Economy

Special Report

Highlights So What? India is overcoming the economic constraints to its strategic rise.  Why? India faces rising political risk once again as public opinion puts Modi’s tenure in power at risk. However, India will continue to improve its economy, as outside pressures will force it to act coherently as a nation. Stay on the sidelines for now but remain constructive over the long run. Feature “An enemy of my enemy is my friend.” This is to paraphrase Kautilya, a philosopher of the Mauryan Empire, circa 200 BC. Kautilya was the Indian Machiavelli and wrote the Arthashastra to give hard-nosed political advice to rulers who wanted to know how kingdoms and states really behave rather than how they ought to behave.1   The quotation is no less true today than it was in ancient times. It explains why risks are rising to our view that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will remain in power after the election in April or May. This reinforces our underweight position on Indian risk assets over a 12-month time horizon. The quotation also explains why China’s growing influence in South Asia will drive India to continue reforming its economy and befriend the United States, thus supporting an optimistic view of India’s economic and investment potential in the long run (Chart 1). What Is India’s Grand Strategy? India’s geopolitical predicament stems from the fact that it is a relatively rational geographic unit, but one whose political unity is extremely difficult to maintain. Almost every side of the subcontinent is demarcated by forbidding geology: the Himalayas, the Bay of Bengal, the Arabian Sea, the thick jungles of Burma. Even the northwest, the traditional route of invaders, hosts vast obstacles like the Hindu Kush and Thar Desert. Any kingdom that takes shape can soon dream of expanding its borders to a natural stopping place (Map 1). Yet formidable obstacles stand between the cradles of Indian civilization – the Indus and Ganges Rivers – and the river ways and coastal outlets of the south. The Vindhya-Satpura mountains, the Deccan plateau, and the eastern and western Ghats make it extremely difficult for a northern power to govern the various cultures of the southern cone.  This geography ensures that empires are always trying and failing to unify the subcontinent into a coherent whole. As a result, India rarely projects power beyond it. When it does, the projection is short-lived.2    Historically India has seen the rise of five major empires that dominated the subcontinent: the Mauryans, the Guptas, the Mughals, the British, and the modern Republic of India (Chart 2). The Mughals and many other invaders periodically streamed in from the northwest – most often from modern-day Afghanistan and northern Pakistan, but also from Iran and southern Pakistan. Meanwhile several European empires invaded from the sea and established coastal settlements. The British East India Company settled in Bengal and then drove west and south, cutting off the French who had settled on the southeastern shores.   The modern Republic of India, founded in 1947 after Mahatma Gandhi and his followers harassed the British into leaving, feared that the United States would follow in Britain’s footsteps, being the world’s preeminent naval power. The Indians also distrusted the U.S.’s constructive relations with China and Pakistan that aimed to “contain” the Soviet Union. The Soviets, by contrast, could apply great pressure on Pakistan’s flank in Afghanistan and thus proved useful to India. They could also sell India weapons and capital goods as founding Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru pursued a socialist path of economic development.  The collapse of the Soviet Union coincided with a balance-of-payments crisis in India in 1991 that resulted in the abandonment of the old command-style economy and the adoption of modern capitalism under the reforms of Narasimha Rao. India also supported the U.S.’s intervention in the region after September 11, 2001 as a way of maintaining pressure on Pakistan’s back door. From this brief history we can glean a few solid points about India’s grand strategy: An Indian empire must establish control along the Indus or Ganges rivers, or both; An Indian empire must assimilate or drive out foreign rulers and unify the north and south; An Indian empire must strive to become the kingmaker across the subcontinent, through influence if not conquest; An Indian empire must fend off an invasion from the sea. The result of Rao’s reforms, India’s achievement of nuclear status in 1998, and nearly three decades of economic growth have been an India that is clearly an emerging “great power.” According to our Geopolitical Power Index, India is today on the cusp of supplanting Russia as the world’s third most powerful state (Chart 3). It surpassed the U.K., its former colonial master, in 1993. Chart 3India On Cusp Of Overtaking Russia In Comprehensive National Power Like China in East Asia, India is modernizing its vast army, developing a blue-water navy, and carving out a sphere of influence in South Asia (Chart 4). Also like China, India’s ambitions of regional hegemony are frustrated by its neighbors. India’s rivalry with Pakistan is foundational and existential – it is as if China faced Taiwan with nuclear weapons. Chart 4India's Military Clout Quietly Rising Today the fragile world order that prevailed in the wake of the Cold War is under severe strain. China’s grand regional ambitions are provoking a harsh reaction from the United States, which is setting up a new “containment policy” to limit China’s technological advance. The U.S. is withdrawing military forces from the Middle East and South Asia as it becomes energy self-sufficient and looking to counter-balance China with its free hand. Meanwhile China’s influence on the subcontinent is growing – already it is a rival to India as a trade partner for India’s South Asian neighbors (Chart 5). The Sino-Indian rivalry has often been overstated – the Himalayas are more than a hindrance. But China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) means that this logic is increasingly out of date. Historically, India faced overland invasions from the northwest and maritime invasions from the northeast. The Belt and Road – of which Pakistan is probably the most comprehensive beneficiary – potentially threatens India from both directions sometime in the future. Chart 5China Encroaching In India's Sphere Of Influence Of course the U.S. and India still face tensions between each other – foremost being the impending withdrawal from Afghanistan and the U.S. “maximum pressure” policy towards Iran (Chart 6). There are also trade tensions with the Trump administration and a broader problem of inconsistent U.S. outreach to India. Nevertheless the logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” suggests that over the long run the U.S. will grow warmer with India as a regional counterweight to China, while India will wish to become less isolationist and cultivate its relationship with the U.S. as a counter both to Pakistan and China. Simply put, China is making historic advances into India’s neighborhood in South Asia and the Indian Ocean basin. Chart 6A Good Sign For U.S.-India Ties: Cooperation On Iran This logic also suggests that India will be driven to continue reforming its economic structure so as to preserve internal unity and South Asian influence. If its economy languishes, it will lose preponderance within its neighborhood and become vulnerable to foreign aggression. Bottom Line: India and the U.S. are likely to see an ever-strengthening strategic partnership. They will overcome hurdles to the relationship because of their mutual need to counter China’s regional ascendancy. India’s Economic Hang-Up India has been ineffective in establishing an international presence because it has only reluctantly and haltingly reformed its economy. Today India’s middle class – measured by the share of adults with total wealth from  $10,000 to $100,000 – is less than 10%, comparable to the Philippines and Thailand. China’s is now above 50%, according to Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report (Chart 7).    This weakness stems in great part from policy decisions, namely the dogged pursuit of socialism through the latter stages of the Cold War. The same ruling ideology that prized independence also prized self-sufficiency, doubling down on import-substitution and thus missing the chance to industrialize with the export-oriented Asian Tigers in the 1970s or China in the 1980s. The result of insufficient measures to limit the state, curtail monopolies, contain inflation, and promote trade and private enterprise has been a chronic shortfall of national savings (Chart 8), which are needed to invest in capital projects and boost productivity (Chart 9).3   Chart 8India Lacks National Savings Chart 9India's Lagging Productivity Many of these historic hang-ups have begun to change, however, first under the reforms of the 1990s-2000s and more recently under the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi since 2014. As a result, there are a number of “truisms” about India’s economy that are no longer true. For instance, while India’s government is said to be small and weak due to its federal structure – which empowers the states – the truth is that its government is not notably smaller than that of other comparable emerging markets (Chart 10). There is no doubt that it is harder for India’s leaders to drive their agenda than it is for Russia’s and China’s leaders, but this is due to the type of government rather than the size. India inherited liberal democracy and rule of law from the British and its own revolutionary leaders built on this foundation, providing relative stability despite its patchwork of languages, ethnicities, and castes. Democratic checks and balances have led to better governance. Chart 10India's Government Neither Small Nor Weak The contrast has had clear effects on demography. India has a strong demographic foundation and hence a large internal market and robust labor force growth. China, by contrast, is suffering from the distortive effects of the “One Child Policy” on its working age population. As a result India’s population will increasingly provide the global labor force as China’s workers become scarcer and rise in cost (Chart 11) and as trade conflicts between China and the West drive investors to relocate supply chains. This is also a risk to India, of course, if job creation lags. But that is where other economic improvements come in. Cumulatively, Modi’s policies have improved the trajectory of a capital formation relative to consumption, which will increase productivity, potential growth, and job creation (Chart 12). Chart 12Modi Corrected India's Investment Trajectory On openness to trade, India has largely closed the gap with China and other comparable EMs like Indonesia (Chart 13). And while India has long been highly restrictive toward foreign investment, it is much less so than China (Chart 14), and a slew of policies to ease restrictions has resulted in a surge in foreign direct investment that only recently came off the boil (Chart 15). Chart 13India Not So Closed To Trade Anymore Chart 15Modi Opened India To Foreign Investment Further, while India remains broadly under-invested and has not managed to rebalance its overall economy toward manufacturing, it has created some bright spots within the manufacturing sector, such as autos (Chart 16).4 Modi’s government has significantly improved other conditions that will encourage private investment: the ease of doing business, global competitiveness, infrastructure effectiveness, and human capital (Chart 17). Chart 16Cars A Bright Spot In Indian Manufacturing Bottom Line: India’s grand strategy has historically suffered because internal unity and regional influence could not be achieved with a floundering economy. Over recent decades, however, India’s reforms have accumulated into substantial improvements – and the Modi administration has made some key improvements. But Will Modi Survive? Our baseline case for the general election due in April or May is that Modi and his ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), along with their allies in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), will remain in power, if narrowly. However, in recent weeks the public opinion polling has taken a turn for the worse for Modi (Chart 18), raising the odds of a hung parliament or opposition victory. Modi still remains well ahead of Rahul Gandhi, the dynastic leader of the opposition Indian National Congress and its United Progressive Alliance (UPA), in terms of popularity (Chart 19). But in some polling he is barely holding onto a double-digit lead. Meanwhile Gandhi’s sudden viability as a candidate is a significant change from only a year ago. Nevertheless the range of seat projections for the lower house of parliament, the Lok Sabha, is very wide and suggests that Modi’s coalition could still win a majority, as long as the opposition’s current rally breaks (Chart 20).   A critical election dynamic points back to Kautilya’s ancient advice. Recently, two major parties in Uttar Pradesh – the key bellwether state – have joined forces to avoid stealing each other’s votes and thus help the opposition take seats. If this scheme works, then the NDA could be outmatched at the polls.5 For investors, however, the key takeaway is that Modi’s reform agenda is past its peak and policy uncertainty can only rise from here: Modi’s seats will certainly shrink from the landslide of 2014 – the BJP is likely to lose its single-party majority, weakening Modi and his party members on their reform agenda. The support of their NDA allies will have to be bought with favorable policy tradeoffs (Chart 21); The high tide of Modi’s movement has already come and gone in the state governments, where the BJP recently lost Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh, among others (Map 2). It is possible to lose these states and still win the general election, as largely occurred in 2004 and 2009, but state governments are a decisive factor in implementing federal policies and Modi’s influence is now clearly on the wane; Estimates of the NDA’s future gains in the Rajya Sabha, the upper house, suggest that even if Modi stays in power, he will never obtain a majority there (Diagram 1) – meaning that lower house bills other than supply bills will be subject to a veto; Diagram 1Modi Unlikely To Gain Majority In Upper House … Ever Modi is unlikely to have enough seats in the two houses to have the option of driving key legislation through a joint session of parliament. This is a rare occurrence but it would be a valuable ace up the sleeve. Modi’s reform movement has already seen high tide. He will struggle to institute reforms if he is weakened in parliament and the states. This is even truer if a hung parliament occurs, or if the UPA ekes out a slim majority. In essence, the next Indian government will likely be hobbled if Modi’s polling and performance do not recover from here – and even then he will not reclaim the political capital of his first term in office. It would be a mistake, however, to believe that reforms cannot get done without Modi. Prime Minister Rao came from the Congress Party, after all. Moreover, it is possible for India to undertake major reforms with a weak coalition or minority government. This was the backdrop of the critical pro-market reforms of the 1990s. But this implies that there would need to be a market riot to induce additional reform momentum, as was the case at that time, and India is not at a comparable crisis point today.  Bottom Line: Modi’s reform momentum is over. The next government will be weaker and less able to drive major pro-productivity reforms. But eventually reform momentum will recover, driven by the geopolitical forces outlined above. Does Modi Matter? What is the basis for Modi’s loss of momentum? The gist of the problem is that Modi’s reforms were structural and therefore entailed substantial economic and social costs. As a result, Modi has lost support. The good news is that Modi’s achievements thus far will continue to yield benefits for India. To highlight a few: The creation of a single market by means of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a significant reform that will ensure a strong legacy for Modi in the long run. However, the new tax obviously does not get voters enthused. The new Bankruptcy Law has helped to cleanse economic inefficiencies. But it has resulted in layoffs and financial deleveraging, weighing on credit growth and the broader economy. Demonetization, the sudden replacement of key denominations of money in circulation, has helped to formalize gray and black parts of the economy. But it was executed in a hugely disruptive manner and various scandals have arisen in the wake of it, hurting the ruling party. Controlling the fiscal deficit has been a federal government objective that has had some success. However, Modi and the state governments are more recently boosting spending ahead of the election to avoid what otherwise would be a negative fiscal thrust this year. This is a factor that should play to Modi’s advantage, although it has not so far. It also highlights the difficulty of fiscal consolidation over the long run (Chart 22). Chart 22Election Cycle Fiscal Easing Is The Norm More concerning, both for Modi and for India, is the unemployment rate. Even the official unemployment rate is rising despite the fast clip of economic growth and the pro-growth reforms (Chart 23). A leaked government statistical report suggests that unemployment has indeed gone up and labor participation has fallen more than the government is willing to admit. Chart 23Even Official Unemployment Is Rising The jury is still out on the extent of the current growth slowdown. Some estimates suggest that the output gap is closed, others say slightly negative. While there has been a soft patch in wage growth – particularly among the important 40% of the population that still works on the farm (Chart 24) – the latest data show improvement. Unit labor costs are ebullient and suggest that employee compensation is rising (Chart 25). The reality could make all the difference for Modi’s coalition at the ballot box. Chart 24Rural Wages Improving... But Is It Enough? Chart 25Will Workers Reward Modi? More importantly, if India cannot keep unemployment down amidst significant labor force growth, then Modi will only become the near-term casualty of a more profound problematic trend. Another long-term concern is Modi’s political pressure on the Reserve Bank of India. This has resulted in the replacement of two orthodox and credible central bankers under Modi’s watch. The result is a noticeably dovish policy shift, as confirmed by the cut of the repo rate to 6.25% (from 6.5%) on February 7. This cut and later cuts may be supported by global growth fears but will raise suspicions of political influence. Any damage to the central bank’s credibility will have lasting negative effects since the election result cannot reverse it (at least not fully). It will feed inflation expectations marginally and insofar as it does it will worsen the conditions for sustainable private sector capital investment. However, inflation is currently low and other reforms – such as the RBI’s adoption of inflation-targeting and ample domestic grain production – will help to offset any new monetary policy risk. Bottom Line: Modi’s reform legacy is mostly positive for India structurally, although the erosion of central bank independence is a critical exception. Investment Implications In the short run, cooperation among Modi’s political opponents poses a risk of removing him from power and short-circuiting his reform agenda. In the long run, cooperation between China and India’s South Asian neighbors poses a risk of undermining India’s grand strategy, driving it into the arms of the United States. In both cases Kautilya’s ancient wisdom is on display.   In the first case, a Modi defeat would be negative for India’s policy continuity, currency, and risk assets. The upside to our baseline view of a Modi victory is not high, however, unless Modi and the BJP surprise to the upside and win a substantial majority. This is unlikely unless the polling changes. In the second case, the geopolitical environment will pressure India to continue reforming and improving its economy so as to maintain internal stability, influence its neighbors, and ward off unwanted foreign influence. With China’s Belt and Road putting pressure on India’s strategic interests, leaders in New Delhi will have a continual motivation to focus on improving the economy as well as seeking alliances. This is the only way to ensure India retains its influence within its neighborhood.  For now, investors should steer clear of the Indian currency and risk assets in absolute terms because Modi’s reforms are priced in; election cycle dynamics are undermining monetary and fiscal policy; and the risk of sharp policy discontinuity is rising. On a relative basis, India may also underperform EM in the short term while oil prices rise: oil prices and India’s equity performance relative to EM are negatively correlated.6 Beyond that, however, India is a structural opportunity. Capital investment in China, which has powered much of the structural bull market in commodities and EM assets over the past two decades, is declining, while India’s is improving (Chart 26). Capex is the key to improving India’s productivity and keeping inflation in check even as the demographic dividend pushes up growth rates. Although many EM economies will suffer from a slowdown in Chinese capex, India is not overly exposed to China or global trade, and it is further along than other EMs in its process of bank deleveraging, which opens the prospect of a new credit cycle that will improve its investment outlook (Chart 27).    Chart 26China Capex Down, India Capex Up Chart 27Deleveraging Enables A New Credit Cycle   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Kajari Kamal, “Kautilya’s Arthashastra: Indian Strategic Culture and Grand Strategic Preferences,” Journal of Defence Studies 12:3 (2018), pp. 27-54, available at idsa.in 2      The medieval Chola Kingdom sailed across the Bay of Bengal and as far as Malacca in 1025. Please see  Manjeet Singh Pardesi, “Deducing India’s Grand Strategy of Regional Hegemony from Historical and Conceptual Perspectives,” Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies, Working Paper 76 (April 2005), available at www.rsis.edu. For an in-depth study of India’s strategic history, see Graham P. Chapman, The Geopolitics of South Asia: From Early Empires to the Nuclear Age (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009). 3      Please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy Special Report, “Capital Rationing Is Deterring Growth,” February 28, 2012, and “India’s Inflation: How Serious Is The Problem?” January 26, 2010, available at www.bcaresearch.com. 4      Please see BCA Commodity and Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “India’s Commodity Demand, With Or Without Modi,” February 7, 2019, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 5      Please see Milan Vaishnav and Jamie Hintson, “As Uttar Pradesh Goes, So Goes India,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, February 5, 2019, available at carnegieendowment.org. 6      Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: Sustained Decoupling, Or Domino Effect?”June 14, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com.  

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

Highlights Treasury Yields & Data Surprises: Our model suggests that positive data surprises are more likely than negative ones during the next couple of months, meaning that the 10-year Treasury yield is biased higher. Positioning data show no long or short consensus among bond investors, but we think below-benchmark portfolio duration will pay off over both short term (0-3 months) and medium term (6-12) investment horizons. Monetary Policy: The Fed cited tighter financial conditions and slower global growth as the two main reasons for pausing the rate hike cycle. Both of those risks appear poised to ease in the coming months. Expect rate hikes to resume in the second half of 2019. Inflation: Year-over-year core inflation appears tame at the moment, but that will change during the next few months as base effects shift from a headwind to a tailwind. Wage acceleration and core services (excluding shelter and medical care) inflation will be the main drivers. Feature It didn’t take very long. Just two days in fact. Two days after Chairman Powell made the Fed’s pause official we learned that the economy added 304k jobs in January (vs. 165k expected) and that the ISM Manufacturing PMI rebounded to a very healthy 56.6 (vs. 54.0 expected). In short, just as the Fed capitulated on rate hikes, the economic data made that decision look offside. Granted, the bond market does not yet see it this way. The economic data surprise index has moved firmly into positive territory, but Treasury yields have so far refused to follow suit, bucking the typical correlation (Chart 1). Still, we can’t help but feel that consensus economic expectations remain overly downbeat, and that this could set the bond market up for a nasty near-term shock. Chart 1Market Set Up For A Surprise Bond Market At Risk In prior research, we documented the strong correlation between economic data surprises and changes in the 10-year Treasury yield.1 We found that if the U.S. economic surprise index ends a given month in positive territory, there is a good chance that the 10-year Treasury yield increased during that month, and vice-versa (Chart 2A). This relationship also holds reasonably well for 3-month and 6-month investment horizons (Charts 2B & 2C). This is a good thing to know, but it is only useful if we can also predict future economic data surprises. That is certainly no easy task. However, we can exploit what we know about market behavior to give ourselves a slight advantage. For instance, we know that investors revise down their economic expectations after a long string of data disappointments, making it easier for future data to surprise on the upside. Similarly, a long string of positive data surprises usually leads to unrealistically strong expectations, setting the market up for a letdown. This dynamic causes the economic surprise index to be a mean reverting series, and we find that we can explain 55% of its historical variation using the following 3-factor auto regressive model: ESIt+1 = 0.87*(ESIt) – 0.25*(ESIt-1) – 0.16*(ESIt-2), where ESIt is the surprise index’s value in the current month Notice that next month’s index value is a positive function of the current month’s value, but a negative function of the values from each of the prior two months. At present, our model predicts that the surprise index will reach 18 one month from now (see the ‘X’ in Chart 1). As shown in Table 1, a reading of 18 from the surprise index coincides with a higher 10-year Treasury yield 53% of the time. Table 1End-Of-Period Surprise Index Levels And Whether The 10-Year Yield Rose Or Fell During That Period (2003 – Present) Bond Market Positioning Investor positioning and data surprises are closely related concepts. When investor economic expectations are downbeat, it is highly likely that bond market participants also carry a lot of duration risk. A large “net long” duration exposure can make the ensuing bond sell-off worse when the data inevitably surprise to the upside. At present, the JPMorgan Duration Survey shows that investors are neither severely long nor short duration risk (Chart 3). Speculators in 10-year Treasury futures are slightly net short (Chart 3, panel 2), and sentiment surveys report that investors are somewhat bearish on bonds (Chart 3, bottom panel). In general, positioning still has a slightly bearish tinge, but is much closer to neutral than it was a few months ago, prior to the sharp plunge in yields. Chart 3Positioning Close To Neutral Bottom Line: Our model suggests that positive data surprises are more likely than negative ones during the next couple of months, meaning that the 10-year Treasury yield is biased higher. Extreme “net long” bond market positioning would exacerbate any related near-term sell-off, but surveys indicate that positioning is close to neutral. This leads us to expect higher yields in the next few months, but no major market dislocation. The Fed’s Dovish Pivot We have not published a regular Weekly Report since the FOMC signaled a pause in its rate hike cycle on January 30. Since then, many have speculated that the Fed’s rate hike cycle is already over and the market has eagerly taken that message on board. As of last Friday’s close, the overnight index swap curve was priced for 11 bps of rate cuts during the next 12 months and 23 bps of rate cuts during the next 24 months. Data Dependence  Unfortunately for bond bulls, the case for rate cuts is simply not supported by the economic data. In fact, a look at the reasons used to justify the Fed’s dovish pivot reveals that the pause in rate hikes will almost certainly prove temporary. In his post-meeting press conference, Chairman Powell attributed the Fed’s dovish turn to the following factors: Tighter financial conditions Slower global growth Government-related risks (i.e. Brexit, U.S./China trade discussions, and the U.S. government shutdown) Financial Conditions Financial conditions tightened sharply near the end of last year, as can been seen by looking at the three components of our Fed Monitor (Chart 4). Our Fed Monitor is a composite indicator designed to predict whether rate hikes or rate cuts are more likely going forward. It includes 44 variables related to either economic growth, inflation or financial conditions. Chart 4Financial Conditions Have Already Eased The most important thing to note from Chart 4 is that all of the Monitor’s recent decline was driven by tighter financial conditions. The economic growth and inflation components of the Monitor remain firmly in “tight money required” territory. This is important because financial conditions can ease as quickly as they can tighten. Ironically, now that the Fed has telegraphed a more supportive policy stance, a rally in risk assets during the next few months is much more likely. As that transpires it will drive our Monitor deeper into “tight money required” territory, and rate hikes will be back on the table. Global Growth The second factor that Powell mentioned was the slowdown in global growth, driven principally by weakness in China and the Eurozone (Chart 5). Interestingly, at the European Central Bank’s (ECB) latest press conference, ECB President Mario Draghi also blamed “softer external demand” for the weakness in European economic data. Chart 5Global Growth Slowdown Driven By China The logical conclusion is that China has been the catalyst for the global slowdown and that the Eurozone economy has come under pressure because of that region’s greater reliance on China as a source of demand. The fact that the Eurozone is more sensitive to Chinese growth than the U.S. is a topic that our Foreign Exchange Strategy service has covered in great detail.2 The Fed obviously cares more about the domestic economy than overall global growth, but weakness abroad has a habit of migrating stateside via a stronger dollar.3 It would certainly help the case for rate hikes if Chinese (and hence global) growth at least stabilized. On that front, some timely global growth indicators are sending positive signals. Our China Investment Strategy team’s Market-Based China Growth Indicator has rebounded strongly (Chart 6), global industrial mining stock prices have jumped (Chart 6, bottom panel), and the CRB Raw Industrials index may finally be turning a corner (Chart 6, panel 2).4 Chart 6Global Growth Indicators Sending A Positive Signal... But for any rebound in those financial market indicators to prove lasting, we will ultimately need to see confirming evidence in the Chinese economic data. Specifically, the money and credit growth data that tend to lead Chinese economic activity (Chart 7). Our China Investment Strategy team’s Li Keqiang Leading Indicator – a composite of six money and credit growth indicators – has flattened off at a low level. Looking at its components individually, those that capture the recent RMB depreciation have pressured the index higher (Chart 7, panel 2), while those that measure broad credit growth remain depressed (Chart 7, bottom panel). Our Global Investment Strategy team has argued that Chinese policymakers’ desire to suppress credit growth will soon abate, since credit growth has already fallen close to the rate of nominal GDP growth.5 Chart 7...But A Lot Depends On China Bottom Line: It seems increasingly likely that financial conditions will ease and that the global growth slowdown will moderate in the coming months. Geopolitical tail risks remain, but they are unlikely to impact the Fed’s reaction function if financial conditions are easing and global growth is on solid footing. The end result is that the Fed will resume rate hikes in the second half of this year, and Treasury yields will move higher as a result. Investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration. The End Of QT At January’s press conference, Chairman Powell was also quizzed repeatedly about the Fed’s balance sheet policy. This is not surprising given that the Fed had just announced that it will operate monetary policy using its current “floor system” indefinitely. This means that it will continue to supply the banking system with more reserves than it demands, and will control interest rates by paying interest on excess reserves and through the overnight reverse repo facility. We explained in detail the differences between a floor system and the pre-crisis “corridor system” in a 2014 Special Report.6 Practically, the continuation of the floor system means that the Fed’s balance sheet run-off will end earlier than if it were to return to a corridor system. The latter requires a paucity of bank reserves while the former requires an abundance. Unfortunately, as we discussed in a recent report, and as Chairman Powell explained at his press conference, nobody knows exactly how much more reserve drainage can take place before the Fed’s floor system ceases to function and the Fed loses control of interest rates.7 From Powell’s press conference: [I]n managing the federal funds rate, we’d rather have it set by our administered rates. So that implies you’d want [outstanding bank reserves] to be a bit above what that equilibrium demand for reserves is. And again, there’s no cookbook here, there’s no playbook. No one really knows. The only way you can figure it out is by surveying people and market intelligence and then, ultimately, by approaching that point quite carefully. In other words, the Fed will continue to shrink its balance sheet – draining reserves from the banking system in the process – until it decides that any further reserve drain will cause the funds rate to break through the upper-end of its target band. There is already some evidence of pressure on this front. The effective federal funds rate has been inching toward the upper-end of its target range in recent months, and the 99th percentile of the daily effective fed funds rate has actually been above the target range. This means that, for the past couple months, a few federal funds transactions every day have occurred outside the Fed’s target range (Chart 8). If this situation persists, then it will hasten the Fed’s decision to cease the run-off of its balance sheet. Chart 8Fed Funds Rate Inching Higher Our sense is that the Fed will cease the unwinding of its balance sheet at some point this year or early next year. However, we don’t view that decision as very important from an investment standpoint. It has been the longstanding view of this publication that any possible impact on bond yields from the Fed’s balance sheet policy pales in comparison to the impact from its interest rate policy. We will elaborate on this view in forthcoming research alongside our Global Fixed Income and U.S. Investment Strategy services. For today, we will simply remind readers of our golden rule of bond investing: If Fed rate hikes exceed what is currently priced into the market, then long duration positions will underperform over that time horizon, and vice-versa.8 All other factors are subordinate to that golden rule. Will Tame Inflation Prevent Further Rate Hikes? At January’s press conference, Chairman Powell noted that one reason why the Fed felt comfortable pausing its rate hike cycle was that inflation appeared relatively tame. Once again, the Chairman accurately described the fact that year-over-year core inflation has moderated during the past few months. Year-over-year core CPI inflation is down to 2.21% as of December, from a peak of 2.33% last July. Data on the Fed’s preferred PCE measure has been delayed due to the government shutdown, with a December update expected on March 1. However, this is another situation where the evidence could look a lot different in a few months. The last three monthly core CPI prints have come in at right around 0.2% month-over-month. If that pace is maintained going forward, then year-over-year core CPI will fall a bit further in the near-term, but will then start rising at a rapid pace (Chart 9). By the middle of this year the discussion surrounding inflation could look a lot different. Chart 9Expect Inflation To Pick-Up By The Middle Of The Year Of course, the simple extrapolation in Chart 9 assumes that core inflation will continue to print at a 0.2% monthly rate. Given the low unemployment rate, accelerating wage growth and persistent elevated monthly hiring numbers, we see no reason why this shouldn’t be the case. However, many clients we talk to have strong doubts that core inflation will move higher. This sentiment is reflected in long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates that remain well below “well anchored” levels. One of the most common questions we receive from clients is: Where will inflation come from? A good starting point to answer that question is to split core CPI into its main components (Chart 10): Chart 10The Components Of Core CPI Shelter (42% of core) Goods (25% of core) Medical Care (8% of core) Services excluding shelter and medical care (25% of core) After making this decomposition we can attempt to identify unique drivers for each component. For shelter inflation, the rental vacancy rate and home price appreciation are the most important variables. Home prices have decelerated in recent months but the rental vacancy rate remains near historically low levels. Taken together, our shelter CPI model shows that shelter inflation should stay near its current level for the next six months (Chart 10, top panel). Core goods inflation tends to track non-oil import prices with a relatively long lag (Chart 10, panel 2). The current message from import prices is that core goods inflation should level off in the coming months, but should not reverse its recent uptrend. The best determinant of trends in core services (excluding shelter and medical care) inflation is wage growth (Chart 10, panel 3). Here we see that services inflation has responded strongly to accelerating wage growth in recent months and is now running at a healthy 2.6% year-over-year pace. With the unemployment rate at 4%, further wage acceleration is probable. Bottom Line: Year-over-year core inflation appears tame at the moment, but that will change during the next few months as base effects shift from a headwind to a tailwind. Wage acceleration and core services (excluding shelter and medical care) inflation will be the main drivers.   Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Much Higher For Yields?”, dated October 31, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, “The Dollar And Risk Assets Are Beholden To China’s Stimulus”, dated August 3, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “An Oasis Of Prosperity?”, dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 The Market-Based China Growth Indicator is a composite measure of financial market variables that are highly levered to the Chinese economy. For further details please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “Trade Is Not China’s Only Problem”, dated November 21, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “China’s Savings Problem”, dated January 25, 2019, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “Cleaning Up After The 100-Year Flood”, dated June 10, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The Fed In 2019”, dated December 18, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Golden Rule Of Bond Investing”, dated July 24, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification