Economic Growth

Highlights Analysis on Indonesia is available below. EM financial markets have diverged from the global growth indicators they have historically correlated with. This raises doubts about the sustainability of this rally. In China, broad bank credit has not accelerated at all, while non-bank credit growth rose sharply in January. The lack of recovery in broad bank credit growth is corroborated by lingering sluggishness in broad money growth. This refutes widespread perception in the global investment community that Chinese banks have re-opened the credit spigots again. Feature The headline news has all been positive for emerging markets over the past two months: The Federal Reserve is going on hold, China is stimulating its economy, the U.S. and China are nearing a trade agreement and risk-on market dynamics are permeating worldwide. Nevertheless, EM stocks have failed to outperform the global equity benchmark (Chart I-1, top panel). Notably, EM relative equity performance rolled over in late December when global share prices bottomed. Chart I-1EM Stocks Have Underperformed DM Ones Since Late December In absolute terms, EM equities have been attempting to break above their 200-day moving average, but have so far failed to do so decisively (Chart I-1, bottom panel). When a market struggles to break out or outperform amid favorable news flows and buoyant investor sentiment, the odds are that it is facing formidable headwinds under the surface, and is at risk of relapsing. We sense EM currently fits this profile. Needless to say, investor consensus is very bullish on EM, and dominated by the above-mentioned narrative, specifically the Fed turning dovish and China stimulating, which is reminiscent of 2016 when EM staged a cyclical rally. Consequently, investors have rushed to pile into EM stocks and fixed-income. Chart I-2 illustrates that asset managers’ net holdings of EM ETF (EEM) futures have doubled since October 2018. Chart I-2Investor Consensus Is Very Bullish On EM As of mid-February, EMs were by far the most overweight region within global equity portfolios, according to the most recent Bank of America/Merrill Lynch survey. The survey states that net 37% of global equity investors - who participated in the survey - were overweight EM. One of our clients that we met with on the road last week summed it up like this: “Investors have ‘recency bias’.” In other words, investors believe that 2019 will resemble 2016, and in turn have no appetite to bet against Chinese stimulus. We are in accord with this interpretation of investor behavior and the EM/China rally. Yet there are some noteworthy differences between today and 2016. First, in 2016, there was massive stimulus for China’s property market. At the time, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) monetized the unsold housing stock in Tier-3 and -4 cities via its Pledged Supplementary Lending facility. At present, there is no stimulus for real estate. Second, by early 2016 EM profits had already contracted substantially. EM profits have yet to shrink in the current downtrend. Our thesis is that EM profits will contract this year for reasons we elaborated on in depth in our previous report, Mind The Time Gap. China’s credit and fiscal impulse leads EM/Chinese profits by about 12 months, and the recent improvement in this indicator, if sustained, suggests that a trough in EM/Chinese corporate earnings will only be reached in late 2019 (Chart I-3). Therefore, as EM profits shrink, investors will likely sell EM risk assets. Chart I-3EM Corporate Earnings Are Beginning To Contract Altogether, these differences with 2016 make us reluctant to chase the current EM rally, and we continue to expect a meaningful reversal in EM risk assets in the months ahead. Monitoring Global Growth We maintain that EM is much more leveraged to global trade and China’s growth than to Fed policy. For a detailed discussion on this matter, please refer to EM: A Replay of 2016 or 2001? report from February 7, 2019. Therefore, the Fed’s dovish turn is not a sufficient reason to buy EM risk assets. To buy EM cyclically, we would need to change our outlook on global trade and Chinese imports. China influences the rest of the world via its imports. A closer look at the indicators that correlate with EM risk assets and commodities do not justify the recent EM rebound. In particular: The import sub-component of China’s NBS manufacturing PMI strongly correlates with EM share prices, excess returns in EM sovereign credit, and industrial metals prices and suggest that investors should fade this rebound (Chart I-4). Chart I-4EM Stocks, EM Credit Markets, As Well As Commodities Prices Are Driven By Chinese Imports The Caixin manufacturing PMI for China was up in February, but the NBS manufacturing PMI fell. In turn, manufacturing PMI indexes in Korea, Taiwan, Japan and Singapore are all plunging, with several of them dropping well below the 50 boom-bust mark (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Asian Manufacturing Is Contracting Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese and Singaporean shipments to China were shrinking in January, while their exports to the U.S. were resilient (Chart I-6). This confirms that global trade has been weak due to China, and that there are no signs of its reversal. Chart I-6Asian Exports To China And U.S. Moreover, Korea released its February export data, and its aggregate outbound shipments are contracting (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Korean Exports: Deepening Contraction Further, China’s container freight index – the price to ship containers – has rolled over again after picking-up late last year due to front-loading of shipments to the U.S. which were induced by the U.S. import tariffs. This signals ongoing weakness in global demand, and does not justify the latest rebound in EM financial markets in general and currencies in particular (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Global Trade Is A Risk To EM Currencies Finally, even in the U.S. where manufacturing has been the most resilient globally, the odds point to notable weakness in this sector. Specifically, the continuous underperformance of U.S. high-beta industrial stocks to U.S. overall industrials beckons a further slowdown in American manufacturing (Chart I-9). Chart I-9U.S. Manufacturing Is In A Soft Spot Bottom Line: Although financial markets are forward-looking, the recent rally has been too fast and has already gone too far. This has created conditions for a material setback as global/China growth will continue to disappoint in the months ahead.  China: Credit Versus Money Growth We have been receiving questions from clients as to whether investors should heed to the message from China’s money or credit data, given they are presently sending contradictory messages (Chart I-10). Chart I-10China: Narrow, Broad Money, And Aggregate Credit Even though narrow money (M1) has historically been an excellent indicator for China/EM business cycles, the most recent (January) print – M1 annual growth rate registered a record low – was distorted due to technical/seasonal factors, and should be ignored. Specifically, deposits by enterprises plunged in January and household deposits surged as companies paid out bonuses to employees in late January ahead of the Chinese New Year that began on February 5 (Chart I-11). Provided enterprise demand deposits are in M1 but household demand deposits are a part of M2, M1 was artificially depressed in January. It will rebound in February. Chart I-11China: Technical Reasons For M1 Plunge In January Broad money provides a more comprehensive picture of money creation in China. As such, it is more relevant to compare broad money with aggregate credit. To compute aggregate credit, we add outstanding central and local government bonds to Total Social Financing (TSF). Chart I-12 illustrates the latest improvement in aggregate credit is not confirmed by either the PBoC’s broad money measure, M2, or our measure, M3 (M3 = M2 plus other deposits plus banks’ other liabilities excluding bonds). We created this M3 measure of broad money supply because in our opinion, M2 has been underestimating the extent of money creation in China in recent years due to financial engineering. Chart I-12The Recent Uptick In Aggregate Credit Is Not Confirmed By Broad Money As discussed in Box I-1 on pages 12-13, lending or purchasing of securities by banks simultaneously creates money. Therefore, bank broad credit acceleration should be mirrored in a broad money upturn. Does the lack of revival in broad money mean the latest uptick in aggregate credit data has been driven by non-bank credit? Our analysis suggests yes – non-bank credit is responsible for the strong rise in the aggregate credit numbers in January. We deconstructed aggregate credit into broad bank credit and non-bank credit (Diagram I-1). Chart I-13 illustrates that broad bank credit has not accelerated at all, while non-bank credit growth rose in January. Chart I-13China: Recent Credit Acceleration Is Due To Non-Bank Credit The lack of recovery in broad bank credit growth is corroborated by lingering sluggishness in broad money (both M2 and M3) growth (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Broad Bank Credit Is Consistent With Broad Money (As It Should Be) Consequently, this refutes the widespread perception in the global investment community that Chinese banks have re-opened the credit spigots. Chart I-15demonstrates the annual growth rate of each component of broad bank credit. While mainland banks’ loan growth to enterprises has accelerated, their lending to non-bank financial institutions has continued to shrink.  Chart I-15Broad Bank Credit And Its Components In sum, broad bank credit and broad money have not revived, and their impulses are rolling over, having failed to break above zero (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The improvement in aggregate credit growth in January was due to credit provided/bonds purchased by non-banks rather than by banks. This does not tell us whether the credit growth acceleration is sustainable. For a more detailed discussion on the differences between money and credit, please refer to Box I-1 on page 12-13. Investors prefer simple narratives, and have readily embraced the story that China has opened up the credit faucets. Broad bank credit data and broad money supply data do not corroborate this thesis. It may change in the months ahead, but our point is that for the moment there is not yet a simple narrative about China’s credit cycle. Investment Implications Even though China’s aggregate credit impulse ticked up in January, the 2011-‘12 and 2015-‘16 episodes signify that its bottoming can last many months. Critically, EM financial markets have historically lagged turning points in the aggregate credit impulse. These time lags have been anywhere between three to 18 months over the past 10 years. Furthermore, in 2012 there was only a minor rebound in EM share prices – not a cyclical rally – in response to the significant rise in China’s aggregate credit impulse (Chart I-16, top panel). Chart I-16Beware Of The Time Lag Hence, even if January marked the bottom in the aggregate credit impulse – which is plausible in our opinion – EM risk assets will remain at risk based on historical time lags between the aggregate credit impulse and China-related financial markets.1 BOX 1 Why And When Money Supply Differs From Credit The following elaborates on the key differences between broad money supply and aggregate credit.  1. Why and when do broad money and credit diverge?  When commercial banks provide loans to or buy bonds (or any other asset) from non-banks, they simultaneously create new money supply/deposits. Broad money supply is the sum of all deposits in the banking system, which is why we use the terms money and deposits interchangeably. When non-bank financial institutions – in China's case financial trust and investment corporations, financial leasing companies, auto-financing companies and loan companies – as well as enterprises and households make loans or buy bonds, they do not create money. Hence, money supply/deposits is mostly equal to net cumulative broad bank credit creation. The difference between aggregate credit and money supply is due to lending activities of non-bank entities (see Diagram I-1 on page 9). Lending, purchasing of bonds, or any other forms of financing by non-bank entities does not change money supply. Thus, aggregate credit is more relevant than money supply to forecast business cycle fluctuations. Apart from the fact that banks still play a very large role in aggregate financing in China, there are a few other reasons why one should not ignore broad money and rely solely on aggregate credit: Banks can extend credit, but might choose not to classify it as loans on their balance sheet for regulatory reasons. Chinese banks did this in the past by booking loans as non-standard credit assets. In any case, when a bank lends to a non-bank it creates new deposits/money, and it is hard to conceal deposits/liabilities. In these cases, broad money supply gives a better signal about the true extent of credit growth than statistics on loans. If under regulatory pressures banks reclassify their non-standard credit assets as loans, the amount of loans will expand, even though no new lending occurs. Yet, money supply/deposits will not change. In this case, loan numbers will give a false signal and money supply will be a better indicator for new credit origination by banks and, thereby, for economic activity. The true measure of Chinese bank loans and credit data were probably disguised over the past several years because banks and non-bank financial institutions were involved in financial engineering. However, in the past two years, the regulatory clampdown forced Chinese commercial banks to unwind some of these structures and properly reclassify items on their balance sheets. Both the masking of credit assets and the ensuing reclassification could have distorted loan and credit data. This is why we use broad money supply as a litmus test to gauge banks’ broad credit origination. Given TSF includes bank loans but does not include banks’ non-standard credit assets, we believe TSF understates the amount of credit in the economy. As a result, we have not been able to calculate an accurate aggregate level of non-bank credit. Only since mid-2017, when under the regulatory clampdown, banks have stopped classifying loans as non-standard credit assets, can the annual growth rate of TSF serve as a meaningful statistic. Hence, we estimate the annual growth rate of non-bank credit only starting in 2018 (please refer to Chart I-13 on page 9). 2. Does the central bank (PBoC) create money by injecting liquidity into the system? Barring lending to or buying assets from non-banks – which does not typically occur outside of quantitative easing (QE) programs – central banks do not create broad money or deposits. Central banks create banking system reserves, which are not part of the broad money supply in any country. Money supply/deposits, the ultimate purchasing power for economic agents, is created solely by commercial banks “out of thin air,” as we have discussed and illustrated in our series of reports on money, credit and savings. 3. Why do we use impulses (second derivatives of money/credit) rather than growth rates? Our goal is to forecast a change in economic activity/capital spending/imports/enterprise revenues – i.e., a change in flow variables. Money and credit are stock variables. Therefore, a change (the first derivative) in outstanding money and credit produces flow variables. The latter measures new credit and money origination in a given period. These are comparable with flow variables like spending, income and profits. To gauge changes in flow variables, i.e., the growth rate of spending, one needs to calculate a change in new money and credit origination – i.e., change in their net flow. In brief, to do an apples-to-apples comparison, one needs to use the second derivative (a change in change) in money and credit – i.e., changes in their flows – to predict changes in flow variables such as GDP/capital spending/imports/enterprise revenues.   Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com   Indonesia: It Is Not All About The Fed Indonesian stocks have outperformed their emerging market peers significantly in the past few months as the Federal Reserve has turned dovish and U.S. rate expectations have declined. Although U.S. bond yields do strongly and inversely correlate with Indonesian stocks’ relative performance versus the EM equity benchmark (Chart II-1, top panel), we believe there are other factors – such as Chinese growth and commodities prices – that are also important to this market (Chart II-1, bottom panel). Chart II-1Indonesian Stocks: The Fed Versus Commodities In the next several months, slowing Chinese growth, lower commodities prices, and a renewed sell-off in EM markets will take a toll on Indonesian financial markets. Indonesian exports are contracting which will intensify as commodities prices fall and China’s purchases of coal and base metals drop (Chart II-2, top panel). Chart II-2Indonesia: Exports Are Shrinking Indonesia’s current account deficit is already large and will continue widening as the export contraction deepens (Chart II-2, bottom panel). Remarkably, the nation’s commercial banks have been encouraged to keep the credit taps open as the central bank – Bank Indonesia (BI) – has been injecting enormous amounts of liquidity (excess reserves) into the banking system (Chart II-3, top panel). Given these liquidity injections, bank credit and domestic demand growth have remained more resilient than would otherwise have been the case. Chart II-3The Central Bank Is Injecting Liquidity Yet, by injecting such enormous amounts of excess reserves into the system, the central bank has more than negated its previous liquidity tightening, resulting from the sales of its foreign exchange reserves in order to defend the rupiah (Chart II-3, bottom panel). The implications of such policy are that these excess reserves could encourage speculation against the rupiah, especially amid weakening global growth and falling commodities prices. Provided foreigners own large portions of Indonesian stocks and local-currency government bonds, a depreciation in the rupiah will produce a renewed selloff in the nation’s financial markets. A final point on Indonesian commercial banks: their net interest margins have been narrowing sharply (Chart II-4, top panel). Chart II-4Commercial Banks' Profits Will Weaken Moreover, as global growth slows, non-performing loans (NPLs) on the balance sheets of Indonesian banks will rise. In turn, provisioning for bad loans will also increase, and bank earnings will decline (Chart II-4, bottom panel). These dynamics will be bearish for Indonesian commercial banks, which account for 44% of the overall MSCI Indonesia index. Bottom Line: Continue avoiding/underweighting Indonesian stocks and fixed-income markets. We continue shorting the IDR versus the U.S. dollar. Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please note that this represents the Emerging Markets Strategy team’s view and is different from BCA’s house view on global risk assets and global growth. The key point of contention is the outlook for China’s growth.   Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights Many on the left have embraced Modern Monetary Theory because it seemingly provides a politically expedient way to increase social welfare spending without raising taxes. Money-financed budget deficits can be justified when an economy is stuck in a liquidity trap, but can be extremely inflationary once full employment is reached. Investors should regard MMT as simply an extreme example of the increasingly permissive attitude that policymakers are adopting towards inflation and larger budget deficits. The path to high rates is lined with low rates, meaning that an extended period of accommodative monetary policy is usually necessary to stoke inflation. Investors should maintain a bullish bias towards global equities for now, but be prepared to turn bearish late next year as inflation begins to accelerate in the United States. An earlier turn to a more defensive posture on stocks may be necessary if Bernie Sanders, or some other far-left candidate, emerges as the likely victor in the next presidential election. Feature Print Some Money And Feel The Bern You know that an economic theory has reached the big leagues of policy debate when the Fed Chair is asked about it during his congressional testimony. This is exactly what happened on February 26, 2019, when Senator David Perdue questioned Jay Powell about his views on Modern Monetary Theory, or simply MMT as it is often called. Rather ironically given its name, MMT plays down the influence of monetary policy over the economy. Its adherents argue that Congress, and not the Fed, should be responsible for maintaining full employment. MMT proponents abhor the idea of a “balanced budget.” They contend that worries about sovereign debt levels are overblown. The U.S. government can always print money to finance itself. Fiscal deficits matter, but only to the extent that excessive deficits can cause inflation. The theory’s backers are a bit cagey about exactly how much inflation they are willing to tolerate or what they would do if, as in the 1970s, inflation and unemployment both rose together. Whether one thinks MMT is crackpot economics is not the point. What matters is that its supporters are growing in number. They include Stephanie Kelton, Bernie Sanders’ former economic advisor, and one of the speakers at BCA’s forthcoming annual New York Investment Conference. In my personal opinion, Sanders stands a very good chance of winning the 2020 presidential election. This makes MMT about as market-relevant as anything out there. In the following Q&A, we discuss the details of MMT and what it means for investors: Q: How does Modern Monetary Theory differ from standard Keynesian economics? A: MMT is almost indistinguishable from Keynesian economics when an economy is stuck in a liquidity trap, an environment where even interest rates of zero are not enough to revive demand. What really separates the two schools of thought is that MMT proponents tend to see liquidity trap conditions as the normal state of affairs, whereas most Keynesians see them as the exception to the rule. Q: Who’s right? The Keynesians or the MMTers? A: That remains to be seen. Near-zero rates have been the norm for most of the last decade, and much longer in Japan. This is a key reason why MMT has grown in popularity. The future may be different, however. Output gaps are shrinking and some of the structural forces which have held down rates over the last decade may fade. For example, the ratio of workers-to-consumers has peaked around the world, which may result in a decline in global savings (Chart 1). This could push up interest rates. Chart 1The Worker-To-Consumer Ratio Has Peaked Globally Q: Does the tendency of MMT backers to see the world as chronically ensnarled in a liquidity trap explain why they seem to consistently argue for bigger budget deficits? A: It does. If an economy needs negative interest rates to reach full employment, but actual rates are constrained by the zero-lower bound, anything which incrementally adds to aggregate demand will not result in higher rates. This means that increased government spending will not crowd out private investment – indeed, quite to the contrary, bigger budget deficits will “crowd in” private spending by boosting employment. The standard MMT prescription is to run a budget deficit that is large enough, but no larger, to maintain full employment. In effect, this means taking any excess private-sector savings – that is, savings which cannot be transformed into private investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus – and having the government absorb them with its own dissavings. Q: So MMT supporters are assuming that the government is competent and agile enough to tighten and loosen fiscal policy at exactly the right time? Good luck with that. A: Yes, that is a common problem with most left-wing theories: They assume that the government should not be trusted with anything unless it is run by fellow leftists, in which case it should be trusted with everything. To make the fiscal response timelier, MMT supporters have proposed creating a government job guarantee. The basic idea is that the government would hire more workers when the private sector is hunkering down, while shedding workers when the private sector is expanding. In theory, automatic fiscal stabilizers of this sort could help dampen the business cycle. The consensus among MMT backers in the U.S. is that a $15 wage would be high enough to offer a tolerable standard of living without enticing many people to opt for government work when suitable private-sector employment is available. MMT supporters are assuming that the government is competent and agile enough to tighten and loosen fiscal policy at exactly the right time. Unfortunately, as is often the case with such ideas, the devil is in the details. For example, does the $15 wage include potentially generous government benefits? What will the government do if someone shows up for work but decides to just loaf around? What about low-skilled workers who would be more productive in the private sector but are instead diverted into government make-work projects? Inquiring minds want to know. Q: And the price tag could be huge! Wouldn’t an extended period of large budget deficits – even if justified by economic circumstances – cause debt levels to spiral out of control? A: A prolonged period of large budget deficits would most certainly lead to a significant increase in the government debt burden. However, if the interest rate on government borrowing is lower than the growth rate of the economy, as MMT supporters tend to assume, the debt-to-GDP ratio will eventually stabilize.1 In such a setting, the government could just roll over the existing stock of debt indefinitely, while issuing enough new debt to cover interest payments. No additional taxes would be necessary. Chart 2 shows this point analytically. Right now, projected GDP growth is higher than 10-year government borrowing rates for most countries (Chart 3). That’s the good news. The bad news is that there is no guarantee that this will remain the case indefinitely. If interest rates ever rose above GDP growth for an extended period of time, debt dynamics would quickly become unsustainable. MMTers argue that the government can borrow at any rate it wants because they see the currency as a public monopoly.  Q: Isn’t it crazy to assume that interest rates will always stay below GDP growth? A: Not according to MMTers. They argue that the government can borrow at any rate it wants. This is because they see the currency as a public monopoly. As long as a government is able to issue its own currency, it can create money to pay for whatever it purchases, and by definition, money pays no interest. This means that the interest rate can always be held below the growth rate of the economy. The only reason policymakers may wish to raise interest rates is if inflation is getting out of hand. However, even then, most MMT adherents would prefer that the government tighten fiscal policy either by hiking taxes on the rich or cutting spending programs they don’t like (the military is usually high on their list). Raising rates is widely seen by MMT supporters as simply providing a handout to bondholders. Q: It sounds like MMT basically cuts the Fed and other central banks out of the loop. A: That’s right. MMTers contend that monetary policy has little impact on the economy. In fact, many MMT advocates believe that higher rates raise aggregate demand by putting more income into bondholders’ pockets. It’s a very odd argument. Yes, corporate investment tends to respond more to animal spirits than to changes in interest rates. However, there is little doubt that rates affect housing, the currency, and asset prices (and all three, in turn, affect animal spirits). It is almost as if the 1982 recession – an episode where the Volcker Fed took interest rates to 19% – never happened. Q: An odd argument, but perhaps not a surprising one? A: That’s where the “Magic Money Tree” moniker comes in. When an economy is suffering from high unemployment, there really is a free lunch: Putting more people to work can increase someone’s spending without decreasing someone else’s. However, when an economy is at full employment, scarcity becomes relevant again. If a government wants to spend more, it has to convince the private sector to spend less, which it normally does by raising interest rates. MMTers like to throw out the old chestnut about how budget deficits endow the private sector with financial assets such as cash or government bonds. But if additional government spending leads to higher inflation, an increase in the volume of financial assets will simply result in the erosion of the value of existing financial assets. There may be times when more government spending is beneficial even in a full-employment economy, such as funding for basic scientific research or public infrastructure. However, there may also be times when increased government spending is wasteful and comes at the expense of valuable private-sector investment. MMT does not distinguish between the two cases because its adherents seem to deny that any such trade-off exists. Q: It sounds like MMTers want to have their cake and eat it too. A: Exactly. The political appeal of MMT is that it seemingly promises European-style welfare spending without Europe’s level of taxes. Just print more money! Let us ignore the fact that the Fed actually pays interest on bank reserves. Under the current rules, increasing the monetary base would not be costless for the government if that money ended up back at the Fed in the form of excess reserves, as it surely would. The bigger problem is that a large increase in government spending, which is not matched by much higher taxes, will quickly cause the economy to overheat. At that point, policymakers would either need to rapidly tighten fiscal policy, aggressively hike interest rates, or face hyperinflation and a plunging currency. Q: That seems like an obvious point. Why don’t MMTers see it? A: It gets back to what we discussed at the outset – MMTers regard the world as being chronically stuck in a liquidity trap. The prevailing view among MMTers is that there is still a lot of spare capacity globally, including in the United States, where the unemployment rate has fallen below official estimates of NAIRU (the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment). MMT supporters tend to be skeptical of these NAIRU estimates, believing them to be biased upwards. MMTers see the world as being chronically stuck in a liquidity trap. The prevailing view among MMTers is that there is still a lot of spare capacity in the world. To be fair, the methodology used by the OECD and many other statistical agencies to calculate the full employment rate, which effectively just smooths out past values of the actual unemployment rate, has probably understated the degree of labor market slack in a few countries (Chart 4). Chart 4AThe Unemployment Rate Versus NAIRU (I) Chart 4BThe Unemployment Rate Versus NAIRU (II) That said, we doubt that NAIRU is overstated in the United States. Both the Fed and the OECD peg NAIRU at 4.3%, slightly below the CBO’s estimate of 4.6%. As it is, the current CBO estimate is nearly one percentage point below the post-1960 average (Chart 5). Back in the 1960s and 1970s, most economists thought NAIRU was lower than it actually turned out to be (Chart 6). This caused the Fed to keep rates below where they should have been. Chart 5U.S. NAIRU Is Estimated To Be The Lowest On Record Chart 6The Fed Continuously Overstated The Magnitude Of Economic Slack In The 1970s Q: Let’s bring this back to market strategy. What does the increasing popularity of MMT mean for investors? A: Investors should regard MMT as simply an extreme example of the increasingly permissive attitude that policymakers are adopting towards inflation. The idea that central banks should raise rates preemptively to avoid overheating is slowly giving way to the belief that they should wait to see the “whites of inflation’s eyes” before tightening monetary policy. Meanwhile, on the fiscal side, austerity is out, and big deficits are in. None of this should be all that surprising. Attitudes towards inflation move in generational cycles. The generation that grew up during the 1930s was highly sensitized towards deflation risk. As a result, policymakers focused on increasing employment, even at the expense of higher inflation. In contrast, the generation that came of age in the 1970s favored policies that clamped down on inflation. For today’s generation, the stagflation of the seventies is a distant memory. “Maximum employment” is the name of the game again. It often takes several years for an overheated economy to produce inflation. This is particularly true when the Phillips curve is quite flat, as appears to be the case today. To the extent that the Fed raises rates over the next 12 months, it will be in response to better-than-expected growth. The stock market should be able to do well in that environment. However, as we get into late-2020 or early-2021, inflation may begin to move materially higher, forcing the Fed to crank up the pace of rate hikes. At that point, equity prices will drop and a maximum short duration stance towards government bonds will be warranted. Q: Just in time for Bernie Sanders’ inauguration! You predicted Trump would win, but Crazy Bernie? Come on, seriously? A: My guess is that Trump was the only Republican candidate who could have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016, while Clinton was the only Democratic candidate who could have lost to Trump. Had it been Bernie versus Trump, Trump would have lost. Given how close the election turned out to be, Sanders would have probably prevailed.   This is not just idle speculation. During the tail end of the 2016 primary season, head-to-head polls showed Sanders leading Trump by about 10 points, compared to a 3-point lead for Clinton (Chart 7). The final results would have been more favorable for Trump, but given how close the election turned out to be, Sanders would have probably prevailed. A strong economy will help Trump this time around. However, demographic trends continue to move against Republicans. Trump also made a strategic mistake during his first two years in office by focusing on Republican pet issues like corporate tax cuts and gutting Obamacare, rather than securing funding for the border wall, which was his signature campaign promise. For its part, the Democrat establishment will try to stymie Sanders again, but having recently watered down the “superdelegate” rules, it will be in a much weaker position to do so than last time. Q: Yikes, President Bernie doesn’t sound good for stocks! A: In our client conversations on “tail risks” facing the markets, Bernie Sanders almost never comes up. Admittedly, a lot can change in the next 12 months, including the possibility that Joe Biden will enter the race. Biden is more moderate than Sanders and has broad-based appeal. This means that it is still too early to make any significant changes to portfolio strategy. However, if Bernie Sanders, or some other far-left candidate, begins to do well in the polls, markets may start to get antsy later this year.     Peter Berezin Chief Global Investment Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com       1      Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019.     Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights European Growth: Europe’s economy is slowing, while core inflation remains subdued. The ECB must now contemplate the need for a monetary policy ease so soon after ending its bond buying program. Likely ECB Options: The ECB will likely have no choice but to initiate a new round of LTROs – likely to be announced in either April or May – to prevent an unwanted tightening of credit conditions at a time of slowing economic growth. Fixed Income Implications: Stay below-benchmark on euro area duration, with inflation expectations likely to rebound alongside a more dovish ECB and rising global oil prices. Stay underweight Italian government bonds and neutral overall euro area corporate credit exposure, however, until there are more decisive signs that growth is stabilizing. Feature Back in December, the European Central Bank (ECB) - confident that the euro zone economy was healthy enough to allow the slow process of policy normalization to begin - ended its Asset Purchase Program and signaled that rate hikes could commence as soon as late 2019. Just two months later, the central bank is faced with an unexpectedly persistent and broad-based growth slump. Markets now expect no change in short-term interest rates until well into 2020. By most conventional measures, the ECB is running a very accommodative monetary stance, with a €4.7 trillion balance sheet and negative interest rates (both in nominal and inflation-adjusted terms). On a rate-of-change basis, however, policy has become incrementally less stimulative, with the balance sheet no longer expanding and real interest rates unchanged from levels of a year ago (Chart 1). An additional potential tightening of liquidity conditions is on the horizon with the ECB’s long-term funding operations for euro zone banks (LTROs and TLTROs) set to begin rolling off next year. Chart 1The ECB Needs To Ease Policy Somehow Our ECB Monitor indicates that fresh monetary easing will soon be required if the current downtrend in growth persists. Given the persistent fragilities within the European banking system, not only in Italy but increasingly in core countries like Germany, a combination of slowing economic momentum and tightening monetary liquidity is a potentially toxic brew. Weaker growth raises the specter of a rise in non-performing loans held by banks that also have significant sovereign debt exposures (the so-called “Doom Loop”). In this Special Report, we consider the policy options that the ECB could realistically deliver in the coming months - given the state of the economy, inflation and banking system – with the associated investment implications for European fixed income markets. Our conclusion: the ECB will be forced to take a dovish turn as an insurance policy against tighter credit conditions and weak growth. Eurozone Economy: Broad-Based Mediocrity The ECB has categorized the current downturn, which has pushed real GDP growth in the Eurozone to a below-trend pace of 1.7% and triggered a technical recession in Italy, as simply the product of a bunch of idiosyncratic country-specific shocks (a cut in Germany auto production due to changing emissions standards, Italy-EU fiscal policy debates that raised the cost of capital in Italy, and political unrest in France damaging consumer spending). The biggest shock, however, has been exogenous. Trade policy uncertainty and a weakening Chinese economy have both been a major drag on growth for euro zone countries that rely heavily on exports, in general, and Chinese import demand, in particular. The “one-off shocks” narrative is incorrect because the slowdown has been broad-based. The majority of countries within the euro zone are suffering slowing GDP growth, falling leading economic indicators and decelerating headline inflation, according to our diffusion indices for each (Chart 2). The previous three times such a synchronized slowdown unfolded (2001, 2009 and 2012), the ECB responded with a full-blown rate cutting cycle. Inflation trends today, however, make it a bit more difficult for the ECB to consider any such possible shift in a more dovish direction. Chart 2ECB Typically Eases After A Broad-Based Economic Downturn The overall unemployment rate for the region is 7.8%, well below the OECD’s estimate of the full employment NAIRU1 rate. In contrast to our diffusion indicators for the economy, the majority of euro area countries (83%) have unemployment rates lower than NAIRU (Chart 3). The previous two times labor markets were so tight in the euro area, wage inflation reached 4%, core inflation climbed beyond 2.5% and the ECB pushed policy interest rates to between 4-5%. Today, a large majority of countries are witnessing faster wage growth and core inflation, but the overall level of both is still relatively low (2.5% and 1%, respectively). Chart 3ECB Policy Is Already Very Easy So from the point of view of the state of overall growth and inflation, the ECB is in a difficult position. Euro area growth has slowed, but not by enough to ease the nascent inflation pressures in labor markets. The story gets more complex when looking at growth and inflation at the individual country level. For the four largest economies in the region – Germany, France, Italy and Spain – the latter two remain a source of concern. Unemployment in both Spain and Italy remains in double-digits, with headline and core inflation rates at 1% or lower (Chart 4). Italy’s manufacturing PMI is now at 47.6 and Spain’s is now at 49.9, both below the 50 level indicating an expanding economy. Chart 4Italy & Spain Are Becoming An Issue (Again) Credit growth exhibits a similar pattern. Total bank lending is contracting on a year-over-year basis in Italy (-4.3%) and Spain (-2.1%), while still growing at a positive, albeit decelerating, rate in Germany (+1.5%) and France (+5.3%). The most recent ECB Bank Lending Survey for the fourth quarter of 2018 showed that lending standards were becoming more stringent in Italy and Spain than in Germany or France (Chart 5). In Italy, where the growth downturn has been deeper and borrowing costs have gone up due to the Italian populist government’s repudiation of EU deficit limits, banks are actually tightening lending standards. Chart 5Credit Conditions Tightening At The Margin The last thing the ECB wants to see now is a sustained credit contraction in the large economies where growth and banking systems are the most fragile – most notably, Italy. Bottom Line: Europe’s economy is slowing, while core inflation remains subdued. Weakness is more pronounced in the Peripheral countries compared to the Core, especially Italy. The ECB must now contemplate the need for a monetary policy ease so soon after ending its bond buying program. Italy’s Banks Are Still A Huge Headache For The ECB European banks have struggled to generate acceptable profits in recent years against a backdrop of sluggish economic growth, negative interest rates and increased regulatory capital requirements. Bank equity values remain near post-2008 crisis lows, with Italian bank stocks severely underperforming their competitors within the euro zone (Chart 6). Credit spreads for Italian banks are also far more elevated than those of their euro area peers, a reflection of the higher yields and wider spreads on Italian government bonds (which, given Italy’s BBB sovereign credit rating, means that the floor on Italian yields and credit spreads is higher than those of other euro zone countries with better credit ratings). Chart 6Italy's Fiscal Problems Impacting The Banks Even given the economic fragility in Italy, Italian banks remain reasonably well-capitalized. According to the data from the European Banking Authority (EBA), Italian banks have a Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio of 13.8%, well above the minimum levels required by Basel III bank regulations and close to the overall euro area CET1 ratio of 14.7% (Chart 7). The problem for Italian banks, however, remains the high level of non-performing loans (NPLs). EBA data shows that Italian banks have an NPL ratio of 9.4%, nearly three times the total euro area NPL ratio of 3.4%. While this is a substantial improvement from the near-20% NPL ratio seen after the 2011 European debt crisis, the absolute level of NPLs remains high. The other major risk for Italian banks is their large holdings of Italian sovereign bonds, which raises the risk of mark-to-market losses hitting the banks’ capital position as government bond yields rise (i.e. the “Doom Loop”). The ECB’s bond purchases have helped to reduce the share of Italian sovereign debt held by Italy’s banks from 25% to around 19% over the past five years (Chart 8). Yet with Italy’s sovereign credit rating now BBB – on the cusp of junk – Italian bank balance sheets remain heavily exposed to sovereign debt risk. The ECB has tried to mitigate the impact of its extraordinary monetary stimulus on the profitability of Europe’s banks by offering longer-term loans (against acceptable collateral) at low interest rates. These programs, known as Long-Term Refinancing Operations (LTROs), have mostly been used by banks in Italy and Spain, which have taken up a combined 56% of all outstanding LTROs (Chart 9). Chart 956% Of ECB LTROs Have Gone To Italy & Spain The most recent LTRO operation launched in 2016 was a Targeted LTRO (TLTRO) that tied the extension of ECB funding directly to the amount of new loans made by any bank that received the funding. Those TLTROs were offered at the ECB’s Marginal Deposit Rate of -0.4%, effectively providing a 40bps subsidy for new bank lending. The impact on loan growth from the TLTROs was far greater in Italy and Spain, where the share of total bank lending funded by LTROs in each country is now 10% compared to 4% for all euro area bank loans (Chart 10). Chart 10LTROs Funding 10% Of Bank Lending In Italy & Spain The TLTROs extended in 2016 had a maturity of four years, which means that the loans will begin to mature next year.2 If the ECB lets these operations expire without any offering of a new program, then banks that have used that cheap liquidity will be faced with one of two choices: replace that funding with bank debt at much higher market interest rates, or reduce the size of their loan books (i.e. delever their balance sheets). For Italy’s banks, replacing all of that cheap TLTRO funding with expensive bank debt is highly unlikely. According to the Bank of Italy’s latest Financial Stability Report, bank debt represents as large a share of overall Italy bank funding as the TLTROs (around 10%), but the growth rate of that debt has been contracting at a -15% to -20% rate over the past couple of years (Table 1).3 This is how rising Italian sovereign bond yields translate into higher bank debt yields and market funding costs, restricting lending activity. Table 1Italian Banks Have Slashed Expensive Debt Market Funding Already, Italian banks have been cutting back on lending to the most risky borrowers, according to Bank of Italy data (Chart 11). The growth rates of loans deemed “risky” and “vulnerable” contracted at a faster pace in 2018 than during 2015-17, while loans extended to “solvent” and “safe” borrowers grew more quickly in 2018 than the prior three years. These trends are likely to continue with credit standards now being tightened by Italian banks according to the ECB Bank Lending Survey. An additional factor for the banks to consider is the upcoming implementation of the Basel III regulatory requirement that banks must maintain a minimum amount of funding with a maturity greater than one year (the Net Stable Funding Ratio, or NSFR). Even though the current round of TLTROs do not begin to expire until June 2020, they will turn into “short-term” funding as of June of this year when it comes to banks calculating their NSFR. That ratio is not yet binding, but banks will likely seek to plan ahead for their long-term funding and will seek guidance from the ECB. So the ECB is now faced with the prospect of letting the TLTROs begin to expire next year, placing 4% of total euro area bank lending and 10% of Italian and Spanish bank lending at risk. Given the current fragile state of growth in the euro area, especially in Italy, the central bank would be taking a huge gamble by risking an even deeper downturn through banks shrinking their loan books. The easiest way to prevent that outcome – more LTROs. Bottom Line: The ECB will likely have no choice but to initiate a new round of LTROs – likely to be announced in April or May - to prevent an unwanted tightening of credit conditions amid slowing economic growth. The ECB’s Likely Next Move? New LTROs With More Dovish Forward Guidance The ECB Governing Council meets this week. There will be a new set of economic projections prepared for this meeting, and the ECB has typically chosen to make changes to its monetary policies alongside shifts in its economic forecasts. ECB President Mario Draghi has already noted that the growth risks in the euro zone are now tilted to the downside. Even noted monetary hawks like German Bundesbank President Jans Weidmann and Dutch Central Bank President Klaas Knot – both candidates to replace Draghi when his term expires in October – have toned down their calls for monetary tightening given the weak growth in their own economies. We expect the ECB to follow a dovish script at the March ECB meeting, along these lines: Downgrade the ECB’s growth forecasts Delay the date when inflation is projected to return back to 2% target Extend forward guidance on the first rate hike out to “mid-2020 or later” (which only validates current market pricing) A pessimistic assessment of the outlook for bank lending based on elevated bank funding costs impairing the transmission of ECB’s “highly accommodative” monetary policy A discussion about the need for a new LTRO program to replace the ones that start expiring in 2020 Step 4 in that script could be delayed until the April or May ECB meetings, to allow for more time to see how the economic data unfolds. Almost all of the current downturn in real GDP growth can be attributed to the plunge in net exports – the contribution to growth from domestic demand has been stable over the past year (Chart 12). Thus, the ECB will likely want to see if the current indications of a U.S.-China trade deal, combined with more stimulus from China’s policymakers, puts a floor under the downturn in euro area trade activity. Chart 12ECB Growth Forecasts Require A Rebound In Exports Step 5 in our March ECB meeting script can also be delayed to April or May, but the ECB is not likely to wait longer than that and run the risk of letting the current slowing of euro area credit growth turn into a full-blown contraction due to the end of cheap funding (Chart 13). Chart 13Tightening Lending Standards: Trigger For A New LTRO? There has also been some speculation that the ECB could satisfy both the hawks and doves on the Governing Council by announcing a hike in the ECB Overnight Deposit rate at the same time as a new LTRO program. The Overnight Deposit rate represents the floor of the ECB’s policy interest rate corridor, with the Marginal Lending rate representing the ceiling and the Main Refinancing rate acting as the midpoint of the corridor. Yet with the ECB maintaining such a large balance sheet, with €1.2 trillion in excess reserves, the effective short-term interest rate (1-week EONIA) has traded near the Overnight Deposit Rate floor. Thus, lifting only the Overnight Deposit Rate, which is -0.4% and has been blamed for damaging the earnings of euro area banks, would effectively be the same as a traditional hike in the ECB’s main interest rate tool, the Main Refinancing Rate (Chart 14). Chart 14The ECB Cannot Bottom Line: Offering a new LTRO, but perhaps for only a shorter time period than the expiring TLTROs (i.e. two years instead of four), seems to be the best solution for the ECB. This will prevent a potential liquidity-driven bank credit crunch in the most vulnerable parts of the European economy – Italy and Spain. Fixed Income Investment Implications Of Our ECB View 1. Duration: the benchmark 10-year German Bund yield had fallen as low as 0.09% in the most recent global bond rally, largely driven by a collapse in inflation expectations. The ECB’s likely dovish guidance on rate hikes will prevent any meaningful rise in real Bund yields. Inflation expectations, however, do have a lot more upside if BCA’s bullish oil forecast is realized – especially so if the ECB also takes a more dovish turn (Chart 15). Stay below-benchmark on euro zone duration, and stay long inflation-linked instruments like CPI swaps. Chart 15Stay Below-Benchmark On European Duration Exposure 2. Italian Sovereign Debt: A new LTRO program, combined with more dovish forward guidance, should help prevent the current Italian growth downturn from intensifying. However, a weak economy will sustain pressure on Italian sovereign spreads. Stay underweight for now, but look to upgrade when growth stabilizes (Chart 16). Chart 16Stay Cautious On Euro Area Spread Product Until Growth Bottoms 3. Euro Area Corporates: A more dovish ECB will help stabilize corporate credit spreads in the euro area, but like Italian sovereign debt, signs of more stable growth are required before spreads can meaningfully compress. Stay neutral for now.   Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. 2 The loans were offered in four allotments in June 2016, September 2016, December 2016 and March 2017. Hence, the loans will mature in June 2020, September 2020, December 2020 and March 2021. 3 The November 2018 Bank of Italy Financial Stability Report can be found here: https://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/rapporto-stabilita/2018-2/index.html Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Special Report

Highlights Investors are currently too pessimistic on Europe’s growth prospects. In fact, European growth will soon bottom. European growth and inflation are also set to improve relative to the U.S. This should give investors an opportunity to reassess the long-term outlook for European Central Bank policy relative to the Fed. Global growth dynamics are also moving in an increasingly dollar-bearish direction, which should create a tailwind for the euro. Based on the pricing of European assets relative to the U.S., there is scope to see more capital flows into the euro area, implying that more euro buying is forthcoming. The entire European currency complex is a buy relative to the dollar; while the NOK, the SEK, and even the GBP could outperform the euro, the CHF will underperform. EUR/JPY also has upside. Feature The case to sell the euro is easy to make. European growth has been very poor: PMIs, industrial production and even German exports are all pointing to a contraction in output; and economic surprises are testing levels recorded during the euro area crisis. Most importantly, this economic retrenchment is particularly sharp when compared to the U.S., which suggests that real interest rate differentials should continue to hurt EUR/USD (Chart 1). Chart 1Selling The Euro Seems So Easy... The problem with this narrative is that investors are already well aware of Europe’s woes. Could Europe instead recover and the euro rebound against the dollar? After all, in the past, when investor pessimism towards Europe experienced as pronounced a dip as the one just witnessed, EUR/USD invariably rebounded soon after (Chart 2). Chart 2...But Maybe We Should Look The Other Way In this piece, we explore what could go right for the euro, and argue that the euro is indeed attractive at current levels. European Growth Has Hit A Nadir It is safe to say that the euro area is in a funk today: European real GDP growth dipped to a 1.1% annual rate in the fourth quarter of 2018, while industrial production has plunged by 3.9% on a year-on-year basis. But the markets warned us this would happen: The euro has fallen 9% from its February 2018 top, German bund yields are again flirting with the 0.1% level and European banks plunged by more than 40% between January and December last year. Going forward, for European yields to remain as depressed as they are, for the euro to fall again by a similar margin, or for domestic plays to suffer large declines, European growth will have to slow even further. We are not expecting such a scenario. Instead, we expect European growth to recover significantly this year. First, when it comes to Germany, the locomotive of Europe, the shock from the implementation of the new WLTP auto emission standards is passing: Automobile production is stabilizing, capex is accelerating and inventories have been pared down. Moreover, the slowdown in foreign demand has already percolated through the domestic economy, as domestic manufacturing orders are already experiencing one of their sharpest declines since the Great Financial Crisis (Chart 3, top panel). Chart 3European Growth Is Set To Rebound Another source of optimism comes from the credit market. As the middle panel of Chart 3 illustrates, the European 12-month credit impulse has begun to bottom. This points to stronger euro area-wide domestic demand. Moreover, the Chinese credit and fiscal impulse is also bottoming, suggesting the drag from foreign demand could be dissipating (Chart 3, bottom panel). When looking at other specific trouble spots, Italy first springs to mind. In our view, the most recent deceleration in Italy was mainly a consequence of the tightening in financial conditions that resulted from the surge in Italian yields following the budget standoff between Rome and Brussels. However, the Lega Nord / Five Star Movement coalition has folded and is more or less acquiescing to the EU’s demands. Moreover, the rising probability that the European Central Bank will continue to provide long-term liquidity to the eurozone banking system via some form of new LTRO should diminish the funding risk to the Italian banking system, and thus, the risks to Rome’s fiscal sustainability. This implies that the decline in Italian borrowing costs could deepen (Chart 4), further easing Italian financial conditions and improving the growth outlook in the euro area’s third-largest economy. Chart 4Easing Financial Conditions In Italy France, too, has had its fair share of problems, though it is interesting that its industrial sector is not suffering as much as Germany’s, as highlighted by a French manufacturing PMI above the 50 boom/bust line. Instead, the French service sector is the one contracting (Chart 5). This bifurcation is likely to be a byproduct of the gilets jaunes protests that have lasted since November 2018 and affected retail trade. However, the intensity of the protests is declining and the French population is getting used to this. As a result, we are seeing a rebound in French household confidence, which implies that consumption, the main engine of French growth, is likely to perk up. Chart 5Fade The Gilets Jaunes, Paris In Spring Is Beautiful Finally, euro area fiscal policy is set to be loosened this year, with the fiscal thrust moving from 0.05% of GDP to 0.4% of GDP (Chart 6). The response of French President Emmanuel Macron to the gilets jaunes protests could even make the fiscal policy support slightly bigger this year. Chart 6Positive Fiscal Thrust In 2019 Ultimately, this combination of factors suggests that the large dip in European industrial production is likely to prove transitory, and that European activity will revert back toward the levels implied by the Belgian Business Confidence Index, which has historically been a good leading indicator of European growth (Chart 7). Chart 7European IP To Follow Brussels' Mood Bottom Line: The deterioration in European growth has captured the imagination of investors. However, the performance of European assets last year forewarned that growth would decelerate meaningfully. What matters now is how growth will evolve. Developments from Germany, France, Italy, the credit channel and the fiscal front all suggest that European activity will perk up soon. It’s All Relative While getting a sense of European growth is important when making a call on EUR/USD, economic trends must also be considered relative to the U.S. Surprisingly, despite notorious European growth underperformance, rays of hope are emerging. A major structural negative for EUR/USD has abated: The European debt crisis is behind us, and the aggregate European banking sector has been getting healthier, albeit slowly. This means that the euro area credit growth is not declining anymore against that of the U.S. This is a very long-term force that dictates multi-year cycles in the EUR/USD. As Chart 8 shows, it will be difficult for EUR/USD to move below 1.10 so long as the broad trend in the relative credit growth does not weaken anew. Chart 8Credit Dynamics Suggest That The Worst Is Over For EUR/USD More immediately, the euro area leading economic indicator relative to the U.S. is forming a bottom (Chart 9). Since the U.S. is not benefiting from as large a fiscal boost as in 2018, and financial as well as monetary conditions have tightened there relative to Europe, this suggests the improvement in the euro area relative LEI could continue this year. Chart 9Bottoming European LEI Versus U.S. Relative labor market slack is also evolving in a euro-friendly fashion. From 2013 to 2018, the euro area suffered from greater labor market slack than the U.S., courtesy of a double-dip recession and generally more-moribund growth. However, thanks to a 4.2-percentage-point fall in the European unemployment rate since 2013 to 7.9%, the euro area unemployment gap has not only closed, it is also below that of the U.S. Historically, when the U.S. unemployment gap leapfrogs that of Europe, EUR/USD tends to appreciate (Chart 10). Chart 10Less Slack Leads To A Stronger EUR/USD Relative slack does not only have value in itself, it also matters for relative inflation trends, which have been a crucial determinant of EUR/USD. As Chart 11 illustrates, EUR/USD tends to follow how euro area core CPI evolves relative to the U.S. After sharply falling last year, European relative core inflation is trying to rebound, which at a minimum suggests that EUR/USD has limited downside. Moreover, EUR/USD has correlated positively with German market-based inflation expectations (Chart 11, bottom panel). This suggests that actual relative inflation as well as euro area inflation expectations play a key role in determining perceptions among investors of how ECB policy will evolve relative to the Federal Reserve. Chart 11EUR/USD Trades Off Of Inflation Dynamics The recent euro decline has matched the decline in inflation expectations. However, inflation expectations have been much weaker than implied by the level of wage growth in Europe (Chart 12). This suggests that European inflation breakevens have scope to improve, a positive for the euro. Moreover, European wage growth is not only picking up steam in isolation, it is also rising relative to the U.S., which highlights that European inflation should not just stabilize vis-à-vis the U.S., but also accelerate. Chart 12European Wages Point To Rising Inflation Expectations This case is made even more saliently by looking at relative financial conditions. Due to the tightening in U.S. financial conditions compared to the euro area, European headline and core inflation is set to accelerate relative to the U.S. (Chart 13). Again, this reinforces the case that maybe the euro has upside this year. Chart 13Relative Euro Area Inflation Will Rise Thanks To Easier FCI Ultimately, for the euro to rise, investors will have to begin pricing in some switch in policy spreads between the ECB and the Fed. In the past, we showed that short-term policy expectations are important, but long-term ones can be even more relevant, especially when a central bank is well along the path of lifting rates, as the Fed is, while the other remains at maximum accommodation, like the ECB is today.1  Currently, investors expect euro area short rates to be only 0.5% 5-years from now (Chart 14, top panel). The spread between the eurozone and U.S. 5-year forward 1-month OIS rates remains near all-time lows, which explains the weakness in the euro. Now that European policy is much more accommodative than the U.S.’s, there’s scope for investors to upgrade the path of long-term euro area rates relative to the U.S. This would be bullish for the euro (Chart 14, bottom panel). Recovering relative credit flows and improving relative slack and inflation dynamics could catalyze this change. Chart 14The ECB Is Never Raising Rates Bottom Line: To make the euro an attractive buy, European growth and inflation conditions cannot just increase, they need to improve relative to the U.S. Since long-term interest rate expectations are very depressed in Europe relative to the U.S., a small improvement in the relative growth profile could be enough to catalyze a repricing of the ECB vis-à-vis the Fed, creating a powerful tailwind behind the euro. Nothing Happens In A Vacuum Ultimately, exchange rates, like other prices in the economy, do not only respond to domestic determinants but are also influenced by much larger, global forces. This is because those global trends percolate through domestic economies, resulting in changing relative expected returns that drive money across borders, leading to currency movements. In the case of the euro, global growth matters a lot, because European growth is much more sensitive to global economic fluctuations than U.S. growth is. This is particularly true if shocks emanate from emerging markets (Chart 15). Today, global cyclical variables are increasingly pointing toward an end to the global growth slowdown. A stabilization and reacceleration in global activity would support the euro. First, Chinese monetary conditions have begun to ease, which historically tends to be linked with improvements in European growth relative to the U.S. (Chart 16). Questions remain surrounding this point: How durable will the rebound in Chinese credit be? By how much will Chinese policymakers nurture this bounce? And will this jump be large enough to lift economic activity in the Middle Kingdom? Nonetheless, a reflationary wind from China has begun to blow, and since investors have already discounted much bad news out of Europe, only small improvements could turn the euro around.   Chart 16If China Is Really Stimulating, Europe Will Rip A Greater Dividend Second, as Chart 17 shows, our Nowcast for global industrial activity has decisively stepped down. Yet, the countercyclical dollar has been flat since October 2018. Historically, the performance of EM carry trades funded in yen tends to lead global growth. Currently the performance of these strategies is stabilizing. If EM carry trades funded in yen can rally further, this will spell trouble for the greenback, helping the euro – the anti-dollar – in the process. Chart 17An Early Positive For Global Growth Third, EUR/USD tends to correlate with the relative performance of global cyclical equities (Chart 18). The stabilization in these sectors since 2015 suggests it will be difficult for the euro to fall further from current levels. In fact, if EM carry trades can rebound more, cyclicals have additional scope to outperform, and the euro could rally. Chart 18Cyclical Stocks Pointing To No Real Downside In EUR/USD Fourth, the prospects for the semiconductor sector are improving. Demand for semis is highly pro-cyclical, and the U.S. Chip Stock Timing Model developed by our U.S. Equity Strategy service colleagues is currently sending a bullish signal.2 Since such developments link to improving global growth prospects, they are also associated with a stronger EUR/USD (Chart 19). This is also consistent with a generally weaker dollar and stronger Asian currencies. Chart 19The Outlook For Semiconductors Point Toward A Stronger Euro And A Weaker Dollar Finally, the breakout in copper prices, the stabilization in the CRB Raw Industrials Index and the rally in gold prices all support an improving global growth outlook that could lift EUR/USD. Bottom Line: Various indicators, such as Chinese monetary conditions, EM carry trades, semiconductor demand determinants and commodity prices are suggesting that global growth may soon bottom. Such a development should hurt the countercyclical dollar, amounting to a macro tailwind for EUR/USD. The Bad News Is Priced In Ultimately, the capacity of EUR/USD to rally rests on how much investors upgrade their outlook for Europe. It is therefore crucial to get a sense of exactly how uninspiring Europe currently is to global market participants. There is no better gauge of relative economic pessimism than the price of euro area financial assets relative to U.S. ones. Essentially, money talks. On this front, markets already seem to have internalized the known bad news from Europe, and there is scope for a contrarian rally in the euro, especially if, as we expect, European economic activity improves. First, on a 12-month forward P/E ratio basis, euro area equities are trading at the kind of deep discount to U.S. stocks normally symptomatic of a trough in relative sentiment toward Europe. Such a discount is often followed by a rally in EUR/USD (Chart 20). Chart 20Stock Valuations: Investors Do Not Like Europe Second, retailers’ equities can often give a more focused assessment of how investors perceive the comparative outlook for domestic demand between two nations. Currently, euro area retailers trade at a 16-year low versus their U.S. counterparts (Chart 21). Investors are therefore much more ebullient about the prospects for U.S. domestic demand than in Europe. Interestingly, the euro’s gyrations since 2016 have tracked the direction of the relative performance of retailers but have diverged in terms of levels. This suggests some underlying support for the currency. Chart 21Can European Domestic Demand Really Validate Such Pessimistic Expectations? Third, the relative stock-to-bond ratio also often provides a good read on investors’ comparative economic euphoria/pessimism towards two nations. In 2018, the annual performance of the euro area stock-to-bond ratio relative to the U.S. collapsed to levels not recorded since the euro area crisis was at its apex (Chart 22). This further confirms that investors were massively depressed on European growth prospects relative to the U.S. While this indicator is rebounding, it is still in negative territory, implying that market participants still have room to upgrade their assessment of the euro area relative to the U.S. Historically, this kind of setup has been associated with a rebound in the EUR/USD. Chart 22The Stock-To-Bond Ratio Points To Some Upside Potential Fourth, European net earnings revisions relative to the U.S. have also hit bombed-out levels and are in the process of improving. Since earnings are tightly linked to global growth and reflect the same information that informs capital flows into a country (Chart 23), sell-side analysts becoming more positive on Europe at the margin could indicate that investors are in the process of re-assessing whether to buy European assets. A decision to do so would support EUR/USD. Chart 23When The Sell-Side Move From Deeply To Mildly Bearish, EUR/USD Rallies Bottom Line: Financial market pricing suggests that investors are displaying deep pessimism toward the euro area’s relative growth prospects. The euro could be a contrarian buy. Most importantly, there are early signs that this growth pricing is starting to move in favor of Europe. If our economic view on Europe and global growth is correct, this trend has further to go, implying that more capital could move into Europe, creating a potent tailwind for EUR/USD. What Else? Three additional factors need to be considered: Currency valuations, balance-of-payment dynamics, and technicals. First, while it is not as cheap as it once was, the real trade-weighted euro is still trading below its historical average (Chart 24). Purchasing-power considerations can rarely be used as a timing tool, but our confidence in the euro’s upside would be greatly dented if the euro were a very expensive currency. It is not even mildly pricey. Chart 24Euro Valuations: No Headwinds There Second, balance-of-payment considerations have become increasingly euro-positive. The euro area runs a current account surplus of 3.3% of GDP, and despite large FDI outflows – a natural consequence of being a savings-rich economy – the basic balance of payments remains in surplus. Moreover, as fixed-income outflows have been dissipating, the aggregate portfolio flows into Europe have also been improving (Chart 25). The end of the ECB’s Asset Purchase Program should solidify this trend. Chart 25The Euro Area Balance Of Payments Is Increasingly Favorable Finally, technical oscillators are behaving increasingly well. As Chart 26 shows, not only does our Intermediate-Term Indicator remains oversold, but also, it is has begun to form a positive divergence with the price of EUR/USD. If the economic outlook is becoming more bullish, such a technical setup can often be translated into significant gains. Chart 26EUR/USD: Oversold And A Positive Divergence Is Forming Bottom Line: The euro’s valuation is not as attractive as it once was, but it remains cheap. Moreover, the euro area’s balance-of-payment dynamics and the EUR/USD’s technical setup both suggest the timing is increasingly ripe to buy the euro against the dollar. Investment Conclusions A trough in European growth, improving growth and inflation prospects relative to the U.S., green shoots for global growth and deep pessimism toward Europe relative to the U.S. all argue that the timing is right to bet on a euro rebound. At this point, the durability of the euro rebound remains unclear. Investors are under-appreciating the ability of the Fed to raise rates this year, which could help the dollar. On the other hand, they seem even more sanguine toward the ECB ever lifting rates. Ultimately, the capacity of the euro to rebound on a long-term basis against the dollar will be constrained by global growth. This means that China will continue to play a center-stage role for this crucial FX pair. At this point, it is unclear how determined Chinese policymakers are to reflate their economy. Thus, we recommend investors monitor Chinese policy to gauge how long to stay in the euro. For the time being, enough pieces are falling into place to warrant buying EUR/USD for three to six months. However, if the Chinese credit impulse can continue on its recent rebound, the durability of a euro rally could be extended, implying that the euro may be in the process of forming a long-term bottom against the dollar. A strengthening euro should support the entire European currency complex against the dollar. In fact, the NOK, the SEK and the GBP may even outperform the EUR. The NOK is being boosted by rising oil prices, a more hawkish central bank, better valuations and an even healthier balance of payments. The SEK is also supported by a Riksbank that is slightly more hawkish than the ECB, and better valuations; it also benefits from a Swedish economy that is even more pro-cyclical than the euro area’s. The GBP also benefits from a greater valuation discount than the euro, and political developments in the U.K. are beginning to move toward a more clear-cut positive outcome on the Brexit front.3 The countercyclical and expensive CHF will prove the European laggard. Finally, EUR/JPY is also set to continue its rebound that began on January 4th. In fact, it may be one of the best vehicles to express a euro-bullish view because it is less sensitive to what the Fed does than EUR/USD is. Rising bond yields are an unmitigated positive for EUR/JPY, and BCA firmly believes that U.S. Treasury yields have upside, whether or not the Fed goes back to lifting rates. The Fed will mostly impact whether it is the real or inflation component that lifts Treasury yields. Bottom Line: The entire European currency complex is set to rise along with the euro against the greenback. In fact, the NOK, the SEK and the GBP are likely to outperform the euro, while the CHF should underperform. EUR/JPY may in fact offer the best risk-adjusted returns to play a euro rebound. While it is clear that at this moment that buying the euro makes sense, the principal risk lies around how long this rally will last. We are increasingly convinced that the euro has made a low for the cycle and that its long-term outlook is looking increasingly bright.  Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the EUR/USD: Focus On The Western Shores Of The Atlantic section of the Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert: EM/JPY Carry Trades”, dated December 1, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Reflationary Or Recessionary”, dated February 25, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, titled “Why A Catastrophic No-Deal Might Be Good… For The EU”, dated February 28, 2019, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

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