Economy

Special Report

Highlights Mutual Funds & ETFs: The liquidity mismatch between easily tradeable mutual fund shares and the less liquid underlying corporate bonds makes it possible for negative feedback loops to emerge between fund flows and corporate bond spreads. The growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond market should be seen as a risk that could exacerbate future periods of spread widening, leading to worse economic outcomes. BBB Securities: The large amount of outstanding BBB debt could lead to fire sales from corporate bond holders with investment grade-only mandates when the debt is downgraded to junk. However, in contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, the evidence shows that the negative price pressure from fallen angel fire sales is fleeting. Leveraged Loans: The rapid surge in leveraged loans has been partially offset by reduced high-yield issuance, helping mitigate a potentially destabilizing rise in all riskier corporate debt. At the same time, bank exposure is focused on the safest CLO tranches, limiting the potential systemic risks from bank losses. Feature In April, we published a Special Report that investigated whether corporate debt poses a risk to the U.S. economy.1 That report focused on what economic theory and empirical evidence say about the relationship between corporate debt and future economic growth. We arrived at the following conclusions: The empirical evidence decisively shows that private (household + business) debt helps predict future economic outcomes. Some evidence shows that household debt is more important than corporate debt in this regard. In contrast to mainstream economic theory, the level of private debt-to-GDP does not help predict future economic outcomes. Rather, it is rapid private debt growth that is linked to more severe economic downturns. Ebullient credit market sentiment is also shown to predict weak economic growth. Tight credit spreads should be viewed as a warning sign, similar to rapid private debt growth. In this follow-up Special Report, we consider three credit market developments that are unique to this cycle: The large ownership stake of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the U.S. corporate bond market. The elevated amount of BBB-rated debt outstanding relative to other credit tiers. The rapid issuance of leveraged loans. All three of these developments could mediate the relationship between corporate debt and economic growth, potentially increasing risks to the economy. We consider each factor in turn. 1. Fund Flows One unique feature of the current cycle is that open-ended mutual funds and ETFs own a much larger share of outstanding corporate bonds than in the past. Back in 1990, insurance companies and pension funds were the largest holders of corporate debt, controlling 54% of the market. Meanwhile, open-ended funds owned a paltry 3%. Since then, fund ownership has surged to 16%, mostly at the expense of financial institutions, insurance companies and pensions. Foreign holdings of U.S. corporate bonds have also increased during this period, from 13% of the market to 28% (Charts 1 & 2). Chart 2Mutual Funds Now An Important Market Player Why Does Fund Ownership Matter? We focus on fund ownership of corporate bonds because it has been theorized that flows into and out of open-ended mutual funds can have a similar impact on market prices as leverage, amplifying price moves in either direction. As described in a 2014 paper by Feroli, Kashyap, Shoenholtz, and Shin:2 [W]hen asset flows for certain fixed income securities are high, prices persistently rise and a feedback loop emerges. High flows lead to rising prices, which attract more flows, which further raises prices. Obviously, the proposed feedback loop also works in reverse: Outflows cause prices to decline, and lower prices lead to further outflows. This sort of feedback loop is unique to mutual funds. Insurance companies and pension funds, for example, do not experience investor capital flight in response to a near-term price drop. This makes the larger presence of mutual funds in the corporate bond market potentially destabilizing. Fund ownership has surged to 16%, from a paltry 3% back in 1990. Why Do Fund Flows Behave This Way? Mutual fund shares are much more liquid than the corporate debt securities they hold. As described in a 2017 paper by Goldstein, Jiang and Ng:3 When [mutual] fund investors redeem their shares, they get the net asset value as of the day of redemption. The fund then has to conduct costly liquidation that hurts the value of the shares for investors who keep their money in the fund. Hence, the expected redemption by some investors increases the incentives for others to redeem. In other words, during times of stress, mutual fund investors have an incentive to withdraw their money before other fund shareholders get the chance. Otherwise, they could be stuck holding a basket of illiquid corporate bonds. This bank-run like behavior is well documented for corporate and municipal bond funds, though it appears not to exist for funds that traffic in more liquid instruments, such as Treasuries and equities. In fact, when Goldstein et al looked at how flows into and out of individual corporate bond and equity funds respond to past fund performance, they found that the Flow-Performance curve for an individual corporate bond fund exhibits a pronounced concave shape. Meanwhile, the same curve for an individual equity fund is convex (Chart 3). This means that corporate bond mutual fund shareholders are quick to redeem their shares in response to poor fund performance, while equity fund shareholders are more inclined to stand pat. On the flipside, positive fund performance leads to large equity fund inflows, but doesn’t attract capital to corporate bond funds to the same extent. The above results apply to individual funds, but Goldstein et al also performed the same analysis for corporate bond funds in the aggregate. That is, rather than measuring whether investors sold a particular corporate bond mutual fund in response to its poor performance, they measured whether investors exited the corporate bond mutual fund space altogether in response to poor corporate bond performance. Interestingly, they found a very similar result (Chart 4). Investors are inclined to exit the corporate bond space entirely following periods of poor performance. Meanwhile, they found no relationship between aggregate equity fund flows and performance. Investors might switch between different equity funds in response to recent performance trends, but they don’t exit the asset class altogether.   These results provide a clear indication for why the large presence of corporate bond mutual funds might be destabilizing. Corporate bond fund investors are quick to flee the space during periods of poor performance. For more liquid securities, such as equities and Treasuries, a large mutual fund presence in the market is not a concern, since flows do not respond as aggressively to price shocks. Empirical Evidence For The Flow-Performance Feedback Loop The evidence presented above shows that fund flows respond to performance, but for the theorized feedback loop between fund flows and corporate bond prices to exist, we also need evidence that fund flows impact corporate bond performance. In that regard, a 2019 Banque de France working paper examines the impact of aggregate flows into French corporate bond funds on the yields of the underlying securities.4 It finds that not only do flows impact yields contemporaneously, but also that outflows have a larger influence on yields than inflows. Using a different methodology, a 2015 paper by Hoseinzade finds no material impact of fund flows on underlying corporate bond yields, but for an interesting reason.5 The paper confirms that corporate bond fund shareholders demonstrate bank-run like behavior in response to poor performance, but also argues that “bond fund managers hold a significant level of liquid assets, allowing them to manage redemptions without excessively liquidating corporate bonds.” Chart 5Funds Deploy Cash Before Selling Bonds It’s true that corporate bond mutual funds often hold significant allocations to cash and U.S. Treasuries, and Hoseinzade shows that fund managers tend to discharge their most liquid holdings first, before attempting to sell corporate bonds. This result lines up with our casual observation. Chart 5 shows the aggregate liquid asset (cash and Treasury) holdings of corporate bond mutual funds. It is apparent that they tend to fall during periods of spread widening. We also note that corporate bond mutual funds, in aggregate, currently hold about 6% of their assets in liquid securities. This buffer can probably withstand a sizeable shock, but liquid assets fell from similar levels into negative territory during each of the past two recessions. One other factor that could help break the feedback loop between fund flows and prices is the institutional ownership of corporate bond mutual funds. Goldstein et al find that mutual funds mostly owned by institutional investors exhibit less of a feedback loop between flows and performance. That is, large institutional investors are less likely to redeem their shares in response to a bout of poor performance. While we don’t have data on corporate bond mutual fund ownership specifically, Federal Reserve data reveal that insurance companies and pension funds own a significantly larger proportion of outstanding mutual fund shares than in the 1990s, though less than they did in the mid-2000s (Chart 6). Note that Chart 6 shows data for all mutual funds, including equity funds, Treasury funds, etc… Chart 6Institutional Ownership Of Mutual Funds We conclude that there is enough evidence of a feedback loop between fund flows and corporate bond prices that we should be wary of the growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond space. Cash holdings and institutional ownership can help mitigate negative flow/performance feedback loops to some extent, but probably shouldn’t be counted on in the event of a severe shock. What’s The Economic Impact? In our corporate debt Special Report from April, we postulated that changes in corporate bond spreads might, themselves, cause an economic downturn, rather than simply reflect one. The mechanism is summarized nicely by Lopez-Salido, Stein and Zakrajsek (2016):6 [a] sentiment-driven widening of credit spreads amounts to a reduction in the supply of credit, especially to lower credit-quality firms. It is this reduction in credit supply that exerts a negative influence on economic activity. With that in mind, in the current environment it seems very possible that an initially sentiment-driven credit spread widening could be exacerbated by outflows from corporate bond mutual funds. A larger shock to credit spreads leads to a larger reduction in credit supply and a more severe economic impact. Aggregate liquid asset holdings of corporate bond mutual funds tend to fall during periods of spread widening. Bottom Line: The liquidity mismatch between easily tradeable mutual fund shares and the less liquid underlying corporate bonds makes it possible for negative feedback loops to emerge between fund flows and corporate bond spreads. The growing presence of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs in the corporate bond market should be seen as a risk that could exacerbate future periods of spread widening, leading to worse economic outcomes. 2: BBB Debt Outstanding Chart 7The Large Amount Of BBB Debt It has been widely reported that an unusually large amount of outstanding corporate bonds are rated BBB, the lowest credit rating that is still considered investment grade. In fact, the par value of BBB-rated securities now makes up 50% of the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade index, up from 21% in 1990 (Chart 7). The amount of outstanding BBB securities is more than double the par value of the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield index, and BBBs represent 41% of the total combined par value of the investment grade and high-yield indexes. The reason to be wary about the large amount of outstanding BBB debt is that when the credit cycle turns and ratings downgrades start to occur, a larger than normal amount of debt will be downgraded from investment grade into high-yield. When that happens, any investors with an investment grade-only mandate will be forced to sell. The concern is that such forced selling could set off a negative feedback loop very similar to the one discussed in the first section. An added layer of risk comes from the fact that in addition to investment grade-only mutual funds, insurance companies and pension funds – who still control 35% of the corporate bond market (see Chart 2 on page 3) – are often burdened with larger capital costs for high-yield debt. This means that a very large pool of investors could be impacted by a spate of BBB downgrades. In terms of the potential market impact, a 2010 paper by Ellul, Jotikasthira and Lundblad investigated fire sales of downgraded corporate bonds induced by regulatory constraints.7 The authors found that insurance companies often engage in the forced selling of bonds that have been recently downgraded into high-yield. Further, the downgraded bonds experience negative near-term price pressure from the fire sale, but that pressure tends to reverse after a few months. The finding that the negative price pressure is fleeting is important. In contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, BBB securities can only be downgraded to high-yield once. In other words, once the initial fire sale of fallen angel debt takes place, there is no mechanism to force the downward price pressure to continue.8 Bottom Line: The large amount of outstanding BBB debt could lead to fire sales from corporate bond holders with investment grade-only mandates when the debt is downgraded to junk. However, in contrast to the negative feedback loop that can be generated by mutual fund flows, the evidence shows that the negative price pressure from fallen angel fire sales is fleeting. 3. Leveraged Loans The rapid growth of leveraged loans – lending made to below investment-grade borrowers - over the past couple of years has caught the attention of global central banks and financial regulators. That concern is understandable, as it would be a dereliction of duty for any policymaker or regulator who lived through the 2008 financial crisis to not consider the potential risks to financial stability and future economic growth from a surge in lower quality lending. This is especially true given the increase in the number of securitized instruments linked to leveraged loans – collateralized loan obligations, or CLOs – which evokes memories of the toxic subprime mortgage products that helped trigger the 2008 crisis. Although as the Fed’s Vice Chair for Supervision, Randal Quarles, recently noted, the financial media has been overplaying the leveraged loan story in such a way that it felt like “the Earth must be getting hit by an asteroid.” The BoE estimates that the CLOs would have to suffer a loss more than twice as severe as seen during the 2008 financial crisis for the AAA-rated piece of CLOs issued in 2018 to incur losses. The leveraged loan and CLO markets can be opaque. However, based on the information we do have from credible sources like central banks, the IMF and the BIS, some conclusions can be made about the potential economic risks from the rapid build-up of U.S. leveraged loans: Leveraged loan expansion has been partially offset by high-yield contraction. Chart 8More Leveraged Loans, Less Junk Bonds Based on estimates from the BIS and IMF, there are around $1.4 trillion in U.S. leveraged loans outstanding, which is greater than the $1.2 trillion U.S. high-yield bond market (Chart 8). That is an all-time high in the dollar amount of leveraged loans, as well as for the share of all lower-rated corporate debt accounted for by loans. The annual growth rate of U.S. leveraged loans is now a whopping 29% - the fastest pace seen since 2007. Yet the growth of the total amount of leveraged loans plus high-yield bonds is a much lower 12%. While that is still a large number, it is below the peak growth rates seen during the past fifteen years. This is because the amount of high-yield bonds outstanding has been modestly contracting since 2015. Much of that run-up in leveraged loan growth has been to satiate the demand for loans created by private equity funds and, more importantly, CLOs. The strong risk appetite from investors resulted in a notable deterioration in lending standards, with loans coming out at higher leverage multiples (debt/EBITDA) and with reduced investor covenant protection. Yet since lower-rated companies were not ramping up high-yield bond issuance at the same time, the economic stability risks from a rapid run-up in total riskier borrowing are lower, on the margin. The ownership structure of leveraged loans (and CLOs) is diverse enough to not create systemic problems. To date, the Bank of England (BoE) has compiled the most detailed estimates of the ownership breakdown of both leveraged loans and CLOs.9 In Chart 9, we have recreated a chart from the BoE’s July 2019 Financial Stability Report, which colorfully shows the ownership of global leveraged loans and CLOs. The way to read the chart is that each square represents a 1% share of the estimated $3.2 trillion of global leveraged loans and CLOs. The split in the chart is 75% loans and 25% CLOs (CLO ownership is shown on the right side of the thick dotted line). The biggest category of leveraged loan investor is what the BoE titled “U.S. and other global banks”, a group that represents 38% of total loans and CLOs. European banks own 12%, U.K. banks own 3% and Japanese banks own 3% (entirely through CLOs), thus bringing the global bank exposure to 56% of all leveraged loan instruments. While that sounds like a large number, the majority of that is in the form of revolving credit facilities – effectively, overdraft facilities to lower-rated borrowers. Revolving credit facilities are typically less risky than leveraged loans, because credit facilities have greater covenant protection and even more seniority in terms of creditor claims on borrower assets. The BoE estimates that 40% of all global leveraged loans and CLOs are owned by non-bank investors. This includes pension funds, insurance companies and investment funds (mutual funds and ETFs). Chart 9 shows how much more diverse the investor base is for CLOs than for other leveraged loans. It suggests that any future potential losses from CLOs will be distributed more evenly within the financial system, rather than being concentrated in the banks. Chart 10Leveraged Loan Losses Are Typically Lowered Compared To Junk Even within the bank holdings of CLOs, the systemic risks are lessened. The BoE noted that the increased amount of subordination (i.e. lower-rated tranches) of more recent CLO deals helps protect the senior tranches from losses. According to the BoE, the AAA-rated piece of a representative sample of CLOs issued in 2018 was 63%; this compares to 70% for CLOs issued in 2006.10 Furthermore, the central bank estimates that the CLOs would have to suffer a loss more than twice as severe as seen during the 2008 financial crisis for the AAA-rated piece of CLOs issued in 2018 to incur losses. That would be an extraordinary outcome, given how 2008 generated losses on leveraged loans that were over twice as bad as the previous worst year in 2002 (Chart 10). Potential losses from AAA tranches are important from a financial stability perspective. The BoE estimates that 40% of all CLOs are owned by global banks (including a large 13% share from yield-chasing Japanese banks). These banks tend to focus on safer AAA-rated CLO tranches. The demand for leveraged loan products is volatile, but that might actually be a good thing for economic stability. The surge in leveraged loans over the past two years has not only been related to demand from private equity funds and CLOs. U.S. retail investors have also been big buyers of mutual funds and ETFs linked to the leveraged loan market, as a way to seek out higher credit returns against a backdrop of Fed rate hikes. Chart 11Fed Rate Expectations Drive The Demand For Loans Vs Bonds Leveraged loans are floating rate instruments. Thus, they are more desirable than fixed-rate high-yield corporate debt when short-term interest rates are rising. This is seen in Chart 11, where we show net flows into the largest U.S. junk bond and leveraged loan ETFs. These flows are plotted with the JP Morgan survey of bond investor duration positioning (top panel) and our Fed Funds Discounter that measures the market-implied expected change in the fed funds rate over the next year (bottom panel). The conclusion is obvious – there was very strong retail demand for floating-rate leveraged loans over fixed-rate junk bonds during 2016-18 when expected rate hikes justified defensive duration positioning. In 2019, the tables have turned. The Fed is more dovish, rate cuts are now expected, investors have been adding duration exposure, and demand for leveraged loan funds has plunged while high-yield bond funds have been seeing inflows. The exodus from all leveraged loan funds has been historically large, with Lipper reporting that there were 33 straight weeks of outflows to July 3, 2019, for a total of $32 billion.11 Already, that reduced demand for leveraged loans has translated into sharply reduced issuance of new U.S. CLOs, which was 73% lower in the first half of 2019 versus the same period in 2018 (Chart 12). At the same time, high-yield bond issuance was up 20% in the first six months of 2019 versus 2018. The reduced demand for leveraged loans has also shifted the balance of power back to lenders, as the share of U.S. leveraged loans that have been issued with limited covenant protection (“cov-lite”) has plunged from 72% in 2018 to around 40% (Chart 13). Chart 12Lower-Rated Issuance Is "Self-Regulating" Chart 13Reduced Covenant-Lite Issuance So Far In 2019     This is a critical point on the potential stability risks from leveraged loans – the market for those loans is “self-regulating”, based on final demand from investors who “toggle” between floating rate and fixed rate credit instruments. This helps limit the growth in overall corporate indebtedness, helping to put off the date when credit booms turn into future credit busts. Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, CFA, Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “The Risk From U.S. Corporate Debt: Theory And Evidence”, dated April 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2     https://www.nowpublishers.com/article/DownloadEBook/9781680834864?format=pdf 3     http://finance.wharton.upenn.edu/~itayg/Files/bondfunds-published.pdf 4     https://ideas.repec.org/p/bfr/banfra/706.html 5     https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5a60feab84a7d10de084abfce414b5888d5586e2.pdf 6     https://www.nber.org/papers/w21879 7     https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/55a4/8602b17bc7e7f8428695ab6a3ef2c87756ab.pdf 8      Corporate bonds that are downgraded from investment grade to high-yield are called fallen angels. 9      The Financial Stability Board, the international body that monitors and makes recommendations on the global financial system, is due to publish a comprehensive analysis of the ownership structure of the leveraged loan market in the autumn of 2019. 10     For a more detailed description of this analysis, see pages 28 & 29 of the Bank of England’s July 2019 Financial Stability report, which can be found here: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/financial-stability-report/2019/july-20… 11     https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/leveraged-loan-news/leveraged-loan-fund-withdrawal-streak-hits-record-33-weeks-totaling-32b  

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Recession odds continue to tick higher, according to the NY Fed’s probability of recession model, at a time when global growth is waning, U.S. profit growth is contracting and the non-financial ex-tech corporate balance sheet is degrading rapidly. On a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon we remain cautious on the broad equity market. This is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view, which stands in contrast to the more sanguine equity BCA House View. The souring macro backdrop coupled with a firming industry demand outlook signal that more gains are in store for hypermarket stocks. The global growth slowdown, declining real bond yields, missing inflation, rising policy uncertainty and a favorable relative demand backdrop suggest that there is an exploitable tactical trading opportunity in a long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P pair trade. Recent Changes Upgrade the S&P hypermarkets index to overweight, today. Initiate a long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas exploration & production (E&P) pair trade, today Table 1 Feature Obsession with the Fed easing continues to trump all else, with the SPX piercing through the 3,000 mark to fresh all-time highs last week. However, it is unrealistic for the Fed to do all the heavy lifting for the equity market as we have argued recently (see Chart 3 from June 24),1 at a time when profit cracks are spreading rapidly. This should be cause for some trepidation. Since the Christmas Eve lows essentially all of the 26% return in equities is explained by valuation expansion. The forward P/E has recovered from 13.5 to nearly 17.2 (Chart 1). There is limited scope for further expansion as four interest rate cuts in the coming 12 months are already priced in lofty valuations. Now profits will have to do the heavy lifting. But on the eve of earnings season, more than half of the S&P 500 GICS1 sectors are forecast to have contracted profits last quarter, and three sectors could not lift revenue versus year ago comps, according to I/B/E/S data. Looking further out, there is a plethora of indicators that we highlighted last week that suggest that a profit recession is looming.2 Our sense is that once the euphoria around the looming Fed easing cycle settles, there will be a massive clash between perception and reality (Chart 2) that will likely propagate as a surge in volatility. Chart 1Multiple Expansion Explains All Of The SPX’s Return Chart 2Unsustainable Divergence This addiction to low rates has come at a great cost to the non-financial corporate sector. As a reminder, this segment of the economy is where the excesses are in the current cycle as we have been highlighting in recent research.3 Using stock market related data for the non-financial ex-tech universe, net debt has increased by 70% to $4.2tn over the past five years, but cash flow has only grown 18% to $1.7tn. As a result, net debt-to-EBITDA has spiked from 1.7 to 2.5, an all-time high (Chart 3). While stocks are at all-time highs (top panel, Chart 3), the debt-saddled non-financials ex-tech universe will likely exert substantial downward pressure to these equities in the coming months (Chart 4). Chart 3Balance Sheet Degrading Chart 4Something’s Got To Give Moving on to the labor market, we recently noticed an interesting behavior between the unemployment rate and wage inflation since the early-1990s recession: a repulsive magnet-type property exists where like magnetic poles repel each other (middle panel, Chart 5). In other words, every time the falling unemployment rate has kissed off accelerating wage growth, a steep reversal ensued at the onset of recession during the previous three cycles. A repeat may be already taking place, as average hourly earnings (AHE) growth has been stuck in the mud since peaking in December 2018. Importantly, the AHE impulse is quickly losing steam and every time the Fed embarks on an aggressive easing cycle it typically marks the end of wage inflation (bottom panel, Chart 5). Chart 5Beware Of Repulsion Chart 6Waiting For Growth Meanwhile, BCA’s global manufacturing PMI diffusion index has cratered to below 40% (middle panel, Chart 6). Neither the G7 nor the EM aggregate PMIs are above the boom/bust line (top panel, Chart 6). Our breakdown of the Leading Economic Indicators into G7 and EM14 also signals that global growth is hard to come by, albeit EMs are showing some early signs of a trough (bottom panel, Chart 6). As the early-May announced increase in Chinese tariffs begin to take a toll, we doubt global growth can have a sustainable recovery for the rest of 2019, despite Chinese credit growth picking up. Now, even Japan and Korea are fighting it out and are erecting barriers to trade, dealing a further blow to these economically hyper-sensitive export-oriented economies. Netting it all out, the odds of recession by mid-2020 continue to tick higher according to the NY Fed’s model (NY Fed’s probability of recession shown inverted, top panel, Chart 5) at a time when global growth is waning, U.S. profit growth is contracting and the non-financial ex-tech corporate balance sheet is degrading rapidly. On a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon we remain cautious on the broad equity market. This is U.S. Equity Strategy’s view, which stands in contrast to the more sanguine equity BCA House View. This week we are upgrading a consumer staples subgroup to overweight and initiating an intra-commodity market neutral trade. Time To Buy The Hype The tide is shifting and we are upgrading the S&P hypermarkets index to an above benchmark allocation. While valuations are stretched, trading at a 50% premium to the overall market on a 12-month forward P/E basis (not shown), our thesis is that these Big Box retailers will grow into their pricey valuations in the coming months.  The macro landscape is aligned perfectly with these defensive retailers. Consumer confidence has been falling all year long and now cracks are spreading to the labor market (confidence shown inverted, top panel, Chart 7). ADP small business payrolls declined for the second month in a row. Similarly, the NFIB survey shows that small business hiring plans are cooling (hiring plans shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 7). As a reminder, 2/3 of all new hiring typically occurs in the small and medium enterprise space. In the residential real estate market, the drop in interest rates that is now in its eighth month has yet to be felt, and house price inflation has ground to a halt. Historically, Costco membership growth has been inversely correlated with house prices (house price inflation shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Deteriorating Macro Backdrop … Chart 8…Is A Boon To Hypermarkets… Chart 8 shows three additional macro variables that signal brighter times ahead for the relative share price ratio. The drubbing in the 10-year U.S. treasury yield reflects a souring macro backdrop, melting inflation and a steep fall in U.S. economic data surprises. The ISM manufacturing index that continues to decelerate and is now closing in on the boom/bust line corroborates the bond market’s grim message. Tack on the Fed’s expected four cuts in the coming 12 months, and factors are falling into place for a durable rally in relative share prices. This disinflationary backdrop along with the Fed’s looming easing interest rate cycle have put a solid bid under gold prices. Hypermarket equities and bullion traditionally move in lockstep, and the current message is to expect more gains in the former (top panel, Chart 9). On the trade front specifically, these Big Box retailers do source consumer goods from China, but up to now these imports have been nearly immune to the U.S./China trade dispute as prices have been deflating (import prices shown inverted, bottom panel, Chart 9). However, this does pose a risk going forward and we will be closely monitoring it for two reasons: First, because downward pressures may intensify on the greenback and second, President Trump may impose additional tariffs, both of which are negative for industry pricing power. Chart 9Profit Margins… Chart 10…Will Likely Expand Meanwhile, industry demand is on the rise and will likely offset the potential trade and U.S. dollar induced margin pressures. Hypermarket retail sales are climbing at a healthy clip outpacing overall retail sales (bottom panel, Chart 10). Already non-discretionary retail sales are outshining discretionary ones, which is a precursor to recession at a time when overall consumer outlays have sunk below 1% (real PCE growth shown inverted, top panel, Chart 10). The implication is that hypermarkets will continue to garner a larger slice of consumer outlays as the going gets tough. In sum, the souring macro backdrop coupled with a firming industry demand outlook signal that more gains are in store for hypermarket stocks. Bottom Line: Boost the S&P hypermarkets index to overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG – S5HYPC – WMT, COST. Initiate A Long Global Gold Miners/Short S&P Oil & Gas E&P Pair Trade One way to benefit from the global growth soft-patch and looming global liquidity injection is to go long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P stocks on a tactical three-to-six month basis. While this market neutral and intra-commodity pair trade has already enjoyed an impressive run, there is more upside owing to a favorable macro backdrop. The key determinant of this share price ratio is the relative move in the underlying commodities that serve as pricing power proxies (top panel, Chart 11). Given the massive currency debasement potential that has gripped Central Banks the world over, such a flush liquidity backdrop will boost the allure of the shiny metal more so than crude oil. Global manufacturing PMIs are foreshadowing recession and our diffusion index has plummeted to the lowest level since 2011 (diffusion shown inverted, middle panel, Chart 11). In the U.S. specifically there is a growth-to-liquidity handoff and the ISM manufacturing survey’s new order versus prices paid subcomponents confirms that global gold miners have the upper hand compared with E&P equities (bottom panel, Chart 11). Chart 11Global Soft-Patch… Chart 12…Disinflation… As a result of this growth scare that can easily morph into recession especially if the U.S./China trade war continues into next year, inflation is nowhere to be found. Unit labor costs are slumping (top panel, Chart 12), the NY Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge has rolled over decisively (not shown),4 and the GDP deflator is slipping (middle panel, Chart 12).      Parts of the yield curve first inverted in early-December and the 10-year/fed funds rate slope is still inverted, signaling that gold miners will continue to outperform oil producers (yield curve shown on inverted scale, bottom panel, Chart 13). The near 100bps dive in real interest rates since late-December ties everything together and is a boon to bullion (and gold producers) that yields nothing (TIPS yield shown inverted, top panel, Chart 13). Meanwhile, bond volatility has spiked of late and the bottom panel of Chart 14 shows that historically the MOVE index has been joined at the hip with relative share prices. Chart 13…Melting Real Yields And… Chart 14…The Spike In Bond Vol, All Favor Gold Miners Over Oil Producers On the relative demand front, we peer over to China to take a pulse of the marginal moves in these commodity markets. China (and Russia) has been aggressively shifting their currency reserves into gold, and bullion holdings are rising both in volume terms and as a percentage of total FX reserves. In marked contrast, oil demand is feeble and Chinese apparent diesel consumption that is closely correlated with infrastructure and manufacturing activity has tumbled. Taken together, the message is to expect additional gain in relative share prices (middle & bottom panels, Chart 15). Adding it all up, the global growth slowdown, declining real bond yields, missing inflation, rising policy uncertainty and a favorable relative demand backdrop suggest that there is an exploitable tactical trading opportunity in a long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P pair trade. Bottom Line: Initiate a tactical long global gold miners/short S&P oil & gas E&P pair trade on a three-to-six month time horizon with a stop at the -10% mark. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: GDX:US and BLBG – S5OILP – COP, EOG, APC, PXD, CXO, FANG, HES, DVN, MRO, NBL, COG, APA, XEC, respectively. Chart 15Upbeat Relative Demand Backdrop   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Cracks Forming” dated June 24, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 2      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Beware Profit Recession” dated July 8, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “A Recession Thought Experiment” dated June 10, 2019, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4      https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/underlying-inflation-gauge   Current Recommendations Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Dear Client, In lieu of next week’s regular report, we will be bringing you a Special Report featuring a no-holds-barred debate over the economic and financial market outlook among three of BCA’s more bullish strategists (Doug Peta, Rob Robis, and yours truly) and three of the more bearish ones (Anastasios Avgeriou, Arthur Budaghyan, and Dhaval Joshi). Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Slowdowns are much more likely to turn into recessions when significant economic and financial imbalances are present. The U.S. does not currently suffer from any of the three major imbalances that have historically heralded recessions – rapid private-sector debt growth; excessive spending in cyclical sectors such as housing, consumer durables, and business capex; or accelerating inflation. Imbalances are larger abroad, but not to the extent that they will trigger a global recession. The combination of ongoing Chinese stimulus and the lagged effect from lower bond yields will lift global growth during the coming months. The inventory cycle, which is likely to subtract at least one full percentage point from U.S. growth in Q2, will also turn from being a headwind to a tailwind. Stay overweight global equities relative to government bonds over the next 12 months. A rebound in global growth will push down the U.S. dollar later this year, creating an opportunity to increase exposure to European and EM equities. Feature Global Growth At A Critical Juncture The global economy has clearly slowed since early 2018 (Chart 1). So far, much of the weakness has been confined to the manufacturing sector. However, the service sector has softened as well (Chart 2). Chart 1The Global Economy Has Slowed... Chart 2...Mostly Due To Another Manufacturing Downturn     Regionally, the U.S. has held up somewhat better than most other economies. Nevertheless, the ISM manufacturing and nonmanufacturing indices have both declined, with the former now flirting with the 50 line. All recessions begin as slowdowns but not all slowdowns end in recessions. As we discuss below, slowdowns are much more likely to morph into recessions when financial and economic imbalances are elevated. We confine our empirical analysis to the U.S., but discuss the global context later in the report. Three Key Recessionary Imbalances Three imbalances, in particular, have often been present at the outset of U.S. recessions (Chart 3): Chart 3What Makes A Slowdown Degenerate Into A Recession: Imbalances Rapid private-sector debt growth: Rising debt lifts aggregate demand.1 Fast debt growth is also often associated with bad lending decisions, which makes economies more vulnerable to adverse shocks. An unsustainably high level of cyclical spending: Cyclical spending includes business and residential investment, as well as spending on consumer durable goods. If spending on these categories is elevated, there is more scope for it to decline when the economy turns down. High and rising inflation. When inflation rises above the Fed’s comfort zone, the central bank normally needs to raise rates into restrictive territory.  Fast debt growth is also often associated with bad lending decisions, which makes economies more vulnerable to adverse shocks. Table 1 shows every episode since 1960 when the U.S. economy has slowed significantly. To keep things simple, we define a slowdown as a 10-point drop in the ISM manufacturing index from its recent high. Table 1Episodes Of Significant Economic Slowdown Of the 15 slowdowns that we examined, seven culminated in recessions. An average of 2.1 of the three imbalances listed above were visible prior to recessions. However, an average of only 0.9 imbalances were present when a recession failed to materialize. This supports our claim that slowdowns are more likely to turn into recessions when significant imbalances are present. The good news for the U.S. is that it currently does not register any of three imbalances that have typically preceded recessions. Equities reacted very differently in the two cases. When a recession did occur following the start of a slowdown, the S&P 500 declined by an average of 3.6% over the subsequent 12 months. When the slowdown failed to turn into a recession, the S&P rose by an average of 18.3%. In the latter case, the recovery in stocks usually coincided with a swift rebound in the ISM index. The U.S. Is Currently 0 For 3 On The Imbalance Front The good news for the U.S. is that it currently does not register any of three imbalances that have typically preceded recessions. Chart 4Reasons Not To Panic About U.S. Corporate Debt (I) Private-Sector Debt While U.S. private nonfinancial debt has edged up slightly as a share of GDP since 2015, it remains well below its 2008 peak. In fact, the current business expansion is the only one in the post-war era where private-sector debt has failed to rise above its previous cycle high. A recent Bank of England study examined 130 recessions across 26 countries. It found private debt growth matters much more for recession risk than the level of debt.2 Granted, the composition of debt also matters: While household debt in the U.S. has fallen over the past decade, corporate debt has risen. As a share of GDP, corporate debt is now at the highest level in the post-war era. That said, despite its recent ascent, the ratio of corporate debt-to-GDP is less than two percentage points higher than it was in 2008. One drawback of comparing debt to GDP is that the former is a stock variable while the latter is a flow variable. A more sensible “apples-to-apples” approach is to look at corporate debt in relation to assets rather than GDP. If one does that, one sees that the ratio of U.S. corporate debt-to-assets is below its post-1980 average and only slightly above its post-1950 average. The interest coverage ratio, which compares the profits that companies earn for every dollar of interest that they pay, is above its historic norm (Chart 4). Corporate sector free cash flow – the difference between profits and spending on such things as labor and capital goods – remains in surplus. Every recession during the past 50 years has begun when the free cash flow balance was in deficit (Chart 5). In contrast to mortgages, which are generally held by leveraged institutions such as banks, most corporate debt is held by entities such as insurance companies, pension funds, mutual funds, and ETFs. Banks hold only 18% of corporate debt, down from 40% in 1980 (Chart 6). Thus, while high corporate debt levels could exacerbate the next recession, they are unlikely to engender it.  Chart 5Reasons Not To Panic About U.S. Corporate Debt (II) Chart 6Banks Have Reduced Their Exposure To The Corporate Sector   Cyclical Spending Unlike a restaurant meal or a vacation, a house, office tower, factory, or automobile will usually retain some value for a while after it is purchased. If spending on cyclical items rises to a high level for an extended period of time, a glut will form, requiring a period of lower production. By contrast, if spending on these items is subdued for a long time, pent-up demand will accumulate, requiring a period of higher production.  Recessions can result from either economic overheating or financial market overheating. As a share of GDP, cyclical spending is still far below the peaks observed during past expansions. Just as importantly, today’s low level of cyclical spending follows ten years of even lower spending. As a result, the average age of the U.S. capital stock has increased across almost all categories since 2008 (Chart 7). Most notably, the average age of U.S. homes has risen by nearly five years since 2006, the sharpest increase since the Great Depression. Despite the rebound in residential investment from its recessionary lows, the current level of homebuilding still falls short of what is necessary to keep up with household formation. As a consequence, the vacancy rate has fallen to multi-decade lows (Chart 8). Chart 7The Capital Stock Is Aging Chart 8There Is No Glut Of U.S. Homes   Inflation Recessions can result from either economic overheating or financial market overheating. Economic overheating was the dominant driver of recessions between the late 1960s to early 1980s. Rising inflation preceded the recessions of 1969-70, 1973-75, as well as the back-to-back recessions in 1980-82. Chart 9The 1990 Recession: A Bit Of Everything Overheating also contributed to the 1990 recession. After peaking in 1982, the unemployment rate fell to 5% in 1989, about one percent below its equilibrium level at the time. Core inflation began to accelerate, reaching 5.5% by August 1990. The Fed initially responded to the overheating economy by hiking interest rates. The fed funds rate rose from 6.6% in March 1988 to a high of 9.8% by May 1989. By the summer of 1990, the economy had already slowed significantly. Commercial real estate, still reeling from the effects of the Savings and Loan crisis, weakened sharply. Defense outlays continued to contract following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The final straw was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, which caused oil prices to surge and consumer confidence to plunge (Chart 9). In contrast to earlier downturns, the last two recessions were more the byproduct of financial excesses: The 2007-09 recession stemmed from the housing crash and the financial crisis it generated; the 2001 recession followed the dotcom bust, which precipitated a steep decline in capital spending. What will the next U.S. recession look like? Given the absence of major financial imbalances, the odds are high that the next recession will be a “retro recession,” featuring classic economic overheating. The fact that the Fed has adopted a risk-based approach to monetary policy, which puts great weight on avoiding a deflationary outcome, only raises the likelihood that inflation will eventually move higher. The good news is that this is unlikely to happen anytime soon. While wage growth has picked up, productivity growth has risen even more. As a result, unit labor costs – the ratio of wages-to-productivity – have actually decelerated over the past 18 months. Unit labor cost inflation tends to lead core inflation by up to one year (Chart 10). Given the absence of major financial imbalances, the odds are high that the next recession will be a “retro recession,” featuring classic economic overheating. As we discussed in our latest Strategy Outlook, the Fed will probably not bring rates into restrictive territory until early 2022. This gives the economy plenty of breathing space.3 The Global Dimension The discussion above has focused on the United States. To some extent, this is unavoidable. Not only is the U.S. still the world’s largest economy, but it remains at the heart of the global financial system. U.S. equities account for over half of global stock market capitalization, up from a third in the early 1990s (Chart 11). The dollar continues to be the preeminent reserve currency. As a result, U.S. financial markets drive overseas markets much more than the other way around. Chart 10No Imminent Threat Of A Wage-Price Inflationary Spiral Chart 11The U.S. Stock Market Capitalization Is More Than Half Of Global   This does not mean that the rest of the world is irrelevant. The global supply chain now dominates international trade. More than half of all cross-border trade is in intermediate goods (Chart 12). Irrespective of the financial and economic imbalances discussed above, a full-blown trade war would upend the global economy, sending the U.S. and the rest of the world into recession. President Trump’s re-election prospects would plummet if U.S. unemployment rose and the stock market plunged. This is the main reason for thinking that the trade talks will ultimately produce some sort of détente. Nevertheless, a severe deterioration of trade relations remains the biggest risk to our bullish view on risk assets. The fact that financial and economic imbalances are generally larger overseas means that the rest of the world is more vulnerable to adverse shocks. Unlike in the United States, private debt has risen sharply as a share of GDP in several key economies over the past decade (Chart 13). Government debt is also a problem in countries such as Italy that do not have central banks which can function as reliable lenders of last resort. Chart 14Economies With Frothy Housing Markets Risk Having Deeper Downturns Cyclical spending is fairly elevated in a number of countries. Notably, residential investment stands at near record highs as a share of GDP in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (Chart 14). Home prices are also quite frothy there. When the global economy falls into recession in two-to-three years, these economies will take it on the chin. Investment Conclusions Notwithstanding the risks noted above, we continue to maintain a bullish outlook on global equities and spread product over the next 12 months. To paraphrase Wayne Gretzky, one should invest on the basis of where the economic data is going, not where it is.4 While global growth remains anemic today, the combination of Chinese stimulus and the lagged effect from lower bond yields will boost activity during the coming months. The inventory cycle, which is likely to subtract at least one full percentage point from U.S. growth in Q2, will also turn from being a headwind to a tailwind. Global equities are not super cheap, but they are not particularly expensive either. The MSCI All-Country World Index trades at 15.3-times forward earnings. Given the ultra-low level of global bond yields, this generates an equity risk premium (ERP) that is well above its historical average (Chart 15). From an asset allocation perspective, one should favor stocks over bonds when the ERP is high. Chart 15AEquity Risk Premia Remain Elevated (I) Chart 15BEquity Risk Premia Remain Elevated (II)   The ERP is especially elevated outside the United States. This is partly because non-U.S. stocks trade at a meager 13.3-times forward earnings, but it also reflects the fact that bond yields are lower overseas. The fact that financial and economic imbalances are generally larger overseas means that the rest of the world is more vulnerable to adverse shocks. As global growth accelerates, the dollar will start to weaken (Chart 16). EM and European equities usually outperform the global benchmark in that environment (Chart 17). We expect to upgrade stocks in these regions later this summer. Chart 16The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Chart 17EM And Euro Area Equities Outperform When Global Growth Improves   Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Recall that GDP is a flow variable (how much production takes place every period), whereas credit is a stock variable (how much debt there is outstanding). By definition, a flow is a change in a stock. Thus, credit growth affects GDP and the change in credit growth affects GDP growth. 2      Jonathan Bridges, Chris Jackson, and Daisy McGregor, "Down in the slumps: the role of credit in five decades of recessions," Bank Of England Staff Working Paper No. 659, (April 2017). 3      Please see Global Investment Strategy Strategy Outlook, "Third Quarter 2019 Strategy Outlook: The Long Hurrah," dated June 28, 2019. 4      According to Wayne Gretzky, his father, Walter, once advised him to “skate to where the puck is going, not to where it is.”   Strategy & Market Trends MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights So What? Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical risks and still-elevated domestic risks reinforce our cyclically constructive view on oil prices. Why? Saudi Arabia is still in a “danger zone” of internal political risk due to the structural transformation of its economy and society. External risks arising from the Iran showdown threaten to cutoff oil production or transportation, adding to the oil risk premium. We expect oil price volatility to persist, but on a cyclical basis we are constructive on prices. We are maintaining our long EM oil producer equities trade versus the EM equity benchmark excluding China. This basket includes Saudi equities, although in the near term these equities face downside risks. Feature The pace of change in Saudi Arabia has been brisk. Women are driving, the IPO of Aramco is in the works, and the next monarch is likely to be a millennial. Changes to the global energy economy have raised the urgency for an economic transformation that will have political and social consequences, forcing a structural transformation. While the results thus far are attractive, the adjustment phase will be rocky. Saudi Arabia’s successful transition depends on its ability to navigate three main threats: Chart 1The Epic Shale Shake-Up Continues The growth of U.S. shale producers and the dilution of Saudi Arabia’s pricing power: Since the emergence of shale technology, Saudi Arabia faces a new reality in oil markets (Chart 1). Even in the current environment of supply disruptions from major producers such as Iran, Venezuela, and Libya, Brent prices have averaged just $66/bbl so far this year, weighed down by the global slowdown, and the macro context of rising U.S. production. Saudi Arabia has had to enlist the support of Russia in the production management agreement (OPEC 2.0) in effort to support oil prices. But continued oil production cuts come at the expense of the coalition’s market share, and crude exports are no longer a dependable source of revenue for Saudi Arabia. Domestic social and political uncertainties: The successful functioning of the political system has been dependent on the government’s ability to support the lifestyles of its citizens, who have grown accustomed to the generosity of their rulers. But economic challenges bring fiscal challenges. Moreover, shifting powers within the state raise the level of uncertainty and risks during the transition phase. Saber-rattling in the region: Heightened tensions with arch-enemy Iran are posing significant risks of instability and armed conflict that could affect oil production and transportation. And as the war in Yemen enters its fifth year, it poses risks to Saudi finances and oil infrastructure – as highlighted by the multiple drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities in May. These structural risks now dominate Saudi Arabia’s policy-making. OPEC 2.0’s decision at the beginning of this month to extend output cuts into 2020 aims to smooth the economic transition by maintaining a floor under oil prices. Meanwhile Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s Vision 2030 is underway – it is a blueprint for a future Saudi Arabia less dependent on oil (Table 1). Table 1Vision 2030 Highlights Saudi leadership will struggle to minimize near term instability without jeopardizing necessary structural change. In addition to an acute phase of tensions with Iran that could lead to destabilizing surprises this year or next, Saudi Arabia’s economy has just bottomed and is not yet out of the woods. Saudi Arabia’s Economy And Global Oil Markets: Adapting To The New Normal The trajectory of Saudi Arabia’s economic performance has improved since the U-turn in its oil-price management. From 2014-16 Riyadh attempted to drive U.S. shale producers out of business by cranking up production and running prices down. Since then it has supported prices through OPEC 2.0’s production cuts (Chart 2). Export earnings have rebounded over the past two years, reversing the current account deficit (Chart 3). Although net inflows from trade in real terms contribute a much smaller share of overall economic output compared to the mid-2000s, the good news is that the trade balance is back in surplus. Chart 2Return To Cartel Tactics Boosted Economy Nevertheless, the external balance remains hostage to oil prices and may weaken anew over a longer time horizon. Chart 3Current Account Balance Has Improved Chart 4Oil Revenues Easing Budget Strain ... For Now Greater government revenues are helping to improve the budget (Chart 4), but it remains in deficit. Moreover, we do not expect Saudi Arabia to flip the budget to a surplus over the coming two years. Despite our Commodity & Energy Strategy team’s expectation of higher oil prices in 2019 and 2020,1 Saudi Arabia will struggle to balance its budget in the coming 18 months (Chart 5). Their average Brent projection of $73-$75/bbl over the next 18 months still falls short of Saudi’s fiscal breakeven oil price. Most importantly, the kingdom’s black gold is no longer a reliable source of income. Weak oil revenues create a “do-or-die” incentive for Saudi policymakers to diversify the economy. As Chart 1 above illustrates, Saudi Arabia is losing global oil influence to U.S. shale producers. While OPEC 2.0 restrains production, the U.S. will continue dominating production growth, with shale output expected to grow ~1.2mm b/d this year and ~1 mm b/d in 2020.2 Saudi Aramco has been the driving force behind the production cuts (Chart 6), yielding more and more of its market share to American producers. The bad news for Saudi Arabia is that shale producers are here to stay. The kingdom is poorly positioned for this loss of control over oil markets (Chart 7) and is being forced to adapt by diversifying its economy at long last. Chart 7A Long Way To Go In Diversifying Exports Little progress has been made on this front, despite the fanfare surrounding the Vision 2030 plan. 70% of government revenues were derived from the oil sector last year, an increase from the 64% share from two years prior, and Saudi Arabia’s dependence on oil trade has actually increased over the past year (Chart 8).3 This week’s announcement of Aramco’s plans to increase output capacity by 550k b/d does not support the diversification strategy. Nevertheless, the Saudis appear to be redoubling their efforts on Aramco’s delayed initial public offering. The IPO is an important aspect of the diversification process. It is also a driver of Saudi oil price management – other things equal, higher prices support the Saudis’ rosy assessments of the company’s total worth. While an excessively ambitious timeline and indecision over where to list the shares have been setbacks to the plan, last weekend’s meeting between King Salman and British finance minister Philip Hammond follows Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s reassertion last month that the IPO would take place in late 2020 or early 2021.4 On the non-oil front, given that Saudi Arabia’s fiscal policy is procyclical, activity in that sector is dependent on the performance of the oil sector. Strong oil sales not only improve liquidity, but also allow for greater government expenditures – both of which stimulate non-oil activity (Chart 9). This means the improvement in the non-oil sector is more a consequence of the rebound in oil revenues than an indication of successful diversification. Chart 8Saudi Reliance On Oil Not Falling Yet Yet the reform vision is not dead. Weak oil revenues may be a blessing in disguise, presenting Saudi policymakers with a “do-or-die” incentive to intensify diversification efforts. Chart 9Non-Oil Activity Still Depends On Oil Sales Bottom Line: By enlisting the support of Russia, Saudi Arabia has managed to maintain a floor beneath oil prices. However, this comes at the expense of falling market share. This leaves authorities with no choice but to diversify the economy – a feat yet to be performed. Domestic Instability Is A Potential Threat Political and social instability in Saudi Arabia is the second derivative of the new normal in global oil markets. So far instability has been limited, but the transition phase is ongoing and the government may not always manage the rapid pace of structural change as effectively as it has over the past two years. Traditionally, Saudi decision-making has comprised the interests of three main social actors: (1) the ruling al Saud family and Saudi elites (2) religious rulers, and (3) Saudi citizens. In the past, the royal family has been able to mitigate social dissent and maintain stability by ensuring that the financial interests of its citizens are satisfied while granting extensive authority to religious groups. The government has transferred profits amassed from oil to Saudi citizens in the form of subsidies for housing, fuel, water, and electricity; public services; and employment opportunities in bloated and inefficient bureaucracies. Going forward, pressure on Riyadh to reduce expenditures and adapt its budget to the changing oil landscape will persist. The authorities will have to continue to shake down elites for funds, or make cuts to these entitlements, or both. Hence policymakers are attempting to walk a thin line between near-term stability and long-term structural change. Several instances of official backtracking show that authorities fear the potential backlash. Following mass discontent in 2017, the Saudi government rolled back most of a series of cuts to public sector wages and benefits that would have led to massive fiscal savings. Instead, the government raised revenue by increasing prices of subsidized goods and services, including fuel, while doling out support to low-income families. The government also introduced a 5% value-added tax in January 2018. Unemployment – especially youth unemployment – is elevated. This is frightening for the authorities. What about the guarantee of cushy government jobs? 45% of employed Saudis work in the public sector. The consequence is an unproductive labor force lacking the skills necessary to succeed in the private sector. Declining oil revenues remove the luxury of supporting a large, unproductive labor force. Chart 10Youth And Woman Unemployment A Structural Constraint Against this backdrop, unemployment – especially youth unemployment – is elevated (Chart 10). This is frightening for the authorities as over half of Saudi citizens are below 30 years of age and the fertility rate is above replacement level implying continued rapid population growth. It will be a challenge to find employment for the rising number of young people. All the while, jobs in the private sector – which will need to take in the growing labor force – are dominated by expatriate workers. Saudi citizens hold only 20% of jobs in the private sector – but this sector makes up 60% of the country’s employment. Fixing these distortions is challenging. Overall, monthly salaries of nationals are more than double those of expatriates (Chart 11). High wage gaps also exist among comparably skilled workers, reducing the incentive to hire nationals. With non-Saudis holding over 75% of the jobs, the incentive to employ low-wage expatriate workers has also weighed on the current account balance through large remittance outflows (Chart 12). And while the share of jobs held by Saudi citizens increased, this is not on the back of an increase in the number of employed Saudis. Rather, while the number of nationals with jobs contracted by nearly 10% in 2018, jobs held by non-Saudis declined at a faster pace. The absolute number of employed Saudis is down 37% since 2015. “Saudization” efforts are aimed at reducing the wage gap – such as a monthly levy per worker on firms where the majority of workers are non-Saudi; wage subsidies for Saudi nationals working in the private sector; and quotas for hiring nationals. But these have mixed results. While Saudi employment has improved, the associated reduced productivity and higher costs have been damaging. Thus, these labor market challenges pose risks to both domestic stability, and the economy. Moreover, even though improved liquidity conditions have softened interbank rates, loans to government and quasi-government entities still outpace loans to the private sector (Chart 13). This “crowding out” effect is not conducive to a private sector revival. It is conducive to central government control, which the leadership is tightening. Chart 12Jobs For Expatriate Workers Have Declined Chart 13Monetary Conditions Ease But Private Credit Lags Facing these structural factors, authorities are attempting to appease the population through social change. There has been a marked relaxation in the ultra-conservative rules governing Saudi society. Permission for women to drive cars has been granted and the first cinemas and music venues opened their doors last year. Critically, religious rulers are seeing their wide-ranging powers curtailed. The hai’a or religious police are now only permitted to work during office hours. They no longer have the authority to detain or make arrests, and may only submit reports to civil authorities. While these changes appeal to the new generation, they also run the risk of provoking a “Wahhabi backlash.” This risk is still alive despite the past two years of policy change. The recently approved “public decency law” – which requires residents to adhere to dress codes and bans taking photos or using phrases deemed offensive – reveals the authorities’ need to mitigate this risk. Popular social reforms are occurring against a backdrop of an unprecedented centralization of power. Mohammad bin Salman will be the first Saudi ruler of his millennial generation. The evolving balance of power between the 15,000 members of the royal family will hurl the kingdom into the unknown. The concentration of power into the Sudairi faction of the ruling family, through events such as the 2017 Ritz Carlton detentions, is still capable of provoking a destabilizing backlash. Discontent among royal family members and Saudi elites may give rise to a new, fourth faction, resentful of the social and political changes. At the moment, the state’s policies have generated some momentum. A number of major hardline religious scholars and clerics have apologized for past extremism and differences over state policy and have endorsed MBS’s vision of a modern Saudi state and “moderate” Islam – the crackdown on radicalism has moved the dial within the religious establishment.5 But structural change is not quick and the social pressures being unleashed are momentous. Saudi Arabia’s oil production and transportation infrastructure are currently in danger from saber-rattling or conflict in the region. The government is guiding the process, but the consensus is correct that internal political risk remains extremely high. There has been a structural increase in that risk, as outlined in this report – and it is best to remain cautious even regarding the cyclical increase in political risk over the past two years. Bottom Line: Saudi Arabia’s new economic reality is ushering in social and political change at an unprecedented pace. Unless the interests of the three main social actors – the royal family, religious elites, and Saudi citizens – are successfully managed, a new faction comprised of disaffected elites may arise. A Dangerous Neighborhood Putting aside the longer term threat from U.S. energy independence, Saudi Arabia’s oil production and transportation infrastructure are currently in danger from saber-rattling or conflict in the region. Saudi officials originally expected the war in Yemen to last only a few weeks, but the conflict is now in its fifth year and still raging. The claim by the Iran-backed Houthi insurgents that a recent drone attack on Saudi oil installations was assisted by supporters in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern province – home to the majority of the country’s 10%-15% Shia population and oil production – is also troubling as it shows that the above domestic risks can readily combine with external, geopolitical risks. The U.S. is also joining Israel and Saudi Arabia in applying increasing pressure on Iran, which risks sparking a war. Our Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree illustrates that the probability of war between the U.S. and Iran – which would involve the Saudis – is as high as 40% (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree We are not downgrading this risk in the wake of President Trump’s decision not to conduct strikes on Iranian radars and missile launchers on June 20. President Trump claims he wants negotiations instead of war, but his administration’s pressure tactics have pushed Iran into a corner. The Iranian regime is capable of pushing the limits further (both in terms of its nuclear program as well as regional oil production and transport), which could easily lead to provocations or miscalculation. The Saudi-Iranian rivalry is structurally unstable as a result of Iran’s capitalization on major strategic movements of the past two decades. The Saudis have lost a Sunni-dominated buffer in Iraq, they have lost influence in Syria and Yemen, and their aggressive military efforts to counter these trends have failed.6 The Israelis are equally alarmed by these developments and trying to persuade the Americans to take a much more aggressive posture to contain Iran. As a result, the Trump administration reneged on the 2015 U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement and broader détente – intensifying a cycle of distrust with Iran that will be difficult to reverse even if the Democratic Party takes the White House in 2020. Hence there is a real possibility of attacks on Saudi oil production facilities, domestic pipelines, and tankers in transit in the near term. Moreover, the majority of Saudi Arabia’s exports transit through two major chokepoints making these barrels vulnerable to sabotage: The Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has resumed threatening to block; The Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, located between Yemen and East Africa, which was the site of an attack on two Saudi Aramco tankers last year, forcing a temporarily halt in shipments. Saudi Arabia is acutely aware of these risks. It is the top buyer of U.S. arms and, as a result of the dramatic strategic shifts since the American invasion of Iraq, it is the world’s leading spender on military equipment as a share of GDP (Chart 14). One of our key “Black Swan” risks of the year is that the Saudis may be emboldened by the Trump administration’s writing them a blank check. Bottom Line: In addition to the structural risks associated with Saudi Arabia’s economic, social and political transition, geopolitical tensions in the region are elevated. Warning shots are still being fired by Iran and their proxies (such as the Houthis), and oil supplies are at the mercy of additional escalation. Investment Implications Saudi Arabia’s equity market is halfway through the process of joining the benchmark MSCI EM index. The process will finish on August 29, 2019 with Saudi taking up a total 2.9% weighting in the index. Research by our colleague Ellen JingYuan He at BCA’s Emerging Markets Strategy shows that in the case of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Pakistan, inclusion into MSCI created a “buy the rumor, sell the news” phenomenon and suggested that a top of the market was at hand.7 Saudi equities have recently peaked in absolute terms and relative to the emerging market benchmark, supporting this thesis. Saudi equity volatility has especially spiked relative to the emerging market average, which is appropriate. We expect ongoing bouts of volatility due to the immediate, market-relevant political risks outlined above. The risk of a disruptive conflict stemming from the Saudi-Iran and U.S.-Iran confrontation is significant enough that investors should, at minimum, expect minor conflicts or incidents to disrupt oil markets in the immediate term. We expect oil price volatility to persist. Because Riyadh is maintaining OPEC 2.0 discipline in this environment, oil prices should experience underlying upward pressure. It is not that the Saudis are refusing to support the Trump administration’s maximum pressure against Iran but rather that they are calibrating their support in a way that hedges against the risk that Trump will change his mind, since that risk is quite high. This is the 55% chance of an uneasy status quo in U.S.-Iran relations in Diagram 1, which requires at least secret U.S. relaxation of oil sanction enforcement. Moreover, the Saudis want to reduce the downside risk of weak global growth and support their national interest in pushing Brent prices toward $80/bbl for fiscal and strategic purposes. Our pessimistic assessment of the Osaka G20 tariff truce between the U.S. and China is more than offset by our expectation since February that China’s economic policy has shifted toward stimulus rather than the deleveraging of 2017-18. We assign a 68% probability to additional trade war escalation in Q4 this year or at least before November 2020. But since a dramatic trade war escalation would lead to even greater stimulus, we still share our Commodity & Energy Strategy’s cyclical view that the underlying trend for oil prices is up. We are maintaining our recommendation of being long EM oil producers’ equities relative to EM-ex-China. This trade includes Saudi Arabian equities, but as a whole it has upside in the near-term as Brent prices are below our expected average and Chinese equities are still down 10% from their April highs.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Our Commodity & Energy Strategy team expects Brent prices to average $73/bbl this year and $75/bbl in 2020. For their latest monthly balances assessment, please see “Supply-Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices,” dated June 20, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled “Supply-Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices,” dated June 20, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 The higher export dependence on oil reflects the rebound in oil prices in 2018, rather than a decline in non-oil exports. Given the strong relationship between activity in the oil and non-oil sectors, non-oil exports also increased in 2018. 4 Saudi Aramco’s purchase of a 70 percent stake in SABIC from the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF) earlier this year reportedly contributed to the IPO delay. The deal will capitalize the PIF, enabling it to diversify the economy. 5 See, for example, James M. Dorsey, “Clerics and Entertainers Seek to Bolster MBS’s Grip on Power,” BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1220, July 7, 2019, available at besacenter.org. 6 The U.S., Saudi Arabia, and their allies are trying to restore Iraq as a geopolitical buffer by cultivating an Iraq that is more independent of Iranian influence – and this is part of rising regional frictions. Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi’s recently issued decree to reduce the power of Iraq’s Iran-backed milita, the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and integrate them into Iraq’s armed forces by forcing them to choose between either military or political activity. Just over a year ago, Iraq’s previous Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi issued a decree granting members of the PMF many of the same rights as members of the military. 7 Please see BCA Frontier Markets Strategy, “Pakistani Stocks: A Top Is At Hand,” March 13, 2017, available at fms.bcaresearch.com.