Economy

As we highlighted in our most recent Weekly Report, the risk/reward tradeoff remains squarely to the downside and we are turning cyclically (3-12 month horizon) cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market. The Presidential cycle, UBER’s IPO, the S&P 500 hitting all-time highs following the initial December 2018 yield curve inversion, and two additional yield curve inversions signal that this time is no different and a recession is likely upon us in the coming 18 months. Using the NY Fed’s yield curve-derived recession probability forecast is revealing. This recession gauge has been an excellent leading indicator of S&P 500 momentum since the S&L crisis induced recession and its current message corroborates U.S. Equity Strategy’s cautious cyclical equity market view (recession gauge shown inverted, see chart). For additional details, please refer to the most recent Weekly Report.

Highlights Fed: The large divergence between Treasury yields and risk assets means that the Fed will almost certainly cut rates during the next few months. The only question is whether a large sell-off in risk assets will be required to force the Fed’s capitulation. Maintain a cautious near-term (0-3 month) allocation to corporate credit. Duration: The economic data and shape of the yield curve do not suggest that the economy is heading into recession. Rather, they suggest that the economy is experiencing an external shock – akin to 1998 or 2015/16 – that can be offset by a relatively minor pivot in Fed policy. Investors should keep portfolio duration low. Corporate Balance Sheets: Growth rates for both corporate profits and debt should settle into the mid-single digits during the next few quarters. This will keep gross leverage and the default rate roughly stable. A sustained period of negative profit growth and tighter C&I lending standards would challenge this outlook. Feature Chart 1Markets Taking The Rate Cut For Granted Markets aren’t begging for a rate cut. Rather, they are behaving as though one has already occurred. This sort of set-up could lead to wider credit spreads and lower equity prices in the near-term. To elaborate, notice that the S&P 500 is only 3% off its late-2018 peak, but is down an alarming 8% relative to the Bloomberg Barclays Treasury Master Index. Meanwhile, the 10-year Treasury yield had fallen all the way to 2.06% as we went to press last Friday (Chart 1, bottom panel). The overall message from financial markets is that investors expect the Fed to cut rates very soon, but also think that a small number of cuts will be enough to forestall recession and keep risk assets supported. As we see it, the divergence between risk assets and Treasuries makes a rate cut during the next few months a near certainty. If the Fed does not appear sufficiently dovish at next week’s FOMC meeting, then risk assets will sell off. The resulting tightening of financial conditions will then force the Fed’s hand, leading to a rate cut in July or September. The alternative is that the Fed tries to get ahead of market sentiment by delivering a rate cut next week, even if such a move is not easily justified by the economic data. A New Trade In last week’s report, we recommended adding a fed funds futures calendar spread trade to take advantage of these near-term policy moves (Chart 2).1 Specifically, we advised investors to go long the August 2019 fed funds futures contract and short the February 2020 contract. Chart 2Exit Long Aug 2019 / Stay Short Feb 2020 We recommended buying the August 2019 fed funds futures contract to hedge the risk that the Fed tries to get ahead of market sentiment by cutting rates in June or July. As of last week, this contract would have earned a positive return in a scenario where the Fed delivered one 25 basis point rate cut in either June or July, and a negative return in a scenario where rates are unchanged. But as of last Friday, the contract’s risk/reward profile had shifted dramatically. The contract is now priced for a loss in both the “one rate cut” and “no rate cut” scenarios. We therefore exit our long position in the August 2019 fed funds futures contract for a gain of 8 bps.  .  The second leg of our proposed trade was to short the February 2020 fed funds futures contract. This remains an excellent bet. As of last Friday, a short position in the February 2020 contract will earn a positive return as long as three or fewer rate cuts occur between now and next February (Chart 2, bottom panel). In last week’s report, we recommended adding a fed funds futures calendar spread trade to take advantage of these near-term policy moves. Table 1 displays the expected returns from our proposed spread trade (long Aug 2019/short Feb 2020) as of last Friday, the most recent pricing available at the time of publication. Because of the rapid gains in the August 2019 contract price, an outright short position in the February 2020  contract now dominates the expected returns from the calendar spread trade in all likely scenarios. We therefore advise investors to exit the long position in the August 2019 contract, but to remain short the February 2020 contract. Table 1Expected Returns From Long Aug 2019 / Short Feb 2020 Fed Funds Futures Calendar Spread Trade Bottom Line: The large divergence between Treasury yields and risk assets means that the Fed will almost certainly cut rates during the next few months. The only question is whether a large sell-off in risk assets will be required to force the Fed’s capitulation. We advise near-term caution on credit spreads. While a near-term rate cut is likely, we also doubt that the Fed will deliver more than the 76 bps of rate cuts priced into the curve for the next 12 months. We therefore recommend that investors keep portfolio duration low and maintain a short position in the February 2020 fed funds futures contract.  More 1998 Than 2001 In the last section we reiterated our view that the Fed will deliver fewer than the 76 bps of rate cuts that are priced into the yield curve for the next 12 months. Our main justification is that such a large number of rate cuts will only occur if the economy enters recession. At present, the pre-conditions for an economic recession are simply not in place. Rather, the economy is experiencing an external shock – akin to 2015/16 and 1998 – that will require only a modest shift in Fed policy. In other words, if we use the mid-1990s cycle as a roadmap, today looks much more like 1998 than 2001. The divergence between manufacturing and services PMIs is exactly what occurred in 1998 and 2015/16. In a recent Special Report, we observed that every single post-WWII recession was preceded by either high inflation or rapid private debt growth (Chart 3).2 At present, inflation is muted and private debt growth is low. The economy is unlikely to experience a recession if there hasn’t been a prior build-up of excess demand. Chart 3Private Debt Growth, High Inflation & Recessions Second, economic indicators are much more consistent with the 2015/16 and 1998 episodes than with “pre-recession” conditions. The ISM Manufacturing PMI has fallen sharply, though it remains above 50, but the ISM Non-Manufacturing PMI looks much healthier. This divergence between manufacturing and services is exactly what occurred in 1998 and 2015/16 (Chart 4). It is consistent with a shock to global demand and trade that has relatively little impact on the U.S. consumer and the domestic economy’s large service sector. Chart 4Divergence Between Services And Manufacturing Granted, the PMIs compiled by Markit do not mirror the divergence between the ISM Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing surveys. In fact, the Markit Services PMI has dropped sharply alongside its manufacturing counterpart (Chart 5). However, the Markit surveys also showed no divergence between manufacturing and services in 2015/16 and have no available data for 1998. We are therefore inclined to downplay the weakness in the Markit Services PMI for the time being. Chart 5MARKIT PMIs Third, employment growth usually starts to slow at least one year before the economy heads into recession. But it showed relatively little weakness in 1998 and 2015/16 (Chart 4, bottom panel). If May’s downbeat payrolls number turns out to be the start of a trend, then we will have to reconsider our view. But for now, even after last week’s report, employment growth remains solid. Finally, not only do the economic data suggest an episode similar to 1998 and 2015/16, but the slope of the yield curve does as well. While many have focused on the inversion of the 3-month/10-year Treasury slope, the 2-year/10-year slope remains above zero, and has indeed steepened in recent weeks. A more comprehensive look at the entire yield curve, adjusting for changes in the overall level of yields, shows that it looks very similar to the yield curve seen just ahead of the first 1998 rate cut. In contrast, the yield curve seen just before the first 2001 rate cut was more heavily inverted at the front-end, and long-dated yields priced-in much less of a rebound (Charts 6A & 6B). Bottom Line: The economic data and shape of the yield curve do not suggest that the economy is heading into recession. Rather, they suggest that the economy is experiencing an external shock – akin to 1998 or 2015/16 – that can be offset by a relatively minor pivot in Fed policy. Investors should keep portfolio duration low on the view that the Fed will cut rates by less than 76 bps during the next 12 months. Corporate Health Update Chart 7Weak Profit Growth In Q1 The full slate of first quarter corporate balance sheet data have now been released, and as expected, corporate profit growth cooled significantly compared to the rapid gains seen in 2018. As a result, our Corporate Health Monitor – an equal-weighted composite of six important financial ratios – ceased its recent improvement and jumped firmly back into “deteriorating health” territory (Chart 7). Our preferred measure of pre-tax profits contracted at an annualized rate of 17% in Q1, dragging the year-over-year growth rate down to 7%, from 15% in 2018 Q4 (Chart 7, bottom panel). The crucial relationship for corporate bond investors is between pre-tax profit growth and debt growth. If profit growth exceeds debt growth, then gross leverage will decline over time taking the default rate with it. Conversely, defaults tend to rise whenever profit growth fails to keep pace with debt growth.3 Corporate debt has been growing at an annualized pace of about 6-8%. This means that profit growth would have to slow to below those levels for us to become concerned about an increase in defaults. This could occur for the next quarter or two, as the weak global growth environment weighs on revenues (Chart 8). But our Profit Margin Proxy – corporate selling prices less unit labor costs – is in a strong uptrend, suggesting that the weakness may not be that dire. The crucial relationship for corporate bond investors is between pre-tax profit growth and debt growth.  There is also some reason to think that corporate debt growth might slow during the next few quarters. According to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer Survey, C&I loan demand has weakened significantly in recent months, while lending standards remain approximately unchanged. Historically, it is extremely rare for loan demand to weaken without a simultaneous tightening in bank lending standards (Chart 9). However, if the current unusual situation were to persist, it would be quite positive from the perspective of corporate balance sheet health. It would suggest that firms are adding less debt to balance sheets, even though banks continue to make credit readily available. Chart 8Profit Margins Still Strong Chart 9Is Corporate Sector On A Debt Diet? Bottom Line: Growth rates for both corporate profits and debt should settle into the mid-single digits during the next few quarters. This will keep gross leverage and the default rate roughly stable. A sustained period of negative profit growth and tighter C&I lending standards would challenge this outlook.   Ryan Swift, U.S. Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, “When Expectations Are Self-Fulfilling”, dated June 4, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy  Special Report, “The Risk From Corporate Debt: Theory And Evidence”, dated April 23, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Assessing Corporate Default Risk”, dated March 19, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The risk/reward tradeoff remains squarely to the downside and we are turning cyclically (3-12 month horizon) cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market. The Presidential cycle, UBER’s IPO, the SPX hitting all-time highs following the initial December 2018 yield curve inversion, and two additional yield curve inversions signal that this time is no different and a recession is likely upon us in the coming 18 months. The re-escalation of the U.S./China trade tussle along with the risk of an antitrust investigation into Apple, waning capital outlays, softening exports and deteriorating operating conditions warn that it does not pay to be overweight the S&P tech hardware storage & peripherals (THS&P) index. Our tech EPS model is flashing red on the back of sinking capex and an appreciating U.S. dollar, deteriorating operating metrics signal that tech margins are under attack and exports are also in a freefall, suggesting that the time is ripe to put the tech sector on downgrade alert. Recent Changes Downgrade the S&P THS&P index to neutral, today. Put the S&P tech sector on downgrade alert. Table 1 Feature The SPX appeared to crack early in the week, but dovish Fed President statements saved the day and stocks recovered smartly to end the week on a high note. Our tactically (0-3 month) cautious equity market stance has served us well and has run its course. We are currently leaning toward a cyclically (3-12 month) cautious stance as a slew of our cyclical indicators have rolled over decisively. At the current juncture the big call to make is on the longevity of the business cycle. Crudely put, can the Fed engineer a soft landing or is the looming easing cycle a precursor of recession (Chart 1)? We side with the latter. Chart 1What’s The Opposite Of Bond Vigilantes? This is U.S. Equity Strategy service’s view. BCA’s house view remains constructive on a cyclical 3-12 month time horizon. As a reminder, the ongoing expansion is officially the longest on record and BCA’s house view also calls for recession in late-2020/early-2021. Stan Druckenmiller once famously said “…you have to visualize the situation 18 months from now, and whatever that is, that's where the price will be, not where it is today." Thus, if BCA’s recession view is accurate then we need to start preparing the portfolio for a recessionary outcome. This week we conduct a simple thought experiment on where and why the SPX will be headed as the economy flirts with recession. But first, we rely on the message from our indicators to guide us in determining if the cycle is nearing an end. Last December parts of the yield curve slope inverted (Chart 2) and our simple insight was that the market almost always peaks following the yield curve inversion and we remained bullish on the prospects of the broad equity market and called for fresh all-time highs based on the results of our research.1 On May 1, 2019 we got confirmation as the SPX vaulted to new all-time highs, so that box is now checked. Chart 2The Yield Curve... Beyond the traditional yield curve inversion that forecasts that the Fed’s next move will be a cut and eventually the cycle ends, other yield curve type indicators have inverted and also foreshadow the end of the business cycle. Charts 3A & 3B show that the unemployment gap and another labor market yield curve type indicator have both inverted signaling that the business cycle is long in the tooth. Chart 3A...Is Always Right...Chart 3B...In Predicting Fed Cuts This time is no different and the business cycle will end. Why? Because the Fed has likely raised interest rates (as we first posited on November 19, 2018 and again on December 3, 2018) by enough to trigger a default cycle in the most indebted segment of the U.S. economy where the excesses are most prominent in the current expansion: the non-financial business sector (Chart 4A). Chart 4AMind The Corporate Debt Excesses Chart 4BDefault Cycle Looming Already, junk bond market spreads are widening and the yield curve is predicting that a default cycle is around the corner (yield curve shown on inverted scale, bottom panel, Chart 4B).  Another interesting indicator is the Presidential cycle. Chart 5 updates our work from last year showing years 2 & 3 of 17 Presidential cycles dating back to 1950. In the summer of year 3 the SPX typically peaks. Finally, the anecdote of the biggest unicorn, UBER, ipoing on May 10, 2019 also likely marks the ending of the cycle. Therefore if recession looms in the coming 18 months what is the typical magnitude of the SPX EPS drawdown and what multiple do investors pay for trough earnings? Chart 5Presidential Cycle Says Sell While the two most recent recessionary earnings contractions have been severe, we are conservative in estimating a garden variety recession causing a 20% EPS fall. S&P 500 2018 EPS ended near $162/share. This year $167/share is likely and we are now revising down our forecast for next year to $175/share from $181/share previously. A conservative 20% drawdown sets us back to $140/share in 2021. Dating back to the late 1970s when our IBES dataset on the forward P/E multiple commences, the trough forward P/E multiple during recessions averages out to 10x (Chart 6). Remaining on a conservative path we will use 13.5x, or the recent December 2018 trough multiple as our worst case multiple and a sideways move to 16.5x as the most optimistic case. This implies an SPX ending value of between 1890 and 2310 will be reached some time in 2020, with the former resetting the equity market back near the 2016 BREXIT lows. Chart 6Trough Recession Multiple Averages 10x As a result, we are not willing to play a 100-200 point advance for a potential 1000 point drawdown, the risk/reward tradeoff is to the downside. Can and has the Fed previously engineered soft landings that have caused big relief rallies in the equity market? Six times since the 1960s: once in each of the mid-1960s, early-1970s, mid-1970s, mid-1980s and mid-1990s and once in 1998 (top panel, Chart 7). Chart 7Six Mid-cycle Easing Attempts Three easing cycles were not forecast by a yield curve inversion, but the mid-1960s, the mid-1990s and in 1998 the yield curve cautioned investors that an easing cycle was looming (bottom panel, Chart 7). Specifically in 1998 the Fed only acted after the equity market fell by 20%. Another interesting observation is that ex-post five of these six iterations were truly mid cycle, one was very late cycle, but none took place in year 11 of an expansion as is currently the case. We are in uncharted territory. Chart 8 shows the mean profile of the S&P 500 six months prior to and one year post the initial Fed cut. Our assumption is that a cut in July may materialize, thus the vertical line in Chart 8 denotes t=0, which is in sync with the bond market that is pricing a greater than 75% chance of this occurrence. The subsequent market rallies were significant. Our insight from this research is that we already had the explosive rally as Chart 8 depicts, owing to the Fed’s completed pivot, with the stock market rallying from the 2018 Christmas Eve lows to the May 1, 2019 all-time highs by 26%. But, the jury is still out. The biggest risk to our call is indeed a continued rally in the S&P 500 on easy money. A way to mitigate this risk of missing out on a rally is by going long SPX LEAPS Calls once a greater than 10% correction takes root. Chart 8Is The Rally Already Behind Us? Keep in mind, that for the Fed to act and cut rates, stocks will likely have to breach the 2650 level, a point where a reflexive fall will further shake investor’s confidence in profit growth. In other words, the bond market is screaming that Fed cuts are looming, but it also means that stocks have ample room to fall before the Fed cuts rates, i.e. a riot point will force the Fed’s hand. Another big risk to this call is a swift positive resolution on the U.S./China trade dispute, and/or an unprecedented easing from the Chinese authorities which will put us offside as a euphoric rise will definitely ensue. Again SPX LEAPS Calls are an excellent way to position for such an outcome. Netting it all out, the risk/reward tradeoff remains squarely to the downside and we are turning cyclically (3-12 month horizon) cautious on the prospects of the broad equity market. The Presidential cycle, UBER’s IPO, the SPX hitting all-time highs following the initial December 2018 yield curve inversion, and two additional yield curve inversions signal that this time is no different and a recession is likely upon us in the coming 18 months. Thus, this week we are further de-risking the portfolio by downgrading a tech subindex to neutral, setting a tighter stop on a different long term tech subsector holding that has been the cornerstone of the equity bull market, and putting the overall tech sector on downgrade watch. Downgrade Tech Hardware Storage & Peripherals To Neutral In the context of further de-risking the portfolio we are downgrading the S&P tech hardware storage & peripherals index to a benchmark allocation and booking a small loss of 1.0% in relative terms since inception. Four reasons underpin our downgrade of this index that comprises almost 1/5 of the S&P tech market cap. First, index heavyweight Apple has 20% foreign sales exposure to the Greater China region. While we doubt the Chinese will directly retaliate to the U.S. restriction on Huawei by directly targeting Apple, it is still a risk. Moreover, recent news of the FTC and the DOJ targeting GOOGL and FB pose a risk to Apple, especially given its App Store dominance. Any negative news on either front would take a bite out of the sector’s profits. Second, capex has taken a bit hit. Chart 9 shows industry investment is almost nil and capex intentions from regional Fed surveys and from CEO confidence surveys signal more pain down the line. Third, the S&P THS&P index’s internationally sourced revenues are near the 60% mark, and computer exports are also flirting with the zero line. Worryingly, deflating EM Asian currencies are sapping consumer purchasing power and are weighing on industry exports (third panel, Chart 10). Chart 9Capex Blues Chart 10Exports... Similarly, global trade volumes have sunk into contractionary territory and to a level last seen during the Great Recession (not shown). With regard to export expectations the recently updated IFO World Economic Survey still points toward sustained global export ails (second panel, Chart 10). More specifically, tech laden Korean and Taiwanese exports are outright contracting at an accelerating pace and so are Chinese exports. Tack on the negative signal from the respective EM Asian stock market indices and the implication is that more profit pain looms for the S&P THS&P index (Chart 11). Finally, on the domestic front, new orders-to-inventories (NOI) have not only ground to a halt from the overall manufacturing sector, but also computer and electronic product NOI are not contracting on a short-term rate of change basis (bottom panel, Chart 10). Tracking domestic consumer outlays on computer and peripheral equipment reveals that they too have steeply decelerated from the cyclical peak reached in early 2018, painting a softening picture for industry sales growth prospects (Chart 12). Chart 11...Under Pressure Chart 12Soft Sales Backdrop  The re-escalation of the U.S./China trade tussle along with the risk of an antitrust investigation into Apple, waning capital outlays, softening exports and deteriorating operating conditions warn that it does not pay to be overweight the S&P THS&P index. Nevertheless, before getting too bearish there is a silver lining. This index has a net debt/EBITDA of 0.5x versus the non-financial broad market of 2x. On the valuation front this tech subindex trades at 28% discount to the non-financial broad market on an EV/EBITDA basis suggesting that most of bad news is already reflected in bombed out valuations (Chart 13). The re-escalation of the U.S./China trade tussle along with the risk of an antitrust investigation into Apple, waning capital outlays, softening exports and deteriorating operating conditions warn that it does not pay to be overweight the S&P THS&P index. Bottom Line: Downgrade the S&P THS&P index to neutral for a modest relative loss of 1.0% since inception. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5CMPE – AAPL, HPQ, HPE, NTAP, STX, WDC, XRX. Chart 13But B/S Remains Pristine Put Tech On Downgrade Alert We are compelled to put the S&P tech sector on our downgrade watch list as President Trump’s hawkish trade talk and actions since May 5 warn that tech revenues (60% export exposure) and profits will likely remain under intense downward pressure. The way we will execute this tech sector downgrade to underweight will be via the S&P software index, the sector’s largest market cap weight. A downgrade to neutral in the S&P software index would push our S&P tech sector weight to a below benchmark allocation. Thus, we are initiating a stop near the 10% relative return mark on the S&P software high-conviction overweight call since the December 3, 2018 inception and also lift the stop to 27% from 17% relative return on the cyclical overweight we have on the S&P software index since the November 27, 2017 inception. Any near term stock market pullback will likely trigger these stops and push the tech sector to an underweight position. Stay tuned. With regard to the overall tech sector, our EPS model is on the verge of contraction on the back of sinking capex and a firming U.S. dollar (middle panel, Chart 14). In more detail, tech capex has recaptured market share swinging from below 6% to above 13% in the past decade and now has likely hit a wall similar to the late 1990s peak (second panel, Chart 15). On a rate of change basis tech capital outlays have all peaked and national data corroborate the message from stock market reported data (bottom panel, Chart 15). Chart 14Grim EPS Model Signal Chart 15Exhausted Capex? The San Francisco Fed’s Tech Pulse Index (comprising coincident indicators of activity in the U.S. information technology sector) is also closing in on the expansion/contraction line warning that tech stocks are in for a rough ride (bottom panel, Chart 14). Delving deeper into operating metrics, we encounter some profit margin trouble for tech stocks. Not only do industry selling prices continue to deflate, but also our tech sector wage bill gauge is picking up steam. Taken together, all-time high profit margins – double the broad market – appear unsustainable and something has to give (Chart 16). On the export relief valve front, the sector faces twin headwinds. First the trade war re-escalation suggests that an interruption/disruption of tech supply chains is a rising risk, and the firming greenback will continue to weigh on P&Ls as negative translation effects will hit Q2, Q3 and likely Q4 profits (Chart 17). Chart 16Margin Trouble Chart 17Rising Dollar Will Weigh On Revenues & Profits Netting it all out, our tech EPS model is flashing red on the back of sinking capex and an appreciating U.S. dollar, deteriorating operating metrics signal that tech margins are under attack and exports are also in a freefall, suggesting that the time is ripe to put the tech sector on downgrade alert. Nevertheless, there are two sizable offsets contrasting all the grim news. Tech stocks are effectively debt free with the net debt/EBITDA sitting on the zero line and valuations a far cry from the tech bubble era. Finally, the drop in interest rates via the 10-year yield and looming Fed cuts will underpin these growth stocks that thrive in a disinflationary backdrop (Chart 18). Netting it all out, our tech EPS model is flashing red on the back of sinking capex and an appreciating U.S. dollar, deteriorating operating metrics signal that tech margins are under attack and exports are also in a freefall, suggesting that the time is ripe to put the tech sector on downgrade alert. Bottom Line: We are compelled to put the tech sector on our downgrade watch list. We will execute the S&P tech sector downgrade to underweight when the S&P software index’s stops are triggered. This would push the S&P software index to neutral from currently overweight. Stay tuned. Chart 18But There Is An Offset: Melting Yields Help Growth Stocks   Anastasios Avgeriou, U.S. Equity Strategist anastasios@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, “Signal Vs. Noise” dated December 17, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.   Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor value over growth Favor large over small caps

Highlights Bond yields have fallen a lot since the beginning of November, … : At the close on November 8th, the 10-year Treasury bond yielded 3.24%. By last Monday, it was yielding just 2.07%. … but the move isn’t terribly anomalous relative to history: In terms of nominal yields, the decline was just over a one-standard-deviation event; per real yields, it amounted to a -0.7 sigma move. The Fed may be preparing for a rate cut, but overweight duration positions will only pay off if several more follow: A one-and-done rate cut would stretch out the expansion and the bull markets in equities and spread product, but Treasuries are priced for an extended rate-cutting cycle. Feature Stocks are said to be the only asset that people want more of when prices rise, and less of when they fall. Lately, bonds have also seemed to have an upward-sloping demand curve, because more and more people have bought them as they’ve gotten more expensive. A BCA client who’s been shaking his head at the action got in touch with us last week to try to make some sense of it all. Experience tells him that big moves like the one that’s been unfolding since last November don’t go on forever. When they stop, mean reversion would suggest that they’re prone to retrace a good bit of territory. He came to us for some historical context to support or contradict his intuition, as summed up in something like the following statement. “Over the past 50 years, the current move equates to an x-standard-deviation event. Following similar instances, rates have risen by x basis points over the next six months, and by y basis points over the next twelve months.” The Empirical Record The sharp decline in the 10-year Treasury yield that began in early November can be viewed as three separate declines (Chart 1). In the first, the 10-year yield fell by 68 basis points (“bps”) over a span of 37 trading days. After retracing a third of the decline over the next 11 sessions, it slid by another 40 bps over 48 days. Following a one-half retracement over the ensuing 13 days, it shed 53 basis points in 32 days, capped off by a 36-bps decline across the final eight sessions (Table 1). Chart 1The Path To 2.07% Table 1A Lower 10-Year Treasury Yield In Three Steps Using the daily 10-year Treasury yield series beginning in 1962, we compared the individual yield declines for prior 37-, 48- and 32-day periods, as well as for the aggregate 141-day session spanning the entire stretch from the November 8th peak to the June 3rd trough. We also looked at the May 21st to June 3rd crescendo relative to past eight-day segments. The standardized moves range from three-quarters of a standard deviation below the mean for the 48-day middle leg to 1.5 and 1.8 for the 37- and 8-day moves, respectively (Table 2). All in all, the entire move grades out to 1.3 standard deviations below the mean – a somewhat unusual move, but nothing too special. Table 2Standardized Values Of Nominal 10-Year Treasury Yield Declines The current decline’s relative stature is undermined by the wild volatility of the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, when bond yields and annual inflation reached double-digit levels (Chart 2). To try to place the current episode on a more equal framework, we also calculated standardized moves in real (inflation-adjusted) yields. On a real basis, however, the current moves made even less of a splash. The 8-day decline (z-score = -1.2) was the only component that was more than a standard deviation from the mean, and the overall move amounted to just 0.7 standard deviations below the mean (Chart 3). Chart 2No Historical Anomaly In The Current Market Chart 3Little Impact In Terms Of Real Yields We are familiar with the electronic financial media’s increasingly popular convention of stating daily yield moves in proportion to the previous day’s closing yield.1 That convention has the advantage of fitting snugly aside stock price quotes on TV and computer screens, but it is ultimately nonsensical. The proportional change in a bond’s yield relative to its starting yield doesn’t come close to approximating the change in the value of that bond. Comparing proportional changes in bond yields across timeframes would be a way of putting today’s yield moves on a more equal footing with yield moves in the high-inflation, high-coupon era of the late seventies and early eighties, but it conveys no practical information. The margin by which long-maturity Treasuries have outperformed intermediate-maturity Treasuries is unusual, ... Our next steps were instead to compare Treasury total returns and the change in the slope of the yield curve to past flattening and steepening episodes. The moves here were also unavailing over both seven- and one-month periods, as the high-coupon ‘70s and ‘80s still dominated (Chart 4). In terms of the change in the 10-year Treasury yield, both nominal and real; Treasury index total returns; and the slope of the yield curve (3-month rate to 10-year yield), both the aggregate move since last October and its three component moves have amounted to one-standard-deviation events. They would only have had about a one-in-six chance of occurring randomly in a normally distributed population, but they do not represent unsustainable moves that cry out to be reversed. Chart 4Little Impact In Terms Of Treasury Total Returns, ... Digging a little deeper to consider total returns across different regions of the yield curve, we do find one apparent anomaly at the long end of the curve. The long Treasury index has outperformed the intermediate Treasury index by a two-standard-deviation margin over both a seven-month and a one-month timeframe (Chart 5). On a standalone basis, the long Treasury index has beaten the seven-month mean return by one-and-a-half standard deviations, and the one-month mean return by two standard deviations (Chart 6). The two-standard-deviation results would only be expected to occur one out of forty times, and thereby validate our client’s sense that something has been going on. ... and history suggests they’ll be partially unwound over the next six to twelve months. Chart 5... But The Spread Between Long- And Intermediate-Index Returns Is Wide, ... Chart 6... And Long-Maturity Returns Have Been Elevated Moving on to the second part of his inquiry, we reviewed the standalone performance of the long Treasury index, and the relative long-versus-intermediate performance, over subsequent six- and twelve-month periods. We focused our analysis on instances when historical z-scores were greater than or equal to their current levels to try to determine if we should expect current performance to reverse and, if so, how sharply. On a standalone basis, long Treasury index performance has gently reverted to the mean over the subsequent six and twelve months, posting returns over those periods within +/- 0.2 standard deviations of its long-run average (Table 3). Table 3Standardized Values Of Future Long-Maturity Treasury Index Returns Outlying relative long-versus-intermediate performance like we’ve witnessed over the last seven months has reversed more convincingly. The long Treasury index has underperformed its intermediate-maturity counterpart over six and twelve months when its z-scores were greater than or equal to their current levels over a seven- and one-month basis, falling roughly 0.5 standard deviations below the mean (Table 4). The future does not have to resemble the past, especially over small sample sizes, but relative long-end underperformance would accord with our constructive view of the U.S. economy. It would also be consistent with our anti-duration and pro-inflation biases. Table 4Standardized Values Of Future Difference Between Long- And Intermediate-Maturity Treasury Index Returns The Fed, Again The consistency of the comments from Fed officials last week would seem to suggest that they are trying to prepare the ground for a rate cut. A cut at next week’s FOMC meeting might be a little too abrupt, but it seems increasingly possible that the committee could guide markets to a cut at the next scheduled meeting at the end of July. Various officials have made it abundantly clear that they view trade tensions as a threat to the economy, and that the bank is prepared to adjust policy, if need be, to sustain the expansion. Uber-dovish St. Louis President Bullard, who said last Monday that, “a downward policy rate adjustment may be warranted soon,” no longer appears to be such an outlier. We do not think a rate cut is necessary, and we would be content to remain on the sidelines if we were on the committee, but our opinion is irrelevant. We endeavor not to be distracted by what we think should happen, devoting our focus instead to determining what’s most likely to happen. To that end, our estimate of the probability that the Fed’s next move might be a cut is rising by the speech/interview. When incorporating that probability into investment strategy, we have been thinking a lot about a question that keeps being raised within BCA: If the Fed cuts rates next week or next month, how will markets respond? Assuming the economic backdrop doesn’t deteriorate, we expect that a rate cut will keep the equity and credit bull markets going. The answer depends heavily on the context in which the Fed cuts, and we assume that if the Fed cuts after the economy has taken a dramatic turn for the worse, risk assets would decline. In that case, markets would presumably read the Fed’s decision as confirmation that things were even worse than they perceived and that a significant bout of risk aversion was right around the corner. On the other hand, if the cut came against a backdrop of decent, if unexciting, economic data, risk assets would likely rally. For an investor who cannot resist injecting his/her opinion into the mix, the market response would be supportive of risk assets if a rate cut was unnecessary, but negative if the economy couldn’t get along without it. Investment Implications We believe that the U.S. economy is doing just fine, thank you, and do not yet see the signs that the expansion requires more monetary accommodation if it is to continue. Assuming that the cast of the incoming data does not change enough to change our view, we would expect that a rate cut would defer the end of the expansion and thereby defer the end of the bull markets in risk assets. We are therefore content to stick with our recommendation that investors should remain at least equal weight equities and spread product. We are still looking for restrictive monetary policy to be the catalyst that ends the expansion, and anything that pushes restrictiveness further into the future ought to keep the market parties going. Our view has aligned with the house view over the last year, but there is no guarantee that it will continue to do so. A growing minority of managing editors has been repeatedly challenging the internal consensus in our daily meetings, and it will be debated vigorously at our monthly view meeting Monday morning in Montreal. It is possible that the house view, and the U.S. Investment Strategy view, could soon become less constructive, though our level of conviction remains fairly high.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief U.S. Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 If a bond yielding 3% at Friday’s close ends Monday’s session with a yield of 2.94%, 6 bps lower, its yield is shown as having declined 2% on the day (-.0006/.03 = -2%).

Special Report

Dear Client, Credit in China has expanded at an exponential pace, with the country’s debt-to-GDP ratio climbing from 143% to more than 250% over the last decade. The speed and scale of China’s debt surge dwarfs Japan and the U.S.’ respective credit binges in the 1980’s and 2000’s, each of which ultimately led to financial market meltdowns. Why should China’s experience be any different? Given that China has pursued a different economic model whereby the banking sector is largely state-sponsored and the currency is tightly managed by the central bank, the answer to this pressing question for global markets is the subject of spirited debate at BCA and within the investment community at large. Clients are already aware that my colleagues, Peter Berezin and Arthur Budaghyan, disagree on the macro and market ramifications of China’s decade-long credit boom. The aim of this report is to provide visibility on the root sources of the view divergence, not to reconcile the gaps. We hope these insights will help shape your own conviction about this important topic. Caroline Miller Global Strategy Feature   Caroline: Arthur, your cautious outlook towards emerging markets in general and China’s prospects in particular stems from your belief that China’s economy is dangerously addicted to credit as a growth driver. Please explain why you dismiss the more sanguine view that China’s elevated debt burden is a function of an equally unusually high household savings rate. Arthur: It is simple: When people use the word “savings,” they typically and intuitively refer to bank deposits or securities investments; but this is incorrect. Chart 1 (Arthur)No Empirical Evidence That Deposits = 'Savings' Money supply/deposits in the banking system have no relationship with the savings rate of a nation in general or households in particular (Chart 1). When households save, they do not change the amount of money supply and deposits. Hence, households’ decision to save neither alters liquidity in the banking system nor helps banks to originate loans. In fact, banks do not intermediate deposits into loans or savings into credit.1 The terms “savings” in economics does not denote an increase in the stock of money and deposits. The term “savings” in economics means the amount of goods and services produced but not consumed. When an economy produces a steel bar, it is registered as national “savings.” We cannot consume (say, eat or expense) a steel bar. Therefore, once a steel bar or any equipment is produced, economic statistics will count it as “savings.” Besides, the sole utilization of a steel bar is in capital goods and construction, and hence, it cannot be consumed. Once a steel bar is produced, both national savings and investment will rise. That is how the “savings” = “investment” identity is derived. Chart 2 (Arthur)Chinese Households Are More Leveraged Than U.S. Ones It would avoid confusion and help everyone if economists were to call it “excess production” not “excess savings.” Banks do not need “excess production” – i.e., national “savings” – to create loans. Critically, the enormous amount of bank deposits in China is not due to household “savings” but is originated by banks “out of thin air.” In fact, Chinese households are now more leveraged than U.S. ones (Chart 2). The surge of credit and money supply in China during the past 10 years has been due to animal spirits running wild among lenders and borrowers on the mainland, not its households’ “savings.” In short, the root of China’s credit bubble is not any different from Japan’s (in the 1980s), or the U.S.’ (in the 2000s) and so on. Peter: Yes, banks can create deposits “out of thin air,” as Arthur says. However, people must be willing to hold those deposits. The amount of deposits that households and businesses wish to hold reflects many things, including the interest rate paid on deposits and the overall wealth of the society. The interest rate is a function of savings. The more people save, the lower interest rates will be. And the lower interest rates are, the more demand for credit there will be (Chart 3). It’s like asking what determines how many apples are consumed. Is it how many apple trees farmers want to plant or how many apples people want to eat? The answer is both. Prices adjust so that supply equals demand. How about national wealth? To a large extent, wealth represents the accumulation of tangible capital – factories, plant and machinery, homes and office buildings: the sort of stuff that banks can use as collateral for lending. And what determines how much tangible capital a country possesses? The answer is past savings, of the exact sort Arthur is referring to: the excess of production over consumption. So this form of “economic” savings also plays an important indirect role in determining the level of bank deposits. Chart 4 (Peter)China: From Exporting Savings To Investing Domestically And Building Up Debt I think the main problem with Arthur’s argument is that he is observing an accounting identity, which is that total bank assets (mostly loans) must equal liabilities (mostly deposits and capital) in equilibrium, without fully appreciating the economic forces – savings being one of them – that produce this equilibrium. In any case, the whole question of whether deposits create savings or savings create deposits misses the point. China’s fundamental problem is that it does not consume enough of what it produces. In the days when China had a massive current account surplus, it could export its excess savings abroad (Chart 4). It can’t do that anymore, so the government has consciously chosen to spur investment spending in order to prop up employment. Since a lot of investment spending is financed through credit, debt levels have risen. It really is just that simple.   Arthur: First, neither the stock nor the flow of credit and deposits has any relevance to (1) the economic term “savings;” (2) a country’s capital stock; or (3) national wealth, contrary to what Peter claims. China’s broad money supply (M2) now stands at 190 trillion yuan, equivalent to US$28 trillion (Chart 5, top panel). It is equal to the size of broad money supply in the U.S. and the euro area combined (US$14 trillion each). Yet, China’s nominal GDP is only two-thirds the size of the U.S. Does the level of China’s wealth and capital stock justify it having broad money supply (US$28 trillion) equivalent to the U.S. and the euro area combined? Chart 5 (Arthur)“Helicopter” Money In China Second, are Chinese households and companies willing to hold all RMB deposits that banks have created “out of thin air”? The answer: not really. Without capital controls, a notable portion of these deposits would have rushed into the foreign exchange markets and caused currency depreciation. Another sign of growing reluctance to hold the yuan is that households have been swapping their RMB deposits for real assets (property) at astronomical valuations. There is a bubble in China but people are looking for reasons to justify why it is different this time. Caroline: OK, let’s get away from the term “savings,” and agree that China continues to generate a chronic surplus of production of goods and services relative to consumption, and that how China chooses to intermediate that surplus is the most market-relevant issue. Arthur, you have used the terms “money bubble” and “helicopter money” in relation to China. This implies that banks are unconstrained in their ability to make loans. Just because savings don’t equal deposits, and banks can create deposits when they make loans doesn’t mean there is no relationship between the flow of credit and the stock of deposits. Arthur: Money supply and deposits expand only when banks originate a loan or buy an asset from a non-bank. In short, both credit and money/deposits are created by commercial banks “out of thin air.” This is true for any country.2 Consider a loan transaction by a German commercial bank. When it grants a €100 loan to a borrower, two accounting entries occur on its balance sheet. On the assets side, the amount of loans, and therefore total assets, increases by €100. Simultaneously, on the liabilities side, this accounting entry creates €100 of new deposits “out of thin air” (Figure 1). Hence, new purchasing power of €100 has been created via a simple accounting entry, which otherwise would not exist. Critically, no one needed to save for this loan and money to be originated. The bank does not transfer someone else’s deposits to the borrower; it creates a new deposit when it lends. Banks also create deposits/money “out of thin air” when they buy securities from non-banks. In China, fiscal stimulus is largely financed by commercial banks – banks purchase more than 80% of government-issued bonds. This also leads to money creation. In short, when banks originate too much credit – as they have in China – they generate a money bubble. The money bubble is the mirror image of a credit bubble. Chinese banks have created 141 trillion yuan (US$21 trillion) of new money since 2009, compared with $8.25 trillion created in the U.S., euro area, and Japan combined over the same period (Chart 5, bottom panel). This is why I refer to it as “helicopter” money. Caroline: If banks need capital and liquidity to make loans, and deposits are one potential source of funds, don't these capital and liquidity constraints drive banks’ willingness and ability to lend, creating a link between the two variables? Arthur: Let me explain how mainland banks were able to circumvent those regulatory lending constraints. In 2009, they expanded their credit assets by about 30%. Even though a non-trivial portion of those loans were not paid back, banks did not recognize NPLs and instead booked large profits. By retaining a portion of those earnings, they boosted their equity, say, by 20%. As a result, the next year they were able to expand their credit assets by another 20% and so on. If banks lend and do not recognize bad loans, they can increase their equity and continue lending. With respect to liquidity, deposits are not liquidity for banks; excess reserves at the central bank are true liquidity for them. The reason why banks need to attract deposits is not to appropriate the deposits themselves, but to gain access to the excess reserves that come with them. When a person shifts her deposit from Bank A to Bank B, the former transfers a similar amount of excess reserves (liquidity) to the latter. When expanding their credit assets aggressively, banks can: (1) create more loans per one unit of excess reserves/liquidity, i.e., expand the money multiplier; and (2) borrow excess reserves/liquidity from the central bank or other banks. Chinese banks have used both channels to expand their balance sheets over the past 10 years (Chart 6). Chart 6 (Arthur)Broad Money Can Expand Without Growing Banks' Excess Reserves At The Central Bank Crucially, commercial banks create deposits, but they cannot create excess reserves (liquidity).3 The latter are issued only by central banks “out of thin air.” So, neither deposits nor excess reserves have any relevance to household or national “savings.” Caroline: Peter, Arthur argues that Chinese credit policy has been unconstrained by the traditional metrics of capital adequacy that prevail in capitalist, free-market economies. In other words, there is no connection between the availability of funds to lend via deposits in the banking system, and the pace of credit creation. Rather, the central bank has controlled the terms and volume of lending via regulation and fiat reserve provisioning. You’ve argued that credit creation has served the greater good of propping up employment via investment spending. Moreover, you posit that countries with a surplus of production over consumption will invariably experience high levels of credit creation. Our colleague, Martin Barnes, has analyzed national savings rates (as a proxy for over-production) relative to debt-GDP ratios in other countries. The relationship doesn’t look that strong elsewhere (Chart 7). Please elaborate on why you see credit growth as an inevitable policy response to the dearth of aggregate demand we observe in China? Peter: I would not say that countries with a surplus of production over consumption will invariably experience high levels of credit creation. For example, if most business investment is financed through retained earnings, you can have a lot of investment with little new debt. Debt can also result from activities not directly linked to the intermediation of savings. For instance, if you take out a mortgage to buy some land, your consumption and savings need not change, even though debt will be created. I think Arthur and I agree on this point. Thus, I am not saying that debt is always and everywhere the result of savings. I am simply pushing back against Arthur’s extremist position that debt never has anything to do with savings. Caroline: So what determines the level of debt in an economy in your view, Peter? Peter: In general, debt levels will rise if there are large imbalances between income and spending within society and/or if there are significant differences in the mix of assets people wish to hold. Think about the U.S. in the pre-financial crisis period. First, there was a surge in income inequality beginning in the early 1980s. For all intents and purposes, rich households with excess savings ended up lending their surplus income to poor households struggling to pay their bills. Overall savings did not rise, but debt levels still increased. That’s one reason why Martin’s chart doesn’t show a strong correlation between the aggregate savings rate and debt-to-GDP. Sometimes you need to look beneath the aggregate numbers to see the savings intermediation taking place. Unlike in the U.S., even poor Chinese households are net savers (Chart 8). Thus, the aggregate savings rate in China is very high4 (Chart 9). Much of these savings are funnelled to finance investment in the corporate and public sectors. This fuels debt growth. Chart 9 (Peter)Chinese Households Have More Savings Than The U.S., Europe And Japan Combined The second thing that happened in the U.S. starting in 2000 was a massive housing boom. If you bought a second home with credit, you ended up with one more asset (the house) but one more liability (the mortgage). The person who sold you the home ended up losing one asset (the house) but gaining another asset (a bigger bank deposit). The net result was both higher debt and higher bank deposits. Lending to finance asset purchases has also been a big source of debt growth in China, as it was in the U.S. before the crisis. The U.S. mortgage boom ended in tears, and so the question that we should be asking is whether the Chinese debt boom will end the same way. Arthur: We agreed not to use the term “savings,” yet Peter again refers to “savings” being funnelled into credit. As I explained above, banks do not funnel “savings” (i.e., “excess production”) into credit. China, Japan, and Germany have high “savings” rates because they produce a lot of steel, chemicals, autos, and machinery that literally cannot be consumed and, thus, are recorded as “savings.” The U.S. produces too many services that are consumed/expensed and, hence, not recorded as “savings.” That is why the U.S. has a lower “savings” rate. Chart 10 (Arthur)The Myth Of Deficient Demand In China Economic textbook discussions on “savings” and “investment” are relevant for a barter economy where banks do not exist. When this framework is applied to modern economies with banks, it generates a lot of confusion.5 Caroline: OK, so Peter argues that an imbalance between spending and income CAN be a marker for high debt levels. Arthur, please explain why you see no relationship between China’s chronic shortfall in demand and authorities’ explicit decision to support growth via credit creation. Arthur: First, China does not have deficient demand – consumer spending and capital expenditures have been growing at 10% and 9.4%, respectively, in real terms annually compounded for the past 10 years (Chart 10). The mainland economy has been suffering from excess production, not a lack of demand. China has invested a lot (Chart 11) and ended up with too much capacity to produce steel, cement, chemicals and other materials as well as machinery and industrial goods. So, China has an excess production of goods relative to firms’ and households’ underlying demand. In a market economy, these producers would become non-profitable, halt their investments, and shut down some capacity. Chart 11 (Arthur)China Has Been Over-Investing On An Unprecedented Scale In China, to keep the producers of these unwanted goods operating, the government has allowed and encouraged banks to originate loans creating new purchasing power literally “out of thin air” to purchase these goods. This has created a credit/money bubble. In a socialist system, banks do not ask debtors to repay loans and government officials are heavily involved in resource and capital allocation. China’s credit system and a growing chunk of its economy have been operating like a typical socialist system. Socialism leads to lower productivity growth for well-known reasons. With labor force growth set to turn negative, productivity is going to be the sole source of China’s potential growth rate. If the nation continues expanding this money/credit bubble to prop up zombie enterprises, its potential growth rate will fall considerably. As the potential growth rate drops, recurring stimulus will create nominal but not real growth. In short, the outcome will be stagflation. Caroline: The theoretical macro frameworks that you have both outlined make for interesting thought experiments, and spirited intellectual debate. However, investors are most concerned about the sustainability of China’s explosive credit growth, implications for the country’s growth rate, and the return on invested capital. Arthur, given your perspective on how Chinese credit policy has been designed and implemented, please outline the contours of how and when you see the music stopping, and the debt mountain crumbling. Arthur: Not every credit bubble will burst like the U.S. one did in 2008. For example, in the case of the Japanese credit bubble, there was no acute crisis. The bubble deflated gradually for about 20 years. In the cases of the U.S. (2008), Japan (1990), the euro area (2008-2014), Spain (2008-2014) and every other credit bubble, a common adjustment was a contraction in bank loans in nominal terms (Chart 12). Chart 12 (Arthur)All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans (I) Chart 12 (Arthur)All Credit Booms Have Been Followed By Contracting Bank Loans (II) Why do banks stop lending? The reason is that banks’ shareholders absorb the largest losses from credit booms. Given that banks are levered at least 20-to-1 at the peak of a typical credit boom, every $1 of non-performing loans leads to a $20 drop in their equity value. Bank shareholders halt the flow of credit to protect their wealth. Chart 13 (Arthur)China: Deleveraging Has Not Yet Begun In fact, credit in China is still growing at a double-digit rate, above nominal GDP growth (Chart 13). Hence, aggregate deleveraging in China has not yet begun. If banks do not curtail credit origination, the music will not stop. However, uninterrupted credit growth happens only in a socialist system where banks subsidize the economy at the expense of their shareholders. But even then, there is no free lunch. Credit origination by banks also expands the money supply as discussed above. An expanding money bubble will heighten devaluation pressure on the yuan in the long run. The enormous amount of money supply/deposits – the money bubble – in China is like “the sword of Damocles” hanging over the nation’s currency. Chinese households and businesses are becoming reluctant to hold this ballooning supply of local currency. Continuous “helicopter” money will only increase their desire to diversify their RMB deposits into foreign currencies and assets. Yet, there is an insufficient supply of foreign currency to accommodate this conversion. The nation’s current account surplus has almost vanished while the central bank carries US$3 trillion in foreign exchange reserve representing only 11% of the yuan deposits and cash in circulation (Chart 14). It is inconceivable that China can open its capital account in the foreseeable future. “Helicopter” money also discourages innovation and breeds capital misallocation, which reduces productivity growth. A combination of slowing productivity growth, and thus potential GDP, and strong money growth ultimately lead to stagflation – the dynamics endemic to socialist systems. Peter: Arthur’s answer implicitly assumes that private investment would increase if the government removed credit/fiscal stimulus. But where is the evidence for that? We had just established that the Chinese economy suffers from a lack of aggregate demand. Public-sector spending, to the extent that it increases employment and incomes, crowds in private-sector investment rather than crowding it out. Ask yourself what would have happened if China didn’t build that “bridge to nowhere.” Would those displaced construction workers have found more productive work elsewhere or would they have remained idle? The answer is almost certainly the latter. After all, the reason the Chinese government built the bridge in the first place was to increase employment in an economy that habitually struggles to consume enough of what is produces. Arthur talks about the “misallocation” of resources. But doesn’t an unemployed worker also represent a misallocation of resources? In my view, it certainly does – and one that is much more threatening to social stability than an underutilized bridge or road. If you understand the point above, you will also understand why Arthur’s comparison between Chinese banks and say, U.S. banks is misplaced. The Chinese government is the main shareholder in Chinese banks. The government cares more about social stability than anything else. There is no way it would let credit growth plunge. Moreover, as the main shareholder, the government has a strong incentive to raise the share price of Chinese banks. After all, it is difficult to have a reserve currency that rivals the U.S. dollar, as China aspires to have, if your largest banks trade like penny stocks. My guess is that the Chinese government will shut down a few small banks to “show” that it is concerned about moral hazard, but then turn around and allow the larger banks to sell their troubled loans to state-owned asset management companies on very favourable terms (similar to what happened in the early 2000s). Once investors get wind that this is about to happen, Chinese bank shares will rally like crazy. Caroline: Isn’t shuffling debt from one sector of the economy to another akin to a shell game? Wouldn’t rampant debt growth eventually cause investors to lose confidence in the currency? Peter: China has a problem with the composition of its debt, not with its total value. Debt is a problem when the borrower can’t or won’t repay the loan. Chart 15 (Peter)China Is On Course To Lose More Than 400 Million Workers I completely agree that there is too much shadow bank lending in China. There is also too much borrowing by state-owned enterprises. Ideally, the Chinese government would move all this quasi-public spending onto its own balance sheet. It would significantly raise social spending to discourage precautionary household savings. It would also adopt generous pro-natal policies — free childcare, education, government paid parental leave, and the like. The fact that the Chinese working-age population is set to shrink by 400 million by the end of the century is a huge problem (Chart 15). If the central government borrowed and spent more, state-owned companies and local governments would not have to borrow or spend as much. Banks could then increase their holding of high-quality central government bonds. Debt sustainability is only a problem if the interest rate the government faces exceeds the growth rate of the economy.6 That is manifestly not the case in China (Chart 16). And why are interest rates so low in relation to growth? Because Chinese households save so much! We simply can’t ignore the role of savings in the discussion. Chart 16 (Peter)China: High Levels Of Household Savings Have Kept Interest Rates Below The Growth Rate Of The Economy As far as the currency is concerned, if debt growth rose so much that the economy overheated and inflation soared, then yes, the yuan would plunge. But that’s not what we are talking about here. We are talking about bringing debt growth to a level that generates just enough demand to achieve something resembling full employment. No one is calling for raising debt growth beyond that point. Curbing debt growth in a demand-deficient economy, as Arthur seems to be recommending, would cause unemployment to rise. Investors would then bet that the Chinese government would try to boost net exports by engineering a currency devaluation. Capital outflows would intensify. Far from creating the conditions for a weaker yuan, fiscal/credit stimulus obviates the need for a currency depreciation. Caroline: Peter, even if we accept your argument that the counterfactual of curbing credit growth in a demand-deficient economy would be a more deflationary outcome than sustaining the government-sponsored credit growth engine, how is building bridges to nowhere a positive sum for investors? Even if this strategy maintains social stability in the interests of the CCP’s regime preservation, won’t investors eventually recoil at the retreat to socialism that Arthur outlines, reducing the appeal of holding the yuan, even if, as you both seem to agree, no apocalyptic debt crisis is at hand? In other words, isn’t two times nothing still nothing? Peter: First of all, many of these infrastructure projects may turn out to be quite useful down the road, pardon the pun. Per capita vehicle ownership in China is only one one-fifth of what it is in the United States, and one-fourth of what it is in Japan (Chart 17). A sparsely used expressway today may be a clogged one tomorrow. Chart 17 (Peter)The Automobile Ownership Rate Is Still Quite Low In China Would China really be better off if it had fewer infrastructure projects and more big screen TVs? An economy where people are always buying stuff they don’t need, with money they don’t have, to impress people they don’t like, is hardly a recipe for success. I am not sure what these references to socialism are supposed to accomplish. You want to see a real retreat to socialism? Try creating millions of unemployed workers with no jobs and no hope. All sorts of pundits decried Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal as creeping socialism. The truth is that the New Deal took the wind out of the sails of the fledgling U.S. communist movement at the time. Arthur: I believe that Peter is confusing the structural and cyclical needs for stimulus. When an economy is in a recession – banks are shrinking their balance sheets and property prices are deflating – the authorities must undertake fiscal and credit stimulus. Chart 18 (Arthur)What Will Productivity Growth Look Like If Public Officials Allocate 55%-60% Of GDP? Credit and fiscal stimulus made sense in China in early 2009 when growth plunged. However, over the past 10 years, we have witnessed credit and property market booms of gigantic proportions. Does this economy warrant continuous stimulus? What will productivity growth look like if government bureaucrats continuously allocate 55-60% of GDP each year (Chart 18)? Caroline: Arthur and Peter, you can both argue with one another about the semantic economic definition of the term ‘savings’, the implications of chronic excess production (relative to consumption), and the root drivers of credit growth in China long past the expiry of every BCA client’s investment horizon. Clients benefit from understanding your distinct perspectives only to the extent that they inform your outlook for markets. Will each of you now please outline how you see high levels of credit in China’s economy impacting the following over a cyclical (6-12 month) and structural (3-5 year) horizon: Global growth Commodity prices China-geared financial assets Peter: Regardless of what one thinks about the root causes of China’s high debt levels, it seems certain to me that the Chinese are going to pick up the pace of credit/fiscal stimulus over the next six months in response to slowing growth and trade war uncertainties. If anything, the incentive to open the credit spigots this time around is greater than in the past because the Chinese government wants to have a fast-growing economy to gain leverage over trade negotiations with the U.S. Chart 19 (Peter)Stronger Chinese Credit Growth Bodes Well For Commodity Prices Chart 20 (Peter)The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency Stronger Chinese growth will boost growth in the rest of the world. Commodity prices will rise (Chart 19). As a counter-cyclical currency, the U.S. dollar will likely peak over the next month or so and then weaken in the back half of 2019 and into 2020 (Chart 20). The combination of stronger Chinese growth, higher commodity prices, and a weaker dollar will be manna from heaven for emerging markets. If a trade truce between China and the U.S. is reached, investors should move quickly to overweight EM equities. European stocks should also benefit. Looking further out, China’s economy will slow in absolute terms. In relative terms, however, Chinese growth will remain near the top of the global rankings. China has one of the most educated workforces in the world (Chart 21). Assuming that output-per-hour reaches South Korean levels by the middle of the century, Chinese real GDP would need to expand by about 6% per year over the next decade (Chart 22). That’s a lot of growth – growth that will eventually help China outgrow its debt burden. Chart 22 (Peter)China Has More Catching Up To Do Keep in mind that credit growth of 1% when the debt-to-GDP ratio is 300% yields 3% of GDP in credit stimulus, compared with only 1% of stimulus when the debt-to-GDP ratio is 100%. That does not mean that more debt is intrinsically a good thing, but it does mean that China will eventually be able to slow debt growth even if excess savings remains a problem. Structurally, Chinese and EM equities will likely outperform their developed market peers over a 3-to-5 year horizon. The P/E ratio for EM stocks is currently 4.7 percentage points below that of developed markets, which is below its long-term average (Chart 23). While EM EPS growth has lagged DM earnings growth over the past eight years, the long-term trend still favors EM (Chart 24). EM currencies will appreciate over this period, with the RMB leading the way. Chart 23 (Peter)EM Stocks: Valuations Are Attractive Chart 24 (Peter)Earnings Growth In EM Has Outpaced That Of DM Over The Long Haul Arthur: China is facing a historic choice between two scenarios. Medium- and long-term macro outcomes will impact markets differently in each case. Table 1 shows my cyclical and structural investment recommendations for each scenario. Table 1 (Arthur)Arthur’s Recommended Investment Strategy For China-Geared Financial Assets Allowing Markets to Play A Bigger Role = Lower credit growth (deleveraging), corporate restructuring, and weaker growth (Chart 25). This is bearish for growth and financial markets in the medium term but it will make Chinese stocks and the currency structural (long-term) buys. Credit/Money Boom Persists (Socialist Put) = Secular Stagnation, Inflation and Currency Depreciation: The structural outlook is downbeat but there are mini-cycles that investors could play (Chart 26). Cyclically, China-geared financial assets still remain at risk. However, lower asset prices and more stimulus in China could put a floor under asset prices later this year. Timing these mini-cycles is critical. A buy-and-hold strategy for Chinese assets will not be appropriate in this scenario. In short, capitalism is bad but socialism is worse. I hope China will pursue the first path. Caroline: Thank you both for clarifying your perspectives. Over a multi-year horizon, markets will render the ultimate judgement on whether China’s credit boom has represented a reckless misallocation of capital, or a rational policy response to an imbalance between domestic spending and income. In the meantime, we will monitor the complexion of Chinese stimulus and evidence of its global growth multiplier effect over the coming weeks and months. These will be the key variables to watch as we determine when and at what level to upgrade BCA’s cyclical outlook for China-geared assets. Can’t wait for that debate. Footnotes 1 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses,” dated October 26, 2016 and “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall,” dated December 20, 2017. 2 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports, “Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses,” dated October 26, 2016 and “The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall,” dated December 20, 2017. 3 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB,” dated November 23, 2016. 4 For a discussion on the reasons behind China’s high savings rate, please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China’s Savings Problem,” dated January 25, 2019. 5 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, “Is Investment Constrained By Savings? Tales Of China And Brazil,” dated March 22, 2018. 6 For a detailed discussion of these issues, please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Is There Really Too Much Government Debt In The World?” dated February 22, 2019 and “Chinese Debt: A Contrarian View,” dated April 19, 2019.