金融

Highlights An expansion in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet will increase dollar liquidity. This should be negative for the greenback, barring a recession over the next six to 12 months. Interest rate differentials have largely moved against the dollar. The biggest divergences are versus the more export-dependent NOK, SEK and GBP. A weak dollar will supercharge the gold uptrend. Gold will also benefit from abundant liquidity, and persistently low/negative real rates. Remain short USD/JPY. The path to a lower yen is via an overshoot, as the BoJ will need a shock to act more aggressively. The Bank of Canada left rates on hold, but may be hard-pressed to continue meeting its inflation mandate amid a widening output gap. Go long AUD/CAD for a trade. Feature Chart I-1A Well-Defined Channel The DXY index has been trading within a very narrow band this year, defined by the upward-sloped channel drawn from the February lows (Chart I-1). At 97, the DXY index is just a few ticks away from the lower bound of this channel, which could be tested in the coming weeks. A decisive break below will represent an important fundamental shift, since it will declare the winner in the ongoing battle between deteriorating global growth and easing financial conditions. Global Growth And The Dollar One of the defining features of the currency landscape last year was that U.S. interest rates became too tight relative to underlying conditions. This tightened dollar liquidity both domestically and abroad. Chart I-2 plots the neutral rate of interest in the U.S. relative to the fed funds target rate. A widening gap suggests underlying financing conditions are low relative to the potential growth rate of the economy. Not surprisingly, this also tends to track the yield curve pretty closely, assuming long-term rates are a proxy for the economy’s structural growth rate, while short-term rates reflect borrowing costs. For economic agents, a narrowing spread suggests a rising risk of capital misallocation, as the gap between the cost of capital and return on capital closes. This is most evident for banks through their net interest margins. At the epicenter of this shrinking spread are the Fed’s macroeconomic policies. These include raising interest rates (especially in the face of a trade slowdown) and/or shrinking its balance sheet. These are the very policies that also tend to strengthen the greenback. The result is a rise in the velocity of international U.S. dollars, pushing up offshore rates and lifting the cost of capital for borrowing countries. A widening gap between U.S. neutral rate of interest and fed funds target rate suggests underlying financing conditions are low relative to the potential growth rate of the economy.  This has been the backdrop for the dollar for much of the past two years. The good news is that more recently, the Fed has been quick to rectify the situation. The funding crisis among U.S. domestic banks will be resolved through repurchase agreements and a resumption of the Fed's bond purchases. Chart I-3 shows that the interest rate the Fed pays on excess reserves may soon exceed the effective fed funds rate, meaning the liquidity crisis among U.S. banks may soon be over. Correspondingly, banks’ excess reserves should start rising anew. The drop in rates and the easing in funding conditions have been partly sniffed out by a steepening yield curve (Chart I-3, bottom panel). This will incentivize banks to lend, which in turn, will boost U.S. money supply. As the economy recovers and demand for imports (machinery, commodities, consumer goods) rises, this will widen the current account deficit and increase the international supply of dollars. This should further calm dollar offshore rates, helping short-circuit any negative feedback loops that might have hampered growth in the past. Chart I-2The Fed Has Pivoted Chart I-3Easing Liquidity Strains The message from both global fixed-income markets and international stocks is that we may have reached a tipping point, where easing in financial conditions is sufficient to end the manufacturing recession. This is especially the case given this week’s breakout in the S&P 500, the Swedish OMX, and the Swiss Market Index (Chart I-4) – indices with large international exposure and very much tied to the global cycle. Such market cycles also tend to correspond with a weaker dollar, especially when the return on capital appears marginally higher outside the U.S. (Chart I-5). Chart I-4A Few Equity Breakouts Chart I-5Europe And EM Leading The Rally Chart I-6Less Stress In Offshore USD Funding Bottom Line: Rising dollar liquidity appears to have started greasing the international financial supply chain. One way to track if dollar funding is becoming more abundant is through the convenience yield, or cross-currency basis swap.1 This measures the difference in yield between an actual Treasury bond and a synthetic one trading in the offshore market. On this basis, we are well below the panic levels observed over the past decade (Chart I-6). Interest Rate Differentials And International Flows If the rise in global bond yields reflects a nascent pickup in growth, then the message from interest rate differentials has been clear: This growth pickup will be led by non-U.S. markets, similar to the message from international equities. Should the nascent pickup in global growth morph into a synchronized recovery, this will go a long way in further eroding the U.S.’ yield advantage. More specifically, the currencies that have borne the brunt of the manufacturing slowdown should also experience the quickest reversals. This is already being manifested in a very steep rise in their bond yields vis-à-vis those in the U.S. (Chart I-7A and Chart I-7B). For example, yields in Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Japan have risen by an average of 75 basis points versus those in the U.S. since the bottom. Should the nascent pickup in global growth morph into a synchronized recovery, this will go a long way in further eroding the U.S.’ yield advantage. Chart I-7AInterest Differentials And Exchange Rates Chart I-7BInterest Differentials And Exchange Rates International investors might still find U.S. bond markets attractive in an absolute sense, but the currency risk is just too big a potential blindside at the current juncture. Markets with the potential for currency appreciation such as Australia, Canada, Norway or even the European periphery within Europe might be better bets. Flow data highlights just how precarious being long U.S. dollars is. As of last August, overall flows into the U.S. Treasury market have been negative, which may have contributed to the bottom in bond yields. Net foreign purchases by private investors are still positive at an annualized US$166 billion, but the momentum of these flows is clearly rolling over. This is more than offset by official net outflows that are running at $314 billion (Chart I-8). As interest rate differentials have started moving against the U.S., so has foreign investor appetite for Treasury bonds. More importantly, private purchases have not been driven on a net basis by foreign entities, but by U.S. domestic concerns repatriating capital on the back of the 2017 Trump tax cuts. On a rolling 12-month basis, the U.S. was repatriating back close to net $US400 billion in assets, or about 2% of GDP. Given that the tax break was a one-off, flows have since started to ease, contributing to the ebb in Treasury purchases (Chart I-9). Chart I-8A Growing Dearth Of Treasury Buyers Chart I-9Repatriation Flows Are Ebbing Meanwhile, while U.S. residents have been repatriating capital domestically, foreign investors have been fleeing U.S. equity markets at among the fastest pace in recent years. On a rolling 12-month total basis, the U.S. saw an exodus of about US$200 billion in equity from foreigners earlier this year, the largest on record. Foreigners are still net buyers of about $265 billion in U.S. securities (mostly agency bonds), but the downtrend in purchases in recent years is evident. Bottom Line: Flows into U.S. assets are rapidly dwindling. This may be partly because as the S&P 500 makes new highs amid lofty valuations, long-term investors are slowly realizing that future expected returns will pale in comparison to history. Given that being long Treasurys and the dollar remains a consensus trade (Chart I-10), international investors run the risk of a potential blindside from a sharp drop in the dollar. Chart I-10Unfavorable Dollar Technicals Dollar Reserve Status And Gold The decline in the dollar may not mark the ultimate peak in the bull market that began in 2011, but at least it will unveil some of the underlying forces that have been chipping away at the dollar’s reserve status over the past few years. China has risen within the ranks to become the number one contributor to the U.S. trade deficit over the past few years. At the same time, Beijing has been destocking its holding of Treasurys, if only as retaliation against past U.S. policies, or perhaps to make room for the internationalization of the RMB. In a broader sense, there has been an underlying shift in the global economy away from dollars and towards a more diversified basket of currencies. This makes sense, given that a growing proportion of trading – be it in crude, natural gas, bulk commodities or even softs – is being done outside U.S. exchanges. Gold continues to outperform Treasurys, which has historically been an ominous sign for the U.S. dollar. Ever since the end of the gold/dollar link in the early ‘70s, bullion has stood as a viable threat to dollar liabilities. With the Fed about to embark on a renewed expansion of its balance sheet, we may have just triggered one of the necessary catalysts for a selloff in the U.S. dollar. This means that holding gold in dollars may become more profitable compared to other currencies (Chart I-11). Given that being long Treasurys and the dollar remains a consensus trade, international investors run the risk of a potential blindside from a sharp drop in the dollar.  The one tectonic shift that has happened over the past decade is that central banks have become net gold buyers, holding 20% of all gold that has ever been mined. If that number were to rise to say 25% or even 30%, it could have the potential to propel the gold price up towards $2800/oz (Chart I-12). If you think such an idea is far-fetched, just ask the Swiss, who a few years ago called a referendum to increase their gold holdings from 7% of total reserves to 20%, or Russia that has seen its gold holdings rise from 2% to over 20% of total reserves. Chart I-11Watch Gold In ##br##USD Terms Chart I-12What If Central Banks Bought Gold More Aggressively?   Bottom Line: Reserve diversification out of U.S. dollars is a trend that has been underway for a while now, and unlikely to change anytime soon. Gold will be a big beneficiary of this tectonic shift. A Few Trade Ideas If the dollar eventually weakens, the more export-dependent economies should benefit the most from a rebound in global growth, and by extension their currencies should be the outperformers. Within the G-10 universe, there would notably be the European currencies led by the Swedish krona, the Norwegian krone and the pound. The countries currently experiencing the steepest rise in interest rate differentials vis-à-vis the U.S. could be a prelude to which currencies will outperform (previously mentioned Chart I-7A). We expect commodity currencies to also hold firm, but this awaits further confirmation of more pronounced Chinese stimulus, which so far has not yet materialized. The Canadian dollar should also be a beneficiary from dollar weakness, with a technical formation that looks categorically bearish USD/CAD (Chart I-13). Should the 1.30 level be breached, the next level of support is around the 2017 lows of 1.20. The BoC left rates unchanged this week, but the dovish tone from Governor Stephen Poloz was a big reminder that no central bank wants to tolerate a more expensive currency for now. Looser fiscal policy and rising oil prices will eventually become growth tailwinds. Chart I-13A USD/CAD Breakout Or Breakdown? Chart I-14Canadian House Prices However, we will favor the Aussie over the loonie since the downturn in the Australian housing market appears much further advanced compared to Canada. And with macro-prudential measures already implemented in Vancouver and Toronto, there is a rising risk that Montreal could follow suit (Chart I-14). Historically, policy divergences between the Reserve Bank of Australia and the BoC have followed the relative growth profiles of their biggest export markets, and the message so far is that the RBA is well ahead of the curve in its dovish bias (Chart I-15). Go long AUD/CAD for a trade. Chart I-15Buy AUD/CAD Finally, the Bank Of Japan left interest rates unchanged but signaled it was willing to ease should the path towards their 2% inflation target be in question. As the central bank that has been pursuing the most aggressive monetary stimulus over the last few years, it is fair to say this week’s policy meeting was a non-event. The yen will continue to be buffeted by powerful deflationary tailwinds that are holding the Japanese economy hostage, as well as global economic uncertainty. In the event that global growth picks up, the yen will depreciate at the crosses, but can still rise versus the dollar. This puts long yen bets in a “heads I win, tails I don’t lose much” scenario. Bottom Line: Go long AUD/CAD and stay short USD/JPY. Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist chestern@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Arvind Krishnamurthy and Hanno Lustig, “Mind the Gap in Sovereign Debt Markets: The U.S. Treasury basis and the Dollar Risk Factor,” Stanford University, August 29, 2019. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.S. have been mixed: Preliminary GDP growth slowed to 1.9% quarter-on-quarter from 2% in Q3. PCE slowed to 1.5% quarter-on-quarter in Q3. Core PCE, on the other hand, increased to 2.2%. New home sales contracted by 0.7% month-on-month in September, while pending home sales grew by 1.5% month-on-month. The trade deficit narrowed marginally by $2.7 billion to $70.4 billion in September. Initial jobless claims increased by 5K to 218K for the week ended October 25th. The DXY index fell sharply after the Fed's press conference, ending with a loss of 0.6% this week. On Wednesday, the Fed cut interest rate by 25 bps for the third time this year to 1.75%, as widely expected. The fading interest rate differential will continue to be a headwind for the U.S. dollar. Report Links: On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 Preserving Capital During Riot Points - September 6, 2019 Has The Currency Landscape Shifted? - August 16, 2019 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Recent data in the euro area have been firm: GDP growth in the euro area slowed marginally to 1.1% year-on-year in Q3, down from 1.2% in the previous quarter. On a quarter-on-quarter basis, the growth was unchanged at 0.2%. Headline inflation in the euro area slowed slightly to 0.7% year-on-year in October. Core inflation however, increased to 1.1% year-on-year. Retail sales in Germany grew by 3.4% year-on-year in September, up from 3.1% in the previous month. EUR/USD increased by 0.5% this week amid broad dollar weakness. The current debate among central bankers in the Eurozone is whether ultra accommodative monetary policy is still warranted. This espouses the view that at least, to some members of the ECB, the neutral rate of interest in the Eurozone is higher than perceived. Report Links: On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver - October 11, 2019 A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 Japanese Yen Chart II-6JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan have been mostly positive: Headline inflation was unchanged at 0.4% year-on-year in October. Core inflation however, increased marginally to 0.7% year-on-year in October. Retail sales soared by 9.1% year-on-year in September in anticipation of the consumption tax hike. Industrial production grew by 1.1% year-on-year in September, compared to a contraction of 4.7% year-on-year the previous month. Consumer confidence increased marginally to 36.2 from 35.5 in October. The yen appreciated by 0.5% this week against the U.S. dollar. The BoJ left its policy rate unchanged this Thursday, while reassuring markets that more stimulus could be added if needed in the future. Report Links: A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Has The Currency Landscape Shifted? - August 16, 2019 Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. have been mixed: On the housing front, nationwide house prices increased by 0.4% year-on-year in October. Mortgage approvals increased marginally to 65.9K in September. Money supply (M4) grew by 4% year-on-year in September, up from 3.3% in the previous month. GfK consumer confidence fell further to -14 in October. The pound appreciated by almost 1% against the U.S. dollar this week. The E.U. has agreed on yet another Brexit extension until January 31st. An earlier exit is also possible if the U.K. so chooses. Meanwhile, the U.K. economy is holding up quite well despite the cloud of uncertainty. We remain tactically long GBP/JPY. Report Links: A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 United Kingdon: Cyclical Slowdown Or Structural Malaise? - Sept. 20, 2019 Battle Of The Central Banks - June 21, 2019 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Recent data in Australia have been mostly positive: Headline inflation increased to 1.7% year-on-year in Q3, up from 1.6% in the previous quarter. HIA new home sales grew by 5.7% month-on-month in September. Building permits contracted by 19% year-on-year in September. However on a monthly basis, it grew by 7.6% in September. AUD/USD surged by 1.2% this week. During a speech this Monday, RBA Governor Philip Lowe ruled out the possibility of negative interest rates in Australia, and urged businesses to start investing given historically low interest rates. Going forward, we expect the Aussie dollar to rebound amid a global growth recovery.  New Report Links: A Contrarian View On The Australian Dollar - May 24, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand have been mixed: Building permits increased by 7.2% month-on-month in September. Business confidence came in at -42.4 in October. This was an improvement from -53.5 in the previous month. The activity outlook fell further to -3.5 from -1.8 in October. The New Zealand dollar soared by 0.9% against the USD this week. While we expect the kiwi to outperform the USD amid global growth recovery, it will likely underperform its pro-cyclical peers. Report Links: USD/CNY And Market Turbulence - August 9, 2019 Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Not Out Of The Woods Yet - April 5, 2019 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Recent data in the Canada have been firm: GDP grew by 0.1% month-on-month in August. Bloomberg Nanos confidence index fell marginally to 57.4 for the week ended October 25th. The Canadian dollar has depreciated by 0.7% against the U.S. dollar, making it the worst performing G-10 currency this week. The BoC decided to keep interest rates on hold this Wednesday, with relatively strong domestic growth and inflation on target. While growth in Canada has surprised to the upside, it might not prove sustainable. We are shorting the Canadian dollar this week against the Australian dollar. Report Links: Preserving Capital During Riot Points - September 6, 2019 Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Swiss Franc Chart II-15HF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland have been mixed: KOF leading indicator increased to 94.7 in October, up from 93.9 in the previous month. ZEW expectations fell further to -30.5 in October. The Swiss franc has increased by 0.7% against the U.S. dollar this week. Domestic fundamentals remain strong in Switzerland, but are at risk from the global growth slowdown. As a safe-haven currency, a rising gold-to-oil ratio points to a higher franc. Report Links: Notes On The SNB - October 4, 2019 What To Do About The Swiss Franc? - May 17, 2019 Beware Of Diminishing Marginal Returns - April 19, 2019 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been positive: Retail sales increased by 0.8% year-on-year in September. USD/NOK is flat this week amid broad dollar weakness. The Norwegian krone has diverged from the ebb and flow of energy prices, and is currently trading around two standard deviations below its fair value. While energy prices have recently been soft, the selloff in the Norwegian krone is exaggerated. We are looking to short CAD/NOK. Report Links: A Few Trade Ideas - Sept. 27, 2019 Portfolio Tweaks Into Thin Summer Trading - July 5, 2019 On Gold, Oil And Cryptocurrencies - June 28, 2019 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Recent data in Sweden have been positive: Consumer confidence rebounded to 92.7 in October. Retail sales increased by 2.6% year-on-year in September. Trade balance of goods shifted back to a surplus of SEK 2 billion in September, following the deficit of SEK 5.5 billion in August. Both imports and exports increased by SEK 6.6 billion and SEK 14.1 billion month-on-month, respectively. USD/SEK fell by 0.6% this week. The Swedish krona is much undervalued. A cheap krona should help to improve the balance of payments dynamics in Sweden. We expect the krona to bounce back sharply once global growth shows more signs of recovery amid a U.S.-China trade war détente. Report Links: Where To Next For The U.S. Dollar? - June 7, 2019 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - February 15, 2019 A Simple Attractiveness Ranking For Currencies - February 8, 2019 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Limit Orders Closed Trades

  The key question for asset allocators over coming months will be when (or, perhaps, whether) the global manufacturing cycle will turn up. This would trigger a move into more cyclically sensitive markets, for example euro zone equities and Emerging Market assets. It would push up commodity prices and government bond yields, and lead to a weakening of the U.S. dollar. Recommended Allocation Chart 1First Inklings Of A Pick-Up?   For now, the evidence of this turning-point remains ambiguous, and so we hesitate to pull the trigger. BCA Research's calculation of the global OECD Leading Economic Indicator bottomed earlier this year and should lead to a pick-up in manufacturing activity soon (Chart 1). However, only in EM have the manufacturing PMIs bottomed (Chart 1, panel 2) and this was due mainly to a questionably strong September PMI in China which might be reversed when the latest data-point is published on October 1. In the euro zone, the best that one can say is that the PMIs have stopped falling but they remain at a low level (41.9 in Germany, for instance). Some market-based indicators also signal a pick-up – but not yet convincingly (Chart 2). Defensive currencies such as the U.S. dollar and yen have fallen a little against cyclical currencies like the Korean won and Australian dollar. Euro zone equities have shown some strength, especially in the beaten-down auto sector. The global stock-to-bond ratio looks to be about to break out of its recent range. And copper has bounced off its lows. But these moves could turn out to be just noise rather than the beginning of a trend. Chart 2Are Markets Sniffing Out A Turn? Easier financial conditions are the most likely cause of a rebound. BCA Research's Financial Liquidity Index tends to lead both manufacturing activity and the relative performance of global stocks by around 12-18 months (Chart 3). With the dovish turn of central banks this year, the decline in long-term interest rates (the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, even after its recent rebound, is only at 1.7% compared to 3.2% a year ago), the contraction in credit spreads, and a pick-up in money supply growth especially in the U.S. (where M2 is now growing 6.5% year-on-year), it would be surprising if these looser monetary conditions do not feed through into stronger activity over coming quarters. Chart 3Financial Liquidity Propels Growth Chart 4Could Inflation Now Slow? Indeed, one can easily imagine a scenario next year where growth rebounds but inflation slows (due to the lagged effect of this year’s weaker growth, Chart 4), allowing central banks to remain dovish for some time. This non-inflationary accelerating growth would be highly positive for risk assets and negative for the U.S. dollar. Chart 5 shows how various asset classes behaved in such an environment in the past. Chart 5How Assets Behaved Under Rising Growth/Falling Inflation Easier financial conditions are the most likely cause of a rebound. There are some risks to this optimistic scenario, however. Chinese growth remains sluggish with, for example, imports – the most important factor as far as the rest of the world is concerned – falling by 8.5% year-on-year in September and showing no signs of recovery (Chart 6). The acceleration of Chinese credit growth in early 2019 has petered out since the summer and points to a much flatter recovery of activity than was the case in 2016 (Chart 7). A politburo meeting in late October could lead to monetary stimulus being ramped up but, for now, investors should not assume a big reflationary impulse from China. In the developed world, the biggest risk is that the slowdown in manufacturing spills over into employment, consumption, and services. There are some signs in the U.S. that companies are delaying hiring decisions: job openings have fallen, and the employment component of both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISMs points to a deterioration in the labor market (Chart 8). Growing CEO pessimism, presumably because of anemic earnings and the trade war, points to continuing weakness in capex and a further decline in activity indicators (Chart 9). Chart 6Chinese Growth Still Sluggish... Chart 7...As Credit Growth Peters Out   Chart 8Are Firms Starting To Delay Hiring? Chart 9CEOs Are Not Happy Chart 10Stocks Should Outperform Cyclically On balance, we still expect global growth to accelerate next year, and therefore global equities to outperform bonds over the next 12 months (Chart 10). But we want to have greater conviction for that view before we recommend more aggressive pro-cyclical tilts. We remain overweight equities versus bonds, but hedge the downside risk through an overweight in cash, and through tilts towards U.S. equities, and DM over EM equities. We continue to recommend hedging against the upside risk of greater Chinese stimulus and a strong rally in cyclical assets through an overweight in global Financials, Industrials, and Energy, and also through a neutral stance on Australian equities, which are a clean play on a Chinese rebound. We continue to look for the right timing to turn more positive on pure cyclical assets such as euro zone equities, and Emerging Markets. Fixed Income: A cyclical pick-up would imply that global government bond yields have further to rise (Chart 11). Our global fixed-income strategists have a short-term target for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield of 2.1% (versus 1.7% now) and -0.2% for Bunds (-0.4% now), which would take yields back to their 200-day moving averages (Chart 12).1 We continue to recommend a moderate underweight on duration, and prefer TIPS to nominal bonds, since inflation breakevens imply that the Fed will miss its inflation target by 80 basis points a year on average over the next 10 years. In an environment of accelerating economic growth, credit (both investment grade and high-yield)should outperform in both the U.S. and Europe. The most attractive points on the credit curve are BBB-rated bonds in IG, and the riskiest bonds in HY. For more risk-averse investors, agency MBS currently offer an attractive yield pickup over quality corporate credits. Chart 11Growth Will Push Up Yields Further... Chart 12...Initially To Their 200-Day Average     Equities: Any upside for U.S. equities must come from improved earnings performance. Throughout 2019, earnings have been beating overly pessimistic analysts’ forecasts and Q3 looks to be no exception, with EPS growth on track to be much stronger than the -5% year-on-year that analysts forecast going into the results season (Chart 13). Next year, nominal GDP growth of 4% and a weaker U.S. dollar should produce 7-8% EPS growth. But, with a forward PE of 17x and the Fed unlikely to boost the multiple by further rate cuts, upside is limited. In the right economic environment (as described above), euro zone and EM stocks should do much better. We are currently neutral on euro zone equities, but the recent stronger performance by European banks gives us more confidence that we may be able to move to overweight soon (Chart 14). Similarly, our EM strategists have instituted a buy stop on the MSCI EM index and say they will go overweight EM equities if the index in USD terms rises 3% from its current level.2 Chart 13Analysts Are Too Pessimistic On Earnings Currencies: The first inklings of U.S. dollar weakness over the past month suggest that it may, too, be sniffing out the start of a cyclical rebound, since it tends to be a very counter-cyclical currency (Chart 15). Going forward, relative interest rates are also unlikely to be as bullish a force for the U.S. dollar as they have been in the past few years. For now, we are neutral on the U.S. dollar on a trade-weighted basis, but do see it depreciating against the Australian dollar and the euro over the next 12 months. The British pound has already risen to take into account the lesser probability of a no-deal Brexit, and we would not expect it to move much either way until the General Election result is clear. There are some risks to the optimistic scenario: Chinese growth remains sluggish, and there are signs that U.S. companies are delaying hiring decisions. Chart 14First Signs Of Euro Banks Recovering? Chart 15Recovery Would Be Dollar Bearish Commodities: Industrial metals prices have bottomed out in recent months, in line with Chinese leading indicators (Chart 16). But we will need to see greater Chinese stimulus before we become more positive. Crude oil has moved largely in a range for the past six months, with tightness in supply offset by some weakness in demand, especially from developed economies (Chart 17). With demand likely to pick up in line with the global economy, and supply still constrained by the Saudi/Russia production pact and geopolitical disturbances, our energy strategists see Brent crude averaging $66 a barrel in Q4 and $70 in 2020, versus $60 now. Chart 16Not Enough China Stimulus For Metals To Bounce Chart 17Oil Kept Down By Weak Demand As last year, the Global Asset Allocation service will not publish a Q1 Quarterly in mid-December. Instead, we will send clients on November 22 our annual report of the conversation between Mr and Ms X and BCA Research’s managing editors. This report will detail BCA's house views on the outlook for the macro environment and investment markets in 2020. We will publish GAA Monthly Portfolio Outlooks on the first business days of December and January.   Garry Evans Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report “Big Mo(mentum) Is Turning Positive,” dated 29 October 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2For an explanation, please see the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report " EM Local Bonds: A New Normal?" dated 24 October 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.   Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)  

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

Highlights Our leading gauges of EM commodity-demand growth indicate global industrial-commodity demand has troughed and will be moving higher in the wake of supportive global financial conditions. The magnitude and speed of any commodity-demand rebound hinges on the joint evolution of the USD, which remains close to record highs, and global economic policy uncertainty. Reduced policy uncertainty will translate to a weaker USD, which, all else equal, will be bullish for commodity demand. Chinese economic stimulus remains weak, suggesting policymakers are holding off deploying aggressive fiscal and monetary policy until later this year or next year. Policy risk remains the chief threat to a robust recovery of industrial-commodity demand globally. A ceasefire in the Sino-US trade war will not resolve deeper trade and security issues, which means global financial easing must offset still-pronounced economic uncertainty that is keeping the USD well bid. If policy uncertainty remains high, it will continue to be a headwind for commodity-demand growth.  Feature EM GDP growth is showing signs of accelerating, based on our EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast model. This will translate to higher commodity demand in coming months (Chart of the Week). Our EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast is a coincident indicator of commodity demand, comprised of our Global Industrial Activity (GIA) Index, and our Global Commodity Factor (GCF) and EM Import Volume (EMIV) models (Chart 2). The GIA index uses trade data, FX rates, manufacturing data, and Chinese industrial activity statistics to gauge current global industrial activity, which is highly correlated with trade-related activity. The GCF uses principal component analysis to distill the primary driver of 28 different commodity prices traded globally. Lastly, the EMIV model is driven by EM import volumes reported with a two-month lag by the CPB in the Netherlands, which we update to current time using FX rates for trade-sensitive currencies, commodity prices and interest rates variables. Chart of the WeekEM Commodity-Demand Nowcast Hooking Up Chart 2BCA EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast Components Show Growth Resuming Globally We expect the recovery in global economic growth to reduce the marginal impact of the global policy uncertainty on the USD, and on oil demand. Our EM Commodity-Demand Nowcast is strongly correlated with y/y growth in nominal EM GDP and non-OECD oil consumption. Its improvement supports our view oil demand will continue to strengthen, particularly next year, when we expect growth to average 1.4mm b/d. We expect the recovery in global economic growth to reduce the marginal impact of the global policy uncertainty on the USD, and on oil demand.1 As demand strengthens – and recession fears subside – economic policy uncertainty’s contribution to safe-haven demand for the USD will diminish. This means economic growth will once again be the main driver of cyclical commodity demand growth. The GIA component of our Nowcast is sensitive to real activity in China, which is the largest consumer of base metals, iron ore and steel. Here, it is instructive to see the components other than manufacturing appear to have bottomed, which, at the margin, should be supportive of base metals, iron ore and steel products (Chart 3). The China Economy Component of the index has hooked higher last month, but it still is lagging. This suggests policymakers are holding off on deploying fiscal and monetary stimulus aggressively for now. We expect this will change by 1H20, if organic growth fails to materialize.2 Chart 3BCA GIA Index Components Point Toward Demand Growth Global Financial Conditions Support Commodity Demand For the better part of this year, systemically important central banks globally have been running accommodative monetary policies. With this week’s rate cut, the Fed now has lowered rates three times this year, and the ECB is preparing to roll out QE once again. We expect monetary policy to continue to support a revival of industrial-commodity demand (Chart 4). The easing of global financial conditions has been a pillar of our view. The easing of global financial conditions has been a pillar of our view that globally accommodative monetary policy will reverse the damage done to global commodity demand growth by the Fed’s rates-normalization policy last year and China’s deleveraging campaign of 2017-18. Financial markets have responded to this stimulus, as our colleague Rob Robis points out in this week’s Global Fixed Income Strategy.3 Global equity markets have moved 10% higher y/y, as financial conditions ease (Chart 5): Chart 4Global Financial Conditions Remain Supportive For Commodities Chart 5Global Equities, LEIs Move Higher “Equity prices are an excellent leading indicator of global growth, while bond yields typically reflect current economic conditions. … We see no reason to discount the positive message on growth from rallying equity markets, especially when confirmed by an improvement in our global leading economic indicator (LEI), led by the more cyclical emerging market (EM) countries.” (Chart 6). The real economy also is responding to stimulative global financial conditions, as EM manufacturing activity indicates. EM manufacturing is outpacing activity in DM markets (Chart 7). This is bullish for trade volumes and EM income growth, which will, all else equal, be supportive of industrial-commodity demand (Chart 8). Chart 6EM Equity, FX Markets Strengthen Chart 7EM Manufacturing Outperforms DM Chart 8EM Manufacturing Correlates With Trade Growth Economic Policy Uncertainty Continues To Dog Growth As promising as these indications of a revival in commodity demand may be, global economic policy uncertainty – particularly as regards the Sino-US trade war and trade in general – will remain a hindrance to reviving commodity demand. We have shown that global economic uncertainty stifles oil-demand growth, and commodity demand generally.4These policy risks are exogenous to the commodity markets and are, therefore, very difficult to hedge. While we expect economic uncertainty globally to decline, it will not completely evaporate. It will remain elevated vs. its historical average, despite the decline from its recent record-high level. Presently, commodity markets are positively discounting the likely “phase one” trade deal expected to be agreed between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping. We expect this to reduce economic uncertainty and weaken the USD, at the margin. In addition, as our colleague Matt Gertken notes in last week’s Geopolitical Strategy, other sources of uncertainty – particularly a disorderly Brexit – also are being addressed: “Not only are U.S.-China relations slightly thawing, but also the risk of the U.K. leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement has collapsed. This will reinforce Europe’s underlying political stability despite the manufacturing recession and help create a drop in global uncertainty.”5 Still, while we expect economic uncertainty globally to decline, it will not completely evaporate. It will remain elevated vs. its historical average, despite the decline from its recent record-high level. Consequently, monetary policy will have to remain accommodative in order for the momentum in global growth – mainly in EM economies – to increase and reach the threshold where fears of recession dissipate, a necessary condition required to reduce the correlation between global economic policy uncertainty and the USD. For the USD to no longer be a headwind to commodity-demand growth, monetary policy globally will be forced to offset the remaining, lingering economic policy uncertainty that is keeping the USD well bid.  There still are significant risks going into 2020, as our geopolitical strategists note: “Uncertainty will remain elevated beyond the fourth quarter, however, for two main reasons. First, US uncertainty will rise, not fall, as a result of the impending 2020 election. Second, the trade ceasefire is highly unlikely to resolve the slate of disagreements and underlying strategic distrust plaguing U.S.-China relations. This will cap the rebound we expect in global business sentiment.” So, while uncertainty will fall as President Trump retreats from his previously intransigent trade position vis-à-vis China, its diminution will be limited. All the same, the chances markets will return to the status quo ante are close to zero. This means that for the USD to no longer be a headwind to commodity-demand growth, monetary policy globally will be forced to offset the remaining, lingering economic policy uncertainty that is keeping the USD well bid. So far, it would appear this is happening, given the improvement in global financial conditions currently visible in the data. However, it is not a given this will continue, and markets will be forced to keep a weather eye on these conditions going forward. Bottom Line: Global financial conditions are easing significantly and propelling financial markets higher, particularly global equity markets. We expect the real economy – i.e., commodity markets – also will benefit from monetary accommodation and that aggregate demand will lift as EM income growth improves. This likely will put downward pressure on the USD. Importantly, if the divergence between EM and DM increases, it could offset the impact of global economic policy uncertainty’s impact on the USD and reduce the demand for dollars. We continue to expect oil demand to be supported by monetary accommodation globally and fiscal stimulus as 2019 winds down and into 2020. We also expect real interest rates will remain soft, as central banks try to keep financial conditions loose enough to encourage risk taking and investment. This will continue to support demand for industrial commodities, particularly oil and base metals.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Market Round-Up NB: This week we are adopting a new format and moving our short summaries of other commodity markets to the back of our Weekly Report, which will align our layout with BCA Research’s new look. Energy: Overweight. Saudi Aramco is set to IPO November 3, 2019, according to Reuters. The company is looking at a float of 1 – 2% on the Tadawal, which could be the largest IPO in history.6 Separately, the Trump administration renewed Chevron’s waiver to operate in Venezuela for three months last week. Chevron produces ~ 47k b/d in Venezuela. Sanctions waivers for Halliburton, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes and Weatherford International also were renewed.7 Base Metals: Neutral. LME nickel closed close to 12% below the five-year high registered September 2, following the announcement of an immediate ban in exports of nickel ore from Indonesia on Monday. Although LME nickel stocks are at an 11-year low refined nickel production is expected to rise 4.5% next year to 2.5mm MT, according to MB Fastmarkets. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold traded sideways going into this week’s FOMC meeting. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge, and continue to expect it to move higher as 4Q19 progresses. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grains remain lackluster, despite President Trump's expectations of cementing his “phase one deal” with Chinese President Xi Jinping, which will open the way for China to purchase some $40-$50 billion worth of US ag products. Footnotes 1 We discuss the impact of global economic policy uncertainty on oil prices at length in Policy Uncertainty Lifts USD, Stifles Global Oil Demand Growth, which we published October 17, 2019.  2 Our China Investment Strategy team cautions investors to wait for “hard data” to confirm recent indications the economy has bottomed and will be moving toward stronger growth.  Please see our China Macro And Market Review published October 2, 2019.  It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Big Mo(mentum) Is Turning Positive, published by BCA Research’s Global Fixed Income Strategy October 29, 2019.  It is available at gfis.bacresearch.com. 4 Please see Policy Uncertainty Lifts USD, Stifles Global Oil Demand Growth, which we published October 17, 2019, for more detail on the transmission mechanism from global economic uncertainty to the USD to commodity demand.  Briefly, as uncertainty increases safe-haven demand for the USD increases.  This stifles demand growth for commodities generally, because it increases the local-currency costs of commodities ex-US. 5 Please see Is China Afraid Of The Big Bad Warren?, a Special Report published by BCA Research’s Geopolitical Strategy October 25, 2019.  It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Saudi Aramco aims to begin planned IPO on Nov. 3: sources published by reuters.com on October 29, 2019. 7 Please see US Extends Chevron's Venezuela waiver published by Argus Media’s argusmedia.com service October 21, 2019. Investment Views and Themes Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q3 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in Summary Of Trades Closed In 2018 Summary Of Trades Closed In 2017 Summary Of Trades Closed In 2016

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Declining uncertainty over policy, stabilizing growth in China and improvements in international liquidity, all will allow global economic activity to pick up in the months ahead. A weak dollar will reinforce this positive economic outlook; investors should favor pro-cyclical currencies such as the AUD, NZD and SEK. Bond yields will rise and stocks will outperform bonds on a 12- to 18-month basis. Cyclical stocks are more attractive than defensives. European stocks will outperform U.S. equities and European financials will shine. Copper is a promising buy; stay long the silver-to-gold ratio. Feature The outlook for risk assets and bond yields hinges on global economic activity. The S&P 500 has hit a new high, but our BCA Equity Scorecard Indicator remains non-committal towards stocks (Chart I-1). If global economic activity improves, the Scorecard will begin to flash a clear buy signal, but if growth deteriorates, the indicator will point towards sell. Chart I-1Stocks Could Go Either Way Cautious optimism is in order. Politics, China, liquidity conditions and the dollar collectively will determine the global economic outlook. The liquidity backdrop has significantly improved, political uncertainty should recede and China will morph from a headwind to a modest tailwind. A weak dollar will indicate that the world is healing, and also will ease global financial conditions which will facilitate economic strength. We remain committed to a positive stance on equities on a 12- to 18-month horizon, and recommend below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. Cyclicals should outperform defensives, European banks offer an attractive tactical buying opportunity and European equities will outperform their U.S. counterparts. Heightened Risks… Chart I-2Risks To The Economy And Stocks Many domestic indicators overstate the intrinsic fragility in the U.S. The Duncan LEI, which is the ratio of consumer durable spending and residential and business investment to final sales, has flattened. Therefore, the S&P 500 looks vulnerable and real GDP may contract (Chart I-2). CEO confidence and small business capex intentions warn of a looming retrenchment in household income (Chart I-2, bottom two panels). If consumer spending weakens, then a recession will be unavoidable. As worrisome as these indicators may be, we previously discussed that the major debt imbalances that often precede U.S. recessions are absent,1 the rebound in housing starts and homebuilding confidence is inconsistent with a restrictive monetary stance,2 and pipeline inflationary pressures are absent.3 Instead, business confidence and the Duncan LEI have been eroded by heightened political uncertainty and weak global manufacturing and trade. … Meet Receding Policy Uncertainty … The two biggest sources of policy uncertainty affecting markets, the Sino-U.S. trade war and Brexit, are diminishing. However, the U.S. election will continue to lurk in the background. Chart I-3Weaker Brexit Support = No Hard Brexit Support Brexit Westminster and Britain’s Supreme Court have rebuked U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s threat of a “No-Deal” Brexit. Moreover, parliamentary support for his latest plan, which essentially keeps Northern Ireland’s economy within the EU, indicates that the probability of a “No-Deal” Brexit has collapsed to less than 5%. This assessment is reinforced by the delay of Brexit to January 31, 2020. An election is scheduled for December 12 and the chance of a new referendum to vet the deal is escalating. According to Matt Gertken, BCA’s Geopolitical Strategist, an election does not increase the risk of a hard Brexit. Meanwhile, support for Brexit is near its lowest point since the June 2016 referendum (Chart I-3). Thus, a new plebiscite would not favor a “No Deal” Brexit. Sino-U.S. Trade War Chart I-4Why The Trade-War Ceasefire? The trade war truce will also greatly diminish economic uncertainty. Uncertainty created by the China-U.S. conflict accentuated the collapse in business confidence and capex intentions. The “phase one deal” announced earlier this month will likely materialize. The White House’s tactical retreat on trade is tied to U.S. President Donald Trump’s desire for a second term. He cannot risk inflicting further economic pain on his base of constituents.  Weekly earnings are decreasing for workers in swing states located in the industrial rust belt, especially in those areas that Trump carried in 2016 (Chart I-4). Those swing states are most affected by the slowdown in the global manufacturing and trade sectors. Beijing is also motivated to agree to truce due to its soft economy and deflationary pressures. An easing in trade uncertainty will be positive for the domestic economy. China’s willingness to replace Carrie Lam, the embattled Chief Executive of Hong Kong, and to withdraw the extradition bill at the heart of the protests confirms its eagerness to come to an agreement with the U.S. China’s readiness to make a deal is also made evident by its increasing imports of U.S. agricultural products (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Ultimately, the U.S. will not implement tariffs in December on $160 billion of Chinese shipments. Consequently, investors and businesses should become less concerned about the chances of a worsening trade war. Moreover, chances are growing of a decrease (but not a complete annulation) of the previously imposed U.S. tariffs on China. … And A Q1 2020 Acceleration In Global Growth Global economic activity will improve in Q1 2020 because the drag from China will dissipate and global liquidity conditions will improve. Many activity indicators increasingly reflect these fundamental supports. China China’s economy has reached a new low point: Q3 annual GDP growth is at a 27-year low of 6%, capital spending is weak, industrial production and profits show little life, the labor market is soft, and imports and exports continue to contract. However, a turn in policy has materialized, which will protect the domestic economy. Moreover, this summer’s Politburo and State Council statements showed an increased willingness to reflate the economy. The global economy will accelerate in Q1 2020. Credit creation has stabilized and monetary conditions have eased (Chart I-5). Faced with producer price inflation of -1.2% and employment PMIs of 47.3 and 48.2 in the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors, respectively, authorities have allowed the credit impulse to improve to 26% of GDP from a low of 23.8%. In accordance with this new policy direction, the drag from the shadow banking system’s contraction will slow considerably, thanks to a stabilization in both the growth rate of deposits of non-depository financial institutions and the issuance of bonds by small financial institutions. Additionally, the emission of local government bonds will accelerate. Beijing has also meaningfully eased fiscal policy, which is its preferred reflationary tool. Policymakers have cut taxes by 2.8% of GDP in the past two years. The marginal propensity of households to consume is trying to bottom (Chart I-5, bottom). If history is a guide, the acceleration in the rate of change of public-sector capex will fuel this turnaround in China’s marginal propensity to consume, and push up BCA’s China Activity Indicator (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Overlooked Chinese Improvements Chart I-6Public Investment Matters   Chart I-7A Bottom In Chinese Exports Growth? China’s economy is unlikely to bounce back as violently as in 2009, 2012 or 2016. Authorities are much more circumspect in their use of credit to reflate the economy than they were previously. Moreover, the regulatory environment will prevent a boom in the shadow banking system. Nonetheless, the fiscal push and the end of the decline in aggregate credit growth will allow the Chinese economy to stabilize and maybe pick up a bit. Therefore, China will move from a large headwind to a slight tailwind for global activity (Chart I-7, top panel). Mounting public capex also points toward a modest global recovery (Chart I-7, middle panel). Finally, the upturn in our Chinese reflation indicator, which incorporates both fiscal and monetary policy, points to a re-acceleration in U.S. capex intentions (Chart I-7, bottom panel). Global Liquidity Global liquidity conditions continue to improve and the global economy should soon respond within normal policy lags. 95% of central banks are loosening policy, which normally leads to an escalation in global activity (Chart I-8). The dominant central banks (the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan) will not tighten anytime soon. Inflation expectations in the U.S., the euro area and Japan stand at 1.9%, 1.1%, and 0.2%, respectively, well below levels consistent with a 2% inflation target. Moreover, U.S. core CPI has been perky, but both the ISM and the performance of transportation equities relative to utilities indicate that a deceleration in inflation is imminent (Chart I-9). Salaries are not yet inflationary either because U.S. real wages are growing in line with productivity (Chart I-9, bottom panel). In the euro area and Japan, realized core inflation remains at 1.0% and 0.5%, respectively, and supports the dovish message emanating from inflation expectations. Chart I-8Easier Global Policy Is Important Chart I-9If Inflation Peaks, The U.S. Economy Will Breath A Sigh Of Relief     Liquidity indicators are reflecting this accommodative policy setting. The growth of U.S. and European bank deposits has reaccelerated from 2.5% to 6%, a development linked to the exit of a soft patch (Chart I-10). Moreover, BCA’s U.S. Financial Liquidity Indicator is still moving higher and flashing a resurgence in the BCA Global Leading Economic Indicator (LEI), the ISM Manufacturing Index, commodity prices, and EM export prices (Chart I-11). Finally, U.S. and global excess money reinforce the message of BCA’s U.S. Financial liquidity Indicator (Chart I-12). Chart I-10Deposits Suggest The Worst Of The Slowdown Is Behind Us Chart I-11Continued Pick-Up In Financial Liquidity       The Fed will add to the supply of global liquidity by tackling the repo market’s seize-up. Depleting excess reserves and mounting financing needs among primary dealers resulted in the September surge in the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR). The Fed announced three weeks ago it would buy $60 billion per month of T-Bills and T-Notes, which will lead to a climbing stock of excess reserves. Higher excess reserves create a weaker dollar, stronger EM currencies and firming global PMIs (Chart I-13). Ultimately, EM currency strength eases EM financial conditions, which supports global growth (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Chart I-12Excess Liquidity Is Accelerating Chart I-13U.S. Excess Reserves Will Grow Again   Borrowing activity in Advanced Economies is showing signs of life. Bank credit is already responding to the drop in global yields, and global corporate bond issuance in September 2019 rose to $434 billion. In the U.S., new issues of corporate bonds have also reaccelerated (Chart I-14). Global Growth Indicators Crucial indicators of global economic activity are picking up on this improving fundamental backdrop. The list includes: A sharp takeoff in the annualized three-month rate of change of capital goods orders in the U.S., the Eurozone and Japan (Chart I-15, top panel). Improvement in this indicator precedes progress in the annual growth rate of orders and in capex itself. Chart I-14Borrowers Are Responding To Easier Financial Conditions Chart I-15Some Green Shoots Are Coming Through Chart I-16Positive Market Signals A significant upturn in the Philly Fed, Empire State, and Richmond Fed manufacturing surveys for October, which sends a positive signal for the ISM Manufacturing Index (Chart I-15, second panel). Moreover, the new orders and employment components of these surveys indicate that cyclical sectors of the economy will recover and the recent deterioration in employment conditions will be fleeting. A rebound in BCA’s EM economic diffusion index, which incorporates 23 variables. Such an increase usually precedes inflections in global industrial production (Chart I-15, bottom panel). An acceleration – both in absolute and relative terms - in the annual appreciation of Taiwanese stocks. A strong and outperforming Taiwanese equity market is a harbinger of firmer PMIs (Chart I-16, top two panels). A solid performance of EM carry trades financed in yen, European luxury equities, and the relative performance of global semiconductors, materials and industrial stocks, which signal stronger global PMIs (Chart I-16, bottom three panels). Bottom Line: The global economy will accelerate in Q1 2020. A melting probability of a “No-Deal” Brexit and a truce in the Sino-U.S. trade war will allow global uncertainty to recede. Concurrently, China’s economic slowdown is ending and global liquidity conditions are improving. The Dollar As The Arbiter Of Growth Chart I-17The Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency The dollar faces potent headwinds. The greenback is a countercyclical currency; a business cycle upswing and a weak USD go hand in hand (Chart I-17). The tightness of this relationship results from a powerful feedback loop: weak growth boosts the dollar, but the dollar’s strength foments additional economic slowdown. Global liquidity and activity indicators signal a weaker dollar because they point toward an economic recovery. BCA’s U.S. Financial Liquidity Index, which foresaw a deceleration in the greenback’s rate of appreciation, is calling for an outright depreciation (Chart I-18, top panel). The expanding holdings of securities on U.S. commercial banks’ balance sheets (a key measure of liquidity) corroborates this message. According to a model based on the U.S., Eurozone, Japanese and Chinese broad money supply, the USD should significantly depreciate in the coming 12 months (Chart I-18, third panel). Finally, our EM Economic Diffusion Index validates pressures on the greenback, especially against commodity currencies (Chart I-18, bottom two panels). Chart I-18Liquidity And Growth Indicators Point To A Weaker Dollar Growth differentials support this picture. Late last year, the stimulating effect of President Trump’s tax cuts allowed the U.S. to temporarily diverge from a weak global economy, but the U.S. manufacturing sector is now succumbing to the global slowdown. Once global growth snaps back, the U.S. is likely to lag behind as fiscal policy is becoming more stimulative outside the U.S. than in the U.S. Based on historical delays, this will continue to hurt the dollar (Chart I-19, top panel). Finally, the European economy generally outperforms the U.S. when China reflates, especially if Beijing’s push lifts the growth rate of M1 relative to M2, a proxy for China’s aggregate marginal propensity to consume (Chart I-20). Europe’s greater cyclicality reflects is larger exposure to both trade and manufacturing compared with the U.S. Chart I-19A Global Growth Convergence Will Hurt The Dollar Chart I-20European Growth To Rise Vis-A-Vis The U.S.   The greenback is expensive and technically vulnerable, which compounds its cyclical risk. The trade-weighted dollar is at a 25% premium to its purchasing power parity equilibrium (PPP), an overvaluation comparable to its 1985 and 2002 peaks. Moreover, our Composite Technical Indicator is overextended and has formed a negative divergence with the price of the dollar (see page 54, Section III). Finally, speculators are massively long the U.S. Dollar Index (DXY). Balance-of-payment flows also flash a significant downside in the dollar (Chart I-21). The U.S. current account deficit stands at 2.5% of GDP, but it is widening in response to the dollar’s overvaluation and the White House’s expansive fiscal policy. Since 2011, foreign direct investments (FDI) have been the main driver of the dollar’s gyrations. Last year, net FDI surged in response to profit repatriations encouraged by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, while portfolio flows stayed in neutral territory. This regulatory change had a one-off impact and FDI will begin to dry out. Therefore, financing the widening current account deficit will become harder. Finally, after years in the red, net portfolio flows into Europe have turned positive (Chart I-21, bottom panel). The USD’s depreciation will ease global financial conditions and supports growth further. In this context, interest rate differentials are noteworthy. The two-year spread in real rates between the U.S. and the rest of the G-10 has fallen significantly since October 2018. Reversals in real rates herald a weaker dollar, especially when it faces valuation, technical and flow handicaps. Moreover, European five-year forward short rate expectations are near record lows. If global growth can stabilize, then the five-year forward one-month OIS will pick up, especially relative to the U.S. An uptick will boost the EUR/USD pair and hurt the dollar (Chart I-22). Chart I-21Balance-Of-Payments Dynamics Turning Against The USD Chart I-22Relative Long-Term Rate Expectations And The Euro   The three most pro-cyclical currencies in the G-10 – the AUD, NZD and SEK - strengthen the most when BCA’s Global LEI bottoms but global inflation slows (Chart I-23). The GBP will likely generate a much stronger-than-normal performance next year. Cable trades at a 22% discount to PPP. It is also 19% cheap versus short-term interest rate parity models. The absence of a “No-Deal” Brexit should allow these risk premia to dissipate and the pound to recover. The CAD is also more attractive than Chart I-23 implies. The loonie is trading 10% below its PPP, and the USD/CAD often lags the EUR/CAD, a pair that has broken down (Chart I-24). Chart I-23Currency Performance As A Function Of Growth And Inflation Chart I-24EUR/CAD Flashing A Bearish USD/CAD Signal Bottom Line: A rebound in the global manufacturing sector next year will hurt the USD. The dollar is particularly vulnerable because growth differentials between the U.S. and the rest of the world have melted, the greenback is expensive, balance-of-payment dynamics are deteriorating and interest rate differentials are becoming less supportive. The USD’s depreciation will ease global financial conditions and supports growth further. Additional Investment Implications Bond Yields Have More Upside While the short-term outlook for bonds remains murky, the 12- to 18-month outlook is unambiguously bearish. The BCA Bond Valuation Index is still consistent with much higher U.S. yields in the next 12-18 months (see Section III, page 51). BCA’s Composite Technical Indicator for T-Notes is massively overbought and sentiment, as approximated by the Long-Term Interest Rates component of the ZEW survey, is overly bullish (Chart I-25). Thus, bonds represent an attractive cyclical sell. The Fed will not cut rates aggressively enough for bonds to ignore these valuation and technical risks. Treasurys have outperformed cash by 7.5% in the past year. Based on historical relationships, the Fed needs to cut rates to zero for bonds to beat cash in the coming 12 months (Chart I-26). After this week’s Fed cut to 1.75%, our base case is none to maybe one more rate cut. Chart I-25Sentiment Points To Yield Upside Chart I-26The Fed Must Cut To Zero For T-Notes To Outperform Cash Further   Bond yields will need a recession to move lower. The deviation of 10-year Treasury yields from their two-year moving average closely tracks the Swedish Economic Diffusion Index (Chart I-27, top panel). Sweden, a small, open economy highly levered to the global industrial cycle, is a good gauge of the global business cycle. The broad weakness in the Swedish economy is unlikely to worsen unless the global slowdown morphs into a deep recession. Even if global growth remains mediocre, Sweden’s Economic Diffusion Index will rise along with yields. The expansion in securities holdings of U.S. commercial banks and the stabilization in China’s credit flows both support this notion (Chart I-27, bottom panel). Financial market developments also point to higher yields. Sectors that typically capture the momentum in the global economy are perking up. For example, bottoms in the annual performance of European luxury equities or Taiwanese stocks have preceded increases in yields (Chart I-28). Chart I-27Yields Have Upside Chart I-28Key Financial Market Signals For Yields   Stocks Will Outperform Bonds Our conviction is strengthening that equities will outperform bonds. The total return of the stock-to-bond ratio has upside. BCA’s Global Economic and Financial Diffusion Index has rallied sharply, which often precedes an ascent in the stock-to-bond ratio, both in the U.S. and globally (Chart I-29). Bonds are much more expensive than stocks, therefore, only a recession will allow stocks to underperform in the coming 12 to 18 months. The environment is positive for equities. BCA’s Monetary Indicator is very elevated and our Composite Sentiment Indicator shows little complacency toward stocks among investors (see Section III, page 47). Finally, the strength in the U.S. Financial Liquidity Indicator supports the S&P 500’s returns (Chart I-30). Chart I-29Cyclical Indicators Argue In Favor Of Stocks Over Bonds Chart I-30Liquidity Tailwind For The S&P 500   A few market developments are noteworthy. 55.6% of the S&P 500’s constituents have reported Q3 earnings, and 74% of those firms are beating estimates. Moreover, the market is generously rewarding firms with the largest positive earnings surprises. Additionally, the Value Line Geometric Index is forming a reverse head-and-shoulder pattern, while the relative performance of the Russell 2000 has formed a double bottom (Chart I-31). The environment also favors cyclicals relative to defensive equities. By lifting bond yields, stronger economic activity leads to a contraction in the multiples of defensives relative to cyclicals. The latter’s earnings expectations respond more positively to reviving economic activity, which creates an offset to climbing discount rates. As a result, cyclicals often outperform defensives when the stock-to-bond ratio increases, or after Taiwanese equities gain momentum (Chart I-32). Chart I-31Improving Equity Market Dynamics Chart I-32Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives   Compared to other equity markets, the U.S. faces the most challenges. Our model forecasts a 3% annual drop in the S&P 500’s operating earnings in June 2020, and the deviation of U.S. equities from their 200-day moving average has greatly diverged from net earnings revisions (Chart I-33). U.S. equities have already discounted a turnaround in earnings. Moreover, the S&P 500’s margins have downside, a topic covered by BCA’s Chief Equity Strategist Anastasios Avgeriou.4 Our Composite Margin Proxy, Operating Margins Diffusion Index and Corporate Pricing Power Indicator all remain weak (Chart I-34). Downward pressure on margins will limit how rapidly earnings respond when a rebound in global economic activity lifts revenues. Finally, the S&P 500 trades at a historically elevated forward P/E ratio of 18.4, the MSCI EAFE trade at a much more reasonable 14-times forward earnings. Chart I-33Headwinds For U.S. Stocks Chart I-34Headwinds For U.S. Margins   The tech sector will also weigh on the performance of U.S. equities relative to international stocks. Tech stocks represent 22.5% of the U.S. benchmark, compared with 9.7% for the euro area. Anastasios recently argued that software spending has remained surprisingly resilient despite the global economic slowdown; it will likely lag spending on machinery and structures when the cycle picks up.5 Consequently, tech earnings will lag other traditional cyclical sectors. Moreover, tech multiples will suffer when the dollar depreciates and bond yields rise (Chart I-35). As high-growth stocks, tech equities derive a large proportion of their intrinsic value from long-term deferred cash flows and their terminal value. Thus, tech multiples are highly sensitive to discount factors. Unaffected by those negatives, European equities will benefit most from the outperformance of stocks relative to bonds. A weak dollar will be the first positive for the common-currency returns of European equities. Valuations are the second tailwind. The risk premium for European equities is 300 basis points higher than for U.S. stocks. Moreover, U.S. margins will likely diminish relative to the Eurozone’s because of stronger unit labor costs in the U.S. Sector composition will also dictate the performance of European equities. Compared with the U.S., Europe is underweight tech and healthcare stocks, a defensive sector (Table I-1). Investors who favor Europe will also bet against these two sectors. Europe is a wager on the other cyclical sectors: materials, industrials, energy and financials. Chart I-35Tech P/Es Are At Risk Table I-1Europe Overweights The Correct Cyclicals   European financials are particularly attractive. Negative European yields are a major handicap for European financials, but this handicap is already reflected in their price. European banks trade at a price-to-book ratio of 0.6 versus 1.3 for the U.S. This discount should be narrowing, not widening. Yields are bottoming and European loan growth is contracting at a -2% annual rate relative to the U.S. versus -8.6% five years ago. Meanwhile, the annual rate of change of European deposits is in line with the U.S. The attraction of European banks comes from the outlook for their return on tangible equity. A model shows that three variables govern European banks’ ROE: German yields, Italian spreads and the momentum of the silver-to-gold ratio (SGR). German yields impact net interest margins, Italian spreads drive peripheral financial conditions and thus, loan generation in the European periphery, and the SGR tracks the global manufacturing cycle (silver has more industrial uses than gold, but is equally sensitive to real yields), which affects loan flows in the European core. This model logically tracks the performance of European banks and financials (Chart I-36). Our positive outlook on global growth and yields, along with the fall in Italian spreads, augurs well for cheap European financial equities and banks in particular. Commodities Our constructive stance on the global business cycle and yields, plus our negative view on the greenback, is consistent with higher industrial commodity prices. Copper looks particularly attractive. Speculators are aggressively selling the metal, whose price stands at an important technical juncture (Chart I-37). Chart I-36The Drivers Of RoE Point To Higher European Bank Stock Prices Chart I-37Cooper Is An Attractive Play On Global Growth   Chart I-38Favorable Technical Backdrop For Silver-To-Gold Ratio Finally, we have favored the SGR since late June. Silver is deeply oversold and under-owned relative to the yellow metal (Chart I-38). Consequently, silver’s greater industrial usage should be a potent tailwind for the SGR.6 Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 31, 2019 Next Report: November 22, 2019 - Outlook 2020   II. Back To The Nineteenth Century The Cold War is a limited analogy for the U.S.-China conflict; In a multipolar world, complete bifurcation of trade is difficult if not impossible; History suggests that trade between rivals will continue, with minimal impediments; On a secular horizon, buy defense stocks, Europe, capex, and non-aligned countries. There is a growing consensus that China and the U.S. are hurtling towards a Cold War. BCA Research played some part in this consensus – at least as far as the investment community is concerned – by publishing “Power and Politics in East Asia: Cold War 2.0?” in September 2012.7 For much of this decade, Geopolitical Strategy focused on the thesis that geopolitical risk was rotating out of the Middle East, where it was increasingly irrelevant, to East Asia, where it would become increasingly relevant. This thesis remains cogent, but it does not mean that a “Silicon Curtain” will necessarily divide the world into two bifurcated zones of capitalism. Trade, capital flows, and human exchanges between China and the U.S. will continue and may even grow. But the risk of conflict, including a military one, will not decline. In this report, we first review the geopolitical logic that underpins Sino-American tensions. We then survey the academic literature for clues on how that relationship will develop vis-à-vis trade and economic relations. The evidence from political theory is surprising and highly investment relevant. We then look back at history for clues as to what this means for investors. The U.S.-China conflict will not lead to complete bifurcation of the global economy. Our conclusion is that it is highly likely that the U.S. and China will continue to be geopolitical rivals. However, due to the geopolitical context of multipolarity, it is unlikely that the result will be “Bifurcated Capitalism.” Rather, we expect an exciting and volatile environment for investors where geopolitics takes its historical place alongside valuation, momentum, fundamentals, and macroeconomics in the pantheon of factors that determine investment opportunities and risks. The Thucydides Trap Is Real … Speaking in the Reichstag in 1897, German Foreign Secretary Bernhard von Bülow proclaimed that it was time for Germany to demand “its own place in the sun.”8 The occasion was a debate on Germany’s policy towards East Asia. Bülow soon ascended to the Chancellorship under Kaiser Wilhelm II and oversaw the evolution of German foreign policy from Realpolitik to Weltpolitik. While Realpolitik was characterized by Germany’s cautious balancing of global powers under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Weltpolitik saw Bülow and Wilhelm II seek to redraw the status quo through aggressive foreign and trade policy. Imperial Germany joined a long list of antagonists, from Athens to today’s People’s Republic of China, in the tragic play of human history dubbed the “Thucydides Trap.”9 Chart II-1Imperial Overstretch The underlying concept is well known to all students of world history. It takes its name from the Greek historian Thucydides and his seminal History of the Peloponnesian War. Thucydides explains why Sparta and Athens went to war but, unlike his contemporaries, he does not moralize or blame the gods. Instead, he dispassionately describes how the conflict between a revisionist Athens and established Sparta became inevitable due to a cycle of mistrust. Graham Allison, one of America’s preeminent scholars of international relations, has argued that the interplay between a status quo power and a challenger has almost always led to conflict. In 12 out of the 16 cases he surveyed, actual military conflict broke out. Of the four cases where war did not develop, three involved transitions between countries that shared a deep cultural affinity and a respect for the prevailing institutions.10 In those cases, the transition was a case of new management running largely the same organizational structure. And one of the four non-war outcomes was nothing less than the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S. The fundamental problem for a status quo power is that its empire or “sphere of influence” remains the same size as when it stood at the zenith of power. However, its decline in a relative sense leads to a classic problem of “imperial overstretch.” The hegemonic or imperial power erroneously doubles down on maintaining a status quo that it can no longer afford (Chart II-1). The challenger power is not blameless. It senses weakness in the hegemon and begins to develop a regional sphere of influence. The problem is that regional hegemony is a perfect jumping off point towards global hegemony. And while the challenger’s intentions may be limited and restrained (though they often are ambitious and overweening), the status quo power must react to capabilities, not intentions. The former are material and real, whereas the latter are perceived and ephemeral. In a multipolar world, the U.S. will not be able to exclude China from the global system. The challenging power always has an internal logic justifying its ambitions. In China’s case today, there is a sense among the elite that the country is merely mean-reverting to the way things were for many centuries in China’s and Asia’s long history (Chart II-2). In other words, China is a “challenger” power only if one describes the status quo as the past three hundred years. It is the “established” power if one goes back to an earlier state of affairs. As such, the consensus in China is that it should not have to pay deference to the prevailing status quo given that the contemporary context is merely the result of western imperialist “challenges” to the established Chinese and regional order. Chart II-2China’s Mean Reverting Narrative In addition, China has a legitimate claim that it is at least as relevant to the global economy as the U.S. and therefore deserves a greater say in global governance. While the U.S. still takes a larger share of the global economy, China has contributed 23% to incremental global GDP over the past two decades, compared to 13% for the U.S. (Chart II-3). Chart II-3The Beijing Consensus Bottom Line: The emerging tensions between China and the U.S. fit neatly into the theoretical and empirical outlines of the Thucydides Trap. We do not see any way for the two countries to avoid struggle and conflict on a secular or forecastable horizon. What does this mean for investors? For one, the secular tailwinds behind defense stocks will persist. But what beyond that? Is the global economy destined to witness complete bifurcation into two armed camps separated by a Silicon Curtain? Will the Alibaba and Amazon Pacts suspiciously glare at each other the way that NATO and Warsaw Pacts did amidst the Cold War? The answer, tentatively, is no. … But It Will Not Lead To Economic Bifurcation President Trump’s aggressive trade policy also fits neatly into political theory, to a point. Realism in political science focuses on relative gains over absolute gains in all relationships, including trade. This is because trade leads to economic prosperity, prosperity to the accumulation of economic surplus, and economic surplus to military spending, research, and development. Two states that care only about relative gains due to rivalry produce a zero-sum game with no room for cooperation. It is a “Prisoner’s Dilemma” that can lead to sub-optimal economic outcomes in which both actors chose not to cooperate. Diagram II-1 illustrates the effects of relative gain calculations on the trade behavior of states. In the absence of geopolitics, demand (Q3) is satisfied via trade (Q3-Q0) due to the inability of domestic production (Q0) to meet it. Diagram II-1Trade War In A Bipolar World However, geopolitical externality – a rivalry with another state – raises the marginal social cost of imports – i.e. trade allows the rival to gain more out of trade and “catch up” in terms of geopolitical capabilities. The trading state therefore eliminates such externalities with a tariff (t), raising domestic output to Q1, while shrinking demand to Q2, thus reducing imports to merely Q2-Q1, a fraction of where they would be in a world where geopolitics do not matter. The dynamic of relative gains can also have a powerful pull on the hegemon as it begins to weaken and rethink its originally magnanimous trade relations. As political scientist Duncan Snidal argued in a 1991 paper, When the global system is first set up, the hegemon makes deals with smaller states. The hegemon is concerned more with absolute gains, smaller states are more concerned with relative, so they are tougher negotiators. Cooperative arrangements favoring smaller states contribute to relative hegemonic decline. As the unequal distribution of benefits in favor of smaller states helps them catch up to the hegemonic actor, it also lowers the relative gains weight they place on the hegemonic actor. At the same time, declining relative preponderance increases the hegemonic state’s concern for relative gains with other states, especially any rising challengers. The net result is increasing pressure from the largest actor to change the prevailing system to gain a greater share of cooperative benefits.11 History teaches us that trade occurs even amongst rivals and during wartime. The reason small states are initially more concerned with relative gains is because they are far more concerned with national security than the hegemon. The hegemon has a preponderance of power and is therefore more relaxed about its security needs. This explains why Presidents George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and George Bush Jr. all made “bad deals” with China. Writing nearly thirty years ago, Snidal cogently described the current U.S.-China trade war. Snidal thought he was describing a coming decade of anarchy. But he and fellow political scientists writing in the early 1990s underestimated American power. The “unipolar moment” of American supremacy was not over, it was just beginning! As such, the dynamic Snidal described took thirty years to come to fruition. When thinking about the transition away from U.S. hegemony, most investors anchor themselves to the Cold War as it is the only world they have known that was not unipolar. Moreover the Cold War provides a simple, bipolar distribution of power that is easy to model through game theory. If this is the world we are about to inhabit, with the U.S. and China dividing the whole planet into spheres like the U.S. and Soviet Union, then the paragraph we lifted from Snidal’s paper would be the end of it. America would abandon globalization in totality, impose a draconian Silicon Curtain around China, and coerce its allies to follow suit. But most of recent human history has been defined by a multipolar distribution of power between states, not a bipolar one. The term “cold war” is applicable to the U.S. and China in the sense that comparable military power may prevent them from fighting a full-blown “hot war.” But ultimately the U.S.-Soviet Cold War is a poor analogy for today’s world. In a multipolar world, Snidal concludes, “states that do not cooperate fall behind other relative gains maximizers that cooperate among themselves. This makes cooperation the best defense (as well as the best offense) when your rivals are cooperating in a multilateral relative gains world.” Snidal shows via formal modeling that as the number of players increases from two, relative-gains sensitivity drops sharply.12 The U.S.-China relationship does not occur in a vacuum — it is moderated by the global context. Today’s global context is one of multipolarity. Multipolarity refers to the distribution of geopolitical power, which is no longer dominated by one or two great powers (Chart II-4). Europe and Japan, for instance, have formidable economies and military capabilities. Russia remains a potent military power, even as India surpasses it in terms of overall geopolitical power. Chart II-4The World Is No Longer Bipolar A multipolar world is the least “ordered” and the most unstable of world systems (Chart II-5). This is for three reasons: Chart II-5Multipolarity Is Messy Math: Multipolarity engenders more potential “conflict dyads” that can lead to conflict. In a unipolar world, there is only one country that determines norms and rules of behavior. Conflict is possible, but only if the hegemon wishes it. In a bipolar world, conflict is possible, but it must align along the axis of the two dominant powers. In a multipolar world, alliances are constantly shifting and producing novel conflict dyads. Lack of coordination: Global coordination suffers in periods of multipolarity as there are more “veto players.” This is particularly problematic during times of stress, such as when an aggressive revisionist power uses force or when the world is faced with an economic crisis. Charles Kindleberger has argued that it was exactly such hegemonic instability that caused the Great Depression to descend into the Second World War in his seminal The World In Depression.13 Mistakes: In a unipolar and bipolar world, there are a very limited number of dice being rolled at once. As such, the odds of tragic mistakes are low and can be mitigated with complex formal relationships (such as U.S.-Soviet Mutually Assured Destruction, grounded in formal modeling of game theory). But in a multipolar world, something as random as an assassination of a dignitary can set in motion a global war. The multipolar system is far more dynamic and thus unpredictable. Diagram II-2 is modified for a multipolar world. Everything is the same, except that we highlight the trade lost to other great powers. The state considering using tariffs to lower the marginal social cost of trading with a rival must account for this “lost trade.” In the context of today’s trade war with China, this would be the sum of all European Airbuses and Brazilian soybeans sold to China in the place of American exports. For China, it would be the sum of all the machinery, electronics, and capital goods produced in the rest of Asia and shipped to the United States. Diagram II-2Trade War In A Multipolar World Could Washington ask its allies – Europe, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc. – not to take advantage of the lucrative trade (Q3-Q0)-(Q2-Q1) lost due to its trade tiff with China? Sure, but empirical research shows that they would likely ignore such pleas for unity. Alliances produced by a bipolar system produce a statistically significant and large impact on bilateral trade flows, a relationship that weakens in a multipolar context. This is the conclusion of a 1993 paper by Joanne Gowa and Edward D. Mansfield.14 The authors draw their conclusion from an 80-year period beginning in 1905, which captures several decades of global multipolarity. Unless the U.S. produces a wholehearted diplomatic effort to tighten up its alliances and enforce trade sanctions – something hardly foreseeable under the current administration – the self-interest of U.S. allies will drive them to continue trading with China. The U.S. will not be able to exclude China from the global system; nor will China be able to achieve Xi Jinping’s vaunted “self-sufficiency.” A risk to our view is that we have misjudged the global system, just as political scientists writing in the early 1990s did. To that effect, we accept that Charts II-1 and II-4 do not really support a view that the world is in a balanced multipolar state. The U.S. clearly remains the most powerful country in the world. The problem is that it is also clearly in a relative decline and that its sphere of influence is global – and thus very expensive – whereas its rivals have merely regional ambitions (for the time being). As such, we concede that American hegemony could be reasserted relatively quickly, but it would require a significant calamity in one of the other poles of power. For instance, a breakdown in China’s internal stability alongside the recovery of U.S. political stability. Bottom Line: The trade war between the U.S. and China is geopolitically unsustainable. The only way it could continue is if the two states existed in a bipolar world where the rest of the states closely aligned themselves behind the two superpowers. We have a high conviction view that today’s world is – for the time being – multipolar. American allies will cheat and skirt around Washington’s demands that China be isolated. This is because the U.S. no longer has the preponderance of power that it enjoyed in the last decade of the twentieth and the first decade of the twenty-first century. Insights presented thus far come from formal theory in political science. What does history teach us? Trading With The Enemy In 1896, a bestselling pamphlet in the U.K., “Made in Germany,” painted an ominous picture: “A gigantic commercial State is arising to menace our prosperity, and contend with us for the trade of the world.”15 Look around your own houses, author E.E. Williams urged his readers. “The toys, and the dolls, and the fairy books which your children maltreat in the nursery are made in Germany: nay, the material of your favorite (patriotic) newspaper had the same birthplace as like as not.” Williams later wrote that tariffs were the answer and that they “would bring Germany to her knees, pleading for our clemency.”16 By the late 1890s, it was clear to the U.K. that Germany was its greatest national security threat. The Germany Navy Laws of 1898 and 1900 launched a massive naval buildup with the singular objective of liberating the German Empire from the geographic constraints of the Jutland Peninsula. By 1902, the First Lord of the Royal Navy pointed out that “the great new German navy is being carefully built up from the point of view of a war with us.”17 There is absolutely no doubt that Germany was the U.K.’s gravest national security threat. As a result, London signed in April 1904 a set of agreements with France that came to be known as Entente Cordiale. The entente was immediately tested by Germany in the 1905 First Moroccan Crisis, which only served to strengthen the alliance. Russia was brought into the pact in 1907, creating the Triple Entente. In hindsight, the alliance structure was obvious given Germany’s meteoric rise from unification in 1871. However, one should not underestimate the magnitude of these geopolitical events. For the U.K. and France to resolve centuries of differences and formalize an alliance in 1904 was a tectonic shift — one that they undertook against the grain of history, entrenched enmity, and ideology.18 Political scientists and historians have noted that geopolitical enmity rarely produces bifurcated economic relations exhibited during the Cold War. Both empirical research and formal modeling shows that trade occurs even amongst rivals and during wartime.19 This was certainly the case between the U.K. and Germany, whose trade steadily increased right up until the outbreak of World War One (Chart II-6). Could this be written off due to the U.K.’s ideological commitment to laissez-faire economics? Or perhaps London feared a move against its lightly defended colonies in case it became protectionist? These are fair arguments. However, they do not explain why Russia and France both saw ever-rising total trade with the German Empire during the same period (Chart II-7). Either all three states were led by incompetent policymakers who somehow did not see the war coming – unlikely given the empirical record – or they simply could not afford to lose out on the gains of trade with Germany to each other. Chart II-6The Allies Traded With Germany ... Chart II-7… Right Up To WWI   Chart II-8Japan And U.S. Never Downshifted Trade A similar dynamic was afoot ahead of World War Two. Relations between the U.S. and Japan soured in the 1930s, with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. In 1935, Japan withdrew from the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty – the bedrock of the Pacific balance of power – and began a massive naval buildup. In 1937, Japan invaded China. Despite a clear and present danger, the U.S. continued to trade with Japan right up until July 26, 1941, few days after Japan invaded southern Indochina (Chart II-8). On December 7, Japan attacked the U.S. A skeptic may argue that precisely because policymakers sleepwalked into war in the First and Second World Wars, they will not (or should not) make the same mistake this time around. First, we do not make policy prescriptions and therefore care not what should happen. Second, we are highly skeptical of the view that policymakers in the early and mid-twentieth century were somehow defective (as opposed to today’s enlightened leaders). Our constraints-based framework urges us to seek systemic reasons for the behavior of leaders. Political science provides a clear theoretical explanation for why London and Washington continued to trade with the enemy despite the clarity of the threat. The answer lies in the systemic nature of the constraint: a multipolar world reduces the sensitivity of policymakers to relative gains by introducing a collective action problem thanks to changing alliances and the difficulty of disciplining allies’ behavior. In the case of U.S. and China, this is further accentuated by President Trump’s strategy of skirting multilateral diplomacy and intense focus on mercantilist measures of power (i.e. obsession with the trade deficit). An anti-China trade policy that was accompanied by a magnanimous approach to trade relations with allies could have produced a “coalition of the willing” against Beijing. But after two years of tariffs and threats against the EU, Japan, and Canada, the Trump administration has already signaled to the rest of the world that old alliances and coordination avenues are up for revision. There are two outcomes that we can see emerging over the course of the next decade. First, U.S. leadership will become aware of the systemic constraints under which they operate, and trade with China will continue – albeit with limitations and variations. However, such trade will not reduce the geopolitical tensions, nor will it prevent a military conflict. In facts, the probability of military conflict may increase even as trade between China and the U.S. remains steady. Second, U.S. leadership will fail to correctly assess that they operate in a multipolar world and will give up the highlighted trade gains from Diagram II-2 to economic rivals such as Europe and Japan. Given our methodological adherence to constraint-based forecasting, we highly doubt that the latter scenario is likely. Bottom Line: The China-U.S. conflict is not a replay of the Cold War. Systemic pressures from global multipolarity will force the U.S. to continue to trade with China, with limitations on exchanges in emergent, dual-use technologies that China will nonetheless source from other technologically advanced countries. This will create a complicated but exciting world where geopolitics will cease to be seen as exogenous to investing. A risk to the sanguine conclusion is that the historical record is applicable to today, but that the hour is late, not early. It is already July 26, 1941 – when U.S. abrogated all trade with Japan – not 1930. As such, we do not have another decade of trade between U.S. and China remaining, we are at the end of the cycle. While this is a risk, it is unlikely. American policymakers would essentially have to be willing to risk a military conflict with China in order to take the trade war to the same level they did with Japan. It is an objective fact that China has meaningfully stepped up aggressive foreign policy in the region. But unlike Japan in 1941, China has not outright invaded any countries over the past decade. As such, the willingness of the public to support such a conflict is unclear, with only 21% of Americans considering China a top threat to the U.S. Investment Implications This analysis is not meant to be optimistic. First, the U.S. and China will continue to be rivals even if the economic relationship between them does not lead to global bifurcation. For one, China continues to be – much like Germany in the early twentieth century – concerned with access to external markets on which 19.5% of its economy still depend. China is therefore developing a modern navy and military not because it wants to dominate the rest of the world but because it wants to dominate its near abroad, much as the U.S. wanted to, beginning with the Monroe Doctrine. This will continue to lead to Chinese aggression in the South and East China Seas, raising the odds of a conflict with the U.S. Navy. Given that the Thucydides Trap narrative remains cogent, investors should look to overweight S&P 500 aerospace and defense stocks relative to global equity markets. An alternative way that one could play this thesis is by developing a basket of global defense stocks. Multipolarity may create constraints to trade protectionism, but it engenders geopolitical volatility and thus buoys defense spending. Second, we would not expect another uptick in globalization. Multipolarity may make it difficult for countries to completely close off trade with a rival, but globalization is built on more than just trade between rivals. Globalization requires a high level of coordination among great powers that is only possible under hegemonic conditions. Chart II-9 shows that the hegemony of the British and later American empires created a powerful tailwind for trade over the past two hundred years. Chart II-9The Apex Of Globalization Is Behind Us The Apex of Globalization has come and gone – it is all downhill from here. But this is not a binary view. Foreign trade will not go to zero. The U.S. and China will not completely seal each other’s sphere of influence behind a Silicon Curtain. Instead, we focus on five investment themes that flow from a world that is characterized by the three trends of multipolarity, Sino-U.S. geopolitical rivalry, and apex of globalization: Europe will profit: As the U.S. and China deepen their enmity, we expect some European companies to profit. There is some evidence that the investment community has already caught wind of this trend, with European equities modestly outperforming their U.S. counterparts whenever trade tensions flared up in 2019 (Chart II-10). Given our thesis, however, it is unlikely that the U.S. would completely lose market share in China to Europe. As such, we specifically focus on tech, where we expect the U.S. and China to ramp up non-tariff barriers to trade regardless of systemic pressures to continue to trade. A strategic long in the secularly beleaguered European tech companies relative to their U.S. counterparts may therefore make sense (Chart II-11). Chart II-10Europe: A Trade War Safe Haven Chart II-11Is Europe Really This Incompetent? USD bull market will end: A trade war is a very disruptive way to adjust one’s trade relationship. It opens one to retaliation and thus the kind of relative losses described in this analysis. As such, we expect that U.S. to eventually depreciate the USD, either by aggressively reversing 2018 tightening or by coercing its trade rivals to strengthen their currencies. Such a move will be yet another tailwind behind the diversification away from the USD as a reserve currency, a move that should benefit the euro. Bull market in capex: The re-wiring of global manufacturing chains will still take place. The bad news is that multinational corporations will have to dip into their profit margins to move their supply chains to adjust to the new geopolitical reality. The good news is that they will have to invest in manufacturing capex to accomplish the task. One way to articulate this theme is to buy an index of semiconductor capital companies (AMAT, LRCX, KLAC, MKSI, AEIS, BRIKS, and TER). Given the highly cyclical nature of capital companies, we would recommend an entry point once trade tensions subside and green shoots of global growth appear. “Non-aligned” markets will benefit: The last time the world was multipolar, great powers competed through imperialism. This time around, a same dynamic will develop as countries seek to replicate China’s “Belt and Road Initiative.” This is positive for frontier markets. A rush to provide them with exports and services will increase supply and thus lower costs, providing otherwise forgotten markets with a boon of investments. India, and Asia-ex-China more broadly, stand as intriguing alternatives to China, especially with the current administration aggressively reforming to take advantage of the rewiring of global manufacturing chains. Capital markets will remain globalized: With interest rates near zero in much of the developed world and the demographic burden putting an ever-greater pressure on pension plans to generate returns, the search for yield will continue to be a powerful drive that keeps capital markets globalized. Limitations are likely to grow, especially when it comes to cross-border private investments in dual-use technologies. But a completely bifurcation of capital markets is unlikely. The world we are describing is one where geopolitics will play an increasingly prominent role for global investors. It would be convenient if the world simply divided into two warring camps, leaving investors with neatly separated compartments that enabled them to go back to ignoring geopolitics. This is unlikely. Rather, the world will resemble the dynamic years at the end of the nineteenth century, a rough-and-tumble era that required a multi-disciplinary approach to investing. Marko Papic Consulting Editor, BCA Research Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 is making marginally new all-time highs. Seasonality is becoming very favorable for stock prices. However, our U.S. profit model continues to point south and expanding multiples have already driven this year’s equity gains. The S&P 500 has therefore already priced in a significant improvement in profits. Further P/E expansion will be harder to come by with bond yields set to rise. Thus, until the dollar falls and creates another tailwind for profits, stocks will not be as strong as seasonality suggests and will only make marginal new highs. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remains cautious towards equities. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive readings from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if strong market momentum is not supported by valuations and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Until global growth bottoms and boosts the earnings forecasts of our models, stock gains will stay limited. The outlook for next year remains constructive for stocks. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. continues to improve. This same indicator has recently turned lower in Japan. Meanwhile, it is deteriorating further in Europe. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Global yields have turned higher but they remain at exceptionally stimulating levels. Moreover, money and liquidity growth has picked up around the world, and global central banks continue to conduct very dovish policies. As a result, our Monetary Indicator remains at extremely elevated levels. Furthermore, our Composite Technical Indicator is still flashing a buy signal. Also, our BCA Composite Valuation index is still improving. As a result, our Speculation Indicator is back in the neutral zone. 10-year Treasury yields continue to rise, but they remain very expensive. Moreover, both our Bond Valuation Index and our Composite Technical Indicators are still flashing high-conviction sell signals. If the strengthening of the Commodity Index Advance/Decline line results in higher natural resource prices, then, inflation breakevens will also climb meaningfully. Therefore, the current setup argues for a below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. Weak global growth has been the key support for the dollar in recent months. On a PPP basis, the U.S. dollar remains extremely expensive. Additionally, our Composite Technical Indicator has lost momentum and has formed a negative divergence with the Greenback’s level. Moreover, the U.S. current account deficit has begun to widen anew. This backdrop makes the dollar highly vulnerable to a rebound in global growth. In fact, a breakdown in the greenback will be the clearest signal yet that global growth is rebounding for good. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-23Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1   Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "September 2019," dated August 29, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2019," dated May 30, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3   Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "August 2019," dated July 25, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4   Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report "Peak Margins," dated October 7, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5   Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Follow The Profit Trail," dated October 15, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 6   Please see Foreign  Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "On Money Velocity, EUR/USD And Silver," dated October 11, 2019, available on fes.bcaresearch.com 7   Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy, “Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?,” September 25, 2012, “Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think,” October 4, 2013, “The Great Risk Rotation,” December 11, 2013, and “Strategic Outlook 2014 – Stay The Course: EM Risk – DM Reward,” January 23, 2014, “Underestimating Sino-American Tensions,” November 6, 2015, “The Geopolitics Of Trump,” December 2, 2016, “How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia,” March 1, 2017, and others available at gps.bcaresearch.com or upon request. 8   Please see German Historical Institute, “Bernhard von Bulow on Germany’s ‘Place in the Sun’” (1897), available at http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/ 9   See Graham Allison, Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Miffin Harcourt, 2017).  10  The three cases are Spain taking over from Portugal in the sixteenth century, the U.S. taking over from the U.K. in the twentieth century, and Germany rising to regional hegemony in Europe in the twenty-first century. 11   Duncan Snidal, “Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation,” The American Political Science Review, 85:3 (September 1991), pp. 701-726. 12   We do not review Snidal’s excellent game theory formal modeling in this paper as it is complex and detailed. However, we highly encourage the intrigued reader to pursue the study on their own.  13   See Charles P. Kindleberger, The World In Depression, 1929-1939 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013). 14   Joanne Gowa and Edward D. Mansfield, “Power Politics and International Trade,” The American Political Science Review, 87:2 (June 1993), pp. 408-420. 15   See Ernest Edwin Williams, Made in Germany (reprint, Ithaca: Cornell University Press), available at https://archive.org/details/cu31924031247830. 16   Quoted in Margaret MacMillan, The War That Ended Peace (Toronto: Allen Lane, 2014). 17   Peter Liberman, “Trading with the Enemy: Security and Relative Economic Gains,” international Security, 21:1 (Summer 1996), pp. 147-175. 18  Although France and Russia overcame even greater bitterness due to the ideological differences between a republic founded on a violent uprising against its aristocracy – France – and an aristocratic authoritarian regime – Russia.  19  See James Morrow, “When Do ‘Relative Gains’ Impede Trade?” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41:1 (February 1997), pp. 12-37; and Jack S. Levy and Katherine Barbieri, “Trading With the Enemy During Wartime,” Security Studies, 13:3 (December 2004), pp. 1-47.

特別レポート

Highlights No, it’s not: We expect negative rates to remain the exception rather than the rule. A growing body of evidence suggests that negative rates may be doing more harm than good. Stronger global growth is likely to lift inflation over the next few years, thus making the debate around negative rates increasingly irrelevant. Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is scant evidence that structural forces related to globalization, automation, weak trade unions, and demographics are holding back inflation. Asset allocators should overweight global equities during the next 12-to-24 months, while maintaining a short duration bias in fixed-income portfolios.  A more defensive stance towards equities may be necessary starting in 2022. Just A Matter Of Time? Chart 1A Spike In Negative-Yielding Debt There is nearly $14 trillion of negative-yielding debt outstanding today (Chart 1). While most of this debt has been issued in the euro area and Japan, many investment professionals believe that negative yields will eventually become the norm in the U.S. and other developed economies. The rationale for this belief is easy to understand: The current expansion, like all past expansions, will inevitably end (in many investors’ minds, it already has). Once a recession is afoot, central banks will try to ease monetary policy even more than they already have. The Fed has cut rates by more than five percentage points on average during past recessions (Chart 2). Even a mild recession could see U.S. rates fall to zero. Once rates reach zero, pushing them into negative territory could become the logical next step. Chart 2Will The U.S. Join The Negative Rate Club After The Next Recession? It is a compelling argument. However, it rests on two assumptions. The first is that negative rates are an effective tool against an economic downturn. That is far from clear. Second, the argument presupposes that the forces which have pushed some countries to adopt negative rates will endure until the next recession. To those who see the current expansion as very “late stage” and regard the persistence of low interest rates as largely structural in nature, this is a perfectly plausible assumption. However, as we discuss later on, it is probably flawed. The Merits (Or Lack Thereof) Of Negative Rates In theory, negative rates could incentivize banks to loan out excess funds in order to avoid paying interest on reserves. It could also boost demand for credit. In practice, banks have been reluctant to force depositors to pay interest on their savings. Instead, they have absorbed the cost of negative rates through lower net interest margins. At a time when some banks are still struggling to shore up their balance sheets, the introduction of negative rates may have perversely resulted in less lending. Labor market slack has diminished significantly around the world. Some policymakers have slowly come around to the conclusion that negative rates may be doing more harm than good. Most senior Fed officials have rejected negative rates as an effective policy tool. Japanese and European officials have been more supportive of negative rates. The ECB even cut rates further into negative territory in September. However, ECB officials have acknowledged the harm done to the banking system by introducing a tiering system that shields a portion of excess bank reserves from negative deposit rates. The Swedish Riksbank, an early pioneer of negative rates, has even gone as far as to warn that “if negative nominal interest rates are perceived as a more permanent state, the behavior of agents may change and negative effects may arise.” Groundhog Day Judging by today’s low level of bond yields, it is easy to conclude that deflationary forces are just as powerful as they were a decade ago. There are, however, at least two important differences between now and then. First, the deleveraging cycle has ended in most developed economies. As a share of GDP, U.S. nonfinancial private-sector debt has risen over the past four years. Even in Japan, private debt levels have moved off their lows. The ratio of private debt-to-GDP has been broadly flat in the euro area, with rising debt levels in France offsetting falling leverage in Italy and Spain (Chart 3). Second, labor market slack has diminished significantly around the world. The unemployment rate in the G7 has fallen from a peak of 8.4% in 2009 to 4.2%. It is currently a full percentage point below its pre-recession low of 5.2% set in 2007 (Chart 4). Chart 3Deleveraging Has Ended In Most Developed Markets Chart 4Falling Unemployment Rate Across Developed Markets Some have argued that disguised joblessness is distorting the official unemployment statistics. While this was a major problem earlier in the recovery, it is much less of a concern today. In the U.S., the share of the working-age population that wants a job, but is not actively looking for one, is smaller than in 2007 (Chart 5). Whither The Phillips Curve? Falling unemployment has pushed up wage growth. Indeed, for all the talk about how the Phillips curve is dead, the “wage version” of the curve – which is how William Phillips originally formulated the concept – is very much alive and well (Chart 6). Chart 5U.S. Labor Market Slack Has Diminished Chart 6Falling Unemployment Has Pushed Up Wage Growth Chart 7Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening What is true is that the “price version” of the Phillips curve – the one that compares unemployment with price inflation – still looks very flat in most countries. This is another way of saying that rising nominal wages have mainly translated into higher real wages, with an accompanying increase in labor’s share of income (Chart 7). Workers tend to spend more of their incomes than companies. If the share of national income flowing to workers continues to rise, aggregate demand will increase. Unless supply expands in tandem, shortages of goods and services will arise, leading to higher inflation. Getting Close To The Kink There is considerable theoretical and econometric evidence suggesting that the Phillips curve is kinked.1  When slack is plentiful, modest declines in spare capacity have little effect on inflation. When slack disappears altogether, however, inflation can surge. This was certainly what happened during the 1960s. Chart 8 shows that U.S. core inflation was remarkably stable at around 1.5% in the first half of the decade. It was only in 1966 that inflation took off, rising to nearly 4% in less than two years. Core inflation proceeded to make its way to over 6% in 1970, a full three years before the first oil shock. The U.S. unemployment rate was two percentage points below NAIRU in 1966. By most estimates, the unemployment rate today is still a bit less than a point below its full employment level. Thus, an inflationary breakout is not imminent. This is confirmed by a wide variety of leading indicators for inflation (Chart 9). Chart 8Inflation Took Off In The 1960s Amid An Overheated Economy Chart 9An Inflation Breakout Is Not Imminent... Nevertheless, U.S. inflation has begun to firm at the margin (Chart 10). Trimmed mean inflation, which according to one Fed study does a better job of tracking underlying inflationary trends than more conventional measures, has been running at over 2% for much of the past 12 months.2  The median item in the CPI basket is rising by about 3%. Inflation has been slower to accelerate outside the U.S., partly because there is still more slack abroad. Nonetheless, embryonic signs of inflation are emerging. The deflationary pressures which plagued countries such as Spain have receded (Chart 11). Prices in Japan have been rising since 2014, albeit at a slower pace than the Bank of Japan is targeting (Chart 12). Chart 10... But Inflation Is Firming At The Margin Chart 11Deflationary Pressures Have Receded in Spain Chart 12Prices In Japan Have Been Rising Since 2014... Albeit At A Slower Pace Than The BoJ's Target The Myth Of Structurally Low Inflation Will structural forces contain the extent to which inflation rises even if unemployment continues to decline? Perhaps, but we would not bet on it. While globalization, automation, weak trade unions, and demographics are often cited as structural deflationary forces, the importance of these factors is greatly exaggerated. Globalization Conceptually, the disinflationary force stemming from globalization should be a function of the degree to which globalization is increasing. Yet, as Chart 13 illustrates, the ratio of global trade-to-GDP has been flat for over a decade. Correspondingly, the share of U.S. imports from emerging markets has stabilized at below 25%. Chart 13AGlobalization Has Peaked Chart 13BGlobalization Has Peaked A variety of studies have concluded that slack abroad has only a minimal effect on U.S. inflation.3 This is not surprising. The lion’s share of GDP consists of services, which are not easily tradeable. Imports account for only 14.8% of U.S. GDP. Many imported goods also have U.S. substitutes, which means that a large appreciation in the dollar is often necessary to induce Americans to shift purchases abroad.  Automation The belief that faster productivity growth is necessarily deflationary involves a fallacy of composition. Yes, above-average productivity gains in one sector of the economy will cause prices in that sector to decline relative to other prices. But falling prices will also boost real incomes, leading to more spending. Rising spending will lift prices elsewhere in the economy. Chart 14Globally, Productivity Growth Has Been Falling For Over A Decade Chart 15Steadier Prices For Computer Hardware And Software In Recent Years In any case, the whole narrative about how faster productivity growth is deflationary seems rather antiquated considering that productivity growth has been quite weak in most of the world for over a decade (Chart 14). Consistent with this, the price deflator for electronic goods has been falling a lot less rapidly in recent years than it has in the past (Chart 15). Chart 16Retail Sector Profit Margins Are Strong What about the so-called Amazon effect? The problem with the claim that online shopping is undermining corporate pricing power is that outside of department stores, profit margins in the retail sector remain quite high (Chart 16). In fact, recent productivity growth in the U.S. distribution sector has actually been slower than in the 1990s, a decade which produced large productivity gains stemming from the displacement of “mom and pop” stores with “big box” retailers such as Walmart and Costco. Trade Unions The declining influence of trade unions is often cited as a reason for why inflation will remain subdued. There are a number of problems with this argument. First, unionization rates in the U.S. peaked in the mid-1950s, more than a decade before inflation began to accelerate. Second, while the unionization rate continued to decline in the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s, it remained elevated in Canada. Yet, this did not prevent Canadian inflation from falling as rapidly as it did in the United States (Chart 17). Chart 17Inflation Fell In Canada, Despite A High Unionization Rate Chart 18Higher Inflation Led To More Inflation-Indexed Wage Contracts, Not The Other Way Around The widespread use of inflation-linked wage contracts in the 1970s also appears to have been a consequence of rising inflation rather than the cause of it (Chart 18).   Demographics Demographics has undoubtedly been a deflationary force for most of the past 40 years. Slower population growth reduced spending on everything from houses to refrigerators, thus sapping demand from the economy. The influx of women into the labor force also boosted the available supply of goods and services, while the increase in the share of the population in their prime earning years – ages 30-to-50 – raised savings. Chart 19The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally Now that baby boomers are starting to retire, however, they are transitioning from being savers to dissavers. Chart 19 shows that the ratio of workers-to-consumers has begun to decline globally as the post-war generation leaves the labor force. As more people stop working, aggregate savings will fall. The shortage of savings will put upward pressure on the neutral rate. If central banks drag their feet in raising policy rates in response to an increase in the neutral rate, monetary policy will end up being too stimulative. As economies overheat, inflation will pick up. It Shouldn’t Be Hard There are many hard problems in the world. Finding a cure for cancer is hard. Reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics is hard. In contrast, getting people to spend money should not be hard. People like to consume! Just give them money and they will spend it. If they don’t spend enough of the money that they receive, just give them some more. So why has raising demand proven to be so difficult in many countries? The answer is that central banks have been asked to do too much. Fiscal policy should have been a lot more stimulative. If there is one potential benefit of negative rates, it is that they could incentivize governments to loosen fiscal policy by cutting taxes and/or raising spending. After all, if you can get paid to issue debt, why not do it? In an age of brewing political populism, the temptation to run larger budget deficits will grow. Central banks will indulge governments by keeping rates low. The path to higher rates is lined with lower rates. As economies eventually overheat, inflation will rise, thus allowing central banks to finally move away from negative rates. Real rates will stay low, but nominal rates will increase in line with higher inflation. Of course, if inflation eventually gets too high, central banks will be forced to step on the brakes. We do not see that happening in the next two years, but it could occur later on. Thus, asset allocators should overweight equities during the next 12-to-24 months, while maintaining a short duration bias in fixed-income portfolios. A more defensive stance towards equities may be necessary starting in 2022.   Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Jeremy Nalewaik, “Non-Linear Phillips Curves with Inflation Regime-Switching,” Federal Reserve Board (Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs) (August 2016); and Anil Kumar and Pia Orrenius, “A Closer Look at the Phillips Curve Using State Level Data,” Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Working paper No. 1409 (May 2015). 2 Jim Dolmas and Evan F. Koenig, “Two Measures Of Core Inflation: A Comparison,” Federal Reserve Bank Of Dallas, Working Paper No. 1903 (February 25, 2019). 3 Please Jane Ihrig, Steven B. Kamin, Deborah Lindner, and Jaime Marquez, “Some Simple Tests of the Globalization and Inflation Hypothesis,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (International Finance Discussion Papers No. 891) (April 2007); Janet. L. Yellen, 'Panel discussion of William R. White “Globalisation and the Determinants of Domestic Inflation”,' Presentation to the Banque de France International Symposium on Globalisation, Inflation and Monetary Policy (March 2008); and Fabio Milani, “Global Slack And Domestic Inflation Rates: A Structural Investigation For G-7 Countries,”Journal of Macroeconomics, (32:4) (2010). Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

ハイライト デュレーション: 貿易に関する不確実性が調査による経済センチメント指標を押し下げている一方で、実体経済のハードデータは比較的堅調である。今後2か月の間に貿易戦争が落ち着き始めると見込んでいるため、調査データは反発し、債券利回りは上昇するだろう。 フェド: インフレ期待が低い状況では、フェドは金融環境を緩和的に維持し、景気回復が順調に進むことを確保しなければならない。これは、フェドが市場の期待に応じて来週利下げを行うことを意味する。その先については、成長が十分に改善するため、さらなる利下げは不要になると予想している。 ネガティブ・コンベクシティ: 今年の大幅な利回り低下は、リスク調整後の観点でネガティブ・コンベクシティ資産の魅力を高めた。投資家はインベストメント・グレードよりもハイイールドを優先すべきである。また、Aaa、Aa、A 格の社債よりもエージェンシーMBSを優先すべきである。 特集 チャート 1 ハードデータがもたらすポジティブなサプライズ Positive Surprises Driven By The Hard Data Positive Surprises Driven By The Hard Data 今後2か月は米国経済にとって重要である。企業側と消費者側の両方で示されるセンチメント指標は景気後退を示すシグナルを発している。しかし、実際の経済活動を示す指標はより穏やかな状況を描いている（チャート 1）。この「ハード」データと「ソフト」データの乖離は、今後数か月以内に解消される可能性が高く、その解消の方向性は米中貿易交渉の結果が大きく左右するだろう。 「ハード」と「ソフト」データについて 最近は投資家向けに大量の経済データが公開されているが、これらは一般的に「ソフト」か「ハード」のいずれかに分類できる。着工件数や小売売上高のような実際の経済活動を測る指標を我々は「ハード」データと呼ぶ。これらは国のGDP算出に使われる種類の指標である。一方、企業や消費者に対して活動が改善しているか悪化しているか、将来に対してより楽観的か悲観的かを尋ねる調査指標を「ソフト」データと呼ぶ。PMI調査や消費者信頼感の指標などがソフトデータの例である。 どちらの種類の指標も価値がある。ソフトデータは通常タイムリーであり、ハードデータより先行することが多い。しかし、その分フリップフロップ（振れ）を起こしやすい。ハードデータはより信頼性が高い傾向にあるが、実行可能な先行時間を必ずしも提供するとは限らない。 ソフトデータとハードデータは全く異なるシグナルを発している。 現時点では、ソフトデータとハードデータは非常に異なるシグナルを発している。消費者側では、コア小売売上高は堅調に前年同期比4.8%のペースで拡大しているが、消費者信頼感は過去1年で低下している（チャート 2）。 企業側では、ISM製造業PMIは9月に47.8と、2009年以来の最低水準に達した。しかし鉱工業生産は過去1年でわずか0.1%の減少にとどまっている。鉱工業生産の成長は2015/16期にISMがより高い水準にあった際に-4%まで低下したことがある（チャート 3）。同様に、コア耐久財受注の実績はほとんど縮小していない一方で、CEOの信頼感は景気後退水準にある（チャート 3、パネル2）。稼働率も2016年の底を大きく上回る水準で比較的強いままである（チャート 3、下段）。 チャート 2 ハード vs ソフトデータ：消費者側 Hard Vs. Soft Data: On The Consumer Side Hard Vs. Soft Data: On The Consumer Side チャート 3 ハード vs ソフトデータ：企業側 Hard Vs. Soft Data: On The Business Side Hard Vs. Soft Data: On The Business Side 住宅は、現在ハードとソフトのデータの間に二分法を示していない唯一のセクターである。全ての住宅活動指標は強く伸びており、昨年の弱さからの急速な回復を示している（チャート 4）。 チャート 4 住宅活動の概要 Housing Activity Summary Housing Activity Summary 貿易交渉が重要な鍵を握る ソフトデータがハードデータに遅れ始めたのは、昨年にグローバル経済政策不確実性指数が急上昇したのとほぼ同時期であった（チャート 5）。これにより、貿易戦争の負の影響への懸念がセンチメントと信頼感の指標を急落させたと結論づけられる一方で、貿易戦争のハードデータに対する実際の影響は小幅にとどまっている。 これが11月の米中貿易協議の結果が極めて重要である理由だ。新たな関税が導入されないことが明確になる合意が得られれば、ソフトデータは十分に改善してハードデータと収斂すると予想される。しかし、交渉が決裂すれば、ネガティブな調査データが最終的にハードデータを押し下げることになるだろう。 住宅は、現在ハードとソフトのデータの間に二分法を示していない唯一のセクターである。 現時点での感触では、迫り来る2020年の米国選挙が両者にとって合意を成立させる十分なインセンティブを提供していると考えているが、結果はどちらに転んでもおかしくない。先週金曜に公表した当社のグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジーサービスのレポートでは、貿易交渉の見通しをより詳しく論じている。1 債券投資家にとって、貿易不確実性の除去はISM製造業PMIやCRB Raw Industrials指数のような重要なソフトデータの反発につながると確信している。これらの指標の上昇は債券利回りを急上昇させるだろう。CRB Raw Industrials指数と金の比率は10年米国債利回りを引き続き緊密に追跡している（チャート 6）。 チャート 5 貿易戦争の懸念が##br##センチメントに影響 Trade War Worries Affecting Sentiment Trade War Worries Affecting Sentiment チャート 6 貿易不確実性が薄れると債券利回りは急騰する Bond Yields Will Shoot Higher Once Trade Uncertainty Dissipates Bond Yields Will Shoot Higher Once Trade Uncertainty Dissipates 結論: 貿易に関する不確実性が調査による経済センチメント指標を押し下げている一方で、実体経済のハードデータは比較的堅調である。今後2か月の間に貿易戦争が落ち着き始めると見込んでいるため、調査データは反発し、債券利回りは上昇するだろう。 来週のフェド ハードとソフトの二極化は、フェドが今年大部分で述べてきた経済見通しの説明とよく整合する。すなわち、ベースラインの見通しは好ましいが下振れリスクがあるという認識だ。その見通し自体は直ちに政策対応を示唆するものではないが、インフレ期待が低いことは今後数か月のフェドの取るべき行動をかなり明確にしている。 5年/5年フォワードTIPSのブレークイーブン・インフレ率は現在1.68%であり、フェドのインフレ目標と整合する2.3%〜2.5%のレンジを大きく下回っている（チャート 7）。さらに、ニューヨーク連銀の消費者期待調査における3年物のインフレ予想の中央値は史上最低を更新した（チャート 7、下段）。フェドはインフレ期待を高めるために適切な行動を取らなければならない。現状では、景気回復が続くように金融環境を緩和的に保つことを確実にする必要がある。最終的に継続的な景気回復は実際のインフレの上昇をもたらし（チャート 7、パネル2）、インフレ期待は実際のインフレに追随して上昇するだろう。 チャート 7 インフレ期待の低さ＝緩和的なフェド Low Inflation Expectations Equals Accommodative Fed Low Inflation Expectations Equals Accommodative Fed 金融環境を緩和的に保つために、フェドは少なくとも市場の現時点での利下げ期待に合わせる必要がある。10月の利下げはほぼ完全に織り込まれており、したがって来週フェドが利下げを行う可能性は非常に高い。その後、市場は12月に4度目の利下げが行われる確率を概ね50/50で織り込んでいる。しかし、これらの期待は11月の貿易協議の結果や今後の経済データ次第で変化するだろう。 最終的には、今から12月までの間に十分な好材料が出て4回目の利下げは不要になると予想している。しかし、より重要なメッセージは、インフレ期待が低い限りフェドは市場の期待を裏切るリスクを取らないということである。 バランスシート更新 フェドは改定されたバランスシート政策の公表を来週まで待たない決断をした。先日報告したマネー・マーケットの混乱を考えれば、時間的余裕がなかったのは明らかである。2 我々のレポートの主な結論は、フェドが金利をコントロールし続けたいのであれば銀行準備金を市場により多く供給する必要があるということだ。これがまさにフェドが今後行うであろう措置である。フェドは短期国債の買い入れを遅くとも2020年第2四半期まで継続すると発表し、当初は月600億ドルのペースで開始する。さらに満期を迎える国債やMBSの償還金は新発の国債へ再投資し続ける。 継続する景気回復は実際のインフレ上昇につながる。 月600億ドルのペースが維持され、非準備金負債の成長率など他の仮定を置くと、フェドの措置により準備金の供給は来年6月までに1.53兆ドルから1.63兆ドルに増加し、証券保有は3.59兆ドルから4.05兆ドルに増加すると予測する（チャート 8および表 1参照）。 チャート 8 フェドのバランスシートの推移 The Fed's Balance Sheet Over Time The Fed's Balance Sheet Over Time 表 1 フェドのバランスシート：予測 Crisis Of Confidence Crisis Of Confidence これまで主張してきたように、フェドのバランスシートと金利政策の連動が切断された今、フェドの新しいバランスシート戦略から投資上の示唆は見出せない。債券投資の黄金律に従えば、フィードファンド金利の期待との相対的変化が引き続き債券利回りを駆動する。3 フェドのバランスシート戦略は将来の金利方針について何も教えてくれないため、概ね無視してよいだろう。 結論: インフレ期待が低い状況では、フェドは金融環境を緩和的に維持し、景気回復が順調に進むことを確保しなければならない。これは、フェドが市場の期待に応じて来週利下げを行うことを意味する。その先については、成長が十分に改善するため、さらなる利下げは不要になると予想している。 ネガティブ・コンベクシティを買う好機 過去数週間にわたり、我々はハイイールド債とエージェンシーMBSの魅力を繰り返し指摘してきた。これらのセクターに共通するのはネガティブ・コンベクシティである。つまり、ほとんどのフィクスト・インカム商品とは異なり、これらのデュレーションは利回りと正の相関を持つ。 その結果、今年の利回りの大幅な低下はハイイールド債とエージェンシーMBSの双方でデュレーションの大幅な低下を招いた（チャート 9）。しかしこのデュレーション低下にもかかわらず、ジャンクスプレッドは比較的横ばいを維持し、MBSスプレッドは実際に拡大している。言い換えれば、ネガティブ・コンベクシティ証券に内在するリスクが顕著に低下したにもかかわらず、期待リターンは下がっていない。 チャート 9 ネガティブ・コンベクシティ商品は魅力的 Negatively Convex Products Are Attractive Negatively Convex Products Are Attractive 先週、我々は米国スプレッド商品向けの新たなリスク測定法を発表した。4 「100ベーシスポイントを失うリスク」は、あるセクターが期間一致の米国債に対して100ベーシスポイント以上のアンダーパフォーマンスを示すために必要な年次スプレッド変化の標準偏差の数と考えられる。値が高いほど、そのセクターが100bpを失うリスクは低いことを意味するし、その逆もまた同様である。 チャート 10は、新しいリスク指標をインベストメント・グレードおよびハイイールドのクレジットティア、ならびに従来の30年エージェンシーMBSの期待リターンに対してプロットしたものである。縦軸は各セクターの12か月の期待超過リターンで、我々はこれをOASから期待デフォルト損失の調整分を差し引いて算出している。横軸は「100ベーシスポイントを失うリスク」を示している。 最近の市場の動きを文脈化するために、スプレッドが最後にボトムをつけた約1年前から各セクターがチャート10内でどのように動いたかを示している。注目すべき点は、昨年10月にはBa格およびB格のジャンク債がBaa格の社債よりも同等のリスクで高い期待リターンを提供していたことだ。現在ではBa格とB格は同様のリターン優位性を提供しているが、リスクははるかに小さくなっている。Caa格ジャンクは現在、リスクとリターンの両面でBaaセクターを明確に上回っている。 チャート 10 リスク・リワードのトレードオフはネガティブ・コンベクシティ証券に有利 Crisis Of Confidence Crisis Of Confidence エージェンシーMBSに目を向けると、デュレーションの大幅な低下が昨年10月以降の大幅なリスク削減につながっていることが再び確認される。これが、我々が最近エージェンシーMBSをAaa、Aa、A 格の社債に替えてアップグレードすることを推奨した理由である。5 結論: 今年の大幅な利回り低下は、リスク調整後の観点でネガティブ・コンベクシティ資産の魅力を高めた。投資家はインベストメント・グレードよりもハイイールドを優先すべきである。また、Aaa、Aa、A 格の社債よりもエージェンシーMBSを優先すべきである。 Ryan Swift 米国債券ストラテジスト rswift@bcaresearch.com 脚注 1 当社のグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー週次レポート「Kumbaya」（2019年10月18日付）を gis.bcaresearch.com でご覧ください 2 当社のU.S. ボンド・ストラテジー週次レポート「What’s Up In U.S. Money Markets?」（2019年9月24日付）を usbs.bcaresearch.com でご覧ください 3 当社のU.S. ボンド・ストラテジー特別レポート「The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing」（2018年7月24日付）を usbs.bcaresearch.com でご覧ください 4 当社のU.S. ボンド・ストラテジー週次レポート「A Perspective On Risk And Reward」（2019年10月15日付）を usbs.bcaresearch.com でご覧ください 5 当社のU.S. ボンド・ストラテジー週次レポート「Two Themes And Two Trades」（2019年10月1日付）を usbs.bcaresearch.com でご覧ください フィクスト・インカム・セクターのパフォーマンス 推奨ポートフォリオ仕様

ハイライト 通貨市場は短期的な期待と長期的な要因の点で二分されている。スウェーデンクローナ、ノルウェークローネ、英ポンドは長期的には堅調に買いだが、短期的には非常にボラタイルなままでいる可能性がある。 我々はドルの単純な押し目買いよりもクロス通貨に引き続き注目している。SEK/NZD、GBP/JPY、NOK/SEKはロングを維持。利益保護のためGBP/JPYのロスカットを引き締める。 世界的な成長が改善すればEUR/SEKは天井を打つはずだ。 先週のレポートで推奨した通り、金/銀比率を90で売る。1 特集 Chart I-1 2018年以降の一方通行 2018年以降の一方通行 2018年以降の一方通行 我々が注目するG10通貨の中で、最も不可解なのはおそらくスウェーデンクローナだ。リクスバンクは今年利上げを行った数少ない中央銀行の一つだが、クローナは依然としてG10で最も弱い通貨である。確かにスウェーデンの製造業のパフォーマンスはみじめで、特に9月はそうだったが、これはスウェーデンだけの話ではない。製造業の深刻な景気後退を経験しているユーロ圏の方が、よりハト派な欧州中央銀行（ECB）にもかかわらず通貨のパフォーマンスは良好だった。 クローナのアンダーパフォーマンスは、世界的な製造業の景気後退が長引くことを示しているのか、それともスウェーデン固有の内生的な問題を示しているのかという疑問を投げかける。言い換えれば、USD/SEK（さらにはUSD/NOK）の上昇を牽引してきたのはドル高なのか、それともより国内的な要因なのか（Chart I-1）？ もし後者であれば、反転が近づいている場合に注目すべき重要な指標は何か？ ソフトデータ対ハードデータの議論 スウェーデンにとって大きな問いは、製造業がただボラタイルに底打ちしているだけなのか、それともこれからさらに大きく収縮するのか、という点だ。鉱工業生産は現在前年比で4％成長しているが、ソフトデータのシグナルは二桁の縮小を示唆している（Chart I-2、上段）。したがって、投資家の認識と現実の間に大きな乖離があるか、あるいは我々がはるかに深刻な製造業の落ち込みの瀬戸際にいるかのどちらかだ。為替は幅広い経済データの織り込みが極めて流動的であり、スウェーデンの場合は世界成長の見通しを織り込む傾向にある。しかし、EUR/SEKが10.8、USD/SEKが9.7（後者は2008年の高値を大きく上回る）であることを踏まえれば、深刻な不況以外の結果であればクローナは強くなると見て差し支えない。 スウェーデン製造業の底を示す比較的一貫した指標の一つは新規受注対在庫比率だ（Chart I-2、下段）。9月の低下は不安を誘う。しかし、製造業PMIとは異なりこの比率は新たな安値を付けていない点は注目に値し、我々が長期的な落ち込みではなくボラタイルな底打ちプロセスにあるかもしれないという暫定的な証拠である。我々がこのような発散を最後に見たのは2011/2012年の欧州債務危機の最中であり、その際にはスウェーデンのハードデータが最終的に経済全体の正しいシグナルを送った。 製造業の悪化は、まだ国内消費一般や労働市場には影響を与えていない。 製造業の悪化は、まだ国内消費一般や労働市場には影響を与えていない。PMI指数の輸入項目は輸出のそれを大きく上回っている。一方で、PMIの雇用項目は今年の中頃から安定化し始めており、雇用成長は約1％前後で底打ちするはずだ（Chart I-3）。スウェーデンの輸出は多くの先進国よりも製造業の上位サプライチェーンに位置しており、自動車は重要な役割を果たす。しかしこれまでのところ、スウェーデン経済は自動車の減速を比較的うまく耐え抜いており、生産は依然として年率約7％で推移している。 Chart I-2 ソフトデータがはるかに悪い ソフトデータははるかに悪化している ソフトデータははるかに悪化している Chart I-3 国内需要は堅調に持ちこたえている 国内需要は堅調に推移している 国内需要は堅調に推移している スウェーデンの失業率の上昇は問題だが、我々はこれが労働市場のダイナミクスに重大な変化をもたらしたとは考えていない。スウェーデンは多くの他の欧州諸国よりも亡命希望者や難民に対して開放的である歴史が長い。数年前のシリア危機は例外的な急増を引き起こし、亡命希望者数は15万人を超え、総人口のほぼ1.5％にまで達した（Chart I-4）。歴史的に移民はスウェーデンに大きな労働力の恩恵をもたらし、成長は米国やユーロ圏を上回ってきた。ただし、新たな移民が労働力に統合される過程で摩擦的失業も生じている。 Chart I-4 統合される必要のある新たな労働力プール 統合しなければならない新たな労働力のプール 統合しなければならない新たな労働力のプール 外国生まれの労働者は現在総人口の約20％を占め、その大部分が新しい言語を学び新たなスキルを習得する必要がある（Chart I-5A）。この成長のメリットは今後何年にもわたって享受されるだろう。統合は政治的に敏感な問題であり、2016年中頃に採択された高度に制限的な亡命・再統合法は移民ブームの後退を意味する可能性が高い。2018年9月の選挙で反移民派のスウェーデン民主党が台頭したのはその典型例だ。しかし、民主主義国の有権者が右寄りに向かう動きは世界的な現象であり、相対的に見ればスウェーデンにとってそれほどネガティブではない。つまり、ほとんどの先進国と比較して、スウェーデンの人口見通しは依然として比較的良好だ（Chart I-5B）。 Chart I-5A 巨大な労働力の恩恵 巨額の労働配当 巨額の労働配当 Chart I-5B 明らかな人口の崖は見えない 明らかな人口の崖は見られない 明らかな人口の崖は見られない 移民の流入はインフレに対して混合的な影響を与える。賃金が低い就業比率の上昇により賃金を押し下げる圧力がある一方で、労働者数の増加に応じて住宅と消費には上押し圧力が掛かる。これは政府が社会サービスに支出を増やす財政刺激にもつながる。一方で、外国生まれの人々の失業率は約15％に達している。これはフィリップス曲線が最初の数年間は平坦で、その後急勾配になることを意味する。しかし新たな労働力が最終的に経済に吸収されれば、賃金圧力を生み出し始めるはずだ。 リクスバンクはこれらのダイナミクスを明確に理解しており、だからこそ過去数年はスウェーデン経済が比較的持ちこたえている局面でもハト派の姿勢を取ってきた。金利は2015年にマイナス領域に引き下げられ、2016年から2017年の世界的な回復期を通じて-0.5％に据え置かれた（ECBの政策金利より低い）。また量的緩和はECBの資産購入プログラムの再開発表よりも早く2020年まで延長された。これらは弱い通貨を通じて含め、スウェーデンの金融状況を大いに緩和した。今後、クローナの下値抵抗が薄く上昇しやすいと考える主要な理由がいくつかある： 弱いクローナは通常12か月のラグをもって製造業を助けてきた。 弱いクローナは通常12か月のラグをもって製造業を助けてきた。マイナスの乖離は深刻な不況の前にしか起こらない傾向がある。現在がまさにそのような状況でない限り、比較的安価になったスウェーデン製品（ボルボ対BMWを想起せよ）への需要が強まれば、クローナは強含みになるはずだ（Chart I-6）。 確かにRiskbankは量的緩和を実施してきたが、バランスシートの拡大ペースはここ数四半期で鈍化している。USD/SEKはリクスバンクとフェドの相対的なバランスシート動向を追う傾向があるが、クローナに有利な大きな差が開きつつある（Chart I-7）。一方で、フェドがバランスシートを再拡大しようとしていることも、USDに対してSEKを強める方向に働くはずだ。 Chart I-6 スウェーデンクローナと製造業 スウェーデン・クローナと製造業 スウェーデン・クローナと製造業 Chart I-7 USD/SEKと相対的バランスシート USD/SEKと相対的バランスシート USD/SEKと相対的バランスシート スウェーデンの住宅市場はリクスバンクにとって悩みの種になりつつある。2015年にマイナス金利が導入された際、住宅価格は前年比で15％という急上昇を見せた（Chart I-8）。最近では移民抑制がある程度の冷却をもたらしたが、スウェーデンの家計のレバレッジは依然として非常に高い。1990年代の住宅危機の記憶が鮮明なため、現行の政策スタンスにリクスバンクは強い違和感を抱いている。 キャリーコストは米ドルをショートするよりNZDをショートする方が低い。 我々のバイアスは、ステファン・イングベス総裁ができるだけ速やかに政策を正常化したがっている一方で、彼が扱っているのは貿易がGDPの約45％を占める小規模開放経済であり、外部条件に翻弄されやすいという点だ。SEKはG10の中で最も割安な通貨であり、世界成長の底打ちを示すいかなる弱い証拠に対しても急反発する可能性がある。さらに、世界的な成長が上向けば資源利用がひっ迫し、スウェーデンの基調的なインフレ圧力が高まるはずだ（Chart I-9）。 Chart I-8 スウェーデンの住宅価格##br## バブル気味 スウェーデンの住宅価格はバブル状態にある スウェーデンの住宅価格はバブル状態にある Chart I-9 スウェーデンの資源利用とインフレ スウェーデンにおける資源の活用とインフレ スウェーデンにおける資源の活用とインフレ SEKの取引ストラテジーに関しては、USD/SEKとNZD/SEKは高い相関を示す傾向にある。SEKはキウイよりも世界成長に対するベータが高い（スウェーデンはGDPの45％を輸出、ニュージーランドは27％）。相対的に見ると、スウェーデン経済は米国よりも底打ちしているように見え、SEK/NZDはUSD/SEKの下落をプレーする魅力的な手段だ。一方、キャリーコストは米ドルをショートするよりもNZDをショートする方が低い（Chart I-10）。EUR/SEKについては、当面現水準で推移したのち下落に向かう可能性があるが、最終的には世界成長が再加速するとピークを打つだろう。 Chart I-10 SEK/NZDはロングを維持 SEK/NZDのロングを維持 SEK/NZDのロングを維持 結論：我々は相対価値プレーとしてSEK/NZDを引き続きロングしているが、真の上昇余地はSEK/USDクロスにある。ソフトデータの失望に市場が注目していることがSEK安の主因である一方、ハードデータは比較的耐性を示しているというのが我々の見方だ。調査が示すほど世界成長環境が危うくないことが明確になれば、クローナは急反発する可能性がある。 事務連絡 我々のGBP/JPYロングは今週5%の含み益となった。利益を守るためストップを138に引き締める。EUR/NOKショートは2%の損失でロスカットされた。現時点では様子見である。EUR/NOKは現在2008年のリセッション時の水準を上回っており、それは長期化した景気後退のみで正当化されうるが、リスク管理の観点からは当面忍耐が必要だ。続報を待たれたい。   チェスター・ントニフォア, 外国為替ストラテジスト chestern@bcaresearch.com 脚注 1 詳細はForeign Exchange ストラテジー 週次レポート、題名「マネー回転率、EUR/USD、そして銀」（2019年10月11日付）を参照。fes.bcaresearch.comで入手可能 通貨 米ドル Chart II-1 USDテクニカル 1 USD テクニカル 1 USD テクニカル 1 Chart II-2 USDテクニカル 2 米ドルテクニカル 2 米ドルテクニカル 2 米国の最近のデータは軟調である： 9月の小売売上高は前月比-0.3％。鉱工業生産は前月比-0.4％。 9月の輸出物価・輸入物価はともに前年比-1.6％下落。 ミシガン消費者信頼感指数は10月に96まで上昇、前月の93.2から上昇。 NYエンパイア・ステート製造業指数は10月に4に上昇、9月の2から。 9月の建築許可と住宅着工はそれぞれ前月比-2.7％、-9.4％と減少したが、住宅回復は維持されている。 10月11日終了週の新規失業保険申請件数は214Kに増加。 DXY指数は今週0.7％下落した。最新のベージュブックは米経済が緩やか〜中程度のペースで拡大しているとまとめた。製造業の減速は依然として最大のリスクであり、貿易摩擦は企業心理と設備投資意向に重しをかけ続けている。最近の貿易協議における“合意”は、夏を通じて続いてきた高い不確実性からの転換点を示す可能性がある。 レポートリンク： マネー回転率、EUR/USD、そして銀 - 2019年10月11日 暴動ポイントにおける資本保全 - 2019年9月6日 通貨の風景は変わったか？ - 2019年8月16日 ユーロ Chart II-3 EURテクニカル 1 EUR テクニカル分析 1 EUR テクニカル分析 1 Chart II-4 EURテクニカル 2 EURのテクニカル分析 2 EURのテクニカル分析 2 ユーロ圏の最近のデータは低調のままである： 9月の総合インフレ率は前年比0.8％に低下し、約3年ぶりの低水準となった。ただしコアインフレは前年比1％に上昇した。 ユーロ圏の鉱工業生産は8月に前年比-2.8％と引き続き縮小した。 ユーロ圏のZEW景況感は10月にさらに低下し-23.5となったが、これは予想の-33を大きく上回る。ドイツのZEW期待指数も10月に-22.8に低下した。期待は現状に比べて改善している点は注目に値する。 ユーロ圏の貿易収支は8月に203億ユーロに改善、7月の下方改定された175億ユーロから上昇した。ただしこれは主に輸入の縮小によるものだ。 EUR/USDは今週0.9％上昇し、広範なドル安が一因となった。ユーロ圏の貿易動向は依然憂慮すべきで、8月の輸出は前年比-2.2％、輸入は前年比-4.1％と大きく落ち込んだ。注目すべきは、年初来で対米のEUの貿易黒字が1年前の910億ユーロから1030億ユーロに拡大する一方、中国との貿易赤字は1160億ユーロから1270億ユーロにさらに拡大している点だ。 レポートリンク： マネー回転率、EUR/USD、そして銀 - 2019年10月11日 いくつかのトレードアイデア - 2019年9月27日 中央銀行の対決 - 2019年6月21日 日本円 Chart II-5 JPYテクニカル 1 JPYのテクニカル分析 1 JPYのテクニカル分析 1 Chart II-6 JPYテクニカル 2 JPY テクニカル指標 2 JPY テクニカル指標 2 日本の最近のデータは引き続き失望的である： 8月の鉱工業生産は前年比-4.7％。 8月の稼働率は前月比-2.9％低下。 日本円は今週対米ドルで0.8％下落した。黒田総裁は経済状況がさらに悪化し続ければ躊躇なく行動すると改めて強調した。一方で、フェドやECBが資産買入を通じてバランスシートを拡大する方向にある中で、日銀がイールドカーブコントロールを超えてどれだけ追加で打ち手を講じられるかは不透明である。我々は日銀が攻撃的に動くには「リーマン級の瞬間」が必要だと考えており、円をロングで保有している。 レポートリンク： いくつかのトレードアイデア - 2019年9月27日 通貨の風景は変わったか？ - 2019年8月16日 薄い夏場の取引に向けたポートフォリオ調整 - 2019年7月5日 英ポンド Chart II-7 GBPテクニカル 1 GBP テクニカル指標 1 GBP テクニカル指標 1 Chart II-8 GBPテクニカル 2 GBP テクニカル分析 2 GBP テクニカル分析 2 英国の最近のデータは概ねネガティブである： ILO失業率は8月にわずかに上昇して3.9％に。平均賃金の四半期成長率は3.8％に鈍化したが、予想の3.7％を上回った。 小売物価指数は9月に前年比2.4％と、前月の2.6％から減速。 総合インフレ率は9月に前年比1.7％で横ばい、コアインフレは1.5％から1.7％に上昇。 小売売上高は9月に前年比3.1％増、前月の2.6％から上昇。 GBP/USDは欧州理事会のブレグジットに関する楽観が高まったことで今週3.3％急騰した。バリュエーションの観点からは、ポンドはそのフェアバリューに対して大きく割安で取引されている。ブレグジットに関するポジティブなニュースが続けば、ポンドはさらに上昇し得る。我々はGBP/JPYをロングしており含み益は5％超。ストップを138に引き上げる。 レポートリンク： いくつかのトレードアイデア - 2019年9月27日 英国：循環的減速か構造的停滞か？ - 2019年9月20日 中央銀行の対決 - 2019年6月21日 豪ドル Chart II-9 AUDテクニカル 1 AUD テクニカル 1 AUD テクニカル 1 Chart II-10 AUDテクニカル 2 AUD テクニカル分析 2 AUD テクニカル分析 2 豪州の最近のデータは穏やかである： NAB企業景況感はさらに-2に低下したが、Q3の活動状況は1に改善した。 労働市場では9月の失業率が5.2％に低下。14.7Kの雇用が創出され、うち26.2Kがフルタイム、11.4Kがパートタイムの減少だった。 AUD/USDは今週0.4％上昇した。今週初めにRBA議事録が公表されたが、低金利の効果について鋭い論争が示されている。一方では低金利は完全雇用とインフレ目標達成のため理論的に正当化される。だが他方で、一部のRBAメンバーは低金利が既に高騰している住宅価格をさらに煽ることを懸念している。したがってRBA議事録後、追加利下げの確率は低下した。 レポートリンク： 豪ドルに関するコントラリアンの見解 - 2019年5月24日 限界効用逓減に注意 - 2019年4月19日 まだ安全圏を脱していない - 2019年4月5日 NZドル Chart II-11 NZDテクニカル 1 NZD テクニカル分析 1 NZD テクニカル分析 1 Chart II-12 NZDテクニカル 2 NZドルのテクニカル分析 2 NZドルのテクニカル分析 2 ニュージーランドの最近のデータはネガティブである： 観光客到着数は8月に前年比1.8％増と、前月の2％からわずかに低下。 第3四半期の総合インフレ率は前年比1.5％に鈍化。 NZD/USDは今週ほぼ横ばいで推移した。世界成長に密接に結びつくニュージーランドドルは米中貿易の見出しの浮き沈みに伴って変動している。両国は先週部分合意に達したが、詳細はまだあいまいだ。キウイはハイベータ通貨である一方、クロスではアンダーパフォームするはずだ。我々は引き続きオーストラリアドルとスウェーデンクローナを通じてキウイの弱さをプレーしている。 レポートリンク： USD/CNYと市場の動揺 - 2019年8月9日 米ドルは次にどこへ向かうか？ - 2019年6月7日 まだ安全圏を脱していない - 2019年4月5日 カナダドル Chart II-13 CADテクニカル 1 CADのテクニカル分析 1 CADのテクニカル分析 1 Chart II-14 CADテクニカル 2 CADのテクニカル 2 CADのテクニカル 2 カナダの最近のデータは比較的強い： 9月の失業率はさらに低下し5.5％に。さらに平均時給は前年比4.3％の伸びを続け、前月の3.8％から加速した。最後に9月の雇用者数は53.7Kの増加で、予想の10Kを大きく上回った。 9月の総合インフレ率とコアインフレ率はともに前年比1.9％で横ばいだった。 カナダドルは先週公表された好調な雇用データを受けて対米ドルで1％の上昇となった。今月の総選挙はカナダのエネルギーセクターと環境政策の将来にとって重要となり得る。 レポートリンク： 暴動ポイントにおける資本保全 - 2019年9月6日 薄い夏場の取引に向けたポートフォリオ調整 - 2019年7月5日 金、原油、暗号通貨について - 2019年6月28日 スイスフラン Chart II-15 CHFテクニカル 1 CHF テクニカル分析 1 CHF テクニカル分析 1 Chart II-16 CHFテクニカル 2 CHF テクニカル 2 CHF テクニカル 2 スイスの最近のデータは良好である： 貿易黒字（貴金属除く）は9月に急拡大し28.8億CHFとなった。特に化学・製薬製品の販売増によりスイスの輸出は月次で8.2％増の203億CHFとなった。輸入は月次で1.4％減の174億CHFだった。 生産者物価と輸入物価は9月に前年比-2％のまま推移した。 USD/CHFは今週1％下落した。スイスフランは防御的通貨としての性格と、SNBによる操作ツールとしての性格の綱引きにさらされ続けるだろう。我々の推定ではEUR/CHF1.06が究極のストレスポイントである。グローバルポートフォリオは構造的にアウトパフォームするという単純な理由からスイスフランを保険として保有すべきだ。 レポートリンク： SNBに関する注記 - 2019年10月4日 スイスフランへの対処法 - 2019年5月17日 限界効用逓減に注意 - 2019年4月19日 ノルウェークローネ Chart II-17 NOKテクニカル 1 NOKのテクニカル指標 1 NOKのテクニカル指標 1 Chart II-18 NOKテクニカル 2 NOK テクニカル 2 NOK テクニカル 2 ノルウェーの最近のデータは低迷している： 貿易収支は9月に12億NOKの赤字に転じた。これは前年比で240億NOKの減少である。 ノルウェークローネは今週対米ドルでほぼ1％下落した。エネルギー価格はここ数週間低迷している。さらにノルウェーの貿易収支は2017年11月以来初めて赤字に転じた。輸出はエネルギー製品の販売減により前年比-19.5％と急落し、一方で輸入は前年比+12.9％と増加した。メッセージは明確だ――ノルウェーは国内的には比較的堅調だが、石油輸出への依存が成長見通しにボラティリティをもたらしている。BCAは2019年の原油価格見通しを引き下げており、これがノルウェークローネの魅力をそいでいる。続報にご期待ください。 レポートリンク： いくつかのトレードアイデア - 2019年9月27日 薄い夏場の取引に向けたポートフォリオ調整 - 2019年7月5日 金、原油、暗号通貨について - 2019年6月28日 スウェーデンクローナ Chart II-19 SEKテクニカル 1 SEK テクニカル 1 SEK テクニカル 1 Chart II-20 SEKテクニカル 2 SEK テクニカル 2 SEK テクニカル 2 スウェーデンの最近のデータは中立的である： 9月の失業率は7.1％で横ばいだった。 USD/SEKは今週1.1％下落した。今年に入って最もパフォーマンスが悪いG10通貨として、スウェーデンクローナは現在そのフェアバリューに対して大きく割安に取引されている。今週の本文前半でスウェーデン経済とクローナに関する詳細分析を提示しているので参照されたい。 レポートリンク： 米ドルは次にどこへ向かうか？ - 2019年6月7日 G10全体の国際収支 - 2019年2月15日 通貨の単純な魅力度ランキング - 2019年2月8日 トレード＆予測 予測サマリー コアポートフォリオ タクティカルトレード 指値注文 決済済み取引