Simply, it was delayed early this year and has been pushed into the third quarter. In addition, there are reports that 42% of this recent special bond issuance will be used for rural land purchases rather than infrastructure spending.4 The former will not boost economic activity and demand for raw materials and industrial goods. Additionally, the ongoing regulatory tightening of banks and non-bank financial institutions will hinder these institutions' willingness and ability to extend credit, despite lower interest rates. We discussed in a recent report5 that both the effectiveness of the monetary transmission mechanism and the time lag between policy easing and a bottom in the business cycle are contingent on the money multiplier (creditors' willingness to lend and borrowers' readiness to borrow) and the velocity of money (marginal propensity to spend among households and companies). On both accounts, odds are that the transmission mechanism will be slower and somewhat impaired this time around than in the past. Chart I-7 illustrates that the marginal propensity to spend/invest by companies is diminishing, and it has historically defined the primary trend in industrial metals prices. Chart I-7China: Companies Are Turning More Cautious On Capex Third, most of the fiscal stimulus - tax cuts and income tax deductions - are designed to raise household incomes. This will primarily help spending on some consumer goods and services. Yet, there will be little help for property sales, construction and infrastructure spending. These three types of spending drive most of the demand for commodities, materials and industrial goods. In turn, industrial goods, machinery, commodities and materials account for about 80% of total Chinese imports. Hence, the channels by which China affects the rest of the world are via imports of capital goods, materials and commodities. Overall, China's tax reforms will have little bearing on its imports from other countries. The latter are heavily exposed to the mainland's construction and infrastructure spending, which in turn are driven by the Chinese credit cycle. This is why we spend so much time analyzing mainland money and credit cycles. Finally, the significance of U.S. import tariffs for the Chinese economy should be put into perspective. China's exports to the U.S. make up only 3.6% of its GDP. This compares with the mainland's total exports of 20% and capital spending of 42% of GDP (Chart I-8). Chart I-8What Drives China's Growth Consequently, capital spending is much more important to the Middle Kingdom's growth than its shipments to the U.S. That said, the trade confrontation between the U.S. and China is likely already negatively affecting overall business and consumer confidence in China (Chart I-9). Chart I-9China: Service Sector Is Moderating In addition, Chart I-10 illustrates that China's manufacturing PMI for export orders have plunged, signifying an imminent slump in its exports. This could be due to its shipments not only to the U.S. but also to developing economies, which account for a larger share of total exports than shipments to the U.S. and EU combined. Considerable depreciation in EM currencies has made their imports more expensive, dampening their capacity to import. Chart I-10Chinese Exports Are At Risk In brief, China's growth will continue to disappoint, weighing on China plays in financial markets. Ms. Mea: Why has strong U.S. growth not helped global trade, China and EM in general? How do U.S. economic and financial markets enter into your analysis about the world and EM? Answer: One common mistake that many commentators make is to form a view on the U.S. growth outlook and then extrapolate it to the rest of the world. The U.S. economy is still the largest, but it is no longer the sole dominant force in the global economy. Chart I-11 shows that U.S. and EU annual imports are equal to $2.5 and $2.2 trillion, respectively. Combined annual imports of China and the rest of EM amount to $6 trillion - hence, they are much larger than the aggregate imports of U.S. and EU. This is why global trade can deviate from time to time from U.S. domestic demand cycles. Chart I-11EM Imports Are Larger Than U.S. And EU Imports Together That said, due to their sheer size, U.S. financial markets have a much larger impact on global markets than U.S. imports do on global trade. EM financial markets are greatly influenced by their counterparts in the U.S. In this respect, we have a few observations: U.S. growth is robust, the labor market is tight and core inflation is rising. Barring a major deflation shock from EM, the path of least resistance for U.S. bond yields and the fed funds rate is up. Continued rate hikes by the Fed constitute a major menace to EM risk assets. For now, the growth divergence between the U.S. and rest of the world will continue to be manifested in a stronger U.S. dollar. This is a bad omen for EMs. Chart I-12A Risk To U.S. Share Prices Rising U.S. corporate bond yields have historically been associated with lower U.S. share prices, and presently portend a further drop in American equities (Chart I-12). Finally, the surge in equity market leaders - specifically, new economy stocks - has been on par with previous bubbles, as shown in Chart I-13. Chart I-13History Of Financial Bubbles It is impossible to know whether or not this is a bubble that has already reached its top. But the magnitude and speed of the rally, at minimum, warrant a consolidation phase. On the whole, Fed tightening, rising corporate bond yields, a strong dollar and elevated valuations warrant further correction in U.S. share prices. This will reinforce the downtrend in EM risk assets. Ms. Mea: Are fundamentals in many EM countries not better today than they were amid the taper tantrum in 2013? Specifically, current account balances in many developing nations have improved and their currencies have cheapened. Answer: Your observation is correct - current account deficits have improved and currencies have become much cheaper than before. Nevertheless, these are necessary but not sufficient conditions to turn bullish: First, marginal shifts in balance of payments drive exchange rates. Even though current account deficits are currently smaller and currencies are moderately cheap in many EMs, a deterioration in their current accounts due to weakening exports in general and falling commodities prices in particular will depress their currencies. In this context, China's imports are critical. As they decelerate, EM ex-China's current account balances will deteriorate and their exchange rates will depreciate. Second, current account surpluses do not always preclude currency depreciation. Chart I-14 shows that the Korean won, the Taiwanese dollar and the Malaysian ringgit experienced bouts of depreciation, despite running current account surpluses. Chart I-14Current Account Surpluses And Exchange Rates Third, emerging Asian currencies are at a risk from another spell of RMB depreciation. Chart I-15 illustrates that CNY/USD exchange rate correlates with the interest rate differential between China and the U.S. As the Fed hikes rates further and the People's Bank of China (PBoC) keep interest rates stable, the yuan will likely depreciate against the greenback. Chart I-15CNY/USD And Interest Rates Despite capital controls, it seems the interest rate differential affects the exchange rate in China too. Given the ongoing growth slowdown and declining return on capital in China, there are rising pressures for capital to exit the country. If the authorities push up interest rates to make the yuan attractive to hold, it will hurt the already overleveraged and weak economy. If the PBoC reduces interest rates further to help the real economy, the RMB will come under depreciation pressure. Given the constraints Chinese policymakers are facing, reducing interest rates and allowing the yuan to depreciate further is the least-worst outcome for the nation. Yet, this will rattle Asian currencies and risk assets. Finally, EM currency valuations are but particularly cheap, except Argentina, Turkey and Mexico as depicted in Chart I-16A & Chart I-16B. When currency valuations are not at an extreme, they usually do not matter for the medium-term outlook. Chart I-16AEM Currency Valuations Chart I-16BEM Currency Valuations As to the EM fixed-income market, exchange rates are the key driver of their performance. Currencies depreciation causes a selloff in high-yielding local currency bonds and typically leads to credit spread widening. The latter occurs because U.S. dollar debt becomes more difficult to service when the value of local currency declines. Besides, EM currencies usually weaken amid a global trade slowdown and falling commodities prices. The latter two undermine issuers' revenues and their capacity to service debt, warranting wider credit spreads. Ms. Mea: What about equity valuations? Aren't they cheap? Chart I-17EM Equity Multiples Answer: EM stocks are not very cheap. Our composite valuation indicator based on a 20% trimmed mean of trailing and forward P/Es, PBV, price-to-cash earnings and price-to-dividend ratios denotes a slightly attractive valuation (Chart I-17). According to our cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio, EM equities are also moderately cheap (Chart I-18). Chart I-18EM Equities: Cyclically-Adjusted P/E Ratio In short, EM equity valuations are modestly cheap. As with currencies, however, unless valuations are at an extreme (say, one or two-standard deviations from their mean), they may not matter for a while. Barring extreme over- or undervaluation, share prices are typically driven by profit cycles. Importantly, EM corporate earnings are set to decelerate further and probably contract in the first half of 2019 (Chart I-19). If this scenario transpires, share prices will drop further, regardless of valuations. Chart I-19EM Corporate Earnings Are At Risk Ms. Mea: Why don't you write about risks to your view? And, I would like to use this opportunity to ask what are the risks to your view presently? Answer: The basis of why I do not write about the risks to my view is as follows: The risks to a view are often the cases when the key pillars of analysis do not play out. It follows that in these cases, the risks to the view are obvious and there is no need to write about them. To sum up our discussion today, the key pillars of my view are: China's policy stimulus has so far been moderate and the stimulus usually works with a time lag. Additionally, the combination of the regulatory tightening on banks and non-bank financial organizations and the lingering credit and property market excesses in China will generate a growth slowdown that will be longer and deeper than the markets currently expect. The Fed will continue ratcheting up rates as U.S. core inflation is grinding higher. The combination of the above three will produce weaker global growth, a stronger U.S. dollar, and lower commodities prices. All in all, these are bearish for EM risk assets. It is evident that if these themes and assumptions are incorrect, the view will be wrong. Hence, writing that the risks to my view are that my assumptions and themes are mistaken is nothing other than tautology. That said, there are seldom cases when the underlying economic themes and the assumptions are valid, yet the investment recommendations are amiss. These are, in fact, true risks to the view and they are worthy of discussion. Yet, identifying in advance what could go wrong when the analysis and assumption are accurate is very difficult. Presently, I can think of one reason why my investment recommendations could be erroneous even if my economic themes end up being largely valid: It is the shortage of investable assets worldwide relative to capital that is looking to be invested. Quantitative easing programs in the advanced economies have shrunk the size of investable assets. As a result, too much money is chasing too few assets. Consequently, the risk to my view is that EM assets never become sufficiently cheap and that fundamentals do not matter that much. In other words, investors could rush back into EM risk assets despite the poor growth backdrop and not-so-cheap valuations. This is akin to a game of musical chairs where the number of participants is greater than the number of chairs. To complicate things, some chairs are broken, i.e., some assets are of bad quality. As a result, game participants (i.e., investors) are now facing a tough choice between (1) being somewhat prudent and risking being left without a chair; or (2) rushing in and getting either a good chair or a broken chair (depending on luck). Applying this musical chairs analogy, buying EM risk assets at the current juncture is similar to rushing in and hoping to get a good chair. It is a very high-risk bet and success is contingent on luck. In my subjective assessment, there is about a 30% chance that this strategy - buying EM risk now - will be successful with 70% odds favoring being risk averse for the time being. The latter entails staying with a defensive strategy in EM and underweighting/shorting EM versus DM. Ms. Mea: What is your recommended country allocation currently? Answer: In the EM equity space, our overweights are Korea, Thailand, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile, Russia, and central Europe. Our underweights, on the other hand, are India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, South Africa and Peru. Chart I-20 demonstrates the performance of our fully invested EM equity portfolio versus the EM MSCI benchmark. This portfolio is constructed based on our country recommendations. Hence, it is a measure of alpha that clients could derive from our country calls and geographical equity allocations. Chart I-20EMS's Fully-Invested Model Equity Portfolio Performance This fully invested equity model portfolio has outperformed the MSCI EM equity benchmark by about 65% with very low volatility since its initiation in May 2008. This translates into 500-basis-points of compounded outperformance per year. In the currency space, we continue recommending shorting a basket of the following EM currencies versus the dollar: ZAR, IDR, MYR, KRW and CLP. The full list of our country recommendations for equity, local fixed-income, credit and currency markets are available below. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, "Where Are EMs In The Cycle?" dated May 3, 2018 and "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Understanding The EM/China Cycles," dated July 19, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EMs Are In A Bear Market," dated October 18, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-21/china-s-195-billion-debt-splurge-has-less-bang-than-you-think 5 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EMs Are In A Bear Market," dated October 25, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights The correction in global equities is not yet over, but we would turn more constructive if stocks retreated about 6% from current levels. Among the many things bothering investors, the fate of the Chinese economy remains high on the list. Chinese growth continues to slow, with the impact of the trade war yet to be fully felt. Investors are likely to end up being disappointed by both the size and the composition of Chinese stimulus. High debt levels and excess capacity limit the prospective benefits of traditional fiscal/credit easing. Stimulus measures aimed at boosting consumption, which is what the authorities are increasingly focusing on, would help the Chinese economy. However, they would generate only small gains for the rest of the world. A weaker yuan would be outright negative for other economies. Cyclically and structurally, we expect the bond bear market to continue, but slower Chinese growth and a stronger dollar could temporarily cap Treasury yields over the coming months. Feature Correction Slightly More Than Halfway Through We argued in our October 5th report that "prudent investors should consider scaling back risk if they are currently overweight risk assets" because the market was at an elevated risk of a "phase transition" from unbridled optimism to a more sober appreciation of the risks presently facing the global economy.1 The good news is that the ongoing correction will be just that, a correction. Both monetary and fiscal policy in the U.S. remain highly accommodative. The next recession will not occur until late-2020 at the earliest. U.S. equities, which account for over half of global stock market capitalization, rarely enter sustained bear markets outside of recessions (Chart 1). Chart 1Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap The bad news is that we have yet to reach a capitulation point. As we noted last week, corrections usually end when investors stop believing that they are witnessing a correction and start thinking that a bear market is afoot.2 Normally, stocks need to break through prior support levels several times before "buy the dip" investors throw in the towel. This week saw the S&P 500 fall below its October 11th lows. A few more iterations of this pattern may be necessary. To repeat what we wrote before, barring any major new developments, we would turn bullish on global equities again if the MSCI All-Country World Index were to fall by 12% 10% 8% 6% from current levels. With that in mind, we are putting in a limit order to buy the ACWI ETF at $64.3 Emerging Markets: Time To Pay The Piper Even if we were to turn more positive on global equities, we would maintain our preference for developed market stocks over emerging markets, despite the latter's higher beta nature. The wave of liquidity created by the Fed and other major central banks over the past decade ended up flowing into places where it was not needed. Emerging markets were a prime destination: Dollar-denominated debt in emerging markets now stands at levels reached just before the late-1990s Asian Crisis (Chart 2). Chart 2EM Dollar Debt At Late-1990s Levels While EM valuations have cheapened considerably, they are not yet at washed out levels. The latest BofA Merrill Lynch Global Fund Manager Survey showed that managers were slightly net overweight emerging market equities in October. This is a far cry from 2015, when a net 30% of managers were underweight EM stocks. Chinese Stimulus To The Rescue? China figures heavily into the equation. If the Chinese government were to deliver a massive dose of traditional fiscal/credit easing, this would boost fixed-asset investment and thus commodity prices, helping emerging markets in the process. Such a dollop of stimulus would also lift global growth. As a countercyclical currency, the U.S. dollar tends to weaken when global growth accelerates (Chart 3). The reflationary impulse from higher commodity prices and a softer dollar would be manna from heaven for emerging markets. Chart 3Decelerating Global Growth Tends To Be Bullish For The Dollar If we had strong confidence that such a burst of stimulus were forthcoming, we would be comfortable in calling the end of the global stock market correction now and going overweight EM assets. Unfortunately, the evidence so far suggests that while the Chinese authorities are stimulating the economy, they are not doing so by enough to reignite growth (Chart 4). Chart 4Chinese Growth Remains Soft Real GDP increased at a weaker-than-expected pace in the third quarter. Industrial production surprised on the downside in September, echoing declines in the manufacturing PMI. Home sales are running well below housing starts, suggesting downside risk for the latter in the months ahead. Goldman's China Current Activity Indicator has continued to grind lower, while the economic surprise index remains mired in negative territory. Our conversations with clients suggest that most are expecting the recently announced stimulus measures to arrest and then reverse the downward trend in growth. We are not so sure. As our geopolitical team has stressed, the Chinese government has expended a lot of political capital on its reform agenda.4 Abandoning it now would not only cause the government to lose credibility, but it would undermine the very reasons it was implemented in the first place. Waves of stimulus have caused total debt to soar from 140% of GDP in 2008 to 260% of GDP at present (Chart 5). Since most of the new credit has been used to finance fixed-asset investment, China has ended up with a severe overcapacity problem. The rate of return on assets in the state-owned corporate sector has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart 6). Our China team estimates that 15%-to-20% of apartments are sitting vacant.5 Chart 5China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Went Hand In Hand Chart 6Rate Of Return On Assets Below Borrowing Costs For Chinese SOEs Today, Chinese banks are being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not sour. This has become an impossible feat. As such, we are skeptical that the recent acceleration in credit growth will have long legs (Chart 7). Anecdotal evidence suggests that some companies which are receiving credit are simply holding on to the cash, rather than running the risk of being accused of investing in money-losing projects. Monetary policy in China is increasingly pushing on a string. Chart 7China: Only A Modest Acceleration In Credit Growth Rebalancing: Be Careful What You Wish For This does not mean that China will not try to prop up its economy. It will. But the form of stimulus the government pursues may not be to foreign investors' liking. For example, consider the recently announced income tax reforms, which raise the threshold at which households need to start paying taxes while increasing deductions for education, health, housing, and eldercare. In and of themselves, these measures are admirable and long overdue. The Chinese income tax system is fairly regressive. Poor households face an effective income tax rate exceeding 40%. This is well above OECD norms (Chart 8).6 A more progressive tax system would boost consumption among poorer households. Chart 8High Tax Burden For Low-Income Households In China The snag is that raw materials and capital goods comprise 85% of Chinese imports. As Arthur Budaghyan, BCA's Chief EM strategist, has long noted, policies that boost Chinese consumption are simply less beneficial to the rest of the world than policies that boost investment.7 Pundits who talk about the virtue of "rebalancing" the Chinese economy away from fixed-asset investment and towards consumer spending should be careful what they wish for! The Trade War Will Heat Up One of the more notable aspects of China's recent slowdown is that it has been concentrated in domestic demand rather than in net exports. Remarkably, Chinese exports to the U.S. actually increased by 12% in dollar terms in the first nine months of the year, compared to the same period in 2017. However, judging from the steep drop in the export component of both the official and private-sector Chinese manufacturing PMI, the export sector is likely to come under increasing pressure over the next few quarters as the headwinds from higher tariffs fully manifest themselves (Chart 9). Chart 9China: An Ominous Sign For Exports Investors hoping that U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping will reach a deal to end the trade war on the sidelines of the G20 leaders' summit in Buenos Aires on November 29 are likely to be disappointed. As we have stressed in the past, Trump's fiscal policy is completely inconsistent with his trade agenda. Fiscal stimulus in a full-employment economy will suck in imports. It will also force the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. The result will be a larger trade deficit. Trump will not be able to blame Canada or Mexico for a deteriorating trade position because he just signed a "big, beautiful" trade agreement with them (incidentally, the new USCAM USMCA agreement is remarkably similar to the "horrible" one that it replaced with the notable exception that it contains a clause barring Canada and Mexico from negotiating bilateral trade deals with China). This means Trump needs a patsy who will take the blame for America's burgeoning trade deficit. Reaching a deal with China would actually be a strategic mistake for Trump's political career. A Weaker RMB Ahead A weaker Chinese currency would blunt some of the pain inflicted on China's export sector from Trump's tariffs. There is obviously a limit to how far China can let its currency slide, but last week's decision by the U.S. Treasury to refrain from labeling China a currency manipulator will probably embolden the Chinese to allow the currency to depreciate some more from current levels.8 A weaker Chinese currency would be a cold shower for the rest of the world. Not only will it make other economies less competitive in global markets; it will also reduce Chinese imports. Concluding Thoughts Investors spend a lot of time debating the magnitude of China's stimulus plans and not enough time thinking about the composition of that stimulus. Credit/fiscal easing of the sort China has historically engaged in is good for other emerging markets because it sucks in raw materials and capital goods. In contrast, consumption-based stimulus is only modestly beneficial to the rest of the world, while a weaker Chinese currency is an outright negative for other economies. If China focuses more on the latter two types of stimulus and less on the former, global investors are likely to be disappointed. Emerging market assets have cheapened considerably over the past few months and will likely find a bottom in the first half of next year. For now, however, investors should overweight developed market stocks relative to their EM peers. Consistent with our July 5, 2016 call declaring "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," both the cyclical and structural trend in bond yields is firmly to the upside. Tactically, however, bonds are deeply oversold (Chart 10). The combination of slower EM growth, disappointments over the magnitude and composition of Chinese stimulus, and a stronger dollar will put a lid on yields over the next few months. Chart 10Treasurys Are Oversold Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Next U.S. Recession: Waiting For Godot?" dated October 5, 2018. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Phase Transitions In Financial Markets: Lessons For Today," dated October 19, 2018. 3 Valid during extended trading hours. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "How Stimulating Is The Stimulus? Part Two," dated August 15, 2018. 5 Please see Emerging Market Strategy Special Report, "China Real Estate: A Never-Bursting Bubble?" dated April 6, 2018. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is China Heading For A Minsky Moment?" dated April 13, 2018. 7 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar Rally And China's Imports," dated May 24, 2018. 8 Ironically, while China may not be manipulating its currency based on the Treasury's legal definition, economic logic suggests it is. True, China is no longer buying dollars in a bid to weaken the yuan. In fact, its reserves have actually declined significantly since 2015. However, the value of the yuan is determined not just by current dollar purchases; it is also determined by those that have taken place in the past. If a central bank buys dollars, this bids up the value of those dollars relative to its own currency. If it then stops buying dollars, its currency does not instantly fall back to its original level. All things equal, it just stays where it is. The best parallel is with quantitative easing. Both theory and evidence suggest that it is the stock of bonds that a central bank owns, rather than the flow of bonds in and out of its balance sheet, that determines the level of yields. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights The investors we met with last week were generally optimistic: No one expects a recession before 2020, and none of the investors we spoke with confessed to underweighting equities. Our concerns about inflation are not broadly shared. We encountered a lot of pushback over our sugar-rush view of the stimulus package: Despite its undeniable short-term benefits, we expect the stimulus package will prove self-defeating for the U.S. economy over the intermediate- and long-term horizon. The view that bond yields are capped seems to have become entrenched: Demographics and the capital-lite Internet-era template are powerful long-run drags on bond yields, but we think yields will rise before they fall, if indeed they can fall in the face of gaping deficits. There is plenty of scope for the Fed to surprise investors: Our terminal fed funds rate expectation of 3.5% - 4% makes us a clear outlier. Feature We spent two days last week discussing market views with clients in and around Philadelphia. There is no substitute for face-to-face meetings, and we always benefit from the exchange of ideas, perspectives, and anecdotes. We also find that investors are eager to hear what's on the minds of their peers and competitors, and get a read on BCA clients' sentiment. This week's report is given over to what we saw, said, and heard about the topics we spent the most time discussing. Fiscal Stimulus The investors we met were constructive about the economy. Our view that there will be no U.S. recession before 2020 is squarely consensus, and client questions about the potential for the expansion to stretch into 2021 and beyond outnumbered questions about the factors that could force us to speed up our recession timetable. We were regularly asked to defend our view that the fiscal stimulus package, while boosting growth in 2018 and 2019, will ultimately reduce potential GDP growth in the intermediate and long term. The questions about the stimulus were especially interesting given that the glass-half-empty view has not generated any internal controversy. The tax-cut package has delivered in spades in the short term. S&P 500 earnings per share are growing at better than a 20% clip; CEO confidence is high; and small businesses, per the NFIB survey, are beside themselves with glee (Chart 1). The IMF projects that the stimulus package will deliver fiscal thrust of 0.8% and 0.9% of GDP in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Real GDP growth is likely to hover around 3% this year and next, as opposed to the 2% level that has been the post-crisis rule. Chart 1Small Business Owners Are Giddy GDP growth is simply the sum of growth in the working-age population and gains in productivity. Policymakers are powerless to do anything now about the last three decades' birth rate, and it appears unlikely that immigration will pick up the slack, but a reduced income tax burden may encourage more people to enter the work force, and/or remain in it longer, increasing labor supply. Increases in the capital stock promote productivity gains, as output rises when workers are better equipped. Net-net, lower individual and corporate income-tax rates, and the immediate expensing of corporate investments, are solid supply-side policy that should help nudge trend GDP higher. There is a fly in the ointment, however. Without commensurate cuts in federal spending, the tax cuts are poised to blast the budget deficit to extremely high levels (Chart 2). If Congress doesn't change its spendthrift ways in the next several years, federal debt relative to GDP will break its World War II-mobilization record by 2030 (Chart 3). The adverse consequences would include diverting a greater share of federal revenues to debt service, constraining spending to respond to recessions or natural disasters, crowding out private investment, and reducing national savings.1 Chart 2So Much For Saving For A Rainy Day Chart 3On The Road To Record Indebtedness The relationship between the size of the capital stock and productivity advances is clear, but average productivity growth has been mired below 1% for close to five years despite a bounce in capex (Chart 4). Perhaps the problem recently has been the capital stock's inability to keep up with employment gains - capital per worker has been shrinking for seven years (Chart 5) - but anyone forecasting an investment-driven increase in productivity should be aware that such a forecast swims against the tide. On a peak-to-peak basis, annualized growth in real private nonresidential investment has been soft for 40 years, with the exception of the cycle that encompassed the computing revolution (Chart 6). The ability to expense investments immediately will boost the capital stock, but we're not counting on a sizable effect. Experience suggests that buybacks, which have next to no multiplier effect on the overall economy, will siphon off much of the increased cash flow accruing from the tax cuts. Chart 4Has Productivity Failed To Respond To The Bounce In Capex ... Chart 5Productivity Held Back By Lack Of Investment Chart 6Capex Cycles Ain't What They Used To Be Adaptive Expectations And The Bond Market The investment roadside has grown thick over the last ten years with failed predictions about higher interest rates, and investors have taken notice. Perhaps no view is so widely shared as the notion that Treasury yields are unlikely to go much higher. Fed haters and other wild-eyed prophets of zero-interest-rate-policy and quantitative-easing doom have been roundly discredited. The adaptive expectations hypothesis, which holds that economic actors slowly adjust their expectations of future events based on how they've been surprised by past iterations of those events, supports the idea that ten years of listless inflation have investors geared up for more of the same. There are sound fundamental reasons to expect lower rates in the future.2 Demographics will pressure the size of the labor force, lowering potential growth; new-era services businesses don't need to borrow as much as the manufacturing behemoths of yesteryear; and widening inequality will redirect wealth from consumers to savers. In the long term, the rate-suppressing factors may be able to offset the upward pressure on rates exerted by the ballooning budget deficit. But inflation is likely to be the biggest driver in the near term. We argued last week that the labor market is so tight it squeaks. The headline unemployment rate is at a 50-year low, and "hidden" unemployment - accounting for involuntary part-time workers and discouraged workers who have given up actively looking for work - is back down to its 1999-2000 and 2006-07 lows. The Phillips Curve has been the object of considerable derision since the crisis, but we are fervent believers in the law of supply and demand. When the demand for workers outstrips supply, compensation will rise (Chart 7). Chart 7Employees Are Gaining Bargaining Power We also expect the fiscal stimulus package to push prices higher. Force-feeding stimulus to an economy that's already operating at full capacity is a sure-fire recipe for inflation. The consequences will be unpleasant for bond investors, especially those holding long-dated Treasuries. One can make the case that slowly adapting expectations contributed significantly to both the three-decade Treasury bear market from the fifties to the eighties, and the 35-year bull market ended in July 2016. Investors were insufficiently compensated for inexorably rising inflation throughout the sixties and seventies (Chart 8), then overcompensated for ever-waning inflation after the Volcker Fed broke its back (Chart 9). If our take is correct, the pendulum is poised to swing back to insufficient compensation for a while. Chart 8A Nightmarish Stretch For Bondholders ... Chart 9... Planted The Seeds For A 35-Year Dream Never Forget At The Fed If all of the strategists at BCA submitted a forecast of the terminal fed funds rate in the current cycle, we expect the mean would settle around 3.5%. We are in the more aggressive camp that foresees a 3.5 to 4% range. If our concerns about inflation turn out to be well founded, we think the FOMC will be forced to intensify its rate-hiking campaign to ensure that it keeps the inflation genie from getting out of the bottle. A great deal of blood was spilled in the first three years of Paul Volcker's chairmanship (1979-82), and the Federal Reserve as an institution wants to make sure it wasn't spilled in vain, regardless of any individual voter's qualms about overdoing hikes.3 Updating Fama And French While discussing the value factor and its extended underperformance, some investors questioned the ongoing relevance of Fama and French's book-to-price metric. For companies that operate on the Internet and derive their value from network effects rather than investments in plant, property and equipment, they asked, is book value a truly useful measure? Although we note that virtual value is not an entirely new phenomenon (the dot.com-era darlings' charms didn't always show to best advantage on drab balance sheets), we have some sympathy for this line of reasoning. There is surely scope for book-to-price to make capital-lite companies appear to be more richly valued than they really are. The custom value and growth indexes created by our Equity Trading Strategy colleagues offer a way around the problem. They augment price-to-tangible-book with four additional metrics - trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-sales, and price-to-cash-flow - in an attempt to better suss out the presence of value. They also compare individual companies only to companies within their own sector to construct strictly equally sector-weighted indexes. The sector-by-sector construction methodology should help mitigate biases that emerge from balance-sheet differences across industries. Investment Implications The path of the fed funds rate is at the heart of our assessment of when the business cycle and the equity bull market will end. If the Fed maintains its gradual pace through all of 2019, hiking the fed funds rate by 25 basis points every quarter, we estimate that monetary policy will turn restrictive about a year from now. That projection leads us to expect that the expansion will stretch into 2020, and that the equity bull market has another year left to run. If the Fed speeds up its timetable, or spooks markets and drives up long rates by telegraphing a higher terminal rate, we would likely bring forward our expectations for the end of the equity bull market, and the onset of full-on spread widening. If our out-of-consensus take on inflation is proven correct, the Fed will act more hawkishly than markets expect. Treasuries would suffer as markets recalibrated their Fed expectations, especially at the long end. We reiterate our fixed-income and Treasury underweights, and continue to recommend investors maintain below-benchmark-duration positioning. We believe it is very unlikely that developments overseas will deter the Fed from pursuing measures to rein in worryingly high inflation, and caution investors from placing too much stock in the notion of an "EM put." The Fed's mandate is exclusively domestic, and events outside of the United States' borders matter only to the extent that they threaten to impinge on the U.S. economy. Chart 10Half Of The Way To Overweight Finally, we note that it's not all gloom and doom, blood-red CNBC graphics aside. As the S&P 500 declines, its prospective returns rise if we're correct that the bull market has another year left in it. We are buyers of a correction (a 10% peak-to-trough decline), and will return to overweighting U.S. equities if the S&P 500 dips into the 2,600-2,640 range, bounding correction territory and the year-to-date lows (Chart 10). Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see the July 2018 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment," available at www.bcaresearch.com, for a comprehensive analysis of the fiscal stimulus and its effects. 2 Please see the March 13, 2015 Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Seven Structural Reasons For A Lower Neutral Rate In The U.S.," available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Volcker was burned in effigy, the Speaker of the House agitated for his resignation, and aggrieved farmers blockaded the Federal Reserve building with tractors in protest of the Fed's stern anti-inflation policies. A summary of the pressures the Volcker Fed faced can be found in the article, "Volcker's Announcement of Anti-Inflation Measures," available at https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/anti_inflation_measures, accessed October 16, 2018.
Highlights So What? The odds of the Democrats taking the Senate have fallen. Meanwhile China's policy easing will benefit China itself, or consumer goods exporters, more so than other EMs. Why? China is the fulcrum of global macro at the moment - only a sharp spike in credit growth will signal a total capitulation by President Xi Jinping. We are lowering the odds of a Democratic takeover of the House from 70% to 65%, while in the Senate the odds fall from 50% to 40%. Generational warfare is one of our new long-run investment themes - it will help define the 2020 election. Feature Amidst the market correction last week, it was easy for investors to take their eyes off the ball: Chinese policy. Chart 1U.S. Is In Rude Health... The ongoing macro environment is one of policy divergence, with the U.S. economy in "rude health," (Chart 1) - to quote BCA's Chief U.S. Strategist Doug Peta - while Chinese growth disappointed under the pressure of macroprudential structural reforms (Chart 2). The dueling policies have converged to produce epic tailwinds for the U.S. dollar (Chart 3) and correspondingly headwinds for global risk assets. Chart 2...But China Still Struggling Chart 3Epic Tailwinds For The Dollar Amidst this backdrop, investors have finally come to terms with the first portion of our thesis: the Fed will respond to robust U.S. growth. Merely weeks ago, markets doubted that the Fed had the temerity to raise interest rates beyond a single hike in 2019. Today, despite President Trump's rhetoric, there is no doubt which way the Fed will guide interest rates next year (Chart 4). Chart 4The Fed Will Keep Hiking A surge in expectations for hawkish Fed policy beyond 2018 should be detrimental for global risk assets. A determined Fed, racing to meet the rising U.S. neutral rate, may tighten global monetary policy too much given that the global neutral rate is likely lower. That view would support remaining overweight U.S. assets and underweight EM well into 2019. Chart 5Signs That China Is Stimulating China is the fulcrum upon which this view will balance. Beijing continues to signal policy easing. BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy's "China Play Index" has perked up, suggesting that global assets are sniffing out the bottoming of restrictive policy (Chart 5). Our own checklist, which would falsify our thesis that Chinese policymakers will avoid a stimulus "overshoot," is starting to see some movement (Table 1). Table 1Will China's Policy Easing Produce A Stimulus Overshoot? If China ramps up stimulus to keep pace with U.S. growth - itself a product of pro-cyclical fiscal stimulus - global risk assets may rally significantly. Our recommendation that investors buy the China Play Index as a portfolio hedge to our bearish view of global risk assets has only returned 0.7% since August 8. China: Credit Data Holds The Key Is it time to ditch the safety of U.S. stocks and embrace ROW? Chart 6What Will September Credit Data Bring? No, at least not yet. It is true that China is clearly shifting towards stimulus. As we go to press, the credit data for September has not yet appeared, but a sharp reversal in credit growth will be necessary to convince global markets that Xi Jinping has fully abandoned his efforts to impose more discipline on China's banks, shadow banks, local governments, and local government financing vehicles (Chart 6). It will be crucial to watch for a reversal in non-bank credit growth, which would suggest that Xi is capitulating on shadow banking, which would then imply a larger reflationary push overall (Chart 7). Chart 7Shadow Bank Crackdown To Lighten Up? The monetary policy setting is currently as easy as in 2016, although there has been no substantive change since July and People's Bank of China chief Yi Gang has signaled that while more can be done, his policy remains "prudent and neutral" (Chart 8). So far this year there have been four cuts to banks' required reserve ratios - it will take additional cuts to signify policy easing beyond expectations as of July (Chart 9). Easier monetary policy implies additional currency depreciation, which could have a reflationary effect. Chart 8Lending Rates Will Decline Substantially If Repo Rates Don't Rise Chart 9RRR Cuts Can Continue Local government brand new bond issuance is catching up to the previous two years', despite a late start. We expect this indicator to be abnormally strong in the closing months of the year, making for an overall increase year-on-year (Chart 10). Local governments are responding to the central government's encouragement to borrow and spend more. Chart 10Local Governments Borrowing More Further, global trade war concerns may abate in the coming months. There is still no guarantee that U.S. President Donald Trump will meet his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping at the G20 leaders' summit in Argentina at the end of November. Both sides are expected to bring negotiating teams to this meeting if it goes forward. While no formal talks have taken place since August 23, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin did meet with China's central bank Governor Yi Gang on the sidelines of the World Bank Annual Meeting in Bali, Indonesia. They discussed China's foreign exchange policy and the potential meeting between Trump and Xi. Our structural view is that the Sino-American tensions are hurtling towards a modern version of a Cold War. However, that structural view can have cyclical deviations. A pause in U.S.-China acrimony - though not a reversion to status quo ante - could manifest by the end of the year. Chart 11U.S. Is Winning The Trade War... Trade policy uncertainty has greatly favored U.S. assets relative to global, both in terms of equities (Chart 11) and the U.S. dollar (Chart 12). Even a temporary truce, if combined with further Chinese stimulus, could reverse the trend. Chart 12...And So Is The U.S. Dollar As such, we can see a temporary pullback in our central thesis of policy divergence, one that benefits global risk assets in the immediate term. However, we caution investors from believing that a structural shift is in place that favors EM and high-beta assets. Put simply, we doubt that China will stimulate as aggressively as it did in 2016, 2012, or 2009 (Chart 13). There is just too much political capital already sunk into macroprudential reforms. Beijing policymakers are therefore sending mixed signals, both looking to stabilize growth rates and contain leverage. Chart 13Expect A Weaker Jolt This Time Several clients have pointed out that the pace and intensity of stimulus is not important. Even a modest turn in Chinese policy will be a strong catalyst for global risk assets at the moment given that the context of 2018-2019 is much more favorable than 2015-2016. In other words, the world is not facing a global manufacturing recession precipitated by a historic decline in commodity prices as it was in 2015. Today, the world needs a lot less from China to spark a cyclical recovery. We are not so sure. First, the big difference between 2015-2016 and today is not the health of the global economy but the health of the U.S. economy and the fact that the Fed is much further along in its tightening cycle. In 2016, the Fed took a 12-month vacation after hiking rates in December 2015, as the amount of slack in the U.S. economy was much larger (Chart 14). Today, the market has begun to price in expectations of further rate hikes in 2019. Chart 14Output Gap Is Closed Second, China's foreign exchange policy could still prove globally deflationary. China faces an exogenous risk today - the trade war - that it did not face in 2015-16. At that time the currency fell amidst financial turmoil, capital outflows, and policy devaluation. But it bottomed in late 2016 after the PBoC defended it robustly, the government imposed strict capital controls, and stimulus stabilized growth. Today the CNY has come under downward pressure again from slower growth, easing monetary policy, and manipulation to retaliate against U.S. tariffs. Despite capital controls, the one year swap-rate differential between China and the U.S. appears to be leading CNY/USD further downward (Chart 15). Given that China's current policy easing is heavily reliant on monetary easing, CNY/USD has more downside. Chart 15Interest Rate Differentials And CNY-USD: A Tight Link Chinese currency trajectory is therefore an important gauge for global investors. Downside beyond the psychological barrier of 6.9-7.0 CNY/USD will at some point have a deflationary rather than reflationary global impact. The PBoC may hold the line and prevent further depreciation, in which case any additional stimulus measures will reinforce this line. But if China adopts more aggressive fiscal and credit stimulus and yet the currency still depreciates due to the U.S. conflict, then China's import demand will not rise by as much as the stimulus would imply. Domestic sentiment will worsen, causing capital outflow pressure to rise, and EM currencies and global growth expectations will suffer. As such, we prefer to play Chinese stimulus through exposure to Chinese equities (ex-tech) relative to other EM equities. Chinese stimulus, we argue, will stay in China, rather than rescue global risk assets. Within EM ex-China, we generally prefer equity indices that are exposed to the Chinese consumer over those exposed to resource-oriented "old China." A key point about China's current policy easing is the use of tax cuts more so than credit-fueled infrastructure construction: the goal of the reform agenda is to boost the consumption share of the economy. As such, we have been recommending that clients overweight South Korea and Malaysia relative to EM benchmarks. Bottom Line: Chinese policy is the fulcrum upon which global policy divergence will turn. If Chinese stimulus overshoots, investors should expand beyond the safety of U.S. assets and spring for global risk assets. At the moment, our view is that Chinese stimulus will not cause global economies to re-converge. Instead, it will benefit Chinese equities relative to other EM plays, and EM markets that export consumer goods to China. Overall, however, we remain cautious on global risk assets. Midterm Update: Did Trump Declare A Generational War? Chart 16GOP Improves In Key Senate Races The Democratic Party's midterm election strategy of opposing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh's nomination has failed to work in key Senate races, where President Trump has rallied his base in reaction to the contentious nomination hearings. Polls now indicate that several Republican Senate candidates are in the lead, including the three that we are watching most closely: Tennessee, Arizona, and Nevada (Chart 16). Our own Senate model, which has been generous to Democrats, now sees Arizona, Tennessee, and Missouri as likely going to the Republican Party (Chart 17). Nevada is still projected to flip to the Democratic Party, but the GOP retains the current 51-49 Senate makeup. Chart 17Our Model Suggests Senate Race Will Be A Wash Political betting markets have sniffed out the shift in Senate polls, with the probability of the GOP maintaining control of the Senate now soaring to above 80%. However, the odds of retaining the House have actually reversed after initial gains in October (Chart 18). Why? Chart 18Republican Odds Surge For Senate First, because President Trump remains unpopular despite the surge of support for GOP Senate candidates in some states (Chart 19). Second, the generic ballot continues to give Democrats a robust lead of 7.3% (Chart 20). The lead has narrowed from a high of 9.5% in early September, but does not suggest that Republicans will benefit in the House as much as in the Senate. Chart 19Trump Still Has Popularity Deficit Chart 20Democrats' Robust Lead In Generic Polls Third, Justice Kavanaugh is now sitting on the Supreme Court! Had his nomination been stalled or outright rejected, the anger of the GOP base would have been more sustainable and broad-based going into the voting booth. The paradox for President Trump is that by winning the Supreme Court battle, the shot of adrenaline to the GOP base has been expended. Nonetheless, the fight itself shows yet again that anger works as an election strategy. After all, as counterintuitive as it may seem, there is no evidence that economic performance helps win midterm elections. Our research actually suggests that there is a mildly negative correlation between economic performance and congressional election performance (Chart 21). Voters only vote with their stomachs when they are hungry. Chart 21Strong Economy Won't Save The GOP In The House Of Representatives Midterm voters tend to be motivated by non-economic issues. With the Supreme Court settled in favor of the GOP base, the question arises: Is Trump out of ways to motivate his base with anger? Maybe not (there is still a Wall to be built!), but it may be too late to rally the GOP base sufficiently by November 6. The House appears to be lost, especially if GOP polling momentum stalls at its current level. However, the two parties have given us a glimpse into their strategies for 2020 - outrage versus outrage. President Trump, in an op-ed for USA Today, blasted the Democratic Party as a party of "open border socialism" that seeks to "model America's economy after Venezuela."1 Specifically, he cited plans by the Democratic Party to reform healthcare in such a way as to transfer the benefits that seniors currently enjoy under Medicare to the rest of the population, ending Medicare benefits in the process. The veracity of President Trump's claims is beyond the scope of this report - and has been covered extensively by the media. What is important is that President Trump may have revealed his strategy for 2020: Generational Warfare. Chart 22Here Comes Generational Warfare Investors caught glimpses of this strategy in 2016, when Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders appealed directly to Millennial voters in his surprisingly robust battle against Secretary Hillary Clinton. For Democrats, appealing to Millennials is a no brainer. First, they are the largest voting bloc in the country (Chart 22). Their numbers relative to Baby Boomers will necessarily grow. Chart 23Beware The Crisis Of Expectations Second, the share of 30-year-olds earning more than their parents at a similar age has fallen by nearly half (Chart 23). Despite the poor economic situation of today's youth, government spending continues to accrue mainly to the elderly (Chart 24). Chart 24Get Grandma! The problem for Democrats is that the more they appeal to the youth, the more likely that President Trump's charges of socialism will ring true. After all, the 18-29 age cohort has more favorable views of socialism than capitalism (Chart 25). Yes, even in America! Chart 25Uh-Oh... Where does this leave investors? First, American politics is no longer merely ideologically polarized. In 2020, we expect generational polarization to emerge as a major theme. Second, the kind of Generational Warfare practised by President Trump leaves no room for cuts to public services. Trump is not opposing Democratic "open border socialism" with traditional, centrist, Republican calls for entitlement reform. Instead, he is casting himself as a champion and defender of Baby Boomer entitlements, which, as Chart 24 clearly illustrates, leave spending on the youth in the dust. The point is that President Trump is not preaching fiscal conservativism. There is no room for entitlement reform in the new GOP. Generational Warfare will simply seek to prevent Democrats from shifting more benefits to the non-Baby Boomer share of the population by preserving the already unsustainable Baby Boomer entitlements. BCA Research's House View sees 2020 as the likeliest date for the next U.S. recession. At the end of 2020, The Congressional Budget Office projects that the U.S. budget deficit will be around 5% (Chart 26). Given that the last four recessions raised the U.S. budget deficit by an average of 5% of GDP, it is safe to say that the U.S. budget deficit may rise to 2010 levels after the next downturn. Chart 26U.S. Deficits Will Be Extremely Large For A Non-Recessionary Period Given President Trump's and the Democratic Party's focus on Generational Warfare, it is unlikely that entitlement reform will occur proactively either before or after the next recession. This suggests that bond yields could rise significantly after the next downturn. Bottom Line: Our baseline odds for the midterm recession are due for an adjustment. We are lowering the odds of a Democratic House takeover to 65% (from 70%) and of a Senate takeover to 40% (from 50%). President Trump's USA Today op-ed signals a turn towards Generational Warfare. Neither the GOP nor the Democratic Party are interested in entitlement reform. The former, under Trump, seeks to preserve the already unsustainable Baby Boomer benefits, while the latter seeks to expand them to the rest of the population. The 2020 election may be fought along the lines of who is more profligate toward their base. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Donald Trump: Democrats Medicare for All plan will demolish promises to seniors," published by USA Today, dated October 12, 2018.
Jair Bolsonaro, an ex-army captain and a right-leaning, law-and-order candidate has won a surprising victory in the first round of the Brazilian presidential election (Chart I-1). Bolsonaro came within striking distance of 50%, but did not cross that threshold, which means that the second round will go ahead on October 28. Given that he only needs another 4% to gain a majority of votes, his victory in the second round is now the most likely outcome by far. Importantly, the results of the congressional election similarly saw a swing to the right in both legislative houses. Chart I-1Bolsonaro Outperformed In The First Round What are the prospects for pro-market structural reforms amid this apparent regime shift in Brazilian politics? How should investors be positioned over the coming months? In the short term, a Bolsonaro presidency will boost business and market sentiment. This is mainly due to the right-leaning balance of parties in Congress and hence Bolsonaro's ability to form a majority coalition. This should lead to an outperformance of Brazilian assets relative to EM on expectations of reforms being passed and implemented. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service recommends upgrading Brazil to an overweight within EM equity, credit, and local fixed-income portfolios. However, in the longer term, we expect that Bolsonaro's presidency will still be constrained on social security reforms. It is still not clear if Brazil's median voter is demanding the kind of policies touted by Bolsonaro's economic advisors. Given Bolsonaro's populism, he may not be willing to expend his political capital on painful and unpopular reforms. In light of this, investors with a 2-5 year horizon should be wary of increasing their absolute exposure to Brazilian assets. Private investors looking for long-term exposure to Brazil should be especially concerned about Bolsonaro's anti-democratic, pro-military inclinations. A New Political Regime... Bolsonaro outperformed expectations in the first round by winning 46% of the popular vote, soundly beating his main rival Fernando Haddad of the left-wing Worker's Party. Polls over the past few weeks had seen him pegged at around 30%. Yet, Sunday night's results showed Bolsonaro beating all pollsters' expectations and nearly gaining the victory in the first round. Table I-1First Round Turnout Was Low In Contrast To Pass Elections Notably, and in contrast to previous elections, overall turnout for the first round was low, standing at just 79% (Table I-1). This played into Bolsonaro's hands. Even though there will be strategic voting in the second round - and our expectation is that most left-leaning voters will switch to Haddad, the remaining left-wing candidate - Haddad's chances look slim. He needs a mass wave of Lula supporters to turn out for the vote. The fact that they did not in the first round bodes ill for him. Thus, Bolsonaro stands at strong odds of becoming Brazil's next president. Attention will turn to the mandate that Bolsonaro will receive over the next four years. In our view, the factors below will be key: Short-term constraints have fallen off: The surprising surge in right-leaning parties at the congressional level suggests that President Bolsonaro will have no immediate legislative constraints to his agenda. He will be free to pursue his policy preferences relatively unimpeded. Chart I-2Chamber Of Deputies Results This is due to both legislative houses shifting towards the right, giving Bolsonaro a mandate to form a majority right-wing government for the first time since 1998 (Chart I-2). So far, 63% of seats in the lower house have gone to center-right and right-wing parties (according to our back-of-the-envelope calculation). If all of these parties joined into a coalition it would represent a historically strong mandate. Markets will surely interpret this as a positive development. However, not all of these parties will necessarily join Bolsonaro. Moreover, reforms requiring a constitutional amendment, such as the all-important reform of Brazil's unsustainable pension system, would require a supermajority of 308 out of 513 seats (60%) in the lower house. Historically, this has proven difficult, and it will be especially tricky for a president with no executive experience, little legislative record, and who denounces the use of pork-barrel spending.1 Otherwise, Congress can ultimately be cajoled into following Bolsonaro. As such, for the first time since Lula's first election (2002 to 2006), the Brazilian president is well-positioned to pursue his agenda. Bolsonaro will likely initiate some easy supply-side policies like cutting corporate taxes and red tape for businesses. Besides, business sentiment could surge due to the emergence of a business-friendly government. Hence, Bolsonaro has some short-term, easy "boosters" before the long-term challenges resurface. Long-term constraints uncertain: Despite the above, the pace of reforms will be slow given that Bolsonaro is, in the end, a populist who will want to maintain power above all. We continue to doubt Bolsonaro's willingness and ability to pursue social security reforms. We suspect that the vast majority of his voters chose to cast their ballot due to his law-and-order agenda that included a focus on battling crime and corruption. His economic advisor, Paulo Guedes, spent more time touting his reformist credentials in foreign financial publications than on the campaign trail. As such, it is difficult to conclude that Bolsonaro actually has a strong mandate for painful pension reforms. Polls ahead of the election suggest that only 4% of the public wants pension reforms (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Brazil's Population Is Not Open To Fiscal Austerity Chart I-4The J-Curve Of Structural Reform That said, we are open-minded and willing to be proved wrong. If Bolsonaro supports very dramatic reforms in his first 12 months in office, when his political capital is strongest, he could pull through despite the likely opposition from the median voter. As our J-Curve Of Structural Reform suggests, Bolsonaro can survive the "danger zone" if he pushes ahead with painful reforms right away (Chart I-4). He will start with sufficient political capital to do so. For long-term investors, the chief question is this: Is Bolsonaro a Brazilian Ronald Reagan or merely a Brazilian Rodrigo Duterte? Judging from everything he himself - not his advisors - has said in the past and on the campaign trail, we would bet on the latter. ...But The Same Economic Problems Brazil is getting a new government, but the macro economic challenges remain the same. Namely, ballooning public debt, still high interest rates and an unsustainable pension system (Chart I-5). As discussed above, it is not evident that Bolsonaro will strive to enact major cuts in the social security system that would be very unpopular. Apart from pensions and privatization, other choices to tackle the unsustainable public debt dynamics include reducing interest rates and boosting nominal growth (Chart I-6). Bolsonaro's economic team has repeatedly discussed the need to reduce high interest rates. Chart I-5Much Needed Pension Reform! Chart I-6Brazil's Macro Distortions Chart I-7The Real Is Still At Risk Of Depreciation Rapid and large interest rate cuts by the central bank will help to service the public debt given that 96% of public debt is in local currency. Yet, lower interest rates could put pressure on the currency to depreciate - the interest rate differential between Brazil and the U.S. is at all-time lows (Chart I-7). Meanwhile, a weaker currency is needed to increase nominal growth. Notably, extremely low inflation and weak nominal growth have worsened the nation's public debt dynamics in recent years. Overall, lower policy rates and currency devaluation are required to reflate Brazil out of a public debt trap. If the exchange rate stabilizes in the short run as foreign investors come back to Brazil, the central bank will reduce interest rates considerably. Lower borrowing costs in combination with a sharp rise in business confidence and existing pent-up investment demand will propel capital spending, employment and overall growth. In short, these are necessary conditions for Brazilian markets to outperform their EM peers, i.e., for relative outperformance. As to absolute performance, it also depends on the outlook for global markets. In a complete global risk-off mode (the odds of which are considerable at the moment) - in which EM currencies and risk assets continue rioting and U.S. share prices drop - it will be difficult for Brazilian risk assets to rally meaningfully. That said, they will still outperform their EM peers. In the long run, pursuing policies of lower-than-needed interest rates and, hence, of chronic currency depreciation appears to be more palatable to Bolsonaro's populist credentials than difficult structural reforms. Therefore, investors who look to commit long-term capital to Brazil should mind the exchange rate. Populist policies favoring nominal growth in the long run lead to chronic currency depreciation. Bottom Line: Bolsonaro's election and his initial policies will be cheered by markets and will help Brazilian markets to outperform their EM peers for now. However, Bolsonaro is a populist and in the long term will choose economic policies that favor high nominal growth and, thereby, warrant chronic currency depreciation. Investment Recommendations Chart I-8Overweight Brazilian Assets Relative To EM In terms of market recommendations, we have the following: For EM dedicated portfolios, we recommend upgrading Brazil to overweight within the equity, credit, and local currency bonds universes (Chart I-8). BCA's Emerging Market Strategy service is taking a 14% profit on its structural short BRL versus USD position. Also, we are closing the short BRLMXN and short BRLARS trades with a 12% gain and a 5.7% loss, respectively. We also recommend closing the short Brazilian bank stocks trade initiated on May 16, 2018, as its return is now flat due to the recent rebound over the past few days. Absolute performance of Brazilian risk assets is contingent on global financial markets sentiment and at the moment odds of global risk off are considerable. This could cap the rally in Brazilian risk assets for now. Long-term investors should realize that timing Brazilian markets in general, and the exchange rate in particular, will be critical to protect gains. We believe that the path of least resistance for Bolsonaro and his team will be to depreciate the currency and engender nominal GDP growth in order to inflate away the country's public debt. This is a smart strategy for which they have a political mandate. But it will be a death-knell for foreign investors with major positions in the country. Andrija Vesic, Research Analyst andrijav@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In late 1998, for instance, even President Cardoso's own PSDB party deprived him of the votes needed to seal a painstakingly negotiated deal with the IMF, which led to a loss of confidence among creditors and a sharp devaluation of the real in January 1999.