Inflation/Deflation

Highlights The consensus view seems to be that equities have to cool off in 2020, even if the danger has passed: Recession fears have dissipated as the yield curve has returned to its normal upward-sloping orientation and US-China trade tensions have abated, but equity return expectations are modest following last year’s bonanza. We agree that a bear market is unlikely, but expect a better year than the consensus, … : Bull markets tend to sprint to the finish line, and if the next recession won’t start before the middle of 2021, 2020 should be another strong year for the S&P 500. … even if earnings growth is uninspiring: Multiples almost always expand when the Fed eases from an already accommodative position, and they expand a lot provided the Fed isn’t easing in response to a market bust or financial crisis. We expect that an inflation revival will take the consensus by surprise, but not this year: We think rising inflation will induce the Fed to bring the curtain down on the expansion and the equity bull market, but not until 2021 at the earliest. Feature We spent the last full week before the holidays meeting with clients and prospects on the west coast. As they look ahead to 2020, investors don’t see any major storm clouds on the horizon, but they sense that stocks have run about as far as they can. We agree with the view that neither a recession nor a bear market awaits, but we expect equities will comfortably outdistance bonds and cash. Forced to take a stand on whether the S&P 500 will beat or fall short of the typical consensus expectation for mid-to-high-single-digit gains,1 we would happily bet the over. As we detailed in our last two publications in December, our optimistic take stems from the deliberately reflationary policy being pursued by the Fed and other major central banks. Restoring inflation expectations to its desired range is job number one for the Fed, and its open commitment to doing so ensures that risk assets will have the monetary policy wind at their back for an extended period. The European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan want to rekindle inflation as well, and can be counted upon to maintain easy policy settings. The rest of the world’s central banks will continue to take their cue from their more influential peers, as no one wants the export headwind of a strong currency in a low-growth environment. Earnings growth has been the primary driver of the 11-year-old equity bull market, not multiple expansion. In our base-case scenario, easy monetary policy will encourage multiple expansion, while a less threatening trade climate, and a modest revival in Chinese aggregate demand, will boost economic activity, especially outside of the US. The modest global acceleration provoked by a pickup in Chinese imports will support earnings growth, so that both equity drivers, earnings and multiples, will be moving in the right direction. We anticipate that at least half of the current bull market’s remaining upside will come from multiple expansion, however. Dismaying as it might be for investors with a value bent, our bull thesis is built on the view that today’s fully-to-somewhat-richly-valued stocks will become overvalued before this market cycle is complete. A Stealth Earnings Boom Skeptics of the efficacy of extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy have decried the current bull market as “manipulated,” fed by monetary steroid injections that have inflated asset prices at the cost of undermining the real economy’s future prospects. The data flatly contradict the skeptics’ claims: since the end of February 2009, consensus forward four-quarter S&P 500 earnings expectations have grown at an annualized rate of 9.6% (Chart 1, middle panel), while the forward multiple has expanded at a 4.6% pace (Chart 1, bottom panel). Growth in forward earnings estimates has accounted for two-thirds of the 14.6% annualized appreciation in the S&P 500 (Chart 1, top panel); multiple expansion has only contributed a third. Chart 1A Great Decade For Earnings Chart 2DM Growth Has Been Weak Positioning for a valuation overshoot does not inspire as much confidence as positioning for robust earnings growth. US economic growth has been lackluster since the crisis (Chart 2, top panel), and it’s been downright anemic in Europe (Chart 2, middle panel) and Japan (Chart 2, bottom panel). Few investors foresaw potent earnings growth against that macro backdrop, as aggregate corporate revenue growth ought to converge with nominal GDP growth over time. Only margin expansion could deliver S&P 500 earnings growth above and beyond a meager 4% revenue growth base. As early as 2011, US corporate profit margins looked quite stretched (Chart 3), making further expansion seem improbable. After adjusting for the secular decline in effective corporate income tax rates, corporations’ growing share of national income, the expansion of the high-margin financial sector and the secular decline in debt service costs,2 however, history suggested that profit margins still had room to grow. It would be 2018 before they would peak, thanks in part to the 40% cut in the top marginal corporate income tax rate, and the plunge in debt service costs (Chart 4). Compensation is corporations’ single largest expense, though, and the inexorable decline in labor's share of profits was the key driver (Chart 5). Since China’s entry into the WTO, real wages have failed to keep up with productivity gains (Chart 6), dramatizing the shift of profit share from labor to capital. Chart 3Never Say Die Margin Growth, Nourished On... Chart 4... Rock-Bottom Rates ... Chart 5... And Labor's Woes Chart 6Globalization Has Helped Corporate Profits Profit margins contracted across the first three quarters of 2019, with per-share revenue growth topping per-share earnings growth by an average of three percentage points. We expect that real unit labor costs will rise as the pendulum swings back in labor’s direction in line with an extremely tight job market and a slowdown in outsourcing as globalization loses momentum. Revived activity in the rest of the world can offset some margin pressure from a rising wage bill, however, especially if it helps push the dollar lower. And rising wages aren’t all bad for profits, as rising household income leads to rising consumption, and rising consumption boosts corporate revenue growth. In our base-case 2020 scenario, S&P 500 earnings will grow despite accelerating wage growth. Multiples And The Monetary Policy Cycle Although the S&P 500’s forward multiple is already elevated (Chart 7), the historical relationship between monetary policy and equity multiples argues that re-rating is more likely than de-rating going forward. We divide the fed funds rate cycle (Chart 8) into four phases based on the direction of the fed funds rate (higher or lower) and the state of monetary policy (easy or tight). We are currently in Phase IV, when the Fed has most recently eased policy while policy settings were already accommodative. If margins have finally peaked, multiple expansion will have to assume a bigger role in supporting the bull market. Chart 7Elevated But Not Worrisome Chart 8The Fed Funds Rate Cycle Since consensus earnings estimates began to be compiled in 1979, forward multiples have shrunk when the Fed hikes rates and expanded when it cuts them (Table 1). The empirical results align with intuition and arithmetic: investors should become stingier when the rate used to discount future earnings rises, and more generous when that rate falls. While we believe that the mid-cycle rate cuts are finished and that the fed funds rate will fall no further over the rest of this bull market, continued multiple expansion does not require continued rate cuts. Phase IV usually ends with an extended stretch when the Fed holds the funds rate at its trough level, but forward multiples do not peak until the final stages of the phase. Making the intuition-and-arithmetic statement more exact, investors become more generous when rates fall, and remain that way until a rate hike is a sure bet. Table 1A Consistent Inverse Relationship Away from the last two Phase IVs, when the Fed cut rates in response to the duress issuing from the end of the dot-com mania and the financial crisis, re-rating gains have been significantly larger. Table 2 details the changes in multiples in each Phase IV episode over the last 40 years. Away from the grinding de-rating following the dot-com bust, and the slow re-rating accompanying the tepid post-crisis recovery, multiples have expanded at better than a 17% annualized rate. Voluntary cuts like last summer’s, made when policy is already easy, independent of the imperative to nurse a post-crisis economy back to health, have been awfully good for investors. Table 2Voluntary Cuts Turbocharge Multiples There have been only two instances when the starting multiple has been as high as it was at the start of the latest run of rate cuts. As noted above, conditions in the spring of 2001, when the NASDAQ was a year into its eventual two-and-a-half-year slide, and a recession had just begun, bear little resemblance to conditions today. The fall of 1998, when the Fed delivered a rapid-fire 75 basis points of easing to protect the economy from the potential ramifications of Long Term Capital Management’s failure, looks a lot more like last summer. It is not our base case that the latest round of insurance cuts will push forward multiples to dot-com levels, but they do have scope to expand. The Inflation Timetable It remains our high-conviction view that inflation expectations will not return to the Fed’s target levels quickly. Their path has seemed to provide a nearly perfect real-life case study supporting the adaptive expectations framework, which posits that the recent past exerts a powerful influence on near-term expectations about the future. Inflation is way down the list of investors’ concerns because it has been dormant ever since the crisis, just as it was in the mid-‘60s once memories of high postwar inflation had faded. It conversely remained an acute fear for more than a decade after the Volcker Fed turned the tide in the early ‘80s (Chart 9). Multiples have really surged when the Fed has provided discretionary accommodation outside of periods of distress. The slow but meaningful rise in the trimmed mean PCE (Chart 10, top panel) and CPI series3 (Chart 10, bottom panel) should pull core PCE and core CPI higher over time. In the near term, however, the absence of upward momentum in several leading inflation indicators will likely stretch “over time” beyond the first half of the year, if not the whole year. As tight as the labor market is, unit labor costs have not been able to break out of the range that’s contained them for the last five years (Chart 11, top panel); the New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge has pulled a disappearing act after a seemingly decisive breakout in mid-2018 (Chart 11, middle panel); and the share of small businesses planning price increases has come off the late 2018 boil (Chart 11, bottom panel). Chart 9Recency Bias In Action Chart 10Inflation's Not Dead, ...   Chart 11... But It's Still Hibernating Investment Implications We spent the holidays reading up on the history of strikes in the United States and believe a shift in the balance of negotiating power from management to labor may be stirring, as a two-part Special Report will soon explore. Such a shift would render wages much more sensitive to a lack of labor market slack. Upward wage pressure could then filter into consumer prices either via a cost-push or demand-pull framework, as corporations either seek to defend margins from higher input costs or try to implement opportunistic price hikes. Cost-push or demand-pull, many investors seem to be dismissing the potential for an inflation revival, especially the ones we met in northern California, where the deeply held consensus view asserts that looming job destruction from artificial intelligence makes broad wage growth all but impossible. Inflation is not an immediate concern, but we expect it will ultimately spell the end of the bull market and the expansion. Allocating a generous share of long-maturity Treasury exposures to TIPS is an excellent way to protect a portfolio against its eventual re-emergence. We advise investors to maintain at least an equal weight allocation to equities to profit from our view that ongoing multiple expansion will surprise to the upside. Risk-friendly positioning remains appropriate, as long as intensifying US-Iran tensions or other geopolitical conflicts don’t negate the positive impact of reflationary monetary policy.   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 The ten buy- and sell-side strategists surveyed in Barron’s 2020 Outlook, published December 16th, called for an average gain of 4%. 2 Please see the October 2012 BCA Special Report, “Are US Corporate Profit Margins Really All That High?” available at www.bcaresearch.com. 3 Trimmed-mean inflation series operate like figure skating judging in the Olympics – the top and bottom readings are thrown out, and the mean is calculated from the remaining scores.

Bank Credit Analyst

As 2019 draws to a close, we thank you for your ongoing readership and support. We wish you and your loved ones a happy holiday season and all the best for a healthy and prosperous 2020. Highlights We explore the principal risks to our optimistic 2020 outlook. Trade and the 2020 US Presidential election remain potential landmines. A stronger dollar would tighten global financial conditions and be deflationary. Credit market tremors would end buybacks. Stronger-than-expected inflation would force a cycle-ending Federal Reserve tightening. Weaker-than-expected inflation would first allow for larger bubbles to form at the expense of a more painful recession and deeper a bear market down the road. Hedging against those risks warrants overweighting cash, TIPs and gold. Feature Chart I-1Timing is Ripe For A Recovery As always, this year’s visit from Ms. and Mr. X was thought-provoking and generated diverse investment ideas.1 While we did not share Mr. X’s fears, his caution may be justified because an aging business cycle, elevated equity multiples and extremely expensive government bonds do not mesh with pro-risk portfolio positioning. With this in mind, we will explore the greatest risks to our positive market outlook, which include politics, the US dollar, problems in the credit market, a quicker resumption of inflation and lower inflation. The Central Scenario To understand how these five risks affect our central thesis, let’s review the key views and themes that underpin our bullish outlook. BCA expects global economic activity to recover in 2020. First, the global inventory contraction is advanced, which increases the chance that the manufacturing cycle will track its usual pattern of an 18-month decline followed by an 18-month acceleration (Chart I-1). Secondly, Chinese policymakers are putting a floor under domestic economic activity and the stabilization in credit growth and the climbing fiscal impulse already augur well for global growth (Chart I-2). Thirdly, global liquidity is in a major upswing, thanks to easing by central banks around the world (Chart I-3). Finally, the trade détente between the US and China agreed last week reduces the odds of a destructive trade war. Chart I-2China's Policy Turnaround Chart I-3Easing Abound!   US monetary policy will remain accommodative next year. US inflation will remain subdued in the first half of 2020 in response to both the global growth slowdown underway since mid-2018 and the lagged effect of a stronger dollar. Moreover, Fed policy will remain sensitive to inflation expectations. According to BCA’s US Bond Strategy’s model, it could take an extended overshoot in realized inflation before inflation expectations move back to the 2.3% to 2.5% range consistent with achieving a 2% inflation target (Chart I-4). Thus, the Fed will remain on pause for all of 2020. BCA’s positive outlook depends on both China and the US respecting their trade truce. In this context, the dollar will depreciate. The USD is a countercyclical currency and typically suffers when global economic activity rebounds, especially if inflation remains tame (Chart I-5). This behavior is due to the low share of the US economy dedicated to manufacturing and exports, which makes the US less sensitive to global trade and industrial activity. Moreover, when the world economy strengthens, safe-haven flows that boost the dollar in times of duress reverse, which accentuates the selling pressure on the USD. Chart I-4Realized Inflation Will Guide Expectations Chart I-5The Dollar Won't Respond Well To Stronger Global Growth   Global bond prices will be another victim of an improving economic outlook. Global safe-haven securities are extremely expensive and investors are too bullish toward this asset class (Chart I-6). This puts government bonds at risk in the face of positive economic surprises. However, the upside in Treasury yields will be capped between 2.25 and 2.5% because the Fed will be cautious about lifting rates. This move will likely be led by inflation expectations. As a result, we favor TIPs over nominal Treasurys. Chart I-6Safe-Haven Yields Have Upside Chart I-7Investors Aren't Feeling Exuberant About Earnings Growth   Equities will outperform bonds. The S&P 500 is trading at 18-times forward earnings and 2.3-times sales. However, those elevated multiples are due to depressed risk-free rates. Long-term growth expectations embedded in stock prices are only 1%, toward the bottom of this series’ historical distribution (Chart I-7). Therefore, investors are not particularly optimistic on the long-term prospects of per-share earnings. This lack of euphoria implies that stocks are not as expensive as bonds, and that if yields climb because of improving global economic activity, then equities will outperform bonds. Moreover, with a backdrop of easy money and no recession forecast until 2022, the timing still favors positive returns for equities in the coming 12 to 18 months (Table I-1).   Table I-1The End Game Can Be Rewarding Finally, we favor European equities over US stocks. This regional slant is as much a reflection of the better value offered by European stocks as it is of their sector composition. European stocks are trading at a forward PE of 14, implying an equity risk premium of 846 basis points versus 546 basis points in the US. Moreover, our preference for industrials, energy and financials favors European equities (Table I-2). Additionally, European banks are our favorite equity bet worldwide because they trade at a price-to-book ratio of only 0.6 and the drivers of their return on tangible equity are perking up (Chart I-8). Table I-2Europe: Overweight In The Right Sectors Chart I-8Brightening Prospects For Euro Area Banks     Risk 1: Politics BCA’s positive outlook depends on both China and the US respecting their trade truce. However, the two countries are long-term rivals and the rising geopolitical power of China relative to the US will cause tensions to escalate in the coming decades (Chart I-9). This also suggests that China and the US are highly unlikely to ever have an agreement that fully covers intellectual property transfers. Chart I-9China/US Tensions Are Structural The US could still renege on the “Phase One” deal. President Trump faces an election in 2020 and the majority of Democratic hopefuls are also hawkish on China. If Trump’s low approval rating does not improve soon (Chart I-10), he could become a more war-like president, in the hope that electors will rally around the flag. A renewed trade war would hurt business sentiment and undermine consumer spending (Chart I-11). A bellicose approach to international relations, especially on trade, would spark another spike in global policy uncertainty that will hurt global capex intentions. Meanwhile, companies could cut employment, which would weigh on household incomes. A rising unemployment rate could also hurt household confidence, reinforcing the slowdown in consumer spending. This would guarantee an earlier recession. Stocks would decline along with global government bond yields. Chart I-10President Trump Can Still Make It Chart I-11Households On The Edge   The US election creates an additional political risk. Democratic candidates are touting higher corporate taxes, a wealth tax, a greater regulatory burden, antitrust actions, and so on. These policies are worrisome to corporate leaders and business owners. For the time being, our Geopolitical Strategy team favors a Trump victory in 2020 (Chart I-12).2 However, if his odds deteriorate significantly, then business executives would likely curtail capex and hiring. This could also result in a US recession that would invalidate our central scenario for 2020. Chart I-12Our Model Still Favors President Trump Risk 2: A Strong Dollar A strong US dollar would hurt growth. A continued dollar rally would counteract a large proportion of the easing in liquidity conditions created by accommodative central banks around the world. The dollar affects the global cost of capital. Both advanced economies and emerging markets have USD-denominated foreign currency debt totaling around $6 trillion each. A strong USD raises the cost of servicing this large debt load, which could force borrowers to curtail their spending. A continued dollar rally would counteract a large proportion of the easing in liquidity conditions created by accommodative central banks around the world. Despite our conviction that the US dollar will depreciate in 2020, the following factors may invalidate our thesis: The USD still possesses the highest carry in the G10. When the dollar is supported by some of the highest interest rates in the G10, it often continues to rally (Chart I-13). Chart I-13The Dollar Offers An Elevated Carry The global growth rebound may be led by the US. If the US leads the rest of the world higher, then rates of return in the US would climb quicker than in the rest of the world. The resulting capital inflows would bid up the dollar. The shortage of USDs in offshore markets may flare up again. The September seize-up in the repo market was a reminder that because of the Basel III rules, global banks have a strong appetite for high-quality collateral and reserves. This generates substantial demand for the USD, which could put upward pressure on its exchange rate. The US dollar is a momentum currency. Among the G10 currencies, the USD responds most strongly to the momentum factor (Chart I-14).3 The dollar’s strength in the past 18 months could initiate another wave of appreciation. The dollar may not be as expensive as suggested by purchasing power parity (PPP) models. According to PPP estimates, the trade-weighted dollar is 24.2% overvalued. However, according to behavioral effective exchange rate models (BEER), the dollar may be trading closer to its fair value (Chart I-15). Chart I-14The Dollar Is A Momentum Currency Chart I-15Is The Dollar Expensive?   Why are the five items listed above risks for the dollar, but not our central scenario? Regarding the dollar’s carry, in 1985, 1999, and 2006, the US still offered some of the highest short-term interest rates among advanced economies, nevertheless the dollar began to depreciate. In those three instances, an acceleration in foreign economic activity relative to the US was the key culprit behind the USD’s weakness. In 2020, we expect foreign economies to lead the US higher. Since mid-2018, the manufacturing sector has been at the center of the global slowdown. But now, inventory and monetary dynamics point towards a re-acceleration in manufacturing activity. The US was the last nation to be hit by the growth slowdown; it will also be the last to reap a dividend from the recovery. The marginal buyers of US equities have been US firms. On the danger created by the dollar and the collateral shortage, the Fed is tackling the lack of excess reserves head-on by injecting $60 billion per month of reserves via its asset purchases. Moreover, the US fiscal deficit, which is tabulated to reach $1.1 trillion in 2020, will add a similar amount of dollars to the pool of high-quality collateral around the world, especially as the US current account deficit is widening anew. On the momentum tendency of the USD, the dollar’s momentum seems to be petering off. A move in the Dollar Index below 96 would indicate a major change in the trend for the DXY. Finally, estimates of a currency’s fair value based on BEER fluctuate much more than those based on PPP. If the global growth pick-up allows foreign neutral rates to increase relative to the US over the coming 12 to 24 months, then the dollar’s BEER equilibrium will likely converge toward PPP, putting downward pressure on the USD. Risk 3: Credit Market Tremors A credit market selloff is not our base case, but it would be damaging to risk assets. A deterioration in credit quality would be the main culprit behind a widening in credit spreads. Our Corporate Health Monitor already shows that the credit quality of US firms is worsening (Chart I-16). Moreover, the return on capital of the US corporate sector is rapidly deteriorating. Accentuating these risks, US profit margins have begun to decline because a tight labor market is exerting an upward pull on real unit labor costs (Chart I-17). Furthermore, the near-total disappearance of covenants in new corporate bond issuance increases the risks to lenders and will likely depress recovery rates when a default wave emerges. Chart I-16Deteriorating Fundamentals For US Corporates Chart I-17A Tight Labor Market Is Biting Into Margins     Widening credit spreads would signal a darkening economic outlook. Historically, wider spreads have been an excellent leading indicator of recessions (Chart I-18). Wider spreads have a reflexive relationship with the economy: they reflect anticipation of rising defaults by investors, but they also represent a price-based measure of lenders’ willingness to extend credit. Therefore, wider spreads force open the underlying cracks in the economy by depriving funds to weak borrowers. The resulting deterioration in capex and hiring would prompt a decline in consumer confidence and spending, ultimately leading to a recession. Chart I-18Widening Spreads Foreshadow Recessions Chart I-19Who Is Buying Stocks? Businesses! US equities may prove to be even more sensitive to the health of the credit market than in previous cycles. The marginal buyers of US equities have been US firms, which have engaged in equity retirements totaling $16.5 trillion since 2010. Since that date, pension plans, foreigners and households have sold a total of $7.7 trillion in US equities (Chart I-19). Both internally generated cash flows and borrowings have allowed for a decline in the equity portion of funding among US firms. Therefore, a weak credit market would hurt equities because a recession would depress firms’ free cash flows and hamper the capacity of firms to buy back their shares. Finally, the tendency of US firms to borrow to buy back their shares means that newly issued debt has not been matched by as much asset growth as in previous cycles. Therefore, borrowing is not backed by the same degree of collateral as in past cycles. If the credit market seizes up, then default and recovery rates will suffer even more than suggested by our corporate health monitor. The VIX will blow up and equities could suffer. Higher US inflation is potentially the most important downside risk for next year. While a widening in credit spreads would have a profound impact on stocks, it is unlikely to materialize when the Fed conducts a very accommodative monetary policy and global growth recovers. Risk 4: Higher Inflation Chart I-20The US Labor Market Is Tight Higher US inflation is potentially the most important downside risk for next year as it would catalyze the aforementioned dangers. Inflation could surprise to the upside because the labor market is tight. At 3.5%, the unemployment rate is well below equilibrium estimates that range between 4.1% and 4.6%. Small firms are increasingly citing their inability to find qualified labor as the biggest constraint to expand production. In the Conference Board Consumer Confidence survey, the number of households reporting that jobs are easily procured is near a record high relative to those preoccupied by poor job prospects. Finally, the voluntary quit rate is at 2.3%, a near record high (Chart I-20). Core PCE remains at only 1.6% year-on-year, but investors should recall the experience of the late 1960s. Through the 1960s, the labor market was tight, yet core inflation remained between 1% and 2%. However, in 1966, inflation suddenly accelerated to 4% before peaking near 7% in 1970. Some inflation dynamics warrant close monitoring. The three-month annualized rate of service inflation excluding rent of shelter has already surged to 4.5% and the same metric for medical care inflation stands at 5.9%. A continued tightening in the labor market could solidify a broadening of these trends because a rising employment-to-population ratio for prime-age workers points toward stronger salaries and ultimately higher domestic demand (Chart I-21). A very weak dollar would also allow this scenario to develop. Chart I-21Household Income Growth Will Accelerate A sudden flare in inflation would prompt an abrupt tightening in liquidity conditions that would be lethal for the economy. An out of the blue surge in CPI would likely cause a swift reassessment of inflation expectations by households and investors. Under these circumstances, the Fed could tighten monetary policy much faster than we currently envision. If interest rate markets are forced to price in a prompt removal of monetary accommodation, Treasury yields could easily spike above 3.5% by year end, which would hurt both the economy and the expensive equity market. If realized inflation turns out weaker than we expect in 2020, then central banks will maintain accommodative policies beyond next year. For now, this scenario remains a tail risk because the recent economic slowdown will probably continue to act as a dampener on US inflation in the first half of the year. Additionally, we do not expect the USD to collapse by 40% and fan inflation and inflation expectations, as occurred from 1985 to 1987. Instead, inflation expectations are much better anchored than they were in either the 1960s or 1980s, decreasing the risk that the Fed will suddenly have to tighten policy. Risk 5: Weaker-Than-Expected Inflation Chart I-22An Aggressive BoJ Did Not Achieve Inflation The last risk is paradoxical, but it is the one with the highest probability. It is paradoxical because it involves greater upside for stocks next year than we currently anticipate, but at the expense of a much deeper bear market in the future. The labor market may be tight, but Japan’s experience cautions us against extrapolating that inflation is necessarily around the corner. In Japan, the unemployment rate has been below 3.5% since 2014 and minimal domestically generated inflation has emerged. Inflation excluding food and energy remains at a paltry 0.7% year-on-year, even as the Bank of Japan has kept the policy rate at -0.1% and expanded its balance sheet from 20% of GDP in 2008 to 102% today (Chart I-22). If realized inflation turns out weaker than we expect in 2020, then central banks will maintain accommodative policies beyond next year. Central banks are currently toying with their inflation targets, discussing allowing inflation overshoots and displaying deep paranoia in the face of deflation. By weighing on inflation expectations, low realized inflation would nail policy rates around the world at currently depressed levels or even lower. Chart I-23Bubbles Destroy Long-Term Return On Capital In this context, bond yields would have even more limited upside than we envision and risk assets could experience higher multiples than today. In other words, we would have a perfect scenario for another stock market bubble. Vulnerability would escalate as valuations balloon and the perceived risk of monetary tightening dissipates from both investors’ and economic agents’ minds. Elevated asset valuations portend lower long-term expected returns (Chart I-23) and a larger share of the capital stock would become misallocated. Ultimately, the stimulative impact of such a bubble would create its own inflationary pressures. Consumers and companies would accumulate more debt and cyclical spending would rise (Chart I-24). In the end, the Fed would raise rates more aggressively, but the economy would be more vulnerable to those higher rates. Chart I-24Higher Cyclical Spending Creates Vulnerabilities Therefore, we would see a larger recession and, because assets are more expensive, a greater decline in prices. This would be extremely destabilizing for the global economy, potentially much more so than if a recession were to emerge today. Moreover, since the resulting slump would be yet another balance-sheet recession, it would likely entail a lack of capacity by central banks to reflate their economies. Conclusion The scenarios above are all risks to our benign view for 2020. The first four represent downside threats for assets next year, but the last one (weaker-than-expected inflation) entails upside potential to our forecast next year with significantly more painful results down the line. These risks are important to consider when protecting our portfolio, which has a pro-cyclical bias. It is overweight stocks, underweight bonds, and favors cyclical equities as well as foreign bourses at the expense of the US. BCA’s Global Asset Allocation service recently published an article on safe havens, which studied the profile of risk assets under various circumstances.4 Treasurys normally are the best safe haven, however, at current levels of yields, this benefit will be small compared with previous cycles. Instead, we favor an overweight position in cash, TIPs and gold. The best defense against short-term gyrations is to think about long-term strategic asset allocation. In this regard, this month’s Special Report – co-authored with BCA’s Equity, Geopolitical and Foreign Exchange Strategists, and Marko Papic, Chief Strategist at Clocktower Group – discusses our top sector calls for the upcoming decade. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 20, 2019 Next Report: January 30, 2020   II. Top US Sector Investment Ideas For The Next Decade Every decade a dominant theme captures investors’ imaginations and morphs into a bubble. Massive speculation typically propels the relevant asset class into the stratosphere as investors extrapolate the good times far into the future and go on a buying frenzy. Chart II-1 shows previous manic markets starting with the Nifty Fifty, gold bullion, the Nikkei 225, the NASDAQ 100, crude oil and most recently the FAANGs. Chart II-1Manias: An Historical Roadmap What will be the dominant themes of the next decade? How should investors capitalize on some of these big trends? The purpose of this Special Report is to identify and provoke a healthy debate on the prevailing investment themes for the 2020s and to speculate on what the key US sector beneficiaries and likely losers may be. Theme #1: De-Globalization Picks Up Steam The first investment theme for the upcoming decade is the “apex of globalization” or “de-globalization”. We have written about this theme extensively at BCA Research and it is the mega-theme of our sister Geopolitical Strategy (GPS) service. Odds are high that countries will continue looking inward as the US adopts a more aggressive trade policy, China’s trend growth slows, and US-China strategic tensions intensify. The small cap preference is a secular view with a time horizon that spans the next decade. Chart II-2 shows that we are at the conclusion of a period of tranquility. Pax Americana underpinned globalization as much as Pax Britannica before it. The US is in a relative decline after decades of geopolitical stability allowed countries like China to rise to “great power” status and rivals like Russia to recover from the chaos of the 1990s. Chart II-2De-globalization Has Commenced De-globalization has become the consensus since the election of Donald Trump. But Trump is not the prophet of de-globalization; he is its acolyte. Globalization is ending because of structural factors, not cyclical ones. Three factors stand at the center of this assessment, outlined in our 2014 Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here”: multipolarity, populism and protectionism. Events have since confirmed this view. One final long-term playable investment idea from the apex of globalization is a structural bull market in defense stocks. The three pillars of globalization are the free movement of goods, capital, and people across national borders. We expect to see marginally less of each in the future. Investment Implication #1: Profit Margin Peak The most profound and provocative investment implication from de-globalization is that SPX profit margins have peaked and will likely come under intense pressure, especially for US conglomerates that – on a relative basis to international peers – most enthusiastically embraced globalization. Chart II-3 shows reconstructed S&P 500 profits and sales data back to the late-1920s. Historically, corporate profit margins and globalization (depicted as global trade as a percentage of GDP) have been positively correlated. Chart II-3Profit Margin Trouble As countries are more outward looking, trade flourishes and openness to trade allows the free flow of capital to take advantage of profit-maximizing projects. Following the Great Recession and similar to the Great Depression, trade has suffered and trade barriers have risen. The Sino-American trade war has accelerated the inward movement of countries, including Korea and Japan, and has had negative knock-on effects on trade as evidenced by the now two-year old global growth deceleration. China’s response to President Trump’s election was to redouble its pursuit of economic self-sufficiency, which meant a crackdown on corporate debt and a fiscal boost to household consumption. Trump’s tariffs then damaged sentiment and trade between the two countries. Any deal reached prior to the 2020 US election will remain in doubt among global investors. The longer the trade war remains unresolved, the deeper the cracks will be in the foundations of the global trading system. We are especially worried for the S&P interactive media & services index that includes GOOGL and FB. Such a backdrop is negative for profit margins, as inward looking countries prevent capital from being allocated most efficiently. Moreover, the uprooting of supply chains due to the trade war hurts margins and the redeployment of equipment in different jurisdictions will do the same at a time when final demand is suffering a setback. In addition, rising profit margins are synonymous with wealth accruing to the top 1% of US families and vice versa. This relationship dates back to the late-1920s, as far back as our dataset goes. Using Piketty and Saez data, which exclude capital gains, it is clear that profit margin expansion exacerbates income inequality (top panel, Chart II-4). Chart II-4Heightened Risk Of Wealth Re-distribution Expanding margins lead to higher profits. Because families at the top of the income distribution are often business owners, income disparities are the widest when margins are in overshoot territory. Eventually this income chasm comes to a head and generates political discontent. Populism has emerged on both the right and left wings of the US political spectrum – and since the rise of Trump, even Republicans complain about inequality and the excesses of “corporate welfare” and laissez-faire capitalism. Because inequality is extreme – relative to America’s developed peers – and political forces are mobilizing against it, the probability of wealth re-distribution is rising in the coming decades (middle panel, Chart II-4). Labor’s share of national income has nowhere to go but higher in coming years and that is negative for profit margins, ceteris paribus (bottom panel, Chart II-4). Buy or add software stock exposure on any weakness with a 10-year investment time horizon. Drilling beneath the surface, the three secular US equity sector/factor implications of the apex of globalization paradigm shift are: prefer small caps over large caps prefer value over growth overweight the pure-play BCA Defense Index Investment Implication #2: Small Is Beautiful Chart II-5It's A Small World After All While a small cap bias is contrary to the cyclical US Equity Strategy view of preferring large caps to small caps, the issue is timing: the small cap preference is a secular view with a time horizon that spans the next decade. The small versus large cap share price ratio’s ebbs and flows persist over long cycles. Small caps outshined large caps uninterruptedly from 1999 to 2010. Since then large caps have had the upper hand (Chart II-5). Were the apex of globalization theme to gain traction in the 2020s, small caps should reclaim the lead from large caps, especially in the wake of the next US recession. Similar to the death of the global banking model, companies with global footprints will suffer the most, especially compared with domestically focused outfits. One way to explore this theme is via domestic versus global sector preference. But a more investable way to position for this sea change, is to buy small caps (or microcaps) at the expense of large caps (or mega caps). Small caps are traditionally domestically geared compared with large caps that have significantly more foreign sales exposure. The closest ETF ticker symbols resembling this trade is long IWM:US/short SPY:US. Investment Implication #3: Buy Value At The Expense Of Growth Similar to the size bias, the style bias also moves in secular ways. Value outperformed growth from the dot com bust until the GFC. Since then growth has crushed value, even temporarily breaking below the year 2000 relative trough. This breakneck pace of appreciation for growth stocks is clearly unsustainable and offers long-term oriented investors a compelling entry point near two standard deviations below the historical mean (Chart II-6). Chart II-6Value Has The Upper Hand Versus Growth Financials populate value indexes, a similarity with small cap outfits. Traditionally, financials are a domestically focused sector with export exposure registering at half of the S&P’s average 40% level of internationally sourced revenues. On the flip side, tech stocks sit atop the growth table and they garner 60% of their revenue from abroad. This value over growth style preference will pay handsome dividends if the de-globalization theme becomes more mainstream as countries become more hawkish on trade and the Sino-American war continues to erect barriers to trade that took decades to lift. We have created a basket of ten stocks that we think will be driven over the long term by the demographic rise of the Millennial. The caveat? President Trump's recent short-term deal with China could set back the de-globalization theme. But our geopolitical strategists do not anticipate it to be a durable deal, and they also expect the trade war to resume in some way, shape or form in 2021-22, regardless of the outcome of the US election. The closest ETF ticker symbols resembling this trade is long IVE:US/short IVW:US. Investment Implication #4: Defense Fortress Chart II-7Stick With Pure-play Defense Stocks One final long-term playable investment idea from the apex of globalization is a structural bull market in defense stocks (Chart II-7). The US Equity Sector service's October 2016 “Brothers In Arms” Special Report drew parallels with the late nineteenth century period of European rearmament, and the American and Soviet arms race of the 1960s.5 These movements were greatly beneficial to the aerospace and defense industry. Currently, the move by several countries to adopt more independent foreign policies, i.e. to move away from collaboration and cooperation toward isolationism and self-sufficiency, entails an accompanying arms race. Table II-1 China’s challenge to the regional political status quo motivates a boost to defense spending globally. In fact, SIPRI data on global military spending by 2030 (Table II-1) increases our conviction that this trade will succeed on a five-to-ten year horizon. Beyond the global arms race, two additional forces are at work underpinning pure-play defense contractors. A global space race with China, India and the US wanting to have manned missions to the moon, and the rise of global cybersecurity breaches. Defense companies are levered to both of these secular forces and should be prime sales and profit beneficiaries of rising space budgets and increasing cybersecurity combat budgets. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the pure-play BCA defense index are: LMT, RTN, NOC, GD, HII, AJRD, BWXT, CW, MRCY. Theme #2: Tech Sector Regulation, US Enacts Privacy Laws The second long-term geopolitical theme that we are exploring is the regulatory or “stroke of pen” risk that is rising on FAANG stocks – Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. These companies were this decade’s undisputed stock market winners. The US anti-trust regulatory framework was designed to curb broad anti-competitive actions of trusts. As Lina Khan discusses in her seminal article, these actions “include not only cost but also product quality, variety, and innovation.” However, through subsequent regulatory evolution, the Chicago School has focused the US anti-trust process on consumer welfare and prices. If President Reagan and the courts could change how anti-trust laws were administered in the 1980s, so too can future administrations and courts. Today the US Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is looking into regulatory tightening, while the judicial system will take longer to change its approach. Moreover, the impetus for tougher anti-trust policy is here. It comes from a long period of slow growth, income inequality, and economic volatility – such as in the 1870s-80s. This was certainly the case for Standard Oil in 1911, which became a nation-wide boogeyman despite most of its transgressions occurring in the farm belt states. Today, income inequality is a prominent political theme and source of consumer discontent. A narrative is emerging – which will be super-charged during the next recession – that growth has been unequally distributed between the old economy and the twenty-first century technology leaders. While there are a few ESG related ETFs, we would rather explore this theme’s investment implications of sectors to avoid in the coming decade. With regard to privacy, the news is equally grim for large tech outfits. The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force on May 2018, imposes compliance burdens on any company handling user data. In the US, California has signed its own version of the law – the Consumer Privacy Act – which will go into effect in January 2020. These laws give consumers the right to know what information companies are collecting about them and who that data is shared with. They also allow consumers to ask technology companies to delete their data or not to sell it. While tech companies are likely to fight the new California law, and the US court system is a source of uncertainty, we believe the writing is on the wall. The EU is by some measures the largest consumer market on the planet. California is certainly the largest US market. It is unlikely that the momentum behind consumer protection will change, especially with the EU and California taking the lead. The odds of a federal privacy law, following in the footsteps of the Consumer Privacy Act, are also rising. Investment Implication #5: Shun Interactive Media & Services Stocks These risks introduce a severe overhang for FAANG stocks. We are especially worried for the S&P interactive media & services index that includes GOOGL and FB. Chart II-8Regulation Will Squeeze Tech Margins Tack on the threat of federal regulation and this represents another major headwind for profits and margins that are extremely elevated for these near monopolies. Given that advertising revenue is crucial to the business model of social media companies (GOOGL and FB included), a significant uptick in privacy regulation will likely hurt their bottom line. With regard to profit margins, tech stocks in general command a profit margin twice as high as the SPX. Specifically, FB and GOOGL enjoy margins that are 500 basis points higher than the broad tech sector (Chart II-8)! This is unsustainable and they will likely serve as easy prey for policymakers. Our view does not necessarily call for breaking up these monopolies. The US will have to weigh the economic consequences of anti-trust policy in a context of multipolarity in which China’s national tech champions are emerging to compete with American companies for global market share. Nevertheless, increased regulation is inevitable and some forced sales of crown jewel assets may take place. Moreover, the threat of a breakup will lurk in the background, creating uncertainty until key legislative and judicial battles have already been fought. That will take years. Finally, we doubt the tech sector will be left alone to “self-regulate” its incumbents and negotiate a price on consumers’ privacy. More likely, a new privacy law will loom, serving as a negative catalyst for profit growth. Uncertainty will weigh on the S&P interactive media & services relative performance. The ticker symbols to short/underweight the S&P interactive media & services index are an equally weighted basket of GOOGL and FB (they command a 98% market cap weight in the index). Theme #3: SaaS, Artificial Intelligence, Augmented Reality And Autonomous Driving Are Not Fads The third big theme that will even outlive the upcoming decade is the proliferation of software as a service (SaaS). The move to cloud computing and SaaS, the wider adoption of artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomous driving and augmented reality are not fads, but enjoy a secular growth profile. In the grander scheme of things today’s world is surrounded by software. Millions of lines of code go even into gasoline powered automobiles, let alone electric vehicles. Autonomous driving is synonymous with software, the Internet of Things (IoT) needs software, the space race depends on software, modern manufacturing and software are closely intertwined, phone calls for quite some time have been a software solution, and the list goes on and on. This tidal effect is hard to reverse and is already embedded in workflows across industries. Opportunities to penetrate health care and financial services more deeply remain unexplored and it is difficult to envision another competing industry unseating “king software”. These secular trends are not only productivity enhancing, but will also most likely prove recession-proof. When growth is scarce investors flock to any source of growth they can come by and we are foreseeing that when the next recession arrives, investors will likely seek shelter in pure play SaaS firms. Investment Implication #6: Software Is Eating The World Chart II-9Software Is Eating The World Buying software stocks for the long haul seems like a bulletproof investment idea. But the recent stellar performance of software stocks has moved valuations to overshoot territory. Our recommended strategy is to buy or add software stock exposure on any weakness with a 10-year investment time horizon. All of these secular trends have pushed capital outlays on software into a structural uptrend. Software related capex is not only garnering a larger slice of the tech spending budgets but also of the overall capex pie. If it were not for software capex, the contraction in non-residential investment in recent quarters would have been more severe (Chart II-9). Private sector software capex is near all-time highs as a share of total outlays. Government investment in software is also reaccelerating at the fastest pace since the tech bubble. When productivity gains are anemic, both the business and government sectors resort to software upgrades in order to boost productivity. Cyber security is another more recent source of software related demand as governments around the globe are taking such risks extremely seriously (bottom panel, Chart II-9). Given this upbeat demand backdrop and ongoing equity retirement, software stocks are primed to grow into their pricey valuations. Finally, this long-term trade will also serve as a hedge to the short/underweight position we recommend in the S&P interactive media & services index. The closest ETF ticker symbol resembling the S&P software index is IGV:US. Theme #4: Millennials Already Are The Largest Cohort And Will Dominate Spending The fourth long-term theme we anticipate to gain traction in the 2020s is the demographic rise of the Millennial generation. Much has been made of preparing for the arrival of the Millennial generation, accompanied by well-worn stereotypes of general "failure to launch" as they reach adulthood. However, "arrival" is a misnomer as this age cohort is already the largest and "failure" is simply untrue. According to the US Census Bureau, Millennials are the US’s largest living generation. Millennials (or Echo Boomers) defined as people aged 18 to 37 (born 1982 to 2000), now number more than 80mn and represent more than one quarter of the US’s population. Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964) number about 75mn. Stealthily becoming the largest age group in the US over the last few years, Millennials per-year-birth-rate peaked at 4.3mn in 1990. Surprisingly, the pace matched that of the post-war Baby Boom peak-per-year-birth-rate in 1957 - the per-year average over the period was higher for the Baby Boomers (Chart II-10). Chart II-10Millennials Are The Largest Cohort This gap is now set to grow rapidly as the death rate of Baby Boomers accelerates. What is more, the largest one-year age cohort is only 25 years old, thus, Millennials will be the dominant generation for many years. It is unclear how these “kids” will impact the market as they become the most important consumers, borrowers and investors, but make no mistake: this is a seismic shift in economic power and it is here to stay. The Echo Boom is a big, generational demographic wave. A difficult and painful delay has not tempered its looming importance. Finally, this wave of echo-boomers is educated, relatively unburdened by debt (please see BOX in the June 11, 2018 Special Report on demystifying the student debt load as it pertains to Millennials), and as they inevitably “grow up”, form new households and have kids. They will borrow, spend, earn, but not necessarily save and invest to the same extent as the Boomers. And this will be an important long-term theme going forward. Near term, we might already be seeing signs of their arrival and firms have begun to pivot accordingly. Investment Implication #7: Buy The BCA Millennials Equity Basket Millennials will boost consumption spending in a number of different ways. The relatively unburdened Millennial cohort will be entering prime home acquisition age soon and this should underpin the long-term prospects of the US housing market and related industries. Furthermore, Millennials consume differently from their parents; social media, online shopping and smart phones are not the consumption categories of the Baby Boomers. With this in mind, we have created a basket of ten stocks that we think will be driven over the long term by the demographic rise of the Millennial. We note that these stocks are heavily weighted to the technology and consumer discretionary sectors, which is logical as Millennial consumption habits tend to be discretionary focused and technology-based. Beginning with consumer discretionary, we are highlighting AMZN, NFLX and SPOT as core holdings in our Millennials basket. AMZN’s heft dwarfs consumer discretionary indexes but it could fall in several categories; the acquisition of Whole Foods makes it a Millennials-focused consumer staples retailer and its cloud computing web services segment is a tech leader. NFLX and SPOT represent the means by which Millennials consume media, by streaming movies and music over the internet. The idea of owning physical media is rapidly becoming an anachronism. The home ownership theme noted in this report leads us to add HD and LEN to the basket. Millennials are “doers” and are set to be the dominant DIYers in the next few years, making HD a logical choice. LEN, as the nation’s largest home builder, should benefit from the Millennials coming of age into home buyers. We are also adding TSLA to our basket as a lone clean tech-oriented equity. TSLA capitalizes on the increasing shift to clean energy of Millennials (the key reason why no traditional energy companies have a spot in our basket). Chart II-11Buy BCA's Millennial Equity Basket The technology stocks in our Millennials basket are AAPL, UBER (which replaces FB as of today) and MSFT, together representing more than 9% of the total value of the S&P 500. AAPL’s inclusion in the list is predictable as the leading domestic purveyor of devices on which Millennials consume media content. FB is a predictable holding, with more than half of all Americans being monthly active users, dominated by the Millennial cohort. It has served our basket well since inception, but today we are compelled to remove it and replace it with UBER. UBER is a Millennial favorite and the epitome of the sharing economy. In reality UBER is a logistics company and while it is losing money, it is eerily reminiscent of AMZN in its early days. Maybe UBER will dominate all means of transportation and its ease of use will propel it to a mega cap in the coming decade. Our inclusion of MSFT is based on its leadership in cloud computing, a rapidly growing industry. We expect the connectivity and mobile computing demands of Millennials will accelerate. The last stock we are adding to our basket is also the only financial services equity. Though avid consumers, Millennials have shown an aversion to cash, preferring card payment systems, including both debit and credit-based. Accordingly, we are adding the leader in both of these, V, to our Millennials basket (Chart II-11). Investors seeking long-term exposure to stocks lifted by the supremacy of the Millennial generation should own our Millennial basket (AAPL, AMZN, UBER, HD, LEN, MSFT, NFLX, SPOT, TSLA, V). We would not hesitate to add other sharing economy stocks, including Airbnb, to this basket should they become investable in the near future. Theme #5: ESG Becomes Mainstream Investors are increasingly looking at allocating assets based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations, and this mini-theme has the potential to become a big trend in the 2020s. There are a number of factors that underpin ESG investing. First, Millennials are climate conscious and given that they already are the largest cohort in the US they will not only dominate spending, but also influence election results. Moreover, via social media Millennials can sway public opinion and participate in the ESG conversation. Second, ECB President Christine Lagarde recent speech to the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament is a must read.6 If the ECB were to explicitly focus on climate change policy as part of its monetary policy operations then this is a game changer. Green investment financing including “green bonds” could become mainstream. Keep in mind that as reported in the FT, “the European Parliament has declared a climate emergency; the new European Commission (EC) has taken office on a promise of an imminent “green new deal”, and Commission president Ursula von der Leyen has vowed to accelerate emissions cuts.” Last week, the EC released “The European Green Deal” with a pretty aggressive time table. The EC president said “The green deal is Europe’s man on the moon moment” and presented 50 policies slated to get rolled by 2022 to meet revamped climate goals. The implication is that once ESG takes center stage at a number of these institutions, it will be easier to become mainstream and propagate the world over. Third, large institutional investors are starting to adopt an ESG mindset, especially pension plans. These investors with trillions of dollars at their disposal can not only disfavor fossil fuel investment, but also undertake investments in “green projects” via private and public equity markets. Banks are also moving in the “greening of finance” direction and given that they are the pipelines of the global plumbing system, swift adoption will go a long way in taking ESG mainstream. Finally, the electric vehicle (EV) proliferation is another key driver on how the ESG theme will play out in the 2020s. As a reminder, in the US 50% of all energy consumption is gasoline related linked to automobiles. While battery technology still has limitations, EV is no longer a fad as the German and Japanese automakers are starting to make inroads on TSLA. These car manufacturers do not want to be left out, especially if this shift toward EV becomes mainstream in the 2020s. The Chinese are not far behind on the EV manufacturing front, however government policy can really become a game changer. If a number of countries and/or California mandate a large share of all new vehicles sold be EV, then the investment implications will be massive. Investment Implication #8: Avoid Fossil Fuels, Gambling, Alcohol And Tobacco… While there are a few ESG related ETFs, we would rather explore this theme’s investment implications of sectors to avoid in the coming decade. We are believers that ESG criteria will continue to gain in importance in institutional investment management decisions. Accordingly, we would tend to avoid ‘sin stocks’, including gambling, tobacco and alcohol; demand for their services is unlikely to decline but investment weightings should mean that share prices will underperform. Further, we think a clean energy shift will mean energy stocks will likely continue to be long-term underperformers (Chart II-12). Final Thoughts On The US Dollar In this report, we tried to focus on the upcoming decade’s big themes that we expect to play out, and centered our recommendations on US equities/sectors. We do not want to neglect some macroeconomic variables that tend to mean revert over time. Specifically, the US dollar, interest rates and most importantly US indebtedness, will also be key drivers of investment theses in the 2020s. Currently, debt is rising faster than nominal GDP growth with the government and non-financial business debt-to-GDP profiles on an unsustainable path (second panel, Chart II-13). Chart II-12Areas To Avoid As ESG Becomes Mainstream Chart II-13Unsustainable Debt Profiles   Granted, the saving grace has been generationally low interest rates as the debt service ratios have fallen (top panel, Chart II-13). However, if the four decade bull market in Treasurys is over, or may end definitively with the next US recession sometime in the early 2020s, then rising interest rates are the only mechanism to concentrate CEOs’ and politicians’ minds. On the dollar front, Chart II-14 highlights the ebbs and flows of the trade-weighted US dollar since it floated in the early-1970s. The DXY index has moved in six-to-ten year bull and bear markets. The most recent trough was during the depths of the Great Recession, while the (tentative?) peak was in late-2016. If history repeats, eventually the dollar will mean revert lower in the 2020s, especially given the fiscal profligacy of the current administration that may continue into 2024, assuming President Trump gets re-elected next November. Chart II-14Greenback's Historical Ebbs And Flows The US dollar remains the reserve currency of the world today, but that exorbitant privilege is clearly fraying on the edges as the balance-of-payments dynamics are heading in the wrong direction. Over the next five years, the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the US budget deficit will swell to 4.8% of GDP. Assuming the current account deficit widens a bit then stabilizes (usually happens when global growth improves), this will pin the twin deficits at 8% of GDP. This assumes no recession, which would have the potential to swell the deficit even further. The US saw its twin deficits swell to almost 13% of GDP following the financial crisis, but the difference then was that in the wake of the commodity boom the dollar was cheap (and commodity currencies overvalued). The subsequent shale revolution also greatly cushioned the US trade deficit. Shale productivity remains robust and US output will continue to rise, but the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked. Chart II-15Twin Deficits Will Weigh On The US Dollar For one reason or another, foreign central banks are diversifying out of dollars. If due to the changing landscape in trade, this is set to continue. If it is an excuse to shy away from the rapidly rising US twin deficits, this will continue as well. In a nutshell, there has been hardly a time in recent history when the twin deficits in the US were rising and the dollar was in a secular uptrend (Chart II-15). Another dollar-negative force is its expensiveness. By rising 35% since its trough, the USD has sapped the competitiveness of the US manufacturing sector, which is accentuating the American trade deficit outside of the commodity sector. If the ESG trend ends up hurting oil prices, the US current account will follow the widening deficit in manufactured products. Moreover, the US is lagging Europe on the green revolution. Either the US will have to import green technologies, or the US government will have to provide more subsidies to the private sector. Either way, both of these dynamics will hurt the US current account deficit further. Historically, the currency market is the main vehicle to correct such imbalances. The apex of globalization will also hurt the greenback. In a world where all the markets are integrated, borrowers in EM nations often use the reserve currency to issue liabilities at a lower cost. This boosts the demand by EM central banks for US dollar reserves to protect domestic banking systems funded in USD. Moreover, some countries like China implement pegs (both official and unofficial) to the US dollar in order to maintain their competitiveness and export their production surpluses to the US. To do so they buy US assets. If the global economy becomes more fragmented and the Sino-US relationship continues to deteriorate structurally as we expect, then these sources of demand for the dollar will recede. Overlay the widening US current account deficit, and you have the perfect recipe for a depreciating trade-weighted US dollar. Finally, the US is likely to experience more inflation than the rest of the world following the next recession. The US economy has a smaller capital stock as a share of GDP than Europe or Japan, and American demographics are much more robust. This means that the neutral rate of interest is higher in the US than in other advanced economies. As a result, the Fed will have an easier time generating inflation by cutting real rates than both the ECB and the BoJ. Higher inflation will ultimately erode the purchasing power of the dollar and prove to be a structurally negative force for the USD.   Anastasios Avgeriou US Equity Strategist Matt Gertken Geopolitical Strategist Marko Papic Chief Strategist, Clocktower Group Chester Ntonifor Foreign Exchange Strategist Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   III. Indicators And Reference Charts With a breakthrough in trade talks and Fed officials changing their language to suggest that policy will remain accommodative until inflation meaningfully overshoots 2%, the S&P 500 decisively broke out. Because it eases global financial conditions and boosts the profit outlook, the recent breakdown in the dollar should fuel the equity rally. Tactically, the S&P 500 may have overshot the mark, but on a cyclical basis, stronger growth and an easy Fed will propel US and global stocks higher. Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remains cautious towards equities. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. However, our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicator for the US and Japan continues to improve. In Europe, this indicator has finally hooked up. The WTP indicator tracks flows, and thus provides information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. This broad-based improvement therefore bodes well for equities. Moreover, the pickup in Europe suggests that European stocks are increasingly ripe to outperform their US counterparts. Global yields have turned higher but they remain at exceptionally stimulating levels. Moreover, money and liquidity growth remains very strong as global central banks have adopted strongly dovish slants. Additionally, a Fed that will allow inflation to overshoot before tightening policy is adding to this supportive monetary backdrop. As a result, our Monetary Indicator remains at extremely elevated levels. Furthermore, our Composite Technical Indicator is still flashing a buy signal. Finally, our BCA Composite Valuation index is suggesting that stocks are expensive, but not so much as to cancel out the supportive monetary and technical backdrop. As a result, our Speculation Indicator remains in the neutral zone. 10-year Treasurys yields are becoming slightly less expensive, however, they are no bargain. Moreover, our Composite Technical Indicator is quickly moving away from overbought territory but has yet to flash oversold conditions, indicating that yields are roughly half way through their move. The strengthening of the Commodity Index Advance/Decline line and higher natural resource prices further confirm the upside for yields. Therefore, the current setup argues for a below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. Small signs that global growth is bottoming, such as the stabilization in the global PMIs, the pick-up in the German ZEW and IFO surveys, or the acceleration in Singapore’s container throughput growth, point to a worsening outlook for the counter-cyclical US dollar. Moreover, the dollar trades at a large premium of 24% relative to its purchasing-power parity equilibrium. Additionally, our Composite Technical Indicator is quickly deteriorating after having formed a negative divergence with the Greenback’s level. Since the dollar is a momentum currency, this represents a dark omen for the USD. In fact, we continue to believe that a breakdown in the dollar will be the clearest signal that global growth is rebounding for good. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart II-16US Dollar And PPP Chart II-17US Dollar And Indicator Chart II-18US Dollar Fundamentals Chart II-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart II-20Euro Technicals Chart II-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart II-22Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart II-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart II-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst "OUTLOOK 2020: Heading Into The End Game," dated November 22, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "US Election 2020: Civil War Lite," dated November 22, 2019, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report "Riding The Wave: Momentum Strategies In Foreign Exchange Markets," dated December 8, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report "Safe Haven Review: A Guide To Portfolio Protection In The 2020s," dated October 29, 2019, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see US Equity Strategy Special Report "Brothers In Arms," dated October 31, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 6 https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/09/04/sp090419-Opening-Statement-by-Christine-Lagarde-to-ECON-Committee-of-European-Parliament

Special Report

Highlights Mega-theme 1: A hypersensitivity to higher interest rates. Overweight equities versus bonds until 10-year bond yields rise 75 bps. At which point, switch into bonds. Mega-theme 2: Europe conquers its disintegration forces. Overweight European currencies, and underweight core European bonds within a fixed income portfolio. Mega-theme 3: Non-China exposed investments outperform structurally. Overweight non-China plays, underweight materials and resources, and underweight commodity currencies. Mega-theme 4: The rise of blockchain and alternative energy. Overweight alternative energy, underweight oil and gas, and underweight financials. Feature Feature ChartUnderweight Materials And Resources In The 2020s “Study the past if you would divine the future” – Confucius To paraphrase Confucius, we must study the mega-themes of the 2010s if we are to identify the mega-themes of the 2020s. From an economic, financial, and political perspective, the mega-themes of the past decade were: ‘universal QE’; Europe’s threatened disintegration; China becoming the world’s ‘stimulator of last resort’; and the decentralization of information, which threatened the established hierarchies in politics and society. These mega-themes of the 2010s point the way to four mega-themes for the 2020s: A hypersensitivity to higher interest rates. Europe conquers its disintegration forces. Non-China exposed investments outperform structurally. The rise of blockchain and alternative energy. Mega-Theme 1: A Hypersensitivity To Higher Interest Rates The 2010s was the decade of ‘universal QE’. One after another, the world’s major central banks bought trillions of dollars of government bonds (Chart I-2). Yet for all its apparent mystique, QE is nothing more than a signalling mechanism – signalling that central banks intend to keep policy interest rates depressed for a long time. Thereby, QE depresses long-term bond yields – which themselves are nothing more than the expected path of policy interest rates. Chart I-2The 2010s Was The Decade Of 'Universal QE' Something else happens. Close to the lower bound of interest rates, bonds become riskier investments. As holders of Swiss bonds discovered in 2019, low-yielding bonds become a ‘lose-lose’ proposition: prices can no longer rise much, but they can fall a lot. The upshot is that all long-duration assets become risky, and the much higher return required on formerly riskier assets – such as equities – collapses to the feeble return offered on equally-risky bonds. 'Universal QE' has boosted the valuation of all risky assets. Ten years ago, when the global 10-year bond yielded 3.5 percent, equities offered a prospective 10-year return of 9 percent (per annum). Today, when the bond is yielding around 1.5 percent, equities are offering a paltry 3 percent (Chart I-3 and Chart I-4). Meaning that while the present value of the 10-year bond is up around 20 percent, the present value of equities has surged by 60 percent.1 Chart I-3Equities Are Offering A Paltry 3 Percent Return Chart I-4The Return Offered By Equities Has Collapsed To The Feeble Return Offered By Bonds This exponential dynamic has applied to all risky assets in the 2010s. Most notably, real estate prices have sky-rocketed: Shenzhen 325 percent; Beijing 285 percent; Berlin 125 percent; Bangkok 120 percent; San Francisco 90 percent; Los Angeles 85 percent; Sydney 75 percent; and so on. From 2010 to 2020, the value of global real estate surged from an estimated $160 trillion to $300 trillion.2 The market value of equities also doubled from $35 trillion to $70 trillion.3 But global GDP grew by less than a third from $66 trillion to $85 trillion.3 The upshot is that in 2010 the value of real estate plus equities stood at 2.9 times GDP, whereas in 2020 it stands at 4.5 times GDP. Now add in the aforementioned exponentiality of risk-asset valuations at low bond yields. In 2010, a 1 percent rise in yields required a 10 percent decline in present values, whereas in 2020 it might require a 30 percent decline. In 2010, this meant a decline equivalent to 29 percent of global GDP, but in 2020 it means a decline equivalent to a staggering 135 percent of global GDP.4 So mega-theme 1 for the early 2020s is that any monetary policy tightening – in response to, say, wage inflation fears – will unleash a massive deflationary impulse into the economy from falling stock and real estate prices. This deflationary sledgehammer will annihilate the inflationary peanut, and almost certainly trigger the next major recession. But the good news is that it is unlikely to be a 2020 story, as all the major central banks are in ‘wait-and-see’ mode. Structural recommendation: Overweight equities versus bonds until 10-year bond yields rise 75 bps. At which point, switch into bonds. Mega-Theme 2: Europe Conquers Its Disintegration Forces In sub-atomic physics, a nucleus disintegrates when the electrostatic forces pulling it apart becomes stronger than the nuclear forces holding it together. Using the nucleus as a metaphor for Europe, two of the forces pulling it apart have weakened, while one of the forces holding it together has strengthened. We now know that Europe’s biggest rebel – the UK – is leaving the European Union in 2020. In the sub-atomic metaphor, the UK has become a free radical which will try and attach itself to the largest attractive body it can find. But in losing its most wayward member the European nucleus has, by definition, become more cohesive. A second destructive force has been the economic divergences between the ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ European member states. But over the past decade, these divergences have narrowed substantially. Relative to Germany, unit labour costs have declined by 25 percent in Spain, and 15 percent in Italy. More convergence is needed, but the economic forces pulling the European nucleus apart are much weaker in 2020 than they were in 2010 (Chart I-5). Chart I-5The Economic Divergence Between Europe's Core And Periphery Has Narrowed Meanwhile, a force holding the European nucleus together has strengthened. In 2010, the Target2 banking imbalance stood at €0.3 trillion; in 2020, it stands close to €1.5 trillion. In simple terms, this means Germany’s exposure to ‘Italian euro’ assets has surged via the ECB’s massive purchases of Italian BTPs. At the same time, Italian investors have parked their cash in German banks, meaning they are owed ‘German euros’ (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Europe’s Target2 Banking Imbalance Stands Close To €1.5 Trillion With such a massive Target2 imbalance, the biggest casualty of the euro’s disintegration would be Germany, whose 2008 recession would look like a stroll in the park. Giving Germany a huge incentive to become more conciliatory to its partners, for example on the use of fiscal stimulus. The best way to play mega-theme 2 is through the currency and bond markets. European equity markets are plays on their dominant sectors, and as we are about to see, many of the sectors over-weighted in Europe face structural headwinds. Structural recommendation: Overweight European currencies, and underweight core European bonds within a fixed income portfolio. Mega-Theme 3: Non-China Exposed Investments Outperform Structurally The 2010s was the decade when China became the global ‘stimulator of last resort’. Prior to the 2010s, the credit impulse in China was inconsequential compared to the credit impulses in the US and Europe. But in the 2010s the tables turned. The credit impulses in the US and Europe became inconsequential, as the amplitude of China’s waves of stimulus swamped all others (Chart I-7). Chart I-7In The 2010s, China Became The Global 'Stimulator Of Last Resort' China became the global stimulator of last resort because in 2010 its indebtedness was significantly less than in other major economies. But today, China’s indebtedness has overtaken the others, and is levelling off at a point that has proved to be a reliable upper bound (Chart I-8). Chart I-8China's Indebtedness Is Reaching Its Upper Bound An upper bound to indebtedness exists because further debt creates mal-investments whose returns are lower than the cost of the debt. And as indebtedness approaches the upper bound, each wave of stimulus loses potency compared to the preceding wave. For example, in 2011 China’s nominal GDP growth accelerated to 20 percent, but in 2017 it accelerated to 10 percent. In the financial markets, China’s waves of stimulus enabled short bursts of countertrend outperformance within the structural bear market in materials and resources – sectors which feature large in European markets. However, as Chinese stimulus loses its potency in the 2020, the structural bear markets in China-exposed investments will re-establish (Chart I-1). Structural recommendation: Overweight non-China plays, underweight materials and resources, and underweight commodity currencies. Mega Theme 4: The Rise Of Blockchain And Alternative Energy Historian Niall Ferguson describes history as a perpetual oscillation between periods dominated by centralized hierarchies and periods dominated by decentralized networks. And quite often, he says, the switch is enabled by a revolutionary new technology. For example, the advent of the printing press in the mid-15th century catalysed the Protestant Reformation and turbocharged the Renaissance by unleashing a decentralization of knowledge, information, and news. Sound familiar? In the early-21st century the internet has similarly decentralized the production and consumption of knowledge, information, and news. And the new networked age has threatened the established hierarchies in politics and society, fuelled populism, and disrupted many sectors in the economy. Yet Ferguson points out that it is futile (as well as Luddite) to resist such shifts from hierarchical structures towards decentralized networks. In the 2020s the decentralization baton will pass from the internet to the blockchain. Just as the internet decentralizes information, the blockchain decentralizes intermediation and trust functions. Hence, the blockchain will be maximally disruptive to any economic sector whose raison d’être is intermediation and trust – most notably finance and law. The blockchain will be maximally disruptive to any economic sector whose raison d’être is intermediation and trust – most notably finance and law.  By the end of the decade, you will no longer need a bank to intermediate your excess savings to a borrower. And you will no longer need a lawyer to oversee a change of ownership. The blockchain will do these for you just as securely and much more cost effectively. One consequence is that the nature of the world’s energy requirements will change. The blockchain is very energy intensive, but unlike the internal combustion engine, the energy does not have to be portable. Hence, there will be a structural shift towards energy in the form of ‘moving electrons’ and away from energy in the form of the ‘chemical bonds’ in fossil fuels. This will be a boon for the alternative energy sector at the expense of oil and gas (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Underweight Oil And Gas In The 2020s We will cover this mega-theme in more detail in a Special Report next year. Structural recommendation: Overweight alternative energy, underweight oil and gas, underweight financials. And with that, it’s time to sign off for this year and for this decade. I do hope that you have found the past decade’s reports insightful, sometimes provocative, but always enjoyable. We promise to continue in the same vein in the 2020s. It just remains for me and the team to wish you a happy new year and a happy new decade! Fractal Trading System* The Conservatives won a surprise landslide victory in the UK election last week, but fractal structures suggest that some of the market euphoria is now overdone. Specifically, the 30 percent rally in UK homebuilders through the last 65 days is vulnerable to a short-term countertrend move. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is short UK homebuilders / long UK oil and gas. Set the profit target at 9 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. Chart I-10UK: Homebuilders Vs. Oil and Gas In other trades, short MSCI AC World versus the global 10-year bond was closed at its 2.5 percent stop-loss, leaving three trades in comfortable profit, one neutral, and one in loss. 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.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 In simple terms, if the 10-year yield declines by 2 percent, a 2 percent a year lower return for 10 years requires the present value to rise by 2 percent times 10, which equals 20 percent. In the case of equities, the equivalent calculation is 6 percent times 10, which equals 60 percent. 2 Source: Savills 3 Source: Thomson Reuters 4 2.9 times 10 percent equals 29 percent, 4.5 times 30 percent equals 135 percent. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity

Special Report

This is the final report of the year from BCA’s Global Fixed Income and US Bond Strategies. Our regular publication schedule will resume on January 7, 2020. We wish you a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.   Highlights Interest Rate Policy: The Fed’s next interest rate move will be a hike, but it probably won’t occur until 2021. It will not occur until either long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target band of 2.3%-2.5% or financial asset valuations reach extreme levels. We provide several indicators to monitor to assess the timing of the next Fed hike. Balance Sheet Policy: The era of balance sheet shrinkage is over. The Fed will continue to grow its balance sheet in 2020, and will also tweak regulations to make banks more indifferent between holding Treasury securities and reserves. Strategic Review: The exact form of any new policy strategy is uncertain, but we expect the Fed to make an announcement in mid-2020 that makes it clear that it will explicitly target above-2% inflation for some unspecified period of time in order to re-anchor inflation expectations and make up for past inflation misses. Feature Last week, both our Global Fixed Income Strategy and US Bond Strategy services published their key fixed income views for 2020.1  Those reports presented investment ideas that we think will be profitable next year, but only discussed Fed policy to the extent that it informs those views. This Special Report delves into exactly what we expect to see from the US Federal Reserve in 2020. Specifically, we consider what the Fed will do with its interest rate and balance sheet policies in 2020, and also what might result from the Fed’s ongoing strategic review. Interest Rate Policy The final FOMC meeting of 2019 took place last week, and we learned that the Fed’s reaction function underwent a significant dovish shift between the September and December meetings. Currently, only 4 FOMC participants expect to lift rates in 2020 while the remaining 13 expect the funds rate to stay in its present range between 1.5% and 1.75% (Chart 1). Back in September, 9 participants thought the fed funds rate would be above 1.75% by the end of 2020. Chart 1Fed Will Stay On Hold In 2020, Market Still Priced For Cuts The yield curve is still discounting a slight decline in the funds rate next year, and the Fed will of course deliver more rate cuts if economic growth deteriorates. However, given our positive global growth outlook for 2020, we think rate cuts are unlikely.2 Rather, we expect a flat fed funds rate next year followed by rate hikes in 2021. The Fed’s reaction function underwent a significant dovish shift between the September and December meetings.  If our economic view pans out, then getting a sense of what will be required for the Fed to lift rates is the most pressing monetary policy issue. On that front, we continue to believe that inflation expectations and financial conditions are the two most important factors to monitor.3  Recent remarks from Fed officials have only strengthened our conviction in that view. Inflation Expectations & The Fed’s Phillips Curve Model Last week, when Chair Powell was asked what it will take to lift rates again, he said that he wants to see “a significant move up in inflation that’s also persistent”. This scripted response reveals a lot about the Fed’s reaction function in 2020, and about the importance of inflation expectations. To see why, let’s consider the Expectations-Augmented Phillips Curve, the typical model that the Fed uses to assess trends in inflation. An example of this sort of model, taken from a 2015 Janet Yellen speech, is presented in Box 1.4 Box 1The Fed's Inflation Model According to the Fed’s model, core inflation is determined by: (i) inflation expectations, (ii) resource utilization and (iii) relative import prices. But inflation expectations are especially important because they determine inflation’s long-run trend. As explained by former Chair Yellen: Chart 2The Importance Of Inflation Expectations … economic slack, changes in imported goods prices, and idiosyncratic shocks all cause core inflation to deviate from its longer-term trend that is ultimately determined by long-run inflation expectations. This is what Chair Powell means when he says he wants to see a “persistent” move up in inflation. He wants to make sure that inflation expectations return to levels that are consistent with the Fed’s target in order to re-anchor inflation’s long-run trend. The widespread consensus that the “Phillips Curve is flat” makes inflation expectations even more important in the minds of Fed policymakers. When people say that the “Phillips Curve is flat”, they mean that there is very little relationship between resource utilization and inflation. In other words, the coefficient b4 in Box 1 is very small. Logically, if the relationship between resource utilization and inflation is weak, then expectations become an even more important driver of core inflation. As Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida recently said:5 A flatter Phillips Curve makes it all the more important that inflation expectations remain anchored at levels consistent with our 2 percent inflation objective. Simply put, the Fed needs to see a re-anchoring of inflation expectations before it lifts rates. Our sense is that this will be achieved when both the 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach a range between 2.3% and 2.5%. We are not yet close to those levels. The 10-year and 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rates currently sit at 1.71% and 1.79%, respectively (Chart 2). Meanwhile, household survey measures from the University of Michigan and the New York Fed also show very low inflation expectations (Chart 2, bottom 2 panels). With all this in mind, the big question for monetary policy is how long will it take for inflation expectations to rise back to “well anchored” levels? Will it occur next year, or not until 2021? How Long Until Inflation (And Inflation Expectations) Return To Target? Chart 3High Inflation No Longer A Worry We have long held the view that inflation expectations adapt only slowly to changes in the actual inflation data.6 In other words, inflation expectations are low today because actual inflation has been consistently below the Fed’s target for much of the past decade. This makes it very difficult for people to believe that inflation will be high in the future. In fact, when asked what CPI inflation is likely to average over the next 10 years, most forecasters think it will be in a range between 2% and 2.5%, consistent with the Fed’s target.7 This is similar to what forecasters thought in 2004 when TIPS breakeven rates were well-anchored within our target band (Chart 3). The main difference between 2004 and today is that in 2004 a sizeable minority thought inflation might average above 2.5% over the next 10 years. Now, almost nobody expects a significant overshoot of the Fed’s inflation target, and a sizeable minority think inflation will undershoot. The lesson we take from these survey responses is that in order for TIPS breakeven inflation rates to reach our 2.3%-2.5% target, more people need to expect a significant overshoot of the Fed’s 2% inflation target. This will only happen if actual inflation rises to the Fed’s target, or above, and stays there for a significant period of time. Long enough to bring the fear of high inflation back to the forefront of investors’ minds. To further quantify this notion, our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate pegs current fair value for the 10-year breakeven at 1.94% (Chart 4). The model’s fair value is primarily determined by the 10-year rate of change in core CPI, meaning that a prolonged period of year-over-year core inflation near (or above) the Fed’s target will be required before our model’s fair value pushes above 2.3%. So how long will it take before core inflation is sustainably running at, or above, the Fed’s target? While we expect core inflation to continue along its slow upward trend. It probably won’t be high enough to push long-maturity TIPS breakevens into our target range until 2021, or late-2020 at the earliest. Chart 4Adaptive Expectations Model Chart 5Trimmed Means Are Rising... At present, core PCE inflation is running at a year-over-year rate of 1.59%, considerably below the Fed’s 2% target. One point in favor of rising core inflation is that trimmed mean price measures are accelerating more quickly than core measures (Chart 5). This will tend to drag core inflation higher over time. However, there is still a long way to go before core inflation reaches the Fed’s target and many leading inflation indicators have moderated this year (Chart 6):   Chart 6...But Many Headwinds Remain Unit labor cost growth rebounded in the past few quarters, but has yet to break out of its post-crisis range (Chart 6, top panel). The New York Fed’s Underlying Inflation Gauge rolled over sharply in 2019 (Chart 6, panel 2). NFIB surveys of planned and reported price increases have also turned down (Chart 6, bottom 2 panels). Considering the main components of core inflation, we find that the strong month-over-month core inflation prints of June, July and August were driven mostly by accelerating goods prices (Chart 7). Goods inflation has reversed course since then, and should continue to be a drag on core inflation going forward. This is because core goods inflation follows import price inflation with a long lag, and some import price deflation is already baked in (Chart 8). Chart 7CPI Components Chart 8Expect Some Import Price Deflation On the flipside, we have also seen core services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) inflect higher during the past six months (Chart 7, panel 4). Continued strength in this component is essential if overall core inflation is going to move up. Shelter is the largest component of core inflation and we expect it to trend sideways as we head into 2020. The rental vacancy rate has flattened off at a low level, and the Apartment Market Tightness Index is just barely in net tightening territory (Chart 9). Neither indicator is sending a strong signal in either direction. Chart 9Shelter Inflation Trending Sideways All in all, we see core inflation and TIPS breakeven rates moving slowly higher in 2020. But it will take some time before inflation is strong enough to push long-maturity breakeven rates into our target range of 2.3%-2.5%. Given the importance placed on re-anchoring inflation expectations, the Fed won’t hike rates again until our TIPS breakeven target is met. We don’t expect this to occur until 2021, or late-2020 at the earliest. The Financial Conditions Wildcard Chart 10The Importance Of Financial Conditions We mentioned above that the Fed’s interest rate policy will be determined by two factors: inflation expectations and financial conditions. In a perfect world, financial market valuations will stay at reasonable levels and inflation expectations will determine the timing of the next Fed rate hike. However, we must also consider what is likely to happen if it takes a very long time for inflation expectations to reach our target. The longer it takes, the longer that monetary conditions will be accommodative, and any extended period of easy money could lead to an asset bubble. Eventually, if valuations look bubbly enough, there may be a case for the Fed to sacrifice a bit on its inflation target and attempt to deflate a potentially de-stabilizing bubble in financial markets. This is not just a hypothetical situation. As Governor Lael Brainard remarked last December:8 The last several times resource utilization approached levels similar to today, signs of overheating showed up in financial-sector imbalances rather than in accelerating inflation. With greater focus on financial stability than in the past, it is conceivable that we could eventually see Fed tightening to head off an asset bubble. But we are not close to such bubbly conditions yet (Chart 10). The Financial Conditions component of our Fed Monitor is close to neutral, and while corporate bond spreads are tighter than average, they are well above the lows seen in the mid-2000s. Meanwhile, the S&P 500’s forward multiple is not yet back to its early-2018 level, let alone the highs of the late 1990s (Chart 10, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The Fed’s next interest rate move will be a hike, but it probably won’t occur until 2021. It will not occur until either long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates reach our target band of 2.3%-2.5% or financial asset valuations reach extreme levels. Balance Sheet Policy 2019 was a tumultuous year for the Fed’s balance sheet policy. At the start of the year, the Fed was continuing the process of balance sheet shrinkage that started in October 2017. The goal was never to return the Fed’s balance sheet to its pre-crisis size. Policymakers had already decided that they would shift permanently to a floor system of monetary policy implementation. A floor system is one where the central bank supplies more reserves to the banking system than are demanded, pushing interest rates down toward a floor that is set by the Fed. In this case, the floor is the Fed’s overnight reverse repo facility (ON RRP). Using this facility, the Fed agrees to borrow any excess cash at the ON RRP rate in return for a security from the Fed’s balance sheet as collateral. To implement this policy correctly, the Fed’s balance sheet must remain large so that bank reserves are plentiful. The Fed thought that it was supplying more reserves than the banking system demanded, but banks found themselves hoarding liquidity for a few days in September. Everything was going smoothly until September when this strategy hit a snag. The Fed thought that it was supplying more reserves than the banking system demanded, but banks found themselves hoarding liquidity for a few days in September. The result was that the fed funds rate shot higher, and actually printed outside the Fed’s target band for one day (Chart 11).9 Chart 11The Fed Briefly Lost Control Of Rates In September Clearly, the Fed had actually not been supplying the banking system with more reserves than it wanted, otherwise overnight liquidity would have remained plentiful throughout September. Even more vexing is that surveys of primary dealers and market participants all showed that reserve supply was comfortably above demand (Chart 12), even though this turned out not to be the case. Chart 12The Fed Was Blindsided Though there are many questions that still need to be answered, the Fed quickly took action and intervened in the repo market to increase the daily reserve supply. It also re-started T-bill purchases at a rate of $60 billion per month, ending the period of balance sheet shrinkage. Then just last week, the Fed announced a program of term repo agreements that will increase overnight liquidity heading into the volatile year-end period. After all that, the Fed’s balance sheet is once again growing as we head into 2020. But there is much uncertainty about how the balance sheet will evolve during the next 12 months.  A Two-Pronged Strategy In 2020 the Fed will attack its balance sheet problems on two fronts. 1) Increase Reserve Supply First, it will purchase T-bills in order to increase the supply of reserves. Chart 13 shows how the Fed’s securities holdings and bank reserves will evolve in the first half of 2020, assuming that the Fed buys $60 billion of T-bills per month. We also assume that maturing MBS roll over into Treasury securities and that currency in circulation grows at a rate of 5% per year. Table 1 gives a breakdown of what the Fed’s balance sheet looks like today and what it will look like at the end of June, according to our assumptions. Chart 13The Fed's Balance Sheet Over Time But increasing the reserve supply will be a bit more difficult than that. For one thing, Table 1 shows that the Treasury Department’s General Account at the Fed is expected to grow by another $106 billion. All else equal, this will drain $106 billion of reserve supply. The Treasury depleted its cash holdings down to $130 billion in August, as it took extraordinary measures to stay under the debt ceiling. But now that the debt ceiling has been suspended until July 2021, the Treasury has been re-building its cash stores, targeting a level of $410 billion. Table 1Fed’s Balance Sheet: Projections Second, Table 1 assumes that Fed repos stay flat at $213 billion. But if the Fed decides to extricate itself from the repo market in the first half of 2020 then, all else equal, reserve supply will shrink by $213 billion. So far the Fed has provided very little guidance about its future presence in the repo market, but we expect it to err on the side of caution. That is, the Fed will not completely unwind its repo operations until it is confident that reserve supply is comfortably above demand. What we can say for certain is that the Fed will try to increase the reserve supply in early-2020. Then, at some point during the year, it will decide that the reserve supply is high enough and it will shift to purchasing only enough securities to keep pace with growth in non-reserve liabilities, holding reserve supply flat. It is unknown when that shift will occur, but whenever it does, the Fed’s balance sheet will still be growing, just more slowly. We can say decisively that the era of balance sheet shrinkage is over. At some point in 2020 the Fed will probably also introduce a standing repo facility. This will act as the mirror image of the current ON RRP, providing a ceiling on interest rates. The facility will promise to supply overnight cash at a stated rate in return for Treasury collateral. If reserve supply is sufficiently high, then the standing repo facility is irrelevant. It would merely be a safety measure in case of periods like last September when reserve demand spiked. 2) Decrease Reserve Demand Other than increasing reserve supply, the Fed will also take steps in 2020 to reduce the amount of reserves demanded by the banking sector. It will do this by tweaking some banking regulations that possibly encouraged banks to hoard reserves in September. The Liquidity Coverage Ratio is the regulation that requires banks to hold enough high-quality liquid assets (HQLA) to cover 30 days of cash outflows in a stressed scenario. Bank reserves and Treasury securities both count as HQLAs, as do other fixed income securities with a haircut. In theory, the Liquidity Coverage Ratio shouldn’t prevent banks from swapping reserves for Treasuries in the repo market. But banks also undergo frequent internal stress testing, in preparation for the Fed’s periodic stress tests, and those internal tests may place a premium on reserves over Treasuries. It is very likely that, in 2020, the Fed will take steps to make banks increasingly indifferent between holding reserves and Treasury securities. This should reduce overall reserve demand and make cash more freely available in the overnight repo market. Investment Implications With all that said, we place very little importance on the Fed’s balance sheet policy in terms of what it means for asset returns. Our longstanding view is that asset purchases were only an effective policy tool because they reinforced the Fed’s forward guidance about changes in the funds rate. In fact, any perceived correlation between changes in the size of the Fed’s balance sheet and financial asset prices is only because balance sheet policy was moving in the same direction as interest rate policy. That is, during the past few years, periods of Fed asset purchases have always coincided with easier interest rate policy and periods of balance sheet shrinkage have always coincided with tighter interest rate policy. It is the interest rate policy that determines movements in asset prices, not the balance sheet. Finally, in 2019, we witnessed a period when balance sheet policy diverged from interest rate policy and we were able to test our thesis. Between December 2018 and July 2019, the Fed was shrinking its balance sheet but also easing its forward rate guidance and preparing for rate cuts. Outstanding bank reserves fell by $124 billion, but the expected 12-month change in the fed funds rate fell from +11 bps to -88 bps. It is very likely that, in 2020, the Fed will take steps to make banks increasingly indifferent between holding reserves and Treasury securities. What happened during this period? Bond yields declined and the dollar depreciated (Chart 14). Meanwhile, risk asset prices shot higher (Chart 15). In other words, markets behaved as you would expect if the Fed were easing policy, clearly taking their cues from interest rate policy not the balance sheet. Chart 14Rates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part I Chart 15Rates Policy Trumps Balance Sheet Part II Bottom Line: The era of balance sheet shrinkage is over. The Fed will continue to grow its balance sheet in 2020, and will also tweak regulations to make banks more indifferent between holding Treasury securities and reserves. But more importantly, the Fed’s balance sheet policy is now completely de-linked from its interest rate policy. That being the case, investors should largely ignore trends in the Fed’s balance sheet and focus on interest rate policy as the main driver of asset returns. The Fed’s Strategic Review The Fed is currently undertaking a strategic review of its monetary policy strategy, tools and communications practices. Chair Powell has said that he expects the review to be completed by the middle of 2020, and it is likely that some important changes will be announced. According to the Fed, the review is taking place because “the US economy appears to have changed in ways that matter for the conduct of monetary policy.” Specifically, the Fed believes that the neutral fed funds rate – the rate consistent with stable inflation – is structurally lower. The Fed is concerned that this increases the risk of the fed funds rate being pinned at its effective lower bound (ELB), making it more difficult to consistently hit its inflation target. The review is about considering different strategies and tools that the Fed could use to more consistently hit its 2% inflation target in the future, but the 2% target itself is not up for discussion. The Fed has already decided that 2% inflation is most consistent with its price stability mandate. Policy Strategy Chart 16A Big Miss One thing that’s clear is that most Fed participants agree that some changes to policy strategy are necessary. There is widespread concern about the fact that the Fed has not hit its inflation target during the past decade. The Fed officially adopted a 2% target for PCE inflation in January 2012, but inflation has not come close to those levels since. Headline and core PCE have increased at average annual rates of only 1.3% and 1.6%, respectively, since 2012 (Chart 16). At the July and September FOMC meetings, the Fed discussed several different strategies that could make it easier to hit its inflation target. Most of the proposals fall into the category of “makeup strategies”, strategies where the Fed tries to make up for a period of below-2% inflation by targeting above-2% inflation for a stretch of time. In theory, most Fed members agree that such strategies make sense. From the September FOMC minutes:10 Because of the downside risk to inflation and employment associated with the ELB, most participants were open to the possibility that the dual-mandate objectives of maximum employment and stable prices could be best served by strategies that deliver inflation rates that over time are, on average, equal to the Committee’s longer-run objective of 2 percent. Promoting such outcomes may require aiming for inflation somewhat above 2 percent when the policy rate was away from the ELB, recognizing that inflation would tend to be lower than 2 percent when the policy rate was constrained by the ELB. The main problem with these sorts of makeup strategies is what Fed Governor Lael Brainard calls the time-inconsistency problem.11 For example, if inflation has been running well below – or above – target for a sustained period, when the time arrives to maintain inflation commensurately above – or below – 2 percent for the same amount of time, economic conditions will typically be inconsistent with implementing the promised action. In other words, when it comes time to deliver on its past promises, the Fed may not want to. But if it fails to deliver, it makes any future promises less impactful. Governor Brainard thinks that this problem can be mitigated by adopting a more flexible approach. That is, rather than following a strict rule that says that the Fed must aim for average inflation of 2 percent over a specific timeframe, it could simply opportunistically change its target inflation range based on the circumstances. She gives the following example: For instance, following five years when the public has observed inflation outcomes in the range of 1-1/2 to 2 percent, to avoid a decline in expectations, the Committee would target inflation outcomes in a range of, say, 2 to 2-1/2 percent for the subsequent five years to achieve inflation outcomes of 2 percent on average overall. We think it is very likely that something similar to Brainard’s plan will be announced when the review is completed in 2020. There is widespread consensus that the Fed should temporarily target an overshoot of its 2 percent inflation target to ensure that inflation expectations stay anchored near target levels. Opportunistically shifting the inflation target to 2%-2.5% on a temporary basis seems like the easiest way to communicate that goal. ELB Tools In addition to potential changes to policy strategy, the Fed has also been talking about potential policy tools that could be deployed the next time that interest rates reach the ELB. Policymakers took up this question in detail at the October FOMC meeting and generally agreed that the combination of forward guidance and asset purchases had been effective at delivering policy accommodation at the lower bound. Now that the committee is comfortable with these tools, we would expect them to be deployed very quickly the next time that the fed funds rate reaches zero. In all likelihood, if the funds rate reaches zero again, the Fed will quickly announce a round of asset purchases and pledge to keep rates on hold until some economic outcome – likely related to inflation – is met. The Fed also discussed the possibility of cutting rates into negative territory, but there is very little appetite for negative rates policy in the US. From the October FOMC minutes:12 All participants judged that negative interest rates currently did not appear to be an attractive monetary policy tool in the United States. Participants commented that there was limited scope to bring the policy rate into negative territory, that the evidence on the beneficial effects of negative interest rates abroad was mixed, and that it was unclear what effects negative rates might have on the willingness of financial intermediaries to lend and on the spending plans of households and businesses. If, during the next ELB phase, the combination of forward rate guidance and asset purchases does not appear to be working quickly enough, we think it’s most likely that the Fed will follow the Bank of Japan and simply extend these policies further out the yield curve. For example, the Fed would set a cap on some intermediate-maturity Treasury yield (say the 2-year yield), and pledge to buy as many securities as necessary to keep the yield below that cap. This potential tool was discussed at the October FOMC meeting, and it received a more favorable response than the negative rates policy. Results Of The Strategic Review The exact form of any new policy strategy is uncertain, but we expect the Fed to make an announcement in mid-2020 that makes it clear that it will explicitly target above-2% inflation for some unspecified period of time in order to re-anchor inflation expectations and make up for past inflation misses. This will make it even more important to use inflation expectations as our guide for detecting shifts in Fed policy, rather than the actual inflation data. In many ways, the Fed’s reaction function has already moved toward targeting expectations. The results of the 2020 strategic review will make that even more explicit. There is less urgency to announce any potential new tools for conducting policy at the ELB, and we do not expect much in that regard. Other than some ideas for further study.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: Delay Of Reckoning”, dated December 10, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com and US Bond Strategy Special Report, “2020 Key Views: US Fixed Income”, dated December 10, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 For details on BCA’s economic outlook for 2020 please see The Bank Credit Analyst, “Outlook 2020: Heading Into The End Game”, dated November 22, 2019, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “The New Battleground For Monetary Policy”, dated March 26, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4  https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 5  https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20190926a.htm 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Adaptive Expectations In The TIPS Market”, dated November 20, 2018, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 CPI inflation runs about 0.4%-0.5% above PCE inflation, so the Fed’s 2% PCE target translates to a 2.4%-2.5% target for CPI. 8  https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20181207a.htm 9 This September episode is discussed in detail in the US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “What’s Up In US Money Markets?”, dated September 24, 2019, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20190918.htm 11 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20191126a.htm 12 https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20191030.pdf

Highlights An analysis on Thailand is available below. In all scenarios of global market performance, EM will underperform DM in the first half of 2020. Absolute return investors should be mindful of downside risks in EM financial markets. The principal drivers for EM corporate profits are domestic demand in both China and EM ex-China. US and European demand are not particularly relevant. We do not expect a recovery in domestic demand in China and the rest of EM in the early months of 2020. EM corporate profit growth is unlikely to turn positive in H1 2020. Volatility Is A Coiled Spring Chart I-1EM Stocks And Profits: An Unsustainable Divergence EM share prices and currencies have been range-bound in 2019, despite the strong rally in DM share prices. On one hand, growing hopes of a US-China trade deal, global monetary easing and expectations of a global growth recovery have put a floor under EM (Chart I-1, top panel). On the other hand, a lack of actual growth recovery in EM/China, a deepening contraction in EM corporate profits and lingering structural malaises in many EM economies have capped upside potential (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Consistent with this sideways market action, implied volatility measures for EM equities and currencies have dropped to record lows (Chart I-2, top and middle panels). Similarly, implied volatility measures for commodities currencies – which tend to be strongly correlated with EM risk assets – have plummeted close to their historic lows (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Remarkably, DM currency markets’ implied volatility has also collapsed to the all-time lows recorded in 2007 and 2014 (Chart I-3, top panel). Chart I-2EM Vol Is A Coiled Spring Chart I-3DM Currency Vol Is At Record Low   Nevertheless, past performance does not guarantee future performance. The fact that global financial market volatility has been very low over the past 12 months does not imply that it will remain subdued going forward. On the contrary, when DM currency volatility was this low in 2007 and 2014, it was followed by a bear market in EM risk assets (Chart I-3, bottom panel). Both EM and DM market volatility resemble a coiled spring. As such, it is quite likely these coiled springs will snap sometime in the first half of 2020. If this is indeed the case, it will be accompanied by a selloff in EM risk assets. We devote this report to discussing the reasons why such dynamics are likely to play out. An urge on the part of investors to deploy capital in EM has supported EM financial markets despite shrinking corporate profits. Hence, investment portfolios should be positioned for a resurgence in financial market volatility in general and currency volatility in particular in H1 2020. As we argued in our November 14 report, the US dollar is still enjoying tailwinds, especially versus EM and commodities currencies. All in all, asset allocators should continue to underweight EM stocks, credit markets and currencies relative to their DM counterparts. In all scenarios of global market performance, EM will underperform DM in the first half of 2020. Absolute return investors should be mindful of downside risks in EM financial markets. As always, the list of our recommended country allocations across EM equities, currencies, credit markets and domestic bonds is presented in the tables at the end of our report – please refer to pages 18-19. An Urge To Deploy Capital Amid Poor EM Fundamentals Investors’ unrelenting urge to deploy capital in EM financial markets put a floor under EM equities and currencies in 2019. Yet poor fundamentals have prevented EM equities and currencies from rallying. Such a battle between two opposing forces has produced a stalemate in EM financial markets. The same is true for commodities and many global market segments sensitive to global growth. Chart I-4Global Industrials: A Rally Without Profit Amelioration This stalemate is unlikely to last forever. Next year will likely be a year of either an EM breakout or breakdown. EM corporate earnings hold the key, and China’s domestic demand is of paramount importance to the EM profit cycle. We discuss our outlook for both the China and EM business cycles below. Following are the reasons why we believe market expectations of a rebound in global growth are too optimistic, and that EM risk assets are at risk: First, there is a widening gap between share prices and corporate profits. Not only are EM per-share earnings shrinking at a double-digit rate, as shown in Chart I-1 on page 1, but also EM EPS net revisions have not yet turned positive. This widening gap between share prices and net EPS revisions is also striking for global industrials (Chart I-4). If corporate profits stage an imminent recovery, stocks will continue to advance. Alternatively, investor expectations will not be met, and a selloff will ensue. As the top panel of Chart I-5 illustrates, the annual growth rate of EM EPS will at best begin bottoming – from double-digit contraction territory – only in the second quarter of 2020. Odds are that investor patience might run out before that occurs and EM markets will sell off in such a scenario. Second, improvement in US and European growth is not in and of itself a sufficient reason to be positive on EM/China growth. In fact, neither US nor euro area consumer spending have been weak (Chart I-5, middle and bottom panels). Yet, EM growth and corporate profits have plunged. Hence, EM growth is by and large not contingent on consumer spending in the US and Europe. As we have repeatedly argued, EM profit growth and risk assets are driven by China/EM domestic demand, rather than by US or European growth cycles. Third, EM financial markets are not cheap. Our composite valuation indicators based on 20% trimmed-mean and equal-weighted multiples indicate that stocks are trading close to their fair value (Chart I-6). These indicators are composed based on the trailing and forward P/E ratios, price-cash earnings, price-to-book value and price-to-dividend ratios for 50 EM equity subsectors. Chart I-5EM Profits Are Driven By China Not US Or Europe Chart I-6EM Equities Are Fairly Valued   When valuations are neutral, stock prices can rise or drop depending on the outlook for corporate profits. Provided we believe EM corporate profits will continue to contract for now, risks to share prices are skewed to the downside. Finally, several markets are still conveying a cautious message regarding EM assets. Specifically: There are cracks forming in EM credit markets. EM sovereign credit spreads are widening. Remarkably, emerging Asian high-yield corporate bond yields – shown inverted in Chart I-7 – are beginning to rise. Rising borrowing costs for high-yield borrowers in emerging Asia have historically heralded lower share prices in the region (Chart I-7). Chains often break in their weak links. Similarly, selloffs commence in the weakest segments and then spread from there. Hence, the budding weakness in emerging Asian junk corporate bonds and EM sovereign credit could be signals of a forthcoming selloff in EM/China plays. Remarkably, emerging Asian and Chinese small-cap stocks have failed to stage a rally in the past three months – despite global risk appetite having been strong (Chart I-8). This also signifies the lack of a meaningful recovery in emerging Asia in general and China in particular. Chart I-7A Canary In A Coal Mine? Chart I-8No Rally In Chinese And Emerging Asian Small Caps Chart I-9Semiconductor Prices Are Still Subdued Last but not least, cyclical currencies and commodities markets are not signaling a global business cycle recovery. Neither industrial metals nor oil prices have been able to rally meaningfully. EM currencies have also failed to appreciate versus the dollar. In addition, semiconductor prices – both DRAM and NAND – remain weak (Chart I-9). Bottom Line: An urge on the part of investors to deploy capital in EM has supported EM financial markets despite a poor growth background, in general, and shrinking corporate profits, in particular. China: Structural Malaises To Delay A Cyclical Recovery Recent macro data, particularly PMIs, have once again raised hopes of a business cycle recovery in China. While it is reasonable to infer that the industrial cycle in China has recently stabilized, sequential improvements will be hard to achieve in the coming months for the following reasons: The credit and fiscal spending impulse has historically led the manufacturing cycle in China on average by about nine months. However, this time gap has varied – from three months in the first quarter of 2009 to about 20 months in 2017 (Chart I-10). Chart I-10China Credit/Fiscal Impulse And Business Cycle: Varying Time Lags There are several reasons why the time lag could be longer than nine months in the current cycle: (1) The US-China confrontation is dampening sentiment among both enterprises and households in China. Marginal propensity to spend among households and enterprises is low and has not improved (Chart I-11). A Phase One deal is unlikely to reverse this. The fact remains that the US and China have failed to reach an even small and limited accord in the past year of negotiations. With this in mind, even if there is a Phase One deal, businesses both in China and around the world are unlikely to alter their investment plans substantially. (2) Regulatory pressures on banks and on the shadow banking sector to deleverage remain acute. Although the People’s Bank of China has reduced interest rates and is providing ample liquidity, the regulatory tightening measures from 2016-2018 have not been reversed. Consistently, commercial banks’ assets and broad bank credit growth are rolling over anew (Chart I-12). Chart I-11China: Lack Of Appetite To Spend For Enterprises And Households Chart I-12Banking System Is Now More Restrained Compared With Previous Stimulus Episodes   (3) There has been no stimulus targeting the real estate market. Without a recovery in the property market – both strong price appreciation and construction activity – it will be difficult to achieve a business cycle recovery. The basis is that real estate – not exports to the US – has been the key pillar driving China’s growth over the past 10 years. Even if there is a Phase One deal, businesses both in China and around the world are unlikely to alter their investment plans substantially. In the onshore bond market, government bond yields do not confirm the sustainability of the improvement in the national manufacturing PMI (Chart I-13). China’s local currency government bond yields have generally been a good coincident indicator for the industrial cycle, and they are not flashing green. Chart I-13Chinese Local Bond Yields Doubt The Sustainability Of A Stronger PMI November Asian and Chinese trade data have been somewhat mixed. Korea’s total exports and exports to China still show double-digit contraction (Chart I-14, top panel). Similarly, Japanese foreign machine tool orders – both total and from China – remain in deep contraction (Chart I-14, middle panel). In contrast, Taiwanese exports to China and to the world ex-China have improved (Chart I-14, bottom panel). The recuperation in Taiwanese exports to China could be attributed to stockpiling of semiconductors by mainland companies. Odds are that China has decided to stockpile semiconductors from Taiwan, given the lingering uncertainty over the China-US relationship, especially regarding China’s access to semiconductors. Real estate – not exports to the US – has been the key pillar driving China’s growth over the past 10 years. Infrastructure spending remains lackluster, despite a surge in special bond issuance by local governments over the past 12 months (Chart I-15, top panel). Chart I-14Asian Trade Was Still Very Weak In November Chart I-15China: Domestic Demand Is Lackluster   Chart I-16EM Ex-China: No Recovery In Domestic Demand The reason is that special bond issuance accounts for a small share of infrastructure investment. Bank loans, corporate bond issuance by LFGVs and land sales are still the main source of funding for capital expenditures on infrastructure. Finally, on the consumer side, auto sales are contracting for a second straight year, while smartphone sales are flat-to-down for a third year in a row (Chart I-16, middle and bottom panels). EM Ex-China: Mind The Deflationary Forces In EM ex-China, Korea and Taiwan, not only are their exports weak, but their domestic demand trajectory is also downbeat (Chart I-16). Despite rate cuts by EM central banks, their interest rates remain elevated in real terms (adjusted for inflation). The basis is that inflation has dropped as much as policy rate cuts. In fact, in many economies, inflation is flirting with all-time lows (Chart I-17). Furthermore, lending rates by banks have not been adjusted sufficiently low in line with the declines in policy rates. Consequently, local borrowing costs in EM remain elevated. Not surprisingly, broad money growth is close to a record low (Chart I-18). Chart I-17EM Ex-China: Inflation Is At A Record Low Chart I-18EM Ex-China: More Aggressive Monetary Easing Is Necessary   Table I-1EM Corporate Profits Across Sectors Without recognizing non-performing loans and recapitalizing banks, a sustainable credit cycle - and hence domestic demand recovery - is implausible in many EM countries. This will impede the corporate profit recovery, especially for banks that account for 28% of MSCI EM corporate profits (Table I-1). As we argued in our November 14 report, such deflationary tendencies in many EM economies warrant a weaker currency. Bottom Line: The principal drivers for EM corporate profits are domestic demand in China and EM ex-China, rather than the ones in the US or Europe. We do not expect a recovery in domestic demand in both China and the rest of EM in the early months of 2020. Arthur Budaghyan Chief Emerging Markets Strategist arthurb@bcaresearch.com   Thailand: Bet On More Monetary Easing Chart II-1Thailand Is Flirting With Deflation Deflationary pressures are mounting in Thailand. This will lead the central bank to cut interest rates much further. We therefore recommend to continue overweighting Thai domestic bonds within an EM local bond portfolio, currency unhedged.  Thailand’s economy is flirting with deflation and needs lower interest rates, a cheaper currency and a fiscal boost: Core inflation has fallen to a mere 0.5%. Likewise, headline inflation has plunged to 0.2%, which is far below the central bank’s lower-bound target of 1% (Chart II-1). Further, nominal GDP growth has dropped below the prime lending rate (Chart II-2). Adjusted for core inflation, real lending rates are too high for the economy to handle. If lending rates are not brought down, credit demand will decline further and non-performing loans will mushroom (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Thailand: Nominal GDP Growth Is Below Prime Lending Rate Chart II-3Thailand: Decelerating Domestic Credit   High borrowing costs are especially detrimental for the non-financial private sector – households in particular. Consumer debt currently stands at 125% of disposable income. The central bank is set to deliver more rate cuts and will probably begin intervening in the foreign exchange market to weaken the baht. Thailand’s economic growth has decelerated and more downside is likely. Business sentiment is deteriorating, companies’ book orders are falling and manufacturing production is contracting (Chart II-4, top panel). Overall, corporate earnings are shrinking 8% from a year ago in local currency terms (Chart II-4, bottom panel). Declining corporate profitability is beginning to hurt capex and employment. In turn, slower employment and wage growth have hit consumer confidence. Private consumption volume has decelerated decisively (Chart II-5, top panel) and passenger vehicle sales are falling (Chart II-5, bottom panel). Chart II-4Thailand: Business Sentiment Is Falling Chart II-5Thailand: Consumer Spending Has Been Hit Chart II-6Thailand's Real Estate Market Is Weak The real estate market is also slowing down. Chart II-6 shows various types of residential property prices. Specifically, house price appreciation has either decelerated or turned into deflation. Accordingly, construction activity has been weak. Overall, the Thai economy needs significant monetary and fiscal easing. Yet the 2020 fiscal budget entails only a 6% increase in expenditures in nominal terms, which is insufficient to halt the economy’s downtrend momentum. With the budget already set, aggressive monetary easing - in the form of generous rate cuts and foreign exchange interventions to induce some currency depreciation – is the only tool available to the authorities at the moment. Bottom Line: The Thai economy is facing strong deflationary forces and requires lower interest rates and a cheaper currency. The central bank is set to deliver more rate cuts and will probably begin intervening in the foreign exchange market to weaken the baht. Investment Recommendations Local interest rates will drop further and the Bank of Thailand (BoT) will keep cutting interest rates next year in the face of mounting deflationary trends in the economy. For dedicated EM fixed-income portfolios, we recommend keeping overweight positions in Thai local currency bonds and sovereign credit within their respective EM portfolios. While the Thai baht could depreciate because of monetary easing, the currency will still perform better than many other EM currencies. Thailand carries a very robust current account surplus of 6% of GDP. This will provide a cushion for the baht. Furthermore, foreign ownership of local currency bonds is low at 18%. This limits potential foreign outflows from local bonds in case the currency depreciates. In addition, Thailand’s foreign debt obligations - which are calculated as the sum of short-term claims, interest payments and amortization over the next 12 months - are small, accounting for 14% of exports. This limits hedging needs by Thai debtors with foreign currency liabilities and, hence, the currency’s potential downside. We recommend EM equity investors to keep an overweight position in Thai equities. First, Thai bourse is defensive in nature – with utilities, consumer staples and healthcare accounting for 27% of the MSCI Thailand market cap – and will begin outperforming as EM share prices come under renewed stress (Chart II-7, top panel). Second, net EPS revision in Thailand vs. EM has plummeted to a 16-year low (Chart II-7, bottom panel). This entails that a lot of bad news has already been priced in relative terms. Finally, narrow money (M1) growth seems to be bottoming. This is occurring because the central bank has begun accumulating foreign exchange reserves. While it might take some time before monetary easing leads to an economic recovery, Thai share prices will benefit from it early on (Chart II-8). Chart II-7Thailand vs. EM: Relative Stock Prices And Earnings Revisions Chart II-8Thailand: Narrow Money And Share Prices   Ayman Kawtharani Editor/Strategist ayman@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes     Equities Recommendations Currencies, Credit And Fixed-Income Recommendations

Highlights Structurally overweight US T-bonds versus core European bonds. Our preferred expression is long T-bonds versus Swiss bonds. US yields can fall a lot more than European yields, and European yields can rise a lot more than US yields. Structurally underweight the overvalued dollar versus undervalued European currencies. Our preferred expression is long SEK/USD. Structurally underweight price-sensitive European export sectors. Undervalued European currencies cannot fall much further, and those European exporters that depend on price competitiveness will struggle to outperform. But structurally overweight soft luxuries. Despite President Trump’s threat to tariff French products, soft luxuries retain very strong pricing power and sustainable long term demand growth from rising female labour participation rates globally. Fractal trade: The 65-day fractal structure of global equities suggests that they are vulnerable to a near-term countertrend move. Feature Chart of the WeekLike-For-Like, Structural Inflation Is Lower In the US Than In Europe A seemingly trivial disagreement between Europeans and Americans on how to measure inflation turns out to be the culprit for three major distortions in the world right now: Deeply divergent monetary policies across the developed economies. Huge valuation anomalies in the foreign exchange markets. President Trump’s threat of a trade war to counter the huge trade surpluses that Europe and China are running against the US. The inflation measurement disagreement wouldn’t really matter if inflation were running in the mid-single digits. But when inflation is near zero, the seemingly trivial difference in inflation measurement methodologies has ended up generating massive distortions. European And American Inflation Are Not The Same European inflation excludes the maintenance and upkeep costs associated with owning your home, whereas US inflation includes these costs at a hefty 25 percent weighting, making owner occupied housing by far the largest single item in the US inflation basket. By omitting the largest item in the US inflation basket, European inflation is subtly yet crucially different to American inflation. The European statisticians argue that unlike all the other items in the inflation basket, there is no independent market price for the ongoing cost of home ownership, and therefore this cost should be excluded. The American statisticians argue that the ongoing cost of home ownership is the single largest expense for most people and, as such, it should be ‘imputed’ from a concept known as ‘owner equivalent rent’ – essentially, asking homeowners how much it would cost to rent their own home. Different definitions of inflation will trigger very different policy responses from central banks. Both the European and American approaches have their merits and drawbacks, and it is not our intention to endorse one approach over the other. Our intention is simply to point out that the two approaches can give very different results for inflation – and therefore trigger very different policy responses from inflation-targeting central banks, with their consequent economic and political repercussions. If Americans used the European definition of inflation, then headline inflation in the US today would be running at the same sub-par rate as in the euro area, 1 percent, and well below the Fed’s 2 percent target (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). More important, the five year annualised rate of inflation – let’s call it US structural inflation – would have been stuck below 1 percent since 2016 (Chart I-1 and Chart I-4). Under these circumstances, it would have been impossible for the Fed to hike the funds rate eight times, as it did through 2017-18. Chart I-2Like-For-Like, Headline Inflation Is Identical In The US And The Euro Area... Chart I-3...And Core Inflation Is ##br##Very Similar   Chart I-4Using The European Definition Of Inflation, The Fed Couldn't Have Hiked Rates Instead, what if Europeans used the American definition of inflation? European inflation does not include owner equivalent rent, but it does include housing rent for those that do rent their homes. In the US, these two items tend to move in lockstep (Chart I-5). If we assume the same for Europe, we can deduce that a US type weighting for owner equivalent rent would have boosted the headline inflation rate in the euro area by 0.3-0.4 percent through 2014-16, and by a possible 0.5 percent in Sweden through 2013-15 (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Under these circumstances, it would have been very difficult for the ECB and Riksbank to take and maintain policy rates deeply in negative territory, as they did through 2015-19. Chart I-5Owner Equivalent Rent Tracks ##br##Housing Rent Chart I-6Using The American Definition Of inflation, Euro Area Inflation Would Have Been Higher... Chart I-7...And Swedish Inflation Would Have Been Much Higher The Different Definitions Of Inflation Have Created Dangerous Distortions If Europeans and Americans were using the same definition of inflation then, one way or the other, their monetary policies would not be as deeply divergent as they are now. One important implication is that European currencies would not be as undervalued as they are now. If Europeans and Americans were using the same definition of inflation then their monetary policies would not be as deeply divergent as they are now.  Based on the ECB’s own analysis, the euro area is over-competitive versus its top 19 trading partners – meaning the euro is undervalued – by at least 10 percent. Moreover, the ECB admits that this sizable undervaluation only appeared after the ECB and Fed started taking their monetary policies in opposite directions in 2015 (Chart I-8). Chart I-8The Euro Is Undervalued By More Than 10 Percent Put the other way, the dollar would not be as overvalued as it is now. In turn, the stronger dollar has created its own dangerous spill-overs. As we explained last week in The Hidden Sales Recession Of 2015… And Why It Matters Now, the surging dollar in 2015 could not have come at a worse time for China. Given that the Chinese economy was already slowing sharply, and the yuan was pegged to the dollar, the resulting loss of Chinese competitiveness just exacerbated the slump. Forcing China to loosen the dollar peg in August 2015. All of which brings us neatly to the hot topic of 2019, and likely 2020 too – President Trump’s threat of a trade war to counter the huge trade imbalances that Europe and China are running against the US. As it happens, President Trump has a good point. Trade wars almost always stem from trade imbalances; and trade imbalances almost always stem from exchange rate manipulations or, at least, exchange rate distortions that advantage one economy to the detriment of another. The euro's undervaluation only happened after monetary policies diverged in 2015. Most of the euro area’s €150 billion trade surplus with the US appeared after 2015, so it cannot be a structural issue. In fact, the evolution of the trade imbalance has tracked relative monetary policy between the Fed and ECB almost tick for tick (Chart I-9), via the exchange rate channel and the over-competitiveness of the euro which the ECB fully admits. Chart I-9Excessively Divergent Monetary Policies Caused The Euro Area's Huge Trade Surplus With The US Of course, neither the ECB nor the Fed are deliberately targeting trade or the exchange rate; they are targeting inflation. But to repeat, they are targeting different definitions of inflation. Crucially, with a backdrop of near zero inflation, small definitional differences in inflation can generate huge economic and financial distortions, with dangerous political consequences. The Compelling Structural Opportunities The definitional difference between European and American inflation explain many of the economic and financial distortions we are witnessing now, as well as the dangerous political consequences. The main counterargument is that the inflation definitions are what they are; neither the ECB nor the Fed are likely to change them anytime soon. Nevertheless, there are compelling structural opportunities. Since 2015, American inflation has outperformed European inflation for one reason and one reason only: owner equivalent rents have surged by almost 20 percent relative to other prices (Chart I-10 and Chart I-11). The historic evidence suggests that such a pace of outperformance is unsustainable structurally and, absent this tailwind, US and European headline inflation rates have to converge, one way or the other. Chart I-10An Unsustainable Surge In US Owner Equivalent Rent... Chart I-11...Has Lifted US Headline ##br##Inflation In this inevitable convergence, the asymmetric starting point of bond yields favours a long US T-bonds, short core European bonds structural position. Because, if the inflation convergence is downwards, T-bond yields will fall much further than European yields; whereas if the inflation convergence is upwards, European yields will likely rise more than T-bond yields. Our preferred structural expression is: long US T-bonds, short Swiss bonds. For currencies it is the opposite message. The overvalued dollar is likely to underperform, at least versus other developed market currencies. Given that Swedish inflation has been the most understated by the exclusion of owner equivalent rents, combined with the Riksbank’s intention to exit negative interest rate policy imminently, our preferred structural expression is: long SEK/USD. American inflation has outperformed European inflation for one reason and one reason only: owner equivalent rents have surged by almost 20 percent relative to other prices. Lastly, European export growth – even in Germany – has been heavily reliant on a cheapening euro (Chart I-12). Undervalued European currencies cannot fall much further, and those European exporters that depend on price competitiveness will struggle to outperform. Even those multinationals that sell their products in dollars will lose out in the accounting translation back into a strengthening domestic currency. Hence, structurally underweight price-sensitive European export sectors. Chart I-12Without A Weaker Euro, Most European Exporters Will Struggle To Outperform The one exception to this is the soft luxuries sector. Despite President Trump’s threat to tariff French products, soft luxuries retain very strong pricing power and sustainable long term demand growth from rising female labour participation rates globally. Stay structurally overweight soft luxuries. Fractal Trading System* The 65-day fractal structure of global equities suggests that they are vulnerable to a near-term countertrend move. Accordingly, this week’s recommended trade is to short the MSCI All Country World versus the global 10-year bond (simple average of US, euro area, and China), setting a profit target and symmetrical stop-loss at 2.5 percent. In other trades, long NZD/JPY and long SEK/JPY both achieved their profit targets of 3 percent and 1.5 percent respectively. Against this, long Poland versus World reached its 4 percent stop-loss. The rolling 1-year win ratio now stands at 65 percent. Chart I-13MSCI All-Country World Vs. Global 10-Year Bond 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.   Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations    

Highlights China’s PMIs continue to flash a positive signal, but the hard data trend remains negative. There has been a notable improvement in China’s cyclical sectors (versus defensives) over the past month, but broad equity market performance has been flat-to-down. China’s lackluster equity index performance in the face of rising PMIs suggests that investors can afford to wait for an improvement in the hard economic data before tactically upgrading to overweight. Cyclically, we continue to recommend an overweight stance towards both the investable and A-share markets versus the global benchmark, favoring the former over the latter. Feature Tables 1 and 2 on pages 2 and 3 highlight key developments in China’s economy and its financial markets over the past month. On the growth front, China’s November PMIs were clearly positive, and the rise in the official manufacturing PMI above the 50 mark is notable. However, the odds continue to favor a bottoming in the economy in Q1 rather than Q4, in large part because China’s “hard” economic data has continued to deteriorate during the time that the Caixin PMI has been signaling an expansion in manufacturing activity. In this vein, China’s November update for producer prices and total imports have high potential to be market-moving, and should be closely monitored. Table 1China Macro Data Summary Table 2China Financial Market Performance Summary Within financial markets, China’s cyclical sectors have outperformed defensives, which is consistent with the positive message from China’s PMIs. But China’s broad equity markets have been flat-to-down versus the global index over the past month, suggesting that investors can afford to wait for confirmation of a hard data improvement before upgrading their tactical stance to overweight (from neutral). Cyclically, we continue to recommend an overweight stance towards both the investable and A-share markets, but favor the former over the latter in a trade truce scenario. In reference to Tables 1 and 2, we provide below several detailed observations concerning developments in China’s macro and financial market data: Both measures of the Li Keqiang index (LKI) that we track indicated no obvious improvement in Chinese economy activity in October. The BCA China Activity indicator, a broader coincident measure of China’s economy, also moved sideways in October and (for now) remains in a downtrend. Thus, based on the “hard data”, Chinese economic activity has not yet bottomed. Chart 1A Moderate Strength Economic Recovery Will Begin In Q1 The components of our LKI leading indicator continue to tell a story of easy monetary conditions and sluggish money & credit growth (Chart 1). The indicator itself remains in an uptrend, but it is a shallow one that does not match the intensity of previous credit cycles. While the uptrend in the indicator suggests that China’s economy will soon bottom, the shallow pace suggests that the coming rebound in growth will be less forceful than during previous economic recoveries. The uptrend in headline CPI is a notable macro development, with prices having risen 3.8% year-over-year in Oct (the fastest pace in almost eight years). This rise has been driven almost entirely by a surge in pork prices, which have risen over 60% relative to last year (panel 1 of Chart 2). While some investors have questioned whether the rise in headline inflation will cause the PBoC to tighten its stance at the margin, we argued with high conviction in our November 20 Weekly Report that this will not occur.1 Panel 2 of Chart 2 shows that periods of easy monetary policy line up strongly with periods of deflating producer prices, arguing that the PBoC will see through transient shocks to headline inflation. China’s October housing market data highlighted three points: housing sales are modestly improving, the pace of housing construction has again deviated from the trend in sales, and housing price appreciation is slowing in Tier 2 and Tier 3 markets. For now, we are inclined to discount the surge in floor space started, given previous divergences that proved to be unsustainable. The bigger question is whether investors should be concerned about slowing housing prices. Chart 3 shows that floor space sold and property prices have been negatively correlated over the past three years, in contrast to a previously positive relationship. Deteriorating affordability and tight housing regulations have contributed to this shift in correlation, which helps explain why the PBoC’s Pledged Supplementary Lending (PSL) program has been so closely related to housing sales over the past few years. While the growth in PSL injections is becoming less negative, it has not risen to the point that it would be associated with a strong trend in sales. As such, we continue to see poor affordability as a threat to further housing price appreciation, absent stronger funding assistance. Poor affordability will continue to be a headwind for China’s housing market. Chart 2The PBoC Will See Through Transient Shocks To Headline Inflation Chart 3Poor Affordability Will Continue To Weigh On Housing Demand Chart 4Investors Need To See Concrete Signs Of A Hard Data Improvement China’s November PMIs were quite positive, which legitimately increases the odds that China’s economy is beginning the process of recovery. However, we see two reasons to believe that the odds continue to favor a bottoming in the economy in Q1 rather than Q4. First, while they improved in November, several important elements of the official PMI remain in contractionary territory, particularly the new export orders subcomponent. Second, while the Caixin PMI has now been above the 50 mark for 4 consecutive months, China’s hard data has continued to deteriorate since the summer (Chart 4). Given the historical volatility of the Caixin PMI, we advise investors to wait for concrete signs of a hard data improvement before firmly concluding that China’s economy is recovering. Over the last month, China’s investable stock market has rallied roughly 1% in absolute terms, while domestic stocks have fallen about 3%. In relative terms, A-shares underperformed the global benchmark, while the investable market moved sideways. In our view, the underperformance of China’s domestic market reflects increased sensitivity to monetary conditions and credit growth compared with the investable market,2 and a weaker credit impulse in October appears to have been the catalyst for A-share underperformance. Over the cyclical horizon, earnings will improve in both the onshore and offshore markets in response to a modest improvement in economic activity, suggesting that an overweight stance is justified for both markets. But we think the investable market has more upside potential in a trade truce scenario. The outperformance of cyclical versus defensive sectors is sending a positive signal, but investors can afford to wait for better economic data before tactically upgrading. Chart 5A Positive Sign From Cyclicals Versus Defensives Within China’s investable stock market, it is quite notable that cyclicals have outperformed defensives over the past month on an equally-weighted basis (Chart 5). Interestingly, key defensive sectors such as investable health care and utilities have sold off significantly, and equally-weighted cyclicals have also outperformed defensives in the domestic market. The outperformance of cyclicals and underperformance of defensives is consistent with the positive message from China’s PMIs, but the fact that this improvement is occurring against the backdrop of flat-to-down relative performance for China’s equity market suggests that investors can afford to wait for confirmation of a hard data improvement before upgrading their tactical stance to overweight. In this vein, China’s November update for producer prices and total imports have high potential to be market-moving, and should be closely monitored. China’s government bond yields fell slightly in November, potentially reflecting expectations of further modest easing. Our view that monetary policy will likely remain easy over the coming year even in a modest recovery scenario suggests that Chinese interbank rates and government bond yields are likely to range-trade over the coming 6-12 months. We expect onshore corporate bonds to continue to outperform duration-matched government bonds in 2020. Chinese onshore corporate bond spreads eased modestly over the past month. Despite continued concerns about onshore corporate defaults, the yield advantage offered by onshore corporate bonds have helped the asset class generate a 5.4% year-to-date return in local currency terms. Barring a substantial intensification of the pace of defaults, we expect onshore corporate bonds to continue to outperform duration-matched government bonds in 2020. The RMB has moved sideways versus the US dollar over the last month. USD-CNY had fallen below 7 in October following the announcement of the intention to sign a “phase one” trade deal, but the move ultimately proved temporary given the deferral of an agreement. We would expect the RMB to appreciate following a deal of any kind (a truce or something more), and it is also likely to be supported next year by improving economic activity. Still, it would not be in the PBoC’s best interests to let the RMB appreciate too rapidly, because an appreciating Chinese currency would act as a deflationary force on China’s export and manufacturing sectors. As such, we expect a modest downtrend in USD-CNY over the coming year.   Qingyun Xu, CFA Senior Analyst qingyunx@bcaresearch.com Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1    Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Questions From The Road: Timing The Turn," dated November 20, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2   Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report "A Guide To Chinese Investable Equity Sector Performance," dated November 27, 2019, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Special Report

Highlights Economy & Inflation: The macro backdrop in Japan remains bond friendly for JGBs; growth momentum is only starting to bottom out, but will lag the recovery heralded by improving global leading economic indicators, while inflation remains closer to 0% than the BoJ's 2% target. BoJ Options: The BoJ has limited policy choices available to provide more stimulus, with negative policy rates crushing Japanese bank profitability and the central bank already owning massive amounts of JGBs and ETFs. 2020 Japan Bond Strategy: Dedicated bond investors should overweight Japan in global government bond portfolios over the next year, as a complement to an overall below-benchmark duration exposure. Expect some mild yield curve steepening pressure if the BoJ attempts to use its limited remaining policy tools, like targeting shorter maturities for its asset purchases, to try and alleviate the pressure on banks from negative rates and a flat yield curve. Feature Chart 1The Role Of Japan In Global Bond Investing Is Complex In a year where the majority of global bond markets have delivered stellar returns, Japanese fixed income performance has predictably languished in 2019 compared to the other developed economies. Despite a cyclically weak economy with very low inflation, Japanese government bond (JGB) yields have been locked in narrow ranges at or below 0% throughout the year. Monetary policy is a big reason for that, as the Bank of Japan (BoJ) has run of out of fresh stimulus options to try and push JGB yields even lower. In this Special Report, we make the case for owning JGBs as a low-beta, defensive asset in global fixed income portfolios over the next 6-12 months – a period when improving growth is expected to exert upward pressure on global bond yields, but where JGB yields are expected to remain anchored with Japan likely to lag the global upturn (Chart 1). The Japanese Growth & Inflation Backdrop Is No Threat To JGBs Japan’s economy has suffered alongside the global industrial downturn in 2019, with the Japanese manufacturing PMI struggling below 50 for seven consecutive months. Both business investment and exports have been contracting, in response to the slump in global and trade and increase in uncertainty related to the US-China tariff war. The underlying trend in consumer spending – the largest component of Japan’s economy – is more difficult to interpret, however, because of the volatility surrounding the October hike in the consumption tax. On October 1st, Japanese Prime Minister Abe’s government finally passed its long-desired hike in the consumption tax rate from 8% to 10%, in a bid to begin chipping away at Japan’s massive fiscal debt burden. The timing of the move, which had been twice delayed previously, appears ill-advised given the overall weakness in the economy. That can be seen in the response of consumer demand to the tax increase. Japanese consumers, quite rationally, front-loaded purchases in September in advance of the tax hike, but that surge was followed by a collapse in nominal retail sales in October of -14% on a month-over-month basis (Chart 2). This was much larger than the decreases seen after the previous consumption tax increases in 1997 and 2014. This may seem surprising given that the Japanese unemployment rate is a stunningly low 2.4%, suggesting a tight labor market that should be boosting wage growth and consumer confidence. Quite the opposite is happening, however, as consumer confidence is depressed and wage growth is contracting in real terms (bottom panel). Even more unusual is that real disposable income growth for Japanese households is now up to 5% (year-over-year), after stagnating for much of the previous decade. The acceleration is due to more people, especially women and senior citizens, having joined the labor force and found work – on a “per worker” basis, income growth is much less impressive and is more in line with stagnant wage growth. Therefore, unless there is clear acceleration of wages, a sustainable improvement in aggregate consumption is not expected. In the absence of an unlikely consumer boom, a pickup in global trade and manufacturing activity is a necessary requirement to stabilize the Japanese economy where the manufacturing sector is relatively larger than that of other major developed countries (20% of GDP).1 On that front, the news is getting better with the recent improvement seen in the global manufacturing PMI, global ZEW and our own global leading economic indicator (LEI). Looking at the overall conditions in Japan's manufacturing sector, however, there are still mixed signals indicating that a true bottom has been reached (Chart 3): Chart 2Challenging Times For Japanese Consumers Chart 3A Trough In Japanese Manufacturing the Markit manufacturing PMI did rise modestly in November, but remains at only 48.9 (top panel); the most recent Tankan survey from the BoJ showed that both large and small firms in the manufacturing sector expect business conditions to worsen (second panel); real capital spending growth did perk up in the third quarter in the GDP accounts, but additional gains are unlikely given the still moderate reading on manufacturing business confidence (third panel); machine tool orders continue to contract on a year-over-year basis, although the growth in domestic orders may be stabilizing; foreign orders remain depressed due to weakening Chinese demand for automotive and electronic equipment (bottom panel). Chart 4Japan"s Non-Manufacturing Sector Is Struggling Turning to the services sector, which accounts for around 80% of the Japanese economy, the data also show only moderate growth. This is mainly because demand for services is less influenced by global economic conditions, and more related to the tight labor market and rising household income growth. Even given that better fundamental backdrop, however, it is still not clear that services can drive growth in the Japanese economy in 2020 (Chart 4): Chart 5Past The Worst For Japanese Exports while the Tankan survey of large non-manufacturing firms has stayed at the same high level seen since 2014, the data for smaller firms has weakened steadily throughout 2019; the Markit services PMI index has remain solidly above the 50 boom/bust line all year long, yet overall sales for non-manufacturers contracted by -3.1% on a year-over-year basis in the third quarter of the year according to Japan’s Ministry of Finance. One potential ray of hope for Japanese growth comes from exports. While growth in total nominal exports is still contracting by –9.2% on a year-over-year basis, the recent pickup in our global LEI is heralding a potential bottoming in export momentum (Chart 5). In particular, the emerging market sub-component of our global LEI is signaling a potentially sharp pickup in demand for Japanese exports to Asia (middle panel). A similar optimistic message is given regarding Chinese demand, based on the modest improvement in the OECD China LEI (bottom panel). Yet these developments are still in the early stages and could be derailed by a breakdown of the US-China trade negotiations (not the base case scenario of BCA’s geopolitical strategists). Summing it all up, the Japanese economy remains in a fragile state after absorbing multiple blows from trade uncertainty, contracting global manufacturing activity and, more recently, an ill-timed hike in the consumption tax. While some data is showing signs of bottoming, the momentum is unlikely to be strong enough in 2020 to generate much upward pressure on Japanese bond yields. Japanese Inflation Remains A No-Show Japan remains the poster child for the global low inflation backdrop of the post-crisis decade. Even an economy with an unemployment rate near record lows can still not generate inflation sustainably above 0%. Headline CPI inflation is now at only 0.2%, while and core CPI inflation is slightly higher at 0.7% (Chart 6). The former is being dragged down by the lagged impact of lower oil prices and the stubbornly firm Japanese yen. More worrisome, however, is that services CPI inflation dipped slightly below 0% in November (middle panel), in line with the contraction seen in the domestic corporate goods prices and import prices indices (bottom panel). Chart 6Inflation Remains WELL Below The BoJ"s Target Chart 7Not A Consistent Story From Japanese Inflation Expectations Market-based inflation expectations, measured using either CPI swap rates or breakevens from inflation-linked bonds, are also hovering close to 0% (Chart 7). In a bit of a surprise, survey-based measures of inflation expectations produced by the BoJ are closer to the 2-3% range, even though realized inflation only reached that range once, on an annual calendar year basis, since 1991 – in 2014, unsurprisingly another year with a consumption tax increase. The market-based inflation indicators are more important for bond investors, however. It will take a sustained increase in realized inflation before the JGB market begins to worry about inflation again. Perhaps that can begin to happen in 2020 if Japanese and global growth improves, coming alongside some yen weakness. More likely, next year will be another year of mushy inflation readings from Japan as the economy tries to emerge from the slowdown seen in 2019 and the unnecessary tightening of fiscal policy coming from the consumption tax hike (which is likely to cause a temporary, but not sustained, blip in realized inflation rates in 2020). Bottom Line: The macro backdrop in Japan remains bond friendly for JGBs; growth momentum is only starting to bottom out, but will lag the recovery heralded by improving global leading economic indicators, while inflation remains closer to 0% than the BoJ's 2% target. There’s Not Much New The BoJ Can Do The BoJ remains in a bind with regards to future monetary policy decisions. Inflation remains far below its target, while the economy is struggling to generate above-potential growth. Yet unemployment remains exceptionally low and, by the BoJ’s own estimates, Japan’s economy is operating with no spare capacity (i.e. the output gap is a positive number). For a traditional central bank that believes in the tradeoff between spare capacity/unemployment and inflation, like the BoJ, the data is sending a very confusing message about the next policy move. Can A Weaker Yen Solve Japan’s Low Inflation Problem? Chart 8The Balance Of Payments Remains Yen-Supportive The BoJ’s job in setting the right policy to get Japanese inflation higher would be made a lot easier if the yen were not so stubbornly firm. On a trade-weighted basis, the yen is 10.1% above the low seen in 2018 and 22.9% above the 2015 low (Chart 8). This has happened despite the disappointing performance of the Japanese economy and the negative interest rates that have typically made the yen a good funding currency for global carry trades. While there has been likely been some safe-haven demand for the yen given the global growth uncertainties and sharp decline in non-Japanese bond yields in 2019, the root cause for the yen strength is more fundamental. Our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy published a Special Report last week, reviewing the balance of payments of the major global currencies.2 Going through the components for Japan, the current account balance remains firmly positive at 3.4% of GDP, despite the fact that the trade balance is now negative. The main reason for that is the steady 4% of GDP in the investment income balance – an inevitable result given Japan’s massive net foreign asset position. On the capital account side, there has been a steady increase in net foreign direct investment (FDI) outflows over the past several years, as more Japanese companies have moved productive capacity offshore (and fewer foreign companies invest in Japan). In addition, portfolio outflows have been gaining momentum with Japanese investors ramping up their purchases of foreign long term assets. Add it all up and Japan's basic balance (the current account plus net FDI) is now negative for the first time since 2015 (bottom panel). Thus, Japan’s balance of payments may now finally be in a position to generate some yen weakness that can help boost domestic inflation – if some of the uncertainties over global growth and the US-China trade negotiations begin to dissipate, as we expect in 2020. So what can the BoJ do? The BoJ has maintained a negative policy interest rate for 45 months since cutting rates below zero in February 2016. Yet according to our BoJ Monitor, there is still a need for additional monetary policy easing to combat weak growth and inflation (Chart 9). Chart 9The BoJ"s Policy Options Are Limited Interest rate markets do not expect the BoJ to do much with short-term interest rates in 2020, with only -5bps of cuts discounted in the Japanese overnight index swap (OIS) curve. BoJ officials have not outright dismissed the possibility that another rate cut could happen, but policymakers have learned that negative rates are lethal for the profits of the banking system. That can be seen in Japan, where bank profits have contracted -19.4% over the past year as negative borrowing rates have become more deeply entrenched. Other parts of the Japanese financial system, like insurance companies and pension funds that need income to meet payouts and liabilities, also suffer from negative interest rates on domestic fixed income assets. Therefore, the BoJ cutting policy rates deeper into negative territory is a very unlikely outcome, even if the economy and inflation continue to struggle, as the risks to the financial system would be worsened. So what else can the BoJ do to provide further monetary stimulus, if necessary? The choices are limited. The BoJ could alter its forward guidance to signal to the market that rates will remain low for a very long time, but that would have a limited effect with rate levels already so low. The central bank could also ramp up its pace of asset purchases, but that will also prove difficult as it owns nearly 50% of outstanding JGBS and nearly 80% of outstanding ETFs. Buying more assets would likely not generate any easier financial conditions, and would simply further disrupt the liquidity of Japan’s financial markets. A March 2019 academic study found that the impact on Nikkei 225 stock returns from the BoJ ETF buying has grown smaller over time despite the increased purchase amounts.3 Chart 10More Room For The BoJ To Buy Shorter Maturity Bonds The BoJ could lower its “Yield Curve Control” target yield for 10-year JGBs to below 0%, but that would also prove difficult as the BoJ already owns a whopping 75% of all outstanding 10-year JGBs (Chart 10) – a figure that would likely need to increase if global bond yields continue to drift higher in 2020, as we expect, forcing the BoJ to buy more 10-year JGBs to ensure that yields do not rise. A unique option might be for the BoJ to purchase foreign bonds. This would potentially help further weaken the yen, which would help increase exports and inflation. Although given the current global backdrop of populism and trade protectionism, a policy specifically designed to weaken the yen would likely not be greeted warmly by other countries. In our view, there is only one plausible option that the BoJ could consider to ease policy further in 2020 to fight low inflation – choosing a different maturity point for its Yield Curve Target. For example, instead of targeting a 10-year JGB near 0%, the BoJ could target a 5-year JGB near 0%. The BoJ owns a lower share of outstanding bonds in that part of the curve (around 45%, by our calculations). The net result could be a steeper JGB curve, which could help ease the drag on profits of the Japanese banks from negative longer-term yields and a flat curve (Chart 11). One thing is for certain: none of the conditions that we have long believed would be necessary before the BoJ would consider abandoning its yield curve target and letting yields rise – a USD/JPY exchange rate between 115 and 120; core CPI inflation and nominal wage inflation both above 1.5%; and clear signs of JGB overvaluation - are currently in place (Chart 12). The BoJ has to continue to stay accommodative, even if other central banks turn less dovish as global growth improves in 2020. Chart 11Shifting BoJ Purchases Could Generate A Steeper JGB Curve Chart 12These Must ALL Happen Before The BoJ Lifts Its JGB Yield Target   Bottom Line: The BoJ has limited policy choices available to provide more stimulus, with negative policy rates crushing Japanese bank profitability and the central bank already owning massive amounts of JGBs and ETFs. Overweight Low-Beta JGBs In Global Bond Portfolios In 2020 Chart 13Overweight Low-Beta JGBs In 2020 As we have discussed in previous reports, yield betas of developed market sovereign bonds to changes in the “global” bond yield are a good tool to use when considering fixed income country allocation decisions when yields are rising everywhere.4 We are currently recommending overweight allocations to government bonds in countries with more dovish central banks and/or where yields are low in relative terms – namely, Germany, Japan and Australia. Not by coincidence, those are also countries whose government bonds have the lowest yield betas among the major developed economies. The rolling 52-week yield betas for JGB yields to the “global” yield (defined as the yield-to-maturity of the Bloomberg Barclays Global Treasury index) is shown in Chart 13. We show the betas for different maturity “buckets” across the yield curve, and we also present the same betas for US Treasuries and German government bonds for comparison. The betas for JGBs are consistent but positive across the entire yield curve, around 0.5 or less. German yields have a similar beta at shorter maturities but a beta close to 1.0 at the longer-end of the curve. US Treasuries, to no surprise, are the highest beta market, with yield betas of 1.5 or more across the entire yield curve. The positive low beta for JGBs means that Japanese bond yields will still move in the same direction as global yields, but with far less volatility. Thus, during the period when global government bonds are rallying, low-beta markets like Japan underperform versus global benchmarks. That has been the story in 2019, when much of the world needed to ease monetary policy but Japan was already at very accommodative policy settings. When global yields are rising, however, lower beta markets should see smaller yield increases and better relative performance. That will be the story for JGBs in 2020, given the strong likelihood that Japan will lag the global economic rebound that we expect next year and the BoJ will be forced to, once again, be the most dovish central bank among the major economies. Bottom Line: Dedicated bond investors should overweight Japan in global government bond portfolios over the next year, as a complement to an overall below-benchmark duration exposure. Expect some mild yield curve steepening pressure if the BoJ attempts to use its limited remaining policy tools, like targeting shorter maturities for its asset purchases, to try and alleviate the pressure on banks from negative rates and a flat yield curve.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com   Ray Park, CFA Research Analyst ray@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Based on the value added from manufacturing as % of GDP. Other countries, by comparison: China: 29%; Germany: 21%; World: 16%; US: 11%. Source: United Nations and World Bank. 2 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, “Updating Our Balance Of Payments Monitor” dated November 29, 2019, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3 Kimie Harada and Tatsuyoshi Okimoto, "The BOJ’s ETF Purchases and Its Effects on Nikkei 225 Stocks", RIETI Discussion Paper Series 19-E-014, March 2019. 4 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, " Cracks Are Forming In The Bond-Bullish Narrative", dated October 23, 2019, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com.