BCA Indicators/Model

Highlights Corporate Bonds: High corporate debt levels will be a problem for corporate bond investors during the next downturn, but spreads will not respond to them until inflationary pressures mount and monetary policy turns restrictive. Maintain an overweight allocation to corporate bonds versus Treasuries, with a preference for the Baa and high-yield credit tiers. MBS: Agency MBS spreads are competitive with high-rated (Aaa, Aa, A) corporate bonds, and look even more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. We recommend that investors swap the Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate bonds in their portfolios for agency MBS. Municipal Bonds: Investors should upgrade municipal bonds from neutral to overweight, given the recent back-up in Municipal / Treasury yield ratios. Within munis, investors should retain a preference for long-maturity Aaa-rated bonds, where yields are most compelling. Feature We attended BCA’s annual Investment Conference last week. The event always provides a good opportunity to hear from some expert panelists and find out what issues are front and center in our clients’ minds. More than anything else, two themes kept popping up in the different presentations and in conversations with attendees: Large corporate debt balances Under-priced inflation risk We can’t help but see a strong connection between the two. On Corporate Debt The consensus among panelists and attendees was very much in line with our own view: Highly levered balance sheets will be a problem for corporate bond investors during the next default cycle, but don’t help us determine when that default cycle will occur. Chart 1 shows that, despite the persistent increase in the debt-to-profits ratio, corporate bankruptcies are well contained. We examined the reasons for this divergence in a recent report, concluding that accommodative monetary policy is holding down the default rate by keeping interest costs low and giving banks the confidence to roll over maturing debt.1 Essentially, banks will look through signs of deteriorating corporate balance sheet health until the Fed shifts to a more restrictive policy stance. Chart 1Corporate Balance Sheets Are In Bad Shape, But Defaults Are Low Corporate Balance Sheets Are In Bad Shape, But Defaults Are Low Corporate Balance Sheets Are In Bad Shape, But Defaults Are Low On Inflation This is where inflation becomes important. The Fed is currently running an accommodative monetary policy because many years of low prices have convinced investors that inflation might never return. As a result, the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is only 1.53%, well below the 2.3% - 2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s target. The Fed must maintain an accommodative policy stance until it achieves its goal of re-anchoring inflation expectations. Only then will monetary policy turn restrictive, raising the risk of a corporate default cycle. We have long held the view that a 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate above 2.3% would cause us to turn much more cautious on corporate credit. It might take many months of core inflation printing near the Fed’s target before investors start to believe that it will stay there indefinitely. Many conference panelists thought that inflation risks are currently under-priced, and while we tend to agree that it is premature to declare the death of the Phillips curve, we expect it will still take some time before inflation expectations hit our 2.3% - 2.5% target range. We have shown in prior research that inflation expectations adapt only slowly to changes in the actual inflation data.2  At present, the fair value reading from our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate is only 1.94% (Chart 2). This fair value will move higher if inflation continues to print near current levels, but that process will take some time. In other words, it might take many months of core inflation printing near the Fed’s target before investors start to believe that it will stay there indefinitely. Chart 2Adaptive Expectations Model Adaptive Expectations Model Adaptive Expectations Model Chart 3Inflation Not Far From Target Inflation Not Far From Target Inflation Not Far From Target While the adaptive process might take a long time, it’s important to note that inflation is already quite close to the Fed’s target. Trailing 12-month trimmed mean PCE inflation came in at 1.96% in August, while year-over-year core PCE hit 1.77% (Chart 3). Trimmed mean inflation has been more stable than other inflation measures since the financial crisis, and core PCE has tended to drift toward the trimmed mean over time.      On Corporate Debt & Inflation In our view, the two themes of high corporate debt and under-priced inflation risk are tightly linked. It has taken a very long time for the economy to recover from the financial crisis. As a result, inflation has been low for a prolonged period and the Fed has been forced to maintain an accommodative policy stance. That accommodative policy stance encourages banks to extend credit, and encourages firms to issue debt. Eventually, inflation pressures will mount, the Fed’s policy will turn restrictive and weak corporate balance sheets will be exposed. Only then, will corporate spreads widen significantly. Until that time, the pertinent question is whether corporate spreads offer adequate compensation for the risk that inflationary pressures emerge earlier than anticipated. For now, our answer is yes, with the caveat that the risk/reward trade-off is more attractive in the lower credit tiers. The 12-month high-yield breakeven spread is very attractive, well above its historical median (Chart 4). But within investment grade, we view only the Baa-rated credit tier as offering adequate compensation (Chart 4, bottom panel). There are better alternatives to owning Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate bonds, as discussed in the next section. Chart 4Corporate Bond Valuation Corporate Bond Valuation Corporate Bond Valuation Favor Agency MBS Over High-Rated Corporate Credit Chart 5MBS More Attractive Than High-Rated Corporate Bonds MBS More Attractive Than High-Rated Corporate Bonds MBS More Attractive Than High-Rated Corporate Bonds As noted above, investment grade corporate bonds rated A or higher don’t offer much expected compensation at current spread levels. In fact, our prior research notes that their spreads are already below our cyclical targets.3 But on the plus side, the average option-adjusted spread (OAS) for conventional 30-year agency MBS has widened in recent months and now looks like an attractive alternative to high-rated corporate credit. We recommend that investors shift out of Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate credit and into agency MBS for three reasons. 1) Expected Compensation Is Competitive The average OAS for conventional 30-year agency MBS now stands at 52 bps. This is only 6 bps below the average OAS offered by a Aa-rated corporate bond, and 37 bps less than that offered by an A-rated credit (Chart 5). That’s not bad for a Aaa-rated bond with agency backing. 2) Risk-Adjusted Compensation Is Stellar MBS spreads look much more attractive when we consider the risk profile. Specifically, when we consider that the average duration of the MBS index has fallen sharply this year, while the average duration of the investment grade corporate bond index has risen (Chart 5, panel 2). In fact, the average duration of the MBS index is only 2.9, compared to 7.8 for an A-rated corporate bond. This means that the MBS spread needs to widen by 18 bps over the next 12 months for an investor to see losses, while the A-rated spread needs to widen by only 11 bps (Chart 5, bottom panel). We recommend that investors shift out of Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate credit and into agency MBS. Because MBS exhibit negative convexity, their duration declines when yields fall. By contrast, non-callable investment grade corporate bonds have positive convexity and have seen their durations rise. This means that, all else equal, negatively convex securities start to look more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis after a large decline in bond yields. This is also the main reason why negatively convex high-yield corporate bonds currently look much more attractive than investment grade corporate bonds.4 Interestingly, MBS did not look so attractive relative to corporate bonds in 2015/16, the last time that MBS index duration fell sharply. That’s because corporate bond spreads also widened during that period. This time around, corporate bond spreads have been stable as MBS index duration has plunged. Unless you think that Treasury yields have further downside, which we do not,5 agency MBS look like a good buy. 3) Macro Risks Are Lower While, as discussed above, we are not yet sounding the alarm about the macro risks to corporate bonds, we are even less concerned about the macro risks surrounding agency MBS. Mortgage refinancing activity is the most important macro driver of MBS spreads, and it should stay relatively low for a very long time. At such low mortgage rates, most homeowners have already had an opportunity to refinance, so refi burnout is currently very high. This is obvious when we observe that there was only a small spike in refi activity this year, despite a very large decline in mortgage rates (Chart 6). Chart 6Muted Refi Activity Will Keep Nominal Spreads Low Muted Refi Activity Will Keep Nominal Spreads Low Muted Refi Activity Will Keep Nominal Spreads Low Chart 6 also shows that the nominal MBS spread is highly correlated with refi activity, and that it remains near its historical tights. This spread contains both the OAS – which is a proxy for an MBS investor’s expected return – and the portion of the spread that is expected to be lost as a result of prepayment activity. The fact that the OAS is reasonably elevated compared to history while the overall nominal spread remains low means that MBS are pricing-in very little buffer for prepayment losses. Given the macro back-drop, this seems appropriate. Beyond refi risk, we also note that the credit quality of outstanding mortgages remains very high. The median FICO score on new mortgages has barely come down since the financial crisis (Chart 7). Further, while mortgage lending standards have been easing for the bulk of the post-crisis period, the Fed’s July Senior Loan Officer survey reported that the banks that view lending standards as tighter than the post-2005 average outnumber those that view standards as easier. Stronger housing activity data generally lead to higher mortgage rates, which in turn limit refi activity. Finally, there is very little reason to be concerned about significant weakness in housing activity. Of the six major housing activity data series that we track, all have rebounded sharply since this year’s drop in mortgage rates (Chart 8). Stronger housing activity data generally lead to higher mortgage rates, which in turn limit refi activity. Chart 7Mortgage Lending Standards Are Tight Mortgage Lending Standards Are Tight Mortgage Lending Standards Are Tight Chart 8Housing Activity Hooking Up Housing Activity Hooking Up Housing Activity Hooking Up   Bottom Line: Agency MBS spreads are competitive with high-rated (Aaa, Aa, A) corporate bonds, and look even more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. We recommend that investors swap the Aaa, Aa and A-rated corporate bonds in their portfolios for agency MBS. Upgrade Municipal Bonds On July 23, we advised investors to reduce municipal bond exposure from overweight to neutral.6 The rationale was purely valuation driven. We saw no immediate signs of municipal credit distress, but noted that yields were simply too low relative to the alternatives. Today, we similarly see no signs of immediate credit distress. In fact, municipal bond ratings upgrades continue to outpace downgrades, our Municipal Health Monitor remains in “improving health” territory and state & local government interest coverage is strong (Chart 9).7 Chart 9Muni Credit Quality Is Not A Concern Muni Credit Quality Is Not A Concern Muni Credit Quality Is Not A Concern The difference, however, is that yield ratios have rebounded dramatically since early August, and municipal bonds have once again become attractive (Chart 10). Chart 10Munis Attractive Once Again Munis Attractive Once Again Munis Attractive Once Again Bottom Line: Investors should upgrade municipal bonds from neutral to overweight, given the recent back-up in Municipal / Treasury yield ratios. Within munis, investors should retain a preference for long-maturity Aaa-rated bonds, where yields are most compelling.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Corporate Bond Investors Should Not Fight The Fed”, dated September 17, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 The high-yield bond index is negatively convex because most high-yield credits carry embedded call options. Investment grade corporate bonds tend to be non-callable. 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “What’s Up In U.S. Money Markets?”, dated September 24, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “A Message To The TIPS Market”, dated July 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 For further details on our Municipal Health Monitor please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle”, dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights The fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong but investors’ skittishness has caused stocks to fluctuate with the ebb and flow of news headlines. With investor sentiment playing a leading role, we introduce a simple framework for tracking the course of animal spirits. Earnings expectations are undemanding, risk appetite remains robust and the monetary policy backdrop is supportive of the expansion. However, geopolitical unpredictability and potential irrational exuberance send warning signals. We continue to believe that recession worries are overblown, but there is no rule that says bear markets can only occur alongside recessions. Although there are some areas of concern, our overall assessment of other potential bear market triggers does not suggest that trouble is at hand. Feature A bear can find plenty to worry about these days. The trade war is still casting a shadow over global trade prospects, global manufacturing activity is slowing, the U.K. and German economies contracted in the second quarter and recent attacks demonstrated that Middle Eastern oil facilities were more vulnerable than investors realized. The R-word has abounded in the financial press all summer and the number of Google searches for the term “recession” surged to levels last reached in the months leading to the Great Financial Crisis. The summer anxiety did not last, though. Powered by a perceived cooling of trade tensions and monetary support from the Fed, the S&P 500 has already recouped all of its summer losses. The market swings were not driven by the domestic macroeconomic backdrop, which remained largely unremarkable. The U.S. economy is slowing after 2018’s sugar rush, but is still getting enough fiscal support to grow at or above trend despite the global slowdown. To this point, the slowdown has been confined to manufacturing, and the history of past industrial production cycles suggests it has almost run its course. The service sector is resilient across the developed world and the fundamentals for U.S. consumption remain strong. Fundamentals are not the whole story, however, and they have lately taken a backseat to politicians’ whims. The resulting anxiety has made it relatively easy to surpass downwardly revised expectations (Chart 1), and we have little concern that the bottom is about to drop out of S&P 500 earnings. But earnings are only half of the equation. The multiple investors are willing to pay for those earnings is the other half, and they could be the key swing factor if earnings growth is going to remain in the low single digits. Chart 1Markets And Economic Data Are Out Of Sync Markets And Economic Data Are Out Of Sync Markets And Economic Data Are Out Of Sync We introduce a simple framework for tracking animal spirits. Multiples are largely a function of investor enthusiasm, and we attempt to track it via the Ex-Recession Bear Market Checklist developed by our sister Global ETF Strategy service (Table 1). It seeks to measure animal spirits across six dimensions: expectations, prices, appetite, euphoria, policy and geopolitics. Constructing the checklist is necessarily subjective, and as such we consider it a welcome complement to our fundamental analysis. We remain deeply invested in searching out the coming equity market inflection point, and delving into animal spirits allows us to track a wider range of potential catalysts. Table 1Ex-Recession Bear Market Checklist Euphoric Angst Euphoric Angst Expectations Chart 2Back To Sustainable Levels... Back To Sustainable Levels... Back To Sustainable Levels... After calling for unusually strong late-cycle profits growth last year on the back of the cut in corporate tax rates, earnings expectations are undemanding relative to history (Chart 2). Consensus S&P 500 earnings estimates for the full year project just 1.5% growth over 2018. As of the beginning of last week, analysts had penciled in a 3% year-over-year decline in 3Q earnings for the S&P 500. Those estimates are likely to be revised even lower as corporations make sure they’ve underpromised in the final two weeks before 3Q earnings season kicks off. Perhaps the consensus is a bit too conservative. Even though the year-over-year benefits of corporate tax cuts are gone, the dovish pivots by the Fed and other major central banks will support earnings growth. In the U.S. in particular, where the economy is still strong, easier financial conditions should help extend the shelf life of the current expansion through 2020. Bottom Line: Earnings growth is not going to blast higher, but profits are unlikely to contract as long as the Fed continues to support the expansion. The earnings bar has been set very low, and it will be rather easy for S&P 500 companies to exceed it. Prices We keep close tabs on valuation metrics, though we try not to get too wrapped up in them. Expensive (cheap) stocks can get more expensive (cheaper) as investors can remain irrational for a while. Valuations only become prone to mean-revert when they reach extreme levels. Chart 3Restored Normal Mirror-Image Relationship Restored Normal Mirror-Image Relationship Restored Normal Mirror-Image Relationship Forward multiples offer greater insight when considered in conjunction with forward earnings estimates. It is unusual for both earnings estimates and forward multiples to be extended at the same time, as they were in 2018, because investors are typically unwilling to pay high multiples when they suspect that earnings may be peaking. The more normal mirror-image relationship has restored itself this year, as projected earnings growth has slipped below its mean level, balancing out the above-mean forward multiple (Chart 3). Chart 4Definitely Elevated, But Not Problematic Yet Definitely Elevated, But Not Problematic Yet Definitely Elevated, But Not Problematic Yet   Other conventional valuation measures remain elevated but valuations within one standard deviation of the mean are far from extreme (Chart 4). The S&P 500 price-to-sales ratio is the only metric nearing the two-standard-deviation level that marks what we view as the beginning of extreme territory. It is worth noting valuations have only eroded modestly in the current global geopolitical backdrop. Though they slid in the wake of the first tariff announcement, they have mostly recovered and have seemed somewhat inured to subsequent escalations, which may suggest that investors are becoming complacent about trade threats. Bottom Line: Stocks are fully priced and the fact that valuations were only modestly affected by tariff uncertainty has gotten our attention. One-sigma deviations do not point to an immediate reversal, however, so we will wait for more metrics to approach the two-sigma threshold before raising a red flag on valuations. Appetite IPO activity is a proxy for animal spirits. Well-received IPOs are a sign that investors still have a hearty appetite for what the future might hold and suggests that they do not fear the imminent end of the bull market. If new issues are too well received, however, IPO appetite becomes a contrary indicator. When an IPO frenzy takes hold, it’s a sign that optimism has reached unsustainable levels and the end of the cycle must be near. For now, we judge that the IPO market is healthy but not too healthy. Chart 5Improved Corporate Health Or Heightened Risk Appetite? Improved Corporate Health Or Heightened Risk Appetite? Improved Corporate Health Or Heightened Risk Appetite? We consider it healthy that the number of IPO deals has remained stable since 2017, though the fact that their average value has more than doubled over that time could be a sign that investors are willing to grant increasingly higher values to private and newly-public companies (Chart 5). The fact that a steadily increasing share of the companies commanding larger valuations have yet to turn a profit is somewhat unsettling (please see the “Euphoria” section, below). We are therefore encouraged that investors pushed back so vigorously against the IPO of We Work’s parent company. Media reports suggesting that the sub-lessor of office space may be valued around a quarter of management’s initial estimates indicates that institutional investors are not blindly chasing the next hot deal. The companies that have completed offerings this year have fared well. 60% of the U.S. companies that have gone public so far this year are trading above their initial offering price. The median “successful” IPO in 2019 has returned 50% since inception, while the median “unsuccessful” IPO lost 23%. This asymmetry and the larger number of “successful” IPOs suggests that IPOs continue to be generally well-received. Bottom Line: Investors’ appetite for new issues has held up despite a challenging geopolitical and global growth backdrop, while We Work’s struggles to attract a public ownership base suggests they have maintained some healthy skepticism. As it relates to the near-term outlook, we rate investor appetites as light green. Euphoria IPO activity can also offer a window into investor euphoria. The share of companies going public with negative earnings has reached levels last observed in the years preceding the dot-com crash. The fact that profitless IPOs are currently better received by investors than IPOs of profitable companies is a concern (Chart 6). Chart 6Getting Carried Away Getting Carried Away Getting Carried Away While we noted that aggregate S&P 500 valuations are within normal ranges, valuations among the most highly valued stocks suggest that some exuberance has broken out. Using the backtest functionality of BCA’s Equity Trading Strategy platform,1 we devised baskets of the top deciles of stocks ranked by Price-to-Earnings, Forward Price-to-Earnings, Price-to-Tangible Book Value, Price-to-Sales and Price-to-Operating Cash Flow. Chart 7The Most Expensive Stocks Are Getting More Expensive The Most Expensive Stocks Are Getting More Expensive The Most Expensive Stocks Are Getting More Expensive The rising median P/E ratio of the top-decile P/E stocks suggests that investors continue to support the highest valuations by piling into the most richly valued firms. The same pattern prevails for the top deciles of stocks ranked on the four other multiples (Chart 7). Four out of the five metrics we track are now at or above two standard deviations from their mean. Bottom Line: Demand for unprofitable companies’ IPOs and the extreme valuations of the highest-valued companies on a range of metrics suggest that investors have gotten a little carried away. We rate this dimension orange. Policy We previously noted that restrictive monetary policy has been a precondition for every recession in the last 50 years. Consistent with its repeated pledge to sustain the expansion as long as possible, the Fed delivered its second rate cut earlier this month, and central banks around the world have embarked on what is turning into a synchronized dovish pivot. Despite unanimous expectations of easier policy at its September meeting, the ECB managed to surprise somewhat dovishly with the announcement of an open-ended bond purchase program, dubbed “QE Infinity”. Other developed-economy central banks like the already accommodative Reserve Bank of New Zealand have been delivering dovish surprises in the form of larger-than-expected rate cuts. Bottom Line: Uber-dovish U.S. and global central banks should prolong the shelf life of the expansion. Geopolitics The U.S.-China trade war continues to loom as the biggest risk to the global economy and the main source of investor angst. The Iranian attack on critical Saudi Arabian infrastructure also has the potential to destabilize markets and exacerbate investor concerns. Our Geopolitical Strategy service could see U.S.-China tensions receding in the near term, but fear that Iran will be an ongoing irritant. The motivations on the U.S. side are straightforward: first and foremost, the current administration wants to be re-elected next November. It is way too early to call the election – we won’t know who will face off until next summer – but one ironclad law of presidential elections is surely on the administration’s mind. The incumbent party always loses the White House if a recession occurs during the campaign (Chart 8). If hard-nosed trade policy appeared to be pushing the economy in the direction of a recession, it is likely the administration would dial down its aggressiveness. Chart 8A 2020 Recession Is The Biggest Threat To Trump's Reelection Prospects A 2020 Recession Is The Biggest Threat To Trump's Reelection Prospects A 2020 Recession Is The Biggest Threat To Trump's Reelection Prospects Enter the Iranians. Their (apparent) attack on critical Saudi oil facilities2 signals that Middle Eastern tensions could intensify and crude prices could blast higher. As we wrote last week, the U.S. economy is far less exposed to an oil price shock than it was in the ‘70s, due mainly to its emergence as the world’s largest oil producer, but the rest of the world is vulnerable. An oil price shock could induce a global ex-U.S. recession. The U.S. is a comparatively closed economy, and it regularly responds to global forces with a longer lag than other economies. It does eventually respond to them, however, and if an oil price shock leads to recessions in major economies in the rest of the world, it will ultimately threaten the U.S. economy. Keeping the expansion going through November 2020 may require U.S. policymakers to focus carefully on the Middle East to defuse the potential implications of Iranian belligerence. The administration may need to cool tensions with China to free up the bandwidth to deal with Iran, and also to prevent trade tensions’ marginal pressure on global growth from making the global economy more vulnerable to an oil price spike. Our overall assessment of bear market triggers does not suggest that trouble is imminent. The U.S.-China pause our geopolitical colleagues have been calling for would not be as beneficial for markets as a holistic trade settlement, but it appears to be materializing. In deference to China’s National Day celebrations, the U.S. will delay the tariff hike that was supposed to begin October 1st (from 25% to 30% on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports). China, for its part, has issued waivers for tariffs and promised to increase purchases of U.S. farm goods. A trade deal with Japan has also been agreed in principle and is slated to be signed any day, while U.S. relations with Europe are marginally improving.3 Bottom Line: The latest pause in trade tensions is boosting investor sentiment and risk-asset performance but the unpredictability of the current administration’s actions and public communications still have the potential to rattle markets. We rate this dimension orange. Investment implications We continue to believe that worries of a recession are overblown, but it might also take time for investors to overcome all of their concerns. A lot of fear is already discounted in the 2019 earnings estimates correction, bringing the bar quite low for corporate earnings to beat expectations. Coupled with an accommodative policy backdrop and still-robust investor appetites, the expansion still has room to run. Equities are not a slam dunk at this point in the cycle. Valuations are full, global growth is uncertain, and geopolitics are a wild card. Volatility is likely to be elevated and subject to sporadic spikes. We remain positive on the U.S. economy and continue to expect global growth will pick up later this year, however, so we continue to recommend that investors remain at least equal weight equities in balanced portfolios.   Jennifer Lacombe, Senior Analyst jenniferl@bcaresearch.com Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Available at https://ets.bcaresearch.com/ 2 Abqaiq is the most important oil-processing facility in the world, and the Khurais oil field is adjacent to the Ghawar oil field, the world’s largest. 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report “Trump’s Tactical Retreat”, published September 13, 2019. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights President Trump’s support among Republicans and lack of smoking gun evidence will prevent his removal from office. Trade risk will increase if Trump’s approval benefits from impeachment proceedings and the U.S. economy is resilient. Political risk on the European mainland is falling. However, watch out for Russia and Turkey, and short 10-year versus 2-year gilts. A new election in Spain may not resolve the political deadlock. Book gains on our Hong Kong Hang Seng short. Feature Impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump, the brazen Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia, the persistence of trade war risk, and additional weak data from China and Europe all suggest that investors should remain risk averse for now. Specifically, Trump’s impeachment could drive him to seek distractions abroad – abandoning the tactical retreat from aggressive foreign and trade policy that had only just begun. Geopolitical risk outside of the hot spots is falling, especially in Europe. The risk of a no-deal Brexit has collapsed in line with our expectations. Italy and Germany have pleased markets by providing some fiscal stimulus sans populism. In France, President Emmanuel Macron’s popularity is recovering. And – as we discuss in this report – Spain’s election will not add any significant fear factor. In what follows we introduce a new GeoRisk Indicator, review the signal from all of our indicators over the past month, and then focus on Spain. Fear U.S. Politics, Not Impeachment The House Democrats’ decision to impeach Trump gives investors another reason to remain cautious on risk assets. Why not be bullish? It is true that impeachment without smoking gun evidence increases Trump’s chances of reelection, which is market positive relative to a Democratic victory. President Trump is virtually invulnerable to Democratic impeachment measures as long as Republicans continue to support him at a 91% rate (Chart 1). Senators will not defect in these circumstances, so Trump will not be removed from office. Trump is invulnerable to impeachment measures as long as GOP support remains high. Moreover the transcript of his phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy did not produce a bombshell: there is no explicit quid pro quo in which President Trump suggests he will withhold military aid to Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s and his son Hunter’s doings involving Ukraine. Any wrongdoing is therefore debatable, pending further evidence. This includes evidence beyond the “whistleblower’s complaint,” which suggests that the Trump team attempted to stifle the transcript of the aforementioned phone call. The point is that the grassroots GOP and Senate are the final arbiters of the debate. The problem is that scandal and impeachment will still likely feed equity market volatility (Chart 2). The House Democrats could turn up new evidence now that they are fully focused on impeachment and hearing from whistleblowers in the intelligence community. Chart 1GOP Not Yet Willing To Impeach Trump Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 Impeachment also has a negative market impact via the Democratic Party’s primary election. Elizabeth Warren has not dislodged Biden in the early Democratic Primary yet. Chart 2Impeachment Proceedings Likely To Raise Vol Impeachment Proceedings Likely To Raise Vol Impeachment Proceedings Likely To Raise Vol If she does, it will have a sizable negative impact on equity markets, as President Trump will still be only slightly favored to win reelection. Under any circumstances, this election will be extremely close, it has significant implications for fiscal policy and regulation, and therefore it will create a lot of uncertainty between now and November 2020. The whistleblower episode has if anything aggravated this uncertainty. As mentioned at the top of the report, if impeachment proceedings ever gain any traction they could drive Trump to seek distractions abroad – abandoning the tactical retreat from aggressive foreign and trade policy that had only just begun. Finally, Trump’s reelection, while more market-friendly than the alternative and likely to trigger a relief rally, is not as bullish as meets the eye. Trump’s policies in the second term will not be as favorable to corporates as in the first term. Unshackled by electoral concerns yet still facing a Democratic House, Trump will not be able to cut taxes but he will be likely to conduct his foreign and trade policy even more aggressively. This is not a market-positive outlook, regardless of whether it is beneficial to U.S. interests over the long run. Bottom Line: President Trump’s approval among Republican voters is the critical data point. Unless they abandon faith, the senate will not turn, and Trump’s support may even go up. But this is not a reason to turn bullish. The coming year will inevitably see a horror show of American political dysfunction that will lead to volatility and potentially escalating conflicts abroad. Introducing … Our Sino-American Trade Risk Indicator This week we introduce a new GeoRisk Indicator for the U.S.-China trade war (Chart 3). The indicator is based on the outperformance of overall developed market equities relative to those same equities that have high exposure to China, and on China’s private credit growth (“total social financing”). As our chart commentary shows, the indicator corresponds with the course of events throughout the trade war. It also correlates fairly well with alternative measures of trade risk, such as the count of key terms in news reports. Chart 3Trade Risk Will Go Up From Here Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 As we go to press, our indicator suggests that trade-war related risk is increasing. Over the past month Trump has staged a tactical retreat on foreign and trade policy in order to control economic risks ahead of the election. Our indicator suggests this is now priced. The problem is that Trump’s re-election risk enables China to drive a harder bargain, which is tentatively confirmed by China’s detainment of a FedEx employee (signaling it can trouble U.S. companies) and its cancellation of a tour of farms in Montana and Nebraska. These were not major events but they suggest China smells Trump’s hesitation and is going on the offensive in the negotiations. Principal negotiators are meeting in early October for a highly significant round of talks. If these result in substantive statements of progress – and evidence that the near-finished draft text from April is being completed – they could set up a summit between Presidents Xi Jinping and Donald Trump in November at the APEC summit in Santiago, Chile. At this point we would need to upgrade our 40% chance that a deal is concluded by November 2020. If the talks do not conclude with positive public outcomes then investors should not take it lightly. The Q4 negotiations are possibly the last attempt at a deal prior to the U.S. election. If there is no word of a Trump-Xi summit, it will confirm our pessimistic outlook on the end game. U.S.-China trade talks are unlikely to produce a durable agreement. Ultimately we do not believe that the U.S.-China trade talks will produce a conclusive and durable agreement that substantially removes trade war risk and uncertainty. This is especially the case if financial market and economic pressure – amid global monetary policy easing – is not pressing enough to force policymakers to compromise. But we will watch closely for any signs that Trump’s tactical retreat is surviving the impeachment proceedings and eliciting reciprocation from China, as this would point to a more sanguine outlook. Bottom Line: As long as the president’s approval rating benefits from the Democratic Party’s impeachment proceedings, and the U.S. economy is resilient, as we expect, Trump can avoid any capitulation to a shallow deal with China. Trade risk could go up from here. By the same token, impeachment proceedings could eventually force Trump to change tactics yet again and stake out a much more aggressive posture in foreign affairs. If impeachment gains traction, or a bear market develops, he could become more aggressive than at any stage in his presidency – and this aggression could be directed at China (or Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, or another country). The risk to our view is that China accepts Trump’s trade position in order to win a reprieve for its economy and the two sides agree to a deal at the APEC summit. European Risk Falls, While Russian And Turkish Risk Can Hardly Fall Further Elsewhere our measures of geopolitical risk indicate a decrease in tensions for a number of developed and emerging markets (see Appendix). In Germany, risk can rise a bit from current levels but is mostly contained – this is not the case in the United Kingdom beyond the very short run. In Russia and Turkey, risk can hardly fall further. Take, for starters, Germany, where political risk declined after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling coalition agreed to a 50 billion euro fiscal spending package to battle climate change. This agreement confirms our assessment that while German politics are fundamentally stable, the administration will be reactive rather than proactive in applying stimulus. Europe will have to wait for a global crisis, or a new German government, for a true “game changer” in German fiscal policy. Perhaps the Green Party, which is surging in polls and as such drove Merkel into this climate spending, will enable such a development. But it is too early to say. Meanwhile Merkel’s lame duck years and external factors will prevent political risk from subsiding completely. We see the odds of U.S. car tariffs at no higher than 30%, at least as long as Sino-American tensions persist. By contrast, the United Kingdom’s political risks are not contained despite a marked improvement this month. The Supreme Court’s decision on September 25 to nullify Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation of parliament drove another nail into the coffin of his threat to pull the country out of the EU without a deal. This was a gambit to extract concessions from the EU that has utterly flopped.1 Since it was the most credible threat of a no-deal exit that is likely to be mounted, its failure should mark a step down in political risk for the U.K. and its neighbors. However, paradoxically, our GeoRisk indicator failed to corroborate the pound’s steep slide throughout the summer and now, as no-deal is closed off, it has stopped falling. The reason is that the pound’s rate of depreciation remained relatively flat over the summer, while U.K. manufacturing PMI – one of the explanatory variables in our indicator – dropped off much faster as global manufacturing plummeted. As a result, our indicator registered this as a decrease in political risk. The world feared recession more than it feared a no-deal Brexit – and this turned out to be the right call by the market. But the situation will reverse if global growth improves and new British elections are scheduled, since the latter could well revive the no-deal exit risk, especially if the Tories are returned with thin majority under a coalition. The truth is that the Brexit saga is far from over and the U.K. faces an election, a possible left-wing government, and ultimately resilient populism once it becomes clear that neither leaving nor staying in the EU will resolve the middle class’s angst. Our long GBP-USD recommendation is necessarily tactical and we will turn sellers at $1.30. In emerging markets, Russia and Turkey have seen political risk fall so low that it is hard to see it falling any further without some political development causing an increase. Based on our latest assessment, Turkey is almost assured to see a spike in risk in the near future. This could happen because of the formation of a domestic political alliance against President Recep Erdogan or because of the increase in external risks centering on the fragile U.S.-Turkey deal on Syria. Tensions with Iran could also produce oil price shocks that weaken the economy and embolden the opposition. As for Russia, our base case is that Russia will continue to focus internal domestic problems to the neglect of foreign objectives, which helps geopolitical risk stay low. With U.S. politics in turmoil and a possible conflict with Iran on the horizon, Moscow has no reason to attract hostile attention to itself. Nevertheless Moscow has proved unpredictable and aggressive throughout the Putin era, it has no real loyalty to Trump yet could fall victim to the Democrats’ wrath, and it has an incentive to fan the flames in the Middle East and Asia Pacific. So to expect geopolitical risk to fall much further is to tempt the fates. Bottom Line: European political risk is falling, but Merkel’s lame duck status and trade war make German risk likely to rise from here despite stable political fundamentals. The United Kingdom still faces generationally elevated political risk despite the happy conclusion of the no-deal risk this summer. Go short 10-year versus 2-year gilts. Russia should remain quiet for now, but Turkey is almost guaranteed to experience a rise in political risk. Spain: Election Could Surprise But Risks Are Low Spanish voters will head to the polls on November 10 for the fourth time in four years after political leaders failed to reach a deal to form a permanent government. The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE) has served as a caretaker government after winning 123 out of 350 seats in the snap election in April. A new Spanish election will not resolve the current political deadlock. Prime Minister and PSOE leader Pedro Sanchez failed to be confirmed in July, and has since attempted to make a governing deal with the left-wing, anti-establishment party Podemos. However, PSOE is not looking for a full coalition but merely external support to continue governing in the minority. Hence it is only offering Podemos non-ministerial agencies (rather than high-level cabinet positions) in negotiations, leaving Podemos and other parties ready for an election. The outcome of the upcoming election may not differ much from the April election. The Spanish voter is not demanding change. Unemployment and underemployment have been decreasing, and wage growth has been positive since 2014 (Chart 4). In opinion polls, support for the various parties has not shifted significantly (Chart 5, top panel). PSOE is still leading by a considerable gap. Chart 4Spanish Voter Is Not Demanding Change Spanish Voter Is Not Demanding Change Spanish Voter Is Not Demanding Change However, the election will increase uncertainty at an inconvenient time, and it could produce surprises. PSOE’s support has slightly decreased since late July, when negotiations with Podemos started falling apart. Chart 5Not Much Change In Polls... Not Much Change In Polls... Not Much Change In Polls... Even if PSOE and Podemos form a governing pact, their combined popular support is not significantly higher than the combined support for the three main conservative parties. These are the Popular Party, Ciudadanos, and Vox (Chart 5, bottom panel) – which recently showed they can work together by making a governing deal to rule the regional government in Madrid. Chart 6…But Lower Turnout Could Hurt The Left Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 The Socialist Party hopes to capture borderline voters from Ciudadanos, namely those who are skeptical towards the party’s right-wing populist shift and hardening stance regarding Catalonia. However, even capturing as many as half of Ciudadanos’ voters would place PSOE support at ~37% – far short of what is needed to form a single-party majority government. Another factor that can hurt PSOE is voter turnout. Spanish voters have been less and less interested in supporting any party at all since the April election. A decrease in turnout would hurt left-wing parties the most, given that voters blame Podemos and PSOE more than PP and Ciudadanos for the failure to form a government (Chart 6). The most likely outcomes are the status quo, or a PSOE-Podemos alliance. But a conservative victory cannot be ruled out. In the former two cases, the implication is slightly more positive fiscal accommodation that is beneficial in the short-term, but at the risk of a loss of reform momentum that has long-term negative implications. To put this into context, Spanish politics remains domestic-oriented, not a threat to European integration. Voters in Spain are some of the most Europhile on the continent, both in terms of the currency and EU membership (Chart 7). Spain is a primary beneficiary of EU budget allocations, along with Italy. Even Spain’s extreme right-wing party Vox is not considered to be “hard euroskeptic.” Within Spain, however, political polarization is a problem. Inequality and social immobility are a concern, if not as extreme as in Italy, the U.K., or the United States. Moreover the Catalan separatist crisis is divisive. While a new Catalonian election is not scheduled until 2022, the pro-independence coalition of the Republican Left of Catalonia and Catalonia Yes has been gaining momentum in the polls, and Ciudadanos’s support plummeted since the party hardened its stance on Catalonia earlier this year (Chart 8). Catalonia is by no means going independent – support for independence in the region peaked in 2013 – but it remains a driving factor in Spanish politics. Chart 7Spaniards Love Europe Spaniards Love Europe Spaniards Love Europe Chart 8Catalonia Is A Divisive Issue Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 In the very short term, election paralysis introduces fiscal policy crosswinds. On one hand, regional governments may be forced to cut spending. The regions were expecting to receive EUR 5 billion more than last year, which was promised to be spent in part on healthcare and education. Until a stable (or at least caretaker) government can approve a 2019 budget, the regions will base their 2019 budgets on last year’s numbers, meaning they will have to cut any projected increases in spending. Yet on the other hand, the budget deficit will widen as taxes fail to be collected. In late 2018 Spain approved increases in pensions, civil servants’ salaries, and minimum wage by decree, but any corresponding revenue increases that were to be implemented in the 2019 budget will fail to materialize until government is in place, putting upward pressure on the deficit. Beyond the election the trend should be slightly greater fiscal thrust due to the continental slowdown. Spain has some fiscal room to play with – its budget deficit is projected to decrease to 2% in 2019 and 1.1% in 2020.2 The more conservative estimate by the European Commission forecasts the 2019 and 2020 deficits to be 2.3% and 2%, respectively (Chart 9). This means that Spain can provide roughly 10-15 billion euros worth of additional stimulus in 2020 without so much as hinting at triggering Excessive Deficit Procedures, a welcome change after nearly a decade of austerity. The risk is that Spain’s structural reform momentum could be lost with negative long-term consequences. In 2012 Spain undertook painful labor and pension reforms that underpinned its impressive economic recovery. The economy continues to grow faster than the average among its peers, unemployment has fallen by 12% in the past six years, and export competitiveness has had one of the sharpest recoveries in Europe since 2008 (Chart 10). This recovery has now begun to slow down, and the current political deadlock means that reforms could be rolled back farther than the market prefers. Chart 9Spain Has Some Fiscal Room Spain Has Some Fiscal Room Spain Has Some Fiscal Room This is more likely to be avoided if a surprise occurs and the conservatives come back into power, although that would also mean less accommodative near-term policies. Chart 10Recovery Starting To Slow Recovery Starting To Slow Recovery Starting To Slow Bottom Line: Our geopolitical risk indicator is signaling subdued levels of risk for Spain. This is fitting as the election may not change anything and at any rate the country will remain in an uneasy equilibrium. Politics are fundamentally more stable than in the populist-afflicted developed countries – the U.S., U.K., and Italy. However, an outcome that produces a left-wing government will lead to greater short-term fiscal accommodation at the expense of Spain’s recent outstanding progress on structural reforms. Housekeeping We are booking gains on our Hong Kong Hang Seng short. Unrest is not yet over, but is about to peak as we approach October 1, the National Day of the People’s Republic of China, and Beijing will look to avoid an aggressive intervention.   Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Supreme Court deemed Johnson’s government’s prorogation of parliament an unlawful frustration of parliament’s role as sovereign lawgiver and government overseer without reasonable justification. The court was larger than usual, with 11 judges, and they ruled unanimously against the prorogation. We had expected the vote at least to be narrow – given the historic uses of prorogation, the fact that parliament still had time to act prior to October 31 Brexit Day, and the prime minister’s historical authority over foreign affairs and treaties. But the Supreme Court has risen to fill the power vacuum created by parliament’s paralysis amid the Brexit saga; it has “quashed” what might have become a neo-Stuart precedent that prime ministers can curtail parliament’s role at important junctures. The pragmatic, near-term consequence is the reduction in the political and economic risks of a no-deal exit; but the long-term consequence may be the rise of the judiciary to greater prominence within Britain’s ever-evolving constitutional system. 2 Please see “Stability Programme Update 2019-2022, Kingdom of Spain,” available at www.ec.europa.eu. U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GEORISK INDICATOR U.K.: GEORISK INDICATOR France: GeoRisk Indicator FRANCE: GEORISK INDICATOR FRANCE: GEORISK INDICATOR Germany: GeoRisk Indicator GERMANY: GEORISK INDICATOR GERMANY: GEORISK INDICATOR Spain: GeoRisk Indicator SPAIN: GEORISK INDICATOR SPAIN: GEORISK INDICATOR Italy: GeoRisk Indicator ITALY: GEORISK INDICATOR ITALY: GEORISK INDICATOR Russia: GeoRisk Indicator RUSSIA: GEORISK INDICATOR RUSSIA: GEORISK INDICATOR Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator TURKEY: GEORISK INDICATOR TURKEY: GEORISK INDICATOR Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator BRAZIL: GEORISK INDICATOR BRAZIL: GEORISK INDICATOR Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator TAIWAN: GEORISK INDICATOR TAIWAN: GEORISK INDICATOR Korea: GeoRisk Indicator KOREA: GEORISK INDICATOR KOREA: GEORISK INDICATOR What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 Impeachment, Trade War, And A Sojourn To Spain – GeoRisk Update: September 27, 2019 Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Duration: The ebbing of U.S. / China trade tensions and swing toward positive data surprises are enough for us to re-initiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation, on both tactical (0-3 month) and cyclical (6-12 month) time horizons. While not our base case, a continued deterioration in the Manufacturing PMI or CRB Raw Industrials, or a significant appreciation of the U.S. dollar would cause us to question our view. Credit: Corporate debt levels are elevated, but still-low inflation expectations will ensure that monetary conditions remain accommodative for the time being. Easy Fed policy will support interest coverage ratios and prevent banks from tightening lending standards. Stay overweight corporate bonds, focusing on the Baa and high-yield credit tiers. Fed: The Fed will cut rates by 25 basis points tomorrow and Chairman Powell will do his best to sound dovish and prevent a tightening of financial conditions. Core inflation has strengthened in recent months, but the Fed needs to see a rebound in inflation expectations before turning hawkish. Feature Move Back To Below-Benchmark Portfolio Duration The sensitivity of bond yields to U.S./China trade policy was on full display last week. President Trump took significant steps to de-escalate tensions between the two nations, delaying the October 1st tariff hike and scheduling talks between principal negotiators for October. The result is that the bond market sold off dramatically. The 10-year Treasury yield rose from 1.55% at the start of the week to 1.90% as of last Friday. As we go to press, the yield has fallen back to 1.85% in response to the drone attacks in Saudi Arabia and resulting spike in oil prices. Chart 1Has The Tide Turned? Has The Tide Turned? Has The Tide Turned? Our Geopolitical Strategy service discussed the near-term outlook for U.S. / China trade negotiations in last week’s report.1 Our main takeaway is that the President has shifted into dealmaker mode, hoping to secure some “wins” in advance of next year’s election. Talk of a looming recession in the mainstream media is doubtless also encouraging the President to adopt a more conciliatory strategy. Our political strategists view a comprehensive U.S. / China trade agreement as unlikely. But if the U.S. and China can reach a détente where tariffs are no longer rising every few months and the immediate threat to economic growth dissipates, then U.S. bond yields have a lot of upside. Chart 1 shows that the 10-year Treasury yield fell much more sharply in recent months than would have been expected given the U.S. economic data. The chart also shows that economic data are now beating expectations for the first time since February. Positive data surprises usually coincide with rising Treasury yields, and the chart suggests that yields still have a lot of catching-up to do. The de-escalation of trade tensions and shift in data surprises is enough for us to remove our tactical “at benchmark” duration stance, which had been in place since August 6. Investors should keep portfolio duration low on both tactical (0-3 month) and cyclical (6-12 month) time horizons. Risks To The Duration View There are three main risks to our below-benchmark duration positioning. The first is that the global manufacturing data – Manufacturing PMIs and the CRB Raw Industrials index – have not yet rebounded (Chart 2). We have written extensively about why we expect a bounce-back before the end of the year, and an ebbing of U.S. / China trade tensions will only speed that process along, as firms gain more confidence in the outlook and initiate long-delayed investments.2 However, until we actually see the data improve we cannot be certain. It’s notable, and concerning, that the ratio between the CRB Raw Industrials index and Gold did not increase alongside Treasury yields during the past week (Chart 2, bottom panel). If the dollar continues to appreciate as Treasury yields move up, it will limit how high yields rise.  The second risk to our view comes from the dollar. If it continues to appreciate as Treasury yields move up, it will limit how high yields rise. Treasury yields can increase alongside a stronger dollar when global leading indicators are improving, as was the case in the second half of 2016 (Chart 3). But a strong dollar will eventually undermine global growth and cap the upside in yields. Chart 2Risk 1: Global Manufacturing Still Weak Risk 1: Global Manufacturing Still Weak Risk 1: Global Manufacturing Still Weak Chart 3Risk 2: Stronger Dollar Risk 2: Stronger Dollar Risk 2: Stronger Dollar The third risk is that the recent attack on Saudi oil installations prompts a military response from the U.S. government that escalates into all-out war. The lesson from the oil crash of 2014 is that any negative effects on the U.S. consumer from a spike in the oil price will be offset by greater investment from U.S. energy firms. However, if the situation dissolves into a significant military conflict, then U.S. bonds would benefit from flight to quality flows. Our Geopolitical and Commodity teams discussed the still-unfolding situation in a Special Alert yesterday.3   Bottom Line: The ebbing of U.S. / China trade tensions and swing toward positive data surprises are enough for us to re-initiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation, on both tactical (0-3 month) and cyclical (6-12 month) time horizons. While not our base case, a continued deterioration in the Manufacturing PMI or CRB Raw Industrials, or a significant appreciation of the U.S. dollar would cause us to question our view.   Corporate Bonds: Weak Balance Sheets Vs. Easy Money The slope of the yield curve is an important and useful indicator for corporate bond investors. In fact, our research has demonstrated that corporate bond excess returns versus Treasuries tend to be highest early in the recovery when the yield curve is steep. On the flipside, we’ve also shown that an inverted yield curve is often a good signal to scale back exposure.4 Corporate balance sheets are highly levered today, as they were in the mid-1990s. For this purpose, our preferred measure of the yield curve has been the 3-year/10-year slope, calculated on a monthly basis using average daily closing values. Chart 4 shows this slope with vertical lines denoting the first inversion of each cycle. Notice that we have not yet received an inversion signal from this measure in the current cycle, but it is getting close. Chart 4Yield Curve & Corporate Spreads Yield Curve & Corporate Spreads Yield Curve & Corporate Spreads Even if we get an inversion signal in the next few months, Chart 4 reveals an interesting contrast between the mid-2000s cycle and the mid-1990s cycle. In the mid-1990s, 3/10 curve inversion was an excellent signal to reduce corporate credit exposure. Spreads widened almost immediately, and didn’t peak until four years later. Conversely, spreads continued to tighten for another year after the yield curve inverted in 2006. So how should we view the current cycle in relation to these prior two episodes? Should we expect further outperformance after the yield curve inverts, as in the mid-2000s? Or should we prepare to reduce corporate bond exposure as soon as the yield curve sends a signal, as in the 1990s? Balance Sheets Are In Poor Health … Chart 5Firms Carrying A lot Of Debt Firms Carrying A lot Of Debt Firms Carrying A lot Of Debt The first thing to consider is how corporate balance sheets stack up compared to each of these prior two episodes. Chart 5 makes it apparent that balance sheets are highly levered today, as they were in the mid-1990s. Net debt-to-EBITDA for the median high-yield firm in our dynamic bottom-up sample is above 4.0x, even higher than in the late 1990s. Similarly, the median firm’s debt-to-assets ratio is reminiscent of the 1990s. Chart 5 clearly shows that balance sheets were in poor health in the 1990s, and are in a similar state today. This is in sharp contrast to the mid-2000s, when balance sheets were pristine. The sole exception is interest coverage, which remains robust (Chart 5, bottom panel). This is the result of still-accommodative monetary policy (more on this below). … But The Monetary Environment Is Supportive While today’s corporate balance sheets have more in common with the mid-1990s than the mid-2000s, today’s monetary environment looks more like the mid-2000s, and is probably even more supportive. Chart 6Supportive Monetary Environment: Reminiscent Of The Mid-2000s Supportive Monetary Environment: Reminiscent Of The Mid-2000s Supportive Monetary Environment: Reminiscent Of The Mid-2000s Chart 6 shows that when the yield curve inverted in the 1990s, banks’ commercial & industrial (C&I) lending standards were on the cusp of tightening, as were the terms that banks offered on C&I loans. In contrast, C&I lending standards and loan terms continued to ease for some time after the curve inverted in the mid-2000s. Today, C&I lending standards and C&I loan terms are both in “net easing” territory. But most crucially, inflation expectations are extremely depressed (Chart 6, bottom panel). Low inflation expectations mean that the Fed must ensure that monetary policy stays accommodative until inflation expectations are re-anchored at levels closer to its target. Accommodative Fed policy will keep firms’ interest costs down, and give lenders the confidence to extend credit, even if firms are already loaded with debt. Bringing it all together, we find that both credit quality metrics and monetary indicators help explain the corporate default rate (Chart 7). Our top-down measure of gross leverage (total debt over pre-tax profits) lines up well with the default rate over time, but has diverged during the past few years (Chart 7, top panel). Meanwhile, C&I lending standards also correlate tightly with the default rate, and this relationship continues to track (Chart 7, panel 3). Chart 7Drivers Of The Corporate Default Rate Drivers Of The Corporate Default Rate Drivers Of The Corporate Default Rate Overall, we find the divergence between gross leverage and the default rate concerning, and reminiscent of 2007/08 when it predicted a surge in the default rate. However, unlike in 2007/08, lending standards are moving deeper into “net easing” territory and interest coverage remains steady. Considering all the evidence, we are inclined to remain bullish on corporate credit spreads for the time being. Yes, corporate debt levels are a worry, as they were in the 1990s. But, with inflation expectations still very low, the Fed has a strong incentive to keep policy easy. Historically, banks do not tighten lending standards unless the monetary environment is restrictive. Our sense is that, in this cycle, banks will turn a blind eye to corporate debt levels until inflation expectations rise and the Fed moves interest rates into restrictive territory. Credit Investment Strategy Chart 8Focus On The Baa And High-Yield Credit Tiers Focus On The Baa And High-Yield Credit Tiers Focus On The Baa And High-Yield Credit Tiers Our relatively bullish assessment of the credit cycle means that we will continue to abide by the spread targets we introduced in February.5 To obtain those targets we calculated the median 12-month breakeven spread for each credit tier during periods when the yield curve was very flat (less than 50 bps), but not yet inverted.6  We then converted those breakeven spreads into option-adjusted spread targets using current index duration and the current index credit rating distribution. Chart 8 shows that investment grade spreads are slightly above target, but this is only due to the cheapness of Baa-rated debt. Aaa, Aa and A-rated credits all trade at spreads below our targets, and we recommend focusing investment grade exposure on the Baa space. Chart 8 also shows that high-yield spreads are much more attractive relative to target. This is partly because the negatively convex nature of high-yield debt means that index duration fell sharply as bonds rallied this year (Chart 8, bottom panel). All else equal, lower index duration means that more spread widening is required before investors see losses. Thus, spreads appear more attractive. Bottom Line: Corporate debt levels are elevated, but still-low inflation expectations will ensure that monetary conditions remain accommodative for the time being. Easy Fed policy will support interest coverage ratios and prevent banks from tightening lending standards. Stay overweight corporate bonds, focusing on the Baa and high-yield credit tiers. FOMC Preview: Fed Will Do Its Best To Stay Dovish The results of this week’s FOMC meeting will be made public tomorrow afternoon. A 25 basis point rate cut is widely anticipated, and we expect that is what will be delivered. A 25 basis point rate cut is widely anticipated, and we expect that is what will be delivered. Judging from recent remarks, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell is well aware that easy financial conditions will encourage a recovery in economic growth.7 He also understands that in order for financial conditions to stay easy, the market must continue to believe that monetary policy is supportive. We therefore think that Chairman Powell will do everything he can to prevent a hawkish surprise following tomorrow’s FOMC statement and press conference. However, the Chairman cannot control the placement of each FOMC participant’s interest rate forecast (or “dot”), and there is a risk that the end-of-2019 forecasts don’t fall enough to appease markets. Chart 9 shows the fed funds rate along with a projection based on current pricing in the fed funds futures market. It shows that the market expects a 25 bps rate cut tomorrow, followed by one more 25 bps cut before the end of the year. We don’t expect the majority of FOMC participants to forecast such a dovish outcome, but as long as a significant number of participants forecast one more cut before the end of the year, a hawkish surprise should be avoided. Chart 9Can The Fed Avoid Sounding Hawkish? Can The Fed Avoid Sounding Hawkish? Can The Fed Avoid Sounding Hawkish? Case in point, the Fed avoided a hawkish surprise following the June meeting. Heading into that meeting the market was priced for an end-of-2019 funds rate of 1.75% (denoted by the ‘X’ in Chart 9). The June FOMC dots show that 7 FOMC participants expected a similar outcome (also shown in Chart 9). If around 7 participants place their 2019 dot in the 1.50%-1.75% range following tomorrow’s meeting, it should be enough to prevent a hawkish surprise. Will Strong Inflation Sway The Fed? There has been some speculation that the recent spate of strong inflation data might prevent the Fed from delivering a sufficiently dovish message. We think this is unlikely. It’s true that core inflation has rebounded sharply, but inflation expectations remain downtrodden (Chart 10). At this juncture, the Fed is principally concerned with re-anchoring inflation expectations near target levels. It may require an overshoot of the actual inflation target to achieve this goal. Investors should focus more on inflation expectations to assess Fed policy going forward. Chart 10Still Well Anchored? Still Well Anchored? Still Well Anchored? Chart 11Unsustainable Uptrend in Goods Unsustainable Uptrend in Goods Unsustainable Uptrend in Goods   Further, if we dig into the details of the recent inflation prints, we find some reason to believe that the recent uptrend is not sustainable. Chart 11 shows that a substantial portion of inflation’s rise has been driven by the core goods component, which tracks non-oil import prices with a lag of about 1½ years (Chart 11, panel 2). For their part, import prices have already rolled over and will continue to decelerate unless we see a significant depreciation of the dollar (Chart 12). Chart 12Import Prices & The Dollar Import Prices & The Dollar Import Prices & The Dollar Bottom Line: The Fed will cut rates by 25 basis points tomorrow and Chairman Powell will do his best to sound dovish and prevent a tightening of financial conditions. Core inflation has strengthened in recent months, but the Fed needs to see a rebound in inflation expectations before turning hawkish.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Trump’s Tactical Retreat”, dated September 13, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “Where’s The Positive Carry In Bond Markets?”, dated August 20, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy / Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “Attacks On Critical Infrastructure In KSA Raise Questions About U.S. Response”, dated September 16, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “2019 Key Views: Implications For U.S. Fixed Income”, dated December 11, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Value In Corporate Bonds”, dated February 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 The 12-month breakeven spread is the spread widening required before a corporate bond sees losses versus a duration-matched Treasury bond on a 12-month horizon. It can be calculated roughly as the option-adjusted spread per unit of duration. 7  https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/06/watch-fed-chairman-jerome-powells-qa-in-zurich-live.html Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of August 31, 2019.   Currently, the model still favors Spain, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Australia at the expense of the U.S., Japan, the U.K., France and Canada, as shown in Table 1.  Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1,  Chart 2 and  Chart 3, the overall model underperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 6 bps in August, driven by 1 bp of outperformance from Level 2 model, and 6 bps of underperformance from Level 1. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 82 bps, with 290 bps of outperformance by Level 2 model, offset by 51 bps of underperformance from Level 1. Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1)   Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2)   Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations.   GAA Equity Sector Selection Model Chart 4Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of August 31, 2019. The model’s relative tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. The model continues to favor a mixed bag of sectors, given the current increased level of uncertainty, and continued lack of evidence that global growth is bottoming. Despite the current liquidity phase tilting the model to favor high-beta sectors, weak growth and momentum inputs offset that. The valuation component continues to remain muted across all sectors. The model is now overweight five sectors in total, two cyclical versus three defensive sectors. The overweight sectors are Consumer Discretionary, Information Technology, Consumer Staples, Healthcare and Utilities. For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model,” dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Table 3Model’s Performance (March 1, 2019 - Current) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Table 4Current Model Allocations GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates   Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com              

Highlights Four ghosts of 2016 are knocking at the door: Brexit, Trump, Brazil, Italy. President Trump and U.S. trade policy are keeping uncertainty high. Upgrade the odds of a no-deal Brexit to about 33%. Expect limited stimulus from Italy and Germany – for now. Brazil’s pension reform is entering its final stretch – buy the rumor, sell the news. Feature Four major political events of 2016 are returning to affect the global investment landscape this fall – though only two of these ghosts are truly frightening. In order of market relevance: Trump: The election of Donald J. Trump as U.S. president, November 8, 2016 Brexit: The U.K. referendum to leave the European Union, June 23, 2016 Italy: The Italian constitutional referendum, December 4, 2016 Brazil: The removal of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, August 31, 2016 Italy and Brazil are producing market-positive political results in the short run. Brexit and Trump pose substantial and immediate risks to the global bull market. A pivot by Trump is the headline risk to our view that no trade agreement will be concluded by November 2020, as we outlined in a Special Report last week. At the moment tensions are still escalating. President Trump has ordered an increase in tariffs (Chart 1) and threatened to invoke the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977, which would give him the ability to halt transactions, freeze funds, and appropriate assets. China is retaliating proportionately and virtually incapable of softening its tone prior to its National Day celebration on October 1. The next round of negotiations, slated for Washington in September, could be a flop like the talks in July, or it could be canceled. Investors should stay defensive. The equity market will have to fall to force Trump to stage a tactical retreat. Meanwhile China could intervene violently in Hong Kong SAR. That possibility, the nationalist military parade on October 1, and U.S. actions toward the South China Sea and Taiwan, show that sabers are rattling, causing additional market jitters. Chart 1Trump's Latest Tariff Salvo Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 U.S.-China tensions underpin our tactical safe-haven trade recommendations. But we are not shifting to a cyclically bearish stance until we get clarity on Trump’s and Xi’s handling of their immediate predicament. Brexit is the other acute short-term risk. This was true even before Prime Minister Boris Johnson opted to prorogue parliament from September 10 to October 14, shortening the time that parliament has to either pass a law forbidding a no-deal exit or bring down Johnson’s government in a vote of no confidence. We are upgrading the odds of “no deal” to no higher than 33%, using a conservative decision-making process (Diagram 1). No-deal is not our base case because parliament, the public, and even Johnson himself want to avoid a recession, which is the likely outcome, even granting that the Bank of England will not stand idly by. We are upgrading the odds of “no deal” Brexit to about 33%. Diagram 1Brexit Decision Tree (Revised August 29, 2019) Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 From a bird’s eye point of view, the pound is very attractive (Chart 2). But in the near-term the twists and turns of Britain’s political struggle imply that we will see wild volatility. Our foreign exchange strategists expect that a no-deal Brexit would cause GBP/USD to collapse to 1 after October 31. Assuming our one-in-three odds of such an outcome, the probability-weighted average of cable is about 1.2. Hence investors should not short sterling from here, unless they strongly believe we are underrating the odds of no-deal exit. In the worst-case scenario, a no-deal Brexit will cause an economic shock at a time when Europe is on the brink of recession – Italy and Germany are virtually there. This means there is a substantial risk of additional deflationary pressure piling onto German bunds and sustaining the global bond rally. This pressure will be sharply reduced if Johnson loses an early no confidence vote, but that is a 50/50 call so we would not call time on this rally yet. Stay cautious. Chart 2Pound Can Only Go So Low Pound Can Only Go So Low Pound Can Only Go So Low   Italy: Stimulus … Without A Bruising Brussels Battle Italy has avoided a new election by producing an unusual tie-up between the establishment Democratic Party and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S). The coalition still needs to clear some internal hurdles and an online vote by Five Star members, but an agreement is to be presented to President Sergio Mattarella as we go to press. This is the most market-friendly outcome that could have been expected, as is clear through the sharp drop in Italian government bond yields (Chart 3). Our GeoRisk indicator for Italy is also collapsing. Chart 3Markets Cheer New Italian Coalition Markets Cheer New Italian Coalition Markets Cheer New Italian Coalition This development marks the climax of a story line that we outlined in 2016, when Prime Minister Matteo Renzi lost a constitutional referendum that aimed to strengthen Italian governments to enable deeper structural reforms (he subsequently resigned). At that time we argued that Italy would emerge as a market-relevant political risk due to rampant anti-establishment sentiment, but that this risk would subside when Italy’s populists were shown to be pragmatic at heart, i.e. unwilling to push their conflicts with Brussels to a point that truly reignited European break-up risk. This view is now vindicated – and not only for the short-term. The new coalition comes at the nick of time, with Europe teetering on recession and the risk of a no-deal Brexit rising. The new government will have to deliver the 2020 budget to the European Commission by October 15. The budget will aim to provide fiscal support, including a delay of the legislatively mandated hike in the Value Added Tax from 22% to 24.2%, already rolled over from 2019. The Five Star Movement will demand as a price for its participation in the coalition that social spending go up; the Democratic Party will have learned a lesson while out of power and will be more fiscally permissive and strike a tougher tone with Brussels. The Italian budget talks will be a non-issue: the coalition will cooperate with Brussels. The episode demonstrates that the Italian risk to financial markets is overrated. This point goes beyond the fact that the Democrats and Five Star were able to cooperate. Italy’s leading populist parties have already shown that they are pragmatic and will play the game with Brussels to avoid a financial breakdown. In May 2018, the newly formed populist coalition proposed a gigantic “wish list” budget that would have increased the budget deficit to roughly 7.3% of GDP in 2019. They also appointed a euroskeptic economy minister who almost prevented government formation. The ensuing conflict with Brussels triggered considerable turmoil (Chart 4). Ultimately, however, the populists did precisely what we expected: they bowed to the severe financial constraint on Italy’s banking system. They agreed to a 2019 and 2020 deficit of 2.04% and 2.1%, respectively (Chart 5). Chart 4Italian Populists Prove Pragmatic Italian Populists Prove Pragmatic Italian Populists Prove Pragmatic Chart 5Even Salvini Compromised On Budget Clash Even Salvini Compromised On Budget Clash Even Salvini Compromised On Budget Clash At present, the market is relieved that an election was avoided that might have seen Salvini and the League form a government with a much smaller right-wing party (Fratelli D’Italia) (Chart 6) – but the truth is that Salvini had already capitulated to the EU, both on budget matters and the euro currency. He was hardly likely to push for a budget more aggressive than that of the initial proposal in 2018. The clash with Brussels would have been a flash in the pan; the result would have been greater fiscal thrust, which would have been market-positive in the current environment. Chart 6Election Would Have Meant More Stimulus ... And More Political Risk Election Would Have Meant More Stimulus ... And More Political Risk Election Would Have Meant More Stimulus ... And More Political Risk M5S will also push for more spending and has also moderated their stance on the euro. A coalition with the Democrats will not work if the purpose is to push a euroskeptic agenda. There will be a focus on counter-cyclical fiscal policy, pragmatic reforms that the two can agree on, and fighting corruption. The budget talks will be a non-issue: the Democratic Party is an establishment party and the coalition will cooperate with Brussels. Furthermore, the context has changed since 2018 in a way that will reduce budget frictions. There is a need for countercyclical fiscal policy in light of the global slowdown, so the European Commission will have to be more flexible on the budget. This is particularly true if Germany itself loosens its belt on a cyclical basis. The risk to the above is that the coalition shaping up between the Democrats and Five Star is an alliance of convenience that will break down over time. Five Star will remain hard-line on immigration, which is driving anti-establishment sentiment. Italian elections are a frequent affair. Salvini and the League will be waiting in the wings, especially if Brussels proves too tight-fisted or if the Democrats do not toughen their stance on immigration. But as outlined above, Salvini’s own evolution on the euro, on northern Italy, and on the budget and financial stability shows that the economy will have to get a lot worse before Italian euroskepticism presents a renewed systemic risk. Bottom Line: The tentative coalition taking shape in Italy will produce a modest increase in fiscal thrust with minimal frictions with Brussels. As such it is the most market-friendly outcome that could have occurred from Salvini’s push to seize power. Beneath this episode of government change is the political arrangement taking shape in Italy, and across Europe, which calls for a commitment to the European project and currency. The price of this commitment is a tougher line on immigration from European leaders. Germany: Fiscal Loosening, But Not For The States (Yet) Our GeoRisk indicator for Germany is pointing to an increase in risk in recent weeks. Germany is threatened by a potential technical recession and while fiscal stimulus is in preparation, there will not be a fiscal game-changer until Merkel steps down in 2021 – barring a total collapse in the economy that forces her hand in the meantime. The outlook is not improving (Chart 7, top panel). The economy shrank by 0.1% in Q2 2019, exports are falling, and passenger car production is at the lowest level ever recorded (Chart 7, bottom panels). Chart 7German Economy Gets Pummeled German Economy Gets Pummeled German Economy Gets Pummeled Chart 8Germany: Expect Orthodox Stimulus For Now Germany: Expect Orthodox Stimulus For Now Germany: Expect Orthodox Stimulus For Now Finance Minister Olaf Scholz has announced that Germany could increase government spending by $55 billion within the context of European and German budget constraints. Split proportionally between 2019 and 2020, this additional spending would not put Germany in violation of the “black zero” rule – a commitment to a balanced budget that limits the federal structural deficit to 0.35% of GDP – even without any additional revenue (Chart 8).   There will not be a fiscal game-changer in Germany until Merkel steps down – barring a crisis. The German Chancellery reports that it does not see the need for stimulus in the short term – as long as trade tensions do not escalate and there is no hard Brexit. At present, however, trade tensions are escalating and the odds of a no-deal Brexit are increasing. Moreover China’s economy and stimulus efforts continue to disappoint. In this context Germany’s ruling coalition is putting together a climate change package that would entail additional spending (while stealing some thunder from the increasingly popular Green Party). Given the European Commission’s forecast of Germany’s 2020 budget surplus, 0.8% of GDP, the government could ultimately go further than Scholz’s ~$50bn. This is because the black zero rule provides for exceptions in case of recession (or natural disasters or other crises out of governmental control) with a majority vote in the Bundestag. Hence we are not so much concerned about the magnitude of the stimulus as its timing. First, Merkel and her coalition typically move slower than the market would like in the face of financial and economic challenges. Second, according to the black zero rule, which is transcribed in the German constitution (the Basic Law), the Länder cannot run budget deficits from 2020. Amending the constitution to delay this deadline requires a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag and the Bundesrat – a much taller order than the simple majority needed to boost federal deficits. The governing coalition currently holds 56% of the seats in the Bundestag. If the Greens were brought on board, which they would be inclined to do, this number falls just short of two-thirds at 65.6%. In order to obtain a two-thirds majority in the Bundesrat, the Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, and the Greens would need the support of another party, either the Left or the Free Democrats. This could be done but it would require political will, which is only likely to be sufficient if the German and global economy get worse from here. Meanwhile financial markets will have to settle for the gradual implementation of a stimulus package on the order of 1% of GDP – the one the government is planning. Bottom Line: While Germany will likely roll out a stimulus package by Q4, if third quarter GDP data confirm that the country is in a technical recession, Merkel’s hesitation and budget limits mean that this stimulus will likely be moderate. A marginal upside surprise is possible but it will not represent a true “game changer” on fiscal policy in Germany. The game changer is more likely after Merkel steps down in 2021. The Green Party is surging in Germany and could possibly lead the next government. Even if it doesn’t, its success and Europe-wide developments are pushing German leaders to become more accommodative. Brazil: Reform Or Bust Political turmoil in Brazil over the past five years has ultimately resulted in a right-wing populist government under President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro is pursuing a pension reform that is universally acknowledged as necessary to straighten out Brazil’s fiscal books, but that the previous government tried and failed to pass. On this front the news is market-positive: having cleared the lower Chamber of Deputies, the pension reforms are now likely to pass the senate. This will lift investor confidence and give Bolsonaro an initial success that he may then be able to translate into additional economic reforms. The Brazilian economy and financial markets are moving in opposite directions. The currency and equities staged a mid-year rally despite negative data releases – shrinking retail sales and industrial production amid high unemployment (Chart 9). More recently these assets relapsed despite tentative signs of improvement on the economic front (Chart 10). All the while, chaos and controversies surrounding Bolsonaro’s government have weighed on his approval rating, ending the honeymoon period after election (Chart 11). Chart 9Brazil: Signs Of Improvement Brazil: Signs Of Improvement Brazil: Signs Of Improvement   Chart 10Brazil: Markets Sold Despite Pension Progress Brazil: Markets Sold Despite Pension Progress Brazil: Markets Sold Despite Pension Progress Chart 11Bolsonaro’s Honeymoon Is Long Gone Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 The mid-year equity re-rating was driven by an improvement in sentiment on the back of the government’s pension reform. The relapse occurred despite the passage of the pension reform bill in the lower house, indicating that global economic pessimism has dominated. The bill’s next step goes to the senate where it faces two rounds of voting before enactment (Diagram 2). It should clear this hurdle by a large margin, though we expect delays. Diagram 2Brazil: Pension Reform Timeline Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 In the second round vote in the lower house on August 6 – which had a smaller margin of victory than the first round – deputies voted largely in line with party alliances (Charts 12A & 12B). Assuming legislators in the senate behave in the same way, the reform should gain the support of 64 of the 81 senators – easily surpassing the 49 votes needed. Even in a more pessimistic scenario where all opposition parties and all independent parties vote against the bill – along with two defecting senators from government-allied parties – the reform would pass by 56-25. Chart 12APension Bill Sailed Through Lower House ... Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Chart 12B... And Should Pass Senate In Time Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 This favorable outlook is also supported by popular opinion, which indicates that the majority of those polled agree that pension reforms are necessary (Chart 13). This leaves two questions: How soon will the bill clear the senate? According to senate party leaders’ proposed timetable, the bill will undergo its first upper house vote on September 18 with the second round slated for October 2. This is ambitious. The strategy of Senator Tasso Jereissati – who has been appointed senate pension reform rapporteur – is to approve the text in its current form and create a parallel proposed amendment to the constitution (PEC) which will bring together the amendments that senators make to the original text. Dozens of amendments have been filed with the Commission on Constitution and Justice. These will prolong the enactment of the final bill and dilute its impact. We doubt the senate will let Jereissati have his way entirely and hence expect delays and dilution. Chart 13Brazil: Public Now Favors Pension Reform Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Chart 14Brazil: Pension Reform Not Enough Brazil: Pension Reform Not Enough Brazil: Pension Reform Not Enough How much savings will the bill generate? Will the reforms be sufficient to improve public debt dynamics in Brazil? The Independent Fiscal Institute of the senate estimates that the reform will generate BRL 744 billion of savings. This is significantly less than the BRL 1.2 trillion initially proposed, and lower than the BRL 860 billion that Economy Minister Paulo Guedes has indicated as the minimum fiscal savings required. Our Emerging Markets strategists argue that the bill falls short of what is needed. While the plan will reduce the fiscal deficit and slow debt accumulation, it will be insufficient to generate primary surpluses over the coming years (Chart 14).1 Moreover, estimated savings in the final bill will likely be further revised down as the bill undergoes more amendments in the senate. What comes after pension reform? The market has focused almost exclusively on this issue to the neglect of Bolsonaro’s wider economic reform agenda. The agenda includes privatization, trade liberalization, tax reforms, and deregulation. Here we are more skeptical. First, Bolsonaro will have spent a lot of political capital on pensions. Second, while the economy and unemployment are always important, they are not the foremost concern for Brazilians (Chart 15). Chart 15Bolsonaro Will Lose Political Capital After Pension Bill Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Third, the economic agenda is often at odds with Bolsonaro’s social, foreign, and environmental policies: The new Mercosur-European Union trade agreement and ongoing trade negotiations between Mercosur and Canada are positive developments. However the G7 summit in France highlighted that the deal with the EU is at risk due to dissatisfaction with Bolsonaro’s response to the Amazon fires. France and Ireland have threatened to withhold support of the ratification. With world leaders concerned about the political risks of trade liberalization, and with Trump having issued a license to foreign leaders for trade weaponization, an escalation of tensions between the Europeans and Bolsonaro could lead to punitive measures even beyond the delay to the Mercosur-EU deal. Brazil’s China problem: Bolsonaro has been cozying up to President Donald Trump while striking a more aggressive tone with China. This is a risky strategy as it may undermine Brazil’s economic interests. The country’s exports are much more leveraged to China than to the U.S. and have been benefitting on the back of the trade war as China substitutes away from the U.S. (Chart 16). The president’s planned trip to China in October reveals an attempt to mend ties after having accused China of dominating key Brazilian sectors during his election campaign. But it is not clear yet that Bolsonaro will stage a retreat. And if President Trump backtracks on his trade war in order to clinch a deal, Bolsonaro may have lost some goodwill with China without receiving the benefit of China’s substitution effects. Hence Bolsonaro will have to soften his approach to China to make progress on the trade aspect of the reform agenda. Chart 16Brazil: Time To Mend Ties With China Brazil: Time To Mend Ties With China Brazil: Time To Mend Ties With China Bottom Line: We expect the passage of a diluted pension reform bill that will slow the growth of public debt to some extent. However global headwinds are persisting. And any success on pensions should not be extrapolated to other items on the economic reform agenda. Bolsonaro’s trade liberalization faces difficulties on the surface. Other domestic reforms are even more difficult to achieve in the wake of painful pension cuts. Reforms that enjoy public support and do not require a complicated legislative process are the most likely to be implemented, but even then, legislation and implementation are likely to be long-in-coming in Brazil’s highly fractured congress. As a result we share the view with our Emerging Markets Strategy that the pension reform is a “buy the rumor, sell the news” phenomenon. Housekeeping We are booking gains on our long BCA global defense basket for a 17% gain since inception in October 2018. The underlying thesis for this trade remains strong and we will reinstitute it at an appropriate time, though likely on a relative basis to minimize headwinds to cyclical sectors. We are also finally throwing in the towel on our long rare earth / strategic metals equity trade. The logic behind the trade is intact but it was very poorly timed and the basket has depreciated 24% since inception.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report “On Chinese Banks And Brazil,” dated July 18, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. France: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019   Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019   Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Four Ghosts Of 2016 - GeoRisk Update: August 30, 2019 Geopolitical Calendar

Dear Client, We will not be publishing a report next week as we take an end-of-summer break. Our next report will be published on Tuesday, September 10th. Best regards, Robert Robis  Highlights Canadian Corporates: The small but growing Canadian corporate bond market has delivered performance comparable to other developed market credit over the past decade, with less duration risk and higher average credit quality compared to the larger U.S. corporate debt market. Returns: Our new regression model for Canadian corporate bond excess returns is calling for modest positive gains for Canadian corporate debt over the next year.  Corporate Health: Canadian companies’ financial health remains a positive for corporate bond returns on a cyclical basis, but high leverage and mediocre profitability are longer-term concerns. Allocation: We recommend overweight allocations into Canadian investment grade corporates, versus both Canadian government bonds and U.S. investment grade corporates. Amid elevated global policy uncertainty, favor the moderate spread volatility and attractive valuation in Canadian corporates. Feature Canadian corporate bonds do not get much attention from global fixed income investors due to the relatively small size of the market. Yet Canadian corporates have delivered returns in line with their global peers over the past decade, delivering an average excess return over Canadian government bonds (hedged into U.S. dollars) of 2.8% (Chart  of the Week). Chart 1 Looking ahead, Canadian corporates may present an opportunity for diversification in what is becoming an increasingly challenging environment for corporate bond investors, offering relatively higher yields and better credit quality with an economy that has held up well relative to the current weakening trend in global growth. In this Special Report, we outline the contours of the Canadian corporate bond market, assess the macroeconomic factors driving Canadian corporate bond returns, and survey the current overall financial health of Canadian companies. We also take a high-level look at the state of Canadian corporate debt at the sector level, while offering our recommendations on which ones to favor over the next 6-12 months. A Brief Overview Chart 2 The bulk of outstanding Canadian corporate debt is rated investment grade (IG), but this represents only 5% of the global IG market (Chart 2), using the Bloomberg Barclays Global Corporates Index as a proxy.1 However, the total market capitalization of Canadian corporate bonds is 30% of Canadian GDP – a ratio as large as seen in other major developed countries like the U.S., U.K. and Switzerland (Chart 3).  Like those other markets, Canadian companies have taken advantage of historically low borrowing rates and increased demand for income-generating assets to add leverage to their balance sheets.   Chart 3 On the demand side, Canadian corporates have traditionally been more of an institutional investment product, although domestic retail investor interest has picked up in recent years (mostly through mutual funds and exchange traded funds). The buy-and-hold nature of those local institutional investors reduces liquidity, particularly in comparison to the more widely-traded debt of Canadian federal and provincial governments. Yet according to a September 2018 Bank of Canada (BoC) report, domestic investor concerns over a perceived deterioration of Canadian corporate bond market liquidity appeared overstated.2 The report concluded that corporate bond market liquidity had generally been improving since 2010, with only short-lived bouts of illiquidity around events such as the 2011 European Debt Crisis and the 2014/15 collapse in oil prices. That medium-term improvement in liquidity was especially concentrated in high-grade corporate debt and bonds issued by banks, although the BoC concluded that liquidity and trading activity in low-grade and non-bank bonds have generally been stable. Issuance is dominated by financials, utilities, and energy companies. Unsurprisingly, the defensive utilities sector, which has high borrowing requirements, has been the top-performing industry group in 2019 (total return of +14% year-to-date) against a backdrop of falling bond yields and increased investor nervousness about future global growth (Chart 4). Yet all Canadian corporate bonds have generally performed well, with the overall Bloomberg Barclays Canadian Corporate Index delivering a total return of +8.2% so far in 2019, compared to 11.4% for Canadian equities and 5.6% for Canadian government bonds. Chart 4 Canadian corporate credit spreads have been remarkably stable since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.  The overall index option-adjusted spread (OAS) has stayed in a range between 100-200bps, while both total and excess (duration-matched versus government debt) returns exhibiting fairly low volatility since 2008 (Chart 5). Canadian corporate credit spreads have been remarkably stable since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.  The overall index option-adjusted spread (OAS) has stayed in a range between 100-200bps, while both total and excess (duration-matched versus government debt) returns exhibiting fairly low volatility since 2008 The duration of the benchmark Canadian IG corporate index is now 6.4 years, well below the equivalent level for U.S IG (7.9 years) even though it has steadily increased over the past decade.  Over that same period, the average credit quality has deteriorated, with 40% of the Canadian corporate index now rated BBB (Chart 6). This is below the BBB share seen in the U.S. (50%) and euro area (52%), though, making Canadian IG relatively less exposed to potential downgrades to junk bond status. Chart 5Low Volatility Of Spreads & Returns Since 2008 Low Volatility Of Spreads & Returns Since 2008 Low Volatility Of Spreads & Returns Since 2008 Chart 6Lower Share Of BBBs Compared To The U.S. & Europe Lower Share Of BBBs Compared To The U.S. & Europe Lower Share Of BBBs Compared To The U.S. & Europe Bottom Line: The small but growing Canadian corporate bond market has delivered performance comparable to other developed market credit over the past decade, with less duration risk and higher average credit quality compared to the large U.S. corporate debt market. A Fundamental Model To Forecast Canadian Corporate Bond Returns In order to help forecast Canadian corporate bond performance, we have developed a factor-based regression model of Canadian IG excess returns (in local currency terms). We first determined the independent variables in the regression by compiling a list of potential drivers of bond returns which map to four factor groups: growth, inflation, financial variables, and other miscellaneous factors. After statistically testing those factors, the insignificant and unrelated ones were dropped. The final result of this analysis is shown in Table 1. Table 1Regression Details Of The Fundamental Canadian Corporate Bond Return Model The Great White North: A Framework For Analyzing Canadian Corporate Bonds The Great White North: A Framework For Analyzing Canadian Corporate Bonds We concluded that five variables explain the bulk of Canadian corporate bond returns:  the annual percentage change in oil prices (using the Canadian benchmark, Western Canadian Select), non-residential fixed investment growth, the M3 measure of money supply growth, the Canadian dollar trade-weighted index (CAD TWI), and the level of Canadian industrial capacity utilization. We concluded that five variables explain the bulk of Canadian corporate bond returns:  the annual percentage change in oil prices (using the Canadian benchmark, Western Canadian Select), non-residential fixed investment growth, the M3 measure of money supply growth, the Canadian dollar trade-weighted index (CAD TWI), and the level of Canadian industrial capacity utilization. Chart 7A Fundamental Model Of Canadian Corporate Bond Returns A Fundamental Model Of Canadian Corporate Bond Returns A Fundamental Model Of Canadian Corporate Bond Returns Looking at recent excess return history (Chart 7), it is not surprising that oil prices significantly affect returns given the importance of Canada’s energy sector to the overall Canadian economy.  Moreover, growth in non-residential fixed asset investment also positively influences excess returns as faster capital spending can potentially increase the profitability of Canadian firms. In contrast, the inflation factors - money supply and capacity utilization – are detrimental to returns. Increases in both of those factors can result in higher inflation and rising bond yields as the BoC is forced to tighten monetary policy, which often results in rising risk premiums and wider corporate credit spreads (falling excess returns). Finally, the CAD TWI is (weakly) positively correlated to corporate bond excess returns. A stronger currency is a reflection of a strong domestic economy, but it also helps lower imported input costs for Canadian companies – both of which boost corporate profits and corporate bond returns. We now turn to the outlook for these factors over the next 6-12 months, which remain generally supportive for moderate positive excess returns for Canadian corporates: Oil prices: BCA’s commodity strategists expect global oil prices to increase moderately over the next year as global inventory drawdowns outpace expectations (Iran sanctions, Venezuela production collapsing and OPEC 2.0 production discipline are likely sources of supply restraint). In addition, if global growth starts to rebound from the end of this year, as we expect, oil demand will also rise. Non-residential fixed investment: According to the BoC’s most recent Business Outlook Survey of Canadian companies, investment spending plans of firms remain healthy – although that survey was taken at the end of June before the latest increase in uncertainty over global trade and economic growth.3  Moreover, relatively easy credit conditions have made it easier for firms to finance capex. Therefore, our baseline scenario is still to expect moderate growth in non-residential fixed capital investment, although risks are to the downside given the global macro uncertainties. Money supply: The most recent reading of the annual growth of Canadian M3 from June was a solid +7.5%. The BoC is expected to maintain an accommodative monetary policy stance, keeping the current policy rate on hold until the end of 2020. Therefore, money supply growth is likely to remain firm – a negative for Canadian corporate bond returns in our model, although perhaps less so than in the past since rapid money growth will not generate the same type of monetary tightening response from the BoC. Capacity utilization: The Canadian capacity utilization rate is currently at 81%, a meaningful pullback from the 84% level seen in early 2018. According to the latest BoC Monetary Policy Report, the Canadian economy is operating below potential (the output gap in Q1 was estimated to be between -1.25% to -0.25% of potential GDP) and that gap is only expected to close over the next two years.  Thus, capacity utilization is not expected to have a major impact on corporate excess returns over the next 6-12 months. Canadian Dollar: The CAD TWI has shown no change over the past year, and will likely remain near current levels in the short term. Although we do not expect the BoC to cut interest rates as much as currently discounted by markets (-40bps over the next twelve months), Canadian monetary policy will still remain accommodative and will likely keep the CAD relatively soft until global manufacturing growth and trade activity stabilize and begin to revive. The CAD is likely to be a neutral factor for Canadian corporate returns over the next year. Bottom Line: Our new regression model for Canadian corporate bond excess returns is calling for modest positive gains for Canadian corporate debt over the next year.  Canadian Corporate Balance Sheet Health: OK For Now, But At Risk If The Economy Weakens Chart 8The BCA Canadian Corporate Health Monitors The BCA Canadian Corporate Health Monitors The BCA Canadian Corporate Health Monitors Regular readers of our work will be familiar with our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) framework. In this approach, we combine financial ratios that are most important for corporate creditworthiness of the entire non-financial corporate sector of a given country into a summary indicator that is designed to track corporate credit spreads. We introduced a Canadian CHM in April 2018, both using top-down national accounts data and aggregated bottom-up ratios from actual company financial statements.4  The latest reading from our top-down and bottom-up Canadian CHMs suggest that the overall health of Canadian corporates is decent, with the CHMs both below the zero line (Chart 8).5  Digging into the individual ratios, however, does reveal some potential signs of future weakness.  Leverage is relatively high, while profitability metrics and interest coverage ratios are at the low end of the historical range.  However, in our CHM framework, how the latest data compares to the medium-term trend – rather than the absolute level of the ratios - is most relevant for corporate bond performance. On that front, the latest data points for the CHM ratios do represent modest improvements versus the levels seen in 2014 and 2015, which is why our CHMs remain in the “improving health” zone. The more cyclically-driven ratios (profit margins, return on capital, interest coverage) declined amid the sharp plunge in Canadian economic growth at the end of 2018. However, given the recent reacceleration visible in some Canadian economic data, those cyclically-driven ratios may end up showing signs of stabilization, if not improvement, once the underlying CHM data for Q2/2019 and Q3/2019 are available. Looking ahead, Canadian corporate debt would be vulnerable to spread widening (rising risk premiums) in the event of a sustained slowing of the Canadian economy, given the poor absolute levels of the CHM component ratios. With the BoC maintaining an accommodative monetary policy stance, however, and the Canadian economy likely to continue growing at a trend-like pace supported by consumer spending, we think the backdrop will remain conducive to credit spread stability in Canada over the next 6-12 months. With the BoC maintaining an accommodative monetary policy stance, however, and the Canadian economy likely to continue growing at a trend-like pace supported by consumer spending, we think the backdrop will remain conducive to credit spread stability in Canada over the next 6-12 months. Bottom Line: The financial health of Canadian companies remains a positive for corporate bond returns on a cyclical basis, but there are longer-term concerns given high leverage and mediocre profitability. Canadian Corporate Bond Sector Valuation For IG corporate sectors in the U.S., euro area and the U.K., we utilize a relative value framework to rank credit spreads within the benchmark corporate universe.  We can apply that same approach to assess valuations of Canadian corporate bond sectors. In our sector relative value model, the “fair value” option-adjusted spread (OAS) for each sector within the Bloomberg Barclays Canadian IG Corporate index is estimated based on a panel regression. The explanatory variables in the regression are the modified duration, convexity and credit rating of each industry sub-sector within the index. The regression produces a set of common coefficients for all sectors that can be used to estimate a fair value OAS for each industry group as a function of its own interest rate duration, convexity and credit quality – all important drivers of corporate bond returns. The Risk-Adjusted Valuation is the difference between each sector’s current OAS and the model estimate of the sector’s fair value OAS.  A positive Risk-Adjusted Valuation implies undervaluation for the sector in question, and a negative reading implies overvaluation. Table 2 shows the recommended positioning of the Canadian IG industry sectors based on our relative value model. Sectors with positive Risk-Adjusted Valuations have overweight allocations versus the benchmark, with the opposite holds true for sectors with negative valuations. Sectors with spreads that are very close to fair value (within a range of +5bps to -5bps) have only a neutral recommended weighting versus the benchmark. Table 2Canada Investment Grade Corporate Bond Aggregate: Sector Relative Valuation* The Great White North: A Framework For Analyzing Canadian Corporate Bonds The Great White North: A Framework For Analyzing Canadian Corporate Bonds Chart 9 depicts the risk/reward tradeoff between the valuation metric and the riskiness of each sector as measured by its duration-times-spread (DTS).  Valuation is measured along the vertical axis of the chart, while DTS is measured along the horizontal axis. Sectors with higher DTS exhibit greater excess return volatility and are thus riskier. Chart 9 In the current environment of heightened uncertainty and slowing global growth, but with the BoC and other global central banks responding with a more dovish monetary policy stance, targeting cheap sectors that are less risky (i.e. DTS scores close to or below the average DTS of all sectors) is a prudent strategy.  Those would be sectors that appear in the upper left quadrant of Chart 9, like Metals & Mining, Finance Companies and Office REITs. Chart 10Positive Support For Canadian Consumer Cyclicals Positive Support For Canadian Consumer Cyclicals Positive Support For Canadian Consumer Cyclicals We also see a case for overweighting the cheap Consumer Cyclical Services sector, even with a DTS that is modestly higher than the overall index, given the continued strength in the Canadian labor market which supports consumer confidence through rising earning power (Chart 10). Recommended underweights are in the bottom right quadrant of Chart 9, with expensive valuations and high DTS scores, like Utilities: Natural Gas, Utilities: Electric, Supermarkets and Food & Beverage. Bottom Line: Favor Canadian corporate bond sectors with cheap valuations and spread volatility close to that of the overall benchmark index. Investment Conclusions Chart 11Canadian Corporates Outperformance Vs U.S. Will Continue Canadian Corporates Outperformance Vs U.S. Will Continue Canadian Corporates Outperformance Vs U.S. Will Continue Canadian IG corporates now offer a potential opportunity to diversify corporate bond exposure away from the larger markets in the U.S. and Europe.  The Canadian economy remains resilient despite slowing global growth, while the fundamental drivers of Canadian corporate bond returns are stabilizing or even improving. At the same time, the economic weakness abroad and heightened trade/political uncertainty will ensure that the BoC maintains an accommodative monetary stance over the next 6-12 months. That is not to say that Canadian corporates are not without risk. Canada is not a low-beta market - spreads do widen during “risk-off” periods in global financial markets. Also, underlying Canadian corporate credit fundamentals look poor on a long-term basis; Canadian private sector debt levels are high (especially for households); and the export-intensive Canadian economy is vulnerable to any incremental deceleration of global growth in particular, and the US more specifically.  Yet as a relative value trade versus the much larger corporate bond market to the south, Canadian corporates are well positioned to continue their recent bout of outperformance versus U.S. equivalents over the next 6-12 months, for the following reasons (Chart 11): While markets are priced for rate cuts from both the Fed and the BoC, the starting point for monetary conditions is easier in Canada than in the U.S. given the much weaker level of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar. There is a wide gap between the corporate credit fundamentals in Canada and the U.S. according to our top-down Corporate Health Monitors for both countries, such that Canadian balance sheets are more robust. There is a wide gap between the corporate credit fundamentals in Canada and the U.S. according to our top-down Corporate Health Monitors for both countries, such that Canadian balance sheets are more robust. Bottom Line: We recommend that domestic Canadian investors continue to stay overweight Canadian corporates versus Canadian government bonds, while keeping an overall level of spread risk close to benchmark. Global credit investors that have access to the Canadian corporate bond market should consider allocations out of U.S. investment grade corporates into Canadian equivalents. Ray Park, CFA, Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA,  Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com  Footnotes 1 Throughout this report, we solely use data on Canadian corporate debt from the Bloomberg Barclays bond indices, which is the main index data we use in all our global bond research. Comprehensive data is also available from other providers such as FTSE Russell and S&P Global. 2 Bank of Canada September 2018 Staff Analytical Note 2018-31, “Have Liquidity and Trading Activity in the Canadian Corporate Bond Market Deteriorated?” 3 https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2019/06/business-outlook-survey-summer-2019/ 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “BCA Corporate Health Monitor Chartbook Update: Growth Is Papering Over The Cracks”, dated April 24, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 5 A CHM below zero implies improving financial health, while a CHM above zero indicates deteriorating financial health. Thus, the direction of the CHM is designed to be positively correlated with corporate credit spreads.

Highlights A lot has changed in a week and a half, … : The FOMC meeting that we thought would mark the end of global market-moving news until September turned out to be a prelude for the real fireworks. … as U.S.-China trade tensions escalated, … : The imposition of tariffs on the only remaining subset of Chinese imports that had escaped duties so far inspired China to let the yuan fall below a key technical level. … and other countries braced for the fallout: China’s devaluation opened up a new front in the conflict, turning a bilateral tariff spat into a threat to other countries’ well-being and competitiveness. Asia-Pacific central banks swiftly followed with larger-than-expected rate cuts. Below-benchmark-duration positioning is no longer appropriate in the near term, and we recommend moving to benchmark duration: Interest rates will be hard-pressed to rise with global central banks squarely in easing mode. Although we still believe that inflation and the fed funds rate will surprise to the upside, it’s going to take a while. Feature Dear Client, There will be no U.S. Investment Strategy next week as we take our final summer break. U.S. Investment Strategy will return on Monday, August 26th. Best regards, Doug Peta So much for the idea that the July 30-31 FOMC meeting would be the last market-moving event before Labor Day. By lunchtime on August 1st, the S&P 500 was back to its July 30th close above 3,010; the 10-year Treasury yield had settled around 1.96%, ten basis points (“bps”) lower than its pre-meeting level; and gold had fallen by ten bucks, to $1,420, as markets digested the news that the Fed was less concerned about the economy than they were. Then the trade war reared its ugly head in the form of new tariffs on Chinese imports to the U.S., and the S&P slid to 2,822, the 10-year Treasury yield tumbled to 1.59%, and gold surged to $1,510. The new round would ensnare the subset of goods that had previously been spared from import duties, and Beijing promised to retaliate. It’s hard for rates to rise when every central bank has an easing bias as it nervously eyes the U.S.-China tilt.   Chart 1Beijing Plays The Currency Card Beijing Plays The Currency Card Beijing Plays The Currency Card The retaliation arrived Sunday night in the U.S., when Chinese officials allowed the renminbi to trade above 7 to the dollar for the first time since 2008 (Chart 1). The move provoked a global equity selloff, and the S&P 500 lost 3% in its worst session of the year. With the currency floodgates opened, the trade war morphed from a bilateral tariff spat into a global battle for competitiveness, and central banks in India, Thailand and New Zealand responded with larger-than-expected rate cuts. India is a comparatively closed economy battling a domestic downturn, but it is clear that countries with any reliance on exports are loath to be saddled with a strong currency that will hamstring their global competitiveness. It turns out that the Fed isn’t the only central bank that sees the appeal of taking out some insurance. That is an unfriendly backdrop for below-benchmark-duration positioning, and we are joining our fixed-income colleagues in raising our duration recommendation from underweight to neutral over the tactical timeframe (0-3 months). While we still believe that the fed funds rate and long yields will surprise to the upside, they cannot do so while bond investors are adamant that the Fed is going to have to adopt an easing bias over the near term. Our rates checklist, discussed in the rest of this report, supports the decision. The shift in the rates backdrop undermines our newly established agency mortgage REIT recommendation, and we are watching it closely. The Rates Checklist: The Fed Table 1Rates View Checklist When The Facts Change When The Facts Change Turning to our rates view checklist (Table 1), the first item is derived from our U.S. Bond Strategy service’s golden rule of bond investing.1 The golden rule asks one simple question to anchor views on Treasuries: Over the next 12 months, will the Fed move the fed funds rate by more or less than the bond market is currently discounting? Since 1990, when the Fed has surprised dovishly (the fed funds rate has turned out to be lower than the money market implied twelve months earlier), Treasuries have almost always generated positive excess returns over cash. Periods of negative excess returns have occurred nearly exclusively when the Fed has delivered a hawkish surprise. We still think inflation will become a problem, but it certainly isn’t one yet. Since we rolled out the checklist last year, we have consistently expected a hawkish surprise. Though we continue to believe that an extended cycle of rate cuts is not in the cards, markets disagree, and we concede that the Fed now has a near-term easing bias, despite Chair Powell’s demurrals at the post-meeting press conference. We are leaving the box unchecked because we believe that nearly four more 25-bps cuts over the next twelve months, equating to a target fed funds rate of 1.25-1.50% (Chart 2), are unlikely. The spread between our expectations and the market’s expectations is still wide enough to merit a below-benchmark-duration view over the next twelve months, even if benchmark duration makes more sense for the rest of the year. Chart 2Four More Rate Cuts Are A Stretch Four More Rate Cuts Are A Stretch Four More Rate Cuts Are A Stretch The yield curve’s inversion has become more pronounced in the wake of the re-escalation of the trade war (Chart 3), and we duly check the second box. As a reminder, we track the 3-month/10-year segment of the yield curve to define inversion because it is less susceptible to estimate error, and has been a timelier indicator of recessions, than the more frequently cited 2-year/10-year segment. We have argued before that the unprecedentedly large negative 10-year term premium makes the curve more prone to invert and makes it a less sensitive economic barometer, but part of the rationale of creating a checklist is to limit one’s discretion in interpreting events. Chart 3More Rate Cuts, Please More Rate Cuts, Please More Rate Cuts, Please The Rates Checklist: Inflation Inflation has gone AWOL around the globe. Although the U.S. no longer faces the negative output gaps that remain in other major economies, its main measures of consumer prices (Chart 4) do nothing to counteract the widespread view that the Fed has a free pass to devote its energies to shoring up growth. Inflation break-evens were making progress toward the 2.3-2.5% range consistent with the Fed’s 2% inflation target when we launched the checklist last year, but the plunge in oil prices stopped them in their tracks (Chart 5). Rather than encouraging the Fed to hike, soft inflation expectations helped drive the Fed’s dovish pivot. Chart 4Realized Inflation Is Below Target, ... Realized Inflation Is Below Target, ... Realized Inflation Is Below Target, ... Chart 5... And So Are Inflation Expectations ... And So Are Inflation Expectations ... And So Are Inflation Expectations Our view that the seeds of inflation pressures have been sown has not changed. After slowing on a real final domestic demand basis in the first quarter from the one-two punch of the government shutdown and the fourth quarter’s sharp tightening of financial conditions, the U.S. economy has resumed operating above capacity. Though we check the “sluggish-inflation” boxes, and acknowledge that inflation is not going to inspire a more restrictive turn in Fed policy any time soon, we do think it will become an issue down the road. The Rates Checklist: The Labor Market The labor market remains robust. The headline unemployment rate remains at a level last seen in 1969, and is well below the CBO’s estimate of NAIRU. NAIRU is the minimum structural unemployment rate, and wage gains quicken when the unemployment rate falls below it (Chart 6). The broader definition of unemployment, encompassing discouraged workers and involuntary part-time workers, fell to its lowest level since 2000 in July (Chart 7), and the job openings and job quits rates (Chart 8) indicate that demand for workers remains high. Chart 6Wage Gains Will Accelerate, ... Wage Gains Will Accelerate, ... Wage Gains Will Accelerate, ... Chart 7... As Slack Has Been Absorbed, ... ... As Slack Has Been Absorbed, ... ... As Slack Has Been Absorbed, ... Chart 8... And Demand Is Robust ... And Demand Is Robust ... And Demand Is Robust Chart 9   3.2% year-over-year growth in average hourly earnings may not be thrilling, but wages do remain in an uptrend. The laws of supply and demand (Chart 9), and the Fed’s best efforts, suggest that the uptrend will continue. We do not check any of the labor market boxes, and expect that we will not over the rest of the year. The Rates Checklist: Instability At Home And Abroad Chart 10No Overheating Yet No Overheating Yet No Overheating Yet There continue to be no signs of cyclical overheating in the U.S. economy, as the most cyclical segments of the economy are nowhere near the red end of the tachometer (Chart 10). Financial imbalances have moved to the back burner, but they are part of the Fed’s post-crisis mandate, and we are leaving the imbalances box unticked to reflect that the “low spreads and loosening credit terms” Governor Brainard decried last September2 may stay the Fed from embarking on a full-on easing cycle. We are checking the international duress box, at least for the time being, given the potential for a self-reinforcing rate-cutting cycle that could hold down the entire term structure of rates around the world. Bottom Line: The inverted yield curve, a lack of consumer price inflation, and the cloud cast by the trade war all suggest that bond markets will require some convincing before they allow rates to rise much higher. We conclude that a neutral duration stance is appropriate in the near term. Keeping Score We have been staunch supporters of below-benchmark duration positioning since the end of last July,3 given that we thought the 10-year Treasury yield was too low relative to our assessment of the strength of the U.S. economy and the potential for inflation to begin to rise. It appears that our stronger-than-consensus economic view was correct, but we were myopic in failing to grasp how punk growth in the rest of the world would keep long-maturity Treasury yields from making a sustained move higher. We were way early on inflation’s ETA, and slow to grasp how sensitive the Fed would be to faltering global growth and escalating trade tensions in its absence. In short, both our model of the Fed’s reaction function and the inputs to our model turned out to be faulty. The duration call stings, but our asset allocation recommendations have worked out. The fix we are making is to wait until inflation is a clear and present danger before assuming that the Fed will respond to it. Although we got the duration call wrong, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds have outperformed Treasuries in the aggregate since we upgraded them to overweight versus Treasuries at the end of January (Chart 11). BCA as a house niftily sidestepped the fourth-quarter selloff in equities by downgrading them to equal weight, and raising cash to overweight, late last June. We upgraded equities to overweight versus cash and fixed income in our first publication of the year, and the S&P 500 has handily outperformed Treasuries since that date, despite the nasty selloff following the July FOMC meeting and the new round of tariffs (Chart 12). Chart 11Spread Product Has Modestly Outperformed Treasuries, ... Spread Product Has Modestly Outperformed Treasuries, ... Spread Product Has Modestly Outperformed Treasuries, ... Chart 12... But Equities Have Crushed Them ... But Equities Have Crushed Them ... But Equities Have Crushed Them Agency Mortgage REIT Implications We recommended agency mortgage REITs a day before the FOMC meeting, suggesting that investors allocate capital away from equities and high yield as a way to reduce equity beta and boost portfolio income away from the herd chasing lower and lower high-yield bond yields. Through Thursday’s close, the Bloomberg Mortgage REIT Index has gained about 35 bps on a total return basis, while the Barclays High Yield Index is off 70 bps and the S&P 500 is down 2.7%. Unfortunately, the agency mREITs we sought out for their yield curve exposure have lagged badly as the yield curve has relentlessly flattened. For now, only the one agency mREIT with a dedicated adjustable-rate mortgage portfolio faces immediate earnings pressure. The rest are subject to refinancing volumes, which are likely to be higher than we expected when we projected that the 10-year Treasury yield wouldn’t fall much below 2%. The specter of increased prepayments makes the agency mREITs a less attractive investment than we thought they would be two weeks ago. On the other hand, their exclusively domestic exposure, and low credit risk, increases their value as a haven from global turmoil. Net-net, we are sticking with them, though they are now on a far shorter leash than they were when we made the recommendation. We will not stick with a position to save face, or to avoid looking irresolute. Flexibility and a willingness to admit mistakes are essential characteristics of successful investors. When the facts change, we change our mind, without the faintest hint of embarrassment. Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the July 24, 2018 U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing,” available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Brainard, Lael (2018). “What Do We Mean by Neutral And What Role Does It Play in Monetary Policy,” speech delivered at the Detroit Economic Club, Detroit, Mich., September 12, 2018. 3 Please see the July 30, 2018 U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “The Rates Outlook,” available at usis.bcaresearch.com.

Feature GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of July 31, 2019.  The quant model reversed its abnormal upgrade of Sweden in the previous model update. In hindsight, the model’s behavior when a bond yield moves close to zero needs to be watched closely. Currently, the model still favors Spain, Italy, Germany, Netherland and Australia at the expenses of U.S., Japan, U.K., France and Canada, as shown in Table 1.  As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the overall model underperformed the MSCI World benchmark by 94 bps in July, largely driven by 146 bps of underperformance from the Level 2 model, and 26 bps of underperformance from the Level 1. Directionally, 7 out of the 12 choices generated positive alpha. However, the overweight in Sweden and Spain generated outsized underperformance. Since going live, the overall model has outperformed by 94 bps, with 297 bps of outperformance by the Level 2 model, offset by 42 bps of underperformance from the Level 1. Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD %) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2)   Please see also the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see Special Report, “Global Equity Allocation: Introducing The Developed Markets Country Allocation Model,” dated January 29, 2016, available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Please note that the overall country and sector recommendations published in our Monthly Portfolio Update and Quarterly Portfolio Outlook use the results of these quantitative models as one input, but do not stick slavishly to them. We believe that models are a useful check, but structural changes and unquantifiable factors need to be considered too in making overall recommendations. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Model (Chart 4) is updated as of July 31, 2019. Chart 4Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance Overall Model Performance The model’s tilts between cyclicals and defensives have changed compared to last month. Following the Fed’s decision to cut interest rates yesterday, the liquidity component shifted its inputs to phase 4 – a period in which the central bank is cutting rates, while simulative monetary conditions persist. Although this should favor most cyclical sectors, the lack of evidence of global growth bottoming is tilting the model to favor a mixed bag of sectors. The valuation component continues to remain muted across all sectors. The model is now overweight 4 sectors in total, 2 cyclical and 2 defensive sectors. These are Consumer Discretionary, Information Technology, Consumer Staples, and Healthcare. Table 3Model’s Performance (March 1, 2019 - Current) GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates Table 4Current Model Allocations GAA Quant Model Updates GAA Quant Model Updates   For more details on the model, please see the Special Report “Introducing the GAA Equity Sector Selection Model,” dated July 27, 2016, as well as the Sector Selection Model section in the Special Alert “GAA Quant Model Updates,” dated March 1, 2019 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoliT@bcaresearch.com Amr Hanafy, Research Associate amrh@bcaresearch.com Footnotes

Highlights So What? Key geopolitical risks remain unresolved and most of the improvements are transitory. Maintain a cautious tactical stance toward risk assets. Why? U.S.-China relations remain the preeminent geopolitical risk to investors and President Trump remains a wild card on trade. Japan’s rising assertiveness in the region will also produce clashes with the Koreas and possibly also with China. USMCA ratification is not a red herring for investors. We expect USMCA will pass by year’s end but our conviction level is low. Trump’s threat to withdraw from NAFTA cannot be entirely ruled out. Remain long JPY-USD and overweight Thailand relative to EM equities. Feature Chart 1U.S. And Chinese Policy Growing More Simulative U.S. And Chinese Policy Growing More Simulative U.S. And Chinese Policy Growing More Simulative We maintain our cautious tactical stance toward risk assets despite improvements to the cyclical macro outlook. American and Chinese monetary and fiscal policy are growing more stimulative on the margin – an encouraging sign for the global economy and risk assets. We have frequently predicted this combination as a positive factor for the second half of the year and 2020. With the Federal Reserve likely to deliver a 25 basis point interest rate cut on July 31, the market is pricing in positive policy developments (Chart 1). Yet in the U.S., long-term fiscal and regulatory policies are increasingly uncertain as the Democratic Party primary and 2020 election heat up. And in China, the trade war continues to drag on the effectiveness of the government’s stimulus drive. President Trump remains a wild card on trade: the resumption of U.S.-China talks is precarious and will be accompanied by heightened uncertainty surrounding Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Europe in the near term. Even the USMCA’s ratification is not guaranteed, as we discuss below. Even more pressing are the dramatic events taking place in East Asia: Hong Kong, Japan, the Koreas, Taiwan, and the South and East China Seas. These events each entail near-term uncertainty amid the ongoing slowdown in trade and manufacturing. Our long-running theme of geopolitical risk rotation from the Middle East to East Asia has come to fruition, albeit at the moment geopolitical risk is rising in both regions due to the simultaneous showdown between Iran and the United States and United Kingdom. The market recognizes that geopolitical risks are unresolved, according to this month’s update of our currency- and equity-derived GeoRisk Indicators. This is in keeping with the above points. We regard most of the improvements as transitory – especially the drop in risk in the U.K., where Boris Johnson is now officially prime minister. We are therefore sticking with our cautious trade recommendations despite our agreement with the BCA House View that the cyclical outlook is improving and is positive for global risk assets on a 12-month horizon. What Is Happening To East Asian Stability? A raft of crises has struck East Asia, a region known for political stability and ease of doing business throughout the twenty-first century after its successful recovery from the financial crisis of 1997. The thawing of Asia’s frozen post-WWII conflicts is a paradigm shift with significant long-term consequences for investors. The fundamental drivers are as follows: China’s rise is not peaceful: President Xi Jinping has reasserted Communist Party control while pursuing mercantilist trade policy and aggressive foreign policy. The populations of Hong Kong and Taiwan have reacted negatively to Beijing’s tightening grip, exposing the difficulty of resolving serious political disagreements given unclear constitutional frameworks. Recent protests in Hong Kong are even larger than those in 2014 and 1989 (Table 1). Table 1Hong Kong: Recent Protests The Largest Ever East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 America’s “pivot” is not peaceful: The United States is determined to respond to China’s rise, but political polarization has prevented a coherent strategy. The Democrats took a gradual, multilateral path emphasizing the Trans-Pacific Partnership while the Republicans have taken an abrupt, unilateral path emphasizing sweeping tariffs. Underlying trade policy is the increased use of “hard power” by both parties – freedom of navigation operations, weapons sales, and alliance-maintenance. America is threatening the strategic containment of China, which China will resist through alliances and relations with Russia and others. Japan’s resurgence is not peaceful: Japan’s “lost decades” culminated in the crises and disasters of 2008-11. Since then, Japan’s institutional ruling party – the Liberal Democrats – have embraced a more proactive vision of Japan in which the country casts off the shackles of its WWII settlement. They set about reflating the economy and “normalizing” the country’s strategic and military posture. The result is rising tension with China and the Koreas. Korean “reunion” is not peaceful: North Korea has seen a successful power transition to Kim Jong Un, who is attempting economic reforms to prolong the regime. South Korea has witnessed a collapse among political conservatives and a new push to make peace with the North and improve relations with China. The prospect of peace – or eventual reunification – increases political risk in both Korean regimes and provokes quarrels between erstwhile allies: the North and China, and the South and Japan. Southeast Asia’s rise is not peaceful: Southeast Asia is the prime beneficiary in a world where supply chains move out of China, due to China’s internal development and American trade policy. But it also suffers when China encroaches on its territory or reacts negatively to American overtures. Higher expectations from the U.S. will increase the political risk to Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines. This is the critical context for the mass protests in Hong Kong and the miniature trade war between Japan and South Korea, and other regional risks. Which conflicts are market-relevant? How will they play out? The U.S.-China Conflict The most important dynamic is the strategic conflict between the U.S. and China. Its pace and intensity have ramifications for all the other states in the region. Because the Trump administration is seeking a trade agreement with China, it has held off from unduly antagonizing China over Hong Kong and Taiwan. President Trump has not fanned the flames of unrest in Hong Kong and has maintained only a gradual pace of improvements in the Taiwan relationship.1 But if the trade war escalates dramatically, Beijing will face greater economic pressure, growing more sensitive about dissent within Greater China, and Washington may take more provocative actions. Saber-rattling could ensue, as nearly occurred in October 2018. Currently events are moving in a more market-positive direction. Next week, the U.S. and China are expected to resume face-to-face trade negotiations between principal negotiators for the first time since May. China is reportedly preparing to purchase more farm goods – part of the Osaka G20 ceasefire – while the Trump administration has met with U.S. tech companies and is expected to allow Chinese telecoms firm Huawei to continue purchasing American components (at least those not clearly impacting national security). We are upgrading the odds of a trade agreement by November 2020 to 40% from 32% in mid-June. With this resumption of talks, we are upgrading the odds of a trade agreement by November 2020 to 40%, from 32% in mid-June (Diagram 1). Of this 40%, we still give only a 5% chance to a durable, long-term deal that resolves underlying technological and strategic disputes. The remaining 35% goes to a tenuous deal that enables President Trump to declare victory prior to the election and allows President Xi Jinping to staunch the bleeding in the manufacturing sector. Diagram 1U.S.-China Trade War Decision Tree (Updated July 26, 2019) East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 Note that these odds still leave a 60% chance for an escalation of the trade war by November 2020. Our conviction level is low when it comes to the two moderate scenarios. Ultimately, Presidents Trump and Xi can agree to a trade agreement at the drop of a hat – no one can stop Xi from ordering large imports from the U.S. or Trump from rolling back tariffs. Our conviction level is much higher in assigning only a 5% chance of a grand compromise and a 36% chance of a cold war-style escalation of tensions. We doubt that China will offer any structural concessions deeper than what they have already offered (new foreign investment law, financial sector opening) prior to finding out who wins the U.S. election in 2020. Beijing is stabilizing the economy even though tariffs have gone up. As long as this remains the case, why would it implement additional painful reforms? This would set a precedent of caving to tariff coercion – and yet Trump could renege on a deal anytime, and the Democrats might take over in 2020 anyway. The one exception might be North Korea, where China could do more to bring about a diplomatic agreement favorable to President Trump as part of an overall deal before November 2020 – and this could excuse China from structural concessions affecting its internal economy. The takeaway is that U.S.-China trade issues are still far from resolved and have a high probability of failure – and this will be a source of strategic tension within the region over the next 16 months, particularly with regard to Taiwan, the Koreas, and the South China Sea. Hong Kong And Taiwan Chart 2 August can be a crucial time period for policy changes as Chinese leaders often meet at the seaside resort of Beidaihe to strategize. This year they need to focus on handling the unrest in Hong Kong, and the Taiwanese election in January, as well as the trade war with the United States. Protests in Hong Kong have continued, driven by underlying socio-economic factors as well as Beijing’s encroachment on traditional political liberties. Even the groups that are least sympathetic to the protesters – political moderates, the elderly, low-income groups, and the least educated – are more or less divided over the controversial extradition bill that prompted the unrest (Chart 2). This reveals that the political establishment is weak on this issue. Chief Executive Carrie Lam is clinging to power, as Beijing does not want to give the impression that popular dissent is a viable mechanism for removing leaders. But she has become closely associated with the extradition bill and will likely have to go in order to satiate the protesters and begin the process of healing. As long as Beijing refrains from rolling in the military and using outright force to crush the Hong Kong protests, the unrest should gradually die down, as the political establishment will draw support for its concessions while the general public will grow weary of the protests – especially as violence spreads. Hong Kong has no alternative to Beijing’s sovereignty. The scene of action will soon turn to Taiwan, where the January 2020 election has the potential to spark the next flashpoint in Xi Jinping’s struggle to consolidate power in Greater China. Chart 3 A large majority of Taiwanese people supports the Hong Kong protests – even most supporters of the pro-mainland Kuomintang (KMT) (Chart 3). This dynamic is now affecting the Taiwanese election slated for January 2020. The relatively pro-mainland KMT has been polling neck-and-neck with the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which has struggled to gain traction throughout its term given diplomatic and economic headwinds stemming from the mainland. Similarly, while popular feeling is still largely in favor of eventual independence, pro-unification feeling has regained momentum in an apparent rebuke to the pro-independence ruling party (Chart 4). However, the events in Hong Kong have changed things by energizing the democratic and mainland-skeptic elements in Taiwan. President Tsai Ing-wen is now taking a slight lead in the presidential head-to-head opinion polls despite a long period of lackluster polling (Chart 5). Chart 4 Chart 5 A close election increases the risk that policymakers and activists in Taiwan, mainland China, the United States, and elsewhere will take actions attempting to influence the election outcome. Beijing will presumably heed the lesson of the 1996 election and avoid anything too aggressive so as not to drive voters into the arms of the DPP. However, with Hong Kong boiling, and with Beijing having already conducted intimidating military drills encircling Taiwan in recent years, there is a chance that past lessons will be forgotten. The United States could also play a disruptive role, especially if trade talks deteriorate. If the KMT wins, then anti-Beijing activists will eventually begin gearing up for protests themselves, which in subsequent years could overshadow the Sunflower Movement of 2013. If the DPP prevails, Beijing may resort to tougher tactics in the coming years due to its fear of the province’s political direction and the DPP’s policies. In sum, while the Hong Kong saga is far from over and has negative long-run implications for domestic and foreign investors, Taiwan is the greater risk because it has the potential not only to suffer individually but also to become the epicenter of a larger geopolitical confrontation between China and the U.S. and its allies. This would present a more systemic challenge to global investors. Japan And “Peak Abe” Chart 6 Japan’s House of Councillors election on July 21 confirmed our view that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has reached the peak of his influence. Abe is still popular and is likely to remain so through the Tokyo summer Olympics next year (Chart 6). But make no mistake, the loss of his two-thirds supermajority in the upper house shows that he has moved beyond the high tide of his influence. Having retained a majority in the upper house, and a supermajority in the much more powerful lower house (House of Representatives), Abe’s government still has the ability to pass regular legislation (Chart 7). If he needs to drive through a bill delaying the consumption tax hike on October 1 due to a deterioration in the global economic and political environment, he can still do so with relative ease. While the Hong Kong saga is far from over ... Taiwan is the greater risk. Chart 7 Clearly, the election loss will not impact Abe’s ability to negotiate a trade deal with the United States, which we expect to happen quickly – even before a China deal – albeit with some risk of tariffs on autos in the interim. Chart 8 The problem is that Abe’s final and greatest aim is to revise Japan’s American-written, pacifist constitution for the first time. This requires a two-thirds vote in both houses and a majority vote in a popular referendum. While Abe can still probably cobble together enough votes in the upper house, the election result makes it less certain – and the dent in popular support implies that the national referendum is less likely to pass. Constitutional revision was always going to be a close vote anyway (Chart 8). If Abe falls short of a majority in that referendum, then he will become a lame duck and markets will have to price in greater policy uncertainty. Even if he succeeds – which is still our low-conviction baseline view – then he will have reached the pinnacle of his career and there will be nowhere to go but down. His tenure as party leader expires in September 2021 and the race to succeed him is already under way. Hence, some degree of uncertainty should begin creeping in immediately. Abe’s departure will leave the Liberal Democrats in charge – and hence Japanese policy continuity will be largely preserved. But the entire arc of events, from now through the constitutional revision process to Abe’s succession, will raise fundamental questions about whether Abe’s post-2012 reflation drive can be sustained. We have a high conviction view that it will be, but Japanese assets will challenge that view. What of the miniature trade war between Japan and South Korea? On July 4, Japan imposed export restrictions on goods critical to South Korea’s semiconductor industry in retaliation for a South Korean court ruling that would set a precedent requiring Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi and Nippon Steel to pay reparations for the use of forced Korean labor during Japanese rule from 1910-45. Chart 9Japan Has A Stronger Hand In The Mini Trade War Japan Has A Stronger Hand In The Mini Trade War Japan Has A Stronger Hand In The Mini Trade War Japan has the stronger hand in this dispute from an economic point of view (Chart 9). While the unusually heavy-handed Japanese trade measures partly reveal the influence of President Trump, who has given a license for U.S. allies to weaponize trade, it also reflects Japan’s growing assertiveness. Abe’s government may have believed that a surge of nationalism would help in the upper house election. And the constitutional referendum will be another reason to stir nationalism and a recurring source of tension with both Koreas (as well as with China). Therefore, Japanese-Korean tensions and punitive economic measures could persist well into 2020. Bottom Line: U.S.-China relations remain the preeminent geopolitical risk to investors, especially if the Taiwan election becomes a lightning rod. Japan’s rising assertiveness in the region will also produce clashes with the Koreas and possibly also with China. We are playing these risks by remaining long JPY-USD and overweight Thailand relative to EM equities, as Thailand is more insulated than other East Asian economies to trade and China risks. Keep An Eye On The USMCA Last week we highlighted U.S. budget negotiations and argued that the result would be greater fiscal accommodation. The results of the just-announced budget deal are depicted in Chart 10. One side effect is an increased likelihood of eventual tariffs on Mexico if the latter fails to staunch the influx of immigrants across the U.S. southern border, since President Trump has largely failed to secure funding for his proposed border wall. Chart 10 Meanwhile, the administration’s legislative and trade focus will turn toward ratifying the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA). There is an increased likelihood of eventual U.S. tariffs on Mexico ... since President Trump has largely failed to secure funding for his proposed border wall.  Ratification is not a red herring for investors, since Trump could give notice of withdrawal from NAFTA in order to hasten USMCA approval, which would induce volatility. Moreover, successful ratification could embolden him to take a strong hand in his other trade disputes, while failure could urge him to concede to a quick deal with China. Chart 11Trade Uncertainty Supports The Dollar Trade Uncertainty Supports The Dollar Trade Uncertainty Supports The Dollar Further, trade policy uncertainty in the Trump era has correlated with a rising trade-weighted dollar (Chart 11), so there is a direct channel for trade tensions (or the lack thereof) to influence the global economy at a time when it badly needs a softer dollar – in addition to the negative effects of trade wars on sentiment. The signing of the USMCA trade agreement by American, Mexican, and Canadian leaders last November effectively shifted negotiations from the international stage to the domestic stage. Last month Mexico became the first to ratify the deal. The delay in the U.S. and Canada reflects their more challenging domestic political environments ahead of elections, especially in the United States. Ratification in the U.S. has been stalled by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who is locked in stalemate with the Trump administration. She is holding off on giving the green light to present the agreement to Congress until Democrats’ concerns are addressed (Diagram 2). Trump, meanwhile, is threatening to withdraw from NAFTA – a declaration that cannot be entirely ruled out, even though we highly doubt he would actually withdraw at the end of the six-month waiting period. Diagram 2Pelosi Is Stalling USMCA Ratification Process East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 Republicans are looking to secure the USMCA’s passage before the 2020 campaign goes into full force in order to claim victory on one of Trump’s key 2016 campaign promises. The administration’s May 30 submission of the draft Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) to Congress initiated a 30-day waiting period that must pass before the administration can submit the text to Congress. But the administration is unlikely to put the final bill to Congress before ensuring that House Democrats are ready to cooperate.2 House democrats are in a position of maximum leverage and are using the process to their political advantage. House Democrats are in a position of maximum leverage – since they do not need the deal to become law – and are using the process to their political advantage. If the bill is to be ratified through the “fast action” Trade Protection Authority (TPA), which forbids amendments and limits debate in Congress, then now is their only chance to make amendments to the text, which was written without their input. Even in the Democrat-controlled House, there is probably enough support for the USMCA to secure its passage. There are 51 House Democrats who were elected in districts that Trump won or that Republicans held in 2018, and are inclined to pass the deal. Moreover 21 House Democrats have been identified from districts that rely heavily on trade with Canada and Mexico (Chart 12).3 If these Democrats vote along with all 197 Republicans in favor of the bill, it will pass the House. This is a rough calculation, but it shows that passage is achievable. Chart 12 Chart 13 What is more, there is a case to be made for bipartisan support for USMCA. Trump’s trade agenda has some latent sympathy among moderate Democrats, and Democrats within Trump districts, unlike his border wall. Democrats will appear obstructionist if they oppose the bill. Unlike trade with China, American voters are not skeptical of trade with Canada – and the group that thinks Mexico is unfair on trade falls short of a majority (Chart 13). Since enough Democrats have a compelling self-interest in securing the deal, and since Trump and the GOP obviously want it to pass, we expect it to pass eventually. The question is whether it can be done by year’s end. Once the bill is presented to Congress and passes through the TPA process, it will become law within 90 days. Assuming that the bill is presented to the House in early September, when Congress reconvenes after its summer recess, the bill could be ratified before year-end. Otherwise, without the expedited TPA process, the bill will no longer be protected against amendment and filibuster, leaving the timeline of ratification vulnerable to extensive delay. The above timeline may be too late for Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who faces general elections on October 21. The ratification process has already been initiated, as Trudeau would benefit from wrapping up the entire affair prior to the national vote.4 However, the process most recently has been stalled in order to move in tandem with the U.S., so that parliament does not ratify an agreement that the U.S. fails to pass. Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland has indicated that parliament is not likely to be recalled for a vote unless there is progress down south. This leaves the Canadian ratification process at the mercy of progress in the U.S. – and ultimately Speaker Pelosi’s decision. The current government faces few hurdles in getting the bill passed (Chart 14). The next step is a final reading in the House where the bill will either be adopted or rejected. If it is approved, the bill will then proceed to the Senate where it will undergo a similar process. If the bill is passed in the same form in the House and Senate, it will become law. Chart 14 Chart 15...But Trudeau's Party Is At Risk ...But Trudeau's Party Is At Risk ...But Trudeau's Party Is At Risk Failure to ratify the deal before the election means it will be set aside and reintroduced in the next parliament. The Liberal Party is by no means guaranteed to win a majority in the election – our base case has Trudeau forming the next government, but the race is close (Chart 15). A Conservative-led parliament would be likely to pass the bill, but it would likely be delayed to 2021 at that point due to American politics. We suspect that Trudeau will eventually stop delaying and push for Canadian ratification. This would pressure Pelosi and the Democrats to go ahead and ratify, when they are otherwise inclined to reopen negotiations or otherwise delay until after November 2020. If this gambit succeeded, Trudeau would have forced total ratification prior to October 21, which would give him a badly needed boost in the election. He can always go through the frustration of re-ratifying the deal in his second term if the Democrats insist on changes, but not if he does not survive for a second term – so it is worth going forward at home and trying to pressure Pelosi into ratification in September or early October. Bottom Line: In light of Canada’s October election and the U.S. 2020 election cycle, USMCA faces a tight schedule. A delay into next year risks undermining the ratification effort, as we enter a period of hyper-partisan politics amid the 2020 presidential campaigns. This makes the third quarter a sweet spot for USMCA ratification. While we ultimately expect that it will make it through, each passing day raises the odds against it. GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 All ten GeoRisk indicators can be found in the Appendix, with full annotation. Below are the most noteworthy developments this month. U.K.: As expected, Boris Johnson sealed the Conservative party leadership contest. This was largely priced in by the markets and as such did not result in a big shift in our risk indicator. Johnson has stated that he is willing to exit the EU without a deal and it is undeniable that the odds of a no-deal Brexit have increased. Nevertheless, the odds of an election are also rising as Johnson may galvanize Brexit support under the Conservative Party even as Bremain forces are divided between the rising Liberal Democrats and a Labour Party hobbled by Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. The odds that Johnson is willing to risk his newly cemented position on a snap election – having seen what happened in June 2017 – seem overstated to us, but we place the odds at about 21%. As for a no-deal exit, opinion polling still suggests that the median British voter prefers a soft exit or remaining in the EU. This imposes constraints on Johnson, as he may ultimately be forced to try to push through a plan similar to Theresa May’s, but rebranded with minimal EU concessions to make it more acceptable – or risk a no-confidence vote and potential loss of control. We maintain that GBP will stay weak, gilts will remain well-bid, and risk-off tendencies will be reinforced. France: Our French indicator points toward a significant increase in political risk over the last month. President Macron’s government has recently unveiled the pension system overhaul that he promised during the 2017 campaign. The reform, which is due to take effect in 2025, encourages citizens to work longer, as their full pension will come at the age of 64 – two years later than under current regulations. French reform efforts have historically prompted significant social unrest. Both the 1995 Juppé Plan and the 2006 labor reforms were scrapped as a result of unrest, and the 2010 pension reform strikes forced the government to cut the most controversial parts of the bill. Labor unions have already called for strikes against the current bill in September. However, no pain, no gain. Unrest is a sign that ambitious reforms are being enacted, and Macron’s showdown with protesters thus far is no more dramatic than the unrest faced by the most significant European reform efforts. The 1984-85 U.K. miners’ strike led to over 10,000 arrested and significant violence, but resulted in the closures of most collieries, weakening of trade union power, and allowed the Thatcher government to consolidate its liberal economic program. German labor reforms in the early 2000s led to strikes, but marked a turning point in unemployment and GDP trends (Chart 16), and succeeded in increasing wages and pushing people back into the labor force (Chart 17). And the 2011 Spanish reforms under PM Rajoy led to the rise of Indignados, student protesters occupying public spaces, but ultimately helped kick-start Spain’s recovery. Investors should therefore not fear unrest, and we expect any related uncertainty to abate in the medium term. Chart 16Hartz IV Reforms Were Also Accompanied By Unrest... Hartz IV Reforms Were Also Accompanied By Unrest... Hartz IV Reforms Were Also Accompanied By Unrest... Chart 17...But Were Ultimately Favorable ...But Were Ultimately Favorable ...But Were Ultimately Favorable Note that Macron is doubling down on reforms after the experience of the Yellow Vest protests, just as his favorability has rebounded to pre-protest levels. While Macron’s approval is nearly the lowest compared to other French presidents at this point in their terms (Chart 18), he does not face an election until 2022, so he has the ability to trudge on in hopes that his reform efforts will bear fruit by that time. Chart 18 Spain: Our Spanish indicator is showing signs of increasing tensions as Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez attempts to form a government. After ousting Mariano Rajoy in a vote of no confidence in June 2018, Sanchez struggled to govern with an 84-seat minority in Congress. The Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party’s (PSOE) proposed budget plan was voted down in Congress in February, forcing Sanchez to call a snap election for April 28 in which PSOE secured 123 seats. The PSOE leader failed the first investiture vote on July 23 – and the rerun on July 25 – with less votes in his favor than his predecessor Mariano Rajoy received during the 2015-2016 government formation crisis (Chart 19). In the first investiture vote, Sanchez secured 124 votes out of the 176 he needed to be sworn in as prime minister. This led to a second round of voting in which Sanchez needed a simple majority, which he failed to do with 124 affirmative, 155 opposing votes, and 67 abstentions. Going forward, Sanchez has two months to obtain the confidence of Congress, otherwise the King may dissolve the government, leading to a snap election. Chart 19 Chart 20 The Spanish government is more fragmented today than at any point during the last 30 years (Chart 20). Even if Pedro Sanchez’s PSOE were to successfully negotiate a deal with Podemos and its partner parties, the coalition would still require support from nationalist parties such as Republican Left of Catalonia or Basque Nationalist Party to govern. These will likely require major concessions relating to the handling of Catalonian independence, which, if rejected by PSOE, will result in yet another gridlocked government. The next two months will see a significant increase in political risk, and we assign a non-negligible chance to another election in November, the fourth in four years. Turkey: Investors should avoid becoming complacent on the back of the stream of encouraging news following the Turkey-Russia missile defense system deal. Our indicator is signaling that the market is pricing a decrease in tensions, and President Trump has stated that sanctions will not be immediate. Nevertheless, we would be wary. Congress is taking a much tougher stance on the issue than President Trump: The U.S. administration already excluded Turkey from the F-35 stealth fighter jet program; Senators Scott (R) and Young (R) introduced a resolution calling for sanctions; Senator Menendez (D) stated that merely removing Turkey from the F-35 program would not be enough; The new Defense Secretary nominee Mark Esper said that he was disappointed with Turkey’s “drift from the West”; And U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed confidence that President Trump would impose sanctions. Under CAATSA, a law that targets companies doing business with Russia, the U.S. must impose sanctions on Turkey over the missile deal, but does not have a timeline to do so. The sanctions required are formidable, and the U.S. has already imposed sanctions on China for a similar violation. If President Trump is not going forward with sanctions now, he still could proceed later if Turkey does not improve U.S. relations in some other way. From Turkey’s side, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu threatened retaliation if the U.S. were to impose sanctions. Turkey is also facing increasing tensions domestically. Erdogan suffered a stinging rebuke in the re-run of the Istanbul mayoral election. This defeat has left Erdogan even more insecure and unpredictable than before. On July 6, he fired central bank governor Murat Cetinkaya using a presidential decree, which calls the central bank’s independence into question. He may reshuffle his cabinet, which could make matters worse if the appointments are not market-friendly. As domestic tensions continue to escalate, and when the U.S. announces sanctions, we expect the lira to take yet another hit and add to Turkey’s economic woes. Diagram 3Brazil: Pension Reform Timeline East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 East Asia Risks And The USMCA – GeoRisk Indicators Update: July 26, 2019 Chart 21Brazil Faces A Fiscal Deficit Despite Pension Reform Brazil Faces A Fiscal Deficit Despite Pension Reform Brazil Faces A Fiscal Deficit Despite Pension Reform Brazil: Brazilian risks are likely to remain elevated as the country faces crunch-time over the controversial pension reform on which its fiscal sustainability depends. Although the Lower House voted overwhelmingly in support of the reform on July 11, the bill needs to make it through another Lower House vote slated for August 6. The bill will then proceed to at least two more rounds of voting in the Senate (by end-September at the earliest), with a three-fifths majority required in each round before being enshrined in Brazil’s constitution (Diagram 3). The whole process will likely be delayed by amendments and negotiations. The estimated savings of the bill in its current form are about 0.9 trillion reals, down from the 1.236 trillion reals originally targeted, which risks undermining the effort to close the fiscal deficit. Our colleagues at BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy still forecast a primary fiscal deficit in four years’ time (Chart 21).5   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For instance, the U.S.’s latest $2.2 billion arms package does not include F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan, and F-35s have entirely been ruled out. The Trump administration sent Paul Ryan, rather than a high-level cabinet member, to inaugurate the new office building of the American Institute in Taiwan for the 40th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act. At the same time, the Trump administration is threatening a more substantial upgrade of relations through more frequent arms sales, the Taiwan Travel Act (2018), and the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act (2018). 2 The risk is that history repeats itself. In 2007, then President George W. Bush sent the free-trade agreement with Colombia to Congress prior to securing Pelosi’s approval. She halted the fast-track timeline and the standoff lasted nearly five years. 3 Please see Gary Clyde Hufbauer, “USMCA Needs Democratic Votes: Will They Come Around?” Peterson Institute For International Economics, May 15, 2019, available at piie.com. 4 Bill C-100, as it is known, has already received its second reading in the House of Commons and has been referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade. 5 Please see BCA Research’s Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report titled “On Chinese Banks And Brazil,” dated July 18, 2019, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Geopolitical Calendar