Monetary

Highlights U.S. data keep surging, ... : The September ISM surveys, and the latest employment situation report, demonstrated that the economy has considerable momentum. ... and the Fed has taken note, ... : Chairman Powell and other FOMC speakers reiterated that they see no reason to de-escalate their tightening campaign. ... so we still see rates going higher, ... : Conditions do not justify checking any of the boxes on our checklist of items that might lead us to change our below-benchmark duration view. Only the international-duress box has moved closer to being checked, but nothing short of dire EM conditions will deter the Fed from following its intended path. ... and expect that concerns about the yield curve will abate for a while: The strong data and Powell's comment potentially implying a higher terminal rate promoted a bear steepening all along the yield curve. Feature It is a testament to how smoothly U.S. equities have been rising that Thursday's and Friday's 1% intraday S&P 500 declines inspired CNBC to frame the screen in fire-engine red, accompanied by a Market Sell-Off graphic. We all have to make a living, though, and it's easy to sympathize with a desperate producer. Episode after episode of Goldilocks is hardly must-see TV. Friday's employment situation report provided no relief. September payroll additions fell well short of the consensus estimate, but upward revisions for July and August more than offset the headline disappointment. The three-month moving average of 190,000 net additions is squarely within the tight range that has prevailed for several years. Forward guidance has been leached of any sort of drama as everyone on the Fed is singing from the same sheet - the economy's great; risks are balanced; and we're doing a fantastic job, if we do say so ourselves - and pointing to a continuation of the gradual pace. The market story will become more lively when inflation comes on much more strongly than either markets or the Fed seem to imagine it could, but that is next year's business (at the earliest), and we remain constructive in the meantime. More Strong Data (Yawn) The narrative that fiscal stimulus will keep the economy humming throughout this year and next is old news. Additionally, fiscal stimulus delivers the most bang for the buck when an economy is operating below potential; now that the output gap is closed, the odds are tilted against material positive surprises. Against that backdrop, last week's non-manufacturing ISM survey was startlingly robust. According to the Institute for Supply Management, the 61.6 reading, just off of the series' all-time high, corresponds to 4.6% real GDP growth. The components of the survey were strong across the board (Chart 1), with employment activity making a new all-time high (Chart 1, second panel). The prices-paid and supplier-delivery series, which provide insight into margin pressures, are contrary indicators once they get too strong, but each has yet to break out (Chart 1, bottom two panels). The September manufacturing ISM survey cooled a bit from August, but remains around 60, in the neighborhood of last cycle's high. Taken together, the two ISM surveys indicate that businesses are feeling flush, despite the deceleration in the rest of the developed world (Chart 2). Chart 1Firing On All Cylinders Chart 2American Exceptionalism The September employment report suggests that households should remain optimistic as well. Payroll growth has churned steadily ahead for seven years, and our payrolls model is calling for a pronounced uptick through the first quarter of 2019 (Chart 3). Expressed as a share of the labor force, initial claims continue to melt (Chart 4, top panel), and even after incorporating continuing claims, it looks like there's a job for everyone who wants one (Chart 4, bottom panel). A pessimist would say there's only one way that initial claims can go from here, but as the gaps between the circles and the shading show, there's typically a decent lag between the trough in claims and the onset of a recession. Chart 3The Employment Outlook Is Strong ... Chart 4... Given Initial Claims' Ongoing Collapse The bottom line is that U.S. demand is poised to remain strong. Data from the ISM and NFIB surveys, and the consumer confidence series, indicate that businesses and households are both feeling their oats. Payrolls should keep expanding, and the tight-as-a-drum labor market will keep wages nosing higher. With an elevated savings rate providing ample dry powder for additional consumption (Chart 5), the expansion should sail right through 2019. Chart 5Plenty Of Dry Powder For Consumption "A Long Way From Neutral" Fed officials have kept up an especially busy schedule of appearances since the latest FOMC meeting two weeks ago. Despite the potential for cacophony, the speakers have been singing the same tune. All agree that the economy is strong, and that the Fed has been meeting its dual mandate with unusual aplomb. The victory laps are off-putting socially, but their economic import could be far greater than their social import if they signal some institutional complacency about inflation. Potential future challenges aside, the FOMC is clearly united in its near-term course. Dovish Chicago President Evans, who has publicly agonized in recent years about the dangers of too-low inflation while pleading with his colleagues not to move too fast, has made his peace with the committee's gradual rate-hike pace. In a speech last Wednesday, he stated that, "I am more comfortable with the inflation outlook today than I have been for the past several years." In a subsequent interview with Bloomberg, he said, "Getting policy up to a slightly restrictive setting - 3, 3¼% - would be consistent with the strong economy and good inflation that we are looking at. ... I'm quite comfortable with the expected path." The week before, New York Fed President Williams was effusive in his praise of the economy's health and the Fed's role in sustaining it. "[T]he U.S. economy is doing very well overall. From the perspective of the Fed's dual mandate ..., quite honestly, this is about as good as it gets. ... The Fed has attained its dual-mandate objectives of maximum employment and price stability about as well as it ever has." Williams' speech may have been most interesting in its downplaying of the usefulness of the neutral-rate concept. The co-developer of the preeminent Laubach-Williams neutral-interest-rate model, Williams now says the idea is overblown, having "gotten too much attention in commentary about Fed policy. Back when interest rates were well below neutral, r-star [the estimate of the neutral rate] appropriately acted as a pole star for navigation. But, as we have gotten closer to the range of estimates of neutral, what appeared to be a bright point of light is really a fuzzy blur, reflecting the inherent uncertainty in measuring r-star. More than that, r-star is just one factor affecting our decisions[.]" Williams' pivot would seem to suit Chairman Powell, who has shown little enthusiasm for neutral-rate models. His speech Tuesday on the Phillips curve relationship between inflation and unemployment was mostly anodyne, though he did repeatedly stress the importance of keeping inflation expectations anchored. His interview at a public forum on Wednesday was more revealing. While he continually expressed the view that he thinks the risks to the economy are balanced, he had much more to say about not hiking enough than he did about hiking too much. Now we've come to a situation where unemployment is close to a 20-year low and headed lower, by all accounts, and the really extraordinarily accommodative, low interest rates we needed when the economy was quite weak, we don't need those any more, they're not appropriate any more. We need interest rates to be gradually, very gradually, moving back toward normal, and that's what we've been doing now, for basically three years, and interest rates have just now, in real terms, moved above zero. Interest rates are still accommodative, but we're gradually moving to a place where they will be neutral. Not that they'll be restraining the economy - we may go past neutral, but we're a long way from neutral at this point, probably.1 Our Rates Checklist Treasuries sold off sharply on Wednesday on the non-manufacturing ISM release and reports of Powell's "long way from neutral" remark. The sell-off was in line with the key pillar of our bearish duration view: the Fed will hike more than markets currently expect. Higher bond yields last week suggest the divergence between our view and the markets' view is converging in our favor. Despite the backup in yields, though, market expectations of the terminal rate are still below 3%, indicating that market participants don't expect the 25-bps-a-quarter pace to continue beyond next June. The market still has a ways to go to catch up to our 3.5-4% terminal rate forecast (Chart 6), so we are not yet close to checking the first box of the checklist (Table 1). Chart 6Fighting The Fed Table 1Rates View Checklist From the inflation section of the checklist, inflation break-evens have drifted higher. They are moving in line with our rates view, but not so swiftly that it no longer applies (Chart 7). All of the labor market indicators support the view that rates are going higher. The unemployment rate remains on course to decline, ancillary indicators of the labor market remain quite healthy, and average hourly earnings kept the beat in the September employment release (Chart 8). Chart 7Bonds Have Yet To Adjust ... Chart 8... To Building Inflation Pressures Duress in selected EM economies is the only item that has moved against our rates view since we rolled out the rates checklist last month. It is nowhere near acute enough to show up in the United States, however, so we are still a long way from checking the box. The bottom line is that strength in the U.S. economy should support higher real rates and push up inflation pressures, while the market has yet to revise its terminal-rate estimates upward. The combination supports higher rates three to twelve months down the road, even if lopsided below-benchmark positioning argues for near-term retracement. Investment Implications Expansions do not die of old age, they die because the Fed murders them. While we agree with many bond bulls that the Fed will eventually tighten monetary conditions enough to induce a recession, we do not think it will do so any time soon. BCA's modeled estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate has been creeping higher, in line with a terminal rate somewhere between 3.5 and 4%. Given the median FOMC member terminal-rate projection of 3 3/8%, and Chicago President Evans' view that the terminal rate is somewhere around 3%, the Fed's not prepared to choke off the expansion just yet. Only rising inflation, and/or rising inflation expectations, will push the Fed to tighten policy enough to really squeeze the economy. We expect that inflation pressures will begin to show themselves over the next twelve to eighteen months as capacity bottlenecks emerge, and the Phillips curve relationship finally asserts itself. Treasuries will be an overweight once the Fed intervenes forcefully to counteract those inflation pressures, but they will be an underweight for a while first. In other words, we think long yields have to rise before they can fall. In line with the BCA house view, we remain equal weight equities, underweight fixed income, and overweight cash. We remain somewhat more constructive than our colleagues on risk assets, however, so we tweak the equity recommendation to say that investors should maintain at least an equal-weight position. Bull markets tend to sprint to the finish line, and underweighting equities too soon could prove hazardous to a manager's relative performance. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 October 3rd interview with Judy Woodruff at The Atlantic Festival. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEPcPIYTMY0 Quoted passage runs from 7:26 to 8:06.

特別レポート

Highlights European and Japanese wages have firmed significantly, suggesting upside to inflation in these economies. However, the gain in European wages will soon reverse, as the slowdown in global trade percolates through the European economy. The ECB will not raise rates sooner or faster than currently discounted in markets, and German Bunds remain attractive in currency hedged terms. Japanese wage growth seems more sustainable but Japanese inflation expectations remain anchored to the downside, and Japan will suffer from a fiscal shock when the consumption tax is increased next October. Japan's YCC policy will remain in place for at least another 18 months, and fixed-income investors should continue to overweight JGBs in currency-hedged fixed income portfolios. Feature The pick-up in wage growth this summer in the euro area and Japan has been an interesting development. It raises the risk that inflation in these two economies is about to hit an inflection point. Since growth has returned to these two regions, if inflation were to join the party, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan would finally be able to follow in the Federal Reserve's footsteps and begin increasing rates sooner rather than later. This week we explore whether or not inflationary pressures are building in Europe and Japan, and whether or not the expected policy path of the ECB and the BoJ needs to be re-assessed. While cyclical pressures are growing, clouds above the global economy - the EM space in particular - suggest that the policy path currently anticipated by money markets is just right, and no glaring mis-pricings are evident. Euro Area: A Dawn Is Not A Sunrise The Necessary Condition For Inflation Is Here... There is no denying that we have seen massive improvements in the euro area economy. In fact, we would argue that the euro area has finally hit a stage where the necessary condition for a re-emergence of inflation has been met: Economic slack has vanished. There seems to be little spare capacity in the aggregate euro area economy. Today the OECD measure for the output gap stands at +0.5% of GDP. Additionally, a basic approach comparing the level of industrial production to a simple statistical filter further confirms this assessment, showing that production stands 2% above trend (Chart 1). The capacity utilization measure published by the European Commission goes one step further, showing that utilization is at its highest level since 2008. This represents a very significant change from the days of 2011-2015, when capacity utilization stood below the average that prevailed from the time of the euro's introduction (Chart 2). Chart 1No More Slack In Europe Chart 2Capacity Utilization Is At Previous Cycle Peaks The labor market has been a particular source of concern for euro area watchers. After all, how can an economy generate any domestic inflationary pressures if wages remain depressed? On that front too, there is plenty to rejoice about. The gap between the euro area's unemployment rate and the OECD's estimate of the non-accelerating rate of unemployment (NAIRU) has nearly fully disappeared. Historically, such an occurrence has been associated with a rise in European core inflation (Chart 3). In fact, the ECB's labor underutilization survey is now at its lowest level in 10 years. Moreover, in its various business conditions surveys, the European Commission asks firms whether labor is a factor limiting production. With the exception of Italy, the number of firms reporting that labor shortages are a problem in most of the major economies stands at or near record highs (Chart 4). This confirms the simple impression provided by the gap between the unemployment rate and NAIRU that the labor market is beginning to create generalized inflationary and wage pressures. Chart 3Diminishing Labor Market Slack Leads##br## To Growing Inflationary Pressures Chart 4Labor Shortages In ##br##The Euro Area ...But The Sufficient Conditions Remain Murkier While the tight labor market suggests that wages have cyclical upside, is it even true that higher wages do lead to higher inflation in the euro area? The answer is yes. Chart 5 shows that euro area wages tend to lead core CPI by approximately three quarters, with an explanatory power of nearly 87%. This makes sense. Higher wages increase the cost of production for businesses, which results in cost-push inflation. This is even more true if wages rise in real terms, which boosts household's income and supports consumption. Thus, it is likely that the recent spike in wages will lead to higher core inflation. Despite this positive backdrop, some key cyclical worries remain. First, our CPI diffusion index for the euro area, measuring the breadth of inflation increases within the subcomponents of the CPI, is in free-fall. Historically, this has been a worrying sign for core inflation, and for both nominal and real wages (Chart 6). Chart 5In Europe, Wages ##br##Lead Core CPI Chart 6But CPI Diffusion Index Suggests Real Wages ##br##And Core CPI Could Hit A Speed Bump The bigger risk originates from outside the euro area. We have shown in the past that EM shocks can have a disproportionate impact on European economic activity.1 This link seems to run deeper than we had originally realized. As Chart 7 shows, euro area nominal and real wages tend to follow the trend in European exports to EM and China. The logical conclusion is that export shocks end up affecting the whole economy by depressing profits, capex and the willingness of firms to provide wage increases to their employees. This also ends up reverberating into consumption as both nominal and, more importantly, real wages suffer. Today, weakening exports to EM and China suggest that European wages may soon roll over. This would take the wind out of price inflation as well, since wages lead core CPI by roughly three quarters. BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service as well as our Emerging Market Strategy sister publication have already highlighted that EM economies are likely to slow further in the coming quarters as China works to de-lever - a process which has already begun (Chart 8).2 Thus, the negative impact of EM on European growth and wages is likely only to grow over the coming quarters. The euro area leading economic indicator (LEI) has already picked up on these dynamics. The deterioration in the LEI suggests that real wages are likely to soon suffer, which will further dent euro area consumption and weigh on core inflation (Chart 9). Chart 7Exports To EM Are The Culprit##br## Behind This Speed Bump Chart 8Limited Upside Ahead##br## In Chinese Growth Chart 9Euro Area LEI Confirms##br## The Message From Exports Adding up those various message we conclude that while we could soon see some upside in inflation via a pass-through of the recent pick-up in wages, the upside is likely to prove transitory as the euro area economy will soon feel the deflationary impact of the slowdown in EM economic activity. What Will The ECB Do? The ECB will end its asset purchase program at the end of this year. Money markets are currently pricing in a full 25-basis-point hike in interest rates by March 2020. However, various formulations of the Taylor Rule suggest that euro area interest rates should already be higher than they currently are (Chart 10). What are interest rates likely to really do in relation to this date? Despite these hawkish Taylor Rule estimates, we think the ECB is likely to wait and see. As we highlighted above, the slack in the euro area economy is dissipating, and therefore inflationary pressures are bound to build up. However, the slowdown in EM that is reverberating through global trade will weigh on inflation over the coming six months. Additionally, we need to monitor developments in shadow policy rates.3 After the Fed began tapering its asset purchases in 2014, the U.S. shadow rate increased by roughly 300 basis points. While the actual fed funds rate was not raised until the end of 2015, the implied tightening from the rise in the shadow rate was enough to cause both U.S. and non-U.S. growth to slow sharply in 2015. Since bottoming in November 2016, the ECB's shadow rate has increased by 450 basis points. Even if European monetary conditions remain accommodative, this is a large and sudden shock to absorb - one that goes a long way in explaining the sudden contraction in the euro area credit impulse (Chart 11). Chart 10Does Europe Really Need Higher Rates? Chart 11Large Tightening In Euro Area Shadow Rate Ultimately, while the reduction in the euro area economic slack is real, the aforementioned dynamics are worrisome. Hence, we do not think that the ECB will want to prematurely kill off the recovery. Memories of the policy mistake of 2010, when the ECB raised rates in a too-weak economy, are still very much alive on the ECB's Governing Council. This means that a small first hike of less than 25 basis points in late 2019 or early 2020 seems appropriate, as there should be more convincing evidence by then that the economy can tolerate higher interest rates. Hence, there does not seem to currently be any mis-pricing in the European interest rate curve since investors are correctly pricing in a full 25-basis points of hikes from the ECB by March 2020. Investment Implications We continue to recommend U.S. investors hold European bonds while hedging the currency exposure back into U.S. dollar. A hedged 10-year Bund currently yields 3.66%, compared to 3.2% for a 10-year Treasury note. The picture above does not suggest that Bund yields will have enough upside to generate the capital losses needed to offset this yield pick-up, especially as Treasury prices suffer greater potential downside. This also means that once hedging costs are taken into account, European fixed-income investors are better off staying at home than playing in the U.S. government bond market. The impact for EUR/USD is more complex. The U.S. Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve is currently pricing in roughly three rate hikes by the Fed over the next 12 months. BCA think that there could be even more U.S. rate hikes as the Fed continues to follow a 25 basis-points-per-quarter pace. Thus, we do not see the spread between U.S. and euro area interest rates narrowing in a more bullish direction for the euro Moreover, currencies trade on more than just interest rate differentials. The dollar has historically responded favorably to slowing EM growth. Moreover, as we highlighted three weeks ago, since the U.S. balance of payments is currently in surplus, this means that the U.S. is sucking in liquidity from the rest of the world.4 This is another way of saying that the world is buying more dollars than the U.S. is supplying. As a result, the dollar could continue to experience upside versus the euro over this period from factors beyond simple rate differentials. Bottom Line: The euro area economic slack has greatly dissipated and the medium term outlook for inflation is improving. Moreover, the recent pick-up in euro area wages suggest that core CPI could also pick up in the coming months. However, this increase in inflation is likely to prove temporary. Before inflation can increase durably, Europe will first have to digest the deflationary impact of slowing EM economies and global trade. This means that the ECB is likely to proceed with policy normalization very cautiously. The current pricing of 25 basis points of hikes by March 2020 is sensible. Hence, investors should continue to overweight Bunds hedged back into dollars in global fixed income portfolios. Moreover, EUR/USD could experience additional weaknesses on a 12-month basis. Japan: Fragile Progress, But Not Enough This past June, Japanese wage growth hit rates not seen in 21 years. This is enough to begin wondering if Japan is finally escaping its two-decades-long deflationary trap. After all, as Chart 12 shows, Japanese wages are a slow but nonetheless leading indicator of core inflation. Giving even more comfort to forecasts of higher Japanese inflation is the fact that, after falling continuously from the bubble peak in the early 1990s until Q1 2017, Japanese land prices have been slowly but surely increasing. Inflationary pressures in Japan are building up because the economy is at full employment. According to the BoJ, the output gap stands at +1.9% and has been positive for two years. The unemployment rate is at a stunningly low level of 2.4%, and the active job opening-to-applicant ratio stands at a four-decade high. The implications of this backdrop are evident. Chart 13 shows the demand/supply condition component of the Tankan survey of Japanese businesses, both in the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors. It has historically been a good explanatory variable for wage developments in Japan, and currently points to additional strength. Chart 12Rising Japanese Wages Should Boost Core Inflation Chart 13Capacity Pressures Are Lifting Japanese Wages Despite these positive developments, there remain some nagging worries. For one, the pick-up in wages seems strange in an economy where total hours worked are not rising (Chart 14). Moreover, Japanese households are currently increasing their savings ratio, which means that while they might be earning more, they are keeping this money in their bank accounts rather than spending it (Chart 14, bottom panel). As a result, there has been a limited pass-through of the recent wage acceleration into higher consumption. Additionally, like in Europe, the Japanese economy is at risk from foreign shocks. While the domestic economy seems robust, foreign machinery orders have been weakening. Industrial production has followed this path, decelerating sharply (Chart 15). Historically, Japanese inflation is very sensitive to the level of broader economic activity, so this weakening trend in industrial activity points to limited upside for overall inflation. Chart 14Weird Dynamics In Japan Chart 15Japan: The Domestic Front Is Healthy, The Foreign One Is Not The biggest problem faced by the BoJ, however, remains the weakness in inflation expectations. In the eyes of the Japanese central bank, the reason why Japanese realized inflation and wage growth have remained tepid is because decades of low inflation have created embedded expectations among the Japanese to not expect rising prices. Today, Japanese inflation expectations are once again weakening, a common occurrence when global growth slows (Chart 16). Additionally, Japan could hit a fiscal cliff of sorts next year. In October 2019, the consumption tax will increase from 8% to 10%. The last such increase - a three-percentage point hike in 2014 - caused a major slowdown in economic activity that had a deep deflationary impact. While the increase this time around is smaller and the Japanese economy is stronger than in 2014-2015, it remains to be seen how the country handles the shock of a fiscal tightening via a higher sales tax, especially if exports to EM remain on their downward path. The BoJ is likely to be very cognizant of this risk. Currently, the low level of inflation means that the real BoJ policy rate is in line with that of the U.S., a much stronger economy (Chart 17, top panel). Since Japan still faces a fiscal cliff next year and inflation expectations have not yet been unmoored to the upside, the current increase in wages is not enough to push the BoJ to abandon its Yield Curve Control (YCC) policy. What about QQE? The low shadow rate means that the BoJ does not need to buy assets anymore (Chart 17, bottom panel). Yet, the problem for Japan is that QQE possesses a strong signaling component. Ending this program is likely to cause markets to price in the end of YCC, which would drive nominal rates higher and thus result in both higher real rates and a significant tightening in monetary policy. As a result, we expect QQE to remain in place so that YCC will stay credible. However, the program is likely to have a slower pace of buying than before and will be too small to fully absorb the new issuances of JGBs by the MoF (Chart 18). Chart 16The BoJ's ##br##Number 1 Problem Chart 17The Signaling Effect Of QQE Is##br## Still Needed Because Of YCC... Chart 18...But QQE Doesn't Need To Be ##br##Quite As Large Anymore In terms of signposts that would signal to us to begin betting on an end to YCC, we continue to target three things that must ALL happen in unison, highlighted by BCA's Chief Global Fixed Income Strategist, Rob Robis, in February:5 USD/JPY rises at least to the 115-120 range; Japanese core CPI and nominal wage inflation both rise above 1.5%; 10-year JGB yields reaching an overvalued extreme, based on a model that includes potential GDP, BoJ purchases and the level of 10-year Treasury yields. So far, none of these conditions has been met. In fact, the slowdown in global trade and EM activity could even threaten the current improvement witnessed in wages. As a result, we expect all three of these developments to only happen in 2020, leaving Japanese yields with very limited upside. Investment Implications Japanese fixed-income investors continue to be subsidized to remain at home and avoid U.S. Treasuries. Because short rates in Japan are so low, the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries hedged into yen yield is 0.05%, less than the 0.16% yield on 10-year JGBs. At the same time, U.S. fixed income investors are incentivized to buy JGBs and hedge the currency exposure into dollars. Additionally, with the BoJ unlikely to abandon its YCC program for potentially two more years, JGBs with up to 10-year maturities are unlikely to suffer capital losses. Largely for this reason, BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy's recommended model bond portfolio, maintains a large overweight position in JGBs, but only for maturities less than 10 years as the BoJ's YCC program is not focused on yields beyond the 10-year point. Regarding the yen, the outlooks is treacherous. On one hand, a strong USD implies a weaker yen. So do higher 10-year Treasury yields, especially if JGB yields possess little upside. On the other hand, weakness in the EM space tends to result in a stronger yen as carry trades get unwound. Due to these bifurcated risks, we do not recommend buying the yen against the dollar. However, we think that at current levels the yen remains an attractive play against the euro and against the Australian dollar, especially on a six- to nine-month basis. Bottom Line: Japanese wages have enjoyed significant upside, but Japanese inflation expectations remain moribund. Moreover, Japan is likely to experience a negative fiscal shock next year as the consumption tax will once again be increased. These two risks, in addition with slowing global growth, mean that the BoJ is unlikely to abandon YCC until well into 2020. As a result, investors should continue to overweight JGBs with maturities of less than 10-years hedged back into U.S. dollars in a global fixed income portfolio. USD/JPY should enjoy further upside on a 12-month basis. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "ECB: All About China", dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "The Bear And The Two Travelers", dated August 17, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Deciphering Global Trade Linkages", dated September 27, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 3 The shadow rate is a measure of the impact of the various unorthodox policy initiatives implemented by central banks in the wake of the great financial crisis. It tries to express the effect of those measures in terms of the implied levels of policy rates that would have needed to prevail for the economy to generate the same performance if asset purchases had not been implemented. 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Policy Divergences Are Still The Name Of The Game", dated September 14, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, titled "What Would It Take For The Bank Of Japan To Raise Its Yield Target", dated February 13, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

特別レポート

Highlights So What? Go long Brent / short S&P 500. The risk of a recession in 2019 is underappreciated. Why? The likelihood is increasing of a geopolitically-induced supply-side shock that pushes crude prices above $100 per barrel in the coming 6-12 months. Oil supply disruptions in Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela represent the primary source of risk. Historically, the combination of Fed rates hike and an oil price spike has preceded 8 out of the last 9 recessions. Also... A recession in 2019, ahead of the 2020 election, would set the stage for a confrontation between Trump and the Fed, adding fuel to market volatility. Feature Geopolitical tensions are brewing from the Strait of Hormuz to the Strait of Malacca. As we go to press, news is breaking that a Chinese naval vessel almost collided with the USS Decatur as the latter conducted "freedom of navigation" operations within 12 nautical miles of Gaven and Johnson reefs in the Spratly Islands. Given the trade tensions between China and the U.S., this alleged maneuver by the Chinese vessel suggests that Beijing is not backing off from a confrontation. Our view remains that Sino-American trade tensions can get a lot worse before they get better. The latest incident, which builds on a series of negative gestures recently in the South China Sea, suggests that both sides are combining longstanding geopolitical tensions with the trade war. This will likely encourage brinkmanship and further degrade U.S.-China relations. Yet China-U.S. tensions are not the only concern for investors in 2019. Another crisis is brewing in the Middle East, with the potential to significantly increase oil prices over the next 12 months. U.S. households may have to deal with a double-whammy next year: higher costs of imported goods as the U.S.-China trade war rages on and a significant increase in gasoline prices. In this report, we discuss this dire outlook. The Folly Of Recession Forecasting In mid-2017, BCA Research published two reports, one titled "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession" and another titled "The Timing Of The Next Recession."1 Both argued that if the Federal Reserve kept raising rates in line with the FOMC dots, then monetary policy would move into restrictive territory by early 2019 and increase the likelihood of recession thereafter. We subsequently adjusted the timing of our recession forecast to 2020 or beyond, based on a more positive assessment of the U.S. economy. In this report, we explore a risk to the BCA House View on the timing of the next recession. As BCA's long-time Chief Economist Martin Barnes has said, predicting recessions is a mug's game. There have been eight recessions in the past 60 years (excluding the brief 1980-81 downturn) and the Fed failed to forecast all of them (Table 1). Table 1Fed Economic Forecasts Versus Outcomes The Atlanta Fed produces a recession indicator index which is designed to highlight the odds of recession based on trends in recent GDP data. At the moment, the indicator is at a historically sanguine 2.4%. Unfortunately, low readings are not a reliable cause for optimism. The 1974-75, 1981-82, and 2007-09 recessions were all severe and the Atlanta Fed's recession indicator had a low reading of 10%, 1.6%, and 7.7%, respectively - just as the recession was about to begin (Chart 1). Chart 1The Market Is Not Expecting A Recession The 1974-75 recession is instructive, given the numerous parallels with the current environment: Energy Geopolitics: The 1973 oil crisis caused a massive spike in crude prices. This point is especially pertinent since the 1973 oil embargo is widely viewed as an important contributor to the 1974-75 recession. Real short rates had risen and the yield curve had inverted long before oil prices spiked, so recession was almost inevitable even without the oil price move. But the oil spike made the recession much deeper than otherwise. Protectionism: President Nixon imposed a 10% across-the-board tariff on all imports into the U.S. in 1971 to try to force trade partners to devalue the U.S. dollar. Dislocation: Competition from newly industrialized countries - Japan and the East Asian tigers in particular - laid waste to the steel industry in the developed world. Polarization: President Nixon polarized the nation with both his policies and behavior, leading to his resignation in 1974. Given the exogenous and geopolitical nature of oil supply shocks, today's recession indicators are missing a critical potential headwind to the economy. A geopolitically induced oil-price shock could create more pain than the economy is able to handle. Why An Oil Price Shock? America's renewed foray into the politics of the Middle East will unravel the tenuous equilibrium that was just recently established between Iran and its regional rivals. The U.S.-Iran détente that produced the signing of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) created conditions for a precarious balance of power between Israel and Saudi Arabia on one side, and Iran and its allies on the other side. This equilibrium led to a meaningful change in Tehran's behavior, particularly on the following fronts: The Strait of Hormuz: Tehran ceased to rhetorically threaten the Strait as soon as negotiations began with the U.S. (Chart 2). Since then, Iran's capabilities to threaten the Strait have grown, while the West's anti-mine capabilities remain unchanged.2 Iraq: Iran directly participated in the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq. Tehran changed tack after 2013 and cooperated closely with the U.S. in the fight against the Islamic State. In 2014, Iran acquiesced to the removal of the deeply sectarian, and pro-Iranian, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Bahrain and the Saudi Eastern Province: Iran's material and rhetorical support was instrumental in the Shia uprisings in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province in 2011 (Map 1). Saudi Arabia had to resort to military force to quell both. Since the détente with the U.S. in 2015, Iranian support for Shia uprisings in these critical areas of the Persian Gulf has stopped. Chart 2Geopolitical Crises And Global Peak Supply Losses Map 1Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province Is A Crucial Piece Of Real Estate Put simply, the 2015 nuclear deal traded American acquiescence toward Iranian nuclear development in exchange for Iran's cooperation on a number of strategically vital regional issues. By unraveling that détente, President Trump is upending the balance of power in the Middle East and increasing the probability that Iran retaliates. Since penning our latest net assessment of the U.S.-Iran tensions in May, Iran has already retaliated.3 Our checklist for "kinetic" conflict has now risen from zero to at least 15%, if not higher (Table 2). We expect the probability to rise once the U.S. starts implementing the oil embargo in November. This will dovetail our Iran-U.S. decision tree, which sets the subjective probability of kinetic action by the U.S. against Iran at a baseline of 20% (Diagram 1). Table 2Will The U.S. Attack Iran? Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Bottom Line: The premier geopolitical risk to investors in 2019 is that President Trump's maximum pressure tactic on Iran spills over into Iraq, causing a loss of supply from the world's fifth-largest crude producer.4 We expect the U.S. oil embargo against Iran to remove between 1 million and 1.5 million barrels per day from the market. In addition, the loss of Iraqi production due to sabotage could be anywhere between 500,000 and 3.5 million barrels per day. Added to this total is the potential loss of Venezuelan exports due to the deteriorating situation there. When our commodity team combines all of these factors, they generate a worst-case scenario where the price of crude rises to $110 per barrel in 2019 or higher (Chart 3). And this scenario assumes that EMs do not reinstitute energy subsidies (and therefore their consumption falls faster than if they do reinstitute them). Chart 3Worst-Case Scenario Propels Oil Price Toward 0/Barrel The Ayatollah Recession We believe that the midterm election is a dud from an investment perspective, no matter the outcome. However, the election does matter as a hurdle that, once cleared, will allow President Trump to renew his "maximum pressure" tactic against China, Iran, and perhaps domestic tech corporations.5 Iran is a critical risk in this strategy. If President Trump applies maximum pressure on Iran, then a reduction in crude exports from Iran, Iranian retaliation in Iraq, and the simultaneous loss of Venezuelan supplies could combine to increase the likelihood of U.S. recession in 2019. Readers might recall that no sitting president has gotten re-elected during a recession. Why would Trump pursue a policy that risks his re-election chances in 2020? Surely he would deviate from his maximum pressure tactic if faced with the prospect of a recession. However, it is folly to assume that policymakers are perfectly rational, or fully informed. American presidents are some of the most unconstrained policymakers in the world, given both the hard power of the United States and the constitutional lack of constraints on the president when it comes to national security. Trump may believe, for instance, that the 660 million barrels of crude in America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve can offset the impact of sanctions against Iran.6 Or he may believe that he can force OPEC to supply enough oil to offset the Iranian losses. The problem for President Trump is that Iran is not led by idiots. Iranian policymakers understand that the best way to reduce American pressure is to induce an oil price spike in the summer of 2019 that hurts President Trump's re-election chances, forcing him to back off. As such, sabotaging Iraqi oil exports, which mainly transit through the port of Basra - a city highly vulnerable to Shia-on-Shia violence that is already a risk to the country's stability - would be an obvious target. An oil price spike would serve as a negotiating tool against the U.S., and the additional revenue would help replace what Iran loses due to the embargo. Tehran and Washington will therefore play a game of chicken throughout 2019, and there is a fair probability that neither side will swerve. President Trump may be making the same mistake as many predecessors have made, assuming that the Iranian regime is teetering at a precipice and that a mere nudge will force the leadership to negotiate. Oil price shocks and recessions have a historical connection. In a recent report, our commodity strategists highlighted that a spike in oil prices preceded 10 out of the past 11 recessions in the U.S. since 1945 (Table 3). Admittedly, not all spikes were followed by recession. The combination of an oil price spike and Fed rate hikes has produced a recession 8 out of 9 times.7 If oil prices rose to $100 per barrel in the coming 6-12 months, there will be several negative macro consequences. In particular, gasoline prices will rise back toward $4 per gallon (Chart 4). Retail gasoline prices have already increased by more than 50% since they bottomed in February 2016. So how much more upside can the U.S. private sector take? Table 3History Of Oil Supply Shocks Chart 4A Source Of Pressure For Consumers The Household Sector Consumer confidence is currently near all-time highs, which tends to signal that the path of least resistance is flat or down (Chart 5). Household gasoline consumption has already declined in response to higher oil prices since the middle of 2017. Given that gasoline demand is relatively inelastic, consumers may already be near their minimum consumption level. Chart 5Nearing All-Time Highs Instead, households will experience a decline in their disposable income. This will come on the back of both higher gasoline prices and an increase in the prices of other goods and services, as the oil spike spills across sectors. U.S. households - and most likely those in other markets - are stretched to the limit already. A recent Fed survey found that 40% of U.S. households do not have the funds needed to meet an unexpected $400 cost in any given month.8 Such an unexpected expense would require them to either sell possessions, borrow, or cut back on other purchases. Chart 6Most Americans Cannot Cut Saving To Spend Left with few other options, households would react to their lower disposable income by reducing demand for other goods and services. This dent in consumer spending would bring down aggregate demand, leading to slower employment growth and even less income and spending. Households could save less to maintain their current purchasing levels, given the recent rise in the savings rate (Chart 6). But this is unlikely. Although the household savings rate has increased in recent years, we have previously argued that a material part of the increase was driven by small business-owner profits. These owners have much higher levels of income than the median consumer. For Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, it would be difficult to reduce a savings rate that is already close to, or below, zero. Higher oil prices will also hurt growth in Europe and Japan, economies that are already struggling to gain economic momentum after grappling with a weaker growth impulse from China. In addition, EM economies that took the opportunity to reform their oil subsidies amid lower oil prices post-2014 will have to grapple with a much larger shock to consumers than usual. The Corporate Sector In theory, what consumers lose from rising oil prices, producers of crude can gain in stronger revenue. This is especially important in the U.S. as domestic energy production has increased significantly over the past 10 years. Nonetheless, the oil and gas extraction sector accounts for just 1.1% of GDP and 0.1% of total employment. The marginal propensity to spend out of every dollar of income is lower for producers than consumers. Moreover, if consumer confidence fell and consumer spending weakened, non-energy capex would decline as businesses reassessed household demand and held off from making investment decisions. Small business confidence is at record highs, and as with consumer confidence, vulnerable to downward revisions (Chart 7). Chart 7Dizzying Heights Chart 8Only One Way To Go (Down) Profit margins remain at a highly elevated level and also have only one way to go (Chart 8). If high oil prices should combine with rising borrowing costs and upward pressure on wages (which could develop in this macro environment) the result would be a triple hit to margins (Chart 9). Of course, rising wages would give consumers some offset to higher oil prices, so the question will be the net effect of all variables. And if the dollar bull market continues, as our FX team believes it will, the combination of higher oil prices and a strong USD would hurt U.S. companies with international exposure. The debt load held by the U.S. corporate sector would turn this bad dream into a nightmare. Many American companies have spent the past 10 years increasing leverage to buy back equity (Chart 10). Companies with high debt would need to revise down their profit expectations, with potentially devastating consequences. Elevated debt levels also increase the likelihood of financial market stress if bond investors get worried and spreads begin to widen significantly. Chart 9Rising Pressures On Earnings? Chart 10Large Corporate Debts According to all measures, U.S. stocks are at or near their all-time valuation peaks. Investors have also priced in a significant amount of optimism for profit growth (Chart 11). These expectations would be subject to quick revision if our oil shock scenario plays out. In other words, investor expectations for profit margins are not sufficiently factoring the triple hit of higher oil prices, higher interest rates, and higher wages. Chart 11The Market Has High Hopes An additional geopolitical risk on the horizon for 2019 is the creeping "stroke of pen" risk from potential regulation of technology enterprises. This is unrelated to an oil price spike (other than that it would be an effect of U.S. policy) but could nonetheless combine with rising energy prices to sour investors' mood.9 Bottom Line: An oil price spike above $100 would produce negative consequences for the U.S. household and corporate sectors. Given the supply-side nature of the price shock, it would not be accompanied by the usual decline in USD, and could therefore hurt the foreign profits of U.S. corporations as well. If investors must also deal with mounting regulatory pressures on FAANG stocks, they could face a perfect storm. Given the high probability of such an oil price shock, why isn't a 2019 recession BCA's House View, rather than merely a risk to it? Because it is difficult to say how high oil prices need to rise to cause a recession. For example, 1973 both marked a permanent move up in oil prices and saw oil prices triple. In 2019 terms, that would mean an oil price above $200, a far less probable scenario than $100-$110. Nevertheless, the combination of elevated oil prices and the price impact on consumer goods of the U.S.-China trade war could combine to create a nightmare scenario for consumers. But it is impossible to gauge the level of both required to push the U.S. into a recession. Second, there are many ways in which today's macro environment is different from that in 1974. In the 1970s the inventory cycle was a key factor in the business cycle, with excesses building up ahead of recessions, forcing output cutbacks as demand weakened. That is no longer the case in today's world of just-in-time inventory management. Also, inflation was a much bigger problem back then, requiring tougher Fed action. On the other hand, debt burdens were much lower. Investment Implications To be clear, none of the usual recession indicators that BCA Research uses are flashing red at this time. The point of this analysis is to illustrate a credible, exogenous scenario that cannot be revealed through the usual data-driven recession forecasting methods. What happens if a recession does occur ahead of the 2020 election? How would President Trump react to a recession induced by his foreign policy adventurism in the Middle East? By doing what every other president would do: finding someone else to blame. In this case, we would put high odds on the Federal Reserve becoming the target of President Trump's fury. Ahead of 2020, the Fed and its independence may very well become an election issue.10 This could spell serious trouble for the Fed, which is at a massive disadvantage when it comes to explaining to voters why central bank independence is so important. The Fed had great difficulty managing public opinion regarding its extraordinary measures to combat the Great Recession - its attempts at public outreach largely failed. Compare the number of Trump's Twitter followers to that of the Fed's (Chart 12). Chart 12The Fed's PR Abilities Are Limited Though most of our clients and colleagues will probably disagree, we do not see central bank independence as a static quality. It was bestowed upon central banks by politicians following widespread inflation fears throughout the 1970s and 1980s, although in the U.S. the current tradition goes back to the 1951 Treasury Accord that restored the independence of the Fed. Our colleague Martin Barnes penned a report on the politicization of monetary policy in 2013.11 His conclusion is that political meddling in monetary affairs is less pernicious than economic performance. The Fed will incur Trump's ire, in other words, but it will be its failure to generate economic growth that causes a break in independence. We are not so sure. The next recession is likely to be a mild one for Main Street given the lack of real economic bubbles. But given the slow recovery in real wages over the past decade and the general angst of the populace towards governing elites, even a mild recession that merely reminds voters of 2008-2009 could produce deep anxiety and significant public reactions. Further, the idea of "independent," non-politically accountable institutions is going out of style. President Trump - and other policymakers in the developed world - have specifically targeted the "so-called experts" and "institutions." President Trump has attacked America's foreign policy architecture, NATO, the WTO, and a slew of supposedly outdated norms and practices for being "out of touch" with the electorate. This policy has served him well thus far. If our nightmare scenario of an oil price-induced recession plays out, the immediate implication for investors will be a sharp downturn in risk assets. As such, we are recommending that investors hedge their portfolios with a long Brent / short S&P 500 trade. Alternatively we would recommend going long U.S. energy / short technology stocks. A longer-term, and perhaps even more pernicious implication, would be the end of the era of central bank independence and a full politicization of the economy. Laissez-faire capitalist system would give way to dirigisme. In the process, the U.S. dollar and Treasuries would be doomed. Jim Mylonas, Global Strategist Daily Insights & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, and Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Timing Of The Next Recession," dated June 16, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy and Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "U.S., OPEC Talk Oil Prices Down; Gulf Tensions Could Become Kinetic," dated July 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Why Conflict With Iran Is A Big Deal - And Why Iraq Is The Prize," dated May 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Fade The Midterms, Not Iraq Or Brexit," dated September 12, 2018 and "Iraq: The Fulcrum Of Middle East Geopolitics And Global Oil Supply," dated September 5, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "A Story Told Through Charts: The U.S. Midterm Election," dated September 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 The Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently covers 100 days of net crude imports, or 200 days of net petroleum imports, and can be tapped for reasons of political timing as well as international emergencies. 7 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil-Supply Shock, Rising U.S. Rates Favor Gold As A Portfolio Hedge," dated September 13, 2018, available at bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see the U.S. Federal Reserve, "Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017," May 2018, available at federalreserve.gov. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report, "Is The Stock Rally Long In The FAANG?" dated August 1, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Daily Insights, "Politics And Monetary Policy," dated August 22, 2018, and "The Battle Of The Press Conferences: Trump Versus Powell," dated September 27, 2018, available at dailyinsights.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Special Report, "The Politicization Of Monetary Policy: Should We Care?" dated April 15, 2013, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Macro outlook: Global growth will continue to decelerate into early next year on the back of brewing EM stresses and an underwhelming policy response from China. Equities: Stay neutral for now, while underweighting EM relative to DM stocks. Within DM, overweight the U.S. in dollar terms. Bonds: Global bond yields may dip in the near term, but the longer-term path is firmly higher. Currencies: The dollar is working off overbought conditions, but will rebound into year-end. EM currencies will suffer the most. Commodities: Favor oil over industrial metals. Precious metals will also remain under pressure until the dollar peaks next year, before beginning a major bull run as inflation accelerates. Feature I. Economic Outlook The Fed Can Hike A Lot More If 2017 was the year of a synchronized global growth recovery, 2018 is turning out to be a year where desynchronization is once again the name of the game. The U.S. economy continues to fire on all cylinders, while much of the rest of the world is struggling to stay afloat. The divergence in economic outcomes has been mirrored in central bank policy. The Fed is now hiking rates once per quarter whereas most other major central banks are still sitting on their hands. How high can U.S. rates go? The answer is a lot higher than investors anticipate. Market participants currently expect the Fed funds rate to rise to 2.37% by the end of this year and 2.84% by the end of 2019. No rate hikes are priced in for 2020 and beyond. The Fed dots are somewhat higher than market expectations (Chart 1). The median dot rises to about 3.4% in 2020-21, but then falls back to 3% over the Fed's longer-run horizon. Both investors and the Fed have apparently bought into Larry Summers' secular stagnation thesis. They seem convinced that rates will not be able to rise above 3% without triggering a recession. While we have a lot of sympathy for Summers' thesis, it must be acknowledged that it is a theory about the long-term determinants of the neutral rate of interest. Over a shorter-term cyclical horizon, many factors can influence the neutral rate. Critically, as discussed last week, most of these factors are pushing it higher: Fiscal policy is extremely stimulative. The IMF estimates that the U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit will reach 6.8% of GDP in 2019. In contrast, the euro area is projected to run a deficit of only 0.8% of GDP (Chart 2). The relatively more expansionary nature of U.S. fiscal policy is one key reason why the Fed can raise rates while the ECB cannot. Chart 1Markets Expect No Fed ##br##Hikes Beyond Next Year Chart 2Fiscal Policy Is More Expansionary ##br##In The U.S. Than In The Euro Area Credit growth has picked up. After a prolonged deleveraging cycle, private-sector nonfinancial debt is increasing faster than GDP (Chart 3). The recent easing in The Conference Board's Leading Credit Index suggests that this trend will continue (Chart 4). Chart 3U.S. Private-Sector Nonfinancial Debt Is Rising At Close To Its Historic Trend Chart 4U.S. Credit Growth Will Remain Strong Wage growth is accelerating. Average hourly earnings surprised on the upside in August, with the year-over-year change rising to a cycle high of 2.9%. This followed a stronger reading in the Employment Cost Index in the second quarter. A simple correlation with the quits rate suggests that there is plenty of upside for wage growth (Chart 5). Faster wage growth will put more money into workers' pockets who will then spend it. The savings rate has scope to fall. The personal savings rate currently stands at 6.7%, more than two percentage points higher than what one would expect based on the current level of household net worth (Chart 6). If the savings rate were to fall by two points over the next two years, it would add 1.5% of GDP to aggregate demand. Chart 5The Quits Rate Is Signaling Upside For Wage Growth Chart 6The Personal Savings Rate Has Room To Fall A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that these cyclical factors will permit the Fed to raise rates to 5% by 2020, almost double what the market is discounting.1 An Absence Of Major Financial Imbalances Will Allow The Fed To Keep Raising Rates The past three recessions were all caused by financial market overheating rather than economic overheating. The 1991 recession was mainly the consequence of the Savings and Loan crisis, compounded by the spike in oil prices leading up to the Gulf War. The 2001 recession stemmed from the dotcom bust. The Great Recession was triggered by the housing bust. Today, it is difficult to point to any clear imbalances in the economy. True, housing activity has been weak for much of the year. However, unlike in 2006, the home vacancy rate stands near record-low levels (Chart 7). Tight supply will limit downside risks to both construction and home prices. On the demand side, low unemployment, high consumer confidence, and a rebound in the rate of new household formation should help the sector. Despite elevated home prices in some markets, the average monthly payment that homeowners must make to service their mortgage is quite low by historic standards (Chart 8). The quality of mortgage lending has also been very high over the past decade, which reduces the risk of a sudden credit crunch (Chart 9). Chart 7Low Housing Inventories Will Support Home Prices And Construction Chart 8Housing Affordabiity Is Not Yet Stretched Chart 9Mortgage Lenders Are Being Prudent Unlike housing debt, there are more reasons to be concerned about corporate debt. The ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP has risen to record-high levels. So-called "covenant-lite" loans now make up the bulk of corporate leveraged loan issuance. While there is no doubt that the corporate debt market is the weakest link in the U.S. financial sector, some perspective is in order. U.S. corporate debt levels are quite low by global standards. Corporate debt in the euro area is more than 30 points higher as a percent of GDP than in the United States (Chart 10). Moreover, the interest coverage ratio - EBIT divided by interest expense - for U.S. corporates is still above its historic average (Chart 11). While this ratio will fall as interest rates rise, this will not happen very quickly. Most U.S. corporate debt is at fixed rates and average maturities have been rising. This reduces both rollover risk and the sensitivity of debt-servicing costs to higher short-term rates. An increasing share of U.S. corporate debt is held by non-leveraged investors. Bank loans account for only 18% of nonfinancial corporate sector debt, down from 40% in 1980 (Chart 12). This is important, because what makes a spike in corporate defaults so damaging is not the direct impact this has on the economy, but the second-round effects rising defaults have on financial sector stability. Chart 10U.S. Corporate Debt Not That High By Global Standards Chart 11Interest Coverage Ratio Is Above Its Historic Average Chart 12Banks Have Been Reducing Their Exposure To The Corporate Sector In any case, we already had a dress rehearsal for what a corporate debt scare might look like. Credit spreads spiked in 2015. Default rates rose, but the knock-on effects to the financial system were minimal. This suggests that corporate America could handle a fair bit of monetary tightening without buckling under the pressure. The Fed And The Dollar If the Fed is able to raise rates substantially more than the market is discounting while most central banks cannot, the short-term interest rate spread between the U.S. and its trading partners is likely to widen. History suggests that this will produce a stronger dollar (Chart 13). Chart 13Historically, The Dollar Has Moved In Line With Interest Rate Differentials Some have speculated that the Trump administration will intervene in the foreign-exchange market in order to drive down the value of the greenback. We doubt this will happen, but even if such interventions were to occur, they would not be successful. Presumably, currency interventions would take the form of purchases of foreign exchange, financed through the issuance of Treasurys. The purchase of foreign currency would release U.S. dollars into the financial system, but the sale of Treasury securities would suck those dollars back out of the system. The net result would be no change in the volume of U.S. dollars in circulation - what economists call a "sterilized" intervention. Both economic theory and years of history show that sterilized interventions do not have lasting effects on currency values. The Fed could, of course, provide funding for the Treasury's purchases of foreign exchange, leading to an increase in the monetary base. This would be tantamount to an unsterilized intervention. However, such a deliberate attempt to weaken the dollar by expanding the money supply would fly in the face of the Fed's efforts to cool growth by tightening financial conditions. We highly doubt the Fed's current leadership would go along with this. Emerging Markets In The Crosshairs The combination of rising U.S. rates and a stronger dollar is bad news for emerging markets. Eighty percent of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. Outside of China, EM dollar debt is now back to late-1990s levels, both as a share of GDP and exports (Chart 14). The wave of EM local-currency debt issued in recent years only complicates matters. If EM central banks raise rates to defend their currencies, this could imperil economic growth and make it difficult for local-currency borrowers to pay back their loans. Rather than hiking rates, some EM central banks may simply choose to inflate away debt. Consider the case of Brazil. The fiscal deficit stands at nearly 8% of GDP and government debt has soared from 60% of GDP in 2013 to 84% of GDP at present (Chart 15). Ninety percent of Brazilian sovereign debt is denominated in reais. The Brazilian government won't default on its debt per se. However, if push comes to shove, Brazil's central bank can always step in to buy government bonds, effectively monetizing the fiscal deficit. This could cause the real to weaken much more than it already has. Chart 14EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart 15Brazil's Perilous Fiscal Position Chinese Stimulus To The Rescue? When emerging markets last succumbed to pressure in 2015, China saved the day by stepping in with massive stimulus. Fiscal spending and credit growth accelerated to over 15% year-over-year. The government's actions boosted demand for all sorts of industrial commodities. The stimulus measures in 2015 followed an even greater wave of stimulus in 2009. While these stimulus measures invigorated China's economy and helped put a floor under global growth, they came at a price: China's debt-to-GDP ratio has swollen from 140% in 2008 to over 250% at present, which has endangered financial stability (Chart 16). Excess capacity has also increased. This can be seen in the dramatic rise in the capital-to-output ratio. It can also be seen in the fact that the rate of return on assets within the Chinese state-owned enterprise sector, which has been the main source of rising corporate leverage, has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart 17). Chart 16China: Debt And Capital Accumulation Went Hand In Hand Chart 17China: Rate Of Return On Assets Below Borrowing Costs For SOEs Chinese banks are being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not turn sour. Unfortunately, that is becoming an impossible feat. The Chinese economy produces too much and spends too little. The result is excess savings, epitomized most clearly in a national savings rate of 46% (Chart 18). As a matter of arithmetic, national savings must be transformed either into domestic investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus. Now that the former strategy has run into diminishing returns, the Chinese authorities will need to concentrate on the latter. This will require a larger current account surplus which, in turn, will necessitate a relatively cheap currency. Above-average productivity growth has pushed up the fair value of China's real exchange rate over time. However, the currency still looks expensive relative to its long-term trend line (Chart 19). Pushing down the value of the yuan against the dollar will not be that difficult. Chart 20 shows that USD/CNY has moved broadly in line with the one-year swap spread between the U.S. and China. The spread was about 3% earlier this year. Today, it stands at only 0.6%. As the Fed continues to raise rates, the spread will narrow further, taking the yuan down with it. Chart 18China Saves A Lot Chart 19The RMB Is Still Quite Strong Chart 20USD/CNY Has Tracked China-U.S. Interest Rate Differentials Unlike standard Chinese fiscal/credit easing, a stimulus strategy focused on weakening the yuan would hurt other emerging markets by undermining their competitiveness in relation to China. A weaker yuan would also make it more expensive for Chinese companies to import natural resources, thus putting downward pressure on commodity prices. The Euro Area: Back In The Slow Lane After putting in a strong performance in 2017, the economy in the euro area has struggled to maintain momentum this year. Growth is still above trend, but the overall tone of the data has been lackluster at best, with the risks to growth increasingly tilted to the downside. Weaker growth in China and other emerging markets certainly has not helped. However, much of the problem lies closer to home. Bank credit remains the lifeblood of the euro area economy. The 12-month credit impulse - defined as the change in credit growth from one 12-month period to the next - tends to track GDP growth (Chart 21).2 Euro area credit growth accelerated over the course of 2017, but has been broadly stable this year. As a result, the credit impulse has fallen, taking GDP growth down with it. It will be difficult for euro area GDP growth to increase unless credit growth starts rising again. So far, there is little sign that this is about to happen. According to the latest euro area bank lending survey, while banks continue to ease standards for business loans, they are doing so at a slower pace than in the past. A net 3% of banks eased lending standards in the second quarter, compared to 8% in the first quarter. Loan demand growth has been fairly stable. This suggests that loan growth will remain positive, but is unlikely to increase much from current levels. Worries about the health of European banks will further constrain credit growth. European banks in general, and Spanish banks in particular, have significant exposure to the most vulnerable emerging markets (Chart 22). Chart 21Euro Area Credit Growth Has Flatlined Chart 22Spain Most Exposed To Vulnerable EMs Concerns about the ability of the Italian government to service its debt obligations will also restrain bank lending. Investors breathed a sigh of relief last month when the Italian government signaled a greater willingness to pare back next year's proposed budget deficit, in accordance with the dictates of the European Commission. Tensions remain, however, as evidenced by the fact that the ten-year spread between BTPs and German bunds is still 120 basis points higher than in April (Chart 23). The European political establishment is terrified of the rise in populism across the region and would love nothing more than to see Italy's populist parties implode. This means that any help from the ECB and the European Commission will only arrive once a full-fledged crisis is underway. Anyway, it is far from clear that a smaller budget deficit would actually translate into a lower government debt-to-GDP ratio. Like China, Italy also has a private sector that saves too much and spends too little. A shrinking population has reduced the need for firms to invest in new capacity. The prior government's pension cuts have also incentivized people to save more for their retirement. The result is a private sector savings-investment surplus that stood at 5% of GDP in 2017 compared to close to breakeven a decade ago (Chart 24). Chart 23Italian/Bund Spreads Signal Lingering Fiscal Strain Chart 24Italy: Private Sector Saves Too Much And Spends Too Little Unlike Germany, Italy cannot export its excess production because it does not have a hypercompetitive economy. Nor does it have the ability to devalue its currency to gain a quick competitiveness boost. This means that the Italian government has to absorb excess private-sector savings with its own dissavings - a fancy way of saying that it has to run a large budget deficit. This has effectively been Japan's strategy for over two decades. However, unlike Japan, Italy does not have a lender of last resort that can unconditionally buy government debt. This raises the risk that Italy's debt woes will resurface, either because the government abandons austerity measures, or because the lack of fiscal support causes nominal GDP to stagnate, making it all but impossible for the country to outgrow its debt burden. Receding Policy Puts The discussion above suggests that many of the "policy puts" that investors have relied on are in the process of having their strike price marked down to deeper out-of-the-money levels. Yes, the Fed will ease off on rate hikes if U.S. growth is at risk of stalling out completely. However, now that the labor market has reached full employment, the Fed will welcome modestly slower growth. Remember that there has never been a case in the post-war era where the three-month average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than a third of a percentage point without a recession taking place (Chart 25). The further the unemployment rate falls below NAIRU, the more difficult it will be for the Fed to achieve the proverbial soft landing. Chart 25Even A Small Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Is Bad News For The Business Cycle Likewise, the "China stimulus put" - the presumption that most investors have that the Chinese authorities will launch a barrage of fiscal and credit easing at the first sign of slower growth - has become less reliable in light of the government's competing objectives namely reducing debt growth and excess capacity. The same goes for the "ECB put." Yes, the ECB will bail out Italy if the entire European project appears at risk. But spreads may need to blow out before the cavalry arrives. Meanwhile, just as the aforementioned policy puts are receding, new policy risks are rising to the fore, chief among them protectionism. We expect the trade war to heat up, with the Trump administration increasingly directing its ire at China. Trump's macroeconomic policies are completely at odds with his trade agenda. Fiscal stimulus will boost aggregate demand, which will suck in more imports. An overheated economy will prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. All this will result in a wider trade deficit. What will Trump tell voters two years from now when he is campaigning in Michigan and Ohio about why the trade deficit has widened rather than narrowed under his watch? Will he blame himself or Beijing? No trophy for getting that answer right. II. Financial Markets Global Equities The combination of slower global growth, rising economic vulnerabilities outside the U.S., and a more challenging policy environment caused us to downgrade our view on global equities from overweight to neutral in June,3 while reiterating our preference for developed market equities relative to EM stocks. For now, we are comfortable with our bearish view towards emerging market stocks. While EM equities have cheapened, they are not yet at washed out levels (Chart 26). Bottom fishers still abound, as evidenced by the fact that the number of shares outstanding in the MSCI iShares Turkish ETF has almost tripled since early April (Chart 27). Chart 26EM Assets: Valuations Not Yet At Washed Out Levels Chart 27EM Bottom Fishers Still Abound At some point - probably in the first half of next year - investors will liquidate their remaining bullish EM bets. At that point, EM stocks will rebound. European and Japanese equities should also start to outperform the U.S., given their more cyclical nature. As far as the absolute direction of the S&P 500 is concerned, the next few months could be challenging. U.S. stocks have been able to decouple from those in the rest of the world, but this state of affairs may not last. Recall that the S&P 500 fell by 22% peak-to-trough between July 20 and October 8, 1998, in what otherwise was a massive bull market. We do not know if there is another Long-Term Capital Management lurking around the corner, but if there is, a temporary selloff in U.S. stocks may be hard to avoid. Such a selloff would present a buying opportunity over a horizon of 12-to-18 months. If we are correct that cyclical forces have lifted the neutral rate of interest, it will take a while for monetary policy to reach restrictive territory. This means that both fiscal and monetary policy will stay accommodative at least for the next 18 months. As such, the S&P 500 may not peak until 2020. Appendix A - Chart I presents a stylized diagram of where we think global equities are going. It incapsulates three phases: 1) a challenging period over the next six months, driven by EM weakness; 2) a blow-off rally in equities starting in the middle of next year; 3) and finally, a recession-induced bear market beginning in late-2020. Appendix B also presents our valuation charts, which highlight that long-term return prospects are better outside the United States. Fixed Income After advocating for a long duration strategy for much of the post-crisis recovery, BCA declared "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" on July 5, 2016, the very same day that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%. Cyclically and structurally, we continue to expect U.S. bond yields to rise more than the market is discounting. As noted above, the Fed is underestimating how high rates will need to go before they reach restrictive territory. This means that the Fed will end up behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy, causing the economy to overheat and inflation to rise above the Fed's comfort zone. Chart 28Bond Sentiment Is Extremely Bearish Granted, the Fed is willing to tolerate a modest inflation overshoot. However, a core PCE reading above 2.3%, which is at the top end of the range of the Fed's own forecast, would prompt the Fed to expedite the pace of rate hikes. A bear flattening of the yield curve - a situation where long-term yields rise, but short-term rates go up even more - would be highly likely in that environment. Over a shorter-term horizon spanning the next six months, the outlook for yields is more benign. The combination of a stronger dollar, slower global growth, and flight-to-quality flows into the Treasury market from vulnerable emerging markets can cap yields. Add to this the fact that sentiment towards bonds is currently extremely bearish (Chart 28), and a temporary countertrend decline in yields becomes quite probable. Developed market bond yields in general are likely to follow the direction of U.S. yields, both on the upside and the downside, but in a more muted manner. Outside the periphery, euro area yields have less scope to fall in the near term given that they are already so low. European yields also have less room to rise once global growth bottoms next year because the neutral rate of interest is much lower in the euro area than in the United States. Ironically, a more dovish ECB would help reduce Italian bond yields, as higher inflation is critical for increasing Italian nominal GDP. Since labor market slack is still elevated in Italy, continued monetary stimulus would also lift wages in core Europe more than in Italy, helping to boost Italy's competitiveness relative to the rest of the euro area. Japanese yields have plenty of scope to rise over the long haul. An aging population is pushing more people into retirement, which will cause the national savings rate to fall further. A decline in the savings pool will increase the neutral rate of interest in Japan. Instead of raising the policy rate, the Japanese authorities will let the economy overheat, generating inflation in the process. This will cause the yield curve to steepen, particularly at the very long end (e.g., beyond 10 years) which is the part of the yield curve that is the least susceptible to the BoJ's yield curve control regime. We are positioned for this outcome through our short 20-year JGB/long 5-year JGB trade recommendation. Appendix A - Chart II shows our expectations for the major government bond markets over the coming years. Turning to credit markets, high-yield credit typically underperforms in the latter innings of business-cycle expansions, a period when the Fed is raising rates. Thus, while we do not think that U.S. corporate debt levels will be a major source of systemic financial risk for the broader economy, this is hardly a reason to be overweight spread-product. A more cautious stance towards credit outside the U.S. is also warranted. Currencies And Commodities The dollar is working off overbought conditions, but will rebound into year-end, as EM tensions intensify and hopes of a massive credit/fiscal-fueled Chinese stimulus package fizzle. EM currencies will weaken the most against the dollar over the next three-to-six months, but the euro and, to a lesser extent, the yen, will also come under pressure. Granted, the dollar is no longer a cheap currency, but if long-term interest rate differentials stay anywhere close to current levels, the greenback will remain well supported. Consider the dollar's value against the euro. Thirty-year U.S. Treasurys currently yield 3.20% while 30-year German bunds yield 1.12%, a difference of 208 basis points. Even if one allows for the fact that investors expect euro area inflation to be lower than in the U.S. over the next 30 years, EUR/USD would need to trade at a measly 82 cents today in order to compensate German bund holders for the inferior yield they will receive.4 We do not expect EUR/USD to get down to that level, but a descent into the $1.10-to-$1.12 range over the next six months is probable. Sterling will remain hostage to Brexit negotiations. It is impossible to know how talks will evolve, but our bias is to take a somewhat pound-positive view. The main reason is that support for Brexit has faded (Chart 29). Opinion polls suggest that if a referendum were held again, the "bremain" side would almost certainly prevail. Lacking public support for leaving the EU, it is unlikely that British negotiators could simply walk away from the table. This reduces the odds of a "hard Brexit" outcome. Indeed, a second referendum that leads to a "no-Brexit" verdict remains a distinct possibility. The combination of slower global growth and a resurgent dollar is likely to hurt commodity prices. Industrial metals are more vulnerable than oil. China consumes around half of all the copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, and iron ore produced around the world (Chart 30). In contrast, China represents less than 15% of global oil demand. Chart 29When Bremorse Sets In Chart 30China Is A More Dominant Consumer Of Metals Than Oil The supply backdrop for oil is also more favorable than for metals. Not only are Saudi Arabia and Russia maintaining production discipline, but U.S. sanctions against Iran threaten to weigh on global crude supply. Further reduction in Venezuela's oil output, as well as potential disruptions to Libyan or Iraqi exports, could also boost oil prices. The superior outlook for oil over metals means we prefer the Canadian dollar relative to the Aussie dollar. While AUD/CAD has weakened in recent months, the Aussie dollar is still somewhat expensive against the loonie based on our long-term valuation model (Chart 31). We also see an increasing chance that Canada will negotiate a revamped trade deal with the U.S., as Trump focuses his attention more on China. Should this happen, it will remove the NAFTA break-up risk discount embedded in the Canadian dollar. Finally, a few words on precious metals. Precious metals typically struggle during periods when the dollar is appreciating (Chart 32). Consequently, we would not be eager buyers of gold or other precious metals until the dollar peaks, most likely around the middle of next year. As inflation starts to accelerate in late-2019 and in 2020, gold will finally move decisively higher. Chart 31Canadian Dollar Still Somewhat Cheap Versus The Aussie Dollar Chart 32Gold Won't Shine Until The Dollar Peaks Appendix A - Chart III and Chart IV present an illustration of where the major currencies and commodities are heading. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Depending on which specification of the Taylor rule one uses, a one percent of GDP increase in aggregate demand will increase the neutral rate of interest by half a point (John Taylor's original specification) or by a full point (Janet Yellen's preferred specification). Fiscal policy is currently about 3% of GDP too stimulative compared to a baseline where government debt-to-GDP is stable over time. Assuming a fiscal multiplier of 0.5, fiscal policy is thus boosting aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Nonfinancial private credit has increased by an average of 1.5 percentage points of GDP per year since 2016. Assuming that every additional one dollar of credit increases aggregate demand by 50 cents, the revival in credit growth is raising aggregate demand by 0.75% of GDP, compared to a baseline where credit-to-GDP is flat. The labor share of income has increased by 1.25% of GDP from its lows in 2015. Assuming that every one dollar shift in income from capital to labor boosts overall spending on net by 20 cents, this would have raised aggregate demand by 0.25% of GDP. Lastly, if the personal savings rate falls by two points over the next two years, this would raise aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Taken together, these factors are boosting the neutral rate by anywhere from 2% (Taylor's specification) to 4% (Yellen's specification). This is obviously a lot, and easily overwhelms other factors such as a stronger dollar that may be weighing on the neutral rate. 2 Recall that GDP is a flow variable (how much production takes place every period), whereas credit is a stock variable (how much debt there is outstanding). By definition, a flow is a change in a stock. Thus, credit growth affects GDP and the change in credit growth affects GDP growth. Euro area private-sector credit growth accelerated from -2.6% in May 2014 to 3.1% in March 2017, but has been broadly flat ever since. Hence, the credit impulse has dropped. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018. 4 For this calculation, we assume that the fair value for EUR/USD is 1.32, which is close to the IMF's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimate. The annual inflation differential of 0.47% is based on 30-year CPI swaps. This implies that the fair value for EUR/USD will rise to 1.52 after 30 years. If one assumes that the euro reaches that level by then, the common currency would need to trade at 1.52/(1.0208)^30=0.82 today. Appendix A Appendix A Chart IMarket Outlook: Equities Appendix A Chart IIMarket Outlook: Bonds Appendix A Chart IIIMarket Outlook: Currencies Appendix A Chart IVMarket Outlook: Commodities Appendix B Appendix B Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Appendix B Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Appendix B Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Appendix B Chart 1Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Macro outlook: Global growth will continue to decelerate into early next year on the back of brewing EM stresses and an underwhelming policy response from China. Equities: Stay neutral for now, while underweighting EM relative to DM stocks. Within DM, overweight the U.S. in dollar terms. Bonds: Global bond yields may dip in the near term, but the longer-term path is firmly higher. Currencies: The dollar is working off overbought conditions, but will rebound into year-end. EM currencies will suffer the most. Commodities: Favor oil over industrial metals. Precious metals will also remain under pressure until the dollar peaks next year, before beginning a major bull run as inflation accelerates. Feature I. Economic Outlook The Fed Can Hike A Lot More If 2017 was the year of a synchronized global growth recovery, 2018 is turning out to be a year where desynchronization is once again the name of the game. The U.S. economy continues to fire on all cylinders, while much of the rest of the world is struggling to stay afloat. The divergence in economic outcomes has been mirrored in central bank policy. The Fed is now hiking rates once per quarter whereas most other major central banks are still sitting on their hands. How high can U.S. rates go? The answer is a lot higher than investors anticipate. Market participants currently expect the Fed funds rate to rise to 2.37% by the end of this year and 2.84% by the end of 2019. No rate hikes are priced in for 2020 and beyond. The Fed dots are somewhat higher than market expectations (Chart I-1). The median dot rises to about 3.4% in 2020-21, but then falls back to 3% over the Fed's longer-run horizon. Both investors and the Fed have apparently bought into Larry Summers' secular stagnation thesis. They seem convinced that rates will not be able to rise above 3% without triggering a recession. While we have a lot of sympathy for Summers' thesis, it must be acknowledged that it is a theory about the long-term determinants of the neutral rate of interest. Over a shorter-term cyclical horizon, many factors can influence the neutral rate. Critically, most of these factors are pushing it higher: Fiscal policy is extremely stimulative. The IMF estimates that the U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit will reach 6.8% of GDP in 2019. In contrast, the euro area is projected to run a deficit of only 0.8% of GDP (Chart I-2). The relatively more expansionary nature of U.S. fiscal policy is one key reason why the Fed can raise rates while the ECB cannot. Chart I-1Markets Expect No Fed Hikes Beyond Next Year Chart I-2Fiscal Policy Is More Expansionary In ##br##The U.S. Than In The Euro Area Credit growth has picked up. After a prolonged deleveraging cycle, private-sector nonfinancial debt is increasing faster than GDP (Chart I-3). The recent easing in The Conference Board's Leading Credit Index suggests that this trend will continue (Chart I-4). Chart I-3U.S. Private-Sector Nonfinancial Debt Is ##br##Rising At Close To Its Historic Trend Chart I-4U.S. Credit Growth Will Remain Strong Wage growth is accelerating. Average hourly earnings surprised on the upside in August, with the year-over-year change rising to a cycle high of 2.9%. This followed a stronger reading in the Employment Cost Index in the second quarter. A simple correlation with the quits rate suggests that there is plenty of upside for wage growth (Chart I-5). Faster wage growth will put more money into workers' pockets who will then spend it. The savings rate has scope to fall. The personal savings rate currently stands at 6.7%, more than two percentage points higher than what one would expect based on the current level of household net worth (Chart I-6). If the savings rate were to fall by two points over the next two years, it would add 1.5% of GDP to aggregate demand. Chart I-5The Quits Rate Is Signaling Upside For Wage Growth Chart I-6The Personal Savings Rate Has Room To Fall A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that these cyclical factors will permit the Fed to raise rates to 5% by 2020, almost double what the market is discounting.1 An Absence Of Major Financial Imbalances Will Allow The Fed To Keep Raising Rates The past three recessions were all caused by financial market overheating rather than economic overheating. The 1991 recession was mainly the consequence of the Savings and Loan crisis, compounded by the spike in oil prices leading up to the Gulf War. The 2001 recession stemmed from the dotcom bust. The Great Recession was triggered by the housing bust. Today, it is difficult to point to any clear imbalances in the economy. True, housing activity has been weak for much of the year. However, unlike in 2006, the home vacancy rate stands near record-low levels (Chart I-7). Tight supply will limit downside risks to both construction and home prices. On the demand side, low unemployment, high consumer confidence, and a rebound in the rate of new household formation should help the sector. Despite elevated home prices in some markets, the average monthly payment that homeowners must make to service their mortgage is quite low by historic standards (Chart I-8). The quality of mortgage lending has also been very high over the past decade, which reduces the risk of a sudden credit crunch (Chart I-9). Chart I-7Low Housing Inventories Will Support ##br##Home Prices And Construction Chart I-8Housing Affordabiity Is Not Yet Stretched Chart I-9Mortgage Lenders Are Being Prudent Unlike housing debt, there are more reasons to be concerned about corporate debt. The ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP has risen to record-high levels. So-called "covenant-lite" loans now make up the bulk of corporate leveraged loan issuance. While there is no doubt that the corporate debt market is the weakest link in the U.S. financial sector, some perspective is in order. U.S. corporate debt levels are quite low by global standards. Corporate debt in the euro area is more than 30 points higher as a percent of GDP than in the United States (Chart I-10). Moreover, the interest coverage ratio - EBIT divided by interest expense - for U.S. corporates is still above its historic average (Chart I-11). While this ratio will fall as interest rates rise, this will not happen very quickly. Most U.S. corporate debt is at fixed rates and average maturities have been rising. This reduces both rollover risk and the sensitivity of debt-servicing costs to higher short-term rates. Chart I-10U.S. Corporate Debt Not That High By Global Standards Chart I-11Interest Coverage Ratio Is Above Its Historic Average An increasing share of U.S. corporate debt is held by non-leveraged investors. Bank loans account for only 18% of nonfinancial corporate sector debt, down from 40% in 1980 (Chart I-12). This is important, because what makes a spike in corporate defaults so damaging is not the direct impact this has on the economy, but the second-round effects rising defaults have on financial sector stability. In any case, we already had a dress rehearsal for what a corporate debt scare might look like. Credit spreads spiked in 2015. Default rates rose, but the knock-on effects to the financial system were minimal. This suggests that corporate America could handle a fair bit of monetary tightening without buckling under the pressure. The Fed And The Dollar If the Fed is able to raise rates substantially more than the market is discounting while most central banks cannot, the short-term interest rate spread between the U.S. and its trading partners is likely to widen. History suggests that this will produce a stronger dollar (Chart I-13). Chart I-12Banks Have Been Reducing Their ##br##Exposure To The Corporate Sector Chart I-13Historically, The Dollar Has Moved ##br##In Line With Interest Rate Differentials Some have speculated that the Trump administration will intervene in the foreign-exchange market in order to drive down the value of the greenback. We doubt this will happen, but even if such interventions were to occur, they would not be successful. Presumably, currency interventions would take the form of purchases of foreign exchange, financed through the issuance of Treasurys. The purchase of foreign currency would release U.S. dollars into the financial system, but the sale of Treasury securities would suck those dollars back out of the system. The net result would be no change in the volume of U.S. dollars in circulation - what economists call a "sterilized" intervention. Both economic theory and years of history show that sterilized interventions do not have lasting effects on currency values. The Fed could, of course, provide funding for the Treasury's purchases of foreign exchange, leading to an increase in the monetary base. This would be tantamount to an unsterilized intervention. However, such a deliberate attempt to weaken the dollar by expanding the money supply would fly in the face of the Fed's efforts to cool growth by tightening financial conditions. We highly doubt the Fed's current leadership would go along with this. Emerging Markets In The Crosshairs The combination of rising U.S. rates and a stronger dollar is bad news for emerging markets. Eighty percent of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. Outside of China, EM dollar debt is now back to late-1990s levels, both as a share of GDP and exports (Chart I-14). The wave of EM local-currency debt issued in recent years only complicates matters. If EM central banks raise rates to defend their currencies, this could imperil economic growth and make it difficult for local-currency borrowers to pay back their loans. Rather than hiking rates, some EM central banks may simply choose to inflate away debt. Consider the case of Brazil. The fiscal deficit stands at nearly 8% of GDP and government debt has soared from 60% of GDP in 2013 to 84% of GDP at present (Chart I-15). Ninety percent of Brazilian sovereign debt is denominated in reais. The Brazilian government won't default on its debt per se. However, if push comes to shove, Brazil's central bank can always step in to buy government bonds, effectively monetizing the fiscal deficit. This could cause the real to weaken much more than it already has. Chart I-14EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart I-15Brazil's Perilous Fiscal Position Chinese Stimulus To The Rescue? When emerging markets last succumbed to pressure in 2015, China saved the day by stepping in with massive stimulus. Fiscal spending and credit growth accelerated to over 15% year-over-year. The government's actions boosted demand for all sorts of industrial commodities. The stimulus measures in 2015 followed an even greater wave of stimulus in 2009. While these stimulus measures invigorated China's economy and helped put a floor under global growth, they came at a price: China's debt-to-GDP ratio has swollen from 140% in 2008 to over 250% at present, which has endangered financial stability (Chart I-16). Excess capacity has also increased. This can be seen in the dramatic rise in the capital-to-output ratio. It can also be seen in the fact that the rate of return on assets within the Chinese state-owned enterprise sector, which has been the main source of rising corporate leverage, has fallen below borrowing costs (Chart I-17). Chart I-16China: Debt And Capital ##br##Accumulation Went Hand In Hand Chart I-17China: Rate Of Return On Assets ##br##Below Borrowing Costs For SOEs Chinese banks are being told that they must lend more money to support the economy, while ensuring that their loans do not turn sour. Unfortunately, that is becoming an impossible feat. Chart I-18China Saves A Lot The Chinese economy produces too much and spends too little. The result is excess savings, epitomized most clearly in a national savings rate of 46% (Chart I-18). As a matter of arithmetic, national savings must be transformed either into domestic investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus. Now that the former strategy has run into diminishing returns, the Chinese authorities will need to concentrate on the latter. This will require a larger current account surplus which, in turn, will necessitate a relatively cheap currency. Above-average productivity growth has pushed up the fair value of China's real exchange rate over time. However, the currency still looks expensive relative to its long-term trend line (Chart I-19). Pushing down the value of the yuan against the dollar will not be that difficult. Chart I-20 shows that USD/CNY has moved broadly in line with the one-year swap spread between the U.S. and China. The spread was about 3% earlier this year. Today, it stands at only 0.6%. As the Fed continues to raise rates, the spread will narrow further, taking the yuan down with it. Chart I-19The RMB Is Still Quite Strong Chart I-20USD/CNY Has Tracked China-U.S. Interest Rate Differentials Unlike standard Chinese fiscal/credit easing, a stimulus strategy focused on weakening the yuan would hurt other emerging markets by undermining their competitiveness in relation to China. A weaker yuan would also make it more expensive for Chinese companies to import natural resources, thus putting downward pressure on commodity prices. The Euro Area: Back In The Slow Lane After putting in a strong performance in 2017, the economy in the euro area has struggled to maintain momentum this year. Growth is still above trend, but the overall tone of the data has been lackluster at best, with the risks to growth increasingly tilted to the downside. Weaker growth in China and other emerging markets certainly has not helped. However, much of the problem lies closer to home. Bank credit remains the lifeblood of the euro area economy. The 12-month credit impulse - defined as the change in credit growth from one 12-month period to the next - tends to track GDP growth (Chart I-21).2 Euro area credit growth accelerated over the course of 2017, but has been broadly stable this year. As a result, the credit impulse has fallen, taking GDP growth down with it. It will be difficult for euro area GDP growth to increase unless credit growth starts rising again. So far, there is little sign that this is about to happen. According to the latest euro area bank lending survey, while banks continue to ease standards for business loans, they are doing so at a slower pace than in the past. A net 3% of banks eased lending standards in the second quarter, compared to 8% in the first quarter. Loan demand growth has been fairly stable. This suggests that loan growth will remain positive, but is unlikely to increase much from current levels. Worries about the health of European banks will further constrain credit growth. European banks in general, and Spanish banks in particular, have significant exposure to the most vulnerable emerging markets (Chart I-22). Chart I-21Euro Area Credit Growth Has Flatlined Chart I-22Spain Most Exposed To Vulnerable EMs Concerns about the ability of the Italian government to service its debt obligations will also restrain bank lending. Investors breathed a sigh of relief last month when the Italian government signaled a greater willingness to pare back next year's proposed budget deficit, in accordance with the dictates of the European Commission. Tensions remain, however, as evidenced by the fact that the ten-year spread between BTPs and German bunds is still 120 basis points higher than in April (Chart I-23). The European political establishment is terrified of the rise in populism across the region and would love nothing more than to see Italy's populist parties implode. This means that any help from the ECB and the European Commission will only arrive once a full-fledged crisis is underway. Anyway, it is far from clear that a smaller budget deficit would actually translate into a lower government debt-to-GDP ratio. Like China, Italy also has a private sector that saves too much and spends too little. A shrinking population has reduced the need for firms to invest in new capacity. The prior government's pension cuts have also incentivized people to save more for their retirement. The result is a private sector savings-investment surplus that stood at 5% of GDP in 2017 compared to close to breakeven a decade ago (Chart I-24). Chart I-23Italian/Bund Spreads Signal Lingering Fiscal Strain Chart I-24Italy: Private Sector Saves Too Much And Spends Too Little Unlike Germany, Italy cannot export its excess production because it does not have a hypercompetitive economy. Nor does it have the ability to devalue its currency to gain a quick competitiveness boost. This means that the Italian government has to absorb excess private-sector savings with its own dissavings - a fancy way of saying that it has to run a large budget deficit. This has effectively been Japan's strategy for over two decades. However, unlike Japan, Italy does not have a lender of last resort that can unconditionally buy government debt. This raises the risk that Italy's debt woes will resurface, either because the government abandons austerity measures, or because the lack of fiscal support causes nominal GDP to stagnate, making it all but impossible for the country to outgrow its debt burden. Receding Policy Puts The discussion above suggests that many of the "policy puts" that investors have relied on are in the process of having their strike price marked down to deeper out-of-the-money levels. Yes, the Fed will ease off on rate hikes if U.S. growth is at risk of stalling out completely. However, now that the labor market has reached full employment, the Fed will welcome modestly slower growth. Remember that there has never been a case in the post-war era where the three-month average of the unemployment rate has risen by more than a third of a percentage point without a recession taking place (Chart I-25). The further the unemployment rate falls below NAIRU, the more difficult it will be for the Fed to achieve the proverbial soft landing. Chart I-25Even A Small Uptick In The Unemployment Rate Is Bad News For The Business Cycle Likewise, the "China stimulus put" - the presumption that most investors have that the Chinese authorities will launch a barrage of fiscal and credit easing at the first sign of slower growth - has become less reliable in light of the government's competing objectives namely reducing debt growth and excess capacity. The same goes for the "ECB put." Yes, the ECB will bail out Italy if the entire European project appears at risk. But spreads may need to blow out before the cavalry arrives. Meanwhile, just as the aforementioned policy puts are receding, new policy risks are rising to the fore, chief among them protectionism. We expect the trade war to heat up, with the Trump administration increasingly directing its ire at China. Trump's macroeconomic policies are completely at odds with his trade agenda. Fiscal stimulus will boost aggregate demand, which will suck in more imports. An overheated economy will prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, leading to a stronger dollar. All this will result in a wider trade deficit. What will Trump tell voters two years from now when he is campaigning in Michigan and Ohio about why the trade deficit has widened rather than narrowed under his watch? Will he blame himself or Beijing? No trophy for getting that answer right. II. Financial Markets Global Equities The combination of slower global growth, rising economic vulnerabilities outside the U.S., and a more challenging policy environment caused us to downgrade our view on global equities from overweight to neutral in June,3 while reiterating our preference for developed market equities relative to EM stocks. For now, we are comfortable with our bearish view towards emerging market stocks. While EM equities have cheapened, they are not yet at washed out levels (Chart I-26). Bottom fishers still abound, as evidenced by the fact that the number of shares outstanding in the MSCI iShares Turkish ETF has almost tripled since early April (Chart I-27). Chart I-26EM Assets: Valuations Not Yet At Washed Out Levels Chart I-27EM Bottom Fishers Still Abound At some point - probably in the first half of next year - investors will liquidate their remaining bullish EM bets. At that point, EM stocks will rebound. European and Japanese equities should also start to outperform the U.S., given their more cyclical nature. As far as the absolute direction of the S&P 500 is concerned, the next few months could be challenging. U.S. stocks have been able to decouple from those in the rest of the world, but this state of affairs may not last. Recall that the S&P 500 fell by 22% peak-to-trough between July 20 and October 8, 1998, in what otherwise was a massive bull market. We do not know if there is another Long-Term Capital Management lurking around the corner, but if there is, a temporary selloff in U.S. stocks may be hard to avoid. Such a selloff would present a buying opportunity over a horizon of 12-to-18 months. If we are correct that cyclical forces have lifted the neutral rate of interest, it will take a while for monetary policy to reach restrictive territory. This means that both fiscal and monetary policy will stay accommodative at least for the next 18 months. As such, the S&P 500 may not peak until 2020. Appendix A - Chart I presents a stylized diagram of where we think global equities are going. It incapsulates three phases: 1) a challenging period over the next six months, driven by EM weakness; 2) a blow-off rally in equities starting in the middle of next year; 3) and finally, a recession-induced bear market beginning in late-2020. Appendix B also presents our valuation charts, which highlight that long-term return prospects are better outside the United States. Fixed Income After advocating for a long duration strategy for much of the post-crisis recovery, BCA declared "The End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" on July 5, 2016, the very same day that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield hit a record closing low of 1.37%. Cyclically and structurally, we continue to expect U.S. bond yields to rise more than the market is discounting. As noted above, the Fed is underestimating how high rates will need to go before they reach restrictive territory. This means that the Fed will end up behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy, causing the economy to overheat and inflation to rise above the Fed's comfort zone. Granted, the Fed is willing to tolerate a modest inflation overshoot. However, a core PCE reading above 2.3%, which is at the top end of the range of the Fed's own forecast, would prompt the Fed to expedite the pace of rate hikes. A bear flattening of the yield curve - a situation where long-term yields rise, but short-term rates go up even more - would be highly likely in that environment. Over a shorter-term horizon spanning the next six months, the outlook for yields is more benign. The combination of a stronger dollar, slower global growth, and flight-to-quality flows into the Treasury market from vulnerable emerging markets can cap yields. Add to this the fact that sentiment towards bonds is currently extremely bearish (Chart I-28), and a temporary countertrend decline in yields becomes quite probable. Chart I-28Bond Sentiment Is Extremely Bearish Developed market bond yields in general are likely to follow the direction of U.S. yields, both on the upside and the downside, but in a more muted manner. Outside the periphery, euro area yields have less scope to fall in the near term given that they are already so low. European yields also have less room to rise once global growth bottoms next year because the neutral rate of interest is much lower in the euro area than in the United States. Ironically, a more dovish ECB would help reduce Italian bond yields, as higher inflation is critical for increasing Italian nominal GDP. Since labor market slack is still elevated in Italy, continued monetary stimulus would also lift wages in core Europe more than in Italy, helping to boost Italy's competitiveness relative to the rest of the euro area. Japanese yields have plenty of scope to rise over the long haul. An aging population is pushing more people into retirement, which will cause the national savings rate to fall further. A decline in the savings pool will increase the neutral rate of interest in Japan. Instead of raising the policy rate, the Japanese authorities will let the economy overheat, generating inflation in the process. This will cause the yield curve to steepen, particularly at the very long end (e.g., beyond 10 years) which is the part of the yield curve that is the least susceptible to the BoJ's yield curve control regime. Appendix A - Chart II shows our expectations for the major government bond markets over the coming years. Turning to credit markets, high-yield credit typically underperforms in the latter innings of business-cycle expansions, a period when the Fed is raising rates. Thus, while we do not think that U.S. corporate debt levels will be a major source of systemic financial risk for the broader economy, this is hardly a reason to be overweight spread-product. A more cautious stance towards credit outside the U.S. is also warranted. Currencies And Commodities The dollar is working off overbought conditions, but will rebound into year-end, as EM tensions intensify and hopes of a massive credit/fiscal-fueled Chinese stimulus package fizzle. EM currencies will weaken the most against the dollar over the next three-to-six months, but the euro and, to a lesser extent, the yen, will also come under pressure. Granted, the dollar is no longer a cheap currency, but if long-term interest rate differentials stay anywhere close to current levels, the greenback will remain well supported. Consider the dollar's value against the euro. Thirty-year U.S. Treasurys currently yield 3.20% while 30-year German bunds yield 1.12%, a difference of 208 basis points. Even if one allows for the fact that investors expect euro area inflation to be lower than in the U.S. over the next 30 years, EUR/USD would need to trade at a measly 82 cents today in order to compensate German bund holders for the inferior yield they will receive.4 We do not expect EUR/USD to get down to that level, but a descent into the $1.10-to-$1.12 range over the next six months is probable. Sterling will remain hostage to Brexit negotiations. It is impossible to know how talks will evolve, but our bias is to take a somewhat pound-positive view. The main reason is that support for Brexit has faded (Chart I-29). Opinion polls suggest that if a referendum were held again, the "bremain" side would almost certainly prevail. Lacking public support for leaving the EU, it is unlikely that British negotiators could simply walk away from the table. This reduces the odds of a "hard Brexit" outcome. Indeed, a second referendum that leads to a "no-Brexit" verdict remains a distinct possibility. The combination of slower global growth and a resurgent dollar is likely to hurt commodity prices. Industrial metals are more vulnerable than oil. China consumes around half of all the copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, and iron ore produced around the world (Chart I-30). In contrast, China represents less than 15% of global oil demand. Chart I-29When Bremorse Sets In Chart I-30China Is A More Dominant Consumer Of Metals Than Oil The supply backdrop for oil is also more favorable than for metals. Not only are Saudi Arabia and Russia maintaining production discipline, but U.S. sanctions against Iran threaten to weigh on global crude supply. Further reduction in Venezuela's oil output, as well as potential disruptions to Libyan or Iraqi exports, could also boost oil prices. The superior outlook for oil over metals means we prefer the Canadian dollar relative to the Aussie dollar. While AUD/CAD has weakened in recent months, the Aussie dollar is still somewhat expensive against the loonie based on our long-term valuation model (Chart I-31). We also see an increasing chance that Canada will negotiate a revamped trade deal with the U.S., as Trump focuses his attention more on China. Should this happen, it will remove the NAFTA break-up risk discount embedded in the Canadian dollar. Finally, a few words on precious metals. Precious metals typically struggle during periods when the dollar is appreciating (Chart I-32). Consequently, we would not be eager buyers of gold or other precious metals until the dollar peaks, most likely around the middle of next year. As inflation starts to accelerate in late-2019 and in 2020, gold will finally move decisively higher. Chart I-31Canadian Dollar Still Somewhat ##br##Cheap Versus The Aussie Dollar Chart I-32Gold Won't Shine Until The Dollar Peaks Appendix A - Chart III and Chart IV present an illustration of where the major currencies and commodities are heading. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy September 28, 2018 Next Report: October 25, 2018 1 Depending on which specification of the Taylor rule one uses, a one percent of GDP increase in aggregate demand will increase the neutral rate of interest by half a point (John Taylor's original specification) or by a full point (Janet Yellen's preferred specification). Fiscal policy is currently about 3% of GDP too stimulative compared to a baseline where government debt-to-GDP is stable over time. Assuming a fiscal multiplier of 0.5, fiscal policy is thus boosting aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Nonfinancial private credit has increased by an average of 1.5 percentage points of GDP per year since 2016. Assuming that every additional one dollar of credit increases aggregate demand by 50 cents, the revival in credit growth is raising aggregate demand by 0.75% of GDP, compared to a baseline where credit-to-GDP is flat. The labor share of income has increased by 1.25% of GDP from its lows in 2015. Assuming that every one dollar shift in income from capital to labor boosts overall spending on net by 20 cents, this would have raised aggregate demand by 0.25% of GDP. Lastly, if the personal savings rate falls by two points over the next two years, this would raise aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Taken together, these factors are boosting the neutral rate by anywhere from 2% (Taylor's specification) to 4% (Yellen's specification). This is obviously a lot, and easily overwhelms other factors such as a stronger dollar that may be weighing on the neutral rate. 2 Recall that GDP is a flow variable (how much production takes place every period), whereas credit is a stock variable (how much debt there is outstanding). By definition, a flow is a change in a stock. Thus, credit growth affects GDP and the change in credit growth affects GDP growth. Euro area private-sector credit growth accelerated from -2.6% in May 2014 to 3.1% in March 2017, but has been broadly flat ever since. Hence, the credit impulse has dropped. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018. 4 For this calculation, we assume that the fair value for EUR/USD is 1.32, which is close to the IMF's Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) estimate. The annual inflation differential of 0.47% is based on 30-year CPI swaps. This implies that the fair value for EUR/USD will rise to 1.52 after 30 years. If one assumes that the euro reaches that level by then, the common currency would need to trade at 1.52/(1.0208)^30=0.82 today. APPENDIX A APPENDIX A CHART IMarket Outlook: Equities APPENDIX A CHART IIMarket Outlook: Bonds APPENDIX A CHART IIIMarket Outlook: Currencies APPENDIX A CHART IVMarket Outlook: Commodities APPENDIX B Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. Long-Term Return Prospects Are Slightly Better Outside The U.S. II. Is It Time To Buy Value Stocks? Per the most commonly referenced growth and value indexes, growth has been outperforming value for over 11 years, the longest stretch in the history of the series. Growth's extended winning streak has split investors into two camps: those who believe that value is finished because of overexposure and shortened investor timeframes, and those who are trying to identify the point at which reversion to the mean will ensue. In this Special Report, we argue that the traditional off-the-shelf indexes are poor proxies for true value. Their methodology strays quite far from the principles enumerated by Benjamin Graham, the father of value investing, and Fama and French, the researchers who demonstrated that lower-priced stocks have outperformed over time. The headline S&P 500 indexes currently differentiate between growth and value stocks using simplistic metrics that introduce considerable sector bias, reducing the difference between growth and value to a binary choice between Tech and Financials. Using tools developed by BCA's Equity Trading Strategy service, we create sector-neutral U.S. value and growth indexes that correct for the off-the-shelf indexes' flaws, and broaden the range of metrics Fama and French employed to make style distinctions. The ETS-derived indexes appear to better distinguish between value and growth stocks. The ETS value-versus-growth portfolio beat its Fama and French counterpart by four percentage points annually over its 22-year life. We join our custom value and growth indexes to Fama and French's to study the impact of macro variables on relative style performance over time for the purpose of gaining insight into the most opportune points to shift between styles. Relative style performance has not corresponded consistently or robustly enough with the business cycle, inflation, interest rates, or broad market direction to support reliable style-decision rules. We find that monetary policy settings, as defined by our stylized fed funds rate cycle, are a consistently reliable predictor of relative style performance. Per the fed funds rate cycle, tight policy is most conducive to value outperformance. From this perspective, value's decade-long slump is not a surprise, given that the ultra-accommodative tide has been lifting all boats. There is no rush to increase value exposure while policy remains easy, but investors should look to load up on value once policy becomes tight, using the metrics in our ETS model to identify true value stocks. We expect that the policy inflection will occur sometime in the second half of 2019, or the first half of 2020. Growth stocks have been on a tear for the longest stretch in the history of the series, based on the most commonly referenced growth and value indexes, even if their gains haven't yet matched the magnitude of the 1990s (Chart II-1). It is no surprise, then, that growth stocks are as expensive as they have ever been, outside of the tech-bubble era in the late 1990s. Many investors are thus wondering if the next "big trade" is to bet on an extended reversion to the mean during which value regains the ground it has given up. Chart II-1A Lost Decade For Value Stocks In this Special Report, we argue that the traditional off-the-shelf indexes are not very good at differentiating growth from value stocks. Trends in relative performance have much more to do with sector performance than intrinsic value, making the indexes a poor proxy for investors who are truly interested in selecting stocks based on their value and growth profiles. We create U.S. value and growth indexes that are unaffected by sector performance, using stock selection software provided by BCA's Equity Trading Strategy service. The results will surprise readers who are used to dealing with canned measures of value and growth. What Is Value Investing? Value investing principles have been around at least since the days when Benjamin Graham was a money manager himself. Style investing has been a part of the asset-management lexicon for four decades. Yet there is no universally agreed-upon definition of a value stock versus a growth stock. Based on our reading of Graham's Intelligent Investor, we submit that an essential element of value investing is the identification of stocks that are temporarily trading below their intrinsic value. The temporary drag may persist for a while - stock markets can remain oblivious to fundamentals for extended stretches - but it is ultimately expected to dissipate. Value investing is a play on negative overreaction or neglect, and dedicated value investors have to be contrarians, not to mention contrarians with strong stomachs. The temporary nature of undervaluation is a recurring theme in Graham's book. The stock market's ever-present proclivity toward overreaction ensures a steady supply of value opportunities: "The market is always making mountains out of molehills and exaggerating ordinary vicissitudes into major setbacks.1" "[W]hen an individual company ... begins to lose ground in the economy, Wall Street is quick to assume that its future is entirely hopeless and it should be avoided at any price.2" "[T]he outstanding characteristic of the stock market is its tendency to react excessively to favorable and unfavorable influences.3" Graham viewed security analysis as the comparison of an issue's market price to its intrinsic value. He advised buying stocks only when they trade at a discount to intrinsic value, offering an investor a "margin of safety" that should guard against significant declines. His favorite measure for assessing intrinsic value was a sober, objective estimate of average future earnings, grossed-up by an appropriate multiple. A low price-to-average-earnings ratio was the linchpin of his margin-of-safety mantra. Decades after Graham's heyday, University of Chicago professors Eugene Fama and Kenneth French bestowed the academy's seal of approval on value investing. Their landmark 1992 paper found that low price-to-book ("P/B") stocks consistently and convincingly outperformed high P/B stocks.4 Several "growth" and "value" indexes have been developed over the years, but they bear no more than a passing resemblance to Graham's, and Fama and French's, work. It is important to realize that the off-the-shelf indexes are far from an ideal proxy for the value factor that Fama & French tried to isolate. Traditional Growth And Value Indexes Are Wanting The off-the-shelf growth and value indexes shown in Chart II-1 all share similar cyclical profiles, with only small differences in long-term returns. Given the similarity of the indexes, we will focus on Standard & Poor's/Citigroup methodology for the purposes of this report.5 The headline S&P 500 indexes currently differentiate between growth and value stocks using the following metrics: 3-year growth rates in EPS, 3-year growth rates in sales-per-share, and 12-month price momentum; along with valuation yardsticks including price-to-book, price-to-earnings, and price-to-sales. Companies with higher growth rates in earnings and sales, and better price momentum, are classified as growth stocks, while those with lower valuation multiples are considered value stocks. Several stocks are cross-listed in both indexes, which is baffling and counterproductive for an investor seeking to implement a rigorous style tilt.6 Table II-1 contains a summary of the current sector breakdowns for the S&P 500 Growth and Value indexes. Table II-2 sheds light on each index's aggregate geographical and U.S. business cycle exposure, the former of which is based on our U.S. Equity Strategy service's judgment. Table II-1Current S&P 500 Style Index Exposures Table II-2The Value Index Has Less Global ##br##And Late Cyclical Exposure Growth is currently heavily weighted in Health Care, Technology and Consumer Discretionary sectors, while value has a high concentration of Financials, Energy and Consumer Staples (Table II-1). Table II-2 shows that the growth index has a clear current bias toward sectors with global economic exposure that typically outperform the broad equity market late in the business cycle. The value benchmark flips growth's global/domestic exposure, and has slightly more exposure to defensive sectors, while splitting its cyclical exposure evenly between early and late cyclicals. Sector Dominance Unfortunately, the reigning methodology creates a major problem - shifts in the relative performance of growth and value indexes are dominated by sector performance. Financials' higher debt loads, and banks' low-margin operations, depress their multiples relative to nonfinancial firms. Thus, Financials hold permanent residency in the off-the-shelf value indexes. Conversely, Tech stocks perennially account for an outsized proportion of most growth indexes' market cap. Value-versus-growth boils down to a binary choice between Financials and Tech.7 The growth/value price ratio has closely tracked the Technology/Financials price ratio since the late 1990s (Chart II-2, top panel). The correlation was much less evident before 1995, when Tech stocks accounted for a much smaller share of market capitalization. Chart II-3 demonstrates that the positive correlation between growth/value and Tech has steadily climbed over the decades to almost 1, while the correlation with Financials has become increasingly negative (currently at -0.75). Chart II-2The S&P 500 Style Indexes Merely Mimic Relative Sector Performance Chart II-3Style Capture In contrast, the Fama/French approach, which focuses exclusively on price-to-book while ensuring equal representation for large- and small-market-cap stocks, appears much less affected by sector skews; the growth/value index created from their data has not tracked the Tech/Financials ratio, even after 1995 (Chart II-2, second panel). Moreover, note that the extended downward trend in the Fama/French growth/value ratio is consistent with other academic research that shows that value stocks outperform growth over the long-term. The off-the-shelf indexes show the opposite, but that is because they are merely tracking the long-term outperformance of Tech relative to Financials. The bottom line is that the standard indexes incorporate flawed measures of growth and value that limit their usefulness for true style investing. Conventional Wisdom With respect to style investing and the economic cycle, the prevailing conventional wisdom holds that: Inflation - Growth stocks perform best during times of disinflation and persistently low inflation, whereas value stocks perform best during periods of accelerating inflation; Interest Rates - Periods of high and rising interest rates favor value stocks at the expense of growth; and Business Cycle - It is believed that growth stocks outperform value during recessions, because the latter tend to be more highly leveraged to the economic cycle than their growth counterparts. According to the conventional view, value stocks shine in the early and middle phases of a business cycle expansion. Growth stocks return to favor again in the late states of an expansion, when investors begin to worry about the pending end to the business cycle and are looking for reliable and consistent earnings growth. Do the traditional measures of growth and value corroborate this conventional wisdom? Chart II-4 shows that the S&P value/growth index and headline CPI inflation have both trended lower since the early 1980s, but there has been no tendency for value to outperform when inflation rises. Value has shown some tendency to outperform during rising-rate phases since the mid-1980s, but the relationship with the level of the fed funds rate is stronger than its direction, as we discuss below. The growth-over-value relationship with the business cycle is complicated by the tech bubble in the late 1990s, which heavily distorted relative sector performance. The Citigroup measure of growth began to outperform very late in the cycle and through the subsequent recession in some business cycles (1979-1981, 1989-1991, and 2007-2009; Chart II-5). The early and middle parts of the cycles, however, were a mixed bag. Chart II-4Spiting The Conventional Wisdom Chart II-5No Consistent Relationship With The Business Cycle The bottom line is that there appears to be some rough correspondence between the Citigroup index and the interest rate and growth cycles, but it is too variable to point to reliable rules for shifting between styles. Ultimately, determining the direction of the growth and value indexes is more about forecasting relative Tech and Financials performance than it is about identifying cheap stocks. A Better Value Approach We identify four broad shortcomings of off-the-shelf value indexes: They exclusively use trailing multiples, a rear-view mirror metric. They rely on simple price-to-book multiples, which flatter serial acquirers. They rely entirely on reported earnings, which are an imperfect proxy for cash flow. A share of stock ultimately represents a claim on its issuer's future cash flows. They make no attempt to place relative metrics into historical context. Without a mechanism to compare a particular segment's valuation relative to its history, structurally low-multiple stocks will be over-represented and structurally high-multiple stocks will be under-represented. BCA's Equity Trading Strategy (ETS) platform provides a way of differentiating value from growth stocks that avoids these problems. The web-based platform uses 24 quantitative factors to rank approximately 10,000 individual stocks in 23 countries. Users can rank and score individual equities to support a broad set of investment strategies and apply macro and sector views to single-name investments. The ETS approach has an impressive track record. Historically, the top decile of stocks ranked using the "BCA Score" methodology has outperformed stocks in the bottom decile by over 25% a year. The overall BCA Score includes all 24 factors when ranking stocks, but to develop our custom value index, we use only the five valuation measures in the ETS database: trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-tangible-book, price-to-sales and price-to-cash flow. Every quarter we rank the stocks within each of the 11 sectors based on an equally-weighted composite of the five valuation measures. Note that we are using the data to rank stocks only against other stocks in the same sector. We calculate the total return from owning the top 30% of stocks by value in each sector. We do the same with the bottom 30% and refer to this as our "growth" index.8 We then compute an equally-weighted average of the total returns for the growth indexes across the 11 sectors. We do the same for the value indexes. By comparing stock valuation only to other stocks in the same sector, this approach avoids the sector composition problem suffered by the off-the-shelf measures. Chart II-6 compares the ETS value/growth total return index to the Fama/French value/growth index. Data limitations preclude comparing the two measures before 1996, but the ETS index confirms the Fama/French result that value trumps growth over the long term. The ETS index follows a similar cyclical profile to the Fama/French index from 1997 to 2009, rising and falling in tandem. The two series subsequently diverge: per the criteria ETS uses to identify value and construct an index, lower-priced stocks have outperformed higher-priced ones for most of this expansion, while the Fama/French methodology suggests the reverse. Chart II-6The ETS Model Builds On Fama And French's Work By avoiding sector composition problems and using a wider variety of value measures, the ETS approach appears to be a superior measure of value. An investor that consistently over-weighted value stocks according to the ETS approach would have outperformed someone who did the same using the Fama methodology by an annual average of four percentage points from 1996 to 2018. The history of our ETS index only covers two recessions, limiting our ability to gauge its performance vis-Ã -vis a variety of macro factors, so we extend the ETS index back to 1926 using the Fama/French index. While joining two indexes with different methodologies is less than ideal, we feel the drawbacks are outweighed by the benefit of observing growth and value relative performance across more business cycles. The top panel of Chart II-7 shows U.S. real GDP growth, shaded for recessions. The bottom panel presents our extended ETS value/growth index, shaded for declines of more than 10%. The shaded periods overlap in many, but not all, cycles (indicated by circles in the chart). That is, growth stocks have tended to outperform during economic downturns, although this is not a hard-and-fast rule. Chart II-7No Hard-And-Fast Relationship With The Business Cycle... Value-over-growth relative returns exhibit some directionality with the overall equity market when looking at corrections (peak-to-trough declines of at least 10%, as shaded in the top panel of Chart II-8), though it should be noted that it is nearly impossible to flag a correction in advance. The relationship weakens when considering bear markets, i.e. peak-to-trough declines of at least 20%, which can be forecast with at least some reliability.9 The bottom panel is the same as in Chart II-7; the extended ETS index, shaded for periods of significant value stock underperformance. The correspondence between the shaded periods is hardly perfect, and there does not appear to be a practical style exposure message, even if an investor could call corrections in advance. Chart II-8...And Market Directionality Has Been An Imperfect Guide Over The Last 50 Years Valuation Relative valuation also provides some useful information on positioning, though it is not always timely. Chart II-9 presents an aggregate valuation measure for the stocks in our value index relative to that of the stocks in our growth index. Value stocks are expensive relative to growth when the valuation indicator is above +1 standard deviation, and value is cheap when the indicator is less than -1 standard deviation. Historically, investors would have profited if they had over-weighted value stocks when the valuation indicator reached the threshold of undervaluation, although subsequent outperformance was delayed by as much as a year in two episodes. In contrast, the valuation indicator is not useful as a 'sell' signal for value stocks because they can remain overvalued for long periods. Value was overvalued relative to growth for much of the time between 2009 and 2016. Value stocks have cheapened since then, although they have yet to reach the undervaluation threshold. The Fed Funds Rate Cycle While relative style performance may generally lean in one direction or another in conjunction with the business cycle, inflation, interest rates, or broad equity-market performance, there are no hard-and-fast rules. It is difficult to formulate any sort of rotation view between styles, and history does not inspire confidence that any such rule would generate material outperformance. The monetary policy backdrop offers a path forward. We have found the fed funds rate cycle offers a consistent guide to equity and bond returns in other contexts, and our Global ETF Strategy service has found a robust link between the policy cycle and equity factor performance.10 We segment the fed funds rate cycle into four phases, based on whether or not the Fed is hiking or cutting rates, and whether policy is accommodative or restrictive (Chart II-10). Our judgment of the state of policy is derived from comparing the fed funds rate to our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate, the policy rate that neither encourages nor discourages economic activity. Chart II-9Sizeable Undervaluation Flags Turning ##br##Points, But You May Have To Wait A While Chart II-10The Fed Funds Rate Cycle As defined by Fama and French, value stocks outperform growth stocks by a considerable margin when monetary policy is restrictive (Table II-3 and Chart II-11, top panel). Considering value and growth stocks separately, both perform extremely well when policy is easy (Chart II-11, second panel), but growth stocks barely advance when policy is tight, falling far behind their value counterparts. A strategy for generalist investors may be to seek out value exposure when policy is tight, while investing without regard to styles when it is easy. Table II-3The State Of Monetary Policy Is The ##br##Best Guide To Style Performance Chart II-11The State Of Monetary Policy Drives Style Performance Investment Conclusions: U.S. equity sectors that have traditionally been considered "growth" have outperformed value sectors for an extended period. The long slump has led some investors to argue that value investing is finished, killed by a combination of overexposure and short-term performance imperatives. Other investors see value's long drought as an anomaly, and are looking for the opportune time to bet on a reversal. We are in the latter camp. The difficulty lies in finding an indicator that reliably leads value stocks' outperformance. Most macro measures are unhelpful, though broad market direction offers some insight, as stocks with low price-to-book multiples have outperformed their high-priced peers by a wide margin during bear markets. Bear markets aren't the most useful timing guide, however, because one only knows in retrospect when they begin and end. The monetary policy backdrop holds the most promise as a practical guide. Although our determination of easy or tight policy turns on the modeled estimate of a concept and should not be looked to for absolute precision, it has provided a timely, reliable guide to value outperformance. We expect the relationship will persist because of the cushion provided by less demanding multiples. Earnings and multiples surge when policy is easy, lifting all boats. It is only when policy is tight, and the tide is going out, that the margin of safety offered by lower-priced stocks yields the greatest benefit. Per our estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate, we are still firmly ensconced within Phase I of the policy rate cycle, and expect that we will remain there until sometime in the second half of 2019. We therefore expect that value, in Fama and French terms, will continue to underperform growth for another year. The clock is ticking for growth, though, as the expansion is in its latter stages and building inflation pressures will likely force the Fed to take a fairly hard line in this rate-hiking cycle. Once monetary policy turns restrictive, investors should hunt for value candidates using a range of valuation metrics, and combine them in a sector-neutral way, as we have via our Equity Trading Strategy service's model. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Doug Peta Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy 1 Graham, Benjamin, The Intelligent Investor, Harper Collins: New York, 2005, p. 97. 2 Ibid, p. 15. 3 Ibid, p. 189. 4 Fama, Eugene F. and French, Kenneth R., "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Market Returns," The Journal of Finance, Volume 47, Issue 2 (June 1992), pp. 427-465. 5 S&P currently brands its Growth and Value Indexes as S&P 500 Dow Jones Indexes, but Citigroup has the longest history of compiling S&P 500 Growth and Value Indexes, beginning in 1975, so we join the Citigroup S&P 500 style indexes to the Standard & Poor's series to obtain the maximum style-index history. We use the terms Citigroup and S&P interchangeably. 6 The Pure Value and Pure Growth indexes include only the top quartile of value and growth stocks, respectively, with no overlap between indexes, and are therefore better gauges of true style investing. 7 The Tech-versus-Financials cast of the indexes endures because all of the other sectors, ex-regulated Telecoms and Utilities, which account for too little market cap to make a difference, regularly move between the indexes as their fundamental fortunes, and investor appetites, wax and wane. The current Early Cyclical/Late Cyclical/Defensive profiles are not etched in stone and should be expected to shift, perhaps considerably, over time. 8 We created a second growth index by taking the top 30% of stocks ranked by earnings momentum. However, it made little difference to the results, so we will use the bottom 30% of stocks by value as our measure of "growth" for the purposes of this report, consistent with Fama/French methodology. 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst. September 2017, available on bca.bcaresearch.com 10 Please see the May 17, 2017 Global ETF Strategy Special Report, "Equity Factors And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," available at getf.bcaresearch.com. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our equity indicators continue to signal that caution is warranted, but U.S. profits remain potent enough to drown out scattered negative messages. Our Monetary Indicator remains at the low end of a multi-year range, suggesting that liquidity conditions have tightened. Our Composite Technical Indicator is in no-man's land, not far above the zero line that marks a sell signal, but coming close to issuing a buy signal by crossing above its 9-month moving average. Our Composite Sentiment Indicator is in a healthy position that suggests that the current level of investor optimism is sustainable. On the other hand, not one of our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) Indicators is moving in the right direction. The U.S. version is still weak and slowly getting weaker; the European one has flat-lined; and our Japanese WTP extended its decline, albeit from a high level. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks continues to issue a sell signal. 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 signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Momentum remains out of sync with valuation and policy, underlining the idea that caution is warranted. On balance, our indicators continue to suggest that the underlying supports of the U.S. equity bull market are eroding. Surging U.S. profits are papering over the cracks, and may still have some legs. Earnings surprises are at an all-time high, and the net revisions ratio remains elevated. The 10-year Treasury yield's march higher is due to run out of steam. Valuation (slightly cheap) and technicals (oversold by almost 2 standard deviations) imply that a countertrend pullback is not too far around the corner. Beyond a near-term correction, though, complacency about inflation and the Fed's ability to hike rates to at least the level of the FOMC voters' median projection points to looming capital losses. The dollar is quite expensive on a purchasing power parity basis, and its long-term outlook is not constructive, but policy and growth divergences with other major economies will likely keep the wind at its back in the near term. 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: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##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-22Euro/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 Doug Peta Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy

特別レポート

Dear Client, This week, we are sending you a Special Report written by my colleague Juan Correa on the topic of carry trades. In this report, Juan builds on our previous work on the subject. He analyses the role of interest rates, spot fluctuations, and volatility in determining the risk profile of carry trade returns. He also provides suggestions to improve the return skew created by the occasional sharp drawdowns suffered by carry trades. I trust you will find this report interesting and informative. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Feature While the great financial crisis claimed many victims in its wake, none better embodies the promise and perils of carry strategies than John Devaney. The Florida-based fund manager was able to amass a great fortune by using cheap leverage to finance the purchase of high-yielding MBS; a popular and very profitable strategy during the U.S. housing bubble. Eventually, he paid tribute to the pillar of his success by naming his 62-meter yacht "Positive Carry", - as a reminder of the great riches that could be achieved by simply borrowing at low yields to invest at higher ones. But just as his success was great, so was his downfall. When the housing bubble popped, Mr. Devaney's fund found itself unable to meet its margin calls, causing it to shut down. Ultimately, every single penny of investors' money was lost, while Mr. Devaney had to liquidate millions in personal assets; the yacht "Positive Carry" being one of them.1 Of course, bonds have not been the only asset class where carry strategies have been popular. Foreign exchange in particular has historically been the market of choice for investors looking to take advantage of positive carry. Specifically, the seminal 1984 paper, "Forward and Spot Exchange Rates", where Eugene Fama made the empirical observation that uncovered interest rate parity (UIP) does not hold2 (Chart 1), officially formalized the idea that carry in currency markets was a factor that could be systematically exploited. Chart 1The Forward Premium Puzzle So where do FX carry strategies stand in reality? Is carry really a market inefficiency that can be taken advantage of in almost arbitrage-like fashion? Or is it more like playing Russian roulette? A strategy that is deceptively profitable, but one that in the long run will wipe out an investor's capital. Table 1The Mechanics Of The Carry Strategy Index To answer these questions, we analyze the properties of carry strategies by constructing a Carry Strategy Index as follows:3 Ranking the 10 countries in the G10 according to their 3-month interest rate. Using the 3-month rate implied by forward rates.4 Going long 3 crosses that have the following criteria: With 1/3 of the portfolio, long the currency from the country with the highest interest rate vs. Short the currency from the country with the lowest interest rate. With 1/3 of the portfolio, long the currency from the country with the second highest interest rate vs. Short the currency from the country with the second lowest interest rate. With 1/3 of the portfolio, long the currency from the country with the third highest interest rate vs. Short the currency from the country with the third lowest interest rate. Rebalance every three months. (For clarity Table 1 shows an example of the strategy at work) We did not take into account collateral return, as this component can vary depending on the home currency of the investor. While not taking into account collateral returns penalizes the profitability of the strategy, this method allows our Carry Strategy Index to be comparable across investors in the G10. Observations On Carry Returns Chart 2 shows our Carry Strategy Index, along with a breakdown of the strategy's two components: the spot component and the interest rate component. The Carry Strategy Index obtained an annualized rate of return of 4.1% from the beginning of the sample in March 1989 to the end in mid-September 2018, with an annualized daily standard deviation of 9.3%. Moreover, while many investors often laud carry strategies as an opportunity to earn a double whammy of positive carry and positive spot return, most of the sample return was attributable to the interest rate component, as the spot component earned a paltry -0.23% annualized sample return, while it was also responsible for all the risk. Which currencies does the Carry Strategy Index favor? Overall, the AUD and the NZD are overwhelmingly carry currencies while the CHF and the JPY tend to be funding currencies most of the time (Chart 3). Chart 2Carry Throughout The Years Chart 3The Usual Suspects: NZD, AUD, JPY & CHF The amount earned on yield differentials was not consistent over time. The best period for our carry index went from 1995 to 2008, where a relatively high level of carry earned remained stable for more than a decade (Chart 4 - top two panels). Meanwhile the convergence of G10 interest rates to near zero in the wake of the great financial crisis reduced the return from the interest rate component to an annualized rate of roughly 3%. Remarkably, while the return offered by the interest rate component decreased, the implied volatility of currencies stayed relatively constant (Chart 4 - third panel), suggesting that the ex-ante return-to-volatility ratio of these strategies has actually decreased since 2008 (Chart 4 - bottom panel). Although the return for the Carry Strategy Index across the sample is attractive, carry investors are unlikely to implement their position over such a long horizon. It is therefore important to recognize that while the interest rate component tends to be relatively stable through multi year periods, the spot component can make the total return of the carry strategy vary wildly across sub-periods (Chart 5). This sub-period performance is likely more relevant for portfolio managers, as these periods reflect with greater accuracy the length of the horizon used to evaluate them. Interestingly, the annualized returns for longer holding periods are more attractive, while carry returns also become more disentangled from spot returns the longer the time horizon becomes. Chart 4Risk Versus Return In ##br##Carry Strategy Index Chart 5The Spot Component Is The Main Driver Of ##br##Carry Returns On Realistic Time Horizons Bottom Line: Our Carry Strategy Index was overwhelmingly long AUD and NZD, while being short JPY and CHF. Moreover, the interest rate component decreased significantly after G10 central bank rates converged to the zero bound, without a corresponding decrease in volatility, resulting in a deteriorating return-to-volatility ratio. Finally, while spot returns had a very small contribution to the sample return, they are a crucial driver for total return in more realistic time horizons, particularly shorter ones. Structural Determinants Of Carry: Is There Really A Puzzle? Many investors have grown disillusioned with carry trades in recent years, as the spot component of the strategy has become much more mediocre than in the past. This general disenchantment with carry trades has only grown stronger, with recent research showing that since 2008 the relationship between rate differentials and spot returns has flipped from positive to negative.5 So where have the good old days gone? A deeper look at the data suggests that the strong positive relationship between spot returns and rate differentials might have been a temporary phenomenon. In fact, the correlation between rate differentials and spot returns can vary widely from year to year (Chart 6). Thus, while the period after 2008 has shown a decrease in correlation, it is not a particularly unique sub-sample, as there have been other periods in history where there has been a negative correlation between rate differentials and spot returns. In fact, the Fama puzzle is not quite a puzzle if one remembers that UIP is not an arbitrage condition like CIP (Covered Interest Rate Parity). Two currencies could very well offer different rates of return so long as they also offer different levels of risk.6 We can see evidence of this by looking at the characteristics of typical carry currencies vs the characteristics of typical funding currencies. Carry currencies tend to have large current account deficits, negative net international investment positions, and are highly levered to the global economic cycle (Chart 7). Not only does this mean they are correlated to other assets, but it also means they are more prone to sudden pullbacks when global liquidity dries up. Funding currencies on the other hand have the opposite characteristics, being typically safe havens that act as hedges against other assets (Chart 7). Chart 6No Stable Correlation Between Interest Rates ##br##And Currency Returns Chart 7No Puzzle: Yield Differentials Are ##br##Just Risk Differentials Does this mean that carry trades will regain their former glory? It is hard to tell. One reason to remain cautious on the long-term outlook for carry trades has been the trade rebalancing that has taken place since the financial crisis (Chart 8). Technically, a rebalancing in the G10 space implies that the risk differential between countries should be decreasing. However, this also means that the return differential has also decreased, which means that the low interest rate component of the Carry Strategy Index at present might be justified. As mentioned previously, the interest rate component is the ultimate driver of carry returns over long horizons (Chart 9). Therefore, carry investors should keep in mind that as imbalances are fixed, risk and yield differentials will narrow, implying that the long-term return of carry strategies will stay low by historical standards. Chart 8Decreasing Risk Differentials##br## In The G10... Chart 9...Imply A Reduced Long-Term Rate Of Return ##br##For Carry Trades Bottom Line: UIP is not an arbitrage condition, which explains why the correlation between spot returns and rate differentials has historically been highly unstable. Instead, rate differentials are often reflective of risk differentials between countries. Rebalancing within the G10 has likely reduced these risk differentials, and consequently carry returns. Cyclical Determinants Of Carry: The Role Of The U.S. Dollar While occasionally there are other currencies that become either funding or carry currencies, this tends to be a rare phenomenon. In fact, the ranking within the G10 rate distribution for any given country tends to remain stable throughout the years. There is only one glaring exception: the United States (Chart 10A and Chart 10B). Chart 10ASince The Mid 1990s Most Countries Remain ##br##Relatively Fixed In The Interest Rate Distribution (I) Chart 10BSince The Mid 1990s Most Countries Remain ##br##Relatively Fixed In The Interest Rate Distribution (II) The first half of the 1990s was the only time where there was significant interest rate migration for multiple countries. Since then, the U.S. is the only country whose interest rate has migrated significantly across the distribution. This is because it has become the de facto global price-maker of monetary policy. After all, the U.S. is the G10 country whose inflation dynamics are least sensitive to currency movements. Therefore, the Federal Reserve is less concerned with its interest rate differential relative to other G10 economies than other central banks. This allows the Fed to reposition U.S. rates within the G10 distribution according to its own business cycle (Chart 11). On the other hand, the central banks in the rest of the G10 are much more concerned with the way that currency fluctuations can potentially amplify the effect of monetary policy tightening or easing. This makes them much more prone to holding their place in the distribution, and following the rest of the pack accordingly as the business cycle progresses. Additionally, the U.S. economy tends to be less affected by the global business cycle than other economies in the G10. As a result, while other countries might move in unison, the U.S. can follow its own dynamics. The current business cycle is an exaggerated example of this phenomenon. Understanding this dynamic is crucial for carry trades, as the U.S. dollar is the only chameleon currency that can constantly shift from funding currency to carry currency and vice-versa. Chart 12 shows that returns from carry strategies suffer whenever U.S. rates are at the top of the distribution. By the same token, when the U.S. dollar becomes a funding currency, the return in our Carry Strategy Index increase significantly. Chart 11U.S.: Global Price Maker ##br##Of Monetary Policy Chart 12Carry Strategies Suffer When The##br## USD Is A Carry Currency Why does this relationship exist? External debt for the world in general and emerging markets in particular is denominated in U.S. dollars. Whenever U.S. rates rise, external debt servicing increases, causing the return of investment in emerging markets, commodity producers and other cyclical plays highly sensitive to U.S. dollar borrowing costs to deteriorate. Moreover, the high rates in the U.S. make cyclical plays like Australia or New Zealand relatively less attractive to global investors. This creates a dangerous environment for carry trades, given that the possibility of a risk-off event - where funding currencies can rally - becomes increasingly likely. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar is the only currency that can consistently change from carry to funding currency. When the USD is a funding currency, overall carry returns are attractive. Conversely, when the USD is a carry currency, overall carry returns become poor. Tactical Determinants Of Carry: Fighting Against Negative Skew It is important to recognize that volatility is not the only risk that carry investors are exposed to. One of the most agreed upon hypotheses put forward is that carry strategies offer a positive return in exchange for exposure to negative skew in returns, or what is commonly known as the "Peso Problem". Essentially, when they work, carry strategies generate consistent small positive returns; however, they are subject to infrequent yet violent drawdowns. Hence, the return distribution is not normally distributed, but instead has a heavy left tail7 (Chart 13). Chart 13Negative Skew In Carry Strategy Index Why does skew matter? Carry trades are generally accompanied by leverage to amplify the return earned. However, the negative skew can become extremely dangerous at high levels of leverage, as it can lead to margin calls. In selloffs, investors who are not able to meet their margin calls are forced to quickly liquidate their positions, generating downward pressure on prices, and causing even more margin calls. This dynamic causes vicious cycles in carry trades, where losses can pile up very quickly.8 Chart 14Vega-M: An Enhanced Carry Strategy However, we can use the reflexive relationship between risk aversion and carry returns and turn it to our advantage. If we know that once it rises, volatility will create further downward price pressure, which in turn generates further volatility, then we can use the momentum in volatility to determine entry and exit points into carry trades. To take advantage of the above we created a strategy as follows: Long the Carry Strategy Index at day t if at day t-1 the 20-day moving average of the CVIX is below the 200-day moving average.9 Remain uninvested (earn 0% return) at day t if at day t-1 the 20-day moving average of the CVIX is above the 200-day moving average. We call this strategy the Vega-M Carry Index. Our Vega-M Carry Index manages to outperform the Carry Strategy Index within our sample, while also displaying significantly less volatility (Chart 14 - top panel). The Vega-M Carry Index also manages to closely track the interest rate component of the strategy, while eliminating some of the spot risk (Chart 14 - bottom panel). The Vega-M Carry Index also exhibits a much tighter return profile than the Carry Strategy Index (Chart 15 - top panel). Furthermore, while kurtosis in the Vega-M Index is still high, skew for the Vega-M Carry Index is actually positive (Chart 15 - bottom panel). This reduction in negative skew has important implications for investors using leverage. Chart 16 shows how the Vega-M Carry Index allows for a greater use of leverage, as the reduced negative skew eliminated margin calls, which means investors are not stopped out. This allows investors to have much better performance at high levels of leverage. Bottom Line: Given the reflexive relationship between volatility and carry trades, investors can use volatility momentum to generate buy/sell signals. Carry investors should remain invested when the volatility momentum is negative, while they should close their positions when momentum is positive. Chart 15Vega-M: More Compact Return Distribution And No Negative Skew Chart 16Vega-M: Better Performance When Using Margin Investment Implications With the above points considered, we have made a list of the three rules of thumb for carry investors to use: On a structural basis, the long-term rate of return of carry strategies will be determined by the interest rate differential. In general, this differential is a compensation for risk differentials between countries Cyclically, carry trades will deliver poorer returns whenever the U.S. dollar is a carry currency (at the end of the cycle), and will deliver better returns when the U.S. dollar is a funding currency (at the beginning of the cycle). Tactically, investors can use the momentum in volatility as a signal to enter or exit carry trades. Negative volatility momentum can be used as a long signal, while investors should exit their carry positions when volatility momentum becomes positive. While we have divided our rules into investment horizons, carry investors should use all rules in conjunction. The interest rate differential and the projected risk differential between countries can be used to establish an expected long-term rate of return to benchmark against. The position of U.S. rates within the distribution can be used to determine whether a high or low level of leverage is appropriate. Finally, the momentum in volatility can be used to assess entry or exit points from carry trades. What are all these signals telling us right now? The annualized rate of return of the interest rate component in carry strategies will likely remain low. This means that the long-term rate of return of carry strategies will remain at the low end of its historical distribution. Inflationary forces in the U.S. will continue to be greater than in the rest of the world. Thus, U.S. rates will remain at the top of the distribution, which means that leverage on carry strategies should be maintained at a minimum The momentum in volatility continue to be positive. This means investors should hold off from entering into carry trades, and instead wait for a better entry point. Juan Manuel Correa, Senior Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com 1 Story, Louise. "Hedge Fund Manager Describes Rock Bottom." The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 July 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/business/10fund.html. 2 Please see Fama, E.F. (1984) "Forward And Spot Exchange Rates" Journal of Monetary Economics, 14(3), 319-338 3 We use a multi-currency strategy, as academic research has shown that this method outperforms single currency strategies. For more details, please see "Multiple Currencies Investment Strategy To Take Advantage Of The Forward Bias," Haas School of Business, University of California Berkeley, BA 285/E285 International Finance, Student Project. 4 Carry strategies in the FX markets are normally implemented through buying (selling) forward rates with a forward discount (premium) 5 Please see Bussiere, M., Chinn, M., Ferrara, L.,& Heipertz, J. (2018) "The New Fama Puzzle" NBER Working Papers 6 The UIP theory makes the assumption that economic agents are risk neutral. Given this is not the case in reality, much work has been done to try to explain deviations from UIP with currency risk premiums. For more information please see Menkhoff, L., Sarno, L. , Schmeling, M. and Schrimpf, A. (2012), "Carry Trades and Global Foreign Exchange Volatility". The Journal of Finance, 67: 681-718. 7 This makes the Sharpe ratio deceptive as a measure of risk-reward for carry strategies, as this measure does not account for skew. 8 For a more detailed description about the relationship between unexpected jumps in volatility and carry returns please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Carry Trades: More Than Pennies And Steamrollers", dated May 6, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 9 We use 20-day and 200-day moving averages given that moving averages using these types of ranges tend to best capture the momentum in financial markets. For more details about momentum strategies please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies in Foreign Exchange Markets", dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Duration: The housing market is the key channel through which monetary policy impacts the economy. As such, it is unlikely that Treasury yields will peak until housing shows meaningful weakness. While residential investment has decelerated in recent quarters, we expect this weakness will prove temporary and that Treasury yields have further cyclical upside. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Yield Curve: The Fed will maintain its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace for the time being, but could be forced to pause next year if weak foreign growth migrates to the U.S. via a stronger dollar. We recommend hedging this risk via a long position in the 7-year bullet versus a short position in the 1/20 barbell. Corporate Health: Strong profit growth - both organic and as a result of corporate tax cuts - has led to a significant improvement in corporate balance sheet health during the past few quarters. This improvement will not persist for much longer. We recommend only a neutral allocation to corporate bonds, both investment grade and junk. Feature This time last week the 10-year Treasury yield was bumping up against 3% and money markets were on the cusp of discounting an extra rate hike between now and the end of 2019. Both resistance levels broke during the past seven days. The 10-year yield is now 3.07% and the January 2020 fed funds futures contract is fully priced for four rate hikes (Chart 1). Chart 1Past Resistance Levels With the 10-year yield back above 3%, many investors are once again speculating about where it will ultimately peak for the cycle. Any answer to this question relies on an assumption about the neutral fed funds rate, the level of interest rates above which monetary policy turns restrictive and acts to slow economic growth and inflation. In past reports we have suggested several measures investors can track to help decide whether interest rates are close to breaking above neutral.1 In this week's report we focus on one particularly important indicator - the housing market. In his essential 2007 paper "Housing Is The Business Cycle", Edward Leamer notes that of the ten post-WWII U.S. recessions, eight were preceded by a significant slowdown in residential investment.2 Given that recessions are also typically preceded by tightening monetary policy, it is not a stretch to connect the two. In fact, there is good reason to believe that housing is the main channel through which monetary policy impacts the economy. Since leverage is employed in the acquisition of new homes, interest rates impact the cost of homeownership more directly than other assets. A similar claim could be made about leveraged investment from the corporate sector, but business investment is also beholden to swings in expected future demand. Households can easily postpone the acquisition of a new home if the interest rate environment makes it uneconomical, businesses need to act when the market demands it. But most importantly, Leamer's paper demonstrates that, unlike residential investment, weaker business investment does not consistently provide advance warning of recession. The State Of U.S. Housing Turning to the data, we see that Leamer's claim is validated by the top panel of Chart 2. Residential investment tends to decline in the year preceding a U.S. recession. Housing starts and new home sales display a similar pattern (Chart 2, panels 2 & 3). Chart 2The Housing Market Predicts Recessions What's worrying is that residential investment has barely grown at all during the past year (Chart 2, bottom panel). If this weakness continues it would signal that interest rates are too high for the housing market, and that we are likely very close to the cyclical peak in bond yields. However, we doubt the current weakness will persist. For one, the recent decline in construction activity has been concentrated in the multi-family sector while single-family construction continues to expand at a steady rate (Chart 3). This could simply reflect a shift in demand away from multi-family toward single-family, reversing the trend witnessed between 2010 and 2012. It's possible that some households who were forced into the rental market in the aftermath of the Great Recession now find themselves able to switch back. But even if we focus on the multi-family sector exclusively, there is little reason to believe that construction will see significantly more downside. The rental vacancy rate remains very low, and the National Multi Housing Council's Survey of Apartment Market Conditions suggests that there is no strong upward or downward pressure on the vacancy rate at the moment (Chart 3, bottom 2 panels). The fact that single-family housing starts have not declined casts some doubt on the notion that higher mortgage rates are to blame for the deceleration in residential investment. This is further borne out by the fact that, while higher mortgage rates have certainly increased the cost of homeownership, mortgage payments as a percent of median income are not stretched compared to history (Chart 4). The demand back-drop for housing also remains robust, with household formation in a clear uptrend (Chart 4, panel 2) and homebuilders as optimistic as ever about future sales activity (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3A Temporary Weakness In Residential Investment Chart 4Higher Mortgage Rates Are Not The Culprit We conclude that interest rates are still too low to meaningfully impact the housing market. Residential investment will re-accelerate in the coming quarters and Treasury yields have plenty of room to rise before reaching their cyclical peak. Bottom Line: The housing market is the key channel through which monetary policy impacts the economy. As such, it is unlikely that Treasury yields will peak until housing shows meaningful weakness. While residential investment has decelerated in recent quarters, we expect this weakness will prove temporary and that Treasury yields have further cyclical upside. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. Hedging Weak Foreign Growth With Steepeners The resilience of the U.S. housing market makes it likely that interest rates will continue to rise for quite some time. However, this does not preclude weak foreign growth - and the resultant dollar strength - from forcing the Fed to slow its 25 basis point per quarter rate hike pace at some point during the next 6-12 months. In fact, we have flagged in recent reports that, since 1993, every time the Global (ex. U.S.) Leading Economic Indicator (LEI) has fallen below zero, the U.S. LEI has eventually followed (Chart 5).3 Unless foreign growth suddenly recovers, it is quite likely that dollar strength will drag the U.S. LEI lower in the first half of next year. At that point, the Fed may be forced to pause its rate hike cycle in order to take some shine off the dollar, allowing the recovery to continue. Chart 5Weak Global Growth Could Bring Down The U.S. Drops in the U.S. LEI to below zero almost always coincide with a recommendation for easier monetary policy from our Fed Monitor (Chart 5, bottom panel). Although one notable exception did occur in 2005. An examination of the three components of our Fed Monitor reveals that a falling LEI caused the economic growth component of our monitor to decline in 2005 (Chart 6). However, this was offset by an elevated inflation component and extremely easy financial conditions (Chart 6, bottom 2 panels). Chart 6The Three Components Of Our Fed Monitor As in 2005, inflation pressures are once again elevated and financial conditions remain accommodative. It follows that it could take a significant deterioration in economic growth before the Fed is forced to pause its 25 bps per quarter rate hike cycle, one that is not yet evident in the data. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the risk that weak foreign growth will infiltrate the U.S. via a stronger dollar, forcing the Fed to pause. With only two 25 basis point rate hikes currently discounted for 2019, some pause is already in the price. This makes us reluctant to advocate shifting away from below-benchmark portfolio duration. We think a better way to hedge the risk of a Fed pause is through yield curve steepeners. Since short-dated yields are more heavily influenced by the expected near-term pace of rate hikes than long-dated yields, any Fed pause will cause the yield curve to steepen. Steepeners are also very attractively priced at the moment, meaning that they should even perform well in a mild curve flattening environment.4 Our preferred method for implementing a curve steepener is to go long a bullet maturity near the middle of the curve and short a duration-matched barbell consisting of the very short and very long ends of the curve.5 With that in mind, we can determine the best yield curve trade to implement by answering the following two questions: Which bullet over barbell combination offers the most attractive value? Which bullet over barbell combination is most likely to outperform in the "Fed pause" scenario we are trying to hedge? In response to the first question, we consider the 2-year, 3-year, 5-year and 7-year bullet maturities all relative to a duration-matched 1/20 barbell. All of those butterfly spreads offer approximately the same yield pick-up (Chart 7). They also all offer approximately the same yield pick-up relative to our fair value models, which are based on regressions of the butterfly spread versus the 1/20 slope of the curve (Chart 8).6 To answer the second question, we try to identify which of the 2-year, 3-year, 5-year or 7-year yields is likely to decline the most in response to the market pricing-in a pause in Fed rate hikes. To do this we look at the historical correlations between different yield curve slopes and our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter - the change in the fed funds rate that is priced into the market for the next 12 months. The correlations are displayed in Chart 9, and they show that monthly changes in the 7/10 slope are almost always negatively correlated with monthly changes in the 12-month discounter. In other words, when the discounter falls, the 7-year yield falls by more than the 10-year yield. Chart 7Different Bullets, Similar Yield Pick-Up I Chart 8Different Bullets, Similar Yield Pick-Up II Chart 9Hedging The "Fed Pause" Scenario Monthly changes in the 5/7 slope are also usually negatively correlated with changes in the discounter, though the correlation has been closer to zero in recent years. This makes it difficult to say with certainty whether the 5-year or 7-year yield would fall by more in response to a decline in the discounter. Chart 9 also shows that changes in both the 2/3 and 3/5 slopes are positively correlated with changes in the 12-month discounter. This means that when the discounter falls, the 3-year yield falls by more than the 2-year yield and the 5-year yield falls by more than the 3-year yield. In general, we can safely conclude that the 5-year and 7-year bullets are better hedges against a Fed pause than the 2-year or 3-year bullets. The 7-year in particular appears to be a safe bet. Given that the differences in valuation between the different options are miniscule, we are inclined to maintain our current yield curve position: long the 7-year bullet and short the 1/20 barbell. This week we also close our recommendation to favor the 5/30 barbell over the 10-year bullet for a small loss of 2 bps. This trade was designed to hedge the risk of Fed overtightening leading to an inverted yield curve. This trade would underperform in the event of a Fed pause, which we now view as the greater risk. Bottom Line: The Fed will maintain its 25 bps per quarter rate hike pace for the time being, but could be forced to pause next year if weak foreign growth migrates to the U.S. via a stronger dollar. We recommend hedging this risk via a long position in the 7-year bullet versus a short position in the 1/20 barbell. Corporate Balance Sheet Reprieve Last week's release of the second quarter U.S. Financial Accounts (formerly Flow of Funds) allows us to update our indicators of nonfinancial corporate balance sheet health. Overall, there has been a significant improvement in our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) since the end of 2016. It has fallen from deep in "deteriorating health" territory to close to the "improving health" zone (Chart 10). By far, the biggest driver of the CHM's improvement has been the sharp increase in after-tax cash flows (Chart 10, panel 2). This is partly due to the recent corporate tax cuts, but also reflects a significant rebound in pre-tax cash flows (Chart 10, bottom panel). Despite the rebound in profits, we remain cautious on the outlook for corporate balance sheets going forward. First, our bottom-up samples of firms included in the investment grade and high-yield Bloomberg Barclays bond indexes both show that the median firm's net debt-to-EBITDA has improved in recent quarters, but remains elevated compared to history (Chart 11). Chart 10After-Tax Cash Flows Drive CHM Improvement Chart 11Debt Levels Still High Second, we see increasing headwinds to profit growth going forward. The positive impact from tax cuts is set to wane, while the stronger dollar and faster wage growth will both weigh on pre-tax profits during the next year.7 It is important to note that it will not take much deceleration in pre-tax profits for corporate balance sheets to worsen. Our measure of gross leverage - total debt over pre-tax profits - has only managed to flatten-off during the past few quarters, even as profit growth has surged. This means that the rapid gains in profits have only managed to keep pace with the rate of debt growth. Even a small deceleration in profits will cause leverage to rise, and rising leverage tends to occur alongside an increasing default rate (Chart 12). Chart 12Gross Leverage And Corporate Defaults Bottom Line: Strong profit growth - both organic and as a result of corporate tax cuts - has led to a significant improvement in corporate balance sheet health during the past few quarters. This improvement will not persist for much longer. We recommend only a neutral allocation to corporate bonds, both investment grade and junk. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Tracking The Two-Stage Treasury Bear", dated August 14, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2http://www.nber.org/papers/w13428 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "An Oasis Of Prosperity?", dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Playing Catch-Up", dated September 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresesarch.com 5 For further details on why we prefer this trade construction, please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bullets, Barbells And Butterflies", dated July 25, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 We calculate the butterfly spread as: the bullet yield minus the yield of the duration-matched barbell. 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Go To Neutral On Spread Product", dated June 26, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

特別レポート

Highlights The Global Golden Rule (GGR): The gap between market expectations of global central bank policy rates and realized interest rate outcomes is a reliable predictor of government bond returns. Thus, "getting the policymaker call right" is the key to outperformance for bond investors. Implied Government Bond Yields: Given the strong correlation between policy rate surprises and government bond yield changes, we can use the GGR to forecast yields one year from now based on our own assumptions of how many rate hikes (cuts) will be delivered versus what is discounted in money market yield curves. Total Return Forecasts: We can use implied government bond yield changes from the GGR to generate expected 12-month total returns for government bond indexes of different maturities, taking into account different rate hike assumptions for various central banks. Feature Chart 1Global Monetary Divergences? This month marked the ten-year anniversary of the 2008 Lehman Brothers default, which set off a worldwide financial crisis and a massive easing of global monetary policy. Extraordinary measures - zero (or negative) interest rates, large-scale asset purchases and dovish forward guidance from policymakers - were all successful in suppressing both global bond yields and volatility over time, helping the global economy slowly heal from the crisis. Now, a decade later, such hyper-easy monetary policies are no longer required given low unemployment rates and rising inflation in the major developed economies. That can be seen today with the Federal Reserve shifting to "quantitative tightening" (letting bonds run off its swollen balance sheet) alongside steady rate hikes, the European Central Bank (ECB) set to stop net new buying of euro area bonds at year-end, and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) dramatically slowing its pace of asset purchases. BCA's Central Bank Monitors, which assess the cyclical pressure on policymakers to tighten or ease monetary policy, have collectively been calling for interest rate increases since the start of 2017. Yet our Central Bank Monetary Barometer, which measures the percentage of central banks that have tightened policy over the previous three months, shows that only 1 in 5 banks have actually delivered rate hikes of late (Chart 1). Thus, the risks are tilted towards more countries moving away from highly accommodative monetary conditions given tightening labor markets and rising inflation pressures. This now-global shift towards policy normalization has major implications for global bond investing. The focus is now returning back to more traditional drivers of government bond returns, like changes in central bank policy rates. We recently shared a Special Report published by our colleagues at our sister BCA service, U.S. Bond Strategy, describing a methodology they dubbed "The Golden Rule of Bond Investing".1 That report introduced a numerical framework that translates actual changes in the U.S. fed funds rate relative to market expectations into return forecasts for U.S. Treasuries. The historical results convincingly showed that investors who "get the Fed right" by making correct bets on changes in the funds rate versus expectations were very likely to make the right call on the direction of Treasury yields. In this Special Report, we extend that Golden Rule analysis to government bonds in the other major developed markets (DM). Our conclusion is that utilizing a "Global Golden Rule" (GGR) framework that links bond returns to unexpected changes in policy rates can help bond investors correctly forecast changes in non-U.S. bond yields. The report is set up in two sections. First, we illustrate how the GGR works and how it empirically tends to generally succeed over time for different DM bond markets. In the second section, we make use of the GGR to generate expected return forecasts for non-U.S. government bonds for a variety of interest rate "surprise" scenarios. ECB Policy Rate Surprises Dovish surprises from the ECB do reliably coincide with positive German government bond excess returns versus cash (Chart 2A). Chart 2AECB Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 2BECB Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II The 12-month ECB policy rate surprise and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays German Treasury index yield displays a strong positive correlation (Chart 2B). The excess returns during periods of dovish surprises is 14.4% on average and are positive 85% of the time. Hawkish surprises on the other hand, coincide with negative average excess returns of -1.5% (Chart 2C). In terms of total return, the picture is roughly the same except that under hawkish surprises, the average total return you would expect is now positive, given that it factors in coupon income (Chart 2D). Chart 2CGermany: Government Bond Index Excess Return & ECB Policy Rate Surprises (2004 - Present) Chart 2DGermany: Government Bond Index Total Return & ECB Policy Rate Surprises (2004 - Present) Table 1Germany: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (2004 - Present) Looking ahead, the ECB should not deviate from its current dovish forward guidance of no interest rate hikes until at least the third quarter of 2019. That is somewhat consistent with the reading of the ECB monitor being almost equal to zero. Bank Of England (BoE) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR works well for the U.K. as can be seen in Chart 3A. Chart 3ABoE Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 3BBoE Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II The 12-month BoE policy rate surprise and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays U.K. Treasury index yield displays a strong positive correlation except for a major divergence in 1997-1998 (Chart 3B). Dovish surprises coincide with positive excess returns over cash 78% of the time and are on average equal to 6.2% over the full sample (Chart 3C and Chart 3D). As you would expect if the GGR applies, hawkish surprises coincide with negative excess returns. Chart 3CU.K.: Government Bond Index Excess Return & BoE Policy Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Chart 3DU.K.: Government Bond Index Total Return & BoE Policy Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Table 2U.K.: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Looking ahead, outcomes will be biased toward dovish surprises over the next six months given the uncertain outcome of the U.K.-E.U. Brexit negotiations. Against that backdrop, the BoE will remain accommodative despite inflationary pressures building up. Bank Of Japan (BoJ) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR does not seem to work when it comes to the Japanese bond market. This reflects the fact that both the markets and the Bank of Japan (BoJ) have understood that chronic low inflation has required no changes in BoJ policy rates (Chart 4A, second panel). Chart 4ABoJ Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 4BBoJ Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II While the 12-month BoJ policy rate surprise and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays Japan Treasury index yield displayed a strong positive correlation pre-1998, the correlation has broken down since then (Chart 4B). Negative excess returns over cash both coincide with dovish and hawkish surprises, on average over time. Further, dovish surprises coincide with positive excess returns only 45% of the time (Chart 4C and Chart 4D). Chart 4CJapan: Government Bond Index Excess Return & BoJ Policy Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Chart 4DJapan: Government Bond Index Total Return & BoJ Policy Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Table 3Japan: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Looking ahead, given that the BoJ will in all likelihood maintain its ultra-accommodative monetary policy stance in the near future, we do not expect the GGR to become more effective when applied to the Japanese bond market. Bank Of Canada (BoC) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR works relatively well for the Canadian bond market (Chart 5A). Chart 5ABoC Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 5BBoC Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II We observe a tight correlation between 12-month BoC policy rate surprises and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays Canada Treasury index yield, especially post-2010 (Chart 5B). Dovish surprises coincide with positive excess returns 81% of the time and 94% of the time if we look at total returns (Chart 5C and Chart 5D). Chart 5CCanada: Government Bond Index Excess Return & BoC Policy Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Chart 5DCanada: Government Bond Index Total Return & BoC Policy Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Table 4Canada: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (1993 - Present) Looking ahead, the BoC will most likely continue to follow the tightening path of the Federal Reserve, admittedly with a lag. However, accelerating inflation at a time when there is no spare capacity in the Canadian economy suggests that the BoC could deliver more rate hikes than are already priced for the next 12 months. As shown in Table 4, hawkish surprises from the BoC do coincide with negative monthly excess returns of -2.8%. Reserve Bank Of Australia (RBA) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR applies extremely well to the Australian bond market (Chart 6A). Chart 6ARBA Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 6BRBA Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II The 12-month RBA policy rate surprise and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays Australia Treasury index yield displays the tightest correlation out of all the countries covered (Chart 6B). Dovish surprises coincide with positive excess returns 83% of the time and 96% of the time if we look at total returns (Chart 6C and Chart 6D). Turning to hawkish surprises, they reliably coincide with negative excess returns. Chart 6CAustralia: Government Bond Index Excess Return & RBA Policy Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Chart 6DAustralia: Government Bond Index Total Return & RBA Policy Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) Table 5Australia: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (1994 - Present) As can be seen on the bottom panel of Chart 6A, the RBA Monitor has been rapidly falling since 2016 and now stands in the "easier monetary policy" required. However, the RBA will likely have to see a rise in unemployment or a decline in realized inflation before it considers cutting rates, which raises a risk of "hawkish" surprises if the market begins to price in rate cuts. Reserve Bank Of New Zealand (RBNZ) Policy Rate Surprises The GGR works fairly well for Nez Zealand (NZ) government bonds (Chart 7A). Chart 7ARBNZ Policy Rate Surprise & Yields I Chart 7BRBNZ Policy Rate Surprise & Yields II 12-month RBNZ policy rate surprises and the 12-month change in the Bloomberg Barclays NZ Treasury yield exhibit a decent correlation (Chart 7B). Unusually, NZ is the only bond market covered in this report where both dovish and hawkish surprises coincide with positive excess returns on average, although positive episodes are much less frequent for hawkish surprises than for dovish surprises; respectively 55% and 86% (Chart 7C and Chart 7D). Chart 7CNZ: Government Bond Index Excess Return & RBNZ Policy Rate Surprises (2000 - Present) Chart 7DNZ: Government Bond Index Total Return & RBNZ Policy Rate Surprises (2000 - Present) Table 6New Zealand: 12-Month Government Bond Index Returns And Rate Surprises (2000 - Present) Looking ahead, the RBNZ has already provided forward guidance indicating that the Overnight Cash Rate (OCR) will most likely stay flat until 2020 - an assessment that we agree with, so the odds are against any policy surprises over at least the next 6-12 months. Using The Global Golden Rule To Forecast Government Bond Returns The practical application of the GGR is that it can be used as a framework for generating expected changes in yields and calculating total return forecasts for global government bond indices. The strong correlation demonstrated in the previous section between the 12-month policy rate surprises and the 12-month change in the average yield from the government bond indexes allows us to translate our "assumed" policy rate surprise over the next 12 months into expected changes in yields along the curve. With these expected yield changes, we can simply generate expected total returns using the following formula: Expected Total Return = Yield - (Duration*Expected Change In Yield) + 0.5*Convexity*E(DY2) E(DY2) = 1-year trailing estimate of yield volatility It is important to note that we would not give too much importance to what this analysis yields for longer-dated bonds. As shown in the Appendices, once we move into longer government bond maturities, the correlation between the policy rate surprise and the change in yields declines or even becomes non-existent for some countries. This result should not be surprising, as longer-term yields are driven by other factors besides simply changes in interest rate expectations. Inflation expectations, government debt levels and demand from longer-term investors like pension funds all can have a more outsized influence on the path of longer-term bond yields relative to the shorter-end. That results in much more uncertainty when it comes to the total return forecasts for long-dated maturities calculated with this framework. Practically speaking, we are not encouraging our readers to blindly follow that yield and return expectations generated by the GGR, even for bond markets where it clearly seems to be working over time. Rather, the GGR can be integrated in a larger asset-allocation framework for a global fixed-income portfolio by providing one possible set of bond market outcomes. On a total return basis, the results presented below, interpreted alongside the readings on the BCA Central Bank monitors, suggest that investors should be underweight core Euro Area (Germany, France and Italy), Australia and New Zealand while remaining overweight the U.K. and Canada over the next twelve months. As for Japan, given the likelihood that BoJ will leave its policy rate flat, the results hint at a neutral allocation. Jeremie Peloso, Research Analyst jeremie@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing", dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook: Divergences Opening Up," dated September 19, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Global Golden Rule: Germany In light of the forward guidance ECB President Mario Draghi has been providing to the markets, it appears that the most likely scenario over the next 12 months is for the ECB to keep interest rates on hold. Based on the strong relationships between 12-month ECB policy rate surprises and 12-month changes in yields along the curve (Appendix A), a flat interest rate scenario would be bond bearish for German government bonds especially at the short end of the curve with the 1-year German yield expected to rise by 16bps (Table 7A). Table 7AGermany: Expected Changes In Bund Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) Using the expected change in yields thus inferred by the policy rate surprise, the German government bond aggregate index is forecasted to return 0.45% over the next 12 months (Table 7B). Table 7BGermany: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: U.K. Markets are currently discounting only 21bps of rate hikes in the U.K. over the next year. Thus, even a scenario where the BoE delivers only a single 25bp rate hike would be bearish for U.K. Gilts, especially at the short-end of the curve. Applying the GGR, 1- and 3-year Gilt yields would be expected to rise by 20bps and 10bps respectively (Table 8A). Table 8AU.K.: Expected Changes In Gilt Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) Interpolating these expected yield changes, the 1-3 year government bond index total return forecast would be 0.46%. On the other hand, if the BoE prefers to keep rates on hold given the uncertainty of the Brexit outcome, that same 1-3 year government bond index is forecasted to deliver 0.97% of total return over the next 12 months (Table 9B). This is our current base case scenario for Gilts. Table 8BU.K.: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: Japan Despite many rumors to the contrary earlier this year, the base case view remains that the BoJ will not change its stance on monetary policy anytime soon. As such, the expected changes in JGB yields under a flat interest rate scenario over the next 12 months are close to zero at the short end of the curve and rather bond bullish at the longer end of the curve; for instance, the 30-year JGB yield would be expected to rally by 9bps (Table 9A). Table 9AJapan: Expected Changes In JGB Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) In that most likely scenario, the Japanese government bond index is forecasted to deliver 0.83% of total return over the next 12 months. In the event that the BoJ surprises the markets by delivering one rate hike of 25bps, it would be bond bearish for JGBs and the total return forecasts for the government bond indices would be negative, regardless of the maturity (Table 9B). Table 9BJapan: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: Canada Will the Bank of Canada follow the footsteps of the Fed? The markets certainly seem to think so, with more than three 25bps rate hikes priced in for next 12 months in the OIS curve. Table 10ACanada: Expected Changes In Government Bond Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) That scenario would be outright bearish for Canadian government bonds, with 1- and 2-year yields rising by 16bps and 21bps, respectively (Table 10A). In terms of total returns, the GGR framework forecasts that with 75bps of rate hikes, the Canadian government bond aggregate index would deliver a positive return of 2.35% (Table 10B). This is because 75bps of hikes are currently discounted in the Canadian OIS curve, thus it would neither be a hawkish nor dovish surprise. Table 10BCanada: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: Australia The RBA Monitor just dipped below the zero line, implying that easier monetary policy is required based on financial and economic data. Table 11A shows that a rate cut delivered by the RBA in the next 12 months would be bond bullish for Aussie yields, especially at the long end of the curve, where the 30-year Aussie bond yield would fall by 34bps. Table 11AAustralia: Expected Changes In Aussie Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) Of all the interest rate scenarios presented in Table 11B, the two rate cut scenarios would return the highest total returns. For instance, the Australian government bond aggregate index would return 2.80% and 3.90% in the event of one and two 25bps rate hikes, respectively. Table 11BAustralia: Government Bond Index Total Return Forecasts Over The Next 12 Months Global Golden Rule: New Zealand Our view is that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand will stay on hold for a while longer, which is broadly the same message conveyed by the RBNZ Monitor being positive, but very close to 0. With that in mind, a flat interest rate scenario appears to be bond bearish for the NZ bond yields, except for the longer end of the curve (Table 12A). Table 12ANew Zealand: Expected Changes In NZ Yields Over The Next 12 Months (BPs) Table 12BNew Zealand: Government Bond Index Total For New Zealand, the government bond aggregate bond index is the only index provided by Bloomberg Barclays, as opposed to the other countries in our analysis where different maturities are given. In the flat interest rate scenario, the total return forecast for the overall index would be of 2.53% over the next 12 months. Appendix A: Germany Chart 1Change In 1-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 2Change In 2-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 3Change In 3-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 4Change In 5-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 5Change In 7-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 6Change In 10-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 7Change In 30-Year German Bund Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Appendix B: France Chart 8Change In 1-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 9Change In 2-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 10Change In 3-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 11Change In 5-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 12Change In 7-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 13Change In 10-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 14Change In 30-Year French OAT Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Appendix C: Italy Chart 15Change In 1-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 16Change In 2-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 17Change In 3-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 18Change In 5-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 19Change In 7-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 20Change In 10-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Chart 21Change In 30-Year Italian Gov't Bond Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month ECB Policy Rate Surprise Appendix D: U.K. Chart 22Change In 1-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 23Change In 2-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 24Change In 3-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 25Change In 5-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 26Change In 7-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 27Change In 10-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Chart 28Change In 30-Year Gilts Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoE Policy Rate Surprise Appendix E: Japan Chart 29Change In 1-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 30Change In 2-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 31Change In 3-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 32Change In 5-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 33Change In 7-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 34Change In 10-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 35Change In 30-Year Japanese JGB Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoJ Policy Rate Surprise Appendix F: Canada Chart 36Change In 1-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 37Change In 2-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 38Change In 3-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 39Change In 5-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 40Change In 7-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 41Change In 10-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Chart 42Change In 30-Year Canadian Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month BoC Policy Rate Surprise Appendix G: Australia Chart 43Change In 1-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 44Change In 2-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 45Change In 3-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 46Change In 5-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 47Change In 7-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Chart 48Change In 10-Year Aussie Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBA Policy Rate Surprise Appendix H: New Zealand Chart 49Change In 1-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 50Change In 2-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 51Change In 3-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 52Change In 5-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 53Change In 7-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise Chart 54Change In 10-Year NZ Yield##BR##Vs. 12-Month RBNZ Policy Rate Surprise

特別レポート

Highlights Rates are going higher ... : Flight-to-quality episodes aside, the bond bear market that began in July 2016 remains in force. Investors should maintain below-benchmark Treasury duration. ... but that doesn't necessarily spell immediate trouble for stocks: Consistent with our work on the fed funds rate cycle, it appears that the level of rates matters more for equity returns than their direction. Empirical evidence of a rates tipping point is elusive ... : The notion that investors migrate from stocks to bonds at a particular level of rates exerts a powerful intuitive appeal, but the data fail to validate it. ... but a 10-year yield Treasury of 3.75 - 4% might halt the bull market in its tracks: Higher rates reliably slow equities only when they rise enough to slow the economy. We estimate that the pinch point is somewhere in the neighborhood of a 3.75 - 4% 10-year Treasury yield. Feature A share of stock is a pro rata claim on the future earnings of the company that issued it. Holding future earnings constant, the price an investor will be willing to pay for a share is wholly a function of the rate used to discount its earnings back to the present day. The simplicity and ubiquity of this valuation approach suggest that equity returns should be predictably related to moves in interest rates. It may also point the way to a tipping point - either in the level of rates, or the magnitude of their rise - at which capital and savings migrate from stocks to bonds. This Special Report reviews the historical record to see how U.S. equities have interacted with real 10-year Treasury yields. It considers the key variables that would logically seem to bear on equity performance and investors' propensity to rotate between asset classes. We find that the relationship between rates and equity returns is conditional, depending on which crosscurrent dominates in any given episode. We did not uncover any predictable rotation pattern. Do The Math As noted above, valuing a stream of future cash flows is a simple mechanical process once one settles on an appropriate discount rate for converting future dollars to current dollars. According to the security analysis textbooks, then, moves in stock prices are inversely related to changes in interest rates. But the textbooks leave out one key point: changes in interest rates don't occur in a vacuum. When they change, earnings estimates are likely to change, too, most often in the same direction as real rates. To be sure, the denominator discounting future cash flows rises when real rates rise, but the future-earnings numerator most likely rises, too. If real rates are rising, the economy is probably gaining momentum, and earnings estimates should probably be revised higher as well. Conversely, falling rates lead to a higher earnings multiple (ex-the not insignificant animal-spirits wild card), but will regularly be accompanied by downward revisions in future earnings. The net effect is uncertain, and depends on whether the multiple change outweighs the change in earnings or vice versa. Bonds Are A Snap Compared To Stocks It's far simpler to compute the impact on a bond portfolio from a given increase in interest rates because the denominator is the only variable that changes. The future-cash-flows numerator is contractually fixed, and it takes a big shift in the state of the economy to spark an economy-wide change in perceived repayment potential.1 This is why bonds' sensitivity to changes in interest rates can be captured in a single universal metric (duration). Stocks are pulled in so many different directions by factors affecting future cash flows that duration has no equity analogue. Investors should therefore be cautious about pinning too much on interest rates as they relate to equities. Bonds move in fixed orbits around the interest-rate sun, according to strictly ordered rules that establish a very clear cause-and-effect relationship. Equities improvise as they go along, taking their cues from a rotating cast of variables that interact differently over time. Attempts to stretch the concept of interest-rate sensitivity beyond bonds regularly trip up equity investors; we cannot know in advance how rates will come together with the other factors that influence equities. Confounding Intuition, Part 1: Equities Prefer Rising Rates (And Multiples Don't Care) U.S. postwar history makes it clear that equity investors need not run from rising rates. The S&P 500 has fared considerably better when real 10-year yields have risen by at least 100 basis points ("bps") than it has when they've declined by that magnitude (Chart 1), gaining 9.4% and 5%, respectively (Chart 2). Rates do not exhibit any sort of a consistent relationship with either forward (Chart 3) or trailing (Chart 4) S&P 500 multiples, though extremely high and extremely low real yields are both associated with lower trailing P/Es. Negative real yields carry an unwelcome whiff of deflation, and their scatterplot data points tend to cluster at below-the-mean forward and trailing multiples. Chart 1Stocks Actually Do Better When Rates Rise ... Chart 2... Considerably Better When Do Higher Rates Hurt The Economy? Charts 3 and 4 show that both forward and trailing multiples almost always decline when real 10-year Treasury yields cross above 5%. What's bad for multiples isn't necessarily bad for earnings, however, and a 5% real threshold is irrelevant to today's cycle. The steady decline in the average fed funds rate over the last several completed cycles (Chart 5) makes it clear that neutral rate thresholds are not constant across time periods. Assessing interest rates' impact on the economy over time requires a sliding scale. Chart 3Hard To See A Trend Through The Windshield ... Chart 4... Or The Rear-View Mirror Estimates of potential economic growth provide a useful yardstick for measuring the impact of real yields. Comparing real long rates to potential output offers insight into the burden of servicing debt across the economy. If real rates exceed the economy's potential growth rate by a material amount, several marginal borrowers are likely to be gasping for air, and their travails will weigh on the economy. Conversely, servicing debt should be easy when real rates are below potential growth, and investors are more likely to invest, businesses are more likely to expand, and consumers are more likely to spend. Chart 5One Size Does Not Fit All There have been 22 instances in the postwar era when real 10-year Treasury yields have increased by at least 100 bps, and Table 1 lists all of them, grouped by their relationship to real GDP's potential five-year growth rate. There are three possible states for interest rate increases in relation to potential output: starting and ending below trend growth, starting below trend growth and ending above it, and starting and ending above trend. The S&P 500 comfortably tops its overall postwar returns when rates go from Below-to-Below and Below-to-Above, but declines outright when rates start above potential growth and go even higher. Earnings consistently rise when rates start below potential growth, making multiples the swing factor - when they expand, S&P 500 gains tend to be very large (Box 1). Table 1Real Rates Versus Potential GDP Growth Box 1 Decomposing S&P 500 Returns Table 2 details the decomposition of S&P 500 returns during rising real rate episodes occurring after S&P 500 earnings estimates began to be compiled in 1979. Except in the crucible of 2009, when they were flat, forward earnings estimates have always risen when rates rise from a below-trend starting point, putting a tailwind behind the S&P 500 that regularly overcomes the multiple contraction that occurs in half of the Below/Above instances. Multiples are the swing factor; when they expand in conjunction with rising earnings estimates, U.S. equities soar. They always contract when rates go from high to higher, dragging stocks down against a mixed earnings expectations backdrop. The action is consistent with our fed funds rate cycle work: stocks do best when rates are below equilibrium and falling because earnings and multiples expand in tandem in that setting, but they do nearly as well after rate hikes commence, in spite of multiple contraction. Earnings surge when the Fed is confident enough about the economy to embark on a tightening cycle, but has not yet hiked enough to choke off the expansion. Multiple expansion in a majority of the Below/Above instances reveals that investors do not rotate out of equities en masse when rates rise, even by a considerable amount. The rotation story has intuitive appeal, but it doesn't show up in these data. Table 2Decomposition Of S&P 500 Returns During Rising Rate Periods A Little More Slicing And Dicing (Potential GDP Matters) Chart 6Mind The Gap Defining Below-to-Below and Below-to-Above states is easy in hindsight, but an investor cannot know in real time where a rising-rate instance that begins with rates below potential output will end. Earnings rise no matter where rates end relative to potential GDP, but re-rating in Below/Below can flip to de-rating in Below/Above, slamming the brakes on phase gains. The empirical data say investors should lighten up on S&P 500 exposure when real rates cross above real potential GDP. S&P 500 returns trounce their overall postwar gain when rates rise from below potential GDP to potential GDP but lag it once rates cross above potential GDP (Chart 6). Confounding Intuition, Part 2: Institutional Investors Don't Rotate Even if S&P 500 returns fail to demonstrate any consistent relationship with interest rates, one would expect that professional investors' asset-class positioning would. Bonds and stocks are alternatives for one another, and institutional investors presumably shift their allocations in line with the asset classes' relative prospects. We examine Pension Funds', Life Insurers', and Mutual Funds' asset-allocation profiles over time using balance-sheet data from the Federal Reserve's quarterly Flow of Funds report. The data show that asset-allocation decisions are made without apparent regard for relative valuations, at least as proxied by the equity risk premium. Pension funds' steady increase in equity allocations across the '90s appears to have been less a function of rate moves than buying into the bull market (Chart 7). Since the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, bond and equity allocations have mainly reflected the performance tides. The extended trend in pension funds' equity-to-bond allocation ratio suggests that the funds set a long-range goal and grind steadily toward achieving it, regardless of relative valuation movements. It also suggests that the funds may not bother with rebalancing, much less dynamic asset allocation. Life insurers kept their fixed income and equity allocations more or less fixed across the '70s (not shown) and most of the '80s. They then reduced equity exposure for three years after 1987's Black Monday, assiduously built it up across the '90s, and have more or less let it drift since the millennium (Chart 8). The equity risk premium does not appear to have been a consideration. Asset-allocation stasis may simply be a reflection of life insurers' stringent regulatory constraints, but their portfolio managers' limited discretion precludes opportunistic allocation shifts. Mutual fund allocations tend to depend much more on past events than future expectations. Equity holdings peak when the equity risk premium bottoms and bottom when the equity risk premium peaks (Chart 9). The problem is that mutual fund managers are structurally hostage to their investors' whims. They are sorted into narrow silos and then straitjacketed by the rigid allocation rules written into their fund prospectuses. Even if they think asset-class rotation is a great idea, only a tiny minority of fund managers can act upon it. Chart 7Pension Funds Don't Allocate Based On Yields Or The ERP ... Chart 8... While Life Insurers Appear To Allocate In Defiance Of Them Chart 9Mutual Funds##BR##Obey Their Owners ... Confounding Darwin's Intuition: Human Investors Never Learn Chart 10... Who Act On Real Emotion, Not Real Yields Kahneman and Tversky's groundbreaking research into decision-making under uncertainty revealed that our species is wired to make suboptimal investment decisions. Prospect theory, loss aversion and an unhealthy fixation on recent data all encourage retail investors to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot. When it comes to asset allocation, households appear to focus exclusively on the action in the rear-view mirror (Chart 10). Retail investors as a group rotate between equities and fixed income retroactively, in response to recent past returns, not proactively in response to cues about future relative-return prospects. Investment Implications Despite the compelling intuition that investors should set their course by the interest-rate stars, there is no evidence in the flow of funds data that they have done so in the past. We posit that structural constraints on institutional investors, combined with humans' durable cognitive biases, offer no reason to expect that they will do so in the future. While there may not be any predictable rotation pattern, rising rates have given rise to a predictable performance pattern. Equities reliably perform better when real rates are rising by at least 100 basis points than they do when they're falling. Decomposition of S&P 500 returns indicates that the pattern holds because earnings rise a good bit more in rising-rate periods than multiples decline. And multiples don't always decline when rates rise, anyway; sometimes emotion overrides cash flow discounting mechanics. Investors should lighten up on Treasury allocations, while keeping the exposures they do hold at below-benchmark duration. They should not flee equities, however. Rates have not yet risen enough to cool off the economy in any material way, and we judge that they won't until somewhere around a 3.75% 10-year Treasury yield.2 Tight supplies in labor and goods markets will eventually stoke realized inflation and provoke the Fed into tightening enough to cut off the rally, but it hasn't happened yet, and it is far too early to de-risk portfolios on account of interest rates. Doug Peta, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 An unusually large drop in rates may well be associated with economic distress, but default-adjusted bond payment streams are much less variable than near- and intermediate-term earnings estimates. 2 Based on the evolution of the Congressional Budget Office's longer-run estimates of real potential GDP growth, and the trend in our own model of long-term inflation expectations, it appears as if nominal potential GDP growth will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.75-4% next year. This is a much lower estimate than one would get from adding the Fed's 2% inflation target to the current rate of GDP growth, but we need to look past the immediate boost of the stimulus package to get a read on its longer-run effects. As with all of the estimates produced by our models, we look to it for a general guide to the future, not a precise point estimate.

Highlights We review last year's "Three Tantalizing Trades" and offer four additional ones: Trade #1: Long June 2019 Fed funds futures contract/short Dec 2020 Fed funds futures contract Trade #2: Long USD/CNY Trade #3: Short AUD/CAD Trade #4: Long EM stocks with near-term downside put protection Feature A Review Of Last Year's "Three Tantalizing Trades" I had the pleasure of speaking at BCA's last Annual Investment Conference on September 25th, 2017, where I presented the following three trade ideas (Chart 1): 1. Short December 2018 Fed funds futures We closed this trade for a profit of 70 basis points. Had we held on, it would be up 92 basis points as of the time of this writing. 2. Long global industrial equities/short utilities We closed this trade on February 1st for a gain of 12%, as downside risks to global growth began to mount. This proved to be a timely decision, as the trade would be up only 6.1% had we kept it on. We would not re-enter this trade at present. 3. Short 20-year JGBs/long 5-year JGBs This trade struggled for much of 2018 but sprung back to life in August. It is up 0.6% since we initiated it. We still like the trade over the long haul. Investors are grossly underestimating the risk that Japanese inflation will move materially higher as an aging population creates a shortage of workers and a concomitant decline in the national savings rate. We also think the government will try to egg on any acceleration in consumer prices in order to inflate away its debt burden. In the near term, however, the trade could struggle if a combination of weaker EM growth and an increase in the value of the trade-weighted yen cause inflation expectations to decline. Four Additional Trades Trade #1: Long June 2019 Fed funds futures contract/short December 2020 Fed funds futures contract Investors expect U.S. short-term rates to rise to 2.38% by the end of 2018 and 2.85% by the end of 2019. The 47 basis points in tightening priced in for next year is less than the 75 basis points in hikes implied by the Fed dots. Investors appear to have bought into Larry Summers' secular stagnation thesis. They are convinced that short rates will not be able to rise above 3% without triggering a recession (Chart 2). Chart 1Revisiting Last Year's Three Tantalizing Trades Chart 2Markets Expect No Fed Hikes Beyond Next Year Regardless of what one thinks of Summers' thesis, it must be acknowledged that it is a theory about the long-term drivers of the neutral rate of interest. Over a shorter-term cyclical horizon, many factors can influence the neutral rate. Critically, most of these factors are pushing it higher: Fiscal policy is extremely stimulative. The IMF estimates that the U.S. cyclically-adjusted budget deficit will reach 6.8% of GDP in 2019 compared to 3.6% of GDP in 2015. In contrast, the euro area is projected to run a deficit of only 0.8% of GDP next year, little changed from a deficit of 0.9% it ran in 2015 (Chart 3). The relatively more expansionary nature of U.S. fiscal policy is one key reason why the Fed can raise rates while the ECB cannot. Credit growth has picked up. After a prolonged deleveraging cycle, private-sector nonfinancial debt is rising faster than GDP (Chart 4). The recent easing in The Conference Board's Leading Credit Index suggests that this trend will continue (Chart 5). Wage growth is accelerating. Average hourly earnings surprised on the upside in August, with the year-over-year change rising to a cycle high of 2.9%. This followed a stronger reading in the Employment Cost Index in the second quarter. A simple correlation with the quits rate suggests that there is plenty of upside for wage growth (Chart 6). Faster wage growth will put more money into workers pockets who will then spend it. The savings rate has scope to fall. The personal savings rate currently stands at 6.7%, more than two percentage points higher than what one would expect based on the current ratio of household net worth-to-disposable income (Chart 7). If the savings rate were to fall by two points over the next two years, it would add 1.5% of GDP to aggregate demand. Chart 3U.S. Fiscal Policy Is More Expansionary Than The Euro Area Chart 4U.S. Private-Sector Nonfinancial Debt Is Rising At Close To Its Historic Trend Chart 5U.S. Credit Growth Will Remain Strong Chart 6Quits Rate Is Signaling That There Is Upside For Wage Growth Chart 7The Personal Savings Rate Has Room To Fall A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that these cyclical factors will permit the Fed to raise rates to 5% by 2020, almost double what the market is discounting.1 A more hawkish-than-expected Fed will bid up the value of the greenback. A stronger dollar, in turn, will undermine emerging markets, which have seen foreign-currency debts balloon over the past six years (Chart 8). The deflationary effects of a stronger dollar and falling commodity prices could temporarily cause investors to price out some hikes over the next few quarters. With that in mind, we recommend shorting the December 2020 Fed funds futures contract, while going long the June 2019 contract. The first leg of the trade captures our expectation that the market will revise up its estimate the terminal rate, while the second leg captures near-term risks to global growth. The gap between the two contracts has widened over the past few days as we have prepared this report, but at 21 basis points, it has plenty of room to increase further (Chart 9). Chart 8EM Dollar Debt Is High Chart 9U.S. Rate Expectations Are Too Low Beyond Mid-2019 Trade #2: Long USD/CNY China's economy is slowing, which has prompted the government to inject liquidity into the financial system. The spread in 1-year swap rates between the U.S. and China has fallen from about 3% earlier this year to 0.6% at present, taking the yuan down with it (Chart 10). It is doubtful that China will be willing to match - let alone exceed - U.S. rate hikes. This suggests that USD/CNY will appreciate. China's real trade-weighted exchange rate has weakened during the past four months, but is up 25% over the past decade (Chart 11). U.S. tariffs on $250 billion (and counting) of Chinese imports threaten to erode export competitiveness, making a further devaluation necessary. Chart 10USD/CNY Has Tracked China-U.S. Interest Rate Differentials Chart 11The RMB Is Still Quite Strong President Trump will oppose a weaker yuan. However, just as China's actions earlier this year to strengthen its currency did not prevent the U.S. from imposing tariffs, it is doubtful that efforts by the Chinese authorities to talk up the yuan would appease Trump. Besides, China needs a weaker currency. The Chinese economy produces too much and spends too little. The result is excess savings, epitomized most clearly in a national savings rate of 46%. As a matter of arithmetic, national savings need to be transformed either into domestic investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus. China has concentrated on the former strategy over the past decade. The problem is that this approach has run into diminishing returns. Chart 12 shows that the capital stock has risen dramatically as a share of GDP. As my colleague Jonathan LaBerge has documented, the rate of return on assets among Chinese state-owned companies, which have been the main driver of rising corporate leverage, has fallen below their borrowing costs (Chart 13).2 Chart 12China's Capital Stock Has Grown Alongside Rising Debt Levels Chart 13China: Rate Of Return On Assets Below Borrowing Costs For State-Owned Companies Now that the economy is awash in excess capacity, the authorities will need to steer more excess production abroad. This will require a larger current account surplus which, in turn, will necessitate a relatively cheap currency. The dollar is currently working off overbought technical conditions, a risk we flagged in our August 31st report.3 That process should be complete over the next few weeks. Meanwhile, hopes of a massive Chinese stimulus focused on fiscal/credit easing will fade. The combination of these two forces will push up USD/CNY above the psychologically-critical 7 handle by the end of the year. Trade #3: Short AUD/CAD A weaker yuan will raise raw material costs to Chinese firms. This will hurt commodity prices. Industrial metals are much more vulnerable to slower Chinese growth than oil. Chart 14 shows that China consumes close to half of all the copper, nickel, aluminum, zinc, and iron ore produced in the world, compared to only 15% of oil output. Our expectation that developed economy growth will hold up better than EM growth over the next few quarters implies that oil will outperform industrial metals. Oil is also supported by a tighter supply backdrop, particularly given the downside risks to Iranian and Venezuelan crude exports. A bet on oil over metals is a bet on DM over EM growth in general, and the Canadian dollar over the Australian dollar specifically (Chart 15). Canada exports more oil than metals, while Australian exports are dominated by ores and metals. In terms of valuations, the Canadian dollar is still somewhat cheap relative to the Aussie dollar based on our FX team's long-term valuation model (Chart 16). Chart 14China Is A More Dominant Consumer Of Metals Than Oil Chart 15Oil Over Metals = CAD Over AUD Chart 16Canadian Dollar Still Somewhat Cheap Versus The Aussie Dollar The loonie has been weighed down by ongoing fears that Canada will be left out of a renegotiated NAFTA. However, our geopolitical strategists believe that the Trump administration is trying to focus more on China, against whom the case for unfair trade practices is far easier to make. The U.S. has already negotiated a trade deal with Mexico and an agreement with Canada is more likely than not. If a new deal is struck, the Canadian dollar will rally. We recommended going short AUD/CAD on June 28. The trade is up 3.4%, carry-adjusted, since then. Stick with it. Trade #4: Long EM stocks with near-term downside put protection It is too early to call a bottom in EM assets. Valuations have not yet reached washed-out levels (Chart 17). Bottom fishers still abound, as evidenced by the fact that the number of shares outstanding in the MSCI iShares Turkish ETF has almost tripled since early April (Chart 18). However, at some point - probably in the first half of next year - investors will liquidate their remaining bullish EM bets. During the 1990s, this capitulation point occurred shortly after the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management in September 1998. EM equities fell by 26% between April 21, 1998 and June 15, 1998. After a half-hearted attempt at a rally, EM stocks tumbled again in July, falling by 35% between July 17 and September 10. The second leg of the EM selloff brought down the S&P 500 by 22%. Thanks to a series of well-telegraphed Fed rate cuts, global markets stabilized on October 8th (Chart 19). The S&P 500 surged by 68% over the next 18 months. The MSCI EM index more than doubled in dollar terms over this period. EM stocks outperformed U.S. equities by a whopping 71% between February 1999 and February 2000. Europe also outperformed the U.S. starting in mid-1999. Value stocks, which had lagged growth stocks over the prior six years, also finally gained the upper hand. Chart 17EM Assets: Valuations Not Yet At Washed Out Levels Chart 18EM Bottom Fishers Still Abound Chart 19The ''Great Equity Rotation'' Is Coming: A Roadmap From The 1990s The "Great Equity Rotation" is coming. All the trades that have suffered lately - overweight EM, long Europe/short U.S., long cyclicals/short defensives, long value/short growth - will get their day in the sun. Investors can prepare for this inflection point by scaling into EM equities today, but guarding against near-term downside risk by buying puts. With that in mind, we are going long the iShares MSCI Emerging Market ETF (EEM), while purchasing March 15, 2019 out-of-the-money puts with a strike price of $41. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Depending on which specification of the Taylor rule one uses, a one percent of GDP increase in aggregate demand will increase the neutral rate of interest by half a point (John Taylor's original specification) or by a full point (Janet Yellen's preferred specification). Fiscal policy is currently about 3% of GDP too simulative compared to a baseline where government debt-to-GDP is stable over time. Assuming a fiscal multiplier of 0.5, fiscal policy is thus boosting aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Nonfinancial private credit has increased by an average of 1.5 percentage points of GDP per year since 2016. Assuming that every additional one dollar of credit increases aggregate demand by 50 cents, the revival in credit growth is raising aggregate demand by 0.75% of GDP, compared to a baseline where credit-to-GDP is flat. The labor share of income has increased by 1.25% of GDP from its lows in 2015. Assuming that every one dollar shift in income from capital to labor boosts overall spending on net by 20 cents, this would have raised aggregate demand by 0.25% of GDP. Lastly, if the savings rate falls by two points over the next two years, this would raise aggregate demand by 1.5% of GDP. Taken together, these factors are boosting the neutral rate by anywhere from 2% (Taylor's specification) to 4% (Yellen's specification). This is obviously a lot, and easily overwhelms other factors such as a stronger dollar that may be weighing on the neutral rate. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Policymakers: Facing A Trade-Off Between Growth And Leveraging," dated August 29, 2018. 3 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Dollar And Global Growth: Are The Tables About To Turn?" dated August 31, 2018. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades