Emerging Markets

Highlights So What? Economic stimulus will encourage key nations to pursue their self-interest – keeping geopolitical risk high. Why? The U.S. is still experiencing extraordinary strategic tensions with China and Iran … simultaneously. The Trump-Xi summit at the G20 is unlikely to change the fact that the United States is threatening China with total tariffs and a technology embargo. The U.S. conflict with Iran will be hard to keep under wraps. Expect more fireworks and oil volatility, with a large risk of hostilities as long as the U.S. maintains stringent oil sanctions. All of our GeoRisk indicators are falling except for those of Germany, Turkey and Brazil. This suggests the market is too complacent. Maintain tactical safe-haven positioning. Feature “That’s some catch, that Catch-22,” he observed. “It’s the best there is,” Doc Daneeka agreed. -Joseph Heller, Catch-22 (1961)   One would have to be crazy to go to war. Yet a nation has no interest in filling its military’s ranks with lunatics. This is the original “Catch-22,” a conundrum in which the only way to do what is individually rational (avoid war) is to insist on what is collectively irrational (abandon your country). Or the only way to defend your country is to sacrifice yourself. This is the paradox that U.S. President Donald Trump faces having doubled down on his aggressive foreign policy this year: if he backs away from trade war to remove an economic headwind that could hurt his reelection chances, he sacrifices the immense leverage he has built up on behalf of the United States in its strategic rivalry with China. “Surrender” would be a cogent criticism of him on the campaign trail: a weak deal will cast him as a pluto-populist, rather than a real populist – one who pandered to China to give a sop to Wall Street and the farm lobby just like previous presidents, yet left America vulnerable for the long run. Similarly, if President Trump stops enforcing sanctions against Iranian oil exports to reduce the threat of a conflict-induced oil price shock that disrupts his economy, then he reduces the United States’s ability to contain Iran’s nuclear and strategic advances in the wake of the 2015 nuclear deal that he canceled. The low appetite for American involvement in the region will be on full display for the world to see. Iran will have stared down the Great Satan – and won. In both cases, Trump can back down. Or he can try to change the subject. But with weak polling and yet a strong economy, the point is to direct voters’ attention to foreign policy. He could lose touch with his political base at the very moment that the Democrats reconnect with their own. This is not a good recipe for reelection. More important – for investors – why would he admit defeat just as the Federal Reserve is shifting to countenance the interest rate cuts that he insists are necessary to increase his economic ability to drive a hard bargain with China? Why would he throw in the towel as the stock market soars? And if Trump concludes a China deal, and the market rises higher, will he not be emboldened to put more economic pressure on Mexico over border security … or even on Europe over trade? The paradox facing investors is that the shift toward more accommodative monetary policy (and in some cases fiscal policy) extends the business cycle and encourages political leaders to pursue their interests more intently. China is less likely to cave to Trump’s demands as it stimulates. The EU does not need to fear a U.K. crash Brexit if its economy rebounds. This increases rather than decreases the odds of geopolitical risks materializing as negative catalysts for the market. Similarly, if geopolitical risk falls then the need for stimulus falls and the market will be disappointed. The result is still more volatility – at least in the near term. The G20 And 2020 As we go to press the Democratic Party’s primary election debates are underway. The progressive wave on display highlights the overarching takeaway of the debates: the U.S. election is now an active political (and geopolitical) risk to the equity market. A truly positive surprise at the G20 would be a joint statement by Trump and Xi plus some tariff rollback. Whenever Trump’s odds of losing rise, the U.S. domestic economy faces higher odds of extreme policy discontinuity and uncertainty come 2021, with the potential for a populist-progressive agenda – a negative for financials, energy, and probably health care and tech. Chart 1 Yet whenever Trump’s odds of winning rise, the world faces higher odds of an unconstrained Trump second term focusing on foreign and trade policy – a potentially extreme increase in global policy uncertainty – without the fiscal and deregulatory positives of his first term. We still view Trump as the favored candidate in this race (at 55% chance of reelection), given that U.S. underlying domestic demand is holding up and the labor market has not been confirmed to be crumbling beneath the consumer’s feet. Still Chart 1 highlights that Trump’s shift to more aggressive foreign and trade policy this spring has not won him any additional support – his approval rating has been flat since then. And his polling is weak enough in general that we do not assign him as high of odds of reelection as would normally be afforded to a sitting president on the back of a resilient economy. This raises the question of whether the G20 will mark a turning point. Will Trump attempt to deescalate his foreign conflicts? Yes, and this is a tactical opportunity. But we see no final resolution at hand. With China, Trump’s only reason to sign a weak deal would be to stem a stock market collapse. With Iran, Trump is no longer in the driver’s seat but could be forced to react to Iranian provocations. Bottom Line: Trump’s polling has not improved – highlighting the election risk – but weak polling amid a growing economy and monetary easing is not a recipe for capitulating to foreign powers. The Trump-Xi Summit On China the consensus on the G20 has shifted toward expecting an extension of talks and another temporary tariff truce. If a new timetable is agreed, it may be a short-term boon for equities. But we will view it as unconvincing unless it is accompanied with a substantial softening on Huawei or a Trump-Xi joint statement outlining an agreement in principle along with some commitment of U.S. tariff rollback. Otherwise the structural dynamic is the same: Trump is coercing China with economic warfare amid a secular increase in U.S.-China animosity that is a headwind for trade and investment. Table 1 shows that throughout the modern history of U.S.-China presidential-level summits, the Great Recession marked a turning point: since then, bilateral relations have almost always deteriorated in the months after a summit, even if the optics around the summit were positive. Table 1U.S.-China Leaders Summits: A Chronology The G20 Catch-22 ... GeoRisk Indicators Update: June 28, 2019 The G20 Catch-22 ... GeoRisk Indicators Update: June 28, 2019 The last summit in Buenos Aires was no exception, given that the positive aura was ultimately followed by a tariff hike and technology-company blacklistings. Of course, the market rallied for five months in between. Why should this time be the same? First, the structural factors undermining Sino-American trust are worse, not better, with Trump’s latest threats to tech companies. Second, Trump will ultimately resent any decision to extend the negotiations. China’s economy is rebounding, which in the coming months will deprive Trump of much of the leverage he had in H2 2018 and H1 2019. He will be in a weaker position if they convene in three months to try to finalize a deal. Tariff rollback will be more difficult in that context given that China will be in better shape and that tariffs serve as the guarantee that any structural concessions will be implemented. Bottom Line: Our broader view regarding the “end game” of the talks – on the 2020 election horizon – remains that China has no reason to implement structural changes speedily for the United States until Trump can prove his resilience through reelection. Yet President Trump will suffer on the campaign trail if he accepts a deal that lacks structural concessions. Hence we expect further escalation from where we are today, knowing full well that the G20 could produce a temporary period of improvement just as occurred on December 1, 2018. The Iran Showdown Is Far From Over Disapproval of Trump’s handling of China and Iran is lower than his disapproval rating on trade policy and foreign policy overall, suggesting that despite the lack of a benefit to his polling, he does still have leeway to pursue his aggressive policies to a point. A breakdown of these opinions according to key voting blocs – a proxy for Trump’s ability to generate support in Midwestern swing states – illustrates that his political base is approving on the whole (Chart 2). Chart 2 Yet the conflict with Iran threatens Trump with a hard constraint – an oil price shock – that is fundamentally a threat to his reelection. Hence his decision, as we expected, to back away from the brink of war last week (he supposedly canceled air strikes on radar and missile installations at the last minute on June 21). He appears to be trying to control the damage that his policy has already done to the 2015 U.S.-Iran equilibrium. Trump has insisted he does not want war, has ruled out large deployments of boots on the ground, and has suggested twice this week that his only focus in trying to get Iran back into negotiations is nuclear weapons. This implies a watering down of negotiation demands to downplay Iran’s militant proxies in the region – it is a retreat from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s more sweeping 12 demands on Iran and a sign of Trump’s unwillingness to get embroiled in a regional conflict with a highly likely adverse economic blowback. The Iran confrontation is not over yet – policy-induced oil price volatility will continue. This retreat lacks substance if Trump does not at least secretly relax enforcement of the oil sanctions. Trump’s latest sanctions and reported cyberattacks are a sideshow in the context of an attempted oil embargo that could destabilize Iran’s entire economy (Charts 3 and 4). Similarly, Iran’s downing of a U.S. drone pales in comparison to the tanker attacks in Hormuz that threatened global oil shipments. What matters to investors is the oil: whether Iran is given breathing space or whether it is forced to escalate the conflict to try to win that breathing space. Chart 3 Chart 4Iran’s Rial Depreciated Sharply Iran's Rial Depreciated Sharply Iran's Rial Depreciated Sharply The latest data suggest that Iran’s exports have fallen to 300,000 barrels per day, a roughly 90% drop from 2018, when Trump walked away from the Iran deal. If this remains the case in the wake of the brinkmanship last week then it is clear that Iran is backed into a corner and could continue to snarl and snap at the U.S. and its regional allies, though it may pause after the tanker attacks. Chart 5More Oil Volatility To Come More Oil Volatility To Come More Oil Volatility To Come Tehran also has an incentive to dial up its nuclear program and activate its regional militant proxies in order to build up leverage for any future negotiation. It can continue to refuse entering into negotiations with Trump in order to embarrass him – and it can wait until Trump’s approach is validated by reelection before changing this stance. After all, judging by the first Democratic primary debate, biding time is the best strategy – the Democratic candidates want to restore the 2015 deal and a new Democratic administration would have to plead with Iran, even to get terms less demanding than those in 2015. Other players can also trigger an escalation even if Presidents Trump and Rouhani decide to take a breather in their conflict (which they have not clearly decided to do). The Houthi rebels based in Yemen have launched another missile at Abha airport in Saudi Arabia since Trump’s near-attack on Iran, an action that is provocative, easily replicable, and not necessarily directly under Tehran’s control. Meanwhile OPEC is still dragging its feet on oil production to compensate for the Iranian losses, implying that the cartel will react to price rises rather than preempt them. The Saudis could use production or other means to stoke conflict. Bottom Line: Given our view on the trade war, which dampens global oil demand, we expect still more policy-induced volatility (Chart 5). We do not see oil as a one-way bet … at least not until China’s shift to greater stimulus becomes unmistakable.   North Korea: The Hiccup Is Over Chart 6China Ostensibly Enforces North Korean Sanctions China Ostensibly Enforces North Korean Sanctions China Ostensibly Enforces North Korean Sanctions The single clearest reason to expect progress between the U.S. and China at the G20 is the fact that North Korea is getting back onto the diplomatic track. North Korea has consistently been shown to be part of the Trump-Xi negotiations, unlike Taiwan, the South China Sea, Xinjiang, and other points of disagreement. General Secretary Xi Jinping took his first trip to the North on June 20 – the first for a Chinese leader since 2005 – and emphasized the need for historic change, denuclearization, and economic development. Xi is pushing Kim to open up and reform the economy in exchange for a lasting peace process – an approach that is consistent with China’s past policy but also potentially complementary with Trump’s offer of industrialization in exchange for denuclearization. President Trump and Kim Jong Un have exchanged “beautiful” letters this month and re-entered into backchannel discussions. Trump’s visit to South Korea after the G20 will enable him and President Moon Jae-In to coordinate for a possible third summit between Trump and Kim. Progress on North Korea fits our view that the failed summit in Hanoi was merely a setback and that the diplomatic track is robust. Trump’s display of a credible military threat along with Chinese sanctions enforcement (Chart 6) has set in motion a significant process on the peninsula that we largely expect to succeed and go farther than the consensus expects. It is a long-term positive for the Korean peninsula’s economy. It is also a positive factor in the U.S.-China engagement based on China’s interest in ultimately avoiding war and removing U.S. troops from the peninsula. From an investment point of view, an end to a brief hiatus in U.S.-North Korean diplomacy is a very poor substitute for concrete signs of U.S.-China progress on the tech front or opening market access. There has been nothing substantial on these key issues since Trump hiked the tariff rate in May. As a result, it is perfectly possible for the G20 to be a “success” on North Korea but, like the Buenos Aires summit on December 1, for markets to sell the news (Chart 7). Chart 7The Last Trade Truce Didn't Stop The Selloff The Last Trade Truce Didn't Stop The Selloff The Last Trade Truce Didn't Stop The Selloff Chart 8China Needs A Final Deal To Solve This Problem China Needs A Final Deal To Solve This Problem China Needs A Final Deal To Solve This Problem Bottom Line: North Korea is not a basis in itself for tariff rollback, but only as part of a much more extensive U.S.-China agreement. And a final agreement is needed to improve China’s key trade indicators on a lasting basis, such as new export orders and manufacturing employment, which are suffering amid the trade war. We expect economic policy uncertainty to remain elevated given our pessimistic view of U.S.-China trade relations (Chart 8). What About Japan, The G20 Host? Chart 9 Japan faces underrated domestic political risk as Prime Minister Abe Shinzo approaches a critical period in his long premiership, after which he will almost certainly be rendered a “lame duck,” likely by the time of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The question is when will this process begin and what will the market impact be? If Abe loses his supermajority in the July House of Councillors election, then it could begin as early as next month. This is a real risk – because a two-thirds majority is always a tall order – but it is not extreme. Abe’s polling is historically remarkable (Chart 9). The Liberal Democratic Party and its coalition partner Komeito are also holding strong and remain miles away from competing parties (Chart 10). The economy is also holding up relatively well – real wages and incomes have improved under Abe’s watch (Chart 11). However, the recent global manufacturing slowdown and this year’s impending hike to the consumption tax in October from 8% to 10% are killing consumer confidence. Chart 10Japan's Ruling Coalition Is Strong Japan's Ruling Coalition Is Strong Japan's Ruling Coalition Is Strong The collapse in consumer confidence is a contrary indicator to the political opinion polling. The mixed picture suggests that after the election Abe could still backtrack on the tax hike, although it would require driving through surprise legislation. He can pull this off in light of global trade tensions and his main objective of passing a popular referendum to revise the constitution and remilitarize the country. Chart 11Japanese Wages Up, But Consumer Confidence Diving Japanese Wages Up, But Consumer Confidence Diving Japanese Wages Up, But Consumer Confidence Diving We would not be surprised if Japan secured a trade deal with the U.S. prior to China. Because Abe and the United States need to enhance their alliance, we continue to downplay the risk of a U.S.-Japan trade war. Bloomberg recently reported that President Trump was threatening to downgrade the U.S.-Japan alliance, with a particular grievance over the ever-controversial issue of the relocation of troops on Okinawa. We view this as a transparent Trumpian negotiating tactic that has no applicability – indeed, American military and diplomatic officials quickly rejected the report. We do see a non-trivial risk that Trump’s rhetoric or actions will hurt Japanese equities at some point this year, either as Trump approaches his desired August deadline for a Japan trade deal or if negotiations drag on until closer to his decision about Section 232 tariffs on auto imports on November 14. But our base case is that there will be either no punitive measures or only a short time span before Abe succeeds in negotiating them away. We would not be surprised if the Japanese secured a deal prior to any China deal as a way for the Trump administration to try to pressure China and prove that it can get deals done. This can be done because it could be a thinly modified bilateral renegotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which had the U.S. and Japan at its center. Bottom Line: Given the combination of the upper house election, the tax hike and its possible consequences, a looming constitutional referendum which poses risks to Abe, and the ongoing external threat of trade war and China tensions, we continue to see risk-off sentiment driving Japanese and global investors to hold then yen. We maintain our long JPY/USD recommendation. The risk to this view is that Bank of Japan chief Haruhiko Kuroda follows other central banks and makes a surprisingly dovish move, but this is not warranted at the moment and is not the base case of our Foreign Exchange Strategy. GeoRisk Indicators Update: June 28, 2019 Our GeoRisk indicators are sending a highly complacent message given the above views on China and Iran. All of our risk measures, other than our German, Turkish, and Brazilian indicators, are signaling a decrease geopolitical tensions. Investors should nonetheless remain cautious: Our German indicator, which has proven to be a good measure of U.S.-EU trade tensions, has increased over the first half of June (Chart 12). We expect Germany to continue to be subject to risk because of Trump’s desire to pivot to European trade negotiations in the wake of any China deal. The auto tariff decision was pushed off until November. We assign a 45% subjective probability to auto tariffs on the EU if Trump seals a final China deal. The reason it is not our base case is because of a lack of congressional, corporate, or public support for a trade war with Europe as opposed to China or Mexico, which touch on larger issues of national interest (security, immigration). There is perhaps a 10% probability that Trump could impose car tariffs prior to securing a China deal. Chart 12U.S.-EU Trade Tensions Hit Germany U.S.-EU Trade Tensions Hit Germany U.S.-EU Trade Tensions Hit Germany Chart 13German Greens Overtaking Christian Democrats! German Greens Overtaking Christian Democrats! German Greens Overtaking Christian Democrats! Germany is also an outlier because it is experiencing an increase in domestic political uncertainty. Social Democrat leader Andrea Nahles’ resignation on June 2 opened the door to a leadership contest among the SPD’s membership. This will begin next week and conclude on October 26, or possibly in December. The result will have consequences for the survivability of Merkel’s Grand Coalition – in case the SPD drops out of it entirely. Both Merkel and her party have been losing support in recent months – for the first time in history the Greens have gained the leading position in the polls (Chart 13). If the coalition falls apart and Merkel cannot put another one together with the Greens and Free Democrats, she may be forced to resign ahead of her scheduled 2021 exit date. The implication of the events with Trump and Merkel is that Germany faces higher political risk this year, particularly in Q4 if tariff threats and coalition strains coincide. Meanwhile, Brazilian pension reform has been delayed due to an inevitable breakdown in the ability to pass major legislation without providing adequate pork barrel spending. As for the rest of Europe, since European Central Bank President Mario Draghi’s dovish signal on June 18, all of our European risk indicators have dropped off. Markets rallied on the news of the ECB’s preparedness to launch another round of bond-buying monetary stimulus if needed, easing tensions in the region. Italian bond spreads plummeted, for instance. The Korean and Taiwanese GeoRisk indicators, our proxies for the U.S.-China trade war, are indicating a decrease in risk as the two sides moved to contain the spike in tensions in May. While Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin notes that the deal was 90% complete in May before the breakdown, there is little evidence yet that any of the sticking points have been removed over the past two weeks. These indicators can continue to improve on the back of any short-term trade truce at the G20. The Russian risk indicator has been hovering in the same range for the past two months. We expect this to break out on the back of increasing mutual threats between the U.S. and Russia. The U.S. has recently agreed to send an additional 1000 rotating troops to Poland, a move that Russia obviously deems aggressive. The Russian upper chamber has also unanimously supported President Putin’s decree to suspend the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, in the wake of the U.S. decision to do so. This would open the door to developing and deploying 500-5500 km range land-based and ballistic missiles. According to the deputy foreign minister, any U.S. missile deployment in Europe will lead to a crisis on the level of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia has also sided with Iran in the latest U.S.-Iran tension escalation, denouncing U.S. plans to send an additional 1000 troops to the Middle East and claiming that the shot-down U.S. drone was indeed in Iranian airspace. We anticipate the Russian risk indicator to go up as we expect Russia to retaliate in some way to Poland and to take actions to encourage the U.S. to get entangled deeper into the Iranian imbroglio, which is ultimately a drain on the U.S. and a useful distraction that Russia can exploit. In Turkey, both domestic and foreign tensions are rising. First, the re-run of the Istanbul mayoral election delivered a big defeat for Turkey’s President Erdogan on his home turf. Opposition representative Ekrem Imamoglu defeated former Prime Minister Binali Yildirim for a second time this year on June 23 – increasing his margin of victory to 9.2% from 0.2% in March. This was a stinging rebuke to Erdogan and his entire political system. It also reinforces the fact that Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP) is not as popular as Erdogan himself, frequently falling short of the 50% line in the popular vote for elections not associated directly with Erdogan (Chart 14). This trend combined with his personal rebuke in the power base of Istanbul will leave him even more insecure and unpredictable. Chart 14 Second, the G20 summit is the last occasion for Erdogan and Trump to meet personally before the July 31 deadline on Erdogan’s planned purchase of S-400 missile defenses from Russia. Erdogan has a chance to delay the purchase as he contemplates cabinet and policy changes in the wake of this major domestic defeat. Yet if Erdogan does not back down or delay, the U.S. will remove Turkey from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, and may also impose sanctions over this purchase and possibly also Iranian trade. The result will hit the lira and add to Turkey’s economic woes. Geopolitically, it will create a wedge within NATO that Russia could exploit, creating more opportunities for market-negative surprises in this area. Finally, we expect our U.K. risk indicator to perk up, as the odds of a no-deal Brexit are rising. Boris Johnson will likely assume Conservative Party leadership and the party is moving closer to attempting a no-deal exit. We assign a 21% probability to this kind of Brexit, up from our previous estimate of 14%. It is more likely that Johnson will get a deal similar to Theresa May’s deal passed or that he will be forced to extend negotiations beyond October.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Analyst ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator U.K.: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator What's On The Geopolitical Radar? Chart 25 Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Like in any currency board, Hong Kong dollar money supply is not fully backed by foreign currency (FX) reserves. Yet, the Hong Kong authorities have large FX reserves to defend the currency peg for now. Regardless, mounting capital outflows and the ensuing currency defense will lead to higher interest rates. Contrary to Hong Kong, Singapore has a flexible exchange rate regime and will begin easing monetary policy soon. Interest rates in Singapore will drop relative to Hong Kong. We are therefore reiterating our short Hong Kong / long Singaporean property stocks strategy. Feature The recent popular protests in Hong Kong against the extradition bill will likely mark a regime shift – not only in the territory’s socio-political dynamics but also in its financial outlook. It seems the local authorities are still considering an adoption of the extradition bill. For now, the bill has been suspended, but it has not been withdrawn outright. In light of elevated political uncertainty over the one-country, two-systems model, it is reasonable to assume that capital outflows from Hong Kong will rise in the coming year or so.  In light of elevated political uncertainty over the one-country, two-systems model, it is reasonable to assume that capital outflows from Hong Kong will rise in the coming year or so. The question therefore becomes whether or not the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has sufficient foreign currency (FX) reserves to defend the Hong Kong dollar’s peg. Even though Hong Kong's broad money supply is not fully backed by FX reserves, we see no major risk to the currency peg at the moment. That said, mounting capital outflows will necessitate higher interest rates, as least relative to U.S. ones, to defend the peg. This is negative for Hong Kong’s property market and share prices. Are Hong Kong Dollars Fully Backed By FX Reserves? Hong Kong operates a linked-exchange rate system, which stipulates that its monetary base must be fully backed by FX reserves. The monetary base includes (Table I-1): The balance of the clearing accounts of banks kept with the HKMA (called the Aggregate Balance, which represents commercial banks’ excess reserves). Exchange Fund bills and notes – securities issued by the Exchange Fund to manage excess reserves/liquidity in the interbank market. Certificates of Indebtedness which are equivalent to currency in circulation. These certificates are held by note-issuing banks in exchange for their FX deposits at the Exchange Fund. The Exchange Fund is a balance sheet vehicle of the HKMA. Government-issued coins in circulation. Chart I- Presently, Hong Kong’s FX reserves-to-monetary base ratio is 2.2 (Chart I-1on page 1). This ratio is well above the stipulated currency board rule of one: a unit of monetary base can be issued only when it is backed by an equivalent foreign currency asset. Chart I-1HK: FX Coverage Of Monetary Base Is Well Above 1 HK: FX Coverage Of Monetary Base Is Well Above 1 HK: FX Coverage Of Monetary Base Is Well Above 1 The reason the ratio is currently more than double where it technically should be is because the HKMA’s foreign exchange reserves also include the fiscal authorities’ foreign currency deposits at the Exchange Fund. Hence, the large pool of fiscal assets converted into foreign currency and sitting in the Exchange Fund has pushed the monetary base’s coverage ratio above two. As of December 31, 2018, the Exchange Fund’s foreign currency assets consisted of HK$743 billion of its own foreign currency reserves (net FX reserves), HK$1.17 trillion of the fiscal authorities’ foreign currency deposits, and HK$485 billion of foreign currency deposits by money issuing commercial banks (Table I-1). However, broad money supply in Hong Kong is not fully backed by foreign currency reserves (Chart I-2). At 0.45, this coverage ratio entails that each HK dollar of broad money supply is backed by 0.45 USD foreign currency reserves within the Exchange Fund. Broad money supply includes currency in circulation, demand, savings and time deposits, and negotiable certificates of deposits (NCDs) issued by licensed banks. Chart I-2HK: FX Coverage Of HK Dollars Is Only 0.45 HK: FX Coverage Of HK Dollars Is Only 0.45 HK: FX Coverage Of HK Dollars Is Only 0.45 Crucially, broad money supply does not include commercial banks’ reserves at the central bank in any economy, including Hong Kong. The pertinent measure of any exchange rate backing is the ratio of FX reserves to broad money supply (all local currency deposits plus cash in circulation). The motive is that households and companies can use not only cash in circulation but also their deposits to acquire foreign currency. With the ratio standing at 0.45, the Hong Kong monetary authorities do not have sufficient amounts of U.S. dollars to guarantee the exchange of each unit of local currency (cash in circulation and all deposits) into U.S. dollars in the event of a full-blown flight out of HK dollars. It is essential to clarify that the monetary authorities in Hong Kong have not deviated from the original framework of the currency board. This exchange rate mechanism was devised in 1983 in such a way that only the monetary base – not broad money supply – was supposed to be backed by foreign currency. In short, any currency board entails that only the monetary base – not broad money supply - is backed by FX reserves. Hong Kong is not an exception. Nevertheless, there is widespread perception in the financial community and among economists that all Hong Kong dollars are backed by foreign currency reserves, which is incorrect. Like in any banking system, when commercial banks in Hong Kong grant loans or buy assets from non-banks, they create local currency deposits “out of thin air.” These deposits are not backed by foreign currency, and commercial banks that create these deposits are not obliged to deposit FX reserves at the Exchange Fund. The credit boom in Hong Kong has accelerated since 2009 (Chart I-3, top panel). Consistently, since that time, the amount of local currency deposits has mushroomed – these deposits are not backed by foreign currency (Chart I-3, bottom panel).  Chart I-3Banks' Loans And Deposit Growth Go Hand-In-Hand Banks' Loans And Deposit Growth Go Hand-In-Hand Banks' Loans And Deposit Growth Go Hand-In-Hand On the whole, the currency board system in Hong Kong and elsewhere cannot guarantee full convertibility of broad money supply (all types of deposits). Therefore, these currency regimes are ultimately based on confidence. If and when confidence in the exchange rate plummets and economic agents rush to exchange a large share of their local currency cash in circulation and deposits into foreign currency, the monetary authorities’ FX reserves will not be sufficient. That said, there is presently no basis to argue that close to 45% of Hong Kong broad money supply (cash and coins in circulation and deposits of all types) is poised to panic-flood the currency market. Hence, we do not foresee a de-pegging of the HKD exchange rate for now. The currency will continue to trade within its HKD/USD 7.75-7.85 band. Bottom Line: Like in any currency board, the Hong Kong dollars are not fully backed by its FX reserves. However, the Hong Kong authorities have large FX reserves to defend the currency peg for some time. Liquidity Strains? According to the Impossible Trinity thesis, in an economy with an open capital account, the monetary authorities can control either interest rates or the exchange rate, but not both simultaneously. Provided Hong Kong has both an open capital account and a fixed exchange rate, the monetary authorities have little control over interest rates. Balance-of-payment (BoP) dynamics determine whether the HKMA has to buy or sell foreign currency to preserve the exchange rate peg. When the BoP is in surplus, the HKMA accumulates FX reserves, and vice versa.  The odds are rising that Hong Kong will begin experiencing capital outflows due to heightening political uncertainty over the one-country, two-systems model. Consistently, the BoP will swing from recurring surpluses to deficits and the HKMA will have to finance them by selling FX reserves (Chart I-4). By doing so, the monetary authorities will drain banks’ excess reserves, thereby tightening interbank liquidity. Chart I-4Balance Of Payments And FX Reserves Balance Of Payments And FX Reserves Balance Of Payments And FX Reserves Chart I-5Falling Excess Reserves = Higher Interbank Rates Falling Excess Reserves = Higher Interbank Rates Falling Excess Reserves = Higher Interbank Rates Notably, the HKMA’s FX reserves have plateaued, commercial banks’ excess reserves (the Aggregate Balance at the HKMA) have shrunk and money market rates have risen since 2016 (Chart I-5). Importantly, the latter has continued, even as U.S. interest rates have dropped over the past six months (Chart I-5, bottom panel). These dynamics are set to continue. To defend the HKD’s fixed exchange rate, interest rates in Hong Kong should rise and stay above those in the U.S. This will be the equivalent of pricing in a risk premium in Hong Kong rates due to higher political uncertainty in domestic politics as well as the ongoing U.S.-China trade confrontation. To defend the HKD’s fixed exchange rate, interest rates in Hong Kong should rise and stay above those in the U.S. On a positive note, the HKMA has ample room to mitigate liquidity strains resulting from FX interventions. In years when the BoP was in surplus, to prevent HKD appreciation the authorities purchased substantial amounts of U.S. dollars. As a result, the aggregate balance/excess reserves swelled, and Exchange Fund bills and notes were issued to absorb excess reserves (Chart I-6). Chart I-6HK Authorities Have Large Liquidity Firepower HK Authorities Have Large Liquidity Firepower HK Authorities Have Large Liquidity Firepower Going forward, with capital outflows causing tightening liquidity, the HKMA can redeem its own bills and notes to replenish the Aggregate Balance. This will ease interbank liquidity and preclude interest rates from shooting up dramatically. The HKMA’s liquidity firepower is sizable: the amount of Exchange Fund bills and notes is more than HK$1 trillion. This compares with aggregate balance (excess reserves) of HK$55 billion. Hence, potential interbank liquidity is HK$1.1 trillion (the Aggregate Balance plus the Exchange Fund’s bills and notes) (Chart I-6, top panel). There is no way to guesstimate potential capital outflows from Hong Kong. Hence, it is difficult to know what the equilibrium level of the interest rate spread over U.S. rates will be. The market will be re-balancing continuously, and the interest rate differential will fluctuate – i.e., it will be a moving target that ensures the fixed value of the currency. Bottom Line: Odds are that market-based interest rates in Hong Kong have to rise and stay above the U.S. ones for now. Heading Into Recession? With non-financial private sector debt close to 300% of GDP (Chart I-7) and property/construction and financial services sectors accounting for a large share of the economy, the Hong Kong economy is extremely sensitive to interest rates. Chart I-7Hong Kong: Leverage And Debt Servicing Hong Kong: Leverage And Debt Servicing Hong Kong: Leverage And Debt Servicing Chart I-8HK Economy Is In A Cyclical Downtrend HK Economy Is In A Cyclical Downtrend HK Economy Is In A Cyclical Downtrend Economic conditions have already been worsening, and any further rise in interest rates will escalate the economic downtrend: Private credit growth has decelerated and is probably heading into contraction (Chart I-8, top panel). The property market is one of the most expensive in the world. Property transactions have plunged and real estate prices will likely deflate (Chart I-8, middle panels). China’s weakening economy and subsiding Hong Kong business and investor confidence will hurt domestic demand. Retail sales volumes are already contracting (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Investment Implications The interest rate differential between Hong Kong and the U.S. has recently become positive after two and a half years of lingering below zero (Chart I-9). Odds are that it will remain positive at least over the next couple years. Therefore, even if U.S. interest rates decline further, Hong Kong rates will not. This has major investment ramifications: Hong Kong stocks will likely underperform U.S. and EM equity benchmarks, as its interest rate differential with the U.S. stays on the positive side and widens further (Chart I-10).  Chart I-9HK Interest Rate Spread Over U.S. Will Rise And Stay Positive HK Interest Rate Spread Over U.S. Will Rise And Stay Positive HK Interest Rate Spread Over U.S. Will Rise And Stay Positive Chart I-10Higher HK Interest Rates Herald HK Equity Underperformance Higher HK Interest Rates Herald HK Equity Underperformance Higher HK Interest Rates Herald HK Equity Underperformance The MSCI Hong Kong stock index is composed of financials (36% of market cap) and property stocks (26% of market cap). Therefore, domestic stocks are very sensitive to interest rates. Hong Kong companies are also very exposed to mainland growth. A recovery in the latter is not yet imminent. As a market neutral trade, we are reiterating our short Hong Kong property / long Singapore property stocks strategy. Chart I-11Favor Singapore Stocks Versus Hong Kong Ones Favor Singapore Stocks Versus Hong Kong Ones Favor Singapore Stocks Versus Hong Kong Ones All of this leads us to maintain our underweight stance on Hong Kong domestic stocks versus U.S. and EM equity indexes (Chart I-10). As a market neutral trade, we are reiterating our short Hong Kong property / long Singapore property stocks strategy. Hong Kong interest rates will rise above Singapore’s, leading to the former’s equity underperformance versus the latter across property, banks and probably the overall stock index (Chart I-11). For a more detailed discussion of Singapore, please see below.   Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com           Singapore: Monetary Easing Is Imminent Singapore’s stock market is at risk of selling off in absolute terms. However, the monetary authorities (MAS) will soon commence policy easing. This will differentiate Singapore from Hong Kong. While both Singapore and Hong Kong suffer from property and credit excesses and are facing a cyclical downtrend, the former – unlike the latter – can and will lower interest rates and allow its currency to depreciate to reflate the system. As a result, we are reiterating our short Hong Kong / long Singaporean property stocks strategy. Cyclical Headwinds Persist While both Singapore and Hong Kong suffer from property and credit excesses and are facing a cyclical downtrend, the former – unlike the latter – can and will lower interest rates and allow its currency to depreciate to reflate the system. Singapore’s cyclical growth outlook is worsening: Chart II-1 shows that the narrow money impulse is in deep contraction and the private domestic banks loans impulse is dipping into negative territory anew. The property sector – which is an important driver of Singapore’s economy – is depressed. Residential units sold has dipped, the high-end condominium market is virtually frozen and housing mortgage growth has stalled. These create formidable risks for Singapore’s real estate stocks’ absolute performance (Chart II-2). The latter account for 15% of the Singaporean stock market. Chart II-1Singapore: Money / Credit Impulses Singapore: Money / Credit Impulses Singapore: Money / Credit Impulses Chart II-2Singapore: Real Estate Stocks Are At Risk Singapore: Real Estate Stocks Are At Risk Singapore: Real Estate Stocks Are At Risk Meanwhile, there has been no signs of improvement in both domestic demand and exports. The top panel of Chart II-3 shows that the marginal propensity to spend among both consumers and non-financial businesses is diminishing. Specifically, the impulse for overall consumer loans is negative, while retail sales are contracting (Chart II-3, bottom panel). As for the business sector, it is also slowing down. Manufacturing PMI and new orders are in a contraction zone (Chart II-4). Chart II-3Private Consumption Is Weakening Private Consumption Is Weakening Private Consumption Is Weakening Chart II-4Business Sector Is Hit Hard Business Sector is Hit Hard Business Sector is Hit Hard Finally, corporate profitability of listed non-financial and non-property firms has massively deteriorated in the last decade. Chart II-5 illustrates that both return on assets (ROA) and return-on-equity (ROE) have been in a downward trend and have lately plunged. Shrinking profit margins have been the result of escalating unit labor costs (Chart II-6). In other words, productivity gains among listed non-financial companies have lagged behind wage increases. Chart II-5Corporate Profitability Is At 20-Year Low Corporate Profitability Is At 20-Year Low Corporate Profitability Is At 20-Year Low Chart II-6Rising Unit Labor Costs = Shrinking Profit Margins Rising Unit Labor Costs = Shrinking Profit Margins Rising Unit Labor Costs = Shrinking Profit Margins Monetary Policy Will Be Relaxed Chart II-7The Central Bank Has Been Withdrawing Liquidity The Central Bank Has Been Withdrawing Liquidity The Central Bank Has Been Withdrawing Liquidity The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) conducts monetary policy by controlling the currency and by default allowing domestic interest rates to find their own equilibrium. Currently, the MAS’s monetary policy setting is restrictive – i.e. it is aiming to gradually appreciate the trade-weighted Singaporean dollar by withdrawing excess reserve from the banking system (Chart II-7, top panel). This in turn, is causing commercial banks to bid interbank rates higher (Chart II-7, bottom panel). Nevertheless, with the domestic growth deceleration intensifying and the private sector highly leveraged, the MAS will soon opt for policy easing. It will guide the trade-weighted exchange rate lower by injecting liquidity into the banking system and lowering interest rates. Bottom Line: The Singaporean economy needs lower rates and the MAS is not constrained by the currency peg as the HKMA is. Consequently, interest rates in Singapore will decline both in absolute terms and relative to Hong Kong ones. Investment Conclusion The cyclical downturn will deepen and Singapore share prices will drop in absolute U.S. dollar terms. Relative to the EM or the Asian benchmarks, we continue to recommend a neutral position on overall Singaporean equities for now. Importantly, Singapore is better positioned than Hong Kong because the former’s monetary authorities can lower interest rates and allow the currency to depreciate. Hong Kong monetary authorities cannot tolerate lower interest rates due to their peg to the U.S. dollar and budding capital outflows. Interest rates in Singapore will drop relative to Hong Kong. We are therefore reiterating our short Hong Kong / long Singaporean property stocks strategy (Chart I-11 on page 10).   Ayman Kawtharani, Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com Footnotes Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations Image Image Equity Recommendations  

Highlights U.S. consumption remains robust despite the recent intensification of global growth headwinds. The G-20 meeting will not result in an escalation nor a major resolution of Sino-U.S. tensions. Kicking the can down the road is the most likely outcome. China’s reflationary efforts will intensify, impacting global growth in the second half of 2019. Fearful of collapsing inflation expectations, global central banks are easing policy, which is supporting global liquidity conditions and growth prospects. Bond yields have upside, especially inflation expectations. Equities have some short-term downside, but the cyclical peak still lies ahead. The equity rally will leave stocks vulnerable to the inevitable pick-up in interest rates later this cycle. Gold stocks may provide an attractive hedge for now. A spike in oil prices creates a major risk to our view. Stay overweight oil plays. Feature Global growth has clearly deteriorated this year, and bond yields around the world have cratered. German yields have plunged below -0.3% and U.S. yields briefly dipped below 2%. Even if the S&P 500 remains near all-time highs, the performance of cyclical sectors relative to defensive ones is corroborating the message from the bond market. Bonds and stocks are therefore not as much in disagreement as appears at first glance. To devise an appropriate strategy, now more than ever investors must decide whether or not a recession is on the near-term horizon. Answering yes to this question means bond prices will continue to rise, the dollar will rally further, stocks will weaken, and defensive stocks will keep outperforming cyclical ones. Answering no, one should sell bonds, sell the dollar, buy stocks, and overweight cyclical sectors. The weak global backdrop can still capsize the domestic U.S. economy. We stand in the ‘no’ camp: We do not believe a recession is in the offing and, while the current growth slowdown has been painful, it is not the end of the business cycle. Logically, we are selling bonds, selling the dollar and maintaining a positive cyclical stance on stocks. We also expect international equities to outperform U.S. ones, and we are becoming particularly positive on gold stocks. Oil prices should also benefit from the upcoming improvement in global growth. Has The U.S. Economy Met Its Iceberg? Investors betting on a recession often point to the inversion of the 3-month/10-year yield curve and the performance of cyclical stocks. However, we must also remember Paul Samuelson’s famous quip that “markets have predicted nine of the five previous recessions.” In any case, these market moves tell us what we already know: growth has weakened. We must decide whether it will weaken further. A simple probit model based on the yield curve slope and the new orders component of the ISM Manufacturing Index shows that there is a 40% probability of recession over the next 12 months. We need to keep in mind that in 1966 and 1998, this model was flagging a similar message, yet no recession followed over the course of the next year (Chart I-1). This means we must go back and study the fundamentals of U.S. growth. Chart I-1The Risk Of A Recession Has Risen, But It Is Not A No Brainer The Risk Of A Recession Has Risen, But It Is Not A No Brainer The Risk Of A Recession Has Risen, But It Is Not A No Brainer Chart I-2Lower Rates Will Help Residential Investment Lower Rates Will Help Residential Investment Lower Rates Will Help Residential Investment On the purely domestic front, the U.S. economy is not showing major stresses. Last month, we argued that we are not seeing the key symptoms of tight monetary policy: Homebuilders remain confident, mortgage applications for purchases are near cyclical highs, homebuilder stocks have been outperforming the broad market for three quarters, and lumber prices are rebounding.1 Moreover, the previous fall in mortgage yields is already lifting existing home sales, and it is only a matter of time before residential investment follows (Chart I-2). Households remain in fine form. Real consumer spending is growing at a 2.8% pace, and despite rising economic uncertainty, the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model expects real household spending to expand at a 3.9% rate in the second quarter (Chart I-3). This is key, as consumers’ spending and investment patterns drive the larger trends in the economy.2 Chart I-3Consumers Are Spending Consumers Are Spending Consumers Are Spending Chart I-4The Labor Market Is Still Doing Fine... The Labor Market Is Still Doing Fine... The Labor Market Is Still Doing Fine... Going forward, we expect consumption to stay the course. Despite its latest dip, consumer confidence remains elevated, household debt levels have fallen from 134% of disposable income in 2007 to 99% today, and debt-servicing costs only represent 9.9% of after-tax income, a multi-generational low. In this context, stronger household income growth should support spending. The May payrolls report is likely to have been an anomaly. Layoffs are still minimal, initial jobless claims continue to flirt near 50-year lows, the Conference Board’s Leading Credit index shows no stress, and the employment components of both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing ISM are at elevated levels (Chart I-4). If these leading indicators of employment are correct, both the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers and salaries have upside (Chart I-5), especially as productivity growth is accelerating. Despite these positives, the weak global backdrop can still capsize the domestic U.S. economy, and force the ISM non-manufacturing PMI to converge toward the manufacturing index. If global growth worsens, the dollar will strengthen, quality spreads will widen and stocks will weaken, resulting in tighter financial conditions. Since economic and trade uncertainty is still high, further deterioration in external conditions will cause U.S. capex to collapse. Employment would follow, confidence suffer and consumption fall. Global growth still holds the key to the future. Chart I-5 Following The Chinese Impulse As the world’s foremost trading nation, Chinese activity lies at the center of the global growth equation. The China-U.S. trade war remains at the forefront of investors’ minds. The meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping over the next two days is important. It implies a thawing of Sino-U.S. trade negotiations. However, an overall truce is unlikely. An agreement to resume the talks is the most likely outcome. No additional tariffs will be levied on the remaining $300 billion of untaxed Chinese exports to the U.S., but the previous levies will not be meaningfully changed. Removing this $300 billion Damocles sword hanging over global growth is a positive at the margin. However, it also means that the can has been kicked down the road and that trade will remain a source of headline risk, at least until the end of the year. Chart I-6The Rubicon Has Been Crossed The Rubicon Has Been Crossed The Rubicon Has Been Crossed Trade uncertainty will nudge Chinese policymakers to ease policy further. In previous speeches, Premier Li Keqiang set the labor market as a line in the sand. If it were to deteriorate, the deleveraging campaign could be put on the backburner. Today, the employment component of the Chinese PMI is at its lowest level since the Great Financial Crisis (Chart I-6). This alone warrants more reflationary efforts by Beijing. Adding trade uncertainty to this mix guarantees additional credit and fiscal stimulus. More Chinese stimulus will be crucial for Chinese and global growth. Historically, it has taken approximatively nine months for previous credit and fiscal expansions to lift economic activity. We therefore expect that over the course of the summer, the imports component of the Chinese PMI should improve further, and the overall EM Manufacturing PMI should begin to rebound (Chart I-7, top and second panel). More generally, this summer should witness the bottom in global trade, as exemplified by Asian or European export growth (Chart I-7, third and fourth panel). The prospect for additional Chinese stimulus means that the associated pick-up in industrial activity should have longevity. Global central banks are running a brand new experiment. We are already seeing one traditional signpost that Chinese stimulus is having an impact on growth. Within the real estate investment component of GDP, equipment purchases are growing at a 30% annual rate, a development that normally precedes a rebound in manufacturing activity (Chart I-8, top panel). We are also keeping an eye out for the growth of M1 relative to M2. When Chinese M1 outperforms M2, it implies that demand deposits are growing faster than savings deposits. The inference is that the money injected in the economy is not being saved, but is ready to be deployed. Historically, a rebounding Chinese M1 to M2 ratio accompanies improvements in global trade, commodities prices, and industrial production (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Chart I-7The Turn In Chinese Credit Will Soon Be Felt Around The World The Turn In Chinese Credit Will Soon Be Felt Around The World The Turn In Chinese Credit Will Soon Be Felt Around The World Chart I-8China's Stimulus Is Beginning To Have An Impact China's Stimulus Is Beginning To Have An Impact China's Stimulus Is Beginning To Have An Impact   To be sure, China is not worry free. Auto sales are still soft, global semiconductor shipments remain weak, and capex has yet to turn the corner. But the turnaround in credit and in the key indicators listed above suggests the slowdown is long in the tooth. In the second half of 2019, China will begin to add to global growth once again. Advanced Economies’ Central Banks: A Brave New World Chart I-9The Inflation Expectations Panic The Inflation Expectations Panic The Inflation Expectations Panic While China is important, it is not the only game in town. Global central banks are running a brand new experiment. It seems they have stopped targeting realized inflation and are increasingly focused on inflation expectations. The collapse in inflation expectations is worrying central bankers (Chart I-9). Falling anticipated inflation can anchor actual inflation at lower levels than would have otherwise been the case. It also limits the downside to real rates when growth slows, and therefore, the capacity of monetary policy to support economic activity. Essentially, central banks fear that permanently depressed inflation expectations renders them impotent. The change in policy focus is evident for anyone to see. As recently as January 2019, 52% of global central banks were lifting interest rates. Now that inflation expectations are collapsing, other than the Norges Bank, none are doing so (Chart I-10). Instead, the opposite is happening and the RBA, RBNZ and RBI are cutting rates. Moreover, as investors are pricing in lower policy rates around the world, G-10 bond yields are collapsing, which is easing global liquidity conditions. Indeed, as Chart I-11 illustrates, when the share of economies with falling 2-year forward rates is as high as it is today, the BCA Global Leading Indicator rebounds three months later. Chart I-10Central Banks Are In Easing Mode, Everywhere Central Banks Are In Easing Mode, Everywhere Central Banks Are In Easing Mode, Everywhere The European Central Bank stands at the vanguard of this fight. As we argued two months ago, deflationary pressures in Europe are intact and are likely to be a problem for years to come.3 The ECB is aware of this headwind and knows it needs to act pre-emptively. Four months ago, it announced a new TLRTO-III package to provide plentiful funding for stressed banks in the European periphery. On June 6th, ECB President Mario Draghi unveiled very generous financing terms for the TLTRO-III. Last week, at the ECB’s Sintra conference in Portugal, ECB Vice President Luis de Guindos professed that the ECB could cut rates if inflation expectations weaken. The following day, Draghi himself strongly hinted at an upcoming rate cut in Europe and a potential resumption of the ECB QE program. These measures are starting to ease financial conditions where Europe needs it most: Italy. An important contributor to the contraction in the European credit impulse over the past 21 months was the rapid tightening in Italian financial conditions that followed the surge in BTP yields from May 2018. Now that the ECB is becoming increasingly dovish, Italian yields have fallen to 2.1%, and are finally below the neutral rate of interest for Europe. BTP yields are again at accommodative levels. Chart I-11This Much Of An Easing Bias Boosts Growth Prospects This Much Of An Easing Bias Boosts Growth Prospects This Much Of An Easing Bias Boosts Growth Prospects With financial conditions in Europe easing and exports set to pick up in response to Chinese growth, European loan demand should regain some vigor. Meanwhile, the TLTRO-III measures, which are easing bank funding costs, should boost banks’ willingness to lend. The European credit impulse is therefore set to move back into positive territory this fall. European growth will rebound, and contribute to improving global growth conditions. The Fed’s Patience Is Running Out Chart I-12 The Federal Reserve did not cut interest rates last week, but its intentions to do so next month were clear. First, the language of the statement changed drastically. Gone is the Fed’s patience; instead, there is an urgency to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion.” Second, the fed funds rate projections from the Summary of Economic Projections were meaningfully revised down. In March, 17 FOMC participants expected the Fed to stay on hold for the remainder of 2019, while six foresaw hikes. Today, eight expect a steady fed funds rate, but seven are calling for two rate cuts this year. Only one member is still penciling in a hike. Moreover, nine out of 17 participants anticipate that rates will be lower in 2020 than today (Chart I-12). The FOMC’s unwillingness to push back very dovish market expectations signals an imminent interest rate cut. Like other advanced economy central banks, the Fed’s sudden dovish turn is aimed at reviving moribund inflation expectations (Chart I-13). In order to do so, the Fed will have to keep real interest rates at low levels, at least relative to real GDP growth. Even if the real policy rate goes up, so long as it increases more slowly than GDP growth, it will signify that money supply is growing faster than money demand.4 TIPS yields are anticipating these dynamics and will likely remain soft relative to nominal interest rates. Chart I-13...As Inflation Expectations Plunge ...As Inflation Expectations Plunge ...As Inflation Expectations Plunge Since the Fed intends to conduct easy monetary policy until inflation expectations have normalized to the 2.3% to 2.5% zone, our liquidity gauges will become more supportive of economic activity and asset prices over the coming two to three quarters: Our BCA Monetary indicator has not only clearly hooked up, it is now above the zero line, in expansionary territory (see Section III, page 41). Excess money growth, defined as money-of-zero-maturity over loan growth, is once again accelerating. This cycle, global growth variables such as our Global Nowcast, BCA’s Global Leading Economic Indicator, or worldwide export prices have all reliably followed this variable (Chart I-14). After collapsing through 2018, our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index is rebounding sharply, and the imminent end of the Fed’s balance sheet runoff will only solidify this progress. This indicator gauges how cheap and plentiful high-powered money is for global markets. Its recovery suggests that commodities, globally-traded goods prices, and economic activity are all set to improve (Chart I-15). Chart I-14Excess Money Has Turned Up Excess Money Has Turned Up Excess Money Has Turned Up Chart I-15Improving Liquidity Conditions Argue That Nominal Growth Will Pick Up... Improving Liquidity Conditions Argue That Nominal Growth Will Pick Up... Improving Liquidity Conditions Argue That Nominal Growth Will Pick Up...   The dollar is losing momentum and should soon fall, which will reinforce the improvement in global liquidity conditions. A trough in our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index is often followed by a weakening dollar (Chart I-16). Moreover, the Greenback’s strength has been turbocharged by exceptional repatriations of funds by U.S. economic agents (Chart I-17). The end of the repatriation holiday along with a more dovish Fed and the completion of the balance sheet runoff will likely weigh on the dollar. Once the Greenback depreciates, the cost of borrowing for foreign issuers of dollar-denominated debt will decline, along with the cost of liquidity, especially if the massive U.S. repatriation flows are staunched. This will further support global growth conditions. Chart I-16...And That The Dollar Will Turn Down... ...And That The Dollar Will Turn Down... ...And That The Dollar Will Turn Down... Trade relations are unlikely to deteriorate further, China is likely to stimulate more aggressively; and easing central banks around the world, including the Fed, are responding to falling inflation expectations. This backdrop points to a rebound in global growth in the second half of the year. As a corollary, the deflationary patch currently engulfing the world should end soon after. As a result, this growing reflationary mindset should delay any recession until late 2021 if not 2022. However, as the business cycle extends further, greater inflationary pressures will build down the road and force the Fed to lift rates – even more than it would have done prior to this wave of easing. Chart I-17...Especially If Repatriation Flows Slow ...Especially If Repatriation Flows Slow ...Especially If Repatriation Flows Slow Investment Implications Bonds BCA’s U.S. Bond Strategy service relies on the Golden Rule of Treasury Investing. This simple rule states that when the Fed turns out to be more dovish than anticipated by interest rate markets 12 months prior, Treasurys outperform cash. If the Fed is more hawkish than was expected by market participants, Treasurys underperform (Chart I-18). Today, the Treasury market’s outperformance is already consistent with a Fed generating a very dovish surprise over the next 12 months. However, the interest rate market is already pricing in a 98% probability of two rates cuts this year, and the December 2020 fed funds rate futures imply a halving of the policy rate. The Fed is unlikely to clear these very tall dovish hurdles as global growth is set to rebound, the fed funds rate is not meaningfully above neutral and the household sector remains resilient. Chart I-18Treasurys Already Anticipate Large Dovish Surprises Treasurys Already Anticipate Large Dovish Surprises Treasurys Already Anticipate Large Dovish Surprises Reflecting elevated pessimism toward global growth, the performance of transport relative to utilities stocks is as oversold as it gets. The likely rebound in this ratio should push yields higher, especially as foreign private investors are already aggressively buying U.S. government securities (Chart I-19). As occurred in 1998, Treasury yields should rebound soon after the Fed begins cutting rates. Moreover, with all the major central banks focusing on keeping rates at accommodative levels, the selloff in bonds should be led by inflation breakevens, also as occurred in 1998 (Chart I-20), especially if the dollar weakens. Chart I-19Yields Will Follow Transportation Relative To Utilities Stocks Yields Will Follow Transportation Relative To Utilities Stocks Yields Will Follow Transportation Relative To Utilities Stocks Chart I-201998: Yields Rebounded As Soon As The Fed Began Cutting 1998: Yields Rebounded As Soon As The Fed Began Cutting 1998: Yields Rebounded As Soon As The Fed Began Cutting     Equities A global economic rebound should provide support for equities on a cyclical horizon. The tactical picture remains murky as the stock market may have become too optimistic that Osaka will deliver an all-encompassing deal. However, this short-term downside is likely to prove limited compared to the cyclical strength lying ahead. This is particularly true for global equities, where valuations are more attractive than in the U.S. Chart I-21Easier Liquidity Conditions Lead To Higher Stock Prices Easier Liquidity Conditions Lead To Higher Stock Prices Easier Liquidity Conditions Lead To Higher Stock Prices Even if the S&P 500 isn’t the prime beneficiary of the recovery in global growth, it should nonetheless generate positive absolute returns on a cyclical horizon. As Chart I-21 illustrates, a pickup in our U.S. Financial Liquidity Index often precedes a rally in U.S. stocks. Since the U.S. Financial Liquidity Index has done a superb job of forecasting the weakness in stocks over the past 18 months, it is likely to track the upcoming strength as well. A weaker dollar should provide an additional tailwind to boost profit growth, especially as U.S. productivity is accelerating. This view is problematic for long-term investors. The cheapness of stocks relative to bonds is the only reason why our long-term valuation index is not yet at nosebleed levels Chart I-22). If we are correct that the current global reflationary push will build greater inflationary pressures down the road and will ultimately result in even higher interest rates, this relative undervaluation of equities will vanish. The overall valuation index will then hit near-record highs, leaving the stock market vulnerable to a very sharp pullback. Long-term investors should use this rally to lighten their strategic exposure to stocks, especially when taking into account the risk that populism will force a retrenchment in corporate market power, an issue discussed in Section II. Gone is the Fed’s patience; instead, there is an urgency to “act as appropriate to sustain the expansion.” In this environment, gold stocks are particularly attractive. Central banks are targeting very accommodative policy settings, which will limit the upside for real rates. Moreover, generous liquidity conditions and a falling dollar should prove to be great friends to gold. These fundamentals are being amplified by a supportive technical backdrop, as gold prices have broken out and the gold A/D line keeps making new highs (Chart I-23). Chart I-22Beware What Will Happen To Valuations Once Rates Rise Again Beware What Will Happen To Valuations Once Rates Rise Again Beware What Will Happen To Valuations Once Rates Rise Again Chart I-23Strong Technical Backdrop For The Gold Strong Technical Backdrop For The Gold Strong Technical Backdrop For The Gold   Structural forces reinforce these positives for gold. EM reserve managers are increasingly diversifying into gold, fearful of growing geopolitical tensions with the U.S. (Chart I-24). Meanwhile, G-10 central banks are not selling the yellow metal anymore. This positive demand backdrop is materializing as global gold producers have been focused on returning cash to shareholders instead of pouring funds into capex. This lack of investment will weigh on output growth going forward. Chart I-24EM Central Banks Are Diversifying Into Gold EM Central Banks Are Diversifying Into Gold EM Central Banks Are Diversifying Into Gold This emphasis on returning cash to shareholders makes gold stocks particularly attractive. Gold producers are trading at a large discount to the market and to gold itself as investors remain concerned by the historical lack of management discipline. However, boosting dividends, curtailing debt levels and only focusing on the most productive projects ultimately creates value for shareholders. A wave of consolidation will only amplify these tailwinds. Our overall investment recommendation is to overweight stocks over bonds on a cyclical horizon while building an overweight position in gold equities. Our inclination to buy gold stocks transcends our long-term concerns for equities, as rising long-term inflation should favor gold as well. The Key Risk: Iran The biggest risk to our view remains the growing stress in the Middle East. BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy team assigns a less than 40% chance that tensions between the U.S. and Iran will deteriorate into a full-fledged military conflict. The U.S.’s reluctance to respond with force to recent Iranian provocations may even argue that this probability could be too high. Nonetheless, if a military conflict were to happen, it would involve a closing of the Strait of Hormuz, a bottleneck through which more than 20% of global oil production transits. In such a scenario, Brent prices could easily cross above US$150/bbl. Chart I-25Oil Inventories Are Set To Decline Oil Inventories Are Set To Decline Oil Inventories Are Set To Decline To mitigate this risk, we recommend overweighting oil plays in global portfolios. Not only would such an allocation benefit in the event of a blow-up in the Persian Gulf, oil is supported by positive supply/demand fundamentals and Brent should end the year $75/bbl. After five years of limited oil capex, Wood Mackenzie estimates that the supply of oil will be close to 5 million barrels per day smaller than would have otherwise been the case. Moreover, OPEC and Russia remain disciplined oil producers, which is limiting growth in crude output today. Meanwhile, in light of the global growth deceleration, demand for oil has proved surprisingly robust. Demand is likely to pick up further when global growth reaccelerates in the second half of the year. As a result, BCA’s Commodity and Energy Strategy currently expects additional inventory drawdowns that will only push oil prices higher in an environment of growing global reflation (Chart I-25). A falling dollar would accentuate these developments.   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst June 27, 2019 Next Report: July 25, 2019   II. The Productivity Puzzle: Competition Is The Missing Ingredient Productivity growth is experiencing a cyclical rebound, but remains structurally weak. The end of the deepening of globalization, statistical hurdles, and the possibility that today’s technological advances may not be as revolutionary as past ones all hamper productivity. On the back of rising market power and concentration, companies are increasing markups instead of production. This is depressing productivity and lowering the neutral rate of interest. For now, investors can generate alpha by focusing on consolidating industries. Growing market power cannot last forever and will meet a political wall. Structurally, this will hurt asset prices.   “We don’t have a free market; don’t kid yourself. (…) Businesspeople are enemies of free markets, not friends (…) businesspeople are all in favor of freedom for everybody else (…) but when it comes to their own business, they want to go to Washington to protect their businesses.” Milton Friedman, January 1991. Despite the explosion of applications of growing computing power, U.S. productivity growth has been lacking this cycle. This incapacity to do more with less has weighed on trend growth and on the neutral rate of interest, and has been a powerful force behind the low level of yields at home and abroad. In this report, we look at the different factors and theories advanced to explain the structural decline in productivity. Among them, a steady increase in corporate market power not only goes a long way in explaining the lack of productivity in the U.S., but also the high level of profit margins along with the depressed level of investment and real neutral rates. A Simple Cyclical Explanation The decline in productivity growth is both a structural and cyclical story. Historically, productivity growth has followed economic activity. When demand is strong, businesses can generate more revenue and therefore produce more. The historical correlation between U.S. nonfarm business productivity and the ISM manufacturing index illustrates this relationship (Chart II-1). Chart II-1The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity The Cyclical Behavior Of Productivity Chart II-2Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Deleveraging Hurts Productivity Since 2008, as households worked off their previous over-indebtedness, the U.S. private sector has experienced its longest deleveraging period since the Great Depression. This frugality has depressed demand and contributed to lower growth this cycle. Since productivity is measured as output generated by unit of input, weak demand growth has depressed productivity statistics. On this dimension, the brief deleveraging experience of the early 1990s is instructive: productivity picked up only after 1993, once the private sector began to accumulate debt faster than the pace of GDP growth (Chart II-2). The recent pick-up in productivity reflects these debt dynamics. Since 2009, the U.S. non-financial private sector has stopped deleveraging, removing one anchor on demand, allowing productivity to blossom. Moreover, the pick-up in capex from 2017 to present is also helping productivity by raising the capital-to-workers ratio. While this is a positive development for the U.S. economy, the decline in productivity nonetheless seems structural, as the five-year moving average of labor productivity growth remains near its early 1980s nadir (Chart II-3). Something else is at play. Chart II-3 The Usual Suspects Three major forces are often used to explain why observed productivity growth is currently in decline: A slowdown in global trade penetration, the fact that statisticians do not have a good grasp on productivity growth in a service-based economy, and innovation that simply isn’t what it used to be. Slowdown In Global Trade Penetration Two hundred years ago, David Ricardo argued that due to competitive advantages, countries should always engage in trade to increase their economic welfare. This insight has laid the foundation of the argument that exchanges between nations maximizes the utilization of resources domestically and around the world. Rarely was this argument more relevant than over the past 40 years. On the heels of the supply-side revolution of the early 1980s and the fall of the Berlin Wall, globalization took off. The share of the world's population participating in the global capitalist system rose from 30% in 1985 to nearly 100% today. The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development. Generating elevated productivity gains is simpler when a country’s capital stock is underdeveloped: each unit of investment grows the capital-to-labor ratio by a greater proportion. As a result, productivity – which reflects the capital-to-worker ratio – can grow quickly. As more poor countries have joined the global economy and benefitted from FDI and other capital inflows, their productivity has flourished. Consequently, even if productivity growth has been poor in advanced economies over the past 10 years, global productivity has remained high and has tracked the share of exports in global GDP (Chart II-4). Chart II-4The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth The Apex Of Globalization Represented The Summit Of Global Productivity Growth This globalization tailwind to global productivity growth is dissipating. First, following an investment boom where poor decisions were made, EM productivity growth has been declining. Second, with nearly 100% of the world’s labor supply already participating in the global economy, it is increasingly difficult to expand the share of global trade in global GDP and increase the benefit of cross-border specialization. Finally, the popular backlash in advanced economies against globalization could force global trade into reverse. As economic nationalism takes hold, cross-border investments could decline, moving the world economy further away from an optimal allocation of capital. These forces may explain why global productivity peaked earlier this decade. Productivity Is Mismeasured Recently deceased luminary Martin Feldstein argued that the structural decline in productivity is an illusion. As the argument goes, productivity is not weak; it is only underestimated. This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity. A parallel with the introduction of electricity in the late 19th century often comes to mind. Back then, U.S. statistical agencies found it difficult to disentangle price changes from quantity changes in the quickly growing revenues of electrical utilities. As a result, the Bureau Of Labor Statistics overestimated price changes in the early 20th century, which depressed the estimated output growth of utilities by a similar factor. Since productivity is measured as output per unit of labor, this also understated actual productivity growth – not just for utilities but for the economy as a whole. Ultimately, overall productivity growth was revised upward. Chart II-5Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth Plenty Of Room To Mismeasure Real Output Growth In today’s economy, this could be a larger problem, as 70% of output is generated in the service sector. Estimating productivity growth is much harder in the service sector than in the manufacturing sector, as there is no actual countable output to measure. Thus, distinguishing price increases from quantity or quality improvements is challenging. Adding to this difficulty, the service sector is one of the main beneficiaries of the increase in computational power currently disrupting industries around the world. The growing share of components of the consumer price index subject to hedonic adjustments highlight this challenge (Chart II-5). Estimating quality changes is hard and may bias the increase in prices in the economy. If prices are unreliably measured, so will output and productivity. Chart II-6A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity A Multifaceted Decline In Productivity Pushing The Production Frontier Is Increasingly Hard Another school of thought simply accepts that productivity growth has declined in a structural fashion. It is far from clear that the current technological revolution is much more productivity-enhancing than the introduction of electricity 140 years ago, the development of the internal combustion engine in the late 19th century, the adoption of indoor plumbing, or the discovery of penicillin in 1928. It is easy to overestimate the economic impact of new technologies. At first, like their predecessors, the microprocessor and the internet created entirely new industries. But this is not the case anymore. For all its virtues, e-commerce is only a new method of selling goods and services. Cloud computing is mainly a way to outsource hardware spending. Social media’s main economic value has been to gather more information on consumers, allowing sellers to reach potential buyers in a more targeted way. Without creating entirely new industries, spending on new technologies often ends up cannibalizing spending on older technologies. For example, while Google captures 32.4% of global ad revenues, similar revenues for the print industry have fallen by 70% since their apex in 2000. If new technologies are not as accretive to production as the introduction of previous ones were, productivity growth remains constrained by the same old economic forces of capex, human capital growth and resource utilization. And as Chart II-6 shows, labor input, the utilization of capital and multifactor productivity have all weakened. Some key drivers help understand why productivity growth has downshifted structurally. Chart II-7 Chart II-8Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Demographics Are Hurting Productivity Let’s look at human capital. It is much easier to grow human capital when very few people have a high-school diploma: just make a larger share of your population finish high school, or even better, complete a university degree. But once the share of university-educated citizens has risen, building human capital further becomes increasingly difficult. Chart II-7 illustrates this problem. Growth in educational achievement has been slowing since 1995 in both advanced and developing economies. This means that the growth of human capital is slowing. This is without even wading into whether or not the quality of education has remained constant. Human capital is also negatively impacted by demographic trends. Workers in their forties tend to be at the peak of their careers, with the highest accumulated job know-how. Problematically, these workers represent a shrinking share of the labor force, which is hurting productivity trends (Chart II-8). The capital stock too is experiencing its own headwinds. While Moore’s Law seems more or less intact, the decline in the cost of storing information is clearly decelerating (Chart II-9). Today, quality adjusted IT prices are contracting at a pace of 2.3% per annum, compared to annual declines of 14% at the turn of the millennium. Thus, even if nominal spending in IT investment had remained constant, real investment growth would have sharply decelerated (Chart II-10). But since nominal spending has decelerated greatly from its late 1990s pace, real investment in IT has fallen substantially. The growth of the capital stock is therefore lagging its previous pace, which is hurting productivity growth. Chart II-9 Chart II-10The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation The Impact Of Slowing IT Deflation Chart II-11A Dearth Of New Businesses A Dearth Of New Businesses A Dearth Of New Businesses   The collapse in new business formation in the U.S. is another fascinating development (Chart II-11). New businesses are a large source of productivity gains. Ultimately, 20% of productivity gains have come from small businesses becoming large ones. Think Apple in 1977 versus Apple today. A large decline in the pace of new business formation suggests that fewer seeds have been planted over the past 20 years to generate those enormous productivity explosions than was the case in the previous 50 years. The X Factor: Growing Market Concentration Chart II-12Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor Wide Profit Margins: A Testament To The Weakness Of Labor The three aforementioned explanations for the decline in productivity are all appealing, but they generally leave investors looking for more. Why are companies investing less, especially when profit margins are near record highs? Why is inflation low? Why has the pace of new business formation collapsed? These are all somewhat paradoxical. This is where a growing body of works comes in. Our economy is moving away from the Adam Smith idea of perfect competition. Industry concentration has progressively risen, and few companies dominate their line of business and control both their selling prices and input costs. They behave as monopolies and monopsonies, all at once.1 This helps explain why selling prices have been able to rise relative to unit labor costs, raising margins in the process (Chart II-12). Let’s start by looking at the concept of market concentration. According to Grullon, Larkin and Michaely, sales of the median publicly traded firms, expressed in constant dollars, have nearly tripled since the mid-1990s, while real GDP has only increased 70% (Chart II-13).2 The escalation in market concentration is also vividly demonstrated in Chart II-14. The top panel shows that since 1997, most U.S. industries have experienced sharp increases in their Herfindahl-Hirshman Index (HHI),3 a measure of concentration. In fact, more than half of U.S. industries have experienced concentration increases of more than 40%, and as a corollary, more than 75% of industries have seen the number of firms decline by more than 40%. The last panel of the chart also highlights that this increase in concentration has been top-heavy, with a third of industries seeing the market share of their four biggest players rise by more than 40%. Rising market concentration is therefore a broad phenomenon – not one unique to the tech sector. Chart II-13 Chart II-14     This rising market concentration has also happened on the employment front. In 1995, less than 24% of U.S. private sector employees worked for firms with 10,000 or more employees, versus nearly 28% today. This does not seem particularly dramatic. However, at the local level, the number of regions where employment is concentrated with one or two large employers has risen. Azar, Marinescu and Steinbaum developed Map II-1, which shows that 75% of non-metropolitan areas now have high or extreme levels of employment concentration.4 Chart II- Chart II-15The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains The Owners Of Capital Are Keeping The Proceeds Of The Meagre Productivity Gains This growing market power of companies on employment can have a large impact on wages. Chart II-15 shows that real wages have lagged productivity since the turn of the millennium. Meanwhile, Chart II-16 plots real wages on the y-axis versus the HHI of applications (top panel) and vacancies (bottom panel). This chart shows that for any given industry, if applicants in a geographical area do not have many options where to apply – i.e. a few dominant employers provide most of the jobs in the region – real wages lag the national average. The more concentrated vacancies as well as applications are with one employer, the greater the discount to national wages in that industry.5 This is pure market power, and it helps explain the gap between wages and productivity as well as the widening gap between metropolitan and non-metropolitan household incomes. Chart II-16 Growing market power and concentration do not only compress labor costs, they also result in higher prices for consumers. This seems paradoxical in a world of low inflation. But inflation could have been even lower if market concentration had remained at pre-2000s levels. In 2009, Matthew Weinberg showed that over the previous 22 years, horizontal mergers within an industry resulted in higher prices.6 In a 2014 meta-study conducted by Weinberg along with Orley Ashenfelter and Daniel Hosken, the authors showed that across 49 studies ranging across 21 industries, 36 showed that horizontal mergers resulted in higher prices for consumers.7 While today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins. In a low-inflation environment, the only way for companies to garner pricing power is to decrease competition, and M&As are the quickest way to achieve this goal. After examining nearly 50 merger and antitrust studies spanning more than 3,000 merger cases, John Kwoka found that, following mergers that augmented an industry’s concentration, prices increased in 95% of cases, and on average by 4.5%.8 In no industry is this effect more vividly demonstrated than in the healthcare field, an industry that has undergone a massive wave of consolidation – from hospitals, to pharmacies to drug manufacturers. As Chart II-17 illustrates, between 1980 and 2016, healthcare costs have increased at a much faster pace in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. However, life expectancy increased much less than in other advanced economies. Chart II-17 In this context of growing market concentration, it is easy to see why, as De Loecker and Eeckhout have argued, markups have been rising steadily since the 1980s (Chart II-18, top panel) and have tracked M&A activity (Chart II-18, bottom panel).9 In essence, mergers and acquisitions have been the main tool used by firms to increase their concentration. Another tool at their disposal has been the increase in patents. The top panel of Chart II-19 shows that the total number of patent applications in the U.S. has increased by 3.6-fold since the 1980s, but most interestingly, the share of patents coming from large, dominant players within each industry has risen by 10% over the same timeframe (Chart II-19, bottom panel). To use Warren Buffet’s terminology, M&A and patents have been how firms build large “moats” to limit competition and protect their businesses. Chart II-18Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Markups Rise Along With Growing M&A Activity Chart II-19How To Build A Moat? How To Build A Moat? How To Build A Moat?   Why is this rise in market concentration affecting productivity? First, from an empirical perspective, rising markups and concentration tend to lead to lower levels of capex. A recent IMF study shows that the more concentrated industries become, the higher the corporate savings rate goes (Chart II-20, top panel).10 These elevated savings reflect wider markups, but also firms with markups in the top decile of the distribution display significantly lower investment rates (Chart II-20, bottom panel). If more of the U.S. output is generated by larger, more concentrated firms, this leads to a lower pace of increase in the capital stock, which hurts productivity. Chart II-20 Chart II-   Second, downward pressure on real wages is also linked to a drag on productivity. Monopolies and oligopolies are not incentivized to maximize output. In fact, for any market, a monopoly should lead to lower production than perfect competition would. Diagram II-I from De Loecker and Eeckhout shows that moving from perfect competition to a monopoly results in a steeper labor demand curve as the monopolist produces less. As a result, real wages move downward and the labor participation force declines. Does this sound familiar? The rise of market power might mean that in some way Martin Feldstein was right about productivity being mismeasured – just not the way he anticipated. In a June 2017 Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, Peter Berezin showed that labor-saving technologies like AI and robotics, which are increasingly being deployed today, could lead to lower wages (Chart II-21).11 For a given level of technology in the economy, productivity is positively linked to real wages but inversely linked to markups – especially if the technology is of the labor-saving kind. So, if markups rise on the back of firms’ growing market power, the ensuing labor savings will not be used to increase actual input. Rather, corporate savings will rise. Thus, while today’s technology may be enhancing the productive potential of our economies, this is not benefiting output and measured productivity. Instead, it is boosting profit margins.12 Unsurprisingly, return on assets and market concentration are positively correlated (Chart II-22). Chart II-21 Chart II-22     Finally, market power and concentration weighing on capex, wages and productivity are fully consistent with higher returns of cash to shareholders and lower interest rates. The higher profits and lower capex liberate cash flows available to be redistributed to shareholders. Moreover, lower capex also depresses demand for savings in the economy, while weak wages depress middle-class incomes, which hurts aggregate demand. Additionally, higher corporate savings increases the wealth of the richest households, who have a high marginal propensity to save. This results in higher savings for the economy. With a greater supply of savings and lower demand for those savings, the neutral rate of interest has been depressed. Investment Implications First, in an environment of low inflation, investors should continue to favor businesses that can generate higher markups via pricing power. Equity investors should therefore continue to prefer industries where horizontal mergers are still increasing market concentration. Second, so long as the status quo continues, wages will have a natural cap, and so will the neutral rate of interest. This does not mean that wage growth cannot increase further on a cyclical basis, but it means that wages are unlikely to blossom as they did in the late 1960s, even within a very tight labor market. Without too-severe an inflation push from wages, the business cycle could remain intact even longer, keeping a window open for risk assets to rise further on a cyclical basis. Third, long-term investors need to keep a keen eye on the political sphere. A much more laissez-faire approach to regulation, a push toward self-regulation, and a much laxer enforcement of antitrust laws and merger rules were behind the rise in market power and concentration.13 The particularly sharp ascent of populism in Anglo-Saxon economies, where market power increased by the greatest extent, is not surprising. So far, populists have not blamed the corporate sector, but if the recent antitrust noise toward the Silicon Valley behemoths is any indication, the clock is ticking. On a structural basis, this could be very negative for asset prices. An end to this rise in market power would force profit margins to mean-revert toward their long-term trend, which is 4.7 percentage-points below current levels. This will require discounting much lower cash flows in the future. Additionally, by raising wages and capex, more competition would increase aggregate demand and lift real interest rates. Higher wages and aggregate demand could also structurally lift inflation. Thus, not only will investors need to discount lower cash flows, they will have to do so at higher discount rates. As a result, this cycle will likely witness both a generational peak in equity valuations as well as structural lows in bond yields. As we mentioned, these changes are political in nature. We will look forward to studying the political angle of this thesis to get a better handle on when these turning points will likely emerge. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   III. Indicators And Reference Charts Over the past two weeks, the ECB has made a dovish pivot, President Trump announced he would meet President Xi, and the Fed telegraphed a rate cut for July. In response, the S&P 500 made marginal new highs before softening anew. This lack of continuation after such an incredible alignment of stars shows that the bulls lack conviction. These dynamics increase the probability that the market sells off after the G-20 meeting, as we saw last December following the supposed truce in Buenos Aires. The short-term outlook remains dangerous. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) confirms this intuition. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive readings from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if stong market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Cheaper valuations, a pick-up in global growth or an actual policy easing is required before stocks can resume their ascent. The cyclical outlook is brighter than the tactical one. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the U.S. and Japan continues to improve. However, it remains flat in Europe. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. In aggregate, the WTP currently suggests that investors are still inclined to add to their stock holdings. Hence, we expect global investors will continue to buy the dips. Our Monetary Indicator is moving deeper into stimulative territory, supporting our cyclically constructive equity view. The Fed and the ECB are set to cut rates while other global central banks have been opening the monetary spigots. This will support global monetary conditions. The BCA Composite Valuation Indicator, an amalgamation of 11 measures, is in overvalued territory, but it is not high enough to negate the positive message from our Monetary Indicator, especially as our Composite Technical Indicator remains above its 9-month moving average. These dynamics confirm that despite the near-term downside, equities have more cyclical upside. According to our model, 10-year Treasurys are now expensive. Moreover, our technical indicator is increasingly overbought while the CRB Raw Industrials is oversold, a combination that often heralds the end of bond rallies. Additionally, duration surveys show that investors have very elevated portfolio duration, and both the term premium and Fed expectations are very depressed. Considering this technical backdrop, BCA’s economic view implies minimal short-term downside for yields, but significant downside for Treasury prices over the upcoming year. On a PPP basis, the U.S. dollar remains very expensive. Additionally, after forming a negative divergence with prices, our Composite Technical Indicator is falling quickly. Being a momentum currency, the dollar could suffer significant downside if this indicator falls below zero. Monitor these developments closely. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Footnotes 1       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "June 2019," dated May 30, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2       Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Give Credit Where Credit Is Due," dated November 27, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3       Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Europe: Here I Am, Stuck In A Liquidity Trap," dated April 25, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4       Money demand is mostly driven by the level of activity and wealth. If the price of money – interest rates – is growing more slowly than money demand, the most likely cause is that money supply is increasing faster than money demand and policy is accommodative. 5       A monopsony is a firm that controls the price of its input because it is the dominant, if not unique, buyer of said input. 6       G. Grullon, Y. Larkin and R. Michaely, “Are Us Industries Becoming More Concentrated?,” April 2017. 7       The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is calculated by taking the market share of each firm in the industry, squaring them, and summing the result. Consider a hypothetical industry with four total firm where firm1, firm2, firm3 and firm4 has 40%, 30%, 15% and 15% of market share, respectively. Then HHI is 402+302+152+152 = 2,950. 8       J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 9     J. Azar, I. Marinescu, M. Steinbaum, “Labor Market Concentration,” December 2017. 10     M. Weinberg, “The Price Effects Of Horizontal Mergers”, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Volume 4, Issue 2, June 2008, Pages 433–447. 11     O. Ashenfelter, D. Hosken, M. Weinberg, "Did Robert Bork Understate the Competitive Impact of Mergers? Evidence from Consummated Mergers," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages S67 - S100. 12    J. Kwoka, “Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies: A Retrospective Analysis of U.S. Policy,” MIT Press, 2015. 13     J. De Loecker, J. Eeckhout, G. Unger, "The Rise Of Market Power And The Macroeconomic Implications," Mimeo 2018. 14     “Chapter 2: The Rise of Corporate Market Power and Its Macroeconomic Effects,” World Economic Outlook, April 2019. 15     Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?"dated May 31, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 16     Productivity can be written as: Image 17     J. Tepper, D. Hearn, “The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition,” Wiley, November 2018. EQUITIES:FIXED INCOME:CURRENCIES:COMMODITIES:ECONOMY:

Highlights We update our long-range forecasts of returns from a range of asset classes – equities, bonds, alternatives, and currencies – and make some refinements to the methodologies we used in our last report in November 2017. We add coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, and include Emerging Markets debt, gold, and global Real Estate in our analysis for the first time. Generally, our forecasts are slightly higher than 18 months ago: we expect an annual return in nominal terms over the next 10-year years of 1.7% from global bonds, and 5.9% from global equities – up from 1.5% and 4.6% respectively in the last edition. Cheaper valuations in a number of equity markets, especially Japan, the euro zone, and Emerging Markets explain the higher return assumptions. Nonetheless, a balanced global portfolio is likely to return only 4.7% a year in the long run, compared to 6.3% over the past 20 years. That is lower than many investors are banking on. Feature Since we published our first attempt at projecting long-term returns for a range of asset classes in November 2017, clients have shown enormous interest in this work. They have also made numerous suggestions on how we could improve our methodologies and asked us to include additional asset classes. This Special Report updates the data, refines some of our assumptions, and adds coverage of U.K., Australian, and Canadian assets, as well as gold, global Real Estate, and global REITs. Our basic philosophy has not changed. Many of the methodologies are carried over from the November 2017 edition, and clients interested in more detailed explanations should also refer to that report.1 Our forecast time horizon is 10-15 years. We deliberately keep this vague, and avoid trying to forecast over a 3-7 year time horizon, as is common in many capital market assumptions reports. The reason is that we want to avoid predicting the timing and gravity of the next recession, but rather aim to forecast long-term trend growth irrespective of cycles. This type of analysis is, by nature, as much art as science. We start from the basis that historical returns, at least those from the past 10 or 20 years, are not very useful. Asset allocators should not use historical returns data in mean variance optimizers and other portfolio-construction models. For example, over the past 20 years global bonds have returned 5.3% a year. With many long-term government bonds currently yielding zero or less, it is mathematically almost impossible that returns will be this high over the coming decade or so. Our analysis points to a likely annual return from global bonds of only 1.7%. Our approach is based on building-blocks. There are some factors we know with a high degree of certainly: such as the return on U.S. 10-year Treasury yields over the next 10 years (to all intents and purposes, it is the current yield). Many fundamental drivers of return (credit spreads, the small-cap premium, the shape of the yield curve, profit margins, stock price multiples etc.) are either steady on average over the cycle, or mean revert. For less certain factors, such as economic growth, inflation, or equilibrium short-term interest rates, we can make sensible assumptions. Most of the analysis in this report is based on the 20-year history of these factors. We used 20 years because data is available for almost all the asset classes we cover for this length of time (there are some exceptions, for example corporate bond data for Australia and Emerging Markets go back only to 2004-5, and global REITs start only in 2008). The period from May 1999 to April 2019 is also reasonable since it covers two recessions and two expansions, and started at a point in the cycle that is arguably similar to where we are today. Some will argue that it includes the Technology bubble of 1999-2000, when stock valuations were high, and that we should use a longer period. But the lack of data for many assets classes before the 1990s (though admittedly not for equities) makes this problematic. Also, note that the historical returns data for the 20 years starting in May 1999 are quite low – 5.8% for U.S. equities, for example. This is because the starting-point was quite late in the cycle, as we probably also are now.   We make the following additions and refinements to our analysis: Add coverage of the U.K., Australia, and Canada for both fixed income and equities. Add coverage of Emerging Markets debt: U.S. dollar and local-currency sovereign bonds, and dollar-denominated corporate credit. Among alternative assets, add coverage of gold, global Direct Real Estate, and global REITs. Improve the methodology for many alt asset classes, shifting from reliance on historical returns to an approach based on building blocks – for example, current yield plus an estimation of future capital appreciation – similar to our analysis of other asset classes. In our discussion of currencies, add for easy reference of readers a table of assumed returns for all the main asset classes expressed in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD (using our forecasts of long-run movements in these currencies). Added Sharpe ratios to our main table of assumptions. The summary of our results is shown in Table 1. The results are all average annual nominal total returns, in local currency terms (except for global indexes, which are in U.S. dollars). Table 1BCA Assumed Returns Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Unsurprisingly, given the long-term nature of this exercise, our return projections have in general not moved much compared to those in November 2017. Indeed, markets look rather similar today to 18 months ago: the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield was 2.4% at end-April (our data cut-off point), compared to 2.3%, and the trailing PE for U.S. stocks 21.0, compared to 21.6. If anything, the overall assumption for a balanced portfolio (of 50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% equal-weighted alts) has risen slightly compared to the 2017 edition: to 4.7% from 4.1% for a global portfolio, and to 4.9% from 4.6% for a purely U.S. one. That is partly because we include specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia, and Canada, where returns are expected to be slightly higher than for the markets we limited our forecasts to previously, the U.S, euro zone, Japan, and Emerging Markets (EM). Equity returns are also forecast to be higher than 18 months ago, mainly because several markets now are cheaper: trailing PE for Japan has fallen to 13.1x from 17.6x, for the euro zone to 15.5x from 18.0x, and for Emerging Markets to 13.6x from 15.4x (and more sophisticated valuation measures show the same trend). The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, based on our analysis, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. We include Sharpe ratios in Table 1 for the first time. We calculate them as expected return/expected volatility to allow for comparison between different asset classes, rather than as excess return over cash/volatility as is strictly correct, and as should be used in mean variance optimizers. Chart 1Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns Volatility Is Easier To Forecast Than Returns For volatility assumptions, we mostly use the 20-year average volatility of each asset class. As discussed above, historical returns should not be used to forecast future returns. But volatility does not trend much over the long-term (Chart 1). We looked carefully at volatility trends for all the asset classes we cover, but did not find a strong example of a trend decline or rise in any. We do, however, adjust the historic volatility of the illiquid, appraisal-based alternative assets, such as Private Equity, Real Estate, and Farmland. The reported volatility is too low, for example 2.6% in the case of U.S. Direct Real Estate. Even using statistical techniques to desmooth the return produces a volatility of only around 7%. We choose, therefore, to be conservative, and use the historic volatility on REITs (21%) and apply this to Direct Real Estate too. For Private Equity (historic volatility 5.9%), we use the volatility on U.S. listed small-cap stocks (18.6%). Looking at the forecast Sharpe ratios, the risk-adjusted return on global bonds (0.55) is somewhat higher than that of global equities (0.33). Credit continues to look better than equities: Sharpe ratio of 0.70 for U.S. investment grade debt and 0.62 for high-yield bonds. Nonetheless, our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. Over the past 20 years a global balanced portfolio (defined as above) returned 6.3% and a similar U.S. portfolio 7.0%. We expect 4.7% and 4.9% respectively in future. Investors working on the assumption of a 7-8% nominal return – as is typical among U.S. pension funds, for example – need to become realistic. Below follow detailed descriptions of how we came up with our assumptions for each asset class (fixed income, equities, and alternatives), followed by our forecasts of long-term currency movements, and a brief discussion of correlations. 1. Fixed Income We carry over from the previous edition our building-block approach to estimating returns from fixed income. One element we know with a relatively high degree of certainty is the return over the next 10 years from 10-year government bonds in developed economies: one can safely assume that it will be the same as the current 10-year yield. It is not mathematical identical, of course, since this calculation does not take into account reinvestment of coupons, or default risk, but it is a fair assumption. We can make some reasonable assumptions for returns from cash, based on likely inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate in different countries. After this, our methodology is to assume that other historic relationships (corporate bond spreads, default and recovery rates, the shape of the yield curve etc.) hold over the long run and that, therefore, the current level reverts to its historic mean. The results of our analysis, and the assumptions we use, are shown in Table 2. Full details of the methodology follow below. Table 2Fixed Income Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Projected returns have not changed significantly from the 2017 edition of this report. In the U.S., for the current 10-year Treasury bond yield we used 2.4% (the three-month average to end-April), very similar to the 2.3% on which we based our analysis in 2017. In the euro zone and Japan, yields have fallen a little since then, with the 10-year German Bund now yielding roughly 0%, compared to 0.5% in 2017, and the Japanese Government Bond -0.1% compared to zero. Overall, we expect the Bloomberg Barclays Global Index to give an annual nominal return of 1.7% over the coming 10-15 years, slightly up from the assumption of 1.5% in the previous edition. This small rise is due to the slight increase in the U.S. long-term risk-free rate, and to the inclusion for the first time of specific estimates for returns in the U.K., Australia, and Canada. Fixed Income Methodologies Cash. We forecast the long-run rate on 3-month government bills by generating assumptions for inflation and the real equilibrium cash rate. For inflation, in most countries we use the 20-year average of CPI inflation, for example 2.2% in the U.S. and 1.7% in the euro zone. This suggests that both the Fed and the ECB will slightly miss their inflation targets on the downside over the coming decade (the Fed targets 2% PCE inflation, but the PCE measure is on average about 0.5% below CPI inflation). Of course, this assumes that the current inflation environment will continue. BCA’s view is that inflation risks are significantly higher than this, driven by structural factors such as demographics, populism, and the advent of ultra-unorthodox monetary policy.2 But we see this as an alternative scenario rather than one that we should use in our return assumptions for now. Japan’s inflation has averaged 0.1% over the past 20 years, but we used 1% on the grounds that the Bank of Japan (BoJ) should eventually see some success from its quantitative easing. For the equilibrium real rate we use the New York Fed’s calculation based on the Laubach-Williams model for the U.S., euro zone, U.K., and Canada. For Japan, we use the BoJ’s estimate, and for Australia (in the absence of an official forecast of the equilibrium rate) we take the average real cash rate over the past 20 years. Finally, we assume that the cash yield will move from its current level to the equilibrium over 10 years. Government Bonds. Using the 10-year bond yield as an anchor, we calculate the return for the government bond index by assuming that the spread between 7- and 10-year bonds, and between 3-month bills and 10-year bonds will average the same over the next 10 years as over the past 20. While the shape of the yield curve swings around significantly over the cycle, there is no sign that is has trended in either direction (Chart 2). The average maturity of government bonds included in the index varies between countries: we use the five-year historic average for each, for example, 5.8 years for the U.S., and 10.2 years for Japan. Spread Product. Like government bonds, spreads and default rates are highly cyclical, but fairly stable in the long run (Chart 3). We use the 20-year average of these to derive the returns for investment-grade bonds, high-yield (HY) bonds, government-related securities (e.g. bonds issued by state-owned entities, or provincial governments), and securitized bonds (e.g. asset-backed or mortgage-backed securities). For example, for U.S. high-yield we use the average spread of 550 basis points over Treasuries, default rate of 3.8%, and recovery rate of 45%. For many countries, default and recovery rates are not available and so we, for example, use the data from the U.S. (but local spreads) to calculate the return for high-yield bonds in the euro zone and the U.K. Inflation-Linked Bonds. We use the average yield over the past 10 years (not 20, since for many countries data does not go back that far and, moreover, TIPs and their equivalents have been widely used for only a relatively short period.) We calculate the return as the average real yield plus forecast inflation. Chart 2Yield Curves Yield Curves Yield Curves Chart 3Credit Spreads & Default Rates Credit Spreads & Defaykt Rates Credit Spreads & Defaykt Rates     Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Bond Indexes. We use the weights of each category and country (from among those we forecast) to derive the likely return from the index. The composition of each country’s index varies widely: for example, in the euro zone (27% of the global bond index), government bonds comprise 66% of the index, but in the U.S. only 37%. Only the U.S. and Canada have significant weightings in corporate bonds: 29% and 50% respectively. This can influence the overall return for each country’s index. Table 3Emerging Market Debt Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Emerging Market Debt. We add coverage of EMD: sovereign bonds in both local currency and U.S. dollars, and USD-denominated EM corporate debt. Again, we take the 20-year average spread over 10-year U.S. Treasuries for each category. A detailed history of default and recovery is not available, so for EM corporate debt we assume similar rates to those for U.S. HY bonds. For sovereign bonds, we make a simple assumption of 0.5% of losses per year – although in practice this is likely to be very lumpy, with few defaults for years, followed by a rush during an EM crisis. For EM local currency debt, we assume that EM currencies will depreciate on average each year in line with the difference between U.S. inflation and EM inflation (using the IMF forecast for both – please see the Currency section below for further discussion on this). After these calculations, we conclude that EM USD sovereign bonds will produce an annual return of 4.7%, and EM USD corporate bonds 4.5% – in both cases a little below the 5.6% return assumption we have for U.S. high-yield debt (Table 3).   2. Equities Our equity methodologies are largely unchanged from the previous edition. We continue to use the return forecast from six different methodologies to produce an average assumed return. Table 4 shows the results and a summary of the calculation for each methodology. The explanation for the six methodologies follows below. Table 4Equity Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined The results suggest slightly higher returns than our projections in 2017. We forecast global equities to produce a nominal annual total return in USD of 5.9%, compared to 4.6% previously. The difference is partly due to the inclusion for the first time of specific forecasts for the U.K., Australia and Canada, which are projected to see 8.0%, 7.4% and 6.0% returns respectively. The projection for the U.S. is fairly similar to 2017, rising slightly to 5.6% from 5.0% (mainly due to a slightly higher assumption for productivity growth in future, which boosts the nominal GDP growth assumption). Japan, however, does come out looking significantly more attractive than previously, with an assumed return of 6.2%, compared to 3.5% previously. This is mostly due to cheaper valuations, since the growth outlook has not improved meaningfully. Japan now trades on a trailing PE of 13.1x, compared to 17.6x in 2017. This helps improve the return indicated by a number of the methodologies, including earnings yield and Shiller PE. The forecast for euro zone equities remains stable at 4.7%. EM assumptions range more widely, depending on the methodology used, than do those for DM. On valuation-based measures (Shiller PE, earnings yield etc.), EM generally shows strong return assumptions. However, on a growth-based model it looks less attractive. We continue to use two different assumptions for GDP growth in EM. Growth Model (1) is based on structural reform taking place in Emerging Markets, which would allow productivity growth to rebound from its current level of 3.2% to the 20-year average of 4.1%; Growth Model (2) assumes no reform and that productivity growth will continue to decline, converging with the DM average, 1.1%, over the next 10 years. In both cases, the return assumption is dragged down by net issuance, which we assume will continue at the 10-year average of 4.9% a year. Our composite projection for EM equity returns (in local currencies) comes out at 6.6%, a touch higher than 6.0% in 2017. Equity Methodologies Equity Risk Premium (ERP). This is the simplest methodology, based on the concept that equities in the long run outperform the long-term risk-free rate (we use the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield) by a margin that is fairly stable over time. We continue to use 3.5% as the ERP for the U.S., based on analysis by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton of the average ERP for developed markets since 1900. We have, however, tweaked the methodology this time to take into account the differing volatility of equity markets, which should translate into higher returns over time. Thus we use a beta of 1.2 for the euro zone, 0.8 for Japan, 0.9 for the U.K., 1.1 for both Australia and Canada, and 1.3 for Emerging Markets. The long-term picture for global growth remains poor, but valuation at the starting-point, as we have often argued, is a powerful indicator of future returns. Growth Model. This is based on a Gordon growth model framework that postulates that equity returns are a function of dividend yield at the starting point, plus the growth of earnings in future (we assume that the dividend payout ratio stays constant). We base earnings growth off assumptions of nominal GDP growth (see Box 1 for how we calculate these). But historically there is strong evidence that large listed company earnings underperform nominal GDP growth by around 1 percentage point a year (largely because small, unlisted companies tend to show stronger growth than the mature companies that dominate the index) and so we deduct this 1% to reach the earnings growth forecast. We also need to adjust dividend yield for share buybacks which in the U.S., for tax reasons, have added 0.5% to shareholder returns over the past 10 years (net of new share issuance). In other countries, however, equity issuance is significantly larger than buybacks; this directly impacts shareholders’ returns via dilution. For developed markets, the impact of net equity issuance deducts 0.7%-2.7% from shareholder returns annually. But the impact is much bigger in Emerging Markets, where dilution has reduced returns by an average of 4.9% over the past 10 years. Table 5 shows that China is by far the biggest culprit, especially Chinese banks. Table 5Dilution In Emerging Markets Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined BOX 1 Estimating GDP Growth We estimate nominal GDP growth for the countries and regions in our analysis as the sum of: annual growth in the working-age population, productivity growth, and inflation (we assume that capital deepening remains stable over the period). Results are shown in Table 6. Table 6Calculations Of Trend GDP Growth Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined For population growth, we use the United Nations’ median scenario for annual growth in the population aged 25-64 between 2015 and 2030. This shows that the euro zone and Japan will see significant declines in the working population. The U.S. and U.K. look slightly better, with the working population projected to grow by 0.3% and 0.1% respectively. There are some uncertainties in these estimates. Stricter immigration policies would reduce the growth. Conversely, greater female participation, a later retirement age, longer working hours, or a rise in the participation rate would increase it. For emerging markets we used the UN estimate for “less developed regions, excluding least developed countries”. These countries have, on average, better demographics. However, the average number hides the decline in the working-age population in a number of important EM countries, for example China (where the working-age population is set to shrink by 0.2% a year), Korea (-0.4%), and Russia (-1.1%). By contrast, working population will grow by 1.7% a year in Mexico and 1.6% in India. For productivity growth, we assume – perhaps somewhat optimistically – that the decline in productivity since the Global Financial Crisis will reverse and that each country will return to the average annual productivity growth of the past 20 years (Chart 4). Our argument is that the cyclical factors that depressed productivity since the GFC (for example, companies’ reluctance to spend on capex, and shareholders’ preference for companies to pay out profits rather than to invest) should eventually fade, and that structural and technical factors (tight labor markets, increasing automation, technological breakthroughs in fields such as artificial intelligence, big data, and robotics) should boost productivity. Based on this assumption, U.S. productivity growth would average 2.0% over the next 10-15 years, compared to 0.5% since 1999. Note that this is a little higher than the Congressional Budgetary Office’s assumption for labor productivity growth of 1.8% a year. Chart 4AProductivity Growth (I) Productivity Growth (I) Productivity Growth (I) Chart 4BProductivity Growth (II) Productivity Growth (II) Productivity Growth (II) Our assumptions for inflation are as described above in the section on Fixed Income. The overall results suggest that Japan will see the lowest nominal GDP growth, at 0.9% a year, with the U.S. growing at 4.4%. The U.K. and Australia come out only a little lower than the U.S. For emerging markets, as described in the main text, we use two scenarios: one where productivity grow continues to slow in the absence of reforms, especially in China, from the current 3.2% to converge with the average in DM (1.1%) over the next 10-15 years; and an alternative scenario where reforms boost productivity back to the 20-year average of 4.1%.   Growth Plus Reversion To Mean For Margins And Profits. There is logic in arguing that profit margins and multiples tend to revert to the mean over the long term. If margins are particularly high currently, profit growth will be significantly lower than the above methodology would suggest; multiple contraction would also lower returns. Here we add to the Growth Model above an assumption that net profit margin and trailing PE will steadily revert to the 20-year average for each country over the 10-15 years. For most countries, margins are quite high currently compared to history: 9.2% in the U.S., for example, compared to a 20-year average of 7.7%. Multiples, however, are not especially high. Even in the U.S. the trailing PE of 21.0x, compares to a 20-year average of 20.8x (although that admittedly is skewed by the ultra-high valuations in 1999-2000, and coming out of the 2007-9 recession – we would get a rather lower number if we used the 40-year average). Indeed, in all the other countries and regions, the PE is currently lower than the 20-year average. Note that for Japan, we assumed that the PE would revert to the 20-year average of the U.S. and the euro zone (19.2), rather than that of Japan itself (distorted by long periods of negative earnings, and periods of PE above 50x in the 1990s and 2000s).  Earnings Yield. This is intuitively a neat way of thinking about future returns. Investors are rewarded for owning equity, either by the company paying a dividend, or by reinvesting its earnings and paying a dividend in future. If one assumes that future return on capital will be similar to ROC today (admittedly a rash assumption in the case of fast-growing companies which might be tempted to invest too aggressively in the belief that they can continue to generate rapid growth) it should be immaterial to the investor which the company chooses. Historically, there has been a strong correlation between the earnings yield (the inverse of the trailing PE) and subsequent equity returns, although in the past two decades the return has been somewhat higher that the EY suggested, and so in future might be somewhat lower. This methodology produces an assumed return for U.S. equities of 4.8% a year. Shiller PE. BCA’s longstanding view is that valuation is not a good timing tool for equity investment, but that it is crucial to forecasting long-term returns. Chart 5 shows that there is a good correlation in most markets between the Shiller PE (current share price divided by 10-year average inflation-adjusted earnings) and subsequent 10-year equity returns. We use a regression of these two series to derive the assumptions. This points to returns ranging from 5.4% in the case of the U.S. to 12.5% for the U.K. Composite Valuation Indicator. There are some issues that make the Shiller PE problematical. It uses a fixed 10-year period, whereas cycles vary in length. It tends to make countries look cheap when they have experienced a trend decline in earnings (which may continue, and not mean revert) and vice versa. So we also use a proprietary valuation indicator comprising a range of standard parameters (including price/book, price/cash, market cap/GDP, Tobin’s Q etc.), and regress this against 10-year returns. The results are generally similar to those using the Shiller PE, except that Japan shows significantly higher assumed returns, and the U.K. and EM significantly lower ones (Chart 6). Chart 5Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Shiller PE Vs. 10-Year Return Chart 6Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return Composite Valuation Vs. 10-Year Return     3. Alternative Investments We continue to forecast each illiquid alternative investment separately, but we have made a number of changes to our methodologies. Mostly these involve moving away from using historical returns as a basis for our forecasts, and shifting to an approach based on current yield plus projected future capital appreciation. In direct real estate, for example, in 2017 we relied on a regression of historical returns against U.S. nominal GDP growth. We move in this edition to an approach based on the current cap rate, plus capital appreciation (based on forecasts of nominal GDP growth), and taking into account maintenance costs (details below). We also add coverage of some additional asset classes: global ex-U.S. direct real estate, global ex-U.S. REITs, and gold. Table 7 summarizes our assumptions, and provides details of historic returns and volatility. Table 7Alternatives Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined It is worth emphasizing here that manager selection is far more important for many alternative investment classes than it is for public securities (Chart 7). There is likely to be, therefore, much greater dispersion of returns around our assumptions than would be the case for, say, large-cap U.S. equities. Chart 7For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key For Alts, Manager Selection Is Key Hedge Funds Chart 8Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge Fund Return Over Cash Hedge fund returns have trended down over time (Chart 8). Long gone is the period when hedge funds returned over 20% per year (as they did in the early 1990s). Over the past 10 years, the Composite Hedge Fund Index has returned annually 3.3% more than 3-month U.S. Treasury bills. But that was entirely during an economic expansion and so we think it is prudent to cut last edition’s assumption of future returns of cash-plus-3.5%, to cash-plus-3% going forward. Direct Real Estate Our new methodology for real estate breaks down the return, in a similar way to equities, into the current cash yield (cap rate) plus an assumption of future capital growth. For the cap rate, we use the average, weighted by transaction volumes, of the cap rates for apartments, office buildings, retail, industrial real estate, and hotels in major cities (for example, Chicago, Los Angeles, Manhattan, and San Francisco for the U.S., or Osaka and Tokyo for Japan). We assume that capital values grow in line with each’s country’s nominal GDP growth (using the IMF’s five-year forecasts for this). We deduct a 0.5% annual charge for maintenance, in line with industry practice. Results are shown in Table 8. Our assumptions point to better returns from real estate in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Not only is the cap rate in the U.S. higher, but nominal GDP growth is projected to be higher too. Table 8Direct Real Estate Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined REITs We switch to a similar approach for REITs. Previously we used a regression of REITs against U.S. equity returns (since REITs tend to be more closely correlated with equities than with direct real estate). This produced a rather high assumption for U.S. REITs of 10.1%. We now use the current dividend yield on REITs plus an assumption that capital values will grow in line with nominal GDP growth forecasts. REITs’ dividend yields range fairly narrowly from 2.9% in Japan to 4.7% in Canada. We do not exclude maintenance costs since these should already be subtracted from dividends. The result of using this methodology is that the assumed return for U.S. REITs falls to a more plausible 8.5%, and for global REITs is 6.2%. Private Equity & Venture Capital Chart 9Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around Private Equity Premium Has Shrunk Around It makes sense that Private Equity returns are correlated with returns from listed equities. Most academic studies have shown a premium over time for PE of 5-6 percentage points (due to leverage, a tilt towards small-cap stocks, management intervention, and other factors). However, this premium has swung around dramatically over time (Chart 9). Over the past 10 years, for example, annual returns from Private Equity and listed U.S. equities have been identical: 12%. However, there appears to be no constant downtrend and so we think it advisable to use the 30-year average premium: 3.4%. This produces a return assumption for U.S. Private Equity of 8.9% per year. Over the same period, Venture Capital has returned around 0.5% more than PE (albeit with much higher volatility) and we assume the same will happen going forward.   Structured Products In the context of alternative asset classes, Structured Products refers to mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securities. We use the projected return on U.S. Treasuries plus the average 20-year spread of 60 basis points. Assumed return is 2.7%. Farmland & Timberland Chart 10Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP Farm Prices Grow More Slowly Than GDP As with Real Estate and REITs, we move to a methodology using current cash yield (after costs) plus an assumption for capital appreciation linked to nominal GDP forecasts. The yield on U.S. Farmland is currently 4.4% and on Timberland 3.2%. Both have seen long-run prices grow significantly more slowly than nominal GDP growth. Since 1980, for example, farm prices have risen at a compound rate of 3.9% per acre, compared to U.S. nominal GDP growth of 5.2% and global GDP growth of 5.5% (Chart 10). We assume that this trend will continue, and so project farm prices to grow 1.5 percentage points a year more slowly than global GDP (using global, not U.S., economic growth makes sense since demand for food is driven by global factors). This produces a total return assumption of 6%. For timberland, we did not find a consistent relationship with nominal GDP growth and so assumed that prices would continue to grow at their historic rate over the past 20 years (the longest period for which data is available). We project timberland to produce an annual return of 4.8%. Commodities & Gold For commodities we use a very different methodology (which we also used in the previous edition): the concept that commodities prices consistently over time have gone through supercycles, lasting around 10 years, followed by bear markets that have lasted an average of 17 years (Chart 11). The most recent super-cycle was 2002-2012. In the period since the supercycle ended, the CRB Index has fallen by 42%. Comparing that to the average drop in the past three bear markets, we conclude that there is about 8% left to fall over the next nine years, implying an annual decline of about 1%. Our overall conclusion is that future returns are still likely to be below those of the past decade or two, and below many investors’ expectations. We add gold to our assumptions, since it is an asset often held by investors. However, it is not easy to project long-term returns for the metal. Since the U.S. dollar was depegged from gold in 1968, gold too has gone through supercycles, in the 1970s and 2002-11 (Chart 12). We find that change in real long-term interest rates negatively affects gold (logically since higher rates increase the opportunity cost of owning a non-income-generating asset). We use, therefore, a regression incorporating global nominal GDP growth and a projection of the annual change in real 10-year U.S. Treasury yields (based on the equilibrium cash rate plus the average spread between 10-year yields and cash). This produces an assumption of an annual return from gold of 4.7% a year. We continue to see this asset class more as a hedge in a portfolio (it has historically had a correlation of only 0.1 with global equities and 0.24 with global bonds) rather than a source of return per se.  Chart 11Commodities Still In A Bear Market Commodities Still In A Bear Market Commodities Still In A Bear Market Chart 12Gold Also Has Supercycles Gold Also Has Supercycles Gold Also Has Supercycles   4. Currencies Chart 13Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP Currencies Tend To Revert To PPP All the return projections in this report are in local currency terms. That is a problem for investors who need an assumption for returns in their home currency. It is also close to impossible to hedge FX exposure over as long a period as 10-15 years. Even for investors capable of putting in place rolling currency hedges, GAA has shown previously that the optimal hedge ratio varies enormously depending on the home currency, and that dynamic hedges (i.e. using a simple currency forecasting model) produce better risk-adjust returns than a static hedge.3  Fortunately, there is an answer: it turns out that long-term currency forecasting is relatively easy due to the consistent tendency of currencies, in developed economies at least, to revert to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) over the long-run, even though they can diverge from it for periods as long as five years or more (Chart 13). We calculate likely currency movements relative to the U.S. dollar based on: 1) the current divergence of the currency from PPP, using IMF estimates of the latter; 2) the likely change in PPP over the next 10 years, based on inflation differentials between the country and the U.S. going forward (using IMF estimates of average CPI inflation for 2019-2024 and assuming the same for the rest of the period). The results are shown in Table 9. All DM currencies, except the Australian dollar, look cheap relative to the U.S. dollar, and all of them, again excluding Australia, are forecast to run lower inflation that the U.S. implying that their PPPs will rise further. This means that both the euro and Japanese yen would be expected to appreciate by a little more than 1% a year against the U.S. dollar over the next 10 years or so. Table 9Currency Return Calculations Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined PPP does not work, however, for EM currencies. They are all very cheap relative to PPP, but show no clear trend of moving towards it. The example of Japan in the 1970s and 1980s suggests that reversion to PPP happens only when an economy becomes fully developed (and is pressured by trading partners to allow its currency to appreciate). One could imagine that happening to China over the next 10-20 years, but the RMB is currently 48% undervalued relative to PPP, not so different from its undervaluation 15 years ago. For EM currencies, therefore, we use a different methodology: a regression of inflation relative to the U.S. against historic currency movements. This implies that EM currencies are driven by the relative inflation, but that they do not trend towards PPP. Based on IMF inflation forecasts, many Emerging Markets are expected to experience higher inflation than the U.S. (Table 10). On this basis, the Turkish lira would be expected to decline by 7% a year against the U.S. dollar and the Brazilian real by 2% a year. However, the average for EM, which we calculated based on weights in the MSCI EM equity index, is pulled down by China (29% of that index), Korea (15%) and Taiwan (12%). China’s inflation is forecast to be barely above that in the U.S, and Korean and Taiwanese inflation significantly below it. MSCI-weighted EM currencies, consequently, are forecast to move roughly in line with the USD over the forecast horizon. One warning, though: the IMF’s inflation forecasts in some Emerging Markets look rather optimistic compared to history: will Mexico, for example, see only 3.2% inflation in future, compared to an average of 5.7% over the past 20 years? Higher inflation than the IMF forecasts would translate into weaker currency performance. Table 10EM Currencies Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined In Table 11, we have restated the main return assumptions from this report in USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD, and CAD terms for the convenience of clients with different home currencies. As one would expect from covered interest-rate parity theory, the returns cluster more closely together when expressed in the individual currencies. For example, U.S. government bonds are expected to return only 0.8% a year in EUR terms (versus 2.1% in USD terms) bringing their return closer to that expected from euro zone government bonds, -0.4%. Convergence to PPP does not, however, explain all the difference between the yields in different countries. Table 11Returns In Different Base Currencies Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined 5. Correlations Chart 14Correlations Are Hard To Forecast Correlations Are Hard To Forecast Correlations Are Hard To Forecast We have not tried to forecast correlations in this Special Report. As discussed, historical returns from different asset classes are not a reliable guide to future returns, but it is possible to come up with sensible assumptions about the likely long-run returns going forward. Volatility does not trend much over the long term, so we think it is not unreasonable to use historic volatility data in an optimizer. But correlation is a different matter. As is well known, the correlation of equities and bonds has moved from positive to negative over the past 40 years (mainly driven by a shift in the inflation environment). But the correlation between major equity markets has also swung around (Chart 14). Asset allocators should preferably use rough, conservative assumptions for correlations – for example, 0.1 or 0.2 for the equity/bond correlation, rather than the average -0.1 of the past 20 years. We plan to do further work to forecast correlations in a future edition of this report.  But for readers who would like to see – and perhaps use – historic correlation data, we publish below a simplified correlation matrix of the main asset classes that we cover in this report (Table 12). We would be happy to provide any client with the full spreadsheet of all asset classes . Table 12Correlation Matrix Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Return Assumptions – Refreshed And Refined Garry Evans Chief Global Asset Allocation Strategist garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “What Returns Can You Expect?”, dated 15 November 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 2      Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, “Investors’ Guide To Inflation Hedging: How To Invest When Inflation Rises,” dated 22 May 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com 3      Please see GAA Special Report, “Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors,” dated 29 September 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com  

Highlights So What? Geopolitical risks are not about to ease. Why? Fiscal policy becomes less accommodative next year unless politicians act. Financial conditions give President Trump room to expand his tariff onslaught. Our Iran view is confirmed by rapid escalation of tensions – war risk is high. The odds of a no-deal Brexit have risen. Feature The AUD-JPY cross and copper-to-gold ratio – two market indicators that flag global growth and risk-on sentiment – are hovering over critical points at which a further breakdown would catalyze a renewed flight to quality (Chart 1). Chart 1Risk-On Indicators Breaking Down? Risk-On Indicators Breaking Down? Risk-On Indicators Breaking Down? Global sentiment remains depressed amid a rash of negative economic surprises and bonds continue to rally despite a more dovish outlook from the Fed (Chart 2). Chart 2Global Sentiment Remains Depressed Global Sentiment Remains Depressed Global Sentiment Remains Depressed The cavalry is on the way: European Central Bank President Mario Draghi oversaw a dramatic easing of monetary policy on June 18, driving the Italian-German sovereign bond spread down to levels not seen since before the populist election outcome of March 2018 (Chart 2, bottom panel). The Federal Reserve adjusted its policy rate projections to countenance an interest rate cut in the not-too-distant future. More needs to be done, however, to sustain the optimism that has propelled the S&P 500 and global equities upward since the volatility catalyzed by President Donald Trump’s announcement of a tariff rate hike on May 6. Political and geopolitical risks are higher, not lower, since that time as market-negative scenarios are playing out with U.S. policy, Iran, and Brexit, while we take a dim view of the end-game of the U.S.-China negotiations despite recent improvements. Fiscal And Trade Uncertainties This year’s growth wobbles have occurred in the context of expansive fiscal policy in the developed markets. Next year, however, the fiscal thrust (the change in the cyclically adjusted budget balance) is projected to decline in the U.S. and Japan and nearly to do so in Europe (Chart 3). We expect President Trump and the House Democrats to raise spending caps (or at least keep spending at current levels) and thus prevent the budget deficit from contracting in FY2020 – this is their only substantial point of agreement. But this at best neutralizes what would otherwise be a negative fiscal backdrop. Meanwhile it is not at all clear that Brussels will relax its scrutiny of member states seeking to cut taxes and boost spending, such as Italy. Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo would need to arrange for the Diet to pass a new law to avoid the consumption tax hike from 8% to 10% on October 1. He can pull this off, especially if the U.S. trade war escalates – or if he decides to turn next month’s upper house election into a general election and needs to boost his popularity. But as things currently stand in law, the world’s third biggest economy will face a deep fiscal pullback next year (Chart 3, bottom panel). In short, DM fiscal policy will not really become contractionary in 2020, but this is a view and not yet a reality (Chart 4). Chart 3Fiscal Pullback Likely Next Year Fiscal Pullback Likely Next Year Fiscal Pullback Likely Next Year Chart 4Only The U.S. Is Profligate Only The U.S. Is Profligate Only The U.S. Is Profligate Meanwhile China’s stimulus is still in question – in fact it remains the major macro question this year. The efficacy of China’s stimulus is declining ... An escalating trade war will bring greater stimulus but also greater transmission problems.  Since February we have argued that the Xi administration has shifted to sweeping fiscal-and-credit stimulus in the face of the unprecedented external threat posed by the Trump administration (Charts 5A and 5B). We expect China’s credit growth to continue its upturn in June and in H2. Ultimately, we think the whole package will be comparable to 2015-16 – and anything even close to that will prolong the global economic expansion. We do not see a massive 2008-style stimulus occurring unless relations with the U.S. completely collapse and a global recession occurs. Chart 5AStimulus Amid The Trade War Stimulus Amid The Trade War Stimulus Amid The Trade War Chart 5 The catch – as we have shown – is that the efficacy of China’s stimulus is declining over time because of over-indebtedness and bearish sentiment in China’s private sector. These tepid animal spirits stem from epochal changes: Xi’s reassertion of communism and America’s withdrawal of strategic support for China’s rise. An escalating trade war will bring greater stimulus but also greater transmission problems. The magnitude of the tariffs that President Trump is threatening to impose on China, Mexico, the EU, and Japan is mind-boggling. We illustrate this with a simple simulation of duties collected as a share of total imports under different scenarios (Chart 6). Chart 6 China and Mexico are fundamentally different from the EU and Japan and hence the threat of tariffs will continue to weigh on markets for Trump’s time in office – China because of a national security consensus and Mexico because of the Trump administration’s existential emphasis on curbing illegal immigration. But we still put the risk of auto tariffs (or other punitive measures) on Europe at 45% if Trump seals a China deal. The odds are lower for Japan but it is still at risk. Global supply chains are shifting – a new source of costs and uncertainty for companies – as a slew of recent news has highlighted. Already 40% of companies surveyed by the American Chamber of Commerce in China say they are relocating to Southeast Asia, Mexico, and elsewhere (Chart 7). If the G20 is a flop – or results in nothing more than a pause in tariffs for another three-month dialogue – relocations will gain steam, forcing companies’ bottom lines to take a hit. Chart 7 Even in the best case, in which the Trump-Xi summit produces a joint statement outlining a “deal in principle” accompanied by a rollback of the May 10 tariff hike, uncertainty will persist due to President Trump’s unpredictability, China’s incentive to wait until after the U.S. election, and Trump’s incentive to corner the “China hawk” platform prior to the election. We maintain that, by November 2020, there is a roughly 70% chance of further escalation. At least the U.S.-China conflict is nominally improving. The same cannot be said for other geopolitical risks discussed below: the U.S. and Iran are flirting with war; the U.S. presidential election is injecting a steady trickle of market-negative news; the chances of a no-deal Brexit are rising; and Trump may turn on Europe at a moment when it lacks leadership. This list assumes that Russia takes advantage of American distraction by improving domestic policy rather than launching into a new foreign adventure – say in Ukraine or Kaliningrad. If there is any doubt as to whether political risk can outweigh more accommodative monetary policy, remember that President Trump actually can remove Chairman Jerome Powell. Legally he is only allowed to do so “for cause” as opposed to “at will.” But the meaning of this term is a debate that would go to the Supreme Court in the event of a controversial decision. Meanwhile the stock market would dive. Now, this is precisely why Trump will not try. But the implication, as with Congress and the border wall, is that Trump is constrained on domestic policy and hence tariffs are his most effective tool to try to achieve policy victories. With an ebullient stock market and a Fed that is adjusting its position, Trump can try to kill two birds with one stone: wring concessions from trade partners while forcing the FOMC to keep responding to rising external risks. Bottom Line: Central banks are riding to the rescue, but there is only so much they can do if global leaders are tightening budgets and imposing barriers on immigration and trade. We remain tactically cautious. Oh Man, Oh Man, Oman Iran has swiftly responded to the Trump administration’s imposition of “maximum pressure” on oil exports. The shooting down of an American drone that Tehran claims violated its airspace on June 20 is the latest in a spate of incidents, including a Houthi first-ever cruise missile attack on Abha airport in Saudi Arabia. Two separate attacks on tankers near the Strait of Hormuz (Map 1) demonstrate that Iran is threatening to play its most devastating card in the renewed conflict with the U.S. Chart Chart 8 Hormuz ushers through a substantial share of global oil demand and liquefied natural gas demand (Chart 8). The amount of spare pipeline capacity that the Gulf Arab states could activate in the event of a disruption is merely 3.9 million barrels per day, or 6 million if questionable pipelines like the outdated Iraqi pipeline in Saudi Arabia prove functional (Table 1). Table 1No Sufficient Alternatives To Hormuz Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere A conflict with Iran could cause the biggest oil shock of all time. Even if this spare capacity were immediately utilized, a conflict could cause the biggest oil shock of all time – considerably bigger than that of the Iranian Revolution (Chart 9). Chart 9 We have shown in the past that Iran has the military capability of interrupting the flow of traffic in Hormuz for anywhere from 10 days to four months. A preemptive strike by Iran would be most effective, whereas a preemptive American attack would include targets to reduce Iran’s ability to retaliate via Hormuz. The impact on oil prices ranges from significant to devastating. Needless to say, blocking the Strait of Hormuz would initiate a war so Iran is attempting to achieve diplomatic goals with the threats themselves – it will only block the strait as a last resort, say if it is convinced that the U.S. is about to attack anyway. As the experience of President Jimmy Carter shows, Americans may rally around the flag during a crisis but they will also kick a president out of office for higher prices and an economic slowdown. President Trump cannot be unaware of this precedent. The intention of his Iran policy is to negotiate a “better deal” than the 2015 one – a deal that includes Iran’s regional power projection and ballistic missile capabilities as well as its nuclear program. The problem is that Trump has already been forced to deploy a range of forces to the region, including additional troops (albeit so far symbolic at 2,500) (Chart 10). He is also sending Special Representative for Iran, Brian Hook, to the region to rally support among Gulf Cooperation Council. The week after Hook will court Britain, Germany, and France, three of the signatories of the 2015 deal. Trump ran on a campaign of eschewing gratuitous wars in the Middle East – a popular stance among war-weary Americans (Chart 11) – but there is a substantial risk that he could get entangled in the region. First, he is adopting a more aggressive foreign policy to attempt to compensate for the lack of payoff in public opinion from the strong economy. Second, Iran is not shrinking from the fight, which could draw him deeper into conflict. Third, there is always a high risk of miscalculation when nations engage in such brinkmanship. Chart 10Is The 'Pivot To Asia' About To Reverse? Is The 'Pivot To Asia' About To Reverse? Is The 'Pivot To Asia' About To Reverse? Chart 11 The Iranian response has been, first, to reject negotiations. When Trump sent a letter to Rouhani via Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo, Abe was rebuffed – and one of the tankers attacked near Oman was a Japanese flagged vessel, the Kokuka Courageous. This is a posture, not a permanent position, as the Iranian release of an American prisoner demonstrates. But the posture can and will be maintained in the near term – with escalation as the result. Second, Iran is increasing its own leverage in any future negotiation by demonstrating that it can sow instability across the region and bring the global economy grinding to a halt. Iran cannot assume that Trump means what he says about avoiding war but must focus on the United States’ actions and capabilities. Cutting off all oil exports is a recipe for extreme stress within the Iranian regime – it is an existential threat. Therefore, the Iranians have signaled that the cost of a total cutoff will be a war that will cause a global oil price shock. The Iranian leaders are also announcing that they are edging closer to walking away from the 2015 nuclear pact (Table 2). If so, they could quickly approach “breakout” capacity in the uranium enrichment – meaning that they could enrich to 20% and then in short order enrich to 90% and amass enough of this fuel to make a nuclear device one year thereafter. The Trump administration has reportedly reiterated that this one-year limit is the U.S. government’s “red line,” just as the Obama administration had done. Table 2Iran Threatens To Walk Away From 2015 Nuclear Deal Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere This Iranian threat is a direct reaction to Trump’s decision in May not to renew the oil sanction waivers. Previously the Iranians had sought to preserve the 2015 deal, along with the Europeans, in order to wait out Trump’s first term. These developments push us to the brink of war. Iran is retaliating with both military force and a nuclear restart. This comes very close to meeting our conditions for an American (and Israeli) retaliation that is military in nature. Diagram 1 is an update of our decision tree that we have published since last year when Trump reneged on the 2015 deal. The window to de-escalate is closing rapidly. The Appendix provides a checklist for air strikes and/or the closure of Hormuz. Diagram 1Iran-U.S. Tensions Decision Tree Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere At very least we expect to see the U.S. attempt to create a large international fleet to assert freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. While Iran may lay low during a large show of force, it will later want to demonstrate that it has not been cowed. And it has the capacity to retaliate elsewhere, including in Iraq, an area we have highlighted as a major geopolitical risk to oil supply. The U.S. government has already reacted to recent threats there from Iranian proxies by pulling non-essential personnel. Iran has several incentives to test the limits of conflict if the U.S. insists on the oil embargo. First, tactically, it seeks to deter President Trump, take advantage of American war-weariness, drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe, and force a relaxation of the sanctions. This would also demonstrate to the region that Iran has greater resolve than the United States of America. This goal has not been achieved by the recent spate of actions, so there is likely more conflict to come. Second, President Hassan Rouhani’s government is also likely to maintain a belligerent posture – at least in the near term – to compensate for its loss of face upon the American betrayal of the 2015 nuclear deal. Rouhani negotiated the deal against the warnings of hardline revolutionaries. The 2020 majlis elections make this an important political goal for his more reform-oriented faction. Negotiations with Trump can only occur if Rouhani has resoundingly demonstrated his superiority in the clash of wills. Structurally, Iran faces tremendous regime pressures in the coming years and decades because of its large youth population, struggling economy, and impending power transition from the 80 year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei. A patriotic war against America and its allies – while not desirable – is a risk that Khamenei can take, as an air war is less likely to trigger regime change than it is to galvanize a new generation in support of the Islamic revolution. For oil markets the outcome is volatility in the near term – reflecting the contrary winds of trade war and global growth fears with rising supply risks. Because we expect more Chinese stimulus, both as the trade talks extend and especially if they collapse, we ultimately share BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategy view that the path of least resistance for oil prices is higher on a cyclical horizon, as demand exceeds supply (Chart 12). We remain long EM energy producers relative to EM ex-China. Chart 12Crude Oil Supply-Demand Balance Should Send Prices Higher Crude Oil Supply-Demand Balance Should Send Prices Higher Crude Oil Supply-Demand Balance Should Send Prices Higher Bottom Line: The risk of military conflict has risen materially. This also drastically elevates the risk of a supply shock in oil prices that would kill global demand. The U.S. Election Adds To Geopolitical Risk The 2020 U.S. election poses another political risk for the rising equity market. The Democratic Party’s first debate will be held on June 26-27. The leftward shift in the party will be on full display, portending a possible 180-degree reversal in U.S. policy if the Democrats should win the election, with the prospect of a rollback of Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation of health, finance, and energy. The uncertainty and negative impact on animal spirits will be modest if current trends persist through the debates. Former Vice President Joe Biden remains the frontrunner despite having naturally lost the bump to his polling support after announcing his official candidacy (Chart 13). Biden is a known quantity and a centrist, especially compared to the farther left candidates ranked second and third in popular support– Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Chart 13 Chart 14 Biden is not only beating Sanders in South Carolina, which underscores the fact that he is competitive in the South and hence has a broader path to the White House, but also in New Hampshire, where the Vermont native should be ahead (Chart 14). These states hold the early primaries and caucuses and if Biden maintains his large lead then he will start to appear inevitable very early in the primary campaign next year. Hence a poor showing in the debate on June 27 is a major risk to Biden – he should be expected to be eschew the limelight and play the long game. Elizabeth Warren, by contrast, has the most to gain as she appears on the first night and does not share a stage with the other heavy hitters. If she or other progressive candidates outperform then the market will be spooked. The market could begin to trade off the polls. All of these candidates are beating Trump in current head-to-head polling – Biden is even ahead in Texas (Chart 15). This means that any weakness from Biden does not necessarily offer the promise of a Trump victory and policy continuity. Chart 15 The Democrats also have a powerful demographic tailwind. The just-released projections from the U.S. Census Bureau reveal how Trump’s narrow margins of victory in the swing states in 2016 are in serious jeopardy in 2020 as a result of demographics if he does not improve his polling among the general public (Chart 16). Chart 16 We still give Trump the benefit of the doubt as the incumbent president amid an expanding economy, but it is essential to recognize that his popular approval rating is reminiscent of a president during recession – i.e. one who is about to lose the White House for his party (Chart 17). Chart 17 Even if there is not a recession, an increase in unemployment is likely to cost him the election – and even a further decrease in unemployment cannot guarantee victory (Chart 18). This is why we see Trump making a bid to become a foreign policy president and seek reelection on the basis that it is unwise to change leaders amid an international crisis. Chart 18 We still give Trump the benefit of the doubt ... but his popular approval rating is reminiscent of a president during recession. The race for the U.S. senate is extremely important for the policy setting from 2021. If Republicans maintain control, they will be able to block sweeping Democratic legislation – which is particularly relevant if a progressive candidate should win the White House. However, if Democrats can muster enough votes to remove a sitting president with a strong economy – including a strong economy in the key senate swing races (Chart 19) – then they will likely win over the senate as well. Chart 19Hard To Win The Senate In 2020 While Key States Prosper Hard To Win The Senate In 2020 While Key States Prosper Hard To Win The Senate In 2020 While Key States Prosper Bottom Line: The 2020 election poses a double risk to the bull market. First, the Democratic primary campaign threatens sharp policy discontinuity, especially if and when developments cause Biden to drop in the polls (dealing a blow to centrism or the political establishment). Second, Trump’s vulnerability makes him more likely to act aggressive on the international stage, whether on trade, immigration, or national security, reinforcing the risks outlined above with regard to China, Iran, Mexico, and even Europe. Rising Odds Of A No-Deal Brexit Former Mayor of London and former foreign secretary Boris Johnson looks increasingly likely to seal the Conservative Party leadership contest in the United Kingdom. It is not yet a done deal, but the shift within the party in favor of accepting a “no deal” exit is clear. None of the remaining candidates is willing to forgo that option. The newest development advances us along our decision tree in Diagram 2, altering the conditional probabilities for this year’s events. We expect the next prime minister to try to push a deal substantially similar to outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May before attempting any kamikaze run as the October 31 deadline approaches. The attempt to leverage the EU’s economic weakness will not produce a fundamental renegotiation of the exit deal, but some element of diplomatic accommodation is possible as the EU seeks to maintain overall stability and a smooth exit if that is what the U.K. is determined to accomplish. Diagram 2Brexit Decision Tree Escalation ... Everywhere Escalation ... Everywhere Hence the prospect of passing a deal substantially similar to outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal is about 30%, roughly equal to the chance of a delay (28%). These options are believable as the new leader will have precious little time between taking the reins and Brexit day. The EU can accept a delay because it ultimately has an interest in keeping the U.K. bound into the union. Public opinion polling is not conducive to the new prime minister seeking a new election unless the change of face creates a massive shift in support for the Conservatives, both by swallowing the Brexit Party and outpacing Labour. If the purpose is to deliver Brexit, then the risk of a repeat of the June 2017 snap election would seem excessive. Nevertheless, the Tories’ working majority in parliament is vanishingly small, at five MPs, so a shift in polling could change the thinking on this front. The pursuit of a no-deal exit would create a backlash in parliament that we reckon has a 21% chance of ending in a no-confidence motion and new election. Bottom Line: The odds of a crash Brexit have moved up from 14% to 21% as a result of the leadership contest. The threat that the U.K. will crash out of the EU is not merely a negotiating ploy, although it will be a last resort even for the new hard-Brexit prime minister. Public opinion is against a no-deal Brexit, as is the majority of parliament, but the risk to the U.K. and EU economies will loom large over global risk assets in the coming months. Investment Conclusions Political and geopolitical risks to the late-cycle expansion are rising, not falling. U.S. foreign policy remains the dominant risk but U.S. domestic policy pre-2020 is an aggravating factor. Easing financial conditions give President Trump more ammunition to use tariffs and sanctions. Meanwhile our view that this summer will feature “fire and fury” between the U.S. and Iran has been confirmed by the tanker attacks in Oman. Tensions will likely escalate from here. Ultimately, we believe Trump is more likely to back off from the Iran conflict than the China conflict. This is part of our long-term theme that the U.S. really is pivoting to China and geopolitical risk will rotate from the Middle East to East Asia. But as highlighted above, the risk of entanglement is very high due to Trump’s approach and Iran’s incentives to raise the stakes. Oil prices will not resume their upward drift until Chinese stimulus is reconfirmed – and even then they will continue to be volatile. We remain cautious and are maintaining our safe-haven tactical trades of long gold and long JPY/USD.   Matt Gertken, Vice President Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Appendix Image

Supply - demand fundamentals point to higher oil prices going forward. Our expectation regarding OPEC production remains unchanged: The original cartel led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) will maintain production discipline this year – likely continuing to over-comply with quotas agreed at the start of the year – to support its long-standing goal to reduce oil inventories globally. Non-OPEC member states in OPEC 2.0 led by Russia also will maintain lower output this year. The OPEC 2.0 coalition will meet July 1 - 2 in Vienna to determine whether it will extend production cuts. On the demand side, we lowered our expectation for this year and next, following the World Bank’s recent downgraded assessment of global GDP growth. Our expectation remains slightly above the EIA’s and the IEA’s. Globally, central bank easing will support demand. Following these adjustments, we are keeping our Brent forecast at $73/bbl this year and lowering our forecast for next year to $75/bbl from $77/bbl. We continue to expect WTI to trade $7/bbl and $5/bbl below those levels this year and next, respectively. The balance of risk is to the upside. The risk of hybrid warfare (see below) in the Persian Gulf -- and the wider region -- will increase, as Iranian and U.S. positions harden. Highlights Highlights Energy: Overweight. The U.S. Central Command released photos supporting an analysis claiming Iran was responsible for two attacks on commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf last week. The Pentagon deployed an additional 1,000 troops to the region, following this assessment. President Trump, meanwhile, downplayed the attacks, calling them a “very minor event.”1 Base Metals: Neutral. Copper speculators lifted their short position 6k lots to 51.7k lots on CME last week. This is a record short. But the cash market is getting tighter. Treatment and refining charges (TC/RCs) moved lower last week, as Fastmarkets MB’s TC/RC Asia – Pacific index hit $54.10/MT, $05.41/lb. This is the lowest level on record for the index, which was launched in June 2013. A low index reading means copper concentrate is in short supply, forcing refiners to lower the price of their services. We remain long the September 2019 $3.00/lb Calls vs. short the September 2019 $3.30/lb calls. Precious Metals: Neutral. Safe-haven demand continues to support gold prices, although news of a Trump – Xi meeting at the G20 in Japan to re-start trade talks reduced the urgency of buying earlier this week. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Rain continued to soak the U.S. Midwest this past week, putting a bid under grains – particularly corn – and beans. This week’s USDA Crop Progress report showed corn planting still behind schedule (at 92% vs. 100% on average in the 2014 – 18 period in the 18 states that accounted for 92% of total acres planted last year). Feature The information flows to oil markets are becoming internally contradictory. On the one hand, recent attacks on commercial oil-product tankers near the Strait of Hormuz – where close to 20% of the world’s oil supply transits daily – raised the ante in the U.S.-GCC-Iran stand-off.  The attacks follow earlier aggression against shipping and pipelines in the region, and prompted KSA’s Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih to call for a collective response to keep Gulf sea lanes open to allow oil to flow freely worldwide.2 In the post-WWII era, the U.S. has willingly taken on the responsibility of keeping the world’s sea lanes open for the free flow of commodities and finished products. However, based on remarks U.S. President Donald Trump made to Time magazine this week, it would appear the U.S. no longer is willing to shoulder the burden of defending freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf.3 The presidential sangfroid in the wake of last week’s attacks in the Gulf – which Pentagon analysts insist were launched by Iran – might be explained by the Trump administration’s belief the global oil market is “very well-supplied,” as U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette contended in an S&P Global Platts interview this past weekend.4 Indeed, this has become part of the narrative whenever the administration discusses oil markets. Brouillette said abundant crude availability prevented oil prices from spiking to $140/bbl in the wake of the attacks on the two commercial tankers. Will The U.S. Defend Gulf Sea Lanes? The global oil market is “well supplied” as long as the Strait of Hormuz – the most critical chokepoint in the world – stays open. Freedom of navigation on the open seas is the sine qua non of a well-functioning oil market – everything from getting supplies to refiners to getting products to consumers depends on it. Oil is a globally traded, waterborne commodity: ~ 60% of all crude exports are loaded on a ship and sent to refiners, directly or via trading companies.5 A liquid crude market requires an unimpeded shipping market, so that refiners can run their operations in a routine manner. In addition, a smoothly functioning shipping market allows refiners to pick and choose among various grades that can be arbitraged against each other, so they can optimize charging stocks. The market cannot absorb the loss of close to 20mm b/d of crude and refined products, which is what would happen if the Strait shut down. It is the most important choke point in the world (Map 1). Chart We’re sure the White House knows this. President Trump’s professed desire to leave the U.S. commitment to maintaining the free flow of oil out of the Gulf is a “question mark” that might be taken as a taunt to up the ante with Iran. Already, in response to the U.S. re-imposing sanctions on Iranian oil exports after unilaterally abrogating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement, Iran announced it will resume production of enriched uranium for its nuclear program on June 27.6 As the summer progresses, we expect a continued escalation in tensions in the Gulf, which, at the very least, will keep volatility in the oil markets elevated. The growing tension in this standoff increases the risk of hybrid warfare in the Persian Gulf, which, should it continue to escalate, increases the risk to global oil flows, as Anthony H. Cordesman at the Center For Strategic & International Studies in Washington recently noted: First, the military confrontation between Iran, the U.S., and the Arab Gulf states over everything from the JCPOA to Yemen can easily escalate to hybrid warfare that has far more serious forms of attack. And second, such attacks can impact critical aspects of the flow of energy to key industrial states and exporters that shape the success of the global economy as well as the economy of the U.S.7 There is a risk this hybrid warfare metastasizes into a full-on war in the Gulf, which would threaten the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. Should the Strait be closed, a global oil-price shock almost surely would occur, which most likely would send oil prices through $150/bbl. At that point either the warfare is contained and resolved quickly, or the world has to line up 20mm b/d of crude oil and refined products to replace the lost supply from the Gulf. As the summer progresses, we expect a continued escalation in tensions in the Gulf, which, at the very least, will keep volatility in the oil markets elevated (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekVolatility Will Remain High Volatility Will Remain High Volatility Will Remain High OPEC 2.0 Will Maintain Production Discipline Even as tensions in the Persian Gulf escalate, we continue to expect OPEC 2.0 to maintain its production discipline. While the producer coalition agreed to remove 1.2mm b/d of production from the market last December, we estimate year-on-year (y/y) year-to-date (ytd) production of OPEC is down ~ 1.4mm b/d in the January-to-May period. For Russia, production over that period y/y is up 310k b/d ytd. For all of OPEC 2.0, we have the group increasing production in 2H19, but we have it ending 2019 with production 480k b/d lower than last month’s forecast. The increase is mainly from Saudi Arabia, which averages ~ 10.2mm b/d of production in 2H19, roughly 130k b/d below quota. We have Russian production averaging ~ 11.5mm b/d, which is close to quota, in 2H19 (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) Supply – Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices Supply – Demand Balances Consistent With Higher Oil Prices For the year as a whole, we are forecasting OPEC production will fall 1.6mm b/d this year versus 2018 levels, while Russia’s production grows slightly (~ 80k b/d). For next year, OPEC’s production will stay relatively flat (falling ~ 70k b/d), while we expect Russia’s production to increase 230k b/d (Table 1). Outside OPEC 2.0, the U.S. continues to dominate the production-growth story, led by increasing shale-oil output (Chart 2). We expect shale output to grow ~ 1.2mm b/d this year and just over 1mm b/d in 2020. Chart 2U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Production Growth U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Production Growth U.S. Shales Dominate Non-OPEC Production Growth Global Demand Is Holding Up While we do expect somewhat lower demand this year and next versus where we were earlier this year, we still expect consumption to remain fairly robust. We expect demand to grow ~ 1.35mm b/d this year and 1.55mm b/d next year, down from 1.50mm and 1.60mm b/d, respectively, in our base case. As always this is led by non-OECD demand growth, which we expect will clock in with an increase of just over 1mm b/d this year versus last year, and 1.3mm b/d next year on average. EM commodity importers will dominate growth, as usual (Chart 3). Trade-war concerns will continue to dominate headlines, but even so, demand remains reasonably stout. While it always is possible the U.S. and China will be able to resolve their trade war – perhaps in dramatic fashion following the G20 meeting in Japan – our colleagues in BCA Research’s doubt it.8 Continuing Sino – U.S. and Iranian – U.S. tension could keep the USD relatively well bid, which will present a headwind to oil demand.  That said, we believe central banks generally will feel compelled to remain accommodative so long as trade wars persist. This accommodation, coupled with fiscal stimulus in many of the systemically important economies, will be supportive of demand overall, EM demand in particular. Chart 3EM Oil Demand Growth Once Again Leads The World EM Oil Demand Growth Once Again Leads The World EM Oil Demand Growth Once Again Leads The World Bottom Line: Supply – demand balances indicate crude oil prices still have room to run in 2H19 and next year. We are maintaining our forecast of $73/bbl for Brent this year. We are lowering our forecast for 2020 to $75/bbl (Chart 4). We expect WTI to trade $7/bbl and $5/bbl below those levels this year and next, respectively. The combination of stout demand growth, production discipline by OPEC 2.0 and capital discipline by U.S. shale producers will allow inventories to resume drawing this year (Chart 5). Chart 4Supply - Demand Balances Point To Higher Prices Supply - Demand Balances Point To Higher Prices Supply - Demand Balances Point To Higher Prices Chart 5Stout Demand, Supply Discipline Will Allow Inventories To Draw Stout Demand, Supply Discipline Will Allow Inventories To Draw Stout Demand, Supply Discipline Will Allow Inventories To Draw   Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      Please see Analyst: New Photos Are ‘Smoking Gun’ Proving Iranian Involvement in Tanker Attack published by USNI News, and Exclusive: President Trump Calls Alleged Iranian Attack on Oil Tankers 'Very Minor' published by Time magazine on June 17, 2019. 2      Please see Saudi Energy Minister calls for collective effort to secure shipping lanes published by reuters.com June 17, 2019. 3      Please see Exclusive: President Trump Calls Alleged Iranian Attack on Oil Tankers 'Very Minor' published by Time magazine on June 17, 2019. Tessa Berenson reported: “Facing twin challenges in the Persian Gulf, President Donald Trump said in an interview with TIME Monday that he might take military action to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, but cast doubt on going to war to protect international oil supplies.“I would certainly go over nuclear weapons,” the president said when asked what moves would lead him to consider going to war with Iran, “and I would keep the other a question mark.” 4      Please see Interview: Abundant oil supply prevented spike to $140/b after ship attacks - US DOE deputy published by S&P Global Platts June 16, 2019. 5      Please see World Oil Transit Chokepoints published by the U.S. EIA. 6      Please see Iran nuclear deal: Enriched uranium limit will be breached on 27 June published by bbc.co.uk June 17, 2019.  JCPOA agreement between Iran and the so-called P5+1 nations – China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. – allowed Iran to return to global markets in exchange for limiting its nuclear development.  Please see The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) at a Glance published by Arms Control Association in May 2018.    7      Please see The Strategic Threat from Iranian Hybrid Warfare in the Gulf published by CSIS June 13, 2019. 8      Please see Policy Risk Restrains Oil Prices published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy May 30, 2019, where we reprise the different policy risks oil markets are contending with at present, particularly the trade war.  It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades TRADE RECOMMENDATION PERFORMANCE IN 2019 Q1 Image Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Closed Trades Closed Image