Economic Growth

Highlights Fed: With financial conditions easing and core inflation more likely to rise than fall, the majority of Fed officials will feel justified lifting rates again in the second half of this year. The best way to position for the resumption of rate hikes is to sell the 5-year or 7-year part of the Treasury curve and buy a duration-matched barbell consisting of the short and long ends of the curve. These sorts of positions currently offer positive carry, meaning you get paid as you wait for the market to price rate hikes back in. Corporate Spreads: Maintain an overweight allocation to corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) with the exception of the Aaa credit tier. But be prepared to reduce exposure when spreads reach our target levels. Economy: Tracking estimates for 2018 Q4 and 2019 Q1 real GDP have fallen significantly during the past two weeks. The decline in tracking estimates is heavily influenced by an abnormal December retail sales report. That impact will reverse in 2019. Feature The Federal Reserve’s “on hold” strategy is now well known and has been completely discounted in the market. In fact, the overnight index swap curve is priced for 9 bps of rate cuts during the next 12 months and 21 bps of cuts during the next 24 months (Chart 1). Chart 1Primary Dealers Still Looking For Hikes At this point, the only thing that’s unclear is how the Fed will respond to the economic data going forward. Will it be eager to re-start rate hikes at the first sign of calm? Or perhaps the Fed is leaning toward a strategy where the next move will be a rate cut in the face of flagging economic growth? Survey Says Unfortunately, last month’s FOMC meeting was not accompanied by an updated Summary of Economic Projections. We therefore don’t know how policymakers have revised their rate hike expectations since December. However, the New York Fed’s Survey of Primary Dealers was updated in January, and it shows that the median primary dealer still expects two rate hikes this year. The only change between the December and January surveys is that the median primary dealer now expects one of the 2019 rate hikes in June and the other in December. In the December survey, both 2019 rate hikes were anticipated before the end of June (Chart 1). Typically, the median primary dealer and the median FOMC participant have very similar views on the future interest rate trajectory. Counting The Minutes The next stop on our search for clarity is the minutes from the January FOMC meeting, which were released last week. The January minutes provide a lot of insight into the thought processes of different FOMC participants. Unfortunately, they also reveal a serious lack of cohesion amongst the group. All in all, the document might confuse more than it clarifies. A few key excerpts from the document drive this point home. Referring to “global economic and financial developments”: Many participants observed that if uncertainty abated, the Committee would need to reassess the characterization of monetary policy as “patient” and might then use different language. This suggests that many Fed participants view the pause in rate hikes as a result of slower non-U.S. growth and tighter financial conditions. They also suggest that if global growth improves and financial conditions ease it would be appropriate to abandon a “patient” stance. … several […] participants argued that rate increases might prove necessary only if inflation outcomes were higher than in their baseline outlook. This second statement is much more dovish than the first. It suggests that several participants think that even improving global growth and an easing of financial conditions would not be sufficient to re-start rate hikes. They would also need to see inflation come in stronger than expected. Several other participants indicated that, if the economy evolved as they expected, they would view it as appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate later this year. Finally, this last statement reveals that several other participants disagree with the view that an unexpected rise in inflation is a pre-condition for further rate hikes. What can we make of all this mess? The first thing that seems clear is that all Fed members view easier financial conditions as a pre-condition for further rate hikes. In this regard, we are already well on our way. Financial conditions have eased considerably since the start of the year, with the stock-to-bond total return ratio up sharply and credit spreads, the VIX and the dollar all off their highs (Chart 2). Chart 2Financial Conditions Are Easing Second, all FOMC participants need more confidence that inflation will return to target before re-starting rate hikes, but this bar seems higher for some than for others. Year-over-year core and trimmed mean CPI are currently running at 2.15% and 2.19%, respectively. This is slightly below the 2.4% level that is consistent with the Fed’s inflation target (Chart 3).1 The minutes suggest that some FOMC participants would be comfortable re-starting rate hikes as long as core inflation moves higher in the next few months and approaches the Fed’s target from below. Some others, however, may need to see an overshoot of the Fed’s inflation target before recommending rate hikes. Chart 3Core Inflation Needs To Move Higher Depressed inflation expectations, as seen in the TIPS market or the Michigan Consumer Sentiment survey, are a related issue (Chart 3, bottom 2 panels). The Fed will probably want to see upward movement in both of these measures before resuming rate hikes. In fact, New York Fed President John Williams warned last week that the “persistent undershoot of the Fed’s [inflation] target risks undermining the 2 percent inflation anchor.” He added that “the risk of the inflation expectations anchor slipping toward shore calls for a reassessment of the dominant inflation targeting framework.”2 Williams has long been an advocate for a monetary policy framework where the Fed targets an overshoot of its inflation target in the future to “make up” for undershooting its target in the past, i.e. some form of price level targeting. The Fed is currently conducting a year-long investigation into whether it should switch to this sort of regime and we learned last week that the Fed will announce the results of its investigation in the first half of 2020. Our own sense is that the Fed will eventually adopt some sort of “history dependent” inflation target as a way to avoid continuously bumping up against the zero-lower bound on interest rates. But this change will not occur this year and maybe not even next year. Of course, the more immediate concern for bond investors is whether inflation pressures will be meaningful enough in the next few months for the Fed to resume rate hikes in 2019. We expect they will be. We have previously shown that base effects alone will pressure year-over-year core CPI higher as we head toward mid-year.3 Meanwhile, other signs also point toward rising core inflation (Chart 4): Chart 4Inflation Pressures Building The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge is running close to 3% (Chart 4, top panel). The ISM Manufacturing PMI is off its highs, but is still consistent with rising year-over-year core CPI (Chart 4, panel 2). Our CPI Diffusion Index is deep in positive territory, pointing to further near-term upside in the core measure (Chart 4, bottom panel). Bottom Line: With financial conditions easing and core inflation more likely to rise than fall, the majority of Fed officials will feel justified lifting rates again this year. January’s FOMC minutes imply that several Fed members want to see an overshoot of the inflation target before advocating for the resumption of rate hikes, but until the Fed changes its inflation targeting regime they will likely be out-voted. The Best Way To Trade The Fed We continue to recommend a below-benchmark duration bias in U.S. bond portfolios, on the view that rate hikes will exceed depressed market expectations on a 12-month horizon. However, this is not the most attractive way to position for the resumption of Fed rate hikes. The best way to trade the Fed in the current environment is by initiating a duration-neutral yield curve trade where you buy a barbell consisting of the long and short ends of the curve, and sell the 5-year or 7-year maturity. In a prior report we demonstrated that the 5-year and 7-year Treasury yields are most sensitive to changes in our 12-month fed funds discounter.4 That is, when the market starts to price-in more Fed rate hikes, the 5-year and 7-year Treasury yields increase more than other maturities. Similarly, the 5-year and 7-year yields fall the most when our discounter declines. Clearly, this means that if you are short the 5-year/7-year part of the curve versus the wings, you will make money as rate hikes are priced back into the market. Usually the problem with implementing such a trade is that it has negative carry. That is, the 5-year or 7-year bullet typically offers a greater yield than what you would earn on a duration-matched 2/10 or 2/30 barbell. If you don’t time the trade properly, you end up losing money waiting for Fed rate hike expectations to move. However, this is not a problem at the moment. In fact, duration-matched barbells are now positive carry propositions relative to 5-year and 7-year bullets (Chart 5). Chart 5 Barbell Yields Greater Than Bullet Yields In other words, if you think rate hikes will resume at some point, you are currently getting paid to wait for the market to catch on. The only way to lose money in this sort of trade is if our 12-month fed funds discounter falls further from its current -9 bps level. We view that as an unlikely scenario. Bottom Line: The best way to position for the resumption of Fed rate hikes is to sell the 5-year or 7-year part of the Treasury curve, and buy a barbell consisting of the long and short ends of the curve. We currently recommend being short the 7-year and long the 2/30 barbell. This trade has positive carry, meaning that you will earn money as you wait for rate hikes to get priced back in.  Corporate Spread Targets As we have discussed in prior reports, we think the Fed’s pause opens up a window where corporate bond spreads have room to tighten during the next few months.5 However, we also acknowledge that the window for outperformance is limited. Once financial conditions ease and the Fed resumes rate hikes, the environment will quickly become more difficult for corporate bonds. For this reason, in last week’s report we presented Chart 6. The diamonds in Chart 6 show where corporate 12-month breakeven spreads are today relative to past “Phase 2” periods, which are environments similar to today when the yield curve is quite flat but still positively sloped.6 We argued that we would be quick to reduce corporate bond exposure when the breakeven spreads reach the historical median for Phase 2 periods, i.e. when the diamonds fall to the 50% line in Chart 6. However, we acknowledge that this is not a helpful guide for investors who don’t have timely access to our valuation metrics. So this week we present Charts 7A and 7B. These charts estimate the option-adjusted spread (OAS) levels for each credit tier of the Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond indexes that would be consistent with the 50% line in Chart 6. To make these estimates we need to assume that the average duration of each index remains constant. The results show the following spread targets: For Aa we target 55 bps. The current OAS is 61 bps. For A we target 84 bps. The current OAS is 94 bps. For Baa we target 128 bps. The current OAS is 161 bps. For Ba we target 186 bps. The current OAS is 236 bps. For B we target 298 bps. The current OAS is 391 bps. For Caa we target 571 bps. The current OAS is 813 bps. We do not recommend an overweight allocation to Aaa-rated corporate bonds, where spreads are already expensive relative to past Phase 2 periods (Chart 7A, top panel). Chart 7aInvestment Grade Spread Targets Chart 7BHigh-Yield Spread Targets   Bottom Line: Maintain an overweight allocation to corporate bonds (both investment grade and high-yield) with the exception of the Aaa credit tier. But be prepared to reduce exposure when spreads reach our target levels. Economic Update We will finally receive GDP data for the fourth quarter of 2018 on Thursday, and investors should ready themselves for a weak number. In fact, the most recent tracking estimates from the New York Fed have real GDP coming in at 2.35% in Q4 and a mere 1.20% in 2019 Q1 (Chart 8). Chart 8Poor GDP Tracking Estimates ... It will come as no surprise that the trend in GDP growth is vital to our interest rate call. In fact, we showed in a recent report that when year-over-year nominal GDP growth falls below the 10-year Treasury yield it is often a good signal that monetary policy has turned restrictive and that interest rates have peaked for the cycle.7 With that in mind, if we add 1.2% expected real growth in Q1 to the 1.7% average growth rate of the GDP deflator (Chart 8, bottom panel), we can roughly estimate nominal GDP growth of 2.9% in Q1. This remains above the current 10-year Treasury yield, suggesting that monetary conditions would still be accommodative, but just barely. However, we expect the Q1 tracking forecast to improve as new data come in. According to the New York Fed’s model, the weak December retail sales report trimmed 0.41% from its Q1 growth forecast and this report increasingly looks like an aberration. In contrast to the retail sales number, the Johnson Redbook index of same-store sales is growing at a rate close to 5%, and indexes of consumer confidence remain elevated (Chart 9). Chart 9...Driven By Abnormal Retail Sales Even the Fed staff’s economic report, as presented in the January FOMC minutes, suggests that December should have been a good month for consumer spending: The release of the retail sales report for December was delayed, but available indicators – such as credit card and debit card transaction data and light motor vehicle sales – suggested that household spending growth remained strong in December. Bottom Line: However, we expect the Q1 tracking forecast to improve as new data come in. According to the New York it seems likely that the partial government shutdown influenced the collection of the December retail sales data and led to an abnormal print. Since the retail sales data feed directly into GDP, the impact will be felt in the next GDP report. But the impact will prove fleeting.   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The Fed’s target is for 2% PCE inflation. CPI tends to run about 0.4% above PCE. 12-month core PCE is currently 1.88%, but data only go to November. This is why we refer to CPI in this report, which has data through January. 2 https://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2019/wil190222 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Caught Offside”, dated February 12, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Don’t Position For Curve Inversion”, dated January 22, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Buy Corporate Credit”, dated January 15, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For more detail on the different phases of the economic cycle 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 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Running Room”, dated January 29, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Global Growth: Early leading indicators (credit impulses, our global LEI diffusion index) are signaling that the worst of the global economic downturn should soon end. Okun’s Law: In the developed economies, the observed relationships between economic growth and changes in unemployment suggest that the current pullback in global growth will not be severe enough to create slack in labor markets and reduce inflation pressures. Global Bond Allocation: Within dedicated global government bond portfolios, stay underweight the U.S. and Canada, neutral core Europe, and overweight the U.K., Japan and Australia. Remain tactically overweight global credit versus government bonds, at least until mid-year, with policymakers likely to stay cautiously dovish until global uncertainties recede. Feature Is This Risk Rally Too Good To Last? The mood of financial markets has improved significantly over the past few weeks, led by the dovish shift from central bankers that has revived investor risk appetite. Some positive headlines on U.S.-China trade negotiations have also generated hope over prospects for a deal, further fueling the bullish sentiment. The global economic picture remains muddled, though. Non-U.S. growth continues to languish, while the actual near-term state of the U.S. economy is proving difficult to determine given the data issues surrounding the 35-day U.S. government shutdown. Given lingering uncertainties, both political and economic, policymakers do not want to rock the boat by saying anything that might be interpreted as hawkish. With monetary policy no longer a near-term headwind, there is a window for continued outperformance of global risk assets in the next few months. That means higher global equity prices and stable-to-tighter global corporate credit spreads. Yet the seeds for the next wave of market turbulence may already be sewn. There are signs that the global growth downturn may soon end. Credit impulses are starting to pick up in several major economies, while our diffusion index of global leading economic indicators – itself a longer leading indicator – has clearly bottomed (Chart of the Week). The epicenter of global economic weakness, China, continues to deploy monetary and fiscal stimulus measures aimed at stabilizing growth. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy still appears to be in good shape, underpinned by solid consumer fundamentals. Chart of the WeekSunnier Days Ahead? A combination of easier financial conditions and faster economic growth will eventually prove to be incompatible with stable monetary policy, especially with surprisingly firm inflation in the major developed economies. Central bankers will respond by moving away from their current dovish bias, led by the U.S. Federal Reserve. With government bond markets now discounting both stable monetary policy and too-low inflation expectations, the path for global bond yields is eventually higher. While headline inflation rates are cooling in response to the lagged impact of weaker oil prices, the pullback has been far more muted so far compared to similar sharp oil-driven moves in the past (Chart 2). This is because domestically-driven inflation rates for services and wages are much sturdier today in many countries. If BCA’s bullish oil view for 2019 comes to fruition, then the current decline in headline/goods inflation rates may prove to be very short-lived and with little pass-through into core/services inflation. Chart 2Sticky Global Inflation, Despite Lower Oil Prices This dynamic is not the same in every country, however. When looking at the individual trends of goods inflation and services/wage inflation in the major developed economies, the largest gaps between the two exist in the U.S. and Canada (Chart 3). There, wage growth is accelerating and services inflation rates remain sturdy, despite sharp drops in goods inflation. Chart 3Domestic Inflation Pressures Most Acute In The U.S. & Canada Our recommended government bond allocation at the country level reflects these underlying inflation trends. We are more bearish on bond markets with the most intense domestic inflation pressures – and where future interest rate hikes are most likely – and vice versa. We remain underweight the U.S. and Canada, where wage growth and services inflation are both above the inflation targets of the Fed and Bank of Canada, and where market-based measures of inflation expectations like CPI swap rates have already bottomed (Chart 4). We remain neutral on core Europe (Germany, France) where wage growth has perked up, core/services inflation remains closer to 1% than the 2% target of the ECB, and inflation expectations continue to drift lower. Finally, we remain overweight the U.K., Japan and Australia, all of which have an underlying inflation picture that is muted enough to keep policymakers on hold for at least the next 6-9 months. Chart 4Favor Bond Markets Where Domestic Inflation Pressures Are Weakest Bottom Line: Early leading indicators (credit impulses, our global LEI diffusion index) are signaling that the worst of the global economic downturn should soon end. Central bankers will remain cautious and dovish in the near-term, however, implying that the current outperformance of global equity and credit markets has more room to run – but also setting up the next upleg for bond yields later this year. Okun’s Law Revisited Central bankers remain wedded to the idea that there is an “exploitable” relationship between unemployment and inflation, a.k.a. the Phillips Curve. A logical extension is that unless policymakers can credibly forecast a reduction in labor demand that pushes unemployment rates beyond levels associated with full employment, inflation will not be expected to decline. Policymakers will have a difficult time staying dovish without believing that inflation pressures are diminishing. One way to measure the relationship between economic growth and changes in economic slack is by using a concept that you may remember from an old macroeconomics class – Okun’s Law. More an empirically observable rule of thumb than any rule based in actual economic theory, Okun’s Law simply measures how much unemployment rates change relative to swings in real GDP growth. Past estimations for the U.S. economy have shown that the long-run coefficient in the Okun’s Law regression is around 2, which means that a 2% fall in real GDP growth should be associated with a 1% increase in the unemployment rate (and vice versa). That coefficient is not the same over shorter time horizons, though, as the unemployment/GDP growth relationship can be impacted by other cyclical factors like changes in hours worked or labor productivity. Charts 5 and 6 show annual real GDP growth (the percentage change over four quarters) versus the change in the unemployment rate over twelve months for the major developed economies (the U.S., U.K., euro area, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden) dating back to 1980. There is a reasonably strong relationship between the two series in the charts, although the “fit” does vary from country to country. Chart 5The Okun’s Law Relationship … Chart 6… Still Holds For Most Countries That can be seen in the individual country scatterplots shown in Charts 7 to 14, which plot each quarterly data point of the change in unemployment and real GDP growth. The darker dots represent the period from 1980-2010, while the lighter dots are the post-2010 era. The actual estimated regression, and its R-squared, are also shown in the charts (the equation can be defined as “the estimated change in the unemployment rate for a given pace of real GDP growth”). For most countries shown, the R-squareds are reasonably good (between 0.55 and 0.70) for a single-factor model like this. The coefficients on the change in real GDP are all between -0.35 and -0.45, which means that a fall in real GDP growth of 3.5 to 4.5 percentage points is consistent with a rise in the unemployment rate of 1 percentage point. The lone country where the Okun’s Law relationship has a relatively poor historical fit is in Japan, which is due to the lack of GDP variability relative to swings in the unemployment rate, especially over the past decade. We can use these estimates of the Okun’s Law coefficient to conduct a “back of the envelope” thought experiment that answers the following question that relates to the current economic and financial market backdrop: how much of a decline in GDP growth is necessary to raise unemployment rates back to full-employment (NAIRU) levels? As we have consistently noted in recent Weekly Reports, global central bankers can only turn so dovish, even after the severe market turbulence seen at the end of last year and with elevated political uncertainty in many locations. Why? Because unemployment rates remain below levels that are consistent with stable inflation. Without a meaningful weakening of labor markets that pushes unemployment rates back above “full employment” levels, policymakers will not be able to lower their inflation forecasts and signal a need for easier monetary policy. In Table 1, we present the estimated Okun’s Law regressions from 1980, along with the real GDP growth rate that falls out of those equations if we assume the employment gaps are closed.1 We also show the consensus 2019 real GDP growth forecasts taken from Bloomberg, as well as the expected change in central bank policy rates over the next year taken from our Central Bank Discounters. The conclusion from the Table is that it would take significant declines in real GDP growth to raise unemployment rates enough for policymakers to become less worried about inflation pressures. Table 12019 Consensus Growth Forecasts Are Well Above Levels That Would Eliminate The Unemployment Gap In the U.K., where the unemployment rate is furthest below the OECD’s estimate of the full-employment NAIRU rate, a whopping -3.3 percentage point cut to real GDP growth is needed to raise unemployment back to 5.6%. The required GDP fall is lower in the U.S., with only a -1.6 percentage point decline in real GDP growth need to push the unemployment rate back to the OECD NAIRU estimate of 4.3%. Falls in real GDP growth of between -1.5 and 2.0 percentage points are necessary in most of the other countries to close the “unemployment gap”, except for Japan. Given the weak estimated Okun’s Law relationship in Japan, we are reluctant to put much weight on the results of this thought experiment for Japan. Those “required” declines in real GDP growth are nowhere close to the 2019 consensus Bloomberg forecasts for each country. This is even true in the U.S., where the consensus expects real GDP growth to decline by -0.9 percentage points in 2019. Unsurprisingly, markets are discounting very little change in monetary policy over the next year according to our Central Bank Discounters, with modest odds of a rate cut now discounted in Australia (-19bps), New Zealand (-11bps) and the U.S. (-8bps) and a full 25bp hike now priced in Sweden. Summing it all up, our simple Okun’s Law thought experiment shows that it would take a significantly larger decline in global growth than the consensus, or BCA, expects for central banks to shift even more dovishly in the direction of interest rate cuts. This puts a cyclical floor underneath global bond yields, given that relatively stable policy rates are now discounted. Bottom Line: The observed relationships between economic growth and changes in unemployment suggest that the current pullback in global growth will not be severe enough to create slack in labor markets and an easing of inflation pressures in the developed economies.   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Given the declining productivity trend seen in all countries over the past 20 years, we have made a downward adjustment to those Okun’s Law estimated coefficients. In other words, we do not think that it will take the same magnitude of GDP loss to generate the same increase in unemployment when labor productivity is low. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Uncertainty & Growth: There is currently a strong link between depressed global growth expectations and elevated levels of economic policy uncertainty (U.S.-China trade tensions, Brexit, etc). Monetary Policy: A growing number of central banks have taken “risk management” measures to try and prevent a deeper downturn in actual economic activity by shifting to a less hawkish policy bias – even with tight labor markets. Implications For Bond Yields: We do not expect the current soft patch for global growth to extend into a more prolonged period of weak activity, given that global policy rates remain at highly stimulative levels. This will set up the next wave of rising global bond yields, but likely not until the latter half of 2019 (and focused mostly on U.S. Treasury yields). Feature Central Banks Take Out Some Insurance The list of global central banks taking a more cautious stance on monetary policy expanded last week. The Bank of England and Reserve Bank of Australia both cut their growth forecasts for 2019 and signaled that there was no chance of interest rate increases in the near term. This follows similar guidance provided in recent weeks by the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of Canada and Sweden’s Riksbank. There was even a dovish surprise in the emerging world, with the Reserve Bank of India delivering an unexpected rate cut last week. In Europe, the European Central Bank (ECB) has not yet shifted its already highly-dovish policy guidance (no rate hikes until at least September), but ECB President Mario Draghi recently noted that the downside risks to European growth have increased. The European Commission went a step further and downgraded its growth forecasts for 2019 last week. The Bank of Japan cut its inflation forecast for 2019 last month, also indicating that monetary policy would remain unchanged over at least the rest of the year. The language used by all of these policymakers to explain their dovish turn was eerily similar, highlighting elevated global uncertainty weighing on growth expectations and, through plunging asset prices, tightening financial conditions (Chart of the Week). The sources of that uncertainty are well known to investors: U.S.-China tariff negotiations, slowing global trade, Brexit, domestic U.S. political squabbles (i.e. government shutdowns over “The Wall”). Until those developments begin to get resolved, uncertainty will continue to weigh on economic confidence. Chart of the WeekThe “Risk Management” Approach To Setting Monetary Policy 21st Century central bankers mostly subscribe to a “risk management” approach to policymaking. This means setting policy dovish enough to cut off downside tail risks to growth during periods of elevated uncertainty about the economic outlook – especially when inflation is below policymaker targets. Yet central bankers remain devoted followers of the Phillips Curve framework. There is a limit to how dovish they can become while unemployment is low and wage growth is increasing. This limits how far government bond yields can fall if growth does not slow enough to cause unemployment to rise. So far, the softer global growth seen in recent quarters has not resulted in any increase in unemployment rates in the major developed economies. Of course, employment is a lagging variable. If the current soft patch for growth extends into a more prolonged slowdown in the coming months, resulting in companies cutting hiring or shedding labor to protect weakening profitability, then there is room for bond yields to continue to fall as markets begin to price in easier monetary policy. That is not our expectation. The U.S. economy remains on solid footing, and we anticipate additional policy actions from China to stabilize economic growth and put a floor under global trade activity. This will eventually cause central bankers to move back to a less dovish policy stance more consistent with trends in unemployment and inflation, with the U.S. Fed leading the way on that front in the latter half of 2019. The eventual result will be higher U.S. Treasury yields, both in absolute terms and relative to government bond yields of the other major developed economies. Bottom Line: There is currently a strong link between depressed global growth expectations and elevated levels of economic policy uncertainty. Central banks are taking the appropriate “risk management” measures to prevent a deeper downturn in actual economic activity by shifting to a less hawkish policy bias – even with tight labor markets. The Link Between Economic Confidence & Monetary Policy The pro-risk rally that opened 2019 endured its first test last week, with several major market prices – including the S&P 500 index, U.S. high-yield spreads, the 10-year Italy-Germany government bond yield differential and the DXY index of the U.S. dollar - bouncing off key medium-term moving averages (Chart 2). Purely from a technical analysis perspective, a test of the primary trends established in the latter half of 2018 (bearish equities and credit, bullish the U.S. dollar) was to be expected, particularly given the severity of the past selloff in global equity markets. Chart 2The First Test For The 2019 Risk Rally Investor sentiment towards global growth, however, remains pessimistic. Nervousness over the outcome for the U.S.-China trade talks, with the March 1 deadline fast approaching, is an obvious source of concern given how slowing Chinese import demand has spilled over so dramatically into weaker global trade activity (Chart 3). Yet there are several other dates for investors to fret about in the near term, including the deadline for a deal to avert another U.S. government shutdown (this Friday), the U.S. debt ceiling deadline (also March 1) and “Brexit day” in the U.K. (March 29). Chart 3A China-Led Slowing Of Global Trade Yet this current soft patch for the global economy is occurring alongside an extreme divergence between plunging growth expectations and more stable readings on current economic conditions. The fall in expectations is visible in the most countries, according to data series that measure confidence for businesses, consumers and investors. One such set of data that we pay close attention to is the ZEW survey. The ZEW survey, produced by a prominent German economic think tank, is most well-known for the data related to Germany itself. The ZEW also produces similar survey data measuring readings on “current conditions” and “expectations” for other major developed economies: the U.S., U.K., Japan, France, and Italy (as well as an aggregate measure for the entire euro area). This makes the ZEW data useful for conducting cross-country analysis of economic sentiment, as the survey structure and questions are consistent for each country. Looking at the individual country readings from the ZEW data, shown in Charts 4 and 5, it is clear that the depressed readings on global growth sentiment are similar across all major countries. Yet at the same time, the individual ZEW Current Conditions indices, while off their cyclical peaks, are exhibiting more diverse trends. The U.S., in particular, stands out as having a very robust reading on Current Conditions, which lines up with the overall firmness of the U.S. economic data. Chart 4A Co-Ordinated Decline Of Expectations, Not Actual Growth Chart 5The European Growth Slump Is Broad-Based The strong correlation between the ZEW Expectations readings suggests that there is a common factor causing market participants to become more worried about the outlook for global growth. These can all be summarized under “uncertainty”, for which we also have data available at the country level from the Economic Policy Uncertainty indices developed by researchers Scott Baker, Nick Bloom and Steven Davis.1 In Charts 6 and 7, we plot the Policy Uncertainty indices against the ZEW growth expectations indices for the individual countries/regions for which the ZEW conducts its surveys. The growth expectations data is shown inverted to correlate with the Policy Uncertainty indices. The visual relationship shows that the current period of elevated Policy Uncertainty has occurred alongside the plunge in growth expectations, seen most strongly in the U.S., U.K. and Italy. Chart 6Uncertainty Slamming Sentiment Hardest In The U.S. & U.K. Chart 7Germany Weathering The Storm Better Than Italy & France But can this link between uncertain and growth expectations result in an actual slowing of economic activity? Can slumping expectations become a self-fulfilling prophecy? One way to look at this is to see how growth expectations evolve relative to current economic growth. We show those gaps between the Current Conditions and Growth Expectations components of the ZEW survey in Charts 8 and 9. A rising line indicates a wide gap between Current Conditions and Expectations and vice versa. We also add real GDP growth in each panel of the charts, to compare that “ZEW Gap” to actual growth outcomes. Chart 8The “ZEW Gap” Now At Levels That Have Heralded Past Downturns … Chart 9… Within Europe Too … The current gap between the two measures is at or near the widest levels seen in the history of the ZEW data dating back to the early 1990s. The previous times that the ZEW Gap reached such levels, economic growth slowed for all the countries in the ZEW survey – most notably in the run-up to the recessions in the early 1990s, early 2000s and 2009. The ZEW Gap also accurately signaled the recessions seen within the euro area after the 2011 European Debt Crisis. The first implication of this result is large discrepencies between strong current growth and expectations almost always resolve themselves with actual weaker growth, if not outright recession – not a good sign for the global economy in the coming quarters. Yet one major difference between today and those prior episodes of a wide ZEW Gap is the level of monetary policy accommodation. In those prior episodes that ended in recession, central bankers raised policy rates to restrictive levels that eventually caused the growth slowdown. This can be seen in Chart 10, where we plot the ZEW Gaps vs the “Monetary Policy Gaps”, defined as the difference between actual central bank policy rates and an estimate of neutral rates derived from a simple Taylor Rule formula.2 Chart 10...But Monetary Policy Is Not Tight This Time Today, central banks are maintaining policy rates far below levels of neutral consistent with long-run potential growth and economies operating at or beyond full capacity – even with inflation rates that are below central bank targets. This should help cushion the blow from weakening growth expectations stemming from the current period of elevated economic uncertainty. The root cause of all recessions is always monetary policy that becomes too restrictive. Typically, that occurs directly through central banks hiking rates above neutral and actively engineering a growth slowdown. It can also occur if an external shock to growth is severe enough to depress economic activity faster than policymakers can identify the slowdown and respond with easier monetary policy. The latter appears to be the outcome that investors are most worried about today. Yet with central banks now turning more dovish in response to elevated uncertainty, at a time when monetary policy appears already highly stimulative, the odds of a monetary policy error crushing growth are low. We are more worried about the opposite outcome, where policymakers are giving more stimulus to a global economy that does not necessarily need it, given that overly tight monetary policy is not the main problem at the moment. In other words, policymakers who have become more dovish today will need to become less dovish later, if and when the current laundry list of uncertainties begin to get resolved. We think that is only a real issue in the U.S. at the moment, though. Our Central Bank Monitors continue to indicate that tighter monetary policy is still required in the U.S. (Chart 11), unlike the Monitors from the U.K., euro area and Japan – the other countries where we have looked at the expectations/uncertainty relationship. Thus, we expect U.S. Treasury yields to have more upside than German Bund, U.K. Gilt or Japanese government bonds over the next 6-12 months. Chart 11The Message From Our CB Monitors - Stay Underweight U.S. Treasuries Bottom Line: We do not expect the current soft patch for global growth to extend into a more prolonged period of weak activity, given that global policy rates remain at highly stimulative levels. This will set up the next wave of rising global bond yields, but likely not until the latter half of 2019 (and focused mostly on U.S. Treasury yields).   Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The full set of global Policy Uncertainty Indices, with data downloads and methodological descriptions, can be found at  www.policyuncertainty.com. 2 Neutral Policy Rate = Potential GDP growth + central bank inflation target + (0.5 x (current inflation minus central bank inflation target)) +( 0.5 * the IMF estimate of the output gap)). Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Hyman Minsky famously said that “stability begets instability.” The converse is also true: Instability begets stability. None of the preconditions for a U.S. recession are in place yet. The Fed’s decision to press the pause button on further rate hikes ensures that it will take at least another 18 months for monetary policy to turn restrictive. Global growth should accelerate by mid-2019, as Chinese stimulus kicks in and the headwinds facing Europe dissipate. Investors should overweight global equities and underweight bonds over the next 12 months. The leadership role in the equity space will gradually shift outside the United States. Feature The Long Shadow Of The Financial Crisis   "Stability begets instability” declared Hyman Minsky in his widely cited, seldom-read book.1 By this, Minsky meant that periods of economic tranquility often encourage excessive risk-taking, sowing the seeds of their own demise. We would not quarrel with Minsky’s assessment, but we would point out that the converse is also true: Instability begets stability. Following periods of intense financial stress, lenders become more circumspect about whom they lend to, while borrowers become reluctant to take on debt. The result is economically bittersweet. On the plus side, the newfound caution of lenders and borrowers alike ensures that financial imbalances are slow to build up again. On the negative side, sluggish credit growth restrains spending. The net effect is a recovery that is often slow and uneven, but one which lasts longer than expected. Few Signs Of Major U.S. Economic Imbalances This is the world in which we find ourselves today. It took a decade following the subprime crisis for the U.S. to return to full employment. Much of Europe is not even there yet. Lenders continue to take risks. However, they have been quicker than usual to scale back exposure at the first sign of trouble. For example, as U.S. auto loan defaults began rising in 2015, banks tightened lending standards. As a result, the share of auto loans transitioning into delinquency peaked in Q4 of 2016 and has since drifted down modestly (Chart 1). Chart 1Lenders Are More Circumspect These Days: The Case Of Autos A similar thing happened when corporate credit spreads blew out in 2015 following the crash in oil prices (Chart 2). Banks tightened lending standards starting in late 2015. Once defaults peaked in early 2017, banks started easing standards. Chart 2Banks Were Quick To Tighten Lending Standards In 2015 Tellingly, the distress in corporate debt markets in 2015-16 did not cause the financial system to seize up, as evidenced by the fact that financial stress indices only increased marginally during that period. This suggests that financial imbalances never had a chance to rise to a level that threatened the overall economy. The Preconditions For The Next U.S. Recession Are Not Yet In Place Today, the U.S. private-sector financial balance – the difference between what the private sector earns and spends – stands at a healthy surplus of 2.1% of GDP. Both of the last two recessions began when the private-sector balance was in deficit (Chart 3). Chart 3The Private Sector Is Not Living Beyond Its Means The Way It Was Before The Last Two Recessions This raises an intriguing question: If the U.S. private sector is not suffering from any major imbalances, what is going to cause the next recession? That’s a very good question, with no obvious answer! The past two recessions were triggered by the bursting of asset bubbles – first the dotcom bubble and then the housing bubble. Today, U.S. equities are far from cheap, but with the S&P 500 trading at 16.1-times forward earnings, they are hardly in a bubble (Chart 4). The housing market is also on much firmer footing: The homeowner vacancy rate is near all-time lows, while the quality of mortgage lending has been very high (Chart 5). Chart 4While U.S. Stocks Are Not Cheap, They Aren't In A Bubble Chart 5Housing Fundamentals Are Solid Of course, recessions can occur for reasons other than the bursting of asset bubbles. The 1973-74 recession and the recessions of the early 1980s were triggered by a surge in oil prices, requiring the Fed to hike rates aggressively. Luckily, such an oil-induced recession is highly unlikely today. Inflation expectations are better anchored, while oil consumption represents a much smaller share of GDP than it did back then (Chart 6). In addition, the U.S. has become a major oil producer, which implies that the drag to consumers from higher oil prices would be partly offset by increased capital spending in the energy sector. At any rate, the ability of shale producers to respond to higher prices with additional output limits the extent to which prices can rise in the first place. Chart 6An Oil Price Shock Is Unlikely To Cause A Recession Past economic downturns have also been caused by major adjustments in the cyclical parts of the economy. As a share of GDP, cyclical spending is lower today than it has been at the outset of most recessions (Chart 7). The proliferation of just-in-time inventory systems has also reduced the influence that inventory swings have on the economy (Chart 8). Chart 7Cyclical Spending Is Not Extended A severe tightening of fiscal policy can also trigger a recession.2 Fortunately, the end of the government shutdown reduces the risk of such an outcome. Rightly or wrongly, voters blamed President Trump for the recent closure (Chart 9). As we speak, the Trump administration is negotiating with Democrats to avert another shutdown slated to begin on February 15. The key item of contention concerns funding for a border wall with Mexico. Even if a deal falls through, rather than shuttering the government again, Trump will probably pursue funding for the wall by declaring a national emergency. Our geopolitical strategists believe such an action will be challenged by the Democrats, but is likely to be upheld by the Supreme Court. Chart 9''I Am Proud To Shut Down The Government'' Global Growth Should Improve Admittedly, the external environment now has a greater influence on the U.S. economy than in the past. Nevertheless, given that exports are only 12% of GDP, it would take a sizeable external shock to knock the U.S. into recession. We think that such a shock is not in the cards. The trade war is likely to go on hiatus as Trump seeks to take credit for a deal with China. In addition, as we discussed two weeks ago, China will scale back its deleveraging campaign now that credit growth has fallen close to nominal GDP growth (Chart 10).3    Chart 10China: Time To Scale Back Deleveraging Euro area growth should reaccelerate over the coming months thanks to lower oil prices, a revival in EM demand, modestly more stimulative fiscal policy, and the palliative effects from the decline in government bond yields across the region. We have also argued that the risks of a “Hard Brexit” should abate.4   Waiting... And Waiting For Inflation To Rise When the next recession rolls around, it will probably be sparked by a surge in inflation, which forces the Fed to raise interest rates much more rapidly than it has so far. Here is the thing though: Inflation is a highly lagging indicator. It usually only peaks long after a downturn has started and troughs after the recovery is well underway (Chart 11).   Consider the example of the 1960s. The unemployment rate fell below NAIRU in 1964, but it took another four years for inflation to break out in earnest (Chart 12). The U.S. unemployment rate has been below NAIRU only since 2017. The unemployment rate in Germany and Japan has been below NAIRU for much longer, yet inflation remains stubbornly low in both countries (Chart 13). Chart 12It Took An Overheated Economy For Inflation To Take Off In The Late-1960s Chart 13The U.S., Japanese, And German Economies Are At Full Employment Cheer Up This leaves us with a striking conclusion: Perhaps the next U.S. recession is not around the corner, as some grumpy economists seem to think. Perhaps this economic expansion can endure beyond 2020. The recent U.S. data has certainly been consistent with that thesis. The ISM manufacturing index rose 2.3 percentage points to 56.6 in January. New orders jumped by 6.9 percentage points to 58.2. Payroll growth has also accelerated. Real aggregate earnings are up 4.2% from a year earlier, the fastest pace since October 2015 (Chart 14). Chart 14U.S. Labor Income Growth Has Been Accelerating Housing data are showing tentative evidence of stabilization. New home sales are rebounding, while mortgage applications are back near cycle-highs (Chart 15). Chart 15Housing Activity Is Stabilizing After Last Year's Weakness Reflecting these positive developments, the Citigroup economic surprise index has jumped into positive territory (Chart 16). The New York Fed’s estimate for Q1 2019 GDP growth has also moved up to 2.4%. Chart 16U.S. Economic Data Are Beating Low Expectations Investment Conclusions Recessions and bear markets usually overlap (Chart 17). With the next recession still at least 18 months away, it is premature to turn bearish on equities. We upgraded stocks in December following the post-FOMC sell-off. Although our tactical MacroQuant model is pointing to an elevated risk of a setback over the next few weeks, we continue to see global equities finishing the year 5%-to-10% above current levels. As global growth bottoms out mid-year, the leadership role in equity markets should increasingly move away from the U.S. towards EM and Europe. Chart 17Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Bonds are a tougher call. We do not expect the Fed to raise rates again at least until June. This will limit the upside for bond yields, as well as the dollar, in the near term. Nevertheless, with the fed funds futures pricing in no rate hikes for the next few years, even a modest shift back to tightening in the second half of this year and beyond will push up bond yields, dampening total returns to fixed income. Looking beyond 2019, the case for maintaining a short duration stance in fixed-income portfolios is very strong. The longer the Fed allows the economy to overheat, the greater the eventual overshoot in inflation will be. Inflation expectations have fallen over the past few months (Chart 18). They should have risen. Ultimately, Gentle Jay Powell’s decision to press the pause button on further rate hikes means that rates will end up peaking at a higher level during this cycle than they would have otherwise. Chart 18Inflation Expectations Have Declined   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      As argued in Hyman P. Minsky, “Stabilizing an Unstable Economy,” Yale University Press, (1986). 2      Severe episodes of fiscal tightening have normally followed military demobilizations. These include the recessions following WW1, WW2, and the Korean War, and to a much lesser extent, the 1990-91 recession which was exacerbated by cuts to the defense budget at the end of the Cold War. 3      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China’s Savings Problem,” dated January 25, 2019. 4      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Patient Jay,” dated January 18, 2019. Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades