Energy

Highlights We do not view October's equity downdraft as a signal to further trim risk assets to underweight. Nonetheless, stocks have not yet fallen enough to justify buying either. The economic divergence between the U.S. and the rest of the world is intensifying and showing up in relative EPS trends. We believe earnings growth is set to drop sharply in the Eurozone and Japan. The viciousness of the bond selloff in October is worrying. The good news is that the Treasury curve steepened and the selloff mostly reflected higher real yields, rather than inflation expectations. Both facts suggest that the Treasury rout was reflective of strong U.S. growth, rather than a signal that the Fed is overly restrictive. Our sense is that the fed funds rate has not yet reached the economic choke point, but it is critical to watch for signs of trouble. This month we focus on key monetary indicators. Our "R-Star" indicator is deteriorating, but is not yet in the danger zone for risk assets. It is possible that we will upgrade risk assets back to overweight if stocks in the developed markets cheapen further, as long as our monetary indicators are not flashing red and the U.S. earnings backdrop remains upbeat. However, the risks are formidable and show no signs of abating. Indeed, our global economic indicators continue to deteriorate and we might be headed for a brief manufacturing recession outside of the U.S. A Democratic win in the U.S. mid-terms might spark a knee-jerk equity selloff, but Congress is unlikely to unravel any of the fiscal stimulus currently in place through 2019. The Administration's foreign policy remains a larger risk for equities. Our high conviction view is that President Trump will continue to use a "maximum pressure" approach for Iran and China that will spark additional fireworks. Another growing risk is an oil price spike above US$100/bbl in early 2019, causing significant economic damage. Chinese policy stimulus is underwhelming and the credit impulse remains weak. In the absence of real policy action in China, the prospect of continuing Fed tightening means that it is too early to bottom-fish in emerging markets. The market is still underestimating the U.S. inflation outlook and the amount of Fed tightening over the next 12-18 months. We continue to recommend a neutral stance on global equities (with a preference for developed over emerging markets), a below-benchmark duration bias, and an overweight allocation in cash. Feature October's market action confirmed that we have entered a period of elevated volatility as investors digest the inevitability of rising U.S. interest rates. We do not view the downdraft in equity markets as a signal to further trim risk asset exposure to underweight. Nonetheless, stocks have not yet fallen enough to justify buying either. We took profits and downgraded risk assets to benchmark in June, placing the proceeds into cash. Our primary motivation was the advanced nature of the U.S. economic cycle, stretched valuations, heightened geopolitical tensions, the risk of a Chinese "hard landing" and upside potential for U.S. inflation and global bond yields. We did not foresee a recession either in the U.S. or the other major economies in the near future. Nonetheless, we concluded that the risk/reward balance did not favor staying overweight risk assets. A number of culprits could be blamed for October's pullback, but in reality the market has been primed for some profit-taking for a long while and so any little excuse could have been used by investors to sell. Fed Chair Powell's "long way to go" comment seemed to push the teetering equity market over the edge. He challenged the market's view that the fed funds rate is getting close to neutral, implying that the Fed is not close to pushing the pause button. The Treasury curve steepened as the market discounted a higher cyclical peak in the fed funds rate. Could it be that bond yields have reached a "choke point" where tightening financial conditions are derailing the economic expansion? The global economic deceleration is intensifying, but the U.S. economy still appears to be enjoying solid momentum outside of housing. We do not yet see any major dark clouds forming in the U.S. corporate earnings picture either, as discussed below. Moreover, the bond selloff in October mostly reflected rising real yields (rather than inflation expectations), and the curve steepened. Both facts suggest that the Treasury selloff was reflective of U.S. strong growth, rather than a signal that the Fed is now outright restrictive. Nonetheless, the issue is particularly tricky in this cycle because the equilibrium, or neutral, fed funds rate is undoubtedly somewhat lower than in past expansions. Given the uncertain level of the neutral rate, investors must be on the lookout for signs that interest rates are beginning to bite. Markets And The Fed Cycle BCA has long viewed financial markets through the lens of money and credit. This includes a framework that involves the Fed policy cycle. We begin by decomposing the fed funds rate cycle into four phases based on the interaction between the level of rates and their direction, as follows (Chart I-1 and Chart I-2): Phase I begins with the first rate hike of a new tightening cycle and ends when the fed funds rate crosses above our estimate of the equilibrium rate (shown as a dashed line in Charts I-1 and I-2). Phase II represents the latter stages of the tightening cycle, when the Fed hikes its target rate above equilibrium in a deliberate effort to cool an overheating economy. Phase III represents the early stage of the easing cycle. It begins with the first rate cut from the peak and lasts until the Fed cuts its target rate below equilibrium. Phase IV represents the late stage of the easing cycle. It encompasses both the period when the fed funds rate breaks below its equilibrium level until it bottoms. Chart I-1Stylized Fed Rate Cycle November 2018 November 2018 Chart I-2Fed Funds Rate And Equilibrium Fed Funds Rate And Equilibrium Fed Funds Rate And Equilibrium The tough part is estimating the neutral level of the fed funds rate. It is a theoretical concept - the level that is consistent with an economy at full employment with no upward or downward pressure on inflation or growth. The Fed lifts the fed funds rate above neutral when it wishes to dampen the economy and temper inflationary pressure. Economic theory ties the equilibrium interest rate to the pace of expansion of the supply side of the economy, or potential GDP growth. Our approach is to combine the CBO's estimate of potential GDP growth with a smoothed version of the actual fed funds rate, to account for the fact that the equilibrium rate periodically deviates from potential growth. The historical track record of this framework is compelling. The latest update of our analysis of equity returns during the four phases was published by BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Service.1 The level of the fed funds rate relative to its equilibrium has mattered much more than the direction of rates for historical S&P 500 price returns (Table I-1 and I-2). Price returns during Phases I and IV (when the fed funds rate is below equilibrium) trounce returns during Phases II and III (when the funds rate is in restrictive territory). This is especially the case after adjusting returns for inflation. Table I-1Tight Policy Is Hazardous To Stocks' Health, ... November 2018 November 2018 Table I-2...Especially In Real Terms November 2018 November 2018 Further breaking down the historical returns into 12-month forward EPS estimates and 12-month forward multiples, it turns out that multiples usually contract when the Fed is tightening. However, during Phase I this is more than offset by the increase in forward earnings estimates, such that equity investors enjoy positive returns until rates move into restrictive territory in Phase II. Our sense is that we are still in Phase I, implying that it is too early to expect more than a correction in risk assets based solely on the U.S. monetary policy cycle. The fed funds rate has been rising, but so too has the equilibrium rate according on our measure. Powell's latest comments suggest that the Fed agrees. That said, it is a cliche to say that this cycle has been different in many ways. Nobody knows exactly where the neutral rate is today. This means that we must be on watch for signs that the fed funds rate has already crossed into restrictive territory. We looked at the behavior of a raft of monetary and credit indicators around the time that the fed funds rate broke above the estimated neutral rate in the past. None of them have been reliable across all business cycles since the 1970s, but the best ones are shown in Chart I-3: Growth in M1 generally begins to decelerate as the fed funds rate approaches neutral and falls into negative territory shortly thereafter. Bank liquidity is defined as short-term assets as a percent of total bank credit. It usually peaks just before rates become restrictive, and begins to fall quickly as the fed funds rate surpasses the equilibrium level. We interpret bank liquidity as a proxy for banks' willingness to provide funding liquidity that enables institutional investors to take positions. The peak level of bank liquidity differs across tightening cycles, but it is never a good sign when it begins to trend lower. Consumer credit growth has a somewhat spotty track record as an indicator of monetary restraint, but it has often peaked around the time that the Fed enters Phase II. The BCA Fed Monitor is an indicator designed to gauge the pressure on the Fed to adjust policy one way or the other. It generally peaks in "tight money required" territory just before, or coincident with, the shift from Phase I to Phase II. A shift of the Monitor into "easy money required" territory would suggest that policy has become outright restrictive, and that a peak in the fed funds rate is approaching. Chart I-3BCA R-Star Indicator And Its Components BCA R-Star Indicator And Its Components BCA R-Star Indicator And Its Components Combining the four into one indicator removes some of the noise of the individual series. The BCA "R-Star" Indicator is shown in the top panel of Chart I-3. A dip in this indicator below the zero line would warn that we have entered Phase II and that the equity bull market is out of time. Chart I-4 shows the BCA R-Star indicator again, along with the S&P 500, EPS growth and profit margins. It is shaded for periods when the R-Star indicator is below zero. The lead time has varied across the economic cycles and it is far from a perfect predictor. Nonetheless, when the indicator is negative it has generally been associated with falling stock prices, decelerating profit growth and eroding profit margins. The indicator has edged lower this year, but is not yet in the danger zone. Chart I-4BCA R-Star Indicator And The U.S. Profit Cycle BCA R-Star Indicator And The U.S. Profit Cycle BCA R-Star Indicator And The U.S. Profit Cycle Finally, we are of course watching the yield curve. Its recent steepening suggests that U.S. growth justifies higher bond yields and that policy has not yet become outright restrictive. Global Growth Divergence Continues... We do not see compelling evidence from the flow of U.S. economic data that higher rates are derailing the expansion, although there are a couple of worrying signs, suggesting that growth has peaked. The backdrop is quite supportive for consumer spending: tax cuts, robust employment gains, rising wages and elevated confidence. The fact that the household saving rate is relatively high means that consumers have the wherewithal to boost the pace of spending if they wish. Motor vehicle sales have moderated, but this is to be expected when the economic cycle is advanced. The replacement cycle for U.S. business investment still has further to run. The average age of the non-residential housing stock is the highest since 1963. Both capex intention surveys and the recent easing in lending standards for commercial and industrial loans suggest that U.S. capital expenditures will be well supported, although there has been some softness in the former recently (Chart I-5). Chart I-5U.S. Capex Outlook Is Bright U.S. Capex Outlook Is Bright U.S. Capex Outlook Is Bright That said, the soft U.S. housing data are a concern, especially because a peak in residential investment as a share of GDP has been a good (albeit quite early) leading indicator of recessions. It is difficult to fully explain why housing is losing altitude given all the tailwinds supporting demand, including solid household formation (see last month's Overview). Mortgage rates have increased but affordability is still favorable. It could be that the supply side, rather than demand, is the problem: tight lending standards, zoning restrictions and the high cost of building. Still, a continued housing downtrend relative to GDP would be a challenge to our view that there will be no recession in 2019. While the U.S. economy is enjoying strong momentum, the same cannot be said for the rest of the global economy. A raft of items has weighed on CEO confidence outside of the U.S., including trade wars, a strong dollar, rising oil prices, emerging market turbulence, the return of Italian debt woes and the continuing slowdown in the Chinese economy. The global PMI is beginning to erode from a high level (Chart I-6). The softening in world activity appears to be concentrated in capital spending. Growth in capital goods imports for an aggregate of 20 countries continues to decelerate, along with industrial production for capital goods and machinery & electrical equipment in the major advanced economies. Chart I-6Global Capex Is Softening Global Capex Is Softening Global Capex Is Softening Meanwhile, our favorite global leading indicators are flashing red (Chart I-7). BCA's Global LEI has broken below the boom/bust line and its diffusion index suggests further downside. The Global ZEW and the BCA Boom/Bust indicator are holding just below zero. The global credit impulse is also still pointing down. Chart I-7Global Leading Indicators Flashing Red Global Leading Indicators Flashing Red Global Leading Indicators Flashing Red Among the advanced economies, Europe and Japan are most vulnerable to the slowdown in global trade and capital spending. Industrial production growth has already stalled in both economies and their respective LEIs are heading south fast (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Global Divergence Global Divergence Global Divergence ...Affecting Relative Earnings Trends It is thus not surprising that corporate EPS growth has peaked in the Eurozone and Japan. The macro data that drive our top-down EPS growth models suggest that the profit situation is going to deteriorate quickly in the coming quarters. The peak in industrial production growth suggests that the corporate top line will lose more steam. Meanwhile, nominal GDP growth has decelerated sharply in both economies, in absolute terms and relative to the aggregate wage bill (Chart I-9). These trends suggest that profit margins are coming under significant downward pressure. Even when we build in a modest growth pickup and slight rebound in margins in 2019, EPS growth falls close to zero by year-end according to our model (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Diverging Macro Trends... Diverging Macro Trends... Diverging Macro Trends... Chart I-10...Implies Different EPS Outlook ...Implies Different EPS Outlook ...Implies Different EPS Outlook The earnings situation is completely different in the U.S. It is still early in Q3 earnings season, but company reports have been upbeat so far. The macro variables that feed into our top-down U.S. EPS model point to both continuing margin expansion and robust top line growth (Chart I-9). Nominal GDP growth has surged to more than 5% on a year-ago basis, while the expansion in the economy's wage bill has been steady at under 5%. It is also very impressive that industrial production growth continues to accelerate, bucking the global trend. We assume that U.S. GDP growth moderates from this year's hectic pace in 2019, but stays well above-trend because of the lingering fiscal tailwind. Impressively, the indicators we are following suggest that S&P 500 profit margins still have some upside potential, at least in the next quarter or two (Chart I-11). Nonetheless, we make the conservative assumption that margins will narrow somewhat in 2019. Plugging this macro scenario into our model, it suggests that EPS growth will decelerate to a still-solid 10% pace by the end of 2019. The impact on corporate profits from the rise in bond yields so far will be minimal. It is only now that the yield on the average corporate bond has reached the average coupon on outstanding debt. This means that it will require further increases in yields from here to have any meaningful impact on corporate interest expense. Chart I-11U.S. Margin Indicators Still Upbeat U.S. Margin Indicators Still Upbeat U.S. Margin Indicators Still Upbeat The U.S. economic and earnings backdrop is robust enough that we would be tempted to upgrade our risk asset allocation back to overweight if the S&P 500 moves even lower in the near term. Nonetheless, a number of key risks keep us at benchmark for now. (1) U.S. Foreign Policy The U.S. mid-term election is less than two weeks away as we go to press. Our geopolitical team places the odds of a Democratic House takeover at 65%, and the odds of a Senate takeover at 40%. Investors should expect a knee-jerk equity selloff if the Democrats manage to grab both parts of Congress. However, any damage to risk assets should be fleeting because the Democrats would not be able to unravel any of President Trump's main economic policies. Voters are not demanding budget discipline from either party, despite the surging federal deficit (Chart I-12). We highlighted in a recent Special Report that we foresee little political backlash against fiscal profligacy because of the shift-to-the-left by the median voter.2 The Trump tax cuts are here to stay. Chart I-12No Political Backlash To Big Deficits No Political Backlash To Big Deficits No Political Backlash To Big Deficits In fact, our geopolitical team argues that the odds would increase for an infrastructure plan and even of an immigration deal, if President Trump comes to the middle ground on some of his demands.3 The implication is that fiscal policy will remain highly stimulative in 2019, before the initial thrust begins to wear off in 2020. The Administration's foreign policy, however, remains a key risk for equities. Our high conviction view is that President Trump will continue pursuing unorthodox foreign and trade policies regardless of the midterm outcome. The just-announced 10% tariff on $200 billion of Chinese imports confirms our alarmist view on trade tensions. President Trump has threatened to lift the tariff to 25% by the end of the year in order to pile even more pressure on Beijing. This would represent a significant escalation in the trade war, one that we do not expect Chinese policymakers to simply roll over and accept. The risk is that the Chinese government not only hikes tariffs on U.S. exports, but also retaliates against U.S. firms with operations in China. Even more dangerously, a trade war with China could escalate into a military conflict in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, the U.S. embargo on Iranian oil exports will officially begin on November 4, just two days before the midterm election. We expect President Trump to turn the screws on Iranian exports in ways that President Obama did not. Once the election is out of the way, President Trump will refocus on his "maximum pressure" tactic, which he believes led to a breakthrough with North Korea. Unfortunately for the markets, we do not expect that this tactic will work as smoothly with Iran and China. (2) Rising Probability Of An Oil Shock The Administration's pressure on Iran adds to the already high risk of an oil price spike above US$100 per barrel in early 2019. While oil demand growth is slowing somewhat, exports from two of OPEC's largest producers - Iran and Venezuela - are falling precipitously. Global oil inventories are drawing down, while spare capacity is perilously low, leaving little in the way of readily available backup supply to deal with an unplanned production outage. The confluence of these factors is setting the global oil market up for a supply shock according to our energy experts (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Increasing Risk Of An Oil Spike Increasing Risk Of An Oil Spike Increasing Risk Of An Oil Spike It is important to differentiate between a steady demand-driven rise in the price of oil and a rapid supply-driven oil price spike. The former can be bond-bearish by forcing inflation expectations higher at a time when strong economic growth is also pushing up real bond yields. Nonetheless, equity prices could continue rising in this scenario as the robust economic backdrop outweighs the impact of higher yields. In contrast, an oil price spike that is driven by supply restrictions might initially be negative for bond prices, but ultimately would produce a deflationary impulse by depressing real economic activity. It could even be the catalyst for a recession. A supply-driven oil spike would be outright bearish for risk assets and may prove to be the trigger for a shift from benchmark to underweight for global stocks and corporate bonds. The risk facing corporates in the next economic downturn is one of the topics covered in this month's Special Report, beginning on page 21. The report looks at the structural changes to the economy and financial markets that have occurred because of the Great Recession and financial crisis. (3) EM Pain Is Not Over In the absence of policy stimulus in China, the prospect of continuing Fed tightening means that it is too early to bottom-fish in emerging markets. Emerging Asia is at the epicenter of the global trade and capital spending slowdown. The sharp deceleration in Taiwanese and Korean export growth rates suggests that growth in world industrial production and forward earnings estimates are not yet near a bottom (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Asian Exports Softening... Asian Exports Softening... Asian Exports Softening... Softening Chinese domestic demand is adding to the gloom. Chart I-15 shows that efforts by the Chinese authorities to curtail corporate debt have been bearing fruit. In response to the regulatory and administrative tightening, smaller financial institutions are not building up the working capital required to expand their loan book. As a result, the Chinese credit impulse remains weak and shows no sign of a bottom, despite the uptick in the latest reading on M3 growth. Chinese policy stimulus is underwhelming, confirming the view we expressed in the September BCA Overview. Xi Jinping has not yet abandoned his structural goals and shadow bank crackdown, which are weighing on overall credit expansion. Chart I-15...And No Growth Impulse From China Chinese Policy Tightening In Action ...And No Growth Impulse From China Chinese Policy Tightening In Action ...And No Growth Impulse From China Second, EM financial conditions continue to tighten (Chart I-15). Our currency strategists point out that many factors lie behind this deterioration in the EM financial conditions index, including the collapse in performance of carry trades, the dollar's ascent, and rising U.S. interest rates that are boosting the cost of servicing foreign currency EM debt. In turn, tighter EM financial conditions are contributing to the global manufacturing slowdown in a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. EM Asia is particularly at risk to this loop, but Europe, Japan and commodity producers are also vulnerable. Some market commentators have argued that the Fed will soon have to back off its rate hike campaign in the face of global financial market stress. However, the FOMC's pain threshold is higher than at any time since the Great Recession because the domestic economy is showing signs of overheating. The correction in risk assets would have to get a lot worse before the Fed blinks. Meanwhile, the U.S. again passed on the chance to label China a currency manipulator. This opens the door to another downleg in the RMB, especially if the U.S./China trade war escalates. Additional RMB weakness would spell more trouble for EM assets. The implication is that any bounce in EM currencies or asset prices represents a selling opportunity for those investors not already short. Our EM strategists expect at least another 15% drop in share prices before the risk-reward profile of this asset class improves. (4) Italian Debt Crisis The main problem with the Italian economy is that the private sector saves too much and spends too little. A shrinking population has reduced the need for firms to invest in new capacity. Unlike Germany, Italy cannot export its savings to the rest of the world through a large trade surplus because it does not have a hypercompetitive economy. Nor can the Italian government risk running afoul of the bond vigilantes by emulating Japan's strategy of absorbing private-sector savings with large budget deficits. The implication is that Italy is stuck in a low-growth trap that is feeding political pressure to shed the EU's fiscal straight jacket. We believe that the populist government will be the first to blink, but it may require more bouts of financial stress to force capitulation. A 4% level on the 10 year BTP yield is a likely threshold for a compromise. Above that level, Italian banks become insolvent based on the market value of their holdings of Italian debt. In the meantime, rising global bond yields worsen Italy's tenuous financial situation, with possible contagion into global financial markets. Investment Conclusions: The U.S. bond market is waking up to the likelihood that U.S. short-term rates are going higher than previously expected, suggesting that recent investment themes will persist for a while longer. We continue to recommend a neutral stance on global equities (with a preference for developed over emerging markets), a below-benchmark duration bias, and an overweight allocation in cash. The bond market is only priced for the Fed to maintain its quarterly rate hike pace until June of next year (Chart I-16). Investors judge that some combination of tepid global economic momentum and tame U.S. core inflation temper the Fed's need or ability to take rates much higher. We disagree, based our own assessment of the U.S. economy and our out-of-consensus inflation view (see this month's Special Report). Rising volatility and/or a weaker global growth pulse are unlikely to prompt the Fed to bail out of its tightening campaign as quickly as it did in early 2016. Chart I-16Market Expectations For The Fed Still Too Complacent Market Expectations For The Fed Still Too Complacent Market Expectations For The Fed Still Too Complacent Meanwhile, our indicators suggest that the divergence between the red-hot U.S. economy and cooling global activity will continue, implying more upside potential for the U.S. dollar. We expect another 5-10% rise against most currencies, with the possible exception of the Canadian dollar. It is difficult to identify a "choke point" for bond yields in advance. A 10-year Treasury yield north of 3.7% might cause us to call the peak in yields and to become even more defensive on risk assets, but it will be critical to watch our monetary indicators. Indeed, we would be tempted to upgrade stocks back to overweight if the global selloff progresses much further, in the absence of negative reading from the monetary indicators or an inverted yield curve. The earnings backdrop will continue to be a tailwind for the U.S. equity market at least into early 2019. In contrast, profit growth in the Eurozone and Japan is set to disappoint market expectations. The U.S. equity market will therefore outperform, particularly in unhedged terms. Stay at benchmark on corporate bonds versus governments in the U.S. and Eurozone. Avoid emerging market assets and commodities. The main exception is oil, which is increasingly at risk of a spike above $100/bbl. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 25, 2018 Next Report: November 29, 2018 1 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "Revisiting The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," dated September 3, 2018, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "U.S. Fiscal Policy: An Unprecedented Macro Experiment," dated July 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "A Story Told Through Charts: The U.S. Midterm Election," dated September 19, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com II. The Long Shadow Of The Financial Crisis The Great Recession and financial crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policymakers and investors for years to come. The roots of the crisis are already well known. The first of a two-part series looks forward by examining the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. First, the financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. Debt and market liquidity are two key concerns. Corporate leverage will not cause the next recession. Nonetheless, when one does occur, corporate spreads in the U.S. and (to a lesser extent) the Eurozone will widen by more for any given degree of recession. This reflects a low interest coverage ratio, poor market liquidity, the downward trend in credit quality and covenant erosion. Second, the shock of the Great Recession and its aftermath appears to have affected the relationship between economic slack and inflation. Firms have been extra reluctant to grant wage gains. However, we argue that the "shell shock" effect will wane. The fact that inflation has been depressed for so long may actually cultivate the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside in the coming years. Investors should hold inflation-protection in the inflation swaps market, or by overweighting inflation-linked bonds versus conventional issues. Third, the events of the last decade have left a lasting impression on monetary policymakers. They will err on the side of allowing the economy to overheat and inflation to modestly overshoot the target in the major economies, despite signs of financial froth. The Fed will respond only with a lag to the current fiscally-driven surge in U.S. growth, leading to a boom/bust economic scenario. Central bankers will have no trouble employing unorthodox policies again in the future, and will be willing to push the boundaries even further during the next recession. Expect aggressive manipulation of the long-end of the yield curve when the time arrives to ease policy. We may also observe more coordination between monetary and fiscal policies. Fourth, global bond yields fell to unprecedented levels, reflecting both structural and cyclical headwinds to demand growth. A dismal productivity performance is another culprit. Productivity growth is poised to recover to some extent, while some of the growth headwinds have reached an inflection point. We do not expect nominal bond yields to return to pre-Lehman norms, and yields could even fall back to previous lows in the case of a recession. Nonetheless, we expect a yield pattern of higher lows and higher highs over the coming business cycles. The 10-year anniversary of the Lehman shock this autumn sparked an avalanche of analysis on the events and underlying causes of the Great Recession and financial crisis. It is a woeful story of greed, a classic bubble, inadequate regulation, new-fangled financial instruments, and a globalized financial system that spread the shock around the world. The crisis cast a long shadow that will affect economies, policymakers and investors for many years to come. The roots of the crisis are well known, so we will not spend any time going over well-trodden ground. Rather, this Special Report looks forward by examining the areas where we believe structural change has occurred related to the economy or financial markets. In Part I, we cover the corporate bond market, the inflation outlook, central bank policymaking and equilibrium bond yields. Part II will look at the debt overhang, systemic risk in the financial sector, asset correlations, the cult of equity and the rise of populism. While not an exhaustive list, we believe these are the key areas of structural change. (1) Corporate Bond Market: Leverage And Downgrade Risk The financial crisis transformed the corporate bond market in several ways that heighten the risk for quality spreads in the next downturn. Debt and market liquidity are two key concerns. An extraordinarily long period of extremely low interest rates was too much for corporate CEOs to pass up. However, because the durability of the economic recovery was so uncertain, it seemed more attractive to hand over the borrowed cash to shareholders than to use it to aggressively expand productive capacity. The ongoing equity bull market rewarded CEOs for the financial engineering, serving to create a self-reinforcing feedback loop. And so far, corporate bondholders have not policed this activity. The result is that the U.S. corporate bond market has grown in leaps and bounds since 2009 (Chart II-1A and Chart II-1B). The average duration of the Bloomberg Barclays index has also risen as firms locked in attractive financing rates. The same is true, although to a lesser extent, in the Eurozone. Chart II-1AU.S. BBB-Rated Share Rising... U.S. BBB-Rated Share Rising... U.S. BBB-Rated Share Rising... Chart II-1B...Same In The Eurozone ...Same In The Eurozone ...Same In The Eurozone Balance sheet health is obviously not the key driver of corporate bond relative returns at the moment. Nonetheless, investors will begin to worry about the growth outlook if interest rates continue to rise. The U.S. national accounts data suggest that interest coverage remains relatively healthy, but this includes large companies such as some of the FAANGs that have little debt and a lot of cash. The national accounts data are unrepresentative of the companies that are included in the Bloomberg Barclays corporate bond index, which are heavy debt issuers. To gain a clearer picture, we calculated a bottom-up Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) for a sample of U.S. companies that provides a sector and credit-quality composition that roughly matches the Bloomberg Barclay's index. The CHM is the composite of six critical financial ratios. Chart II-2 highlights that the investment-grade (IG) CHM has improved over the past two years due to the profitability sub-components. However, the debt/equity ratio has been in a steep uptrend. Interest coverage does not appear alarming by historical standards at the moment, but one can argue that it should be much higher given the extremely low average coupon on corporate bonds, and given that profit margins are extraordinarily high in the U.S. The rapid accumulation of debt has overwhelmed these other factors. Evidence of rising leverage is broadly based across sectors and ratings. Chart II-2U.S. IG Corporate Health U.S. IG Corporate Health U.S. IG Corporate Health Unfortunately, the profit tailwind won't last forever. At some point, earnings growth will stall and this cycle's debt accumulation will start to bite in the context of rising interest rates. To gauge the risk, we estimate the change in the interest coverage ratio over the next three years for a 100 basis-point rise in interest rates across the corporate curve, taking into consideration the maturity distribution of the debt.1 For our universe of Investment-grade U.S. companies, the interest coverage ratio would drop from a little over 7 to under 6, which is close to the lows of the Great Recession (denoted as "x" in Chart II-3). Of course, the decline in interest coverage will be much worse if the Fed steps too far and monetary tightening sparks a recession. The "o" in Chart II-3 denotes the combination of a 100 basis-point interest rate shock and a mild recession in which the S&P 500 suffers a 25% peak-to-trough decline in EPS. The overall interest coverage ratio plunges close to all-time lows at 4½. Chart II-3Interest Coverage To Plunge... Interest Coverage To Plunge... Interest Coverage To Plunge... These simulations imply that, for any given size of recession, the next economic downturn will have a larger negative impact on corporate health than in the past. Rating agencies have undertaken some downgrading related to shareholder-friendly activity, but downgrades will proliferate when the agencies realize that the economy is turning and the profit boom is over (Chart II-4). Banks will belatedly tighten lending standards, adding to funding pressure for the corporate sector. Chart II-4...And Ratings To Be Slashed ...And Ratings To Be Slashed ...And Ratings To Be Slashed Fallen Angels The potential for a large wave of fallen angels means that downgrade activity will be particularly painful for corporate bond investors. The surge in lower-quality issuance has led to a downward trend in the average credit rating and has significantly raised the size of the BBB-rated bonds relative to the IG index and relative to the broader universe of corporate bonds including high yield (Chart II-5, and Chart II-1A).2 The downward trend in credit quality predates Lehman, but events since the Great Recession have likely reinforced the trend. Chart II-5Lower Ratings And Longer Duration Lower Ratings And Longer Duration Lower Ratings And Longer Duration Studies show that bonds that get downgraded into junk status can perform well for a period thereafter, suggesting that investors holding a fallen angel should not necessarily sell immediately. Nonetheless, the process of transitioning from investment-grade to high-yield involves return underperformance as the spread widens. Poor market liquidity and covenant erosion will intensify pressure for corporate spreads to widen when the bear market arrives. Market turnover has decreased substantially since the pre-Lehman years, especially for IG (Chart II-6). The poor liquidity backdrop appears to be structural, reflecting regulation that has curtailed banks' market-making activity and prop trading, among other factors. Chart II-6Poor Market Liquidity Poor Market Liquidity Poor Market Liquidity The Eurozone corporate bond market has also seen rapid growth and a deterioration in the average credit rating. Liquidity is an issue there as well. That said, the Eurozone corporate sector is less advanced in the leverage cycle than the U.S. Interest coverage ratios will fall during the next recession, but this will be concentrated among foreign issuers - domestic issuers are much less at risk to rising interest rates and/or an economic downturn.3 Bottom Line: Corporate leverage will not cause the next recession. Nonetheless, when one does occur, corporate spreads in the U.S. and (to a lesser extent) Eurozone will widen by more for any given degree of recession. Current spreads do not compensate for this risk. (2) Inflation Undershoot Breeds Overshoot Inflation in the U.S. and other developed economies has been sticky since the financial crisis. First, inflation did not fall as much in the recession and early years of the recovery as many had predicted, despite the worst economic contraction in the post-war period. Subsequently, central banks have had trouble raising inflation back to target. In the U.S., core PCE inflation has only recently returned to 2%. Several structural factors have been blamed, but continuing tepid wage growth in the face of a very tight labor market raises the possibility that the inflation-generating process has been fundamentally altered by the Great Recession. In other words, the relationship between slack in the labor market (or market for goods and services) and inflation has changed. In theory, inflation should rise when the economy's output is above its potential level or when the unemployment rate is below its full-employment level. Inflation should fall when the reverse is true. This means that the change (not the level) in inflation should be positively correlated with the level of the output gap or the labor market gap. Chart II-7 presents the change in U.S. core inflation with the output gap. Although inflation appears to have become less responsive to shifts in the output gap after 1990, it has been particularly insensitive in the post-Lehman period. Chart II-7The U.S. Phillips Curve: RIP? The U.S. Phillips Curve: RIP? The U.S. Phillips Curve: RIP? One reason may be that the business sector was shell-shocked by the Great Recession and financial crisis to such an extent that business leaders have been more reluctant to grant wage gains than in past cycles. Equally-unnerved workers felt lucky just to have a job, and have been less willing to demand raises. Dampened inflation expectations meant that low actual inflation became self-reinforcing. We have some sympathy with this view. Long-term inflation expectations have been sticky at levels that are inconsistent with the major central banks meeting their inflation targets over the long term. This suggests that people believe that central banks lack the tools necessary to overwhelm the deflationary forces. The lesson for investors and policymakers is that, while unorthodox monetary policies helped to limit the downside for inflation and inflation expectations during and just after the recession, these policies have had limited success in reversing even the modest decline that did occur. That said, readers should keep in mind a few important points: One should not expect inflation to rise much until economies break through their non-inflationary limits. The major advanced economies have only recently reached that point to varying degrees; Inflation lags the business cycle (Chart II-8). This is especially the case in long 'slow burn' economic expansions, as we have demonstrated in previous research; and The historical relationship between inflation and economic slack has been non-linear. As shown in Chart II-9, U.S. inflation has tended to accelerate quickly when unemployment drops below 4½%. Chart II-8U.S. Inflation Lags The Cycle November 2018 November 2018 Chart II-9A Kinked Phillips Curve November 2018 November 2018 Shell Shock Is Fading We believe that the "shell shock" effect of the Great Recession on inflation will wane over time. Indeed, my colleague Peter Berezin has made the case that the fact that inflation has been depressed for so long actually cultivates the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside in the coming years.4 Central bankers have been alarmed by the economic and financial events of the last decade. They also cast a wary eye on Japan's inability to generate inflation even in the face of massive and prolonged monetary stimulus. Policymakers at the FOMC are determined to boost inflation and inflation expectations before the next economic downturn strikes. They are also willing to not only tolerate, but actively encourage, an overshoot of the 2% inflation target in order to ensure that long-term inflation expectations return "sustainably" to a level consistent with meeting the 2% target over the long term. In other words, the Fed is going to err on the side of too much stimulus rather than too little. This is an important legacy of the last recession (see below). Meanwhile, other structural explanations for low inflation are less powerful than many believe. For example, globalization has leveled off and rising tariff and non-tariff barriers will hinder important global supply chains. Our research also suggests that the rising industrial use of robots and the e-commerce effect on retail prices have had only a small depressing effect on U.S. inflation. Bottom Line: The Phillips curve relationship has probably not changed in a permanent way since Lehman went down. It is quite flat when the labor market is not far away from full employment, but the relationship is probably non-linear. As the unemployment rate drops further, the business sector will have no choice but to lift wages as labor becomes increasingly scarce. The kinked nature of the Phillips curve augments the odds that the Fed will eventually find itself behind the curve, and inflation will rise more than the market is expecting. The same arguments apply to the Bank of England and possibly even the European Central Bank. Gold offers some protection against inflation risk, but the precious metal is still quite expensive in real terms. Investors would be better off simply buying inflation-protection in the inflation swaps market or overweighting inflation-linked bonds over conventional issues. (3) Monetary Policy: Destined To Fight The Last War There are several reasons to believe that the shocking events of the crisis and its aftermath have left a lasting impression on monetary policymakers. Several factors suggest that they will err on the side of allowing the economy to overheat and inflation to modestly overshoot the target: Inflation Persistence: As discussed above, there is a greater awareness that it is difficult to lift both actual inflation and inflation expectations once they have fallen. Some FOMC members believe that long-term inflation expectations are still too low to be consistent with the Fed meeting its 2% inflation target over the long term. A modest inflation overshoot in this cycle would be beneficial, according to this view, in the sense that it would boost inflation expectations and thereby raise the probability that the FOMC will indeed meet its goals over the long term. It might also encourage some discouraged workers to re-enter the labor market. Some policymakers also believe that the Fed is not taking much of a risk by pushing the economy hard, because the Phillips curve is so flat. Zero Bound: Low inflation expectations, among other factors, have combined to dramatically reduce the level of so-called r-star - the short-term rate of interest that is neither accommodative nor restrictive in terms of growth and inflation. R-star is thought to be rising now, at least for the U.S., but it is probably still low by historical standards across the major economies. This increases the risk that policy rates will again hit the lower bound during the next recession, making it difficult for central banks to engineer a real policy rate that is low enough to generate faster growth.5 Fighting the Last War: Memories of the crisis linger in the minds of policymakers. The global economy came dangerously close to a replay of the Great Depression, and policymakers want to ensure that it never happens again. Some monetary officials have argued that a risk-based approach means that it is better to take some inflation risks to limit the possibility of making a deflationary policy mistake down the road. Fears that the major economies are now more vulnerable to deflationary shocks seem destined to keep central banks too-easy-for-too-long. Central bankers will also be quicker and more aggressive in responding when negative shocks arrive in the future. This applies more to the U.S., the U.K. and Japan than the European Central Bank, but even for the latter there has been a clear change in the monetary committee's reaction function since Mario Draghi took over the reins. Financial Stability Concerns Policymakers are also more concerned about financial stability. Pre-crisis, the consensus among the monetary elite was that financial stability should play second fiddle to the inflation target. It was felt that central banks should focus on the latter, and pay attention to signs of financial froth only when they affect the inflation outlook. In practice, this meant paying only lip service to financial excess until it was too late. It was difficult to justify rate increases when inflation was not threatening. It was thought that macro-prudential regulation on its own was enough to contain financial excesses. Today, policymakers see financial stability as playing a key role in meeting the inflation target. It is abundantly clear that a burst bubble can be highly deflationary. Some policymakers still believe that aggressive macro-prudential policies can be effective in directly targeting financial excesses. However, others feel there is no substitute for higher interest rates; as ex-Governor Jeremy Stein stated, interest rates get "in all the cracks". Moreover, the Fed does not regulate the shadow banking sector. The Fed is thus balancing concerns over signs of financial froth against the zero-bound problem and fears of the next deflationary shock. We believe that the latter will dominate their policy choices, because it will still be difficult to justify rate hikes to the public when there is no obvious inflation problem. In the U.S., this implies that the economic risks are skewed toward a boom/bust scenario in which the FOMC is slow to respond to a fiscally-driven late cycle mini-boom. Inflation and inflation expectations react with a lag, but a subsequent acceleration in both forces the Fed to aggressively choke off growth. Policy Toolkit Central bankers will be quite willing to employ their new-found policy tools again in the next recession. The new toolbox includes asset purchases, aggressive forms of forward guidance, negative interest rates, and low-cost direct lending to banks and non-banks in some countries. Policymakers generally view these tools as being at least somewhat effective, although some have argued that the costs of using negative interest rates have outweighed the benefits in Europe and Japan. The debate on how to deal with the zero-bound problem in the U.S. has focused on lifting r-star, including raising the inflation target, adopting a price level target, policies to boost productivity, and traditional fiscal stimulus. Nonetheless, ex-Fed Chair Yellen's comments at the Jackson Hole conference in 2016 underscored that it will be more of the same in the event that the zero bound is again reached - quantitative easing and forward guidance.6 No doubt, the major central banks will rely heavily on both of these tools in order to manipulate yields far out the curve. Forward guidance may be threshold-based. For example, policymakers could promise to keep the policy rate frozen until unemployment or inflation reaches a given level. Now that central bankers have crossed the line into unorthodox monetary policy and inflation did not surge, future policymakers will be willing to stretch the boundaries even further in the event of a recession. For example, they may consider price-level targeting, which would institutionalize inflation overshoots to make up for past inflation undershoots. It is also possible that we will observe more coordination between monetary and fiscal policies in the next recession. The combination of fiscal stimulus and a cap on bond yields would be highly stimulative in theory, in part by driving the currency lower. Japan has gone half way in this direction by implementing a yield curve control (YCC) policy. However, it has failed so far to provide any meaningful fiscal stimulus since the yield cap has been in place. It also appears likely that central bank balance sheets will not return to levels as a percent of GDP that existed before the crisis. An abundance of bank deposits at the central bank will help to satisfy a structural increase in the demand for cash-like risk-free assets. Maintaining a bloated balance sheet will also allow central banks to provide substantial amounts of reverse repos (RRPs) into the market, which should improve the functioning of money markets that have been impaired to some degree by regulation. We do not expect that a structural increase in central bank balance sheets will have any material lasting impact on asset prices or inflation. We believe that inflation will surprise on the upside, but not because central banks will continue to hold significant amounts of government bonds on their balance sheets over the medium term. Bottom Line: The implication is that the monetary authorities will have a greater tolerance for an overshoot of the inflation target than in the past. The Fed will respond only with a lag to the fiscally-driven surge in U.S. growth, leading to a boom/bust economic scenario. During the next recession, policymakers will rely heavily on quantitative easing and forward guidance to manipulate the yield curve (after the policy rate reaches the lower bound). (4) Bond Prices: Structural Factors Turning Less Bullish Perhaps the most dramatic and lasting impact of the GFC has been evident in the global bond market. Government yields fell to levels never before observed across the developed countries and have remained extremely depressed, even as the expansion matured and economic slack was gradually absorbed. Real government bond yields are still negative even at the medium and long parts of the curve in the Eurozone and Japan (Chart II-10). It is tempting to conclude that there has been a permanent shift down in global bond yields. Chart II-10Real Yields Still Depressed Real Yields Still Depressed Real Yields Still Depressed Real Yields Still Depressed Real Yields Still Depressed Equilibrium bond yields are tied to the supply side of the economy. Potential GDP growth is the sum of trend productivity growth and the pace of expansion of the labor force. Equilibrium bond yields may fall below the potential growth rate for extended periods to the extent that aggregate demand faces persistent headwinds. The headwinds in place over the past decade include fiscal austerity, demographics, household deleveraging, increased regulation and lingering problems in the banking sector that limited the expansion of credit, among others. These headwinds either affect the desire to save or the desire to invest, the interplay of which affects equilibrium bond yields. Some of these economic headwinds predate 2007, but the financial crisis reinforced the desire to save more and invest less. Space limitations prevent a full review of the forces that depressed bond yields, but a summary is contained in Appendix 1 and we encourage interested readers to see our 2017 Special Report for full details.7 The Great Supply-Side Shortfall Falling potential output growth in the major advanced economies also helped to drag down equilibrium bond yields. The pace of expansion in the global labor force has plunged from 1¾% in 2005, to under 1% today (Chart II-11). The labor force has peaked in absolute terms in the G7, and is already shrinking in China. Chart II-11Slower Labor Force Expansion... Slower Labor Force Expansion... Slower Labor Force Expansion... Productivity growth took a dramatic turn for the worst after 2007 (Chart II-12). The dismal productivity performance is not fully understood, but likely reflected the peaking in globalization, increased regulation and the dramatic decline in capital spending relative to GDP. The latter was reflected in a collapse in the growth rate of the global capital stock (Chart II-13). In the U.S., for which we have a longer history of data, growth in the capital stocks has lead shifts in productivity growth with a 3-year lag. Firms have also been slower to adopt new technologies over the past decade. Chart II-12...And Lower Productivity November 2018 November 2018 Chart II-13Productivity And Investment Productivity And Investment Productivity And Investment The resulting impact on the level of GDP today has been nothing short of remarkable. The current IMF estimate for the level of potential GDP in 2018 is 10% lower than was projected by the IMF in 2008 (Chart II-14). There has been a similar downgrading of capacity in Europe, Japan and the U.K. Actual GDP has closed the gap with potential GDP to varying degrees in the major countries, but at a much lower level than was projected a decade ago. Paul Krugman has dubbed this the "Great Shortfall". Chart II-14A Permanent Loss Of Output A Permanent Loss Of Output A Permanent Loss Of Output The Great Shortfall was even greater with respect to capital spending. For 2017, the IMF estimates that global investment was more than 20% below the level implied by the pre-crisis trend (Chart II-15). Reduced credit intermediation, from a combination of supply and demand factors, was a significant factor behind the structural loss of economic capacity according to the IMF study.8 Chart II-15Permanent Scars On Capital Spending Permanent Scars On Capital Spending Permanent Scars On Capital Spending By curtailing the business investment relative to GDP for a prolonged period, major economic slumps can have a permanent effect on an economy's long-term prospects. The loss of output since the financial crisis will never be regained. That said, bond yields in theory are related to the growth rate of productivity, not its level. The IMF report noted that there may even be some long-lasting effects on the growth rate of productivity. The crisis left lingering scars on future growth due to both reduced global labor force migration and fertility rates. The latter rose in the decade before the crisis in several advanced economies, only to decline afterward. Households postponed births in the face of the economic and financial upheaval. The IMF argues that not all of the decline in fertility rates will be reversed. An Inflection Point In Global Bond Yields On a positive note, the pickup in business capital spending in the major countries in recent years implies an acceleration in the growth rate of the capital stock and, thus, productivity. In the U.S., this relationship suggests that productivity growth could rise by a percentage point over the coming few years (Chart II-13). This should correspond to a roughly equivalent rise in equilibrium bond yields. Moreover, some of the other structural factors behind ultra-low interest rates have waned, while others have reached an inflection point. For example, the age structure of world population is transitioning from a period in which aging added to the global pool of savings to one in which aging will begin to drain that pool as people retire and begin to deplete their nest eggs. Household savings rates will trend sharply lower in the coming years. Again, we encourage readers to read the 2017 Special Report for a full account of the structural factors that are shifting in a less bond-bullish direction. QE Reversal To Weigh On Bond Prices And let's not forget the unwinding of central bank balance sheets. The idea that central bank asset purchases on their own had a significant depressing effect on global bond yields is controversial. Some argue that the impact on yields occurred more via forward guidance; quantitative easing was a signal to markets that the central bank would stay on hold for an extended period, which pulled down yields far out the curve. This publication believes that QE had a meaningful impact on global bond yields on its own (Chart II-16). Nonetheless, either way, the Fed is now shrinking its balance sheet and the European Central Bank will soon end asset purchases. This means that the private sector this year is being forced to absorb a net increase in government bonds available to the private sector for the first time since 2014 (Chart II-17). Investors may demand juicier yields in order to boost their allocation to fixed-income assets. Chart II-16Reverse QE To Weigh On Bonds Reverse QE To Weigh On Bonds Reverse QE To Weigh On Bonds Chart II-17Private Investors Will Have To Buy More November 2018 November 2018 We are not making the case that real global bond yields are going to quickly revert to pre-Lehman averages. Global yields could even drop back to previous lows in the event of another recession. Nonetheless, from a long-term perspective, current market expectations suggest that investors still have an overly benign view on the outlook for yields. For example, implied real short-term rates remain negative until 2027 in the Eurozone, while they stay negative out to 2030 in the U.K. (Chart II-18). The implied path of real rates in the U.S. looks more reasonable, but there is still upside potential. Moreover, there is room for the inflation expectations component of nominal yields to shift up, as discussed above. Chart II-18Real Yields Still Too Low Real Yields Still Too Low Real Yields Still Too Low Another way of making this point is shown in Chart II-19. The market expects the 10-year Treasury yield in ten years to be only slightly above today's spot yield, which itself is still very low by historical standards. Market expectations are equally depressed for the 5-year/5-year forward rate for the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart II-19Market Expectations Still Low Market Expectations Still Low Market Expectations Still Low Bottom Line: Global bond yields fell to unprecedented levels due to a combination of cyclical and structural factors. The bond-bullish structural factors were reinforced by shifts in desired savings and business investment as a result of the Great Recession and financial crisis. Some of these structural factors will linger in the coming years, but others are shifting in a less bond-bullish direction. We do not expect nominal bond yields to return to pre-Lehman norms, and yields could even return close to previous lows in the case of a recession. Nonetheless, we expect a yield pattern of higher lows and higher highs over the coming business cycles. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Appendix 1: Key Factors Behind The Decline In Equilibrium Global Bond Yields The so-called Global Savings Glut has been a bullish structural force for bonds for the past couple of decades. A key factor is population aging in the advanced economies. Ex-ante desired savings rose as baby boomers entered their high-income years. China became a major source of global savings after it joined the WTO, and its large trade surplus was recycled into the global pool of savings. A slower pace of labor force growth in the developed countries resulted in a permanently lower level of capital spending relative to GDP. Slower consumer spending growth, as a result of a more moderate expansion in the working-age population, meant a reduced appetite for new factories, malls, and apartment buildings. The integration of the Chinese and Eastern European workforces into the global labor pool during the 1990s and 2000s resulted in an effective doubling of global labor supply in a short period of time. The sudden abundance of cheap labor depressed real wages from what they otherwise would have been, thus incentivizing firms to use more labor and less capital at the margin. The combination of slower working-age population growth in the advanced economies and a surge in the global labor force resulted in a decline in desired global capital spending. The increase in ex-ante savings and reduction in ex-ante capital spending resulted in a substantial drop in equilibrium global interest rates. The wave of cheap labor also aggravated the trend toward greater inequality in the advanced economies and the downward trend in labor's share of the income pie. A positive labor supply shock should benefit global living standards in the long run, but the adjustment costs related to China's integration into the global economy imposed on the advanced economies were huge and long-lasting. The lingering adjustment phase contributed to greater inequality in the major countries. Management was able to use the threat of outsourcing to gain the upper hand in wage negotiations. Moreover, technology appears to be resulting in faster, wider and deeper degrees of hollowing-out than in previous periods of massive technological change. The result has been a rise in the share of income going to high-income earners in the Advanced Economies, at the expense of low- and middle-income earners. This represents a headwind to growth that requires lower interest rates all along the curve. In other words, firms in the developed world either replaced workers with machinery in areas where technology permitted, or outsourced jobs to lower-wage countries in areas that remained labor-intensive. Both trends undermined labor's bargaining power, depressed labor's share of income, and contributed to inequality. 1 We make the simplifying assumptions that companies do not issue any more debt over the three years, and that EBIT is unchanged, in order to isolate the impact of higher interest rates. 2 The average credit rating for the U.S. is unavailable before 2000 in the Bloomberg Barclays index. However, other data sources confirm the long-term downward trend. 3 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Leverage And Sensitivity To Rising Rates: The Eurozone Corporate Sector," dated May 31, 2018, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Reports "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 1)," dated August 10, 2018 and "1970s-Style Inflation: Could It Happen Again? (Part 2)," dated August 24, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 The lower bound is zero in the U.S., but is in negative territory for those central banks willing to impose negative rates on the banking sector. 6 For more background on the zero bound debate, the usefulness of a large central bank balance sheet and ways to lift r-star, please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Herding Cats At the Fed," dated October 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Beware Inflection Points In The Secular Drivers Of Global Bonds," dated April 27, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 8 The Global Economic Recovery 10 Years After the 2008 Financial Meltdown. IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2018. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Our proprietary equity indicators remained bearish in October and valuation is still stretched, suggesting that it is too early to buy stocks. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators for the U.S. and Japan are both heading down. The Eurozone WTP has flattened-off recently, but is certainly not bullish. The WTP indicators track flows, and this provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) for stocks continues to issue a sell signal. 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 signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Momentum remains out of sync with valuation and policy, underlining the idea that caution is warranted. Our Monetary Indicator continues to hover in negative territory for stocks, but interestingly it is not deteriorating even as the Fed tightening campaign endures and bond yields have risen. Our Technical Equity Indicator appears poised to break down, but as of the end of October it was not giving a sell signal. The Speculation Indicator is still elevated, but the Composite Sentiment Indicator is in the middle of the range. It does not appear that the latest equity selloff was driven mainly by an unwinding of frothy market sentiment. Nonetheless, value has not improved enough to justify bottom-feeding on its own. On balance, our indicators continue to suggest that the underlying supports of the U.S. equity bull market are eroding. The U.S. earnings backdrop is still providing support overall, although there was a tick down in October in the U.S. net earnings revisions ratio and in positive-minus-negative earnings surprises. The backdrop for Treasurys has not changed, despite October's painful selloff. Valuation (still slightly cheap) and technicals (oversold by almost 2 standard deviations) imply that the countertrend pullback near month-end will continue into November. Beyond a near-term correction, though, complacency about inflation and the Fed's ability to hike rates to at least the level of the FOMC voters' median projection points to looming capital losses. The dollar is quite expensive on a purchasing power parity basis, and its long-term outlook is not constructive, but policy and growth divergences with other major economies will likely keep the wind at its back in the near term. 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 Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

  Overweight For the better part of this decade, the rise and fall of WTI has been the fundamental driver of the fortunes of the S&P oil & gas exploration & production (E&P) index, as it should be. However, starting in 2017, WTI began a pronounced recovery that was not matched by the relative performance of E&P stocks; this divergence has grown excessive (top panel). Such a divergence would be logical if domestic production had not matched the recovery in oil prices though, as shown in the second panel, this is not the case. Forward earnings projections too have been moving upward at a pace broadly similar to the underlying commodity, which we think marks conservatism on the part of sell-side analysts who are still stinging from being caught offside in 2014. Typically, we would expect increasing fixed cost absorption to drive multiplicative returns to profit growth as the price of oil increases. Nevertheless, forward earnings have been rising much faster than share prices, meaning valuations have collapsed to the normal range before the 2014 oil price decline (bottom panel). We reiterate our overweight recommendation on the S&P oil & gas E&P index and our high-conviction overweight recommendation on the broader S&P energy index. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5OILP - COP, EOG, APC, PXD, DVN, CXO, MRO, APA, HES, NBL, EQT, COG, XEC and NFX. Powering Up For A Rebound In Oil & Gas Exploration Powering Up For A Rebound In Oil & Gas Exploration  

Highlights The long term direction for the pound is higher... ...but as the EU withdrawal bill passes through the U.K. parliament, expect a very hairy ride. The stock markets in Norway, Sweden and Denmark are driven by energy, industrials, and biotech respectively. Upgrade Sweden to neutral and downgrade Denmark to underweight. Think of semiconductors as twenty-first century commodities. Overweight the semiconductor sector versus broader technology indexes. Chart of the WeekBritish Public Opinion On Brexit Is Shifting Understanding Brexit, Scandinavian Markets, And Semiconductors Understanding Brexit, Scandinavian Markets, And Semiconductors Feature The Brexit drama is playing out exactly as scripted (Chart I-2). Chart I-2The Pound Is Following The Brexit Drama The Pound Is Following The Brexit Drama The Pound Is Following The Brexit Drama In July, we wrote: "The U.K. government's much hyped 'Chequers' proposal for Brexit risks getting a cold shower... the EU27 will almost instantaneously reject the proposed division between goods and services as 'cherry-picking' from its indivisible four freedoms - goods, services, capital, and people... the rejection will be based not just on the EU's founding principles, but also on the practical realities of a modern economy - specifically, the distinction between goods and services has become increasingly blurred." 1 Hence, the Chequers proposal to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic is just wishful thinking: "The Irish border trilemma will remain unsolved, leaving a 'backstop' option of Northern Ireland remaining in the EU single market - an outcome that will be politically unpalatable." 2 What happens next? Understanding Brexit In a sense, Brexit is very simple. The EU27 sees only three options for the long-term political and economic relationship between the U.K. and the EU. Remain in the EU (no Brexit). Plug into an off-the-shelf setup, either the European Economic Area (EEA), European Free Trade Association (EFTA), or a permanent customs union, which already establish the EU relationship with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland (soft Brexit). Become a 'third country' to the EU like, for example, Canada (hard Brexit). The first option, to stay in the EU, is politically impossible unless a new U.K. referendum overturned the original referendum's vote to leave. The second option, to join the EEA, EFTA, or permanent customs union is very difficult for Theresa May - because it is strongly opposed by many of the Conservative government's ministers and members of parliament who regard the option as 'Brino' (Brexit in name only). However, in a significant recent development, the opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn has committed the Labour party to a Brexit that keeps the U.K. in a permanent customs union.3 The third option, to become a 'third country', would very likely require some sort of border in Ireland. As already discussed, the only way to avoid a border would be a perfect alignment between the U.K and EU on tariffs and regulations for goods and services. But then, there would be little point in becoming a third country. Here's the crucial issue. The EU27 does not know which option the U.K. will eventually take, yet it must provide an 'all-weather' safeguard for the Good Friday peace agreement, requiring no border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Therefore, the EU27 will need the withdrawal agreement to commit: either the whole of the U.K. to a potentially permanent customs union with the EU; or Northern Ireland to a potentially permanent customs separation from the rest of the U.K. - in effect, breaking up the U.K by creating a border between Britain and Northern Ireland. Clearly, the hard Brexiters and/or Northern Ireland unionist MPs will vote down a withdrawal bill which contains either of these commitments, thereby wiping out Theresa May's slender majority. The intriguing question is: might Labour MPs - or enough of them - vote for a potentially permanent customs union to get the soft Brexit they want? Labour would be torn between the national interest and the party interest, as it would be missing a golden opportunity to topple the Conservative government. If the withdrawal bill musters a majority, it would remove the prospect of a 'no deal' Brexit and the pound would rally - because it would liberate the Bank of England to hike interest rates more aggressively (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). If the bill failed, the government and specifically Theresa May would be badly wounded. She might call a general election there and then. Chart I-3Absent Brexit, U.K. Interest Rates Would Be Higher Absent Brexit, U.K. Interest Rates Would Be Higher Absent Brexit, U.K. Interest Rates Would Be Higher Chart I-4Absent Brexit, U.K. Interest Rates Would Be Higher Absent Brexit, U.K. Interest Rates Would Be Higher Absent Brexit, U.K. Interest Rates Would Be Higher If May limped on, parliament would nevertheless have the final say on whether to proceed with a no deal Brexit. And the parliamentary arithmetic indicates that a clear majority of MPs would vote against proceeding over the cliff-edge. At this point with the government paralysed, the only way to unlock the paralysis would be to go back to the people. Either in a general election or in a new referendum, the key issue for the public would be a choice between one of the three aforementioned options for the U.K./EU long-term relationship - because by then, it would be clear that those are the only options on offer. Based on a clear recent shift in British public opinion, the preference is more likely to be for a soft (or no) Brexit than to become a third country (Chart of the Week). Bottom Line: The long term direction for the pound is higher but, as the withdrawal bill passes through parliament, expect a very hairy ride. Understanding Scandinavian Stock Markets The Scandinavian countries - Norway, Sweden, and Denmark - have many things in common: their languages, cultures, and lifestyles, to name just a few. However, when it comes to their stock markets, the three countries could not be more different. Looking at the three bourses, each has a defining dominant sector (or sectors) whose market weighting swamps all others. In Norway, oil and gas accounts for over 40 percent of the market; in Sweden, industrials accounts for 30 percent of the market and financials accounts for another 30 percent; and in Denmark, healthcare accounts for 50 percent of the market (Table I-1). Table I-1The Scandinavian Stock Markets Could Not Be More Different! Understanding Brexit, Scandinavian Markets, And Semiconductors Understanding Brexit, Scandinavian Markets, And Semiconductors In a sense, the dominant equity market sectors in Norway and Sweden just reflect their economies. Norway has a large energy sector; Sweden specializes in advanced industrial equipment and machinery and it also has very high level of private sector indebtedness, explaining the outsized weighting in banks. However, Denmark's equity market - dominated as it is by Novo Nordisk, which is essentially a biotech company - has little connection with Denmark's economy. The important point is that the four dominant sectors - oil and gas, industrials, financials, and biotech - each outperform or underperform as global (or at least pan-regional) sectors. If oil and gas outperforms, it outperforms everywhere and not just locally. It follows that the relative performance of the four dominant equity sectors drives the relative stock market performances of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Norway versus Sweden = Energy versus Industrials (Chart I-5) Chart I-5Norway Vs. Sweden = Energy Vs. Industrials Norway Vs. Sweden = Energy Vs. Industrials Norway Vs. Sweden = Energy Vs. Industrials Norway versus Denmark = Energy versus Biotech (Chart I-6) Chart I-6Norway Vs. Denmark = Energy Vs. Biotech Norway Vs. Denmark = Energy Vs. Biotech Norway Vs. Denmark = Energy Vs. Biotech Sweden versus Denmark = Industrials and Financials versus Biotech (Chart I-7) Chart I-7Sweden Vs. Denmark = Industrials And Financials Vs. Biotech Sweden Vs. Denmark = Industrials And Financials Vs. Biotech Sweden Vs. Denmark = Industrials And Financials Vs. Biotech Last week, we upgraded some of the more classical cyclical sectors to a relative overweight. Our argument was that if an inflationary impulse is dominating, beaten-down cyclicals have more upside than the more richly-valued equity sectors; and if a disinflationary impulse from higher bond yields is dominating, its main casualty will be the more richly-valued equity sectors. On this basis, our ranking of the four sectors is: Industrials, Financials, Energy, Biotech. Which means the ranking of the Scandinavian stock markets is: Sweden, Norway, Denmark. Bottom Line: From a pan-European perspective, upgrade Sweden to neutral and downgrade Denmark to underweight. Understanding Semiconductors The best way to understand semiconductors is to think of them as twenty-first century commodities. In the twentieth century, many everyday goods and products contained a classical commodity such as copper. Today, the ubiquity of electronic gadgets, devices, and screens contains a twenty-first century equivalent: the microchip. Hence, semiconductors are to the tech world what classical commodities are to the non-tech world. They exhibit exactly the same cycle of relative performance. If, as we expect, beaten-down industrial commodities outperform, it follows that the beaten-down semiconductor sector will outperform broader technology indexes (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Semiconductors Follow The Commodity Cycle Semiconductors Follow The Commodity Cycle Semiconductors Follow The Commodity Cycle Bottom Line: Overweight the semiconductor sector versus technology. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 For example, the sale of a car is no longer the sale of just a good. As car companies often structure the financing of the car purchase, a car purchase can be a hybrid of a good - the car itself, and a service - the financing package. Therefore, a single market for cars requires a single market for both goods and services. 2 The Irish border trilemma comprises: 1. the U.K./EU land border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic; 2. the Good Friday peace agreement requiring the absence of any physical border within Ireland; 3.the Northern Ireland unionists' refusal to countenance a U.K./EU border at the Irish Sea, which would entail a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. 3 At the Labour Party's just-held 2018 conference, Jeremy Corbyn made a commitment to joining a permanent U.K./EU customs union. Fractal Trading Model* This week's recommended trade comes from Down Under. The 25% outperformance of Australian telecoms (driven by Telstra) versus insurers (driven by IAG and AMP) over the past 3 months appears technically extended, with a 65-day fractal dimension at a level that has regularly indicated the start of a countertrend move. Therefore, the recommended trade is short Australian telecoms versus insurers, setting a profit target of 7% and a symmetrical stop-loss. In other trades, long CRB Industrial commodities versus MSCI World Index achieved its profit target very quickly, leaving four open trades. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-9 Short Australian Telecom Vs. Insurers Short Australian Telecom Vs. Insurers The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart I-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart I-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart I-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart I-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The pace of "de-capacity" reforms in China will continue to diminish, with declining shutdowns of inefficient capacity and rising advanced capacity over the next 12-15 months. Coal prices may have less downside than steel prices due to more resilient domestic demand, and lower production growth for the former than the latter. Meanwhile, iron ore prices may have limited downside and could outperform steel prices due to increasing shutdowns of domestic iron ore mines. Go long September 2019 thermal coal and iron ore futures versus September 2019 steel rebar futures. Chinese coal producers' shares may outperform Chinese steel producers' shares. Feature This April, our Special Report titled, "Revisiting China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms," painted a negative picture for steel and coal prices over 2018 and 2019 on diminishing pace of "de-capacity" reforms and rising steel and coal output.1 So far, our call has not yet played out. Both steel and coal prices have been firm over the past five months (Chart 1A). Meanwhile, iron ore and coking coal have also rebounded (Chart 1B). Chart 1ASteel And Coal Prices: More Upside Ahead? Steel And Coal Prices: More Upside Ahead? Steel And Coal Prices: More Upside Ahead? Chart 1BIron Ore And Coking Coal Prices: Following Steel And Coal Prices? Iron Ore And Coking Coal Prices: Following Steel And Coal Prices? Iron Ore And Coking Coal Prices: Following Steel And Coal Prices? In this report, we return to the analysis we laid out back in April, with the goal of identifying whether or not the rally in steel and coal prices will continue. Another major question to answer is why share prices of coal and steel companies have continued to plunge, even though coal and steel prices have held up well. In brief, our research findings still suggest that steel and coal prices are likely to fall over the next 12-15 months on a diminishing pace of de-capacity (less shutdowns of old capacity) and rising advanced capacity. We also reckon that coal prices may have less downside than steel prices over the next 12-15 months due to more resilient domestic demand and smaller production growth compared to steel; we conclude by outlining a long/short trade opportunity tied to this view. Understanding The Recent Price Rally The recent strength in both steel and coal prices has been due to a tighter supply-demand balance than we expected: Steel Falling steel product output and still-solid steel demand growth have pushed up steel prices this year. While crude steel production has had strong growth so far this year (9% year-on-year and 50 million tons in volume), total output of steel product has actually declined by 20 million tons (2.7%) year-on-year during the same period (Chart 2). Steel products, including rebars, wire rods, sheets and other items, are made from crude steel and consumed in end consumption. Tianjin province - a city very close to Beijing - accounted for more than 100% of the reduction of steel product output, as 40% of the province's operating capacity was shut down due to the city's "de-capacity" policy and increasingly stringent environmental regulations. In addition, Chinese steel products production had already experienced huge cut last year by nearly 100 million due to the government's "Ditiaogang" de-capacity policy.2 As a result, strong crude steel output growth this year has not been able to lift steel product production from contraction, creating a shortage in Chinese steel product supply. To put it in perspective, total steel products production for the first eight months of this year is at a five-year low. Chart 2Falling Steel Product Output Amid Strong Crude Steel Production Growth Falling Steel Product Output Amid Strong Crude Steel Production Growth Falling Steel Product Output Amid Strong Crude Steel Production Growth Chart 3Steel Demand Has Been Robust As Well Steel Demand Has Been Robust As Well Steel Demand Has Been Robust As Well Meanwhile, massive pledged supplementary lending (PSL) injections - the People's Bank of China's direct lending to the real estate market - had extended property sales and starts beyond what appeared to be a sustainable trajectory, thereby lifting steel demand to some extent3 (Chart 3). Hence, weaker-than-expected steel products supply combined with slightly better demand than we anticipated have tightened the Chinese domestic steel market further, and underpinned high steel prices. Coal Similarly, the rebound in coal prices has also been due to declining output and strong demand growth. Chinese coal output turned out to be much weaker than we expected due to extremely stringent and frequent environmental and safety inspections on coal output (Chart 4). Back in mid-2017, in order to curb pollution, China demanded that coal mines plant trees, boost efficiency, cut down noise and seal off facilities from the outside world as part of a new "green mining" plan. This year's inspection have been even more stringent. Operations among coal mines, coal-washing plants and coal storage facilities were halted immediately if inspection teams found they failed to meet the related standards. As a result, Chinese coal production contracted 1% for the first eight months of this year. Chart 4Weaker-Than-Expected Coal Output Weaker-Than-Expected Coal Output Weaker-Than-Expected Coal Output Chart 5Resilient Thermal Coal Demand Resilient Thermal Coal Demand Resilient Thermal Coal Demand On the demand side, electricity generation from thermal power has remained quite robust at 7% (Chart 5). Again, coal prices have rebounded as the domestic coal supply-demand balance has tightened. Will Steel And Coal Prices Continue To Rise? The short answer is no. Many of the drivers underpinning the recent rally in steel and coal prices are set to fade over the next 12-15 months: Steel Steel prices will likely weaken in 2019 on rising steel product output and faltering steel demand growth. First, production of both crude steel and steel products will rise considerably next year, as the steel sector's de-capacity target is almost reached and new advanced capacity will come on stream faster to replace old or inefficient capacity that has already exited the market. Table 1 showed the 82% of this year's steel de-capacity target was already achieved by the end of July, leaving not much in the way of additional de-capacity cuts needed through the remainder of 2018. If this year's de-capacity cut target of 30 million tons is fulfilled over the next two months, there will be no need for any more capacity cuts in 2019, as the high end of the 2016-2020 de-capacity target (150 million tons) will be fully met this year. Table 1Supply-Side Reform - Capacity Reduction Target And Actual Achievement Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms Record-high profit margins that Chinese steel producers are currently enjoying will also help boost steel production (Chart 6). This was the main driver behind this year's strong growth in crude steel output, despite more stringent environmental policies and ongoing de-capacity efforts. In addition, falling graphite electrode prices and increasing graphite electrode production will facilitate the expansion of cleaner electric furnace (EF) steel capacity and production in China (Chart 7). Chart 6Steel Producers' Profit Margin: At A Record High Steel Producers' Profit Margin: At A Record High Steel Producers' Profit Margin: At A Record High Chart 7Rising Graphite Electrode Supply Will Facilitate EF Steel Output Rising Graphite Electrode Supply Will Facilitate EF Steel Output Rising Graphite Electrode Supply Will Facilitate EF Steel Output EF technology uses scrap steel as raw materials, graphite electrodes and electricity to produce crude steel. The availability of graphite electrode has been one major bottleneck for the development of EF capacity. As of late 2017, there were about 524,000 tons of new graphite electrode capacity under construction, most of which will be completed within the next two years. This will nearly double the current capacity of 590,000 tons. As this capacity gradually enters into the market, graphite electrode prices will drop further, encouraging more EF steel projects. In 2017, newly added EF steel capacity was about 30 million tons, and EF steel production increased by about 24 million tons (47% year-on-year). With rising graphite electrode supply, EF capacity this year is expected to add 40 million tons, resulting in about a 25-30 million ton increase in EF steel output. In 2019, based on the government's goal of 15% of total steel production being EF steel by 2020, we expect another 25-30 million tons new EF capacity to come online. This alone would translate into 3-4% rise in steel product production in 2019. Second, while steel supply is rising, the demand outlook seems more pessimistic. Our September 13 Special Report titled, "China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?" concluded that the Chinese property market is facing increasing downside risks. Diminishing PSL direct financing from the central bank and shrinking funding sources for Chinese real estate developers point to a considerable slowdown in property starts and construction, which will eventually lead to faltering demand for steel. Chinese auto output growth is weak, with the three-month moving average growth registering a 6% contraction this September. The government has boosted infrastructure projects. This will support steel demand to some extent, but it is unlikely to offset demand weakness from the down-trending property market. The property market is the biggest steel-consuming sector, accounting for 38% of total Chinese steel consumption - much higher than the 23% share from the infrastructure sector. Bottom Line: Steel prices may stay high over the next two or three months due to low inventories and heating-season production controls within the steel industry. Nonetheless, steel prices are vulnerable to the downside over the next 12-15 months on rising steel product output and faltering steel demand growth. Coal Coal prices will likely decline over the next 12-15 months, but the price downside may be less than that of steel. First, on the supply side, coal output will rise only moderately (i.e., 2-3%) in 2019. There are three drivers pushing up Chinese coal output. The government in May asked domestic coal producers to ramp up coal output, as current coal market supply has been tight this year. Particularly, the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) demanded that the top three coal produce provinces (Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Inner Mongolia) increase their aggregated coal output by at least 300,000 tons per day as soon as possible. However, the June-July environmental inspections within the major producing province of Mongolia resulted in a 14 million ton year-on-year drop in the province's coal output. If the 300,000 ton per day increase is realized in 2019, it will be equivalent to nearly 100 million tons of new coal supply next year, which is about 2.8% growth from 2017's output of 3.52 billion tons. Based on government data, 660 million tons of capacity is currently under construction, which includes new technologically advanced capacity that has already been built and ready to use but has not yet received government approval. If 30% of the under-construction capacity comes to market in 2019 and runs at a capacity utilization rate of 70%, it will translate into about 140 million tons of new coal supply next year, which is about 4% growth from last year. Due to too-strict production policies during the winter heating season, there was a coal supply crisis last winter. This year, the government is likely to implement a less stringent production policy for coal. In this case, coal producers will likely produce more to take advantage of seven-year-high profit margins (Chart 8). Chart 8Coal Producers' Profit Margin: At A Multi-Year High Coal Producers' Profit Margin: At A Multi-Year High Coal Producers' Profit Margin: At A Multi-Year High However, at the same time there are also two drivers dragging down coal output. Table 1 above shows that at the end of July, only 53% of this year's coal de-capacity target and 65% of the government's 2016-2020 coal capacity reduction target had been achieved. This implies that Chinese coal producers still need to cut 70 million tons of old coal capacity through the remainder of 2018 and another 210 million tons of inefficient capacity in the coming two years (2019 and 2020) - possibly 105 million tons of cuts in each year. Similar to steel, coal de-capacity reforms are also diminishing (e.g. a 150-million ton reduction target in 2018 versus a 105 million-ton reduction target in 2019). However, different from steel, the remaining de-capacity target for coal is still quite significant. With continuing the implementation of its de-capacity plan, excluding the three major producing provinces, the remaining provinces that in general have smaller-scale coal mines may face further cuts in their coal production. For the first eight months of this year, 13 out of the 22 non-top-three coal-producing provinces registered a contraction in coal output. Environmental policies will likely remain strict, given the country seems determined to improve its air quality. More frequent inspection and/or stricter policies will further curb coal production. On balance, we still expect overall coal output to increase moderately (i.e., 2-3%) next year. Second, on the demand side, coal demand growth will weaken only slightly due to robust thermal coal consumption for thermal power generation (Chart 5 above). We expect Chinese electricity consumption to grow at 5-6% next year - a touch lower than this year - on strong demand from both the residential and service sectors. Most of the growth will likely be supplied by thermal power, as some 72% of total electricity generation is currently thermal power. In addition, the government has limited hydropower and nuclear power projects coming onstream next year. In the meantime, coal consumption for heating will likely be replaced by natural gas or electricity, and coking coal demand may fall due to EF steel expansion and more use of scrap steel in blast furnaces. Bottom Line: Coal prices are likely to head south on rising supply and weakening demand growth next year. In addition, we expect coal prices to fall less than steel prices over the next 12-15 months on a tighter supply-demand balance for the former than the latter. What About The Iron Ore Market? The outlook for iron ore prices is becoming less downbeat. Iron ore prices may have limited downside and could outperform steel prices over the next 12-15 months - due to increasing shutdowns of mainland iron ore mines. Government data show that Chinese domestic iron ore output contracted 40% year-on-year in the first eight months of this year (Chart 9). About 60% of the decline was from Hebei - the province that has probably imposed the strictest environmental policies among all the provinces targeting ferrous- and coal- related industries - due to its proximity to the capital, Beijing. Chart 9Significant Drop In Domestic Iron Ore Output Significant Drop In Domestic Iron Ore Output Significant Drop In Domestic Iron Ore Output Profit margins for iron ore miners has tanked to a 15-year low due to rising production costs on environmental protections. The number of loss-making enterprises as a share of the total number of iron ore companies has reached a record high (Chart 10). Although EF steel capacity additions will contribute to most of the growth in crude steel output next year, non-EF crude steel capacity, which uses iron ore as its main input, will also increase to some extent. This will also lift iron ore demand, which will lead to further declines in port inventories and rising imports (Chart 11). Chart 10Iron Ore Producers' Profit Margin: At A 15-Year Low Iron Ore Producers' Profit Margin: At A 15-Year Low Iron Ore Producers' Profit Margin: At A 15-Year Low Chart 11Chinese Iron Ore Imports Are Likely To Go Up Chinese Iron Ore Imports Are Likely To Go Up Chinese Iron Ore Imports Are Likely To Go Up Bottom Line: We are less bearish on iron ore prices and expect them to outperform steel prices. Chinese iron ore imports will likely grow again. Investment Implications Three main investment implications can be drawn from our analysis. Price ratios of thermal coal/steel rebar and iron ore/steel rebar have fallen to record low levels (Chart 12). As we expect thermal coal and iron ore prices to outperform steel, we recommend going long September 2019 thermal coal futures/short September 2019 steel rebar futures and going long September 2019 iron ore futures/short September 2019 steel rebar futures on Chinese exchanges in RMB. Chinese coal imports including both thermal coal and coking coal could remain strong, which would at a margin be positive news for Chinese major coal importers Australia, Indonesia, Russia and Mongolia. In the meantime, Chinese iron ore imports are likely to rebound in 2019 as well. This will be positive news for producers in Australia, Brazil and South Africa. Chart 12Both Thermal Coal And Iron Ore Will Likely Outperform Steel Both Thermal Coal And Iron Ore Will Likely Outperform Steel Both Thermal Coal And Iron Ore Will Likely Outperform Steel Chart 13Coal Producers' Shares May Outperform Steel Producers' Stocks Coal Producers' Shares May Outperform Steel Producers' Stocks Coal Producers' Shares May Outperform Steel Producers' Stocks Despite stubbornly high coal and steel prices, Chinese share prices of coal producers and steel producers have still plunged (Chart 13, top and middle panel). From a top-down standpoint, it is hard to explain such poor share price performance among Chinese steel and coal companies when their profits have been booming. Our hunch is that these companies have been forced by the government to shoulder the debt of their peer companies that were shut down. This is an example of how the government can force shareholders of profitable companies to bear losses from restructuring by merging zombie companies into profitable ones. Based on our analysis, Chinese steel producers' share prices are still at risk of falling steel prices, while coal-producing companies may benefit from rising production and limited downside in coal prices. Hence, Chinese coal producers' shares may continue to outperform steel producers' shares with the price ratio of the former versus the latter just rebounding from three-year lows (Chart 13, bottom panel). Ellen JingYuan He, Associate Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy EllenJ@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed", dated November 22, 2017, and "Revisiting China's De-Capacity Reforms", dated April 26, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 2 Ditiaogang" is low-quality steel made by melting scrap metal in cheap and easy-to-install induction furnaces. These steel products are of poor quality and also lead to environmental degradation. As "Ditiaogang" is illegal in China, it is not recorded in official crude steel production data. However, after it is converted into steel products, official steel products production data do include it. Consequently, last year's significant removal of "Ditiaogang" and statistical issues have caused the big divergence between crude steel production expansion and steel products output contraction since then. 3 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "China's Property Market: Where Will It Go From Here?", dated September 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights A supply-driven spike in oil prices in early 2019 is now a highly likely scenario. This represents a potential risk to our current high-conviction view that global bond yields will continue to rise over the next year. Oil prices north of $100/bbl would have negative implications for global growth, especially with a rising U.S. dollar likely to magnify the inflationary impact outside the U.S. A spike in oil prices could alter the recent positive correlation between global bond yields and oil (through higher inflation expectations), even turning into a negative correlation (through weaker expected economic growth). The most reliable historical correlations suggests that more volatile oil prices will lead to greater volatility for both bond yields and corporate credit spreads. Feature The BCA house view remains unequivocally bond bearish, led by additional upside potential for U.S. Treasury yields. The Fed will continue to deliver a steady pace of rate hikes over at least the next year in response to a strong U.S. economy that is fueled by fiscal stimulus and operating well beyond full employment. U.S. bond markets are not discounting enough potential tightening and inflation expectations remain below levels consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target, so Treasury yields have room to rise further. While we are comfortable with our high-conviction bearish view on government bonds, we recognize that it is prudent to look for potential scenarios that could derail our base-case scenario. Especially since our once out-of-consensus expectation of higher global yields is now a widely-held view among investors, with Treasury yields breaking out to new cyclical highs in recent weeks. One such risk could come from a spike in oil prices in early 2019, and its potential aftermath. A confluence of geopolitical (Iran, Venezuela) and monetary policy risks (Fed tightening, rising U.S. dollar) will likely stoke oil price volatility next year. This will eventually lead to higher bond market volatility both in developed markets (DM) and emerging markets (EM) - a relationship that has had a far more reliable correlation over time than the direct relationship between oil prices and yields (Chart 1). Chart 1Oil Vol & Bond Vol Are Linked Oil Vol & Bond Vol Are Linked Oil Vol & Bond Vol Are Linked In this joint Special Report, BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services explore how a changing relationship between oil and interest rates could affect the future behavior of global bond markets and, by association, returns to fixed income portfolios. Growing Odds Of A 2019 Oil Price Spike Global oil markets are tightening. While oil demand growth is slowing somewhat, exports from two of OPEC's largest producers - Iran and Venezuela - are falling precipitously. U.S. sanctions against the former, and the unabated collapse in the latter's economy will together remove some 2mm barrels/day (b/d) of supply from an already tight market next year. Global oil inventories are drawing down, while spare capacity is perilously low, leaving little in the way of readily available backup supply to deal with an unplanned production outage even in a minor oil-exporting state. The confluence of these factors is setting the global oil market up for a supply shock, which could take prices to $100/bbl in 1Q19 (Chart 2).1 Those high prices are likely to be sustained, and we expect Brent crude oil, the global benchmark, to trade at $95/bbl on average over the course of next year. Chart 2Get Ready For $100/bbl Oil In Q1 2019 Get Ready For $100/bbl Oil In Q1 2019 Get Ready For $100/bbl Oil In Q1 2019 Against this physical reality, the Fed remains set to continue normalizing interest rates. With other major central banks remaining relatively accommodative, widening rate differentials (Chart 3) will continue to support the U.S. dollar (USD). This will, all else equal, increase the cost of oil in local currency terms outside the U.S., hitting EM economies particularly hard if the price move is both as large, and as rapid, as we expect. Chart 3Rate Differentials Will Remain USD-Supportive Rate Differentials Will Remain USD-Supportive Rate Differentials Will Remain USD-Supportive It is important here to differentiate between a steady demand-driven rise in the price of oil and a rapid supply-driven oil price spike. The former can be bond-bearish by pushing up the inflation expectations components of global bond yields at a time when strong economic growth is also pushing up real bond yields. An oil price spike, however, can eventually produce a DIS-inflationary impulse by depressing real economic growth and destroying oil demand, which ultimately lowers oil prices, inflation expectations and real yields. The IMF, in its most recent World Economic Outlook, highlighted a scenario for 2019 where a big enough rise in oil prices could even cause the Fed to reverse its rates-normalization policies.2 While this is not BCA's base case view, a period of sharply higher oil prices in 1Q19 followed by lower prices in 2H19 would whipsaw global oil markets and raise oil price volatility. History suggests that bond price volatility is likely to also increase in the process, both for government bonds (through more uncertainty over the future path of inflation and policy rates) and corporate bonds (though more uncertainty over future economic growth). Expect Higher Bond Volatility As Oil Volatility Rises Since the end of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), oil volatility has strongly influenced volatility in DM and EM bond markets. Indeed, we find all grades of corporate and junk bonds grouped together are highly correlated with oil volatility in the post-GFC period. We expect this to continue going forward, as oil inventories are drawn down globally to meet consumer demand for refined petroleum products like gasoline, diesel fuel, chemicals and plastics. The drawdown in global inventories shows up in a backwardated oil-price forward curve, which reflects the increasing inelasticity of supply.3 This means prices have to adjust more frequently and sharply to equilibrate available supply with demand, producing higher volatility in oil prices (Chart 4). Chart 4Implied Volatilities Will Rise As OECD Storage Falls Man Bites Dog: Could Sharply Rising Oil Prices Lead To Lower Global Bond Yields In 2019? Man Bites Dog: Could Sharply Rising Oil Prices Lead To Lower Global Bond Yields In 2019? Using principal components analysis (PCA), we find a high pairwise correlation between oil and bond volatility since 2010. The first principal component (PC) of all grades of corporate and junk bonds grouped together varies strongly with oil volatility, with a correlation of 0.80. Importantly, this component explains 91% of the variability in the group (Chart 5).4 EM bond spreads for smaller issuers like Chile, Peru, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, Indonesia, Mexico, Colombia, and Malaysia are also heavily influenced by greater variability of oil prices, with the first PC of this group highly correlated with oil volatility. Chart 5Oil Volatility Leads To Bond Volatility Oil Volatility Leads To Bond Volatility Oil Volatility Leads To Bond Volatility It comes as no surprise that our U.S. Bond Strategy group, headed by Ryan Swift, has found that lower-quality corporate bonds (i.e., junk) have a high correlation with oil volatility, as do lower-quality corporate spreads (Chart 6). As Ryan noted in a recent report: "there is no consistent correlation between the level of oil prices and junk spreads. However, there is a correlation between implied volatility in the crude oil market and junk spreads, with higher implied vol coinciding with wider spreads and vice-versa. ... The bottom line for junk investors is that a supply shock in the oil market would most likely lead to a steep backwardation in the futures curve and an increase in implied oil volatility. An increase in implied oil volatility will translate into a higher risk premium embedded in junk spreads."5 Chart 6Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Oil Volatility Leads To Credit Spread Widening Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Oil Volatility Leads To Credit Spread Widening Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Oil Volatility Leads To Credit Spread Widening Thus, the oil price spike that we are expecting in 2019 should make corporate bond investors more cautious on the outlook for credit spread and expected returns. BCA's bond strategists have already been expecting to shift to an underweight stance on U.S. corporate debt sometime in 2019 as the Fed moves to a restrictive monetary stance and investors begin to cut U.S. growth expectations and anticipate increased future credit downgrades and defaults. A sharp upward move in oil prices in 1Q19 may prove to be the trigger for that shift to a more bearish outlook on credit. Could An Oil Price Spike Change The Fed's Current Thinking? The combination of an oil price spike and a stronger USD that we anticipate would present a considerable headwind to EM economic growth. Econometric modelling work done by BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy shows that there is a strong correlation between EM growth and U.S. inflation (see Box 1).6 Correlation is not causation, of course, but there is a plausible mechanism for that correlation through the USD, which impacts both EM growth and U.S. inflation. Box 1 Modeling The Links Between The USD, EM & Inflation The two risks we highlight in this Special Report - an oil-price shock in 1Q19 that occurs while the Fed is tightening - have profound implications for EM economies, which makes them particularly important for fixed-income markets globally.7 The near-term effects of an oil-supply shock that quickly sent prices above $100/bbl will hit EM consumers particularly hard. Many governments relaxed or removed fuel subsidies shielding consumers from high oil prices following the OPEC-engineered oil-price collapse of 2014 - 16, which saw Brent crude oil prices - the global benchmark - fall from more than $110/bbl in 1H14 to close to $25/bbl in early 2016.8 An oil-price spike would consume a far larger share of EM households' disposable income now, and would reduce aggregate demand. The second risk - tightening of the Fed's monetary policy - is more complicated. The U.S. economy separated itself from the rest of the world with strong growth this year, partly aided by fiscal stimulus. As a result, the U.S. economy is operating beyond full employment, and wages are growing smartly. This growth allows the Fed to tighten monetary policy, which likely produces four policy-rate rate hikes this year, and, per our House view, four next year. On the back of the Fed's rates-normalization policy, the U.S. trade-weighted dollar appreciated ~ 8% this year. We expect continued strength next year. As the dollar strengthens, EM trade volumes slow. This is partly a result of rising local-currency costs ex U.S., as most commodities are priced in USD. Trade volumes - particularly imports - are closely tied to EM incomes: The World Bank estimates the income elasticity of trade in EM economies averaged 1.5% from 2000-07 p.a., and 1.2% from 2010-17, meaning a 1% increase in income has led to a roughly 1.4% growth in trade over this period.9 Falling trade volumes correspond with weakening or falling income in EM economies. Part of this likely is explained by the expansion and deepening of Global Supply Chains (GSCs) over the past two decades, which fueled the rapid rise in trade of intermediate goods globally, and EM incomes in the process.10 To examine the impact of a rising dollar on EM income, we estimated a regression for the level of EM import volumes using an ensemble of models for the broad trade-weighted index (TWIB) USD as an explanatory variable.11 Our modeling indicates that a 1% increase in our USD TWIB ensemble translates into a 0.33% decline in EM import volumes (Chart 7).12 Chart 7Strong Dollar Dampens EM Trade Volumes Downward Trend In EM Trade Will Continue As USD Strengthens ... Strong Dollar Dampens EM Trade Volumes Downward Trend In EM Trade Will Continue As USD Strengthens ... Strong Dollar Dampens EM Trade Volumes Downward Trend In EM Trade Will Continue As USD Strengthens ... Next, we wanted to take these results and have a closer look at inflation, since, as noted above, wage and price pressures have been transmitted globally through GSCs for the better part of the 21st century. This is a phenomenon that accelerates as GSCs are broadened and deepened. More precisely, we wanted to examine the global aspects of local inflation in DM and EM economies.13 To do this, we look at the level of the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) as a function of EM import volumes. Our modeling indicates that a 1% change in the level of EM import volumes as a function of the USD TWIB translates to a change (in the same direction) in the level of U.S. CPI of between 0.15% and 0.25% - estimated over the post-GFC period (2010 to now). This reflects both the direct and indirect effects of EM incomes on domestic inflation in the U.S. (Chart 8): Chart 8U.S. CPI Vs EM Import Volumes U.S. CPI Vs EM Import Volumes U.S. CPI Vs EM Import Volumes U.S. CPI Vs EM Import Volumes U.S. CPI Vs EM Import Volumes U.S. CPI Vs EM Import Volumes A stronger USD lowers expected U.S. inflation by reducing the cost of imports. EM disposable income growth slows as the USD rises, because the local-currency costs of imports rise and consumes more of available household budgets. Our modeling isolates the common deterministic trend between the U.S. CPI and EM import volumes from the cyclical variations. In fact, these two variables expressed in levels exhibit a strong and stable common trend.14 The U.S. trade-weighted dollar index has already appreciated 8% this year, with more upside likely in the next 6-12 months (Chart 9).15 This would widen the existing sharp divergence between a strong U.S. economy and weaker non-U.S. growth, putting even more upward pressure on the USD. This would represent an additional tightening of U.S. monetary conditions on top of the Fed rate hikes that have already occurred since late 2015. Chart 9Expect Continued USD Appreciation Expect Continued USD Appreciation Expect Continued USD Appreciation BCA's bond strategy services have described a concept known as the "Fed Policy Loop" to explain the link between global growth divergences, a rising USD, financial market volatility and eventual shifts in the Fed's hawkish bias. Such a move occurred in late 2015/early 2016, when the Fed had to delay additional increases beyond the initial 25bp rate hike of the current tightening cycle because of a soaring USD and global financial market instability (Chart 10). Chart 10Is The Fed Policy Loop: Watch U.S. Credit Spreads Is The Fed Policy Loop: Watch U.S. Credit Spreads" Is The Fed Policy Loop: Watch U.S. Credit Spreads" The current backdrop shares some characteristics with that episode, in terms of growth divergences (top panel), USD strength and wider EM credit spreads (second panel). The missing piece today is a large widening of U.S. credit spreads, and U.S. credit market underperformance versus Treasuries (third panel). The U.S. economy is in a much healthier place now compared to three years ago, which is why credit spreads have remained much better behaved in 2018. The global backdrop is also far less disinflationary, with the global output gap now closed and inflation expectations drifting back towards pre-crisis levels consistent with central bank inflation targets (Chart 11). Investors should focus on U.S. corporate bond spreads for signs that a stronger USD is starting to impact U.S. corporate profits and future U.S. growth expectations. This would be the most likely potential trigger for the Fed to pause on its current tightening path, as occurred in early 2016 (bottom panel). Importantly, we firmly believe that the Fed's hurdle for backing off the rate hikes from a tightening of financial conditions is much higher now because the U.S. economy is stronger today. A "garden variety" equity market correction, without much widening of corporate spreads, will not be enough. Investment Implications What we have laid out in this report is a risk to the current BCA house views on global duration exposure (stay below-benchmark) and global credit exposure (stay neutral, but favoring the U.S. over Europe and EM) - a supply-driven spike in oil prices, combined with additional increases in the USD fueled by Fed tightening. The potential trigger for that oil spike is largely geopolitical, stemming from the likely loss of oil supply from Iran via U.S. sanctions and Venezuela through economic collapse. The timing of either outcome is difficult to pin down precisely, but sometime in the first quarter of 2019 is our current best guess for when oil prices reach $100/bbl. The key variables to watch will be the U.S. dollar. If it stays stable, then the impacts on global growth and U.S. inflation from the oil spike could be more modest. If the USD surges higher, then the negative impact on non-U.S. growth will eventually spill back into the U.S. economy. The combination of more volatile oil prices and a stronger USD would be a likely trigger for a surge in U.S. bond volatility and wider corporate bond spreads. Eventually, this could move the Fed to pause on its rate hike cycle and, at least temporarily, end the current bond bear market. Robert Robis, CFA, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Our full oil-price forecast is available in the September 20, 2018, issue of BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy, in a report titled "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl." It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. We will be updating our oil-price forecast next week. 2 Please see the IMF's World Economic Outlook for October 2018, which can be found here https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/ 3 Backwardation is a term of art in commodity markets used to describe an inverted forward curve - i.e., prompt prices for commodities delivered in the very near future trade higher than prices for commodities delivered further out in time. This is the market's way of signaling supplies are tight; storage holders are being incentivized to release oil in inventory via higher prices for prompt delivery. The opposite of this is referred to as a contango market (prompt prices are lower than deferred prices). Contango markets reflect well-supplied markets, as supply that cannot be immediately used must be stored for later use. In recent research, we were able to extend findings from academic studies that showed a non-linear relationship between oil volatility and the slope of the forward curve - highly backwardated and contango forward curves are accompanied by higher volatility in oil prices, due to the physical constraints on storage in such markets. 4 Principal components analysis (PCA) is a statistical technique used to reduce the most important information contained in a large number of correlated variables into a smaller number of common factors that explains the larger set. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk," dated October 9, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 EM trade volumes - particularly imports - are a key variable we use to track EM income levels. The World Bank estimates the income elasticity of trade averaged 1.5% from 2000 - 07, and 1.2% from 2010 - 17, meaning a 1% increase in income has led to a roughly 1.4% growth in trade over this period. Please see "Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets," in the June 21, 2018, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 10 of the 11 post-WW2 recessions in the U.S. were preceded by an oil-price spike. Since 1970, the combination of an oil-price spike and a Fed rate-hiking cycle resulted in recession. Please see "Oil-Supply Shock, Risking U.S. Rates Favor Gold As A Portfolio Hedge," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy on September 13, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see the Special Focus in the World Bank's January 2018 Global Economic Prospects entitled "With The Benefit of Hindsight: The Impact of the 2014 - 16 Oil Price Collapse." 9 We discuss this in "Trade Wars, China Credit Policy Will Roil Global Copper Markets," in the June 21, 2018, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see "Global value chains and the increasingly global nature of inflation," by Raphael Auer, Claudio Borio, Andrew Filardo, published online April 28, 2017, by VOX, the CEPR Policy Portal. 11 We average estimates from five different USD regressions using monetary policy variables, commodity prices and momentum indicators. The period covered is the post-GFC (2010 to now). 12 The regression we estimate includes a trend variable, which allows us to separate out the cyclical aspects of trade (i.e., imports) alone. 13 Please see "The globalisation of inflation: the growing importance of global value chains," by Raphael Auer, Claudio Borio and Andrew Filardo, which was published by the Bank For International Settlements in January 2017. 14 We believe this reflects "hidden variables" that simultaneously drive U.S. inflation and EM incomes such as global growth and global money/credit growth. The coefficient range we report - 0.15% to 0.25% - controls for this. For a discussion of "hidden variables," please see Clive Granger's 2003 Nobel Lecture entitled "Time Series Analysis, Cointegration, and Applications." 15 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Trade, Dollars, Oil & Metals ...Assessing Downside Risk," dated August 23, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights This Special Report was written with our colleagues in BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy, led by Marko Papic. In it, we explore the evolution of Russia's role in European natural gas markets vis-a-vis the fast-growing U.S. natural gas production and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export capabilities. So what? Rise of U.S. LNG exports to Europe will benefit gas producers and LNG merchants with access to U.S. supplies. Russia will grow ever-more dependent on China, while retaining a market share in Europe. Why? Exports of U.S. LNG to Europe are set to surge over the next decade. Russia will not be completely displaced, as American LNG fills the gap in European natural gas production. But U.S. LNG will lead to the end of oil-indexing of long-term natural gas contracts, hurting Russian state coffers on the margin... ... And forcing Russia further into the arms of China. Also... A tighter Trans-Atlantic partnership - soon to involve a deep energy relationship - and a budding Sino-Russian alliance will further divide the world into two camps, producing a Bifurcated Capitalism that may define this century. Feature Russia's obituaries have been written and re-written many times since the end of the Cold War. And yet, Moscow continues to play an outsized role in global affairs that is belied by quantitative measures of its power (Chart 1). Chart 1From Bipolarity To Multipolarity From Bipolarity To Multipolarity From Bipolarity To Multipolarity How so? The fall of the Soviet Union was precipitated by the country's sclerotic managed economy, its failure to escape the middle income trap, and its disastrous military campaign in Afghanistan. But before it died, the Soviet Union sowed the seeds for its resurrection. The $100-130 billion (in 2018 USD) spent on building a natural gas pipeline infrastructure into Western Europe was the elixir that revived Russian power. Just as Russia emerged from its lost decade in the 1990s, it caught a break. Western Europe's natural gas demand rose. At the same time, China's epic industrialization created a once-in-a-century commodity bull market (Chart 2). With demand for its resources buoyed on both sides of the Eurasian landmass, Russia once again saw revenue fill its coffers (Chart 3). With material wealth came the ability to rebuild its hard power and put up a fight against an expansionary Western alliance encroaching on its sphere of influence. Chart 2Chinese Industrialization... Chinese Industrialization... Chinese Industrialization... Chart 3...Filled Russian Coffers ...Filled Russian Coffers ...Filled Russian Coffers Is there an existential risk to Russia's business model looming in the form of surging U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capability (Chart 4)? Not yet. Thanks to a massive drop in European domestic production, U.S. LNG exports will fill a growing supply gap, but will not replace Russia's natural gas exports in the medium term. All the same, the once-lucrative European market no longer holds as much promise as it once did with the arrival of the U.S. LNG supplies. Chart 4U.S. LNG Exports Will Surge American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? In order for Russian natural gas exports to Europe to be permanently displaced, Europe would have to build out new LNG capacity beyond 2020, restart domestic production by incentivizing shale development, or turn to alternative energy sources with large base-load potential, such as nuclear power. None of these are on the horizon. With ~15% of its government revenue sourced from natural gas sales, Russia is as much of a one-trick pony as there is in macroeconomics. While we do not foresee that pony heading off to the glue factory, Russia will face some considerable risks in the future, starting with the shift away from the rigid oil-indexed contracts it favors (which lock the price of natural gas to that of oil). As such, the risk to Russia is not that it loses market share in Europe's energy market, but that this market share yields much smaller income in the future, as gas-on-gas pricing competition increases. The U.S. Shale Revolution Goes Global Our commodity team has presented a compelling case for why investors should expect an increase in U.S. LNG exports beyond the current EIA forecast.1 Increasing volumes of associated natural gas production in the Permian Basin in west Texas, which will have to be transported from the basin so as not to curtail oil production, will drive a large part of the expected growth in LNG exports. Our commodity team expects that a major LNG export center will be developed in south Texas, in Corpus Christi, over the next five years, just as the U.S. surpasses 10 Bcf/d of exports in the middle of the next decade.2 At the same time, global LNG demand is expected to rise at an impressive 1.7% annual rate to 2040 (Chart 5). A few key markets will lead this trend (Chart 6). Based on BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy calculations, world LNG export capacity is expected to go from 48 Bcf/d in 2017 to 61 Bcf/d by 2022 (Chart 7). The majority of the new capacity (53%) will come from the U.S., while 18% will come from Australia and 15% from Russia. Chart 5Global LNG Demand Growth Likely Outpaces Current Expectations American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? Chart 6Supply - Demand Imbalances Will Fuel LNG Demand Globally American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? Chart 7LNG Export Capacity Growth American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? The pickup in Australian export capacity is already impressive. While being a relatively small natural gas producer - the eighth largest, accounting for 3% of world output - it has already become the second largest LNG exporting country in the world with over 7.5 Bcf/d of exports. The bulk of new liquefaction facilities will be operational in 2019. Most of Australia's LNG trade lies with Asia, given its geography. The U.S., whose LNG export terminals will be located in the Gulf of Mexico, only has 3 Bcf/d of liquefaction capacity today. Most of its LNG exports also go to Asia (Table 1), but that may change as the current capacity expansion will see exports rise to just over 9 Bcf/d in 2020.3 Furthermore, American gas will compete with surging Australian LNG exports and a build-up of Russian pipeline export capacity to China, which is set to start delivering gas to the country in 2019. Table 1U.S. LNG Exports By Country American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? Europe, on the other hand, has massive regasification capacity slack and thus requires only minimal capex to begin importing large volumes of U.S. LNG. Europe has 23 Bcf/d regasification capacity, with a very low utilization rate of just 27%. This means that it has ~ 16 Bcf/d capacity available, more than enough to absorb all of expectant U.S. ~ 6-7 Bcf/d exports in the next couple of years.4 Bottom Line: The U.S. shale revolution is going global, with U.S. LNG exports set to surge over the next 5-10 years. While some of that capacity will find its way to Asia, those markets will also be flooded with Australian LNG and Russian piped natural gas. Europe, on the other hand, is filing just a quarter of its LNG import capacity, making a Trans-Atlantic gas alliance a match made in heaven. From Cold War To Gas War? If half of the currently proposed, pre-FID, LNG export projects were built in the U.S., American capacity would grow to potentially ~26 Bcf/d by 2030. Europe would need only one or two extra LNG import terminals to build over the next two decades to absorb this volume, as its current capacity is able to import nearly every molecule coming out of North America (Chart 8). Chart 8Europe Has Plenty Of Regasification Capacity American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? Will this new U.S. LNG displace Europe's imports of Russian natural gas? The short answer is no. By 2030, Europe's supply-gap (i.e. domestic supply minus domestic consumption) is estimated to reach 36 Bcf/d. The U.S. could cover a large part of this gap if only half of the proposed pre-FID projects are constructed. However, if Europe's demand remains stable over this period, Europe will still import roughly 20 Bcf/d of Russian natural gas, which in 2017 amounted to 35% of Europe's natural gas consumption. If the U.S. fills 100% of the increase in Europe's supply-gap, it means new Russian natural gas production (the IEA and BP expect Russian production to keep increasing until 2030) will not be sent to Europe. Hence, even if it does not displace old Russian exports, it will limit Russia's ability to export its new natural gas. Europe's demand for natural gas is not likely to be stable. Despite sclerotic growth and generally weak population growth, European governments have tried to incentivize natural gas consumption due to its low emission of CO2 (Table 2). As such, investors should expect further displacement of coal and nuclear power generation in favor of natural gas. Table 2Natgas Emits Less CO2 American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? Thus, U.S. exports will simply replace Europe's domestic production, which is facing considerable declines. The U.K. North Sea production will decrease 5% annually due to the lack of capex and the large number of fields reaching a mature state. Meanwhile, the Netherlands is phasing-out its Groningen field by 2030. Finally, Norwegian gas production is likely to stagnate after reaching record levels in 2017. The second reason that Europe will not be able to sever its relationship with Russia is that its LNG import terminals are largely located in countries that are not massively dependent on Russian imports (Map 1). The two major LNG terminals serving Central and Eastern Europe are the Swinoujscie terminal in Poland - finished in 2015 - and the Adria project in Croatia, to be completed in 2020. Map 1European Natural Gas Geography American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? The Polish LNG terminal will do little to alleviate the dependency of countries further East - Belarus, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Slovakia - from Russia as it currently satisfies only one third of Poland's natural gas needs, and is projected to reach 50% by 2022 once the expansion is completed. This could significantly cut Russian exports to Poland, but not completely end them.5 The Croatian LNG terminal will likely make a very small dent in the overall reliance of the Balkans on Russian natural gas, as once it satisfied Croatian demand, little will be left over for the rest of the region. Beyond these two terminals, Europe will have to invest in pipeline infrastructure in order to reverse the flow of pipelines currently taking gas from the East to the West. At some point in the distant future, we could see a scenario where American natural gas flows even through Cold War era, Soviet-built pipelines deep into Central and Eastern Europe. But given the steep declines in West European natural gas production, this day will come after 2030. Bottom Line: Dreams of displacing Russian natural gas in Europe with American are overstated. European imports of U.S. LNG are likely to skyrocket, but that will merely replace the massive decline in West European and North Sea production. What does that mean for geopolitics? It means that Russia will continue to have a role to play in Europe, but its share of European imports will decline. As such, Europe will have options. If it builds more LNG import terminals, it could expand those options beyond American LNG imports. However, Russian geopolitical influence will not be displaced completely. Russian Coffers Will Take A Hit Although Russian natural gas will continue to course through Europe's veins, its state coffers are nonetheless going to take a hit. European governments are actively diversifying away from Russia via U.S. LNG imports, and buyers generally are shortening the tenor of contracts as they seek more flexible pricing.6 The growth in the global LNG market, fueled by surging U.S. production, will ultimately allow Asian and European markets to diversify away from oil-indexed pricing - which tends to be priced higher than gas-on-gas pricing - and expand access to U.S. supplies.7 The EU has co-financed or committed to co-finance LNG infrastructure projects valued at ~ 640mm euros to secure U.S. LNG. Ultimately, as more and more U.S. LNG moves toward Europe, markets will move toward short- and long-term contracts priced in USD/MMBtu (indexed to Henry Hub, LA, prices), much like Brent crude oil priced in USD/bbl. European markets have already seen this shift, as illustrated in Chart 9. Chart 9European Gas-On-Gas Pricing Is Rising American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? The totality of U.S. export prices is determined by gas-on-gas pricing - i.e., gas priced in USD/MMBtu as a function of gas supply-demand fundamentals. These contracts are without the restrictions found in many oil-indexed contracts. In the U.S., the presence of a deep futures market delivering natural gas to Henry Hub, LA, allows flexible long-term financing and short- and long-term contracting that can be hedged by buyers and sellers. According to Royal Dutch Shell, the spot LNG market doubled from 2010 to 2017, accounting for ~ 25% of all transactions, most of it due to the prodigious increase in U.S. LNG supply. While in Europe the share of LNG spot and short-term deals is small relative to the overall market, it is growing (Chart 10). With U.S. LNG volumes becoming increasingly available in Europe, market participants will be inclined to turn to the LNG spot market to buy or sell outside contracted volumes. This will deepen the development of European natgas markets: in any fully developed market, spot trading is followed by forward contracting, then futures trading using contracts settling against a spot price.8 Chart 10Expect More LNG Spot Trading American Pipes, Russian Gripes? American Pipes, Russian Gripes? Russia is a low-cost gas producer in Europe and will be committed to maintaining its market in Europe. However, with U.S. LNG export capacity potentially reaching ~14 Bcf/d by 2025, from ~3 Bcf/d today, it is entirely likely that Russia will find itself in a price war defending existing market share in Europe at lower prices. Its preferred way of doing business, via oil price indexed contracts, will be challenged overnight by a surge in U.S. LNG imports. Bottom line: The EU and its member states are actively diversifying gas supply sources away from Russia via U.S. LNG purchases. This will lower the marginal price of all gas bought and sold in Europe, all else equal, resulting in lower margins for all sellers of gas and better prices for consumers. Ultimately, the European natural gas market will resemble every other fully developed commodity market, operating on razor-thin margins. This means whatever rents were available in this market will be dissipated as competition increases. Investment And Geopolitical Implications The immediate investment implication of these developments is that gas producers and LNG merchants with access to U.S. shale-gas supplies, processing trading, and risk-management capabilities should be favored in this evolving market. Beyond the short term, however, we expect several ongoing geopolitical developments to be ossified by the flood of American LNG steaming towards European shores: Sino-Russian alliance deepens: As Russian natural gas exports to Europe stagnate, its pipeline infrastructure build-out will increase its exports to China to 3.8 Bcf/d by 2019. China will become the growth market for Russian energy producers, deepening the move between the two former Cold War foes to stabilize their relationship. Although it may seem obvious that Russia would retain leverage in such a relationship - given that it can "turn off the lights" to Beijing at whim - we actually think that Beijing will hold all the cards.9 Europe will have an incentive to keep diversifying its natural gas supplies. Meanwhile, Chinese demand is likely to keep growing. As such, China will become Russia's main option for revenue growth. And as the old adage goes, the customer is always right. Trans-Atlantic alliance deepens: Despite the fears that the "Trump Doctrine" would lead to American isolationism - fears that we shared in 2017 - the growing U.S.-European LNG connection will ensure that the Trans-Atlantic alliance - forged 70 years ago in blood - will be saved via brisk energy trade.10 A growing European energy deficit with the U.S. will also resolve - or at least alleviate - the main source of marital problems in the relationship: Europe's trade surplus. Bifurcation of capitalism: A key theme of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is that the age of globalization will yield to the world's segmentation into spheres of influence.11 A deepening Trans-Atlantic alliance, when combined with a budding Sino-Russian relationship, will lead to a Bifurcated Capitalism system where the Trans-Atlantic West faces off against the Eurasian East. What would such a Bifurcated Capitalism mean for investors? Time will tell. But it may mean that thirty years of global capitalism (1985 to roughly today) may give way to something more common in human history: a world dissected into spheres of influence where flows of capital, goods, and people within spheres are relatively smooth and unencumbered, yet flows between the spheres are heavily impeded. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Pavel Bilyk, Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy pavelb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "U.S. Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market," published by BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy October 4, 2018. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "The Price of Permian Gas Pipeline Limits," by Stephen Rassenfoss, in the Journal of Petroleum Technology, published July 19, 2018. 3 Following a two-year pause in project Final Investment Decisions (FIDs) from 2016 to 2017, potential FIDs in 2018 and 2019 could increase the U.S. capacity to ~ 14 Bcf/d by 2025. This will make the U.S. the second-largest exporter of LNG in the world, surpassing Australia. This new wave of investment is yet to be finalized. Therefore, final decisions in 2H18 and 2019 will be crucial to determine the medium-term potential of U.S. LNG. 4 Cheniere Energy, the largest U.S. LNG exporter, expects ~ 50% of its exports to go to Europe, according to S&P Global Platts. Please see "US LNG vs Pipeline Gas: European Market Share War?" published April 2017 by Platts. 5 Additionally, if the Baltic Pipe Project, moving gas from Norway to Poland, reaches FID in 2019, this would help Poland diversify its energy supply from Russia, as the country would cover close to all its domestic demand via its production + LNG and new pipeline imports. 6 Please see "US and Russia step up fight to supply Europe's gas," published by the Financial Times August 3, 2017. See also "Russia's gas still a potent weapon," also published by the FT, re the so-called collateral damage suffered by Europe when Russia cut off gas supplies to Ukraine in January 2009. 7 For the EU, supply diversification is a particularly important goal. On July 25, 2018, the European Commission and the U.S. issued a joint statement, in which the EU agreed to import more LNG from the U.S. "to diversify and render its energy supply more secure. The EU and the U.S. will therefore work to facilitate trade in liquefied natural gas," according to a press release issued August 9, 2018, by the Commission. Re Japan's diversification strategy, please see "Feature: US LNG sources fit with Japan's desire for route diversity: minister," published by S&P Global Platts September 27, 2018. 8 Please see Darrell Duffie, Futures Markets (1988), Prentice-Hall; and Jeffrey C. Williams, The Economic Function of Futures Markets (1986), Cambridge University Press. Longer-term deals already are being signed under flexible Henry Hub futures-based indexing terms in the U.S. This is occurring because the U.S. LNG market is able to tap into futures liquidity that supports hedging by natgas producers and consumers. Please see "Vitol-Cheniere Pact Shows Long-Term LNG Deals Aren't Dead," published by bloomberg.com September 17, 2018. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Embrace Of The Dragon And The Bear," dated April 11, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, and Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Duration: Last week's bond market rout was driven by strong U.S. data. Global growth (ex. U.S.) continues to weaken. Weak foreign growth that migrates stateside via a stronger dollar remains the biggest risk to our below-benchmark duration stance. For now, we prefer to hedge that risk by owning curve steepeners and maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product. High-Yield: A supply shock in the oil market would most likely lead to steep backwardation in the oil futures curve and an increase in implied oil volatility. An increase in implied oil volatility will translate into a higher risk premium embedded in junk spreads. Emerging Market Sovereigns: All of the recent widening in USD-denominated EM sovereign spreads has been concentrated in Turkey and Argentina, two nations that remain highly exposed to global growth divergences and a stronger U.S. dollar. Most other EM countries offer less attractive spreads than comparable U.S. corporate debt. Remain underweight USD-denominated EM sovereign bonds. Feature Bond Breakout Chart 1The Long End Breaks Out The Long End Breaks Out The Long End Breaks Out Bond markets sold off sharply last week and long-dated Treasury yields took out some noteworthy technical levels in the process. The 10-year Treasury yield broke above its May 2018 peak of 3.11% and settled at 3.23% as of last Friday. The next big test for the 10-year's cyclical uptrend is the 2011 peak of 3.75% (Chart 1). The 30-year yield similarly broke above its May 2018 peak of 3.25%, settling at 3.39% as of last Friday. The next resistance for the 30-year occurs at the early-2014 peak of 3.96%. Removing our, admittedly uncomfortable, technical analysis hat, it is instructive to note which macro factors were responsible for last week's large bear-steepening of the Treasury curve and which weren't. Strong U.S. economic data - the non-manufacturing ISM survey hit its highest level since 1997 (Chart 2) - and Fed Chairman Powell commenting that the fed funds rate is "a long way from neutral at this point, probably" were the key drivers of the move.1 Taken together, these two developments suggest that the Fed is further behind the curve than was previously thought. This is consistent with an upward revision to the market's assessment of the neutral fed funds rate, which explains why the yield curve steepened and the price of gold edged higher.2 But it's equally important to note the factors that didn't drive the increase in yields. In this case, yields weren't driven by a rebound in growth outside of the U.S., which continues to flag (Chart 2, panel 2). The Global Manufacturing PMI fell for the fifth consecutive month in September. While our diffusion index based on the number of countries with PMIs above versus below the 50 boom/bust line ticked higher (Chart 2, panel 3), our diffusion index based on the number of countries with rising versus falling PMIs remained deeply negative (Chart 2, bottom panel). Chart 2Growth Divergences Deepen Growth Divergences Deepen Growth Divergences Deepen Chart 3Global PMIs Global PMIs Global PMIs Taken together, our diffusion indexes are consistent with an environment where most countries are experiencing decelerating growth from high levels. This message is confirmed by looking at the PMIs from the five largest economic blocs (Chart 3). The Eurozone PMI continues to fall rapidly, though it remains well above 50. The Emerging Markets (ex. China) PMI is also trending lower from a relatively high level, while the Chinese PMI is threatening to break below 50. Only the U.S. and Japan have healthy looking PMIs. The precariousness of non-U.S. growth leads us to reiterate the biggest risk to our below-benchmark duration view. The risk is that weak foreign growth eventually migrates to the U.S. via a stronger dollar and forces the Fed to pause its +25 bps per quarter rate hike cycle. If current trends continue, it is highly likely that U.S. growth will slow in the first half of next year, though it is unclear whether such a slowdown would be severe enough for the Fed to pause rate hikes.3 In any event, the bond market is only priced for the Fed to maintain its quarterly rate hike pace until June of next year (3 more hikes) before going on hold (Chart 4). Essentially, the market already discounts a rate hike pause, even after last week's large increase in yields. Chart 4Market's Rate Expectations Still Too Low Market's Rate Expectations Still Too Low Market's Rate Expectations Still Too Low For this reason, we prefer to maintain our below-benchmark portfolio duration stance, and to hedge the risk of weakening foreign growth by owning curve steepeners,4 and maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product. Bottom Line: Last week's bond market rout was driven by strong U.S. data. Global growth (ex. U.S.) continues to weaken. Weak foreign growth that migrates stateside via a stronger dollar remains the biggest risk to our below-benchmark duration stance. For now, we prefer to hedge that risk by owning curve steepeners and maintaining only a neutral allocation to spread product. In Case You Needed Another Reason To Be Nervous About Junk As Treasury yields broke higher last week, the average high-yield index option-adjusted spread tightened to a fresh cyclical low of 303 bps. It has since rebounded to 316 bps (Chart 5). Our measure of the excess spread available in the high-yield index after adjusting for expected default losses is now at 196 bps, well below its historical average of 247 bps (Chart 5, panel 2). We have previously pointed out that even this below-average excess spread embeds a very low 12-month default loss expectation of 1.07%.5 Rarely have default losses been below that level. With job cut announcements forming a tentative bottom (Chart 5, bottom panel), we see high odds that default losses surprise to the upside during the next 12 months. In the absence of further spread tightening, that would translate to 12-month excess junk returns of 196 bps or less. But this week we want to highlight an additional risk to junk spreads. That risk being our Commodity & Energy Strategy service's view that crude oil prices could experience a positive supply shock in the first quarter of next year. At present, our strategists see high odds of $100 per barrel Brent crude oil in the first quarter of next year, and are forecasting an average price of $95 per barrel for 2019. At publication time, the Brent crude oil price was $85.6 At first blush it isn't obvious why high oil prices would pose a risk to junk spreads, and in fact there is no consistent correlation between the level of oil prices and junk spreads. However, there is a correlation between implied volatility in the crude oil market and junk spreads, with higher implied vol coinciding with wider spreads and vice-versa (Chart 6). Chart 5Default Loss Expectations Too Low Default Loss Expectations Too Low Default Loss Expectations Too Low Chart 6Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Higher Oil Vol = Wider Junk Spreads Would higher oil prices necessarily induce a spike in implied volatility? Not necessarily. It turns out that what matters for implied oil volatility is the slope of the futures curve.7 A contangoed futures curve where long-dated futures trade at a higher price than short-dated futures tends to be associated with high implied volatility. A steeply backwardated futures curve where long-dated futures trade well below short-dated futures is equally associated with elevated implied vol (Chart 7). Implied volatility tends to be lowest when the futures curve is in mild backwardation. A mild backwardation is typical when crude prices are in a gradual uptrend, as is the case at present. All in all, the following features provide a reasonable description of the current environment: Gradual uptrend in crude oil price Mild oil futures curve backwardation Low implied crude volatility Tight junk spreads However, as we head into next year, our commodity strategists anticipate that supply constraints will bite in the oil market. The U.S. is poised to implement an oil embargo against Iran in November, and Venezuela - another important oil exporter - remains on the brink of collapse. With global oil inventories already tight, and the loss of further production from Venezuela and Iran looming, our strategists anticipate that the number of days of demand covered by crude oil inventories will decline sharply. This decline will lead to a steep backwardation of the futures curve (Chart 8). Chart 7Brent Crude Oil Volatility Vs. Forward Slope Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Chart 8Supply Shock Will Lead To Steep Backwardation Supply Shock Will Lead To Steep Backwardation Supply Shock Will Lead To Steep Backwardation The bottom line for junk investors is that a supply shock in the oil market would most likely lead to a steep backwardation in the futures curve and an increase in implied oil volatility. An increase in implied oil volatility will translate into a higher risk premium embedded in junk spreads. We continue to recommend only a neutral allocation to high-yield in U.S. bond portfolios. We will await a signal that profit growth is set to deteriorate before advocating for a further reduction in exposure. Still No Buying Opportunity In EM Sovereigns Chart 9EM Index Spread Looks Cheap EM Index Spread Looks Cheap EM Index Spread Looks Cheap As growth divergences between the U.S. and the rest of the world increase, we are on high alert for an opportunity to shift some allocation out of U.S. corporate credit and into USD-denominated emerging market (EM) sovereign debt. However, so far EM spreads are simply not wide enough to merit attention from U.S. bond investors. This is not apparent from the average index spreads. In fact, a quick glance at the indexes shows that EM sovereign spreads have widened a lot relative to duration- and quality-matched U.S. corporates, and actually offer a healthy spread pick-up (Chart 9). However, a more detailed look at the spreads from individual countries shows that the spread advantage in EM is only available in a select few markets (Charts 10A & 10B). At the lower-end of the credit spectrum: Turkey, Argentina, Ukraine and Lebanon all offer higher breakeven spreads than comparable U.S. corporates. In the upper credit tiers: Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United Arab Emirates (UAE) look attractive. All other EM countries off lower breakeven spreads than comparable U.S. corporates. Chart 10ABreakeven Spreads: USD EM Sovereigns Vs. U.S. Corporates Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Chart 10BBreakeven Spreads: USD EM Sovereigns Vs. U.S. Corporates Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk We would be very reluctant to shift any allocation out of U.S. corporates and into either Turkey or Argentina. Both of those countries are highly exposed to the tightening in global liquidity conditions that occurs alongside a strengthening U.S. dollar. Our Foreign Exchange and Global Investment Strategy teams created a Vulnerability Heat Map to identify which EM countries are likely to struggle as the U.S. dollar appreciates (Chart 11).8 These tend to be countries with large current account deficits and high external debt balances, though several other factors are also considered. The results show that Argentina and Turkey are the two most exposed nations. Chart 11Vulnerability Heat Map For Key EM Markets Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk Oil Supply Shock Is A Risk For Junk At the upper-end of the credit spectrum, the USD bonds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE are more interesting. Our geopolitical strategists anticipate an escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Iran following the U.S. midterm elections, and such tensions could increase the political risk premium embedded in all Middle Eastern debt. But for longer-term U.S. fixed income investors, it is worth noting that extra spread is available in the hard currency sovereign debt of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE compared to A-rated U.S. corporates. Bottom Line: All of the recent widening in USD-denominated EM sovereign spreads has been concentrated in Turkey and Argentina, two nations that remain highly exposed to global growth divergences and a stronger U.S. dollar. Most other EM countries offer less attractive spreads than comparable U.S. corporate debt. Remain underweight USD-denominated EM sovereign bonds. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Powell's full interview can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CqaBSSl6ok 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "A Signal From Gold?", dated May 1, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "An Oasis Of Prosperity?", dated August 21, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com, where we note that every time the Global (ex. US) LEI has dipped below zero since 1993, the U.S. LEI has eventually followed. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "More Than One Reason To Own Steepeners", dated September 25, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Out Of Sync", dated July 3, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Odds Of Oil-Price Spike In 1H19 Rise; 2019 Brent Forecast Lifted $15 To $95/bbl", dated September 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Calm Before The Storm In Oil Markets", dated August 2, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy/Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Bear And The Two Travelers", dated August 17, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification