Recession-Hard/Soft Landing

Highlights Our take on the key macro drivers of financial markets is quite similar to last year’s, … : Monetary policy is still accommodative; lenders are ready, willing and able; and the expansion remains intact. ... because the Fed and other central banks have reset the monetary policy clock, … : At this time last year, we projected that the Fed would be on the cusp of tightening monetary policy enough to induce a recession by the middle of 2020. Three rate cuts later, we now expect that policy won’t become restrictive until 2021. … pushing the inflection points investors care about further out into the future: The next recession won’t begin before monetary policy settings are tight, and stocks won’t peak until about six months before the recession starts. We are keeping close tabs on the trade negotiations and potential election outcomes, but we expect that 2020 will be another rewarding year for riskier assets: The equity bull market is likely to last for all of next year, and spread product will keep cranking out excess returns over Treasuries and cash for a while longer, too. Overweight equities and spread product. Feature Mr. and Ms. X made their annual visit to BCA last month, giving us an opportunity to gather our thoughts for 2020, while reviewing how our calls turned out in 2019. Both BCA and US Investment Strategy got the asset allocation conclusion right – overweight equities and spread product, while underweighting Treasuries – but the Fed did the opposite of what we expected heading into 2019, putting us on the wrong side of the Treasury duration call for most of the year. We still think investors are overly complacent about the potential for future inflation, but we concede that the future remains further off than we initially expected. Monetary policy settings got more accommodative nearly everywhere in the world in 2019, ... Our Outlook 2020 theme, as detailed in the year-end edition of The Bank Credit Analyst, is Heading into the End Game,1 and it is clear that the expansion is in its latter stages. We do not think that the end of the expansion, the equity bull market, or credit’s extended stretch of positive excess returns is at hand, however. The full-employment/low-inflation sweet spot is still in place, and the Fed has no plans to get in the expansion’s way, even if inflation begins to gain some traction. Its biggest policy priority is trying to get inflation expectations back to the 2.3 – 2.5% range consistent with its inflation target. Chart 1Globalization Hits A Wall Central banks around the world followed the Fed’s lead this year, cutting their policy rates in an attempt to shield their economies from potentially worsening trade tensions. Though no central banker would say it out loud, joining the rate-cutting parade also helped to defend against currency appreciation, as no one wants a strong currency when growth is in such short supply. The upshot is that global central banks are deliberately promoting reflation. That’s a supportive policy backdrop for risk assets, and while it may well lead to a bigger hangover down the road, it will ramp up the party now. Exogenous challenges remain. Trade tensions are a thorn in businesses’, consumers’ and investors’ sides. Even if US-China tensions die down, a belligerent US administration appears bent on using tariffs and other trade barriers as a cudgel to force concessions from other nations. The trade tailwind that boosted economic growth and investment returns across the last two decades has been stilled (Chart 1). Saber rattling by the US, or mischief from the usual rogue-state and non-state suspects, could also keep markets on edge. The looming election could give investors heartburn, and clients around the world remain anxious about the prospects of a Warren administration. Exogenous risks abound, but it is not our base case that a critical mass will coalesce to disrupt our view that generous-to-indulgent monetary policy settings will delay the day of reckoning, and keep the bull market going all the way through the coming year. As The Cycles Turn From our perspective, the practice of investment strategy is properly founded on the study of cycles. The key cycles – the business cycle, the credit cycle, and the monetary policy cycle – determine how receptive the macroeconomic backdrop is for taking investment risk. Investments made when the backdrop supports risk taking have a much better likelihood of generating excess returns over Treasuries and cash than investments made against an unfriendly macro backdrop. We therefore start every investment decision with an assessment of the key cycles. Determining whether the economy is expanding or contracting may seem like an academic debate with little practical application when the official business cycle arbiters don’t even determine the beginning and ending dates of recessions until well after the fact.2 Equity bear markets reliably coincide with recessions, however, and over the last 50 years, they have begun an average of six months before their onset (Chart 2). An investor who recognizes that a recession is at hand has a good chance of outperforming his/her competitors as long as s/he aggressively adjusts portfolio allocations in line with that recognition. Chart 2Bear Markets Rarely Occur Outside Of Recessions, ... Our key view, then, is that the start of the next recession is at least 18 to 24 months away. Tight monetary policy is a necessary, albeit not sufficient, condition for a recession (Chart 3), and we consider the Fed’s current monetary policy settings to be easy, especially after this year’s three rate cuts. A recession can’t begin until the Fed reverses those three cuts and, per our estimate of the equilibrium rate, tacks on at least three additional hikes. Tightening along those lines is decidedly not on the Fed’s 2020 agenda. Chart 3... And Recessions Only Occur When Monetary Conditions Are Tight Our recession judgment compels us to be overweight equities. Even if the next recession begins exactly halfway through 2021, history suggests that 2020 returns will be robust. Over the last 50 years, the S&P 500 has peaked an average of six months before the start of a recession, and returns heading into the peak have been quite strong, especially in the last four expansions (Table 1). Those results are consistent with bull markets’ tendency to sprint to the finish line (Chart 4). Table 1Stocks Don't Quit Until A Recession Is Near Chart 4Bull Markets End In Stampedes The Fed Funds Rate Cycle We estimate that the equilibrium fed funds rate is currently around 3¼%, and project it will approach 3½% by the end of next year. If we are correct that the Fed’s main policy aim is to prod inflation expectations higher, it follows that it will remain on hold at 1.75% well into 2020. A desire to avoid even the appearance of meddling in the election may well keep the FOMC sidelined until its November and December meetings. The implication is that monetary policy will have no chance to cross into restrictive territory before the first half of 2021. The bottom line for investors is that the day when the economy and markets will have to confront tight monetary conditions has been indefinitely postponed. The Fed has effectively deferred the inflections in the business cycle and the equity market to some point beyond 2020. A longer stretch of accommodation would also continue to fuel the equity bull market, as Phases I and IV of the fed funds rate cycle, in which the fed funds rate is below our estimate of equilibrium (Chart 5), have been equities’ historical sweet spot. Over the last 60 years, the S&P 500 has accrued all of its real returns when policy was easy (Table 2), while Treasuries have shined when it’s tight (Table 3). Chart 5The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Table 2Equities Love Easy Policy, … Table 3… When They Leave Treasuries Far Behind The Credit Cycle Our 30,000-foot view of the credit cycle is based on the banking mantra that bad loans are made in good times. When an expansion has been going on for a while, loan officers focus more on maintaining market share than lending standards, while managers of credit funds attract more assets, pushing them to find a home for their new inflows. Banks and bond managers are thereby pro-cyclical at the margin, keeping the good times going by lending to increasingly marginal borrowers and/or relaxing the terms on which they will lend. (They’re conversely stingy when real-time conditions are bad.) Lenders’ lagging/coincident focus keeps lending standards and borrower performance closely aligned in real time (Chart 6). Chart 6Standards Are Coincident In Real Time, ... Standards are a contrarian indicator over longer periods, though, because shoddily underwritten loans eventually show their true colors. We find a solid fit between corporate bond default rates and lending standards in the preceding 20 quarters (Chart 7). Lending standards tightened slightly in 2015, but were still quite easy in an absolute sense. A majority of banks tightened standards in 2016 amidst the oil rout, which could point to marginally better 2020-21 performance, but post-2010 standards have hardly been stringent. Chart 7... And Leading Over Five-Year Periods The stock of outstanding loans and bonds is therefore vulnerable. The relaxation of corporate bond covenants so soon after the financial crisis has not escaped the notice of bearish investors and reporters. It is not enough for an investor to identify a vulnerability, however; s/he also has to identify the catalyst that is going to cause a rupture. The challenge is that ultra-accommodative monetary policy delays the formation of negative catalysts. To the utter torment of an observer with an attraction to the Austrian School of Economics’ survival-of-the-fittest ethic, it is not at all easy to default in a ZIRP/NIRP world. The stock of $12 trillion of bonds with negative nominal yields (down from August’s $17 trillion peak) has ginned up a fervent search for yield among large institutional investor constituencies that have to meet a fixed distribution schedule, like life insurers and pension funds. These income-starved investors help explain why nearly any borrower, no matter how sketchy, can draw a crowd of would-be lenders simply by offering an incremental 50 or 75 basis points of yield. Borrowers default when no one is willing to roll over their maturing obligations; they get even more leveraged when lenders are climbing over each other to lend to them. It is also hard to default when central banks are deliberately pursuing reflation. Inflation makes debt service easier, and central banks are all-in for reflation as a means to bolster inflation expectations, defend against further trade tensions, and to ensure currency strength doesn’t undermine exports. The credit cycle is well advanced, and the Austrians may be at least partially vindicated when the ensuing selloff is worse than it would otherwise have been for having been delayed, but it looks to us like it has more room to run. The rapture remains out of reach for Austrian School devotees, who slot between Tantalus and New York Knicks fans on the cosmic persecution scale. Bonds We remain bearish on Treasuries and reiterate our below-benchmark duration recommendation, though we recognize that the 10-year Treasury yield is unlikely to rise beyond the 2.25-2.5% range in the next year. There’s only one more rate cut to price out of the OIS curve, and neither inflation expectations nor the term premium will return to normal levels quickly. The intermediate- and long-term outlook for the Federal budget is grim, given the size of the deficit while unemployment is at a 50-year low (Chart 8), but Dick Cheney will maintain the upper hand over deficit hawks for 2020 and several years beyond. We do think investors are complacent about inflation’s eventual return, though, and continue to advocate for TIPS over nominal Treasuries. It is tough to default in a ZIRP/NIRP world, when several institutional investor constituencies have a voracious appetite for yield. Chart 8The Budget Outlook Is Grim Chart 9IG Spreads Are Wafer Thin Our benign near-term view of the credit cycle makes us comfortable continuing to overweight spread product, subject to our US Bond Strategy colleagues’ preferences. They are only neutral on investment-grade corporates, given their scant duration-adjusted spread over Treasuries (Chart 9). They recommend overweighting high-yield corporate bonds instead, given that high-yield spreads still offer ample positive carry. They also recommend agency mortgage-backed securities as a high-quality alternative to investment-grade corporates, noting that their low duration (three years versus nearly eight for corporates) offers better protection against rising rates. Equities With monetary policy still accommodative, and the expansion still intact, the cyclical backdrop is equity-friendly. If we’re correct that policy won’t turn restrictive until early to mid-2021 at the earliest, the bull market should be able to continue through all of 2020. We do not foresee a return to double-digit earnings growth, but the upward turn in leading indicators across a wide swath of countries outside of the US suggests that a revival in the rest of the world could help S&P 500 constituents grow earnings by mid-single digits, via a pickup in non-US demand and some softening in the dollar. Net share retirements could even nudge earnings growth into the high single digits. If earnings multiples hold up (they’ve expanded at a 5.5% annual rate in Phase IV of the fed funds rate cycle, and don’t typically contract until Phase II), S&P 500 total returns could reach the high single digits, easily putting them ahead of prospective Treasury returns. Multiple expansion isn’t required to support an overweight equities recommendation, but we would not be at all surprised if it occurred. Bull markets often get silly as they sprint to the finish line, and it would be unusual if some froth didn’t bubble up before this bull market, the longest of the postwar era, calls it quits. The Dollar We expect the dollar to weaken against other major currencies in 2020. As the rest of the world finds its footing and begins to accelerate, the growth differential between the US and other major economies will narrow. The dollar will attract less safe-haven flows as the rest of the world’s major economies escape stall speed. Though we expect the countercyclical dollar will rally again when the next recession hits, weakening in 2020 is consistent with our constructive global growth view. Putting It All Together We are sanguine about the US economy, which continued to trundle along at a trend pace in 2019 despite a series of headwinds. It withstood 4Q18’s sharp equity selloff and bond-spread blowout that tightened financial conditions and made corporate and investor confidence wobble. It withstood the 35-day federal government shutdown that lasted nearly all of January. It kept marching forward despite the trade war with China, and it overcame, at least for now, the angst over the inverted yield curve. If the economy continued to expand at roughly its trend pace despite those obstacles, it may not really have needed 25-basis-point rate cuts in July, September and October. The thread connecting our macro views and investment recommendations is the idea that monetary policy settings are highly accommodative and are likely to stay that way until the 2020 election. We expect that risk assets will outperform against an accommodating monetary backdrop. The naysayers are as likely to be confounded by central banks in 2020 as they have been throughout the entire ZIRP/NIRP era. The scolds scouring the data to try to find signs of excesses, and the Chicken Littles who have been frightened by clickbait headlines and strategists deliberately pursuing pessimistic outlier strategies, get one thing right. The market selloffs when the equity and credit bull markets end will be worse than they would have been if the Fed and other central banks were not deliberately attempting to reflate their economies. But their timing is likely to be as bad now as it has been all throughout 2019 (and for the entire post-crisis period for card-carrying, sandwich-board-wearing Austrians). You can’t fight the Fed, much less the ECB, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of England, the Swiss National Bank, the Reserve Banks of Australia and New Zealand, and a broad swath of all of the rest of the world’s central banks.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the December 2019 Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2020: Heading Into The End Game,” available at www.bcaresearch.com. 2 The NBER’s Business Cycle Dating Committee announced in December 2008 that the last recession began in December 2007. It announced in September 2010 that it had ended in June 2009.

Feature Recommended Allocation In late November, BCA Research published its 2020 Outlook titled Heading Into The End Game, an annual discussion between BCA’s managing editors and the firm’s longstanding clients Mr. and Ms X.1 We recommend GAA clients read that document for a full analysis of the macro and investment environment we expect in 2020. In this Monthly Portfolio Outlook, we focus on portfolio construction: how we would recommend positioning a global multi-asset portfolio for the 12-month investment horizon in light of that analysis. First, a brief summary of the BCA macro outlook. We believe the global manufacturing cycle is starting to bottom out, partly because of its usual periodicity of 18 months from peak to trough, and also because of easier financial conditions, and some moderate fiscal and credit stimulus from China (Chart 1).  Central banks will remain dovish next year despite accelerating growth. The Fed, in particular, worries that inflation expectations have become unanchored (Chart 2) and, moreover, will be reluctant to raise rates ahead of the US presidential election. This environment implies a moderate rise in long-term interest rates, with the US 10-year Treasury yield rising to 2.2-2.5%. Chart 1Reasons To Expect A Rebound Chart 2Unanchored Inflation Expectations Worry The Fed For an asset allocator, this combination of an improving manufacturing cycle and easy monetary policy looks like a very positive environment for risk assets (Chart 3). We, therefore, remain overweight equities and underweight fixed income. We have discussed over the past few months the timing to turn more risk-on and pro-cyclical in our recommendations.2 Since we are increasingly confident about the probability of the manufacturing cycle turning up, this is the time to make that change. Consequently, the shifts we are recommending in our global portfolio, shown in the Recommended Allocation table and discussed in detail below, add to its beta (Chart 4).   Chart 3A Positive Environment For Risk Assets Chart 4Raising The Beta Of Our Portfolio Chart 5Some Signs Of Risk-On Still Missing Nonetheless, we still have some concerns. China’s stimulus (particularly credit growth) remains half-hearted compared to previous cyclical rebounds in 2012 and 2016. We expect a “phase one” ceasefire in the trade war. But even that is not certain, and it would not anyway solve the long-term structural disputes. To turn fully risk-on, we would want to see signs of a clear rebound in commodity prices and a depreciation of the US dollar, which have not yet happened (Chart 5). The 2020 Outlook proposed some milestones to monitor whether our scenario is playing out and whether we should turn more or less risk-on. We summarize these milestones in Table 1. Given these uncertainties, to hedge our pro-cyclical positioning we continue to recommend an overweight in cash, and we are instituting an overweight position in gold. Table 1Milestones For 2020 Chart 6Recessions Are Caused By Inflation Or Debt How will this cycle end? All recessions in modern history have been caused either by a sharp rise in inflation, or by a debt-fueled asset bubble (Chart 6). The Fed will likely fall behind the curve at some point as, after further tightening in the labor market, inflation starts to pick up. How the Fed reacts to that will determine what triggers the recession. If – as is most likely – it lets inflation run, that could blow up an asset bubble (and it was the bursting of such bubbles which caused the 2000 and 2007 recessions); if it decides to tighten monetary policy to kill inflation, the recession would look more like those of the 1970s and 1980s. But it is hard to see either happening over the next 12-18 months. Equities: As part of our shift to a more pro-risk, pro-cyclical stance, we are cutting US equities to underweight, and raising the euro zone to overweight, and Emerging Markets and the UK to neutral. US equities have outperformed fairly consistently since the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 7) – except during the two periods of accelerating global growth, in 2012-13 (when Europe did better) and 2016-17 (when EM particularly outperformed). The US today is expensive, particularly in terms of price/sales, which looks more expensive than the P/E ratio because the profit margin is at a record high level (Chart 8). The upside for US stocks in 2020 is likely to be limited. In 2019 so far, US equities have risen by 29% despite earnings growth close to zero. Multiples expanded because the Fed turned dovish, but investors should not assume further multiple expansion in 2020. Our rough model for US EPS growth points to around 8% next year (sales in line with nominal GDP growth of 4%, margins expanding by a couple of points, plus 2% in share buybacks). Add a dividend yield of 2%, and US stocks might give a total return of 10% or so. Chart 7US Doesn't Always Outperform Chart 8US Equities Are Expensive To play the cyclical rebound, we prefer euro zone stocks over those in EM or Japan. Euro zone stocks have a higher weighting in sectors we like such as Financials and Industrials (Table 2). European banks, in particular, look attractively valued (Chart 9) and offer a dividend yield of 6%, something investors should find appealing in this low-yield world. EM is more closely linked to China and commodities prices, which are not yet sending strong positive signals. We worry about the excess of debt in EM (Chart 10), which remains a structural headwind: the IMF and World Bank put total external EM debt at $6.8 trillion (Chart 11). Table 2Equity Sector Composition Chart 9Euro Zone Banks Are Especially Cheap Chart 10EM Debt Remains A Headwind Japan is another likely beneficiary of a cyclical recovery. But, before we turn positive, we want to see (1) signs of a stabilization of consumption after the recent tax rise (retail sales fell by 7% year-on-year in October), and (2) clarification of a worrying new investment law (which will require any investor which intends to “influence management” to get prior government approval before buying as little as a 1% stake in many sectors). For an asset allocator this combination of an improving manufacturing cycle and easy monetary policy looks very positive for risk assets. We raise the UK to neutral. The market has been a serial underperformer over the past few years, but this has been due to the weak pound and derating, rather than poor earnings growth (Chart 12). It now looks very cheap and, with the risk of a no-deal Brexit off the table, sterling should rebound further. The UK is notably overweight the sectors we like (Table 2). However, political risk makes us limit our recommendation to neutral. Although the Conservatives look likely to win a majority in this month’s general election, which will allow them to push through the negotiated Brexit deal, subsequent arguments over the future trade relationship with the EU will be divisive. Chart 116.8 Trillion In EM External Debt Chart 12The UK Has Been Derated Since 2016   Fixed Income: We remain underweight government bonds. Stronger economic growth is likely to push up long-term rates (Chart 13). Nonetheless, the rise in yields should be limited. The Fed looks to be on hold for the next 12 months, but the futures market is not far away from that view: it has priced in only a 60% probability of one rate cut over that time. The gap between market expectations and what the Fed actually does is what our bond strategists call the “golden rule of bond investing”. US inflation is also likely to soften over the next few months due to the lagged effect of this year’s weaker growth and appreciating dollar. We do not expect the 10-year US Treasury to rise above 2.5% – the current FOMC estimate of the long-run equilibrium level of short-term rates (Chart 14). Chart 13Growth Will Push Up Rates...   Chart 14...But Only As Far As 2.5%   Within the fixed-income universe, we remain positive on corporate credit. But US investment-grade bond spreads are no longer attractive and so we downgrade them to neutral (Chart 15). Investors looking for high-quality bond exposure should prefer Agency MBS, which trade on an attractive spread relative to Aa- and A-rated corporate bonds. European IG should do better since spreads are not so close to historical lows, risk-free rates should rise less than in the US, and because the ECB is increasing its purchases of corporate bonds. Chart 15US IG Spreads Are Close To Historical Lows Chart 16US Caa Bonds Have Some Catching Up To Do We continue to like high-yield bonds, both in the US and Europe. But we would suggest moving down the credit curve and increasing the weight in Caa-rated bonds. These have underperformed this year (Chart 16), mainly because of technical factors such as their overweight in the energy sector and relatively smaller decline in duration.3 With a stronger economy and rising oil prices, they should catch up to their higher-rated HY peers in 2020. To play the cyclical rebound, we prefer euro zone stocks over those in EM or Japan. Currencies: Since the US dollar is a counter-cyclical currency (Chart 17), we would expect it to weaken against more cyclical currencies such as the euro, and commodity currencies such as the Australian dollar and Canadian dollar. But it should appreciate relative to the yen and Swiss franc, which are the most defensive major currencies. We expect EM currencies to continue to depreciate. Most emerging markets are experiencing disinflation (Chart 18), which will push central banks to cut rates and inject liquidity into the banking system. This will tend to weaken their currencies. Overall, we are neutral on the US dollar. Chart 17The Dollar Is A Counter-Cyclical Currency Chart 18Disinflation Will Push EM Currencies Down Further     Commodities: Industrials metals prices are closely linked to Chinese stimulus (Chart 19). A moderate recovery in Chinese growth should be a positive, and so we raise our recommendation to neutral. But with question-marks still lingering over the strength of the rebound in the Chinese economy, we would not be more positive than that. Oil prices should see moderate upside over the next 12 months, with supply tight and demand growth recovering in line with the global economy. Our energy strategists forecast Brent crude to average $67 a barrel in 2020 (compared to a little over $60 today). Chart 19Metals Prices Depend On China Chart 20Gold: Short-Term Negatives, But Remains A Good Hedge   Gold looks a little overbought in the short term, and less monetary stimulus and a rise in rates next year would be negative factors (Chart 20). Nonetheless, we see it as a good hedge against our positive economic view going awry, and against geopolitical risks. If central banks do decide to let economies run hot next year and ignore rising inflation, gold could do particularly well. We, therefore, raise our recommendation to overweight on a 12-month horizon.     Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1    Please see "Outlook 2020," dated November 22 2019, available at bcaresearch.com 2   Please see, for example, last month’s GAA Monthly Portfolio Update, “Looking For The Turning-Point,” dated November 1, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3   For a more detailed explanation, please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caa-Rated Bonds: Warning Signs Or Buying Opportunity,” dated 26 November 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

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

特別レポート

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

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

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Depressed technicals, compelling valuations, macro tailwinds, improving operating fundamentals and the messages from our relative profit growth models and relative Cyclical Macro Indicators all signal that the time is ripe to initiate a long energy/short utilities pair trade. Pricey valuations, overbought technicals, the sell-off in the bond market and weak profit fundamentals, all warrant an underweight stance in the S&P utilities sector. Recent Changes Initiate a long S&P Energy/short S&P Utilities pair trade today. Table 1 Feature Equities propelled to uncharted territory, celebrating an easy Fed and the US/China détente with a hint of a tariff rollback, overcoming the seasonally difficult months of September and October. Historically, investors chase performance during the end of the year and seasonality will likely favor further flows into equities in the last two months of the year. On the economic front, while manufacturing remains in recession, a resilient labor market is providing a significant offset allaying fears of recession gripping the broad economy. Drilling deeper on the labor front is revealing. The unemployment rate ticked higher to 3.6% last month based on the household survey as the participation rate increased. However, according to the Sahm Rule Recession Indicator (SRRI), courtesy of Fed economist Claudia R. Sahm,1 were the unemployment rate to average 4% for three consecutive months by September 2020, the US economy will enter recession. In other words, based on empirical evidence the SRRI shows that when the three-month average unemployment rate has jumped by 50bps compared with previous twelve month low, the US has entered recession 100% of the time since the end of WWII (Chart 1). Chart 1Watch The Sahm Rule Recession Indicator Meanwhile, the parallels drawn with the mid-to-late 1990s and the current market backdrop have mushroomed, but our view is that the differences could not be wider. Since the history of our reconstructed SPX data going back to the late-1920s, there has never been a five-year period when the S&P 500 rose by at least 20% every year except for the 1995-1999 era. In that five-year period the SPX soared more than threefold, increasing annually by 34%, 20%, 31%, 27% and 20%, respectively. Investors forget that those were manic markets and despite a high and rising fed funds rate that peaked at 6.5% in early 2000 (real rates were over 4%), the forward P/E multiple went to the stratosphere ignoring theory and defying logic (Chart 2). Putting the late-1990s exuberance into perspective is instructive: if 1995 is similar to 2016 (and 1998 is similar to 2019) then the SPX should spike to over 6000 by the end of next year! Moving over to economic green shoots, we turn our attention to the signal the emerging markets are emitting. While both the EM and the Chinese manufacturing PMIs are expanding smartly, leading indicators suggest that the recovery may be running on empty. Chart 2One Of A Kind Chart 3Mixed Signals Chart 3 shows that the Chinese credit impulse is contracting, weighing on EM FX momentum and also signaling that the CAIXIN China manufacturing PMI, that has opened the widest gap with the official China NBS manufacturing PMI since the history of the data, will likely suffer a setback in the coming quarters. In the transportation sector, the Baltic Dry Index is down 33% since the early-September peak and is also losing steam on year-over-year basis, warning that a global trade recovery is skating on thin ice. Moreover, EM sentiment is downbeat. Investor flows into EM equities, according to the most liquid iShares MSCI EM ETF, have been drifting lower since the 2018 peak and have more recently gapped down (bottom panel, Chart 3). Thus, the recent green shoots may prove fleeting. This week we are initiating a new market-neutral pair trade and reiterate our negative view on a niche defensive sector. With regard to US liquidity, that we have been inundated with client requests recently, we highlight our simple liquidity indicator: industrial production (IP) growth versus M2 money supply growth. In other words, we gauge how fast a unit of currency is translated into IP. Chart 4 highlights that IP/M2 is contracting at an accelerating pace, heralding further earnings growth pain for the S&P 500. US dollar based liquidity is also contracting as we showed in last week’s US Equity Strategy Webcast slides. Chart 4Clogged Pipelines Weighing On Profit Growth Other SPX profit indicators we track continue to suggest that the earnings soft patch is not out of the woods yet (we use forward EBITDA estimates to gauge trend growth, which excludes the one time fiscal easing boost to net EPS). Net forward EBITDA revisions are below zero, the ISM manufacturing new orders-to-inventories ratio has fallen 40% from the 2018 peak and is hovering near parity, momentum in the key ISM manufacturing new orders subcomponent is contracting and BCA’s boom/bust indicator continues to deflate. All of this, suggests that a turnaround in profits remains elusive and is a first half of 2020 outcome, at the earliest (Chart 5). Already, Q4/2019 profit growth estimates have now sunk into negative territory according to the latest FactSet data.2 Finally, the Fed released the last Senior Loan Officer Survey of the year in the past week and demand for C&I loans collapsed. This data series has broken below the 2016 trough and warns that C&I credit origination will continue to contract. Chart 5No Pulse Chart 6Capex Contraction Dampens Need For Credit Such a souring backdrop makes intuitive sense as animal spirits have died down courtesy of the Sino-American trade war. CEO’s are still voting with their feet and are canceling/postponing capital outlays. Absent capex, C&I credit demand runs aground (Chart 6). It remains unclear if a US/China “phase one” trade deal including tariff rollbacks can reverse the ongoing global trade contraction, signaling that caution is still warranted on the prospects of the broad equity market for the next 9-12 months. This week we are initiating a new market-neutral pair trade and reiterate our negative view on a niche defensive sector. Long/Short Idea: Buy Energy/Sell Utilities There is an exploitable opportunity in going long the S&P energy sector/short the S&P utilities sector and we recommend initiating this market-neutral trade today. The top panel of Chart 7 shows that energy stocks have come full circle and are trading at levels last seen two decades ago when WTI oil was fetching less than half of today’s $55/bbl price. Encouragingly, there seems to be long-term support for relative share prices at the current overly depressed level. While utilities have been making headlines all year long given their outperformance, when put in proper perspective this niche defensive sector with a mere 3% weight in the SPX looks like a shipwreck (bottom panel, Chart 7). Taken together, this battle between two diminishing sectors presents a tradable opportunity by favoring energy stocks at the expense of utilities. In fact, this ratio trades at more than two standard deviations below the historical uptrend, and thus offers a lucrative risk/reward profile (Chart 8). Chart 7Buy Energy… Chart 8…At The Expense Of Utilities Beyond depressed technicals and compelling overall valuations with an alluring relative dividend yield (investors are paid an unprecedented 100bps in dividend yield carry to put on this trade, Chart 9), macro tailwinds, improving operating fundamentals, and the messages from our relative profit growth models and relative Cyclical Macro Indicators (CMI), all signal that the time is ripe to initiate a long energy/short utilities pair trade. On the macro front, inflation expectations have tentatively troughed and if oil rebounds further, as our Commodity & Energy Strategy service expects, then given their tight positive correlation with oil prices, rising inflation expectations should put a definitive floor under the relative share price ratio (Chart 10). Chart 9Unloved And Oversold Chart 10Return Of Inflation… However, the real interest rate component (i.e. growth) also explains roughly half of the selloff in the 10-year Treasury yield since early September, which also moves in lockstep with relative share price momentum (bottom panel, Chart 10). Were this budding global growth recovery to gain steam into the first half of 2020, then energy profits would outshine utility sector profits. As a reminder, oil is a global growth barometer and rises with increasing global growth while defensive utilities flourish when growth sputters (Chart 11). The US dollar’s recent appreciation has also dealt a blow to this trade and a grinding lower currency which is synonymous with a modest global growth recovery would also reverse this pair trade’s fortunes (top two panels, Chart 12). Chart 11…And Green Shoots Beneficiary Chart 12Operating Metrics Also… Zooming into the relative operating outlook, the bottom panel of Chart 12 shows that oil price inflation is outpacing natural gas selling prices. This relative underlying commodity backdrop is important as energy stocks move with the ebbs and flows of the oil market, whereas the marginal price setter for utility services is natural gas prices. The upshot is that heading into 2020, bombed out relative share prices should play catch up to the firming relative commodity backdrop. Capital spending outlays also favor energy shares over utilities stocks (top two panels, Chart 13). Surprisingly, the utilities sector net debt-to-EBITDA ratio is above 5x, waving a red flag, but energy indebtedness is coming down fast in the aftermath of the early 2016 oil price collapse and the energy sector’s net debt-to-EBITDA ratio is close to 2x (bottom panel, Chart 13). Our relative CMIs and relative profit growth models do an excellent job capturing all these moving parts and are unanimously sending a bullish message that an earnings-led recovery is in store for the relative share price ratio (Chart 14). Chart 13…Favor Energy Over Utilities Chart 14Green Light From US Equity Strategy Models Bottom Line: Initiate a long S&P energy/short S&P utilities pair trade today. Out Of Power Warning Utilities stocks have been all the rave this year, but given their small weighting in the SPX they only explain a very small part of the broad market’s run (in contrast, the heavyweight tech sector explains most of the S&P 500’s rise as we highlighted in recent research).3 We reiterate our underweight stance in this small defensive sector that has run way ahead of soft profit fundamentals. Worrisomely, utilities trade with a 20 forward P/E handle and command a 20% premium to the broad market, but their forecast EPS growth rate at 5% trails the SPX by 350bps (not shown). Chart 15 shows that our composite relative Valuation Indicator has surged to one standard deviation above the historical mean, a level typically associated with recession. Technicals are also extended (bottom panel, Chart 15), warning that this crowded trade is at risk of deflating, especially if the breakout in bond yields gains steam.   Chart 15Overbought And Overvalued   In sum, pricey valuations, overbought technicals, the selloff in the bond market and weak profit fundamentals, all warrant an underweight stance in the S&P utilities sector. The top panel of Chart 16 shows that relative share prices and the 10-year Treasury yield are closely inversely correlated. Now that the risk free asset is having a more competitive yield, investors will likely start to abandon this niche defensive sector. Similarly, the recent selloff in the total return bond-to-stock ratio also warns that buying up expensive utilities at the current juncture is fraught with danger (second panel, Chart 16). The jury is still out on the final outcome of the Sino-American trade war. However, there has been a decisive change of heart in US exporters and the ISM manufacturing survey’s new export orders subcomponent reflects an, at the margin, improvement in the US/China trade relationship. This bodes ill for safe haven utilities stocks (new export orders shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 16). Chart 16Budding Recovery Weighing On Utilities Chart 17Sell The Strength Turning over to the sector’s operating metrics reveals that investors piling into utilities is unwarranted. Natural gas prices are contracting at the steepest pace of the past four years (middle panel, Chart 17) and signal that the path of least resistance is lower for relative share price momentum. Meanwhile, electricity capacity utilization is in a multi decade downtrend, warning that the relative profitability will remain under pressure in the coming quarters (bottom panel, Chart 17). In sum, pricey valuations, overbought technicals, the sell-off in the bond market and weak profit fundamentals, all warrant an underweight stance in the S&P utilities sector. Bottom Line: Shy away from the expensive S&P utilities sector. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5UTIL– PPL, PNW, ATO, PEG, FE, EIX, AEE, SO, SRE, AEP, XEL, DTE, EVRG, WEC, AES, CMS, LNT, ED, NRG, D, AWK, DUK, ETR, EXC, NEE, CNP, NI, ES.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1     https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/claudia-r-sahm.htm 2       https://insight.factset.com/sp-500-now-projected-to-report-a-year-over-year-decline-in-earnings-in-q4-2019 3       Please see BCA US Equity Strategy Insight Report, “Deciphering Sector Returns” dated August 30, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Stay neutral cyclicals over defensives (downgrade alert) Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps (Stop 10%)

特別レポート

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

ハイライト 先週お会いした投資家は朗報を聞く準備ができていました： 当社が3日間のクライアントミーティングで語った建設的なシナリオはコンセンサス見解よりも楽観的ですが、クライアントはそれを検討する用意がありました。 世界的な経済減速と米国景気後退の高まるリスクが主要な懸念事項でした、…： 当社のグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー同僚が示唆するように、世界の製造業が本当に底を打ったこと、そして米国が景気後退の瀬戸際にいないことを投資家が確信するには時間がかかるでしょう。 … 次に貿易摩擦と企業の債務水準、…： 当社の小さなサンプルでは、投資家は米中対立の日々の増減に対して感覚が鈍くなっている可能性がありますが、企業経営陣の頭の中では依然として大きな懸念事項であると考えています。 … しかしエリザベス・ウォーレンの台頭が引き起こす不安には及びません： すべてのクライアントがウォーレン政権の可能性について尋ねました。 特集 先週の大半を、ウェルスマネジメントやファミリーオフィスのクライアントの一部と面会して過ごしました。彼らは相対リターンより絶対リターンに重点を置いていますが、主要な懸念点は相対リターン重視の仲間とほぼ同一でした。我々の会合では、景気拡張の行方、株式ブルマーケット、世界成長、米中貿易交渉について幅広い疑問が取り上げられました。クライアントはまたクレジット見通しやインフレが警戒すべきかどうかも尋ねましたが、全ての会合で最も熱心に話題にしたのはウォーレン氏またはサンダース氏の大統領就任の見込みでした。 Q: 債券市場は何を伝えていますか？ 我々は債券市場を金利（米国債）とクレジット（スプレッド商品）という2つの明確な要素に分けて考えています。2016年7月の底以来、10年物米国債利回りの定期的な戻りを見慣れてきましたが、昨年11月の3.25%から今年8月の1.5%へと急低下するのを目の当たりにして、米国経済に対する我々の建設的見解は試されました。しかし、利回りの低下が必ずしも差し迫った経済トラブルを示しているとは限らないため、景気後退が発生するのは2021年末〜2022年初を待たないと起きない、という見方を維持しています。 我々は今年の米国債利回りの低下を、景気減速の同時的な反映と見ており、景気後退の前兆とは考えていません。 純粋に国内要因だけを見れば、利回り低下の主因は金融政策期待の変化でした。FRBのハト派転換はもちろんどこか真空の中で起きたわけではありません。景気減速の明確な兆候が、ここでも海外でも緩和的な政策の舞台を整えました。FRBが常に相手をしていたかどうかにかかわらず、12か月先のフォワードフェドファンド金利期待の3回の段階的低下は、いずれも市場に緩和政策を予想させるように誘導されたタイミングで発生しました：3月のFOMC前（FRB関係者がインフレ期待の下振れリスクについて警告し始めた頃）、5月（利下げの準備が進められていた頃）、そして7月の会合後に7月の利下げが単発ではない可能性が示唆された時です（チャート 1）。 チャート 1 FRBのハト派転換、... FRBのハト派的転換、... FRBのハト派的転換、... 各国の利回りは完全に国内要因で決まるわけではなく、米国債利回りの弱さの多くは世界の他地域の利回りの軟調さを反映しています。今年これまで、10年物主権債利回りは大西洋の両側で足並みをそろえて動いており（チャート 2）、通貨ヘッジ済みの米国債、ギルト、ブンデンにおける裁定の余地は保たれています。原油価格も別のグローバル変数であり、その下落はインフレ期待のブレークイーブン（金利差）を押し下げ（チャート 3）、米国債買い手が要求するインフレ補償を抑制しました。金利の観点では、債券市場は世界成長が減速し、中央銀行が金融緩和姿勢を強め、原油価格が下落したことを伝えています。それは必ずしも成長にとって理想的な状況ではありませんが、拡張の終焉を意味するものでもありません。 チャート 2 ... そして欧州主権債の重力が米国債利回りを引き下げた ...そして欧州国債の牽引力が米国債利回りを押し下げている ...そして欧州国債の牽引力が米国債利回りを押し下げている クレジット市場も同意見です。拡張が危機に瀕しているという気配はまったく見られません。スプレッドは昨年の第4四半期のスパイクを速やかに解消し、その後はポスト危機以来の低水準付近に張り付いています（チャート 4）。非金融企業は拡張期を通じて負債を増やしてきましたが、利回りが史上低水準にあるため債務のサービスは決して過重ではありません（チャート 5）。当社のU.S. ボンド・ストラテジーサービスの独自のコーポレート・ヘルス・モニターは企業のバランスシートが弱まっていることを示唆しています（チャート 6、第3パネル）が、スプレッドの意味のある拡大に必要な他の要素――金融引締めサイクルの完了1（チャート6、第2パネル）や貸出基準の引き締め（チャート 6、下パネル）――はまだ整っていません。 チャート 3 原油安がインフレ懸念を抑え込んだ 原油価格の下落がインフレ懸念を抑え込んだ 原油価格の下落がインフレ懸念を抑え込んだ チャート 4 スプレッドはタイト、... スプレッドはタイト… スプレッドはタイト…   チャート 5 ... そして債務サービスは容易 ...そして債務返済は簡単です ...そして債務返済は簡単です Q: クレジットエクスポージャーを削減する時期ではありませんか？タイトなスプレッドは逆張りの警告サインかもしれません。 株式よりもはるかに安いならば企業の資金調達負担を債務に一部移すのは合理的ですが、債務負担の増加と契約条項の劣化を組み合わせるのは懸念材料です。低金利は債務サービスコストが負担にならないようにし、当面はデフォルトを抑える助けになりますが、債券市場は次第に脆弱になっています。 チャート 6 スプレッド拡大の条件はまだ整っていない スプレッド拡大の条件はまだ整っていない スプレッド拡大の条件はまだ整っていない チャート 7 インカム投資家は出番なし インカム投資家は対象外 インカム投資家は対象外 その脆弱性はあるものの、次のデフォルトサイクルが到来しても、住宅バブルの影響に比べればはるかに限定的でしょう。なぜなら銀行への直撃はほとんどないからです。米国の銀行システムは一戸建て住宅を担保にしており、企業債はレバレッジのかかっていない多様な投資家群が保有しています。レバレッジをかけていない投資家にとって損失は厳しいものですが、全体経済に大きな波紋を広げることはありません。今日の企業借入の蓄積は2006〜07年の住宅ローンの汚染地帯には相当せず、逆の主張は根拠が乏しいです。 企業レバレッジの高まりは脆弱性ですが、投資家が脆弱性を見つけるだけでは十分ではなく、それが破綻する触媒を特定する必要があります。非金融企業の債務水準は亀裂ですが、契約条項の緩みでその亀裂は長くなっています。市場が苦しむのは、その亀裂が十分に長く広がり、投資家が無視できない亀裂に変わった時です。我々の見方では、緩和的な金融環境は少なくとも数か月はその亀裂を視界と記憶から遠ざけ続けるでしょう。 デフォルトは借り手が満期債務を再資金調達できない時にのみ発生します。少なくとも一つの貸し手が管理可能な条件で新規融資を延長する意思がある限り、借り手は破綻しません。現在の金融政策の背景は、主要経済の多くでゼロ/マイナス金利政策が存在し、融資意思のある貸し手の安定供給をほぼ確実にしています。保険会社、年金基金、債務を相殺するために収益を必要とする基金は、収益を確保するためにリスクを取らざるを得ませんでした（チャート 7）。その結果、多少脆弱なクレジットに対して追加で50〜75ベーシスポイントを提供する貸し手の列ができあがっています。 世界の製造業はすでに景気後退に陥っていますが、サービス部門の堅調さが先進国経済の拡張を維持しています。 最も脆弱なクレジットは救済を見つけられないでしょうが、多くの怪しいものは救済を受けるでしょう。現在の超緩和的金融政策環境は、デフォルトが本格的に増加するような背景ではありません。中央銀行がもう少し寛容でなくなるまでは、限界貸し手は選別的にならず、盤は回り続け、スプレッド商品は現金や米国債に対して超過リターンを生み続けるでしょう。 Q: 米国外の状況はより悪く見えます。世界の成長見通しはどうですか？ チャート 8 製造業は底打ちかもしれない、... 製造業は底打ちの可能性がある… 製造業は底打ちの可能性がある… 世界の製造業セクターはリセッションにありますが、世界全体の経済はそうではありません（チャート 8）。製造業のリセッションが必ずしも全面的な景気後退につながるわけではなく、先進国のはるかに大きなサービス部門の継続的な拡張は製造業の苦戦に対して強力な防波堤を提供しています（チャート 9）。世界活動がいつ加速するかを結論づけるにはまだ時期尚早ですが、当社のグローバル先行経済指標とそれを導く拡散指標は、底打ち過程にあることを示唆しています（チャート 10）。 チャート 9 ... そしてサービスは減速を止めたかもしれない ... ... そしてサービスは減速が止まったかもしれない ... ... そしてサービスは減速が止まったかもしれない ... チャート 10 ... 先行指標が足場を固めたなら ... 先行指標が足場を固めたなら ... 先行指標が足場を固めたなら チャート 11 向かい風から追い風へ 逆風から追い風へ 逆風から追い風へ 当社のチャイナ・インベストメント・ストラテジーチームは、地方政府が今年末まで北京によって課された予算制約から解放される来年第1四半期に中国成長が勢いを取り戻す余地があると見ています。なお、9月のマネー・クレジット成長は予想を上回り、政策当局は預金準備率の引き下げなどささやかな景気刺激策を講じています。中国のクレジット成長の変化は、中国のクレジット依存の輸入チャネルを通じて世界の成長の変化に先行します（チャート 11）。中国の輸入は欧州、日本、アジア新興国、オーストラリア、ブラジル、チリの輸出です。彼らの輸出が増えれば総需要も増え、好循環が自己強化的に生まれます。 Q: ウォーレン氏が大統領になったら市場には何を意味しますか？ ウォーレン氏が大統領になることへの投資家の懸念はもっともです；ウォーレン上院議員は銀行、防衛関連企業、製薬企業、フラッキングに関与する石油会社、大手ハイテク企業に対して公然と、しばしば陽気に敵意を示しています。それは相当なリストであり、S&P500の時価総額のかなりの割合を占めます。ウォーレン政権は株式投資家にとって友好的ではないと言って差し支えありませんが、資産を清算して国外に逃げる前に念頭に置くべき点がいくつかあります。 彼女に民主党の指名を早々に与えるのは時期尚早です。2007年10月、賢明な投資家はヒラリー・クリントンがすでに決勝戦の座を確保したと確信していました。まだ知名度の低かったイリノイ州の新人上院議員は2004年大会での演説以外にあまり知られていませんでしたが、彼はオバマ大統領になりました。2月3日のアイオワ党員集会までにまだ多くのことが起こり得ます。 現職大統領を打倒するのは大きな挑戦です。景気が今から来年11月までにリセッションに入らず、政権が高プロファイルの政策失敗を被らずに政策成果を達成できる限り、当社のジオポリティカル・ストラテジー同僚はトランプが2020年選挙の推定勝者であるべきだと主張します。彼らの見立ては、誰が民主党の指名を獲得するかにかかわらず当てはまります。米国有権者は時間とともに左寄りにシフトしていますが（チャート 12）、それでもです。 ワシントンを根本的に変えるのは口で言うほど簡単ではありません。建国の父たちは連邦政府を大幅な変化に対してかなり耐性のあるものに設計しました。選挙人団は大統領選で国民感情の高まりを抑え、議会と裁判所は行政府の権力を制限します。上下両院で多数派を持つ政権でも、一つの大きな立法イニシアティブを達成して政治資本を使い果たすと（オバマ政権と医療保険制度改革のように）欲しいほどの自由は得られないことが常です。たとえ来年11月に民主党がウォーレン氏の追い風で議会を制圧したとしても、保守的またはスウィング地区・州の議員は彼女の提案全体に躊躇するでしょう。 チャート 12 民主党有権者はより左に傾いている 旅先からの質問 旅先からの質問 投資への示唆 我々のより楽観的な世界経済見通しは、世界各地域・ブロックにおける株式のより建設的な配分に反映されます。BCAのハウス・ビューは、戦術的（0〜3か月）および景気循環的（3〜12か月）の時間軸で、グローバル株式ポートフォリオ内で新興市場とユーロ圏へのイコールウェイト配分を推奨します。世界成長が加速し始めたら、我々は新興市場とユーロ圏の株式をオーバーウェイトに格上げし、米国株をオーバーウェイトから格下げすることを期待しています。また、データが我々のベースケースの成長シナリオを検証する態勢であれば、ドルに対してハイアベータの通貨を好み、円やスイス・フランのようなローアベータ通貨へのエクスポージャーは制限または回避することを支持します。 BCAの推奨は特にデータ依存的になっています。世界の投資家は明確に「証拠を見せてほしい（show-me）」モードに入っているようです。当社として、そして先週の会合から受けた印象に支えられた感触として、投資家は成長見通しやリスク資産に対して容易に楽観できないでいます。貿易関連のツイートに心をすり減らされ、最近の異例な金融政策措置が成長やインフレに目に見える影響を及ぼすとは懐疑的であり、転換の決定的な証拠を見て初めてポートフォリオポジションを調整したがります。この慎重さは、事業サイクル後期に出る矛盾するシグナルや地政学的不確実性の高止まりも反映しています。 もし我々の見通しどおり世界経済がまもなく反転するなら、世界の投資家はサイクリックなエクスポージャーをポートフォリオに追加する準備をしておくべきです。例えエリザベス・ウォーレンが民主党指名の現時点の有力候補として地位を固めたとしてもです。 この慎重さから、我々は0〜3か月の戦術的時間軸ではフィクスト・インカム・ポートフォリオにベンチマークのデュレーションエクスポージャーを推奨し続けていますが、近い将来を越えた金利エクスポージャーにはほとんど意欲がなく、3〜12か月の景気循環的および12か月超の戦略的時間軸ではベンチマーク以下のデュレーションです。12か月全体では、成長が強まれば良好な米国企業がより信用力のあるクレジットになると期待し、ZIRP/NIRPは残余の一部を引き続き保護すると見ているため、スプレッド商品を引き続き好みます。我々は相対的な米国株のリターンが鈍化する可能性を支持しますが、世界成長は絶対的な株式リターンを押し上げるはずであり、バランスド・ポートフォリオでは少なくともイコールウェイトの株式を維持することを推奨し続けます。 Doug Peta, CFA チーフ米国投資ストラテジスト dougp@bcaresearch.com 脚注 1 我々はパウエル議長が述べた見解に同意しており、今回の利下げはサイクルの中間で行う利下げであって、新たな緩和サイクルの始まりではないという認識です。

Highlights The manufacturing slowdown, on its own, is unlikely to tip the economy into a recession. The sector accounts for a small share of U.S. output and employment, and will gain a tailwind from a pick-up in global growth. A larger and more stable service sector mitigates manufacturing’s impact on the employment and consumption outlook. The bar is too high for manufacturing job losses to lift the overall unemployment rate towards recession-inducing levels. The recent divergence between alternative measures of U.S. manufacturing activity confirms the resilience of the domestic manufacturing sector relative to the rest of the world. Feature Manufacturing activity has been the most prominent casualty of the trade war between the U.S. and China, and global manufacturing PMIs have languished as tensions have intensified with no clear end in sight. Throughout the spring and early summer, manufacturing activity in the comparatively closed U.S. economy held up better than it did overseas. In August, however, the ISM Manufacturing PMI finally crossed the 50 expansion/contraction line and subsequently dipped well below it in September. Evidence of weakness was broad-based throughout September’s report and the fact that forward-looking components like new orders, new export orders and backlogs of orders all contracted further has caught our attention. Although, like most developed markets, the U.S. is a service economy, and consumption accounts for the lion’s share of its GDP, it is certainly not immune to manufacturing cycles. We are not turning a blind eye to the global manufacturing slowdown, nor downplaying its magnitude, but for now we are not overly worried about it. Regular readers know that we continue to believe that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong, supported most of all by an especially robust labor market. The manufacturing slowdown is near the top of investors’ concerns, however, so we measure how severe a manufacturing slowdown would have to be to cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. We find that the bar is high and the slowdown has low odds of getting that bad if, as we expect, global growth eventually recovers. Until a pick-up truly materializes, we remain comforted by our expectation that buoyant consumption and government spending will keep the U.S. economy out of too much trouble. David And Goliath Chart 1Services May Be Larger, But Goods Punch Harder Technology and globalization have revolutionized the manufacturing process and disrupted the global economic landscape. As the outsourcing of manufacturing activities to lower-cost countries has become more and more prevalent, developed markets have steadily transitioned to service economies. Since the 1950s, goods-producing sectors’ share of U.S. GDP has decreased from half to 29%. Nevertheless, a third of the economy is not negligible, especially when it swings much more wildly than the services sector, which is more than twice its size (Chart 1). In a previous report1 where we looked at the components of the U.S. GDP equation, we showed that smaller, more volatile fixed investment was considerably more likely to negate trend growth in the rest of the economy than giant, but stable, consumption. This narrative echoes the dynamics at play with the manufacturing portion of the U.S. economy. Given their greater variability, goods-producing sectors are just as likely to wipe out 2% trend growth in services as services are to wipe out 2% manufacturing growth (Table 1). Table 1Another Road To Recession This would be bad news if we thought the manufacturing slowdown had a lot more downside. We continue to believe in a global growth recovery narrative, however, powered by impending Chinese stimulus and revived trade negotiations. U.S. industrial production and capacity utilization both surprised to the upside in August and global growth is showing budding signs of a recovery (Chart 2). Moreover, our colleagues at Global Investment Strategy have found that industrial cycles last an average of 36 months, divided into an 18-month uptrend and an 18-month downtrend.2 Absent any major trade deterioration, the tenure of the current down leg suggests that an upturn in manufacturing activity is on its way (Chart 3). Chart 2Towards A Global Growth Pick-Up Chart 3The Global Manufacturing Cycle Has Likely Reached A Bottom   Another channel through which the manufacturing slowdown could hurt the U.S. economy is via manufacturing job losses and the detrimental effect they would have on overall U.S. consumption. Goods-producing sectors employ 21.1 million, including 12.9 million in manufacturing roles - a puny 14% and 8% of total nonfarm payrolls, respectively. The productivity gains that technological improvements and automated processes have unlocked over the years have allowed a modest share of U.S. workers who make tangible things to produce double their proportionate share of U.S. output. Bottom Line: Goods-producing sectors represent less than a third of U.S. GDP and less than a sixth of U.S. jobs. That’s enough for the global manufacturing slowdown to cause some domestic slowing, but not enough to end the expansion on its own. A High Pain Threshold Akin to the goods-producing sectors’ contribution to overall U.S. GDP, aggregate manufacturing payrolls tend to exhibit more volatility than aggregate services payrolls, particularly on the downside (Chart 4). Before the 1980s, because manufacturing activity accounted for a larger share of the U.S. economy and created a larger portion of jobs, a mere deceleration in the pace of payroll expansion was sufficient to tip the economy into a recession. The paradigm has shifted and it now takes a more severe manufacturing downturn to inflict real harm on the U.S. economy. Since the 1980s, no recession has occurred independent of a full-on contraction in manufacturing employment. We are not there yet, as manufacturing payrolls are still growing at a 1.1% pace. Aggregate manufacturing payrolls tend to exhibit higher volatility than aggregate services payrolls, particularly on the downside. Chart 4A Paradigm Shift Our Global Investment Strategy colleagues have previously shown that throughout the post-war era, whenever the 3-month moving average of the unemployment rate has risen by at least a third of a percentage point from its cyclical lows, a recession has ensued (Chart 5). The U.S. unemployment rate just made a fifty-year low and we do not expect a quick material reversal in the short run. A resilient service sector, ambitious hiring plans and elevated levels of job openings, coupled with a revival in global growth, should hold the U.S. unemployment rate in check for the time being (Chart 6). Chart 5The Recession-Inducing Level Of Unemployment... Chart 6...Is Not Imminent Given Strong Hiring Plans Investors are right to be concerned about the manufacturing slowdown nonetheless. To address those concerns more closely, and to challenge our own view, we calculated the number of manufacturing job losses that would be required to push the unemployment rate up to recession-inducing levels. The U.S. unemployment rate fell to a fifty-year low of 3.5% in September, tugging the 3-month moving average down to 3.6%. There are several paths the unemployment rate can take from current levels for its 3-month moving average to grow by a third of a percentage point. It may gain a linear 10 basis points a month and reach a 3.9% average in the fifth month. Myriad non-linear paths could get the moving average to 3.9% in more or less than five months. For the sake of this exercise, we do not choose a particular path, but simply assume that the 3-month moving average of the unemployment rate reaches 3.9% over three, six and twelve months. We build on the work of the economists at the Atlanta Fed and calculate the number of manufacturing job losses required to achieve a 3.9% target unemployment rate over those three timeframes. We used the Atlanta Fed Jobs Calculator’s3 default inputs, and the details and results of our subsequent calculations are summarized in Table 2. Table 2The Payroll Road To Recession Chart 7The Bar Is High For Manufacturing To Trigger A Recession Under the default assumptions of a constant participation rate and a population growth rate unchanged from the past twelve months’, it would take 313,000 job losses over three months for the overall U.S. unemployment rate to reach 3.9%. We assume that the private service sector, which shows no sign of distress, will continue to add jobs. It has done so at a historical average monthly growth rate of 0.19% but given that the overall economy has clearly slowed, we assume instead that the service sector will continue to add jobs at the slower 0.13% pace of the past twelve months. Under this more conservative assumption, the economy would gain 560,000 nonmanufacturing jobs over the next three months. Consequently, it would take 873,000 manufacturing job losses alone to offset these gains and lift the unemployment rate to 3.9% within three months. Over a six- and twelve-month horizon, the number of manufacturing job losses required to offset payroll expansion in services reaches 1.1 and 1.6 million, respectively.4 These levels of manufacturing job losses – equivalent to a 7% to 12% contraction in manufacturing payrolls - seem like a stretch in the current macroeconomic backdrop. The only time in the past seventy years when the U.S. economy experienced manufacturing job losses of this magnitude on a 3- month time period was in the first quarter of 1975, when the U.S. economy confronted a tripling of oil prices from the oil embargo. Manufacturing job losses in excess of 1.1 and 1.6 million jobs over a 6- and 12-month horizon have historically been more attainable (Chart 7). That said, manufacturing payrolls are still expanding on a 6- and 12-month horizon, albeit at a decelerating pace. Not only are manufacturing payrolls gains far from recession-inducing levels, manufacturing employment will gain a tailwind from the pick-up in global growth and turn in global industrial production cycles that we expect. These levels of manufacturing job losses – equivalent to a 7% to 12% contraction in manufacturing payrolls – seem like a stretch in the current macroeconomic backdrop. Bottom Line: The bar seems a little too high for the manufacturing slowdown alone to destroy enough jobs to tip the U.S. economy into a full-fledged recession. What Oil Shock? One can argue that the September oil shock caused by attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure will exert further pressure on global manufacturing activities. While it is true that large jumps in oil prices have often preceded recessions, we think the probability is slight that September’s event will jeopardize the prospects of a global growth recovery (Chart 8). Chart 8Oil Spikes And Recessions Chart 9U.S. Output Is Less Dependent On Oil First, not only was the September surge in oil prices tame relative to the spikes that have preceded past recessions, but the quicker-than-expected return of Saudi oil production has calmed markets. For now, the oil scare ended as quickly as it appeared. Second, higher oil prices are less of a drag on the U.S. economy than they were in the 1970s, as the country has become one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world and approaches true energy independence. The gradual shift from a manufacturing to services economy has also reduced the oil intensity of the U.S. economy to a little more than a third of what it was at the time of the 1970s oil embargo (Chart 9). Moreover, higher gasoline prices are less likely to hurt U.S. consumers now that filling the tank takes up a smaller portion of their wallets (Chart 10). As Fed Chair Jay Powell put it in a speech last week, “we now judge that a price spike would likely have nearly offsetting effects on U.S. GDP.” Chart 10Filling The Tank Takes Up A Smaller Portion Of Consumers' Wallets Conflicting Messages? Chart 11The ISM Manufacturing PMI's Sensitivity To Global Growth The ISM Manufacturing Composite PMI is our favored measure of U.S. manufacturing activity as its long track record allows for comparison across multiple business cycles. Although it only offers insights back to 2011, the alternative IHS Markit Manufacturing PMI is nevertheless widely watched by investors and we take note of its moves. While the recent ISM readings have been dismal, the Markit Manufacturing PMI for the U.S. accelerated to 51.1 in September. At first glance, it might seem that both readings are contradicting each other. In fact, the current divergence is not unprecedented and stems from differences in sub-component weighting methodology and in sample size and composition. The ISM reading focuses on larger multinational companies, whereas the U.S. Markit PMI polls a wider array of companies by size. Multinationals’ earnings are more directly affected by global growth developments than smaller and domestically-focused firms. Therefore, in periods of accelerating global and ex-U.S. growth, the ISM PMI tends to score higher than the Markit PMI, and vice versa (Chart 11). A still-expanding Markit Manufacturing PMI combined with a contracting ISM Manufacturing PMI simply reinforces the argument that the domestic manufacturing sector is more resilient than ex-U.S. manufacturing activity, and highlights the potential for an improvement in business confidence if the U.S. and China can reach some sort of detente. Investment Implications In spite of evidence that global manufacturing weakness is spreading, our overall assessment of the U.S. economy remains intact. Assuming an exogenous event does not snuff out the expansion, we do not expect the next recession to occur until after monetary policy turns restrictive. Since the Fed has pivoted to accommodation, along with the world’s other major central banks, we have pushed out our recession timetable back to at least the middle of 2021. We therefore think it is too early to de-risk investment portfolios. We have previously shown that bull markets tend to sprint to the finish line and we remain bullish on a 12-month cyclical horizon. Though we are not concerned that the end of the cycle is at hand, tariff tensions are squeezing trade flows and business confidence. Volatility is likely to remain elevated in the near term until trade tensions die down and the global economy demonstrates that an upturn is at hand. We are therefore neutral on equities over the tactical 0-to-3-month timeframe and recommend investors overweight cash to keep some dry powder at hand. We still recommend that investors underweight bonds in balanced portfolios.   Jennifer Lacombe, Senior Analyst jenniferl@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “If We Were Wrong”, dated April 8, 2019, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The reason underpinning this cyclicality is that most purchased goods retain some value for a certain amount of time before they need to be replaced. 3 The Atlanta Fed Jobs Calculator tool is available at https://www.frbatlanta.org/chcs/calculator?panel=1 4 Had we assumed that the nonmanufacturing payrolls continue to grow at the historical average monthly rate of 0.19% instead, the levels of manufacturing job losses required to offset the nonmanufacturing gains and lift the unemployment rate to 3.9% would be 1.1 million, 1.6 million and 2.6 million manufacturing job losses over a 3-, 6- and 12-month time horizon, respectively.